20070245 Ver 8_final signed RAI for MARSOC mod 10_20210121

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

January 21, 2021

Regulatory

Action ID: SAW-2007-00286

USMC-Camp Lejeune
Jessie Baker
Environmental Planning Program Manager
12 Post Lane
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28547

Dear Ms. Baker:

The US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division is in receipt of an email and
corresponding application submitted by Land Management Group Inc. on behalf of the
USMC-Camp Lejeune received on December 29, 2020. The Individual Permit
modification request would be the 10th modification request of the permit (SAW-2007-
00286) covering impacts in MARSOC, first issued in 2007. This correspondence will
address three aspects of the modification request; non-compliance of the current
authorization, 404(b) 1 analysis of the request, and need for additional information.

The Base through this modification request has self-reported three unauthorized
impacts that require after the fact permitting. First, the northern portion of P 1288 where
the road re alignment impacted 0.06 of an acre of wetlands. Upon a closer investigation
of the file, although this impact was not within the authorization of the road re alignment
phase of the MARSOC master plan it did surface during the 07/08 phase of MARSOC
and therefore was accounted for in a previous authorization phase. The as built
process, used to address previous non-compliance, showed that this impact was part of
the mitigated total. Also, during the as built process the impact now being self-reported
adjacent to the RR 469 structure as “installed but not authorized” was identified during
the construction phase and reported to have been restored to its original condition by
Base. It appears that restoration was unsuccessful, and we will treat this as an
unauthorized component of the modification request. The third unauthorized impact
being sought for after the fact permitting is the impacts associated with the southern half
of the P 1288 (0.11 of acre of wetland impact and 609 linear feet of channel impacts).
Of the 609 feet of channels impacts, it is understood that the Base would like to restore
65 linear feet. Considering this impact has been in place for over two years, the Corps
would like more information regarding the extent of restoration. The Corps askes that
the Base provide photographic evidence of the impact and a more extensive plan
regarding this clean up to include success criteria post restoration. If the Base believes

-2-

an on-site meeting may be helpful in describing the restoration, please advise this
office. The after the fact impacts will be considered as the project progresses through
the 404(b)1 alternatives analysis.

According to the 404 b(1) guideline for processing a permit request, when the
proposed discharge does not require siting in a special aquatic site or is water
dependent to achieve its basic purpose, practicable alternatives not involving special
aquatic sites are presumed available unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. The
second rebuttable presumption is that practicable alternatives not involving special
aquatic sites are presumed to have less adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems unless
clearly demonstrated otherwise. To that end the Base needs to better describe the
alternatives analysis information. The request states that alternative sites were
considered in the decision to place impacts for both buildings’ RR 469 and RR 456 but
there are no exhibits showing other on-site alternatives or alternate layouts. Please
provide a better visual representation the various on-site alternatives considered for
both buildings. Keep in mind that if an alternative that meets the purpose and need for
RR 469 is identified in a different location, the impacts associated with the “installed but
not authorized “ impacts will need to be justified or possibly additional restoration
completed as the impacts would not be necessary. The Corps is particularly interested
in two locations for the RR 469 building. Would a location south and still adjacent to RR
465 not be a viable option for the new building? It seems reasonable to centralize the
BMPs into one larger facility equipped to handle all of the storm water and move the
building into the upper ends of the remaining wetland fingers minimizing impacts to the
jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, why couldn’t the location west of SRR 436 which is
comprised of uplands not be used as a reasonable location. It seems the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) has changed since the
original plan approval in 2007, please further explain what operationally has changed to
require a new LEDPA.

As the modification request is greater than 0.50 of an acre, the package will be
placed on Public Notice to solicit comments from the public and relevant review
agencies. In order to better describe the package additional details needs to be included
with the drawings. The plan view drawings should include the extent of grading, extent
of fill, and final surface layout of the impact (parking, side slopes, lawn, etc.). The cross
section of each site should be included to better realize the slope of fill into the
jurisdictional areas. This cross section should be of sufficient detail to determine the
slope of fill (2:1, 3:1 etc.) All drawings in the package should include this level of detail.

Once the information outlined above has been addressed and returned to this office
processing may continue. The Corps would like to have this information returned to this
office within two weeks since the permit has expired. If more time is necessary, please
reach out to this office with a revised schedule of resubmission with justification. You
are reminded the Corps cannot take final action on this request until a revised 401
certification and revised coastal consistency has been secured.

-3-

If you have any questions or need clarification on any point discussed in this
correspondence please don’t hesitate to give me a call at 910-612-1650 or via email at
[e-mail].

Sincerely,

Brad Shaver
Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District

Copied to:
Kim Williams, Land Management Group
Holley Snider, DWR
Daniel Govoni, DCM
Mickey Sugg, Regulatory Chief, Wilmington District

Digitally signed by
SHAVER.BRAD.E.1276601756
Date: 2021.01.21 10:15:07 -05'00'