20070245 Ver 8_MARSOC Response to USACE Comments 3-4-21_20210304

www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403

March 4, 2021

TO: Mr. Brad Shaver
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

RE: MARSOC Motor Transportation Maintenance Expansion IP Modification Request
Camp Lejeune, NC (Onslow County)
Action ID# SAW-2007-00286
Response to USACE Comments

Dear Brad:
Thank you for your comments to the IP Modification Request that was submitted for the MARSOC
Motor Transportation Maintenance Expansion Project. Below is a response to each comment.
Comments are broken down into three general categories, as noted in your email.

Unauthorized Impacts:
Comment 1: The northern portion of P 1288 where the road realignment 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.

Response #1: Noted. We have removed this impact from the site plan (revised figure is attached
as Figure 4).

Comment #2: 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.

Response #2: Noted. Per a request from NCDWR, we have labeled this unauthorized impact as
Wetland Impact #2 on the revised site plan.

2

Comment #3: 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 asks that
the Base provide photographic evidence of the impact and a more extensive plan regarding this
clean up to include success criteria post restoration.
Response #3: The 65 LF of channel to be restored currently has a culvert in it (see Figure 10). This
culvert was put in place several months ago during the adjacent construction to ensure proper
drainage. The culvert will be removed by the contractor. The Base is currently working with the
contractor to determine the timing of the pipe removal and specifications for channel
restoration.
Note that there is another channel previously impacted and evaluated by the USACE, which is
located downstream of the sediment pond and Channel Impact #2. There was initially some
discussion about restoring this channel. However, because of the amount of sediment that
entered this channel and how old the impact was, the Base showed this as a permanent impact
in the modification request. We request a meeting with the USACE and NCDWR to evaluate
current conditions and the best path forward. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for either
March 31 or April 1.

Alternatives:
Comment #4: Please provide a better visual representation of 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.
Response #4: The daily operations of the proposed RR469 building will be integrally tied to RR465
and it is critical that it be sited in very close proximity to RR465. Several alternative sites were
evaluated around the hardstand area surrounding the existing warehouse building RR465 to site
the building. The original location for Building RR469 was south of RR465 (see attached Figure 5),
but there were design challenges that drove the price up. The existing RR468 building would have
blocked access to a portion of the rollup doors that line the front face of the RR469 building. It
also would have encroached onto another development area where four small buildings are
planned for unit readiness. The proximity to the administrative functions on the north end of
RR465 also needed to be closer to RR469. Additionally, if the building was placed further south,
another parking lot and a longer driveway would be required. This would result in additional

3

impervious cover and additional costs. Therefore, the building was shifted north to where it is
now proposed.
From a user standpoint, it was more efficient logistically to align RR469 with the north side of
RR465 versus the south side. It puts the facility in closer proximity to the administrative section
of RR465 (situated completely in the north side of the building). The supply administrative
personnel currently housed in RR465 will interact with the warehouse staff in RR469 constantly
throughout the day. Additionally, all deliveries are received at one bay in RR465 and then
distributed to the other Unit Bays in RR465 and RR469. Placing RR469 parallel to RR465 will make
this distribution effort easier and quicker. Furthermore, by placing RR469 in the preferred
northern location, RR469 can utilize the existing parking lot adjacent to RR465.
Comment #5: Additionally, why couldn’t the location west of SRR 436 which is comprised of
uplands not be used as a reasonable location?
Response #5: The site west of SRR436 (vehicle wash racks) is slated for future development of a
minor construction project LE21S04R “MARSOC G6 Support Facility”. LE21S04R will have a
symbiotic relationship with building RR425 (MARSOC Comm/Elec Facility). Additionally, for the
reasons noted above, this site is too far removed from RR465 and is not an adequate site for the
function of building RR469.

Comment #6: 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.
Response #6: The purpose and need of MARSOC has consistently evolved over time. MILCON
projects P-1288 and P-1394 were not a part of the initial 2007-2008 MILCON effort that
constructed the MARSOC Compound at Stone Bay and was originally authorized by the USACE.
Both projects were added to MARSOC in 2009-2010 to support continued growth in personnel
and equipment.

Site Plan Drawings:
Comment #7: 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.
Response #7: Please see attached drawings that include the additional details you requested
(Figures 6 – 9). Because of the amount of information presented, we have included multiple
drawings per site so that features are legible. Note that in general 3:1 slopes were used to
determine amount of wetland fill needed near buildings and parking features. Additional wetland
impacts were calculated in some areas beyond grading limits because the amount of wetlands

4

that would remain appeared too small to be viable. It was decided that it was better to show the
impact and provide mitigation to offset its loss.

I hope this response adequately addresses your concerns. Please let me know if you have any
further questions or comments.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Kim Williams
Environmental Scientist

Encl.

Cc: Jessi Baker, MCB Camp Lejeune
Brian Wilson, Clark Nexsen

List of Figures Included:

Figure 4. Revised Overall Site Plan
Figure 5. RR469 Alternatives
Figure 6A. RR456 Site Layout Plan
Figure 6B. RR456 Site Layout Plan Contd.
Figure 6C. RR456 with Elevations and Cross Section A
Figure 6D. RR456 with Elevations and Cross Section B
Figure 7A. RR469 Site Layout Plan
Figure 7B. RR469 with Elevations and Cross Section
Figure 8A. Landscape Plan for RR456
Figure 8B. Landscape Plan for RR456 Contd.
Figure 8C. Landscape Plan for RR469
Figure 9. P-1288 Grading Plan
Figure 10. Site Photos of Culvert at RR456

FIGURES




 

 
 
#

#


















#

#
"   
‚
#

#!#

&, #+ =1/#(=




ZkpOw¡ C^¡ 

)¡

¡

¡¡
 ¡~¡¡¡€
¡¡¡¡¡
¡¡¡¡ 














  

0‘‘‘‘‘‘


‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘#Y¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡$¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡%¡#’“’“’“’“’“’“¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡&¡¡'¡:‡”¡¡¡¡¡¡(¡¡@„•¡ —¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

 

        

 

        " ! 

"


&3/#0#1#,+(= !++(=+1/(#+
#
.= *.=6#01#+ =
{O‰kM¡ FlykMCoZOp˜¡n/1GG¡ nol`OHu¡ {PikM¡ [jnCHup¡ 1541¡ pT*¡ ,,5¡ CI
™¡n/283¡ nol`OHu¡{PikM¡ [jnCHup¡ 357,¡ pT*¡,//¡ CH

`yoZpMZHuZlkCd¡ HXCkkOd¡ 5,8¡ dT9¡ n/1GG375¡dT¡n/28354¡ dT
   4,¡{O‰kMp¡ FyUTOotXO¡dlHDxZlkp¡ lT¡{PikMp¡CkM¡`yoZpMZHt[lkCd¡HXCkkOdp¡ pXl{k¡ Zp¡uCcOk¡ Tol‹¡jHF¡HCjn¡ dO`OykOVZp¡MCuC¡CkM¡FCpOM¡ lk¡ uXO¡noRZlypd|¡CnnolzOM¡jCnnZkV¡ lk¡TZdO¡ {ZuX¡yrWO¡ 

=
= =

=

= 

#

#
./,.,0= 00=/#4=

¡‚¡‚¡


#=



Š¡

a+
#=$=:=:=:=7=:
= JŒ23 #
{QkM¡ FlykMCoZOph†ƒ…b¡š¡noRZlyp¡ {PikM¡ZjnCIu¡125/3¡ pT¡*¡ ,43¡ CH
JŒq›¡nltOku_}¡ykMlHyjOkuOM¡ {QkM¡ MZpuyoFCkHO¡ //775¡ pT¡*¡ ,16¡ CI
œ¡n/283¡ nol`OHu¡{QkM¡ZjnCHtp¡ 143,6¡ pT¡*¡ ,47¡ CH
   4,¡{SkMp¡ FyTTOo 

99===




"##=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#8=‚¡




8== 51)+0= 3/= 2.'
=
*.==6#01#+ ===-=uXO¡ elHDxZlkp¡ lT¡ {SkMp¡CkM¡`yoZpMZHuZlkCd¡HXCkkOdp¡ pXl{k¡ Zp¡ uCcOk¡ Tolj¡ jHF¡Kjn¡gO`OykOVZp¡ NvE¡CkM¡ FCpOM¡ lk¡ tXO¡ noRZlypf|¡ CnnolzOM¡jCnnZkV¡ lk¡ TZdO¡ {ZuX¡ yrHO¡=.
L


 
####

# #"= # 33
30/%+#(1,()'3&+#3(1,(3% (,
3
3"%3"+,*3$-+-3&2,.!*3 *
2#(2
2(
2(2&+-
.$ 2s¡m¡;;= Ž¡\ˆŽ 

  Ž¡>

=-<%


%<


?¡Ž



¡ A
=¡ >¡ >
%



%













%ž¡ ]

Ž¡! Ÿ¡ A

=!
 
 ¡ B 

,2,3,)/(3%3"3








 
')%/2!%
2 
3%",/)
2%!-)2"%2!02
)1!2"%23,-2 3" 3
– 





Wetland Impact 2 (After the Fact): 0.06 acreChannel Impact 1 (Proposed): 65 LFWetland Impact 1 (Proposed): 0.11 acreChannel Impact 2 (After the Fact): 436 LFChannel Impact 3 (After the Fact): 50 LFPreviously Authorized & Installed Wetland ImpactWetland Impact #2: Installed but not Authorized Wetland Impact: 0.27 acreWetland Impact 3 (Proposed): 0.58 acre Large Vehicle Maintenance Storage Building (RR469)P1288 Special Operations Force CSS Facility & Boat Maintenance and Storage Facility (RR456) JURISDICTIONAL CHANNEL IMPACTS: 609 LFPROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS (RR456): 4,680 SF/ 0.11 ACFigure 4. Revised Overall Site Plan Showing ImpactsRR456 BMP (PROPOSED)PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT (RR469): 25,407 SF / 0.58 AC) PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED WETLAND IMPACT (23,614 SF / 0.54 AC) POTENTIALLY UNDOCUMENTED WETLAND IMPACT (11,886 SF / 0.27 AC) Northern Part of P1288RR456 and Central and Southern Parts of P1288PROPOSED CHANNEL RESTORATION (~ 65 LF)
LE21S04RRR515SRR160CRR161RR162RR438RR157RR430RR465RR425RR461RR466RR427RR160RR468RR463SRR160ARR467SRR160BRR462TITLE: LE21S04R G-6 Support Facility9NSEW2400240120Feet5005025MetersELEVATION IN FEET20 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL1:1,415SCALEPROJECTION, DATUM AND REFERENCE GRID STATEMENTSPHEROID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GEODETIC REFERENCE SYSTEM 1980PROJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATORVERTICAL DATUM . . . . . . NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988HORIZONTAL DATUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983CONTROLLED BY . . . . . . . . USGS, NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY POINTSGRID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 - METER UTM ZONE 18GRATICULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HALF MINUTE LATITUDE-LONGITUDE TICSMap generated using the Geographic Information SystemManaged by the Installation Geospatial Information & Services OfficeRegional Geospatial Information & Services Division, GF,Marine Corps Installations East – Marine Corps Base Camp LejeuneFOR REFERENCE ONLYFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)NOT TO BE USED FOR TARGETING OR NAVIGATIONDisclaimer:Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information,errors and conditions originating from the physical sources used to develop thedatabase may be reflected in the data supplied. The requestor must be awareof data conditions and ultimately bear responsibility for the appropriate useof the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other specific conditions to certain data.This information does not depict all possible resources. Field verification of all data is required for site-specific projects. This information is deemedreliable, but not guaranteed.Data Credit/SourceW 2002 Digital Globe / W 2003 Space ImagingBuildingFenceMARSOC_Future_ProjectsProposed RR469 Location Southern Location Considered. Design, parking, and access to Admin support constraints. Reserved for Future LE21S04R Development Figure 5. RR469 Alternative SitesAdmin Staff Housed Here Boundaries Shown Are Approximate
Figure 6A. RR456 Site Layout Plan
Figure 6B. RR456 Site Layout Plan Contd.
Cross Section B Cross Section A PARKING AREA PARKING AREA Figure 6C. RR456 Plan with Elevations and Cross Section A
Cross Section B PARKING AREA PARKING AREA Cross Section A Figure 6D. RR456 Plan with Elevations and Cross Section B
Figure 7A. RR469 Site Layout Plan
Figure 7B. RR469 with Elevations and Cross Section
P1394 SOF MOTOR TRANSPORTMAINTENANCE EXPANSION - SITE 22281572053DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYABCD1234512345ABCDSCALE:CONSTR. CONTR. NO.SHEETNAVFAC DRAWING NO.NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDSYMDESCRIPTIONDATEAPPRDRAWFORM REVISION: 7 FEBRUARY 2019OFEPROJECT NO.:UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDRR456 - LANDSCAPE PLANMATCH LINE - SEE SHEET LP102CLP101CJTD JTD TAR1"=30'9212827044Figure 8A. Landscape Plan for RR456
P1394 SOF MOTOR TRANSPORTMAINTENANCE EXPANSION - SITE 22281572053DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYABCD1234512345ABCDSCALE:CONSTR. CONTR. NO.SHEETNAVFAC DRAWING NO.NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDSYMDESCRIPTIONDATEAPPRDRAWFORM REVISION: 7 FEBRUARY 2019OFEPROJECT NO.:UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDRR456 - LANDSCAPE PLANMATCH LINE - SEE SHEET LP101CMATCH LINE - THIS SHEETMATCH LINE - THIS SHEETLP102CJTD JTD TAR1"=30'9312827045Figure 8B. Landscape Plan for RR456 Contd
P1394 SOF MOTOR TRANSPORTMAINTENANCE EXPANSION - SITE 22281572053DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYABCD1234512345ABCDSCALE:CONSTR. CONTR. NO.SHEETNAVFAC DRAWING NO.NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDSYMDESCRIPTIONDATEAPPRDRAWFORM REVISION: 7 FEBRUARY 2019OFEPROJECT NO.:UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDRR469 - LANDSCAPE PLANLP101DJTD JTD TAR1"=30'9412827046Figure 8C. Landscape Plan for RR469
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND ~ MIDATLANTICSOF MARINE BATTALIONCOMPANY/TEAM FACILITIES - P1219SOF COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT FACILITY - P1288MARINE CORPS BASECAMP LEJEUNE, NCG11441790AS NOTED4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE,SUITE 100DURHAM, NC 27703TEL: [phone]FAX: [phone]Amec Foster Wheeler Environment &Infrastructure, Inc.LEGENDNOVERALL GRADING PLAN1273563719CG-101SITEBFigure 9. P-1288 Grading Plan
FIGURE 10 Photos of Culvert to be Removed
View of channel to be restored at RR456 (downstream of Impact #1).
Culvert is currently located here.
Looking upstream at the culvert to be removed