20070245 Ver 8_More Information Received_20210318

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
r Yes r No
ID#* Version* 8
20070245
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Rick Trone:eads\rvtrone
Select Reviewing Office:* Central Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: * r
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r
New Project
r
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
r
More Information Response
r
Other Agency Comments
r
Pre -Application Submittal
r
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
r
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
r Yes r No
Project Contact Information
Name: Kim Williams
Who is subrritting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #:
20070245
20170001(no dashes)
Existing Version:
8
1
Project Name: MARSOC Motor Transportation Maintenance Expansion
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
r Yes r No r Unknown
County (ies)
Onslow
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
C7ickthe upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
MARSOC Response to NCDWR Comments 3-18-
554.3KB
21.pdf
PCN.pdf 503.49KB
MARSOC Response to USACE Comments 3-4-
8.41 MB
21.pdf
Only pdf or Iv17 files are accepted.
Describe the attachments
or comments:
Response to DWR comments; response to USACE comments; PCN

Sign and Submit
V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
■ I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
■ I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
■ I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
■ I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
■ I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
■ I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:
Submittal Date: Is filled in autorratically.

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

March 18, 2021

TO: Mr. Rick Trone
NC Division of Water Resources
Email: [e-mail]

RE: MARSOC Motor Transportation Maintenance Expansion 401 WQC Modification Request
Camp Lejeune, NC (Onslow County)
Response to NC DWR Comments; DWR # 20070245 Ver 8

Dear Mr. Trone:
Thank you for your comments to the 401 WQC Modification Request that was submitted for the
MARSOC Motor Transportation Maintenance Expansion Project. Below is a response to each
comment.

1. Please provide a complete Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) form the project. The
form is available at the following link: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Pre-
Construction_Notification_Form [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)]

Attached is a completed PCN.

2. Please provide an impact table listing all permanent, temporary, and after-the -fact
impacts to aquatic resources. Please ensure all impact maps reflect the information
on impact tables [15A NCAC 02H .0502].

The requested impact tables are within the PCN.

3. Please provide the linear footage of restoration proposed for the stream segment
near the Boat Maintenance and Storage Facility and ensure this impact amount is
depicted on any impact tables or maps [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)].

The applicant proposes to restore 65 LF of channel. Note that this channel has not
been classified as a stream by the agencies.

4. You have indicated that construction on the Large Vehicle Maintenance Storage
Building will require impacts to 0.58 acres of wetlands to construct a building and fill
slope. Available aerial imagery depicts building R469 already exists over a portion of

2

Wetland Impact 3. Please explain if the existing building is to be demolished,
relocated, or expanded in size. If building R469 is to remain as depicted in the
provided maps, please explain if the 0.58-acre Wetland Impact 3 is partially an after-
the-fact impact [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)].

Building RR469 has not been constructed yet. The building you see on the aerial is
likely RR465, which is west of the planned RR469 building. A previous permit
authorized some fill related to RR465.

5. You have indicated that 0.27 acres of wetland were impacted during previous road
construction and you are requesting to permit this impact now. Please clarify if this
0.27-acre impact is the impact labeled on Figure 4 as “Installed but not Authorized
Wetland Impact” [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)].

That is correct. The site plan has been revised to label this impact as Wetland Impact
#2. Additionally, the impact is noted in the requested impact table.

I hope this response adequately addresses your concerns and the modification request can now
be processed. 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

Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project no. _______________
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?

For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:

Yes No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in-lieu fee program.
Yes No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. Yes No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
2b. County:
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:

Page 2 of 10
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:

Page 3 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: Longitude:
1c. Property size: acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:

3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes No Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to “help file” instructions.

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.

Page 4 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams – tributaries Buffers Open Waters Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction

3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:

Page 5 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable
4c.

Type of impact
4d.

Waterbody
type
4e.

Area of impact (acres)
O1
O2
O3
O4
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:

5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1
P2
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:

5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? Neuse Tar-Pamlico Catawba Randleman Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number –
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:

Page 6 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.

1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No

2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type:
Type:
Type:
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:

4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.

Page 7 of 10
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? Yes No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)

Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).

6h. Comments:

Page 8 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? Yes No
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.

Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:

2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:

2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? Yes No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? Yes No

Page 9 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. If you answered “yes” to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
Yes No
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes No
2c. If you answered “yes” to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):

3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
3b. If you answered “yes” to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered “no,” provide a short narrative description.

4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.

Page 10 of 10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?

6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?

7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:

8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name

_______________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)

Date

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