20081579 Ver 1_More Info Received_20090211

i, . -%
C)8-IS1 C1
PN 68818, New Ammo Supply Point
.?.?_
This addendum is a result of a change in scope of work not previously analyzed and took effect on
February 6, 2009. The change in scope of work was a result of additional grading requirements and
necessary changes in the North Carolina State approved soil erosion control plan. The changes affected
the total wetland impacts; therefore the calculations and mitigation had to be redone.
A total of three additional sites will have temporary wetland impacts stemming from the need to
construct temporary sediment basins in accordance with the approved soil erosion control plan. The
total temporary wetland impacts are 0.029 acres. The additional impacts stem from the construction of
sediment traps #2 and #8. See attachment.
Placement of a portion of sediment trap #2 in a wetland area (impact of 0.002 acres) is required in
order to avoid conflicts with the permanent work and allow for drainage of the permanent ditch from
upstream disturbed areas into the sediment trap. Placement of sediment trap #8 impacts two wetland
areas totaling 0.027 acres and is required to allow drainage of the permanent ditch from upstream
disturbed areas into the sediment trap and to construct an outfall ditch from the trap to the nearest
swale.
The two temporary sediment traps will be removed after stabilization of all disturbed areas within
the contributing drainage area. The disturbed areas where the sediment traps were constructed
(including the wetland areas) will be returned to original grade, restored to natural conditions, and
replanted using approved native seed specifications. Seed specifications in wetland areas will conform
to the Fort Bragg recommendations.
Six additional permanent wetland areas will be impacted due to additional grading requirements.
The additional impacts are approximately 0.2 acres (0.40, 0.63, 0.31, .007, .014, .031). See attachment.
These wetland totals will be added to the original total permanent impacts. The new total will be 4.83
acres of riparian wetland impacts. The total linear feet of stream will not change. This total will be
mitigated through the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Program. See NC
EEP 2nd Corrected Acceptance Letter dated Feb 09.
Erich Hoffman
DPW-EMB, Wildlife Biologist
a?C ROIN p
FEB 1 1 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
wETLANDS AND STORmWATER BRANCH
1 ?O
\ g 33[ ?`
r
\ I /
? I L
I \ ?
0 3!? z

'z
oriyog? C
O;?D0
?Oa
N?;H
o mN
2
N
NmOO
m??p0
mo
F TO
<F T0
0 0m
0p
T pyy
Op
me m
m yyA
I p0

\
m?
II
f \
9(17\ ?

Qaaa~

p
A"5 SL

F•
I i ? a
I \ \ I
®1 j
wPr BP.no NoPm f:war+n U.9.awrv DAifEEP pSIRILT? Po?fusfP :ooe $
NA.udmon suPrLr Para =VAN oP EPS Dw ,o. "D L
ft ¦
NW DIS1PICf D?1? - 7=X.6213
iiii5555 ADDITIONAL WETLANDS DISTURBANCE
MODIFICATION NO. 1
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND
HEADQUARTERS,UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON, FT BRAGG
2175 REILLY ROAD, STOP A
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28310-5000
January 28, 2009
Directorate of Public Works
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find attached the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN)
Application Form for the referenced project (Division of Water
Quality Project #08-1579). Fort Bragg proposes to construct a
new Ammo Supply Point (ASP) to accommodate the military mission
at Fort Bragg. The project area encompassed approximately 450
acres adjacent to the east side of Pope Air Force Base Munitions
Storage Area (MSA) facility, approximately 4 miles west of the
intersection of Vass Road (NC 690) and NC 87, between Manchester
Road and Vass Road in Cumberland County (Fort Bragg Vicinity
Map). Note: The subject property is not Pope Air Force Base
property but belongs to Fort Bragg; however the existing Pope
MSA will be turned over to Fort Bragg and be part of this new
ASP. The project area falls within the Cape Fear River Basin
(HUC 003030004) in the NC Sandhills pysiographic region of the
state and is located in adjacent wetlands and tributaries that
are hydrologically connected to the Cape Fear River, Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit 03030004. This application complies with the
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit Regulations (33 CFR
320) and Section 401 of the CWA (PL 92-500) and serves as a
request for an individual 401 Water Quality Certification from
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
Since the existing ASP at Fort Bragg has become outdated and
insufficient to support mission readiness, a new ASP is required
at Fort Bragg. The project description involves the need for an
entirely new ASP facility to include a 150,800 square foot (sf)
Vehicle Maintenance Shop, a 26,500 sf Deployment Equipment
Storage, a 2,500 sf Oil Storage Building, a 161,200 square yards
(sy) of Organizational Vehicle Parking, as well as an ASP
-2-
facility that consists of eight 17,760 sf Navy Type "F"
magazines and four 3,800 sf oval arch magazines. In addition,
the project requires a new entrance road off Vass Road and an
access road throughout the facility. The associated
infrastructure will include water, sewer, gas and electric
utilities, stormwater drainage, detention and bio-retention
ponds, and secondary containment for oil storage facilities.
In order to meet the purpose and critical need of this
project, complete avoidance of adjacent wetlands and streams was
not possible. However, project design attempted to the maximum
extent practicable to practice avoidance and minimization to
surrounding wetlands and streams. Several design changes took
place, yet severe design constraints and challenges stemmed from
munitions bunker safety arcs; therefore complete avoidance was
compromised. The permanent impacts to wetlands and streams
stemmed from road crossings and ammo bunker construction. In
total, permanent wetland impacts would be 4.63 acres of riparian
wetlands and 964 linear feet of perennial stream impacts (Plates
1-5).
Compensatory mitigation required for this project will be
handled through the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement (NCEEP)
In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program. Since Fort Bragg and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources developed a
Memorandum of Agreement dated August 13, 2001 and amended May
21, 2003, Fort Bragg requests to have NCEEP use the Jumping Run
Creek mitigation site credits to fulfill mitigation
requirements. For further information please contact the NCEEP
In-Lieu Fee Program Coordinator, Ms. Kelly Williams at (919)
716-1921 or [e-mail]. If additional project
related questions occur, please contact Mr. Erich L. Hoffman, at
[phone] or at [e-mail].
Gregory G. Bean
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
-N.-
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
December 23, 2008
Corrected Acceptance
Gregory Bean
Directorate: Public Works
IMSE-BRG-PW, 2175 Reilly Road Stop A
Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
Project: Fort Bragg New ASP
Expiration of Acceptance: September 23, 2009
County: Cumberland
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willin.- to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
he approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local
government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including SL 2008-151 An Act to Promote
Compensatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks.
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy, of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to he paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer 11
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri arian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Cape Fear 03030004 0 0 964 4.:3 0 0 0 0
Credits Cape Fear 03030004 0 0 964 9.26 0 0 0 0
L-? See, 4 Ji a44hiv,?l-
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the re-ulatory agencies rcquirc
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will he performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone] or Kelly Williams at
[phone].

cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
REdimi itbcrUSACE-Wilmington
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ-Washington
Michael O-Rourke, agent
Eric Hoffman, Fort Bragg
File
kutO{ ui 5... EKAa"... Not"' Oar .Sta-& NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 91 9-71 5-0476 / www.nceep.net
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit
Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality
Pre-Construction Notification
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural -4& VAS
Resources, Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, North Carolina
Applicant:
Fort Bragg Garrison Command
Fayetteville, North Carolina a]
Prepared by
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 8, 2008
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
PART I
Introduction
The United States Army proposes to relocate the Ammunition Supply Point
(ASP) facility located on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation (Bragg) to a location
adjacent to the existing Munitions Storage Area (MSA) at Pope Air Force Base
(Pope AFB) in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Vicinity Map). Existing
bunkers at the Bragg ASP are in need of modernization and replacement. The
existing Bragg ASP facility constitutes part of the installation's integrated
contingency operations providing capacity for processing and out-loading airdrop
and air land forces. Also, storage of training and basic load ammunition is
provided at this location. The existing Bragg ASP is a Cold War era construction
consisting of 43 ammunition storage structures. That capacity is insufficient to
provide for adequate safe, secure storage, and processing of ammunition. This
facility is located approximately 1,500 feet from the installation's boundary which
causes force protection and encroachment concerns primarily due to residential
development. Additionally, an alignment of an interstate highway (1-295) is
proposed along the ASPs eastern edge. The construction of this new highway
will eliminate 23 ammunition bunkers rendering the ASP inadequate to support
the operations at the installation. As such, the Bragg facility is currently
inadequate to meet operational requirements. Also, due to shortages of
developable land within the Bragg military reservation, the land at the ASP site is
needed for other uses as Bragg is scheduled to receive units and facilities as part
of the Grow The Army (GTA) initiative. The Combat Support (CS) and Combat
Service Support (CSS) units proposed at Bragg would include conversion of the
1st Theater Sustainment Command to an Active Component unit; two Air
Defense Artillery (ADA) Batteries; one Sustainment Brigade; one Explosive
Ordnance Disposal Battalion with four Companies; one Military Intelligence
Battalion; and other CSS units. Real property accountability at Pope AFB will
transfer to the Army at Bragg as part of Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC)
operations.
Alternative sites for the construction of the needed new facilities were considered
at various locations. The choice of potential alternative locations was
constrained by Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (QD) arcs resulting from the
storage of ammunition, explosives, and other hazardous materials, location
within a secured perimeter, and accessibility by first responders. Ultimately, the
Pope ASP was selected as no other nearby Department of Defense (DOD)
facilities would satisfy the requirements of the facilities for the 108th ADA and the
GTA initiative, since location of these facilities at other installations would impede
rapid deployment. The construction of new ammunition storage bunkers at the
Pope AFB ASP, which will revert to Bragg under BRAC along with the rest of the
base, is the Army's Preferred Alternative for the location of the new ASP. The
proposed expansion will include construction of ammunition storage bunkers,
access roads, security facilities, truck loading and inspection areas, maintenance
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
facilities, and associated utilities to provide electricity, plumbing, and security to
the facility.
Bragg contracted with The Louis Berger Group (Berger) to delineate jurisdictional
waters within the areas of the proposed activities and prepare permit documents
to address proposed impacts to those waters. Berger conducted field survey
operations within a 450 acre review area adjacent to the existing Pope MSA
facilities from October to December of 2007. The site is approximately four miles
west of the intersection of Vass Road (NC 690) and NC 87, between Manchester
Road and Vass Road, bordered to the south by the Little River, and
approximately two and one half miles northwest of the airfields at Pope AFB.
Approximately 24,984 linear feet of stream channel and 125 acres of wetland
were identified during this survey. A jurisdictional determination field review was
held on January 3, 2008 with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
(Richard Spencer), NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (Ken Averitte), Bragg
(Erich Hoffman) and Berger (Ray Bode). At that time a verbal approval was given
of the delineated features.
This PCN package contains information to support the request for a North
Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Water Quality Certification. An
Environmental Assessment document was prepared for this project as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and has been approved with a
Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) issued. The FONSI is attached in
Appendix A of this PCN package.
2
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
PART II
Division of Water Quality Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
WAT.
FRpG
? r F EB 1 1 2009
a < pENR WATER QUALITY
YVETLANDS AND STORMWAJER BRA140i
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no. IJ 8 ' 1 S'19
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: N/A or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ? No
1 d. 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
le. 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 1 h
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: New Ammunition Supply Point at Pope Air Force Base (PN 68818)
2b. County: Cumberland
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Fayetteville
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: Fort Bragg, Garrison Command
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Mr. Gregory Bean, Directorate of Public Works
3d. Street address: IMSE-BRG-PW, 2175 Reilly Road Stop A
3e. City, state, zip: Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
3f. Telephone no.: 910-396-0321
3g. Fax no.: 910-396-5830
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: N/A
4c. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
4d. Street address: N/A
4e. City, state, zip: N/A
4f. Telephone no.: N/A
4g. Fax no.: N/A
4h. Email address: WA
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Michael O'Rourke
5b. Business name
(if applicable): The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
5c. Street address: 1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27650
5e. Telephone no.: 919-866-4421
5f. Fax no.: 919-755-3502
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.191437'N - 79.058345'W
1c. Property size: approximately 450 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Little River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Mill
2c. River basin: Cape Fear
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:
See attatched supplimental information
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
125
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
24,984
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
See attatched supplimental information
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See attatched supplimental information
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
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): Ray Bode, PWS (Berger) Agency/Consultant Company: The Louis Berger Group,
Inc
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
See attatched supplimental information
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.
See attatched supplimental information
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ?Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. 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. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
-Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No EJ Corps
? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 14-63'
2h. Comments: See attatched supplimental information 4. a3
3. Stream Impacts 4" P9I 9-
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. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
Stream impact Type of Stream name Perennial (PER) or Average stream width (feet) Impact
number- impact intermittent (INT)? length
Permanent (P) or (linear feet)
Temporary (T)
S1 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S2 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
S3 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
S4 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? INT
S6 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 964
3h. Comments: See attatched supplimental information
oL"C#.d.
P9 8
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
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 individual) list all o en water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary T
01 ?P[-] T
02 ?POT
03 ?PEI T
04 ?POT
M. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: No impacts to open water are anticipated.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID
b Proposed use or (acres)
num
er purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total 0
5g. Comments: N/A
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 an impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact (square Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
131 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
6h. Total buffer impacts 0 0
6i. Comments: N/A
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See attatched supplimental information
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See attatched supplimental information
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 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: 2 2 b/t t' linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm warm, cool, cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 4.j$3 -I? acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h.. Comments: See attatched supplimental information
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 11
-sep- M Z JJM wJ U 61,0 l
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
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 Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required: 0
6c. 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).
6d. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ? Yes ® No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction
3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater ? Coastal counties
management programs (check all that apply)? ? HOW
? ORW
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Fayetteville
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ? Yes ® No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? See attatched supplimental
information
4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per ? Yes ® No
General Certifications 3704 and 3705?
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
N/A
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted ? Yes ? No
for each stormwater BMP?
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. 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 ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
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
® Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments: See attatched supplimental information
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, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
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): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
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.
This site is completely controlled by Fort Bragg as a secure facility. No additional development is predicted that would
affect downstream water quality.
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.
See attatched supplimental information
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
®
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
See attatched supplimental information
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? T ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA EFH online mapper. Available at http://sharpfiin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx.
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 ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Data provided by the Cultural Resouces Program, Fort Bragg Directorate of Public Works.
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? FEMA firmette online mapper. Available at
http://gisl.msc.fema-gov/Website/newstore/viewer.htm.
M,-. CTy v,? Qe.,,,*n
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date
is rovided.
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
PART III
Division of Water Quality Pre-Construction Notification Supplemental
Information
Section B: Information and Prior Project History
Section 133: Project Description
Section 133a: Existing Conditions
The affected area of the Pope ASP review area encompassed approximately 450
acres adjacent to the east side the Pope MSA facility. This area falls within the
Cape Fear River Basin (USGS HUC 03030004, DWQ sub-basin 03-06-14) in the
NC Sandhills physiographic region of the state. The Sandhills encompasses
parts of eight counties and is situated in the south central part of NC. Most of the
project area is vegetated with immature longleaf pines (Pinus palustris)
approximately 10 years old planted after timbering operations. The area
surrounding the forest plantation is a mixture of 30-40 year old slash pine (P.
elliotth) stands and mature loblolly pine (P. taeda) and longleaf pine stands,
approximately 60-80 years of age. The forest cover in stream and wetland areas
was not impacted by the timber harvest and supports mature canopies of
broadleaved deciduous species such as red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and water oak
(Quercus nigra). The shrub strata was very dense in most places with gallberry
(Ilex coriacea), red bay (Persea borbonia), and sapling growth of the upper
canopy species. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) formed very dense patches
throughout these areas. Wetlands were typical of streamhead pocosins, small
stream swamps, and bottomland hardwood communities. Detailed descriptions of
the wetlands in the project area are provided in the document titled Jurisdictional
Waters Delineation, 108th ADA/ASP Pone ASP Review Area Pope AFB
Cumberland County, North Carolina which is attached to this PCN package in
Appendix B.
Section 133d: Purpose of the Proposed Project
The existing Bragg ASP facility provides processing and out-loading munitions
for airdrop and air land forces as well as storage of training and basic load
ammunition. That facility's capacity and current location is outdated and
insufficient to provide for adequate safe, secure storage, and processing of
ammunition. To continue to provide for the Army's state of readiness in a safe
fashion, the existing ASP at Bragg is no longer sufficient and must be replaced.
Section 133e: Overall Project
The Army proposes to construct a new ASP at Pope AFB to accommodate the
needs of Bragg units. The proposed project action would be constructed on the
east side of the existing Pope MSA.
Entry to the facility will be by way of a new road connecting to Vass Road (NC
690) to the northeast from the existing facility. Operation of a sufficiently sized
facility will require construction of a 150,800 square foot Vehicle Maintenance
3
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Shop, 26,500 square feet of Deployment Equipment Storage, a 2,500 square foot
Oil Storage Building, and 161,200 square yards of Organizational Vehicle
Parking as well as an ASP. The ASP facility itself will consist of eight 17,760
square foot Navy Type °F" magazines and four 3,800 square foot oval arch
magazines. Access roads will be installed throughout the facility. Associated
needs and infrastructure include water, sewer, gas, and electric utilities, storm
water drainage, detention and bio-retention ponds, and secondary containment
for oil storage facilities.
Where structures are proposed to be constructed within the surveyed
jurisdictional wetland boundaries, clean fill will be installed and compacted to
provide stability and raise the grade to the necessary height for the structure's
foundation. Roads constructed to access the facility will be 22 feet wide and
paved with asphalt. At locations where wetland areas are to be crossed, the
roads will be constructed on compacted fill. Where streams are to be crossed,
box culverts sized appropriately to accommodate stream flows will be placed
perpendicular to the channel. Utilities will be installed as subsurface lines.
These will be routed within the shoulder of the paved roads in most cases. In an
effort to avoid and/or minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters, utility crossings
will be routed so that stream or wetland crossings will be contained within the fill
required for roadway crossings, thereby avoiding additional impacts. Where this
is not possible, utilities will cross under stream channels by jack/boring a duct
sleeve under the stream in lieu of using an open trench to avoid impacts. The
entire installation will be secured by chain link fencing on posts around the
perimeter.
Section 134: Jurisdictional Determination
Section 134d: Dates of Jurisdictional Determinations
Berger conducted field investigations within a review area adjacent to the existing
Pope MSA facilities from October to December of 2007 and identified
approximately 24,984 linear feet of stream channel and 125 acres of wetland. A
jurisdictional determination field review was held on January 3, 2008 with the
USACE (Richard Spencer), NCDWQ (Ken Averitte), Bragg (Erich Hoffman) and
Berger (Ray Bode). At that time a verbal approval was given of the delineated
features. A USACE action ID has not yet been assigned to the project.
Section 135: Project History
Section 135b: Permits
A USACE 404 Individual Permit application was submitted to the USACE
Wilmington District on September 25, 2008. A USACE action ID has not yet
been assigned to the project.
Section C: Proposed Impacts Inventory
Wetlands and streams of the review area were delineated between October and
December of 2007. Approximately 24,984 linear feet of stream channel and 125
acres of wetland were identified during the survey. Surveyed features were
4
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
assigned letter names for identification. Stream SC flows directly into to the Little
River as an un-named tributary. All of the features of the review area drained
into stream SC, also as un-named tributaries. Detailed descriptions, map figures,
and data sheets of all the wetlands and streams in the project area are provided
in the document titled Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADA/ASP, Pope
ASP Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina which is
included in Appendix B of this PCN package.
The proposed project will result in permanent impacts to 4.63 acres of wetlands
and 964 linear feet of stream channel (Plates 1-5).
The proposed project will impact 1.54 acres of wetland WW (Plate 1-3). This
wetland provides groundwater input for stream SD. A large portion of wetland
WW is situated at the headwaters of the stream and the channel originates in the
lower half of the wetland. Portions of the wetland are in pocosin communities
located on high ground and slopes over the stream bottom. These flow into the
bottomland and floodplain hardwood forests abutting the stream channel.
Hydrologic exchange from these wetland areas with these stream channels is
uninterrupted through the floodplain and these wetlands appear to frequently
receive overbank flows.
The proposed project will impact 379 linear feet of stream SD (Plate 2). This
stream flows into stream SC at a point approximately 1,000 feet east of the
southerrn gate at the Pope ASP. The stream flows through wetland WW and the
channel is braided at several locations through the wetland. The SD/WW system
is approximately 6,000 feet long and flows roughly north to south.
The proposed project will impact 0.46 acres of wetland WP (Plate 3). This
wetland is a pocosin type wetland and grades down from the higher elevations to
the floodplain.
The proposed project will impact 1.09 acres of wetland WM (Plate 3) which
provides a headwater source to stream SE. Stream SE is completely contained
within the wetland. The proposed project will impact 5 linear feet of Stream SE
(Plate 3). This stream is an unnamed tributary to stream SD located
approximately 700 feet east of the south gate of the ASP and flows west to east
for approximately 117 feet to the confluence with stream SD
The proposed project will impact 580 linear feet of stream SC (Plate 4). This
stream is an unnamed tributary to the Little River (stream SA). Stream SC has
its headwaters in wetland WO located approximately 3,000 feet south of Vass
Road. The stream flows north to south for approximately 6,000 feet to the
confluence with stream SA. The stream channel is contained within wetland WO
for the majority of its length. Hydrologic exchange from these wetland areas with
these stream channels is uninterrupted through the floodplain and these
wetlands appear to frequently receive overbank flows.
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
The proposed project will impact 1.54 acres of wetland WO (Plates 4 and 5).
This wetland is situated at the headwaters of stream SC . The stream channel
originates in the lower half of the wetland. Portions of wetland WO occupy the
slopes over stream SC's valley as pocosin type wetlands and grade down from
these higher elevations to the floodplain of stream SC where the wetland type is
more typical of bottomland hardwood forests.
Although wetlands and streams were avoided to the fullest extent possible,
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams are unavoidable in order to
construct the proposed ASP facility and associated infrastructure. Fill material
will be utilized to raise and stabilize grades for structure foundations and roadbed
construction. Cut and fill will be balanced to the greatest extent possible to
eliminate the need for offsite disposal of soil.
Section C2: Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
Table 1: Proposed Wetland Impacts
Wetland 2a. Wetland 2b. Type of Impact 2c. Forested 2d. Type of 2f. Area
Impact Yes/No Jurisdiction of
Site Number (Corps-404, Impact
10, DWQ- (acres)
non404, other
WW 1 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps404 0.22
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WW 2 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.79
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
VWV 3 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.01
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WW 4 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps404 0.06
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WW 5 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps404 0.01
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
VWV 6 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.18
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WW 8 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.07
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
6
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Wetland 2a. Wetland 2b. Type of Impact 2c. Forested 2d. Type of 2f. Area
Impact Yes/No Jurisdiction of
Site Number (Corps-404, Impact
10, DWQ- (acres)
non404, other
WW 9 - Permanent Clearing, fill to establish Y Corps-404 0.12
grade for
construction of oval arch
magazine
WP 10 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road N Corps-404 0.32
crossing,
adding fill to establish
rade
WM 11 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.04
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WM 12 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.14
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WM 14 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.91
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WP 16 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.14
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
ww 17 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.08
crossing,
adding fill to establish
rade
WO 18 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.07
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WO 19 - Permanent Clearing, fill to establish N Corps-404 0.56
grade
for construction of Navy
Type T" magazine
WO 20 - Permanent Clearing, fill to establish Y Corps-404 0.08
grade
for construction of Navy
TVpe T" magazine
WO 21 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.14
crossing,
adding fill to establish
grade
WO 23 - Permanent Clearing, fill to establish Y Corps-404 0.27
grade
for construction of Navy
Type T" magazine
WO 24 - Permanent Clearing, grading for road Y Corps-404 0.09
1 crossing,
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Wetland 2a. Wetland 2b. Type of Impact 2c. Forested 2d. Type of 2f. Area
Impact Yes/No Jurisdiction of
Site Number (Corps-404, Impact
10, DWQ- (acres)
non404, other
adding fill to establish
grade
WO 25 - Permanent Clearing, fill to establish Y Corps-404 0.14
grade
for construction of Navy
Type "F" magazine
wo 26 - Permanent Clearing, fill to establish Y Corps-404 0.19
grade
for construction of Navy
Type "F" magazine
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 4A3
Lj -see A?de-'Jv"' 6,4
Section C3: Individual Jurisdictional Stream Impacts a4,c,h'?,er,f-
Table 2: Proposed Stream Impacts
3f.
3e. Average Impact
Stream Width Length
Stream 3a. Stream 3b. Type of 3d. Perennial Before Impact (linear
Name Impact Number Impact or Intermittent linear feet feet
SD 7 - Permanent Box Culvert Perennial 9 202
SE 13 - Permanent Box Culvert Perennial 10 5
SD 15 - Permanent Box Culvert Perennial 8 177
SC 22 -Permanent Box Culvert Perennial 4 580
I Total Stream Impact (linear feet) 964
Section D: Impact Justification and Mitigation
Section D1: Avoidance and Minimization
Section D1a: Measures Taken in Design
Two initial alternative site plans for the Pope ASP (Vass Road Air Force (AF)
MSA Alternative and Revised Vass Road/AF MSA Alternative) were developed
by Parsons at the inception of the proposed project prior to USACE Omaha
District being involved (Figure 5.3 Vass Road AF MSA Alternative and Figure
AD.1 Revised Vass Road - AF MSA Alternative).
A 35 percent site plan was developed by the Omaha District USACE following
their involvement in the project planning (Figure CS-100). Likely constraints at
this stage of project planning included jurisdictional waters, threatened and
endangered species concerns, and cultural sites. Approximate wetland
boundaries were determined by desktop analyses and were very preliminary in
nature at this time. Bragg has many populations of federally-listed floral and
8
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
faunal species, and known populations of threatened and endangered species
are monitored closely by Bragg Environmental Division-Endangered Species
Branch staff. Protected species data were provided by the Bragg Endangered
Species Branch. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis and field
surveys in 2007 have determined no protected floral species are present within
the review area, however red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW)
have been identified in the review area during field surveys. The project footprint
encroaches upon RCW forage habitat. Federally protected species are
discussed in detail in Section F5.
Cultural resource data were provided by the Cultural Resources Program of the
Directorate of Public Works at Bragg. Two archaeological sites were identified
by Bragg staff within the review area, and the design plans were modified to
avoid them. The Revised Vass Road/AF MSA Alternative drawing was the
starting point for the development of the 35 percent design. Realignment of Vass
Road was included in this site plan. Revisions to the initial plans included
moving the Small Arms Warehouse to the north and several of the Type F
Magazines to avoid or minimize the impacts to the wetlands and to avoid the
threatened and endangered species habitat areas. The two cultural resource
areas were not located on the plans at this time.
Several options were developed at this time based on the two alternatives that
had been the 35 percent design. Option 1, the first of three further options, was
generated because of comments received during the 35 percent Review
Conference held September 18-20, 2007 (Figure CS-117). Wetland boundaries
were updated but still preliminary in nature. The Small Arms Warehouse, two of
the Type F Magazines, and the 40 Foot Magazine were moved to the west side
of the existing north/south road in the MSA to avoid or minimize the impacts to
the wetlands and to avoid the threatened and endangered species habitat areas.
The access road to the Type F Magazines was shifted north to avoid the impact
to the RCW habitat. The two cultural resource areas were located on the plans
and were not impacted. The Secured AHA and the Secured Safe Haven were
also relocated for operational requirements. Both facilities were sited to avoid or
minimize the impacts to the wetlands. Vass Road realignment was no longer a
part of the project.
Option 2 was the second of three options generated because of comments
received during the 35 percent Review Conference held September 18-20, 2007
(Figure CS-117-Opt2). Wetland boundaries were updated but still preliminary in
nature. The Small Arms Warehouse was moved to the west to avoid or minimize
the impacts to the wetlands and to avoid the threatened and endangered species
habitat areas. The Type F Magazines, the 40 Foot and 80 Foot Magazines, the
Secured AHA, and the access road to the Type F Magazines were relocated to
minimize the impact to the wetlands and to avoid the threatened and endangered
species habitat areas. The two cultural resource areas were located on the plans
and were not impacted. The Secured Safe Haven was relocated for operational
9
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
needs and was sited to avoid or minimize the impacts to the wetlands. Vass
Road realignment was no longer a part of the project.
Option 3 was the third of three options generated because of comments received
during the 35 percent Review Conference held September 18-20, 2007 (Figure
CS-117-Opt3). Wetland boundaries were updated but still preliminary in nature.
This plan represented the best operational layout of the three options but had the
most impacts to the wetlands due to the arrangement of the Type F Magazines.
The Small Arms Warehouse was moved to the west to avoid the wetlands and
the threatened and endangered species habitat. The two cultural resource areas
were located on the plans and were not impacted. The Secured AHA and the
Secured Safe Haven were also relocated for operational needs. Both facilities
were sited to avoid or minimize the impacts to the wetlands. Vass Road
realignment was no longer a part of the project.
Option 1 was further revised based on comments received (CS-117-Opt1A).
Under this revised plan, called Option 1A, the two Type F Magazines and the 40
Foot Magazine were rearranged to better avoid the wetlands.
Subsequent comments concerning Option 1A led to further refinements of that
scenario (Figure CS-117-OptlA). An access road was added between the Issue
Area and the existing north/south road in the MSA. No additional impacts to the
wetlands and the threatened and endangered species habitat areas were
incurred from these revisions.
Option 1B was developed as a further refinement of the revised Option 1A
scenario based on additional comments received (Figure CS-117-Optl B). The
two Type F Magazines and the 40 Foot Magazine were shifted farther south to
avoid an endangered species habitat area. This was the preferred option to
proceed to 65 percent design.
The Overall Site Plan is the 65 percent site plan developed by Omaha District
based on Option 1 B (Figure CS-100). Wetland boundaries were updated again,
but were still considered preliminary in nature. Topographic survey was still not
available at this stage in the design.
The Preferred Conceptual Overall Site Plan was developed from comments
received during the 65 percent Review Conference and VE Workshop, held
December 11-12, 2007. Preliminary wetland boundaries were updated but still
not tied into the topographic survey at this point. The Small Arms Warehouse
was relocated to the previous Shipping and Receiving Area, the Shipping and
Receiving Area was relocated to the previous Issue Area, and the Issue Area
and Tactical Vehicle Parking/Inspection Area were moved south because of
operational requirements. All of these facilities were sited to avoid or minimize
the impacts to the wetlands and to avoid the RCW habitat areas. The access
road to the Type F Magazines was shifted north to avoid the impact to the RCW
10
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
habitat and to minimize the impact to the wetlands. The access road was also
shortened and a turn around added for fire fighting vehicles. All of the Type F
Magazines, the 40 Foot Magazine, and the 80 Foot Magazines were now sited
east of the existing MSA. All of these Magazines were sited to avoid or minimize
the impacts to the wetlands and to avoid the RCW habitat area.
The Preferred Conceptual Overall Site Plan was revised following comments
received during the 108th ADA & ASP - PDT Conference held February 27-28,
2008. Preliminary wetland boundaries were updated and preliminary topographic
survey was used to create this site plan. The Residue Yard was reduced in size,
the Tactical Vehicle Parking/Inspection Area was decreased in size, the Secured
Holding Area/Safe Haven was deceased in size to provide pull-over capability for
four commercial trucks and designated as an Inspection Station for trucks
containing ammunition and explosives, and the 40 Foot Magazine, Shipping
/Receiving Blocking and Bracing Building, the refueling point, and one Entry
Control facility were eliminated from the project. The access road alignment to
the Type F Magazines and the new access road off of Vass Road were adjusted
to minimize the impact to the wetlands.
The Composite Site Plan site plan was created following jurisdictional water
surveys with the final wetland boundaries and final topographic survey (Figure
CS-100). All facilities and roads were adjusted for final grading purposes and to
avoid or minimize the impacts to the wetlands and to avoid the RCW habitat
area.
Section D1 b: Measures Taken in Construction
Where streams are to be crossed, box culverts sized appropriately to
accommodate stream flows will be placed perpendicular to the channel. Utilities
will be installed as subsurface lines. These will be routed within the shoulder of
the paved roads in most cases. In an effort to avoid and/or minimize impacts to
jurisdictional waters, utility crossings will be routed so that stream or wetland
crossings will be contained within the fill required for roadway crossings, thereby
avoiding additional impacts. Where this is not possible, utilities will cross under
stream channels by jack/boring a duct sleeve under the stream in lieu of using an
open trench to avoid impacts.
Section D4: Payment to In-Lieu Fee Program
Bragg proposes to mitigate for the proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters by
utilizing mitigation credits available in the Jumping Run Mitigation Bank located
on Bragg property. The Jumping Run site contains a restored stream and
riparian wetland areas and is located to the east of the project site on the
Overhills parcel. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has indicated that
33.68 acres of riparian wetland and 3,693 feet of stream credit are available to
Bragg as restoration credits from the Jumping Run Mitigation Bank (Kelly
Williams, EEP, pers. comm. 9/25/08). The ratio for restored wetlands is 1:1 and
for excellent quality perennial streams the restoration ratio is 3:1; therefore, 4.63
11
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
acres of wetland and 2,892 linear feet of stream credit will be needed. Because
the proposed project falls within HUC 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin,
these credits are available from the EEP at a rate of $323 per stream foot and
$59,600 per acre of riparian wetland. The projected total cost for mitigation for
these impacts will be $1,210,064.
Mitigation efforts will be coordinated between the Directorate of Public Works,
Environmental Management Branch, EEP, and the USACE Wilmington District
office.
Section E: Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan
Section E4: Overall Percent Impervious Surface
Drainage areas were delineated per NCAC 2B 15A: 02H.1000 (Annette Lucas,
NCDWQ, pers. comm. 11/10/08) to determine the impervious percentage of the
entire area contributing surface runoff to a single point. The area of the project
site containing wetlands and streams was subdivided into four separate drainage
areas. The impervious cover in each of the four drainage areas was 4.5 percent,
7.0 percent, 3.6 percent, and 22.1 percent. Therefore, a Stormwater
Management Plan was not required for the project because the impervious cover
in any of the drainage areas did not exceed 24 percent.
Section F: Supplementary Documentation
Section F1: Environmental Documentation
The proposed project is located on federally owned land and will use federal
funds. Environmental documentation required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) has been approved and a Finding of no Significant Impact
(FONSI) has been issued for this project. The FONSI titled Final Finding Of No
Significant Impact Grow The Army Actions At Fort Bragg North Carolina is
included in Appendix A of this PCN package.
Section F3: Cumulative Impacts
This site is completely controlled by Fort Bragg as a secure facility. No additional
development is predicted that would affect downstream water quality.
Section F4: Sewage disposal
Wastewater from the proposed facilities will be drained into the existing Bragg
sanitary sewer system using new sanitary sewers and force mains.
Section FS: Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat
Known populations of threatened and endangered species are monitored closely
by Bragg Environmental Division-Endangered Species Branch staff. Bragg has
populations of three federally-listed endangered plants: Rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulifolia); Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii); and American
chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). The 1997 Bragg Endangered Species
Management Plan (ESMP) provides monitoring and management programs for
all three species, with the primary emphasis aimed at reaching recovery.
12
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
The three federally-listed plant species and their associated habitats were
assessed and evaluated within the review area using results of two
comprehensive rare flora surveys conducted in 1991 through 1993 and 1998
through 1999, respectively by the Endangered Species Branch (ESMP).
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis also determined no rare plant
concerns. In addition, GIS analysis and field surveys in 2007 determined no
individuals were present, however suitable habitat was found for Michaux's
sumac and Rough-leaved loosestrife. Field surveys during the growing season
determined the absence of any endangered plant species. The red cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) and the Saint Francis' Satyr butterfly
(Neonympha mitchellii francisci) are the only Federally-listed animal species
known to occur at Bragg. No land within the review area has been designated by
USFWS as Critical Habitat for protected species. The ESMP provides monitoring
and management programs for the RCW and Saint Francis' Satyr, with the
primary emphasis aimed at recovery. The Saint Francis' Satyr is not known to be
located in any of the proposed project area footprint. Additional field evaluations
conducted in August 2007 determined no suitable habitat occurs in the Pope
AFB ASP project site. The project footprint does encroach upon RCW forage
habitat, although most of the impacted forest habitat is non suitable forage. A few
surrounding known occupied RCW cluster's forage partitions will be minimally
impacted from forage loss. In addition, several unoccupied RCW clusters will
also be impacted from forage loss. The loss of habitat stemming from the project
will not affect RCW recovery at Bragg. Based on the results of a Biological
Assessment in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), it concluded the project will have a
"no effect" determination on four federally endangered species (Saint Francis'
Satyr, Rough-leaved loosestrife, American chaffseed, and Michaux's sumac) and
a "not likely to adversely affect" determination for the RCW at Bragg. Detailed
examinations of the existing conditions at the project site are provided in the
document titled Grow The Army, Environmental Assessment, Fort Bragg NC
which is attached to this PCN package. Further details on project impacts to
threatened and endangered species may be found in section 7 informal
consultation process between Bragg and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) through the Bragg Biological Assessment and USWFWS
concurrence letter.
13
22
24
24
87
22
Project Site
Pines
Fort Bragg
87
24

is
20
Legend
Fort Bragg Boundary

F
County Fort Bragg
Populated Places o 2 a s a
- interstate Vicinity Map Miles
i
= US Hwy at_e Fort. m-

State Hwy ac+d,n to Stem Nn[: I P:; :rate
=Wm Hoff '-arNma FRs ,?Y; =eec
neymiN &;. The Laura x',cKx Gtwo
MAP INDEX
1aH5 Y
Resgi
FT. BRAGG

1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
1 ? 1
Ig 1
la r
1 1
r 1
1 1
1 1
1 i
r
I, yI? r
--ii 1
1 1
1 k,7?
0
------ 1
1
1
gl
? a 1
i ?w I
p\1 I
1
1
`. 1
ww ?\
w \
w
w
ww
k
w
\\ /? \ 'KI
??z
8
d
\\ ?a, i ?, ? <'? _
\,\
? \?
?r ,
?..
.: ??
...? ,
..?
,,
-- ????
,.
?,.. ,, __
/ Z W
w oow 21
o
\\ ?gu W ?O 3 N
\\ th 0 w
?...... \
OL
cu., o
\
A Z W
ZO-
? a g ? o
\\\._, \\ Z Q W pQ,
`\?! ``\(7 0 • y V Z m d
*04 LL o
d
c
YL -j
\
` r
t
j II ?? / tl Z D
sw z LU tl _.
c w J?. _
p( J ?f??im
F- IL Ic,
1\, U /
R W vv \? / / v \L
?-
0
\
N ?? / ZZU O
W ?...
1
,J ???ado /J c I .
-P`OiFIS Siwdwir?`1!4 Asa, v?iilea- a -asv-, ilo;-c9Lz 'rsi:)aroWe ,f -0
M K:10O © 600111"1/"-,
?
-- Z
z 3.c
O W
O
LL. ad
v v $ m #4 W
V Q z V M A F
\\ ., ?, .. N O g dd W p?
v-- c #o
S\Z
ZQZ o
? i -
\\\ \ i W ?? o {aN o v_
\ V.
----------- \\\ . as w
\ t z ,: i
i
1 ? ? t7
aea? ?
N f
3 ul
/ ? .c or w
Q J j ?
?i gi
0
I o
.? II
. - v
.ZP'oiH'-iIV- 'All-l Clbl? m.<,
INd 6C=
W
OOuy,<
y??? WJ o
!L u O N
8 w 0LL w
fO
OZVAnf
&
g W
c?S ?8 c<Zp?a
W
?
gL
V
> yZ
u
W d
00 0
a `L.
F
03
f
? u]j a
'I
Ell
_ o
rx
s
0
w z
w
w aaca
w a ?? o
i ?
N W
d 1
\ O ZV ? T? j
O _ I
C?
1
m
! \ z \\
i
usU'S?I NHS i.7ddWl ilJ a ?I i,?U M -J.O ' ??43-l poi i11?" ';i"] ri!. ,
Wd , i.
3c Z W
a
oz OW QQ
C7 m G E W
dO o
?C t WpN V
A Wq y 4t 0 c4
oC
$o O tL W
z t=
` o g ?
ILI g ZjZ LU Z
S O W
?`Z\!N
S I 0.
??ay
> LU 16.11 I F ssm
0
a.
a
i
?d
0
Y
%, i
i/
/
uU'9U 1HS-'?1?V dWl -I-l-u irz?F .?I?U'M-dStl ??bi?oi 9/'Nf\tii? -
Wd LI':Z:S 8002/tlI/Oi
S
w
Y? LL
o w o o '?? -
? ? N
W
VI
p O m
0
c
w a
a
V)
2 m
LL >
a .z
'?
o N
N Na
N
co
M >
m
LL

i i
y 4 rna3no
�j3Ej sLL�
20
15
if
Q 3 s�610 iR10� lMlOtl AlddI1S Hg1NNIWWV N� z N
SS �. ialwsn>azaora uvw-e n \nalow� HwoH ocmle woi g v
fJ' Z
0
c� \
IJi N
,\ \y luo
41
N" .
wit
a' �J
g �
r
o
_ m

w,
b
ss
••_-•• ?
F I NWdO
im N? NVld 3t9TM13R0 Sy?t?
a
xPm
wo J ?
_
S?
cb
u
wmraeioeauo
...... dd6NWNM?fI
Z
co ,
in
S
i?
i I
I ?
I / I
I I / I
` I I
II / i
\I 1i / /
I
I
3 f )

p
Y

I

.
II
I e 9 I

o I ICI
. o
j
i`
i?
F? ? II
p ?1
I
9 I
i ?
? u
P+ p
I ? s
x I I ?
a I I //
\? I

/
? Z
0
MI
- _ _ % III

- ? WHIa910 Y?IDJ INOJ Aldrl?IgI1NlVNr s/!
aS>s? ....? .? ", raw?an?ore.uwen vnwi?wvai ?or?wo.
1.

IF
Y

A ?
' 1 III

r ?
I r
I ° d

i

h
? ? r
? Nh
?

i £
? may. r
11??9 1
A

o ii L(
i.
I ??? \.? a
rv ? a ? t' 11
?
` 9 1 d 1 h

4 z s
Z C
\,?
\ ? 5
? 1. ? 1.1 y9
1
CI
T-

t
0
U
r

i
A

r
O ' t
?r'nq ?eii-ssaresw,rs.a
,.e - -

m NV dMMTrMM s?

-___
am IIYn
uw® J:IMlY101?1SA?W/'9'll 1MDJ A1NWMpIIiNINV
VIf101MJ W)pN OWI?IiQI
V

_ I
\i
?I
l
? 1 I
11 1? ? // P
i
1n

E
I?
i
r? +
?p7 c I ` ?q
I 4
I + ? 4

4

w

t

U
0 f t
W obeli-s>t?e?nv\roroen
{
,e
e
>C
r E

z
?^ - CI Dili
V

? I? I A
?..,? WI1d310T1403O
u910vglf118/?YM'Y no
w OPiD? JlpdAlM118Ng1N`IIIM 1? In

a

IN

0
U

z
y
r
B ?
Q, N

W'W mT

m 1

i

r

,
nI
?I
i
y i
Y
x
?I
NOLdo0rAH3:B d
a1 NOLdo
NY1d 3115 TN83W
ayuvo lexa/,.s
se» xr? ? sand ?? ,?
1lWMll®ElB AYWST >1/N LTagtl

ha
i
g
i
1
a + I
Z 1
1

I
I/ ` kk
I
? n

5
? 1 R
1\ 1 4
t$ V ?? ry ?R1. T°

:i

1
Y
A

1

w
i ?
i
1 ,

1 I
0 1
[1 V m t m? .? nin n?MwuEr??s
r.'rtu/ao Sena uawan NVH 3118 T1VIH40 ?
nnu9o unarmvg
.umlaa ?,ae wrsn ?0d "'d'18 ??
Kanuq wean sane lxw

4
t
r?
--'- uua? wmo O
- - me3awe ? sam Hnd aus O
na! na,so ?ra? wren xar ?vne rnurwn (?
'?`:,° ? ,, ,vm„ hrquvJ wur mm LxN
---- ------ -------- -

? K
y

/r it ???
?C^ ?^"??''?. ? ? ? \ y? •-?
?

+ / t

'O
Z

l I
t
QQ
y?W?
r/
gT
I
G p ``I
} 1?

O
U

Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Appendix A: Finding of no Significant Impact
FINAL
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
GROW THE ARMY ACTIONS AT FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
On 12 October, 1999, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff proposed a new initiative to help ensure that the
Army would remain an effective and relevant operational force in the 21 "Century. The national security threats that
the United States currently face are different from those confronted in the Cold War Era, and the Transformation of the
Army initiative was intended to address these unconventional modern-day threats. The Army has completed the first
phases of this 30-year Transformation initiative and will continue to move toward a full-spectrum force that is best
suited to meet the strategic security and defense needs of the changing 219` Century world.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) which
identifies, documents, and evaluates the environmental effects of the Army growth and restructuring actions at Fort
Bragg. The EA has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and implementing regulations issued by the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)' and
Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR Part 651. The purpose of the EA is to inform decision makers and
the public of the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives.
1.0 PROPOSED ACTION
Fort Bragg is one of several installations being considered to receive units and facilities as part of GTA. The Combat
Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) units proposed at Fort Bragg would include conversion of the 1 st
Theater Sustainment Command to an Active Component unit; two Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Batteries; one
Sustainment Brigade; one Explosive Ordnance Disposal Battalion with four Companies; one Military Intelligence
Battalion; and other CSS units. As part of the Preferred Alternative for this proposed action, Fort Bragg would relocate
its Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) and use the land at its existing ASP to provide space for future construction to
support new growth at the installation, including facilities to accommodate the incoming 108th ADA Brigade.
In order to accommodate these units and their missions, Fort Bragg's Preferred Alternative would decommission and
relocate the existing ASP and construct facilities on the existing ASP site to house the incoming and growing units.
This would accomplish several objectives, since buildable land on the installation is in short supply. Existing bunkers
at the Fort Bragg ASP are in need of modernization and replacement, and encroaching development at the ASP
perimeter, particularly the proposed 1-295 spur to the east, makes movement of the ASP highly desirable for reasons of
safety and security.
The proposed action at Fort Bragg would necessitate the construction of new facilities; the projects proposed to
accommodate and support the GTA action are as follows:
Project Number (PN) 67107 Brigade HQ Complex (EAB -108th ADA). Under PN 67107, the existing ASP
would be decommissioned and relocated. The 109' ADA would then be relocated to the ASP site on Fort Bragg.
The proposed project would include the construction of a 227,800 square foot (sf) Company Operations
Building, a 164,500 sf Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS), a 15,400 sf Brigade Headquarters Building, a 36,400
sf Battalion Headquarters Building, 25,900 sf of Deployment Equipment Storage and a 13,800 sf Organizational
Classroom. An additional 96,100 sf of supporting facilities at the relocated ASP would be required, including a
surveillance workshop, material handling equipment building, guard building, inspection building, inert storage
building, and an oil storage building. Privately-Owned Vehicle (POV) and additional paving requirements
would equal 147,000 square yards (sy) of paving.
1 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.
PN 68773 Training Support Center. The facilities associated with this project include a 118,700 sf Training
Support Center, including 34,200 sf of Training Aids Center/Admin space and 84,500 sf of General Purpose
Storage, and a 4,000 sf Storage Shed.
PN 68798 Notional Barracks Complex. PN 68798 would require construction a barracks complex for the
108'fi ADA at the current ASP on Fort Bragg. This facility would include a 399,000 sf Barracks Complex for
enlisted unaccompanied personnel. The complex would also include 19,100 sy of Non-Organizational Parking
and road improvements.
PN 68818 Unit Operation and Maintenance Facility. PN 68818 would expand the ASP once it is relocated.
The facility would include a 150,800 sf VMS, 26,500 sf of Deployment Equipment Storage, a 2,500 sf Oil
Storage Building, and 161,200 sy of Organizational Vehicle Parking as well as an ASP.
PN 68921 Unit Operation Facilities. Construction associated with PN 68921 would provide additional
facilities for the 108th ADA at Fort Bragg's existing ASP location. The primary buildings for the project would
include 194,000 sf of Company Operations Facilities, a 33,600 sf Battalion Headquarters, and a 55,200 sf
Brigade Headquarters. POV parking and Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) Truck Company would be
provided.
PN 69353 Medical Clinic and ADD/ALT Dental Clinic. This project would construct a new building to
provide supplemental administrative space for offices and functions currently located within the hospital, in
order to allow a medical and dental facility to be placed in the hospital proper. Once these functions are
relocated to the new administrative offices, which would occupy approximately 69,700 sf adjacent to the
existing hospital, the vacated space clinic space within the hospital would be filled with a medical clinic and a
dental clinic; 60,000 sf of POV parking would be provided.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
CEQ regulations require inclusion of the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline
against which the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives can be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative,
Fort Bragg would not implement the proposed action. Organizations presently assigned to Fort Bragg would continue
to train at and operate from the post. No units would relocate from overseas locations. No new units would be
established. Fort Bragg would use its current inventory of facilities, though routine replacement or renovations actions
could occur, through normal military maintenance and construction procedures, as circumstances independently
warrant. The No Action Alternative is evaluated in detail in this EA to provide the baseline prescribed by CEQ
regulations.
The U.S. Army considered and analyzed one other alternative, the "Preferred" Alternative. Under the Preferred
Alternative, Fort Bragg would utilize the existing ASP at Pope Air Force Base (AFB) to accommodate components of
the existing Fort Bragg ASP. Real property accountability at Pope AFB will transfer to the Army at Fort Bragg as part
of BRAG. The construction of new ammunition storage bunkers at the Pope AFB ASP is the Army's Preferred
Alternative for the location of the new Fort Bragg ASP. The Preferred Alternative would be implemented through the
decommissioning of the existing ASP at Fort Bragg, which is outdated and being encroached upon by development.
Once the ASP is decommissioned, its supplies and equipment would be moved up to new facilities at Pope AFB, once
they are completed. Once movement of the ASP is complete, new construction would then take place at the Fort
Bragg ASP site to accommodate incoming or expanding units at Fort Bragg under the proposed action.
Other alternatives were considered, but not analyzed in the EA. These included (1) use of existing facilities at Fort
Bragg, (2) acquisition of new property; and (3) leasing existing space off-base. These other alternatives were
considered not feasible to implement the proposed action and were therefore dismissed from further analysis.
Bragg concurred with and includes the appropriate corrections and wording. All DWQ comments, including those not
accepted by Fort Bragg, are listed with the applicable Fort Bragg responses on the comment/response form. None of
the comments made by DWQ would warrant a mitigated FNSI. Following the public review period, this final FNSI
was prepared, signed by the Garrison Commander of Fort Bragg, and released to the appropriate local, state, and
federal repositories.
5.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the EA, it has been determined that implementation of the proposed action will have no significant direct,
indirect, or cumulative adverse effects on the quality of the natural or human environm ent. Because no significant
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposed action, an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required and will not be prepared.
Date:
David G. Fox
Colonel, Special Forces
Garrison Commander
Appendix J.l
ERRATA SHEET - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GROW THE ARMY ACTIONS AT FORT BRAGG, NORTH
CAROLINA
This errata sheet to the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Grow the Army (GTA) actions at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina dated June 2008, addresses the changes made to the Final FNSI following agency
remarks made during the comment period. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) of the North Carolina
Division of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) made several comments on the EA. Several
of the comments referenced typographical errors or updates to referenced classifications which have been
corrected and are listed below. For the convenience of the reader, DWQs comment number and associated
page/section number for each referenced location in the GTA EA is located next to the respective Fort
Bragg response.
DWQ Comment #3 (Page ES-5, Section ES.5): The number of criteria for screening project
alternative has been corrected from four to five.
• DWQ Comment #6 (Page 439, Section 4.7.1.1): The listing of water classifications has been
updated per the May 2007 Redbook
(1,? W://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/documents/redbook_ImUO7_full_with_cover. m website
for the following categories:
o Class C waters: Waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these
uses at a minimum.
o Water Supply I (WS-1): Waters protected as water supplies which are essentially in
natural and undeveloped watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted pursuant to Rules.0104 and.0211 of this Subchapter. Local programs to
control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are required. Suitable
for all Class C uses.
High Quality Wetlands (HQW): Waters which are rated as excellent based on biological
and physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies,
native and special native trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the Wildlife
Resources Commission, primary nursery areas (PNA) designated by the Marine Fisheries
Commission and other functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries
Commission, all water supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-II or
those for which a formal petition for reclassification as WS-1 or WS-1I has been received
from the appropriate local government and accepted by the Division of Water Quality
and all Class SA waters.
Water Supply III: Waters protected as water supplies which are generally in
predominantly undeveloped watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater
are permitted pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211 of this Subchapter. Local programs to
control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution shall be required.
Suitable for all Class C uses.
Water Supply (WS-IV): Waters protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules.0104 and.0211 of this Subchapter. Local
programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution shall be
required; suitable for all Class C uses.
DWQ Comment #8 (Page 4-42, Section 4.7.2.2, Paragraph 2): Per Herman Crawford,
Stormwater/Oil Water Separator Program Manager, paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
"The storm drainage system on the Installation consists of collection and diversion structures such
as curb inlets, catch basins, stilling wells, storm sewers, and open drainage channels and ditches.
All of the collected stormwater discharges into natural drainage channels. Additionally,
stormwater exposed to possible contamination at equipment maintenance shops also flows into
storm inlets which flow to ditches, creeks, and streams. Only water used to wash vehicles and/or
equipment, or triple waste petroleum, oil and lubricant (POL) cans is routed through grit chambers
and oil/water separators prior to discharge into the sanitary sewer system. The storm sewers
generally discharge to open ditches, channels, or creeks."
DWQ Comment #11 (Page 4-117, Section 4.12.2.2.3, Paragraph 2): Section header was not
included in original EA and has been corrected to read as follows: "4.12.2.2.4 Energy Sources".
Appendix J.2
COMMENT/RESPONSE FORM - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GROW THE ARMY ACTIONS AT FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the subject project and has the following comments and concerns:
1. DWQ Comment - The Environmental Assessment states that "To enable implementation of the GTA recommendations,
the Army proposes to provide necessary facilities to support the changes in force structure at Fort Bragg. This
environmental assessment (EA) analyzes and documents environmental effects associated with the Army's proposed action
at Fort Bragg." Clarification is needed on whether this EA will account for all impacts associated with expected growth at
Ft. Bragg.
Fort Bragg Response - The GTA EA primarily accesses impacts from the GTA actions and personnel
increases (2,195). The purpose of the GTA EA is only to address related actions and not Harnett County's
actions, future projects or capabilities beyond any relationship to this Grow the Army analysis. Additional
analysis of Harnett County activities is beyond the scope of this EA.
a. While Section 4.12.1.2 on page 4/109 says that Harnett County is currently capable of receiving wastewater flows from
the base, the draft EA submitted by Harnett County and the attached May 14, 2008, correspondence from the County
state the South Central Harnett WWTP must be expanded to receive flows from FL Bragg and a wastewater collection
system must be established between Ft. Bragg and the existing Harnett County system. Please clarify.
Fort Bragg Response - The EA does not state that Harnett County is "currently" capable of handling the
increases in personnel from the GTA actions. In fact, Harnett County's capability is not even mentioned in
4.12.1.2. The EA analysis was based on a planned project to construct a water treatment plant to service the
water needs of Harnett County which will have adequate capacity to support Fort Bragg following the
water/wastewater privatization. The Harnett County construction is proposed regardless of the GTA
projected personnel increases. The Harnett County Wastewater project being analyzed in the EA that DWQ
mentioned in the comment provides great detail on the capability of Harnett County utilities to absorb all
foreseeable personnel loads. Not only will the restructuring of water and wastewater treatment in the area
more than meet the post-GTA needs of Fort Bragg, but should greatly improve overall water quantity and
quality in the region. Fort Bragg will no longer draw water from the Lower Little River and its effluent will
be treated in the most modem plant in the region.
b. DWQ recommends that the adequacy of the drinking water projects be verified as well
Fort Bragg Response - The EA, at 4.12.1.1, demonstrates adequate drinking water capacity.
c. DWQ cannot adequately comment on the impacts associated with the "Associated needs and infrastructure would
include electric service, water, sewer, paving and site improvements" because the specific impacts of installing this
infrastructure are not provided. It is requested that sections 4.6.2.2 (soil), 4.14.4.6 (water), and 4.15 (mitigation) be
amended to include the effects of installing the necessary water, wastewater, and other such infrastructure to support
Bragg's growth.
Fort Bragg Response - Analysis of these media is included as part of the project and concluded that as long
as applicable Fort Bragg, state and federal permit requirements/regulations are met; there will be no negative
impacts.
d. DWQ recommends that Ft. Bragg closely cooperate efforts with Harnett County (and others, such as Fayetteville PWC)
in the development of the infrastructure needed to provide for the increase in personnel.
Fort Bragg Response - Brenda Audette, UP Contracting Officers Representative, has monthly meetings with
Harnett County/PWC who will be maintaining their water/wastewater lines on/off-post. Fort Bragg currently
pays ONUS to maintain Fort Bragg's water/wastewater infrastructure (failing and new) to state and federal
standards and contract quality assurance processes ensure that ONUS complies with applicable laws and
regulations.
2. DWQ Comment - DWQ recommends that the Army use pervious pavement in the extensive road system associated with
the proposed developments.
Fort Bragg Response - DWQ recommendations will be considered as the projects are developed and we will
try to meet sustainability goals.
3. DWQ COMMEN'T' - Page ES-5, Section ES.5: Please correct that there are 5 criteria listed for screening project
alternatives.
Fort Bragg Response - Concur. Correction will be noted on the Errata Sheet included in Appendix J.
4. DWQ Comment - Page ES-7, Table ES.3, Surface Water/Wetlands
a. Need to change rating of resource impact based on comment 10, below.
Fort Bragg Response - Do not concur with DWQ opinion that there would be significant impacts due to the
increase in water needs or wastewater treatment loads, based on Harnett County and PWC's commitments to
Fort Bragg. No changes in analysis or conclusion are necessary on this subject.
b. Need to list wastewater effluent and drinking water impacts.
Fort Bragg Response - We do not see an impact as we stated in 4. a., above.
5. DWQ Comment - Page ES-9, Table ES.3, Utilities - Change this based on comments 4.a. and 10.
Fort Bragg Response - Fort Bragg does not see the impacts projected by the State as stated in 4.a., above.
As concluded in the Draft EA, no changes to the final FNSI are necessary.
6. DWQ Comment - Please update the listing of water classifications on page 4-39, as necessary, based on the May 2007
Redbook (htLp-//h2o.enrstate ne. is/admin/ndes/doc imentshedhnnk i ma47 full with coverndfl.
Fort Bragg Response - Concur. Correction will be noted on the Errata Sheet included in Appendix J.
7. DWQ Comment - Please confirm that the citations for impaired waters on pages 4-39 and 4-40 are based on the Draft
2008 303(d) List (ht- Ilh2o.enr.staie.nc usltm dlldocumentsIB.D QU008303dList ndfl Also, please ensure that the project
does not impact the 300-foot buffer of these areas cited on page 4-43.
Fort Bragg Response - Source verified and citations are correct as stated in the EA.
8 DWQ Comment - Page 4-42: The third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph contradict one another. Please
clarify whether any storm water enters the sanitary sewer system.
Fort Bragg Response - According to Herman Crawford, Stormwater/Oil Water Separator Program Manager,
the referenced sentences regarding the storm drain system: "is designed to be completely separate from the
sanitary sewer system. Stormwater exposed to possible contamination at equipment maintenance shops is
routed through grit chambers and oil/water separators prior to discharge to sanitary sewers." is incorrect
because not all storm water in a vehicle maintenance facility is routed thru a grit chamber and separator. The
majority of it flows into storm inlets which flow to ditches, creeks, streams. Only water used to wash
vehicles and/or equipment or triple rinse POL cans is routed thru grit chambers/separators. This water then
goes to the sanitary sewer system. This paragraph will be revised per the above comments and will be
included in the Errata Sheet in Appendix J..
9. DWQ Comment - Page 4-6 1, Section 4.82.2., Wetland Habitat: Please state the acreage of wetlands that will be converted
and/or otherwise directly impacted by the portions of the proposed project.
Fort Bragg Response - Per Erich Hoffman, Natural Biologist, the impact wetland acreage for the GTA
projects will be quantified and qualified through the permitting process by the USACE - Wilmington
District.
10. DWQ Comment - Section 4.12.2.22 on page 4417 states that "Wastewater system requirements from implementation of
the Preferred Alternative would increase measurably, but would not be adverse and there would be no significant effect....
and Harnett County has adequate capacity available to meet the future wastewater treatment needs." However, the EA
defines impact on the wastewater system on page 4-1115, stating that "Impacts would be considered potentially significant
if the proposed action or alternatives would require more wastewater treatment capacity than could be reliably provided by
the wastewater treatment system, potentially leading to the discharge of effluents in excess of standards, or if regulatory
limitations on the wastewater treatment plant would potentially be exceeded." Since Harnett County must expand one of
its treatment facilities to accept flows from Bragg and Pope (see attached email from Harnett County's consulting engineer)
and a collection system must be established to transport these flows, it would seem that Section 4.122.2.2 would consider
impacts to be significant. Please clarify.
Fort Bragg Response - Do not concur with DWQ opinion that there would be significant impacts due to the
increase in water needs or wastewater treatment loads. Fort Bragg's conclusions are based in the fact that by
the occupancy date of the first proposed GTA project, Harnett County will have constructed a wastewater
treatment plant to handle current and future needs (for foreseeable growth). This undertaking is independent
of the personnel increases analyzed in this EA. Due to increased technologies with the new plant and
proposed water sustainabiiity measures, the increase in personnel from the GTA actions should not increase
the water demands or wastewater loads beyond the limits of the new plant capabilities (or NPDES permit
limits). Through a redundancy of efforts, Harnett County and PWC will each provide 8 MGD flow to Fort
Bragg, for a total of 16 MGD which far exceeds the current need or any possible expected need given a
projected increase of only 2,195 personnel; into a current soldier population exceeding 43,000 personnel
(5.2% increase). Based on an average usage standard of 92 gallons per person per year, the additional
personnel increase from the GTA actions would result in an additional 202,000 gallon load in excesses of
current treatment levels. Additionally, BRAC actions will reduce number of personnel at Pope AFB from
approximately 6,600 to 2,710 (591/6 decrease). Pope AFB currently utilizes Fort Bragg's water supply and
wastewater treatment plant. Since Fort Bragg's current plant treats approx 6 MGD with capabilities of 20
MGD, the combined efforts of Harnett County and PWC will be more than adequate to handle the
water/wastewater needs of Fort Bragg. No changes in analysis conclusion will be made. As concluded in the
Draft EA, no changes to the final FNSI will be made.
Also, please consider changing the following statements:
• Section 4.15 on page 4-138 that there are "no significant impacts associated with the proposed action."
Fort Bragg Response - We continue to believe that there will be no significant impacts associated with
GTA. No changes to the final FNSI are necessary in light of the unchanged conclusions reached by the EA.
• Section 4.15 on page 4-141 that "The implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in an increased use of
utility systems and services in the Cantonment areas and local communities; however, these impacts are not considered
significant or adverse impacts because each utility systems have the capacity to meet these increased demands; therefore
no significant mitigation measures are required"
Fort Bragg Response - The "vet" utility systems will have more than enough capacity to serve the needs of
the GTA personnel increases by the time the first GTA personnel begin to be stationed at Fort Bragg. No
changes to the final FNSI are necessary..
• Table 5.1
• Page 5-3, Surface Water/Wetlands - that there will be no significant effect from the proposed project
Fort Bragg Response - No impacts because there is no new information that indicates a need to change the
Fort Bragg impact conclusion (see above).
• Page 5-5, Wastewater System- that there will be no significant effect from the proposed project.
Fort Bragg Response - No impacts because there is no new information that indicates a need to change the
Fort Bragg impact conclusion (see above).
11. DWQ Comment -Please clarify why increased energy demands and HVAC systems are discussed under the Storm-water
System heading in section 4.12.2.2.3.
Fort Bragg Response - Section reviewed. Correction will be noted on the Errata Sheet included in Appendix
J.
iY
x
'4arr rrr'
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
July 25, 2008
Ms. Christie Lowery
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
c/o Directorate of Public Works
ATTN: IMSE-BRG-PWE-M, Bldg. 3-1137
Reilly Street
Fort Bragg, NC 28310
Re: SCH File # 08-E-0000-0386; EA/FONSI; 'Grow the Army' at Ft. Bragg project: multiple
activities: relocating ASP & 108th ADA; overall Army Transformation; conversion of 1st
Theater Sustainment Command; Two Air Defense Artillery-Cumberland, Hoke, Moore,
Harnett & Lee
Dear Ms. Lowery:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. 113A-10, when a state
agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this
review. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality have
identified several concerns that need further clarification. If any further environmental review
documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental
review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Valerie W. McMillan, Director
State Environmental Policy Act
Attachments
cc: Region M
Region N
Region J
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] LocadonAddress:
1301 Mail Service Center Fix [phone] 116 West !ones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-0 1-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail valerie.w.mcmillan&oanagov
An Equal Opportunit.WAffirmative Action Employer
wwa??.?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Valerie McMillan
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RE: 00-0386 EA for the Grow the Army Initiative at Fort
Bragg in Cumberland County
DATE: July 24, 2008
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the proposed project.
The Division of Water Quality has identified several concerns that
need further clarification, as noted in the attached comments. The
department feels additional efforts are needed in addressing their
comments and feels it would be beneficial to notify Ms. Hannah
Stallings with the Division of Water Quality. This approach would
help avoid unnecessary delays during the final stages of this
project.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] t FAX: [phone] Internet www.enr.state.nc.us1ENR1
An Equal Opportw* 1 Affitrna*e Atha Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
JhCagmhna
l
??? wA r?qo
10
Z. r-
>
Q `C
July 18, 2008
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Departmmt of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Projects Officer
DENR
THRU: Dianne Reid, Supervisor
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
FROM: Hannah Stallings, SEPA Coordinator
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
SUBJECT: Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Harnett, and Lee Counties
Ft. Bragg - Grow the Army EA
DENR#08-0386, DWQ#13993
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the subject project and has the following comments and concerns:
1. The Environmental Assessment states that "To enable, implementation of the GTA recommendations, the
Army proposes to provide necessary facilities to support the changes in force structure at Fort Bragg. This
environmental assessment (EA) analyzes and documents environmental effects associated with the Army's
proposed action at Fort Bragg." Clarification is needed on whether this EA will account for all impacts
associated with expected growth at Ft. Bragg,
a. While Section 4.12.1.2 on page 4/109 says that Harnett County is currently capable of receiving
wastewater flows from the base, the draft EA submitted by Harnett County and the attached May 14, 2008,
correspondence from the County state the South Central Harnett WWTP must be expanded to receive
flows from Ft. Bragg and a wastewater collection system must be established between Ft. Bragg and the
existing Harnett County system. Please clarify.
b. DWQ recommends that the adequacy of the drinking water projects be verified as well.
c. DWQ cannot adequately comment on the impacts associated with the "Associated needs and infrastructure
would include electric service, water, sewer, paving and site improvements" because the specific impacts
of installing this infrastructure are not provided. It is requested that sections 4.6.2.2, 4.14.4.6, and 4.15 be
amended to include the effects of installing the necessary water, wastewater, and other such infrastructure
to support Bragg's growth.
d. DWQ recommends that Ft. Bragg closely cooperate efforts with Harnett County (and others, such as
Fayetteville PWC) in the development of the infrastructure needed to provide for the increase in personnel.
2. DWQ recommends that the Army use pervious pavement in the extensive road system associated with the
proposed developments.
3. Page ES-5, Section ES.5: Please correct that there are 5 criteria listed for screening project alternatives.
4. Page ES-7, Table ES.3, Surface Water/Wetlands
a. Need to change rating of resource impact based on comment 10, below.
b. Need to list wastewater effluent and drinking water impacts.
5. Page ES-9, Table ES.3, Utilities - Change this based on comments 4.a. and 10.
6. Please update the listing of water classifications on page 4-39, as necessary, based on the May 2007 Redbook
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adminiruies/documents/redbook Imay07 full with cover.ndf).
Carolina
?t/atirrrr!!y
Notch Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet. www.ncwat%gt3HMt 9W Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Altrmative Action Employer - 50% Recy&d/10% Post Consurrer Paper
7. Please confirm that the. citations for impaired waters on pages 4-39 and 4-40 are based on the Draft 2008
303(d) List (http://h2o.ear.state.nc.us/tmdl/documentsB.Draft2008303dList.pdfl• Also, please ensure that the
project does not impact the 300-foot buffer of these areas cited on page 4-43.
8. Page 4-42: The third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph contradict one another. Please clarify
whether any storm water enters the sanitary sewer system.
9. Page 4-61, Section 4.82.2., Wetland Habitat: Please state the acreage of wetlands that will be converted
and/or otherwise directly impacted by the portions of the proposed project.
10. Section 4.12.2.2.2 on page 4-117 states that "Wastewater system requirements from implementation of the
Preferred Alternative would increase measurably, but would not be adverse and there would be no significant
effect ... and Harnett County has adequate capacity available to meet the future wastewater treatment needs"
However, the EA defines impact on the wastewater system on page 4-1115, stating that "Impacts would be
considered potentially significant if the proposed action or alternatives would require more wastewater
treatment capacity than could be reliably provided by the wastewater treatment system, potentially leading to
the discharge of effluents in excess of standards, or if regulatory limitations on the wastewater treatment plant
would potentially be exceeded." Since Harnett County must expand one of its treatment facilities to accept
flows from Bragg and Pope (see attached email from Harnett County's consulting engineer) and a collection
system must be established to transport these flows, it would seem that Section 4.12.2.2.2 would consider
impacts to be significant. Please clarify.
Also, please consider changing the following statements:
¦ Section 4.15 on page 4-138 that there are "no significant impacts associated with the proposed action."
¦ Section 4.15 on page 4-141 that 'The implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in an
increased use of utility systems and services in the Cantonment areas and local communities; however,
these impacts are not considered significant or adverse impacts because each utility systems have the
capacity to meet these increased demands; therefore no significant mitigation measures are required."
• Table 5.1
o Page 5-3, Surface Water/Wedands - that there will be no significant effect from the proposed project.
o Page 5-5, Wastewater System - that there will be no significant effect from the proposed project.
11. Please clarify why increased energy demands and HVAC systems are discussed under the Stormwater System
heading in section 4.12.2.2.3.
Please contact me at 733-5083, ext. 555, if I can be of any additional help.
Thank you.
Cc: Danny Smith - RRO
Belinda Henson - FRO
Harnett
COUNTY \l._...
NORTH CAROLINA AWWA
MEMBER
May 1,4, 2008
Ms. Hannah Stallings
NCDENR
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: South Central Wastewater Treatment Plant - Flow increase to serve Ft. Bragg
Dear Hannah:
PO BOX 1119
308 West Duncan Street
UlGngton, NC 27546.1119
ph: 910-893-7575
fax:[phone]
The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance with review of an Environmental Assessment that
our engineers submitted to you recently for the referenced project. The project covers the need to
include the Ft. Bragg Wastewater Treatment Scheme into our newly permitted South Central
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
As you and our engineers have been discussing lately, the current Authorization to construct" is for the
construction of 5.0 million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant with regional pumping station and
associated interceptor to serve an area in South Central Harnett County. The NPDES permit has been
acquired and FONS! approved in late 2006,1 believe. The Environmental Assessment in question
includes the addition of about 8 million gallons per day of wastewater flow from Ft. Bragg with provision
of up to 2 million gallons per day of additional wastewater from Spring Lake. Construction of this
upgrade will require expansion of the South Central Wastewater Treatment Plant from 5.0 mgd to 15
mgd along with a new Little River interceptor, Ft. Bragg Regional Pumping Station and an increase in the
NPDES permit. I understand from my engineers that your office is reluctant to review the Environmental
Assessment because the exact route of the proposed interceptor and forcemain from Ft. Bragg to the
Harnett County South Regional Wastewater Pumping Station has not been surveyed environmentally, in
detail. We understand that this is necessary to mitigate any potential conflicts with historical sites
and/or environmental conditions. From that stand point, Harnett County is prepared to make any
adjustments in the routing contained in the Environmental Assessment submitted to your office if
detailed surveys indicate the necessity. We understand there is some risk involved in approving where
the exact route may require modifications due to previously mentioned conflicts. This is very similar to
the process we went through recently with Construction Grants and Loans when we constructed the
North Harnett Regional Wastewater System including the interceptor from Liliington along Neill's Creek
and Kenneth Creek to Fuquay-Varina.
Our reason for requesting this type of assistance from your office is due to the fact that we are under a
strict time line with Ft. Bragg to have wastewater facilities available in order to decommission their
existing wastewater treatment plant by the end of 2009. The Environmental benefits of the proposed
wastewater concept are obvious when looking at the water quality model that was performed on the
Little River. All of this data is contained in the Environmental Assessment to you.
Public Utilities Department
www.hamdt n
strong roots -clew growth
We therefore, formally request your assistance with review of the submitted Environmental
Assessment. We will be happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss any other
options we have at this time. This request is necessitated by the fact that there is one major property
owner that we would like to construct our little River interceptor across that is highly motivated not to
cooperate with either Harnett County or Cumberland County with this endeavor. His property lies in
Cumberland County which adds another level of approval necessary for any legal resolution of obtaining
easement. The time involved in this property negotiation could last several months. At some point, we
may have to make a decision to avoid the property altogether. A field study of the environmental and
historical/archeological sites is on-going at this time for the rest of the project. The property in question
represents approximately 8,000 feet of a project that is over 5.0 miles in length.
Again, we would be happy to meet with you at your convenience and discuss any additional questions
you may have so that we may keep this project on track in so far as possible. Thank you for your
continuing cooperation with Harnett County on this very worthwhile project.
Very truly yours,
COUNTY
o M T,Iie r lic Utilities
South Harnett Regional w w i r - upgraae from :).v raga to t :i.v raga
Subject: South Harnett Regional WWTP - Upgrade from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
From: "Brian Sexton" <bsextonC marziano-mcgougan.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:23:40 -0500
To: <Hannah. Stallings @ncmail.net>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Hannah,
Happy New Year! We have completed an EA for the wastewater plant upgrade (and associated line work) in
Harnett County. A brief description of the project is as follows:
This Environmental Assessment is being prepared as required by NCGS 113-A and 15NCAC.01C because
an upgrade is proposed to the existing facility in the amount of 10.0 mgd. All of the flow from the
upgraded facility will discharge to the Lower Little River in southern Harnett County. The proposed
project will serve the centralized wastewater collection system as proposed in the original EA (NCDENR
Project No. 1354) performed for the existing 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional WWT? as well as the newly
added areas of Fort Bragg and the Town of Spring Lake. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Fort
Bragg and Spring Lake will be abandoned as a result of this project.
The work covered under this new Environmental Assessment is as follows:
Expansion of the 5.0 mgd tertiary treatment facility to a 15.0 mgd tertiary treatment facility
(increasing NPDES discharge to the Little River)
8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWI'P
14,500' of 30" forcemain between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP and the existing Spring Lake
WWTP site
Replacement of the influent pump station at the Spring Lake WWTP and pipeline
construction to head of gravity sewer interceptor (1.5 mgd capacity)
19,000' of 42" gravity= sewer interceptor along the Little River between Spring Lake's existing
WW P and the existing South Harnett Regional Sewer Pump Station site - this interceptor
will carry 100% of the Fort Bragg and Spring Lake sewer flows
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove
Road and NC-210)
16,000' of 30" forcemain from Regional PS to South Regional WW'IP (parallels existing 24"
FM serving SCWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD)
Because the 5.0 mgd facility received an ATC from CG&L recently (November 16, 2007), the EA performed for
the 5.0 mgd facility was reviewed, and approved without significant difficulty. At our recommendation, Harnett
County wishes to submit this EA with scoping comments due to the similar scope of the project and Marziano &
McGougan's familiarity with the EA approval process. We are in the process of performing biological and
archaeological assessments along the project corridor along with field survey and design. I believe that we have
everything included that follows the SEPA format nicely.
With that said, would you like for me to send you a hard copy for an initial "completeness review?" I can also
send an electronic copy if that makes it simpler and quicker. After your review is acceptable, how many copies
would you like forwarded to you? I can get you a copy in the mail by next Tuesday.
Thanks for your help,
1 of 2 7/11/2008 9:06 AM
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
AO"
FROM. Molly Ellwood
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 23, 2008
SUBJECT: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Grow the Army Initiative at Fort
Bragg, Cumberland County; Project # 08-0386
Biologists from the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project
description. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
During a resent evaluation, the US Army deemed it necessary to increase its force to reach the objectives
of their 30 year Transformation initiative. Fort Bragg in Cumberland County has been selected through
the Grow the Army initiative (GTA) to increase its force size through incoming and growing units, along
with needed equipment and subsequent infrastructure. As stated within the EA, the GTA is "intended to
align the Army into an optimally configured force of appropriate sustainable size that is capable of
meeting the current and future projected demands and requirements of national security and defense."
We are pleased to learn that within the preferred alternative the US Army will redevelop and modernize
areas as opposed to increasing the amount of environmental impacts to the limited developable areas on
base. To further reduce impacts to the wildlife and fisheries resources onboard Fort Bragg, we
recommend that the base continue to avoid and minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible,
particularly when modernizing ranges and developing areas to accommodate the increased force size and
additional needs.
The NCWRC has developed a Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Guidance Memorandum to provide
information as to how development can be conducted while minimizing impacts to the surrounding
environment. We strongly urge the US Army to employ suggestions provided within the Guidance
Memorandum to continue to reduce the amount of impacts upon the areas environmental resources.
This document can be found can be found at the following link:
http.//www.ncwildlife org/no,07 WildlifeSpeciesCon/aa7c3 imnactsTpdf In addition to the Guidance
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1 Mail aServi a Center - 0028 Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] : ( ) 707-
Grow the Army EA, Cumberland County
July 23, 2008
Memorandum, we recommend that the US Army implement smart growth principles, particularly in
respect to the new and on-going development of family housing within the recently expanded 1,000 acres
of the cantonment area, as described in section 4.2.1.2.1.
Currently the NCWRC concurs that at this time there will be no significant impact to the wildlife and
fisheries resources in the area, based on the information provided in the GTA EA. This finding is
provided-that modernization of the base is not altered to have additional, significant impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas within the area. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on
this project. At this time we do foresee significant, adverse impacts to the environment from the project as
proposed. If you have any questions or require additional information. regarding these comments, please
call me at [phone].
. State of North Carolina
Departmept of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing OfficCt/ 1t'?t+e.% /c i7
Project Number Due Dale: v,7-.A?-o2
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to he obtained in order for this project to comply with North
Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines
relative to these plans and permits arc available from the same Regional Office,
Normal Process Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time limit)

F P to construct & operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of cansuucxicn
30 days
iz facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application
NPDES -permit to discharge into surface water and/or conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater 90-12D days
? to operate and constrict wastewater facilities
permit
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of
(N/A)
discharging into state surface waters. plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
LJ Well Construction Permit installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
0n-site inspection. Pte-application conference usual. Filling may require 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit Fasement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal (90 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit.
Application must be submitted and permit received prior to
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement construction and operation of the source, If a permit is required in an 90 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC area without local zoning, then there are additional requirements and
(2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300) timelines (2Q.0113).
Permit to construct & operate Transportation Facility as Application must he submitted at least 90 days prior to construction or 90
days
? per 15 A NCAC (2D.0800, 2Q.0601) modification of the source.
? Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NIA
60 days
? NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and (90 days)
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control
coup 919-707-5950.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional-Office (Land Quality 20 days
Section) At [cast 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S65 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is (30 days)
available with additional fees.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOrs approved program. Particular attention should be given to (30 days)
? design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets, t
On•site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any arc mined greater 30 days
F1 Mining Permit than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued.
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days I day
? North Carolina Burning permit (NIA)
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than I day
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 five acres ofgrotmd clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be (NIA)
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned-"
90.120 days
? it Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction.
certify construction is according to P_NR approved plans. May also require
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of 30 days
Dam Safety Permit Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing foe based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
nnnn cmmnletinn.
y , e
Normal Process Time
(,statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
File surety bond cr$5,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that 10 days
U Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well any well opened by drill operator shalt, upon abandonment, be plugged NIA
according to ENR rules and regulations.
Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of pemut. 10 days
© Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter. No standard application form. N/A
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15-20 days
Q State lees Construction Permit & drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian N/A
ro n .
60 days
1 Water Quality Certification VA (130 days)
55 days
0 CA MA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
F-1 CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
F-1 N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
? Abandonment or any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
0 1 Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
0 Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1400 (Coastal Slormwater Rules) is required. (N/A)
1-1 Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules "quire d.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
0 Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
[phone]
X ayetteville Regional Office
F
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
[phone]
0 Mooresville Regional Office 0 Wilmington Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Mooresville, NC 28115 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] - [phone]
0 Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
0 Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]
0 Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
`d- d'
LO Lr) 0 r
C?? Nr N?.. 0
1.7
W CA (D 0 0 M0 O va¢
J
tt,Q m 7Cf) ?M M0
J U. cc) CO ce)
-7 C,4 co CR
OD ?e
> W
"j t1/ Q w O Q Q} V y o m° v
y U. N '5 U
LL u j Q (? C' t? Z u-
¢. N N
NU- nJLL
.2
CO
CL -5: r)
aim Czl,- F2 o -
O Q3 C
G.??y.m a?•Q?? ? ?Op
N C2 O u O +`3 lII
c CL CO) to 4) CL'°
C: 'a CL
WC0 iLltCi}h?ca DE
?N m CX C ao c °v
EME - oc
CSD?
glz
C l®m-. Q _O
to v! O
2 C +O• y
.> .; O fi y a O c 0 E
r r-
WW c0.2 M- L c
rWLto~40 0 oR,4$
;M iz ?c W ?yOl?4
G,. c o- H y? C2 m p Os
t?? m.L (D ,c
0. its pOpy
a? m 0 ati O „? O
3 u O O ?•c
--3 Q.
s
af.0 m U- O
L
??chmia?m??
L. O CL O O O
C 01-x•.
C 0 m c a1 00
cj
A W t O c C
vi O
_E-- L of E?7 cc-0 CL
co 0 m O
_

4
-:
O
?ooC

w
Q •q?mas?'sm
pus€m$0) U
.O
QW Rr-m l-O
E"'??asc J
1:0) 0 Z t
C C O O a) E C H
°
1
b Q
LVL)
?= au
5W2 `
? t?0
g° ?-caczca 0
5
aW
_
r- t:
0
w
© Gf E 2 E a $? ?p C 0
?
O
? Q'

1u a
aZ a1O=
2 0)
H«?Q
U).- W y I,- E
' W
j 10 Is
NU
V W Q -0 0 U
Z
er o
a' Q
? a 0 c c co CI.
CL C d 2:t- m >+ L ?p a;
_
U.
O E _ W ? } ca
c a,o? p•.,?v 3 ??
G a_

a
0
0. U h 4
c 3 ., (•5 v? co LO
W 70
c 00 Cc ? QUO H
O
O V Ot O C Q) E C
0 CL
CL 90 M to
c? p v, 4L (a O c3
C Z,
E 'z 8) S
.,., ? Q) Q7 U C fi C cCq O
y? &0 u
W W to O ?C E 2 y c
w 'a • h c
0ccLOu 3M i
mom?.??mm--ai a1
u E m-'?`?s C-? 3
am 30(0cafj3 U
r?nxrs0M?ra m
camc.cc????E H
QS V R1
?a E O mZ -a ;M
? WO?{ N d
C LGDP N
O o
A
?cZoo
MOM
U iaui
X30
o 92Vm
Cog?
N uj
.$C
? ? CuN'i sNtf
W C S N N
L)
33>>
M
cc n-. 8M
rtr c - 0
NY-?
rz
to cq S2
?
F
0
M
t- S u?
tp •p^
NZM N i00 N co
O
?Zy?NQ~€ &az? a
a'ONN ?•??•.?? p
it CD
?? cuim m? mui? aom ?uio,
m cV.. W 0
>> m1a °oc>°
w..
cc? Z a? ccc o?,
a o,c ? o m.?? as ?
y ? a)
C N m 0 0 h E u t5
e
'?O V W t0 0) to b0
pO?+? ••N 0 OO ?mC3 U
. co
«_ C c w O p O cow' O V C m 0 `p
tqO? OOO c. cc EEO
4) 43) w 20-6 J! '(4 C L -lb
Q
?_QQ h G 0 t co 0 Z m mapo H O m 72 to
R
c!1 V o? "ZZ >'=-w- m aid t1 ! Q e?
=caME 2: z cccmc?
ec t. 0*a m a?m 3 at?s ?U m
?
?
cU v°? y m c g? y a5,a Esc o
OCQS a) lII.1°m??c£Uc?c:COO
ca a ? ? w {n U7 O i-- co a M to a ar v, 3 a?
C Q)
roCO
r 7
Z
=ONE
J C? Z C
a N 0.2
Z>-:3u1
uj _j
C
Z CL
00 E
1% cc c
zuj 22
W
c
C
WW
zvoc
On m?
a??m
O ow
-.-«v, -- r- m cn a n° w m< ro -?D3s D70C)r'Sn?fJrcn?D?T.?W 2
_ b e ro 7 x Or ,, O a r 0` 3 in m O (001 0 m C® m= o of 03 m a 0 y
73 O -4,
ro
CD n AEI as CO) Q, a 0 ? Q, m M 0 c 0 7 N 3 7 s? ? ?} r CD
b M Z C 0 m O CL ? CL m O ?t
"oo??rn ci cew0)(D °LO) O -, `? -'ro?ro Qa??c?amCL ? 0?a? ?'ti
z t3(D(D = ro m to (A ,- -Q o? ?m? and © Hamm
Po. 0 Co. m 3• ° a?? w 3 o m gc CA 4)
c a?
CD `? y <_ o S `o 0 o (b
roc(D? cr o croN j t'ii CLRm ~+0 NtoZ ?"amcr0 dz` a?yT
Zo b CD -4 a a -1 -a -.000 a CO
Z? -40 Oro o :z .00 a ° O O
00 b a o o i?or m ro- ro`
3 roo'nz 3- ?0ro 3' 3 ? ? m a
?'--?aO?vD?O O^_ a;0 may ??m
aW ° Cb :? c m 3 vro,`° y _ m 'a,at0 N a0 ?.t7m ?5 3 ib a Q
CD m m< Cnm a <n ao rn?
C:L o w o rn ?? ? uJ m O - ?? 010
Z) ?0 o n m a m c3 g ?m m n N 0m N'?u ? D`?csD c N
CK?_ m m S p 0 (D N - T 0 U) cn
o m C) cu
ro ?ci? 0N U) y D? w
m z w
rt -- m as -- •- c
o y m o < co N a) ca ro
S mm m
13) . c yy? sv m l 3n o d v'• n C--
N 0 N"w QC? a o
?,-0 0 c c Cl) m < = cn ?c_ .. .« 3 a W o.
>'n? 3
a 3 a ?t? O n Q o w cu w ?n t`a v ?, ^CA-- _ > ? m
..u';roro ?-C om?3_o co Zm ?c? h 0 u o-in°i? - _ < u;r[t?a?cn CD CD 0 C.) b O a)
ca- to ? T O n. Ot - N y . CD N Q) O
U) z N
o o- CD a N rn q c m CD p 0 o (- of Z Q cmn Zl = C)
i6l D Sca a a <
CD 2 o v CD
' ro ro°° o a
0 3?
n o p NCO o c'(D o 3 G O ? 3 0:4 CO)
oaomrn o-% ro a - CD T
n obi 3 0 o?
c
(D
? -!oo$=Dn7C?-7CW
;a cc -yc^XC_C_ J C_M00m0 b sn M ua 3';,r ?t a O co
c. Q w ro
O mb to O.0 0 to 0 a =C •+ m ? O y fi K Oi 7Cab O m ? O 0 ?'O a? m a ? O co C
3 °_CO cu ?b m = Q? a 4c 3 :3 _.0.a ?b y p cD 3 i-? o o ?sm C.3 m =;D
groe? a mz+ rotn?ro0'0f?z 21 qg. os_? g?OW aCLa tt1
? :z a --• ar .. cn h t° 3 =" °' us a? o c
O S O >
o7O 70 3m moos sc o?
wx< ro om tav1 c?myroo a 3C -:3mazrom? ;r?• m "{ = c)m
m y a m W. =o,< c v`1 CD ;Yro ti cnn m =r= D• ?? ?C
n? o to ., m o o D'C 0 6 3 ro -? ..? O o< y. ••
MC o °c o ? ? s3eo ?ra'a`-° ca a, ob-?o aro is :3. CD m G Q. `"a o'er a'? ?rn QEx , m t„ ?? bm m ro m m- O D-O
P c c c erto -- ama S m a a ro Z) Qm z; 9b -10
_ -, ro (D _ ?-
o m? O 'D to m ? =.? CD ? mrn? ? ? so ° ; m? ?m<-gym ? ? m ;u S z z
O3
<.Z ro' m.? v, Ill`< < ?? m- m 70 °: = ca iy p tp O :Rz m< o < O <? < - o -n
< o a° rn (D a m "pO c
O R1
- ?a w c° ao "3 <.m ?O o oa tn? Q~ts _. < .;
O 'n ro OcQ _ O < .+ y n ro c4 ro `fro a n?.O O° O mO 0?L
, 0 m? ° 3t° 3 0 a ? T?v, ??3 a (•2 00 ? O ° ? ° O a a ay
c*j a: mD ??'?<3c3D?o.roO.c? cn xa a 'o?bma`?a ma?3(D 35.3rn-In
ma370 v,?'D 033>> 0 33 of%n?'"?c?n to ?Q.n? ???{?M
tC CO O I-D a) t0 to 7 O ? O 0 n o) m su p? C!s of p? si 3 w p 0
0
tnc a??m 3 ? ? .. to "M bccro E MM
MC 4m a c m ??v _ m m 3 vs to pv? qQ m m o • _cncD ??-mo cnZCg
,o`? $ o-• ?cQ o? rnrtn
?? r 3 ?c o `? -?a mrn m c R D ?W Ui0 0 ?S s•Q A
3cQ ovwo ° m m>> ?*n ro oro3mth 0 0
cCD m m n fna? °-'.in ?? ?t° m O ?? CO j O%b m -C-D, v m ??
rn QL ?,?.. cu am ..« °7 m m -O Qo -, 3 t7 c ° »v, _? co cn ?I 2
z
Z °. m a ?? -0=00 '0?--? oC+ ?o
0 HOC :5 e, 5 z y cy0 00v 0 m? 3m Xm O
?=iacu Q. ?C ClCip01G0 CL? chi CO G ?IZmcr Q20 1w00=.c
3 _m ?3 am my;?c? m== 04.
to co m m-° .%, c?D va, c) £? 3a a ® 'Oro o ?c4 0 C3 ;? W Wad; CD z
a S
r, C- < v, -tro c °+=m a y3Ig o o a 3 0- ? Q??? a c .?
wO a+ ?< 3 0' u, o ? m uro me 03 w o 0 O C ?cm _P o ? =e ?Sw W 3=MMSO
Z 10 1, one yy mymoo mro-,,_5i; oa00= o ooa oT S3?,m omm<
Z Om O x'-o , m I -C =r
??=50 =6 a?roCD)O?oaC z7c - am<?ZN w39b Oc - as aZ<a?*w3°1a
Q) :3 m 4o 3 a y m O a O c ma0 ?- ` Qc
OZ o
c a a,<
_ a m
3 ro m o ? - rnM!5 _.? c oZ o. '
o ,tea -cn m m m to
`?- C0 0 m ° H
;6 o o a, ".cm'a ,_ c_ mc,om m
- rnmo"
,= rn n in m am-•,? 3?rn?a
o c v! mca?'O <m7 O cQ?mm coro G oo ' m
O
Q? < > C', to ° 0 a`' @ °Ma° m-,ti•?-m0 < ° ?n :3 c Ca 0 c S. n?? 3 < rr, . m 3 <
0 b ° 3cC
o o ?y c m a a'c m o>'3 < O 0 < ° = 3 Dr' v,b mto m 5.m c rno cu o <.o
Q- CD r > ^ +?
cno N ?cro Q. ?tw Cb0) Etn:,oc3-;3mw cicc 00)5,
> m 0 CD 3 -t ao3o<'' 3a0c 3 ?
CD <; 5
$c?3_o,v,mm c? v; a3 ro b 0o -
o c? Dm g c `= 0 3 n m 0 m>> ? mm .<o a? n'•-? 3 3 3 v>> 3 ? m
S. 0
a 0 °
?.?0 3 tso °aa?- ;0.3?^3nsaccca - 300 o cc M
w rn m zaoa3ro5: (D umm --cc mm row=33^? o a3 ro_c_mm3^ -0 67 ^rt{n-1 Z ?c+? mv° vc, Q m ?m Cl)0) m5 -i0 Qt0 a 0 ? o -' ?-' O? m a•?' n? »?
ZD y `i 3 a?? a t^ n Ct3m n fl3nco -CSC ? Z r ?.3'o m -1? (? ro (nom tv
:R 0-0
Xrn CL CU ?•o' m °-' m ?.? o zn b m o n .? -I-? ^--CD 3 MQ•
0MM Q ? va°4m`° ; °.??nr(CD ai DD m cQC fiw "i??cg n
°?:^, `O-c`Da
w 3 ooD - ni ro ?o' ?-,
? us su 0 :,n,w v; °i+`? a?o:3
Tom' m
IIm' ? tb tr ? a ,,. .+ ? tp m O O'
2 ro -Z
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVER1I40NT" REVIEW
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
LUMBER RIVER COG
MID CAROLINA COG
TRIANGLE J COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
STATE NLU4BER: 08-E-0000-0386
DATE RECEIVED: 06/20/2008
AGEN=._.RESPONSE: 07/18/2008
SUIEW CLOSED: 07/23/2008
AM!
^^r
WTOF?G J:%SERVA TK% ; OFFICF
n yv\ 13??
GO1
APPLICANT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers y((1O?
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act I
ERD: Environmental Assessment /Finding of No Significant Impact
DESC: Grow the Army at Ft. Bragg overall Army Transformation project: conversion of 1st
Theater Sustainment Command; Two Air Defense Artillery-Cumberland, Hoke, Moore,
Harnett & Lee counties
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
FF NO COMMENT
LIN
F1 COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE: ?p? O O

JUN 15 200
Proposed Ammunition Supply Point Facilities and Unit Operation and Maintenance Facilities
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Appendix B: Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADA/ASP, Pope ASP
Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Jurisdictional Waters Delineation
108th ADA/ASP
Pope ASP Review Area
Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
April, 2008
The Louis Berger Group
Raleigh, North Carolina
8
Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADA/ASP, Pope ASP Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Introduction
The United States Army proposes to decommission an existing ammunition supply point (ASP)
at the Fort Bragg Military Reservation (Bragg) and expand an ASP facility at the Pope Air Force
Base (Pope) in Spring Lake, North Carolina due to concerns that the existing facility at Bragg
will not meet operational requirements at its current location. The existing Bragg ASP facility is
nearly 50 years old and consists of 43 ammunition storage structures. This facility constitutes
part of the installation's integrated contingency operations providing capacity for processing and
out-loading airdrop and air land forces. Also, storage of training and basic load ammunition is
provided at this facility. The existing Bragg ASP is located approximately 1500 feet from the
installation's boundary which causes force protection and encroachment concerns. Additionally,
an alignment of an interstate highway (I-295) is proposed along the ASPS eastern edge. The
construction of this new highway will eliminate 23 ammunition bunkers rendering the ASP
inadequate to support the operations at the installation. Bragg has contracted with The Louis
Berger Group (Berger) to delineate jurisdictional waters within the areas of the proposed
activities. Berger conducted field survey operations within a review area adjacent to the Pope
ASP between October 9 and December 14 of 2007 and identified approximately 24,984 linear
feet of stream charnel and 125 acres of wetland. A jurisdictional determination field view was
held on January 3, 2008 with the USACE (Richard Spencer), NCDWQ (Ken Averitte), Bragg
(Erich Hoffman) and Berger (Ray Bode). At that time a verbal approval was given of the
delineated features.
The Pope ASP review area encompassed approximately 800 acres of primarily forested land
located in Cumberland County, North Carolina northwest of Spring Lake. It is approximately 4
miles west of the intersection with Vass Road (NC 690) and NC 87 lying between Manchester
Road and Vass Road, bordered to the south by the Little River, and is approximately two and one
half miles northwest of the airfields at Pope Air Force Base (Index Figure). The review area is
located within the Little River Drainage Basin within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC
003030004080080) in the Sand Hills ecoregion of the state.'
Methods
The extent and nature of wetlands within the review area was initially evaluated by using
existing documentation such as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' topographic mapping,
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Mapping, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping. ","', 'V Aerial photographs of the
review area were also utilized.
Wetland boundaries were delineated in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, (January, 1987). Stream
channels were identified by using indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality stream rating method, and the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) stream rating method.", ' Jurisdictional boundaries were marked in the field with
survey flagging and GPS positions were collected at each flag location with a unit capable of
sub-meter accuracy.
Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADA/ASP, Pope ASP Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Findings - Jurisdictional Waters by Relevant Reach
Little River (identified for survey as stream SA), an un-named tributary (SB), and associated
wetlands WA, WB, WC, WE, WG, WH, WI, WIC WX, and WAF.
Approximately 6,540 linear feet of Stream SA was surveyed at the left top of bank (Table 1). SA
forms the southern boundary of the review area (Figures E12 - E14). Berger identified Wetlands
WA,WB, WC, WE, WG, WH, WK, WX, and WAF along SA providing groundwater input and
abutting the stream at several locations. These wetlands occupied the slopes over the left bank of
SA as pocosin type wetlands and graded down from these higher elevation wetlands to the
floodplain of SA where the wetland type was more typical of bottomland hardwood forests
(Table 2). The upper canopy strata of these areas was generally dominated by hardwood species
such as red maple (Acer rubrum), tupelo (Nyssa Mora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and water oak (Quercus nigra). Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) and loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) were constituent species and dominated in places. Hydrologic exchange from
these wetland areas with stream SA was through gaps in the natural levee and these wetlands
appeared to frequently receive overbank flows.
Stream SB was located at the western side of the review area approximately 0.4 mile south of
Vass Road flowing east to west to the Little River (Figure E13). Stream SB is not indicated on
the USGS 7.5 map Overhill, but it is shown on the USDA soil map for Cumberland County.",
"' Berger identified approximately 400 feet of stream channel. Approximately 250 feet
upstream from the confluence with SA, a headcut had formed such that the channel was deeply
incised in this section with the bank height averaging 10 feet. In this section, the banks were
steep but vegetated and relatively stable with no signs of major slumping or bank failures.
Above the headcut to the point of channel inception (approximately 150 feet) the banks were less
steep and the channel less incised. In this upper section, the bank height varies, but was around 1
to 2 feet. Water in the stream was clear though very low flow volume due to drought conditions.
The watershed was primarily forested although approximately 10% was occupied by the MSA
facility. Wetland WI was 100% forested and occupies approximately 26 acres. The upper
canopy was fully closed and the strata was primarily comprised of broadleaved deciduous
species such as red maple, tupelo, sweetgum, and water oak. Loblolly pine was a constituent
species. The shrub strata was very dense with red bay (Persea borbonia), sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana), and sapling growth of the upper canopy species. Giant cane (Aruninaria gigantia)
formed very dense patches throughout the forest.
The southernmost reach of stream SC (an unnamed tributary to the Little River) from the Little
River upstream to the confluence with stream SD and the associated wetland WU.
Stream SC is a tributary to the Little River and the confluence is located approximately 300 feet
to the east of the Rifle Range Road bridge over the river (Figure E14). This reach of stream SC
is approximately 1,190 feet long and runs north to south through a forested valley (Table 1).
Stream SC is indicated on the USGS 7.5' map Overhill and the USDA soil map for Cumberland
County. ',"
2
Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADVASP, Pope ASP Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
This segment of stream SC recieves groundwater from wetland WU. This wetland measures
approximately 6.5 acres and the majority is a bottomland and floodplain hardwood forest
community abutting the SC stream channel (Table 2). At the confluence with the river and for
approximately 700 feet upstream, the vegetative community is typical of a small stream swamp.
Wetland WU occupies the entire floodplain of stream SC where the vegetative community is
typical of a bottomland hardwood forest and small stream swamp system. Hydrologic exchange
between the wetland areas and stream SC is across the floodplain and this wetland appears to
frequently receive overbank flows.
The reach of stream SC (an unnamed tributary to the Little River) from the confluence with
stream SD upstream to the source, associated tributary SF, and wetlands WN, WO, WP, WS,
AND WT.
This reach of stream SC is approximately 3,932 feet long and runs roughly north to south
through a forested valley. Stream SC is indicated on the USGS 7.5' map Overhill and the USDA
soil map for Cumberland County. 7°,A" Stream SF is an unnamed tributary to stream SC located
approximately 3,000 feet south of Vass Road and flows west to east for approximately 230 feet
to the confluence (Figures A4 and 134). This stream does not appear on current mapping of the
area, but was identified during field survey (Table 1). Four tributaries to stream SC were
indicated on the USGS map, but were not observed in the field (Figures A-A4, A-A5, and A-134).
This segment of stream SC recieves source groundwater from wetlands WN, WO, WP, WS, and
WT (Table 2). Much of the wetland acreage is in pocosin communities located on high ground
and slopes over the stream bottom. These flow into bottomland and floodplain hardwood forests
abutting the stream channel. The majority of wetland WO is situated at the headwaters of the
stream and the channel originates in the lower half of the wetland. Portions of wetland WO
occupy the slopes over the SC valley as pocosin type wetlands and grade down from these higher
elevations to the floodplain of SC where the wetland type is more typical of bottomland
hardwood forests. Wetlands WN and WP are similar to WO in that they are pocosin type
wetlands and grade down from the higher elevations to the floodplain. WS and WT occupy the
left stream bank at the toe of the slope and are contained entirely within the floodplain of SC.
Wetland WO also supplies to source water to stream SF and that stream channel is completely
contained within the wetland. Hydrologic exchange from these wetland areas with these stream
channels is uninterrupted through the floodplain and these wetlands appear to frequently receive
overbank flows.
The reach of stream SD (an unnamed tributary to the Little River) from the confluence with
stream SC upstream to the source, associated tributary SE and wetlands WMand WW
Stream SD flows into stream SC at a point approximately 1000 feet east of the southerm gate at
the Pope ASP (Figures A4 and 134). The stream flows through wetland WW and the channel is
braided at several locations through the wetland. No survey points were collected in the braided
segments of the channel as no discernable main channel was identified. The SD/WW system is
approximately 6,000 feet long and runs roughly north to south. Stream SD is indicated on the
USGS 7.5` map Overhill and the USDA soil map for Cumberland County. X"',""" Stream SE is an
3
Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADVASP, Pope ASP Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
unnamed tributary to stream SD located approximately 700 feet east of the south gate of the ASP
and flows west to east for approximately 117 feet to the confluence with stream SD (Table 1).
This stream does not appear on current mapping of the area, but was identified during field
survey. Five tributaries to stream SD were indicated on the USGS mapping, but were not
observed in the field (Figures A-A4 and A-B4).
Wetland WW provides groundwater input for stream SD. A large portion of wetland WW is
situated at the headwaters of the stream and the channel originates in the lower half of the
wetland. The majority of the wetland acreage of WW is in bottomland and floodplain hardwood
forests abutting the stream channel. Portions of the wetland are in pocosin communities located
on high ground and slopes over the stream bottom. These flow into the bottomland and
floodplain hardwood forests abutting the stream channel (Table 2). Hydrologic exchange from
these wetland areas with these stream channels is uninterrupted through the floodplain and these
wetlands appear to frequently receive overbank flows. Wetland WM provides a headwater
source to stream SE and that stream channel is completely contained within the wetland.
Table 1: Streams Identified in the Reference Area
Name NCDWQ Score USACE Score Length feet
SA NA NA 6540.0
SB 31.0 65 427.7
SC 38.5 84 6311.1
SD 45.75 88 4612.4
SE 31.0 53 116.6
SF 28.5 75 238.0
SG 21.25 52 232.4
Table 2: Wetlands Identified in the Reference Area
Name Cowardin Type Area (acres)
WA PFO1 2.2
WB PFO1 0.1
WC PFO1 0.5
WE PFO1 1.9
WG PFO1 1.1
WH PFO1 0.6
Wl PFO1 26.5
WK PFO1 5.8
WM PFO1 11.7
WO PF01, PSS3 25.8
WP PF01, PSS3 2.7
WS PFO1 0.1
WT PFO1 0.0
WU PFO1 1.2
WW PFO1 41.7
WX PFO1 0.09
WY
WZ
WAA
4
Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, 108th ADA/ASP, Pope ASP Review Area, Pope AFB, Cumberland County, North Carolina
WAB
WAC
WAD
WAE
WAF PF01
Conclusion
Based on a field delineation undertaken from October 9 to November 6 of 2007 and a review of
existing USGS maps, NWI maps, the Cumberland County soil survey, aerial photography, a total
of 7 stream channels and 15 wetland areas under federal jurisdiction were identified within the
review area at the Pope ASP. Each of the delineated wetlands was dominated by hydrophytic
vegetation, contained hydric soils and evidence and/or presence of wetland hydrology. The
dominant wetland type was palustrine broad leaved deciduous and palustrine broad leaved
evergreen scrub-shrub wetlands (PFO1, PSS3).
Project Scientist Qualifications
Ray Bode - Senior Environmental Scientist
Professional Wetland Scientist - 1727
Master of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, GIS Minor, North Carolina State University, 2001.
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Studies, Warren Wilson College, 1992.
i Griffith, G, J. Omemik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, Regional Descriptions. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Corvallis, OR
ii U.S. Geological Survey (USES). Overhill 7.5' topographic map. 1:24000.
iii Hudson, B. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina USDA Soil Conservation Service
iv U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Overhills. 1:24000.
v NC Division of Water Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent
and Perennial streams, Version 3.I. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
vi United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, version 603. Wilmington, North Carolina.
vii U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Overbill 7.5' topographic map. 1:24000.
viii Hudson, B. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina USDA Soil Conservation Service
ix U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Overhll 7.5' topographic map. 1:24000.
x Hudson, B. 1984. Sol Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service
xi U_S. Geological Survey (USGS). Overhill 7.5' topographic map. 1:24000.
xii Hudson, B. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service
xiii U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Overhill 7.5' topographic map. 1:24000.
xiv Hudson, B. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service
5
E,i co?stem
erfiat
PROGRAM
December 12, 2008
Gregory Bean
Directorate; Public Works
IMSE-BRG-PW, 2175 Reilly Road Stop A
Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
Project: Fort Bragg New ASP
Expiration of Acceptance: September 12, 2009
County: Cumberland
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of th ..applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. Yc ,triUsf talso=comely°witk?All.nthP? ctAtw ?P;tP,bi?k r? f
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/LAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)

mpact Ca
e Fear

303000 Cold Cool Warm Ri arian !?!
i
an

Coastal Marsh
p 3 0 964 4.63 r 0 0 0
Credits Ca
e Fear 03030003
p 0 0 1,928 9.26 0 0 0- 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be provided
from the Jumping Run Creek Mitigation Site, also in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone].
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Ronnie Smith, USACE-Wilmington
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ-Fayetteville
Michael O'Rourke, agent
File
Sincerely,
.Ye4WAl 0' "?,01 . L-1-
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
LYXWA
RP,storr, ... ... PYOti" 0" lta& -
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net