20050301 Ver 1_Complete File_20050217

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
March 17, 2005
Mr. Gregory Bean
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command
Public Works Business Center
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310
I
u? 3C)
t. LT V
?c?,C-
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
a Quality
Divi rd@nf@#
MAK 1 ?005
, D'EuN_R - WAjek
" u5/WD STOW 7A 8W CH
Subject: APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
DWQ Project No. 050301
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Bean:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact
approximately 0.065 acres of wetlands and 148 feet of stream for bank stabilization. This work is
related to construction of facilities associated with the 16th MP Barracks complex on Ft. Bragg.
This approval is based on the after-the-fact application submitted on your behalf by the US Army
Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, as well as confirmation from the USACE Wilmington
Regulatory Office that previously placed fill has been removed and the site is now consistent
with your application. After reviewing this application, we have determined that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Nos. 3402 and 3495, which may be viewed on
our website at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands_ enclosed). These certifications allow
you to use Nationwide Permit Nos. 39 and 13 when the Corps of Engineers issue them. In
addition, you should obtain any other required federal, state or local permits before you proceed
with your project, including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge,
and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying
404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification. The Division of
Land Resources must approve any modifications to the sediment and erosion control plan for
this site.
This approval is valid only for the purpose and design as described in your application
unless modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If
total wetland impacts for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)(6) and (7). For this approval
to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certifications and any additional
conditions listed below.
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street- Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043
Phone: [phone]/FAX: [phone]Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Enual Onnortunity 1 Affirmative Action Emnlover - 50% Rervcled 1 10%, Post Consumer Panpr
Mr. Gregory Bean
March 17, 2005
Page 2
Conditions of Certification:
1. This project must be in full compliance with all conditions of the 404 permit as issued by
the US Army Corps of Engineers, including any mitigation requirements that may be
required as conditions of that permit.
2. Upon completion of this project, the Applicant shall complete and return a copy of the
enclosed "Certificate of Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when any work authorized
by this 401 Certification is completed. The responsible party shall complete this form and
return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality.
3. No waste, spoil, solids or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notice. All
construction activities shall be performed so that no violations of State water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. The application for this project indicates that approximately 48% of the project area will
be covered by impervious surface. Therefore, as specified in condition 4 of WQC #3402,
an additional condition is that a final, written stormwater management plan (including a
signed and notarized Operation and Maintenance Agreement) shall be approved in
writing by this Office before construction is completed at this site. The stormwater
management plan must include plans and specifications for stormwater management
facilities that are appropriate for Class "C" surface waters and designed to remove 85%
TSS according to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best
Management Practices Manual. These facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from
the entire project, unless otherwise explicitly approved by the Division of Water Quality.
Also, before any permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as
approved by this Office) shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater
management plan (as approved by this Office) shall be implemented. The structural
stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as drainage patterns must be
maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made
without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Violation of any condition set forth herein may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
Mr. Gregory Bean
March 17, 2005
Page 3
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This Certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ken Averitte at (910) 486-
1541, ext. 722.
Sincerely, Q /-)/
Belinda S. Henson
Acting Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
BSH/KA/ka
attachments
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
DLR, FRO
Central Files
FRO
Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands Unit
us-03.01
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGT
FEB 2 5 7005
CESAW-RG (1145b) DENR-WATERQUAUTY 9 February 2005
1-t:U JDS AND STOROATER MICH
MEMORANDUM FOR Colonel Al Aycock, Garrison Commander, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
SUBJECT: Action ID 200000975,q-6-L •1P Brigade Barracks.Cumpley
1. On 26 January 2005, Ms. Lillette Granade of my Regulatory staff, accompanied by Mr. Ken
Averitte of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and Mr. Erich Hoffman, Fort Bragg
Directorate of Public Works, observed fill activities within waters of the United States, including
wetlands, associated with construction of the 16th MP Brigade Barracks Complex. Specifically,
the project contractor placed riprap below ordinary high water along approximately 150 linear
feet of an unnamed tributary of Tank Creek in preparation for construction of two pedestrian
bridges over the creek. In addition, the contractor-discharged fill material into approximately-
0.13 acre of wetlands to effect construction of sediment basins and pedestrian walkways. These
activities, conducted in jurisdictional waters and wetlands, do not comply with the Regional and
Specific Conditions of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39. Accordingly, this work is presently
unauthorized.
2. On 2 February 2005, my Regulatory Chief, Mr. Ken Jolly, and Ms. Lillette Granade met
onsite with representatives of Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and contractors
with B.L. Harbert International, LLC to review these impacts and determine appropriate
corrective actions. Based upon our evaluation of the work accomplished and proposed within
wetlands and waters, the following corrective actions must be resolved by 11 March 2005 in
accordance with our regulations:
a. Submit an application for after-the-fact NWPs 13 and 39 within 30 days. The after-the-
fact NWP 39 will address the 0.13 acres of wetlands, located in the southern limits of the central
wetland on the property, impacted by construction of the Parade Ground and the Brigade
Headquarters Building. The after-the-fact NWP 13 will address the placement of riprap in the
stream below ordinary high water for stream bank stabilization.
b. The fill placed in the northern limits of the central wetland, associated with "Sediment
Trap 4" and a walkway, did not adequately avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands as required
by our NWPs. Based upon our evaluation, the contractor could have easily shifted the sediment
basin to the north and elevated the proposed walkway on pilings over the wetlands, thereby
eliminating all fill activities within wetlands for this portion of the work. Accordingly, the
wetlands impacted by "Sediment Trap 4" and the northern walkway must be restored to their
original elevation, placing and retaining all excavated material on high ground.
CESAW-RG (1145b)
SUBJECT: Action ID 200000975, 16`h MP Brigade Barracks Complex
3. My points of contact, should you have questions, are Mr. Ken Jolly, telephone (910) 251-
4630, and Ms. Lillette Granade, telephone [phone].
Z%CHARLES R. ALEXAN ER, JR.
Colonel, EN
Commanding
CF:
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
/North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural- Resources.
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Gregory Bean
Directorate of Public Works
Attn: AFZA-PW
Ft Bragg, North Carolina 28310-5000
Colonel Mark Held
Savannah District, USACE
PO Box 889
Savannah, Georgia 31402-0889
Mr. Ken Averitte
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043
2
Triage Check List
Date:1 Projett Name: ?`? Q''?
-o v
DWQ#: x"03 0(
County: con Lzl /al,,% ?
To: ? ARO Kevin Barnett
FRO Ken Averitte
? MRO Alan Johnson
? RRO Mike Horan
J1,61,
From

? WaRO Tom Steffens and Kyle Barnes
? WiRO Noelle Lutheran
? WSRO Daryl Lamb
Telephone : (919)73? X0 3
Su
The file attached is being forwarded to dour for your evaluation.
Please call if you need asst}stance.
1
/ Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
4?1?inimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments:
iI
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Savannah District
DEPARTMENT OF THE'ARMY
SAVANNAH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 889
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31402-0889
February 15, 2005
Mr. Ken Jolly, Chief
Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps Of Engineers, Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Jolly:
F
Eb i ? ?OG.S
DEhR WAIT— LI
BANo3 iD STOn" Q LI
";Cry
I refer to our recent on-site meeting concerning fill material that was placed in
wetlands during the construction of the 16`h MP Brigade Barracks Complex on Fort
Bragg in Cumberland County, North Carolina. As you are aware, we thought that this
work did not require submittal of a Pre-Construction Notification, due to the size of the
impact. Unfortunately, we were not aware that Wilmington District had placed a
Regional Condition on the use of Nationwide Permits prohibiting placement of sediment
basins in wetlands. We apologize for this oversight.
In accordance with your request, we have redesigned the project to remove all fill on
the northern end of the area in question which was placed to construct a stormwater
detention pond and a sidewalk. I am also enclosing an after the fact application for use of
Nationwide Permit 39 and Nationwide Permit 13 to authorize the fill and riprap that will
have to remain in place. The application includes: 1) Location Map, 2) Aerial Photo,
3) Previous wetland delineation, 4) Plan View Drawing of impact areas, 5) Plan View
Drawing showing new location for sediment pond 5) Plan View Drawing of proposed
foot bridge to replace the fill area, 6) Typical riprap Cross Section and Plan View
Drawing, and 7) the Environmental Assessment prepared for the project. If addition,
drawings or information is required please contact me immediately.
It is my understanding that you have no objection to our immediately proceeding with
removal of the fill from the wetland area shown as Area A on the drawings in the
application provided:
a. The State has concurred in this action.
b. All material placed in the wetland area is removed and the site is backfilled with
suitable material to bring it back to the pre-construction grade. All excavated material
must be removed to high ground.
c. All surfaces exposed due to the work are immediately stabilized to prevent erosion
of material back into the site.
Other than the possible removal of the fill at Area A, no further work, other than
possibly minor activities to prevent erosion of materials into the nearby stream, shall be
conducted in the areas of the project site subject to your jurisdiction pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act without prior approval from your office.
-2-
We appreciate the cooperative efforts you and your staff have made in assisting us to
resolve this issue. The Savannah District and Fort Bragg are re-evaluating our
procedures for conducting environmental reviews of projects to make sure such impacts
are avoided in the future. We also look forward to participating in training sessions you
have offered to conduct for our environmental and construction staff.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Oddi
Military Project Management
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
F 7 2H5
. ,-R CUAUI r
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. 200200975 DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or 11N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from D`VQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: ATF NWP 39 & 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: E]
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command
Mailing Address: Public Works Business Center
Attention: Colonel Gregory Bean
Fort Brae.Q, North Carolina 28310
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: US Armv Corps of Encineers, Savannah District
Company Affiliation: Project Management Division,
Attention: Diego Martinez/Pete Oddi
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 889
Savannah. Georgia 31402
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project:16`h MP Barracks Complex
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fayetteville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):_ Fort BraaQ
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Site is located at the corner of
Armistead Street and Bunter Road on Fort Brae.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Lat - 35.159, Long 78.996
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 24 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): unnamed trib to Tank Creek
8. River Basin:_ Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp://li2o.eiir.state.iie.us/adiiiin/maLis
/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: This site is surrounded by existing development
Construction of the barracks is already well underway. A small creek runs through the site
and a small amount of wetlands are associated with this creek.
Page 2 of 10
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proiect involves the construction of a large barracks complex company operations
facilities, battalion and brigade headquarters soldlier community center, and a close-in
training center. Associated with these projects area several roads parking areas a parade
field, two bridges , utilities and sidewalks. Normal construction equipment was used and is
being used for construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the fill areas are 1) to construct a
building and sidewalk in area C• 2) to construct a parade field in Area B The site
designated as Area A was partially filled when it was determined that the wetland area could
not be used for construction of a stormwater retention pond This area of fill will now be
removed.. The overall purpose of the projects is to provide housing for troops at Ft Bragg as
well as support and training facilities. The riprap areas are to provide erosion protection
around bridge footings and at storm water outlets.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A wetland delineation was verified for this site by the Wilmington Field Office of the USACF
A copy of this delineation is enclosed. These wetland are also shown on the enclosed sketch
showing areas to be impacted.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future actions area proposed at the site The enclosed NEPA document addresses other
facilities proposed in the area, but not part of this project
Page 3 of 10
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United Statcs/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The impacts related to this
project have already occurred under the assumption that < .1 acre of wetland could be filled
with coordination with the USACE or State, However, we have since been informed that this
does not apply if any potion of a stonnwater retention pond is located in the wetlands.
Unfortunately a corner of the berm for such a pond was placed in Area A on the attached
drawings. The area filled at Area A is approximately 0.075 acres in size. Our plans have
now been modified to remove all fill in Area A from the wetland area. Area B was filled to
construct a parade field. This fill is approximately 0.005 acre in size. We determined that
removal of this fill would impact the retaining wall for the paraded field. Therefore, this fill
is proposed to remain. Area C was filled for construction of a building and a side walk.
Approximately 0.06 acre was filled for this action. Since the fill is required for the side
slopes of the buildinp, fill, removal of this fill is not an option. Therefore, the total impact of
the project is 0.135 acre. However, as explained above 0.075 acre of this fill will be removed
to hieh around. This area will be restored to erade and allowed to naturally re-veizetate or if
required it will be seeded with a herbaceous wetland seed mixture. Planting with woody
species is not possible since a foot bridge will still have to be placed across the wetland area.
See attached drawings. In addition 8 areas along the stream have bee riprapped. These areas
vary in width between 10 and 20 feet and run up the bank 10 - 18 feet. Only 3 to 4 feet of
this area is located below the bank of the creek or in waters of the US. The total length of
stream bank impacted is 148 feet. however, since in two areas the riprap is on both sides of
the bank only 108 feet of the stream to be impacted. Four of these areas protect the footings
of the two bridges that will cross the creek. The other areas are being used to prevent erosion
below the outfalls of stormwater retention ponds and outlets. Some of these areas may be
removed upon completion of construction. We will also investigate conversion of some the
areas to a more environmentally friendly means of erosion control.
Page 4 of 10
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within'
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

B Fill .005 No 150 feet Forested
C Fill .06 No 50 feet Forested

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FENIA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:/hwww.fema.tov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if Nvetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.6 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: .065 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secif )
1 Riprap 28 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
2 Riprap, 12 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
3 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
4 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
5 Riprap, 10(1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
6 Riprap 17 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
7 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
8 riprap 21 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uS?,'S._,ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: The riprap areas 1& 7 and
3 & 4 are located across from each other, therefore only 108 feet of stream has been
impacted. The project impacts 148 feet of stream bank habitat.
Page 5 of 10
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) ) Wat Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
As stated above, we have re-evaluated the project plan and determined that the fill at Area A will
be removed to grade. This fill will be replaced with an elevated foot bridge. The fill for the
storm water pond will be removed and the pond shifted entirely out of wetlands The removal of
fill from this area will include removal of all materials placed above and below grade. After all
foreign material is removed the area will be backfilled to the grade of adiacent wetlands with the
hydric soils that were removed from the site and/or top soil stored near the site The other two
fills cannot be removed without impacting the foundation of an existing building Retaining
walls are being constructed to maintain all fill and keep it out of the wetland areas
The riprap areas are required to protect the bridge footings and prevent erosion due to releases
from upland constructed storm water facilities. Some of these areas may be removed upon
Page 6of10
completion of construction. We will also investigate conversion of some the areas to a more
environmentally friendly means of erosion control.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmaide.htm 1.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Since permanent wetland impacts will be less than 0.1 acre and stream impacts will be
less than 150 feet it appears no mitigation would be required. However, we are prepared to
deduct 150 stream credits from the Jump and Run Mitigation Site on Fort Bragrg if required
In addition the 0.075 acre area to be restored at Area A will be allowed to re-vegetate
Page 7 of 10
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at littp://ii2o.enr.state.nc.Lis/wm/index.liti-n. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ? This document addresses several projects.
Page 8 of 10
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 3U lect perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Page 9 of 10
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Fort Braga has already obtained approval for their sediment and erosion control plan for this
ro ect. The plan will need to be slip htl modified to relocate or expand the stormwater and at
Area A. A Toro u; T % gii -t o
i ti. 1¢r 7 ov.t S rifer S
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
Fort Bragg has available capacity to handle the sewage to aenerated by this project
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ® No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The project area was investigated for potential impacts to endangered species Based on this it
was determined the nroiect would have no adverse impact on such species

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of 1
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://terraserver-usa.com/PrintImage.aspx?T=2&S=14&Z=17&X=213&Y=1215&W=1 &... 2/11/2005
0' ' 2Knn 0, ' iMi
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of 1
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://terraserver-usa.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=1 &S=14&Z=17&X=213&Y=1215&W=1 &... 2/11/2005
0' ' 2Km 0' ' iMi
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action Id. 200200975 County: Cumberland Quad: Manchester
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: Fort Bragg Agent: Rahlff jl ijle
Address: AFZA-PW-N, Erich Hoffman Dial Cordy and Associates
Department of the Army Headquarters, First Union Building, Suite 601
XIII Airborne Corps and Ft. Bragg 201 North Front Street
Fort Bragg, NC 28310 Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: [phone] [phone]
Zone: 17 UTM: North: 3892255 East: 682589
Size and Location of Property(waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The property is located adjacent to an
Unnamed Tributary to Tank Creek, between Riley Road and Armistead Street, south of Butner Road, on Fort Bragg, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Basis of Determination: Determination is based on information provided by Rahlff Ingle of Dial Cordy and Associates and a site
visit conducted by LilIette Moore, on June 26, 2002.
Indicate which of the following apply:
There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed. The
surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional determination on
your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands cannot
be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a more timely delineation of the
wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate,
we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the Corps: The Corps will not make a final
jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey.'
X The wetlands on ynitr lot have keen deline•tted find the limits of Cor.ps'jnrisdiction hwe heen explained to you,
ITniess there is a h2nne in the law or our published reb th ions this d t rminntion may he relied upon for _a
period not to exceed five years from the dnt of this notification.
There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a.change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this notification.
The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army permit
is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is not required
for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any questions regarding the
Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Lillette Moore at [phone]
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature Project Manager Signature
Date bne M 2002 Expiration Date ine 26'2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM.
ceSAw Form 566
IMAGE VIA
M£TLAND SURWY
PREPARED FOR DIAL CORDY AND ASSOCIATES` INC.
FORT BRAGG
16th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
NORTN CAROLINA
DA TC MAY 15, 2002
1. !ws! u v ..o co. mar 0-0 a, ."Is
]. - PSI-1 am -.1.
0

I
a
x W
A rpl Ci[LCK.L SCL wS NO rtD
a. sulKrco ua.:vT
} W-S ItKA MO A.--1 W -ITS rCCC,.T.s
•[l W t. •ni PoSI IFO[TSS(D .m .nuua aexrssex ro
a nrru
IL[r4rc. Ir. w
lCaaSSMM.mL L qLM c
M
ccurwc lz
ravwl.r
•\• Nr,.r oT ..
cr. - caururro raver
4ND PLAT
L.OCATIONMAP
1 wor ro sc.r
E
? t
Y
BVR.TER ROAD J L
?. _ . - . - . - , - T - . - . - . - . - . - . - . . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - .
cn
i
art !
m Q 5 ,! r wt!` Pd
b
C
1 2`_112 8 i
.?,,. '1," i I ?[,,,. I=mo
I
a o Lo 0
-- ----------T-T--T- ----c.o------T70,?._._.;
KrCU=STRLET z4708 w DIAL COROY
0 0 AND ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
SlAL T - - ri
?,. M[ cvr w ar v n j
Laosl
a i n` wisrMOOa? oWL-na yLh?;bA?,.l%p? [W ..a.ra.rr?.r r, ws
_ _ 1 f HANOVERDESIGNSERVICES,P.A.
cW'ysRAa .raa ?u° ..,f,,.,,1na.y LAUa
l.M M4NMMS
5 S-3 ,. 1 L'i a H IOOj-0.'Po f-CCRS
y ?!'- _ t-???? !19 wMNU! SIRCr,
?c R-1
?nr t? ru w f • 100, rA< 41 U) JIl-99.1
C11A1 A•ar•ow,uncam
IOO, SIDatA•
July 03, 2002 08:18:50 AM
Panes 1 of I

I \\?so\I\1 fk I ?? I I / 1 I I N I I I
11 \? ? \?\\ \1?1 ? 1 ? ? } . I 11 I % 11 I I ? I 1 ? r
? 1? \\ \1 1 ?1 ? ti? / I I I I I 1 I I
\ 1 \ 11 11 1 I l 1 / l 1 PROP. F8-S1 r I I r I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 I .I I.E.(IN)=25230 -? W, 414-1
? 1 I 1
/
258.62' PROP.
?I
P 1
/TW-24a3a- RAP P NGE
o 1 1 I 13p' 4NL 245.0 •1 TBw 48.38 POOL I I 1 I I
°° 1 1 I ! <!T= 245.10
1.3 1 I 1 11Y pr / PROP. RAINING WALL/ OF 714 RCPII® 290% I I
1 N 1 I I i l l l ROP. WOOD OOT l l \\ 1 I 1 I
/ BRIDGE A ROS
??in 1 ` III 1 I 1 I I I r. / o DS 30IPROP. S1cPS \ 257 2
I _ I III I I • I / N 67 RISE/13Y TREAD 1 25
1 y2 111 1 I? / / r \ 1p.0 FT. DROP f\ =.261.
254!9 / FG-252. 4 I X62
N 1 I 1 I I I =? 8t- OT. OF HATCHED AREA= 263
s -
1 J I I / ITEP 262.. BORRO.W/TOPSOIL'DSPOSAL AREA
/ I I I1 w 2 s.•24? N / ti 26?
X258 2 !-Tw ? ?? F I It / N? i FG-260.at r I ry 266
a I I II 71/ / cNn TOP OF STEP `? `?? I . I I
\ G=267.3 I ry6?
1111111111111111111! 11111
l C> /* j/ 1ll1 l
I. \\
-101 LOR --I-
OP. BRIDGE / 5 ^ rl _i5?. 67.oa i..T I r ?1
ABUTMEN ?w=
TS/ / / ti + fG=250.81 J• 1 \ 1 I I
/ I 11 "If J! l -' BOL -OF-STEP 1 1 I I
I I 7 Iltrll -Tw=260.'81-. 20 PSOP. S>EPa
I I ;. / I !11 BW=251.06 6 RISE/13 -JREA 1 aI (- _ r..
I I I 1 / // ! 1? I ,?c;?- - - - - G.0 M DROP - 1 PROP. q?-S2 I I . I .
/I I r ( / R.E.=285.97 . l I
I I// r 1111 r -TW=252.00-
I 1 ` ?. 1.E.(IN)-281.00 ! . / !
TbP BW=252.00 I l r
I? I p l r. r 1! I . \ 1 ?. o
I I I 420 I I 111! \ , ` \ ?, 1 ?f : I.E (Ol/?()=255.00 , . ry .
iYAL1 - w 1 I / j
PROP. RETAINING
i ! r lr! JJf r PROF;.'- ITS 1 I/ . ! f , / ,
t11 I.E.=252.00•-, EXIST.-WETLANDS 1 l 1 l /.
I h I I r ! l f PP? RIP RAP PLOIGE \ \ .
_ ! . N
4. !rl! 11.11.11/! ? ? .. . / ly /./..
I 1 1 I 1 II Tw= 6> 77=
I II I II ?Illll?i J elf?/il ?? ? . . - - - /B 55.7 PRELIMINARY" ,
I I I II J1 J 1.l 1. J.'' s 1 ?. . ,?
I I I I J 11 I J I1 Iill! EXIST. WETLANDS 1 .255 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROP. NAG C350 PERK Pr
LINER OR APPROVED ?- - - - - - . 109th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
I l?l I Jlll 1/ EQUIVALENT ® FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
I I /N I J y// ._ 2sN23_.
? ffi////
FILLSLOPE/WALL , ?6 25- BW=259.21 talc
??JTERFACE (TYP.) ?- - - - 5 - - - / CIVIL BULLETIN #2
I 1 ! I///// ll?l ?l? a s - - - _ ` \ \ - - - - - - \ =268.28t-? ?\ I Fie f BDAC-502drg Dote: 1/16/04 Project Egr. ABC
=253 -!W Ile, Ne
/. BW=261.96 _
/, / / - BW9,- . ISAACS ABc
/ ,, - - - - , \ F- C Dram By. ABC
//
// " /// / /?// / / cnu acc+orx oex? : w o srn[rn c _u Scale: 1'=30'
Illrll?/, ??I t/l / BW-253.53
11 - - - - i
6Iu 11. 6, //r V /1 /4J4 /. 254 _,?..8720 RED ax uwo. wr
. CIIARLUTTE ^H C 7
2821>E no....,. n 7 _ n
V'@,
dl
4j?`?
Sul i
5I II .
II
\
f `\
NI
.I 1
1 S ii
? r
e
4c,
¢p}a. - I 1 4h /11 nl„,.. 1! 1 r. l I 1 , / , na. I t? n
?,,<, irrr CC 1 4 II n$ / r g . ?g
(. rr PRELIMINARY
Dr Cr m I I (IIIIIII I^l.l r/ r ,. I I J I r / , / t _
rar ? ' ? ,*°'~ qI I I Illlll??l'/r? , 1 I JJ/ I r , 7 1 / e DO HOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
1?;,. .. - ! 171 ? ICI ICI _ Ill 1, / / / 1 N j na. a / +' i r ' ! _ 1 t ! y I,<jRc
?' ` JI II 11jII? •i7/?i / i w" a < y . u 16th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
R?1- ti Tp-
POX _ + / , I IIIIIII 4117 /// i 1 1 / 1 M ./ .n fl lfb .. II. / I i k yy
4n? p hllul '/t r - __---„ FORT BRAGG NORTH CAROLINA
?' a W1 - /umn I ........... 1 I I (i I,1/ / r , I.oc
l I it III ? I ? , / , .?--
`t?.
II???14a' a?'`%-I?>an? '"' '? % ; ; ' ,' ? ? ? ,• WETLANDS/GRADING EXHIBIT
T- J p « / t?_-_-_--•'' i '' iii xn A w< cFem 0 nlroa ap m. aMks prq. x
?__- ---- -' - --- U\\ sad ==-- _ ------------' ,
XISAACS
_ }?y? _ ) \' eP[x.7ac?\?` f r„-'-_' - .. o o-.r BR ,.et
/
_______ vrIt M4 E.e sq: R ??i:?'?X??- °d ________ a•t uwrrc asn.,w uo ,.wl>M? s.ea I•.D•
-'? •"- '--------. '''''' 1720 RED CAN BOIl1LVAA0, NIIC e20
--
cI10, N.C. 7An7 8D2.0
exoRr (70I) sv-34ss,m ru 171T4) 527-e335
I qty E
1. 1
__ \ \ '-kfL. \ ` ?o>r \\ PRV=cx au ?? _ - - EDP' rolS:=_ - ?.?1 -__`_: ;? ?` .` .' 'J?- \? ?. ? 7?? /C 'o/c o
-rT i \ ``\ 1 ' acyA? f- - J ` ` `` ``I \?` ?`n 77 n. ` `?? ` `?\ ` 1 1 / / ?11' P1r ` '/ ' :
0 WM ICG OF
•` - IS
\ 1 bolt Par r 1. ?1, ` `.\ IC OI(IRl \? ?i \ DIET. a' Rl
n a _ r ( 1? ?I\ ?\ ? \ ws?ucvts \ . 1 ,\j•ua I 1 \ \ I
A l I r ' Ii 11111 f\? \\ \ \\ 11 r Nryv Rfi'a l ?`\ \` 1 1 'Y,/
?:? -, __ .I,. liul I ?, .I.lil? _ II I I...?I.I I ?I ;' ,;'?r.rmcRNu vv vv` vv , / 'I 11'1 ,' f ,1? ? I ?
l[{NIA151D 1 i' ' I- I 1 .I \.I' \ \__II 111 \ 1 1 I. I W Mld N.T \ \ \ I / I 11 \ I r I l 1 1 !'' , I 1 hl xa 1 / R I l o
1 1 < I1t2L = _ \ ?\ ?? I I 1! I 1 tf 116AIOlN 1 1
I tp? ? I= \? \ 1 11\:? , ICI nvl \\ \I i I I I ? i / 1 I I
1 1 I I I ? R I= = u- \= \ \ I Y i IIISa1 , 1 r l 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1
I ' ?1 \ 1 \ \ = w` ? \\ 11 \111. ??? \\ `\I 1 I / 1 I l I I ! / l7 I III I 1 77 1 I I 1 N ? 1
1 I 1 ?\ _ , l I ar nna
? 1 1 1 \ 5 . ?? ? , \, 111 I r0a ? 11 I 1 ? ? 1 I I I j r ? 1 1 11 ? 1 t / AAIn1ltopwrr ?lnla7u I 11
w L mn?iw \ 1 \\ Il 1 \ _\ \-s1c7 I 1 _ \k, I 1 It 1 ?` '?'\ I f I \ I /? I r l l / I I I 1 I I `
E
1 \ \ na. Daa? _ y211 1 1 \ I I I 1 / / 1 I , 1 N1j
if
T ! I 1 ! 1 I / I I I r 1 I / 1.
I • r¢w I , \ \\ \\ ?Dx, ? \ 11 \ Il 1 r 1 I \ /l r t I I 11 + I 1 1/ r r /u 1 ,kat yp
mlawl 74a_ , ? \ \\ PMF. CO.F.udpxq ? \ 7 11t+1i j r?' + i / 1 \I I Il j j I I I I\ 1111,'"" i I i ,j r
I \ FiC>71L71 1 \ 1 Plt 1 os. Rnyfs I,/ I 1
A '4. -\ 1\ \ \ \\ \ ?\ ?IQ? `12
TRW.
?? ? b 11 .1 f1 111 I 1 j II 1 \\11 ?`\ / I I I'r?1H''
.m Ma. `^i IM \ 1 \\ \ ?'? ??\ -?? \\-,?? " ? u .,I. ? 1 1 I I 11 i 1 1 j ? \ 1 q 1.\11 1 / r r / TM- I
AG.? \\ l \\ \ \ M ? '' -?' / 11 I I \ 1 1 1 11 \ ll T 1 1 1 1 / / I I N I
¢nla L l R N IA?j. Il M 7[ N 1RJ? FE iu l ) w? m"
IDS DIr1 \ b. e w 1 1 1 I \ 1 1 1 \ \ 1 I/// 1
_L? I? m \ ?\ ,.': ,l 4{1 1 w¢10l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1!/ I ?! ?1,?.T11 .. I nLu
,lu\lil.ulin`h I..I I.I ' _ \ II?? .III Ivry.. T:. .....I... \\ \\\\ ., I I 1 Il I I I 11 1 \1 11 11 \\ 1 1 11 I/ I / .'.1? z iitir, o-a \
'i Ira N'p (?. 1 1 ?`?1 nutli,t?l?l?iniiti \ t Ntiriliuttitui inr `?\ \I
' 1 1 I 1 1 III \:G >t" \-
1aP. 91D yK J ??alm 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 \ 1 Ill ' I'. ?t ulal}saD \
v o? M IDN N \ ?( morriaa I 1 t 1 I I
I
a ?\\ PY,IR - I I 1 1 1 1 1 6 \\ 1 l I
w
?,? I 1 `?h 1 \ I R ,+ uS ? ? xs?4 ' \ 1_ ••,? ` arraa ; I 1 I I 1 l 1 1 1 I I I °:- ? ,. , I
w mr
\ x rxr??..,F . SIl Nc `r ? ?, \ + r 1 I L :? av rxar 1 I + I I 1 ,` 1 I I I
\I It 11 A110F WN PR6`` ",:y,??.. wT 0 • I} \' 1 Il 1 1 / /IF \??? l \\ \ I I I \ \ I 11 I I E 1 /o
\ a n' d alga St a N Iv. t © "w•'+°? ``? y" ,o • 0.1'/•la rty 1
\ ?\ l___?______ ____ _ i{DFf ?» _ ;?iw waael 1 •.I ?..L•. \1 I I ,p. ?, 1 .•
___?___ a,______?_________ ____ _ -- IIIpUfflYa: ?''N?j pK ill.ed\ 1 1 1 ? I `7 •? Il J+' I I ?R/,?Ntla 1 \' I{ + 1 I
v, RI. M05 I ?.s a xaN x7N
( NV Ih 1St 1? N o- _ I 1 Aura rtA II 5.7311/
xr matt' rssv I 1 Ap 17A1.1zD ?\` `\ =1L?7Na 3\ '??\ o xv w. •N.d 111111 .•1 1 I 1 .I. .l. ?. .l{. F'I I I 1 I I Il \\. .? \
? IrN;:w , Spy \ W'xFnSa \ E wla'rrnl! w a .: 1 .:_,,.,pr- s I ?.. L . . . .1. . . . .11\ . . .I Ir II i \ , ___ \ i li.
TOP Sr W h u
\ ; 1 1 1 I 7 1 I: I I 1 1 [ \ j•
AAlxu_I p \\ WDnt7va \\ _ `` ;\ xR fa x- ? ?`\ \\ \l r .1 l 1 I .1. F .l l 1 r 1 I I I I I( I I. ? I \[
\ San r3\ `J. _ ?"~?? i. IIaA ?`\ ` \ l .1 1 1 I \ •-?.. f s /. I. r(1 ! I 1 ! I 1.'- 1 °x7e?" sw,a rcr CL
ur auN. . R}t aYx _\ 1. 711 1 1 r r I I r /
t
v T t, tt I yr'a1- rm
\ ;y i Sb ;' ,? f 1/ I i I %1>' mD%?¢01
nll
........... ....... ..... ysn
II. \
L 1- air s u ar\ t\ t ?` t = ny \\ ; \ Il 1 I' \ 1 \\ ,1 I ! - r/ •v, 11 1 1 I I t 1
T'T
\\111111{ 1.: \ 1 \ 11`1 /, G' r I I I , I Ie I ...1_ \l 1
01 1111+ 1 ., 1 1 1 I IY? /' ,' / I l I 1 `?? i I
ttxrn. ?-
I I^ I.y I I _._I \ \ ..7 I, E
t1NAa`l? mRJaJ?i• R??ANPPoP'S1TR'11 `. \\` \` \ \ \\\ 11111 1 11 1` \/?f I /'' / / 1 I It
wxl Y AIL Blp:al91 to RCR \ Ala r14 11j,yap \yy n19- A ADS aYN xPp \ -` ` ? \ \\ \ `\` \ 111 11 [61. ACC/1/3 1 '?"` ' / / / / I I f I I 31,`t 1 . I 1 1
?+r 1 \ ` 11? 111 f11. .1 I I r\ r 1 II h I I , / 1 I I I I - - I I I _
St}n7a EwA w6 ILjLI).nan- 'IVF`' ?- t M RLW
\ `Aa;M5x ID vu . \\ 1 I 1,1'\ I- I (' I I I r I 7 p I
\'h IED•_._ - V I I 1, \ 1Y„ I I -11 a cow.wm
11 29-m- ?` u? per., a ?wC-n1n arx.. 1
1 • I 1 I \ F I I j I I r I II I. K I` I d -l..:m.>z
w` . Y \\ \\ \l `?\\ 1111 i it,
11 \ '-__ 1 ?. `_-- \ \\ \ 111111 1j , I 1 / I I I I I I I I I I I f 1 1 I j /'{
?`.>? PRO
FFIE f. PROP.C.b}s\ \ \ \11111 r I` /noraa I I I I I 1 I ..._. 7
21r {!t\R 1' aatcslam? 1 1 1 / / I / I
m law( I Ac.xia, _ FF2.111?1 \ 1 1\ 111114?I N 1• I / / I uaF7stYU.rlua I t I I r l
1 ?? 'Re?Rt1a?s - \ \ 1 I 7 Ij era. m!(ss xYl I 1 r Io. r xps;u I r •? , I
t:. ,\ \`??. ICD.),1QM .. I >uN_ 1s1. 41D 1r RR II \\ \ ?+ 1 1 I 7uA ' ' 1 / Po¢? 1 6 1 1 I I I 1 ! I I _ S 1
4 4 1 Ntli wytFmT. ` N.Oaalll I \ 1 1 1 11 I ?h. =ISIa 7}tr.1?Dl xM4/ I ,(. 1- i I I I r.' ?, _.__ I I
nd1 iA1 I I I I I. I I .. .. I
1 ffi1- 9 "`S ` spa I7i'I•V I M1 11 1 1 1 1 IIII /1XR 1T I IF
1 I ` ??? ` T p '?- lasi I ?, , l\ I I I I III II I I I I. , i ICI / I`ccc\\ ! I I- 1 I I ! ? -, i' I 1 ? I
\ I
' • ` `. I ? ?i Is I It I I I. r 1 P1U \ 1 v/--?" 1 I I 1? I I
1 I '' . s l III 1 1 11 / yro, sfrs \ 1 _ I
1 I ?? - I I ! I 1 1 1 I I II II I , / M y$`+ Q IrsA71 rD l ? __?i? J ter- ?? fl . t?I _.__ 1 I -?.__ ? 1
I A bYl ti? A[a DWS 1 K Ai : ? _ tl T \l _ I Sig ? ' i A i IIeI,'? I? . ?, - / hia Nla ? IwAiO 1 ? ?. ?. ?\ I I 1 • 1 ? \II
1 ? __ IIIr.1l) - - ` ?? II _ 1 / I l l?l?l?i , ?N/ a i 79Sa NC ?. ? ..I I a 11 / t6
, 1
} .lion. ' .. = u .u.i..t. n n 1 p - ?\y.u . •???L n I I Illt r rrLni?+{{rr,V ly y', / i .j 1, .I 'I. I 1.
11 Z
_/ ?J 1,11 1a I
I ,
III B !_ .._? 1F _ al plus 1 C 1 / F I 1 LY r I; \\\ 1112 I I I T- 1 1 I ,? ll ' III I I ,l IIIIIII
-im
- - ?'
I I 1. 1D' 'J?. '1 \ 1 ,aJla?Iy ' I yt??/y?? \ 1 .. I 1 1? I I { 1 / I %
-1' 0. ? .,'11 1 ?rrr .r?l ?•'l•ugs+lr• i•\ >i \,., t 1 l.' 1. 'I' 1 /
Ynra la1 _ 'r. 1 I eaw 1Na _t. IF 1? 1 I III / I.ot / . 1 -i- x: -_.C-.t I I 1 ' Tnl
7i. Fr,7q?.
?o-
\ ? - I \\ No.IF - i Y 1 m r.I rl ? Tlr-???..? I ? r r .i?r. l 1 r vnr _ - '
I } h vy?wN?? x t Nr va s t. C 111 C, L`. t` 1 1 .. y?.
\ 1 ', I I '. p a9A• ?i ', 1[Jx}HA a}\ ICO?•nSS ?' " \ 1 Ir," / 1• I' '! ` ?`" n?? •ms. mn?c+wr- q'4,1 !11 / RRF777!??;;?. ?•'u , y._...
I / 1 61RAb(IV9i O?M4 /AA ' ? I l + 'F 0.R11?4 I 1 I I rl l / rl I.). 1F?? I1 ?\ \. / I I , ,' \f• ? / ?/ 1 ' ? ?.','I. / /.. '/ / /? / If 1!U.rl...
\ / 1,.. 1 1. '`?rla aArAT eavl I i III 11 j?1 711 /I? 1?? )C ? \?`\ \I _D"...IV , .., ! 1 /RI / . / ? ? .'`/ ? r. l / .. _._ ,? m lSwlh 1
/ 7F .. F I onutswcAAa I Illn f f??t~ u 1? y<'. / /I ',? ///.. ?.' r /.' / i _.. I 1 I r
?'\ 9// I is a,YlFwl 11 G?' ? I
1 / p 1 \ 1 11111/r r? I ?l m [n.Ke
11 / %/ 1 '1. 11Aa.%Up 11l 11111/! ?9 wa. ut to lwl \ ?'/ ? 1? >V! / C? r?. .i / ? I 1
' r ,fvltq I ? rl/ 14? k tRU at,mwD ? l` I 1,] Ir.l /_S1? I r r r? I 1
1 rlRwtll Ill i ?• ? A [(J '' / .' / / ? r 'r / .I j-, ?
1 g imcAR.' 0 1 t+d ors 1 I I hl a raxAlm s ^ / / /.', .,/ , r I 1
1 h \ If IsurlN r Ifl 7 G r r .' /. / 1 - I
,?
rC ? ..' d p ? a ami,' \ Y 1 I Iry , 4l N]at/.ItC r
?; 1 \ ./ s// IIaIl0Y0 1, ?•>? I ;Il4;,p??1,1 ------==xmA,al^!7--_--1••.. `; I} ' ` ?' / '' /.;? /. _
.! \... Rrr1 , 111iirry4% !1i/r?""r r , / , /..' / .?r/ r 1 /.. y Acl¢+plaa I
mLL.lf Nn ni_ I 4 i
v .rl\
h 1. . I / , 7l?i5/ r ! 7aphgJaa7, / rnv/ 1 F .w:171 /
1 T1 /
1' ..' h . ?.,?. ..?. ?? 'Il .? h'?1'.'hlll'? 6A' /'/ 'r'lr ?-- t7?1'/?.,/.? / r/,'? .,?, '/_. '
? h I a•/ / I ,7rir?- / /
A IS
VAS ?-10 y...wllun.ul............la.ll- ?Ilul.l .ILtR 1 i''I ' / w»?I.?Inl.l..? f?r, > ?v
\` aDaa 0 /``,. C II - - .n urL 1 rn 1 ' r c u.n? - , / c .? - © ---77
d' W0. G+SJ. ?.• ` - - 1 1 1 .3 SC-IM }q I I (lilt I I} 7xi r / - r i?K. -, u..? ----
\ A ?A Ll1 V- ? , \ 2L::K_
Na. v RA i -m \ 1 I I I i1/C14 i' '--_•' i ' i i .? ' ' / X / /
rvsa '1 Olw 1 \ 11 II IIII /Illspll 14f . )? /-.non _-_ _ ' ' ' r ,! i j i i ,? r ' ' l , i
AA>eD 01 IDtJ' a) ` \ 1 I I I t 4 11 ! I r . 1 I' ' , , _72?N / i r i r -d_
t[DD•xn 4 lr ldl ? \ l 1 j 7I ll!lll llj ll,• 1 /' i '/'i i i / % /' % /9 r I /' , - i
olf,
- I I l,llI? , %1 : ' dRO? ua
ran N,m PROP. BATIAUON HO MCA& Her'
1 IlM4/l?/h I 1 rrc-r7&a
n /'1/1414 I< I I I '? / / / Nla. ! . .
1 ___ ? .. 1 \ l 1 a 1, ,l/ / 71 t /
-----?'me.ad
_ p1,Y n7- - 1 1 , 11111 1.1 .I. ?. 1 1 i / ' / AyNrD k
w.- 1 nv. W M: 1 I I /1i, 41414, I I f I I I / / I / / r r fRa. /' WM•x
WLm- wnr mm 1 1 /J// M? n /h V I I l j l l I./. / / I i / i r ?r 'rml 1 1
l 1, , I 1 IXdt I / / r1P r "'>• -n
i , , aiO1-"?"i? I I - --_ __ --1 I '-_ '- .ry ' L'- , r _ _
-__- - ' -G-?- "_'???`` FLF?_.r TRM ?AA? FV~?A AE'?? 1 1 `- ,, ` _ ?` B ?` - 1
_ i. -__C__?' r _____>.`` Mw. RYI.•`?. . I IMISI!llID wdM M911MIIC 9iC , `` 1 •r ` / ?? r\
?.. "
•
I
?arrm v rmfnm
r K
1
1\
r
'
\
` `
``` --------_------_
-? ? • ?_ •_ ___-... '?' - ~
n?
`•``
`
-`

Il$ ARMY CORPS
' wM1:Y ??
i '.,? s
.
t /
? j
?NINER ROAa a rrna
I j.NfE_R RdAO i r
I
i?}. ^?-?•
ai
?Q?
1?
r 14 \t•? ?.? ??,,[[ - II ? ti 1pQ ?Yn.?. auii 'Mw. 1fN.1 rV. Ufr? ; . `?1Pw?
J6•WJV L
11
w [z*
Mak1
?'T ??-` ... o.. r
F+.?
.nr
??NE{?'"){Q? .^i ri OF CNLNEfRS

51VANNMI fASiIOCT
_
.
,
1 : dr," 1 , Ft>I¢
-? \ ,? ?°'? ?,f?_-,.... F7 -

t
•- - .
- !. .
`
? ? _ --?- ?t.6i a?•.kw?rs -f_ T _ = _

. t `N 1?N •9v1 Y ` 1 .w•? a IDIC[ \ '.. I.V. \
PI?.IN. n. ?. 1 \I 1 I I,1 i
\\
1,I1` 1? \
,.
a,loa
'
? '-w'

't --'?,.L. - *rrt______?v_- ort _... roR...-
-------------
--------_
`` ------- -°
--•-- ..c,t
----------

__

B

?
_.J . ?? .. I° ?.
_
v-w , v
I
' ? _ ?
11 `
\
I +
R
; 11 \ I
( nl{
r•-? ;
n +?-- I I 1 , 11
' I, • 'rNw. Noa omC, \1 `II I ? / na. INnI + i i / i ? i I ? ?
aus
o
Y

i
•

I I ,

1 `
----

a NsA!eeNa

RELIMINARY

+

Ire y

A ; V `1 11 v . v.` IIII?,
`
` ll

' 1 Ib.Y50 1 I 1 11 ` , `11A I 1
?
? ?r I

"I?? I

• i?

`"*
`

-
FAISIIYIOII011
NOT roll
!ISAACS
Ivir
_ `
11 1
? ?
` ?. ?`\`
Q
1` ?
\\
`
IO
r6? 1 .I??.
1? I
1.
,
{lY SNRi,Cd01 L /A'M AV(71 ?D1 11 11
MY®Imllwl
1010[1119 a 11 a IIhR I + I I _
?l1AI I 111 / ?
'^'°^
'"^ /
1
?

I _____ -
_.
,`
?? ?
''
-?
? -X ?
_ _ w

?A1

« .a

_~m. ra
?1 pp1t
w nl+ rt
\ ` .^./u
``
\ `` `\` `
1 i

® .
.
.
\ IRS SL soli .
` 0/91004FT
` •
l
1 i
II ' i NW%16?1 1!
P,?' WI 111 ; 1\ 1 I ilrro 1 r `. J `
1 1 I /
I, ' rFw. ITOtI I Nlw. Itll. \ NV 1[-
?1
I
?
I ?
I ,:
. Q I ,.O
' , ___ _-
r Q
nV
` \``•?

___-_ -__ - _-_

p

\
1

`
I

- -
,
i \

0
0
1 ` `

`
1

`
\ ]MR%

..?? .... ,.,
,
...,
0.W Al rl 1IMairGR?T• 1
I ??
1ff
orn"
1 1? \ 11 J )
11? rw. xv. i i 1S 1
?ri
?
,
_
---` R

1 rNff 4i1a: `_ t

_-`__-
?
`-

'----

m

9 °
?

!
?.?
.........
.,u
1
.n
L
n
1^ r[
c>
,1 1. a,IDIw 111 1 I
/LL M. Y91 1 /
,
• \
1 WR1MUa?
u.r -
' y?
Nanir
- t? ?
`
'
??
''
I I.rw y y'
t. I I 1 '
1
,
` \I
?I Y 1 1 O
I 1 F.Y. _ ,?
n
F
L a ?
-
I
1 I 1
,1 1 1\ / ?? a. Iwm l I I / \` A Ir 1 i I 1
1 \ ti ,
? H
?
`
I
I
e ; ` 1 I
II 111 ^
I L
0 s
?? n
1 7
[
1
111
I
RLm ../.... ...I
` )a \ 0
FIw?510!)
. .1.u I I
??..• I ? ?\
? ? I ? \e 8 ??`' Y ?x 1 + ..? "?? .rr! .... a \L....' ? 1 i i + 1 ? \ ;
. 1
+
w
??
1
0 ,
¢-_"\ -_
I
......5' r'Q ?1
G ?? 0 . in'aor 3. ?
? ?
3? -
?o d .
,
's •
art s N .n
w
r '`' .•!??•.•.?. ,
suMr I tern..
I i IF
I
.r
11 ? `A` t
+ ?S+NI1 ? U `I
-
b
r
...

1
`
/, 1 1 1 1 1
'
1
p
1 1? 1
IIW. 1 _

` 9 \\`\ 1Rt llll. 1 I
/?wJ -1 1 I
II
1 I I ?i;?
0:0
}5 1 \ I

1`I

?

) I I al
rfM(S
I 0
\

1\

?

1
1k 777
\
??

?

541
IMLV.
1 Wl
Vi R•

q• W.
`1
1r[ A R•-_
vlNdlof e4ax
a s
?.

Y

1
®

--- -_---

fNw. SFpCI,
BA911 aril
saUCT/E

e tl??`.
'-_ 1
I I
Nw. IP.. `'
OI
4+9CN RN

11? I ??'. 1 II II I
`\ , \ I JJ I rfr F]w I 1 I I [
?.y?l / N I I Y( ''?I ? 1?°
1 1' 1 11 / 1 1 I 1 4 I
? 1 1 11 T1'IN IL` 1 I 1 iY r I 1 I 1? III r
11 I
I II .. _ I I 1 I I / r

I
I
I I ?
1
i I 1
I

1
?
1 A
?
? l
1 ?

/

I yr eI
:
1 I r
?"°':• '.. ? vRT. IwR
', r>' ? +/1` ! w 06NrbM'tt
IIIr
? r_ Y.?.a J .w-'-``.-
"

?

\```t

^?
i__ , r
I-
'

' • '?
Kti

0 F¢

? ,

C '
?
M1. I • __
I I
1

? r .
I
cEi%/tA1? p K ?? I 1 1 1 t'1 .//
i ?J ?'
t ? 1 •y
?„?
?I T I/ ;:"V 1
- I
?- Z
?G ?_ T-r?_
1 11
1

/

y
1
1 1 1`
?F1
1

J

1
!

?
/ ' -_`

]
r0 4
_ ,-

> /?.
'
RLT41(M,)
_ .s._

C
S
Y
I K P ??111 -t
11 1
1 I'll
51
, I
„[
1
----
1
?
I 3
? \ Plm (M I I I I
1 11 ?
r y 'I'' I .. II
IJ 10» 1
___'" __ - __ I -
-
y •1
- y?iL?i YC_ 1 II?YM/
I ((//
- -ti . ?
1 +?
?
.\
I ? '
1 1
-t_-i_i / [ 11 _y`_
1 __I ,
,
I I
_
?]aC
/'1 I I
' y
? _
1 .-__
•(? -
V `
- .
? ?

T

1

i

' ?; I ?

114 ?'
_ J
41 i"
M `? ?rti ` I WI
? ?
` I yur, fq l`rte - w......
I?
I MI. ?' ? , U ? MUNI N?hk'4
/I ,
1 ?? 71RQ IIIlt lilll PIIOI. M`)IMI . . ... r
ac?.nae) ' ?? 14n
?
• 1

1 I i
I
/ I
I r I l
IIF? / 1

,
, ; / / l ? , r ?
/?/ , ` + ?r i I i '
/ yrol , / / , , +

? . t

r _ ?.

• {j

y

? /

/ .? ?.

l /

, I /

_

_R!*/'
------
I L.
_

-, r
Ic71 w,1?111 ••••

? m91?S,nlr[,dtt
,
`.? 1
11

_

I

1 ?

r
1
.?
I 1

1
v
/
? vrc..IMp 1 _ - ?. ? ?• ___ _ ? .• . 9 / '% ? Y ? _
, w0eumw¢ ,L - .t' >. fexflmc-><l• , I
?
'°' _ ?F'
r „r7 ? t°'
_ .'y
?
p11? / / Ilb. Irh1 1 i?, ! ? \

w r `
i
1
p
?? I

I 4 [

E
? Z

`?
,
j
1
-
'
-1,
/
I
i r j
r• :
?`-. ? ? c
'-

.. . .,.....i, .,N,-
/ L Y
/ / i 1 ? Q C
w Wl9 1111 IeA bpi ` ___ , '1. ;1
I , - Mlw. x , )e g F
\I •I __-? - F__- i a, ?; ? hii?'??.pi?'??II .?i ?.?.?.. '.at®"?v1o? I/`,`? it i/ %l''',,: ;? 3
wU19U1 a1rJl I I Y I I I 1 J ' ? I
?I
1
11
" .'? ?i ? ? 1 y. .. ar?nt X11 'I??'
{ I ? 1 II
' ,
` i Ir+o.nNn
( 1? YFYIA.IIw B ? G a?

?• a 1
I
L
/ 1 1 ??,
` , I
I
1 /
v
-__ ?.. •_ Al i I 1 X11 ?.]f,/! `/ I/ -v>'?v? 7
?'.?....... .f.r?>_/.
•I
' 1?
loll 1

11

`,1 ;
``-t,
1
I
?['??$"mq""_"'?.^. \ ;I

N 1 1

/

? k

? ?e

l

•1 ` `\ r
?
/
.
I
Nola °
?.. ?,..:_ ?: _ - _ 049NW ' /i / V? ?. 4
-?
_ 1 1

1

1s
awl 1
--- ----------
r I r

1
h

f
: 7
----------- ----
?asa? ?µ};?.y?µ+) y?} ?['q. ,•µ??j'j{7.j{ ? ?{ j yam}}*1 {} ?(7 a t 1

.Jr.• t ?'?' ?.ai±i++i+ifHHH1+itf?.ltf tl+i"75j _ __ - it???? ?i!?t#U}tHii'?U?4?1???tttt f?#?i+H i+di
#-
" +" --- - - - -
- -------- -------- __ ------------ - --

y?7?{ {?-? µ }}??}?} ? y {{{}}++ ti?j??7? gyp}
tii ?{f{itiµ
HtV23i1?1tCIlI?11rII1t33i?U]317.4LIJ-Ftlf}?+il
-------------- ==-c--------
------- ------ -----
p -
_ _ -
CL2

. Ifw10 mono" cellrwx Ill
_
±[Y.afi?i
'
r CENEPIL NC ¢
??rVOM[IM.IY 1.0
--CN-NOf•Yl m11Ua
mrmrlr Ylm ir
, N`
?
?
? a
_ - __ _
?
.
' IIIII.b ``
_- ; .,,.,,Yr •.' - ?'. ')0
.... ,i,` .. µ •. ' `I I
`
`I ``
\ p
M1
i
s .• YaYa?w
?
_ FI.rOi[IW %YYIap M.Y%M./%MIIN94 urM W.1m%101
iaUi
.?.?? Wlf artllNWR 01lwIA KYMIA RCI YIIM[Pl fe.l M.. YII. llRfor MiM4wY®[CLL I®oC [iNlflNtM YxIea YL ia0w1lolp
[%a[l0m it rr[rl Ow YlR 10w rw[14lllrs 000lal1[fere YfOe ?N Y11a= a? KOrrNl m[YY[al0n[ N[ U 3

11
11
01
-,c

J
I
r.n.n
1 - .!1 u `
` ?)? I, ,•• \\ `
\ a-.r IIpVEC UfOl.2 Iw ILL 01ra1[YU_Ml[RKllrll llrA• MN0]M rtla[sraANY
Y•[[0a1Kn10IIIrll4 OlrIL ber>ml1/arf. YYtl MY Yp
m
N a
1Y
M
1m
r
M
u
i ` V a

I„ `Nr(, ka am M? If;
,?ll' 1 1 1
1 I
\`\ ` ` ` `
`` [1I
it
Y
[
mra01Y
mel[!
6
uea
rUN0-Na¢ro AIOYR OAn bA
Y? umra irm w y? vwv M fvaw[ mur w e N eaa nw
-¢p-IMOOD 10/U1Mr R.M YBI m11M11 [ l4r wr 1u? N u oe v mrs o uMl 4 ?.? nw>x .finlM9wlsl.1 u[ M.a f I?

Q J
O
-
.
1Y?\0fl WRY';i'+??r - I' 1
V
.
1
011119
, ?? 1 ``j 11
\
?? .rla aA[>mIMY10w a[1[rR Ire In Y[N pRNI l la%.r. [aw YIQaY4 [1[m1M lw[
4®MNY.OI YY.w (MQ IOrOOM[.RIMiIA UI®
]1Or.Nl -F-IR0.O 1411101E U11 ID9i m O
W Z z
pan sl M
p
1
re
t
? aKpAq ?' I'.1 ; '' !
'I ? 1 trt sm o-ty
``\?.tOI.,
1
7
\?`
`
\ l?A.M[f.. ?pNf.IM IHN' IIN Y?Ila??1l
4 rvl ? no®n.w.r Ynl oml or a 1a. ... ? ?o?Iw.ri l N lr me 114_[ ua mlv...Nrv eYmal?®Ywrr la leNl.Nal lwlmw s wwlo
a. uww?
o
W
1
lrl
llplOYt0ll0®wtOOrN[YYBY. •K
*
CJ
G ti O
V

A ,1,
?
` '
??
fl?y?3" ,,
/
fl X1'1 / rs.m om+
\Y ?``? ?? • ' 1 W 91 ru 1 1
\ 1 \` ;' "'
J l'
i •1
s
» g
,
}?
_
.-.,.,.•om.o
a
1W 14i
N IN Ynmlwasvl.... aMlNr ww®0®11 1..v l.r rr /u.c%au In alF[cN.oIAS UUUesaNM
c nlot?mlaaa a .°vtiu?rlme ruew s.aM[I ?[ra won
xw `"r11?i'vlY°Oae?,IM %sri.I.a oN[ [Ye lu [ nra Yav [ r? Ila[1001 m.1 rO M[[ w Y.I ?IYN11r?
© rv® Duel Nllwa oval OnIY ..M.I %ra[ ?.I........ Ywo rw w m r Yaa .. , .
.al..r.a.l.rwl..lal.a.w.\ YOw Nr rlN.aa[Yaoa l%1iYlaN a?a...'Yal

a V Q
to
to m

Q
I- Z
o
_

O
re
.
r
.s
.,.?, ?,,. 11 11
1 \ 1 ,01R
^
1`
i•y?i " %.IllwNr..a.%®aa.Ya.Y Naa.
/° aaYlYrgvewra ru[Yr4rTavalia Nr4lmNa vrwa
© r1
r
O 111r1Y0
aK11
l
A ?
K W
N[1NV.w1Y. If
vaa YNOrwslan
YM „
L?'
'
-?
\1 ) 11
lI? ?, {I I .1 •1 ;1
r ? 1 1 11 1 Iv uns'ai
tlmwd I
'?
-' .
.III Y[a a
0l
i
ma.] NIIRW ®. w Y
K Y(Naga[l1l. Y11 I%Y111Y[Ye(V4IIa[t%
.We1I14.O.L.11i IIpO19T1ta. pElti°MM1.C Y?Ma010N ..rte fsLL?IM IR rtorB lr. ?r
WW!dfOR!NC wfL[PROtECfgN NOTES, lamlwrlsaNNUVWMwIM °1? ulo lrra.mlra mmnn rlu.w rau ? Q
1?
?
IrI.4l w9l
II01[IIIm10ALFn1 j
` '
I?
:0.].?,
=-___ -, _____
.:? ? 'r? I 1 ICNl1Y®1111 1. ?su [uxslw mmlasKmnl Nlu.4 •aw w[ao.rms..K an[aclNMmrvum.o uoa
IOrI 9N?r K0¢ AM"JN TPIIF
_T; ®
[flFM meaclrw - \ U s.a r/r/NIY pI macaw NewllO®fr10G 1oA le.f AA fY[ 1 POPq Ma 41IN N6444rIi1.wI1M.¦
. ?mllvaw aa14461m 10][[NPa N[ma[mN YYYw 9w.a lu.ewnn wmea b[w[raw [rrl%[ne GlYl lvulu /4 rYrnrlvw a luA Uwllr
Im.wa 1
u lYac4 sYOa lt4 { _ i I 1wo.IC INK »r4,.. uY 141N.Im.umN1. om,l?. g1I"i'°'°°' Na zmlArm%mn mwiemrlwal4 a. 'rl
YvYIOMlwaOa ..[amcal4.rl
, w 1
`
.00[ IKS [ p4wr[ • N 0[YNIMNm
l`r

LATE
REFERENCE
1
`1 1
q `
31
.• ` 1 1[O m1I1M[Ye [tw lrNnmllNe[w moY alrR YLL[
0
1
1
'
?
3

UMBER
;
\,
1.: \\
? \
Io®r..m as 1.1 ore®1w[uau wu..l. r«sm.w '} 4 ?1 7 'i
_.,, ..... 1 d; mma[w%al+l%ml¢auwcra¢ax :

lYw-xrm
l7 C-602
-
- SHIM IE
f
9
-
2 3 4 5 o
2

© r? ?? ?d t4. j
?, o d ?&(
t6 1
6 © eo ?d
(s P(n C)
Its `-2-9 wire
C, ?t U3 c 6&NL-?Ce 1
Z j QYIe o rR-,- rO ?L 8 -c (v d -x4e4J /0.,S-? &"
? batik-,
?z - 1S
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND A
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH-CAROLINA
12 December 2000
Prepared by:
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Public Works Business Center
Environmental Natural Resources Division
ATTN: AFZA-PW-E
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310
In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
i
r
SIGNATURES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MCFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
Proponent:

WILLIAM H. KERN
Environmental Officer
Public Works Business
Center
Date: ?L
Environmental eview:
DAVID A. HEINS
Chief, Environmental and
Natural Resources Division
Date: ?ly 0-0
OBERT L. HIRRON
COL, EN
Director of Public Works
Business Center
Date: ?Q
Legal Review:
lam/
DANIEL V. p, GHT
COL, JA
Staff Judge Advocate
Date: 13 &z-o t
Approved:
p SKA
ne 1, USA
o anding General
I d `
2
S U2YnIARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of developing approximately
273 acres of the Mcrayden Pond area in the Tank Creek watershed on the
Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The proposed action would be constructed in 16 projects. The projects
include a replacement fire station for the old Division Area, separate
battalion barracks for the 82d Airborne Division, a soldier
development center, an organizational vehicle maintenance shop for the
525th Military Intelligence Brigade, whole barracks renewal for the
16th Military Police Brigade and the 82d Airborne Division's Combat
Aviation Brigade, facilities for the U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the
Combined Arms School Brigade. Reilly Road borders the project area on
the east with 2 projects to the east of this road and 14 projects to
the west. Longstreet Road bounds the main project area on the south,
Keerans Street on the west, and Butner Road on the north. The
Combined Arms School Brigade is located north of Butner Road. The Old
Division Area Fire Station is located south of Longstreet Road. The
area between Reilly Road and Bigler Street, in the center of the
project area, is largely undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden
Pond. Two alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of developing the
McFayden Pond area were considered. These are the "Reduced Scale
Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the projects, and the
"No Action Alternative" of not developing any of the projects proposed
for the McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the
Reduced Scale Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for
some, but not all, of the supported units. The consequence of
implementing the No Action Alternative would be to continue to operate
out of existing facilities, which are inadequate for the supported
units. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline for
forecasting the effects of constructing, operating, and maintaining.
the projects, which would develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA
addresses the potential environmental impacts of these alternatives,
and finds that the Proposed Action would not be a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment if storm
water is managed properly, and wetlands impact, if any, is properly
permitted. Accordingly, preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. A mitigated Finding of No Significant
Impact will be released to announce this conclusion to the public and
afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURES
SUMMARY
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................5
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................10
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................13
4. EFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................14
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ....................19
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION ...............................30
7. AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED .....................31
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..........................35
NEWS RELEASE ........................................................38
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................40
APPENDICES ..........................................................41
COMMENTS RECEIVED ...................................................44
4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.
a. Purpose.
(1) Introduction. This Environmental Assessment (EA)
evaluates the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of
developing approximately 273 acres of the Mcrayden Pond area in the
Tank Creek watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed action would be
constructed in 16 projects. These projects include a replacement fire
station for the Old Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the
82d Airborne Division, a soldier development center, an organizational
vehicle maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence (MI)
Brigade, whole barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police (MP)
Brigade and the 82d Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade,
facilities for the U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms
School Brigade. Reilly Road borders the project area on the east with
2 projects to the east of this road and 14 projects to the west.
Longstreet Road bounds the main project area on the south, Keerans
Street on the west, and Butner Road on the north. The Combined Arms
School Brigade is located north of Butner Road. The Old Division Area
Fire Station is located south of Longstreet Road. .The area between
Reilly Street and Bigler Street, in the center of the project area, is
largely undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden Pond. Two
alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of developing the McFayden Pond
area were considered. These are the "Reduced Scale Alternative" of
building some, but not all, of the projects, and the "No Action
Alternative" of not developing any of the projects proposed for the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are inadequate for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives.
(2) Construction Projects. The Army has scheduled sixteen
construction projects on approximately 273 acres in the vicinity of
McFayden Pond, which is located on the northern edge of Fort Bragg's
main post cantonment. The proposed projects are:
5
i
i
MCFAYDEN POND PROJECT LIST:
PROJECT PROJECT FISCAL APPROXIMATE
PHASE NUMBER YEAR ACREAGE
Old Division Area Fire Station
44965 2001 5
Separate Battalion Barracks 75
I 35362
II 44496
III 25134
IV 53538
V 53914
2002
2002
2003
2003
2002-2003 Separate Battalion Barracks
(Phases I-IV)
Soldier Development Center 50
I 51238 2004
II 20347 2010
III 20127 2010
IV 51909 2010
Soldier Development Center,
Infrastructure
Synthetic Theater of War
Distance Learning Center
General Education Development Center
Vehicle Maintenance Shop Organizational/525 MI Brigade
16992 2010 13
Whole Barracks Renewal/16 MP Brigade
41631 2003 24
Whole Barracks Renewal/Combat Aviation Brigade
50
I 45239 2001 CAB Barracks
II 47347 2002 CAB Barracks
53955 2001-2002 CAB Barracks (Phases I-II)
U.S. Armv Parachute Team Facilit
46797 2001 5
Combined Arms School Brigade /N.C. Military Academy

35
I 370017 2001 Military Education Facility
II 370063 2002 Military Education Facility
III 370067 2003 Military Education Facility
6
(3) Interim Project. The Army is planning to construct a
temporary motor maintenance facility for the 525th MI Brigade on the
proposed site of PN 16992. The project would include a 7,500 SF
combined administration and maintenance building and a graveled
parking area. This project would be built, most likely in either 2000
or 2001, subject to the availability of funds.
Interim Motor Pool, 525 MI Brigade
OA00046-6 2001 13
(4) Connected Actions. The Army is
other projects in the western end of the Old
located nearby, these sites are outside the
Therefore, they will be assessed separately.
project is one scheduled more than ten years
These projects are listed below.
Division Suooort Command Motor Pool
12306 LR 10
Lonastreet Shonnette
52514 2001 1
b. Need.
planning to construct two
Division Area. Although
Tank Creek watershed.
A long range (LR)
from now (beyond 2010).
(1) Combined Project. The development of the McFayden Pond
area through several construction projects is needed to provide
facilities for units supported by XVIII Airborne Corps. These new
facilities are needed to replace facilities that are unsuitable, too
small or outmoded, and also to provide better facilities that will
upgrade the quality of life for our soldiers. The Army's barracks
standard for single junior grade enlisted soldiers requires a two-man
module with full bath. This is referred to as a "1+1" barracks
configuration. Essentially it is a college dormitory living standard.
The proposed site is suitable for these projects because it is
centrally located on post adjacent to other units of the Corps, is
compatible with other environmental constraints, and will not
adversely impact the training mission of units stationed at Fort
Bragg. Other locations were less suitable because they are not co-
located next to the other units of the Corps, already occupied by
other mission essential facilities, or were unsuitable due to
conflicts with environmental laws and regulations. The projects
proposed for the McFayden Pond area would allow the Army to more
efficiently support military units with housing for soldiers,
educational opportunities, training facilities, equipment maintenance,
and improved road access to the cantonment area.
(2) History. McFayden Pond was the site of a colonial era
millpond. The current pond was developed in the early days of Fort
7
Bragg as a recreational lake. It is not considered to be historically
significant. Wilson Park, a picnic area and playground, is located on
its northern shore between the pond and Butner Road. Today it also
serves as a catchment for storm water flowing into the Tank Creek
watershed from the Fort Bragg cantonment. The Creek flows northward
into the Lower Little River after passing through Pope Air Force Base
(PAFB).
(3) Site Selection Criteria. A proposed project site would
be considered suitable for development if it:
(a) Meets or exceeds project requirements.
(b) Is compatible with nearby land uses,
(c) Construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility
would comply with applicable environmental and safety requirements.
(4) Biological Assessment (BA). The Army prepared a BA to
assess potential impacts upon endangered species resulting from
development of two projects in the McFayden Pond (Tank Creek) area.
These are Phases I and II of the Combat Aviation Brigade (PN 35362 and
44496, both of which are included in PN 53914, Phases I-II), and
Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion Barracks Complex (PN 35362
and 44496, both of which are included in Phase V, and PN 53914, Phases
I-IV). The BA concludes that sustainable development of the Tank
Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect on water
or air quality or impact federally listed species. The projects are
not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
(Picoides borealis), a Federally listed endangered species.
(5) Requirement for Environmental Documentation. Army
Regulation (AR) 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions, which
implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires Army installations to consider the environmental impacts of
the Proposed Action and its alternatives including construction
projects. The Proposed Action presents a number of potential
environmental impacts. These are: an irretrievable commitment of
natural resources caused by construction on the project site, the need
to assess the combined impacts resulting from constructing the several
projects making up the larger development plan, and consideration of
the potential that a project of this size may affect habitat necessary
to the recovery of certain Federally listed species protected under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973; therefore, an EA is necessary to
assess potential environmental impacts.
c. General.
to:
(1) Objectives. The objectives of the proposed project are
8
(a) Provide administrative, barracks, educational,
maintenance, and mission related facilities that comply with Army
standards for soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg.
(b) Comply with all applicable environmental laws and
regulations.
(2) Incorporation by Reference. The EA incorporates by
reference provisions of the following documents:
(ESMP) .
(a) Fort Bragg's 1997 Endangered Species Management Plan -
(b) Fort Bragg's 1988 Historic Preservation Plan (HPP).
(c) Fort Bragg's 1997 Soil Conservation Master Plan (SCMP).
(d) Fort Bragg's 2000 BA for the Combat Aviation Brigade and
Separate Battalion Barracks Complex.
(3) Appendices.
(a) Appendix A. BA for the Combat Aviation Brigade and the
Separate Battalion Barracks Complex.
(b) Appendix B. Map of the McFayden Pond project area
showing project locations.
(4) Planning Horizon. The projects considered under the
Proposed Action would be constructed over about ten years beginning in
the year 2001. These would be permanent facilities.
(5) Scope. The scope of this EA is limited to assessing the
environmental and socioeconomic effects resulting from implementing
the Proposed Action or its viable alternatives. This EA was prepared
under the provisions of AR 200-2, and addresses environmental effects
specific to Fort Bragg.
(6) Project Priorities. The first priority is the
construction of barracks for soldiers. Supporting facilities such as
organizational maintenance shops, and in-garrison training and
educational structures follow this.
(7) Public Involvement. The projects considered in the
proposed action would be constructed, operated, and maintained by the
U.S. Army in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources would
review the soil erosion control plan. The EA would be distributed for
comment to various agencies of the State government through the North
Carolina Intergovernmental Review Clearing House, and to Pope AFB.
The XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Public Affairs Office would
prepare a news release for distribution to the media. Public comment
would be solicited by publishing the mitigated FNSI as a paid legal
9
announcement in the Fayetteville Observer and the Fort Bragg
Paraglide, and through distribution of both the EA and mitigated FNSI
to public libraries on Fort Bragg, and in Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. The McFayden Pond area would
be developed in sixteen projects scheduled from Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
until FY 2010. The scheduled construction projects are described
below:
a. Scheduled Projects.
(1) Old Division Area Fire Station, PN 44965. Construct a
standard design fire station to serve the 82d Airborne Division area,
the new Womack Army Medical Center, and family housing areas in the
main cantonment area of Fort Bragg. This fire station is a one-
company satellite that will house three trucks and 6 firefighters.
The fire station will contain a kitchen, sleeping area, storage area,
day room, and laundry room for the fire fighters who serve 48 hour
shifts. The supporting facilities include electrical, heating and air
conditioning, basic landscaping and site development, information
systems, security/scan system for anti-terrorist/force protection, and
an area for fire truck basic maintenance and cleaning. Access for the
handicapped will be provided.
(2) Whole Barracks Renewal, Separate Battalion Barracks
(Phase V), PN 53914. This project, which consists of Phases I-IV (PN
25134, 35362, 44496, and,53538), would construct a whole barracks
renewal complex for the 82d Airborne Division's separate battalions.
Work includes constructing new barracks (1,376 spaces total), company
operations, battalion headquarters buildings, a medium sized dining
hall, parking, community green space, secondary access roads, and
recreational areas. Construct company operations facilities (3 large,
17 medium, and 6 small two-story) and battalion headquarters buildings
(2 large and 5 medium with classrooms) based on the standard
constrained site designs. Provide energy monitoring and control
systems, fire alarm, detection and reporting systems, automatic
building sprinklers, intrusion detection systems (IDS), and force
protection measures. Supporting facilities include utilities;
electric service; fire protection and alarm systems; paving, walks,
curbs, and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control measures;
information systems; and site improvements. Access for the
handicapped will be provided. Heating and air conditioning will be
provided. Physical security measures will be incorporated into the
design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads,
parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas. Berms, heavy landscaping,
and bollards will be used to prevent access when standoff distances
cannot be met. Laminated glass will be placed in windows to protect
soldiers in case of a bomb blast. Demolish 2,448 square meters
(26,350 square feet (SF)) of existing facilities in the footprint of
construction. Provide comprehensive building and furnishings related
interior design services.
10
(3) Soldier Development Center (Phases I-IV).
(a) Soldier Development Center, Infrastructure, (Phase I), PN
51238. This project would construct the infrastructure for the
Soldier Development Center, which is a state-of-the-art education and
simulation center. It will be linked to the Army Training and
Doctrine Command's battle labs to provide training opportunities and
will be used for military training and civilian education. It will
include a Battle Simulation Center, a Long Distance Learning Center,-
and a Soldier Development Center. Phase I will construct the
infrastructure necessary to support the center, an extension of the
All American Freeway from Longstreet Road to Butner Road, water,
electricity, sanitary sewer, communications utilities, natural gas and
stand alone chillers. The center will also include 100 percent
parking for maximum capacity.
(b) Synthetic Theater of War (STOW) Range Training Facility,
Soldier Development Center (Phase II), PN 20347. This project would.
construct a STOW range training facility consisting of a battle
simulation command center, pre-exercise training and deployment
evaluation areas, systems integration areas, administrative
facilities, simulation equipment storage and maintenance areas,
communication rooms, and a Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility with Joint Service Integrated Intrusion Detection System as
part of the Soldier Development Center. Included is a self-contained
air conditioning system (200 tons), natural gas heating (3,500 British
thermal units), fire protection system, IDS, communications (including
local and wide area network capability, video teleconferencing,
intercom and public address systems), accommodations for multiple
electronic and computer systems, acoustical treatments, synchronized
clock system, closed circuit television, and provisions for commercial
lease line and satellite downlinks. Also construct tactical and non-
organizational parking, and two sentry stations. Supporting
facilities include utilities, perimeter fence, area and security
lighting, roads, curbs, gutters, walks, storm drainage, and site
improvements, including erosion control. Asbestos abatement and
demolition of existing World War II era buildings and demolition of
existing pavement and utilities, is also included.
(c) Distance Learning Center, Soldier Development Center
(Phase III), PN 20127. This project would construct a long distance
learning center. The facility would provide training opportunities
and will be used for military and civilian education. Supporting
facilities include utilities; electric service; paving, walks, curbs
and gutters; storm drainage; information systems; and site
imorovements.
(d) General Education Development Center, Soldier Development
Center (Phase IV), PN 51909. This project will construct a general
education facility. It will be a state-of-the-art education center
for military training and civilian education. Supporting facilities
11
include utilities; electric service; paving; walks, curbs and gutters;
storm drainage; information system; and site improvements.
(4) Vehicle Maintenance Shop Organizational/525 MI Brigade,
PN 16992. This project would construct a vehicle maintenance complex,
for the 525th MI Brigade. The primary facilities include two standard
design tttwo vehicle maintenance shops, one to consolidate Headquarters
and Headquarters Detachment, 525th MI Brigade, and the 519th MI
Battalion (Tactical Exploitation) and the other for the 319th MI
Battalion (Operations). Basic work areas in the primary facilities
will contain standard scheduled repair bays, item repair shops,
storage rooms, training/conference room, weapons repair shops, storage
rooms, weapons and communications security vaults, tool room,
administrative and shop control offices, and personnel support areas.
Shops will have electrically operated roll-up bay doors, vehicle
exhaust ventilation, compressed air systems, fire protection systems,
and lubricant dispensing facilities. Two cryptographic vaults, one in
each facility, are included. Outlying structures will include oil
storage buildings and three existing permanent facilities that will be
renovated as deployment equipment storage buildings. Flexible and
rigid paved areas include shop hardstands, organizational vehicle
parking, and privately owned vehicle parking. Perimeter and internal
gates will be provided. Supporting facilities include utility
services, communications, roads, walks, curbs and gutters, storm
drainage, fencing, IDS, fire protection and alarm systems and
lighting, site improvements, and landscaping. Heating and cooling
requirements will be provided by self-contained systems. Air
conditioning demand is estimated at 20 tons for administrative areas,
cryptographic vaults, and special environmental areas only.
Mechanical ventilation, 37,322 cubic feet per minute, is required for
repair bays, storage, and other work areas.
(5) Whole Barracks Renewal/16 MP Brigade, PN 41631. This
project would construct a whole barracks renewal complex. Work
includes constructing new barracks, company operations facilities,
battalion and brigade headquarters, soldier community center, and
close-in training area. Construct company operations facilities and
battalion headquarter per standard two-story constrained site design.
Construct barracks and brigade headquarters per the standard design.
Provide fire alarm, detection and reporting system, automatic building
sprinklers, and intrusion detection. Supporting facilities include
electric service; water, sewer, and gas service; paving, walks, curbs
and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control measures; information
systems; site improvements; picnic tables, benches, and bike racks;
fencing and gates; and landscaping. Asbestos removal and lead base
paint remediation is required. Remediation of a solid waste
management unit is required. Access for the handicapped will be
provided. Air conditioning unit is required. The project will also
demolish nine buildings (91,916 SF), and relocate activities in six
buildings to alternate facilities.
12
(6) Whole Barracks Renewal/Combat Aviation Brigade, PN 53955.
This project, which consists of PN 45239 and 47347 (Phases I and II
respectively), would construct a whole barracks renewal complex for
the Combat Aviation Brigade. Work includes constructing new barracks,
100 percent parking, community green, close-in training, company
operations facilities, battalion headquarters,=brigade headquarters,
dining facility, secondary and access roads, and recreation areas.
Construct company operations facilities, battalion headquarters, and
brigades headquarters based on the standard constrained site designs.
Provide energy monitoring and control systems; fire alarm detection -
and reporting systems; automatic building sprinklers; intrusion
detection system; and force protection measures. Supporting
facilities include electric service; water, sewer, and gas service;
paving, walks, curbs, and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control
measures; information systems; site improvements; and landscaping.
Access for the handicapped will be provided as needed. Heating (gas-
fired) and air conditioning will be provided. Physical security
measures will be incorporated into the design, including maximum
feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle
unloading areas. Berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards will be used
to prevent access within standoff distances cannot be met. Laminated
glass will be placed in windows to protect soldiers in case of a bomb
blast. Comurehensive interior design services are required.
(7) U.S. Army Parachute Team Facility, PN 46797. This
project would construct an administration and special purpose building
for the U.S. Army Parachute Team and the Combined Arms School Brigade.
Special areas include a recruiting support center, classroom,
gymnasium, and rigging space. Exterior architectural treatment of the
new facility building will match the predominant architectural style
of the area. Supporting facilities include utilities; electric
service; paving, walks, curbs and gutters; storm drainage; information
systems; and site improvements. A heating and air conditioning system
will be provided. Access for the handicapped will be provided.
(8) Combined Arms School Brigade/N.C. Military Academy, PN
370017, 370063 and 370067 (Phases I-III). This project would
construct educational facilities for the N.C. Military Academy. These
would consist of a specially designed educational complex composed.of
several groupings of buildings featuring masonry construction,
standing seam metal roofs, and concrete floors. The administrative
building and dining hall will be one story structures, and the
remaining facilities will have two stories. Supporting facilities
will include fencing, military and privately owned vehicle (POV)
parking, access roads, sidewalks, flagpole, and detached facility
signs. This is a National Guard Bureau project.
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were
developed as part of the planning process. Three alternatives were
eliminated from detailed analysis. Another two alternatives, in
addition to the Proposed Action, were analyzed in detail.
13
a. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. The option of
not maintaining barracks, administrative, supply and educational
facilities, motor maintenance shops, and improving the road net for
military units on Fort Bragg was rejected because of the need to
support unit operations in garrison. The option of redeveloping
cantonment areas elsewhere on Fort Bragg was eliminated because all
other suitable locations are already in use or proposed for
redevelopment in support of the operation of the post. The option of
expanding the existing cantonment area beyond its present boundaries
was rejected because adjacent areas are needed for military field
training, and also provide critical habitat for endangered species.
b. Alternatives Considered in Detail. These are: the Proposed
Action of developing the McFayden Pond area; the Reduced Scale
Alternative of developing part of the area; and the No Action
Alternative of not developing the area. Each alternative could be
accomplished in accordance with all applicable laws.and regulations.
(1) Develop the McFayden Pond Area (Proposed Action).
Selection of this alternative would best support Fort Bragg's troop
units by providing 16 facilities more suitable than those currently in
use.
(2) Develop Part of the McFayden Pond Area (Reduced Scale
Alternative). Selection of this alternative would provide suitable
facilities for some, although not all, units requiring improved
facilities. The most likely projects to be eliminated or reduced in
scale are those projected for construction after 2005. These are PN
16992, 20127, 20347, and 51909 all scheduled for 2010. The Army is
committed to constructing barracks on a "1+1" standard in order to
improve living conditions for soldiers. Under that policy two
soldiers will share a living room and bath. Such a design standard
requires more land area to construct a sufficient number of barracks
spaces than outmoded barracks designs with three and four man rooms.
The Army intends to build a distinct area for each unit. If more than
one site must be selected to provide facilities for any particular
unit or group of units, then the divided project site would require
appropriate supporting utilities and facilities at each location.
This would duplicate materials and effort, while creating more expense
and less efficiency of use.
(3) Do Not Develop the McFayden Pond Area (No Action
Alternative). Selection of this status quo alternative would continue
to billet units in existing facilities, which do not meet the "1+1"
standard required for single soldier housing, and use training
facilities which do not meet operational requirements.
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
a. Mission and History. Fort Bragg was established as an
artillery training post in 1918 as Camp Bragg. Camp Mackall was
established in 1942 as a training center for airborne units. Pope AFB
14
was established in 1919 as Pope Field. Today Fort Bragg's mission is
the training of units assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps, as well as
special operations and other tenant units. Camp Mackall is used to
support the training of Special Operations Forces. Simmons Army
Airfield supports Army aviation units assigned-to Fort Bragg. Pope
AFB provides strategic and tactical airlift support.
b. Physiographic and Habitat Features.
(1) Physical Environment. Fort Bragg is located in the
Sandhills physiographic region of the coastal plain in southeastern
North Carolina. Situated on a divide between the Lower Little River
and Rockfish Creek, Fort Bragg's 160,651 acres encompass portions of
both watersheds in the Cape Fear River drainage system. Camp Mackall
lies to the west of Fort Bragg in the Lumber River drainage system.
The Sandhills region of North Carolina is part of the Subtropical-
Temperate Zone characterized by mild-climate, plentiful rainfall, and
a long growing season. Piedmont topography and coastal plain soil
types characterize the Sandhills, making prevention of erosion a major
conservation concern. There are several primary soil series, which
occur in the Fort Bragg area. Lowland soils are loamy and heavily
textured compared to upland sandy soils. Upland sandy soils are well
drained and extremely low in organic matter with consequent low
fertility. Ridge top soils are highly erodable. In general, coastal
plain soil types with Piedmont topography characterize the Sandhills
region.
(2) Habitat Features. The dominant forest species on Fort
Bragg is longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). A 1992 forest inventory
identified 72,112 acres of longleaf pine, 20,631 acres of loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), 8,989 acres of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and
1,796 acres of pond pine (Pinus serotina). Approximately 12,000 acres
were typed as hardwood stands consisting primarily of oak (Quercus
spp.). Understory vegetation consists of turkey oak on xeric sites,
with other oaks on less xeric sites, and wiregrass (Aristida stricta)
dominates the herb layer, with other common species such as broom
panic grass (Schizachyrum scoparium), blue stem (Andropogon gyrans),
dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), goats rue (Tephrosia virginiana), Baptisia (Baptisia
cinerea) and Stylisma (Stylisma patens). Pond pines occur along
stream ecotones, hillside seepages, and pocosins, along with a dense
shrub layer of fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa and Lyonia lucida),
sweetpepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.),
and gallberries (I1ex glabra, I. coriacea). Old field sites are
dominated by loblolly pine, often mixed with longleaf regeneration.
Slash pine occurs in relatively large plantations north of the Lower
Little River.
c. Mission Activities.
(1) Military Training. The primary purpose of Fort Bragg as
a military reservation is to support military training. Resource
15
management programs such as cultural resources, environment, natural
resources, recreation, soil conservation, and wildlife support the
primary mission of military training. Units from the Active and
Reserve Components of the U.S. Army, other services, and armed forces
from allied nations train on Fort Bragg. The post is divided between
the maneuver area used for field training and ranges, and a smaller
cantonment area used for administration, maintenance, housing and
deployment.
(2) Maneuver Area. The maneuver area of Fort Bragg consists
of 90,235 acres with 74 designated tactical training areas excluding
airfields, impact areas, and special restricted areas. Camp Mackall
is used for training of Special Forces and combat engineer soldiers.
Parachute jumps and maneuvers are conducted throughout the
reservation. Generally, these do not require heavy air or ground
support, as most Fort Bragg units are lightly equipped. Training
maneuvers are designed to be on the same scale and as realistic as
possible in order to simulate battlefield conditions.
(3) Ordnance Impact Areas. Most combined arms and live-fire
exercises are conducted within high explosive ordnance impact areas
located in the center of Fort Bragg. These are from east to west;
MacRidge, Coleman, and McPherson Impact Areas. Manchester Impact
Area, located to the northeast of MacRidge, is used only for small
arms training.
(4) Parachute Drop Zones. Drop zones are areas cleared of
woody vegetation, which are used to support parachute and air landing
operations. There are six large drop zones on Fort Bragg. These are,
from east to west, Sicily, Normandy, Salerno and Holland on the
northern edge, Nijmegen on the western edge, and Saint Mere Eglise on
the southern edge of the post. Rhine-Luzon is located on Camp
Mackall. A number of smaller drop zones are located throughout the
installation on both Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall. The major drop
zones range up to 1,176 acres in size. There are 31 smaller field
landing and pickup zones located across the installation, which are
also used to support airborne and air assault operations. As the only
large, open areas on the reservation, drop zones are also used for
anti-armor defense training.
d. Current Species and Habitat.
(1) Species Inventories. In 1992, The Nature Conservancy's
(TNC) Sandhills Field Office conducted a floral inventory of Fort
Bragg, which documented over 1,100 species. Several of these are
endemic to the Sandhills region or have their only State occurrence on
the installation. Most of these species evolved in fire-maintained
communities. These natural communities are characterized by periodic
burning either by wildfire or, in managed sites, by prescribed fire.
Many of the local plant and animal species have adapted to survive
fire and are dependent upon it to maintain the conditions necessary
for their survival. The Nature Conservancy's inventory identified 33
16

natural communities and variants on Fort Bragg representing a broad
array of topographic, climatic, and hydrologic interactions. Current
inventories have identified 197 avian, 34 mammalian, 50 reptilian, 41
amphibian, and 42 fish species on Fort Bragg. Large game include
*black bear (Ursus americanus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo silvestris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Other species include beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelnhis
virginiana), bobcat (Lynx rufus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), and eastern fox squirrel (Sciruus niger). Among
upland game birds, the common bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is
found. Migratory game birds include the wood duck (Aix spousa) and
the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Streams and ponds include
inland game fish such as the chain pickerel (Esox niger), black bass
(Micropterus salmoides), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and the
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Those proceeded by an asterisk
(*) are rare on Fort Bragg.
(2) Natural Communities and Variants. The following natural
communities and variants occur on Fort Bragg: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Coastal Plain Levee Forest
(Blackwater subtype), Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment,
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater subtype), Cypress-Gum
Swamp (Blackwater subtype), Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Coastal Plain sand
variant), *Little River Bluff, *Little River Seepage Bank, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Piedmont/Coastal
Plain Heath Bluff, Pine Savannah (Sandhills variant), Pine/Scrub Oak
Sandhill, Sand and Mud Bar, Sandhill Seep, Small Depression Pocosin,
Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Streamhead Pocosin, Vernal
Pool, Wet Pine Flatwoods, and Xeric Sandhill Scrub. Those preceded by
an asterisk (*) are unique to Fort Bragg.
(3) Threatened and Endangered Species on Fort Bragg. The
Federally listed endangered species for the Fort Bragg area are. a
bird, the RCW; a butterfly, the Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha
mitchellii francisci); and five plants, American chaffseed (Schwalbea
americana), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Pondberry (Lindera
mellissifolia), rough-leafed loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia),
and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). However, neither
pondberry nor small-whorled pogonia have been documented on Fort
Bragg. The post also provides habitat for an additional 22 plant and
6 animal species of special concern to State and Federal authorities.
The post, acting in cooperation with TNC, has developed a monitoring
plan for the following selected species of Federal concern:
Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickeringii),
Georgia Indigo-Bush (Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana), Sandhills
Milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii), and Sandhills Pyxie-Moss
(Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia). The RCW occurs throughout
Fort Bragg. This bird species requires an open pine forest with large
numbers of mature pine trees for its survival. The longleaf pine-
wiregrass ecosystem found on post is excellent RCW habitat, providing
large numbers of mature pine trees for both forage and nest cavity
construction. Those areas of Fort Bragg which are devoid of
17.
regularly-spaced nest cavity tree clusters are those with little pine
forest cover, extensive plantations of young pine trees, bottomland
hardwoods, urban and industrial development, parachute drop zones, and
ordnance impact areas. The Saint Francis' satyr is one of the rarest
American butterflies. Currently, it is known to exist only on Fort
Bragg. In 2000 there are 298 active RCW colonies, 19 Saint Francis'
satyr colonies, 17 American chaffseed, 8 Michaux's sumac, no
pondberry, 29 rough-leafed loosestrife, and no small-whorled pogonia
sites listed on Fort Bragg.
e. Noise. Environmental noise is assessed under the
Environmental Noise Management Program (ENMP). Zones of ambient noise
are identified by predictive modeling and field checked with noise
monitors. Land use planners use this information to guide land
development both on and off post. Environmental noise such as that
produced by aircraft and traffic is measured by A-weighted decibels
(dBA). High-amplitude impulsive noise such as that produced by
artillery is measured by C-weighted decibels (dBC). Noise produced by
small arms fire is measured by unweighted decibels (dBP). For our
purposes, the dBA measurement is most significant for determining
impacts of noise upon land use. The proposed projects will not
produce significant noise. The barracks would be the most noise
sensitive facilities. All of the proposed projects are compatible
with existing noise contours, which are not expected to change. The
percentage of the population annoyed by various noise levels, decibel
parameters for dBA, dBC and dBP noise, and guidance for noise
sensitive land uses are listed below:
NOISE SENSITIVITY ZONES:
ZONE POPULATION
ANNOYANCE
I <15%
II 15-39%
III >39%
DECIBEL RANGE
dBA dBC
TRANSPORT ARTILLERY
<65 <62
65-75 62-70
>75 >70
LAND USE
dBP GUIDANCE
SMALL ARMS
<87 1
87-104 2
>104 3
Land Use Guidance:
1 - Acceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
2 - Normally unacceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
3 - Unacceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
f. Soil Types.
(1) Major Soil Associations. Several major soil associations
are found on Fort Bragg. These are listed below.
(a) Blaney-Gilead-Lakeland, Lakeland-Candor-Blaney and
Autryville-Candor soils are found in areas dominated by excessively
drained to moderately well drained soils on highly desiccated uplands.
18
(b) Norfolk-Wagram-Rains, Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk,
Goldsboro-Grantham-Exum and Norfolk-Goldsboro-Rains soils are found in
areas dominated by well drained, moderately well drained and poorly
drained soils that are on broad, smooth uplands.
(c) Roanoke-Wickham-Tarboro soil is found in areas dominated
by poorly drained, well drained, and somewhat excessively drained
soils on terraces.
(d) Torhunta-Croatan-Candor soil is found in areas dominated
by very poorly drained and somewhat excessively drained soils
associated with large oval depressions in uplands.
(e) Johnston soil is found in areas dominated by very poorly
drained soils that are on flood plains.
(2) Project Site Soil Associations. The predominant soil
association found on the proposed project site is Blaney-Gilead-
Lakeland. These soils are characterized by nearly level, to
moderately steep, well drained, moderately well drained, and
excessively drained soils that have a brittle, loamy or clayey subsoil
or that are sandy throughout. Found on uplands. Storm drainage from
the project area flows into Tank Creek and thence into McFayden Pond.
McFayden Pond drains via Tank Creek into the Lower Little River.
g. Site Condition. Most of the project area is a category I
(uncontaminated) site. However, portions of the PN 16992 site are
considered to be a category III (contaminated) site because of
residues left over from maintenance activities conducted there since
World War II. This site is designated as operable Unit 4. The
proposed land use as a vehicle maintenance shop is compatible with
adjoining land uses. The relative potential for hazard on a
particular parcel of land is categorized as either category I
(uncontaminated), II (potentially contaminated) or III (contaminated).
Five locations within the PN 16992 project area were affected by
contamination from underground storage tanks. All of these
contamination sources have been removed. Fort Bragg installed ground
water monitoring wells at these sites under Phase I of a Risk Based
Corrective Action (RBCA) monitoring program to determine contamination
levels. The following buildings in the PN 16992 area are part of a
RBCA Phase I monitoring program to determine contamination levels: 2-
2402, 2-2414, 2-3305 and 2-3612. Another building, 2-3303, although
not covered by the RBCA, will be included in the investigation because
it is the former site of an oil water separator. While the overall PN
16992 site is perceived to be relatively clean and free from hazard,
some residue of petroleum, oils, and lubricants used for equipment
maintenance may be encountered during construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed maintenance facility. Therefore, it was
classified as a category III site overall. However, any contamination
found would be remediated in accordance with current regulations and
clean up specifications. All other project sites are category I.
19
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS. This section discloses
environmental and socioeconomic effects anticipated from developing
the McFayden Pond area, which is the Army's Proposed Action. This EA
assesses whether the implementation of the Proposed Action would have
any cumulative adverse effects on physical, social, or economic
resources. No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated for social,
economic, or biological.resources. However, adverse cumulative
impacts to the physical environment are anticipated for water and
wetland resources downstream in the Tank Creek watershed unless
careful attention is paid to storm water management and soil
conservation. An approved wetlands permit will be needed to define
mitigation required for any potentially adverse impacts to wetlands in
the McFayden Pond area from the Combat Aviation and Separate Battalion
Barracks projects (PN 53955 and 53914). This EA considers the
following environmental and socioeconomic values:
a. Biological. The Proposed Action and its alternatives would be
unlikely to adversely affect biological resources in any significant
way. The level, intensity, and duration of habitat management
activities are fully disclosed in the Fort Bragg ESMP. The Federally
listed endangered species of interest on Fort Bragg are a bird; the
RCW, a butterfly; the Saint Francis' satyr, and five plants; American
Chaffseed, Michaux's sumac, pondberry, rough-leafed loosestrife and
small-whorled pogonia. All of these species either occur on Fort
Bragg or may be found in Cumberland County. Twenty-two plant and six
animal species of special concern to State and Federal authorities are
also found on the reservation. This EA presents the potential effect
upon endangered species of constructing, operating, and maintaining
projects as part of development of the McFayden Pond area (Proposed
Action). The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in
adverse impacts to biological resources, followed by the Reduced Scale
Alternative, which would result in more adverse impacts than the No
Action Alternative.
(1) RCW. The Proposed Action or its alternatives would be
unlikely to adversely affect the RCW. Neither the RCW nor its
critical habitat is found in the project area.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(2) Saint Francis' Satyr. The Proposed Action or its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect the Saint Francis'
Satyr. No suitable habitat for this species is found in the project
area.
20
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(3) Endangered Plants. The Proposed Action and its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect endangered plants
listed for Cumberland County. American Chaffseed, Michaux's sumac,
pondberry, rough-leafed loosestrife, and small-whorled pogonia were
not found nor was any suitable habitat found in the project area.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Biological Diversity. Fort Bragg's longleaf pine-wire
grass ecosystem is characterized by an abundance of different species.
Proposed projects are assessed for their impact upon the continued
viability of that ecosystem. Wild populations within a simplified,
less diverse, ecosystem would be more vulnerable to environmental
changes brought about by development pressures and are, therefore,
less likely to survive. The Proposed Action would be more likely to
reduce biological diversity than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which
would result in more impact than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would result in a cumulative loss of approximately 100 acres of mixed
pine and hardwood forest with a corresponding loss of biological
diversity.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Construction of the proposed
project would result in a cumulative loss of approximately 50 acres of
mixed pine and hardwood forest with a corresponding loss of biological
diversity.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities would
have the least potential for reducing biological diversity.
(5) Timber Stand Management. Fort Bragg's pine forest is
managed both to support military training and the production of forest
products such as pine straw, pulpwood, and saw timber. Project
construction would harvest approximately 100 acres of merchantable
timber. This acreage would be taken out of timber production
21
permanently. The principal areas to be logged are those closest to
McFayden Pond, PN 45239, 46797, 51238 and 51909. The Proposed Action
would result in greater loss of merchantable timber than the Reduced
Scale Alternative, which would result in more loss than the No Action
Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would harvest approximately 100 acres of merchantable timber.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Approximately 50 acres would
be harvested under this alternative.
(c) No Action Alternative. No additional timber would be cut
under this alternative.
b. Physical Environment. The Proposed Action and its Reduced
Scale Alternative could adversely affect the physical environment
through impacts to wetlands and water quality downstream caused by the
increased volume of storm water entering Tank Creek from the project
area. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(1) Aesthetics. The various proposed construction projects
would remove forest in order to make way for development over several
years. Removal of natural forest cover is seen as an adverse impact,
but one which will be offset by project design which would comply with
the Installation Design Guide. The proposed projects are intended to
be aesthetically pleasing. The site will be landscaped using a
preponderance of species compatible with local conditions. Wherever
possible, existing trees and shrubbery will be preserved and
incorporated into the landscape design. The Proposed Action would be
most likely to result in more adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale
Alternative, which would result in more than the No Action
Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(2) Air Quality. Air emissions resulting from the operation
of construction equipment implementing the Proposed Action would be
transitory, and would not adversely affect ambient air quality in the
area. The Fayetteville-Fort Bragg area is an air quality attainment
zone for all air pollutants save ozone. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone have been exceeded during several recent
summers. Because this is a perennial problem, the Army anticipates
North Carolina will develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
govern compliance with the NAAQS standards for ozone. In which case
22
the Army would have to ensure that its development plans on Fort Bragg
would comply with the SIP. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has not developed a Federal Implementation Plan because the
State is already developing a SIP. In the interim, the Army is
required to assess this action for general conformity with the Clean
Air Act (CAA). This is referred to as the General Conformity Rule.
Under that process the EPA has exempted certain actions such as the
construction projects considered in this EA, regardless of the amount
of emissions anticipated, because all major new or modified sources
will require a permit under the New Source Review Program (Section
173, CAA) or the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program
(Title I, Part C, CAA). In short, each new source such as building
boilers and emergency generators will be considered anyway as part of
the permitting process. Most of the air pollution sources near
McFayden Pond would be vehicles (mobile sources) which are also
exempt. Operation of military and privately owned vehicles would
continue at the present rate with a slight increase. Boilers,
furnaces and emergency generators would be operated in compliance with
their air quality permits. Designers need to consider the effect on
air quality of back up electrical generators, air handling and
refrigeration equipment, and boilers. The use of fossil fuels in
boilers and ozone depleting substances in refrigeration and air
conditioning systems is closely regulated. The level of additional
air pollutants resulting from the Proposed Action will remain
relatively constant, and is unlikely to adversely effect regional air
quality. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in more
adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result
in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(3) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Imnlementing the proposed project is unlikely to cause
adverse human health or environmental effects because insecticides,
fungicides, and rodenticides would be used safely in accordance with
FIFRA permit requirements. The frequency of application and amount of
these products used would be strictly limited to project requirements.
For example, termaticides would be applied to the soil under building
foundations as part of the construction process. The Proposed Action
would be more adverse impacts that the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
23
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Soil Conservation. The predominant soil types on Fort
Bragg are sandy and easily eroded. The limitations imposed by these
soil types make keeping soil disturbance to a minimum a top priority
in order to prevent further erosion and stream sedimentation. Best
management practices must be followed to prevent erosion and
consequent damage to nearby endangered species habitat.or
sedimentation of streams and wetland areas. Projects over an acre
require a State approved soil erosion control plan. All construction,
operation, and maintenance activities involving land disturbance must
consider and comply with soil conservation measures in their planning
and execution. The Proposed Action would be more likely to result in
more adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would
result in more than the No Action Alternative."
(a) Proposed Action. Soil erosion control measures would be
required to prevent erosion and sedimentation adversely affecting Tank
Creek and McFayden Pond. This alternative would have the most
potential for soil loss because the most surface area would be
disturbed. Proper soil conservation controls will be implemented.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would have
correspondingly less potential for soil loss because the scope of the
total project would be smaller. Proper soil conservation controls
would also be implemented.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential for soil loss in the near term.
(5) Solid Waste. Construction and demolition debris
associated with implementation of the proposed project would be
disposed of on post in approved areas. ordinary trash would be
collected and deposited in containers for pick up and transport to an
approved sanitary landfill. No significant post construction
difference was foreseen in the amount of ordinary trash resulting from
the three alternatives because the number of troops would be
unchanged. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in more
construction and demolition debris than the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. This alternative would result in
production of the most construction and demolition debris during
construction.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would result
in correspondingly less construction and demolition debris during
construction.
24
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential to result in construction and
demolition debris.
(6) Toxic, Hazardous, and Regulated Waste. Hazardous waste
would be produced by equipment used to construct, operate, and
maintain the proposed project. Used oils, greases, and batteries must
be contained and turned in properly through supply channels. Spills
occurring during construction shall be reported through the project
inspector or after completion of the project to the Fire Department.-
Cleanup would be coordinated through the Environmental Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center. If contractor personnel are involved, the contractor is
responsible for site cleanup in accordance with State and Federal
requirements. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in
more toxic and hazardous waste than the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. This alternative would result in the
most toxic and hazardous waste during construction. Proper disposal
requirements will be followed.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would result
in correspondingly less toxic and hazardous waste during construction.
Proper disposal requirements will be followed.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential to result in additional toxic and
hazardous waste. Proper disposal requirements will be followed.
(7) Water Quality. Although construction activities for PN
16992, 20127, 20347,44965, 51238, and 51909 are distant from Tank
Creek and its tributaries, PN 35362, 41631, 45239, and 46797 will be
constructed directly next to Tank Creek or its tributaries. Portions
of PN 35362 and 45239 will be constructed over unnamed tributaries of
the Creek. Project Number 46797 will be constructed next to McFayden
Pond. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 would be constructed
west of Tank Creek and downstream of McFayden Pond. All sixteen of
these projects are up slope from and would likely contribute to an
increase in the rate of storm water flow into Tank Creek unless
suitable management measures such as detention and retention basins
are installed. Soil erosion control measures, required for each of
these projects, would be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the Fort Bragg SCMP and their respective State approved Soil Erosion
Control Plans to reduce impacts upon water quality. The consequences
of these impacts can be quite severe if they are not handled properly.
Storm water discharge into Tank Creek has already exceeded the
capacity of the watercourse to remain stable. The stream bottom and
banks are eroding with each storm event. The Post Soil
Conservationist has made multiple observations of such storms at the
stream flow gage located upstream of the point where Tank Creek passes
under Longstreet Road. These confirm that in a typical summertime
25
storm event consisting of one inch of rainfall received in an hour,
the water level in the stream rises quickly from one inch at the gage
to a depth of over five feet. Not only does this volume of water
impact banks and channel of Tank Creek, but also other locations
downstream, such as McFayden Pond, Pope AFB, and the Lower Little
River. Planners should note that McFayden Pond cannot provide flood
relief to areas downstream because the dam is not a water control
structure. Water flows downstream over through a weir constructed to
allow water to flow over a portion of the dam. The weir does not
permit the water level in McFayden Pond to be raised or lowered at
will. Hence the level cannot be lowered in anticipation of rain.
Water from a storm event flows into an impoundment already filled to
capacity. Rather than serving as a storm water detention basin, the
pond is no more than a wide space in the creek. It is incapable of
providing anything more than minimal relief to areas downstream.
Storm water management is the major potential impact, which must be
solved if these projects are to be constructed. Project Number 20127,
20347, 41631, 44965, 45239, 46797, 51238, and 51909 will change the
existing topography from a largely wooded area to an urban land use,
which will have more impervious surfaces. This will increase the rate
at which storm water runs off the land rather than being absorbed into
the soil. Potentially then, these ten projects pose a greater
challenge to designers because storm water will be more likely to flow
to surface rather than groundwater. The design standard should be to
maintain or reduce the volume of runoff in order to preserve stream
quality. In contrast PN 16992 and 35362 will be built in an existing
maintenance area and a World War II era cantonment respectively.
Since this land is already in use for urban purposes the standard
should be to reduce or at least not increase the present amount of
runoff. The project designers have taken a number of actions to
manage storm water more efficiently. These include designing storm
water detention and retention basins to reduce the rate at which storm
water flows into Tank Creek after a storm event. Existing basins will
be maintained in the land use design. Parking lots and roads are
paved. Curbs and gutters direct sheet flow from paved areas into the
storm drainage system. Storm drains flow into detention and retention
basins located on the project site before excess water flows into the
creek. An additional story was added to the design of the 82d Combat
Aviation Brigade barracks, PN 45239, to reduce the footprint of the
project. This decreased the project's total roof space. Reducing
roof space will also reduce rapid runoff from the project.
Naturalized landscaping will be used to the maximum extent possible.
This will reduce erosion while allowing storm water to return to
groundwater. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 use existing
open areas and leave a buffer adjacent to tributaries of the creek.
The design of the CAB barracks calls for headwalls to be constructed
along portions of the creek to reduce stream bank erosion. Storm
water control and wetlands mitigation measures must be sufficiently
effective to reduce total post-construction storm water flow into Tank
Creek for the design year storm. Without these measures the Proposed
Action would be most likely to result in more storm water being
drained into the Tank Creek watershed the Reduced Scale Alternative,
26
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative. A wetlands
permit will be required to determine mitigation requirements.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would have the most potential for significant adverse impact upon
water quality down stream during construction. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated if appropriate storm water control measures
and permitted wetlands mitigation are incorporated into the design as
needed.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Construction of this
alternative would have correspondingly less potential for impact upon
water quality during construction. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated if appropriate storm water control measures and permitted
wetlands mitigation are incorporated into the design as needed.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential for impact upon water quality.
(8) Wetlands. Construction of PN 35362, 41631, 45239 and
46797 will adversely affect wetlands adjacent to Tank Creek. A total
of approximately five acres of wetlands would be filled by these
projects. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 will impact over
a tenth of an acre and will require a wetlands permit. Proper soil
erosion control measures and on site-storm water detention and
retention basins must be incorporated into project design. These
measures include construction on site of storm water detention and
retention basins, underground storm water detention systems, porous
pavement, land contouring, landscaping, and silt fences. These
mitigation measures will lessen the adverse impacts of filling wetland
areas. A permit will be required from the State of North Carolina.
The Proposed Action would be more likely to adversely impact wetlands
than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result in more adverse
impact than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Selection of this alternative would
have the most impact on wetland of any alternative. No significant
adverse impacts are anticipated because wetland loss would be in
accord with permit requirements and mitigation measures will be
incorporated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Selection of this alternative
would adversely impact correspondingly fewer acres of wetland. No
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least impact upon wetlands. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
c. Sociological-Economic. The Proposed Action and its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect sociological and
economic resources in any significant way.
27
(1) Cultural Resources. The Fort Bragg HPP was completed in
1989 to manage compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
The HPP is used as a management tool to guide conservation of cultural
resources on the post. Historic sites on the post include a Civil War
battlefield, 2 historic churches, and 27 small community cemeteries.
In addition, hundreds of historic and prehistoric archeological sites
have been recorded. Construction activities are planned and monitored
to avoid such critical areas. Although individual cultural resource.
sites could be impacted by land disturbing activities associated with
development of the McFayden Pond area, all land disturbing activities
are reviewed for cultural resource impacts and, if warranted, cultural
resource inventories and assessments will be conducted prior to such
activities. The Combined Arms School Brigade (PN 370017, 370063 and
370067) site has been surveyed for cultural resources. No significant
sites were identified. Fort Bragg has scheduled a cultural resources
survey for approximately 300 acres in the vicinity of McFayden Pond
for FY 2001. Historical sites, structures, and cemeteries are
protected from damage during training and construction activities.
The proposed project site does not have any standing structures or
cemeteries. Areas adjacent to McFayden Pond, Tank Creek, and its
tributaries would have a high potential for the presence of
prehistoric cultural resource sites. The proposed Vehicle Maintenance
Shop-Organizational (PN 16992) would be constructed amid the red brick
horse stables and gun sheds of the old horse artillery cantonment on
main post. These buildings are listed below. The buildings,
constructed in 1935, are considered to be contributing elements of the
Old Post Historic District, which is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. These buildings would be
converted to new uses. Design will be coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Office. All historic buildings would be
preserved under each of these alternatives.
HISTORIC BUILDING LIST:
BUILDING YEAR SQUARE DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT USE
NUMBER BUILT FEET
2-2205 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2211 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2402 1935 7,066 General Item Repair
2-2404 1935 7,066 General Item Repair
2-2405 1935 7,066 Maintenance, General Purpose
2-2406 1935 7,066 Maintenance, General Purpose
2-2408 1935 8,503 Army Continuing Education
2-2409 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2411 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2412 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2414 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2706 1935 1,400 Compact Item Repair
2-2711 1935 1,415 Battery Shop
2-2802 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
28
1
2-2809 1935 7,066
2-2814 1935 7,066
2-3202 1935 7,066
2-3212 1935 7,066
2-3214 1935 7,066
2-3303 1935 180
2-3305 1935 180
2-3602 1935 7,066
2-3612 1935 7,066
2-3614 1935 7,066
2-3810 1984 4,000
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
General, Storage
General Storage
Compact Item Repair
Ready Building
Boat House
Army continuing Education
(a) Proposed Action. A cultural resources survey of
approximately 300 acres will be required in accordance with the Fort
Bragg HPP. Should any cultural resources eligible for, or potentially
eligible for, listing in the National Register of Historic Places, be
identified as a result of the survey, these sites will be avoided or
mitigated after coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). If any cultural resource sites are found during
implementation of the Proposed Action, they would be safeguarded and
reported to the post archeologist for disposition in accord with Fort
Bragg's HPP. The SHPO would be consulted if the materials or sites
were potentially significant. Demolition of any structures that are
contributing elements to the Old Post Historic District will only be
conducted after consultation with the SHPO. During consultation with
the SHPO, appropriate mitigative measures for these structures will be
agreed upon by Fort Bragg and the North Carolina SHPO. Demolition
will be carried out after the mitigative measures are concluded. The
Proposed Action would have the most potential for adverse impact upon
cultural resources.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. A cultural resources survey
will be required in accordance with the Fort Bragg HPP under the same
conditions described above. This alternative will have
correspondingly less impact upon cultural resources
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least impact upon cultural resources. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
(2) Environmental Health and Safety Risk Upon Children.
Implementing the proposed action is unlikely to cause adverse human
health or safety effects upon children within the meaning of Executive
Order (EO) 13045 because the proposed action's projects are located
within an existing cantonment, and no high-risk land uses are planned.
Project 35362, planned for the northern side Longstreet Road, is
approximately 300 yards north of Cherbourg Army Family Housing (AFH).
Project Number 16992, planned for the eastern edge of Reilly Road is
300 yards west of Bastogne Gables Army Family Housing (AFH), which is
the closest neighborhood. The project area is separated by several
hundred yards from areas were children reside, go to school, or play.
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
29
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(3) Environmental Justice. Development of the McFayden Pond
area is unlikely to cause disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects upon minority populations and low-
income populations within the meaning of EO 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, because the proposed action's projects are at least 300
yards from the closest neighborhoods, and no high-risk land uses are
planned. Minority populations reside in the area as the post is fully
integrated. In civilian terms, Bastogne Gables and Cherbourg AFH are
middle class residential areas. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Noise. Environmental noise is assessed under the ENMP.
The proposed project is located in ENMP Zone I (an area considered
acceptable for noise sensitive land uses), with which it is
compatible. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION.
a. Cumulative Effects. Management of storm water and consequent
potentially adverse impacts upon wetlands is the major environmental
issue associated with the proposed action. Adverse cumulative impacts
upon the physical environment are anticipated from the increased flow
rate of storm water entering Tank Creek as a result of construction of
these projects unless storm water is managed properly. These
30
potential impacts will require incorporation of mitigation measures
into the total project design. These measures could include
incorporation of a water control structure into the McFayden Pond dam,
construction of storm water detention and retention basins, and soil
conservation measures. Storm water control and wetlands mitigation
measures must be sufficiently effective so as not to increase total
post-construction storm water flow into Tank Creek for the design year
storm. In order to make certain that this directive is followed,
monitoring of stream flow rates will be required on Tank Creek.
Without these mitigation measures the Proposed Action would be likely
to result in more drainage of storm water into the Tank Creek
watershed than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result in
more than the No Action Alternative. No adverse cumulative impacts
upon critical RCW forage habitat are anticipated from implementation
of the Proposed Action. No other adverse cumulative effects on
biological, social, or economic resources are anticipated from
implementation of the Proposed Action.
b. Conclusion. Based on a review of the information contained in
this EA and the referenced BA, I have determined that construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed projects within the
McFayden Pond area at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which will
incorporate prescribed mitigation measures, is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA as long as storm water
is managed properly. Accordingly, the preparation of an EIS is not
required. A mitigated FNSI will be released to announce this
conclusion to the public, and afford them an opportunity to comment on
the Proposed Action.
7. AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED:
a. Agencies.
(1) N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Office.
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(3) U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army,
XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Office of the Staff Judge
Arlunrate. Public Works Business Center
(?) U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
b. Persons.
(1) Boyko, W.C.J., Archeologist,
Resources Division, Public Works Business
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
Environmental/Natural
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
31
j i
(2) Cockman, D.H., Chief, Wildlife Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(3) Dudick, V.A., State Environmental Specialist, Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety, Office of the Adjutant General,
North Carolina National Guard, Raleigh, NC.
(4) Hoffman, E.L., Biologist, Environmental/Natural Resources
Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(5) Lantz, J.C., Soil Conservationist, Environmental/Natural
Resources Division,.Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(6) Lubinski, J.A., Captain, U.S. Army, Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(7) Martinez, D.A., Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah, GA.
(8) Myers, T.L., Chief, Endangered Species Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(9) Prillaman, G.W., Chief, Real Property Planning Team,
Construction Management Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII
Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(10) Sewell, D.L., Chief, Natural Resources Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(11) Wirt, P.G., Chief, Environmental Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
C. Literature.
(1) Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC,
1997.
(2) Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army
Actions, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1988.
(3) Army Regulation 200-3, Natural Resources - Land, Forest
and Wildlife Management, Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 1995.
32
(4) Biological Assessment, Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I
and II, and Separate Battalion Barracks Complex, Phase I and II,
Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg,
Fort Bragg, NC, 2000.
(5) Biological Opinion, Effects of Military and Associated
Activities at Fort Bragg, Camp Mackall, and the Sandhills Gamelands,
North Carolina, on Federally-Listed Species, 4-0-90-001, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, 1990.
(6) Clean Air Act of 1990 (as amended), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1990.
(7) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 1988.
(8) Environmental Assessment for Redevelopment of the Old
Division Area, Phase I, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne
Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1990.
(9) Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations (59 Federal Regulation
7629), 1994.
(10) Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety
Risk Upon Children, 1997.
(11) Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall Endangered Species
Management Plan, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1996.
(12) Fort Bragg East Military Installation Map, RCW
Overprint, 1:50,000 Scale, Fort Bragg, NC, 1998.
(13) Fort Bragg Forest Management Plan, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1993.
(14) Fort Bragg Historic Preservation Plan, Public Works
Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC,
1989.
(15) Fort Bragg Soil Conservation Plan, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1997.
(16) Fort Bragg Regulation 200-1, Fort Bragg Environmental
Program, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1999.
(17) Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, Savannah District,.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah, GA, 1989.
33
(18) Installation Design Guide, Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, GA.
(19) Interim Guidance for Wetlands Protection, Report Number
92-03, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section, Raleigh, NC, 1992.
(20) Management Guidelines for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker-on
Army Installations, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington,
DC, 1996.
(21) Record of Environmental Consideration, Combined Arms
School Brigade/N.C. Military Academy, Military Educational Facility,
Phases I, II and III, Project Numbers 370017, 370063 and 370067, North
Carolina Army National Guard, Raleigh, NC, 1997.
(22) Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC, 1984.
(23) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule:
Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans, 58 Federal Regulation 63214 (30 November 1993)
codified as 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51, Subpart W,; and
40 CFR 93, Subpart B, 1993.
34
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. Description of the Project. Fort Bragg proposes to develop
approximately 273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the Tank Creek
watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County,
North Carolina. The proposed action would be constructed in 16
projects. The projects include a replacement fire station for the old
Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the 82d Airborne
Division, a soldier development center, an organizational vehicle
maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade, whole
barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police Brigade and the 82d
Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade, facilities for the U.S.
Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms School Brigade. Reilly
Road borders the project area on the east with 2 projects to the east
of this road and 14 projects to the west. Longstreet Road bounds the
main project area on the south, Keerans Street on the west, and Butner
Road on the north. The Combined Arms School Brigade is located north
of Butner Road. The Old Division Area Fire Station is located south
of Longstreet Road. The area between Reilly Road and Bigler street,
in the center of the project area, is largely undeveloped woodland
surrounding McFayden Pond. Two alternatives to the "Proposed Action"
of developing the McFayden Pond area were considered in an
Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 30 August 2000, and a Biological
Assessment (BA) dated September 2000. These are the "Reduced Scale
Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the projects, and the
"No Action Alternative" of not developing the McFayden Pond area. The
consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale Alternative would be to
provide suitable facilities for some, but not all, of the supported
units. The consequence of implementing the No Action Alternative
would be to continue to operate out of existing facilities, which are
less suitable for the supported units. The No Action Alternative
provides the baseline for forecasting the effects of constructing,
operating, and maintaining the projects, which would develop the
McFayden Pond area. The EA, BA, and their supporting documents are
hereby incorporated by reference. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives, and recommends adoption
of the Proposed Action. Developing the McFayden Pond area over a
period of years is not a major Federal action significantly effecting
the quality of the human environment. The development project will be
environmentally acceptable so long as storm water is managed properly.
The BA addresses the potential biological impacts upon endangered
species resulting from development of two projects in the McFayden
35
Pond (Tank Creek) area. These are Phases I and II of the Combat
Aviation Brigade, and Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion
Barracks Complex. The BA concludes that sustainable development of
the Tank Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect
on water or air quality or adversely impact federally listed species,
such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis).
2. Description of Alternatives. Two alternatives to the "Proposed
Action" of developing the McFayden Pond area were considered. Thesa
are the "Reduced Scale Alternative" of building some, but not all, of
the projects, and the "No Action Alternative" of not developing the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are less suitable for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area.
3. Anticipated Environmental Impacts. Management of storm water and
wetlands are the major environmental issues associated with the
proposed action. Adverse cumulative impacts upon the physical
environment are anticipated from the increased flow rate of storm
water entering Tank Creek as a result of construction of these
projects unless storm water is managed properly and wetland impacts
are mitigated according to the wetlands permit. These potential
impacts will require incorporation of mitigation measures into the
total project design. These measures include incorporation of a water
control structure into the Mcrayden Pond dam, construction of storm
water detention and retention basins, and soil conservation measures.
No adverse cumulative impacts upon critical red-cockaded woodpecker
forage habitat are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
Action. No other adverse cumulative effects on biological, social, or
economic resources are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
Action.
4. Conclusion. Based on review of the information contained in the
referenced EA and BA, I have determined that construction, operation,
and maintenance of the proposed projects within the McFayden Pond area
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within
the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act as long as storm water and wetlands are managed properly.
Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required. This mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
is being released to announce this conclusion to the public, and
afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action.
S. Effective Date. The proposed action would be constructed
beginning in 2001. These projects would be permanent improvements.
36

6. Public Availability. The EA and this mitigated FNSI are available
for public inspection at the Cumberland County Public Library in
Fayetteville, and the Post Library and Command Information Center,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
7. Requests for additional information or submittal of written
comments may be made within 30 days after first publication date to
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Public Works
Business Center, ATTN: AFZA-PW-E, Fort Bragg, NC 28310.
JOH RY KA
Maj G n a USA
Dep t om an inq General
37
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS RELEASE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Fort Bragg announced today the release of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
which evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts
of developing approximately 273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the
Tank Creek watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed action would be
constructed in 16 projects. The projects include a replacement fire
station for the Old Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the
82d Airborne Division, a soldier development center, an organizational
vehicle maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade,
whole barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police Brigade and the
82d Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade, facilities for the
U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms School Brigade.
Reilly Road borders the project area on the east with 2 projects to
the east of this road and 14 projects to the west. Longstreet Road
bounds the main project area on the south, Keerans Street on the west,
and Butner Road on the north. The Combined Arms School Brigade is
located north of Butner Road. The Old Division Area Fire Station is
located south of Longstreet Road. The area between Reilly Road and
Bigler Street, in the center of the project area, is largely
undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden Pond. Two alternatives to
the "Proposed Action" of developing the McFayden Pond area were
considered in an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 30 August 2000,
and a Biological Assessment (BA) dated September 2000. These are the
"Reduced Scale Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the
projects, and the "No Action Alternative" of not developing the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities.for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are less suitable for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives, and recommends adoption
of the Proposed Action. The EA concludes that developing the McFayden
38
ABBREVIATIONS
AFB Air Force Base
AFH Army Family Housing
AR Army Regulation
BA Biological Assessment
CAA Clean Air Act
dBA Decibels (A-Weighted)
dBC Decibels (C-Weighted)
dBP Decibels (unweighted)
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ENMP Environmental Noise Management Program
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESMP Endangered Species Management Plan
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FY Fiscal Year
HPP Historic Preservation Plan
IDS Intrusion Detection System
LR Long Range
MI Military Intelligence
MP Military Police
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
N.C. North Carolina
PN Project Number
RBCA Risk Based Corrective Action
RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
SCMP Soil Conservation Master Plan
SF Square Feet
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
spp. Species (various)
STOW Synthetic Theater of War
TNC The Nature Conservancy
U.S. United States
40
Pond area would be environmentally acceptable if storm water is
managed properly. The BA addresses the potential biological impacts
upon endangered species resulting from development of two projects in
the McFayden Pond (Tank-Creek) area. These are Phases I and II of the
Combat Aviation Brigade, and Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion
Barracks Complex. The BA concludes that sustainable development of
the Tank Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect
on water or air quality or adversely impact federally listed species.
The projects are not likely to adversely affect a Federally listed
endangered species the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides
borealis). The proposed action would not constitute a major Federal
action requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A
mitigated FNSI has been released to announce this conclusion to the
public and afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed
Action. The EA and mitigated FNSI are available for public inspection
at the Cumberland County Public Library in Fayetteville, and the Post
Library and Command Information Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
39
APPENDICES
A BA, Combat Aviation Brigade and Separate Battalion Barracks
B Map, McFayden Pond Projects
41
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
42
1111%00 MON 14:41 FAX [phone] USFH'S-RALEIGH.NC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Pon Office Box 3376
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
November 13, 2000
Colonel Robert L. Shirron
Department of the Army
Director of Public Works Business Center
Headquarters, XVE11 Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307-5000
Dear Colonel Shirron:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter of September 26, 2000 and
Biological Assessment for the Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I and H and Separate Battalions
Barracks Complex, Phase I and II, Fort Bragg Military Reservation, Cumberland County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)(Act).
According to your Biological Assessment, fifteen construction projects are proposed for
development between FY 2000 - 2010, adjacent to the Tank Creek watershed. Approximately 238
acres of land will be involved in this development. These new facilities are being constructed to
house and provide services to support 608 soldiers.
No suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr, American chaffseed, small-whorled pogonia or
pondbery exist in the area described for development. Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife
and Michaux's sumac exist, but surveys of this habitat during the 1998 and 1999 growing seasons
revealed that no federally-listed plants occur in the project area.
The development site contains suitable foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW);
however, no part of the site falls within a RCW foraging partition. Fort Bragg's Endangered Species
Management Plan (ESMP) identifies regions of the installation where RCW management will be
focused. The project location is not contained by any of the habitat management units identified in
the ESMP. Therefore, the proposed development will not impact population goals identified in the
ESMP.
Based on the information provided in your September 26, 2000 letter and accompanying Biological
Assessment, the Service concurs that Combat Aviation Brigade and Separate Battalions Barracks
Complex will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr and federally-listed plant species and are not
likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
0002
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT,5RpAteG NNOrTH2C CA hh,028310
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Public Works Business Center
ORIGINAL-
Mr. Garland Pardue
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Field Office C(apy
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Pardue:
Enclosed is a Biological Assessment for the
Brigade,'Phase I and II and Separate Battalions
Phase ,I and II, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
that this action will have "no effect" on Saint
and listed plant species; and will not "likely
affect" the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Combat Aviation
Barracks Complex,
We have determined
Francis' satyr,
to adversely
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Erich L.
Hoffman, [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert L. Shirron
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director of Public Works
Business Center
l
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS-CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE, PHASE I AND II AND
SEPARATE BATTALIONS BARRACKS COMPLEX, PHASE I AND II
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
Erich L. Hoffman
Wildlife Biologist
Public Works Business Center
SEPTEMBER 2000
COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE, PHASE I AND II
AND SEPARATE BATTALIOINS BARRACKS COMPLEX, PHASE I
AND PHASE II
BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located in the Sandhills
physiographic province of North Carolina and is characterized by
rolling topography and sandy soils. More specifically, the
Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB), Phase I and II, Complex and
Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I and II, will be
constructed throughout the Tank Creek Watershed Area (TCWA)
inside the Main Cantonment Area (MCA), Cumberland County, Fort
Bragg (see map).
The site for the Combat Aviation Brigade is-approximately
48 acres of land. The site is bounded by Butner Road to the
north, the future All-American Expressway to the east, Longstreet
Road to the south, and Bigler Street to the west.
The site for the Separate Battalions Complex is
approximately 40.75 acres of land. The site is bounded by Butner
Road to the north, the MP complex and wetlands to the east,
Longstreet Road and CAB tactical vehicle maintenance shop to the
south, and miscellaneous small military units and government
contractor compound to the west.
Fort Bragg is juxtaposed in the Sandhills, which is home to
the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem. The Sandhills
physiographic region lies between the Piedmont and Inner Coastal
Plains. The Sandhills encompasses eight counties in North
Carolina. The term "Sandhills" refers to the rolling hills
capped by deep coarse sands, which dominate the landscape.. All
installation lands are characterized by rolling topography and
sandy soils. Fort Bragg lies on a divide between the Lower
Little River and Rockfish Creek watersheds, while Camp Mackall is
located in the Lumber River drainage system. Overhills is part
of the Lower Little River watershed.
The installation contains thirty-three natural plant
communities and variants on Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall,
representing a broad array of interactions among edaphic,
climatic, pyric, hydrologic, and topographic gradients.
Fort Bragg is 152,855 acres in size; Camp Mackall is 7,917 acres
in size. Total acreage is 160,877 acres to include 105 acres of
miscellaneous tracts. In 1997, a 10,580 acre tract of land in
Harnett and Cumberland counties, known as Overhills, was
purchased from Percy and Isabel Rockefeller, which is included in
the total acreage figure.
2
Throughout Fort Bragg soils consist of excessively drained
to moderately well drained soils on highly dissected uplands. In
general, upland habitat consist of excessively drained rolling to
flat deep coarse sands, while wetland soils consist of more
organics and are poorly drained. Upland soils are Blaney-Gilead-
Lakeland sands. These soils are mostly well drained, contain
little organic matter, and are very low in fertility. They are
generally classified as sandy loam or loamy sand and are well
drained. Soils in lower elevations are Johnston loam. These
soils are richer, but are poorly drained. Lowland soils are
classified as loamy and are generally heavier in texture than
upland soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1984).
The Combat Aviation Brigade Complex will occur in two
distinct habitat types, a small open previously disturbed upland
xeric sandhill scrub habitat area and forest areas consisting of
undisturbed natural pine scrub oak sandhill plant community type,
dissected by a wetland drainage fingers of coastal plain small
stream swamp and scme sandhill seeps (Schafale and Weakley,
1990).
The Separate Battalions Barracks Complex will occur in one
distinct habitat type, previously disturbed xeric sandhill scrub
habitat. Most this area was once part of the old WW II barracks
community and now consists of man dominated grassy areas with
scattered remnant longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) flattops. The
installation has removed the original WWII wood buildings.
Existing topography is relatively flat. No wetlands are involved
in project boundaries west of Bigler Street. However, a small
wetland drainage finger of coastal plain small stream swamp will
be impacted east of Bigler Street.
The Tank Creek watershed on uplands is characterized by two
dominant plant community types pine scrub oak sandhill and xeric
sandhill scrub, while the wetlands consist primarily of three
dominant plant community types, coastal plain small stream swamp,
streamhead pocosin and sandhill seeps. The project boundaries
will be sited and designed around wetland habitats to minimize
their impacts.
More specifically, the Tank Creek watershed area consists
of gentle rolling terrain from one to eight percent slopes on
uplands and steep terrain with 10 to 40 percent slopes in
wetlands. The wetland areas have rather steep topography, which
lends great potential for soil erosion. The watershed drainage
direction is from east, south, and west flowing north into Tank
creek.
Most of the area east of Bigler street, between Longstreet
Road and Butner Road, is heavily forested upland longleaf pine or
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forest canopy with a lush ground
cover and an understory of turkey oak (Quercus laevis) on xeric
3
sites, and a mixture of other oaks (Quercus spp.) on less xeric
sites. Many habitats are severely fire suppressed because of
their juxtaposition to the Main Cantonment Area. Ground cover
vegetation consists of native warm season grasses primarily
wiregrass (Aristida spp.), which normally dominates the herb
layer, and a variety of herbs and forbes such as little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), broomstraw (Andropogan gyrans),
dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), baptisia (Baptisia cinerea), stylisma (Stylisma
patens) and goat's rue (Tephrosia virginiana).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the development of fifteen projects
scheduled from fiscal year (FY) 2000 until 2010 in the
surrounding tank creek watershed. Approximately 238 acres within
the Tank Creek Watershed area are proposed for development. The
two primary facilities are the Combat Aviation Brigade Complex,
Project Number 45239, and the Separate Battalions Barracks
Complex, Project Number 35362 & 44496 on Fort Bragg (see Table
1). The 82nd Airborne Division is in need of new barracks
facilities to adequately support current military training needs.
The Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I, would construct a
whole barracks renewal complex and dining facility. Additional
work includes constructing new barracks using the standard R1
barracks module design, community building, 100 percent parking,
community green, close-in training, company operations
facilities, battalion headquarters, brigade headquarters, dining
facility, heat plant, chiller plant, secondary and access roads,
and recreation areas.
Also, Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I is
required to provide housing and administrative support facilities
for soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division. Phase I includes
facilities for HHC, Finance, PSB, ADA, and MP. It complies with
current and proposed Army standards for space, security, storage,
and privacy, that improves parking, recreational areas, training
and work areas. All primary facilities are based on modified DA
standard designs. This phase will house 608 soldiers.
In addition, Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase II
will provide the remaining facilities necessary to complete the
Separate Battalions Barracks Complex. Phase II includes
facilities for 313th, 307`h, and Signal. This phase will house
768 soldiers. Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phases I and
II will provide barracks for 1376 soldiers, 26 company operations
facilities, 6 battalion headquarters, and in-processing center, a
dining facility, and paving to satisfy the parking requirements
for the entire brigade.
4
Construction of barracks and dining facilities will use
standard designs consistent with the Fort Bragg Master Plan and
Installation Design Guide. Construction of company operations
facilities, battalion headquarters, and brigades headquarters is
based on the standard constrained site design. Additional
infrastructure will include energy monitoring and control
systems; fire alarm detection and reporting systems; automatic
building sprinklers; intrusion detection system; and force
protection measures.
Support facilities include electric services; water, sewer,
and gas service; paving, walkways, curbs, and gutters; storm
drainage; storm water retention system; erosion control measures;
information systems; site improvements; and landscaping. The
site plan requires the demolition of 10 buildings 263,007 square
feet (sf) in order to accommodate the new facilities.
The proposed project action area is suited for these
purposes because the terrain is relatively level with sandy
soils, which are easily worked and conducive for construction.
The area is also centrally located within the Main Post
Cantonment Area.
Other locations would not be suitable because they
interfere with other training missions, involve wetlands or
violate management requirements for endangered species. The Army
will construct, operate, and maintain the barracks complex in
order to conduct operations required to train airborne units for
combat. In addition, the newly improved barracks will aid and
improve soldiers living quarters. Soldier moral and retention
will be enhanced by this project.
Tank Creek Project List:
TABLE 1
Project Fiscal Approximate Project Title
Number Year Acreage
16992 2010 13 525th MI Brigade Vehicle Maintenance
Shop
20127 2010 7 Distance Learning Center (Phase III)
20347 2010 9 Synthetic Theater of War Range Training
I Facility (Phase III)
51612 2010 15 Practical Nurse Training Facility
51909 2010 12 General Education Development Center
(Phase IV)
53914 2005 75 Brigade- Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase V)
53538 2004 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase IV)
25134 2003 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (PhaseIII)
5
TABLE 1 Cont.
41631 2003 24 Whole Barracks Renewal 16th MP Brigade
44496 2002 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase II)
35362 2001 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase I)
44965 2001 5 Old Division Fire Station
45239 2001 48 Whole Barracks Renewal Combat Aviation
Brigade (Phase I)
46797 2001 5 U.S. Army Parachute Team Facility
Soldier Development Center (Phase I)
51238 2001 25 Soldier Development Center (Phase I)
SPECIES CONSIDERED
This biological assessment is pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-
1543). The purpose of the biological assessment is to evaluate
the effects of constructing a barracks complex on federally
listed endangered species for Cumberland county.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
Cumberland County, North Carolina, lists the following federally
listed and proposed endangered species:
Vertebrates
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)-T (S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)- Endangered
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci)- Endangered
Vascular Plants
American chaffseed (Scwalbea americana)-Endangered
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)- Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia aperulaefolia)- Endangered
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)- Threatened
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)- Endangered
METHODS
Direct or indirect project impacts were assessed and
evaluated using field surveys and analyses of species habitats
using Arc-View and GIS systems for five federally listed species
occurring on Fort Bragg in Cumberland County. They include the,
RCW, Saint Francis' satyr, Rough-leaved loosestrife, American
chaffseed and Michaux's sumac. The American alligator, Small-
whorled pogonia, and Pondberry are also listed for Cumberland
6
County but have never been found on Fort Bragg. A field visit
determined if their suitable habitat was present or absent.
The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat impacts were
evaluated by analyzing cavity tree location surveys, forage
partitions (Carter and Associates, 1995), and timber stand layers
stored on a geographic information system (GIS) at Fort Bragg. A
map was developed using Arc View, depicting biological
information layers related to proposed project location so
potential adverse impacts could be further evaluated and assessed
through a field visit (see map).
The project area was recently searched for new cavity trees
during the 1999 5-year cavity tree survey inventory. Additional
evaluations involved a field visit on July 10, 2000. During this
visit no cavity trees were found. If new cavity trees or start
trees are found, they are plotted onto aerial photography,
located using global position system (GPS), and then added to the
GIS layer for further analysis.
Site evaluations revealed suitable RCW forage habitat does
exist but no RCW cluster partitions occupy the project area.
According to the Fort Bragg Endangered Species Management Plan
(ESMP), no future RCW clusters are planned to be managed in the
proposed project area. RCW impacts were evaluated for effects on
forest fragmentation, RCW forage loss, RCW dispersal, population
demographics and Fort Bragg ESMP installation recovery goals.
Potential impacts to rare and federally listed plant
species were evaluated by using results of a comprehensive re-
survey conducted in 1998 and 1999. A field visit on June 19,
1998 confirmed no rare or endangered plants occur in project
area. Since federal endangered plants do not occur in project
area, no impacts are anticipated.
Impacts for the American alligator were evaluated and
assessed based on a site visit. This species is not known to
occur on Fort Bragg. Only a few introduced captive pet
alligators have been known to occur on Fort Bragg. A site visit
on July 11, 2000 indicated suitable habitat does not occur in
project area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Survey results and habitat analysis revealed none of the
eight species occur in project area. The CAB and.Separate
Battalions Barracks complex are restricted to 62 acres of pine
scrub/oak Sandhills and its construction is not expected to
impact upon any federal listed species. Below is a species by
species breakdown of assessment results followed by some brief
discussion.
7
The results of assessing and evaluating proposed project impacts
on federally listed species are as follows:
American alligator.
Results confirm no suitable alligator habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Potential direct and indirect impacts to suitable habitat
from project impacts were assessed. The types of impacts assessed
include impacts on forage habitat, dispersal habitat, forest
fragmentation, natural plant community function, and management
implementation activities (i.e., urban interface issues,
prescribe fire effectiveness etc.).
The barrack complexes are in Habitat Management Area (HMA)
20, which does not support any RCW clusters according to the
ESMP. Current and future RCW forage partitions were not
evaluated for potential impacts because none are present in
project area. Therefore no adverse impacts to the RCW are
anticipated. The project is located in the Main Cantonment Area
and is outside the Greenbelt Area thus RCW management issues do
not apply.
When ground cover integrity is lost, either by fire
suppression or by altering habitat, along with it goes insect
abundance that may indirectly affect RCW productivity. While
clearing of pine trees creates changes in flora and fauna species
composition, that in turn affects insect populations associated
with ground cover. These biological changes in plant community
structure, species composition, and abundance may indirectly
alter the primary insect food base of surrounding clusters
(James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997). However, these detrimental
habitat conditions will not occur with RCW's because their
managed habitats are outside the MCA.
Significant forest fragmentation could impact RCW dispersal
between nearby clusters and population demographics through
travel corridors leading into the Greenbelt Area but these
impacts were evaluated and not of concern because of project
location. Since RCWs require large mature contiguous forest
tracts as movement corridors and forest often become fragmented
into small forest patches, from project development, this issue
was evaluated for its.potential adverse impacts. No adverse
impacts are anticipated.
Saint Francis' satyr.
Results confirm no suitable satyr habitat is present within
project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
8
American Chaffseed.
Survey results confirm no suitable chaffseed habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Michaux's sumac.
Survey results confirm suitable sumac
project area however, a plant by plant
individuals present in project area;
expected.
habitat is present within
survey found no
therefore no impacts are
Rough-leaved loosestrife.
Survey results confirm suitable loosestrife habitat is present
within project area; however, a plant by plant survey found no
individuals present in project area; therefore no impacts are
expected.
Small-whorled pogonia.
Survey results confirm no suitable pogonia habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Pondberrv.
Survey results confirm no suitable pondberry habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Potential endangered plant impacts include direct or
indirect impacts to suitable habitat as well as, to individual
plants. No endangered individual plants were found in the Tank
Creek Watershed Area, which includes the proposed project area;
therefore, no impacts are expected. Small-whorled pogonia and
pondberry were never found on Fort Bragg or Camp Mackall.
Impacts to this species are not likely. State rare plant impacts
are not foreseen because no rare species occurrences are found in
the project area.
The construction of these complexes will likely cause
little threat-to aquatic systems, if storm runoff and erosion
control is contained on site. Erosion problems are not expected
to impact wetlands because soils must be contained under a state
approved erosion control plan. Barracks construction impacts are
going to impact the integrity of natural plant communities, but
ground disturbance should be minimized. A landscaping plan will
emphasize replanting native longleaf pine trees surrounding
buildings. Wetland impacts will be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. Impacts will be mitigated according to
all applicable state and federal laws.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are the sum of efforts of future private
and state activities, which are reasonably certain to occur
within the project area. There are no cumulative effects
anticipated for this project.
9
ALTERNATIVES TO PRECLUDE ADVERSE EFFECTS
Alternatives to the proposed action were developed as part
of the planning process. One alternative was eliminated from
detailed analysis, while two alternatives, one reduced scale
alternative in addition to, the Proposed Action, were analyzed in
detail.
The no action alternative option of not building new
barracks on Fort Bragg was rejected because of the imperative
need to bring facilities up to standard for unit readiness
scenario. The need to support unit operations at garrison level
is critical to mission success. The option of redeveloping the
cantonment area elsewhere is not feasible or possible because
Fort Bragg has eliminated or developed all other suitable
locations. Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from
detailed analysis.
The alternatives considered in detail are the option to
propose sustainable development (Proposed Action) of the McFayden
Pond Area, also known as the Tank Creek Watershed Area, or the
reduced scale alternative of developing part of Tank Creek
Watershed Area. The Army is committed in its belief that each
alternative be accomplished in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
The proposed sustainable development within the Tank Creek
Watershed Area precludes adverse effects on endangered species.
Other locations were not considered because they may have had
adverse impacts to endangered species. In addition, the
sustainable design of this project helps minimize impacts to
wetlands. Selection of this alternative would best support the
Fort Bragg troop units by providing more suitable facilities
designed at the new standards as well as, have the least impacts
to Fort Bragg's natural resources.
The reduced scale alternative would not provide for
suitable facilities for all units requiring improved facilities.
Such a design standard will require more land area to construct
such facilities. This-increased land requirement is not likely
available due to main cantonment and environmental constraints.
Also, design specifications meeting new standards may not be met
when facilities are spread out too far or when some but not all
units needing improved facilities receive them.
CONCLUSIONS
Iri summary, due
loosestrife, Michaux's
and American chaffseed
construction of CAB an
on these species. In
to the absence of rough-leaved.
sumac, pondberry, small whorled pogonia
within project boundaries, the
d Separates Complexes will have no effect
general, the sustainable development of the
10
REFERENCES
Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1995. Unpublished
proprietary information on territorial partitioning.
James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997. Species-Centered Environmental
Analysis: Indirect Effects of Fire History on Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers. Ecological Applications, 7 (1), PP. 118-129.
Schafale and Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural .
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation and Schafale
(1993), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, 1997. Fort Bragg
Endangered Species Management Plan. Fort Bragg, NC 90 pp.
+ appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina. 155 pp. + maps.
12
Ile
(??]I rte' -'y???t' •.'• ? .?' f _'r -s •
.'; tom:\•''. :, ??'?:" 1
' ?
`
~'
III
;
••,? ?_ J?..y? ,7!
l ? r??• 4

v?-•?.?: ice,

v `.f

., i

P
I

V
,••J wh•P-00 .l'•.?li ..
'

?• r.
y a!

- u,
X CJ
0
O U
U N
N
U
r
cz
:>7 L
N
N

w`• XI
rx
• 77'•
4
.i.?ts + "?.z .l .rte;--t. ?•t" fi ?; 't • T r 0' t
Jjv,
i 0
r
r_
i
O u
CR i
REFERENCES
Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1995. Unpublished
proprietary information on territorial partitioning.
James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997. Species-Centered Environmental
Analysis: Indirect Effects of Fire History on Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers. Ecological Applications, 7 (1), PP. 118-129.
Schafale and Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation and Schafale
(1993), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, 1997. Fort Bragg
Endangered Species Management Plan. Fort Bragg, NC 90 pp.
+ appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina. 155 pp. + maps.

12
x
L H =1
Ion
N X
X CJ
l i
0 - \
ou z 1
U N
N
U
U 13
- C-3
ra -3
L
c?
?-?-r'ra"'tl"/.r f,+. .?...}?_ 1?. '!?W; R ?•'`?../"T'L?`-'• +? ?sr"k`??"T?r?`? C
't.`l ` ? ^*?':}- jF 4?, •k ?1 r e ?` ?.`i?yyy????iii \ ?''?
• 'f????r???.• ,? ? N _. °'. ,^^Iy.._1 ? a ?.v111 ii?,f .YR vu
wq i r r ` •D • Y t ' LAM .. .'?
-? £ «?• ''kcr, ?. t ' '? • I si Lam` ?'!..f
Iff 41
' 14 ? Il?,+ ? ? •-,C1ry?V_?Tri7 ? 'ts:i?? ;? ,Y'. "?!V C;? LL I .t. /f".?L'?''R'x i
?• •' 1?;, M• ? "? . • t ? ' ?Y}mil, ?' 1
?. r. .ta'i' ? ? ' w. '? y??•
s. •.4 c. • .,?..h r'?sy? t' S4?? f?:i?.r,! 1?:.? ?•,?ry? ?'?,y «"1?w41F ? ??
',, t --ter ?
k 13e
ct,
LLJ
t?
APPENDIX B
PROJECT MAP
43
COMMENTS RECEIVED

44
APPENDIX B
PROJECT MAP
43
?p I
COMMENTS RECEIVED
44
r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAVANNAH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 889
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31402-0889
ATTENTION OF: February 15, 2005
Savannah District
Mr. Ken Jolly, Chief
Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps Of Engineers, Wilmington District FEB 1 i lip
7 1005
Post Office Box 1890 DENFR - ?TAT&,
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 '+DsFt,'D sTCi<<t;; rIERIEr2 FiCfi
Dear Mr. Jolly:
I refer to our recent on-site meeting concerning fill material that was placed in
wetlands during the construction of the 16`I' MP Brigade Barracks Complex on Fort
Bragg in Cumberland County, North Carolina. As you are aware, we thought that this
work did not require submittal of a Pre-Construction Notification, due to the size of the
impact. Unfortunately, we were not aware that Wilmington District had placed a
Regional Condition on the use of Nationwide Permits prohibiting placement of sediment
basins in wetlands. We apologize for this oversight.
In accordance with your request, we have redesigned the project to remove all fill on
the northern end of the area in question which was placed to construct a stormwater
detention pond and a sidewalk. I am also enclosing an after the fact application for use of
Nationwide Permit 39 and Nationwide Permit 13 to authorize the fill and riprap that will
have to remain in place. The application includes: 1) Location Map, 2) Aerial Photo,
3) Previous wetland delineation, 4) Plan View Drawing of impact areas, 5) Plan View
Drawing showing new location for sediment pond 5) Plan View Drawing of proposed
foot bridge to replace the fill area, 6) Typical riprap Cross Section and Plan View
Drawing, and 7) the Environmental Assessment prepared for the project. If addition,
drawings or information is required please contact me immediately.
It is my understanding that you have no objection to our immediately proceeding with
removal of the fill from the wetland area shown as Area A on the drawings in the
application provided:
a. The State has concurred in this action.
b. All material placed in the wetland area is removed and the site is backfilled with
suitable material to bring it back to the pre-construction grade. All excavated material
must be removed to high ground.
c. All surfaces exposed due to the work are immediately stabilized to prevent erosion
of material back into the site.
Other than the possible removal of the fill at Area A, no further work, other than
possibly minor activities to prevent erosion of materials into the nearby stream, shall be
conducted in the areas of the project site subject to your jurisdiction pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act without prior approval from your office.
-2-
We appreciate the cooperative efforts you and your staff have made in assisting us to
resolve this issue. The Savannah District and Fort Bragg are re-evaluating our
procedures for conducting environmental reviews of projects to make sure such impacts
are avoided in the future. We also look forward to participating in training sessions you
have offered to conduct for our environmental and construction staff.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Oddi
Military Project Management
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
@? ?
FEB 2005
nrr?rt _r',QUALITY
•-n ?.ny?'DSTGR<<'?inTEitCtWiLn
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. 200200975 DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: ATF NWP 39 & 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Headquarters, Fort Brae Garrison Command
Mailing Address: Public Works Business Center
Attention: Colonel Gregory Bean
Fort Brae,. North Carolina 28310
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District
Company Affiliation: Project Management Division,
Attention: Diego Martinez/Pete Oddi
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 889
Savannah, Georgia 31402
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page I of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: 16`h MP Barracks Complex
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fayetteville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):- Fort Bragg
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Site is located at the corner of
Armistead Street and Bunter Road on Fort Brae
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Lat - 35.159, Lona 78.996
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 24 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): unnamed trib to Tank Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://li2o.enr.state.ne.us/adniin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: This site is surrounded by existiniZ development
Construction of the barracks is alreadv well underway. A small creek runs through the site
and a small amount of wetlands are associated with this creek.
Page 2 of 10
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves the construction of a large barracks complex company operations
facilities. battalion and brigade headquarters soldlier community center, and a close-in
training center. Associated with these projects area several roads parking areas, a parade
field, two bridges . utilities and sidewalks. Normal construction equipment was used and is
being used for construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the fill areas are 1) to construct a
building and sidewalk in area C,, 2) to construct a parade field in Area B The site
designated as Area A was partially filled when it was determined that the wetland area could
not be used for construction of a stormwater retention pond This area of fill will now be
removed.. The overall pumose of the projects is to provide housing for troops at Ft Bragg as
well as support and training facilities. The riprap areas are to provide erosion protection
around bridge footings and at storm water outlets
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A wetland delineation was verified for this site by the Wilmington Field Office of the USACE
A copy of this delineation is enclosed. These wetland are also shown on the enclosed sketch
showing areas to be impacted.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future actions area proposed at the site The enclosed NEPA document addresses other
facilities proposed in the area but not part of this project
Page 3 of 10
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:_ The impacts related to this
project have already occurred under the assumption that < .1 acre of wetland could be filled
with coordination with the USACE or State. However, we have since been informed that this
does not apply if any potion of a stormwater retention pond is located in the wetlands.
Unfortunately a corner of the berm for such a pond was placed in Area A on the attached
drawin,Qs. The area filled at Area A is approximately 0.075 acres in size. Our plans have
now been modified to remove all fill in Area A from the wetland area. Area B was filled to
construct a parade field. This fill is approximately 0.005 acre in size. We determined that
removal of this fill would impact the retaining wall for the paraded field. Therefore, this fill
is proposed to remain. Area C was filled for construction of a building and a side walk.
Approximately 0.06 acre was filled for this action. Since the fill is required for the side
slopes of the building fill, removal of this fill is not an option. Therefore, the total impact of
the project is 0.135 acre. However, as explained above 0.075 acre of this fill will be removed
to hieh eround. This area will be restored to grade and allowed to naturally re-vegetate or if
required it will be seeded with a herbaceous wetland seed mixture. Planting with woody
species is not possible since a foot bridge will still have to be placed across the wetland area.
See attached drawings. In addition 8 areas along the stream have bee riprapped. These areas
vary in width between 10 and 20 feet and run up the bank 10 - 18 feet. Only 3 to 4 feet of
this area is located below the bank of the creek or in waters of the US. The total len-Qth of
stream bank impacted is 148 feet. however, since in two areas the riprap is on both sides of
the bank only 108 feet of the stream to be impacted. Four of these areas protect the footings
of the two bridges that will cross the creek. The other areas are beinjz used to prevent erosion
below the outfalls of stormwater retention ponds and outlets. Some of these areas may be
removed upon completion of construction. We will also investigate conversion of some the
areas to a more environmentally friendly means of erosion control.
Page 4 of 10
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

B Fill .005 No 150 feet Forested
C Fill .06 No 50 feet Forested

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hltT:/hvww.fcma.cov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes Nvetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.6 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: .065 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secify)
1 Riprap 28 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
2 Riprap 12 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
3 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
4 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
5 Riprap 10(1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
6 Riprap 17 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
7 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
8 riprap 21 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.us¢s.,ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
w?aw.nuapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: The riprap areas 1& 7 and
3 & 4 are located across from each other, therefore only 108 feet of stream has been
impacted. The proiect impacts 148 feet of stream bank habitat.
Page 5 of 10
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) Watplicabblele) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe treasures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
As stated above, we have re-evaluated the project plan and determined that the fill at Area A will
be removed to grade. This fill will be replaced with an elevated foot bridge The fill for the
storm water pond will be removed and the Mond shifted entirely out of wetlands The removal of
fill from this area will include removal of all materials placed above and below grade After all
foreign material is removed, the area will be backfilled to the grade of adjacent wetlands with the
ltydric soils that were removed from the site and/or top soil stored near the site The other two
fills cannot be removed without impacting the foundation of an existing building Retaining
walls are being constructed to maintain all fill and keep it out of the wetland areas
The riprap areas are required to protect the bridge footings and prevent erosion due to releases
from upland constructed storm water facilities. Some of these areas may be removed upon
Page 6 of 10
completion of construction. We will also investigate conversion of some the areas to a more
environmentally friendly means of erosion control.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetIands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Since pennanent wetland impacts will be less than 0.1 acre and stream impacts will be
less than 150 feet it appears no mitigation would be required However, we are prepared to
deduct 150 stream credits from the Jump and Run Mitigation Site on Fort Bragg if required
In addition the 0.075 acre area to be restored at Area A will be allowed to re-vegetate
Page 7 of 10
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/wm/index.litm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes E No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Envirommental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes E No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes E No ? This document addresses several projects.
Page 8 of 10
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out A feet perpendicular lrom near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Page 9 of 10
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Fort Brae has already obtained approval for their sediment and erosion control plan for this
roiect. The plan will need to be slightly modified to relocate or expand the stormwater and at
Area A. ,4 ioro M, Q_4_4_!0 r S % U - o , ; cam; (I eav, 4-A-'&_)
r1erJ du-t 5 ?s ?`?Ce S
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
Fort Braaiz has available capacity to handle the sewa e to Generated by this project
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ® No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The proiect area was investigated for potential impacts to endangered species Based on this it
was determined the project would have no adverse impact on such species
1 ?
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of 1
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://terraserver-usa.com/PrintImage.aspx?T=2&S=14&Z=17&X=213&Y=1215&W=1 &... 2/11/2005
0` ' 2Km 0. ' iMi
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of I
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://terraserver-usa.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=1 &S=14&Z=17&X=213&Y=1215&W=I &... 2/11/2005
0' ' 2Knn 0' ' IN
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action Id. 200200975 County: Cumberland Quad: Manchester
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: Fort Bragg ' Agent: RahlffIngle
Address: AFZA-PW-N, Erich Hoffman Dial Cordy and Associates
Department of the Army Headquarters, First Union Building, Suite 601
XIII Airborne Corps and Ft. Bragg 201 North Front Street
Fort Bragg, NC 28310 Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: [phone] [phone]
Zone: 27' UTM: North: 3892255 East: 682589
Size and Location of Property(waterbody, Highway namelnumber, town, etc.): The property is located adjacent to an
Unnamed Tributary to Tank Creek, between Riley Road and Armistead Street, south of Butner Road, on Fort Bragg, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Basis of Determination: Determination is based on information provided by Rahlff Ingle of Dial Cordy and Associates and a site
visit conducted by Lillette Moore, on June 26, 2002.
Indicate which of the following apply:
There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed. The
surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional determination on
your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands cannot
be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a more timely delineation of the
wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Comps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate,
we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the Corps: The Corps will not make a final
jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey.'
X The wetlands on ymur Int have been d Min nt d. and th limits of orps l irisdi Linn have been explained t^yoTi
Unless there is n change in the law or our published regulations. this determination may be relied upon for n
period not to exceed fives eoarc from the dat of this nntifi ntion.
There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this notification.
The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army permit
is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is not required
for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any questions regarding the
Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Lillette Moore at [phone]. .
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature Project Manager Signature
Date Time ?F, 7001 Expiration Date T mi ne 26- 007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM.
CESAW Form 566
IMAGE VI"
1h' _ 4ND PLAT
WETLAND SURVEY
PREPARED FOR DIAL CORDY AND ASSOCATES INC.
FORT BRAGG
16th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
NORTN CAROLINA
DA TC MAY IS 2002

I

xortz
r. e+s( x.x ..o c- rxowo(D er .,.us
? u( o-srwc(s .x[ r.cMtonrH
1 rCw A(E(x(xq SCC At x01L0
a swKKO ,... [at
1
.1 A. IOL.RD wM .S.IECw xDp[l 10.-IIS x(CL.K9S
Hl A. xAi roSr IxOCL1YD MM xC1LwCL MJC(lSDF rD
aa..rrw .cccr.cf.
EE-0
L4/. ? C.DSIWD Nfw r.VC
[r. . (mSrwO wDn
..cr. - ?nzrwc cacx[r[ ranu.(nr
cr. cwwrt0 rover
LOCiTfONAW,
(xor ro scut T
f 1
9494
k
BUTNER ROAD
-.-.-.-.-.- -.-.-.....-.-.-.-.-.-
L?.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-----'---'-•- ......
XA?
~ axwwan
I L I
xcr(wro t.?, p?,?? ? r D I
I O Cxwx+s I
M tar,l ; / .I?a.u?e I
I m o u? u.? i. wC?IO.l? P?cI?C?3 I
pf?-
? w ?` ? j, not .aoW
_-MC11Nf7nt' I
I tw '? g s!'? R { ? IK11AM ? A ? ?7
? e - ?3 a? I g o L
2.112
I 9.
0 o Lo 0
-- ----_u---- ---=
RICkEnSSIREEF
Q Q 24703 -? ANDIASS dyATES LYYIR011MENTAL CUNSULTANTs
6FAL
x.t tar or wt n.. ? ?` LS191?{?T)4, [..u w,r.w...?t...? wet
tttt???? HANOVER DESIGN SERVICES, P.A.
maDr. .nw ..wti v`au'so ? ?: .
„i?'" r?•` loo' so' o oo' LH.o suvKrcws (ncw.ccas wo v(.wnc+s
t'?f <' Css+•l? !r9 ,r.r nur sm(n
?j'•?'t r-ussr>res:s• ?_ nrwcra(.. 0.c 29941
(91 U) 34J-9911 Lr/(syJ.
[Yµ Iol?.am+mwm
rDDISADKix
July 03, 2002 08:18:50 AM pans I of i
I
\\\?? l\ I I} 1, .1. .1 i I i J i I N I 1
\?\\ \11111 1 `i l I 11 t % I I I I I J J J
\ ?? \\\1111 111 / t i I ? J I i i
\ \\ I l l 1 _ / 1 / l J PROP. FRS-Si I l' I J I
1 >? 1 1 i I I i I t I? .I / / l /1 I.E.(IN)=252.30 -?T W. 4.14-4 if
I
/ PROP. IP
o1\ 1 11 III (b 3p' 2450 •, TB 24838 RAP Pljl1NGE f 1 I I
??11 1 III y I? - PdT= 245.10 /-PROP. RAINING WALL// PDaI I 9 ' OF ? 14. RCP/®, 2.90% I I
I
? I I
\ N 1 1 1 I I i I I I i I I t j I- -/, ROP. WOOD OOT \\ I I I I I I
? h, 1 t I ? [ I / BRIDGE A ROS 30/PROP. STPS \\ / 2?6-`-'??
? \ III I I 1 I / 257 _
1 I I I tI 1 1 t. I J / N DS 67 RISE/13'/ TREAD . 25
1
2 - i I I 17 • / , / N 1p.0 FT. DFOP ?\ I 2so .261'.
8 62
N FG-252. 4 I HATCHED AREA=
1I / I I I I I t t l I l I =?s ,'/ N / 2. 263-
OT. OF ?TEP 8 62BORROW/TOPSOIL DISPOSAL AREA
'4
W-12 9.2/ / N',, / I ryh 264
x'-2 2 J-=?$I?r F t It , N i FG=260.81 58 I ry 266
J 1 J f 7Jl / cn'n TOP OF STEP `? `?' I I I
7
/ o II / /• j 1 Ifs If 1 / • I : I \\\ G=261.3 I ?r?0
/ I \\ I I
1 /.Jl I \ I +
0-101 POR / If /-j 1-7 1 illfiN
OP. BRIDGE 4-?..
ABUTMEMTSI FG=250.81 J- •? 1 I \ W 7.04 .? I I f
I? l 1 r JJ - JJ J? , / BOT. OF`STEP I 1
I i 7B?2?f 20 PeoP. STEPS
I I l J f J BW=251.06 6"
C:1 FT!-- \ ?' I r
I I I I l Ill 11? / ?g?--- -- RISE/1= 3 AREA
I
//l J I /- . _ I I PR.OP.
RE,=2 2 .91 I I f .
1 I. f
1 / l 1 fJ JIl 1 -TW=25200- I 1.E IN X261.00 /
I N I TbP BW=252.00 . 1 I ?. I.E:(O(W)=255.00
2?0D1 J J 1 I /
I I /lf .1 J I J Jf
PROP\ FMS - , ' PROP. RETAINING iNAL1 w 1
/ I I 1 .
f 1 , lrJll I.E.=252.00. \"--EXIST. ?WETLANDS 4 Jr i F J PROP. RIP RAP PLUNGE
I I f J J t Ili POOL
B -*5.1
I PRELIMINARY
I IIf1JJJf.?J1.Jf1 ?s 1?. . ? .
,-255,
}? I f !J J J I J JI 1/!!f EXIST. WETLANDS /.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
r J /I ff ! J I/ ?? I / PROP. NAG C350 PERM f - Prot:
LINER OR APPROVED 16th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
I J J J J J / l/
o if EQUIVALENT ® FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
I 1 J ?/ / ?/l .\ \\. .=26&23-• I I
I I IN l/ FlLLSLOPE/WALL ? 45_ -BWTW=259.21 I r=
- 2M. 5Z -
111 l„/'z/ l?i - - INTERFACE (TYP.) ?- - - - - - - - J CIVIL BULLETIN #2
=25326 - - - _ \ \ ` - - - _ - \ ~ -zz-`1W=268.28 \ fie 1.BDAC-502dwg Dole: 1/16/01
// ?/ Rojett Egr ABC
ABC
9 41- - ?? ,
wsl ss - B=-75 A
? W ISAACS " Des ql By.,
_238.0 WL DCNE P C ot? • wm 9AMMG C Drawn By ABC
Scolc 1'=30'
?i l: rl ihi??!l l 8? 253 53 z54 1- = ; .. / i e720 RED
CKAM M Kr- 28217 420
B D 2 0
PHDNE (1a) 527-3+a FAX ha) 527-8175
\ V/' ` \ m?7.mnld¢ .'b?'L'_ "a'F __ rn 1 f0?"_? =-' --- 9` \`' V fi__ ?-'C ''P 1 rE&` '?'?•j`_.r1 I z. 'r 'o/c
o
rtt ' i `,'til ?\`\ 1 a>_ _ a'r •?"J•; `-_________-_?` ?`N ``\ `?n rr lw \ ``? ?\? 1 I i I ?1'r4[ /' .\ \ ,wwp rcca
1 ! Pt1 fm,,^ \ \ '': ; ?i --p l? `? ? , 1 m.rt ra Hm `\ ` tK mIOVl I ' DEt. Ka
` \ \ role \ ? \ 1 \ wt.lsq \ ??` ` ?I \1 / \' 9\ \
` T a '',i i 1? l11\ `\ \\ \ 1 rli? 1w'en \\ `.I \ / I 1 \ \ I
- ` r`c` 5 V I , r '_ ?- 1?1111't II\\ \\ \ `\ 1 j ?\ Y1?1 \ ``l I 1 )1i / 1 I I N
niam? - nnue<rn? ?? ryµu?,nl? a uelnnrn 1 nn?u'? l 11i1111?t11 `ormc.Ml \\ \\ N.
I i I 1\ ' I i 1 17 t I 1 4
I 1 ma 1'I ^I Sri r I- I _r \rii ` - \ rrIr ?. \ 1 I. 1I rY rho- twx \ I I 1 I 1 11
1 I tt{On} y I- 1 ? \ n ' > 1 1\. 1 \ \ I ! \ I 1 / ! I I I /'/ 1 1 IFL C6 I G 1 1 0
1 1 - I rrne, _ \ ?? 1" 1 \ \ / ! I I / I / I t 1
I 1 I y
' 1 1 .\I I 1 2 I_ _ Yi7L \? \ 11? II YI rv.Vo"1 \ `` 1 ? r I 11 I ?/ / )) I f I ? ! 1 tf n6 m IBM _
/ ,'? I - ?? I 1 1 1 ?¢(Nk+r?sl \ ?1 l 1 / I 1! I I / 1 1 1 I ! ! I I I N; 1
I 1 1 \ ? \ - w\ :. \ 11 1. ?• R 1 1 1 ! I 1/ / ! I I 1 1 I 1 I 11
1 1 rl 1 `\ 1 I WI.X `?? ,?ff?' 1 I ! r l 1 , I 1 1
7f r 1 1 \ \\ 1 ? \ ; ` I j - { 11F11 I rCa \ ` 1 / 1 I I I I ' I / I ' 11 1 1 I I 1 Ir I' FlmTC Foci I
evel
r? w 1, m OONI 1 1 \ \ 1 =` 1 - 1 1 I A? I \ ? ! f 11 1
\ ro,rla? - 1 1 `?? \ 1 I f I r 1 ! 11 I / I ?1 s
{ V. v . 1 \ \ ` \ 1L•ffi71 = ? K ' \ 1 pll 1 I \ I f / I \ 1 1 I ! I I / t d
/ I 7ifl 'w nO \\ ?\ \\ It{Ilrrr = \ ?\ \\ 1 0, 1r \ ? i ? ) I ? II r 1 i l I I I is I y
/ 1 ? 1 I 1 1 1 I i N ray'
N r¢w 1 v 1 i? \ . I I I I A I I I I I r
?°'°'- ` \? 1 1 /'' 1 1 r 1 1/f
1 I 1 I I _ / r ,?1 1
m O11w Jena 1 > \ \ PC.O.F. I
•bin -\ 1 \ \ PuU \ ` \ p 111:11 1 f/ I \ i I /l II I I \I II., i r u 1 i
Iry S - - I 1 1 \ \Frt?i'eiSA •Aq{ ?PR?P. CA?? \ IP1 II ''RS7. Rn?5 I 1 / I l I 1 11r
1 I l( \ \ I 1 \ / I I I (C, 1 N
f Rte- 1 ' \ w\ p_ I 7piyA 1( ' 1 It
14. MA7 1 \ \ PINT \ ryA4 `A[ h? \ ) I I r 1 1 I l l 1 1\ r-i -?1?-
1' n 7I?? 1 pp--MM TM 1 r 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I / I I f 1
N 1\ \ \ CL•
I[ 7g71 \\ (? \ `. \ \- >?^c? '' , -raN7 • 11 ; / 1 I
"L•m67{ i I ll I 1 1 1 II \ 11 ) 1 / / f I {S 1
/•¢ 1 mm)- L Z R O \l 'l1l t Boo1R°I n tl 11 ,, 11 r16.1o-U 1 II I ' 11 \I 11 I \ 1 1 r ' -/', _ ! 1 I , ri l
P a BmNal Rol 1 ` +-- ` \ ?4 • , 1 I 'IL(Mf7ub 1 l I \ \\\ '1 1' ! 1 1R'_ _ . Til IN
wl. ! 1}ala rp N luny M Rot Olvl - 4 ' Nor. R W 1 1 1 I \ 1 1 \ \ \ 1 l ' ' ! / ' 1 f . ( I 1 1---?f RIl
111 rL ?? \NyN,pp \ `? LN N'p ?` " \ ;? y, ?? NnI?N. 1 I ( t \ , 1 1 \ 1 1' 1 r / ! I,?•-1{ ?-„
y Iv mCM - c irrr r r l r" r i \ 1 _\ 119, oilii?rv` n h r \\ \'\ 1 , 1 I I I \ 1 \ 1 1
,j1 w 'i {1NIq 1 \ ??? n r 1\niii nih ............. nii yiuirrir inrurm it Irt 4 11L ? \?? \\ \ 1 ' 1 cm -a \111 I I ' 11 1 11 \I ' 1 1 Ill l' - \:.y ?• ' \\ I
Pow. SOIL X MJ 1 - - 1 ? \ '1' tC•ms 1 i 1 1 i I' . Sp u1a7xA \ '
v a 1 ?. \ \ ??4 - ? ? v? I l IL Tale 111 I I 1 \ \ I 1 1 \\11 ?,%s S I 1 r I
X11 ,S 1 1 \?'G \ goA:1CC) \ _ `\ N IIS ` 1\ id , - I 1 I[.(af}NCp I I I 1 \'1 1 1 1 11 M?-_`\I d? `\.' 1 1 \, 1 ?1 I I '
?• Id 1 N PPo?Pq. C: i .b t 1 1 ' I 1 1. , Iip nCel 1 1 11
-I I 11 I a ... 11 _ ?_ _ I
1 w } I '1 11 \? \\ \ IUOr 0X11 PPIS' - _ l? ?Iq. X-11 : 4'Ir? ?` 1 tl 1 S / 1 1 ; \7 1 \\`\ 1 ' I t I ` I 1 1 1 s
? 1 CL.stm `?` }>. Y\?- 1? ? .A[wMC w?r 1 I ?( 1 •. \\ 1 I I i w l \ 1 1 I 1 1
.mP r ' `?? aXN? 6q ? S7R X_A_C tY- ? L
___?___ 3 __ _ IIjjDM17nt1 .?prlu? 6. 1 •, I 16 \?.
? y1
•7IlN ?r1l ' ?'____ ?__-__=TiC--_-__ __- 11WIk1wN_ i? Ed? 1 1 •\ \1 ?' ) I ?1 I{ 1 I
\ / __ __-___1 i N M 7 r 1 / / 1 I. I 1 \ I I rr?{0?'}'sl 1. \.
rq.? r /A(/. 0-U \ aae . 1 - I hV.l? v I \_
. x. x v» ?7 i -==t7' xr?x r 1«.e ` \ .un ' I 1 I 1 ?. I - ! ? . . ? ? •..I . ? C 11', &i1p/ 1 .'
G ? . 1(• 76585 I Rnt \ drr ?'t?- . AT
21,
51q! p l?3 ("r as 7x516 I I? M .r.alN \ _ >Ry >?. I I ' I I hurR rnhv 1 . . I ?
1 Nv A aly 75555 I 1 ?1~ ? 1CM}as \\ N \\ V ffiO ?!\ Nr MK a. . `? r • 1 I / 1 'I a ? . l i - F I ! 1 I
A W'N}7Aw - no- Ira .. - ' 1 L 1 _.:? 's I . 1 ... .. - J I 1 1 1 \\ f
' r rvr v \ \ ' wblN ¢lyk • r r N. r. a `. 1 ' .....\ \ ! _ I
A pw1 1 $ b \ War}mm \ ? ? xv f2 n- 1 1 I I /- 1 I 1\ I: 1 I I 1 \ \\ 1- 1 1
` 9 \ \ Jc `?.\ _ \ ` \ 1 \ r . 11 S 1 \ .! . ; 11 ,r I I 1 I 1 1. 1 I 1
B \ Ikl f ?\ ? - ?`?Irv ?. •. 2r6x \ `\ ? \ \ t{ 1 I .1 . / ( I 1 I I I 1 f PR ol¢ I
??' / ?1„i yts ss \ - s- ?,? •f- - \ 1141 1 1 ? \ . ? .. ?.... ? ; ? ?? ' iii ? ' f 1 /1 1
`\` 1 1 1 1 I ! 1 1 I f 1
_ I T- I 1n \ \- ?? 1 _ ai , I I I 1 ?.. LG? / 1' I / I I /I
Pfl fllO t(F M e0.m0'
5 \\ \\ \ ?R\111 r 1 \\ I 1 ?'? I I V1 ?JCv? •/.l.\, r r 1 I I 1 y I 11 ' N t
Tan ` \ \ ? ? '?•, mf.mmK M t
u. \ ? j 1 Rn 0w1 O \\ ? '? 8 IA7 twN -\ L . 1• \ ? \,. \, / / r 1 I I t .'. 3 / A qw 1 s
Lmtix1 ` - tCKrre o\ \ 1 1 \(1 1 t'1 \ I I ' b , 1 I I s e / v
M15n V fi , r ``BAR-? - \' \\1- \ 1 \ 1 • 1 1 ' ' 1 "` I I? ?? I-? ,71/. I I I ) I 1 I _ .. 1 ! R-27
L r err >? r ?a rrr n n 1 v 1?1? s
i r 1 Ir KLV 01
Nil-
pgyl I 1_ 1T-N IkA,
11• '\'1 \ 'I ? ?' f1?t ' r, v, i I i I .i.. \i m..r.
E, ql 11 2 rrat7_ `?
/ I 1 I I I' 1 1 \`\ 1 1
R N Trkm,. •`_ \ \\1 \ 111 1 1 1 \ I I / / r-)
I1 \ 3 .\ \ \ \ \\1 `'1 I 1 1
:ID I I I Ny, R NV ` 9?a41 A eJ]I Ni\ yrq \ R N F TJOIR"1I ` ` \ l 1 1 \ I / / / 7 I I _. }'
A4711. >v" _ eOP..t91 R\J7 NPFC N4 AL.ffia my- m ROOF elMl RHS - ? \ \ \\ \ 1 I I 1 I I IIDl. RT/Nd I ! I , / 1 ) I 1 I I I ? I 1 i I 1 I
A
tar - l1PRf` ' \ \ \\b,llpl. ` ?? / I
ana- \ \
v
arr.m.a RNA ma
211L pe?nwl.\ _•.ryp,_- - _moNavm aaf-. \ \ \ \1 1 I I I I f I ! I ! 1 ! I I or o.,xrt
\ I T
p-.v}+ 1 I mllnw A N7OSL nrn.lr°`. \\\ \\'? 111 (III . :.? r / 1 1 1 I r ' r I 1 I I ! Q f _. I b TV'-c'2 at>
MI\ \' - _? b A ?_,, . X \ \ \ \ \\\I 11111111 I I r I ) I 1 ) I 1 I ' I f .'r I r'S
SSk 1f Paul 1. `?'ar? PROP. E.OI. 1 r ' - v 2 a. cai W. C.01; \
to ?I \ 1\ 111 1111 / / / 71n. raa 1 ! r j I II I 1 I _ r I 1 ?_. a-M
g0 \ I
Ir[.7. I Ri• 1 I ?I lI 1 / J
?\ Rw( T \\s? ' `\ 1. _ _ \ \ \ 1 1 1 IIII I• / ? / IL¢}LSt.f plwJ / I I A I I ! l 1 I I I
} n1 1 \ ? IV o<^ A OSL •^ 1 \,. 1 l 1 I'II rr iL2m. .??..I. tN1 I r w! Nv.! rPFn'eL / I I I ' ! 1. 'I / 1 I
11 \ . \ 1 1 1 I au]e . / ' ! ( NWi I I 1 1 •' I / 1 I I
1I \ `^hr. `W r w_ A ?- No.
>t1'L we If M
Nq C 4 `. Wa4m.N. `` Ror wxl C I \\ 1 \ 1 1 1 ?I?. )ylo P17.1?r ap1qmq?/ 1 I I I I / _ ___ I I. s I
I \ ? "``? OrraNa Ir;IOI) 1 b 11 1 1 1 1 III I ) f f rkgm R6K2 1 / f ?' O ?f ?C 7m I I I I 1 l `- I I I_ I
I n N }211- ? 1 1 III'). r I?? I I I I I I I .I i?} I I
{f\ Ip 1 i' `rxy ouV A d I 1\ 1 1 1 IIII I I / I f 0\r _^ I I I I- I, I 7c
11 1 vrm I 3_ 1 1 . ? I \\ 1 lil'p4i?•NI r r n o"'^'I,nnu ?\t _. J 1 1\\} --- r I _..1._ a
II I tor" l _ PW. SOLO WPC ` _ 1 1 1 -*- jj 11'1 •?/ - ^-I Wrtw r\ "`- 4 ! ) I 1 1 \I' .
m Rwl .-?' -RR dwlp °_?` p z. ' _ - 1=I 1 1 I1-l-:? i?1R a- I 1M]°Cp..I? s
gil ? ? a'?,"" `' al _ \ 74D - I I ? ? I /?IIIIII / ? ?• a'v mma NO 7 7 1. I ') I ? I, i IiI
.II 1 -IP I rr llnur urrlr«uu` rrr` O yr r-lr«Lm ,r I r r %/!r ¢ /.I "I F I. I I
I 1 / \ .\ r lr.n ?rrn,r _ ?`? _rrT rPa27 11 III , J./l'I,r /1 /, Y `
RI ID.I16 I ?i?7
311 VIII p !?_ _? 4 \ r I O r r! l F l f I. I T r1 1? r \\\\ I 1 I I ' l I? ! I III III i! j u I (1
-IIII ITS
1 r+ • I : i 1 ?- -1 -I --7 --i i.. / /
'? I r Nrr. a ymy / 1' l ... ? T I 1- r 1
S It
--TX - l 111 h 1'1 / •o?a`' j
al! # TxR Iv CC r I 1, 1 11 R' nm _I. 1' 1 1 II II io! ! . 1 I 1 1?J _'CI 1 ('' /' RII1{
xR .v y rP -rPn ruff { -L-- >` '--"•C?- r d /EDT 1
Gp ._ _____}__ }? ---,r - L1./i: .a'FCSU?Y 11 y ? I I 14??1111?1f`r -naN-....??H\d ^`]. I1 I C4xs1?, f11 l.,l .r1\?1?J / /' 1 '_.q I /-P1 2-. r_ = rY? a
p ?4 \ I 1„ . I I ?`rt ` Ar ll .l rll'1 w ?/ V.-/ ,\ 1 I WNI'sp / / t' I P / I' F .l r LL -
p i ! I J.' ?. I 1' -A RI{rr¢4M \. ?? ICINhaiy''a 1107 •-^?-,ySi ,. 7/ 71, ? ! ?' (_. .•. 1 I ,rVI A
1 1. ..'A IrDM 1 7xA t Vppms 1 I I• 1\? ._ _ 111 1. ?}%.. r I{\ 1 r I I
1 ? { ' 4 m ¢ta. n1a f\ \ \ lir'1! f Il?! rRi Rs - ? t\( Na. ltxMrc
I ?1 \ IO.relmt `ly t INrf ¢.ms_, `<-_- - /" 1 r( r r > I, 704
r
! 4 RAl'.' 1 I NX" Pori. l 1 T II-nv I'W L73f.•RIrJMd f } r 1 ['7.r., / 1 /.. / r 1 I
1 y U o. W (t1
Y j 1 elvOr/lvsa o9Rn Fil r .11 t1? lntrR i ii I!'l! rld roa ??. `\ \. •_;, I r'4/ ii i ''! ! i ' i /! i .. Ir rtvrl_..
/
{ \I / 1. I 1 1T11lAl1a91 I ll ??j, !?• ` 71.' ''/ R.I _. 1
d.?a .Lrnr. I 1 IIr /?7pN?y, I h ?1 1 O I , / .'r / / ? 1,
M>ti AIIy?
Js7 ? / 7 ..'t l wur srresrt I III /1? P1} L?r \ 1 ? ~ 1 / ? / l ? i i ?',' ! ? ? Ir' / ' i ' // / ! ? --. _v__ raia a \ , ®ii ?. .'1. ?In11C/u1Crl 111 I 141 IS. [TNrs i .1 ?.7s5-''• I 1 ., ! / } . I r 1 ?
.1 Irl I -/ / / r ' / I I
f?t!f 1 1 r 9 \w.sV?P A I III l?rjrrrl ? '? - ? /?/ r / /. r? tl?Jl?i I' / /. l 1
rnr) 1 VoC'4 1 /f/1j/l>lr 71{ Iv. Wt®rwl ? •; I . . - . I ! ' . /.. ? 4 ' / f. / ., I I 1
O ! ^ IeCKrOM 1 Q.11 eutgn ryrw?Y I ?IrlrlllO tr UC/aMno?U r t ,r. / f\''t;,1 I/ r./ // I-' I \
411 1'q('. Ab .QIm(- \ 1 lure I Ir.,ll?1.?d ri655D!/al! '?in•1Ne-1,: } r:?r ./\.'. r. r..j?/ i i'4 '.j I 1 y
y1 I -l. ,y. \?.' I .7nN I fr/r r:llrf7,?m?- _ `-?1^'ay" } ? ,. ? ,?, i i .r% r r .'; - ? N?'?1..
1111 q I L' / -nars.?_-_ _ J I 4 %
p A -IDb.1f Op nri..
' t'1V I 11 H }.. II 4r4rh irN !!r r - - _ _ / rau?ln?rfmn r.I /
1?'. d - ..'.1 t yyy a lly1.154, )jr?i?/ ??z `*1? /' s r..t.'!^lav)/ rnv,6aE?. Ivi Ifs .:.aa / i
I IS,. 111111??? f l
l'i ,? -- O tno ^- -- ? ?_-II .?il^C R r I/r / rr / i mCKf i _ - - /
/ M7
6 VAS ?? K wr?r?rr???rrrrarrr o.rr - u n ro...........
_T ,{1. 1d - w er»?rr?iwr?r?r f r / / i l it f qv I
vAk ??. 21 >\ 0 >
IIJ(yi}tF,b %J 1 1 1 N 1FIyl t7rll f? ; ?' / r r ! r r r -, ua ___ I a
\ N1 /?ryar r / r
p m. {M \ -s 1 I 1 !) I n!' llrir ?/ ,rte-rti_, ' / . ' ,tea ' f / r / / x / /
•?+-_ +- 1o:Ra p wwO \ 1 1
I a.?n. p lug) 1 11 1 a 1, 4. 1. -_ , ?xrr. / //, r r r , A ` ??- l
y1 4rf7 4. r . / _ / A _
1r
WIF? p If RM ` \\ 1 l I 1
1 Ihlll 1fl' I f` / /• / r r / I ? r / r , / , /' r
W A \\ \P 1 I 11? !rill ?lfl ll? 1'J % '1' % i i r' fsO..i i ,!BPJCE
PROP. &ITTW N NO \ T 1 I r Ii !h'Irny,f . 111 / 1. r / / ! . r / r ! ' T / '4 ,!
\ RItr CIR Xl `` I ' 1 III//!llrll/rf< 11 j 1 1 / i I / ' i i , r' i i / Nv '
V 1 ? -'7m- ?_ _ ? b'?11,,Y __ _ _ ____ QL7D6C1__?a1____ ? .. I '1 ? 1 I!/'!//'lf ll?- 1.(/I I .1. ?? J / r I / r l , r,' rFE/
rv -hl. 1 R.11' M 1 I 1 I!/rr// rl! fl r 1 I! I! 1, ! r 1 r i i' r 4r1. s?irtm 1 ' WN}lr /
u.-7er I 2M p 1 1 1 I'i'ri'" rli : v N I I I I •1 - - r ' -..L I /'r r / / rnnla ' ra? - -A
I hl A!,rr ! ! I /. / °6T. n""W I / / r r ' Iv. t r
rma 24,vw dt21) ! null d ,/// / ! m ° PRELIMINARY
xo1{w I HI i Illill I' r ?fl ' l I I "RF) r r - DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
nab mr.na ? rl NI 1' lilliill/•'l; ? ' ? I / ? / , r / / /
` 7.>_ ., I ! , I I rl h h I I lr /l l i / / ? ) Nv.,?, N ' f ! r = i - I r y? ,.61
` Y3 e = i i i IlYlnl • 4l7?1r I .,Nf r r/ r .r r r r r r M ry r rrr N r yt' th SIP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
°m• .H n- - _ 111111 - 4711/ 1 I "ava v rn /
r » FORT BRAGC NORTH CAROLINA
.............
i v p1 /wnr I j !r 1 11'1111 Jli/Ji i / i ?x c -?' x
rt _ I Ip11-'= I,t-?(R WETLANDS/GRADING EXHIBIT
yr5.5rN n,p®r45ms.1 WI, m/Irp r -tr rR
-267 Ale
``\ A \ ? ? ___-___ ___\-__ SPC N. 711 \\` I' / ,%, ??-?---__?' '____________ _________•-___ _ ,_
8770 RED cFn e°t4fVAAD. SUITE 420
•• "' !F2ZTIO E. i x. 7ezn
F110NE (10<) 127-SFi (701) 5116515
1 2 3 4 5

??
?
?
` I
_
;"
? -,-t - ....rte, . - I
':- :. E-- ?--- -- < ----- - MV m?IA'
`•` 1[n. IOM. ti. . tireu II t[IlSilllfi IA 919R'?A,\
ER ROA
IN ROAD
?? r`
I -?,? ? -
•- '5z-
°
``` ?
US ARMY CCRPS
/ I
N .rte. , R Pw/. 111l. +
V` \:..r..l 1 ,
\ 1
ld . .rn II rr mrz f Ilf l"'?r. 11 Mv. [I[.1+.WK ; . ?'.1
6 r
I
k=
'
-
F•
? r wrw.n
e1E•'"" '•
?-? .r. ?
n+n
Cl17NCR'RQAb .:???., •••? OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH DISTRICT
J ;qr IOIR
1 y> x?
--
1 PM. W I
\ r
Plat! IIt[. .
. 11 / .+l
I \
ly. - -r- l

W ?ti. , y., 1'? ? M '
. '" In laya,ool1s1 \ "?.1. .'l rots 1 :T[??? J 1 `.;y

(1111 I`, , \ PIMP. IfI?. \ , 1 , `, 1 I II, 4
?SII IpiR ;
1?1
;
' 1
1
1
\
\ :•

? ?? ~t -------------
------------------------
-------
--•-_ -
I
D

? ' I

?

1

V
3 r , \
.. 1
,:
I , ?
I
\?
`
\

r?.r
,
11
I
111
I
n T^°
?? \ i 1 , I 1 I / ; l n 1
\
1 I(?.II00f O[nC ` `I 1 / IRV, WEI I 1 i i I III
1
11 [Y?i
\ , I
1
•`
\ \

.'
i
_
. ?
w..r i
I I

-

P

i?

1
-----
^P.
-- ,
? tKN1rN1R

D

PRELIMINARY
1 1
•?

? 1
`I?I.
1 1 1 ? .
1 \ 1\
` \.`
, \?
\ ,
?
1
1
. Wl?1 lu
,. 11 1 1 1 1 I ?? 1 I I l I l 11 J
1 I 1 I! , / 111 1
,,,. ,
'
' {
! ,
1 ". I I
'??? 1- 1
I

i -
``
....

I _ NOT FOR LVKI[ICIIVI

.ISAACS
' rlw
• \ t
1

W
`?~
\
`
\

1 ?

• J

• 1
\ I ' EI?947'C,)w
, IM®?b01aR
- PA
IOmO1 qa w 1' i y.-!
'1.'..,
Y^.
:y / I
.:

I
''
_K
.r. IM
.r••-.
uteri. o..??

1 I

6 N `\
\
\1 \

`
\

"_"]tlnUlT
\\ b\W ObM

1
I
T.
y I , MnT.eA I I
I
EI
K w
-1 / PRV
100l NI?l I \
O

I

,
T

Sf

err'•?
i

--------

A.
'
\`

r
,
. }
.
.... w...
.n _
Y `
`
`
1••..... P.1L .v
1
`
P1 1
' •
\fRrl
... '
?
.
1
1 . I. 1 rRS. 1?M. N
ll 1 11; 1 ; :. JV
•111 pN1 A'iNfL?111111gt 111 RIP1OdCi?C'
4
IX?+?yl
441
` 1 \
?
, ^
a1f01R
?
I
11
1
11
1/
? ? 1?
}
Y. .?
i '-'P d

t I. W
1 ?_' / _

` ~t? \
\ .-

--`___
?
-`

' -----

-_--_ -
__-

•
S

A
\
.
5
P?.`f
\\ _`
\
' ,
l `f, 1 ( lrN
l 1
I
?
^
?
'''
' ; i
III I{S1Nl lwv. i,me1
'
1
11
`
1
1 y ..`, .I
?_?_
I 1?
1
N
'
I
l
\ \ \I
1 1 W41AKaO)
II 1 q Q r
Wr
,? F
?.
`.av. I n
I
S
Xif 1 i I `
I?. 11 ?1„VR1 1 /
\I
`\ ' \ 1\ \ `? -\ `
t _
X7.
.. J....\i, .- ?. I 1 !1 ?,I 11`
1 1
Lute 9R 1S 1 Ma , ; .... 1, I
1 I 1
s. , . ' `. I e S ^ E
r
\ •r, M51,1 1 !
.
.
?.
1
•
r 1 1 1 I, I'll

Y

P 1 .....
?
d ->r
/
Il t ?
'
0

!-fl>r

3?

1Y-

n '

7 l

..

o
?
1
I
... `.`\.
" 1+'?„?'....
1 I .."\\)°.:
I - .?._?-'
??'-
?? -
c l'
/
'
[
yggP
' 1118
? 1 -, 1 I I I
, I
1 l al F?
..I IlUtf,? 1 ??,.' / I
?
' ?
- '
1
I
?• Id %
? _---
1/'a ns'Iw In Q `II
•

? .....

_
:va -
•^

U
P.V.
I

1
1
1

j

IRV. -

I

-
'? 1

,? ?

- ``••

• S?
' IRl IMn9.

?. R-l ?
```?.

IV: W.
•?

1R W R
,IIH''PIgI0r BA9M

E 51N[PfD NA.
IS R
q
(?
?

j
(

1

?
1 _ __

-
- ' ?_
.'-` _ _

PROP. YDapi
e+vl WM
. S,RJCRFE
?
- - ```\`

``IO. UI.•
-- wwr\

RV. W
p[A9}I p10i ?, "? p??? ?I I
\
; I I I \'.
A ;101 I/
? \\\\`1111111?i[,.. (PTV. ? 1 ? ? I IIII ?
\t \ IH 1. .. I k SI[Pf CyM I' J, I I I I 1111"111, I
\ y11 faf[ I I I II I I I 1 ?1
1 1 I y I I ?
' 11 \11 14Ar1 n 1 ( I I //11' }na I I 4?? I
1 1 1 ( T-

I I 1I?
; 1 1 I I III _ I N / I I I ? r ,/
?
II
?
? r
? ,
I I

I I
I I I

I
I I

I I
I I ?
?

1 OI
' A

1

1 1, ? I,
,l,

/1 ; I, 9°;II,?
r

+.,"°:.'. l'. J!? 1ROP. lPIR
t3
? ? V I /'O pSTJaB/MQ
J/
.P."-`•-

/_ _
` JPwHr?<LWVM?r. ,
Y
?...0?`
_ 4w

z
?

'

•5 ?'

•''

'
w[t
n?c

•,Q

b ;
??2,Y -

F?
T
Y..}

''r

C 0 q
.
f -
-xl
,

1
1 1
onuRrM1 II 1
1/ ?. >
.
( f t .41 J [1 l 1 )
••N
I 7 r!
?
I
?#!? ?VP. Y(I
r?? r
- G-1- / I
1 I
I
1 I

i I I

1
1 I \

(

,

'

'
L
_ -

V .
i[C1p1
m•a _

C
7
?¢¢rr'
Lr.p[

10

` I M ! I1; i
- I I
I
1 1
LL
` J
m
'-mot:-+-- i 1 I i N
1 -r-
111J
? / 11
1 1 nmRCRM
r ? r ' _
1 ? ?
I ? I O
'
r ` I r I
I
1 rRG d1.
, I r
I i ?
'pnn ?i i 11 1 'racy'
1
' , 1 t?
1•.• t
'r
4
+
r ?.i'y r^

\\ / 11 `

Mlal??r 1 ?Q•UII MM rPl N MQNO Il11AYC6.
alp l/ 1 ?1lll `F`Ip1 l I
, / l /
fy
1 1' / ' % / /
'
/

1 'j
i I e? 1
l

/ 1 ! -
_______-_Idi.ert'
1
r ? I 1 / ?

? V915/u'[NIQ

I
-
b
o?

f

,
Z
\
1 •/?II 1 ??I, VIII - `.????...
// i , /
'!
?
41-
,
I I
I
I
?
I
i 00 ,?' 1 I
I
? 1
c m
-L RV. t1
m `i. I,
1 1 R "a
h ? .. , ., 1 F
I
V
n
7Yw? ?
'' ' W11 11 III OIL r?• _ ,1 ' , ?
1'?ul?yl?A I ' 7• / Y'
1
?
,
I
/?1 MOP. / 'r.:
11 / 1
'

,\
kr,
? $.
,- ? ?
F
•
\ 1 • ??II?1L'
„i lyl, r 1. /
'1 , I , j ? ,r 1
-?
' ' ?? / I I I 1 1
? j i ? ?.

©

?

I
i nr. wn ¦

-'• __ _ TROP. ifYP.`` 1

V+01901 p)d ` ? 11
ar rf?a I

j (f'J ?

I /I ' 1 ? III
u„ iil%'4,'r?. Ili / ? ? 1 M
! 1' I i r
.I. 1RF [l?'. ?•
rll/? rM?N {?l/ll I.?. .. AQ901 b101 I 1 1 I / I'I -
, ' / r / I' I I / r' r I I'
'IIII ? ?II?
1 1 I ? II ; 1 ? /
i
?
,''' /'
, ' '?}- ' ( I? ?

/1 I / IMf. wFT \I I 1
I - I i J HO[tll.l ) 1 C 1

` ` 7
Il
I 1
11 vv 1'
?
I
I IMV.IIYI!

I , V OfR.I®V[C

3 ?`

?

l

?

1
2$
ii

-
r• _

° ;

I
, k I
' ' ,
r
.
.
I
1. 1 / l
•... i i I • I J
b q /
i IIII I! ' ?
,. '.,. !.,:.A.,.,,,.,, - I r \
7/i , ! i I ° '
,

i i '
,
I
,
- 1 i I 1 1

1 O ? P
y
Y rn

A
i I I
•
...
1. .
', `I _ __ - i.... ... . ...:

Stle
-. '
?-----, '__ ----, ?x '
T -'' 4 ,
li .' Ill ;/ I / i 1 ?- TvI
-
J i T .r
>•ti?,v ? •?.Itilbf,, ,a .'AW ,• V?? P," _
? __ __ - - - _ 'I
'? -------
1'?Y.. ; ' ?

? IIW .• ___ __-_-__' ' ' ? Y '
-? ;'

1
u

¢
a r
h

g
;s ?? -_
•__
'° i ?9 r ----tttttt###tttttt .-_ ? ?
##'' #}? i#jf###i# 1#t#i#{##It####S######t####ti# i# 1# ##? ttf#i####t##3### It T#iA43IRittit###tt#i ----
r

I \
_

F Ifa,o rRosm a."'M mm.
W
- ? - [-_ _ } :
i.s?.lat-t*?ar?i"
-? _!+r.
•.. ? ?
?
?
' -?•. mm+cmeul ?? Ie...r. awa.... wulo..ww_._ ?,'erv'xrpll s[DU[vc[ OENEAAL NOIFS
l•"rm..R. Iwm `wwa wlew •rR rwewwe•r llwwl mm
^T0®f0110J? ?r
?
I? ? <

z
U
_ _
-

ti
3,?:T.-;j.-
li h. I nv.M ate.
s
F ?` ' 11j11.1.`
\
W ?
\
\
\ awww [crwam ursswrualwwrw>R
..rwsl..a
la
ia"w.
O o.[
m[wn ntl Mmma twmlmr ?.uw[wm .I na nw wr w,[wnel. [.[m wn s>an,nP. va wix rrw"'wwu®nmrarolo
..... W,IMwU11Wrt twaw wrWwlatmllww[wr mll[MaAwrw c?

y z

<
1,.
\
n
?,_r
\
\
"'1"
-1? ,? x,11 R•...
\ [wfrRl ao.6wl wrNe w. ww [1w. ww[.as®nefou[sl.. ue ?1[wO ?Il lawlePP[vl ml?rt>i an[ w[
.rr M.'M[D fS fdR ?
eum wlO. Aew/IwN
?OV.4. Wnw[R[Iw.[MII wM
N
wi
es a w w
Q Q <
< U J
a

\ 1 mom wlrr
\ \1 ` ?t i' :?4;
?l;
1
\ [
I'I
O
:
l
Iw [ d.IL .[a[I
.i°[m'°`. ::r?wlw'. r...:.rm "I.?.s l?mw..°
-m-m Pm®mlarn vo®I ma m.oa u.auwrr w[w?.. rie,o?u P1
[u.o.n.s?uaol>muu aowaua?'".a uo+lw .leuvwwwwm wlurl.ale.[uaul nvw,aeev Pru .ro.w.lw.
-urv-PCe or_wr m.or va oeau .... rw "?
w . e.w m
'"
?
?
'wu ?
g[m
'?"
a o
w
K ?
K
<
o
mnwA. ? I

- ''" 'I
l\
1 ``,
M
l
o TR £
\ .eu
R
na r[wowwa a Iv rws[In wi_ss_slmisl Rw_
e
r
i[w
lwlu
eo
l
.a
Mf19 -1?IVmD AQ PgIR IpOK 1:?"HIwMYYIM II![rt.IwO MWV.w?.[MR.M1w®
p
co

z
l
,
?
p
xs
v R••R- ''p'1 ?' -.1 I ?9mi-la l
1
1 \,R.tnl.. ` 1 , anaos
'`\ i
Ei
?" • ?
r 1' a wl ?. nPPmm m.anm om o+l `mww.vV":I"1e[.Irv?w"w.s..?•i..??lx n[l ws min[ ?Mw.rlw?nn ll[??ns[ as melw??io1a•+•s[Ia orllw ol;moR[wwlo

._.......
MRVO11[wn.®•VI
lsRas ollaw wwPmwOelrt_Ibls_I Alc lr
IUM z
W
<
V Q
Q
Z

A nsI
l
,
` • ?
••'`. ,. 'Iru.moaa?
,• I? w[ru 11
\ ; . \, ` , , % 1111
IM.?
\
\
` .
r.s
a .Imaa[[m,ev[?owwu.omMr1 w na rte".. a"wrtslR qc rs awuau®erw
t ew.lrw 1?
° xxr ??rruem...n _Inrurtr ?[ Rr.o minwr[wwa >6
w wuo w.wr .rrRw [.r. mPwwrr¦ aplmwleRrvrwrM.ww[msrlaw?
© ro?ounl olwl.,A[onl..w.w[wn.[lo1.a.1.,.[ w'w:r[wnuw.w.a ..?...?. ,.w
weel,.wowwu..r®[rarm[ aura .eu...rrw rw wP.[Il??saa ww wRawe.R[ar[e [Im?Y aq.rt oww [lalml
N

A Q
K
m
co

a

1-

o

?
o

K

w[IwU RIIV.K
Xrt M[_LS[ 1
l
„. ay.: .. ?. I 1
.............
1 I TOR \j
L-'^' 1
a
U `
1
I
` +sPl rrMrPwlrler D'r[w rrw_,RS Mrq rmalsuwr
© rRarcm nReru.lol 0M11[,trll rm[rP¢lop rarw[olw? pesoMr d.wrwewul errlln w'w.w
rtwW"s r.o
fawrwwr[lrta.e r
w K
Q
I W

.
IPPIlM alw so >m.n
aw

ur[[Ixwl ww ?
1 .
,. l I, ' '? ?1 1 `
I ` 1 1 Ip, lyya
r 1 I mn.Iwt I
!'? `? `A.
`
, 1 '? ?
: ?
am suw ls.
Y.MC +LL[01[91[®INp1CYQw.[f[O Iw.r Palr Irnlawlrtsw wu
1?11rr04'NG WELL PROTECIgN N016: mw r,a urR r Iwrm ev[ w[ucna
aam wul[w. rt.a uoMw.w A, ?
to
'
f
?
(II__RrwWU_I
m `
,
=__-- ,_=--_ _ I%ti. 1 1 Kpllo®'I
Q
?`
\?
' ?
? uuu?ilmw.?lwem[uon lwrmwclwwmwlwwrm [? ana ac wlwwlRUwao roa
va0.l. a[uu sw[nm.lmewtt 1
oo.w ra ae lsl lu mnlns [uwrwr[ RlV:cJLW TAlF
R
wNal;l01w `
?
;®
,
swlll4l,ur?l I. e.enrw wwurom[vo[m m.[IVe ra[
M•r'agll[b[ ?Vlltaa wlmLL lH n•mu root[laa le[s[1611t wst mlV la u4 nl.'n wMnM met vroRw[Iml® 9..?YY Ma srslw.l.u lrrw.ro ?o+l
"
w. aN a [m[.[ e_,«
I rR M M
fl
.w [
[
1 1 Ic•11 la
[
.o
? ` ''
?
\
? Iu1.
, ?
q
?
?
a m[
A
a maa n1
I
?
r.
1 I 1 10nCR woei loe.r w.rawnw lww.lwrum rw r>mR?R. ° ®"® rr[[m[rrmn mlw mm wfra w[Pw I.1
a { wu w[aw w..Ir[.RU.ea mrt"irro°.w wmymewm
• ?` • '-? Q 1 , 1.. 1 }. wua rmww
? _lR..i.l.... ......'. 1\I I'i '\1\ fafi'gwMU.trYlimllm[[F .1{Ylol¢MK ? 4?
PLATE
REFERENCE
NUMBER: c
C
MET A - SCN F-
- C-602 L
1 2
3 4 5 4[IT 1E o129 e

zl- I C-,( bIlt-k
D?Cu?v??????c 6R,
a d?
lecoP
6
PCe 6 Q ;61 8 o g
Poo?p p--v 'o vp
0 62(
(?-)q q6,T cs e", C)
1uf ?.?' w,?e
C, ?i .o cG,?,, Liz p1
-TIJ owe o-r4z, roe--L- c9 (vv-4 ex4e--,J / 4-s-? &/'o
q Am, --.
Jz - is
1 ,l
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND A
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
12 December 2000
Prepared by:
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Public Works Business Center
Environmental Natural Resources Division
ATTN: AFZA-PW-E
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310
In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
i SIGNATURES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:

WILLIAM H. KERN
Environmental Officer
Public Works Business
Center
Date: ,20 ` -'4 ?)6
Environmental eview:
7?u f
DAVID A. HEINS
Chief, Environmental and
Natural Resources Division
Date: l 0-0
Proponent:
70 u9 -
OBERT L. HIRRON
COL, EN
Director of Public Works
Business Center
Date: QQ
Legal Review:
l?
DANIEL V. A?A
COL, JA /
Staff Judge Advocate
Date: 13 2ez-ot
Approved:
J SKA
r ne 1, USA
ut o anding General
te: : 1iy1,f d 1
2
3
J
SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of developing approximately
273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the Tank Creek watershed on the
Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The proposed action would be constructed in 16 projects. The projects
include a replacement fire station for the old Division Area, separate
battalion barracks for the 82d Airborne Division, a soldier
development center, an organizational vehicle maintenance shop for the
525th Military Intelligence Brigade, whole barracks renewal for the
16th Military Police Brigade and the 82d Airborne Division's Combat
Aviation Brigade, facilities for the U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the
Combined Arms School Brigade. Reilly Road borders the project area on
the east with 2 projects to the east of this road and 14 projects to
the west. Longstreet Road bounds the main project area on the south,
Keerans Street on the west, and Butner Road on the north. The
Combined Arms School Brigade is located north of Butner Road. The Old
Division Area Fire Station is located south of Longstreet Road. The
area between Reilly Road and Bigler Street, in the center of the
project area, is largely undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden
Pond. Two alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of developing the
McFayden Pond area were considered. These are the "Reduced Scale
Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the projects, and the
"No Action Alternative" of not developing any of the projects proposed
for the McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the
Reduced Scale Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for
some, but not all, of the supported units. The consequence of
implementing the No Action Alternative would be to continue to operate
out of existing facilities, which are inadequate for the supported
units. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline for
forecasting the effects of constructing, operating, and maintaining.
the projects, which would develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA
addresses the potential environmental impacts of these alternatives,
and finds that the Proposed Action would not be a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment if storm
water is managed properly, and wetlands impact, if any, is properly
permitted. Accordingly, preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. A mitigated Finding of No Significant
Impact will be released to announce this conclusion to the public and
afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURES
SUMMARY
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................5
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................10
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................13
4. EFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................14
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ....................19
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION ...............................30
7. AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED .....................31
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..........................35
NEWS RELEASE ........................................................38
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................40
APPENDICES ..........................................................41
COMMENTS RECEIVED ...................................................44
4

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.
a. Purpose.
(1) Introduction. This Environmental Assessment (EA)
evaluates the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of
developing approximately 273 acres of the Mcrayden Pond area in the
Tank Creek watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed action would be
constructed in 16 projects. These projects include a replacement fire
station for the Old Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the
82d Airborne Division, a soldier development center, an organizational
vehicle maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence (MI)
Brigade, whole barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police (MP)
Brigade and the &2d Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade,
facilities for the U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms
School Brigade. Reilly Road borders the project area on the east with
2 projects to the east of this road and 14 projects to the west.
Longstreet Road bounds the main project area on the south, Keerans
Street on the west, and Butner Road on the north. The'Combined Arms
School Brigade is located north of Butner Road. The Old Division Area
Fire Station is located south of Longstreet Road. The area between
Reilly Street and Bigler Street, in the center of the project area, is
largely undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden Pond. Two
alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of developing the McFayden Pond
area were considered. These are the "Reduced Scale Alternative" of
building some, but not all, of the projects, and the "No Action
Alternative" of not developing any of the projects proposed for the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are inadequate for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives.
(2) Construction Projects. The Army has scheduled sixteen
construction projects on approximately 273 acres in the vicinity of
McFayden Pond, which is located on the northern edge of Fort Bragg's
main post cantonment. The proposed projects are:
5
i
MCFAYDEN POND PROJECT LIST:
PROJECT PROJECT FISCAL APPROXIMATE
PHASE NUMBER YEAR ACREAGE
Old Division Area Fire Station
44965 2001 5
Separate Battalion Barracks 75
I 35362
II 44496
III 25134
IV 53538
V 53914
2002
2002
2003
2003
2002-2003 Separate Battalion Barracks
(Phases I-IV)
Soldier Development Center 50
I 51238 2004
II 20347 2010
III 20127 2010
IV 51909 2010
Soldier Development Center,
Infrastructure
Synthetic Theater of War
Distance Learning Center
General Education Development Center
Vehicle Maintenance Shon Organizational/525 MI Brigade
16992 2010 13
Whole Barracks Renewal/16 MP Brigade
41631 2003 24
Whole Barracks Renewal/Combat Aviation Brigade
50
I 45239 2001 CAB Barracks
II 47347 2002 CAB Barracks
53955 2001-2002 CAB Barracks (Phases I-II)
U.S. Armv Parachute Team Facilit
46797 2001 5
Combined Arms School Brigade/ N.C. Militarv Academy

35
I 370017 2001 Military Education Facility
II 370063 2002 Military Education Facility
III 370067 2003 Military Education Facility
6
(3) Interim Project. The Army is planning to construct a
temporary motor maintenance facility for the 525th MI Brigade on the
proposed site of PN 16992. The project would include a 7,500 SF
combined administration and maintenance building and a graveled
parking area. This project would be built, most likely in either 2000
or 2001, subject to the availability of funds.
Interim Motor Pool, 525 MI Brigade
CA00046-6 2001 13
(4) Connected Actions. The Army is
other projects in the western end of the old
located nearby, these sites are outside the
Therefore, they will be assessed separately.
project is one scheduled more than ten years
These projects are listed below.
Division Sunncrt Command Motor Pool
12306 LR 10
Lonastreet Shonoette
52514 2001 1
b. Need.
planning to construct two
Division Area. Although
rank Creek watershed.
A long range MR)
from now (beyond 2010).
(1) Combined Project. The development of the McFayden Pond
area through several construction projects is needed to provide
facilities for units supported by XVIII Airborne Corps. These new
facilities are needed to replace facilities that are unsuitable, too
small or outmoded, and also to provide better facilities that will
upgrade the quality of life for our soldiers. The Army's barracks
standard for single junior grade enlisted soldiers requires a two-man
module with full bath. This is referred to as a "1+1" barracks
configuration. Essentially it is a college dormitory living standard.
The proposed site is suitable for these projects because it is
centrally located on post adjacent to other units of the Corps, is
compatible with other environmental constraints, and will not
adversely impact the training mission of units stationed at Fort
Bragg. Other locations were less suitable because they are not co-
located next to the other units of the Corps, already occupied by
other mission essential facilities, or were unsuitable due to
conflicts with environmental laws and regulations. The projects
proposed for the McFayden Pond area would allow the Army to more
efficiently support military units with housing for soldiers,
educational opportunities, training facilities, equipment maintenance,
and improved road access to the cantonment area.
(2) History. McFayden Pond was the site of a colonial era
millpond. The current pond was developed in the early days of Fort
7
Bragg as a recreational lake. It is not considered to be historically
significant. Wilson Park, a picnic area and playground, is located on
its northern shore between the pond and Butner Road. Today it also
serves as a catchment for storm water flowing into the Tank Creek
watershed from the Fort Bragg cantonment. The Creek flows northward
into the Lower Little River after passing through Pope Air Force Base
(PAFB).
(3) Site Selection Criteria. A proposed project site would
be considered suitable for development if it:
(a) Meets or exceeds project requirements.
(b) Is compatible with nearby land uses,
(c) Construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility
would comply with applicable environmental and safety requirements.
(4) Biological Assessment (BA). The Army prepared a BA to
assess potential impacts upon endangered species resulting from
development of two projects in the McFayden Pond (Tank Creek) area.
These are Phases I and II of the Combat Aviation Brigade (PN 35362 and
44496, both of which are included in PN 53914, Phases I-II), and
Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion Barracks Complex (PN 35362
and 44496, both of which are included in Phase V, and PN 53914, Phases
I-IV). The BA concludes that sustainable development of the Tank
Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect on water
or air quality or impact federally listed species. The projects are
not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
(Picoides borealis), a Federally listed endangered species.
(5) Requirement for Environmental Documentation. Army
Regulation (AR) 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions, which
implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires Army installations to consider the environmental impacts of
the Proposed Action and its alternatives including construction
projects. The Proposed Action presents a number of potential
environmental impacts. These are: an irretrievable commitment of
natural resources caused by construction on the project site, the need
to assess the.combined impacts resulting from constructing the several
projects making up the larger development plan, and consideration of
the potential that a project of this size may affect habitat necessary
to the recovery of certain Federally listed species protected under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973; therefore, an EA is necessary to
assess potential environmental impacts.
c. General.
to:
(1) objectives. The objectives of the proposed project are
8

(a) Provide administrative, barracks, educational,
maintenance, and mission related facilities that comply with Army
standards for soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg.
(b) Comply with all applicable environmental laws and
regulations.
(2) Incorporation by Reference. The EA incorporates by
reference provisions of the following documents:
(a) Fort Bragg's 1997 Endangered Species Management Plan
(ESMP) .
(b) Fort Bragg's 1988 Historic Preservation Plan (HPP).
(c) Fort Bragg's 1997 Soil Conservation Master Plan (SCMP).
(d) Fort Bragg's 2000 BA for the Combat Aviation Brigade and
Separate Battalion Barracks Complex.
(3) Appendices.
(a) Appendix A. BA for the Combat Aviation Brigade and the
Separate Battalion Barracks Complex.
(b) Appendix B. Map of the McFayden Pond project area
showing project locations.
(4) Planning Horizon. The projects considered under the
Proposed Action would be constructed over about ten years beginning in
the year 2001. These would be permanent facilities.
(5) Scope. The scope of this EA is limited to assessing the
environmental and socioeconomic effects resulting from implementing
the Proposed Action or its viable alternatives. This EA was prepared
under the provisions of AR 200-2, and addresses environmental effects
specific to Fort Bragg.
(6) Project Priorities. The first priority is the
construction of barracks for soldiers. Supporting facilities such as
organizational maintenance shops, and in-garrison training and
educational structures follow this.
(7) Public Involvement. The projects considered in the
proposed action would be constructed, operated, and maintained by the
U.S. Army in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources would
review the soil erosion control plan. The EA would be distributed for
comment to various agencies of the State government through the North
Carolina Intergovernmental Review Clearing House, and to Pope AFB.
The XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Public Affairs Office would
prepare a news release for distribution to the media. Public comment
would be solicited by publishing the mitigated FNSI as a paid legal
9
announcement in the Fayetteville Observer and the Fort Bragg .
Paraglide, and through distribution of both the EA and mitigated FNSI
to public libraries on Fort Bragg, and in Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. The McFayden Pond area would
be developed in sixteen projects scheduled from Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
until FY 2010. The scheduled construction projects are described
below:
a. Scheduled Projects.
(1) Old Division Area Fire Station, PN 44965. Construct a
standard design fire station to serve the 82d Airborne Division area,
the new Womack Army Medical Center, and family housing areas in the
main cantonment area of Fort Bragg. This fire station is a one-
company satellite that will house three trucks and 6 firefighters.
The fire station will contain a kitchen, sleeping area, storage area,
day room, and laundry room for the fire fighters who serve 48 hour
shifts. The supporting facilities include electrical, heating and air
conditioning, basic landscaping and site development, information
systems, security/scan system for anti-terrorist/force protection, and
an area for fire truck basic maintenance and cleaning. Access for the
handicapped will be provided.
(2) Whole Barracks Renewal, Separate Battalion Barracks
(Phase V), PN 53914. This project, which consists of Phases I-IV (PN
25134, 35362, 44496, and,53538), would construct a whole barracks
renewal complex for the 82d Airborne Division's separate battalions.
Work includes constructing new barracks (1,376 spaces total), company
operations, battalion headquarters buildings, a medium sized dining
hall, parking, community green space, secondary access roads, and
recreational areas. Construct company operations facilities (3 large,
17 medium, and 6 small two-story) and battalion headquarters buildings
(2 large and 5 medium with classrooms) based on the standard
constrained site designs. Provide energy monitoring and control
systems, fire alarm, detection and reporting systems, automatic
building sprinklers, intrusion detection systems (IDS), and force
protection measures. Supporting facilities include utilities;
electric service; fire protection and alarm systems; paving, walks,
curbs, and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control measures;
information systems; and site improvements. Access for the
handicapped will be provided. Heating and air conditioning will be
provided. Physical security measures will be incorporated into the
design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads,
parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas. Berms, heavy landscaping,
and bollards will be used to prevent access when standoff distances
cannot be met. Laminated glass will be placed in windows to protect
soldiers in case of a bomb blast. Demolish 2,448 square meters
(26,350 square feet (SF)) of existing facilities in the footprint of
construction. Provide comprehensive building and furnishings related
interior design services.
10
(3) Soldier Development Center (Phases I-IV).
(a) Soldier Development Center, Infrastructure, (Phase I), PN
51238. This project would construct the infrastructure for the
Soldier Development Center, which is a state-of-the-art education and
simulation center. It will be linked to the Army Training and
Doctrine Command's battle labs to provide training opportunities and
will be used for military training and civilian education. It will
include a Battle Simulation Center, a Long Distance Learning Center,.-
and a Soldier Development Center. Phase I will construct the
infrastructure necessary to support the center, an extension of the
All American Freeway from Longstreet Road to Butner Road, water,
electricity, sanitary sewer, communications utilities, natural gas and
stand alone chillers. The center will also include 100 percent
parking for maximum capacity.
(b) Synthetic Theater of War (STOW) Range Training Facility,
Soldier Development Center (Phase II), PN 20347. This project would
construct a STOW range training facility consisting of a battle
simulation command center, pre-exercise training and deployment
evaluation areas, systems integration areas, administrative
facilities, simulation equipment storage and maintenance areas,
communication rooms, and a Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility with Joint Service Integrated Intrusion Detection System as
part of the Soldier Development Center. Included is a self-contained
air conditioning system (200 tons), natural gas heating (3,500 British
thermal units), fire protection system, IDS, communications (including
local and wide area network capability, video teleconferencing,
intercom and public address systems), accommodations for multiple
electronic and computer systems, acoustical treatments, synchronized
clock system, closed circuit television, and provisions for commercial
lease line and satellite downlinks. Also construct tactical and non-
organizational parking, and two sentry stations. Supporting
facilities include utilities, perimeter fence, area and security
lighting, roads, curbs, gutters, walks, storm drainage, and site
improvements, including erosion control. Asbestos abatement and
demolition of existing World War II era buildings and demolition of
existing pavement and utilities, is also included.
(c) Distance Learning Center, Soldier Development Center
(Phase III), PN 20127. This project would construct a long distance
learning center. The facility would provide training opportunities
and will be used for military and civilian education. Supporting
facilities include utilities; electric service; paving, walks, curbs
and gutters; storm drainage; information systems; and site
improvements.
(d) General Education Development Center, Soldier Development
Center (Phase IV), PN 51909. This project will construct a general
education facility. It will be a state-of-the-art education center
for military training and civilian education. Supporting facilities
11
include utilities; electric service; paving; walks, curbs and gutters;
storm drainage; information system; and site improvements.
(4) Vehicle Maintenance Shop Organizational/525 MI Brigade,
PN 16992. This project would construct a vehicle maintenance complex,
for the 525th MI Brigade. The primary facilities include two standard
design #two vehicle maintenance shops, one to consolidate Headquarters
and Headquarters Detachment, 525th MI Brigade, and the 519th MI
Battalion (Tactical Exploitation) and the other for the 319th MI
Battalion (Operations). Basic work areas in the primary facilities
will contain standard scheduled repair bays, item repair shops,
storage rooms, training/conference room, weapons repair shops, storage
rooms, weapons and communications security vaults, tool room,
administrative and shop control offices, and personnel support areas.
Shoos will have electrically operated roll-up bay doors, vehicle
exhaust ventilation, compressed air systems, fire protection systems,
and lubricant dispensing facilities. Two cryptographic vaults, one in
each facility, are included. Outlying structures will include oil
storage buildings and three existing permanent facilities that will be
renovated as deployment equipment storage buildings. Flexible and
rigid paved areas include shop hardstands, organizational vehicle
parking, and privately owned vehicle parking. Perimeter and internal
gates will be provided. Supporting facilities include utility
services, communications, roads, walks, curbs and gutters, storm
drainage, fencing, IDS, fire protection and alarm systems and
lighting, site improvements, and landscaping. Heating and cooling
requirements will be provided by self-contained systems. Air
conditioning demand is estimated at 20 tons for administrative areas,
cryptographic vaults, and special environmental areas only.
Mechanical ventilation, 37,322 cubic feet per minute, is required for
repair bays, storage, and other work areas.
(5) Whole Barracks Renewal/16 MP Brigade, PN 41631. This
project would construct a whole barracks renewal complex. Work
includes constructing new barracks, company operations facilities,
battalion and brigade headquarters, soldier community center, and
close-in training area. Construct company operations facilities and
battalion headquarter per standard two-story constrained site design.
Construct barracks and brigade headquarters per the standard design.
Provide fire alarm, detection and reporting system, automatic building
sprinklers, and intrusion detection. Supporting facilities include
electric service; water, sewer, and gas service; paving, walks, curbs
and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control measures; information
systems; site improvements; picnic tables, benches, and bike racks;
fencing and gates; and landscaping. Asbestos removal and lead base
paint remediation is required. Remediation of a solid waste
management unit is required. Access for the handicapped will be
provided. Air conditioning unit is required. The project will also
demolish nine buildings (91,916 SF), and relocate activities in six
buildings to alternate facilities.
12
(6) Whole Barracks Renewal/Combat Aviation Brigade, PN 53955.
This project, which consists of PN 45239 and 47347 (Phases I and II
respectively), would construct a whole barracks renewal complex for
the combat Aviation Brigade. Work includes constructing new barracks,
100 percent parking, community green, close-in training, company
operations facilities, battalion headquarters,=brigade headquarters,
dining facility, secondary and access roads, and recreation areas.
Construct company operations facilities, battalion headquarters, and
brigades headquarters based on the standard constrained site designs.
Provide energy monitoring and control systems; fire alarm detection
and reporting systems; automatic building sprinklers; intrusion
detection system; and force protection measures. Supporting
facilities include electric service; water, sewer, and gas service;
paving, walks, curbs, and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control
measures; information systems; site improvements; and landscaping.
Access for the handicapped will be provided as needed. Heating (gas-
fired) and air conditioning will be provided. Physical security
measures will be incorporated into the design, including maximum
feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle
unloading areas. Berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards will be used
to prevent access within standoff distances cannot be met. Laminated
glass will be placed in windows to protect soldiers in case of a bomb
blast. Comprehensive interior design services are required.
(7) U.S. Army Parachute Team Facility, PN 46797. This
project would construct an administration and special purpose building
for the U.S. Army Parachute Team and the Combined Arms School Brigade.
Special areas include a recruiting support center, classroom,
gymnasium, and rigging space. Exterior architectural treatment of the
new facility building will match the predominant architectural style
of the area. Supporting facilities include utilities; electric
service; paving, walks, curbs and gutters; storm drainage; information
systems; and site improvements. A heating and air conditioning system
will be provided. Access for the handicapped will be provided.
(8) Combined Arms School Brigade/N.C. Military Academy, PN
370017, 370063 and 370067 (Phases I-III). This project would
construct educational facilities for the N.C. Military Academy. These
would consist of a specially designed educational complex composed of
several groupings of buildings featuring masonry construction,
standing seam metal roofs, and concrete floors. The administrative
building and dining hall will be one story structures, and the
remaining facilities will have two stories. Supporting facilities
will include fencing, military and privately owned vehicle (POV)
parking, access roads, sidewalks, flagpole, and detached facility
signs. This is a National Guard Bureau project.
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were
developed as part of the planning process. Three alternatives were
eliminated from detailed analysis. Another two alternatives, in
addition to the Proposed Action, were analyzed in detail.
13
a. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. The option of
not maintaining barracks, administrative, supply and educational
facilities, motor maintenance shops, and improving the road net for
military units on Fort Bragg was rejected because of the need to
support unit operations in garrison. *The option of redeveloping
cantonment areas elsewhere on Fort Bragg was eliminated because all
other suitable locations are already in use or proposed for
redevelopment in support of the operation of the post. The option of
expanding the existing cantonment area beyond its present boundaries
was rejected because adjacent areas are needed for military field
training, and also provide critical habitat for endangered species.
b. Alternatives Considered in Detail. These are: the Proposed
Action of developing the McFayden Pond area; the Reduced Scale
Alternative of developing part of the area; and the No Action
Alternative of not developing the area. Each alternative could be
accomplished in accordance with all applicable laws.and regulations.
(1) Develop the McFayden Pond Area (Proposed Action).
Selection of this alternative would best support Fort Bragg's troop
units by providing 16 facilities more suitable than those currently in
use.
(2) Develop Part of the McFayden Pond Area (Reduced Scale
Alternative). Selection of this alternative would provide suitable
facilities for some, although not all, units requiring improved
facilities. The most likely projects to be eliminated or reduced in
scale are those projected for construction after 2005. These are PN
16992, 20127, 20347, and 51909 all scheduled for 2010. The Army is
committed to constructing barracks on a "1+1" standard in order to
improve living conditions for soldiers. Under that policy two
soldiers will share a living room and bath. Such a design standard
requires more land area to construct a sufficient number of barracks
spaces than outmoded barracks designs with three and four man rooms.
The Army intends to build a distinct area for each unit. If more than
one site must be selected to provide facilities for any particular
unit or group of units, then the divided project site would require
appropriate supporting utilities and facilities at each location.
This would duplicate materials and effort, while creating more expense
and less efficiency of use.
(3) Do Not Develop the McFayden Pond Area (No Action
Alternative). Selection of this status quo alternative would continue
to billet units in existing facilities, which do not meet the "1+1"
standard required for single soldier housing, and use training
facilities which do not meet operational requirements.
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
a. Mission and History. Fort Bragg was established as an
artillery training post in 1918 as Camp Bragg. Camp Mackall was
established in 1942 as a training center for airborne units. Pope AFB
14
was established in 1919 as Pope Field. Today Fort Bragg's mission is
the training of units assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps, as well as
special operations and other tenant units. Camp Mackall is used to
support the training of Special Operations Forces. Simmons Army
Airfield supports Army aviation units assigned to Fort Bragg. Pope
AFB provides strategic and tactical airlift support.
b. Physiographic and Habitat Features.
(1) Physical Environment. Fort Bragg is located in the
Sandhills physiographic region of the coastal plain in southeastern
North Carolina. Situated on a divide between the Lower Little River
and Rockfish Creek, Fort Bragg's 160,651 acres encompass portions of
both watersheds in the Cape Fear River drainage system. Camp Mackall
lies to the west of Fort Bragg in the Lumber River drainage system.
The Sandhills region of North Carolina is part of the Subtropical-
Temperate Zone characterized by mild climate, plentiful rainfall, and
a long growing season. Piedmont topography and coastal plain soil
types characterize the Sandhills, making prevention of erosion a major
conservation concern. There are several primary soil series, which
occur in the Fort Bragg area. Lowland soils are loamy and heavily
textured compared to upland sandy soils. Upland sandy soils are well
drained and extremely low in organic matter with consequent low
fertility. Ridge top soils are highly erodable. In general, coastal
plain soil types with Piedmont topography characterize the Sandhills
region.
(2) Habitat Features. The dominant forest species on Fort
Bragg is longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). A 1992 forest inventory
identified 72,112 acres of longleaf pine, 20,631 acres of loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), 8,989 acres of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and
1,796 acres of pond pine (Pinus serotina). Approximately 12,000 acres
were typed as hardwood stands consisting primarily of oak (Quercus
spp.). Understory vegetation consists of.turkey oak on xeric sites,
with other oaks on less xeric sites, and wiregrass (Aristida stricta)
dominates the herb layer, with other common species such as broom
panic grass (Schizachyrum scoparium), blue stem (Andropogcn gyrans),
dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), goats rue (Tephrosia virginiana), Baptisia (Baptisia
cinerea) and Stylisma (Stylisma patens). Pond pines occur along
stream ecotones, hillside seepages, and pocosins, along with a dense
shrub layer of fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa and Lyonia lucida),
sweetpepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.),
and gallberries (Ilex glabra, I. coriacea). Old field sites are
dominated by loblolly pine, often mixed with longleaf regeneration.
Slash pine occurs in relatively large plantations north of the Lower
Little River.
c. Mission Activities.
(1) Military Training. The primary purpose of Fort Bragg as
a military reservation is to support military training. Resource
15
management programs such as cultural resources, environment, natural
resources, recreation, soil conservation, and wildlife support the
primary mission of military training. Units from the Active and
Reserve Components of the U.S. Army, other services, and armed forces
from allied nations train on Fort Bragg. The post is divided between
the maneuver area used for field training and ranges, and a smaller
cantonment area used for administration, maintenance, housing and
deployment.
(2) Maneuver Area. The maneuver area of Fort Bragg consists
of 90,235 acres with 74 designated tactical training areas excluding
airfields, impact areas, and special restricted areas. Camp Mackall
is used for training of Special Forces and combat engineer soldiers.
Parachute jumps and maneuvers are conducted throughout the
reservation. Generally, these do not require heavy air or ground
support, as most Fort Bragg units are lightly equipped. Training
maneuvers are designed to be on the same scale and as realistic as
possible in order to simulate battlefield conditions.
(3) Ordnance Impact Areas. Most combined arms and live-fire
exercises are conducted within high explosive ordnance impact areas
located in the center of Fort Bragg. These are from east to west;
MacRidge, Coleman, and McPherson Impact Areas. Manchester Impact
Area, located to the northeast of MacRidge, is used only for small
arms training.
(4) Parachute Drop Zones. Drop zones are areas cleared of
woody vegetation, which are used to support parachute and air landing
operations. There are six large drop zones on Fort Bragg. These are,
from east to west, Sicily, Normandy, Salerno and Holland on the
northern edge, Nijmegen on the western edge, and Saint Mere Eglise on
the southern edge of the post. Rhine-Luzon is located on Camp
Mackall. A number of smaller drop zones are located throughout the
installation on both Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall. The major drop
zones range up to 1,176 acres in size. There are 31 smaller field
landing and pickup zones located across the installation, which are
also used to support airborne and air assault operations. As the only
large, open areas on the reservation, drop zones are also used for
anti-armor defense training.
d. Current Species and Habitat.
(1) Species Inventories. In 1992, The Nature Conservancy's
(TNC) Sandhills Field Office conducted a floral inventory of Fort
Bragg, which documented over 1,100 species. Several of these are
endemic to the Sandhills region or have their only State occurrence on
the installation. Most of these species evolved in fire-maintained
communities. These natural communities are characterized by periodic
burning either by wildfire or, in managed sites, by prescribed fire.
Many of the local plant and animal species have adapted to survive
fire and are dependent upon it to maintain the conditions necessary
for their survival. The Nature Conservancy's inventory identified 33
16

natural communities and variants on Fort Bragg representing a broad
array of topographic, climatic, and hydrologic interactions. Current
inventories have identified 197 avian, 34 mammalian, So reptilian, 41
amphibian, and 42 fish species on Fort Bragg. Large game include
*black bear (Ursus americanus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo silvestris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Other species include beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), bobcat (Lynx rufus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), and eastern fox squirrel (Sciruus niger). Among
upland game birds, the common bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is
found. Migratory game birds include the wood duck (Aix spousa) and
the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Streams and ponds include
inland game fish such as the chain pickerel (Esox niger), black bass
(Micropterus salmoides), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and the
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Those proceeded by an asterisk
(*) are rare on Fort Bragg.
(2) Natural Communities and Variants. The following natural
communities and variants occur on Fort Bragg: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Coastal Plain Levee Forest
(Blackwater subtype), Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment,
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater subtype), Cypress-Gum
Swamp (Blackwater subtype), Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Coastal Plain sand
variant), *Little River Bluff, *Little River Seepage Bank, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Piedmont/Coastal
Plain Heath Bluff, Pine Savannah (Sandhills variant), Pine/Scrub Oak
Sandhill, Sand and Mud Bar, Sandhill Seep, Small Depression Pocosin,
Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Streamhead Pocosin, Vernal
Pool, Wet Pine Flatwoods, and Xeric Sandhill Scrub. Those preceded by
an asterisk (*) are unique to Fort Bragg.
(3) Threatened and Endangered Species on Fort Bragg. The
Federally listed endangered species for the Fort Bragg area are .a
bird, the RCW; a butterfly, the Saint Francis' satyr Wecnympha
mitchellii francisci); and five plants, American chaffseed (Schwalbea
americana), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Pondberry (Lindera
mellissifolia), rough-leafed loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia),
and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). However, neither
pondberry nor small-whorled pogonia have been documented on Fort
Bragg. The post also provides habitat for an additional 22 plant and
6 animal species of special concern to State and Federal authorities.
The post, acting in cooperation with TNC, has developed a monitoring
plan for the following selected species of Federal concern:
Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii),
Georgia Indigo-Bush (Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana), Sandhills
Milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii), and Sandhills Pyxie-Moss
(Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia). The RCW occurs throughout
Fort Bragg. This bird species requires an open pine forest with large
numbers of mature pine trees for its survival. The longleaf pine-
wiregrass ecosystem found on post is excellent RCW habitat, providing
large numbers of mature pine trees for both forage and nest cavity
construction. Those areas of Fort Bragg which are devoid of
17.
regularly-spaced nest cavity tree clusters are those with little pine
forest cover, extensive plantations of young pine trees, bottomland
hardwoods, urban and industrial development, parachute drop zones, and
ordnance impact areas. The Saint Francis' satyr is one of the rarest
American butterflies. Currently, it is known to exist only on Fort
Bragg. In 2000 there are 298 active RCW colonies, 19 Saint Francis'
satyr colonies, 17 American chaffseed, 8 Michaux's sumac, no
pondberry, 29 rough-leafed loosestrife, and no small-whorled pogonia
sites listed on Fort Bragg.
e. Noise. Environmental noise is assessed under the
Environmental Noise Management Program (ENMP). Zones of ambient noise
are identified by predictive modeling and field checked with noise
monitors. Land use planners use this information to guide land
development both on and off post. Environmental noise such as that
produced by aircraft and traffic is measured by A-weighted decibels
(dBA). High-amplitude impulsive noise such as that produced by
artillery is measured by C-weighted decibels (dBC). Noise produced by
small arms fire is measured by unweighted decibels (dBP). For our
purposes, the dBA measurement is most significant for determining
impacts of noise upon land use. The proposed projects will not
produce significant noise. The barracks would be the most noise
sensitive facilities. All of the proposed projects are compatible
with existing noise contours, which are not expected to change. The
percentage of the population annoyed by various noise levels, decibel
parameters for dBA, dBC and dBP noise, and guidance for noise
sensitive land uses are listed below:
NOISE SENSITIVITY ZONES:
ZONE POPULATION
ANNOYANCE
I <15%
II 15-39%
III >39%
DECIBEL RANGE
dBA dBC
TRANSPORT ARTILLERY
<65 <62
65-75 62-70
>75 >70
LAND USE
dBP GUIDANCE
SMALL ARMS
<87 1
87-104 2
>104 3
Land Use Guidance:
1 - Acceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
2 - Normally unacceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
3 - Unacceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
f. Soil Types.
(1) Major Soil Associations. Several major soil associations
are found on Fort Bragg. These are listed below.
(a) Blaney-Gilead-Lakeland, Lakeland-Candor-Blaney and
Autryville-Candor soils are found in areas dominated by excessively
drained to moderately well drained soils on highly desiccated uplands.
18
(b) Norfolk-Wagram-Rains, Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk,
Goldsboro-Grantham-Exum and Norfolk-Goldsboro-Rains soils are found in
areas dominated by well drained, moderately well drained and poorly
drained soils that are on broad, smooth uplands.
(c) Roanoke-Wickham-Tarboro soil is found in areas dominated
by poorly drained, well drained, and somewhat excessively drained
soils on terraces.
(d) Torhunta-Croatan-Candor soil is found in areas dominated
by very poorly drained and somewhat excessively drained soils
associated with large oval depressions in uplands.
(e) Johnston soil is found in areas dominated by very poorly
drained soils that are on flood plains.
(2) Project Site Soil Associations. The predominant soil
association found on the proposed project site is Blaney-Gilead-
Lakeland. These soils are characterized by nearly level, to
moderately steep, well drained, moderately well drained, and
excessively drained soils that have a brittle, loamy or clayey subsoil
or that are sandy throughout. Found on uplands. Storm drainage from
the project area flows into Tank Creek and thence into McFayden Pond.
McFayden Pond drains via Tank Creek into the Lower Little River.
g. Site Condition. Most of the project area is a category I
(uncontaminated) site. However, portions of the PN 16992 site are
considered to be a category III (contaminated) site because of
residues left over from maintenance activities conducted there since
World War II. This site is designated as operable Unit 4. The
proposed land use as a vehicle maintenance shop is compatible with
adjoining land uses. The relative potential for hazard on a
particular parcel of land is categorized as either category I
(uncontaminated), II (potentially contaminated) or III (contaminated).
Five locations within the PN 16992 project area were affected by
contamination from underground storage tanks. All of these
contamination sources have been removed. Fort Bragg installed ground
water monitoring wells at these sites under Phase I of a Risk Based
Corrective Action (RBCA) monitoring program to determine contamination
levels. The following buildings in the PN 16992 area are part of a
RBCA Phase I monitoring program to determine contamination levels: 2-
2402, 2-2414, 2-3305 and 2-3612. Another building, 2-3303, although
not covered by the RBCA, will be included in the investigation because
it is the former site of an oil water separator. While the overall PN
16992 site is perceived to be relatively clean and free from hazard,
some residue of petroleum, oils, and lubricants used for equipment
maintenance may be encountered during construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed maintenance facility. Therefore, it was
classified as a category III site overall. However, any contamination
found would be remediated in accordance with current regulations and
clean up specifications. All other project sites are category I.
19
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS. This section discloses
environmental and socioeconomic effects anticipated from developing
the McFayden Pond area, which is the Army's Proposed Action. This EA
assesses whether the implementation of the Proposed Action would have
any cumulative adverse effects on physical, social, or economic
resources. No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated for social,
economic, or biological.resources. However, adverse cumulative
impacts to the physical environment are anticipated for water and
wetland resources downstream in the Tank Creek watershed unless
careful attention is paid to storm water management and soil
conservation. An approved wetlands permit will be needed to define
mitigation required for any potentially adverse impacts to wetlands in
the McFayden Pond area from the Combat Aviation and Separate Battalion
Barracks projects (PN 53955 and 53914). This EA considers the
following environmental and socioeconomic values:
a. Biological. The Proposed Action and its alternatives would be
unlikely to adversely affect biological resources in any significant
way. The level, intensity, and duration of habitat management
activities are fully disclosed in the Fort Bragg ESMP. The Federally
listed endangered species of interest on Fort Bragg are a bird; the
RCW, a butterfly; the Saint Francis' satyr, and five plants; American
Chaffseed, Michaux's sumac, pondberry, rough-leafed loosestrife and
small-whorled pogonia. All of these species either occur on Fort
Bragg or may be found in Cumberland County. Twenty-two plant and six
animal species of special concern to State and Federal authorities are
also found on the reservation. This EA presents the potential effect
upon endangered species.of constructing, operating, and maintaining
projects as part of development of the McFayden Pond area (Proposed
Action). The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in
adverse impacts to biological resources, followed by the Reduced Scale
Alternative, which would result in more adverse impacts than the No
Action Alternative.
(1) RCW. The Proposed Action or its alternatives would be
unlikely to adversely affect the RCW. Neither the RCW nor its
critical habitat is found in the project area.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(2) Saint Francis' Satyr. The Proposed Action or its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect the Saint Francis'
Satyr. No suitable habitat for this species is found in the project
area.
20
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(3) Endangered Plants. The Proposed Action and its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect endangered plants
listed for Cumberland County. American Chaffseed, Michaux's sumac,
pondberry, rough-leafed loosestrife, and small-whorled pogonia were
not found nor was any suitable habitat found in the project area.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Biological Diversity. Fort Bragg's longleaf pine-wire
grass ecosystem is characterized by an abundance of different species.
Proposed projects are assessed for their impact upon the continued
viability of that ecosystem. Wild populations within a simplified,
less diverse, ecosystem would be more vulnerable to environmental
changes brought about by development pressures and are, therefore,
less likely to survive. The Proposed Action would be more likely to
reduce biological diversity than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which
would result in more impact than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would result in a cumulative loss of approximately 100 acres of mixed
pine and hardwood forest with a corresponding loss of biological
diversity.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Construction of the proposed
project would result in a cumulative loss of approximately 50 acres of
mixed pine and hardwood forest with a corresponding loss of biological
diversity.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities would
have the least potential for reducing biological diversity.
(5) Timber Stand Management. Fort Bragg's pine forest is
managed both to support military training and the production of forest
products such as pine straw, pulpwood, and saw timber. Project
construction would harvest approximately 100 acres of merchantable
timber. This acreage would be taken out of timber production
21
permanently. The principal areas to be logged are those closest to
McFayden Pond, PN 45239, 46797, 51238 and 51909. The Proposed Action
would result in greater loss of merchantable timber than the Reduced
Scale Alternative, which would result in more loss than the No Action
Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would harvest approximately 100 acres of merchantable timber.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Approximately 50 acres would
be harvested under this alternative.
(c) No Action Alternative. No additional timber would be cut
under this alternative.
b. Physical Environment. The Proposed Action and its Reduced
Scale Alternative could adversely affect the physical environment
through impacts to wetlands and water quality downstream caused by the
increased volume of storm water entering Tank Creek from the project
area. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(1) Aesthetics. The various proposed construction projects
would remove forest in order to make way for development over several
years. Removal of natural forest cover is seen as an adverse impact,
but one which will be offset by project design which would comply with
the installation Design Guide. The proposed projects are intended to
be aesthetically pleasing. The site will be landscaped using a
preponderance of species compatible with local conditions. Wherever
possible, existing trees and shrubbery will be preserved and
incorporated into the landscape design. The Proposed Action would be
most likely to result in more adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale
Alternative, which would result in more than the No Action
Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(2) Air Quality. Air emissions resulting from the operation
of construction equipment implementing the Proposed Action would be
transitory, and would not adversely affect ambient air quality in the
area. The Fayetteville-Fort Bragg area is an air quality attainment
zone for all air pollutants save ozone. National Ambient Air Quality.
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone have been exceeded during several recent
summers. Because this is a perennial problem, the Army anticipates
North Carolina will develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
govern compliance with the NAAQS standards for ozone. In which case
22
the Army would have to ensure that its development plans on Fort Bragg
would comply with the SIP. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has not developed a Federal Implementation Plan because the
State is already developing a SIP. In the interim, the Army is
required to assess this action for general conformity with the Clean
Air Act (CAA). This is referred to as the General Conformity Rule.
Under that process the EPA has exempted certain actions such as the
construction projects considered in this EA, regardless of the amount
of emissions anticipated, because all major new or modified sources
will require a permit under the New Source Review Program (Section
173, CAA) or the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program
(Title I, Part C, CAA). In short, each new source such as building
boilers and emergency generators will be considered anyway as part of
the permitting process. Most of the air pollution sources near
McFayden Pond would be vehicles (mobile sources) which are also
exempt. Operation of military and privately owned vehicles would
continue at the present rate with a slight increase. Boilers,
furnaces and emergency generators would be operated in compliance with
their air quality permits. Designers need to consider the effect on
air quality of back up electrical generators, air handling and
refrigeration equipment, and boilers. The use of fossil fuels in
boilers and ozone depleting substances in refrigeration and air
conditioning systems is closely regulated. The level of additional
air pollutants resulting from the Proposed Action will remain
relatively constant, and is unlikely to adversely effect regional air
quality. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in more
adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result
in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(3) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Implementing the proposed project is unlikely to cause
adverse human health or environmental effects because insecticides,
fungicides, and rodenticides would be used safely in accordance with
FIFRA permit requirements. The frequency of application and amount of
these products used would be strictly limited to project requirements.
For example, termaticides would be applied to the soil under building
foundations as part of the construction process. The Proposed Action
would be more adverse impacts that the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
23
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Soil Conservation. The predominant soil types on Fort
Bragg are sandy and easily eroded. The limitations imposed by these
soil types make keeping soil disturbance to a minimum a top priority
in order to prevent further erosion and stream sedimentation. Best
management practices must be followed to prevent erosion and
consequent damage to nearby endangered species habitat.or
sedimentation of streams and wetland areas. Projects over an acre
require a State approved soil erosion control plan. All construction,
operation, and maintenance activities involving land disturbance must
consider and comply with soil conservation measures in their planning
and execution. The Proposed Action would be more likely to result in
more adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would
result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Soil erosion control measures would be
required to prevent erosion and sedimentation adversely affecting Tank
Creek and McFayden Pond. This alternative would have the most
potential for soil loss because the most surface area would be
disturbed. Proper soil conservation controls will be implemented.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would have
correspondingly less potential for soil loss because the scope of the
total project would be smaller. Proper soil conservation controls
would also be implemented.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential for soil loss in the near term.
(5) Solid Waste. Construction and demolition debris
associated with implementation of the proposed project would be
disposed of on post in approved areas. ordinary trash would be
collected and deposited in containers for pick up and transport to an
approved sanitary landfill. No significant post construction
difference was foreseen in the amount of ordinary trash resulting from
the three alternatives because the number of troops would be
unchanged. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in more
construction and demolition debris than the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. This alternative would result in
production of the most construction and demolition debris during
construction.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would result
in correspondingly less construction and demolition debris during
construction.
24
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential to result in construction and
demolition debris.
(6) Toxic, Hazardous, and Regulated Waste. Hazardous waste
would be produced by equipment used to construct, operate, and
maintain the proposed project. Used oils, greases, and batteries must
be contained and turned in properly through supply channels. Spills
occurring during construction shall be reported through the project
inspector or after completion of the project to the Fire Department.-
Cleanup would be coordinated through the Environmental Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center. If contractor personnel are involved, the contractor is
responsible for site cleanup in accordance with State and Federal
requirements. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in
more toxic and hazardous waste than the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. This alternative would result in the
most toxic and hazardous waste during construction. Proper disposal
requirements will be followed.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would result
in correspondingly less toxic and hazardous waste during construction.
Proper disposal requirements will be followed.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential to result in additional toxic and
hazardous waste. Proper disposal requirements will be followed.
(7) Water Quality. Although construction activities for PN
16992, 20127, 20347,44965, 51238, and 51909 are distant from Tank
Creek and its tributaries, PN 35362, 41631, 45239, and 46797 will be
constructed directly next to Tank Creek or its tributaries. Portions
of PN 35362 and 45239 will be constructed over unnamed tributaries of
the Creek. Project Number 46797 will be constructed next to McFayden
Pond. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 would be constructed
west of Tank Creek and downstream of McFayden Pond. All sixteen of
these projects are up slope from and would likely contribute to an
increase in the rate of storm water flow into Tank Creek unless
suitable management measures such as detention and retention basins
are installed. Soil erosion control measures, required for each of
these projects, would be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the Fort Bragg SCMP and their respective State approved Soil Erosion
Control Plans to reduce impacts upon water quality. The consequences
of these impacts can be quite severe if they are not handled properly.
Storm water discharge into Tank Creek has already exceeded the
capacity of the watercourse to remain stable. The stream bottom and
banks are eroding with each storm event. The Post Soil
Conservationist has made multiple observations of such storms at the
stream flow gage located upstream of the point where Tank Creek passes
under Longstreet Road. These confirm that in a typical summertime
25
storm event consisting of one inch of rainfall received in an hour,
the water level in the stream rises quickly from one inch at the gage
to a depth of over five feet. Not only does this volume of water
impact banks and channel of Tank Creek, but also other locations
downstream, such as McFayden Pond, Pope AFB, and the Lower Little
River. Planners should note that McFayden Pond cannot provide flood
relief to areas downstream because the dam is not a water control
structure. Water flows downstream over through a weir constructed to
allow water to flow over a portion of the dam. The weir does not
permit the water level in McFayden Pond to be raised or lowered at
will. Hence the level cannot be lowered in anticipation of rain.
Water from a storm event flows into an impoundment already filled to
capacity. Rather than serving as a storm water detention basin, the
pond is no more than a wide space in the creek. It is incapable of
providing anything more than minimal relief to areas downstream.
Storm water management is the major potential impact, which must be
solved if these projects are to be constructed. Project Number 20127,
20347, 41631, 44965, 45239, 46797, 51238, and 51909 will change the
existing topography from a largely wooded area to an urban land use,
which will have more impervious surfaces. This will increase the rate
at which storm water runs off the land rather than being absorbed into
the soil. Potentially then, these ten projects pose a greater
challenge to designers because storm water will be more likely to flow
to surface rather than groundwater. The design standard should be to
maintain or reduce the volume of runoff in order to preserve stream
quality. In contrast PN 16992 and 35362 will be built in an existing
maintenance area and a World War II era cantonment respectively.
Since this land is already in use for urban purposes the standard
should be to reduce or at least not increase the present amount of
runoff. The project designers have taken a number of actions to
manage storm water more efficiently. These include designing storm
water detention and retention basins to reduce the rate at which storm
water flows into Tank Creek after a storm event. Existing basins will
be maintained in the land use design. Parking lots and roads are
paved. Curbs and gutters direct sheet flow from paved areas into the
storm drainage system. Storm drains flow into detention and retention
basins located on the project site before excess water flows into the
creek. An additional story was added to the design of the 82d Combat
Aviation Brigade barracks, PN 45239, to reduce the footprint of the
project. This decreased the project's total roof space. Reducing
roof space will also reduce rapid runoff from the project.
Naturalized landscaping will be used to the maximum extent possible.
This will reduce erosion while allowing storm water to return to
groundwater. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 use existing
open areas and leave a buffer adjacent to tributaries of the creek.
The design of the CAB barracks calls for headwalls to be constructed
along portions of the creek to reduce stream bank erosion. Storm
water control and wetlands mitigation measures must be sufficiently
effective to reduce total post-construction storm water flow into Tank
Creek for the design year storm. Without these measures the Proposed
Action would be most likely to result in more storm water being
drained into the Tank Creek watershed the Reduced Scale Alternative,
26
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative. A wetlands
permit will be required to determine mitigation requirements.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would have the most potential for significant adverse impact upon
water quality down stream during construction. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated if appropriate storm water control measures
and permitted wetlands mitigation are incorporated into the design as
needed.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Construction of this
alternative would have correspondingly less potential for impact upon
water quality during construction. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated if appropriate storm water control measures and permitted
wetlands mitigation are incorporated into the design as needed.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential for impact upon water quality.
(8) Wetlands. Construction of PN 35362, 41631, 45239 and
46797 will adversely affect wetlands adjacent to Tank Creek. A total
of approximately five acres of wetlands would be filled by these
projects. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 will impact over
a tenth of an acre and will require a wetlands permit. Proper soil
erosion control measures and on site storm water detention and
retention basins must be incorporated into project design. These
measures include construction on site of storm water detention and
retention basins, underground storm water detention systems, porous
pavement, land contouring, landscaping, and silt fences. These
mitigation measures will lessen the adverse impacts of filling wetland
areas. A permit will be required from the State of North Carolina.
The Proposed Action would be more likely to adversely impact wetlands
than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result in more adverse
impact than the No Action Alternative. ..
(a) Proposed Action. Selection of this alternative would
have the most impact on wetland pf any alternative. No significant
adverse impacts are anticipated because wetland loss would be in
accord with permit requirements and mitigation measures will be
incorporated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Selection of this alternative
would adversely impact correspondingly fewer acres of wetland. No
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least impact upon wetlands. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
c. Sociological-Economic. The Proposed Action and its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect sociological and
economic resources in any significant way.
27
(1) Cultural Resources. The Fort Bragg HPP was completed in
1989 to manage compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
The HPP is used as a management tool to guide conservation of cultural
resources on the post. Historic sites on the post include a Civil War
battlefield, 2 historic churches, and 27 small community cemeteries.
In addition, hundreds of historic and prehistoric archeological sites
have been recorded. Construction activities are planned and monitored
to avoid such critical areas. Although individual cultural resource.
sites could be impacted by land disturbing activities associated with
development of the McFayden Pond area, all land disturbing activities
are reviewed for cultural resource impacts and, if warranted, cultural
resource inventories and assessments will be conducted prior to such
activities. The Combined Arms School Brigade (PN 370017, 370063 and
370067) site has been surveyed for cultural resources. No significant
sites were identified. Fort Bragg has scheduled a cultural resources
survey for approximately 300 acres in the vicinity of McFayden Pond
for FY 2001. Historical sites, structures, and cemeteries are
protected from damage during training and construction activities.
The proposed project site does not have any standing structures or
cemeteries. Areas adjacent to McFayden Pond, Tank Creek, and its
tributaries would have a high potential for the presence of
prehistoric cultural resource sites. The proposed Vehicle Maintenance
Shop-Organizational (PN 16992) would be constructed amid the red brick
horse stables and gun sheds of the old horse artillery cantonment on
main post. These buildings are listed below. The buildings,
constructed in 1935, are considered to be contributing elements of the
Old Post Historic District, which is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. These buildings would be
converted to new uses. Design will be coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Office. All historic buildings would be
preserved under each of these alternatives.
HISTORIC BUILDING LIST:
BUILDING YEAR SQUARE DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT USE
NUMBER BUILT FEET
2-2205 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2211 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2402 1935 7,066 General Item Repair
2-2404 1935 7,066 General Item Repair
2-2405 1935 7,066 Maintenance, General Purpose
2-2406 1935 7,066 Maintenance, General Purpose
2-2408 1935 8,503 Army Continuing Education
2-2409 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2411 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2412 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2414 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2706 1935 1,400 Compact Item Repair
2-2711 1935 1,415 Battery Shop
2-2802 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
28
.j
2-2809 1935 7,066
2-2814 1935 7,066
2-3202 1935 7,066
2-3212 1935 7,066
2-3214 1935 7,066
2-3303 1935 180
2-3305 1935 180
2-3602 1935 7,066
2-3612 1935 7,066
2-3614 1935 7,066
2-3810 1984 4,000
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
General, Storage
General Storage
Compact Item Repair
Ready Building
Boat House
Army continuing Education
(a) Proposed Action. A cultural resources survey of
approximately 300 acres will be required in accordance with the Fort
Bragg HPP. Should any cultural resources eligible for, or potentially
eligible for, listing in the National Register of Historic Places, be
identified as a result of the survey, these sites will be avoided or
mitigated after coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). If any cultural resource sites are found during
implementation of the Proposed Action, they would be safeguarded and
reported to the post archeologist for disposition in accord with Fort
Bragg's HPP. The SHPO would be consulted if the materials or sites
were potentially significant. Demolition of any structures that are
contributing elements to the Old Post Historic District will only be
conducted after consultation with the SHPO. During consultation with
the SHPO, appropriate mitigative measures for these structures will be
agreed upon by Fort Bragg and the North Carolina SHPO. Demolition
will be carried out after the mitigative measures are concluded. The
Proposed Action would have the most potential for adverse impact upon
cultural resources.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. A cultural resources survey
will be required in accordance with the Fort Bragg HPP under the same
conditions described above. This alternative will have
correspondingly less impact upon cultural resources
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least impact upon cultural resources. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
(2) Environmental Health and Safety Risk Upon Children.
Implementing the proposed action is unlikely to cause adverse human
health or safety effects upon children within the meaning of Executive
Order (EO) 13045 because the proposed action's projects are located
within an existing cantonment, and no high-risk land uses are planned.
Project 35362, planned for the northern side Lcngstreet Road, is
approximately 300 yards north of Cherbourg Army Family Housing (AFH).
Project Number 16992, planned for the eastern edge of Reilly Road is
300 yards west of Bastogne Gables Army Family Housing (AFH), which is
the closest neighborhood. The project area is separated by several
hundred yards from areas were children reside, go to school, or play.
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
29
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(3) Environmental Justice. Development of the McFayden Pond
area is unlikely to cause disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects upon minority populations and low-
income populations within the meaning of EO 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, because the proposed action's projects are at least 300
yards from the closest neighborhoods, and no high-risk land uses are
planned. Minority populations reside in the area as the post is fully
integrated. In civilian terms, Bastogne Gables and Cherbourg AFH are
middle class residential areas. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Noise. Environmental noise is assessed under the ENMP.
The proposed project is located in ENMP Zone I (an area considered
acceptable for noise sensitive land uses), with which it is
compatible. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION.
a. Cumulative Effects. Management of storm water and consequent
potentially adverse impacts upon wetlands is the major environmental
issue associated with the proposed action. Adverse cumulative impacts
upon the physical environment are anticipated from the increased flow
rate of storm water entering Tank Creek as a result of construction of
these projects unless storm water is managed properly. These
30
potential impacts will require incorporation of mitigation measures
into the total project design. These measures could include
incorporation of a water control structure into the McFayden Pond dam,
construction of storm water detention and retention basins, and soil
conservation measures. Storm water control and wetlands mitigation
measures must be sufficiently effective so as not to increase total
post-construction storm water flow into Tank Creek for the design year
storm. In order to make certain that this directive is followed,
monitoring of stream flow rates will be required on Tank Creek.
Without these mitigation measures the Proposed Action would be likely
to result in more drainage of storm water into the Tank Creek
watershed than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result in
more than the No Action Alternative. No adverse cumulative impacts
upon critical RCW forage habitat are anticipated from implementation
of the Proposed Action. No other adverse cumulative effects on
biological, social, or economic resources are anticipated from
implementation of the Proposed Action.
b. Conclusion. Based on a review of the information contained in
this EA and the referenced BA, I have determined that construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed projects within the
McFayden Pond area at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which will
incorporate prescribed mitigation measures, is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA as long as storm water
is managed properly. Accordingly, the preparation of an EIS is not
required. A mitigated FNSI will be released to announce this
conclusion to the public, and afford them an opportunity to comment on
the Proposed Action.
7. AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED:
a. Agencies.
(1) N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation office.
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(3) U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army,
XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Office of the Staff Judge
Advocate, Public Works Business Center
(4) U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
b. Persons.
(1) Boyko, W.C.J., Archeologist,
Resources Division, Public Works Business
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
Environmental/Natural
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
31
(2) Cockman, D.H., Chief, Wildlife Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(3) Dudick, V.A., State Environmental Specialist, Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety, Office of the Adjutant General,
North Carolina National Guard, Raleigh, NC.
(4) Hoffman, E.L., Biologist, Environmental/Natural Resources
Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(5) Lantz, J.C., Soil Conservationist, Environmental/Natural
Resources Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(6) Lubinski, J.A., Captain, U.S. Army, Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(7) Martinez, D.A., Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah, GA.
(8) Myers, T.L., Chief, Endangered Species Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(9) Prillaman, G.W., Chief, Real Property Planning Team,
Construction Management Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII
Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(10) Sewell, D.L., Chief, Natural Resources Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(11) Wirt, P.G., Chief, Environmental Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
C. Literature.
(1) Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC,
1997.
(2) Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army
Actions, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1988.
(3) Army Regulation 200-3, Natural Resources - Land, Forest
and Wildlife Management, Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 1995.
32
(4) Biological Assessment, Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I
and II, and Separate Battalion Barracks Complex, Phase I and II,
Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg,
Fort Bragg, NC, 2000.
(5) Biological Opinion, Effects of Military and Associated
Activities at Fort Bragg, Camp Mackall, and the Sandhills Gamelands,
North Carolina, on Federally-Listed Species, 4-0-90-001, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, 1990.
(6) Clean Air Act of 1990 (as amended), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1990.
(7) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 1988.
(8) Environmental Assessment for Redevelopment of the Old
Division Area, Phase I, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne
Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1990.
(9) Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations (59 Federal Regulation
7629), 1994.
(10) Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety
Risk Upon Children, 1997.
(11) Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall Endangered Species
Management Plan, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1996.
(12) Fort Bragg East Military Installation Map, RCW
Overprint, 1:50,000 Scale, Fort Bragg, NC, 1998.
(13) Fort Bragg Forest Management Plan, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1993.
(14) Fort Bragg Historic Preservation Plan, Public Works
Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC,
1989.
(15) Fort Bragg Soil Conservation Plan, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1997.
(16) Fort Bragg Regulation 200-1, Fort Bragg Environmental
Program, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1999.
(17) Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah, GA, 1989.
33
(18) Installation Design Guide, Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, GA.
(19) Interim Guidance for Wetlands Protection, Report Number
92-03, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section, Raleigh, NC, 1992.
(20) Management Guidelines for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker-on
Army Installations, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington,
DC, 1996.
(21) Record of Environmental Consideration, Combined Arms
School Brigade/N.C. Military Academy, Military Educational Facility,
Phases I, II and III, Project Numbers 370017, 370063 and 370067, North
Carolina Army National Guard, Raleigh, NC, 1997.
(22) Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC, 1984.
(23) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule:
Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans, 58 Federal Regulation 63214 (30 November 1993)
codified as 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51, Subpart W,; and
40 CFR 93, Subpart B, 1993.
34
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. Description of the Project. Fort Bragg proposes to develop
approximately 273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the Tank Creek
watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County,
North Carolina. The proposed action would be constructed in 16
projects. The projects include a replacement fire station for the Old
Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the 82d Airborne
Division, a soldier development center, an organizational vehicle
maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade, whole
barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police Brigade and the 82d
Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade, facilities for the U.S.
Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms School Brigade. Reilly
Road borders the project area on the east with 2 projects to the east
of this road and 14 projects to the west. Longstreet Road bounds the
main project area on the south, Keerans Street on the west, and Butner
Road on the north. The Combined Arms School Brigade is located north
of Butner Road. The Old Division Area Fire Station is located south
of Longstreet Road. The area between Reilly Road and Bigler Street,
in the center of the project area, is largely undeveloped woodland
surrounding McFayden Pond. Two alternatives to the "Proposed Action"
of developing the McFayden Pond area were considered in an
Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 30 August 2000, and a Biological
Assessment (BA) dated September 2000. These are the "Reduced Scale
Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the projects, and the
"No Action Alternative" of not developing the McFayden Pond area. The
consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale Alternative would be to
provide suitable facilities for some, but not all, of the supported
units. The consequence of implementing the No Action Alternative
would be to continue to operate out of existing facilities, which are
less suitable for the supported units. The No Action Alternative
provides the baseline for forecasting the effects of constructing,
operating, and maintaining the projects, which would develop the
McFayden Pond area. The EA, BA, and their supporting documents are
hereby incorporated by reference. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives, and recommends adoption
of the Proposed Action. Developing the McFayden Pond area over a
period of years is not a major Federal action significantly effecting
the quality of the human environment. The development project will be
environmentally acceptable so long as storm water is managed properly.
The BA addresses the potential biological impacts upon endangered
species resulting from development of two projects in the McFayden
35
Pond (Tank Creek) area. These are Phases I and II of the Combat
Aviation Brigade, and Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion
Barracks Complex. The BA concludes that sustainable development of
the Tank Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect
on water or air quality or adversely impact federally listed species,
such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis).
2. Description of Alternatives. Two alternatives to the "Proposed
Action" of developing the McFayden Pond area were considered. These
are the "Reduced Scale Alternative" of building some, but not all, of
the projects, and the "No Action Alternative" of not developing the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are less suitable for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area.
3. Anticipated Environmental Impacts. Management of storm water and
wetlands are the major environmental issues associated with the
proposed action. Adverse cumulative impacts upon the physical
environment are anticipated from the increased flow rate of storm
water entering Tank Creek as a result of construction of these
projects unless storm water is managed properly and wetland impacts
are mitigated according to the wetlands permit. These potential
impacts will require incorporation of mitigation measures into the
total project design. These measures include incorporation of a water
control structure into the McFayden Pond dam, construction of storm
water detention and retention basins, and soil conservation measures.
No adverse cumulative impacts upon critical red-cockaded woodpecker
forage habitat are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
Action. No other adverse cumulative effects on biological, social, or
economic resources are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
Action.
4. Conclusion. Based on review of the information contained in the
referenced EA and BA, I have determined that construction, operation,
and maintenance of the proposed projects within the McFayden Pond area
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within
the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act as long as storm water and wetlands are managed properly.
Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required. This mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
is being released to announce this conclusion to the public, and
afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action.
5. Effective Date. The proposed action would be constructed
beginning in 2001. These projects would be permanent improvements.
36
6. Public Availability. The EA and this mitigated FNSI are available
for public inspection at the Cumberland County Public Library in
Fayetteville, and the Post Library and Command Information Center,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
7. Requests for additional information or submittal of written
comments may be made within 30 days after first publication date to
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Public Works
Business Center, ATTN: AFZA-PW-E, Fort Bragg, NC 26310.
KA
USA
?ing General
37
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS RELEASE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Fort Bragg announced today the release of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
which evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts
of developing approximately 273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the
Tank Creek watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed action would be
constructed in 16 projects. The projects include a replacement fire
station for the Old Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the
82d Airborne Division, a soldier development center, an organizational
vehicle maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade,
whole barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police Brigade and the
82d Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade, facilities for the
U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms School Brigade.
Reilly Road borders the project area on the east with 2 projects to
the east of this road and 14 projects to the west. Longstreet Road
bounds the main project area on the south, Keerans Street on the west,
and Butner Road on the north. The Combined Arms School Brigade is
located north of Butner Road. The Old Division Area Fire Station is
located south of Longstreet Road. The area between Reilly Road and
Bigler Street, in the center of the project area, is largely
undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden Pond. Two alternatives to
the "Proposed Action" of developing the McFayden Pond area were
considered in an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 30 August 2000,
and a Biological Assessment (BA) dated September 2000. These are the
"Reduced Scale Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the
projects, and the "No Action Alternative" of not developing the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities. for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are less suitable for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives, and recommends adoption
of the Proposed Action. The EA concludes that developing the McFayden
38
ABBREVIATIONS
AFB Air Force Base
AFH Army Family Housing
AR Army Regulation
BA Biological Assessment
CAA Clean Air Act
dBA Decibels (A-Weighted)
dBC Decibels (C-Weighted)
dBP Decibels (unweighted)
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ENMP Environmental Noise Management Program
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESMP Endangered Species Management Plan
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FY Fiscal Year
HPP Historic Preservation Plan
IDS Intrusion Detection System
LR Long Range
MI Military Intelligence
MP Military Police
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
N.C. North Carolina
PN Project Number
RBCA Risk Based Corrective Action
RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
SCMP Soil Conservation Master Plan
SF Square Feet
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
spp. Species (various)
STOW Synthetic Theater of War
TNC The Nature Conservancy
U.S. United States
40
Pond area would be environmentally acceptable if storm water is
managed properly. The BA addresses the potential biological impacts
upon endangered species resulting from development of two projects in
the McFayden Pond (Tank-Creek) area. These are Phases I and II of the
Combat Aviation Brigade, and Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion
Barracks Complex. The BA concludes that sustainable development of
the Tank Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect
on water or air quality or adversely impact federally listed species.
The projects are not likely to adversely affect a Federally listed
endangered species the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides
borealis). The proposed action would not constitute a major Federal
action requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A
mitigated FNSI has been released to announce this conclusion to the
public and afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed
Action. The EA and mitigated FNSI are available for public inspection
at the Cumberland County Public Library in Fayetteville, and the Post
Library and Command Information Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
39
APPENDICES
A BA, Combat Aviation Brigade and Separate Battalion Barracks
B Map, McFayden Pond Projects

41
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
42
111:1%00 MON 14:41 FAX [phone] USFWS-RALEIGH.NC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Posc Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 13, 2000
Colonel Robert L. Shirron
Department of the Army
Director of Public Works Business Center
Headquarters, h'VIE Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307-5000
Dear Colonel Shirron:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter of September 26, 2000 and
Biological Assessment for the Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I and H and Separate Battalions
Barracks Complex, Phase I and 11, Fort Bragg Military Reservation, Cumberland County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)(Act).
According to your Biological Assessment, fifteen construction projects are proposed for
development between FY 2000 - 2010, adjacent to the Tank Creek watershed. Approximately 238
acres of land will be involved in this development. These new facilities are being constructed to
house and provide services to support 608 soldiers.
No suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr, American chaffseed, small-whorled pogonia or
pondberry exist in the area described for development. Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife
and Michaux's sumac exist, but surveys of this habitat during the 1998 and 1999 growing seasons
revealed that no federally-listed plants occur in the project area.
The development site contains suitable foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW);
however, no part of the site falls within a RCW foraging partition. Fort Bragg's Endangered Species
Management Plan (ESMP) identifies regions of the installation where RCW management will be
focused. The project location is not contained by any of the habitat management units identified in
the ESMP. Therefore, the proposed development will not impact population goals identified in the
ESMP.
Based on the information provided in your September 26, 2000 letter and accompanying Biological
Assessment, the Service concurs that Combat Aviation Brigade and Separate Battalions Barracks
Complex will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr and federally-listed plant species and are not
lik=ely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
1Q 002

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT seRpptemne>rTH2C?ARQ? 28310
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Public Works Business Center
ORIGINAL*
Mr. Garland Pardue
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (C(apy
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Pardue:
Enclosed is a Biological Assessment for the
Brigade,'Phase I and II and Separate Battalions
Phase ,I and II, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
that this action will have "no effect" on Saint
and listed plant species; and will not "likely
affect" the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Combat Aviation
Barracks Complex,
We have determined
Francis' satyr,
to adversely
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Erich L.
Hoffman, [phone].
Sincerely,
J?cd" C
Robert L. Shirron
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director of Public Works
Business Center

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE, PHASE I AND II AND
SEPARATE BATTALIONS BARRACKS COMPLEX, PHASE I AND II
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
Erich L. Hoffman
Wildlife Biologist
Public Works Business Center
SEPTEMBER 2000
COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE, PHASE I AND II
AND SEPARATE BATTALIOINS BARRACKS COMPLEX, PHASE I
AND PHASE II
BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located in the Sandhills
physiographic province of North Carolina and is characterized by
rolling topography and sandy soils. More specifically, the
Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB), Phase I and II, Complex and
Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I and II, will be
constructed throughout the Tank Creek Watershed Area (TCWA)
inside the Main Cantonment Area (MCA), Cumberland County, Fort
Bragg (see map).
The site for the Combat Aviation Brigade is-approximately
48 acres of land. The site is bounded by Butner Road to the
north, the future All-American Expressway to the east, Longstreet
Road to the south, and Bigler Street to the west.
The site for the Separate Battalions Complex is
approximately 40.75 acres of land. The site is bounded by Butner
Road to the north, the MP complex and wetlands to the east,
Longstreet Road and CAB tactical vehicle maintenance shop to the
south, and miscellaneous small military units and government
contractor compound to the west.
Fort Bragg is juxtaposed in the Sandhills, which is home to
the.longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem. The Sandhills
physiographic region lies between the Piedmont and Inner Coastal
Plains. The Sandhills encompasses eight counties in North
Carolina. The term "Sandhills" refers to the rolling hills
capped by deep coarse sands, which dominate the landscape.. All
installation lands are characterized by rolling topography and
sandy soils. Fort Bragg lies on a_divide between the Lower
Little River and Rockfish Creek watersheds, while Camp Mackall is
located in the Lumber River drainage system. Overhills is part
of the Lower Little River watershed.
The installation contains thirty-three natural plant
communities and variants on Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall,
representing a broad array of interactions among edaphic,
climatic, pyric, hydrologic, and topographic gradients.
Fort Bragg is 152,855 acres in size; Camp Mackall is 7,917 acres
in size. Total acreage is 160,877 acres to include 105 acres of
miscellaneous tracts. In 1997, a 10,580 acre tract of land in
Harnett and Cumberland counties, known as Overhills, was
purchased from Percy and Isabel Rockefeller, which is included in
the total acreage figure.
2
Throughout Fort Bragg soils consist of excessively drained
to moderately well drained soils on highly dissected uplands. In
general, upland habitat consist of excessively drained rolling to
flat deep coarse sands, while wetland soils consist of more
organics and are poorly drained. Upland soils are Blaney-Gilead-
Lakeland sands. These soils are mostly well drained, contain
little organic matter, and are very low in fertility. They are
generally classified as sandy loam or loamy sand and are well
drained. Soils in lower elevations are Johnston loam. These
soils are richer, but are poorly drained. Lowland soils are
classified as loamy and are generally heavier in texture than
upland soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1984).
. The Combat Aviation Brigade Complex will occur in two
distinct habitat types, a small open previously disturbed upland
xeric sandhill scrub habitat area and forest areas consisting of
undisturbed natural pine scrub oak sandhill plant community type,
dissected by a wetland drainage fingers of coastal plain small
stream swamp and some sandhill seeps (Schafale and Weakley,
1990).
The Separate Battalions Barracks Complex will occur in one
distinct habitat type, previously disturbed xeric sandhill scrub
habitat. Most this area was once part of the old WW II barracks
community and now consists of man dominated grassy areas with
scattered remnant longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) flattops. The
installation has removed the original WWII wood buildings.
Existing topography is relatively flat. No wetlands are involved
in project boundaries west of Bigler Street. However, a small
wetland drainage finger of coastal plain small stream swamp will
be impacted east of Bigler Street.
The Tank Creek watershed on uplands is characterized by two
dominant plant community types pine scrub oak sandhill and xeric
sandhill scrub, while the wetlands consist primarily of three
dominant plant community types, coastal plain small stream swamp,
streamhead pocosin and sandhill seeps. The project boundaries
will be sited and designed around wetland habitats to minimize
their impacts.
More specifically, the Tank Creek watershed area consists
of gentle rolling terrain from one to eight percent slopes on
uplands and steep terrain with 10 to 40 percent slopes in
wetlands. The wetland areas have rather steep topography, which
lends great potential for soil erosion. The watershed drainage
direction is from east, south, and west flowing north into Tank
creek.
Most of the area east of Bigler street, between Longstreet
Road and Butner Road, is heavily forested upland longleaf pine or
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forest canopy with a lush ground
cover and an understory of turkey oak (Quercus laevis) on xeric
3
sites, and a mixture of other oaks (Quercus spp.) on less xeric
sites. Many habitats are severely fire suppressed because of
their juxtaposition to the Main Cantonment Area. Ground cover
vegetation consists of native warm season grasses primarily
wiregrass (Aristida spp.), which normally dominates the herb
layer, and a variety of herbs and forbes such as little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), broomstraw (Andropogan gyrans),
dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), baptisia (Baptisia cinerea), stylisma (Stylisma
patens) and goat's rue (Tephrosia virginiana).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the development of fifteen projects
scheduled from fiscal year (FY) 2000 until 2010 in the
surrounding tank creek watershed. Approximately 238 acres within
the Tank Creek Watershed area are proposed for development. The
two primary facilities are the Combat Aviation Brigade Complex,
Project Number 45239, and the Separate Battalions Barracks
Complex, Project Number 35362 & 44496 on Fort Bragg (see Table
1). The 82nd Airborne Division is in need of new barracks
facilities to adequately support current military training needs.
The Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I, would construct a
whole barracks renewal complex and dining facility. Additional
work includes constructing new barracks using the standard R1
barracks module design, community building, 100 percent parking,
community green, close-in training, company operations
facilities, battalion headquarters, brigade headquarters, dining
facility, heat plant, chiller plant, secondary and access roads,
and recreation areas.
Also, Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I is
required to provide housing and administrative support facilities
for soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division. Phase I includes
facilities for HHC, Finance, PSB, ADA, and MP. It complies with
current and proposed Army standards for space, security, storage,
and privacy, that improves parking, recreational areas, training
and work areas. All primary facilities are based on modified DA
standard designs. This phase will house 608 soldiers.
In addition, Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase II
will provide the remaining facilities necessary to complete the
Separate Battalions Barracks Complex. Phase II includes
facilities for 313th, 307`", and Signal. This phase will house
768 soldiers. Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phases I and
II will provide barracks for 1376 soldiers, 26 company operations
facilities, 6 battalion headquarters, and in-processing center, a
dining facility, and paving to satisfy the parking requirements
for the entire brigade.
4
Construction of barracks and dining facilities will use
standard designs consistent with the Fort Bragg Master Plan and
Installation Design Guide. Construction of company operations
facilities, battalion headquarters, and brigades headquarters is
based on the standard constrained site design. Additional
infrastructure will include energy monitoring and control
systems; fire alarm detection and reporting systems; automatic
building sprinklers; intrusion detection system; and force
protection measures.
Support facilities include electric services; water, sewer,
and gas service; paving, walkways, curbs, and gutters; storm
drainage; storm water retention system; erosion control measures;
information systems; site improvements; and landscaping. The
site plan requires the demolition of 10 buildings 263,007 square
feet (sf) in order to accommodate the new facilities.
The proposed project action area is suited for these
purposes because the terrain is relatively level with sandy
soils, which are easily worked and conducive for construction.
The area is also centrally located within the Main Post
Cantonment Area.
Other locations would not be suitable because they
interfere with other training missions, involve wetlands or
violate management requirements for endangered species. The Army
will construct, operate, and maintain the barracks complex in
order to conduct operations required to train airborne units for
combat. In addition, the newly improved barracks will aid and
improve soldiers living quarters. Soldier moral and retention
will be enhanced by this project.
Tank Creek Project List:
TABLE 1
Project Fiscal Approximate Project Title
Number Year Acreage
16992 2010 13 525th MI Brigade Vehicle Maintenance
Shop
20127 2010 7 Distance Learning Center (Phase III)
20347 2010 9 Synthetic Theater of War Range Training
Facility (Phase III)
51612 2010 15 Practical Nurse Training Facility
51909 2010 12 General Education Development Center
(Phase IV)
53914 2005 75 Brigade*Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase V)
53538 2004 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase IV)
25134 2003 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (PhaseIlI)
5
TABLE 1 Cont.
41631 2003 24 Whole Barracks Renewal 16th MP Brigade
44496 2002 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase II)
35362 2001 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase I)
44965 2001 5 Old Division Fire Station
45239 2001 48 Whole Barracks Renewal Combat Aviation
Brigade (Phase I)
46797 2001 5 U.S. Army Parachute Team Facility
Soldier Development Center (Phase I)
51238 2001 25 Soldier Development Center (Phase I)
SPECIES CONSIDERED
This biological assessment is pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-
1543). The purpose of the biological assessment is to evaluate
the effects of constructing a barracks complex on federally
listed endangered species for Cumberland county.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
Cumberland County, North Carolina, lists the following federally
listed and proposed endangered species:
Vertebrates
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)-T (S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)- Endangered
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci)- Endangered
Vascular Plants
American chaffseed (Scwalbea americana)-Endangered
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)- Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia aperulaefolia)- Endangered
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)- Threatened
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)- Endangered
METHODS
Direct or indirect project impacts were assessed and
evaluated using field surveys and analyses of species habitats
using Arc-View and GIS systems for five federally listed species
occurring on Fort Bragg in Cumberland County. They include the,
RCW, Saint Francis' satyr, Rough-leaved loosestrife, American
chaffseed and Michaux's sumac. The American alligator, Small-
whorled pogonia, and Pondberry are also listed for Cumberland
6
County but have never been found on Fort Bragg. A field visit
determined if their suitable habitat was present or absent.
The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat impacts were
evaluated by analyzing cavity tree location surveys, forage
partitions (Carter and Associates, 1995), and timber stand layers
stored on a geographic information system (GIS) at Fort Bragg. A
map was developed using Arc View, depicting biological
information layers related to proposed project location so .
potential adverse impacts could be further evaluated and assessed
through a field visit (see map).
The project area was recently searched for new cavity trees
during the 1999 5-year cavity tree survey inventory. Additional
evaluations involved a field visit on July 10, 2000. During this
visit no cavity trees were found. If new cavity trees or start
trees are found, they are plotted onto aerial photography,
located using global position system (GPS), and then added to the
GIS layer for further analysis.
Site evaluations revealed suitable RCW forage habitat does
exist but no RCW cluster partitions occupy the project area.
According to the Fort Bragg Endangered Species Management Plan
(ESMP), no future RCW clusters are planned to be managed in the
proposed project area. RCW impacts were evaluated for effects on
forest fragmentation, RCW forage loss, RCW dispersal, population
demographics and Fort Bragg ESMP installation recovery goals.
Potential impacts to rare and federally listed plant
species were evaluated by using results of a comprehensive re-
survey conducted in 1998 and 1999. A field visit on June 19,
1998 confirmed no rare or endangered plants occur in project
area. Since federal endangered plants do not occur in project
area, no impacts are anticipated.
Impacts for the American alligator were evaluated and
assessed based on a site visit. This species is not known to
occur on Fort Bragg. Only a few introduced captive pet
alligators have been known to occur on Fort Bragg. A site visit
on July 11, 2000 indicated suitable habitat does not occur in
project area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Survey results and habitat analysis revealed none of the
eight species occur in project area. The CAB and.Separate
Battalions Barracks complex are restricted to 62 acres of pine
scrub/oak Sandhills and its construction is not expected to
impact upon any federal listed species. Below is a species by
species breakdown of assessment results followed by some brief
discussion.
7
The results of assessing and evaluating proposed project impacts
on federally listed species are as follows:
American alligator.
Results confirm no suitable alligator habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Potential direct and indirect impacts to suitable habitat
from project impacts were assessed. The types of impacts assessed
include impacts on forage habitat, dispersal habitat, forest
fragmentation, natural plant community function, and management
implementation activities (i.e., urban interface issues,
prescribe fire effectiveness etc.).
The barrack complexes are in Habitat Management Area (HMA)
20, which does not support any RCW clusters according to the
ESMP. Current and future RCW forage partitions were not
evaluated for potential impacts because none are present in
project area. Therefore no adverse impacts to the RCW are
anticipated. The project is located in the Main Cantonment Area
and is outside the Greenbelt Area thus RCW management issues do
not apply.
When ground cover integrity is lost, either by fire
suppression or by altering habitat, along with it goes insect
abundance that may indirectly affect RCW productivity. While
clearing of pine trees creates changes in flora and fauna species
composition, that in turn affects insect populations associated
with ground cover. These biological changes in plant community
structure, species composition, and.abundance may indirectly
alter the primary insect food base of surrounding clusters
(James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997). However, these detrimental
habitat conditions will not occur with RCW's because their
managed habitats are outside the MCA.
Significant forest fragmentation could impact RCW dispersal
between nearby clusters and population demographics through
travel corridors leading into the Greenbelt Area but these
impacts were evaluated and not of concern because of project
location. Since RCWs require large mature contiguous forest
tracts as movement corridors and forest often become fragmented
into small forest patches, from project development, this issue
was evaluated for its.potential adverse impacts. No adverse
impacts are anticipated.
Saint Francis' satyr.
Results confirm no suitable satyr habitat is present within
project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
8
American Chaffseed.
Survey results confirm no suitable chaffseed habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Michaux's sumac.
Survey results confirm suitable sumac
project area however,
individuals present
expected.
a plant by plant
in project area;
habitat is present within
survey found no
therefore no impacts are
Rouah-leaved loosestrife.
Survey results confirm suitable loosestrife habitat is present
within project area; however, a plant by plant survey found no
individuals present in project area; therefore no impacts are
expected.
Small-whorled pogonia.
Survey results confirm no suitable pogonia habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Pondberrv.
Survey results confirm no suitable pondberry habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Potential endangered plant impacts include direct or
indirect impacts to suitable habitat as well as, to individual
plants. No endangered individual plants were found in the Tank
Creek Watershed Area, which includes the proposed project area;
therefore, no impacts are expected. Small-whorled pogonia and
pondberry were never found on Fort Bragg or Camp Mackall.
Impacts to this species are not likely. State rare plant impacts
are not foreseen because no rare species occurrences are found in
the project area.
The construction of these complexes will likely cause
little threat to aquatic systems, if storm runoff and erosion
control is contained on site. Erosion problems are not expected
to impact wetlands because soils must be contained under a state
approved erosion control plan. Barracks construction impacts are
going to impact the integrity of natural plant communities, but
ground disturbance should be minimized. A landscaping plan will
emphasize replanting native longleaf pine trees surrounding
buildings. Wetland impacts will be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. Impacts will be mitigated according to
all applicable state and federal laws.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are the sum of efforts of future private
and state activities, which are reasonably certain to occur
within the project area. There are no cumulative effects
anticipated for this project.
9
f
t
Alternatives to the proposed action were developed as part
of the planning process. One alternative was eliminated from
detailed analysis, while two alternatives, one reduced scale
alternative in addition to, the Proposed Action, were analyzed in
detail.
ALTERNATIVES TO PRECLUDE ADVERSE EFFECTS
The no action alternative option of not building new .
barracks on Fort Bragg was rejected because of the imperative
need to bring facilities up to standard for unit readiness
scenario. The need to support unit operations at garrison level
is critical to mission success. The option of redeveloping the
cantonment area elsewhere is not feasible or possible because
Fort Bragg has eliminated or developed all other suitable
locations. Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from
detailed analysis.
The alternatives considered in detail are the option to
propose sustainable development (Proposed Action) of the McFayden
Pond Area, also known as the Tank Creek Watershed Area, or the
reduced scale alternative of developing part of Tank Creek
Watershed Area. The Army is committed in its belief that each
alternative be accomplished in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
The proposed sustainable development within the Tank Creek
Watershed Area precludes adverse effects on endangered species.
Other locations were not considered because they may have had
adverse impacts to endangered species. In addition, the
sustainable design of this project helps minimize impacts to
wetlands. Selection of this alternative would best support the
Fort Bragg troop units by providing more suitable facilities
designed at the new standards as well as, have the least impacts
to Fort Bragg's natural resources.
The reduced scale alternative would not provide for
suitable facilities for all units requiring improved facilities.
Such a design standard will require more land area to construct
such facilities. This-increased land requirement is not likely
available due to main cantonment and environmental constraints.
Also, design specifications meeting new standards may not be met
when facilities are spread out too far or when some but not all
units needing improved facilities receive them.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, due to the absence of rough-leaved.
loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, pondberry, small whorled pogonia
and American chaffseed , within project boundaries, the
construction of CAB and Separates Complexes will have no effect
on these species. In general, the sustainable development of the
10
REFERENCES
Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1995. Unpublished
proprietary information on territorial partitioning. .
James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997. Species-Centered Environmental
Analysis: Indirect Effects of Fire History on Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers. Ecological Applications, 7 (1), PP. 118-129.
Schafale and Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation and Schafale
(1993), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, 1997. Fort Bragg
Endangered Species Management Plan. Fort Bragg, NC 90 pp.
+ appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina. 155 pp. + maps.
12
?B Bar-racks Complex and CAB Barracks Complex

?Jt
,t.,C1t;.,t;t',?it( ,?,'•y; '{; t:?:`•';?;rti?`?•Ci
Jt ?`.r.; . \ ris V;

( r Nt( ,?tV .J? 1 ? s "? Y• ? C:: - v.?fr ?Tit?? 2 r'?T,,., r: ( ''1"tf Y•??i i?l1?t?'1.?'? ?'?it??v `•
L:1. f, ? ; ' t -., ?, ?- Cam(, .'?' j • ?y>,?v?`s?•,?. ?,','M ?]' ?a k `(fh I?' `?? ^M?(,wy"?
a `?7 jrt r ? IW?. J??h t; Y h I.;w r'y
` lv' ?` j?' 1. F s? ,^` s a.+'? „ ? ? y' .?? S 4 ? ,. fi ..! t ?t ?- ,,g,
\F•'? *???4{SG"s?f: ??•??j??.,? ?? ? ,e ?: 3 ?..?????snl?i?3"`'}??}.????? •R;,bt,?f;, Fj• ??Cr ?j" ?1? ?!+`
:)'. Y„ .1LiYh? .3 vr?- '. •.?TT ..t.'?: _ ti ???$&1. ?..s1+R.t ,^?i'?.
0•6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles

,. -?i 1'94'' •;• ?a
1 St)-barracks complex.shp
Cab-barracks complex.shp
Y ? .
>B Barracks Complex and CAB Barracks Cornplex
r,
'? ?? -"• ?'{,.. fir'" 1
'•,n
•- D4
l?f?,•????t?`, ?t 'fir ? ? C,.? ?I??

All

I Sb-barracks complex.shp
Cab-barracks complex.shp

11 jrt? • ' , r.:?..S?:1e? r d FOP , t 1}
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles
N
APPENDIX B
PROJECT MAP
43
COMMENTS RECEIVED
44
APPENDIX B
PROJECT MAP
43
COMMENTS RECEIVED
44
REPLY TO
? ATTENTION OF:
Savannah District
DEPARTMENT (.;F THE A-7T.1Y
SAVANNAH DISTRICT, CORPS OF' ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 889
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31402-0889
February 15, 2005
Mr. Ken Jolly, Chief
Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps Of Engineers, Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Jolly:

FEB 1 7 2007
DENR - b'vWiIlk' i Y
ti'Zlh,43lu,DSTCiis 1';r+iER6R%CH
I refer to our recent on-site meeting concerning fill material that was placed in
wetlands during the construction of the 16`I' MP Brigade Barracks Complex on Fort
Bragg in Cumberland County, North Carolina. As you are aware, we thought that this
work did not require submittal of a Pre-Construction Notification, due to the size of the
impact. Unfortunately, we were not aware that Wilmington District had placed a
Regional Condition on the use of Nationwide Permits prohibiting placement of sediment
basins in wetlands. We apologize for this oversight.
In accordance with your request, we have redesigned the project to remove all fill on
the northern end of the area in question which was placed to construct a stormwater
detention pond and a sidewalk. I am also enclosing an after the fact application for use of
Nationwide Permit 39 and Nationwide Permit 13 to authorize the fill and riprap that will
have to remain in place. The application includes: 1) Location Map, 2) Aerial Photo,
3) Previous wetland delineation, 4) Plan View Drawing of impact areas, 5) Plan View
Drawing showing new location for sediment pond 5) Plan View Drawing of proposed
foot bridge to replace the fill area, 6) Typical riprap Cross Section and Plan View
Drawing, and 7) the Environmental Assessment prepared for the project. If addition,
drawings or information is required please contact me immediately.
It is my understanding that you have no objection to our immediately proceeding with
removal of the fill from the wetland area shown as Area A on the drawings in the
application provided:
a. The State has concurred in this action.
b. All material placed in the wetland area is removed and the site is backfilled with
suitable material to bring it back to the pre-construction grade. All excavated material
must be removed to high ground.
c. All surfaces exposed due to the work are immediately stabilized to prevent erosion
of material back into the site.
Other than the possible removal of the fill at Area A, no further work, other than
possibly minor activities to prevent erosion of materials into the nearby stream, shall be
conducted in the areas of the project site subject to your jurisdiction pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act without prior approval from your office.
-2-
We appreciate the cooperative efforts you and your staff have made in assisting us to
resolve this issue. The Savannah District and Fort Bragg are re-evaluating our
procedures for conducting environmental reviews of projects to make sure such impacts
are avoided in the future. We also look forward to participating in training sessions you
have offered to conduct for our environmental and construction staff.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Oddi
Military Project Management
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
D
D F Il`?ll,rt
FEd ? '1 "1 L05
1TV
n.Ft:R -tiAtZttLUH?i ?+'(N
Office Use Only: V?m?Nos' Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. 200200975 DWQ No.
(if any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: ATF NWP 39 & 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Headquarters. Fort Brae Garrison Command
Mailing Address: Public Works Business Center
Attention: Colonel Gregory Bean
Fort Brae, North Carolina 28310
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District
Company Affiliation: Project Management Division,
Attention: Diego Martinez/Pete Oddi
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 889
Savannah. Georgia 31402
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Frame of project: 16`h MP Barracks Complex
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fayetteville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):_ Fort Bragg
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Site is located at the corner of
Armistead Street and Bunter Road on Fort BragrR.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Lat - 35.159, Long 78.996
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 24 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): unnamed trib to Tank Creek
8. River Basin: Cane Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at llttP://Ii2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: This site is surrounded by existing development
Construction of the barracks is already well underway. A small creek runs through the site
and a small amount of wetlands are associated with this creek.
Page 2 of 10
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proiect involves the construction of a large barracks complex company operations
facilities, battalion and brigade headquarters soldlier community center, and a close-in
training center. Associated with these projects area several roads parking areas a parade
field, two bridges , utilities and sidewalks. Normal construction equipment was used and is
being used for construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the fill areas are 1) to construct a
building and sidewalk in area C• 2) to construct a parade field in Area B The site
designated as Area A was partially filled when it was determined that the wetland area could
not be used for construction of a stormwater retention pond This area of fill will now be
removed.. The overall purpose of the projects is to provide housing for troops at Ft Bragg as
well as support and training facilities The riprap areas are to provide erosion protection
around bridge footings and at storm water outlets.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A wetland delineation was verified for this site by the Wilmington Field Office of the USACE
A copy of this delineation is enclosed. These wetland are also shown on the enclosed sketch
showing areas to be impacted.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future actions area proposed at the site The enclosed NEPA document addresses other
facilities proposed in the area but not part of this project
Page 3 of 10
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intennittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The impacts related to this
project have already occurred under the assumption that < .1 acre of wetland could be filled
with coordination with the USACE or State, However, we have since been informed that this
does not apl2ly if any potion of a stonnwater retention pond is located in the wetlands.
Unfortunately a corner of the benn for such a pond was placed in Area A on the attached
drawings. The area filled at Area A is approximately 0.075 acres in size. Our plans have
now been modified to remove all fill in Area A from the wetland area. Area B was filled to
construct a parade field. This fill is approximately 0.005 acre in size. We determined that
removal of this fill would impact the retaining wall for the paraded field. Therefore, this fill
is proposed to remain. Area C was filled for construction of a building and a side walk.
Approximately 0.06 acre was filled for this action. Since the fill is required for the side
slopes of the building fill, removal of this fill is not an option. Therefore, the total impact of
the project is 0.135 acre. However, as explained above 0.075 acre of this fill will be removed
to hiuh around. This area will be restored to Qrade and allowed to naturally re-vegetate or if
required it will be seeded with a herbaceous wetland seed mixture. Planting with woody
species is not possible since a foot bridge will still have to be placed across the wetland area.
See attached drawings. In addition 8 areas aloniZ the stream have bee riprapped. These areas
vary in width between 10 and 20 feet and run up the bank 10 - 18 feet. Only 3 to 4 feet of
this area is located below the bank of the creek or in waters of the US. The total length of
stream bank impacted is 148 feet, however, since in two areas the riprap is on both sides of
the bank only 108 feet of the stream to be impacted. Four of these areas protect the footings
of the two bridges that will cross the creek. The other areas are being used to prevent erosion
below the outfalls of stormwater retention ponds and outlets. Some of these areas may be
removed upon completion of construction. We will also investigate conversion of some the
areas to a more environmentallv friendly means of erosion control.
Page 4 of 10
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

B Fill .005 No 150 feet Forested
C Fill .06 No 50 feet Forested

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hltP://www.fema.cov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.6 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: .065 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secif )
1 Riprap 28 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
2 Riprap 12 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
3 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
4 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
5 Riprap 10(1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
6 Riprap 17 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
7 Riprap 20 Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
8 riprap 21 (1 side) Trib to Tank Creek 5 feet Intermittent
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uc s. ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
wvyw.manquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: The riprap areas 1& 7 and
3 & 4 are located across from each other, therefore only 108 feet of stream has been
impacted. The project impacts 148 feet of stream bank habitat.
Page 5 of 10
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) Wat) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound'

bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe treasures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
As stated above, we have re-evaluated the project plan and determined that the fill at Area A will
be removed to grade. This fill will be replaced with an elevated foot bridge. The fill for the
storm water pond will be removed and the pond shifted entirely out of wetlands The removal of
fill from this area will include removal of all materials placed above and below grade After all
foreign material is removed, the area will be backfilled to the grade of adjacent wetlands with the
hydric soils that were removed from the site and/or top soil stored near the site The other two
fills cannot be removed without impacting the foundation of an existinjR building Retaining
walls are being constructed to maintain all fill and keep it out of the wetland areas
The riprap areas are required to protect the bridge footings and prevent erosion due to releases
from upland constructed storm water facilities. Some of these areas maybe removed upon
Page 6 of 10
completion of construction. We will also investigate conversion of some the areas to a more
environmentally friendly means of erosion control.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://li2o.enr. state.nc.us/ncwetl ands/strni gide.litm 1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Since permanent wetland impacts will be less than 0.1 acre and stream impacts will be
less than 150 feet it appears no mitigation would be required. However, we are prepared to
deduct 150 stream credits from the Jump and Run Mitigation Site on Fort Braggy if required
In addition the 0.075 acre area to be restored at Area A will be allowed to re-vegetate
Page 7 of 10
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at littp://li2o.enr.state.ne.ushvm/index.litm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ? This document addresses several projects.
Page 8 of 10
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
• Zone 1 extends out 3U feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Page 9 of 10
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Fort Brae has already obtained approval for their sediment and erosion control plan for this
XII.
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.
Fort Brae has available capacity to handle the sewage to ggenerated by this project
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ® No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The project area was investigated for potential impacts to endangered species Based on this it
was determined the project would have no adverse impact on such species

1 16 'FG f3
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of 1
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
littp:Hterraserver-usa.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=2&S=14&Z=17&X=213&Y=1215&W=1 &... 2/11/2005
0' ' 2Km 0' ' iMi
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of 1
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://terraserver-usa.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=1 &S=14&Z=17&X=213&Y=1215&W=1 &... 2/11/2005
0' ' 2Km 0' ' IN
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action Id. 200200975 County: Cumberland Quad: Manchester
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: Fort Bragg ' Agent: Rahlff hijle
Address: AFZA-PW-N, Erich Hoffman Dial Cordy and Associates
Department of the Army Headquarters, First Union Building, Suite 601
XIII Airborne Corps and Ft. Bragg 201 North Front Street
Fort Bragg, NC 28310 Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: [phone] [phone]
Zone: 27' UTIM: North: 3892255 East: 682589
Size and Location of Prop erty(`vaterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The property is located adjacent to an
Unnamed Tributary to Tank Creek, between Riley Road and Arrnistead Street, south of Butner Road, on Fort Bragg, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Basis of Determination: Determination is based on information provided by Rahlff Ingle of Dial Cordy and Associates and a site
visit conducted by Lillette Moore, on June 26, 2002.
Indicate which of the following apply:
There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed. The
surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional determination on
your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands cannot
be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a more timely delineation of the
wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate,
we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the Corps: The Corps will not make a final
jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey:
X The wetlands on vonr lot have heen d linented-and the limits of Corn--,- iurisdiction have heen esnlninerl to vmT_
Tinless there is n rhnnrte in the lqw nr mir nnhlichorl rAcrTTIntinnc Chic rlatorm;nnfinn mnv ho rnl;nrl ..inn f .
There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a.change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this notification.
The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army permit
is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is not required
for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any questions regarding the
Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Lillette Moore at [phone].
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature Project Manager Signature
Date Tnne 26 , ?-001 Expiration Date Tll_ne 26; 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM.
CeSAw Form 566
IMAGE VIA
WETLAND SURVEY
PREPARED FOR DIAL CORDY AND ASSOCIVESS INC.
FORT BRAGG.
16th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: MAY M 2002

J

1. ens[ ?M A.a c- --a eI .-.3
7 ur asr..rrs .+L ,c..za. rs
a IaP A(RA(MI SLC ni H0rt0 •
1. s 40-12.2
S .[RUGS 10Urt0 rM Afnrtd uaYC SOA-Ils KCrr,(xi
u1 MIA rn5 rosl PAPC(sY0 rA A(Cwvr[ /.PJC[s5U9 10
O[vu(R.1 ACAMACI.
l(4+0 r
(CI. (aSMC pd LK
[r. rnsr..c nd
rCY.. Lnsrwc CWCALR rdVUdr
A\r . Ma.I rX r
cr. cwwrto (var.r
W 'AND PLAT
LOCATIONMAP
f Aor ro scv[ )
wn?
1 ,r E
t 3
w .++
Y
BURNER ROAD J L
r. _._._._._._._.? ?A--_.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._. -. _._._._.
I _L I
IL7
j ,tl, n,,, .r wm I
_ .: I L mp ?..,_ b,?,•pd,?a
wx.
2`_112 I
j 0 0 0 0 1
-? ...... ...... ...... ........... --- - - -- • - - - - --
U
?? -ter- uu
24708 a DIAL CORDY
0 Q AND ASSOCIATES INC.
•„lI' q' ?., CrvlxouueNTM, eoX="I.T""
. l??µs l ti? _ L1_ s rl
SFAL «
L]J91 ,
i LM p tc1 ?A ?o? [.u9. «rr.u..rp._
_ "'" '." HANOVERDESIGNSERVICES,
A
"""ro+.%n'or K.;w w?....> •?4 zjL ue,o
yy I - ilr ioo• so• 0 -W- roo• (Mra..rrns CAM a.w.[rs
s'?T`+ 3 ;'`?s¢ S enarv;T:rr ?_-? ni 1. vciav?x. c? -1
f. 10011 FAX (y10) 343-9911 L\ (,4JT.yJ.,/]?"
(YA( I..(n.aOClrncan
IeDISADAC1r
July 03, 2002 08:18:50 AM
Pano 1 of 1
, r0/C
-y-T '' i ?\ `` 1 -??- ??e ?.?_ '- _------'-?_`. \ `?I `?\ r81Xp ` `\`> `\ \ ` 1 / I N r1[ \ WP% LS OF
71", + -V
p'T?- \ \ si`i -;: -'1 ?Jt1\`. ```l w 1 ``wAn rs >au \\ ` it Alowl I dg RWfl / am,, fp
\ 1 sD/c \ \ \ i 1 ruL]yq \ ?t \ 1 \ ?\ \
m m '?{ ` Ir ?1\\ ?\ \\ \ 1 I rMnn gxys \ ` 1 I t \ \ I 1
- r c r V 1 / f r '? ? I?111TI 11vv vv vv \v 1 1 pry\a `f ]lira A\ ??t I i f II ' ? 1 I ^' , ,
?? Sri«w ww \nuw r n n 11 1 1.11 ` \ \ + 1 / ,
1 ?? iniUi n«ii mli? A ' I ° It VIII of me npu V` V I , 1 l j , 1 1 1 , I 1 q I?
vJaR}maR 11 _ / I - I -? \??? - .11 11 1 ,,1. , prP16 }N.p \ \ \ I / I 1 1 , r 1 III ,'' 1 1 \ mm 1 / C 1 o
' I\ ' 1 1 1 f i I- I r '\ \?\ \- \\ 111' it )UI rv?V?-'^ \\ \\ l i i I 11 I I r I r I I ]f na A IaRp j . 11 r
1 1t1 1 YI VEpkal?p \ \\ \ + I 1 1 1/ / / 7 1 1 I 'l / I I I N A l
1 1 \ ` 1 1 II.•¦ \ 1 1 f ! l I I I / / 1 I / ! I I IF
1 1 1 \ 1 \ \\\ 1 \ 1pp 1 1 wP,tx¢?`?? 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' / I' I 1 1 I IO
.LQ I I l
!f IXYp 1 1 \ \ 1 ? ? , 1 ;1 i? 1 1 Ra ?? I 1 I I 1 f f I ' I /
,/ 1' I 1 1 1 , NpELSO1 IOQ I
p 8; AIIDpPI 1 1 \ \ 1 \ 1 -i 1S I ` `\ I 1 I \ 1 1 I l it I I 1 I t a 1G
/t MIT 1 \ \ \ \\ u.]p?]I\ \ '\ 1 hill f?t?,/ \ I I I 1 ' / cl 1 I / l I 1 , 1 I 2
/ 'i opt \ ? \ \` ``??? 1 10,1li ` ?!\• / I 1 ' I \ I I I 1 / I I l l / , ' ? E
`asf / 1 \ \ $ \ ICR'IF - \`\ 1 I / I 11 I I I I 1 I / 1 \', 2' I y
I 1 ? \ \ ?ap \ \ I II,I\ \ \-,' 1 1 ! 1 \ I I I i I I ?/? .j
I , NI¢w
.b11] AIOIW xII1L 1 \ \\PROp. D.0.F•o"RLQaq INk \ `-' \ \ `` IPdl11l I I ! I 1\ j I 11 I I ' ' ' 'l 111 ,__ ' 1 1 r
)?? \ ? ` 1 d , '' . Knyf6 't
isl's '•} -\ I 1 \ \ Fn
\ • Iq \ PROP. GD [EI
I 1 1 1 I / I I I \ / / r v E , ,? ?J?
¢.p \ 1 \ \ ` pX 76281 p 111 r1 ' 1 11 I 1 I11
I " t \ I 111 ??\ - 1 I I? (e? N I I
\ \ \ MR, rY 10 \ h\ \ ) 1 I , 1 1 I I I , \\ / I I `--k?-i •-iP- R`ly
I ?:mI?I 1» \ V A PL• \ 1? \ ?`. A A-?V •' I I i ll ll ( 1 11 I Il I I 1V 1 i 1 1 1 % / I I ' I
K ElrtYaLp
V-Olbalp 5 H p\ II LI/1\- R IN NV.. 11 rA.16i1 1 1 I \ 11 1 11 i 1\ \\ 1t 1 ' i i 1 /./ ?/, f 1 I I• /%r y 1
PV?l M8m ` BOOI1t91 A_`?.r- ` \ d r•+ 1j1 'I[(y/r1u16 1 1 I 1 1 1 I \ I ! 1 r iP!? /-
1 1 PV. 7 ? 1
\ I ? Im 11 Xeo ,0 A RQ Irwl ^ ,. v 1 rpr. Ir Xw I 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \ \ \\ 11 1 1 1 / l ? 1
111 -L$ , 1 \ 14 _ \ \ \ \\\ 17 ? 1 I It 1 11 1 I11t \I 11 1 Ill II l /I .,11 I M-.
R ' ' - - ?`\ rul iuil UilMi,iiilnlii lli il?n iA ?iin?u - ..rnr..xrrxrmrr rR?itsfl { „-` in1l?i?nR??n lxri?lil?ni _ \ , \ 1?' '1 l 1 I I I 11 1 1 1 \ 11 11 t II / / `? ti j \
I _ L+f+ 9 irliffil _ 1 ``\\ \ \ _ I I 1.1; •? 'mIID
111 'i If pfr lX] r 1 , \ f. SC6 K MJ
r 111 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 111 I! / I'.' j- jay. UN17suo \I t Ir-
Y
y V P \ p?` II?W,,I?•1 1 - \ `\ \ \ ti' 1 I ?l Tpm 11 1 I I 1 I' t 1 1 1 1 11 1 1
p erll /1 \? ?\ '"'+-`+ \ - \ >S? m ` 'T'1 1 I '? II I I 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 y`? 4 -., 1 1 l ?I ul I
1 \ ?. l \+ • II 1 114 ' \ Wa^}1aa
`- 11P- I \ P 1 V M \ Sup N M hyl+' 'V .? i 1\ 1 1. 1 / I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 a. '1 I._ ?'C I_? IL
?
. 6{f 1 , 1 1 ?? 1 \ POp6lA? - NOr r6V. W `. ? ti \ ? 1 ? % 1 I I: \. ?• 1[TJYrd/ 1\ \ 11 I I I I ?.' . ?. 1 1 -I I i I 1 /
.mil u I 1 I \ ` \ lpl uw wa` © ` f?wmm ?d.. d 1 I .\ \\ I 1 I I 1 " \ \ I 1
\ Xd - ?r-ma. pwnc 11 r r 6.? •. \\ I 1 1 1 11
.ipp \ - >ipm'- 6N _u_r_1f_m_r r tap -? ` tse1 1 1-1-!•.I i ?'/
I 1 :.1 . . •?r: """1 .? \\ 1°' '\ 1 1 1 r r 1
.ffip ai7E 1 ?_ j -_••_ ]ail . ` M EX] \ I I I ? I I ?? t. , .
1__ tY S .R. MM I ```'+ roV 6U \ .a? o-IS '??='T_?_?_ '1? 1 , 1 ! I. I 1 - \ I I I Iv.lp lu`
I ]f a(+ W ??' W .1TR 7N1 \ I I 1 / / I ?. - / / - \ • ?'. .I . 1 I .?' ,I .__\'" \ `I
> M.ID[_/ mL
0110 \ . H , I I
?/ 1'X+/ wale \?' = !t 1PR to --5
d1EI lg ' p+
S .. q• 73 11? 0 }ail \ ` V.MrffiIC d` \ _ ev + `\ 11 11 T • 1 I ! I -. . . . J . - - . IN{ I• I I I '.11. \; t1
I Pp ti ary t 88 ".t 11 _
Q \ \
r - .1 1 .I I 1 I \' ?I \ f 1 1 1I
` I.1 . _rnmX. 6 1 I - F . 1.
.Q/, , V?Faw \ _ IE(wlFa? V{pr p \ ,
rp S. w-
]ffQ41 `\? \ \ 1 I ?•. I ' / 1 \ I. I I I I , I 1 '.I \ '. ? \ _. __\? 1 , t
\ to "I I 9b \ LLW).=W wf x. Y. 17
10 w
A \ `\m 1' .luA \ ` \ \ 1 1 , .1. I ( f 1I II I ) 1 RC
! \ [Xm f ?\ \^.I_ `` ?.-- ` \ \ \ 1 1 r I . 11 i I , ? •' .I . . 1. 1. J/ 11 ,1 ,I I I , I 1 1 \ ! ' `n
I 4'S SS-r :,S- '?. A 1/1 ?) 1 1 \ ? `? T•.??.` / I ? 1
.^*` ` \ y \ \ .+? \ \\ \\ \ - 1 1 1?1Y.1 11 1 1 I 1. 1 / J?1 I I I r 1 I 1 1 ,I. .. II _t-_ / /.___1
/ T• 1 \ \ _ \ \- \ \ \ ]?dbA S 1 1 I I .. , .i.l . I / I 1 1 1 1 I IamDp t
am I u I ` ` \ ?0. IEV. 80.DYQM 5 \ yll t I I '?'? 1 y/ I I I 1
F I I D
sm )`y6l `1 lYfi i r rur 11' \ IDU IAIIIXJ ORpI +. I I I I -1 .'.I 1 / A li?1w i
N 'L 1 h rw...... .. .f M \ \ . ? - \ \ 1k 1 11 11 11 1 LLL \ I , L / / ., , 1 I I I E ..? A/ , A-PDt--
tt \ I I 13A? I
?ra \ 1 fi r ` '_'` u,c- . \ \ 1 \ 1 I \ 1 \ •3 I IR ^+ ti? ,l2/J, , I 1 I I 1' - l /
h\r r 1 rnElr »_ ny - \\ \ \ 11 ,j 11 . 1 1 1 \\ 4 i ` Y ~ +/ ?` 1 , 1 I .' I -..T II'WpoGild
1 L- u r u :S ............
I MIR
•nql -\ ` »
\ ! \\\ 1 1.. \ 1 \ 1 \ I O/', 11
s
x'411) ` . `- WIRW-A. .`\. ?\ \\\ \,` 1\ 1J'rl 11 •, 1 11 \ nl(QL ??'l?? I / j+ I 1 1 I I j" ?, i -_ I \`.\ I J
Ntr _Y-
iE M PR9 I..-_1 ' F r
911 ! Isu. O- AMPRm.` `\B'NGW PDT Ru\1-X7 \ 1Ep ?`__ ` \\ 1\?\1111111 1111 11 ` \I 11y?"!1 `\ 1 ?1 ?+ f ' 1 I I I 1 I j I
RWPI.4 PNAR.aI A P)N .LM11PI pm XL•71p W P06 PaYx R46 - ?? \\ \ `\ \\ 111111 11 0.'A.'p1lAYb \ 1- 1.11 t / / ! 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I
1\ 1}.m.W 1 1 pYXR R6 .? ILIvIF]ap- --'- '-no- _ 8001p614ID RmF _ \ , \1.• 111 1111 I I I I ll I I I / / I I I 1 I I....1 . Fir cor?ur
vl I I ll fl? /` 4?itD qAh`• p -- MN-DNS` ?' AVA A `AVA A11 1?1 •,? I I I f 1 I I 1 I r I I I '. 1+. _. _. I I b_ rI I
\ ?_ ___ ___ \ 11 I I 1 1 I I
- - -
tf h6p PROP. -' ? ?\\\• "j, \ 1 I I\II ?l II1 ID. I I IPrV ISA 1 1 I 1 I I I I i ; I .. I i' / S
srvlfgx8ffi _ \ \ \ 111 I / I ' f 1 Jrra.
'µR I I ,'I I
' \ I r'. `\ ` ?•]lia ?1 4 - 1\\\ \ 1 111 \\I \ \\? III 111/ aXS/o' / I Iw ^? ' xJ j I I I f ! _._... j 1... //
}: p, ? AIOS4X ? ? ro. p-n ?___` I ?1 1 1 11uR. Rt tplt / 1 I1YlR• 1FrU'.'IA I I I ;? I ? ''! , I I _
I I hY. WprTl(p Rtl_ 1"40R. mn tf M ,I I \\ \ 1'•?1 i ' nU, l?ol spm//
/' rw I y J. I ' I I ' I 1 '
41 4 ! `IRA . Lyart}atN m IrYa x I \ D 1 11 I II Pjl• JIS'u kOp15 r[nYtY / ?;?Af!#i?1 1 T p T ?P tilt I I I I• _____ i I . i._
``•3 ` OIUr4 ^ y 72L t1f'IpU 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 II' l l l / / / " I ..I' i1 I
1 i R21m R4V 1 I l III 11 r ll 1. ,, rW I , \\\ 1 I 1 I I I / I 1 r I
{f _11xm I . .- , II , Is 1 ' 1I I'1fIIl 1I I. / / Z 'W sup V. sin I ml•-?T" - 1 1 1 1' '? ' I '
II 1 5 I -`' I - I , 1 I, II 11 I1 /_ rip*A>I XXa \I 1K--'ice{-..,"17 _-.?\I --- 1 1 --+-_
/ 1 I 3P X11 _ Rv. SAp7K =` \\ I ali - i I` 1 I-I VIII.'/, ?/ Ru 1 .,/ I ' ' •. 11 ?I II
?II I WPDW ?-]} ` I?O?R1r?OtR?IMp ? `?`? _ ul - \l ? _ _ I I' 1/ ? I III'Ill/ / ?~I ? +? `I ?IEB?f M! I R?.?'I\ ?j j II 1 II
fh= •II I rrr llnrr srrr rur rr rr rt1n 11rrrr r r p yr n?rlmum rrr 1 1 i h {?:? F? r , ?1rpf V) 1, ..I I t...l,.l, p- ' rl
mjL
I / 1 \ 1r / SQ _ ?`\ rl ?• r r rp2gq 1 '1 / I /l?l'/1/ ' / '?? _? I -r_--l_ I.r ?.J ..711 1A
I I _ _ 6r v.tall I I / I 1' 1 I 1{E71E;; 11??{? I ?u??l}u}{
311 ras VIII '?- \ lyll \ I 1 I J / I ' /I '1 \\\ ' I I I I I I Q / ' III IIII 1 I » 1111111
?? I i F II 1 Rv. pm , 1 ' ]p?Ipr?i ..?'1/'")I/ 'T' 1 •?T rt I r + ^ 1/
I I y: TM? I .? t I
2" +t Z.,t If - I?nl1? 1 /amPM //IIII II/II`l 'K? exm?. .awf. slvl?! d I \ 1 i -r'T 1.?1 t 1 >?- r ! '.
tlll --- - ' -L---- - __ Rp" }?' I ! fl a _rFX. fn! _?_
+ ?- :?S + "••,,.,. \ I i 151 dill ?-` -- ?.aNV ON• I I? pla. dif
X/ --?
u.Y rp;a -. p I as i 6E,]nX]'? f I ;
p ' RL•#ia .? I I r4 f ILLI .YC \Y I ! 1 ! i -a
G\I ? # r .. t - 4 ] !1 (• - q 1 ? V{x}m48i 1 / 1 C? h 1 ? I .... Y ?c•mu i , - ? - ??
6 r \ L' 1 9 ]rpPa ?. \? I]{rP2ffa nv. ii]f?.-W jT \ 71.1, r11\ \ 28aL ,a. / . . • .\ ?? ,r - _
, I 1 ',' 1 . ' N udR• nA ??. up}nap ? 1 I .
1 , .h' m.1) srjk lfld \ \ I
J
Ijj 111•Il?l Iw: 0.1 \+C•? INV. pupil lp[--^ 1 ! ?1 ?1/
/ \ RII, p1a? Q4W 1 I 111 _ I J / 7
I I xn, d I . I' y. - i w OIMEI 1 It.mp ?r? `„`\ L13:.[ila[d I 1. [ , ?! /MAIED1 / , i_
0 .. I
! ] "\ ?s1Ar?pCA• ^ I 1.1 d k Rr.l?p/ 1 I ?IJ lr'?rcu plop itOrp `17.V \. .. , I l I ,I /++,??/,.. j (!??p "/,. /.'. 1 /._... 1 I
?: I / 1 IIDPB/NRl I>? pu ' ? I "\ 61 rll , 1r?1 \ I / / 4 , / ! .1. 1 / . / ./ '/• r IY I¢w1
\ I I.. L l AtD]ra.X511 / I I ' 1111j1 I'ar r ? \ 'F L' l' ' I / +. /1.' I ''/ / !, ._._,. 1 ApWN I
/. a E._ "`? 1
v. uU \ 1..I ` I 1 I,?I / ,(• 1 TOT
ma C / 7 omn swr4[ I I Illl l!!/'1;? t r1 d 1/ , I '?/' 7 / -./'I , I ./ _ + /, J •y /
(I+fmp ? \ , iii 1. In puWml 1,,, l?l I dlr[A..[6 t .1 • _tf\/ I' / /. ,/ ,+ r 1 / l + r.' / I .I r __ 1 / I /
1 \ \ I Ifl ) Irl \ .d /. '/. ?-.{^?, I't} /-.+ / I ry I l
!?n'F ? / 4 1 mo,pu\ p ill II ,Ir , 1G ,? rrR. 6a cx rrr .: . • ..+ / ( 1 ?_??? /''/.I -??I • I \
1 / - // 1 1 1 Ylo.1'{?( I , Il f,j1IYU / Wl01Mrom \> ; /.' / I / / Y.'/ / ... ?._. I 1
s6 ' ` I 3 IR\'pl It
r- Q.)I Rd OIAS?ROp I I 1111 j//'?+( rvralx , /., / r
2w nuft.- R TC d Rt>6L- \ 1 IfuMIY I I I1: lrr/1 Ml rr Rurrtlrlt >1+•>sxs R / / / r yp?r r.. /.'r + + /4 '.i - I
1 I
H Iplmpp ` I o8p I it it/i ?'%'1i .nc _______- - )____?. 1141.
v.r
' r6 ll ' ?b ?.._ ,?II » 1 ?Ia1ii?F 1l rr A! r
ij' N.. 111 1/?l1/ - r I 1 IpIII/ /PMioap'/ IV I?SF'IIa /
_ {) nM.m II 4?t rrl, / / Rb. 1C jar
V 4 I b I ,1f , (, / /N + IIR.. IASJ' I .... 1'
LG.11111
71
Ir.' ? 1 h Y( _ d
V -- / .-. -. .,... ?._ 1 I I I I I hh irl r,l 1l .+.I? ? ?:T?d.: /-• - '-I ? , l
?rrrl?r?r?u??rr?rr?orn?ml,- ... rr.n
?P . I I "SIEI±,'fr,lrVy / , r r???rn?r?rr? \
77 ttyd 741_ 1 1-p I . _ , / lu/ + /
WA^}17 Goay /?. C it r ?-s t 1 1 fF1p ?l ' II I?j??ll 11 ??, '?? / + / .-Mot I I -- I h ` , 1 1 I ' I „/r/rr;/YNr /• rs.-.' i / + / / / ~ / + /'
1 M Ro. p' M
C-_+-t- P wpp 1 1 I I t II/lehJ4 II ' . , / . + / / / / / ' __,L J r
_ ro?sv III! r / /-?rn.v- -___--??•''' / •? / I , {1 1 /
Y- I u.zp 61 I>%m) 1 1 I , I/ p ll4 I.
'g IEpF]fux If ILYI ` \ 1 I 1 VIII, l1 rl. I / _-_ / , --- / / + / / / /? / , / " -G2_ 1
.,
?'? F W \ i 1 I I " 1 //„Ill 111. pr• / .
PROP. BATTALOA HO
mXIR am ?. ? ----Qfs186?_ 1 \\ I i 1'r'rh/h/r/h''I11111 ? C ? i i i / i / %Rf'r muOE NQ'
i i i ro. tlk / ? i
E ? 1 l ' 4/11 / ! •IIII / / / + / / I /
Pv. Mf M E 1 I rb /1 /rl / ? r? 1 1 I-{ 1 I j / / I I / / , , ,SXV. I , IEAR'm
' wmp` I nplp I I rr/!uq "YI-I1J ? •I• / ??L ' / /+ / 1 'E( '
f /tl ///vr? l !l /. ! QSf•R^"S'° I /' + / RO.I; ptA 1 I / w? -^
- u? NrrE1 I nlnlg ' X17111 ?11o-ES PRELIMINARY
1 ?IIIUIIIJ J?1,( /' +. / I r I I , / I
yea p y I I u1111 I DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Q:R,,, 1 ? I I II VIII 111,+'' / 1 1 I / , + / / 1 M
( 1Pn¦ f / 1 ? III I I /.j / 1 ,f I no.R N + ? / / ! _ I / /y hunt
? ! / I x 'IYhll . Mfr! ... I ? I I n'b"1'? •:,.f?????r?1?Irrrx?,r?r???rr?,,,r????grrrrr ?r? Mrl?? ?2' 161h MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLEX
`i l ~ rrnl rr rnrlr vm2 i i // j jlid illf// ,/ J wavA r -- pg°1°11j_? ' i I = ?Qy FORT BRAGC NORTH CAROLINA
Y?' '' `?` - V 01 - /1rn r` i • 1 I III ?II? I'J/. rx
41 WETLANDS/GRADING EXHIBIT
mis.r Q ErRsml.1 an. mM/cs aaXn rt /a
______=______ --=- -'i, u
EISAACSo
y?,??'(?`??\y1I,' +65.-- - ?? TRIG &r1?149y\` Y Y %?????i 'C- i -i- - +/? - o+l m[Iw4I5w.W UV iwi+s5? Y? I'. Yr
-. 1 ,IP.-?\.. •i ::./----` `i\\?- n]r. f.- /.'i??'. - -_ _ 8720 RED CAI( RWIEYARD. SUITE 420
•' "
n+cxt (704) sGNv-x4o RtOnr. M.C. 28217 EID2.0
rur (JOX) sv-sass
1 2 3 4 5
--
?
, r `
'
- I- ` ?- ?- _' ,i='{
-, i'JI?' AW--cbE1?1 b 1 -
? ?'
----------------
?
IS KMd'fn
`I• 1 i]`.. ``?tl111ER ROA`? x?ilMa .:Suaa»
„°"'°'
`'\
??

1 _ - - T . rf- '• -

`
;?• `,``?`-_ ?

US AR4Y CDRPS
ENGMEOtS
OF
'
I la ::. .rn
atrl.a 110 ?..... 1ro. m/. PII(/. Ir15'
a .?' f'; __ I { I 1 1 ?•.\
l rda cs osis?.k[ 1
u 1
rl: I
ti : ?w
- I
n
••
+
+ ,
'
aet.
rwlr ?
,,,.
EU1NfR-RQW ... SAVANNAH DISTMCT
,
, g
r. m..
»a.
n
r / I
--
,11fOa .?.. 1 Yrla '.''
.I' w a( 4,+ '\ r ; 1 I'
f
I
? _
\,
-?

` ?C? .'*-r.. '
'. ` _ K-'.- \ 'T° ??, ? ___ _,.'t .43'-s_" ?? .i
'i ?'?'" ` \ nlor. tlv. ? n•?2•?fO?`, I i ' ? '?\ \
Y ? (I ?I
+.1 ___ r?..„r . ? n
\ ?
`
`
'
1
`
` ? wt-t
l ?EI _... ?o-L._ __ -`'ML___ ... JY __ - t _.. ... r?,t,
I? -_ ----------------- _

'---
p
I

' ,
_
\ 111
I?w
i , l114
`` \ 1 I 11
, I ?Y
?
I 11:
' -1- 1[ 1_ \ ' PaR.IMIO(IKOC ? \I 1 1'Af1.IyRl I I I , I11
i '? ' l ?, \ [C#1111
11 W
?
1`1 -1 I'
r•- I
I 1
1
1 --_-
LYn -
wlcmrwwAi
PREUM14ARY
r

?? 1
. Qwl Ai fEi I O?lN.?M? /
4
`
, ` c iI 1 ` 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I I I I r III 1 /
?I ? ? 'w ?? r or. yp ?? mlm.. I i i ii ,' i ' ? i+ .
1 \? \ v `?
, ?y Y
I
?? I?I?'
11
I b
A
+
%r 'r..a 1 1
r I 1

I _

, ?
.... ? NOT F01 C7d1YIC11L11
?ISAACS J
,.
.-
-`, _,
IK? 1
1MOP
1
\ 14. W. \?
,rwT. \
" .
.
v
.
\, . I,i
\IY/. t<l..
\ I. I?. ? ?I --' , 1E1
lad
ll ,
T01
1
VE
rI?M10Y.I PA[
t3Op1 /pI M l' , y.__K1 9YI 1 11
l 1
\ I N"'^a
I
r
I
' M. li,.. - -- _' '%'
a /
RH

-_? - -.
-- ?
,? -.

nr r...

.
go.
I M
\\ \ 1
\, '`
\\ 1 ``
\ •ICYUIi ? ?11 i' lirnn)d ?
1 I roK
1 _ p ° ?? p,
\
I
J I
l \
\ , 1
`
\
\
1
? ®
1 `\WItbN MO.IWI I WIT. f
ly.
,?SIIII[IJ[ 7, ,. \` ? ? ''', ; UW Ai rL 1j1 I 4f fOa 11 PpECL K?rol 1 1 ? 11, .,'. I t?. .?
` lM
'?._`i _ - n?'•?
? ____
e
I r
r. -- -_
'
I

` l
my
Ilq CI
? `

f . 1 1 1 1 1 i '1 N
w 1 1 11 1?` \I '
R
?
,

\I 1

I
/

r
1 1 p J' ° a
8
3 I

n
•
`
_
rB
W1i
A9
` I \AfI/__? 1 a - ?r.r r 1
?' R t>>? - ' `1\\ '' 1 1 1 '
\ ?
11
, I I r l' . r.

I
I
--
?
?• J
12 rv .
j

• e ` •.N.ii ? I
?ms
+n YI
1 6R ..,:`? . l . t'" ,?\I l I I 1 1
.:.
.
. ..
.
..
Mr+? ?
.
` I
' '
{
?'

I
°'?
'

II

??r:: r. 0
'
I
,.,,It
`?
'
°
/

1

ml'

Sri-
q
C
?.I • ' ;
?
?
L `? `??
1 -
IM1
r
• .
µ C ? - - -
\?
r . ?„_ ?= ,
,
,
A r w I
, ; , ? ; I Idf
wr I •' lL ,' ' % ' 11 1
r.v. I I I
1
? 1
?
{
r
1 I
/
1? w ! I ---
aosF+awa
I rR'? MIO.. IM.
,1 • \y.
w _

•?
'
.
? r __ - + ?
``
IIw: W. `
111 1 -
I -
??
`

? -
?I
]/. 1
I
1fIlIM
1
1T,1??
?? `?\??'• \\', 1? ? 1 e \IV. I ? \\ , ? I' 41? ? ? ?, I 1
_ --b.Cd11.`; I \I\?1 `\,1111 ? ! (4t ?t'f11 F101 1 I 1 Ali I I 1 I I, Ir ,
/
..
1
1
??
a
W
I
r l
` I
, 1 1 ?
; I
I

1
3 ? 1 II ATrIMa
..! ?\ ' ° 1
? T.o wi. l' ? ? AV. LYIS
1
? I
.?•'?\

?

•.5
'
•?
u?a
'°

?

c ??`?
1 ? ? 1
? \
`Sim Lr A. `.
a LL!I IMNp, ?d'AgO.IOT'MON
?? WY-j bsfralvm lM.
rmn
- - ngayrD `.
ns
:.'. ?
I ? _ r. f?
1
0

;

? ?)
u11 , I
1
1
o
?
1 1 I
1 ,
. /
\ ?1 , I u?
-?-??
PIN1. YMUi _-•' \?r 11 11 1 4 L1,w.r.: r r I 1 , M I? I ? 1 , ffI /'
ii;4 MW. . 111 Wu MrHU? l? I „I ',Ih; I I 1 4?I ;
. 1A91WM
?l 1 I I 9
elaucve oraaPl Rla 1yj? 1 1 1ru n .. ' _ / I 1?I I ;
mYF>?I li ? IIA 'i III L. ?;l ?. _-<. W^ ??4.?? v o ? r 1
. .,.?,., (< -.{r I1 ,' ? ., ; •' "?-.-?-?--?:-??_ ; ;I
?.. •.II. I lr / 1'. • ? I I
1
I ;
I ,
I I
I

1 1 I

, I
;

?
` 4

? 1??
? I 6pSNrxla
?
(j
'Y U ;
I ??_ ? ./-'-`
tivzti >1Gsw+fasu\.1af1,

_ __
°,' :?. rj
,. IlcrIl ti

in ??
.

`

,

!?°
f

- r
?
Ir

Mn

ncncn lrn.l
_ ?

,

c
'

I-?
s

?¢
am{
Ya
J ??
^ '
' ?'l
Rw -? t- 1/ I , JL'?I
?1 ?I \'? ` I IIIi r I 1 I I 1 ? • ' ' ( ? I I ? n'?,{- _ _ 'le_'v 9
---
__ r _`? - l _
I 1 I
+ t vu. ?' ?' ,/1 ami Rlrt
?flf Jn?IMn
Mv
E
' ^?
. a i %' (L
?w
=R
1 `
+

1+
` r
?wY nrax
?1apR + , I.WIq KTwk4
I r , ...... /
I
I r / I l
! I

1

?
I
I !

? _
a.um
?apshuw.Wa
i
r

1 ?

b

d

?
? 1
' / 1 ?? rnl !I rl ir, urr ? ......r:. ' ' ? ?/ ? t ?
? ? n1 I 1..e
Z
I ; , 1 '?III i \'1 I?
?1? l
- ?- '
;' °tii r . , ' •
•
,
N 1
,
I iV.IKIS I
? s muewa `?--

? 1
_
.. ' S? ?i - '?\
?, ? Mf -' --
/ /
YriDll Tor i
pwff.avo-mA. I
' ?'/ ry4
; ,?+ ' p o4 1
•?

r? r /

' , ,
/
' IM. IliT1 I
1
I ° ?
1'
i 1, I
1
i
?
g

o¢o
u
-
J_ '
111 _ , , , I
' • _
f . I
1 S

a
•
?. .. u.... M. -. wr.r ?..• r

Ilals
al
'?/ ?1 r;' •
-
1 1 INI
' 1-
^?'?

?
'
'

i f

;
' {
f,' i ® i'

n?_
? .rn _ 1

/ r.,
' ?
?, ?\

`I ?
s Q ?

? G

?'
v 1 . ? i- --' ???? ?
ii li iu ??I
6WCl
'w q]TU i ?
,%?
i
i ;
%
Ai f ? , ? ror
? f ,f # II 3 < ? n
U
- I
?` +
b
IIIwIC1Y
\T 1 ?
III ?;1. I? -
ryriir
ll
t WY¢? i
I
??'
?
l/ ?; ?
%IIIR 11Yk l?
' 1 ?" /
I
j l
/ ?
• ?
I
1 r 1
I?
`? 1`
I
R a ??a,, y
y??
13
,
II

'/

w
.
nar
T/r?`

I I
,
?
l
y
r 1
I
; A
l
?I1
„ ( ,il .I.r.. aaisa oiw r-I ,I
'
'

i?l

'
' ' /
'
'

'
'1
I l
I 1?
I mn. M1T Itll
I + nrortt'aK .)'1/ '
.
I
j
, I I
1
I

©
W
?
G

m

~

Q
'

I I .
w,019b1 plol , 1
; ? ;
I i
11117, ? ?
? I I I? I 1,
; ? "???YYY333..• I ? I
1
?
'
%
'r I
I 1 1
1
? ' ? 1 ,
111?.
1»„
py?,?py?
' I w I ? ? k
6
?' '

I

I

I 1
-?
f
-

\

r
?___
• '?I •a
?
1
?? I'\`
' ? ?? %
-_
-
,
I ?
- ?
f{ # .IYM
_
IIV IK'S•'
1••`4
_ ?_ ?.x?r, ? - _-- ? __?-__ __ _ _ __-__ -
###1
- ?
I -? =-'-:?
-??p •?^
_
1...•
?
---.
-
'
##otal
t# t#t #1#3t### Zijf1#t## ####t##[ it#S#t7iil[ #1#tt###t#i]
?t l ### -
## #t 9
tt##lit ###ti#
I t3llt#$# 1€#J1

•
--
T
----
w?=i=' :? '___ _ ? ... -?. .
___ /-=y'-b?lT' Ya=,..`, :.cam=?i???_?n'w.;yi ?,'v
:
__ t I ° a0swrmra
_
,_.
___-_" ?', c'1° . 6. `? \ rte.; ? `?--'P• • i ?
_. !?I rl Its{ _...?. -", ?
I I
rlmml cprtwA mmm '?
" e... VIFla Nr - Y-.r Y _ _
. _ ___ -'
_
? '. wr-' IK.. ?^Y. Ia.o.a. u-s. am uou lua to M c.a 1.1(!1 rSCM\CC ? 'L N5'
nm®mna. t+.r.rsmm
eew,sssYram
f1Q
•:
"r
'
r"m : <
V Z
-
'
v
?- -?- ?.`,. ?'•a
1 II1. 1?? ??
}
•
\
~
? ?u
i °
1
oa.
oiu e.n
ro//r ru lacrnaa i1K.a°P'w.a?mw'rr/•r•r?.ri na a.aweKlr wa oawes.lv
Imwn.uo uvKr/ru oY Y.?m»ms
O
..... WIf Y0.I1lIWaI 301fr KI 1YK4AI. Yr1YY Or•b1l Ma. r11O
O
-J
y ?
Z
<
l
,
S
«
? 1 11 „ter ?
•
I
`
'"? ?-
. l l 1'?•^ \\ `? \
/Mrn®?a rrMrlfur •.r ieKrwaraar. wup ruwrwaaaw aKwwo ?? tbllaxlf ma»a KIM K•
a?a_ 1 T fl} 10a Iw. rU VauA..tBw. nsiK rr11r. ¦ M 41eO .s M M .vn rb. /fenA p K
o
<
< U
J
[1
\
1
mm om M)r f,,``
?\1'
`
?
?
~ 1f
wINw 1MAA/Ewr rlr. Nlvarnn/lwiwr 9.fl laa Irt1W Mr MarIW rYUa YOra r+Y
?-A?10 Momm msww aa®1 ma i>r?o i r?r elw w?m.Y. sr vmul w se.uu I.w . m.em/ a smnn® rM wm.r
r
WY nvA lwn rl runt
wMM Y
?
?
K
K
"'K
»
?
a/O '
Kl
O
?
1
\ ` ?
I
? ' 1' 1
??
I
NM
`` KLL,
- Wv_-rMt® IIVCM'>muOR arl drnaw r w nr r a.? ar Y un u mruv a ww u.
iea
ao.
orna
is i?
nw
>a
n
iY r
iMa
? ?./. r1YK.lrlalADYiflnl
wYYa laaM wwra 1
1 WOpNIw IR
µK11
®" Q
m 0
m-m
I
? IIU;, IO 111( T
• 1'i . 1
O 1 .KAAS'
'I' ` i ` "'I 11 SII 9e FiJ
?
I
` '
7.
JOI 11i -Ir-MV/.O Taf la+pxr IpP/ awra ..lO MJC 1 w/ Iw®
aflrw Klt
W M91 '-?A IromU m1oY. Im Gmt OW 'nsuOn"?KgY Ion r6?.nti aa,K IYl1® mllY q
?In 111n 1 r
?L N ON IIM U1m01 ..M Mop
11
"
W Z Z
U

A ]
1'
?????
r?,_ - I li',' j°'wOil l•
`\'\ ' ?' 1''. ' ww. Im Irca
\\ ` ` 1?. 1 /
? '11/RIlS 1
1N
I • \
l 1
'
, •
o. usA,.
mur•a YOI Wrul Yr nucal
M
•?...-. m,w,n lM lmmlalmwmlm Ww»mar/plgal 1MMr1 'w OKrof ?W rrvw®/r tK.YeYfY16 (LRK Cq lp nwa.IYU®Y.»
t Iwmsm anoxlrw a Y.mr.. w m.v / was r lalw ®On4 /nmrMUfww Ilwela r a rluw >0 KMw uam
11„r LY/<r/.M.f m/awl KlrlwnY ?K/ waia U• wn/
nYlr ?Mrwalnww ?r1 1v OaM»rw l KOrnola® ±Owa lw4 aEVMRMr
ounl /Kr wMw
/IroY.r® wunwf
© ?°® oeK orwarlu.r?awl..,r.
o
a
i
w
u w
x
w

A U U
K ?
m
m

a Z
O
N

c
O
nv.mr.fl
"^• 1` ..rrr? y.,.s?.,??• \`\ 1 :
t? \?
Ioa :u..w w. ?r,r
,Ir,lra.rt n»KwnlwollaYCm
lw
larl
t.?.l.
•
nr
ur ormrwmamapms a®u /rv/Ilrnl ma rw/rJn•un aw 1ra/nirm»wY K W
ru3ru-wflw.M
MR MwO'nwr
31PIUY a1p11K v"" 1j
L
= U 1 I' ?1
r
1 i ? 1 1 -
, © ncrcap YMO/apl w/a nanWf misa ro lltafrwlavli ?w•rn/d. d[vrt.nru warm lwwK
lm wYOr• LY,=?IYIwN wwW ?rYMIw 4KO.anu"ia
o.MC ?. aM 91n lm,dm WKmwYQ
W
l
o
A
rr
? O
1-'`
f
/YI

uew Mnt Ya `/
Q
K.. 1...
1 1 - vl 1
;
;,':1
1
' ,. ?" MO
TORNG WELL PROTECMN NOTES:
Y.p.wM
K.
mw
[lo\
a
aIDl Trt11YM1 YM.K111Wp11rMll yl
r In
{
`
I101[IIID/AI6ALlul '
?
1
1 nailrim I
_____ __ _____ _.. "
``t
'
°
' ww YwpallR
I. nIKY wI KImIY/p WmmtlMHlrw r•raa wma wYwwowfYKwtt iIr OIII,K»w
IOblw alm YOml spur Maa an
mr rmin mawalr lKarrew REM904 TMF
`
a1RMWa w
,..
ag
.
' mYIYNn I mr.v MUSOl mlvmmwwv lwn •ww
aa? ? ` L Rrarv•alor rnlMaY frY 1a0LL w1 wnmr wr l lrw n/?m w aYK ora fool ra /ur r MO 1• ura v ro4 fu / Mwu0 /M?`Y4 sM.i wual.al IYwv uu una
`?
... wa ewr/ra e-w«
1 wMl'»/O NO
w
v
su/
e
? 1 1m.1r
l
'
` E
,
?
I ?
w
??
m ma
u
/Ifaaa nr
I
?
rr
y
,\ :,,., , I 1 .swYOx1a11Yf.w:..mllmr.lw.n,n1.. ,.m„? • "° ,..m1.ww„mnnYKlwmwnre,wt,w ..I.KOw.1n1.I
1 '
? .., M.. Ylr ata. me.rw wnl IYnanMlaaloa
` °' \? ' 1-' 1 '°"® I Iwymrunlerw/....pwl..,I..fuY.ro.llnl. wmcx,a •1?°"a•K
_ -? ..... ? \ ;. I\,?` 1.: '\ ', , Ir.?„.,1wY ?1,..1.,.1..,.....Ltt,K:mr,. PLATE

REFERENCE
NUMBER: ?
?...w,.,r,.?..?..v'?W???
A- .O' sla-Yrm
c
C-602 `
L

1 2 3 ---_ --- 4 5 vlmle.r?
`
\ \\?,0,\I•It" i? 1. .` i 1 % 1 i r N I j 1 1
N \\ ?\ \ \\\? 1111111 ' 11 . I / I / ? I I ? I 1 ? 1
? `?\\\\11111. 11 _ 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I
\ \ 1\ 1 1` 1 / 1 / l 1 PROP. F$S-S1 I I I J
\ 1 1 i I I I I? I i ? I / 1 / l1 LE.(IN)=25230 -1 W?5414-1 1 I
ro t 1 1 III d q I? I Ij • 256.62 jTW=248.38- RPROP. AP P SINGE 1 I I
0 1} 1 1 1 13p1 . OJ 1. 1 I I / I
0 1 1 I N 245.0 / Bw aa.38 / POOL I
I 4 OJT= 245.10
PROP. I 9 ' OF 14 RCPI 1® 290y
?? 1 ` I I I I YI , RAINING WALL/ 1 I
I N 1 1 1 I I i I I i I j I- -/ /'A
ROP. WOOD OOT / / \\ / L I I I
C." 1? 1 II I I / BRIDGE A ROS 30/PROP. STEPS 2'6 I
?, 1 III I I i I/ 251
I I III / o DS 67 RISE/131 TREAD 2a8
1 _ I4I I I I. I I / „ 25 260 .
1(? I 1 BW?254!@ III 1.17 / / N \ 1p.0 FT. DVOP \ I 26
N 1 / I l / FG-252.4 1 HATCHED AREA= 263-
1 I I =Y6. Bt- OT. OF TEP
1 1 I I I / 262. ILDISPOSAL AREA
1 I 111 I,W 2.-2a? N / I ry 26?
X258 2 J-T w-i°d4Ili , N i Fc=2so.B1 I ry` 266
! I 1 ill / TOP OF_ STEP 1
1 / l I?
lj l I 'l \\\ c=2x7.3 I ???
/l l l• 11 11
l 1
o
I 1 \\ I I ?
-101 LOR
/ / J I to= 6. =? . T
OP. BRIDGE -255 4
JI -25 . ? ? . ? \ 1 .. . I I •.l
ABUTMENTS/ 1 / I J / ti _ FG=250.81 w= 7.04
11 f 1 ?lJ !? l / BOT. -OF `STEP j ? 1 I.
I I 7BTw-?z2 15 IJ t l ! l -TW=2601 1- - 20 PQOP. SE'S . ?? _ _ ._ - = =r=
I I I J)! BW=251.D6 6 RISE/13 -JREA 1 I j-
I I I I //% -".0 FT=DROP . . 1 PROP. -S2 I j. .
R.E.=2 5.97 I /
c::) 1
I I I// V I J 11 1 -TW=25200- I LE( IN 1261.00
I N I TOf' p 111 . l l l 1 BW=252.00 . . 1 ?. ? /.. o/ . _
cli I I I :42 I ! 11// \ , , ?, 1 :. I,E(O6f)=255.00 / . .
I/ PROP. RETAINING MALL•-? W 1 1 / A
I f 1/1J 111/lI PROP?.\ ITS
l!!? I.E.=252.00- "- EXIST. WETLANDS I F / PROP. RIP RAP PLONGE '? . N
I I 1 11111 1 rJ 11 ! POOL
I I I l I I! I 1/1I! ?\ ? .. - -rw= Vin= ? I , . .,• /. , ..
. B55. 7
/ PRELIMINARY
I 11111 J 111 !1/1/ EXIST. WETLANDS
1 1 ,-253 _ DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
I I !! / I /1`i PROP. NAG C350 PERM Prat:
LINER OR APPROVED 1• - - - - - - . 16th MP BRIGADE BARRACKS COMPLE)
111 ! j /11A EQUIVALENT ® 2s?23_• ! FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
I 11N 11 ??/%?l/l _ _ FILLSLOPE/WALL 25- BW=259.21 I I rd?
1 !? "?z?;? ?,/??i -INTERFACE (TYP.) ___ ?- - - - - - - - / CIVIL BULLETIN #2
?r253-26-- _ ? ? _ _ _ ? •
! ///// / 11111 / Bw=253.26 ? •1W=268.28= `? - - Fle J. BDAC-502 drg Date: 1/16/04 Prof ct Ege: ABC
/ ///// -TW='16196 BW X59 41- - c1 D? e Aec
/ BW=261.96 tw=- ISAACS o Deoro 01),r'
x ABc
are ENGNE C oar t LAND s.WMYING scale. 1'=30'
/?// lIl f?l / - BW=253 .53
III Ir /? '
z// lIl l /1/ / - 254 8720 RED QW Dew. SUrre 420
I,r1111?.rr,//rl: /, ?/., . ?- CH/liLOTTE N.C. 28217 en _ n

R2 ?G 4 ?? C
o (a
6
-XI 2
Ile
62
lob ag' w,Ae
o ?t,-o c? k ?1
-T,,j o,,, ft? roe-J-- A -,c Svc T ex'Fe ?? /onv ?- &,In

? i ; .? f?a (?r2 A S
Jz - 1S
i
I _
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND A
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
12 December 2000
Prepared by:
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Public Works Business Center
Environmental Natural Resources Division
ATTN: AFZA-PW-E
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310
In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
? i
e
i SIGNATURES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:

WILLIAM H. KERN
Environmental Officer
Public Works Business
Center
Date: -26 ??
Environmental eview:
DAVID A. HEINS
Chief, Environmental and
Natural Resources Division
Date: 241 g0
Proponent:
OBERT L. HIRRON
COL, EN
Director of Public Works
Business Center
Dater QQ
Legal Review:
N
DANIELIV. W GHT
COL, JA
Staff Judge Advocate
Date: 13 26Zot
Approved:
J -SKA
r ne 1, USA
utv o anding General
t e : : 14 V 1
2
SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of developing approximately
273 acres of the Mcrayden Pond area in the Tank Creek watershed on the
Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The proposed action would be constructed in 16 projects. The projects
include a replacement fire station for the old Division Area, separate
battalion barracks for the 82d Airborne Division, a soldier
development center, an organizational vehicle maintenance shop for the
525th Military intelligence Brigade, whole barracks renewal for the
16th Military Police Brigade and the 82d Airborne Division's Combat
Aviation Brigade, facilities for the U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the
Combined Arms School Brigade. Reilly Road borders the project area on
the east with 2 projects to the east of this road and 14 projects to
the west. Longstreet Road bounds the main project area on the south,
Keerans Street on the west, and Butner Road on the north. The
Combined Arms School Brigade is located north of Butner Road. The Old
Division Area Fire Station is located south of Longstreet Road. The
area between Reilly Road and Bigler Street, in the center of the
project area, is largely undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden
Pond. Two alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of developing the
McFayden Pond area were considered. These are the "Reduced Scale
Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the projects, and the
"No Action Alternative" of not developing any of the projects proposed
for the McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the
Reduced Scale Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for
some, but not all, of the supported units. The consequence of
implementing the No Action Alternative would be to continue to operate
out of existing facilities, which are inadequate for the supported
units. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline for
forecasting the effects of constructing, operating, and maintaining.
the projects, which would develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA
addresses the potential environmental impacts of these alternatives,
and finds that the Proposed Action would not be a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment if storm
water is managed properly, and wetlands impact, if any, is properly
permitted. Accordingly, preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. A mitigated Finding of No Significant
Impact will be released to announce this conclusion to the public and
afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURES
SUMMARY
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................5
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................10
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................13
4. EFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................14
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ....................19
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION ...............................30
7. AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED .....................31
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..........................35
NEWS RELEASE ........................................................38
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................40
APPENDICES ..........................................................41
COMMENTS RECEIVED ...................................................44
4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.
a. Purpose.
(1) Introduction. This Environmental Assessment (EA)
evaluates the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of
developing approximately 273 acres of the Mcrayden Pond area in the
Tank Creek watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed action would be
constructed in 16 projects. These projects include a replacement fire
station for the Old Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the
82d Airborne Division, a soldier development center, an organizational
vehicle maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence (MI)
Brigade, whole barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police (MP)
Brigade and the &2d Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade,
facilities for the U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms
School Brigade. Reilly Road borders the project area on the east with
2 projects to the east of this road and 14 projects to the west.
Longstreet Road bounds the main project area on the south, Keerans
Street on the west, and Butner Road on the north. The' Combined Arms
School Brigade is located north of Butner Road. The Old Division Area
Fire Station is located south of Longstreet Road. The area between
Reilly Street and Bigler Street, in the center of the project area, is
largely undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden Pond. Two
alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of developing the McFayden Pond
area were considered. These are the "Reduced Scale Alternative" of
building some, but not all, of the projects, and the "No Action
Alternative" of not developing any of the projects proposed for the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are inadequate for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives.
(2) Construction Projects. The Army has scheduled sixteen
construction projects on approximately 273 acres in the vicinity of
McFayden Pond, which is located on the northern edge of Fort Bragg's
main post cantonment. The proposed projects are:
5
MCFAYDEN POND PROJECT LIST:
PROJECT PROJECT FISCAL APPROXIMATE
PHASE NUMBER YEAR ACREAGE
Old Division Area Fire Station
44965 2001 5
Separate Battalion Barracks 75
I 35362
II 44496
III 25134
IV 53538
V 53914
2002
2002
2003
2003
2002-2003 Separate Battalion Barracks
(Phases I-IV)
Soldier Development Center 50
I 51238 2004
II 20347 2010
III 20127 2010
IV 51909 2010
Soldier Development Center,
Infrastructure
Synthetic Theater of War
Distance Learning Center
General Education Development Center
Vehicle Maintenance Shon Organizational/525 MI Brigade
16992 2010 13
Whole Barracks Renewal/16 MP Brigade
41631 2003 24
Whole Barracks Renewal/Combat Aviation Bric7ade
50
I 45239 2001 CAB Barracks
II 47347 2002 CAB Barracks
53955 2001-2002 CAB Barracks (Phases I-II)
U.S. Armv Parachute Team Facilit
46797 2001 5
Combined Arms School Brigade /N.C. Military Academy

35
I 370017 2001 Military Education Facility
II 370063 2002 Military Education Facility
III 370067 2003 Military Education Facility
6
(3) Interim Project. The Army is planning to construct a
temporary motor maintenance facility for the 525th MI Brigade on the
proposed site of PN 16992. The project would include a 7,500 SF
combined administration and maintenance building and a graveled
parking area. This project would be built, most likely in either 2000
or 2001, subject to the availability of funds.
Interim Motor Pool, 525 MI Brigade
OA00046-6 2001 13
(4) Connected Actions. The Army is
other projects in the western end of the Old
located nearby, these sites are outside the
Therefore, they will be assessed separately.
project is one scheduled more than ten years
These projects are listed below.
Division Support Command Motor Pool
12306 LR 10
Lonastreet ShopUette
52514 2001 1
b. Need.
planning to construct two
Division Area. Although
rank Creek watershed.
A long range (LR)
from now (beyond 2010).
(1) Combined Project. The development of the McFayden Pond
area through several construction projects is needed to provide
facilities for units supported by XVIII Airborne Corps. These new
facilities are needed to replace facilities that are unsuitable, too
small or outmoded, and also to provide better facilities that will
upgrade the quality of life for our soldiers. The Army's barracks
standard for single junior grade enlisted soldiers requires a two-man
module with full bath. This is referred to as a "1+1" barracks
configuration. Essentially it is a college dormitory living standard.
The proposed site is suitable for these projects because it is
centrally located on post adjacent to other units of the Corps, is
compatible with other environmental constraints, and will not
adversely impact the training mission of units stationed at Fort
Bragg. Other locations were less suitable because they are not co-
located next to the other units of the Corps, already occupied by
other mission essential facilities, or were unsuitable due to
conflicts with environmental laws and regulations. The projects
proposed for the McFayden Pond area would allow the Army to more
efficiently support military units with housing for soldiers,
educational opportunities, training facilities, equipment maintenance,
and improved road access to the cantonment area.
(2) History. McFayden Pond was the site of a colonial era
millpond. The current pond was developed in the early days of Fort
7
Bragg as a recreational lake. It is not considered to be historically
significant. Wilson Park, a picnic area and playground, is located on
its northern shore between the pond and Butner Road. Today it also
serves as a catchment for storm water flowing into the Tank Creek
watershed from the Fort Bragg cantonment. The Creek flows northward
into the Lower Little River after passing through Pope Air Force Base
(PAFB).
(3) Site Selection Criteria. A proposed project site would
be considered suitable for development if it:
(a) Meets or exceeds project requirements.
(b) Is compatible with nearby land uses,
(c) Construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility
would comply with applicable environmental and safety requirements.
(4) Biological Assessment (BA). The Army prepared a BA to
assess potential impacts upon endangered species resulting from
development of two projects in the McFayden Pond (Tank Creek) area.
These are Phases I and II of the Combat Aviation Brigade (PN 35362 and
44496, both of which are included in PN 53914, Phases I-II), and
Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion Barracks Complex (PN 35362
and 44496, both of which are included in Phase V, and PN 53914, Phases
I-IV). The BA concludes that sustainable development of the Tank
Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect on water
or air quality or impact federally listed species. The projects are
not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
(Picoides borealis), a Federally listed endangered species.
(5) Requirement for Environmental Documentation. Army
Regulation (AR) 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions, which
implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires Army installations to consider the environmental impacts of
the Proposed Action and its alternatives including construction
projects. The Proposed Action presents a number of potential
environmental impacts. These are: an irretrievable commitment of
natural resources caused by construction on the project site, the need
to assess the combined impacts resulting from constructing the several
projects making up the larger development plan, and consideration of
the potential that a project of this size may affect habitat necessary
to the recovery of certain Federally listed species protected under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973; therefore, an EA is necessary to
assess potential environmental impacts.
c. General.
(1) objectives. The objectives of the proposed project are
to:
8

(a) Provide administrative, barracks, educational,
maintenance, and mission related facilities that comply with Army
standards for soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg.
(b) Comply with all applicable environmental laws and
regulations.
(2) Incorporation by Reference. The EA incorporates by
reference provisions of the following documents:
(a) Fort Bragg's 1997 Endangered Species Management Plan -
(ESMP) .
(b) Fort Bragg's 1988 Historic Preservation Plan (HPP).
(c) Fort Bragg's 1997 Soil Conservation Master Plan (SCMP).
(d) Fort Bragg's 2000 BA for the Combat Aviation Brigade and
Separate Battalion Barracks Complex.
(3) Appendices.
(a) Appendix A. BA for the Combat Aviation Brigade and the
Separate Battalion Barracks Complex.
(b) Appendix B. Map of the McFayden Pond project area
showing project locations.
(4) Planning Horizon. The projects considered under the
Proposed Action would be constructed over about ten years beginning in
the year 2001. These would be permanent facilities.
(5) Scope. The scope of this EA is limited to assessing the
environmental and socioeconomic effects resulting from implementing
the Proposed Action or its viable alternatives. This EA was prepared
under the provisions of AR 200-2, and addresses environmental effects
specific to Fort Bragg.
(6) Project Priorities. The first priority is the
construction of barracks for soldiers. Supporting facilities such as
organizational maintenance shops, and in-garrison training and
educational structures follow this.
(7) Public Involvement. The projects considered in the
proposed action would be constructed, operated, and maintained by the
U.S. Army in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources would
review the soil erosion control plan. The EA would be distributed for
comment to various agencies of the State government through the North
Carolina Intergovernmental Review Clearing House, and to Pope AFB.
The XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Public Affairs Office would
prepare a news release for distribution to the media. Public comment
would be solicited by publishing the mitigated FNSI as a paid legal
9
announcement in the Fayetteville Observer and the Fort Bragg .
Paraglide, and through distribution of both the EA and mitigated FNSI
to public libraries on Fort Bragg, and in Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. The McFayden Pond area would
be developed in sixteen projects scheduled from Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
until FY 2010. The scheduled construction projects are described
below:
a. Scheduled Projects.
(1) Old Division Area Fire Station, PN 44965. Construct a
standard design fire station to serve the 82d Airborne Division area,
the new Womack Army Medical Center, and family housing areas in the
main cantonment area of Fort Bragg. This fire station is a one-
company satellite that will house three trucks and 6 firefighters.
The fire station will contain a kitchen, sleeping area, storage area,
day room, and laundry room for the fire fighters who serve 48 hour
shifts. The supporting facilities include electrical, heating and air
conditioning, basic landscaping and site development, information
systems, security/scan system for anti-terrorist/force protection, and
an area for fire truck basic maintenance and cleaning. Access for the
handicapped will be provided.
(2) Whole Barracks Renewal, Separate Battalion Barracks
(Phase V), PN 53914. This project, which consists of Phases I-IV (PN
25134, 35362, 44496, and,53536), would construct a whole barracks
renewal complex for the 82d Airborne Division's separate battalions.
Work includes constructing new barracks (1,376 spaces total), company
operations, battalion headquarters buildings, a medium sized dining
hall, parking, community green space, secondary access roads, and
recreational areas. Construct company operations facilities (3 large,
17 medium, and 6 small two-story) and battalion headquarters buildings
(2 large and 5 medium with classrooms) based on the standard
constrained site designs. Provide energy monitoring and control
systems, fire alarm, detection and reporting systems, automatic
building sprinklers, intrusion detection systems (IDS), and force
protection measures. Supporting facilities include utilities;
electric service; fire protection"and alarm systems; paving, walks,
curbs, and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control measures;
information systems; and site improvements. Access for the
handicapped will be provided. Heating and air conditioning will be
provided. Physical security measures will be incorporated into the
design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads,
parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas. Berms, heavy landscaping,
and bollards will be used to prevent access when standoff distances
cannot be met. Laminated glass will be placed in windows to protect
soldiers in case of a bomb blast. Demolish 2,448 square meters
(26,350 square feet (SF)) of existing facilities in the footprint of
construction. Provide comprehensive building and furnishings related
interior design services.
10
(3) Soldier Development Center (Phases I-IV).
(a) Soldier Development Center, Infrastructure, (Phase I), PN
51238. This project would construct the infrastructure for the
Soldier Development Center, which is a state-of-the-art education and
simulation center. It will be linked to the Army Training and
Doctrine Command's battle labs to provide training opportunities and
will be used for military training and civilian education. It will
include a Battle Simulation Center, a Long Distance Learning Center,-
and a Soldier Development Center. Phase I will construct the
infrastructure necessary to support the center, an extension of the
All American Freeway from Longstreet Road to Butner Road, water,
electricity, sanitary sewer, communications utilities, natural gas and
stand alone chillers. The center will also include 100 percent
parking for maximum capacity.
(b) Synthetic Theater of War (STOW) Range Training Facility,
Soldier Development Center (Phase II), PN 20347. This project would
construct a STOW range training facility consisting of a battle
simulation command center, pre-exercise training and deployment
evaluation areas, systems integration areas, administrative
facilities, simulation equipment storage and maintenance areas,
communication rooms, and a Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility with Joint Service Integrated Intrusion Detection System as
part of the Soldier Development Center. Included is a self-contained
air conditioning system (200 tons), natural gas heating (3,500 British
thermal units), fire protection system, IDS, communications (including
local and wide area network capability, video teleconferencing,
intercom and public address systems), accommodations for multiple
electronic and computer systems, acoustical treatments, synchronized
clock system, closed circuit television, and provisions for commercial
lease line and satellite downlinks. Also construct tactical and non-
organizational parking, and two sentry stations. Supporting
facilities include utilities, perimeter fence, area and security
lighting, roads, curbs, gutters, walks, storm drainage, and site
improvements, including erosion control. Asbestos abatement and
demolition of existing World War II era buildings and demolition of
existing pavement and utilities, is also included.
(c) Distance Learning Center, Soldier Development Center
(Phase III), PN 20127. This project would construct a long distance
learning center. The facility would provide training opportunities
and will be used for military and civilian education. Supporting
facilities include utilities; electric service; paving, walks, curbs
and gutters; storm drainage; information systems; and site
improvements.
(d) General Education Development Center, Soldier Development
Center (Phase IV), PN 51909. This project will construct a general
education facility. It will be a state-of-the-art education center
for military training and civilian education. Supporting facilities
11
include utilities; electric service; paving; walks, curbs and gutters;
storm drainage; information system; and site improvements.
(4) Vehicle Maintenance Shop Organizational/525 MI Brigade,
PN 16992. This project would construct a vehicle maintenance complex,
for the 525th MI Brigade. The primary facilities include two standard
design #two vehicle maintenance shops, one to consolidate Headquarters
and Headquarters Detachment, 525th MI Brigade, and the 519th MI
Battalion (Tactical Exploitation) and the other for the 319th MI
Battalion (Operations). Basic work areas in the primary facilities
will contain standard scheduled repair bays, item repair shops,
storage rooms, training/conference room, weapons repair shops, storage
rooms, weapons and communications security vaults, tool room,
administrative and shop control offices, and personnel support areas.
Shops will have electrically operated roll-up bay doors, vehicle
exhaust ventilation, compressed air systems, fire protection systems,
and lubricant dispensing facilities. Two cryptographic vaults, one in
each facility, are included. Outlying structures will include oil
storage buildings and three existing permanent facilities that will be
renovated as deployment equipment storage buildings. Flexible and
rigid paved areas include shop hardstands, organizational vehicle
parking, and privately owned vehicle parking. Perimeter and internal
gates will be provided. Supporting facilities include utility
services, communications, roads, walks, curbs and gutters, storm
drainage, fencing, IDS, fire protection and alarm systems and
lighting, site improvements, and landscaping. Heating and cooling
requirements will be provided by self-contained systems. Air
conditioning demand is estimated at 20 tons for administrative areas,
cryptographic vaults, and special environmental areas only.
Mechanical ventilation, 37,322 cubic feet per minute, is required for
repair bays, storage, and other work areas.
(5) Whole Barracks Renewal/16 MP Brigade, PN 41631. This
project would construct a whole barracks renewal complex. Work
includes constructing new barracks, company operations facilities,
battalion and brigade headquarters, soldier community center, and
close-in training area. Construct company operations facilities and
battalion headquarter per standard two-story constrained site design.
Construct barracks and brigade headquarters per the standard design.
Provide fire alarm, detection and reporting system, automatic building
sprinklers, and intrusion detection. Supporting facilities include
electric service; water, sewer, and gas service; paving, walks, curbs
and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control measures; information
systems; site improvements; picnic tables, benches, and bike racks;
fencing and gates; and landscaping. Asbestos removal and lead base
paint remediation is required. Remediation of a solid waste
management unit is required. Access for the handicapped will be
provided. Air conditioning unit is required. The project will also
demolish nine buildings (91,916 SF), and relocate activities in six
buildings to alternate facilities.
12

(6) Whole Barracks Renewal/Combat Aviation Brigade, PN 53955.
This project, which consists of PN 45239 and 47347 (Phases I and II
respectively), would construct a whole barracks renewal complex for
the Combat Aviation Brigade. Work includes constructing new barracks,
100 percent parking, community green, close-in training, company
operations facilities, battalion headquarters,=brigade headquarters,
dining facility, secondary and access roads, and recreation areas.
Construct company operations facilities, battalion headquarters, and
brigades headquarters based on the standard constrained site designs.
Provide energy monitoring and control systems; fire alarm detection -
and reporting systems; automatic building sprinklers; intrusion
detection system; and force protection measures. Supporting
facilities include electric service; water, sewer, and gas service;
paving, walks, curbs, and gutters; storm drainage; erosion control
measures; information systems; site improvements; and landscaping.
Access for the handicapped will be provided as needed. Heating (gas-
fired) and air conditioning will be provided. Physical security
measures will be incorporated into the design, including maximum
feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle
unloading areas. Berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards will be used
to prevent access within standoff distances cannot be met. Laminated
glass will be placed in windows to protect soldiers in case of a bomb
blast. Comprehensive interior design services are required.
(7) U.S. Army Parachute Team Facility, PN 46797. This
project would construct an administration and special purpose building
for the U.S. Army Parachute Team and the Combined Arms School Brigade.
Special areas include a recruiting support center, classroom,
gymnasium, and rigging space. Exterior architectural treatment of the
new facility building will match the predominant architectural style
of the area. Supporting facilities include utilities; electric
service; paving, walks, curbs and gutters; storm drainage; information
systems; and site improvements. A heating and air conditioning system
will be provided. Access for the handicapped will be provided.
(8) Combined Arms School Brigade/N.C. Military Academy, PN
370017, 370063 and 370067 (Phases I-III). This project would
construct educational facilities for the N.C. Military Academy. These
would consist of a specially designed educational complex composed.of
several groupings of buildings featuring masonry construction,
standing seam metal roofs, and concrete floors. The administrative
building and dining hall will be one story structures, and the
remaining facilities will have two stories. Supporting facilities
will include fencing, military and privately owned vehicle (POV)
parking, access roads, sidewalks, flagpole, and detached facility
signs. This is a National Guard Bureau project.
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were
developed as part of the planning process. Three alternatives were
eliminated from detailed analysis. Another two alternatives, in
addition to the Proposed Action, were analyzed in detail.
13
a. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. The option of
not maintaining barracks, administrative, supply and educational
facilities, motor maintenance shops, and improving the road net for
military units on Fort Bragg was rejected because of the need to
support unit operations in garrison. The option of redeveloping
cantonment areas elsewhere on Fort Bragg was eliminated because all
other suitable locations are already in use or proposed for
redevelopment in support of the operation of the post. The option of
expanding the existing cantonment area beyond its present boundaries
was rejected because adjacent areas are needed for military field
training, and also provide critical habitat for endangered species.
b. Alternatives Considered in Detail. These are: the Proposed
Action of developing the McFayden Pond area; the Reduced Scale
Alternative of developing part of the area; and the No Action
Alternative of not developing the area. Each alternative could be
accomplished in accordance with all applicable laws.and regulations.
(1) Develop the McFayden Pond Area (Proposed Action).
Selection of this alternative would best support Fort Bragg's troop
units by providing 16 facilities more suitable than those currently in
use.
(2) Develop Part of the McFayden Pond Area (Reduced Scale
Alternative). Selection of this alternative would provide suitable
facilities for some, although not all, units requiring improved
facilities. The most likely projects to be eliminated or reduced in
scale are those projected for construction after 2005. These are PN
16992, 20127, 20347, and 51909 all scheduled for 2010. The Army is
committed to constructing barracks on a "1+1" standard in order to
improve living conditions for soldiers. Under that policy two
soldiers will share a living room and bath. Such a design standard
requires more land area to construct a sufficient number of barracks
s'Oaces than outmoded barracks designs with three and four man rooms.
The Army intends to build a distinct area for each unit. If more than
one site must be selected to provide facilities for any particular
unit or group of units, then the divided project site would require
appropriate supporting utilities and facilities at each location.
This would duplicate materials and effort, while creating more expense
and less efficiency of use.
(3) Do Not Develop the McFayden Pond Area (No Action
Alternative). Selection of this status quo alternative would continue
to billet units in existing facilities, which do not meet the "1+1"
standard required for single soldier housing, and use training
facilities which do not meet operational requirements.
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
a. Mission and History. Fort Bragg was established as an
artillery training post in 1918 as Camp Bragg. Camp Mackall was
established in 1942 as a training center for airborne units. Pope AFB
14

was established in 1919 as Pope Field. Today Fort Bragg's mission is
the training of units assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps, as well as
special operations and other tenant units. Camp Mackall is used to
support the training of Special Operations Forces. Simmons Army
Airfield supports Army aviation units assigned to Fort Bragg. Pope
AFB provides strategic and tactical airlift support.
b. Physiographic and Habitat Features.
(1) Physical Environment. Fort Bragg is located in the
Sandhills physiographic region of the coastal plain in southeastern
North Carolina. Situated on a divide between the Lower Little River
and Rockfish Creek, Fort Bragg's 160,651 acres encompass portions of
both watersheds in the Cape Fear River drainage system. Camp Mackall
lies to the west of Fort Bragg in the Lumber River drainage system.
The Sandhills region of North Carolina is part of the Subtropical-
Temperate Zone characterized by mild climate, plentiful rainfall, and
a long growing season. Piedmont topography and coastal plain soil
types characterize the Sandhills, making prevention of erosion a major
conservation concern. There are several primary soil series, which
occur in the Fort Bragg area. Lowland soils are loamy and heavily
textured compared to upland sandy soils. Upland sandy soils are well
drained and extremely low in organic matter with consequent low
fertility. Ridge top soils are highly erodable. In general, coastal
plain soil types with Piedmont topography characterize the Sandhills
region.
(2) Habitat Features. The dominant forest species on Fort
Bragg is longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). A 1992 forest inventory
identified 72,112 acres of longleaf pine, 20,631 acres of loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), 8,989 acres of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and
1,796 acres of pond pine (Pinus serotina). Approximately 12,000 acres
were typed as hardwood stands consisting primarily of oak (Quercus
spp.). Understory vegetation consists of turkey oak on xeric sites,
with other oaks on less xeric sites, and wiregrass (Aristida stricta)
dominates the herb layer, with other common species such as broom
panic grass (Schizachyrum scoparium), blue stem (Andropogon gyrans),
dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), goats rue (Tephrosia virginiana), Baptisia (Baptisia
cinerea) and Stylisma (Stylisma patens). Pond pines occur along
stream ecotones, hillside seepages, and pocosins, along with a dense
shrub layer of fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa and Lyonia lucida),
sweetpenper bush (Clethra alnifolia), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.),
and gallberries (Ilex glabra, I. coriacea). Old field sites are
dominated by loblolly pine, often mixed with longleaf regeneration.
Slash pine occurs in relatively large plantations north of the Lower
Little River.
c. Mission Activities.
(1) Military Training. The primary purpose of Fort Bragg as
a military reservation is to support military training. Resource
15
management programs such as cultural resources, environment, natural
resources, recreation, soil conservation, and wildlife support the
primary mission of military training. Units from the Active and
Reserve Components of the U.S. Army, other services, and armed forces
from allied nations train on Fort Bragg. The post is divided between
the maneuver area used for field training and ranges, and a smaller
cantonment area used for administration, maintenance, housing and
deployment.
(2) Maneuver Area. The maneuver area of Fort Bragg consists
of 90,235 acres with 74 designated tactical training areas excluding
airfields, impact areas, and special restricted areas. Camp Mackall
is used for training of Special Forces and combat engineer soldiers.
Parachute jumps and maneuvers are conducted throughout the
reservation. Generally, these do not require heavy air or ground
support, as most Fort Bragg units are lightly equipped. Training
maneuvers are designed to be on the same scale and as realistic as
possible in order to simulate battlefield conditions.
(3) Ordnance Impact Areas. Most combined arms and live-fire
exercises are conducted within high explosive ordnance impact areas
located in the center of Fort Bragg. These are from east to west;
MacRidge, Coleman, and McPherson Impact Areas. Manchester Impact
Area, located to the northeast of MacRidge, is used only for small
arms training.
(4) Parachute Drop Zones. Drop zones are areas cleared of
woody vegetation, which are used to support parachute and air landing
operations. There are six large drop zones on Fort Bragg. These are,
from east to west, Sicily, Normandy, Salerno and Holland on the
northern edge, Nijmegen on the western edge, and Saint Mere Eglise on
the southern edge of the post. Rhine-Luzon is located on Camp
Mackall. A number of smaller drop zones are located throughout the
installation on both Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall. The major drop
zones range up to 1,176 acres in size. There are 31 smaller field
landing and pickup zones located across the installation, which are
also used to support airborne and air assault operations. As the only
large, open areas on the reservation, drop zones are also used for
anti-armor defense training.
d. Current Species and Habitat.
(1) Species Inventories. In 1992, The Nature Conservancy's
(TNC) Sandhills Field office conducted a floral inventory of Fort
Bragg, which documented over 1,100 species. Several of these are
endemic to the Sandhills region or have their only State occurrence on
the installation. Most of these species evolved in fire-maintained
communities. These natural communities are characterized by periodic
burning either by wildfire or, in managed sites, by prescribed fire.
Many of the local plant and animal species have adapted to survive
fire and are dependent upon it to maintain the conditions necessary
= their survival. The Nature Conservancy's inventory identified 33
16
1
natural communities and variants on Fort Bragg representing a broad
array of topographic, climatic, and hydrologic interactions. Current
inventories have identified 197 avian, 34 mammalian, 50 reptilian, 41
amphibian, and 42 fish species on Fort Bragg. Large game include
*black bear (Ursus ameribanus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo silvestris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Other species include beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), bobcat (Lynx rufus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), and eastern fox squirrel (Sciruus niger). Among
upland game birds, the common bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is
found. Migratory game birds include the wood duck (Aix spousa) and
the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Streams and ponds include
inland game fish such as the chain pickerel (Esox niger), black bass
(Micropterus salmoides), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and the
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Those proceeded by an asterisk
(*) are rare on Fort Bragg.
(2) Natural Communities and Variants. The following natural
communities and variants occur on Fort Bragg: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Coastal Plain Levee Forest
(Blackwater subtype), Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment,
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater subtype), Cypress-Gum
Swamp (Blackwater subtype), Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Coastal Plain sand
variant), *Little River Bluff, *Little River Seepage Bank, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Piedmont/Coastal
Plain Heath Bluff, Pine Savannah (Sandhills variant), Pine/Scrub Oak
Sandhill, Sand and Mud Bar, Sandhill Seep, Small Depression Pocosin,
Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Streamhead Pocosin, Vernal
Pool, Wet Pine Flatwoods, and Xeric Sandhill Scrub. Those preceded by
an asterisk (*) are unique to Fort Bragg.
(3) Threatened and Endangered Species on Fort Bragg. The
Federally listed endangered species for the Fort Bragg area are.a
bird, the RCW; a butterfly, the Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha
mitchellii francisci); and five plants, American chaffseed (Schwalbea
americana), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Pondberry (Lindera
mellissifolia), rough-leafed loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia),
and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). However, neither
pondberry nor small-whorled pogonia have been documented on Fort
Bragg. The post also provides habitat for an additional 22 plant and
6 animal species of special concern to State and Federal authorities.
The post, acting in cooperation with TNC, has developed a monitoring
plan for the following selected species of Federal concern:
Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii),
Georgia Indigo-Bush (Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana), Sandhills
Milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii), and Sandhills Pyxie-Moss
(Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia). The RCW occurs throughout
Fort Bragg. This bird species requires an open pine forest with large
numbers of mature pine trees for its survival. The longleaf pine-
wiregrass ecosystem found on post is excellent RCW habitat, providing
large numbers of mature pine trees for both forage and nest cavity
construction. Those areas of Fort Bragg which are devoid of
17.
regularly-spaced nest cavity tree clusters are those with little pine
forest cover, extensive plantations of young pine trees, bottomland
hardwoods, urban and industrial development, parachute drop zones, and
ordnance impact areas. The Saint Francis' satyr is one of the rarest
American butterflies. Currently, it is known to exist only on Fort
Bragg. In 2000 there are 298 active RCW colonies, 19 Saint Francis'
satyr colonies, 17 American chaffseed, 8 Michaux's sumac, no
pondberry, 29 rough-leafed loosestrife, and no small-whorled pogonia
sites listed on Fort Bragg.
e. Noise. Environmental noise is assessed under the
Environmental Noise Management Program (ENMP). Zones of ambient noise
are identified by predictive modeling and field checked with noise
monitors. Land use planners use this information to guide land
development both on and off post. Environmental noise such as that
produced by aircraft and traffic is measured by A-weighted decibels
(dBA). High-amplitude impulsive noise such as that produced by
artillery is measured by C-weighted decibels (dBC). Noise produced by
small arms fire is measured by unweighted decibels (dBP). For our
purposes, the dBA measurement is most significant for determining
impacts of noise upon land use. The proposed projects will not
produce significant noise. The barracks would be the most noise
sensitive facilities. All of the proposed projects are compatible
with existing noise contours, which are not expected to change. The
percentage of the population annoyed by various noise levels, decibel
parameters for dBA, dBC and dBP noise, and guidance for noise
sensitive land uses are listed below:
NOISE SENSITIVITY ZONES:
ZONE POPULATION
ANNOYANCE
I <15%
II 15-39%
III >39%
DECIBEL RANGE
dBA dBC
TRANSPORT ARTILLERY
<65 <62
65-75 62-70
>75 >70
LAND USE
dBP GUIDANCE
SMALL ARMS
<87 1
87-104 2
>104 3
Land Use Guidance:
1 - Acceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
2 - Normally unacceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
3 - Unacceptable for noise sensitive land uses.
f. Soil Types.
(1) Major Soil Associations. Several major soil associations
are found on Fort Bragg. These are listed below.
(a) Blaney-Gilead-Lakeland, Lakeland-Candor-Blaney and
Autryville-Candor soils are found in areas dominated by excessively
drained to moderately well drained soils on highly desiccated uplands.
18
(b) Norfolk-Wagram-Rains, Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk,
Goldsboro-Grantham-Exum and Norfolk-Goldsboro-Rains soils are found in
areas dominated by well drained, moderately well drained and poorly
drained soils that are on broad, smooth uplands.
(c) Roanoke-Wickham-Tarboro soil is found in areas dominated
by poorly drained, well drained, and somewhat excessively drained
soils on terraces.
(d) Torhunta-Croatan-Candor soil is found in areas dominated
by very poorly drained and somewhat excessively drained soils
associated with large oval depressions in uplands.
(e) Johnston soil is found in areas dominated by very poorly
drained soils that are on flood plains.
(2) Project Site Soil Associations. The predominant soil
association found on the proposed project site is Blaney-Gilead-
Lakeland. These soils are characterized by nearly level, to
moderately steep, well drained, moderately well drained, and
excessively drained soils that have a brittle, loamy or clayey subsoil
or that are sandy throughout. Found on uplands. Storm drainage from
the project area flows into Tank Creek and thence into McFayden Pond.
McFayden Pond drains via Tank Creek into the Lower Little River.
g. Site Condition. Most of the project area is a category I
(uncontaminated) site. However, portions of the PN 16992 site are
considered to be a category III (contaminated) site because of
residues left over from maintenance activities conducted there since
World War II. This site is designated as operable Unit 4. The
proposed land use as a vehicle maintenance shop is compatible with
adjoining land uses. The relative potential for hazard on a
particular parcel of land is categorized as either category I
(uncontaminated), II (potentially contaminated) or III (contaminated).
Five locations within the PN 16992 project area were affected by
contamination from underground storage tanks. All of these
contamination sources have been removed. Fort Bragg installed ground
water monitoring wells at these sites under Phase I of a Risk Based
Corrective Action (RBCA) monitoring program to determine contamination
levels. The following buildings in the PN 16992 area are part of a
RBCA Phase I monitoring program to determine contamination levels: 2-
2402, 2-2414, 2-3305 and 2-3612. Another building, 2-3303, although
not covered by the RBCA, will be included in the investigation because
it is the former site of an oil water separator. While the overall PN
16992 site is perceived to be relatively clean and free from hazard,
some residue of petroleum, oils, and lubricants used for equipment
maintenance may be encountered during construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed maintenance facility. Therefore, it was
classified as a category III site overall. However, any contamination
found would be remediated in accordance with current regulations and
clean up specifications. All other project sites are category I.
19
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS. This section discloses
environmental and socioeconomic effects anticipated from developing
the McFayden Pond area, which is the Army's Proposed Action. This EA
assesses whether the implementation of the Proposed Action would have
any cumulative adverse effects on physical, social, or economic
resources. No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated for social,
economic, or biological.resources. However, adverse cumulative
impacts to the physical environment are anticipated for water and
wetland resources downstream in the Tank Creek watershed unless
careful attention is paid to storm water management and soil
conservation. An approved wetlands permit will be needed to define
mitigation required for any potentially adverse impacts to wetlands in
the McFayden Pond area from the Combat Aviation and Separate Battalion
Barracks projects (PN 53955 and 53914). This EA considers the
following environmental and socioeconomic values:
a. Biological. The Proposed Action and its alternatives would be
unlikely to adversely affect biological resources in any significant
way. The level, intensity, and duration of habitat management
activities are fully disclosed in the Fort Bragg ESMP. The Federally
listed endangered species of interest on Fort Bragg are a bird; the
RCW, a butterfly; the Saint Francis' satyr, and five plants; American
Chaffseed, Michaux's sumac, pondberry, rough-leafed loosestrife and
small-whorled pogonia. All of these species either occur on Fort
Bragg or may be found in Cumberland County. Twenty-two plant and six
animal species of special concern to State and Federal authorities are
also found on the reservation. This EA presents the potential effect
upon endangered species of constructing, operating, and maintaining
projects as part of development of the McFayden Pond area (Proposed
Action). The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in
adverse impacts to biological resources, followed by the Reduced Scale
Alternative, which would result in more adverse impacts than the No
Action Alternative.
(1) RCW. The Proposed Action or its alternatives would be
unlikely to adversely affect the RCW. Neither the RCW nor its
critical habitat is found in the project area.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(2) Saint Francis' Satyr. The Proposed Action or its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect the Saint Francis'
Satyr. No suitable habitat for this species is found in the project
area.
20
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(3) Endangered Plants. The Proposed Action and its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect endangered plants
listed for Cumberland County. American Chaffseed, Michaux's sumac,
pondberry, rough-leafed loosestrife, and small-whorled pogonia were
not found nor was any suitable habitat found in the project area.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Biological Diversity. Fort Bragg's longleaf pine-wire
grass ecosystem is characterized by an abundance of different species.
Proposed projects are assessed for their impact upon the continued
viability of that ecosystem. Wild populations within a simplified,
less diverse, ecosystem would be more vulnerable to environmental
changes brought about by development pressures and are, therefore,
less likely to survive. The Proposed Action would be more likely to
reduce biological diversity than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which
would result in more impact than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would result in a cumulative loss of approximately 100 acres of mixed
pine and hardwood forest with a corresponding loss of biological
diversity.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Construction of the proposed
project would result in a cumulative loss of approximately 50 acres of
mixed pine and hardwood forest with a corresponding loss of biological
diversity.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities would
have the least potential for reducing biological diversity.
(5) Timber Stand Management. Fort Bragg's pine forest is
managed both to support military training and the production of forest
products such as pine straw, pulpwood, and saw timber. Project
construction would harvest approximately 100 acres of merchantable
timber. This acreage would be taken out of timber production
21
permanently. The principal areas to be logged are those closest to
McFayden Pond, PN 45239, 46797, 51238 and 51909. The Proposed Action
would result in greater loss of merchantable timber than the Reduced
Scale Alternative, which would result in more loss than the No Action
Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would harvest approximately 100 acres of merchantable timber.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Approximately 50 acres would
be harvested under this alternative.
(c) No Action Alternative. No additional timber would be cut
under this alternative.
b. Physical Environment. The Proposed Action and its Reduced
Scale Alternative could adversely affect the physical environment
through impacts to wetlands and water quality downstream caused by the
increased volume of storm water entering Tank Creek from the project
area. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(1) Aesthetics. The various proposed construction projects
would remove forest in order to make way for development over several
years. Removal of natural forest cover is seen as an adverse impact,
but one which will be offset by project design which would comply with
the Installation Design Guide. The proposed projects are intended to
be aesthetically pleasing. The site will be landscaped using a
preponderance of species compatible with local conditions. Wherever
possible, existing trees and shrubbery will be preserved and
incorporated into the landscape design. The Proposed Action would be
most likely to result in more adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale
Alternative, which would result in more than the No Action
Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(2) Air Quality. Air emissions resulting from the operation
of construction equipment implementing the Proposed Action would be
transitory, and would not adversely affect ambient air quality in the
area. The Fayetteville-Fort Bragg area is an air quality attainment
zone for all air pollutants save ozone. National Ambient Air Quality.
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone have been exceeded during several recent
summers. Because this is a perennial problem, the Army anticipates
North Carolina will develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
govern compliance with the NAAQS standards for ozone. In which case
22
the Army would have to ensure that its development plans on Fort Bragg
would comply with the SIP. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has not developed a Federal Implementation Plan because the
State is already developing a SIP. In the interim, the Army is
required to assess this action for general conformity with the Clean
Air Act (CAA). This is referred to as the General Conformity Rule.
Under that process the EPA has exempted certain actions such as the
construction projects considered in this EA, regardless of the amount
of emissions anticipated, because all major new or modified sources
will require a permit under the New Source Review Program (Section
173, CAA) or the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program
(Title I, Part C, CAA). In short, each new source such as building
boilers and emergency generators will be considered anyway as part of
the permitting process. Most of the air pollution sources near
McFayden Pond would be vehicles (mobile sources) which are also
exempt. Operation of military and privately owned vehicles would
continue at the present rate with a slight increase. Boilers,
furnaces and emergency generators would be operated in compliance with
their air quality permits. Designers need to consider the effect on
air quality of back up electrical generators, air handling and
refrigeration equipment, and boilers. The use of fossil fuels in
boilers and ozone depleting substances in refrigeration and air
conditioning systems is closely regulated. The level of additional
air pollutants resulting from the Proposed Action will remain
relatively constant, and is unlikely to adversely effect regional air
quality. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in more
adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result
in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(3) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Implementing the proposed project is unlikely to cause
adverse human health or environmental effects because insecticides,
fungicides, and rodenticides would be used safely in accordance with
FIFRA permit requirements. The frequency of application and amount of
these products used would be strictly limited to project requirements.
For example, termaticides would be applied to the soil under building
foundations as part of the construction process. The Proposed Action
would be more adverse impacts that the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
23
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Soil Conservation. The predominant soil types on Fort
Bragg are sandy and easily eroded. The limitations imposed by these
soil types make keeping soil disturbance to a minimum a top priority
in order to prevent further erosion and stream sedimentation. Best
management practices must be followed to prevent erosion and
consequent damage to nearby endangered species habitat.or
sedimentation of streams and wetland areas. Projects over an acre
require a State approved soil erosion control plan. All construction,
operation, and maintenance activities involving land disturbance must
consider and comply with soil conservation measures in their planning
and execution. The Proposed Action would be more likely to result in
more adverse impacts than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would
result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Soil erosion control measures would be
required to prevent erosion and sedimentation adversely affecting Tank
Creek and McFayden Pond. This alternative would have the most
potential for soil loss because the most surface area would be
disturbed. Proper soil conservation controls will be implemented.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would have
correspondingly less potential for soil loss because the scope of the
total project would be smaller. Proper soil conservation controls
would also be implemented.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential for soil loss in the near term.
(5) Solid Waste. Construction and demolition debris
associated with implementation of the proposed project would be
disposed of on post in approved areas. ordinary trash would be
collected and deposited in containers for pick up and transport to an
approved sanitary landfill. No significant post construction
difference was foreseen in the amount of ordinary trash resulting from
the three alternatives because the number of troops would be
unchanged. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in more
construction and demolition debris than the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. This alternative would result in
production of the most construction and demolition debris during
construction.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would result
in correspondingly less construction and demolition debris during
construction.
24
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential to result in construction and
demolition debris.
(6) Toxic, Hazardous, and Regulated Waste. Hazardous waste
would be produced by equipment used to construct, operate, and
maintain the proposed project. Used oils, greases, and batteries must
be contained and turned in properly through supply channels. Spills
occurring during construction shall be reported through the project
inspector or after completion of the project to the Fire Department.-
Cleanup would be coordinated through the Environmental Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center. If contractor personnel are involved, the contractor is
responsible for site cleanup in accordance with State and Federal
requirements. The Proposed Action would be most likely to result in
more toxic and hazardous waste than the Reduced Scale Alternative,
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. This alternative would result in the
most toxic and hazardous waste during construction. Proper disposal
requirements will be followed.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative would result
in correspondingly less toxic and hazardous waste during construction.
Proper disposal requirements will be followed.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential to result in additional toxic and
hazardous waste. Proper disposal requirements will be followed.
(7) Water Quality. Although construction activities for PN
16992, 20127, 20347,44965, 51238, and 51909 are distant from Tank
Creek and its tributaries, PN 35362, 41631, 45239, and 46797 will be
constructed directly next to Tank Creek or its tributaries. Portions
of PN 35362 and 45239 will be constructed over unnamed tributaries of
the Creek. Project Number 46797 will be constructed next to McFayden
Pond. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 would be constructed
west of Tank Creek and downstream of McFayden Pond. All sixteen of
these projects are up slope from and would likely contribute to an
increase in the rate of storm water flow into Tank Creek unless
suitable management measures such as detention and retention basins
are installed. Soil erosion control measures, required for each of
these projects, would be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the Fort Bragg SCMP and their respective State approved Soil Erosion
Control Plans to reduce impacts upon water quality. The consequences
of these impacts can be quite severe if they are not handled properly.
Storm water discharge into Tank Creek has already exceeded the
capacity of the watercourse to remain stable. The stream bottom and
banks are eroding with each storm event. The Post Soil
Conservationist has made multiple observations of such storms at the
stream flow gage located upstream of the point where Tank Creek passes
under Longstreet Road. These confirm that in a typical summertime
25
storm event consisting of one inch of rainfall received in an hour,
the water level in the stream rises quickly from one inch at the gage
to a depth of over five feet. Not only does this volume of water
impact banks and channel of Tank Creek, but also other. locations
downstream, such as McFayden Pond, Pope AFB, and the Lower Little
River. Planners should note that McFayden Pond cannot provide flood
relief to areas downstream because the dam is not a water control
structure. Water flows downstream over through a weir constructed to
allow water to flow over a portion of the dam. The weir does not
permit the water level in McFayden Pond to be raised or lowered at
will. Hence the level cannot be lowered in anticipation of rain.
Water from a storm event flows into an impoundment already filled to
capacity. Rather than serving as a storm water detention basin, the
pond is no more than a wide space in the creek. It is incapable of
providing anything more than minimal relief to areas downstream.
Storm water management is the major potential impact, which must be
solved if these projects are to be constructed. Project Number 20127,
20347, 41631, 44965, 45239, 46797, 51238, and 51909 will change the
existing topography from a largely wooded area to an urban land use,
which will have more impervious surfaces. This will increase the rate
at which storm water runs off the land rather than being absorbed into
the soil. Potentially then, these ten projects pose a greater
challenge to designers because storm water will be more likely to flow
to surface rather than groundwater. The design standard should be to
maintain or reduce the volume of runoff in order to preserve stream
quality. In contrast PN 16992 and 35362 will be built in an existing
maintenance area and a World War II era cantonment respectively.
Since this land is already in use for urban purposes the standard
should be to reduce or at least not increase the present amount of
runoff. The project designers have taken a number of actions to
manage storm water more efficiently. These include designing storm
water detention and retention basins to reduce the rate at which storm
water flows into Tank Creek after a storm event. Existing basins will
be maintained in the land use design. Parking lots and roads are
paved. Curbs and gutters direct sheet flow from paved areas into the
storm drainage system. Storm drains flow into detention and retention
basins located on the project site before excess water flows into the
creek. An additional story was added to the design of the 82d Combat
Aviation Brigade barracks, PN 45239, to reduce the footprint of the
project. This decreased the project's total roof space. Reducing
roof space will also reduce rapid runoff from the project.
Naturalized landscaping will be used to the maximum extent possible.
This will reduce erosion while allowing storm water to return to
groundwater. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 use existing
open areas and leave a buffer adjacent to tributaries of the creek.
The design of the CAB barracks calls for headwalls to be constructed
along portions of the creek to reduce stream bank erosion. Storm
water control and wetlands mitigation measures must be sufficiently
effective to reduce total post-construction storm water flow into Tank
Creek for the design year storm. Without these measures the Proposed
Action would be most likely to result in more storm water being
drained into the Tank Creek watershed the Reduced Scale Alternative,
26
which would result in more than the No Action Alternative. A wetlands
permit will be required to determine mitigation requirements.
(a) Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project
would have the most potential for significant adverse impact upon
water quality down stream during construction. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated if appropriate storm water control measures
and permitted wetlands mitigation are incorporated into the design as
needed.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Construction of this
alternative would have correspondingly less potential for impact upon
water quality during construction. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated if appropriate storm water control measures and permitted
wetlands mitigation are incorporated into the design as needed.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least potential for impact upon water quality.
(8) Wetlands. Construction of PN 35362, 41631, 45239 and
46797 will adversely affect wetlands adjacent to Tank Creek. A total
of approximately five acres of wetlands would be filled by these
projects. Project Number 370017, 370063, and 370067 will impact over
a tenth of an acre and will require a wetlands permit. Proper soil
erosion control measures and on site.storm water detention and
retention basins must be incorporated into project design. These
measures include construction on site of storm water detention and
retention basins, underground storm water detention systems, porous
pavement, land contouring, landscaping, and silt fences. These
mitigation measures will lessen the adverse impacts of filling wetland
areas. A permit will be required from the State of North Carolina.
The Proposed Action would be more likely to adversely impact wetlands
than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result in more adverse
impact than the No Action Alternative.
(a) Proposed Action. Selection of this alternative would
have the most impact on wetland Qf any alternative. No significant
adverse impacts are anticipated because wetland loss would be in
accord with permit requirements and mitigation measures will be
incorporated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. Selection of this alternative
would adversely impact correspondingly fewer acres of wetland. No
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least impact upon wetlands. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
c. Sociological-Economic. The Proposed Action and its
alternatives would be unlikely to adversely affect sociological and
economic resources in any significant way.
27
(1) Cultural Resources. The Fort Bragg HPP was completed in
1989 to manage compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
The HPP is used as a management tool to guide conservation of cultural
resources on the post. Historic sites on the post include a Civil War
battlefield, 2 historic churches, and 27 small community cemeteries.
In addition, hundreds of historic and prehistoric archeological sites
have been recorded. Construction activities are planned and monitored
to avoid such critical areas. Although individual cultural resource-
sites could be impacted by land disturbing activities associated with
development of the McFayden Pond area, all land disturbing activities
are reviewed for cultural resource impacts and, if warranted, cultural
resource inventories and assessments will be conducted prior to such
activities. The Combined Arms School Brigade (PN 370017, 370063 and
370067) site has been surveyed for cultural resources. No significant
sites were identified. Fort Bragg has scheduled a cultural resources
survey for approximately 300 acres in the vicinity of McFayden Pond
for FY 2001. Historical sites, structures, and cemeteries are
protected from damage during training and construction activities.
The proposed project site does not have any standing structures or
cemeteries. Areas adjacent to McFayden Pond, Tank Creek, and its
tributaries would have a high potential for the presence of
prehistoric cultural resource sites. The proposed Vehicle Maintenance
Shop-Organizational (PN 16992) would be constructed amid the red brick
horse stables and gun sheds of the old horse artillery cantonment on
main post. These buildings are listed below. The buildings,
constructed in 1935, are considered to be contributing elements of the
old Post Historic District, which is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. These buildings would be
converted to new uses. Design will be coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Office. All historic buildings would be
preserved under each of these alternatives.
HISTORIC BUILDING LIST:
BUILDING YEAR SQUARE DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT USE
NUMBER BUILT FEET
2-2205 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2211 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2402 1935 7,066 General Item Repair
2-2404 1935 7,066 General Item Repair
2-2405 1935 7,066 Maintenance, General Purpose
2-2406 1935 7,066 Maintenance, General Purpose
2-2408 1935 8,503 Army Continuing Education
2-2409 1935 7,066 Admin/General Purpose
2-2411 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2412 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2414 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
2-2706 1935 1,400 Compact Item Repair
2-2711 1935 1,415 Battery Shop
2-2802 1935 7,066 Army Continuing Education
28

2-2809 1935 7,066
2-2814 1935 7,066
2-3202 1935 7,066
2-3212 1935 7,066
2-3214 1935 7,066
2-3303 1935 180
2-3305 1935 180
2-3602 1935 7,066
2-3612 1935 7,066
2-3614 1935 7,066
2-3810 1984 4,000
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
Army Continuing Education
General Storage
General Storage
Compact Item Repair
Ready Building
Boat House
Army continuing Education
(a) Proposed Action. A cultural resources survey of
approximately 300 acres will be required in accordance with the Fort
Bragg HPP. Should any cultural resources eligible for, or potentially
eligible for, listing in the National Register of Historic Places, be
identified as a result of the survey, these sites will be avoided or
mitigated after coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). If any cultural resource sites are found during
implementation of the Proposed Action, they would be safeguarded and
reported to the post archeologist for disposition in accord with Fort
Bragg's HPP. The SHPO would be consulted if the materials or sites
were potentially significant. Demolition of any structures that are
contributing elements to the Old Post Historic District will only be
conducted after consultation with the SHPO. During consultation with
the SHPO, appropriate mitigative measures for these structures will be
agreed upon by Fort Bragg and the North Carolina SHPO. Demolition
will be carried out after the mitigative measures are concluded. The
Proposed Action would have the most potential for adverse impact upon
cultural resources.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. A cultural resources survey
will be required in accordance with the Fort Bragg HPP under the same
conditions described above. This alternative will have
correspondingly less impact upon cultural resources
(c) No Action Alternative. Using existing facilities
would have the least impact upon cultural resources. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
(2) Environmental Health and Safety Risk Upon Children.
Implementing the proposed action is unlikely to cause adverse human
health or safety effects upon children within the meaning of Executive
Order (EO) 13045 because the proposed action's projects are located
within an existing cantonment, and no high-risk land uses are planned.
Project 35362, planned for the northern side Longstreet Road, is
approximately 300 yards north of Cherbourg Army Family Housing (AFH).
Project Number 16992, planned for the eastern edge of Reilly Road is
300 yards west of Bastogne Gables Army Family Housing (AFH), which is
the closest neighborhood. The project area is separated by several
hundred yards from areas were children reside, go to school, or play.
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
29
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(3) Environmental Justice. Development of the McFayden Pond
area is unlikely to cause disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects upon minority populations and low-
income populations within the meaning of EO 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, because the proposed action's projects are at least 300
yards from the closest neighborhoods, and no high-risk land uses are
planned. Minority populations reside in the area as the post is fully
integrated. In civilian terms, Bastogne Gables and Cherbourg AFH are
middle class residential areas. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
(4) Noise. Environmental noise is assessed under the ENMP.
The proposed project is located in ENMP Zone I (an area considered
acceptable for noise sensitive land uses), with which it is
compatible. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
(a) Proposed Action. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
(b) Reduced Scale Alternative. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Action Alternative. No significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION.
a. Cumulative Effects. Management of storm water and consequent
potentially adverse impacts upon wetlands is the major environmental
issue associated with the proposed action. Adverse cumulative impacts
upon the physical environment are anticipated from the increased flow
rate of storm water entering Tank Creek as a result of construction of
these projects unless storm water is managed properly. These
30
potential impacts will require incorporation of mitigation measures
into the total project design. These measures could include
incorporation of a water control structure into the McFayden Pond dam,
construction of storm water detention and retention basins, and soil
conservation measures. Storm water control and wetlands mitigation
measures must be sufficiently effective so as not to increase total
post-construction storm water flow into Tank Creek for the design year
storm. In order to make certain that this directive is followed,
monitoring of stream flow rates will be required on Tank Creek.
Without these mitigation measures the Proposed Action would be likely
to result in more drainage of storm water into the Tank Creek
watershed than the Reduced Scale Alternative, which would result in
more than the No Action Alternative. No adverse cumulative impacts
upon critical RCW forage habitat are anticipated from implementation
of the Proposed Action. No other adverse cumulative effects on
biological, social, or economic resources are anticipated from
implementation of the Proposed Action.
b. Conclusion. Based on a review of the information contained in
this EA and the referenced BA, I have determined that construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed projects within the
McFayden Pond area at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which will
incorporate prescribed mitigation measures, is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA as long as storm water
is managed properly. Accordingly, the preparation of an EIS is not
required. A mitigated FNSI will be released to announce this
conclusion to the public, and afford them an opportunity to comment on
the Proposed Action.
7. AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED:
a. Agencies.
(1) N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Office.
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(3) U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army,
XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Office of the Staff Judge
Advocate, Public Works Business Center
(4) U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
b. Persons.
(1) Boyko, W.C.J., Archeologist, Environmental/Natural
Resources Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
31
(2) Cockman, D.H., Chief, Wildlife Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(3) Dudick, V.A., State Environmental Specialist, Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety, Office of the Adjutant General,
North Carolina National Guard, Raleigh, NC.
(4) Hoffman, E.L., Biologist, Environmental/Natural Resources
Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(5) Lantz, J.C., Soil Conservationist, Environmental/Natural
Resources Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(6) Lubinski, J.A., Captain, U.S. Army, Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(7) Martinez, D.A., Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah, GA.
(8) Myers, T.L., Chief, Endangered Species Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(9) Prillaman, G.W., Chief, Real Property Planning Team,
Construction Management Division, Public Works Business Center, XVIII
Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(10) Sewell, D.L., Chief, Natural Resources Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
(11) Wirt, P.G., Chief, Environmental Branch,
Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
c. Literature.
(1) Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC,
1997.
(2) Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army
Actions, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1988.
(3) Army Regulation 200-3, Natural Resources - Land, Forest
and Wildlife Management, Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 1995.
32
(4) Biological Assessment, Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I
and II, and Separate Battalion Barracks Complex, Phase I and II,
Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg,
Fort Bragg, NC, 2000.
(5) Biological Opinion, Effects of Military and Associated
Activities at Fort Bragg, Camp Mackall, and the Sandhills Gamelands,
North Carolina, on Federally-Listed Species, 4-0-90-001, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, 1990.
(6) Clean Air Act of 1990 (as amended), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1990.
(7) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 1988.
(8) Environmental Assessment for Redevelopment of the Old
Division Area, Phase I, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne
Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1990.
(9) Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations (59 Federal Regulation
7629), 1994.
(10) Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety
Risk Upon Children, 1997.
(11) Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall Endangered Species
Management Plan, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1996.
(12) Fort Bragg East Military Installation Map, RCW
Overprint, 1:50,000 Scale, Fort Bragg, NC, 1998.
(13) Fort Bragg Forest Management Plan, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1993.
(14) Fort Bragg Historic Preservation Plan, Public Works
Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC,
1989.
(15) Fort Bragg Soil Conservation Plan, Public Works Business
Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1997.
(16) Fort Bragg Regulation 200-1, Fort Bragg Environmental
Program, Public Works Business Center, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, 1999.
(17) Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah, GA, 1989.
33
(18) Installation Design Guide, Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, GA.
(19) Interim Guidance for Wetlands Protection, Report Number
92-03, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section, Raleigh, NC, 1992.
(20) Management Guidelines for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker _on
Army Installations, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington,
DC, 1996.
(21) Record of Environmental Consideration, Combined Arms
School Brigade/N.C. Military Academy, Military Educational Facility,
Phases I, II and III, Project Numbers 370017, 370063 and 370067, North
Carolina Army National Guard, Raleigh, NC, 1997.
(22) Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC, 1984.
(23) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule:
Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans, 58 Federal Regulation 63214 (30 November 1993)
codified as 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51, Subpart W,; and
40 CFR 93, Subpart B, 1993.
34
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. Description of the Project. Fort Bragg proposes to develop
approximately 273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the Tank Creek
watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County,
North Carolina. The proposed action would be constructed in 16 .
projects. The projects include a replacement fire station for the Old
Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the 82d Airborne
Division, a soldier development center, an organizational vehicle
maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade, whole
barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police Brigade and the 82d
Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade, facilities for the U.S.
Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms School Brigade. Reilly
Road borders the project area on the east with 2 projects to the east
of this road and 14 projects to the west. Longstreet Road bounds the
main project area on the south, Keerans Street on the west, and Butner
Road on the north. The Combined Arms School Brigade is located north
of Butner Road. The Old Division Area Fire Station is located south
of Longstreet Road. The area between Reilly Road and Bigler Street,
in the center of the project area, is largely undeveloped woodland
surrounding McFayden Pond. Two alternatives to the "Proposed Action"
of developing the McFayden Pond area were considered in an
Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 30 August 2000, and a Biological
Assessment (BA) dated September 2000. These are the "Reduced Scale
Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the projects, and the
"No Action Alternative" of not developing the McFayden Pond area. The
consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale Alternative would be to
provide suitable facilities for some, but not all, of the supported
units. The consequence of implementing the No Action Alternative
would be to continue to operate out of existing facilities, which are
less suitable for the supported units. The No Action Alternative
provides the baseline for forecasting the effects of constructing,
operating, and maintaining the projects, which would develop the
McFayden Pond area. The EA, BA, and their supporting documents are
hereby incorporated by reference. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives, and recommends adoption
of the Proposed Action. Developing the McFayden Pond area over a
period of years is not a major Federal action significantly effecting
the quality of the human environment. The development project will be
environmentally acceptable so long as storm water is managed properly.
The BA addresses the potential biological impacts upon endangered
species resulting from development of two projects in the Mcrayden
35
Pond (Tank Creek) area. These are Phases I and II of the Combat
Aviation Brigade, and Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion
Barracks Complex. The BA concludes that sustainable development of
the Tank Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect
on water or air quality or adversely impact federally listed species,
such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis).
2. Description of Alternatives. Two alternatives to the "Proposed
Action" of developing the McFayden Pond area were considered. These
are the "Reduced Scale Alternative" of building some, but not all, of
the projects, and the "No Action Alternative" of not developing the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are less suitable for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area.
3. Anticipated Environmental Impacts. Management of storm water and
wetlands are the major environmental issues associated with the
proposed action. Adverse cumulative impacts upon the physical
environment are anticipated from the increased flow rate of storm
water entering Tank Creek as a result of construction of these
projects unless storm water is managed properly and wetland impacts
are mitigated according to the wetlands permit. These potential
impacts will require incorporation of mitigation measures into the
total project design. These measures include incorporation of a water
control structure into the McFayden Pond dam, construction of storm
water detention and retention basins, and soil conservation measures.
No adverse cumulative impacts upon critical red-cockaded woodpecker
forage habitat are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
Action. No other adverse cumulative effects on biological, social, or
economic resources are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
Action.
4. Conclusion. Based on review of the information contained in the
referenced EA and BA, I have determined that construction, operation,.
and maintenance of the proposed projects within the McFayden Pond area
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within
the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act as long as storm water and wetlands are managed properly.
Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required. This mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
is being released to announce this conclusion to the public, and
afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action.
5. Effective Date. The proposed action would be constructed
beginning in 2001. These projects would be permanent improvements.
36

6. Public Availability. The EA and this mitigated FNSI are available
for public inspection at the Cumberland County Public Library in
Fayetteville, and the Post Library and Command Information Center,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
7. Requests for additional information or submittal of written
comments may be made within 30 days after first publication date to
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Public Works
Business Center, ATTN: AFZA-PW-E, Fort Bragg, NC 26310.
JOH RY KA
Maj G n a USA
Dep t om an ing General
37
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS RELEASE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
MITIGATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE McFAYDEN POND AREA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Fort Bragg announced today the release of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
which evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts
of developing approximately 273 acres of the McFayden Pond area in the
Tank Creek watershed on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed action would be
constructed in 16 projects. The projects include a replacement fire
station for the old Division Area, separate battalion barracks for the
82d Airborne Division, a soldier development center, an organizational
vehicle maintenance shop for the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade,
whole barracks renewal for the 16th Military Police Brigade and the
82d Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade, facilities for the
U.S. Army Parachute Team, and the Combined Arms School Brigade.
Reilly Road borders the project area on the east with 2 projects to
the east of this road and 14 projects to the west. Longstreet Road
bounds the main project area on the south, Keerans Street on the west,
and Butner Road on the north. The Combined Arms School Brigade is
located north of Butner Road. The Old Division Area Fire Station is
located south of Longstreet Road. The area between Reilly Road and
Bigler Street, in the center of the project area, is largely
undeveloped woodland surrounding McFayden Pond. Two alternatives to
the "Proposed Action" of developing the McFayden Pond area were
considered in an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 30 August 2000,
and a Biological Assessment (BA) dated September 2000. These are the
"Reduced Scale Alternative" of building some, but not all, of the
projects, and the "No Action Alternative" of not developing the
McFayden Pond area. The consequence of implementing the Reduced Scale
Alternative would be to provide suitable facilities.for some, but not
all, of the supported units. The consequence of implementing the No
Action Alternative would be to continue to operate out of existing
facilities, which are less suitable for the supported units. The No
Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting the effects
of constructing, operating, and maintaining the projects, which would
develop the McFayden Pond area. The EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of these alternatives, and recommends adoption
of the Proposed Action. The EA concludes that developing the McFayden
38
ABBREVIATIONS
AFB Air Force Base
AFH Army Family Housing
AR Army Regulation
BA Biological Assessment
CAA Clean Air Act
dBA Decibels (A-Weighted)
dBC Decibels (C-Weighted)
dBP Decibels (unweighted)
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ENMP Environmental Noise Management Program
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESMP Endangered Species Management Plan
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FY Fiscal Year
HPP Historic Preservation Plan
IDS Intrusion Detection System
LR Long Range
MI Military Intelligence
MP Military Police
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
N.C. North Carolina
PN Project Number
RBCA Risk Based Corrective Action
RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
SCMP Soil Conservation Master Plan
SF Square Feet
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
spp. Species (various)
STOW Synthetic Theater of War
TNC The Nature Conservancy
U.S. United States
40
Pond area would be environmentally acceptable if storm water is
managed properly. The BA addresses the potential biological impacts
upon endangered species resulting from development of two projects in
the McFayden Pond (Tank-Creek) area. These are Phases I and II of the
Combat Aviation Brigade, and Phases I and II of the Separate Battalion
Barracks Complex. The BA concludes that sustainable development of
the Tank Creek watershed is not expected to have a measurable effect
on water or air quality or adversely impact federally listed species.
The projects are not likely to adversely affect a Federally listed
endangered species the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides
borealis). The proposed action would not constitute a major Federal
action requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A
mitigated FNSI has been released to announce this conclusion to the
public and afford them an opportunity to comment on the Proposed
Action. The EA and mitigated FNSI are available for public inspection
at the Cumberland County Public Library in Fayetteville, and the Post
Library and Command Information Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
39
APPENDICES
A BA, Combat Aviation Brigade and Separate Battalion Barracks -
B Map, McFayden Pond Projects
r
i
41
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
42
it 13/00 MON 14:41 FAX [phone] USFWS-RAL.EIGH,NC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ralcigh Field Office
Pon Officc Box 33726
Ralcigh. North Carolina 27636.3726
November 13, 2000
Colonel Robert L. Shin on
Department of the Army
Director of Public Works Business Center
Headquarters, X-VIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307-5000
Dear Colonel Shirron:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter of September 26, 2000 and
Biological Assessment for the Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I and H and Separate Battalions
Barracks Complex, Phase I and E, Fort Bragg Military Reservation, Cumberland County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)(Act).
According to your Biological Assessment, fifteen construction projects are proposed for
development between FY 2000 - 2010, adjacent to the Tank Creek watershed. Approximately 238
acres of land will be involved in this development. These new facilities are being constructed to
house and provide services to support 608 soldiers.
No suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr, American chaffseed, small-whorled pogonia or
pondberry exist in the area described for development. Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife
and Michaux's sumac exist, but surveys of this habitat during the 1998 and 1999 growing seasons
revealed that no federally-listed plants occur in the project area.
The development site contains suitable foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW);
however, no part of the site falls within a RCW foraging partition. Fort Bragg's Endangered Species
Management Plan (ESMP) identifies regions of the installation where RCW management will be
focused. The project location is not contained by any of the habitat management units identified in
the ESMP. Therefore, the proposed development will not impact population goals identified in the
ESMP.
Based on the information provided in your September 26, 2000 letter and accompanying Biological
Assessment, the Service concurs that Combat Aviation Brigade and Separate Battalions Barracks
Complex will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr and federally-listed plant species and are not
likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
10002
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT.BRpAGeG NNOerT}-(2C OAR &28310
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Public Works Business Center
ORIGINAL
Mr. Garland Pardue
United States Fish and Wildlife Service C(D[Ply
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Pardue:
Enclosed is a Biological Assessment for the
Brigade,'Phase I and II and Separate Battalions
Phase ,I and II, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
that this action will have "no effect" on Saint
and listed plant species; and will not "likely
affect" the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Combat Aviation
Barracks Complex,
We have determined
Francis' satyr,
to adversely
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Erich L.
Hoffman, [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert L. Shirron
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director of Public Works
Business Center

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE, PHASE I AND II AND
SEPARATE BATTALIONS BARRACKS COMPLEX, PHASE I AND II
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
Erich L. Hoffman
Wildlife Biologist
Public Works Business Center
SEPTEMBER 2000
COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE, PHASE I AND II
AND SEPARATE BATTALIOINS BARRACKS COMPLEX, PHASE I
AND PHASE II
BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located in the Sandhills
physiographic province of North Carolina and is characterized by
rolling topography and sandy soils. More specifically, the
Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB), Phase I and II, Complex and
Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I and II, will be
constructed throughout the Tank Creek Watershed Area (TCWA)
inside the Main Cantonment Area (MCA), Cumberland County, Fort
Bragg (see map).
The site for the Combat Aviation Brigade is-approximately
48 acres of land. The site is bounded by Butner Road to the
north, the future All-American Expressway to the east, Longstreet
Road to the south, and Bigler Street to the west.
The site for the Separate Battalions Complex is
approximately 40.75 acres of land. The site is bounded by Butner
Road to the north, the MP complex and wetlands to the east,
Longstreet Road and CAB tactical vehicle maintenance shop to the
south, and miscellaneous small military units and government
contractor compound to the west.
Fort Bragg is juxtaposed in the Sandhills, which is home to
the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem. The Sandhills
physiographic region lies between the Piedmont and Inner Coastal
Plains. The Sandhills encompasses eight counties in North
Carolina. The term "Sandhills" refers to the rolling hills
capped by deep coarse sands, which dominate the landscape.. All
installation lands are characterized by rolling topography and
sandy soils. Fort Bragg lies on a divide between the Lower
Little River and Rockfish Creek watersheds, while Camp Mackall is
located in the Lumber River drainage system. Overhills is part
of the Lower Little River watershed.
The installation contains thirty-three natural plant
communities and variants on Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall,
representing a broad array of interactions among edaphic,
climatic, pyric, hydrologic, and topographic gradients.
Fort Bragg is 152,855 acres in size; Camp Mackall is 7,917 acres
in size. Total acreage is 160,877 acres to include 105 acres of
miscellaneous tracts. In 1997, a 10,580 acre tract of land in
Harnett and Cumberland counties, known as Overhills, was
purchased from Percy and Isabel Rockefeller, which is included in
the total acreage figure.
2
Throughout Fort Bragg soils consist of excessively drained
to moderately well drained soils on highly dissected uplands. In
general, upland habitat consist of excessively drained rolling to
flat deep coarse sands, while wetland soils consist of more
organics and are poorly drained. Upland soils are Blaney-Gilead-
Lakeland sands. These soils are mostly well drained, contain
little organic matter, and are very low in fertility. They are
generally classified as sandy loam or loamy sand and are well
drained. Soils in lower elevations are Johnston loam. These
soils are richer, but are poorly drained. Lowland soils are
classified as loamy and are generally heavier in texture than
upland soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1984).
The Combat Aviation Brigade Complex will occur in two
distinct habitat types, a small open previously disturbed upland
xeric sandhill scrub habitat area and forest areas consisting of
undisturbed natural pine scrub oak sandhill plant community type,
dissected by a wetland drainage fingers of coastal plain small
stream swamp and some sandhill seeps (Schafale and Weakley,
1990).
The Separate Battalions Barracks Complex will occur in one
distinct habitat type, previously disturbed xeric sandhill scrub
habitat. Most this area was once part of the old WW II barracks
community and now consists of man dominated grassy areas with
scattered remnant longleaf pine (Pines palustris) flattops. The
installation has removed the original WWII wood buildings.
Existing topography is relatively flat. No wetlands are involved
in project boundaries west of Bigler Street. However, a small
wetland drainage finger of coastal plain small stream swamp will
be impacted east of Bigler Street.
The Tank Creek watershed on uplands is characterized by two
dominant plant community types pine scrub oak sandhill and xeric
sandhill scrub, while the wetlands consist primarily of three
dominant plant community types, coastal plain small stream swamp,
streamhead pocosin and sandhill seeps. The project boundaries
will be sited and designed around wetland habitats to minimize
their impacts.
More specifically, the Tank Creek watershed area consists
of gentle rolling terrain from one to eight percent slopes on
uplands and steep terrain with 10 to 40 percent slopes in
wetlands. The wetland areas have rather steep topography, which
lends great potential for soil erosion. The watershed drainage
direction is from east, south, and west flowing north into Tank
creek.
Most of the area east of Bigler street, between Longstreet
Road and Butner Road, is heavily forested upland longleaf pine or
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forest canopy with a lush ground
cover and an understory of turkey oak (Quercus laevis) on xeric
3
sites, and a mixture of other oaks (Quercus spp.) on less xeric
sites. Many habitats are severely fire suppressed because of
their juxtaposition to the Main Cantonment Area. Ground cover
vegetation consists of native warm season grasses primarily
wiregrass (Aristida spp.), which normally dominates the herb
layer, and a variety of herbs and forbes such as little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), broomstraw (Andropogan gyrans),
dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), baptisia (Baptisia cinerea), stylisma (Stylisma
patens) and goat's rue (Tephrosia virginiana).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the development of fifteen projects
scheduled from fiscal year (FY) 2000 until 2010 in the
surrounding tank creek watershed. Approximately 238 acres within
the Tank Creek Watershed area are proposed for development. The
two primary facilities are the Combat Aviation Brigade Complex,
Project Number 45239, and the Separate Battalions Barracks
Complex, Project Number 35362 & 44496 on Fort Bragg (see Table
1). The 82nd Airborne Division is in need of new barracks
facilities to adequately support current military training needs.
The Combat Aviation Brigade, Phase I, would construct a
whole barracks renewal complex and dining facility. Additional
work includes constructing new barracks using the standard Rl
barracks module design, community building, 100 percent parking,
community green, close-in training, company operations
facilities, battalion headquarters, brigade headquarters, dining
facility, heat plant, chiller plant, secondary and access roads,
and recreation areas.
Also, Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I is
required to provide housing and administrative support facilities
for soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division. Phase I includes
facilities for HHC, Finance, PSB, ADA, and MP. It complies with
current and proposed Army standards for space, security, storage,
and privacy, that improves parking, recreational areas, training
and work areas. All primary facilities are based on modified DA
standard designs. This phase will house 608 soldiers.
In addition, Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase II
will provide the remaining facilities necessary to complete the
Separate Battalions Barracks Complex. Phase II includes
facilities for 313`", 307`", and Signal. This phase will house
768 soldiers. Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phases I and
II will provide barracks for 1376 soldiers, 26 company operations
facilities, 6 battalion headquarters, and in-processing center, a
dining facility, and paving to satisfy the parking requirements
for the entire brigade.
4
Construction of barracks and dining facilities will use
standard designs consistent with the Fort Bragg Master Plan and
Installation Design Guide. Construction of company operations
facilities, battalion headquarters, and brigades headquarters is
based on the standard constrained site design. Additional
infrastructure will include energy monitoring and control
systems; fire alarm detection and reporting systems; automatic
building sprinklers; intrusion detection system; and force
protection measures.
Support facilities include electric services; water, sewer,
and gas service; paving, walkways, curbs, and gutters; storm
drainage; storm water retention system; erosion control measures;
information systems; site improvements; and landscaping. The
site plan requires the demolition of 10 buildings 263,007 square
feet (sf) in order to accommodate the new facilities.
The proposed project action area is suited for these
purposes because the terrain is relatively level with sandy
soils, which are easily worked and conducive for construction.
The area is also centrally located within the Main Post
Cantonment Area.
Other locations would not be suitable because they
interfere with other training missions, involve wetlands or
violate management requirements for endangered species. The Army
will construct, operate, and maintain the barracks complex in
order to conduct operations required to train airborne units for
combat. In addition, the newly improved barracks will aid and
improve soldiers living quarters. Soldier moral and retention
will be enhanced by this project.
Tank Creek Project List:
TABLE 1
Project Fiscal Approximate Project Title
Number Year Acreage
16992 2010 13 525th MI Brigade Vehicle Maintenance
Shop
20127 2010 7 Distance Learning Center (Phase III)
20347 2010 9 Synthetic Theater of War Range Training
Facility (Phase III)
51612 2010 15 Practical Nurse Training Facility
51909 2010 12 General Education Development Center
(Phase IV)
53914 2005 75 Brigade'Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase V)
53538 2004 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase IV)
25134 2003 75 Brigade Barracks.Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (PhaseIII)
5
TABLE 1 Cont.
41631 2003 24 Whole Barracks Renewal 16th MP Brigade
44496 2002 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase II)
35362 2001 75 Brigade Barracks Complex, 82nd Airborne
Division Separate Battalions (Phase I)
44965 2001 5 Old Division Fire Station
45239 2001 48 Whole Barracks Renewal Combat Aviation
Brigade (Phase I)
46797 2001 5 U.S. Army Parachute Team Facility
Soldier Development Center (Phase I)
51238 2001 25 Soldier Development Center (Phase I)
SPECIES CONSIDERED
This biological assessment is pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-
1543). The purpose of the biological assessment is to evaluate
the effects of constructing a barracks complex on federally
listed endangered species for Cumberland county.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
Cumberland County, North Carolina, lists the following federally
listed and proposed endangered species:
Vertebrates
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)-T (S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)- Endangered
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci)- Endangered
Vascular Plants
American chaffseed (Scwalbea americana)-Endangered
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)- Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia aperulaefolia)- Endangered
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)- Threatened
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)- Endangered
METHODS
Direct or indirect project impacts were assessed and
evaluated using field surveys and analyses of species habitats
using Arc-View and GIS systems for five federally listed species
occurring on Fort Bragg in Cumberland County. They include the,
RCW, Saint Francis' satyr, Rough-leaved loosestrife, American
chaffseed and Michaux's sumac. The American alligator, Small-
whorled pogonia, and Pondberry are also listed for Cumberland
6
County but have never been found on Fort Bragg. A field visit
determined if their suitable habitat was present or absent.
The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat impacts were
evaluated by analyzing cavity tree location surveys, forage
partitions (Carter and Associates, 1995), and timber stand layers
stored on a geographic information system (GIS) at Fort Bragg. A
map was developed using Arc View, depicting biological
information layers related to proposed project location so
potential adverse impacts could be further evaluated and assessed
through a field visit (see map).
The project area was recently searched for new cavity trees
during the 1999 5-year cavity tree survey inventory. Additional
evaluations involved a field visit on July 10, 2000. During this
visit no cavity trees were found. If new cavity trees or start
trees are found, they are plotted onto aerial photography,
located using global position system (GPS), and then added to the
GIS layer for further analysis.
Site evaluations revealed suitable RCW forage habitat does
exist but no RCW cluster partitions occupy the project area.
According to the Fort Bragg Endangered Species Management Plan
(ESMP), no future RCW clusters are planned to be managed in the
proposed project area. RCW impacts were evaluated for effects on
forest fragmentation, RCW forage loss, RCW dispersal, population
demographics and Fort Bragg ESMP installation recovery goals.
Potential impacts to rare and federally listed plant
species were evaluated by using results of a comprehensive re-
survey conducted in 1998 and 1999. A field visit on June 19,
1998 confirmed no rare or endangered plants occur in project
area. Since federal endangered plants do not occur in project
area, no impacts are anticipated.
Impacts for the American alligator were evaluated and
assessed based on a site visit. This species is not known to
occur on Fort Bragg. Only a few introduced captive pet
alligators have been known to occur on Fort Bragg. A site visit
on July 11, 2000 indicated suitable habitat does not occur in
project area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Survey results and habitat analysis revealed none of the
eight species occur in project area. The CAB and.Separate
Battalions Barracks complex are restricted to 62 acres of pine
scrub/oak Sandhills and its construction is not expected to
impact upon any federal listed species. Below is a species by
species breakdown of assessment results followed by some brief
discussion.
7
The results of assessing and evaluating proposed project impacts
on federally listed species are as follows:
American alligator.
Results confirm no suitable alligator habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Potential direct and indirect impacts to suitable habitat
from project impacts were assessed. The types of impacts assessed
include impacts on forage habitat, dispersal habitat, forest
fragmentation, natural plant community function, and management
implementation activities (i.e., urban interface issues,
prescribe fire effectiveness etc.).
The barrack complexes are in Habitat Management Area (HMA)
20, which does not support any RCW clusters according to the
ESMP. Current and future RCW forage partitions were not
evaluated for potential impacts because none are present in
project area. Therefore no adverse impacts to the RCW are
anticipated. The project is located in the Main Cantonment Area
and is outside the Greenbelt Area thus RCW management issues do
not apply.
When ground cover integrity is lost, either by fire
suppression or by altering habitat, along with it goes insect
abundance that may indirectly affect RCW productivity. While
clearing of pine trees creates changes in flora and fauna species
composition, that in turn affects insect populations associated
with ground cover. These biological changes in plant community
structure, species composition, and abundance may indirectly
alter the primary insect food base of surrounding clusters
(James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997). However, these detrimental
habitat conditions will not occur with RCW's because their
managed habitats are outside the MCA.
Significant forest fragmentation could impact RCW dispersal
between nearby clusters and population demographics through
travel corridors leading into the Greenbelt Area but these
impacts were evaluated and not of concern because of project
location. Since RCWs require large mature contiguous forest
tracts as movement corridors and forest often become fragmented
into small forest patches, from project development, this issue
was evaluated for its.potential adverse impacts. No adverse
impacts are anticipated.
Saint Francis' satyr.
Results confirm no suitable satyr habitat is present within
project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
r
i
8
American Chaffseed.
Survey results confirm no suitable chaffseed habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Michaux's sumac.
Survey results confirm suitable sumac habitat is present within
project area however, a plant by plant survey found no
individuals present in project area; therefore no impacts are
expected.
Rouah-leaved loosestrife.
Survey results confirm suitable loosestrife habitat is present
within project area; however, a plant by plant survey found no
individuals present in project area; therefore no impacts are
expected.
Small-whorled oooonia.
Survey results confirm no suitable pogonia habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Pondberrv.
Survey results confirm no suitable pondberry habitat is present
within project area; therefore no impacts are expected.
Potential endangered plant impacts include direct or
indirect impacts to suitable habitat as well as, to individual
plants. No endangered individual plants were found in the Tank
Creek Watershed Area, which includes the proposed project area;
therefore, no impacts are expected. Small-whorled pogonia and
pondberry were never found on Fort Bragg or Camp Mackall.
Impacts to this species are not likely. State rare plant impacts
are not foreseen because no rare species occurrences are found in
the project area.
The construction of these complexes will likely cause
little threat-to aquatic systems, if storm runoff and erosion
control is contained on site. Erosion problems are not expected
to impact wetlands because soils must be contained under a state
approved erosion control plan. Barracks construction impacts are
going to impact the integrity of natural plant communities, but
ground disturbance should be minimized. A landscaping plan will
emphasize replanting native longleaf pine trees surrounding
buildings. Wetland impacts will be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. Impacts will be mitigated according to
all applicable state and federal laws.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are the sum of efforts of future private
and state activities, which are reasonably certain to occur
within the project area. There are no cumulative effects
anticipated for this project.
9
ALTERNATIVES TO PRECLUDE ADVERSE EFFECTS
fS
Alternatives to the proposed action were developed as part
of the planning process. One alternative was eliminated from
detailed analysis, while two alternatives, one reduced scale
alternative in addition to, the Proposed Action, were analyzed in
detail.
The no action alternative option of not building new ,
barracks on Fort Bragg was rejected because of the imperative
need to bring facilities up to standard for unit readiness
scenario. The need to support unit operations at garrison level
is critical to mission success. The option of redeveloping the
cantonment area elsewhere is not feasible or possible because
Fort Bragg has eliminated or developed all other suitable
locations. Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from
detailed analysis.
The alternatives considered in detail are the option to
propose sustainable development (Proposed Action) of the McFayden
Pond Area, also known as the Tank Creek Watershed Area, or the
reduced scale alternative of developing part of Tank Creek
Watershed Area. The Army is committed in its belief that each
alternative be accomplished in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
The proposed sustainable development within the Tank Creek
Watershed Area precludes adverse effects on endangered species.
Other locations were not considered because they may have had
adverse impacts to endangered species. In addition, the
sustainable design of this project helps minimize impacts to
wetlands. Selection of this alternative would best support the
Fort Bragg troop units by providing more suitable facilities
designed at the new standards as well as, have the least impacts
to Fort Bragg's natural resources.
The reduced scale alternative would not provide for
suitable facilities for all units requiring improved facilities.
Such a design standard will require more land area to construct
such facilities. This-increased land requirement is not likely
available due to main cantonment and environmental constraints.
Also, design specifications meeting new standards may not be met
when facilities are spread out too far or when some but not all
units needing improved facilities receive them.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, due
loosestrife, Michaux's
and American chaffseed
construction of CAB an
on these species. In
to the absence of rough-leaved
sumac, pondberry, small whorled pogonia
, within project boundaries, the
d Separates Complexes will have no effect
general, the sustainable development of the
10
REFERENCES
Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1995. Unpublished
proprietary information on territorial partitioning.
James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997. Species-Centered Environmental
Analysis: Indirect Effects of Fire History on Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers. Ecological Applications, 7 (1), PP. 118-129.
Schafale and Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural .
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation and Schafale
(1993), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, 1997. Fort Bragg
Endangered Species Management Plan. Fort Bragg, NC 90 pp.
+ appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina. 155 pp. + maps.
12
?1B Bar-racks Complex and CAB Barracks Complex
I v r adz
r v,
t,3. F v 1"a. ? L r'?C
?? •'-r ri ?' rS'S'S ??
'i. Tf Trf t•'"l ?rrrj,1 ? r'cr`{;?'•?.? ,?:?.
x••?T'? :llti l L?t•t<S ?i)'?1 •,{{Ci•,':`?;;cr
'Etjat ;fyr?• i11?
t.V a t? S 1'' • :z C •er"
R:.211Z!'r!i•'T`-1_" '. 1. ?'rr:? ..- y??.#:j,3'?%.?'.%•.fi
Aba
:t` •• r ' we ??? f. ??'lr. '?;1`?;w 111 ' • • r i i ? `I hr" .?+
`` ,?i Z1 ` -? Y • ?L
?' ' ;??C?il t?t ,511,, ? ?.,? -•? t?

kn-M
!9 . ? /.
r.
rA•?kt'„"`rr?
"r ,T' %.. -V y"I 1r',;v s• ?T .,?... y f- :-.mot-x?j r - 1 r ;z, +f
:?r 'ri.ii?( .51 ? ?- ?. ??? 9? rr?r' ?? ?????^\.?•?/Z?? r 1 q r. ? S ??1?? ;
.4?•' {1 tK,,S 1 ? ? ??1}._1 _ n 'r T" ?'?rt ` ? r`te',' ??- s,????? f ?? ?', ?y(I'? r ' ?y,?
?j;?.r .r.. ? ?„? 'e. ??r??h 'jt{? .,?, ?y? ???? ?• ti.4?``r?fi?kr ~? r'"? ? ?1?6t1ti??,'.?r?!?'.S
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles
%Yk
I Sb-barracks complex.shp
Cab-barracks complex.shp
1V
\V
S

REFERENCES
Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1995. Unpublished
t
proprietary information on territorial partitioning.
James, Hess, and Kufrin, 1997. Species-Centered Environmental
Analysis: Indirect Effects of Fire History on Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers. Ecological Applications, 7 (1), PP. 118-129.
Schafale and Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural .
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation and Schafale
(1993), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, 1997. Fort Bragg
Endangered Species Management Plan. Fort Bragg, NC 90 pp.
+ appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North
Carolina. 155 pp. + maps.
12
iB Barracks Complex and CAB Barracks Complex

.I`?t?C rit,l,( Itr,???1???•1???;? • ??) •??t j `St'1?
VIC
P-A

•?r
?Yt r? 1 r?
???.. ?•. 'i.I.S•: t?'?.Ri_ '- ??`,+t? i'???r,"'k?1'?:r4+ v; •:
S •. ??i_? '.:. _ ?ti``- +:r..?effa_ • ? , i' . A?LM,fi'??r.??±?1
. ?-??1."3.m' T"
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles
Sb-barracks complex.shp
Cab-barracks complex.shp
iJ
\' V I
APPENDIX B
PROJECT MAP
43
COMMENTS RECEIVED
44
APPENDIX B
PROJECT MAP
43
66
aaAI3032i SZNaMOO