20050350 Ver 1_Complete File_20050224

r.•
O?O? W AT ?9QG
GJ
r
Alichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
March 10, 2005
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne)
Attn: Gregory Bean, PE
Director of Public Works
Fort Bragg, NC 28310
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 05-0350
Cumberland County
Subject Property: SOF Weapons Storage and Training Facility, Intersection of Chicken Road
and MacRidge Road on Fort Bragg
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Bean:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 0.24 acres of wetlands for the purpose of constructing a weapons storage and;
training facility at the subject property, as described within your application dated February 17, 2005 and
received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on February 24, 2005. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number(s) 3402 (GC3402). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 39 when issued
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with
any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Non-discharge regulations. Also, this approval to
proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your
application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us 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 fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
404/CAMA Wetlands 0.24 (acres)
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.tis/ncwetlands
One
NhCarolina
Vatim
ally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne) '
Page 2 of 3
March 10, 2005
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
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 Pre-Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Written Stormwater Management Plan (Final Plan Needed)
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 the impacts specified in this Certification occur per Condition No. 4 in GC No. 3402. The
stormwater management plan must include plans and specifications for stormwater management
facilities that are appropriate for surface waters classified as Class C 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,

Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne)
Page 3 of 3
March 10, 2005
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 stor water 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.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), 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 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 telephone Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-
733-9721 or Ken Averitte in the DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office at 910486-1541.
AWKlcbk/bs
Enclosures: GC 3402
Certificate of Completion
cc: USACE'Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
DLR Wilmington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Filename: 05-0350 Ft Bragg Garrison (Cumberland) 401
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS, FORT BRAGG GARRISON CO1d1dAND (AIRBORNE)
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28310
REPLYTO February 17, 2005
Directorate of Public Works
Ms. Lillette Grenade
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Ms. Grenade:
Q?6-
FEB 2 4 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
y'-tuiDS N40 STOF kiYATER BRANCH
As you are aware, during construction of the new PN 43908,
SOF Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility, also sometimes
referred to as the SOF Armament Facility and Weapons Training
Center, approximately 0.24 acre of wetlands were impacted for
construction of the entrance road to the facility. This project
is located south of Chicken Road on Fort Bragg in Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared on this
project in 2002. During the site inspection for preparation of
the EA no wetlands were observed at the site. This may have
been due to the drought conditions that existed at the time.
During construction, questions were raised about the subject
wetland area. We immediately had the area inspected and then
contacted you to verify our delineation of the wetlands at the
site. Following your verification of the wetland boundaries we
surveyed the wetlands and determined that a 0.24-acre area of
wetlands had been impacted. Approximately 0.14 acre had been
cleared and another 0.10 acre had been filled for the new road.
We have since investigated potential alternatives to avoid
the area. Due to site topography and the location of the
buildings, we determined the entrance road could not be moved.
Therefore, we investigated ways to reduce the impacts. We
discovered the road median could be eliminated which reduced the
impact to wetlands by 0.02 acre. The project plans have been
modified to eliminate the median.
To mitigate the impacts we plan to debit 0.5 credits from
the Jump and Run Mitigation Site on Fort Bragg. The restored
area and the 0.14-acre area that was cleared will be allowed to
re-vegetate naturally.

-2-
I have enclosed an after-the-fact Pre-Construction
Notification requesting that you verify that this work can be
authorized under Nationwide Permit 39. No further work, other
than minor measures for erosion control, will be conducted in
the wetland area without approval from your office.
We appreci
We, as well as
procedures for
make sure such
this letter is
Raleigh, North
ate your cooperation in
Savannah District, are
conducting environment
impacts are avoided in
being furnished to the
Carolina.
resolving this matter.
re-evaluating our
al reviews of projects to
the future. A copy of
Division of Water Quality,
SincerelB,
ory G. Bean
Di ector of Public Works
@ n % r' VA
.
0 g
FEB 2 4 2005
..TCR ntl1?-1? ?u
oENR-Y?r??a6?,?,.
Office Use Only: v???DS Form Version play 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter 'Not Appncaoie or iNtA .)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X 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- NWP39
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: Headquaters Fort Brae Garrison Command (Airborne)
Mailing Address: Attention: Gregory Bean PE
Director of Public Works
Fort Brame North Carolina 28310
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
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:
Company Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers CD
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: Vernon B Crudup(a?SAS02 USACE.ARMY.MIL
Page 5 of 14
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: SOF Weapons Storage and Training Facility
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):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The project is located south of
the intersection of Chicken Road and MacRidae Road on Fort Brae.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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): About 25 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Between Stewarts Creek and
Bones Creek - flows to Stewarts 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 6 of 14
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is in a relatively undeveloped part of Fort Brae.
The site is current vegetated with Pine trees. There are some developed areas south of the
project site.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve the constriction of construction of the SOF Armament facility and
Weapons Training Center, parking lots and an entrance road. The Armament Facility will
be used for weapons storage and maintenance. The training center will consist of classrooms
and offices Nonnal constriction equipment would be used in construction (ie bulldozers,
graders backhoes trucks etc
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to provide an
effective productive and safe environment for maintenance and storage of weapons systems
and support weapons training of SOF personnel The project is needed to replace an existing
facility which has inadequate facility size life safety code violations security violations,
incompatiable zoning etc These deficiencies have degraded the facilities ability to
accomplish its mission.
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.
This project was originally evaluated in an EA prepared in 2002. This EA stated that no
wetlands were located on the property. During construction an area of potential wetlands was
observed in the area of the entrance road Unfortunately by this time the area had been cleared
and partially filled The wetlands on the site were subsequently delineated by CESAW,
Reuulatory staff at Fort Braac? s request No other permit actions are related to this project.
Page 7 of 14
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 further need for permit actions related to this project are anticipated.
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: Clearing for project
construction has already impacted 0.24 acre of forested non-riparian wetlands. Of this area
approximately 0 10 acres of the wetlands have been filled This work was completed prior to
knowin wetlands existed on the site These wetlands are within the right of way for the
entrance road When the road is completed approximately 0.10 acre of wetlands would be
permanently filled Approximately 0.02 acres of fill would be removed to grade. This area
and the cleared wetlands would be allowed to re-vegetate naturally.
Page 8 of 14
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***
1 Clearing 0.14 No Forested wetland
1 Fill 0.10 No Forested Wetland

F
I
E E I I
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
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 http://www.feina.cov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/salt%vater 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:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.24
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 )
N/A

* 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
wwwms?is.,ov. Several intcmet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., wwwy.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.coin , etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 9 of 14
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 Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. impacts include, out are not nmtteu to. ,,,,, excavation,
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/embankinent, 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.
Once the wetlands were identified attempts were made to relocate the road but the proposed
location is the only feasible alternative due site tomography and the location of the existing
buildings Next we investigated ways to minimize impacts This investigation found that
elimination of the road median would reduce permanent impacts to the proposed 0.10. The plans
were modified to reduce the impact The previously filled 0.02 acres would be removed,
Page 10 of 14
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.eiir.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stn-n,,,,ide.liti-n1.
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.
To mitigate project impacts we propose to debit 0.5 credits from the Jump and Run
Mitigation Site on Fort Bragg
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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Page 11 of 14
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
(federaUstate) 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 (MEPA/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 ?
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 213 .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:
Page 12 of 14
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
Miti ation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular trom near oanK or cnannei; .one z cxienus W1
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 213.0242 or.0260.
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.
Constriction of the project would require stringent attention to maintaining soil and erosion
control measures in accordance with the project's state approved Soil Erosion Control Plan. Key
measures include a stormwater detention basin.
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 adequate capacity for the sewage that would be generated by the project. A new
lift station will be constructed as part of this project
Page 13 of 14
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).
A Biological Assessment was prepared for the project, copy enclosed. The FWS advised that
based on the BA the service concurs the project is not likely to adversely affect Red Cockaded
Woodpeckers or and other protected species. The project was also surveyed for cultural
resources. No eligible resources exist on the site. There is a nearby cemetery Ellis cemetery.
At least a 20 foot buffer would be maintained around the cemetery and access would be
maintained.

A&lieai Cut's Signature Date
(Agent's signatu ? is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 14 of 14
H ?
f
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
\.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR THE
SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES
WEAPONS STORAGE AND ERMAINTENANCE FACILITY
VATION, NORTH CAROLINA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RES
18 November 2002
Prepared by:
Headquarters, xVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Public Works Business Center
Environmental Sustainment Office
ATTN: AFZA-PW-E
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310
In compliance with the
ct of 1969
National Environmental Policy

SIGNATURES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES
WEAPONS STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY CAROLINA
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH
Submitted by:
&tLA '
ELIZABETH A. WADE
Environmental Intern
Environmental Sustainment
Office
Date: Z L, AC? v Z-
Propo
9!F,GORY G. BEAN
L, EN
rector of Public Works
Business Center
Date: 2J /,),, 6Z.
Environmental Review:
-- d? IL- ny ,
DAVID-A. HEINS
Chief, Environmental
Sustainment Office
Date: ZZ. Nocv o 2-
Legal Review:
c
HOMAS D. COOK
COL, JA
Acting Staff Judge Advocate
Date: ':9 7?e oZ
Approval:
ADDISON D. DAVIS, IV
COL, IN
Garrison Commander
Date: 2T.'z?z

f 1.I
t
SIGNATURES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES
WEAPONS STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted by:
ELIZABETH A. WADE
Environmental Intern
Environmental Sustainment
Office
Date:
Environmental Review:
DAVID A. HEINS
Chief, Environmental
Sustainment Office
Date:
Proponent:
GREGORY G. BEAN
COL, EN
Director of Public Works
Business Center .
Date:
Legal Review:
THOMAS D. COOK
COL, JA
Acting Staff Judge Advocate
Date:
Approval:
ADDISON D. DAVIS, IV
COL, IN
Garrison Commander
Date:
9.
r .
SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides an analysis of the
environmental and socioeconomic effects of constructing,
operating, and maintaining a Special Operation Forces (SOF)
Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility on the Fort Bragg
Military Reservation in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Two
alternatives to the "Proposed Action" of constructing the new SOF
Weapons Facility were considered. These include, the "Range 44
Alternative" of building a new facility at Firing Range 44 and
the "No Action Alternative" of not constructing the new SOF
Weapons Facility and continuing to use existing facilities. The
No Action Alternative provides the baseline for forecasting
effects of constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed
project. The EA addresses potential environmental impacts of
these alternatives, and recommends adoption of the Proposed
Action and publishing a draft Finding of No Significant Impact.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Section 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........... 6
Section 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................7
Section 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................7
Section 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...............................8
Section 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ...... 14
Section 6.0 CONCLUSION ........................................19
Section 7.0 AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED ....... 19
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................... 23
NEWS RELEASE ...................................................25
APPENDICES ............................. .......................26
COMMENTS RECEIVED ...............................................31
4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFB Air Force Base
AR Army Regulation
BA Biological Assessment
dBA Decibels (A-Weighted)
dBC Decibels (C-Weighted)
DNL Day-Night Level
DRB Division Ready Brigade
EA Environmental Assessment
ENMP Environmental Noise Management Program
EO Executive Order
FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GBA Green Belt Area
GPS Global Positioning System
ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan
KW Kilowatt
mm Millimeter
MP Military Police
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SOF Special Operation Forces
spp. Species (various)
TNC The Nature Conservancy
U.S. United States
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
5

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES
WEAPONS STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATON, NORTH CAROLINA
Section 1.0: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.
1.1 Introduction.
1.1.0 History. Fort Bragg proposes to build a new Special
Operation Forces (SOF) Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility
on Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County, North
Carolina. See Appendix A, Map 1 for proposed project area map.
1.1.1 Requirement for Environmental Documentation. Environmental
Analysis of Army Actions Final Rule (32 CFR Part 651), which
implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires Army installations to consider the environmental impacts
of a "Proposed Action" and its alternatives prior to acting. The
proposed construction of the new facility would pose several
potential environmental impacts. These include the following:
(1) water quality degradation from stormwater runoff and soil
erosion as a result of construction in a critical watershed, and
(2) the presence of suitable federally endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) habitat. Given these
potential environmental impacts, an environmental assessment (EA)
is necessary.
1.1.2 General Objectives. The objectives of the Proposed Action
are:
• Efficiency, Productivity, and Safety. Provide an effective,
productive, and safe environment for the maintenance and
storage of weapon systems and support weapons training of
SOF personnel.
• Environmental Compliance. Remain in compliance with all
applicable environmental laws,"regulations, and policies.
1.2 Purpose and Need. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to
provide an effective, productive, and safe environment for the
maintenance and storage of weapons systems and support weapons
training of SOF personnel. The project is needed to replace the
existing facility, which has inadequate facility size,
inefficient floor configuration, life safety code violations,
security violations, inadequate utilities, incompatible zoning
6
with adjacent properties, and limited site expansion. These
faults have significantly degraded the Weapons Storage and
Maintenance Facility mission at its current location.
1.3 Scope of Document. The scope of this EA is limited to
assessing the environmental and socioeconomic effects resulting
from implementing the Proposed Action and its alternatives. The
Proposed Action would be implemented during 2003.
Section 2.0: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. Fort Bragg
proposes to build a new SOF Weapons Storage and Maintenance
Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The project would include
the following projects:
2.0.1 A one story 73,500 SF Weapons Storage and Maintenance
Facility
2.0.2 A one story 2,500 SF Weapons Handling Facility
2.0.3 Parking Areas
2.0.4 Concrete Pavement
2.0.5 Sidewalks
2.0.6 Storm Water Detention Basin (Erosion Control Measure)
2.0.7 Septic Field-Requires permit:Cumberland County Health
Department
2.0.8 Perimeter Fence, with additional perimeter fence around
cemetery
2.0.9 Two Access Control Points
2.0.10 Landscaping
2.0.11 Emergency 300 kilowatt (KW) Generator
2.0.12 Demolition of Building D-1405 after construction
completion
2.1 Environmental Mitigation Measures. The proposed project area
is located in between Stewarts Creek and Bones Creek. A State
approved soil erosion control plan is required for all projects
greater than one acre in size. Proper soil erosion control
measures are required for all projects regardless of size. The
Post Soil Conservationist reviews all project soil erosion plans
for compliance. This project will disturb more than one acre;
7

thus, a soil erosion control plan reviewed and approved by North
Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) is required before construction begins. In accordance
with North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4, the
contractor will install sedimentation and erosion control devices
and practices that are sufficient to retain the sediment
generated by the land-disturbing activity within the boundaries
of the tract during construction and will plant or otherwise
provide a permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion
after completion of construction.
Section 3.0: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. Alternatives to the
Proposed Action were developed as part of the planning process.
One alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis. Two
alternatives, in addition to the Proposed Action, were analyzed
in detail.
3.1 Alternative Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. The option of
not training SOF soldiers was rejected because of the compelling
need to adequately train these soldiers in weapons.
3.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
3.2.1 Range 44 Alternative. Range 44 was considered during the
planning process. It was rejected due to non-compatible land
use. This area sits within 300 meters of a heavily used, large
caliber weapons (mortar, tank) range and within 500 meters of an
active demolition range, where the maximum poundage of explosives
used at one time is fifty pounds. No weapons are fired on the
demolition range. Across the street from Range 44 was considered
also. It is out of the impact area, but was found not suitable
due to the amount of pine tree removal from an active RCW forage
partition.
3.2.2 No Action Alternative. The "No Action Alternative" would
continue to conduct training of SOF units from the existing
inadequate SOF Weapons Facility. See Appendix A, Map 2.
Section 4.0: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
4.1 Location Description.
4.1.1 General Climatic Conditions. Located in the Sandhills
region of North Carolina, the climate of Fort Bragg is
characterized by long, hot summers and relatively mild, short
winters. The area is sheltered from the severity of winter by
the Appalachian -Mountains. Average annual precipitation in the
area is approximately 47 inches. The major portion of summer
precipitation is received in the form of convectional
R
thunderstorms and occasional tropical depressions. Mid-latitude,
low-pressure cells preceding cold fronts are the major source of
precipitation in the late fall and early spring. The climatic
conditions expected for the proposed project site are consistent
with those described for Fort Bragg and the Sandhills region of
North Carolina by the National Weather Service.
4.1.2 Geography and General Landscape. Located in the Sandhills
subprovince of the Atlantic Coastal Plane province, the climate
and related hydrology of Fort Bragg are influenced by proximity
to both the Atlantic Ocean and the Piedmont Plateau. Terrain in
the vicinity of the proposed project site is wooded and generally
level. The elevation is approximately 50 meters above sea level.
The proposed project site is located above the 500-year flood
zone. The predominant soil associations found nearby are Blaney-
Gilead-Lakeland, Gilead-Blaney-Candor and Bibb-Wehadkee. (See 4.7
Geology and Soils.)
4.2 Land Use. The project area is in its natural state.
Currently, the land has been left undisturbed with the exception
of a small family cemetery dating from 1850.
4.3 Air Quality. Fort Bragg manages air resources in compliance
with its Title V air quality permit. The Fayetteville-Fort Bragg
area is an air quality attainment zone for all pollutants.
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 may
develop a State Implementation Plan to govern compliance with the
NAAQS standards for ozone. Increased concentrations of highly
reactive ozone in the lower atmosphere occur as a by-product of
photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and
atmospheric oxygen. These occur with more intensity during the
summer months when energy input from the sun is greater. Oxides
of nitrogen are produced in the high temperatures of internal
combustion engines. Increased ozone levels at near ground level
are taken as an indicator of poor air quality. The site design
includes a 300KW backup generator with an integral storage tank,
which would increase air emissions. The new generator will be
listed as an "Insignificant Source" on Fort Bragg's Title V Air
Quality Permit. It will be operated only to provide the SOF
Weapons Facility with a reliable source of emergency power. It
will not be used for "peak shaving" to provide additional
electricity for the post, and thereby reduce costs, during high
rate periods. The generator is for emergency use.only, will not
be operated on a regular basis, and therefore will not add
appreciably to the region's air quality problems.
4.4 Biological Resources. Management of wildlife and wildlife
habitat complies with the provisions of the Endangered Species
9

Management Plan, and the Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan, which are incorporated herein by reference.
4.4.1 Habitat Features. The dominant forest species on Fort Bragg
are longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda). Understory vegetation consists of turkey oak (Quercus
laevis) on xeric sites, with other oaks on less xeric sites;
wiregrass (Aristida stricta) dominates the herb layer with other
common species. The plant and animal communities vary little from
those found throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The overall
poor quality of the soils has, in general, limited the natural
vegetation to a longleaf pine-turkey oak-wire grass covering.
The proposed project area is typical habitat on Fort Bragg.
4.4.2 Current Species Data.
4.4.2.1 Fort Bragg 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. The plant and
animal species have adapted to survive fire and are dependent
upon it to maintain the conditions necessary for their survival.
TNC inventory identified 33 natural communities and variants on
Fort Bragg representing a broad array of topographic, climatic
and hydrologic interactions. Other inventories have identified
100 avian, 67 mammalian, and 58 reptilian and amphibian species
on Fort Bragg. Large game includes black bear (Ursus
americanus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo
silvestris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Other species include beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum
(Didelphis virginianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethi ca), 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).
4.4.2.2 Status of Protected Species in the Project Area. The
proposed construction site was assessed for the RCW, Saint
Francis' satyr butterfly, and several plants; American Chaffseed,
Michaux's sumac, pondberry, small-whorled pogonia, and rough-
10

leaved loosestrife. Janet B. Gray, ESB botanist, did a rare and
federal protected plant survey for the SOF Weapons Facility on 17
January 2001. No listed species are found within the project
area. However, RCW managed habitat that belongs to supplemental
recruitment cluster 1002 is within close proximity to project
boundaries. Suitable RCW travel substrate surrounds this project.
Cluster 1002 is a newly designated supplemental recruitment
cluster with no trees present. It only has a dedicated forage
partition. In the near future, this site will be augmented with
artificial cavity trees. A mitigation measure would be to add 4
suitable cavity trees to this cluster and conduct biannual status.
checks for 5 years or until active. Management of this species
should continue uninterrupted by project.
4.5 Cultural Resources Management. Fort Bragg manages cultural
resources in accordance with the Fort Bragg Integrated Cultural
Resources Management Plan (ICRMP). Historic properties on the
post include a Civil War battlefield, two antebellum period
churches, 27 small community or family cemeteries and 2 historic
districts (Old Post Historic District and Overhills Historic
District). In addition, thousands of archeological sites and
occurrences have been recorded. Construction, training and other
land use activities are generally planned and monitored to avoid
such critical areas.
The project area has been surveyed for cultural resources by Fort
Bragg in its ongoing training land survey. While no
archaeological sites or historic structures exist within the
project area, one historic cemetery, recorded as archaeological
site 31CD205, is preserved and maintained by the army adjacent to
the planned construction site. Known as the Ellis cemetery, this
burial plot contains 18 marked graves ranging from 1850 to 1918.
The cemetery is approximately 28 by 46 feet in size, sits on a
wooded ridge, and is bounded by a 2-strand barbed wire fence with
9 support posts. The Ellis exact GPS delineation is:
17 S 0679569 UTM 3885162
17 S 0679573 UTM 3885162
17 S 0679577 UTM 3885150
17 S 0679572 UTM 3885159.
Any'new construction in the vicinity of the Ellis cemetery will
allow at least a 20 meter naturally vegetated buffer zone around
the existing cemetery fence line (the GPS coordinates above).
There will be no ground disturbance within this 20 meter buffer.
Pursuant to Fort Bragg's Integrated Cultural Resource Management
Plan, SOPS 14 Maintenance of Historic Cemeteries on Fort Bragg
and 23 Historic Cemetery Access and Marker Placement, the Ellis
11
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).
4.4.2.2 Status of Protected Species in the Project Area. The
proposed construction site was assessed for the RCW, Saint
Francis' satyr butterfly, and several plants; American Chaffseed,
Michaux's sumac, pondberry, small-whorled pogonia, and rough-
leaved loosestrife. Janet B. Gray, ESB botanist, did a rare and
federal protected plant survey for the SOF Weapons Facility on 17
January 2001. No listed species are found within the project
area. However, RCW managed habitat that belongs to supplemental
recruitment cluster 1002 is within close proximity to project
boundaries. Suitable RCW travel substrate surrounds this project.
Cluster 1002 is a newly designated supplemental recruitment
cluster with no RCW cavity trees present. It has only a
dedicated forage partition.
4.5 Cultural Resources Management. Fort Bragg manages cultural
resources in accordance with the Fort Bragg Integrated Cultural
Resources Management Plan (ICRMP). Historic properties on the
post include a Civil War battlefield, two antebellum period
churches, 27 small community or family cemeteries and 2 historic
districts (Old Post Historic. District and Overhills Historic
District). In addition, thousands of archeological sites and
occurrences have been recorded. Construction, training and other
land use activities are generally planned and monitored to avoid
such critical areas.
The project area has been surveyed for cultural resources by Fort
Bragg in its ongoing training land survey. While no
archaeological sites or historic structures exist within the
project area, one historic cemetery, recorded as archaeological
site 31CD205, is preserved and maintained by the army adjacent to
the planned construction site. Known as the Ellis cemetery, this
burial plot contains 18 marked graves ranging from 1850 to 1918.
The cemetery is approximately 28 by 46 feet in size, sits on a
wooded.ridge, and is bounded by a 2-strand barbed wire fence with
9 support posts. The Ellis exact GPS delineation is:
17 S 0679569 UTM 3885162
17 S 0679573 UTM 3885162
17 S 0679577 UTM 3885150
17 S 0679572 UTM 3885159.
11
Any new construction in the vicinity of the Ellis cemetery will
allow at least a 20 meter naturally vegetated buffer zone around
the existing cemetery fence line (the GPS coordinates above).
There will be no ground disturbance within this 20 meter buffer.
Pursuant to Fort Bragg's Integrated Cultural Resource Management
Plan, SOPs 14 Maintenance of Historic Cemeteries on Fort Bragg
and 23 Historic Cemetery Access and Marker Placement, the Ellis
cemetery will continue to be maintained and made accessible to
descendants of people interred in the cemetery.
4.6 Environmental Noise. Fort Bragg is a fully operational
military installation with the mission of training soldiers for
war. Environmental noise produced by normal daily operations is
assessed under the Environmental Noise Management Program (ENMP)
and Air Installation ENMP programs. 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.
The day-night level (DNL) is the primary description used to
assess relative noise levels. This represents a weighted sound
level over a 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel penalty added for
nighttime noise levels. The DNL is accepted as the measurement
unit for use in quantifying human annoyance to general
environmental noise. Noise from transpqrtation and continuous
sources is assessed using the A-weighted DNL. Noise for
impulsive sources such as that resulting from artillery or
demolition activities is assessed using the C-weighted DNL. The
percentages of the population annoyed by various noise levels,
decibel parameters for A-weighted (dBA) and C-weighted (dBC)
noise, and guidance for noise sensitive land uses are listed
below:
ZONE POPULATION
ANNOYANCE
DECIBEL RANGE LAND USE
dBA dBC GUIDANCE
I <15% <65 <62 Acceptable
II 15-390 65-75 62-70 Normally
Unacceptable
III >39% >75 >70 Unacceptable
For purposes of this EA, the A weighted DNL is most significant
for evaluating the effects of the Proposed Action. The SOF
Weapons Facility would be located in an area classed as Zone I.
The site is suitable for the proposed use, and would not change
the ambient noise level.
4.7 Geology and Soils. Soils on Fort Bragg are sandy and easily
eroded. Soil conservation is a high priority in any area with
insufficient ground cover. The proposed project site is
generally level and is not a wetlands area. Several major soil
12
associations are found in Cumberland County on Fort Bragg. Those
in the vicinity of the project area are listed below.
Blaney-Gilead-Lakeland is found in areas dominated 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.
4.7.1 Project Site Soil Types. The predominant soil type found
on the proposed project site is Faceville Loamy Sand (FaB), 2 to
6 percent slopes. Consist of well-drained soil on convex ridges
and smooth side slopes of uplands. Typically, the surface layer
is grayish brown loamy sand 7 inches thick. Vaucluse Loamy Sand
(VaD) is also found with the project area. It is a well-drained
soil on side slopes of uplands. Typically, the surface layer is
dark grayish brown loamy sand 4 inches thick. Both are found
throughout Fort Bragg and the city of Fayetteville.
4.8 Water Resources.
4.8.1 Watershed. The Army's water resources management program
focuses on compliance with all legally. applicable federal, state
and local laws and regulations regarding the management of all
water resources including, wetlands, estuaries, watersheds and
groundwater.
The SOF Weapons Facility project site is located on a plateau
between Stewarts Creek on the east and Bones Creek on the west.
Installation of a drinking water or irrigation well is currently
prohibited on Fort Bragg.
4.8.2 Wetlands. The proposed project site is not a wetland area
(GIS Data Layer).. Wetlands are lands transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic systems. These lands are of critical
importance to the protection and maintenance of a large array of
plants and animals as well as protecting the quality of surface
water and groundwater resources by impeding the erosive forces of
moving water and trapping waterborne sediment and associated
pollutants. Wetlands are found in the area along stream bottoms,
and in the headwaters of small streams: Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act regulates both the discharge of dredged and fill
materials into the waters of the United States.and the conversion
of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. Executive Order
11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal agencies not only
to minimize the destruction of wetlands but also to enhance their
natural values.
The 100-year (Zone A) and transitional 100 to 500 year (Zone B)
areas are found along creeks and streams. These include the
areas along Tank Creek, the Lower Little River, and their
tributaries. The proposed project site lies inside Zones A and
13
B. Flood zones are shown in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's flood zone maps of Cumberland County. The soil survey
for Cumberland and Harnett Counties provides detailed information
using 1:24,000 scale orthophotoquads showing the locations of
hydric soils associated with wetland terrain. The general
locations of rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and major wetland
areas are clearly shown in both 1:24,000 and 1:50,000 scale
topographic maps of the area. In accordance with standard design
criteria, the SOF Weapons Facility would be designed to withstand
a 25-year storm event.
4.8.3 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 as defined by the North
Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
will be followed to prevent erosion and consequent damage to
endangered species habitat or sedimentation of streams and
wetland areas. In accordance with North Carolina General
Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4, the contractor will install
sedimentation and erosion.control devices and practices that are
sufficient to retain the sediment generated by the land-
disturbing activity within the boundaries of the tract during
construction and will plant or otherwise provide a permanent
ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion after completion of
construction.
4.9 Human Health and Safety. There is no indication of
significant hazards or contamination at the proposed project
site. A risk assessment for various potential hazards to public
health and safety is provided below.
4.9.1 Construction Site Selection Criteria. This is a Category I
(non-hazardous) site. The relative potential for an
environmental hazard on a parcel of land is categorized either as
Category I (non-hazardous), II (potentially contaminated) or III
(contaminated). There is no indication that reportable
quantities of hazardous materials were ever associated with the
property. Site visits have revealed no evidence of
contamination. The post has no reason to expect that hazardous
materials would be encountered on the property.
4.9.2 Hazardous and Toxic Materials or Waste. The objectives for
hazardous and toxic material and waste management programs are to
ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,
eliminate or minimize hazards to human health and damage to the
natural environment, and to save money by implementing waste
management procedures which conserve resources in such a way as
to protect public health and safety.
14
Should any hazardous substance spill occur during construction,
of the SOF Weapons Facility, the Army would handle the spill
under Fort Bragg's Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan. The amount of toxic, hazardous
and regulated waste generated after construction by any of the
alternatives should be the same as pre-construction.
Uncontaminated debris will be disposed of in a permitted
construction and demolition debris landfill located on Fort
Bragg. Ordinary trash will be collected on site and disposed of
in a permitted municipal solid waste landfill located in
Cumberland County.
4.9.3 Soil Contamination/Stressed Vegetation. There is no visual
evidence of soil contamination nor is there any stressed
vegetation evident in the vicinity. If any contamination is
encountered or occurs during the construction process, it will be
handled by the proper procedures.
4.9.4 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). No UXO is evident on the
property (per Installation Safety Officer). The site has not
been used for either weapons training with live ammunition or as
a munitions impact area. This is currently an undeveloped
project area.
4.10 Socioeconomic.Issues.
4.10.1 Demographics. The Fort Bragg area has experienced
substantial growth over the past two decades. Further population
growth is expected, due largely to the influence of Fort Bragg.
The installation's substantial contributions to the local economy
encourage economic activity and expansion in areas near the post.
The availability of military benefits such as health services,
the commissary and Post Exchange draws military retirees to the
area, adding to the need for expansion and development in the
surrounding civilian community. Urban encroachment forces Fort
Bragg to carefully consider how its operations affect the
surrounding area and, just as importantly, how civilian land use
near the installation affects Fort Bragg.
In Cumberland County most land bordering Fort Bragg is already
developed for residential use. In Hoke County, south of the
installation boundary, development is not as widespread, but is
growing. Moore County, the home of Southern Pines and Pinehurst
an area undergoing substantial growth, is located to the west of
the installation. The Woodlake area, near the northern boundary
of the installation, is substantially developed. Harnett County
has an entirely different land.use situation that could affect
Fort Bragg. Currently, there is no zoning in place for the
southern portion of Harnett County closest to Fort Bragg. Mobile
homes constitute a substantial and growing percentage of
15
residential land use near Fort Bragg. This could become
problematical for military operations at Fort Bragg and Pope AFB.
Mobile homes offer less noise attenuation in comparison to other
types of dwellings. Accordingly, future land use incompatibility
issues could arise in the growing Hoke County area south of the
installation. The SOF Weapons Facility would be located in
Cumberland County.
4.10.2 Environmental Justice. The concept of environmental
justice is based on the premise that no segment of the population
should bear a disproportionate share of adverse human health or
environmental effects. To address these concerns, Executive
Order (EO) 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations was issued. It
requires each federal agency to "make the achievement of
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations."
On post housing communities are fully integrated and in civilian
terms resemble middle class residential neighborhoods. The
nearest logistical facility (Fort Bragg Ammunition Supply Point)
is located approximately 500 feet to the southwest. The nearest
residential dwellings are approximately one-half mile east of the
project area off post.
4.10.3 Protection of Children. The concept of protecting
children arises out of a growing body of scientific knowledge,
which demonstrates that children may suffer disproportionately
from environmental health and safety risks. To address these
concerns, EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks was issued. It requires each
federal agency to identify and assess environmental health and
safety risks that may disproportionately affect children; and,
ensures that policies, programs, activities, and standards
address disproportionate risk to children that results from
environmental health or safety risks. Children live, play and go
to school on post. However, the Army does not expect that the
proposed project would place children at risk. The nearest Army
family housing located on post is two and half miles to the
northeast (Nijmegen Family Housing). Civilian housing communities
are located approximately one-half mile east off post from the
project area. The project does not present any special hazard not
otherwise mitigated by its design.
Section 5.0: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES.
5.1 Land Use.
5.1.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Construction of the
proposed project would develop an undisturbed site. No
16
incompatible land uses with adjoining property are anticipated.
The site is outside the accident potential zones for Pope Air
Force Base and Simmons Army Airfield. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect land use on Fort Bragg.
5.1.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. This site is
within a large caliber weapons (mortar, tank) range and within
500 meters of the active Demolition Range 46. Range 44 is unique
in some of the functions it provides to the post. If the
proposed facility were built here, it would limit the
availability of Range 44 for these unique functions, and have an
adverse impact on training.
5.1.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not change or adversely affect land use on Fort
Bragg because existing facilities would be used.
5.2 Air Quality.
5.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect air quality on Fort Bragg. Engine
exhaust and dust from vehicles and construction equipment would
be transitory and limited to the immediate vicinity of the SOF
Weapons Facility. Following construction, engine exhaust from
vehicles and materials handling equipment would be transitory and
limited to the vicinity of the SOF Weapons Facility. The
proposed action would include an emergency 300 KW generator. This
generator would cause a minimal increase in air emissions during
operation. The generator will be listed with Fort Bragg's Clean
Air Act Program Manager as an "Insignificant Source".
5.2.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect air quality on Fort Bragg.
The effects would be similar to the Proposed Action as the
requirements would be the same.
5.2.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect air quality on Fort Bragg.
Using existing facilities would have the least potential for
degrading air quality because these facilities are already in
place, all stationary sources are permitted, and no dust would be
produced by construction activities.
5.3 Biological Resources.
5.3.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely.affect threatened and endangered species or
their suitable habitat. In the project area, approximately 25-
acres of suitable RCW habitat within the Greenbelt will be cut
down. At this time, there are no known cavity trees or start
17
trees in the project area. As a mitigation measure, 28 acres
will be reforested with longleaf pine in FY03-FY04. Sixteen
acres associated with an inactive borrow pit and 12-acres of an
abandoned recycling storage area will be reforested with longleaf
pine in FY03 and FY04, respectively. Reforestation of these open
areas will help maintain a contiguous link along the southern
entrance to the Green Belt. In addition, this acreage will
contribute to the total potential quality forage acres belonging
to cluster 406. In the near future, this site will be augmented
with artificial cavity trees. A mitigation measure would be to
add 4 suitable cavity trees to this cluster and conduct biannual
status checks for 5 years or until active. Management of this
species should continue uninterrupted by project.
5.3.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative could adversely affect biological resources on Fort
Bragg because of conflicts with endangered species habitat area.
Construction across the street from Range 44 would impact the RCW
forage habitat. The action of removing large pine trees from a
forage habitat could cause fragmentation.
5.3.3 Effects of-the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect threatened and endangered
species because neither threatened or endangered species nor
their suitable habitat are found on the existing facility.
5.4 Cultural Resources Management.
5.4.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this proposed
action would not adversely affect cultural resources, provided
the measures described in Section 4.5 to protect the historic
Ellis cemetery are carried out.
5.4.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. A cultural
resources survey of the site was not completed because of the
possibility of unexploded ordnance.
5.4.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect cultural resources because
no cultural resources exist on the existing site and the
facilities that would be used are not historically significant.
5.5 Environmental Noise.
5.5.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect ambient noise levels. There would be
a slight increase in noise levels during construction due to the
use of equipment however this would be insignificant.
18
5.5.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect ambient noise levels.
There would be a slight increase in noise levels during
construction due to the use of equipment however this would be
insignificant.
5.5.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect ambient noise levels
because the operation of the existing SOF Weapons Facility is
currently within ambient noise levels.
5.6 Soil Conservation.
5.6.1 Effects of-the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect soil erosion control downslope.
Construction of the proposed project would require stringent
attention to maintaining soil conservation measures prescribed in
the project's state approved Soil Erosion Control Plan. Key
measures include a stormwater detention basin. This will prevent
uncontrolled runoff from leaving the site.
5.6.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location.'Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect soil erosion control
downslope. Construction of the proposed project would require
stringent attention to maintaining soil conservation measures
prescribed in the project's state approved Soil Erosion Control
Plan. Key measures include a stormwater detention basin.
5.6.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative: Implementing this
alternative would continue operations at the existing training
facility.
5.7 Water Resources.
5.7.1 Watershed.
5.7.1.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing the
proposed action will disturb the existing topography.. The
proposed site is undisturbed land. Design measures will be taken
to avoid an increase in the net stormwater levels. No adverse
effects are anticipated.
5.7.1.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing
this alternative would not.have adverse effects. Stormwater
control measures would be included in the design.
5.7.1.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would continue operation of the existing training
facility. No adverse impacts are anticipated because a
stormwater run-off system is already in place.
19
5.7.2 Wetlands.
5.7.2.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect wetlands because there are none on the
proposed project site. No adverse impacts are anticipated to
wetlands downstream because the project manager will ensure that
the contractor follows the erosion control plan that will be
approved by the State before construction begins. Stormwater
runoff would be directed into a retention pond on site.
5.7.2.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing
this alternative would not adversely affect wetlands because
there are none on the site. No adverse impacts are anticipated
to wetlands downstream because the project manager will ensure
that the contractor follows the erosion control plan that will be
approved by the State before construction begins. Stormwater
runoff would-be directed into a retention pond on site.
5.7.2.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect wetlands because none.
exist on the current site.
5.8 Hazardous Materials or Waste.
5.8.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect public health and safety because all
hazardous materials and wastes generated would be managed in
accordance with applicable regulations. Spills would be
addressed in accord with Fort Bragg's Spill Contingency Plan and
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure.Plan.
5.8.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect public health and safety
with regards to hazardous material or waste because these
substances would be managed in accordance with applicable
regulations. However, this area sits within 300 meters of a
heavily used,.large caliber weapons (mortar, tank) range 44 and
within 500 meters of an active demolition range 46 which poses
other possible threats to public health and safety.
5.8.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not adversely affect public health and safety
because all hazardous materials and wastes generated would be
managed in accordance with applicable regulations.
5.9 Operational Safety.
5.9.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. The proposed Weapons
Storage and Maintenance Facility would have an ammunition safety
20
zone providing appropriate stand off distance to ensure safety
for surrounding facilities.
5.9.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative would have an ammunition safety zone providing
appropriate stand off distance to ensure safety for surrounding
facilities. However, this area sits within 300 meters of a
heavily used, large caliber weapons (mortar, tank) range and
within 500 meters of an active demolition range which poses other
possible threats to public health and-safety.
5.9.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Continuing the
status quo may adversely affect safety. The project is needed to
replace the existing facility, which has inadequate facility
size, inefficient floor configuration, life safety code
violations, security violations, inadequate utilities,
incompatible zoning with adjacent properties, and limited site
expansion. These faults have significantly degraded the Weapons
Storage and Maintenance Facility mission at its current location.
5.10. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO).
5.10.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not adversely affect safety due to UXO. According to the
Installation Safety Officer, no UXO is evident on the property.
5.10.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative has the potential of adversely affecting public
safety because this area is currently used as a demolition range,
which is used for explosives training.
5.10.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing.this
alternative would not pose a risk from UXO. No UXO is evident on
the property.
5.11 Environmental Justice.
5.11.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health,
economic or environmental effects upon minority populations and
low-income populations within the meaning of EO 12898 because the
SOF Weapons Facility would be constructed, operated and
maintained according to all applicable environmental standards,
and because all troop and family housing is at a safe distance.
The closest housing is off-post approximately one-half mile to
the east.
5.11.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative would not cause disproportionately high and adverse
human health, economic or environmental effects upon minority
21
populations and low-income populations within the meaning of EO
12898 because the SOF Weapons Facility would be constructed,
operated and maintained according to all applicable environmental
standards, and because all troop and family housing is at a safe
distance. The closest housing area is on-post, approximately one
and one-half miles to the northeast.
5.11.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not cause disproportionately high and adverse
human health, economic or environmental effects upon minority
populations and low-income populations within the meaning of EO
12898 because the existing facility has been operated and
maintained according to all applicable environmental standards,
and because the nearest housing (barracks) is approximately one-
tenth of a mile to the north.
5.12 Protection of Children.
5.12.1 Effects of the Proposed Action. Implementing this action
would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health,
economic or environmental effects upon children within the
meaning of EO 13045 because the SOF Weapons Facility would be
constructed, operated and maintained according to all applicable
environmental standards, and because the children reside at a
safe distance from the facility. The closest housing is off-post
approximately one-half mile to the east.
5.12.2 Effects of Selecting Range 44 Location. Implementing this
alternative would not cause disproportionately high and adverse
human health, economic or environmental effects upon children
within the meaning of EO 13045 because the SOF Weapons Facility
would be constructed, operated and maintained according to all.
applicable environmental standards, and because the closest
housing is on-post approximately one and one-half miles to the
northeast.
5.12.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative. Implementing this
alternative would not cause disproportionately high and adverse
human health, economic or environmental effects upon children
within the meaning of EO 13045 because children do not reside
within housing area that is one-tenth of a mile to the north.
They only pass by the existing facilities (barracks)in vehicles
on Gruber Road.
5.13 Cumulative Effects. The proposed project is compatible with
similar construction in the area. The project will develop 25-
acres of wooded land within the Green Belt Area (GBA) along the
southern edge of the post. Developing this land will cause
fragmentation of suitable RCW habitat; however, 28 acres will be
reforested with longleaf pine in FY03-FY04. Reforestation of
this acreage will help maintain a contiguous link along the
22

southern entrance to the GBA. In the near
be augmented with artificial cavity trees.
would be to add 4 suitable cavity trees to
conduct biannual status checks for 5 years
Management of this species should continue
project.
future, this site will
A mitigation measure
this cluster and
or until active.
uninterrupted.by
Section 6.0 CONCLUSION. Based on a review of the information
contained in this EA, I have determined that construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed project on Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA.
Accordingly, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required. A draft FNSI will be released to announce this
conclusion to the public before I render my final decision. The
public will then have thirty days to comment on the Proposed
Action.
Section 7.0 AGENCIES, PERSONS, AND LITERATURE CONSULTED.
7.1 Agencies.
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort
Bragg, NC
Public Works Business Center
Readiness, Business Center
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality
7.2 Persons.
Bean, G.G., Colonel, U.S.
Business Center, Headquarters,
(Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Army, Director of Public Works
Fort Bragg Garrison Command
Cook, T.D., Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, Acting Staff'
Judge Advocate, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg,
NC.
Curran, E.A., Captain, U.S. Army, Office of the Staff Judge
Advocate, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC.
23
Davis, A.D., IV, Colonel, U.S. Army, Garrison Commander,
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg,
NC.
Heins, D.A., Chief, Environmental Sustainment Office, Public
Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command
(Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Hoffman, E.L., Wildlife Biologist, Environmental Sustainment
Office, Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg
Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Hull, C.G., Sustainability Coordinator, Environmental
Compliance Branch, Environmental Sustainment Office,
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg,
NC.
Irwin, J.D., Archeologist, Environmental Sustainment Office,
Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison
Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Kern, W.H., Environmental Engineer, Environmental
Sustainment Office,.Public Works Business Center, Headquarters,'
Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Lantz, J.C., Soil Conservationist, Environmental Sustainment
Office, Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg
Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Myers, T.L., Chief, Natural Resources Division, Public Works
Business. Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command
(Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Schwacke, E.A., Installation Restoration Program Manager,
Environmental Compliance Branch, Environmental Sustainment
Office, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne),
Fort Bragg, NC.
Wade, E.A., Environmental Intern, Environmental Sustainment
Office, Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg
Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC.
Wirt, P.G., Chief, Environmental Compliance Branch,
Environmental Sustainment Office, Public Works Business Center,
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg,
NC.
7.3 Literature. The EA incorporates by reference applicable
provisions of the following documents:
24

Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Pope Air Force
Base, North Carolina, April 1990.
Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington,
DC, 1997.
Army Regulation 200-3, Natural Resources - Land, Forest and
Wildlife Management, Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 1995.
Army Regulation 200-4, Cultural Resources Management,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1998.
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.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations, 1994.
Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety Risk
Upon Children, 1997.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 1988.
Environmental Analysis of Army Actions; Final Rule, 32 CFR
Part 651, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 2002.
Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall Endangered Species Management
Plan, Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg
Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC, 1996.
.Fort Bragg East Military Installation Map, RCW Overprint
1998, 1:50,000 Map, Fort Bragg, NC.
Fort Bragg Regulation 200-1, Fort Bragg Environmental
Program, Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg
Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC, 1996.
Fort Bragg Regulation 350-6, Installation Range Regulation,
Readiness Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison
Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC, 1998.
.Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Fort'Bragg, North
Carolina, A Report for the Governments and Citizens of the Fort
25

Bragg Area, Savannah District, U.S..Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah, GA, 1989.
Integrated Cultural Resources Plan, Public Works Business
Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne),
Fort Bragg, NC, 2001.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Public Works
Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command
(Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC, 2001.
Soil Conservation Master Plan, Public Works Business Center,
Headquarters, Fort Bragg Garrison Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg,
NC, 1997.
Management Guidelines for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker on
Army Installations, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, May
1996.
26

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
HEADQUARTERS, FORT BRAGG GARRISON COMMAND (AIRBORNE)
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28310
DRAFT
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR THE
SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES
WEAPONS STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
1. Description of the Project. The Army intends to develop a
new Special Operation Forces Weapons Storage and Maintenance
Facility on Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County,
North Carolina.
2.. Description of Alternatives. Three alternatives were
considered in detail. These were: the Proposed Action
Alternative, Selection of Range 44 Alternative, and the No Action
Alternative. All candidates for alternative locations were
rejected because they were found to be unacceptable due to
conflicts with safety, existing land use, and endangered species
management. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline for
forecasting effects of constructing, operating, and maintaining
the new SOF Weapons Facility.
3. Anticipated Environmental Effects. Implementation of the
Proposed Action would develop a Weapons Storage and Maintenance
Facility for Special Operation Forces. Any potential adverse
effects will be addressed through design measures and a
comprehensive soil erosion control plan. The project will develop
25-acres of wooded land within the Green Belt Area (GBA) along
the southern edge of.the post. Developing this land will cause
fragmentation of suitable RCW habitat. As a mitigation measure,
28 acres will be reforested with longleaf pine in FY03-FY04..
Reforestation of this acreage will help maintain a contiguous
link along the southern entrance to the GBA. In the near future,
this site will be augmented with artificial cavity trees. A
mitigation measure would be to add 4 suitable cavity trees to
this cluster and conduct biannual status checks for 5 years or
until active. Management of this species should continue
uninterrupted by the project.
4. Conclusion. Based on a review of the information contained
in this EA and the Biological Assessment, I have determined that
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed SOF
Weapons Facility on Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is not a major
27
Federal action within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
5. Effective Date. The proposed project would be constructed in
2003 as a permanent structure.
6. Public Availability. The EA and the draft FNSI for the
Proposed Action for the construction, operation, and maintenance
of the SOF Weapons Facility on Fort Bragg 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 Public Works Business Center, Headquarters, Fort Bragg
Garrison Command (Airborne), Installation Management Agency,
ATTN: AFZA-PW-E, Fort Bragg, NC 28310.
F.a. ;.

ADDISION D. DAVIS, IV
COL, IN
Garrison Commander
28 "

I .. .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
HEADQUARTERS, FORT BRAGG GARRISON COMMAND (AIRBORNE)
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28310
NEWS RELEASE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR THE
SPECIAL OPERATION FORCES
WEAPONS STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY)
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
The Army announces the release of an Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for redeveloping
the 25-acre SOF Weapons Facility on Fort Bragg Military
Reservation in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Three alternatives were considered in detail. These were:
the Proposed Action Alternative, Selection of Range 44
Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. All candidates for
alternative locations were rejected because they were found to be
unacceptable due to conflicts with safety, existing land use, and
endangered species management. The No Action Alternative
provides the baseline for forecasting effects of constructing,
operating, and maintaining the new SOF Weapons Facility.
,Implementation of the Proposed Action would develop a new
Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility for SOF. Any potential
adverse effects will be addressed through design measures and a
comprehensive soil erosion control plan. The project will develop
25-acres of wooded land within the Green Belt Area (GBA) along
the southern edge of the post. Developing this land will cause
fragmentation of suitable RCW habitat. As a mitigation measure,
28 acres will be reforested with longleaf pine in FY03-FY04.
Sixteen acres associated with an inactive borrow pit and 12-acres
of an abandoned recycling storage area will be reforested with
longleaf pine in FY03 and FY04, respectively. Reforestation of
this acreage will help maintain a contiguous link along the
southern entrance to the GBA. In the near future, this site will
be augmented with artificial cavity trees. A mitigation measure
would be to add 4 suitable cavity trees to this cluster and
conduct biannual status checks for 5 years or until active.
Management of this species should continue uninterrupted by the
project.
29
0
Based on a review of the information contained in this EA
and the Biological Assessment (Appendix B), it has been
determined that the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the proposed SOF Weapons Facility on Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
is not a major Federal action within the meaning of Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
is not required.
The proposed project would be constructed in 2003 as a
permanent structure.
. The EA and the draft FNSI for construction, operation, and
maintenance of the SOF Weapons Facility on Fort Bragg 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.
30
a
APPENDICES
A Project location Map
1. Proposed Project Area
2. Current Location Map
3. Proposed Project Plan
B Biological Assessment
31
• i
APPENDIX A
MAPS
1. Proposed Project Area
'AL' 4 1
i « ?N"s :301Lt1
PX=I1'La1t
Cf12Ckm:.
_
ropose
{_ f t
Training-
r
Fletc-
.tr N YA +y
74
r
Propocisfc of SOP Yeup'on Training f USA'JRFfS%VaCS (R`Y t3r. Fro1ect'aopc=-
_Weapons Storu.An MainteuauceFacility'
A Approx. 76' SF Multl=Functional -
32
1.
2. Current Location: Gruber Rd, Building D-1307, D-1305, and D-
1405

Ali ,???X

3. Proposed Project Plan
GRt

33
• Y

°1 e?

i ___._____
_lL?____-.S
90.f,
f
iw IIIIU1111IU

' a
t
?
t - TENA
Mb ??tE??++CE FKLI4T 1
--___J UII I ?IUIIIIIU.,

r
l
?W

`o
` _-
- _ - - --- --__- _
- -

--------------------------- _
-- _
_ _
- _
----
_? -
.----'

E?E&F Er?CE

S )
T R
M
/l

APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
AND
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCURRANCE
35
y DEPARTMENT OF THE ARI,
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28310
May 6, 2002
REPOT TO
ATTENTION OF:
Public works Business Center
Mr. Garland Pardue
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
ale;gh :field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Pardue:
C c_esed is a ?iolecical assess, :ent fer t e releaccns , torac
Maintenance Facility at Fort Bracg, Cumherland County, North
Carolina. We have determined that t :_.., actwi11 : a,= °no
effect" cn Saint .-^nc_s l sat' r, an ste cinnz cec' _ ^u
will not "likely to adversely a_fec_" _ e _ec-ccckaaec ? G
wcod=ecker.
_z you --ave a_:V quest-ons, please c-n-ac: ?r.
ro°_'man, ( _0)°0-230'7
? S?..cerely,
Ore-goy G. =-e-an
CO_,.nel, U.S. Army
Director Public works
s_ness Center
".closure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FOR GG
PUBLIC WORKS BUSINESS CENTER
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE WEAPONS STORAGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
Erich L. Hoffman
Wildlife Biologist
Public Works Business Center
April 2002

THE WEAPONS STORAGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERVATION,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE DESCRIPTION
r Scec_al Ccer_=t__ns Force (SCE) •r1= _ ns star
ma_nze-nance _aci? _-y (WSMF) is _ zrcccs__ sou-_ Cm. the
_ter_=ecticn c= Chic-){en Road and ..ac i ns_Z=
Green Eelt Are- (G2:.) , on Fcrt -_-=c i.. Cum.]-_erland Cc=.. _?,
*lcr.._-_ Carolina (see man) Fort- ..._ y? -.41i tar-1 _eser-.....__cin
! cc ..Zea _._ z:he Sandhi l l s R°c_„, •,a;•-c:: is wedded ce:%ve-en
7-.____- COaStal Plain a.^_... Pled-.,_._ C= sou-- Ceri?rG_ ?aCrt 7
CG_C! _^.
a ^-d-„ l l c is I. CiTle t0 lc
_ -7us..._-S) '•f--ra_: ( :?_Cc S-- ecCS:iS=.m. --
cc arse :ands -~:G_ dcminaze --'-e
are - it c*-_ - _.ri . ? --_ --.:::CCc_= ? _ ?.
are
=Se Sc- _4 S are '.4e__ drained sc___ on ..i'? __aces
'CC= __d°_ _CveS C_ _: mcd=_=-_
and c3_Dac_" i S .,.ed_ ... •.v_t^ ? e s e SS---
ccnG_n: 33 n=._ura _clanl CcmmL•n_-_es -and vari=ants,
_ecre:_nt_nc a !=ad array .._ _.•___ac__cns amcn_ ed
C- c, cvr_c, yGroicaic and = ccaraTJI7'_'
( -c~ -S_- a7) _*-e j•,_..- i_ r^?csed in a
_cbl.._ pi^= (=i_.:-,s taea) plan---=:: _cr_, hcwey=-, on _yaluu__.,ns determined twc
cccu: v ^.e ?cc-c-- .t, pine SCrruc a ?a.^.d^4__ .na d= w..
( Sena==le and 2

}
The upland p1ant community consists c= a contiguous mature
loblolly pine =ores` Canopy, with a midstory of oak speci°_s
(Querc-s sc.) and sasSairas (Sassafras G_i1CiL.rl) , and an
L'nderstcrv CL Ground cover ccnSisti. C. SpGrse 'r.erbs,
and warm season Grasses such as coat's rue
=orbs, ? -
(Teprresia vi rg'nSana) , poison oa- ('SL's rad_c. ns) , and
broom sedge ( ndrepcgan virginicus) The forest sta=-
along t. southern boundary have ''een frequentiv burned on
a three-year rotation. Consequently, =orbs and warm season
Grasses are present.
The protect area terrain is relatively level. The A-,,,, o
_t iS located to the Southwest and
pl d1P.C sLpp1V O'P.
MacRidC:e Tm-pact area is northwest of the site currently,
two forest stands occupy the site, a ?3-near old lohlclly
pine Stand with 35 basal are.- (=?) and 35trees >!O-inch
diameter G preast height (DSH) per acre, and a 57-year old
1. -
1 pbl C1 _t? _ _^:° stand '.vi _h 4 z and
acre, _es' ec__Vely.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
_ _ -acre ;1 ^: S. :vi_11 __ ed t0 St._? and :cr SO Cp°_r...cnS _.._ _ac11___% a
-..-_.^.ce -GC--- .''
^:S'_ ar,i a e:: _ac4_1_ i and we = c-s
an at
-rmam°- _ facility (_-CnS_sts of a '., e-=n_
Sher-, Cr=an__a,._.,._...1 SnCp, l_: ._
pCn_ - . ^ , heal?-y weapons snc'P, we= '?CnS . su,rp7
^? Cn 11 ma?C S.^.GD, CDtiCa1 s'-Cc, Cas are. we_..--
rCom, rt_ -
i shop „,ac hine shop, -:.==naf1ux S: _ , x-ray S__Cp, che:-_Cal
i' S`'Op _u_ 7g Sf10D, we=_CCi.S S
and vainy, -;cc.-:
?d rece- ?_n GL area, air defense a-`_l l er'? ( .D t) andan..i-
ank ?:') Scv_et simulator sySte.,.. stcr c:e, ma_ntenanC_ a
_Coz :cc deCK?p1 ` ^ rm LOr :air tra ec:crytr tracking, ...nG,..PLC
indccr test firing range.
The we-a.-cn_ tr_=_J-inq : center ccns_sts c= c!-Ssrccros,
i_^,Stru Ct_C al pr_- caration S- -0r '_ Zr S,Ct0rS, i.^.Str?:CtCr
CLLices, and support SD_aces. A^t_terroriSm LCrce
DrGtC -_C^il measures within the facility will include closed
?...
circuit television, personnel entry control point, and
special cc._struction systems. _::is orc`,ect support_
wea_pe:.s instructional recuirements =cr he military
cc^u?=__on_l special y ?8A officers, ' tie-pcns ser_eant,
13C enci nee-- sergean: and acva:-:ced s tii _lS we-pcns t:a_.._.
conducted during the Special Forces advanced
l
-reconnaissance, target analysis and _xzl citaticn
course, and the special ooeraticns ta_zet =.:terdicti-_n
cc .___. the tra_n_na mission __-__udes ccncUct_ng c1 -
=C- ec .':and=-c n we-a_ cns ma=.._ena__ce, tra=.._nc 'r!=_n
mu_..rs, and l?Ve __r . - weaccns.
'Zu=crt_.^g _aC_l_t_eS '.Jill 1nC' t prcteCt_On system,
oT C s.,,_.?C -,d Pi_ctr _al _; teems, water well
c_SC__CUt'_C:1 vs:e-m:S, se-tic tan.. san___=rV sewer s-vs-:em,
is n Ceti O:=`.? J°-- -cl e par::_. _, .._..=w Ks, cur--s and
""` i y ism force prc:ecs_C_n measures cu-:Slae
--e --=cc` line W*11 include ner_m,etCar__°-rs, Je.^__cul=_
V ccntrcl cc___ , Clear/standoff ..o. °_=, and scec__l
- - cn s'y-..ems. Szecial hiic` cost items i_ncl.:c=.
x-ray mac.__ne, data ma..__r s_+ rc! l -_ tics
i n.entcr_! system, command and C .. vszem,c, L'tcm :°-d
SVStem, _.S, _ _sed _!ccr cc=ut__
room -cis: (cr=ne) and indoor _ __ rance.
_a.-._
Ce_=._.._ ...-I _=_.4.
and
_--- -- -------nc- - - -
=a-:----es -_- ::-e care and '.ire=
i cns The _n?_r-a - ° rnct_ -_ c= c'.J
mu=:_ ..
T:S____a_, and
__?__^_n__a! .'/?5 `•ti=-"cn s?szems in add___.,._ z., an _ncr=_se _
d= ! c= ,en..s worldwide.
T_._s _ncr°_a.se o= weaccn sVstem_ and .,.a da e =cr the
to C:;c1°- more szuae_:__ t: _o`'?^. '•1e=DCIiS __=_n_.
has re-sul_ed in _once: courses and _a__er class size
°- re en`s '^e increase in '.tiea=ns systems and recent
addit_cna! requirement to perf:c safe`y cert_f ica__cn
aanaflux, x-_aV, and test r___rc) c= /:STS weapons has
=__th__ d°- tided the un=-'s a''-.__ity _c meet m,ss_c.-
re °me^.zs n t.^:e eX'st'. _ anti .zed aCil_
ded, reaC__.ess c= ast st- __ _
Sw=°_' J.1l ce ,ecpard'zed.

=te f aCi litV S1Ze, ; . e f f i C- en.t floor Ccnfi duration,
Inader'..
life safety code violations, security violations,
-=iaaPC_ =te utilities , i ncoi,'zatibl_ zoning with adj acent
y~ and li i_ed s_..e expa- cn has s_cn_f_ca-_1y
zrocerzies, a=cYade : the WSM mission at its current loci __on.
roposed site will eliminate th i s shortfall . -==e
newly _
s_te will pr^vide easy accessib-l- '_1 to ranges ara
-?
?
ammunition SupDIV DOi::tI CCmpat--le land use4/zcn-:-:c
r_
increased security provisions, and ensure the reliGc?.e
--ceraticn. of all FINS weapcns thereby reducinc -.ijl_?V of V. a _-
SoF nerson^el while on aeplcymen-- .
?iry/_atG
SPECI7-S CONSIDERED
-Cl i ssessment _s Our=u=n.t to Sect-cn 7(-7-) (2)
ered SDECieS =ct C= as amended ( L'am`
r the J-ndcnCCa a15'
c T,-- purpose of the b-o'_og;cal assessment is to
e=sects of ccnstr,ct-_ a r7Si^: , inside the
ova __ - -- ally zer; Ere s^e^ =_s
_ L'r-ted ta- _ _sh and ,•li ldl -fe Se-Jice __r C?r?e__a__ -
tiGr_n CGrcl_::?, 1_st? the _.._lcwinc
--s ec'.... _ _ _ e-rG. _--ems _'-_ ?.
tiertec=ates
-r-1.. .... _..G.s.??•.. •\bvv ?aG.. /.'. (Al ;.u(_`?Y..... '?.? .... ...._",y?e-•C^J) - - ..._ r
-"vertebrates _
satyr (Nec-??h -
vascular Plants _
:ouch -1_? ed lccsestri. e asperu_a__o1_a! -
-
`ndanaered 1ti chauX s su?T;ac c .T.-
Sm ) -Erdangerec
an c: "`seed (Schwa_1:ea a:-e- i cana
~mel 1 _ hG_ .-1 =c _L .,??-Cc n,' a ( sotr_? -.ececlcides) - _.-rear°neo*
a -
li - .anaered*
?ondberry (''- dEra melisc_?o )
C ec _S e nct been Ccc'.;men:e,_ c^ Fort __-=C
METHODS
G? ?luatea fir a-^ect Cr
?roj i. _ -cts .,;ere assessed _.
cn fiv ° 1_steo sc --es -cr
Cumberland TCou.^.ty using field s .=-Jeys, evaluG_i cr_s, an-

= cii l ° SDeC?eS ham= t__rOLC^. a_rcV'__?J and
G1y__s C_ L-mma ; n system (C-S)-s,Js`.°ms c: :ort ?racc
n _.1_ _litl. ?..
aecarG?
"'h e 5"ec_es .<n.c%vn to Occu On __=: ErGCC are i:n °_ _ea-
Franc
C°Cc _= d ; tiC_ _Gr -Gn c._ __G_o _nC GL' / ?r T;ac
5u_tGz__ _at 'r__ e_: _°-_
rOC== Or ?.^SFn C S '.,jere e-Jul,_,atec V
^re ,=T-•?_?.l ?C?? is .,_?Gi. _TiDc '•
ana i vc_na cav_t-/ _,nG?sta tree 1 Ocat'_c-s / L'.,_- e
..Gr?.---cns carter an,. L=.SSOC'_c'.te C/ 1995), ccre are-as,
zOte - 1 .,^cc CL'ai_' co'J-r_ aCe / an __;?^er Stan.C
?__a
5`Cre? on a C at ?or: Srac= ;nap was Ceve!CCec
=rCm r.. M-_ to ?o.^. Y _c oot?n ..=alu ?s
rela?_Cn n,r^^ose _rOjecl ioca_
•'1G ?-. .' - _111.^.. _ 5 CCUld _-e ? ..._ ...__ ...
in !992) _=nd f-C77,
_..•'ev_ e- ez _ z _ -
-cr-c-jec? area.
_V 1' ..tec -c an: °V.-`.. =°_G IV
:Ca=° and
s res::_tS C= t'r?O Ccm rehens_Ve sur''°.JS Lcr rar°_ = Cr
^ `°C n 1991- tI-rcuc',-1 097
'-es ec`iv-_V. _.,.rJeV results no
tnreaten° °-?leer°_ra'.~. cr rare _ _a __ _rerau=
__Id ?,•` ?,_ 4janu rv Cons__..?-G ::C _a__ Cr - Gs•- _ -

s.:maC S
......... ? _ - - -
area a Sta ,.e`e"
U
:,99
=ccu;at_J-_. was identi=_ed duiinc :1-a
c7a?_a _
sure-.?s , oLt i location is east c: zne _=_osed pro f ect
a
:<p a c t s t o t? _s rco _ c r. ar - _ _ ci - - ea
e.
RESLITS AND, DISCUSSION
-s l - o= assessi.n-= and e-I
_S C:- _ 'le =?der :1 y
wed-CCCCa^=^, `rJCCdOeC'tier
l c- _OnS C= ????c
n at =_ ?mer.tat ' on, w _ch _ -s c_ ?ersal _ _ccesses
(CCnner `d : ud. 199i; Le:_ner =_ Gc K c_
CG :I -reel, wN ._C: naer ?- -a
.. .. ..- --. I?._+_. _ -••_--
?•tG__ers 1 The l.,..._er is :-cam G f -a
e== wa= CCn__c=red - Cr=a-=r Z=-G-
r=;= 7n r
?...-...._ '-_._. .... .-.._2e ma _n_G_..__ _ .. __.___ ..._ _ :.....
--c
_._? = cetwee-n near .i --
n5 _G_..._ shrink __ are ana
_ =-= _..__ --Z-1
CC.._-_ z-
Gc-_rs.
re^ently ccnstruc-?? =c- e -'?:
Cc.,..:,__sar Gnd --_-_?..-
c'=_s -C,I Go?tG side ?ne _._ Gdc? =__ur=
..r ects Ke U, S . ?:' c::vav 1 -3 crease
onal, -racme_ntatiCn. T' e end r? _ , CuPU,=-_
=^.
-_s are ceccming additive.
_
_...-,.._t_,._-a1 succort
s_X J - cre, S hC"..Ce__e, an... _ _.. .?..._..._ Lr _._ _?.?
case _? ..___ -he Ur-_-ed St.y.-eS. sec a? C? _ -_ ns
Cc :...and -are requirements are a _ ?? -- --ss c=-----
and ve. _.._e maintenance =ac= l= _/. _he sum of these
cumu_?__ ^rCj°ct _T:_ ac=S w; 1 l ?..? __?'? tC =_=eCt
acre=s G..... :naress C_ ?Jccdpeck

_'{'__? Gu_ tC ;LS orC:.: m_ V ^ec_al ma--acemen-
?a_ -rem -css c= ha-r_ __ the c-?Gtest
cc cer ^ecause 'lea V clEste: =cr="e na_ ,.l __cns Cu'rran_
-_ma_._ ccnnecte_,--71 c .___Gnal h-=,c___... less ccu_d disconnect
^.eSe =cr=srcz, who ch may _m-SCt _.._=r;mc::_cn= ..__?Jee__n C'_"ou =
;nd/c_ _ ?sSy int=er ^t tra-rel _ _ _..wav_ .
G id lcca- sn lav an -z ? cr-an: role whew
_T:_n=. _ s 1ca-c= o_ _.-1^Gc_=. _cs . O_ an Gcr_ _
'at r? tr.°_S 1S net l' .?e1 V `^ ca!-,se severe
_ __....m ...r..._1 1 __ _ ..ne
.. _.._ _ _ - ... r? _S new - _ • --•?/' _ - _`- ./ __ - _T e'er-•_ _u..I
.r ... u_ ... r _ _ -_.... _ _ eu' • en _ G..r/ _ _ _ e=.-_. .: ru r e=_ _'u_ •.?uu _ e _..__
...._ _ _ _... .. ?.. wve.. _n _ coin: I C^.n .. _..uu_ _.... .: _ C: r_ a%, l_..e'_J
n ammc.:nts .,_ =en scacel 'ham __.. •.ti Cr...?_.... _...__..__
- .- ?11 ._ we c....__ue_ _ e _c __..m
_ :e =C;7 _eC' i res heal old-crcrtit•. _ _ne -`Crest cc--Mun_.._es
v_ - s-c -=en,. QUan- S C_
_--chide a
ccve_. __.._cc;cal concerns have tc ccns_de- the affect
_cSs !:,v asses=_._ t_^.e cuGl_-_
_nc h addi.._..n to the a==-ct= :rcm
cover.
J _? _ee? W1Ce. r e' 4 nssessmen__ e Ta! uG_=.J
C
,r :.__a..•_'? i'C raC•??l-=aV?? r'iG.7? l-G'.. as -
,? 'ncc - icn and ,.o its affect cn impleme7-:_ng
c- community
- ie? "c =1 s -YO=
_ :Ja a -
and onac_nc management act -
_e= t in G cpen-- g oe='Veen :wo :Crage
'fCV=r'?cr-... Ci_ WC".. "ACf=_...r_n l- n° _..-__ 'r?.-S_ u_'_"_C.._?..n._ _- •
..J v _C ?e CClil?y5 _... •_ _ _ can-: u__-
^?' -1 ^ct C^___^_t__^_U_s aiCnC =nC
oe+C_Guoac., 5?'!JE_? Gs cnc ----=-?^___ __ ___cn
4 '1 ;z
eS_C_._
CCre

c_cses_ act_Ve1v man cec
i s ?ro tely 0 . 5 mi 7_ m °s=
_ and 2 _Q >I0-_nc^ _- _= __ _en-_ --=
ccre
- _ _.•.__ _y - _
w_: dis^e_sa1 distance of - _

S_nce ."IS,f. impacts are ol.tsi..._ c_ -=s
280 and 3-5.
Cartit_.,., nc at-verse _mpaCts are
-er
c-f ----
1 r°sC C°C _ ere
. _ ..rCm .._.._._ _nc-cac-_:".ent:,
manageme :z Ccncerns s. =mm_ l
n ^.? C?r , espec_a? y a, CP.Q _ __ Scu:: - I--c,-..dGry,
add it icn-al ha*'_--at icsS may _ffec _ _-Urn ___m' _
_ _c:_v=:1°S . _,A?__'^ ? __-CL=.__ pCl_. C- r,?
hecCmes _ncr_as_ncl'? t..o di___ _ -• - ----
., om
Mlaintain C"cus res` and ccn: =uCus Crc'un,_4 ?ll
t_~roucn.__ : C?? core areas, =cra-° _ ---_'..ns, and
Su__cun__n Z_s_ ersai to S tC _.._ tea: _ii m =
--_-..._ is cn_./ __-
l..=Cl.._???__ _ ...r°__ 1 ? '---°I^"tv ". /-•T.T _ VCS v •- ... G_.u?l.
cc-.-:_:e _ _n_s
.=I zz
n
e cr t;le!t CCt °?eS =Cr s----_ cu::
tea .,
, C o: "'e _reeS c- =`°_S
r.n C. ^e.. _.?v ...vl, `^.. ..
-_v - er t e __ l r? ?..Sa?? =cc- Se _ns_ze
10
and effect relationship can be an
Clusters. This cause
altere
=
f at.
haz=C
;nd;rect rom
ect
adverse af.
ll ncC directs .?
_
ccnstr'-c_J Gn c she ?.._
,-
h
e
z N
Cc jerv C-3ai or ::
e
-•

___er'.. _.
._..
i^c=
. .
.. _"raQe :•:G.?: .'_tGt _..
-_C; G' al i :..ACa'.:=e
C..
"°CCVer'?! G G
r,
cw_`J _
t
; i
_ ` iRlLdC` S w
aliced and direr'_ - - :-
= =
m _ca
- i the 3a.
'
Gc
-:
r^_ earem-:7.1
Ii:,GGtn r
v°
D
• ?
cec-cern ..?_ -
',:T?l:la_;
- _
_•
)
- may c
?crt ?raa le S S
:'i
U
rt°_
e t,- 71 a 7-

ecove J -
e=for..s on .
_
n ? -c. r°s-
? ,.
-
^r j °`` tit_t i c:a,_Jon Cr'pnas i z _•-
-
CcnneC__
:a.
vi zy -* side he G_
saint F rand s, Satyr.
v a-ires,, l is con --.1 no sul G...? °_ area; __ - °s_C^ ..n=_e-V-e 1- `? OGC__ are _xO ------
Ch _ - - _ _ -_ -_-- J
_e area
are exze
77
T-0 ?7,,Cacz= are
' CL'MliL TIv7_ v-F-FECTS
A:- ects are ^° SUm c= --=-_S C=
1L: "_ - = n.-.: i V C° ta_n tC : CCI--
?_^_G SC= ?e act- V1C1-_, Wn_ch are -_ SC - _^° ' C_
Tha \^ ^:^ Ca „ i ; na 7-_-artme-'
t::e cro3 ect area . r- - - _ -r r
crCati cn US _.i?,wav 13 p_ ) --t -
_ra- ._ _
_..1 and scut: cf, alG-"c
=vr°? C; d° the G.- ?., em...s1.
4
--sC side of the aT,munition cL_,-._.,i _'v =G-- = C
wi 11 fcllcw the soutnern bc' ndary c_ the -••
-; h'.ti- pry mar .
c; this larce-scale hichwav prve - qc
s p -rChicken Road and Cancpy" a:" :e ?re?Gc_`nc o have C.. be
rGa?_ of ??d -' l =cr-st
?_e= ^ed in support c= this r
_^c = C„entat' cn w= ll CCC?_ _n --luster's - :O a^_.z . / .
^':^ _ -
i r er ,o Js an ac:
C_ve
,u"_ ``^ i ._ an _ _

ALTERNATIVES TO PRECLUDE ADVERSE EFFECTS
Alternatives to the proposed action were developed as part
Of C.^.e ^c anni ng process. Two alternatives were el im:nate ;
r ?.._?
_om de:ailed anai _ysis; they include the m^^'`Jed actien
L
alternative, and the no action a1-__native.
The no a? on oo`_on of not ccnstru_tinc an ammunlYicn
stcrace area was rejected because of the imperative :'seed to
orCVida_ military units to com,..cat unit readiness standards.
This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.
The alternatives considered in detail are the :rocosed
action Ccticn to construct and cnerate the munitions
storac_e area as croposed, or the modified action
al ter. a eve .
l Vinc the CCnStruCt_Cn of the ON-,.._
The er^ csed action inic _
^ay^'-CDCSed CCatiC.^. '_s nC? 1_'.:°_j V to ad'I°rs°_? V =r°' -
`_S C`:SrV. T _ mcd_=-ed n involves rat CCat;nc: Cr
r nS StOr?Ca =aCi1 it_! but
dcwnsi.._n t:e - _ posed amm?.._` C
was e Ti ,ed Cm Cc.^.S Cer icn Because c_-er c^c=an
eel =C ^e .?eCt1 cn
1oca.._.,.__ did not ,i. _ _
=e :t - ^,,.cted act_v_:_=_
naJa would adve`adverseimcac..s tC e env_rcn-ment. :'c nsi z_.
- c •1 e to Suc^ccr_ tha_ m_1_tary un_.- readiness
was nC
- ese a_ r? des were eli,,_._.._=d as
ccz_cns.
CONCLUSIONS
i ced S_ -e sur'?eys and L_e1d _'JaluatlCn_S ._C SL"_t aJl e
hani ?- fc_ St. -rancis' satyr, rouch-leaved lccsestri
and Ame__can cha==seed na`itar cccur at pr rest seta,
Cher°_=?.ra, CCP.structicn CL S'1.^`-"'T" w_11 have a `Inc effect"
deter J. ^_.y. icn on these scecieS. Sui-.able Xichauxl s sumac
hay'tatwas found but no scecies cccLrred in project area.
T" e r c r cject is not excected to have a measurable effect on.
.. -
rare Cr endancered flcra and fauna.
This °Ct .-self is not 1_:{el V_ to adversely aLf°_ct tna
ry_ -rC recent and future
FC;; ncwe?-er cumulative impacts m p
- a - Verit',,.... 11V m= diSCC e,-^t `:he C-7-Z-1, if impacts are
- •= '-- .._ -+.
_ The f?? ':re .. nct; cnal_ty c= c dis_ ersa:
cc_Y_ i_.._N remains uncertain, ?which _n turn may adversely
a^h c vity -ccssibly set` - sac { RCW
a - -ect democ_r _ --
reccverv cn Fort Bracc.
1_

REFERENCES
Comer, R. N. and D. C. Rudolph. 1991. Forest habitat loss,
fragmentation, and red-cockaded woodpecker populations.
Wilson Bulletin. 103.445-457.
Dr. J. H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1995. Unpubl
proprietary information on territorial partitioning.
Gary Henry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989.
Guidelines for Preparation of Biolccical Assessments and
7-valuations for the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
James, Hess, and Ru=rin. 1997. Spec'es-Centered
Environmental p- alysis . Indirect Effects of Fire 1_story
c:- Red-Cockaded elocdpeckers. "colccical Applications, 7
(1), PP. 118-129.
C_t_t_ior, incomplete
Le..cher, 3.H., J.A. Priddy, J. R. Walters and L.3. Crowder.
An individual-based, scat i ally-_x: licit. simulat_cn
.,.cdel c= the pc=ulaticn dvnamics c= tie _ ndancered rec-
cockaded woodpecker. __olcc'cal Conservation
__..cfale, M.P , and A.S. We- kley. Classification c=
?.._ :,atural cc-mmunit_es o_" North Ca_cl___-, Thirdion. Ncrth Carolina Natur-l nce Program,
L.S. Department of the Army, Fort __acc 1997. Fort 3r=cc
=__ncered Species Manacement Plan. Fort _racg, NC 90 :p.
appendices.
'.i.S. Decartmert of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and
coke Counties, North Carolina. 155 macs.
Walters J.R. 1991. Application of ecolccical principles to
the management of endangered species: t1:e case of the red-
ccckaded woodpecker. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 22:505-523.
13

?Nr of ry?,y United States Department of the Interior
-', FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
a Post Office Box 33726
''acH 3. '?' Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 2002
Colonel Gregory G. Bean
Department of the Army
Director of Public Works Business Center
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310
Dear Colonel Bean:
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your May 6, 2002 letter and
accompanying biological assessment (BA) for the proposed construction of a Special Operations
Force Weapons Storage Maintenance Facility (WSMF). This project is planned for construction
south of the intersection of Chicken Road and MacRidge Road, within the Green Belt Area of Fort
Bragg in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with
section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.).
According to the BA, the 25-acre WSMF will be a structure and grounds to include an armament
facility and weapons training center. Comprehensive rare plant surveys were conducted in 1991-93
and 1998-99. Although suitable habitat for INlichaux's sumac (Rhus niichaucii) was identified, no
sumac populations were found within the project area. Field evaluations for the Saint Francis' satyr
butterfly (Neon?vmpha mitch ellii fi-ancisci) conducted in August of 2001 determined that no suitable
habitat for this species exists on the project area.
In order to avoid direct impacts to RCW foraging habitat partitions, the project site was selected
south of Chicken Road. Fort Bragg is committing to reforest a 16-acre parcel associated with an
inactive borrow pit and 12 acres of an abandoned recycling storage area with longleaf pine in Fiscal
Year 2003, to help offset the loss of suitable habitat, and minimize forest fragmentation effects. The
closest active cluster to the project location is cluster 96. Cluster 96 is apparently within dispersal
distance of neighboring Clusters 95 and 280. For these reasons, Fort Bragg has determined that the
construction of the WSMF will not directly affect the installation's RCW recovery goal or the
Re-ional Recovery Goal, because the habitat loss will be localized and direct impacts will be
minimized.
Based on a review of the information provided, the Service concurs with your determination that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the RCW or anv other federally listed species on
Fort Brag,. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. We
remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new

information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat
- in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
The proposed location for the WSNIF is within the Green Belt Area, identified in the current Fort
Bragg Endangered Species Management Plan (ERVIP) as a special emphasis area for conserving the
installation's federally-listed endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) sub-
populations. The Green Belt Area is identified in the ESNIP as potentially providing a link between
the Northeast Area and Fort Bragg proper. The BA indicates that construction of the WSMF would
eliminate 25 acres of suitable foraying and travel habitat for the RCW. Further, the BA makes some
valid comments re,2arding the future of RCW conservation within the Green Belt Area. Cumulative
impacts arising from a series of smaller projects can equal or outweigh the effects of a single, large
project. Habitat fragmentation may negatively influence the frequency and success of RCW use
of/dispersal through the Green Belt.
Habitat fragmentation within this region would be expected to isolate any groups residing there and
inhibit the ability for the birds in the main installation to interact demographically with the groups
contained in the Northeast Area. On July 12, 2002, Ms. Jacqueline Britcher indicated during a
telephone conversation with 'vIr. John Hammond of this office that in accordance with the ESiVIP,
Fort Bragg plans to continue translocating RCWs into selected clusters within the Green Belt as they
become available demographically from the installation population. Uncoordinated habitat loss
within the Green Belt may confound these conservation measures.
The loss of suitable habitat within the Green Belt may limit the installation's options for achieving,
it's mission compatible goals, as well as limiting it's flexibility in minimizing conflicts between
training mission requirements and fulfilling endangered species recovery needs. We recommend
that before any additional construction is performed within the forested areas of the Green Belt, the
future of the RCW conservation within this special emphasis area be considered, and that Fort
Bragg schedule to meet with the Service to discuss strate-ies for achieving ecological conservation
goals and the training and security needs of the installation.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 919-856-4520 (Ext. 28).
Thank you for your continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
L ?-
U
,- John S. Hammond
Endangered Species Coordinator
cc: Ralph Costa, FWS
Pete Campbell. FWS

y I?
02@ guy
FEB . 4 - Q
?-00.5
DENR AND, YVA7'tn Qu;.UTv
Y?11gNDSANDSTG.;TEH ._ ! r
u yiiYl?
W A T??4
?? r
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USAGE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http•//\vww saw usace arniv nlil/wetlands/Perin app.htm.
The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at littp://www.saw.usace.aniiv.mil/wetlands/iiidex.litiii, or contact one of the field
offices listed on page 3 of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.
The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for General Certifications is not required, provided
that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet should
contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on page 4 of this application) prior to submittal of the application.
Page 1 of 14
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's
twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4) the applicant should contact the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (DCM). DCM will determine whether or not the project is within a designated
Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency. In such
cases, DCM will require a CAMA Permit and will coordinate the 404/401 Permits.
The applicant may also choose to coordinate with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure
that the proposed project will have no impact upon any endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat as regulated by the Endangered Species Act, and the State Historic Preservation Office, North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources to ensure that the proposed project will have no impact upon
any properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Compliance with
these regulations is required to be eligible for any Department of the Army permit. The addresses for
both agencies are listed on page 3 of this application.
USACE Permits - Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office. Upon receipt of an application, the
USACE will determine if the application is complete as soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This
PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant to address information needs for all USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as information required for State authorizations,
certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the information requested on this form will result in a
complete application for any of the USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the
minimum amount of information that must be provided for a complete PCN for each USACE
Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed. Reg. 12893 (March 9, 2000), available at
littp•//wwxv saw usace army mil/wetlands/nwpfina]FedReu.ndf, Processing times vary by permit and
begin once the application has been determined to be complete. Please contact the appropriate
regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.elinr.state.ne.us/iiewetiands/fees.htnil. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.
Page 2 of 14
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
US Army Corps of Engineers Alleghany Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
151 Patton Avenue Ashe Cherokee Iredell Mitchell Union
Room 208 Avery Clay Jackson Polk Watauga
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Yancey
Telephone: [phone] Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Fax: [phone] Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Franklin Nash Surry
US Army Corps Of Engineers Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Suite 120 Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Raleigh, NC 27615 Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Telephone: [phone] Durham Johnston Rockingham Wilson
Fax: [phone] Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones Pitt
US Ainiy Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir Tyrrell
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin Washington
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico Wayne
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans *Croatan Nati onal Forest Only
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality Division of Water Quality State Historic Preservation Office
401 Wetlands Unit Wetlands Restoration Program Department Of Cultural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center 1619 Mail Service Center 4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
US Fisl
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone: [phone]
i and Wildlife Service / National nl
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone]
arine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone]
Page 3 of 14
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kemersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood. McDowell Yancey
APPLICATION FORM BEGINS ON PAGE 5. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT PAGES 1 - 4.
Page 4 of 14
_
i 1 I
i I i
I 5 4 3 2 ~ i i
_ . I
i i i
~ LA.W. ~ , I L.O.W. „ „ ! i I
I I ~ US ARMY CORPS i I
F OF' ENGINF:E:RS DO NOT DISTIffIB RIC1
j THIS AREA sAVANNni~l oisTRicr j i
I i
i o
I p D D I
NOT DISTI~iB n 4ea7eo.e1
i o THIS AREA N 4eee1e.44 ~ II ~ E 1091884.54 i ~
NW N x.14 ~ I
a E 1D0152e.23 ~ O z C
~ ~ ~ Y O o
W rt i i r iV pn N U W ~ zo 3 V I
sTaAMwATEK n 4eesa9.Da N 1067D9A7 M NT E 1DD1l13.74 m a W ii ~ ~ E 1DD14ee.311 t-y. w x Q a ~ ~ f ~ I U
' wIj ~ ) N U ry N W Q V N O !
' 4 Q a a o' a a° 4 r y a mn n n
o E 1DD16DJ,~4 4 740.01 _ E tAD14e , N 4ee639.M M FT ACCESS GATE I
& E 1D91553.40 FOA SNM BASN 4' MANTENANCE i
Hl' CLR CONC PAD ~,b i
FOR EIECTPoCN. ~ ~ j
~ANEDTINK ~OAILOPI N 4eal97.31 NSTNAATHMI OTHERS. E 1801477.27 ~
I L) ° N 4aee71ae ~ i
x.70 N 4ea887.50 N 4aa942,15 ~ i
O E 1D914e7.46 E Ng1S1030 FENCE 9CREENNO ~12' ACCESS OAT N n 4eee51,eo i I
i ~ t E 1BDI603,73 C (u _ G j
y ~ 0 0 ' ~ dy DUMPSTER Q,•,..+±ENTRY'CONTROL' RONT •4 y y .
a s ENCLO WITN AEMDVA1lE BOLLARDS y . ° ' ° ' ~ ~ C LNK FE71CE wITH x s~ b y 3 1z"1~ ou cAr3LES cTYP.1 ~ ° AND oBSTRUCT1oN scREEN i i
i ~ 0 0 j .f ~ to ~ u~,> f ' ' i
i \ O y'> MECHAYICAL/ 1~ s x BENERAIOR ~ Y ~ ° CONC PADS _ ~ ~ r~ I M i
i c) i ~ NO:Q I 1 I j
i I? \NK) CEMETGh' ° N o ' y ADCESf ~ ~ ~ K) Q I O
I 11 3 ~ i I
I ;
DO T DISTU N 4eee04.80 NO RB E 17 TENS AREA ~ Q cAeLES i i i
i y 0 y Q
Y F' n 1 i i i
E IS " t C ERY DO ~ ~ c Z i C
t ~ g ~ _ i TL A1tA W 1- I
0.24 4'x4' CONC PAD u n d' U In
h , I ~ ~i . i i
40e026. 1N;ppT ST ~6 ' CORM ROOM m OONDEN9IXt UNR > M E E12.D2 OUA 1L i I
I fTYP1 B ~ N .03 r N 4ee7a.4e F_: i
i E ro9o9oe.4e .z ~ la: = ~ y ~ y RETAf110 N.L t~a19 9 v S.O.F. WEAPONS TRAINING ez' 1z i
~ ~ ^p' . m O ~J, a:a • o,..w , ~ AND MAINTENANCE ~ AGILITY r~ExCLUSIVE STANDOFF zoNE1 F,, ~ y c In ~
O q N r ' o.: ~OnRO N 7. ] R.BUS.P 0' , A , Yf• ' n ~ [~F - " m rrn~ i I 1-
i N a Y C>QQ I ~ LRY IDENT N E TWO NA~N1ppICC Y Oy ' COORDNATE ; O ~ ON COMA011 POST ~ . y , a n. (Y Q a. j
A w/ CONiRAC ,j CfYP OE21 O - - .I i 11 OFFICER TO FOA ; o - I b
FOUR CM STAIICT T 1- 7e . 6 ~ N 5 i SEE •28 FOR ~ E 86 e' Q . ~
y ty , ~ ~ ;
S Y .a4 ~ e i
I .9a ~ _ o ' ~ ~
,t ~ y ~ ~ Q ,J o 0'.. Q ~ L ~ D ~ -
4ee74am a Uy ~ ~ ; O E 199oaw.97 ~ U ~ Z F Y ~ r i
' ~ 'o ti ~ Z U ;
k 0. t~l J Z N 738.19 Yp.. i T- i
E 199D70a.aa ~ ! c~ ~ Q i
I 1~u, : a a ~ n DOCK y U d. i o: o , , . , 4 20Q~ f Z j
y Q P caMM AoaM ~E~ ~ z ~ F- n 4aaen.41 0
a Y E W90e0te2 y y ° ~ ` CONDtA90R UNIT n. a Q O 0 t ~IfY i ~ ~ a' ENTRY CONTROL ~ ' , > a wpTtK uU n i-- m i
i ~ PonT •3 wRH PASSIVE VEHICLE pENR' ASER~ r ~e AcTrvE eARRERS - coNC. ~pNpST(lf~ F_ Q v ~ y y y PLaEVtS AND IY ;
I ~ BOLLARD, TYP. O ~ A o Lw A
i y Y IR'O ~ q ''p ~ f 0 0 AETANINO w 7.43 ' Uy O NOTES THIS SHEET A ! i i
rn o o g Q i q ti ~ ~ a'. wDE x e'.LONO x 7~e7O' HN1N. - - ~ > ~ 0 1 5EE SNEET O3 FOR COORDINATE TAeLE•
a O ' ' PpEFAHAICATED BUL ET ENTRY CONT~ . Z m ap o' RESISTAYT p1AAD N/SE N 4Bd61O.0a PONT IiFI • ? p ~
I Y 'EN DL A~(p oTO NIJ G Yt E, NDOWe.37 ACI 9 BICYCLE 1 > i y ~ ~ u , P , PO ~f i . D OATt! P MNItIF~ACTUREO BY d ~-,-a - , ~ RACK PAD f n T ~ .wl TPvE 9ARRER3 9041lTKNS OR uENi. ~ ,$a c>a SPACES, ~ GRAPHIC SCALE REF E.RENCE i I
~ y a y y ~ N JD' 16' 0 JO' e0' i rya`~ a E.W9Oa41:3 0 1"•3O'::a=¦•----~~ c-3N
~ y n > y y , ; , , caMM Roots y « Q Uy CWIDENSOR UNIT i
o A Y v SHEET 8 OF 184 6~ o~ MATCHLNE • FOR Cg1T SEE 9H C-39 !
. 4 3 2 n 11 0 1 (S~ 13.11 . _,__._._...._..r k8en 15 emi;
II i° fr I Ufb
I i

i

I. 1 _
3
- t I MATCHI.NE -FOR CONT SE - -
S n~~ 1D
W ~ ~ iv ~ US AkMY CORPS .r ® n ORPS RS
~ ® ° OP- ENGINEER ~ ® ' SAVANNAH DISTRICT i 0 P~SSIVE VEHCIE ° )ISTRIC T
~ ~ 6 ~ } 0 gNiREfl, CCHCIR:TE ° j ~ LMTY COVE .PNi(NO M~ k PLNITER9 NID PFE ~i
~ I PAOYEE CH RS W -9 TRUO ~ tS BOLL/JtU9 tTYP•1 ~1 CMIOPY WRN , ClR S ~ ; • 0 p 0 0 C.~" i
Jo' >I ° ~ , ' v MEA 14 K ~ a, 0 ~ \ r N 4pg2J0.00 p ~o c i i
I ~
' i ,,l`OAD~Q, i o POCK N,_,, ~ i
~ 7 Q AF 41 NLL L.O.W. WEAPONS i
~ coNC P10 OR SUPPLIES i i
o0 oN.~aN ~ HANDLING n~ Q ~ H 40S1JO,OY m ~ PROPNiE T . ~ 0 ° n FACILITY U n~ y i
~ w H MORThR r t°v Q N 4ED44J.71 } } PR'S a q ro n N i
° N 480N7.5B ~ u a o ~ ~ ~ E 1p00763.39 03.OB r °u z re a w o R ~ E 'H~10 N1 0
N 4EE404A6 ~ m Q", ~ ~ ~ l] tt ~i Q N V~1 J ITT DIST E 1~073E.07 ° t a ~p~ w b M t- ((mayy i G U N v1 _ i
AREA ` U W N U Q W F- F U TN~S ~ w K a s o~ Q a ar u a ono ° _ F O i
i ~ - i
' p~p TER 8 ' ENq.~ i
i q{IN-LNK FENCE MATH
° 141iP' DUB N I ,WD OASTPIRIION i
I \I D d r ~1
C~-L1N FENCE MNTH
f2Nf' OM C RS~EN V' IND fR1STRUC~Id 0 0 b U I /NO FENCE 9ENSOAS I'
a x ~ (
i ~ r o ~ c i i
C i
00 NOT pSTUR9 I TINS ARE11

} vita} ~ C _ Y ~ a j~.. V) in (f{ r xzi.
I a ~ _ ~
t ~o^F ~ .N- NMa .~~k I p a ~nNo N ON M Q \ \ C l n N O
I, ~ a~ ° I z O _
: i 0
2 0 _
~ _ JY o Q
I
7. O O
<<. B. n-
~ ~ rc N 4EE084 C
i E ~~qp h 4 i a 'COABATME PIT t- ~ _ c. c7
I ° m ~ ~ m
~ ~ i ar a ar-a B
I z ~ E ``m zrr_
j !''NN U N,_ nam j v) r U N.-
IJ CL f- W K r-
9 uaa ~aa U [L cL
- - - - ~ ii ~ ~ m O
ti0 ~ r g y.
0 Z
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i, N W J R z O .1
U c> N
i ~ Q T DNSTURB " DO NO , r_ Q
W ® ~ Z TINS AREA ~ I_ Q z I Z f_ Q
: - - ~ i ~ r~ ~ S Q ~ _1 o D ~ ~ ~ Z n.. Z CL.
i, a U1 C9 c~ F--
I ° ~ Z L C7 m m FEB 2 ~ 2(1 ~ ~ ~ Q ~
ado I n'
~i DENR ~ WATER GIUALIT • ~ _ 4 ~ J i WETLANDS AND STORMWATFS Bi~GN i Q
$ o n o w u~ W C) UJ A
L.C~ ' I- h-- V)
NOTES THIS SHEET in
~ ® ~ SEE SHEET O3 FOR COOF1OlNATE TA~E• I ti
! PLATE A F'L,Af_E ;FF LPL .cE-
i HIC SCALE R[-.f E~ENC~_ (;RAP NUME3LFZ NUME3 R:
p 3q' 80' Yy~: c-:~s c-3s
SP1EETg of 18a SHEETS OF 184
i a\T~mF\a °\~mmoas.a.9
0 16fEB-200513:13 i ' , kBandae i ~
D . 3 _ _ ~ u 4
M 5
r. - _ . . .

- -
i
I
5 4 3 2 1
D
_ a I ~ ~ ~6
~y I I t 2 2 .28 ~ I 1,
IA / 2D .,._.283,, ~ 2yb .il'~ US ARMY CURRS i i ORPS
b8 .-2B ~ 2 283 _ ~ N?-`' N T OF ENGINEERS RS
_Y,..~^ n SAVANNAH pSTRCT ~ \ / ~b / N ~ 2 -?72 ~ RO NCY AY EL 42 m ti )I STRICT
289 M1~ / 2 69 WAY EL • 2 w ~ h m b e n1 2 ti m I / h ti N t
i
l ~1 ~ v D
I j ~ 2s, _ 2~e NOT DI e
' n 4r 9 0
~ I ~ ~ / ~ 'tis - N ~ N e dv / 3 N i
.92 ~ ~ ^ ~ w > m
h ry / °r N h N ~ ~ tp0 h q 0 / N g M
I 0 J a h ry M1 b U a s ~ H t _5~ ry .i' ~ U U ~i ~ ° n°i O ~ m c~ zrc 4 w N ~
~.--~ti `b S 0 0 ~ ~s~ I
`'yx T i M NA T ~ Q ~ o° p s~ N O M F to i ~ ~ d2 ~ wN b~ idr N UI W 1-
4
h dy - - or ua vin n a _ i A t I
x ~ 6
~ `~?92 .
' ~
a WW
N ~ \ 291 ^ 4 of r ~ I
zoo \ N c1~ o 2 \ ~9 N n B9
I i
\ 2B~ ~a ~I _
- ~ zs ~ c ~ B _ - ~ _ C i i
_ 1~
i } i
s. yr. J ~ 0 _ _ _ ~ ' jtl1 v) n V) Jq: `i
' 1 WN.11 \ 2 ~`~n i N p U O U (~O i L
~ D~ ~ ~ `"L.O.wD ~ V ~ '-NNl PP ~l ~ \ \ C, I ~ \ ~ N U N " \ ) N M d i v cv U
6 ~ CO[1lNy ~ - ~ - \ •6 O _
e~~{{ 21b lV , J I i
~ ~ 9 i DO NOT DISTtAtB i i
THIS AREA rw2e)a ~ ~ ~ ~ i
i
T N r4 Z ~ „ i Z i
h ~ E 1 a a Q. i
\ c~ n U U zk, (A i
tiA ~ ~ e ~ H j T N N r i 1- ~ I
j O ~ ~ _ ~ ll] ~
i '1~ ~Lj in M1 CO
~ z D. g 6
T e ~ ~ 2~,0 , , S.O.F, EAPONS TRAI IN ~ NN ~ m n;)m v) n r-
~ a' ~ ' ' . AND MNN ENANCE ACI T N N h U ~ . ° c~a~. ~n d. W U (V W
~ N ( / N ~ a ' 2)4 ° Co ° 8- Ell FE. . 2Y6.OD o ~d a ~aa U 4 Q coact
lQ 0 •p ~ U - i i
^ b m ; y.
.Q i N Ul n
L ~ # C? • i 1° N S
1 •p . .D
0.. ~ ~ Q t Q' ° ! - _ i
i ~ fit' ~ O 10 1D Li.l ~ LL C) ~ J
A. ° ~ ~ Q C=
0 ° .D - Ih U Zf-- i r l,1 ~ . ° F- :C ~ ~
+ Z U Q: Q N D q (Y Q D a~ ~ ~Z
i z J ° LO 1 a a DOCK ~ U o~3 1
CC 0' ZT ~ '~i N N H p O? L7 UD
Q..Q ~ Z~ Y Q n' J
M I F- DI ° ' r f ~ - - u~ L~. ~
~i
j w ~ ~~0~ ,n A A ~ ~ A
_ • Tw ~ D~~ T I S S t1UA~-~n NO ES
~ D a ~ ar n~aar~" ~ ~ ~ ° D caaAD~hATE e 6EI~~DR r~Te eo'
~ m .0 + ~ ~ \ °1 ' CERETERY SET CR. F.F,E. PLATE: , FE:
~ M f~E_FEF~E_N~F. i ~ ~ ~ NUMBEk~ ENCE 3ER:
D ° ' ~ ' ~ GRAPHIC SCALE D' 0 , i
i t
I 1°•3D ' h ~ 0 D ° ' o ' e D 0 e1Y p2D SHEETIO OF 184 ° ° z OF 184
i i g~ MATCH,NE -FOR CONT SEE SH C•~S j C:~T<mp\G1 ~\behc104N.dxq
5 4 3 2 „ FPS zoo~~a„ X enalm
! ~g I ~W~
~ /I ii~Y

4 3 2 1 i
\ I ~ ~ i~
I i ~ • 1 i
EROSION AND SED I MEN'S ~a, ~ ~ ae L. sy , y _ I .I
CONTROL LEGEND ea /tip a 1 g1~ fl US ARMY CORPS 29/ 1 ~ ~g9 ~ ~ T C1f EN(INE [ R i CORPS 'IF.FRS
~ ~,r_' ~ SAVANNAH DISTRICT F~~_ SILT FENCE - tiK -277 ~ h a ,H DISTRICT
~V ~ ~ W CUE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 2B9 ry49 ' - _ ry1h 26q O R l ~ N ry tib ti N e m
l ® INLET PROTECT 1011 y~ 08 ~e Z1o ~ ®T SEDIAEMT TRM ~ ?yD / I
DD DIVERSION O1KE ~9~ \ / ~q,1
OUTLET PROTECTION \ _ D ® / ~ g 291 a NOT D I i
RIPAAP ~ r. 60 THIS s sLwE DAaln 9 0 i
fL01 PATTERN INDICATOR ~ , \ / ~ N N W i
I SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKET AND MATTINO~"r ~ i 9z h ~ R 3 L.O.B• LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION m ~ N q w m m _
M
®0 CHECK DAM , - ~ a 'I LEVEL SPREADER \ ~9~ 2f 55 ti __i ~ ~ o o ~ o a a N U DO S_ fl N t
\ ~ 5 u zn * w 'L ~ Q 1 1 OM 2 ~ i
®1 CULYEAT INLET PROTECTIpI " / T ~ ~ y ~ " v+ ~ ° iQ ° " I U N . N U ~ w r- i
I S TE6PORARY SEEDING . \ '1 A I a a" o~ a m ~ - a I O Q Ul A u
i 1~ SOD KL PERVIOUS AREAS ' ~ WSTURBED DURNO CONSTRUCTION - i 1
ICENTPEOE 90D, TYPICN.) _ ' I I i
~ a ~ T`~97 . i i
29 . ~ i I
ti . i i I I
v~ v ,e ~ zsr- ~ ~
CZ i
~ ~ i ~ ~ a
w
\ _ a C
~ , ~ _ ~.l • - D TER 0 a • • I _ .
\ `'ar EN SURE 2 4, p r~ ~ ro~ o • "N ~ 0 •
aJV TT,) _ I: "S 2 ~ I
1 'I ~ - d a Op 0 i N l-- i O O
J ~ NO~F- U ~ ~ \ \ Nn'7Q V 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ I N O M a i
~ EflETEAY ) ° o N v AccESS ~ - N O i O I
~~B _ ~ u ~ ~ 1
DO NOT DISTURB
- - THIS AREA TwzozD ~ ~ i
s - m i 1
_ Qq CI P ~ N Z z
a E ' t ~ (L W ~ I- - (L I
e ~ 4 t- N I ~ \ 4 ~ ~ N Q ~
~ T " F-, .11 a F-_ 4 i
I
OO ~~a V> 1 ~ J I Q a F.. F... B I
z 6 g c 7 F F_.
! ~ ~ p , , , , , S.O.F. EAPONS TRAI IN a ~ m N ~ m ro Ca ) w V) N
~ ~ ~ v. 24~. ~ ENANCE ACILIT ~ ~ W h .O° a W N ' ui W I
I N ~ h o'' o' o ~ N ~f.F_. 1 _ m ,o ?)a Cp FN. EV. 4YE.00 gb ~ ~ a O ~Q d I c)an. '
~ 3 n -v-"__ o e u _ _ . N m J J ' O
. 'v1 N ~ O ~tiA., ~ ° a N ~ li f D ' } W
j .a " i.. i T. Dl 0' ° 1 I
m i I
Y ~ ti ° 1
0• ° ~ ~ 7 - I I
~ c~ ~ J a 1 j
y. ~ ip c ~ Z_ ~ O I,, /O 'T W L-
f O 0 Z}m c) ~2 jr 1 I < I~1 e F- :-1 I
I- p N p I U Z ca lY OZ Ii CJ Z o z O
N e J LO L r a oocN ~ z 1 0 Z i f
Z v ~ T- ? 0. C C9 O~ z OZ
U (1. 4 4 ` ~l 4. Y Q A'. fY ~ x Tw 7A o~ x,11-- m Q-1 V) p-
a < OL;NIO 2A ~ ~ ~ 0. F' 40 _ t-- a
I p ~ o ' ~ Q W 1
m aP 4 FEB 2 2005 In I,. A ~1b ' A A
I a ~ o' u'` r~' o . Tw ~ ~ x ALiTY v 9- - - DENR • WATER ° R BRANCH i
( ~N > ~ WEN~NAS AND STOR .
m ~ ~ ' ° ° 2 • ~ D • [II.~ to C. ~ !..__:---A• -PLATE. Al E
~ ~ " ° , ~ r a _ c~ c o REF EREN(,E - 1 :RE.NCE
' ~ NUMF3ER n ~ o GRAPHIC SCALE vBE:R: i
I 1 a ao~ w' D eo' G:5d._
i ` l > NV 201.0 SHEt:T 12 Uf 1U4 v o 1 i 12 Of 184 i
MATCH.NE • F'OA CONT SEE 9A C•bS i
C:AlnnpAG n\behalOSN d.g 5 4 3 ~ ~s ~a~~~s,s i 3 _ - i I
..r /H ~ fti4 i
I ;'i

I _ . _ - i
i
5 4 3 2 1
!
F .
I I RALIEGFI
1 R) o U$ Af2MY CORPS (ADS WY CORPS j
6+ OF ENGINEERS N nsneaoao wnsoN SAVANNAH DISTRICT sTRel:Ts JGINEERS ' JNAH DISTRICT
I t° SMITNFIELp F-hi-i-i-f-h+# RAILROADS ° se
I SnNFORO ~ i i i
I INSTALLATION BOUNDARI@S s D GOlpS80R0
' g ~`'l'~ INTERS'iATE ROUTE elscoF: uw~ i ,(J '~P., ~ I °7 r b~ Af~~ ~o ry i V !
rb ~ p°,1~,, u, s. Rou rE FORT BRAGG ° ~ i r ~ MT. Olivk i i
i a e~,~~ j %ti`~ ~0+vr~, STATk_ ROUTE ~ ,0 ' i
N I 1, I ('AYE f'LEVILLE G I %~`H i LAKES ' Is ~ i i i
~ 1 CNINCNMA o LINTON ~ _ ~ ; ~ HAUL- ROUTE 3 ro

' 1 1 11 1 AWRIN6URG 96 ~ ~ w o \ OIRECTCRATE OF I , at a ' ~ yi a a O C N ! Z6 j z& ¢ w
PUBLIC WORKa AND ENVIRONMENT ~ ' ii wn4,laCE of ° x'rc ¢ w , 1, O I i i_~' BLDG. 3-1631 ; 11 o n rc°~ o ~ ~ i -.I LUMDERTON p n ~ n ~ o n ~ N N
I I Is f.L2P8LTHTOWN ~ t-' - ~ r i , ° LT m ~ ~ a w - 1 _ I a o~ J a ~ o n a N t-- N 1
I I DIRECTORA?E 0/' ' a ~o n a i
POPE Api FORCE 8 CONTRACTING I ° Oq,~l,,~ ~ , BLDG. 1-1333 , o q wwTemt.4e i i
I I 1 t6 7A n ~ i 11 I
~ 1 ~e ° waMlNCTON ' , ~ 8 1 . r , , _.m~__ _ _ .
~ 1 _
BORROW ' - - j AREA AREA ENOINEER'B ~ ~ !
i OFFICE ~ e~na D-zso~ ' i
- x ~ 9 t 8 MH~ i-
1 i r I C k 1
a I A c I i
N.T.S. 1 ~ ____._._v-.__ i

O g1a(Et ~ . l` i , ITT ~v) V
O 4~° SMIONS AIRFIELD 1 ~ ~ ~ r ~ Q ~E 1 .r ~ ~ a d M
0 1 pOO U` NM4 o0 o N \ ~ Np M Q
0 , ..f'' ~I ~ N p ~ 1- 6 '1 ~ O N U O _
Q G - g i
R ~ JP1~M'
HAUL ~r}~
ROUTE Q P ~ i
~ ~P1~ 0 IM 't~ ~ ~ / / Z I i
O Z p i F ~
I . 0 ~ CONSTRUCTION AND ; , _ - " z- ~ n-
OffMOLITION LANDFILL, (CAD) 1' LAND CIffMINO AND INffRT - h
O I ~ DEBRIS LAJiOflLI, (lC1D) - r- I aa ------L t. ' m M)
O 7 ~i to
~i ~ ~ B O ~yp~ i z ~ i f^' 6, Y1 I~ ~ ~ 8
j SNIT O ~ ~ ~ :7 ° °CD m w n
i °"R0^n b aEy`"' LAND FILL NOTES W'~ + v' ~N, U N W I
~ ao~ 1. THE LAND CLEARING AND NERT DEBRIS (LCID) LMVDFILL IS PERhNTTED FOR DISPOSAL OF YARD WASTE (PNE a a ~ NEEDLES LMBS TREES, UNTREATED WOOD, UNPANTED WOOD), INERT DEBRIS (BRICKS, CONCRETE, RUBE, GLASS, o d ~a fY loan
' 0 CONCER~NA WN~E), Mi0 UNCONTAMNATED SOIL. U ~ 2 i i - - - U Q. IL i
2. THE DEMOLITION LMIDFILL IS PERMITTED FOR DISPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATK>H OEBRIS~ BUILDNGS a o ASPHALT, PANTED MID TREATED WOOD NCIDENTAL SCRAP METALS SNGLES, ~ ~ AND DEBRIS NCIDENTAL TO m U m
CONSTRUCTION SUCH A5 CEMENT OR JbNT COMPOUND BAGS, PLA5tIC PAILS OR METAL CMIS OR DRUMS, NSULATKXV, ! r "~vµr Aob~ MID WALLBOARD, i
„a°"0 I 3. DISPOSAL OF ASBESTOS NON-FRIABLE ASBESTOS CNV BE DISPOSED OF IN TF~ EMOLRIO L F » t i
FRIABLE ASBESTOS MUST BE DOUBLE BAGGED AND DISP05ED OF N THE SECTION OF THE DEMOLITIONDLANDFILL ~ boa' ~ DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, I i i
a° i I c ' e~' a i , 4. WHITE GOODS iAPPLINVCES) TIRES ALUMNUM CANS, N'ID MUNICPAL SOLID WASTE (SUCH AS PAPER, ~ C C j
Q° +~'S' PLASTIC, CARDBOARD, OR HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE) MUST BE DISPOSED OF AT THE TRANSFER STATION. z a;= I ~ LJ ~ i J
5. SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH OF THE PWBC U ~ ENVIRONMENTAL a NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISIONS BUILDNG 3-1333, BUTNER ROAD. [phone] TO ! 1 Q ~d )
3 f~ DISPOSE OF LIQUIDS, HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND TIRES. Ya ~ c~ i , I F ! C i
~ ~ ~ ~ 6. THE LANDFILL COMPLEX ON LAMONT ROAD IS OPEN WEEKDAYS FROM 0700-7530. ~ .E ~ D Za f
7. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO USE THE FORT BRAGG BORROW MATEPoAL PITS. A PERMIT IS AL50 REQUNtED TO ~~Q`1 s v Z USE THE NSTALLATION LANDFILLS. BORROW PIT AND LANDFILL PERMITS SHALL ~ PROCESSED PUBLIC WORKS ~ z U Z O i
- " - BUSNESS CENTER, BUILDNG 3-1634, BURTNER ROAD. PERMITS ARE ISSUED FOR THE LIFE OF THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT F~~ 1. ` ? ~ h- ONLY. ONLY MATERIALS PRODUCED ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE PERMITS ARE ISSUED MAY BE DISPOSED N THE ~.uUA a? ca d i
SO,F, WeAP011s 1RAAINIG FAGUTY FORT BRAGG LANDFILL5. THE CONTRACTOR SHAH KEEP A COPY OF THE COMPLETED PERMIT WITH THE VEHICLE A(~ Tz ~ a ~ Q
THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT BORROW OR DISPOSAL OPERATION, COPES OF THE DISPOSAL MlD BORROW PERMIT FORMS -T`__" a U WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE PREWORK CONFERENCE. THE BORROW PIT MID IXSPO TE ~L~~. Nan" W m O SAL SI LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN O
ON THE DRAWINGS. ~ F_ .J ~ Iz. o )
/1 8. A PERMIT ISTREOHRED TD USE THE INSTALLLATION LAND CLEARNG AND INERT DEBRIS NVD DEMOLITON LANDFILLS. ~ A LANDFB.L PERM S S AL BE PROCESSED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH OF THE PWBC ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL A
I RESWRCES DIVISIONI BUILDING 3-1333, BUTNER ROADI [phone]/3961. PERMITS ARE ISSUED FOR THE LIFE OF THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT ONLY. ONLY MATERIAL PRODUCED ON 7HE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE PERMITS ARE ISSUED MAY BE DISPOSED OF
FORT BRAGG RESERVATION N THE LAND CLEARING AND NEAT DEBRIS AND DEMOLITION LANDFILLS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A COPY OF N.T s. THE COLLETED PERMIT WITH ThE VEHICLE THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT DISPD5AL OPERATION. COPIES OF THE DISPOSAL
~ » ~ PERMIT FORMS WLL BE PROVIDED AT THE PREWORK CONFERENCE. THE LAND CLEARNG MID NERT DEBRIS AND DEMILITION 1 g: DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE bRAWINGS. PLI\~E_
I ~ ~ I REFERENCE s s ~ ~ 9. A PERMIT 15 REQUIRED TO USE THE FORT BRAGG BORROW MATERUY, PITS. BORROW PIT PERMITS SHALL BE PROCESSED 'L Al E_ ERENCE
' ~ WITN Mr. TEO KIENTZ FACILITY MANVTENANCE DIVISION [phone]. PERMITS ARE ISSUED FOR THE LIFE OF THE SPECIFIC NUMHE.R '''I'~ " ~ ~ CONTRAGT ONLY. THkT CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A CbPY OF T 1MBFR:
HE COLLETED PERMIT WITH THE VEHICLE THROUGHOUT ) ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ^ ~ W THE CONTRACT BORROW OPERATION. C--1
o ~ ,X u ~ ~ SHEET _5_DF 180. T -a--OF' 184
i i
Gliemp~ClyymVDehc101.Ueq * 5 4 3 2 II-FE8~200511~10 -_._Y_.___ . Rio _ kBe d°,. ! i
I ~"6 - vWs i

O