2017 Enhanced Sustainability - home.army.mil · Fort Lee Environmental Special Conditions Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Contractors must follow the Fort Lee Environmental Special

Enhanced Sustainability

FORT LEE

printed on 100% recycled paper

Annual Report

2017

Prepared By:

U.S. Army Fort Lee, Virginia

Contract No. W91QF5-16-P-0044

Technical Assistance Provided by:

Environmental Research Group, L.L.C.

Baltimore, Maryland

Phone (410) 366-5170

www.envrg.com

http://www.envrg.com

Welcome.............................................................................................................................. 1

The Process ......................................................................................................................... 2

How to Use this Report ...................................................................................................... 3

Installation History ............................................................................................................. 4

Fort Lee Sustainability Program and Goals ..................................................................... 5

NEPA History at Fort Lee ................................................................................................... 6

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 7

Valued Environmental Components .............................................................................. 10

Current Project Analysis Summary ................................................................................. 11

Monitoring Results ........................................................................................................... 13

References ........................................................................................................................ 14

Appendices – Project Analyses

Appendix A - Nutrient Management Plan Implementation ....................................... A-1

Appendix B - Draft Range Complex Master Plan Implementation ............................ B-1

Appendix C - Training Support Facility ......................................................................... C-1

Appendix D - Draft TA4 Water Training Expansion ..................................................... D-1

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

AR Army Regulation

BMP Best Management Practice

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMD Environmental Management Division

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ITAM Integrated Training Area Management

MI-EMS Mission Integration-Environmental Management System

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLEB Northern Long-Eared Bat

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

QTR Qualification Training Range

RCMP Range Complex Master Plan

REC Record of Consideration

RPA Resource Protection Area

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

TA4 Training Area 4

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TRADOC Training Doctrine Command

TSF Training Support Facility

VEC Valued Environmental Component

2017 Fort Lee Enhanced Sustainability Annual Report 1

Welcome

Welcome to the 2017 Fort Lee

Enhanced Sustainability Annual

Report!

Perhaps you live and/or work at Fort Lee, are a

stakeholder from the surrounding community, or

have some other interest in the sustainability

efforts being undertaken by Fort Lee. Whatever

your reason for reading this document you are

sure to find helpful information regarding the sta-

tus of the important features of your environ-

ment that allow Fort Lee to serve you as a prem-

ier Army installation with the essential mission of

training and supporting our nation’s Warfighters.

Each time an activity or action is needed at the

installation, the consideration of how it will affect

the environment and community must be as-

sessed. In 1969, the National Environmental Poli-

cy Act (NEPA) was passed requiring federal agen-

cies to consider environmental outcomes and

effects in their decision-making. The Army imple-

ments NEPA through its own procedures called

Environmental Analysis of Army Actions as docu-

mented in Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regula-

tions (CFR) Part 651. The regulation strongly en-

courages public participation to ensure all con-

cerns and issues are considered in decision-

making.

When Fort Lee needs to take an action, for exam-

ple, construct a new barracks building, the NEPA

process is used to determine if any environmen-

tal or socioeconomic impacts will occur during the

construction and upon completion of the build-

ing. It looks at both immediate impacts as well as

cumulative impacts that may not be noticeable

until long after the action is complete or that may

be impacted as a result of other projects on Fort

Lee or in the local area. The types of environ-

mental and socioeconomic topics assessed are

called valued environmental components, or

VECs. VECs are the types of environmental and

socioeconomic resources whose harm would be

measurable if the action taken negatively impact-

ed them. Fort Lee-specific VECs include

1. Air Quality

2. Airspace

3. Cultural Resources

4. Government

5. Hazard, Toxic, & Radioactive Substances

6. Noise

7. Socioeconomics

8. Infrastructure

9. Land Use

10. Traffic and Transportation

11. Water Resources

12. Soil Erosion

13. Threatened and Endangered Species

14. Wetlands

The U.S. Army Environmental Command’s NEPA Analysis Guidance Manual identifies 14

selected VECs that should be evaluated during the NEPA process. They are:

2 2017 Fort Lee Enhanced Sustainability Annual Report

Tool of the Trade The Capacity Analysis Report is the

main tool used to perform project anal-

ysis. It contains the following infor-

mation for each VEC:

Individual VEC Baseline Information

Categorical Exclusion Information

Current Compliance Activities

Criteria for Determining Significance

The Process

Normally when an action, such as building con-

struction, is planned, an individual assessment is

performed to determine if the action will have

an effect on any of the VECs. Often, the results

of the assessment indicate there would be no

significant effect if the construction is performed

as planned. Given the number of actions that

occur each year (not just construction, but any

action, such as a change in range activities or a

plan to schedule night-time training exercises

using helicopters), the number of assessments

can add up very quickly and the need to docu-

ment this process is expensive and time con-

suming only to learn what was suspected from

the beginning of the initial planning of the pro-

ject: that there will be no impact to the VECs.

The purpose of this Enhanced Sustainability

Annual Report is to report the results of analyses

performed during 2016 using a new, innovative

process which reduces the amount of time and

cost normally associated with NEPA documenta-

tion. First, a document called the Capacity Analy-

sis Report was developed which contains estab-

lished baseline information and criteria for de-

termining significance. This document provides

the tools to determine significance for each VEC

based upon the context and intensity of the pro-

posed action. If a significant impact is anticipat-

ed, then project-specific NEPA analysis and docu-

mentation will be required. If no significant im-

pact is anticipated, then the analysis of the pro-

posed action performed using the Capacity Anal-

ysis Report may be documented using a Record

of Environmental Consideration (REC) and in-

cluded in this report.

This annual report serves to report the analysis

for actions that were proposed during 2016 and

that are planned to be proposed within the next

five years. It will be made available for public

and regulatory viewing by upload to the Fort Lee

public website: http://www.lee.army.mil/dpw/

emd/documents.review.aspx.

If a new, unplanned action is added sometime

throughout the year, the Capacity Analysis Re-

port will be used to perform analysis and deter-

mine if the new action will significantly impact

any of the VECs. If yes, project-specific NEPA

analysis and documentation will be required.

If no immediate or cumulative significant impact

is anticipated, then a REC will be written with ref-

erence that the Capacity Analysis Report was

used to determine that no impact will occur.

32 CFR Part 651.19, where the Army defines a

REC in its NEPA implementation regulations,

states that a REC is a “signed statement submit-

ted with project documentation that briefly docu-

ments that an Army action has received environ-

mental review”. RECs are required when a cate-

gorical exclusion applies and “for actions covered

by existing or previous NEPA documentation.” It

also states that “a REC can reference such docu-

ments as real estate Environmental Baseline

Studies and other documents, as long as they are

readily available for review”.

How to Use this Report

The Capacity Analysis Report is specifically written to serve as a tool by

which Army actions may be analyzed for NEPA consideration. Each year it

will be updated and presented for public and regulatory viewing along with

this document. It will be used as the existing reference document for each

REC written when no significant impact is anticipated.


Camp Lee was activated in 1917 and served as a

state mobilization and training center during

World War I. Immediately after the war, Camp

Lee was used for demobilization and deactivated

at the end of 1919. After deactivation it became

a wildlife preserve until 1940. It was reactivated

in 1941 as a quartermaster training center and

school. In 1950 it received permanent status and

was named Fort Lee. During the 1950s

permanent facilities were added and airborne

logistics training and petroleum training

commenced. During reorganization of the US

Army in 1962, Fort Lee was designated a Class 1

military installation under the Second United

States Army and was renamed the US Army

Quartermaster Center and Fort Lee. In 1966 the

Second United

States Army was

inactivated and

Fort Lee became a

Class 1 military

installation under

the First United States Army. In 1973 Fort Lee

became a major Army Subcommand under the

control of Army Training and Doctrine Command

(TRADOC). In 1988 the US Army Quartermaster

Center and Fort Lee was re-designated the US

Army Logistics Center (Provisional) and Fort Lee.

During the 1990 reorganization of TRADOC,

Combined Arms Support Command and Fort Lee

was established from the merger of combat

development and training development.

Fort Lee is currently the home of the

Sustainment Center of Excellence, a major

subordinate command of the TRADOC. In addi-

tion, it houses the aforementioned Combined

Arms Support Command, the Army Logistics

University, the U.S. Army Ordnance School, the

U.S. Army Quartermaster School and the U.S.

Army Transportation School. Its tenants include

headquarters elements of the Defense

Commissary Agency, Kenner Army Health Clinic,

a Military Entrance Processing Station and the

Defense Contract Management Agency. Fort Lee

is located in Prince George County, Virginia,

south of the city of Hopewell and northeast of

the city of Petersburg. The total area

encompassed by Fort Lee is 5,907 acres; half of

this area has been developed and the remaining

half is forested.

Installation History


Fort Lee Sustainability

Program and Goals

Building Management:

Reduce energy intensity 3% & water use 2% annually from previous year

Air Quality Management:

Reduce petroleum consumption 2% annually through 2020

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% by FY 2025

Reduce Class II refrigerant usage and purchase

POL Management:

Reduce unintended releases

Reduce Non-Hazardous Solid Waste/Hazardous Solid Waste:

Increase the diversion from landfill to recycling options by percentage

from previous year

Fort Lee Environmental Special Conditions Standard Operating Procedure (SOP):

Contractors must follow the Fort Lee Environmental Special Conditions SOP. It pro-

vides specific procedures for environmental requirements and best management

practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into all work.

Recent years have seen the development of a

new level of environmental awareness infused in

all work performed at the installation. The

awareness is most evident within the Mission

Integration-Environmental Management System

(MI-EMS), which provides information and

training at the installation level for all military,

civilian and contractor personnel. All work on

Fort Lee has some degree of environmental

responsibility, whether it is performed in an

office or in the field. The MI-EMS helps to

identify each persons’ role and gives them the

policies, procedures and related environmental

documentation that apply to their part of

operations at the installation.

In addition, the MI-EMS helps to ensure that Fort

Lee is on track to meet goals that have been set

by the federal government. The installation is

currently tracking several mandates to ensure air

quality, soil and water quality, landfill space, and

energy and water consumption remain able to

support the Army’s mission. Goals include:


Sustainability at Fort Lee is founded on the princi-

ples of NEPA and its Army implementation policy

AR 200-2, which, when applied properly, allows for

mission-essential activities such as training and

field exercises to be conducted without the risk of

hazards and violations of regulations.

While the NEPA process has been followed at Fort

Lee since its inception, its implementation became

ever more prevalent during the 2005 Base Rea-

lignment and Closure (BRAC) activities which initi-

ated tremendous installation growth that took

place in a relatively short period of time. While

BRAC Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Envi-

ronmental Impact Statements (EIS) were per-

formed, Fort Lee was proactive with ensuring that

awareness of sustainability and resource protec-

tion did not end with the finalization of those doc-

uments. With an awareness that “all work is to be

performed in a manner that prevents pollution,

protects the environment, and conserves natural

and cultural resources,” a program to have the

“best management practices” was born to inte-

grate all of these various efforts. The Fort Lee en-

vironmental staff looked at their respective pro-

gram requirements and all the various tasks and

lessons learned in the field to create language that

would be added to all the contracts for the various

tenants, units, activities and environmental pro-

jects. What began as a few paragraphs in post-

wide contracts is now a multi-page and multi-

media resource document which remains under

constant review as new and current laws and reg-

ulations are added annually. The Fort Lee Envi-

ronmental Special Conditions document has al-

lowed Environmental Management Division (EMD)

personnel to cover and expand the growth and

program needs to a wider community on Fort Lee.

NEPA History at Fort Lee

NEPA Implementing

Regulations 40 CFR 1500-1508

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions

of the National Environmental Policy Act

32 CFR Part 561 Environmental Analysis of Army Actions

(AR 200-2)

Implements NEPA, setting forth the Army's policies and

responsibilities for the early integration of environmental

considerations into planning and decision-making.


Despite the fact that NEPA only encourages, but does not require, public participation at the EA level,

Fort Lee has made a practice of recognizing public comment periods and hosting public meetings for

each EA.

Public involvement in NEPA is directed in 40 CFR 1506.6, which indicates agencies shall comply with the

following six requirements (paraphrased):

Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and

implementing their NEPA procedures

Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability

of environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may

be interested or affected

Hold or sponsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate or in

accordance with statutory requirements applicable to the agency;

Solicit appropriate information from the public

Explain in its procedures where interested persons can get information or status

reports on EISs and other elements of the NEPA process

Make EISs, the comments received, and any underlying documents available to the

public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 United States

Code 552), without regard to the exclusion for interagency memoranda where such

memoranda transmit comments of Federal agencies on the environmental impact of

the proposed action. Materials to be made available to the public shall be provided

to the public without charge to the extent practicable, or at a fee which is not more

than the actual costs of reproducing copies required to be sent to other Federal

agencies, including the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Public Involvement


There are additional CFR citations that pertain to public involvement requirements in NEPA, including:

40 CFR 1500.2: Policy, which encourages the facilitation of State public involvement in decisions which

affect the quality of the human environment; and 40 CFR 1503.1: Inviting Comments, which is imple-

mented after preparing a draft EIS and before preparing a final EIS. The agency shall obtain comments

from jurisdictional Federal regulatory agencies and request comments from State and local regulatory

agencies, applicable Indian tribes, agencies that have requested an EIS, the applicant (if any), and the

public.

One other highly applicable citation from 32 CFR 651.39 Significance, paragraph (C) states that “where

impacts are unknown or are suspected to be of public interest, public involvement should be initiated

early in the EA (scoping) process.”

In October 2007, the CEQ published a document entitled, Collaboration in NEPA, A Handbook for NEPA

Practitioners. The handbook is intended to be used when implementing public participation requirements at

Federal facilities. The handbook was born out of a conclusion by the CEQ reported in “NEPA Task Force

Report to the Council on Environmental Quality — Modernizing NEPA Implementation,” (September,

2003) which indicates that “…collaborative approaches to engaging the public and assessing the impacts

of federal actions under NEPA can improve the quality of decision-making and increase public trust and

confidence in agency decisions.” (CEQ Handbook, 2007).

The term “collaboration” is specifically used here as one of four levels of public engagement discussed in

the handbook. The “Spectrum of Engagement in NEPA Decision-Making” includes the following hierar-

chical levels from least amount of public participation to the greatest amount:

Inform:

At this level the agency simply informs interested parties of its activities

Consult:

The agency keeps interested parties informed, solicits their input and considers their concerns

and suggestions during the NEPA process

Involve:

The agency works more closely with interested parties and tries to address

their concerns to the extent possible given the agency’s legal and policy constraints

Collaborate:

Parties exchange information and work together towards agreement

on issues at one or more steps in the NEPA process


Fort Lee EMD personnel evaluated the choices and the “consult” level has been chosen as the most appro-

priate means of public participation for this new, annual NEPA implementation approach. A Public Involve-

ment Plan has been written to accompany the new process and describes the public participation activities

in which Fort Lee may engage to provide information and solicit input from community members. The ac-

tivities are:

In addition, Fort Lee hosts a website that will be utilized when a project analysis and REC is completed.

Documentation of the analysis will be uploaded to the site and viewers will be able to correspond with

EMD personnel via email if desired. The web address is: http://www.lee.army.mil/dpw/emd/

documents.review.aspx. Analysis of proposed actions requiring a contract award (such as construction)

will be posted on the website until the project contract is awarded. Analysis of proposed actions that do

not require a contract award (such as implementation of a planning document) will be posted on the

website for 30 days.


Existing Opportunities - The MI-EMS required training, stakeholder

coordination (regulatory, community leadership), environmental team

and quarterly meetings with civilian-neighbor community groups

Fact Sheets

Public Notices (local newspaper outlets)

Public comment periods

Public meetings

Responsiveness Summaries

Mailing list updates

Speaker opportunities for small groups

As described in the introduction of this docu-

ment, each valued environmental component, or

VEC, must be analyzed to determine if a pro-

posed action might cause a significant impact to

it. The impact may be either harmful or benefi-

cial. Fort Lee has performed analysis on four-

teen VECs to establish their baseline conditions

and the criteria by which significance may be de-

termined.

In most cases, the VECs are in very good condi-

tion due to Fort Lee’s thorough efforts to enforce

BMPs, protect sensitive areas like wetlands and

cultural resources, comply with Federal and

State laws, policies, and guidance, and ensure

that when an impact occurs, the VEC is returned

to its original or better condition, which is in

compliance with Appendix C of 32 CFR 651, Miti-

gation and Monitoring, paragraph (a) (3) that

states: “Rectifying the impact by repairing, reha-

bilitating, or restoring the effect on the environ-

ment. This method restores the environment to

its previous condition or better”.


Valued

Environmental

Components

Significance 32 CFR Part 651.39 indicates that signifi-

cance “is determined by examining both

the context and intensity of the proposed

action (40 CFR 1508.27). The analysis should

establish, by resource category, the

threshold at which significance is reached”.

This means that significance can only be

determined once the proposed action is

known. Each resource threshold is fully

dependent on the context and intensity of

the action; therefore significance determi-

nations will be unique to each proposed

action.

Some resource-specific thresholds may

easily be applied quantitatively, such as

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

and Clean Water Act Maximum Contami-

nant Levels. Others require “discussion

and comparison of impacts [which] pro-

vide sufficient analysis to reach a conclu-

sion regarding the significance of the im-

pact, not merely a quantification of

facts” (32 CFR 651.34, paragraph (f)).

Any Fort Lee program area

has the potential to have a

project or action requiring

NEPA analysis. The pro-

gram areas at Fort Lee that

have the majority of pro-

jects requiring NEPA analysis are: Directorate of

Public Works Master Planning and Real Property,

Engineering and Operations Division; Range and

Training Activities; Unit Training; and Family, Mo-

rale, Welfare and Recreation activities. The fol-

lowing is a summary of the projects analyzed in

2016. Full analysis information is presented in

Appendices A through D.

Nutrient Management Plan

The 2016 Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) de-

tails the amount and schedule of nutrient appli-

cation at The Cardinal Golf Club. It also includes

two other areas where a new Bowling Alley facili-

ty is being constructed and a proposed swim-

ming pool site.

Fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and

lime) are applied pursuant to the Virginia Nutri-

ent Management Standards and Criteria, Revised

July 2014. All golf courses in Virginia are required

to have an approved NMP on or before July 1,

2017 in accordance with the Code of Virginia,

Title 10.1, Chapter 1, § 10.1-104.2 which states:

“On or before July 1, 2017, all persons that own

land operated as a golf course and upon which

fertilizer, manure, sewage sludge, or other com-

pounds containing nitrogen or phosphorous are

applied to support turf, plant growth, or other

uses shall develop and implement nutrient man-

agement plans for such land in accordance with

regulations adopted pursuant to § 10.1”.

Range Complex Master Plan 2017

The Proposed Action consists of the implementa-

tion of the Range Complex Master Plan (RCMP)

which is intended to balance Fort Lee’s training

support mission with infrastructure and environ-

mental considerations. The RCMP examined the

range and training assets, requirements and utili-

zation; analyzed environmental conditions; and

developed a priority list and alternative solutions

to help reduce or eliminate all identified range

and training area deficiencies. Ultimately, the

RCMP provides Fort Lee’s decision makers with a

single reference document to aid in the planning,

programming, and management of all range and

training assets.

Current Project

Analysis Summary


Use of the new process allows for greater time and budget efficiency. It is quite simple to perform the

analysis and determine if the context and intensity of the proposed action would result in a significant

impact within the framework of the established baseline information and the criteria for determining

significance. All required components of NEPA analysis are present. Whenever project analysis is com-

pleted, the documentation and REC is uploaded to the Fort Lee website for public viewing. A point of

contact will be provided if a reviewer wishes to contact EMD personnel in reference to the analysis.

Training Area 4 (TA4) Water Training Expansion

The project consists of six acres of land upon which an engineered pond, a covered shelter and two

stands of bleachers will be constructed. Initially there is a need to clear 4.9 acres of land to achieve the

six acres needed (1.1 acres is already clear). The pond will be filled and replenished as necessary by

pumping water from a naturally occurring pond located within TA4. The naturally occurring pond is fed

by an underground spring, keeping the water level in the pond relatively constant even under drought

conditions. In addition to the constructed features, electrical power, utilities and infrastructure related

to the withdrawal and transport of water from the naturally occurring pond to the engineered pond will

be included.

Training Support Facility

Real Property Master Planning has one project analysis in this report, a building called The Training Sup-

port Facility (TSF). It has been analyzed in previous NEPA documentation (Real Property Master Plan Fi-

nal Environmental Assessment dated May 21, 2010 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Im-

plementation of BRAC Recommendations and Other Army Actions at Fort Lee, Virginia and Fort A.P. Hill,

Virginia dated February, 2007). However, a wetland delineation indicated a change in the footprint of

wetland area in the vicinity of the TSF construction site and it was decided to take another “hard look” at

the project as allowed in 32 CFR 651.5 paragraph (g) (1) and (2) regarding supplemental NEPA documen-

tation which provides for periodic review of Army NEPA documentation when project conditions

change.



This document also serves to report any monitoring, mitigation and adaptive management activities

that may occur after the project has been implemented. It is common for mitigation to play a role in

lessening or avoiding impacts to VECs. This section will include discussion of project-specific mitigation

efforts and planned adaptive management requirements (if applicable). When warranted, adaptive

management may also be implemented on an as-needed basis depending on monitoring results. For

example, if a monitoring effort results in the discovery that significant soil erosion is occurring in an ar-

ea where mitigation was implemented but does not seem to be working to prevent an impact, adaptive

management (i.e. a different, more effective method of preventing erosion) may need to be implement-

ed to avert further damage.

It is anticipated that monitoring will occur at the TA4 Water Training Expansion as it will be situated up-

on the precipice of a hill that drains to the Black Water Swamp. Monitoring to ensure Black Water

Swamp is not impacted from the training activities will occur once training begins. There are no other

planned ongoing monitoring, mitigation or adaptive management activities planned at this time for the

projects analyzed.

Monitoring Results

40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, Council on Environmental Quality.

Environmental Planning Services Public Involvement Plan.

Accessible at http://www.lee.army.mil/dpw/emd/documents.review.aspx.

Fort Lee. Environmental Planning Services Capacity Analysis Report.

Accessible at http://www.lee.army.mil/dpw/emd/documents.review.aspx.

Fort Lee. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District and Baltimore District. Training Support

Facility Design Analysis – 35%. August 4, 2015.

Fort Lee. Fort Lee Environmental Special Conditions Standard Operating Procedures, April 1, 2014.

Accessible at www.lee.army.mil/dpw/emd/documents

Environmental_Special_Conditions_01APR14.pdf.


References

Appendices

2017 Fort Lee Enhanced Sustainability Annual Report

Appendix A

Nutrient Management Plan Implementation

Appendix B

Draft Range Complex Master Plan Implementation

Appendix C

Training Support Facility

Appendix D

Draft TA4 Water Training Expansion

Purpose and Need for Action The proposed 2016 Nutrient Management Plan provides Fort Lee’s decision makers with a single refer-

ence document which establishes roles and responsibilities, procedures, and requirements for planning

and application of nutrients on the turf of the Cardinal Golf Club and the establishment of lawn and

landscaping at the new bowling alley site and the proposed swimming pool site.

All golf courses in Virginia are required to have an approved nutrient management plan on or before

July 1, 2017 in accordance with the Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 1, § 10.1-104.2 which states: “On

or before July 1, 2017, all persons that own land operated as a golf course and upon which fertilizer, ma-

nure, sewage sludge, or other compounds containing nitrogen or phosphorous are applied to support

turf, plant growth, or other uses shall develop and implement nutrient management plans for such land

in accordance with regulations adopted pursuant to § 10.1”.

An important impetus for this action is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Total Maximum Dai-

ly Load (TMDL) program. This program gives the EPA regulatory authority to limit amounts of various

pollutants for water bodies identified on each state’s List of Impaired Surface Waters (303(d) list). A

TMDL is a pollution budget and includes a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that can

occur in a waterbody and allocates the necessary reductions to one or more pollutant sources.

This NMP is one of the tools used to ensure nutrient levels remain compliant with total TMDL require-

ments. The development of a NMP provides nutrient applicators with a record of the amount of nutri-

ents applied. As the plan is certified and approved by the state, this provides oversite to ensure proper

levels of nutrients are recommended and BMPs are implemented.

Appendix A Nutrient Management Plan

Implementation

A-1 Appendix A - Nutrient Management Plan Implementation

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives for NMP The Proposed Action consists of the implementation of the 2016 NMP, which details the amount and

schedule of nutrient application at the Cardinal Golf Club. It also includes two other areas where a new

bowling alley facility is being constructed and a proposed swimming pool site.

The three main nutrients contained in fertilizers are nitrogen (as N), phosphorus (as P2O5), and potassi-

um (as K2O); these nutrients are expressed as a fertilizer grade (N-P-K). The first number in the grade

stands for total nitrogen as a percentage of the total weight of the fertilizer, the second number stands

for available phosphorous acid or P2O5, and the third number stands for available soluble potash or

K2O. For example, a fertilizer labeled with a grade of 15-30-15 would contain 15% nitrogen, 30% P2O5,

and 15% K2O. The type and amount of soil amendment used (i.e., lime and fertilizer) are based on soil

test results. All recommendations for nutrient application, both amounts and schedule, are compliant

with the Virginia Nutrient Management Standards and Criteria, Revised July 2014.

No Action Alternative If this plan is not implemented, Fort Lee will be in violation of the Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 1,

§ 10.1-104.2, which indicates the requirement for the development and implementation of a NMP no

later than July 1, 2017. There is also the potential that nutrient application without the benefit of a plan

that outlines limitations and proper application (both physical application and schedule) would result in

the violation of EPA’s TMDL regulations.

Appendix A - Nutrient Management Plan Implementation A-2

The following analysis was performed utilizing the Capacity Analysis Report, which includes the full de-

scription of the baseline information and criteria for determining significance for each of the following

VECs.

Significance “is determined by examining both the context and intensity of the proposed action.” For

implementation of the NMP, the context of the action being implemented for the continued health of

the golf course turf and the establishment of new lawn and landscaping at the bowling center and pro-

posed swimming pool sites is appropriate. Intensity of the action is not considered to be significant, as

the amount of nutrient and the appropriate application schedule detailed in the NMP conforms to the

Virginia Nutrient Management Standards and Criteria and all other local, state and federal policy and

regulations. BMPs (such as those found in the Environmental Special Conditions SOP) to avoid or lessen

the impact on the environment and surrounding community will be applied.

The Environmental Consequence Analysis has been completed after a thorough review of the Criteria

for Determining Significance provided for each VEC in the Capacity Analysis Report.

Air Quality

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Regional National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pollutants are not anticipated to be impact-ed; therefore it is not anticipated that the General Conformity Rule will be exceeded, leading to a sta-tus of non-attainment.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to air quality.


Airspace

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Airspace is not anticipated to be impacted. Airspace at Fort Lee is currently unrestricted and the pro-posed action will not create an environment whereas that status would be changed to a designation of Special Use Airspace.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to airspace.

Table 1 – Environmental Consequences Analysis

Cultural Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Cultural resources are not anticipated to be impacted. There will be no tilling involved with the applica-tion of nutrients; only surface application. Significance criteria includes the review of all proposed ac-tions by the Cultural Resource Manager and adherence to the requirements presented in the Integrat-ed Cultural Resource Management Plan SOPs.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to cultural resources.


Government Services

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Long-term, beneficial impact may be anticipated for recreation. Well-implemented nutrient manage-ment will benefit the health of the golf course and thus, the continued ability to utilize and enjoy it. Other Government Services are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed plan. The application of nutrients will not result in an increase of personnel whereas government services would be strained to provide support.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to government services.

Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Substances

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No impact is anticipated. Nutrient application activities are not anticipated to generate a new waste stream that cannot be immediately or safely managed under existing protocols. The generation of ex-cessive quantity of waste (i.e. waste amounts of fertilizer that need to be disposed) that cannot be ade-quately or safely managed under the current applicable SOP is not expected to occur.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact from Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Sub-stances.


Infrastructure

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of significantly impacting any of the privatized utilities (potable water, sewer, elec-tricity and natural gas). Nutrient application will not create a situation where there is increased de-mand on these services.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to infrastructure.


Land Use

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of significantly impacting land use. There is no change in land use associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to land use.

Noise

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of potential impact from noise. Nutrient application will not create any noise.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact from noise.


Socioeconomics

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Implementation of the nutrient management plan will not impact socioeconomics.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to socioeconomic health.


Soil Erosion

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Application of nutrients will not create erosion. There would be no impact to soil erosion under the proposed action.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to soil erosion.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species. While the installation is being proac-tive in its assumption that the Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) may be present on-post, none of the activities associated with implementation of the NMP pose risk to threatened species (i.e. no tree clearing).

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to threatened and endangered species.


Traffic and Transportation

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Traffic and transportation systems will not be impacted by application of nutrients.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to traffic and transportation.


Water Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Long-term, minor impact to water resources may potentially occur due to non-point source pollution (overland transport) of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, via stormwater runoff (long-term is indicated since application of nutrients is recurrent). Most stormwater on Fort Lee’s canton-ment area is collected through a system of natural and man-made channels and piped storm sewers that convey the water to Bailey Creek. The golf course is situated directly adjacent to Blackwater Swamp, which drains directly into Blackwater River. The Blackwater River is home to an endangered fish that has been observed outside Fort Lee boundaries. Applying nutrients in amounts according to the recommendations in the NMP and following the schedule outlined in the NMP (such as no nutrient application on frozen ground) will help mitigate overland transport of nutrients.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to water resources.

Wetlands

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Impact to wetlands is not anticipated to occur. While the golf course is situated near Blackwater Swamp and the potential for nonpoint source pollution exists, nutrient application would not occur within the 100-foot buffer zone defined as a Resource Protection Area (RPA) in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) of 1988. With the current mitigation activities in place, poten-tial impact would not be significant.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to wetlands.


Cumulative Impacts

The CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumula-

tive effects analysis within an assessment should

consider the potential environmental effects re-

sulting from “the incremental effects of the ac-

tion when added to other past, present, and rea-

sonably foreseeable future actions regardless of

what agency or person undertakes such other

action” (40 CFR 1508.7). Recent CEQ guidance in

Considering Cumulative Impacts affirms this re-

quirement, stating that the first steps in as-

sessing cumulative effects involve defining the

scope of the other actions and their interrela-

tionship with the Proposed Action. The scope

must consider geographic and temporal over-

laps among the Proposed Action and other ac-

tions. It must also evaluate the nature of interac-

tions among these actions. Cumulative effects

are most likely to arise when a relationship or

synergism exists between a Proposed Action and

other actions expected to occur in a similar loca-

tion or during a similar time period. Actions

overlapping with, or in close proximity to, the

Proposed Action would be expected to have

more potential for a relationship than actions

that may be geographically separated. Similarly,

actions that coincide, even partially, in time

would tend to offer a higher potential for cumu-

lative effects. To identify cumulative effects, this

analysis addresses three questions:

An effort has been made to identify all actions

that are being considered and that are in the

planning phase at this time. To the extent that

details regarding such actions exist and the ac-

tions have a potential to interact with the Pro-

posed Action and the No Action Alternative,

these actions are included in this cumulative

analysis. This approach enables decision makers

to have the most current information available

so that they can evaluate the environmental con-

sequences of the Proposed Action and the No

Action Alternative.


Does a relationship exist such that elements of the Proposed Action might interact with

elements of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions?

If one or more of the elements of the Proposed Action and another action could be

expected to interact, would the Proposed Action affect or be affected by the effects

of the other action?

If such a relationship exists, does an assessment reveal any potentially significant effects

not identified when the Proposed Action is considered alone?

There are six projects at Fort Lee which have a

temporal intersection with the Proposed Action.

These are the implementation of the Wildland

Fire Management Plan, construction of the Total

Army School System Training Center, construc-

tion of a barracks facility, construction of the

Training Support Facility, construction of the TA4

Water Training Expansion and construction of

the new Bowling Center.

The Proposed Action would result in the impacts

identified in Table 1. The impacts of the Pro-

posed Action would be maintained at acceptable

levels with the continued implementation of

identified BMPs and mitigation measures.

The level of impacts, both direct and indirect,

from activities under the Proposed Action would

not contribute to cumulative effects for all but

one of the VECs when combined with other pro-

posed actions that may intersect with the imple-

mentation of the NMP. The VECs that would not

be impacted are: air quality, airspace, cultural

resources, government services, hazardous/

toxic/radioactive substances, infrastructure, land

use, noise, socioeconomics, soil erosion, traffic

and transportation, threatened and endangered

species, groundwater, stormwater and wet-

lands.

Surface Water

Potential cumulative impacts to water resources

as a result of the Proposed Action, along with

other reasonably foreseeable future actions, in-

clude potential overland transport of applied nu-

trients via stormwater runoff. Soil erosion, tur-

bidity, and sedimentation, which may result in

decreases in water quality are inherent with the

construction projects. Most stormwater on Fort

Lee’s cantonment area is collected through a sys-

tem of natural and man-made channels and

piped storm sewers that convey the water to Bai-

ley Creek. Bailey Creek already exhibits TMDL

exceedances (pesticides, polychlorinated biphen-

yls (PCBs), dissolved oxygen depletion), therefore

any impact from the combined proposed ac-

tions, without mitigation, may potentially be sig-

nificant. In addition, Blackwater Swamp, which

lies adjacent to the golf course, empties into the

Blackwater River and off-post observance of an

endangered fish in the Blackwater River increas-

es the sensitivity of this water. It, too, exhibits

TMDL exceedances of Escherichia coli (E. coli).

However, implementing mitigation measures

and BMPs will effectively reduce the potential

impacts from these actions so that the effects

would not be significant.




Appendix B Draft Range Complex

Management Plan Implementation

Appendix B - Draft Range Complex Master Plan Implementation B-1

Purpose and Need for Action The RCMP establishes the range and maneuver land requirements needed at Fort Lee to support the

installation training missions. The plan is designed to be a road map for the future development of the

range complex to ensure that Fort Lee can meet its current and future training missions. The installa-

tion staff will ensure that other staff planning documents support and are consistent with the RCMP.

This plan will be updated as required, but at least annually during the preparation and submission of

the installation annual range construction requirements.

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives for RCMP The Proposed Action consists of the implementation of the RCMP which is intended to balance Fort

Lee’s training support mission with infrastructure and environmental considerations. The RCMP exam-

ined the range and training assets, requirements and utilization; analyzed environmental conditions;

and developed alternative solutions to help reduce or eliminate all identified range and training area

deficiencies. Ultimately, the RCMP provides Fort Lee’s decision makers with a single reference docu-

ment to aid in the planning, programming, and management of all range and training assets.

No Action Alternative The Army analyzed a No Action Alternative. An environmental analysis of a No Action Alternative is re-

quired by CEQ regulations to serve as a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated.

Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not implement the 2017 RCMP and recommendations

for meeting the range requirements shortfalls would not be put into operation.

B-2 Appendix B - Draft Range Complex Master Plan Implementation

Actions Eliminated From Detailed Analysis Modernization of an existing range is included as one of the options to correct the shortfalls in ranges

and training areas. It discusses the June 2013 completion of the Range 4 modernization into the new

Qualification Training Range (QTR) which increases the range capabilities and support facilities. The

QTR is a multipurpose range complex adding the capabilities of the M249 squad automatic weapon and

the MK19 MOD-3 grenade machine gun. The conclusion is that the modernization of Range 4 resulted

in the increase of range capabilities and support facilities; therefore there are no current plans to mod-

ernize other ranges and this alternative has been eliminated from detailed analysis in this document.

New construction is also an alternative to support training needs. However, the 2017 RCMP does not

identify any new construction projects and indicates that the option of new construction of training are-

as and ranges is limited at Fort Lee. Limited available construction space and the ability to construct

new training facilities in a timely manner prohibits this as a current viable option when compared with

the ease of training at another Department of Defense installation. Therefore, this alternative has been

eliminated from detailed analysis in this document.



VECs.


implementation of the 2017 RCMP, the context of the action being implemented for the continued safe

use of existing ranges is appropriate. Intensity of the action is not considered to be significant, as there

is no planned new construction or changes proposed; only maintenance of current facilities. BMPs

(such as those found in the Environmental Special Conditions SOP) to avoid or lessen the impact on the

environment and surrounding community will be applied.



Air Quality

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No adverse impacts to air quality would be expected from the Proposed Action. Continued use of training areas and ranges at current levels would not result in changes to the air quality of the area. Regional NAAQS pollutants are not anticipated to be impacted; therefore it is not anticipated that the General Conformity Rule will be exceeded, leading to a status of non-attainment.




Cultural Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would mostly result in no prehistoric or historic properties impacted due to the continued use of training areas and ranges at status quo. The STX lane in Training Area 16 has the po-tential to impact National Register of Historic Places eligible archaeological site 44PG240. Foot traffic from training may require stabilization to avoid negative impacts to the site. Fort Lee cultural re-sources staff will determine if and when stabilization should occur based on periodic inspections. Training activities and range use under the Proposed Action would avoid any known archaeological sites. In order to avoid unintentional disturbance of known sites, 100-foot buffers have been designat-ed and are appropriately enforced to ensure the areas are not disturbed. The risk of sub-surface dis-turbance to artifacts associated with the training activities is minimal. Any future activities that could impact cultural resources would be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office as appro-priate under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, no impact to cultural resources is anticipated. Range activities and avoidance of known cultural resources would continue as normal, the same as with the Proposed Ac-tion.


Airspace

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Airspace is not anticipated to be impacted. Airspace at Fort Lee is currently unrestricted and the pro-posed action will not create an environment whereas that status would be changed to a designation of Special Use Airspace. The 2017 RCMP states: “Fort Lee maintains a Small Arms Range Safety Area when the ranges are in a “HOT” status, which includes the vertical hazards from small arms ricochets. The scheduling section at Range Control notifies Richmond International Airport operations center by sending a copy of Fort Lee’s Official Range Bulletin one week in advance of any scheduled live range.” These BMPs further safeguard airspace from range activity.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to airspace. Like with the proposed action, there are no new range activities being introduced that would change Fort Lee airspace to a designa-tion of Special Use Airspace.



Government Services

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Implementation of the RCMP will not result in an increase of population. Therefore, there would be no impact to schools, libraries, the characteristics of recreational opportunities on and near Fort Lee, or health and safety services (fire, police, or hospital).

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, the current status of government services on and near Fort Lee would remain the same with no impact.


Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There would be no significant impacts from hazardous, toxic or radioactive substances from imple-mentation of the Proposed Action. The training areas and ranges contain no Defense Environmental Restoration Program sites. Lead is not considered a hazardous waste in accordance to the Military Munitions Rule. Fort Lee will continue to adhere to current local management plans. There would be no need to modify or update any existing plans or procedures as a result of implementing the Pro-posed Action.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no significant impacts associated with hazardous, tox-ic, or radioactive substances. Current practices and mitigating procedures diminish risk of impact asso-ciated with hazardous, toxic or radioactive substances.

Infrastructure

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of significantly impacting any of the privatized utilities (potable water, sewer, elec-tricity and natural gas). Maintenance of the existing range facilities will not increase demand on infra-structure.




Land Use

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of significantly impacting land use. There is no change in land use associated with the proposed action.


Noise

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No significant noise impacts are anticipated by implementing the Proposed Action. The RCMP ad-dresses the fact that noise is inherent to range activities with the following: “As specified in AR 200-1, noise monitoring is required when noise Zone III extends off the installation, when there is significant noise controversy or when the installation receives a significant number of noise complaints involving noise generated through training activities. At this time, the number of noise complaints received by Fort Lee has not reached the point where weapons training must be curtailed.” Further, appropriate monitoring is conducted and minimal range activities are practiced when atmospheric conditions are conducive to noise level increase.


Socioeconomics

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Maintenance of existing training facilities will not impact socioeconomic area of influence, economics, demographics or housing.




Soil Erosion

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Minor, short-term impacts are anticipated. One of the stated RCMP training assumptions is that “continuous use of Fort Lee local training areas (particularly Training Area 27/27A) will likely result in soil compression and increase erosion damage”. Mitigation and repair through the Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Program would require these training areas be temporary closed for grad-ing, reseeding and erosion control restoration. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, training activities would result in compression and erosion damage similar to the proposed action, but restoration of the site would be performed through the ITAM Pro-gram. No significant impact is anticipated.


Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No significant impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species. Fort Lee is working under the assumption that the federally-listed threatened NLEB may be present given it has been identified at the adjacent Petersburg National Battlefield. Any tree clearing to be performed for range mainte-nance will be reviewed to ensure protectiveness of the NLEB as indicated by the criteria for determin-ing significance in the Capacity Analysis Report.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, the potential for impact is the same as the proposed plan and no sig-nificant impact is anticipated.


Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Traffic and transportation systems will not be impacted by continuing to maintain current range facili-ties.




Water Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Groundwater, Stormwater and Surface Water: The Proposed Action would result in no water resource im-pact due to the continued use of training areas and ranges at status quo. No construction or other alterations to the landscape are planned therefore groundwater resources would remain in their cur-rent state. Fort Lee will continue to adhere to current BMPs and utilize preventive and mitigation measures already in place to alleviate the potential for impacts to water resources.


Wetlands

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: The presence of 414.89 acres of wetlands within Fort Lee’s training areas presents a challenge for training exercises, but mostly there are no foreseeable adverse impacts to wetlands from the Pro-posed Action. Current mitigating practices include those set forth by the CBPA. No construction or other alterations to the landscape are planned therefore wetlands would remain in their current state.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, the same CBPA protections would be in place and no impacts are an-ticipated.









Cumulative Impacts









































Action Alternative.


There are eight projects at Fort Lee which have a




Army School System Training Center, construc-

tion of a barracks facility, construction of the

Training Support Facility, construction of the TA4

Water Training Expansion, implementation of the

Nutrient Management Plan, construction of the

new Bowling Center and the Humanitarian

Demining Training Center.

The Proposed Action would result in the impacts

identified in Table 1. The impacts of the Pro-

posed Action would be maintained at acceptable

levels with the continued implementation of

identified BMPs and mitigation measures.




four of the VECs when combined with other pro-

posed actions that may intersect with the imple-

mentation of the 2017 RCMP. The VECs that

would not be impacted are: airspace, cultural

resources, government services, hazardous/

toxic/radioactive substances, infrastructure, land

use, socioeconomics, traffic and transportation,

threatened and endangered species, groundwa-

ter, stormwater, and wetlands.

Air Quality

Potential cumulative impacts to air resources as

a result of the Proposed Action when combined

with other present or reasonably foreseeable fu-

ture actions, include a temporary increase in

dust emissions as a result of construction and

training activities. Implementation of the

Wildland Fire Management Plan may also result

in smoky conditions, but would be mitigated us-

ing techniques from the Smoke Management

Plan if that occurred. Implementing mitigation

measures and BMPs would effectively reduce the

potential effects from these actions to a level of

insignificance.

Present or future construction activities and pre-

scribed fires would cause emissions of particu-

late matter and other pollutants at Fort Lee. Alt-

hough emissions from each project individually

would be temporary, the cumulative emissions

from all projects would have a long-term, ad-

verse, but insignificant impact on air quality in

the area.

Noise

Noise levels from the Proposed Action would re-

main static. However, when combined with the

additional noise from present or future construc-

tion projects, the Proposed Action would contrib-

ute to the collective increase in the noise envi-

ronment. Changes to the noise environment

would be short-term and minor with negligible

long-term cumulative effects.

Soil Erosion

The implementation of the Proposed Action and

other present or reasonably foreseeable future

actions in the project area would have minor,

short-term, and long-term direct impacts on


soils. However, the use of site-specific erosion

control measures and BMPs during and immedi-

ately after earth-disturbing activities of the pre-

sent or reasonably foreseeable future actions

would reduce the potential temporary erosion

and sedimentation effects to a level that is not

significant.

Surface Water

Potential cumulative impacts to water resources

as a result of the Proposed Action, along with

other reasonably foreseeable future actions, in-

clude potential overland transport of contami-

nants via stormwater runoff. Soil erosion, turbid-

ity, and sedimentation, which may result in de-

creases in water quality are inherent with the

construction projects. Most stormwater on Fort

Lee’s cantonment area is collected through a sys-

tem of natural and man-made channels and

piped storm sewers that convey the water to Bai-

ley Creek. Bailey Creek already exhibits TMDL

exceedances (pesticides, PCBs, dissolved oxygen

depletion), therefore any impact from the com-

bined proposed actions, without mitigation, may

potentially be significant. In addition, Blackwater

Swamp, which lies adjacent to the golf course,

empties into the Blackwater River and off-post

observance of an endangered fish in the Black-

water River increases the sensitivity of this water.

It, too, exhibits TMDL exceedances of Escherichia

coli (E. coli). However, implementing mitigation

measures and BMPs will effectively reduce the

potential impacts from these actions so that the

effects would not be significant.




Purpose and Need for Action The TSF 35% Design Analysis conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Norfolk and Baltimore Dis-

tricts) indicates that the purpose of this action is to fulfill a need to “support Soldier training to meet the

Program of Instruction and related instructional requirements associated with the Ordnance School and

to make items available for research and development efforts to meet Soldier requirements.”

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives for TSF The Proposed Action consists of the construction of a 120,214 square foot training facility that will in-

clude offices, classrooms, latrines, arms room, consolidated entry and reception area, climate controlled

-open high-bay and standard height material storage, anti-terrorism measures, Energy Monitor and

Control systems connection, fire protection and alarm systems, Integrated Commercial Intrusion Detec-

tion System, and installation and building information systems. Special foundations are required and

the building will need to be built to Silver Standard for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.

Supporting facilities include utilities, storm drainage, fire protection, walks, curbs and gutters, parking,

site improvements and information systems. Minimum standards for anti-terrorism Force Protection

for Buildings is needed. Interior design and accessibility services are required. This facility will be locat-

ed west of 22nd St., near the Quarter Master and Women’s museums, where an existing parking lot will

be demolished to accommodate this building.

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan written in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environ-

mental Quality requirements will be utilized, with stone construction entrances, silt fence, inlet protec-

tion, and erosion control mats with temporary and permanent seeding. A stormwater pollution preven-

tion plan will also be used as guidance on sediment and pollutant transport control.

Appendix C Training Support Facility

C-1 Appendix C - Training Support Facility

No Action Alternative If this project is not completed, Ordnance Warfighters stationed at Fort Lee cannot train to approved

Army standards. Also, training aids will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate, because they are

not being maintained or preserved in accordance with regulation and statute.

Currently, there are no existing Fort Lee facilities to support this requirement. Training aids are current-

ly stored and maintained in widely dispersed, inadequate World War II-era wooden structures, tempo-

rary structures, and renovated metal sheds, most of which have very limited environmental control.

Student access to the training aids is severely limited to less than 2% of the items, degrading training.

Additionally, inadequate storage of the training aids accelerates their irreversible deterioration and in-

creases preservation and stabilization costs.

Appendix C - Training Support Facility C-2



VECs.


the TSF building construction, the context of the action being built in the cantonment area among other

buildings used for administrative and educational/training is appropriate. Intensity of the construction

is not considered to be significant, as construction of new facilities is common at Fort Lee and BMPs

(such as those found in the Environmental Special Conditions SOP) to avoid or lessen the impact on the

environment and surrounding community will be applied. The temporary nature of the construction

activities will not cause significant long-term effects.



Air Quality

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Regional NAAQS pollutants are not anticipated to be impacted; therefore it is not anticipated that the General Conformity Rule will be exceeded, leading to a status of non-attainment.

Short-term, minor adverse impacts may be experienced with the increase in particulate matter due to use of earth-moving construction equipment. Emissions from stationary equipment is not anticipated to produce emissions that would exceed the pollutant limits in the Stationary Source Permit to Oper-ate (Permit #50564). The action is not anticipated to create an environment whereas Fort Lee would be unable to meet the goals set forth in Executive Orders 13423 and 13514.





Airspace



Cultural Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Cultural resources are not anticipated to be impacted. Significance criteria includes the review of all proposed actions by the Cultural Resource Manager and adherence to the requirements presented in the Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan SOPs.



Government Services

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Government Services are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed plan. The construction of the TSF will not result in an increase of personnel whereas government services would be strained to provide support.




Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action:

No adverse impact is anticipated. Construction activities are not anticipated to generate a new waste stream that cannot be immediately or safely managed under existing protocols. The generation of ex-cessive quantity of waste that cannot be adequately or safely managed under the current applicable SOP is not expected to occur.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact.


Infrastructure


There is no concern of significantly impacting any of the privatized utilities (potable water, sewer, elec-tricity and natural gas). Construction of the building will not create an excessive demand for these products.

The construction contractor will be subject to the Environmental Special Conditions SOP, which ad-dresses the contractor’s responsibility to plan for and execute proper disposal of construction debris whereas there will be no risk of the ability to meet the Army’s measure of merit goals for solid waste Construction and Demolition diversion.



Land Use


There is no concern of significantly impacting land use. The building is being built in an area of similar building use (administrative, educational/training).

Short-term minor impacts from construction noise may occur (see Noise VEC).



Noise


Short-term minor impact from construction-related noise is to be expected. The construction site is located in Noise Zone 1, where decibel level should not exceed 87. Individual pieces of outdoor con-struction may only exceed that number slightly, but it is anticipated that several may be run concur-rently, increasing the decibel levels during peak work hours. Application of BMPs will mitigate noise impact.


Socioeconomics


Potential short-term, beneficial impact may be experienced by local townspeople if they are able to gain construction employment. No adverse impact is anticipated.



Soil Erosion


Short-term, minor, adverse impacts are anticipated. Erosion and potential stormwater runoff is inevi-table during construction activities. The contractor will be producing erosion and stormwater control plans and are subject to the Environmental Special Conditions SOP which specifies mitigation activities and BMPs.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact to soil erosion.




No significant impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species. Fort Lee is working under the assumption that the federally-listed threatened NLEB may be present given it has been identified at the adjacent Petersburg National Battlefield. Any tree clearing to be performed will be reviewed to ensure protectiveness of the NLEB as indicated by the criteria for determining significance in the Ca-pacity Analysis Report.




Short-term, minor impact may occur. Road closure will not be necessary, but the use of on-road con-struction vehicles would result in increased vehicle traffic during the periods of construction. It is not anticipated that local traffic will be increased by more than five percent.



Water Resources


Short-term, minor impact to water resources may be anticipated due to soil erosion and stormwater runoff. Surface water is more vulnerable than groundwater as TMDLs have already been exceeded in Bailey Creek.



Wetlands


Impact to wetlands is anticipated. A wetlands delineation indicated the building footprint would im-pact 0.7 acres of wetland area. State of Virginia regulations indicate that if a wetland is impacted, the impact may be mitigated but must be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (i.e. 1.4 acres of wetlands must be miti-gated to compensate for the 0.7 acres lost). With mitigation, the impact will not be significant.


Cumulative Impacts









































Action Alternative.









There are two projects at Fort Lee which have a




Army School System Training Center and the

construction of a barracks facility.

The Proposed Action would result in the effects

identified in Table 1. The effects of the Proposed

Action would be maintained at acceptable levels

with the continued implementation of identified

BMPs and mitigation measures.





posed actions that may intersect with the con-

struction of the TSF. The VECs that would not be

impacted are: airspace, cultural resources, gov-

ernment services, hazardous/toxic/radioactive

substances, infrastructure, land use, noise, socio-

economics, threatened and endangered species,

groundwater, stormwater, and wetlands.

Air Quality

Cumulative impacts to air resources as a result

of the Proposed Action when combined with oth-

er present or reasonably foreseeable future ac-

tions, include a temporary, minor increase in

dust emissions as a result of construction activi-

ties and particulate matter due to wildland fires.

Implementing mitigation measures and BMPs

would effectively reduce the potential effects

from these actions to a level of insignificance. It

is not anticipated that NAAQS or the Stationary

Permit emission limits would be exceeded.

Soil Erosion











significant.

Surface Water

Cumulative impacts to water resources as a re-

sult of the Proposed Action, along with other rea-

sonably foreseeable future actions, include po-

tential soil erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation,

which may result in decreases in water quality.


should effectively reduce the potential impacts

from these actions so that the effects would not

be significant.




Cumulative impacts to transportation as a result of the Proposed Action, along with other reasonably

foreseeable future actions, include potential safety concerns due to increased construction-related ve-

hicles accessing the same roads that Fort Lee personnel and residents use. Short-term visibility con-

cerns may arise from wildland fires combined with fugitive dust in around the construction site, but

would be temporary and mitigated using techniques from the Smoke Management Plan if that oc-

curred. Implementing mitigation measures and BMPs should effectively reduce the potential impacts

from these actions so that the effects would not be significant.




Purpose and Need for Action

The proposed TA4 Water Training Expansion will provide a consolidated area for water training where

currently there are four areas being utilized. Current locations are met with challenges such as inade-

quate flow, erosion, inadequate space and risk of direct impact to waters of the state. The Water Train-

ing Expansion project will alleviate each of these challenges by providing a dedicated water training ar-

ea with a naturally renewable water source.

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives for TSF

The Proposed Action consists of six acres of land upon which an engineered pond, a covered shelter

and two stands of bleachers will be constructed. Initially there is a need to clear 4.9 acres of land to

achieve the six acres needed (1.1 acres is already clear). The pond will be filled and replenished as nec-

essary by pumping water from a naturally occurring pond located within TA4. The naturally occurring

pond is fed by an underground spring as the water level in the pond stays relatively consistent even if

drought conditions exist. In addition to the constructed features, electrical power, utilities and infra-

structure related to the withdrawal and transport of water from the naturally occurring pond to the en-

gineered pond will be included.

No Action Alternative

If this project is not completed, water-related training will continue to be met with the indicated chal-

lenges, creating an inability to fully meet mission training goals. The new location also alleviates risk of

potential surface water impact as mitigation for such risk will be easier to implement at the dedicated

water training location.

Appendix D

Draft TA4 Water

Training Expansion

D-1 Appendix D - Draft TA4 Water Training Expansion



VECs.


the TA4 water training expansion construction, the context of the action being built within an existing

training area is appropriate. Intensity of the construction is not considered to be significant. The scope

of construction at this site is smaller than some construction projects that occur at Fort Lee (i.e. con-

struction of large buildings). Construction of new facilities is common at Fort Lee and BMPs (such as

those found in the Environmental Special Conditions SOP) to avoid or lessen the impact on the environ-

ment and surrounding community will be applied. The temporary nature of the construction activities

will not cause significant long-term effects.



Air Quality

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Regional NAAQS pollutants are not anticipated to be impacted; therefore it is not anticipated that the General Conformity Rule will be exceeded, leading to a status of non-attainment.

Short-term, minor adverse impacts may be experienced with the increase in particulate matter due to use of earth-moving construction equipment. Emissions from stationary equipment is not anticipated to produce emissions that would exceed the pollutant limits in the Stationary Source Permit to Oper-ate (Permit #50564).

The action is not anticipated to create an environment whereas Fort Lee would be unable to meet the goals set forth in Executive Orders 13423 and 13514.


Appendix D - Draft TA4 Water Training Expansion D-2


Cultural Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Cultural resources are not anticipated to be impacted. Significance criteria includes the review of all proposed actions by the Cultural Resource Manager and adherence to the requirements presented in the Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan SOPs.



Airspace




Government Services

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Government Services are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed plan. The construction of the TA4 Water Training Expansion will not result in an increase of personnel whereas government ser-vices would be strained to provide support.




Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No adverse impact is anticipated. Construction of the TA4 Water Expansion features are not anticipat-ed to generate a new waste stream that cannot be immediately or safely managed under existing pro-tocols. The generation of excessive quantity of waste that cannot be adequately or safely managed under the current applicable SOP is not expected to occur.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Under the no action alternative, there would be no impact from Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Sub-stances.


Infrastructure

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of significantly impacting any of the privatized utilities (potable water, sewer, elec-tricity and natural gas). Naturally occurring water is being used as the water source and any demand on electrical and potable water utilities will be minimal.


Land Use

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: There is no concern of significantly impacting land use. There is no change in land use associated with the proposed action since the proposed site is currently a training area.



Noise

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Short-term minor impacts from construction-related noise is to be expected. The site is located in Noise Zone 1, where decibel level should not exceed 87. Individual pieces of outdoor construction may only exceed that number slightly, but it is anticipated that several may be run concurrently, in-creasing the decibel levels during peak work hours. The site is not situated directly adjacent to occu-pied buildings or residences; the nearest populated areas are holes 2 and 3 on the blue course at Car-dinal Golf Club, so receptors of potential noise pollution will be transient. Application of BMPs will miti-gate noise impact.


Socioeconomics

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Potential short-term, beneficial impact may be experienced by local townspeople if they are able to gain construction employment. No adverse impact is anticipated.


Soil Erosion

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Short-term, minor, adverse impacts are anticipated. Erosion and potential stormwater runoff is inevi-table during construction activities. The contractor will be producing erosion and stormwater control plans and are subject to the Environmental Special Conditions SOP which specifies mitigation activities and BMPs.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Current water training activities are contributing to erosion, which would be better managed and miti-gated under the proposed consolidated training plan.




Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: No significant impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species. Fort Lee is working under the assumption that the federally-listed threatened NLEB may be present given it has been identified at the adjacent Petersburg National Battlefield. Any tree clearing to be performed will be reviewed to ensure protectiveness of the NLEB as indicated by the criteria for determining significance in the Ca-pacity Analysis Report.



Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Short-term, minor impact may occur. Road closure will not be necessary, but the use of on-road con-struction vehicles would result in increased vehicle traffic during the periods of construction. It is not anticipated that local traffic will be increased by more than five percent.


Water Resources

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Short-term, minor impact to water resources may be anticipated due to soil erosion and stormwater runoff. Stormwater control during operation of the training facility will be both engineered into the site (stormwater overfill control for the pond) and will employ BMPs as indicated in the Fort Lee Spe-cial Conditions SOP.

Environmental Consequence Analysis– No Action: Current water training activities have a higher potential to contribute to nonpoint source pollution. The proposed plan provides less risk and will be able to be better managed and mitigated.




Wetlands

Environmental Consequence Analysis – Proposed Action: Impact to wetlands is not anticipated to occur. While TA4 is situated adjacent to Blackwater Swamp, construction activities will honor the 100-foot buffer zone defined as a RPA in accordance with the CBPA of 1988. With the current mitigation activities in place, potential impact would not be significant.










Cumulative Impacts









































Action Alternative.


There are six projects at Fort Lee which have a



Fire Management Plan, implementation of the

Nutrient Management Plan, construction of the

Total Army School System Training Center, con-

struction of a barracks facility, construction of

the training support facility and construction of

the new Bowling Center. There is a potential

that a seventh project, the Humanitarian

Demining Training Center, may also occur during

the execution of the proposed plan, but this pro-

ject may be completed before TA4 begins.

The Proposed Action would result in the effects

identified in Table 1. The effects of the Proposed

Action would be maintained at acceptable levels

with the continued implementation of identified

BMPs and mitigation measures.





posed actions that may intersect with the TA4

Water Training Expansion construction. The

VECs that would not be impacted are: airspace,

cultural resources, government services, hazard-

ous/toxic/radioactive substances, infrastructure,

land use, noise, socioeconomics, threatened and

endangered species , groundwater, stormwater,

and wetlands.

Air Quality

Cumulative impacts to air resources as a result

of the Proposed Action when combined with oth-

er present or reasonably foreseeable future ac-

tions, include a temporary, minor increase in

dust emissions as a result of construction activi-

ties and particulate matter due to wildland fires.


would effectively reduce the potential effects

from these actions to a level of insignificance. It

is not anticipated that NAAQS or the Stationary

Permit emission limits would be exceeded.

Soil Erosion











significant.

Surface Water

Cumulative impacts to water resources as a re-

sult of the Proposed Action, along with other

reasonably foreseeable future actions, include

potential soil erosion, turbidity, and sedimenta-

tion, which may result in decreases in water

quality. Implementing mitigation measures and

BMPs should effectively reduce the potential im-

pacts from these actions so that the effects

would not be significant.


Cumulative impacts to transportation as a result of the Proposed Action, along with other reasonably

foreseeable future actions, include potential safety concerns due to increased construction-related ve-

hicles accessing the same roads that Fort Lee personnel and residents use. Short-term visibility con-

cerns may arise from wildland fires combined with fugitive dust around the construction site, but

would be temporary and mitigated using techniques from the Smoke Management Plan if that oc-

curred. Implementing mitigation measures and BMPs should effectively reduce the potential impacts

from these actions so that the effects would not be significant.





Documents

2017 Enhanced Sustainability - home.army.mil · Fort Lee Environmental Special Conditions Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Contractors must follow the Fort Lee Environmental Special