Draft Final Fort Pickett Mission EA Mar 11

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements 2011 Maneuver Training Center, Fort Pickett
prepared for: Virginia Department of Military Affairs VAFM-E, Fort Pickett Blackstone, VA 23824 prepared by: Gilmore Environmental Consulting, LLC. Blackstone, VA 23824
June 2011
Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ES SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT ...................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND REVIEW .......................................................... 1-7 SECTION 2.0 .............................................................................................................................................. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 SUPPORT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 2-2 2.3 TRAINING FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 2-16 2.4 POST OPERATIONS AND MILITARY TRAINING ACTIVITIES........................... 2-16 SECTION 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 3-1 3.2 SCREENING CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVES .................................... 3-1 3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY ............................................ 3-2 3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 3-3 SECTION 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 LOCATION DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Regional Geographic Setting and Location ........................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Climate ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 LAND USE ............................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Post Overview ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 Surrounding Area ................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Ambient Air Quality .............................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 Air Pollutant Emissions at Fort Pickett .................................................................. 4-6 4.4 NOISE ............................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.4.1 Noise Standards ..................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.2 Major Noise Sources .............................................................................................. 4-9 4.4.3 Noise Assessment and Monitoring ........................................................................ 4-9 4.5 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 4-9 4.5.1 Physiography/Topography ..................................................................................... 4-9 4.5.2 Seismicity............................................................................................................. 4-10 4.5.3 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.5.4 Prime Farmland.................................................................................................... 4-12 4.6 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-13 4.6.1 Surface Water ...................................................................................................... 4-13
Virginia Army National Guard i
4.6.1.1 Nottoway River .................................................................................... 4-13 4.6.1.2 Waters Originating Within MTCFP Boundaries ................................. 4-14 4.6.1.3 Waters Originating Outside MTCFP Boundaries ................................ 4-14 4.6.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 4-15 4.6.3 Lakes and Other Impoundments .......................................................................... 4-16 4.6.4 Floodplain ............................................................................................................ 4-17 4.6.5 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 4-18 4.6.6 Water Resources on the Proposed Action Sites ................................................... 4-18 4.6.6.1 Support Facilities Development ........................................................... 4-18 4.6.6.2 Training Facilities Development.......................................................... 4-20 4.6.6.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities ................................ 4-21 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 4-22 4.7.1 Flora ..................................................................................................................... 4-22 4.7.2 Fauna.................................................................................................................... 4-23 4.7.3 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................... 4-25 4.7.4 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 4-25 4.7.5 Biological Resources on the Proposed Sites ........................................................ 4-25 4.7.5.1 Support Facilities Development Projects ............................................. 4-26 4.7.5.2 Training Facilities Development.......................................................... 4-26 4.7.5.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities ................................ 4-26 4.7.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ......................................................... 4-27 4.7.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species on the Proposed Action Sites .......... 4-31 4.7.7.1 Support Facilities Development ........................................................... 4-31 4.7.7.2 Training Facilities Development.......................................................... 4-31 4.7.7.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities ................................ 4-31 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4-33 4.8.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 4-33 4.8.2 Previous Historic Resource Investigations/Section 106 Consultation ................. 4-35 4.8.3 Programmatic Agreement (PA) ........................................................................... 4-36 4.8.4 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) ................................ 4-37 4.8.5 Cultural Resources on the Affected Sites ............................................................ 4-37 4.8.5.1 Support Facilities Development ........................................................... 4-37 4.8.5.2 Training Facilities Development Project ............................................. 4-40 4.8.5.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities ................................ 4-40 4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS .......................................................................................................... 4-42 4.9.1 Demographics ...................................................................................................... 4-42 4.9.2 Housing ................................................................................................................ 4-44 4.9.3 Public Services ..................................................................................................... 4-45 4.9.4 Regional Employment and Economic Activities ................................................. 4-48 4.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE/PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ................................... 4-50 4.10.1 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................ 4-50 4.10.2 Protection of Children ........................................................................................ 4-51 4.11 INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 4-51 4.11.1 Potable Water Supply ........................................................................................ 4-51 4.11.2 Wastewater Treatment ....................................................................................... 4-52 4.11.3 Energy Sources .................................................................................................. 4-52 4.11.4 Telecommunication............................................................................................ 4-53 4.11.5 Solid Waste Disposal ......................................................................................... 4-53 4.11.6 Transportation .................................................................................................... 4-53 4.12 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS/WASTES ................................................... 4-54 4.12.1 Environmental Areas of Concern....................................................................... 4-55
Virginia Army National Guard ii
4.12.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks.............................................................................. 4-55 4.12.3 Underground Storage Tanks .............................................................................. 4-55 4.12.4 Preventive Controls and Spill Response Procedures ......................................... 4-55 SECTION 5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 5-1 5.1 LAND USE .............................................................................................................. 5-3 5.1.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................... 5-3 5.1.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 5-4 5.2 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................... 5-5 5.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 5-5 5.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 5-5 5.3.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................... 5-9 5.3.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 5-7 5.4 NOISE.. ............................................................................................................ 5-7 5.4.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................... 5-7 5.4.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 5-8 5.5 GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS................................................... 5-9 5.5.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................... 5-9 5.5.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 5-13 5.6 WATER RESOURCES.. ............................................................................... 5-13 5.6.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................. 5-13 5.6.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 5-18 5.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.. ..................................................................... 5-18 5.7.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................. 5-18 5.7.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 5-21 5.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES.. ........................................................................ 5-18 5.8.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................. 5-21 5.8.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 5-23 5.9 SOCIOECONOMIC.. .................................................................................... 5-24 5.9.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................. 5-24 5.9.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 5-24 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE & PROTECTION OF CHILDREN.. ........ 5-25 5.10.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ............................................... 5-25 5.10.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 5-25 5.11 INFRASTRUCTURE.. ................................................................................. 5-26 5.11.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ............................................... 5-26 5.11.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 5-27 5.12 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE.. ...................................................... 5-27 5.12.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ............................................... 5-27 5.12.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 5-28 5.13 MITIGATION MEASURES.. ...................................................................... 5-28 5.13.1 Mitigation measures for impacts to land use ......................................... 5-28 5.13.2 Mitigation measures for impacts to air quality ...................................... 5-28 5.13.3 Mitigation measures for noise impacts .................................................. 5-29 5.13.4 Mitigation measures for impacts to soils, topography & geological
Virginia Army National Guard iii
resources ............................................................................................................ 5-29 5.13.5 Mitigation measures for impacts to water resources .............................. 5-30 5.13.6 Mitigation of impacts to biological resources ........................................ 5-31 5.13.7 Mitigation of impacts to cultural resources ........................................... 5-31 5.13.8 Mitigation of impacts to hazardous materials/wastes ............................ 5-31 5.14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................................. 5-31 5.14.1 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................................ 5-33 5.15 STEWARDSHIP MEASURES ............................................................................ 5-38
SECTION 6.0
CONCLUSIONS.. 6-1
SECTION 7.0
REFERENCES..7-1
SECTION 8.0
GLOSSARY.... 8-1
SECTION 9.0
LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 9-1

SECTION 10.0
AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED........................................................................ 10-1

SECTION 11.0
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................................................................. 11-1

APPENDICES
A. B. C. D.
MTC FORT PICKETT OPERATING PROCEDURE - NEPA ............................................... A-1 SOILS MAPPED ON MTC FORT PICKETT ............................................................................ B-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................................................ C-1 NOISE CONTOUR STUDY AND DIAGRAMS ...................................................................... D-1
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Fort Pickett Vicinity........................................................................................... Figures Tab 2.1 Fort Pickett with All Proposed Projects ............................................................. Figures Tab 2.2 Cantonment Area (North) .................................................................................. Figures Tab 2.3 Cantonment Area (South) .................................................................................. Figures Tab 2.4 Operational Readiness Training Complex ......................................................... Figures Tab 2.5 Visitor Control Center........................................................................................ Figures Tab 2.6 Morale Welfare & Recreation Area ................................................................... Figures Tab 2.7 Sports/Baseball Complex ................................................................................... Figures Tab 2.8 Conference Center ............................................................................................. Figures Tab 2.9 Post Exchange Expansion .................................................................................. Figures Tab (Continued)
Virginia Army National Guard iv
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 Fig 1 Fig 2 Fig 3 Directorate of Logistics Troop Warehouse ........................................................ Figures Tab Directorate of Public Works Stormwater Improvements................................... Figures Tab Medical Detachment .......................................................................................... Figures Tab Dining Facility ................................................................................................... Figures Tab Post Headquarters .............................................................................................. Figures Tab Directorate of Public Works Facilities ............................................................... Figures Tab Fort Pickett Airspace Restrictions ..................................................................... Figures Tab UAS Sites .................................................................................................... Figures Tab Adjacent Properties ............................................................................................ Figures Tab ACUB Areas .................................................................................................... Figures Tab Nottoway Flood Zones ....................................................................................... Figures Tab Logperch/Bald Eagle Sites ................................................................................. Figures Tab Noise Contours .................................................................................................. Figures Tab Constraints Cantonment Area (North) ......................................... Constraints Figures Tab Constraints Cantonment Area (South) ......................................... Constraints Figures Tab Constraints Fort Pickett................................................................ Constraints Figures Tab
LIST OF TABLES ES-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 6.1 Summary of Environmental Consequences ...................................................................ES-5 Temperature and Precipitation (Fort Pickett, Virginia 1973-93) ..................................... 4-2 National and Commonwealth of Virginia Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................... 4-7 Major Impoundments at MTCFP ................................................................................... 4-17 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Fauna at MTCFP ................................................... 4-29 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Flora at MTCFP ..................................................... 4-31 ROI Profile Population of the Localities .................................................................... 4-43 ROI Profile Community Population Characteristics................................................... 4-43 ROI Profile Racial Characteristics of the Population ................................................. 4-44 ROI Profile Housing Characteristics .......................................................................... 4-44 Profile of ROI Education Systems ................................................................................. 4-48 ROI Employment by Sector ........................................................................................... 4-49 ROI Income Profile ........................................................................................................ 4-50 Summary of Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ............................ 6-1
Virginia Army National Guard v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAQS AASF ACR AGL ALS AOC APOBS AR ARNG ARNG MTC AST BMP BRAC CAA CAAA CAMTF CALFX CEQ CFR CO CPQC CWA VDCR VDEQ VDGIF VDHR VDNH DoD DOL DPTS DPW DRMO DVOQ E&SCP EA EFH EIR EIS EMT ENMP EO ESA eSB FAA FEMA
Virginia Army National Guard vi
Ambient Air Quality Standards Army Aviation Support Facility Armored Cavalry Regiment Above ground level Advance life support Area of concern Antipersonnel obstacle breaching systems Army Regulation Army National Guard Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center Aboveground storage tank Best Management Practice Base Realignment and Closure Program Clean Air Act Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977 and 1990 Combined Armed MOUT Training Facility Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Carbon monoxide Combat Pistol Qualification Course Clean Water Act Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Historic Resources Division of Natural Heritage Department of Defense Directorate of Logistics Directorate of Plans, Training, and Security Directorate of Public Works Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Distinguished Visiting Officers Quarters Erosion & Sediment Control Practices Environmental Assessment (NEPA) Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Report (Virginia Code 12.1-1188) Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA) Emergency Medical Transportation Environmental Noise Management Plan Executive Order Endangered Species Act Heavy Separate Brigade Federal Aviation Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRE FIRM FNSI FPPA FY FYDP GIS GOV HAPs HHA HMU HQ HVAC HWMP I ICRMP INRMP IPBC ISCP ITAM LCTA LRAM LRCP MATES MEDCOM mgd MICLIC MOA MOUT MPMG/SFF MPRC MSA msl MTC NAAQS NCARNG NEPA NFIP NGB NHPA NO NO2 NOV NRCS NRHP NTA NWI
Virginia Army National Guard vii
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Flood Insurance Rate Map Finding of No Significant Impact Farmland Protection Policy Act Fiscal Year Future Year Development Plan Geographic Information Systems government vehicle hazardous air pollutants High Hazard Area Habitat Management Unit Headquarters heating, ventilation and air conditioning Hazardous Waste Management Plan Interstate Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan Infantry Platoon Battle Course Installation Spill Contingency Plan Integrated Training Area Management Land Condition Trend Analysis (ITAM) Land Rehabilitation and Management (ITAM) Long Range Construction Plan Mobilization and Training Equipment Site Medical Command million gallons per day M58 mine clearing line charge Military Operations Area; memorandum-of-agreement Military Operations in Urban Terrain Multi-Purpose Machine Gun / Sniper Field Fire Multi-purpose range complex Metropolitan Statistical Area Mean sea level Maneuver Training Center National Ambient Air Quality Standards North Carolina Army National Guard National Environmental Policy Act National Flood Insurance Program National Guard Bureau National Historic Preservation Act Nitrous oxide nitrogen dioxide Notice of Violation Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places Normandy Training Area (proposed) National Wetland Inventory

O3 OMS PA PAARNG Pb PM10 RDP REC ROI RPDP RTI SBCT SEC SHA SHPO SMR SPAREC SO2 SOP SPCCP STARC TNARNG TRI TSP TVRs USACE USACHPPM USDA USDOA USEPA USFWS USGS USPFO USTs UXO VaANG VaARNG VAFM-E VCU VDHR VDMA VDoF VDWM VEDP VOC WMCAR VMRC
Virginia Army National Guard viii
Ozone Organizational Maintenance Shop Programmatic Agreement Pennsylvania Army National Guard Lead particulate matter <10mm Range Development Plan Record of Environmental Consideration Region of Influence Real Property Development Plan Regional Training Institute Stryker Brigade Combat Team Southside Electric Cooperative Subsurface Hazard Area State Historic Preservation Officer State Military Reservation Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center Sulfur dioxide Standing Operating Procedure Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan State Area Command Tennessee Army National Guard Training Requirements Integration (ITAM) Total Suspended Particulate tracked vehicular ranges U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geologic Survey U.S. Property and Fiscal Office Underground Storage Tanks Unexploded Ordnance Virginia Air Guard Virginia Army National Guard VaARNG Environmental Office Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of Historical Resources Virginia Department of Military Affairs Virginia Department of Forestry Virginia Department of Waste Management Virginia Economic Development Partnership Volatile organic compounds William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research Virginia Marine Resources Commission

WTMC WTP WVARNG WWTP Wonju Tank Maneuver Corridor Water treatment plant West Virginia Army National Guard wastewater treatment plant
Virginia Army National Guard ix
Virginia Army National Guard x
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508), and 32 CFR Part 651 (the Department of the Armys Regulation (AR) 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions). Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to consider the environmental consequences of major proposed actions in the form of an EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This NEPA documentation is in the form of an EA, which analyzes the Virginia Department of Military Affairs (VDMA) and the Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG) operations on the 42,000-acre (approximate) installation Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center (ARNG MTC), Fort Pickett, hereafter referred to as MTCFP. PURPOSE AND NEED The Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG) proposes to implement the Proposed Action described in the MTCFP Future Mission Requirements, 2011 Environmental Assessment. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the training, support, and management capabilities of MTCFP, and to enable MTCFP to meet future mission requirements in accordance with the Armys changing role in the global environment. The need of the Proposed Action is to ensure that the VaARNG, and other armed forces units using MTCFP, maintain properly trained and equipped units available for prompt mobilization in times of war, national and state emergency, or as otherwise needed. The Proposed Action would implement development and construction of support facilities as well as mission support and training facilities recommended by the MTCFP Real Property Development Plan (RPDP), the MTCFP Master Plan, and the MTCFP Range Complex Master Plan (RCMP). Identification of the elements included in the Proposed Action included consultation with stakeholders in the operation and use of training facilities at MTCFP. Only projects that are reasonably expected to be carried out during the coming five-year period are included in the Proposed Action. In addition, the Proposed Action includes various post operations and military training activities at MTCFP.
Virginia Army National Guard ES-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes twelve construction projects and six programs grouped into two components. The two components are 1) Support Facilities Development and 2) Post Operations and Military Training Activities at MTCFP. The EA evaluated each component of the Proposed Action. Support Facilities Development projects are conceptual proposals at this time. Proposed project sites have been identified for each facility construction project; however, detailed project designs have not been completed. The EA has evaluated whether use of the proposed project site for the intended use can be carried out with no or minimal environmental impacts, and has identified mitigation measures, if required. Post Operations and Military Training Activities may occur at multiple sites
throughout MTCFP, and involve repetitive actions or multiple actions that are similar in character. (1) Support Facilities Development: This component of the Proposed Action includes the development of twelve facilities within the cantonment area of MTCFP. The twelve facility construction projects are: (i) Operational Readiness Training Complex (ORTC), (ii) Visitors Control Center, (iii) Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Area, (iv) Sports/Baseball Complex, (v) Conference Center, (vi) Post Exchange (PX) Expansion, (vii) Directorate of Logistics (DOL) Troop Warehouse, (viii) Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Stormwater Improvements, (ix) Medical Detachment, (x) Dining Facility (DFAC), (xi) Post Headquarters (HQ), and (xii) DPW Facilities. The location of each of the Support Facilities projects is within the existing limits of MTCFP, and is detailed in the EA. (2) Training Facilities Development: This component of the Proposed Action includes the development of a single facility in Training Area 43, an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) runway in the vicinity of Firing Point 43B. (3) Post Operations and Military Training Activities: This component includes the continuation of six classes of actions that occur periodically or continuously at MTCFP as a result of normal operation of the Post, and as a result of normal training exercises. The six classes of actions are: (i) Mission Support Activities (Forest Resource Management, Grounds Maintenance, Demolition activities, and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement), (ii) MTCFP On-going
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Mission Training Activities, (iii) Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Activities, (iv) Air Operations, (v) Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities, and (vi) the MTCFP Integrated Training Area Management Program. All of the activities occur within the existing limits of MTCFP and the airspace included within the MTCFP Military Operations Area. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The EA considers alternatives to achieve the stated purpose of the Action. Screening criteria used to identify potential alternatives include: 1) projects must be in one of the following documents: 2010 MTCFP Master Plan, the 2007 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP), the RPDP, the RCMP, the Long Range Construction Plan (LRCP), or the FYDP, 2) there must be a reasonable expectation from stakeholders that the project will be carried out in the next five years, 3) the action must occur at MTCFP to most effectively support the training mission provided by MTCFP, 4) the actions must meet the needs of the military mission as established by Department of the Army training standards, and 5) whenever possible, the actions should occur on sites where past and on-going activities are similar to the proposed activity in order to minimize adverse environmental effects. Evaluation of alternative measures to achieve the stated purpose of the Action resulted in elimination of all alternatives except the Proposed Action (the preferred alternative) and the No Action Alternative. CEQ regulations and 32 CFR Part 651 require that the effects of the Preferred Alternative be compared to the No Action Alternative in order to clearly evaluate potential impacts that would arise from implementation of the Proposed Action. (1) Preferred Alternative: the preferred alternative (Proposed Action) consists of twelve Support Facilities Development projects, one Training Facility Development project, and six classes of actions necessary for Programs Supporting Post Operations and Military Training Activities at MTCFP. The EA assesses the potential for environmental and socioeconomic impacts from each of the proposed projects in order to evaluate the potential effect of the Proposed Action. (2) No Action Alternative: under the No Action Alternative, the VaARNG would not implement the Support Facilities Development projects or the Training Facility Development
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
project. Actions necessary for Programs Supporting Post Operations and Military Training Activities would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The EA identifies existing environmental conditions at MTCFP, and analyzes the effect of the Proposed Action on the existing environmental conditions. The EA is a complete and objective appraisal of the potential for positive and negative impacts that would result from the Proposed Action. The analysis evaluates potential impacts to land use, climate, air quality, noise,
geological resources, water resources, biological resources (including rare, threatened or endangered species), cultural resources, socioeconomics, infrastructure, hazardous and toxic materials/wastes, environmental justice, and the protection of children. The EA identifies minor impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action (Future Mission Requirements, 2011) on several of the subject environmental resources. Minor impacts are identified for air quality, noise, geological resources, water resources, biological resources (including rare, threatened or endangered species), cultural resources, socioeconomics, infrastructure, environmental justice, and the protection of children. The EA concludes that impacts to threatened and endangered biological resources, socioeconomics, and environmental justice were positive, while minor negative impacts to air quality, noise, geological resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and infrastructure would result from the Proposed Action. A variety of control measures are employed by MTCFP to ensure that impacts to air quality, noise, geological resources, water resources, cultural resources, and infrastructure are less than significant. All of the measures are included in routine operations at MTCFP, and are
established either as Standard Operating Procedures for personnel stationed at or training at the Post, as MTCFP internal operating regulations, or involve compliance with Federal or state laws and regulations. Implementation of the Proposed Action and the control measures identified in the EA would not result in significant adverse effects. Implementation of the Proposed Action and mitigating measures would comply with applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Based on the analysis, the EA concludes that implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the physical, cultural, or natural environment. Positive effects on MTCFP operations are anticipated with the implementation of the Proposed Action; without implementation the proposed stormwater management improvements would not occur. Minor positive impacts on socioeconomic conditions would result from implementation of the proposed project as well. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions are summarized in Table ES-1. proposed action. CONCLUSIONS No significant adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts have been identified for the proposed actions. The remaining impacts, as a result of the proposed actions, have been Under the No Action alternative, the VaARNG would not implement the
determined to be insignificant to the surrounding environment at MTCFP. Based upon the findings and conclusions of this EA, issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) would be appropriate and preparation of an EIS would not be warranted prior to implementation of the proposed action.
Table ES-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences

Resource Area Land Use Summary of Impacts/Mitigation No significant direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. Minor direct/indirect effects from construction activities and from controlled burning for silvicultural management; no mitigation required. Control measures include adhering to appropriate regulations for control of fugitive dust during all clearing and construction activities, training activities, and use of forestry BMPs for minimizing smoke effects in surrounding areas. Minor direct/indirect effects from construction activities are limited to noise from construction vehicles traversing adjacent roads; no mitigation is required. Limiting hours of construction activity to normal working hours would be a sufficient control measure. Minor direct/indirect effects from training activities extend to off-post areas along the eastern boundary of the Post; no mitigation required. Control measures currently include separation and screening. A noise management plan has been prepared for the installation.
Air Quality
Noise
Resource Area
Summary of Impacts/Mitigation
Minor direct/indirect effects would result from clearing and construction practices, and from programmatic actions that result in ground-disturbing activities; no mitigation required. Control measures include the adoption of Standard Operating Procedures to insure that construction activities and training activities are reviewed by VAFM-E prior to ground disturbance, and that Topography, Geology, appropriate measures are followed to minimize soil erosion. VAFM-E has the Soils authority to stop any project until appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are in place. All facility/infrastructure construction, maintenance, and repair activities must comply with adopted erosion and sediment control laws and stormwater management laws, as implemented under the MTCFP Standard Operating Procedures. Training activities that result in significant ground disturbance will be managed under the Sustainable Range Program (SRP). Minor direct/indirect effects to water resources would result from implementation of the proposed project; no mitigation required. Control measures include compliance with existing laws. VaARNG will comply with Virginia erosion and sediment control and stormwater management regulations. VAFM-E has the authority to stop any project until appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are in place. Appropriate permits will be obtained prior to regulated activities affecting jurisdictional waters. Wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the proposed projects. Minor direct/indirect effects on biological resources; no mitigation required. Existing management of military training sites results in higher species richness in some areas, and more suitable habitat for Michauxs sumac germination. Several rare, threatened, and endangered species are present on the Post due to the isolation afforded by military use, which restricts agricultural uses and private development. Existing MTCFP operating procedures guided by the INRMP ensure appropriate protections for rare, threatened and endangered species. Minor direct/indirect effects from construction, silviculture, and training activities; no mitigation required. Control measures include survey by VAFM-E prior to timber harvesting and construction activities, and on-going consultation with Virginia Department of Historic Resources for needed survey activities and preservation of National Register eligible sites. Minor positive direct/indirect effects due to the economic stimulus of proposed construction activity and from the over-all economic benefits of the military training activities; no mitigation required.
Water Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Socioeconomic
Environmental Justice/ Positive direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. Protection of Children Minor direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. The proposed mission support projects will generate a demand for water and sewage treatment and for Infrastructure/Utilities electrical and communication services. Control measures include separate evaluation of utility needs during the facility design process.
Resource Area
Summary of Impacts/Mitigation No direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. MTCFP will continue to work with DEQ to provide needed testing and information for all AOCs. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with DEQ to rehabilitate or reuse contaminated sites on-Post. An active recycling program will be maintained at the Post, and all wastes will be disposed of at appropriately licensed facilities.
Hazardous and Toxic Materials/Waste
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document presents an Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluating future mission requirements at the Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett (MTCFP), Blackstone, Virginia, for the Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG) (Figure 1.1). This EA addresses VaARNG activities at the 42,000-acre (approximate) installation as described in Section 2.0. Actions to be addressed within this EA are proposed for implementation during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2016 planning period. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal agencies, including the Department of the Army, to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions. NEPA directs Federal agencies to consider alternatives early in the decision making process, and to include public participation in the process. Title 32, Part 651 of the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR 651), Environmental Analysis of Army Actions implements NEPA, setting forth the Armys policies and responsibilities for the early integration of environmental considerations into planning and decision-making. Title 32 CFR 651 applies to actions of the Active Army, and Army Reserve, to functions of the Army National Guard (ARNG) involving federal funding, and to functions for which the Army is the Department of Defense (DoD) executive agent. This EA has been prepared in compliance with 32 CFR 651 because the proposed actions will be implemented using federal funds. The requirements of other federal laws and regulations may be addressed by, or during the preparation of an EA. In particular, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470, et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 35, et seq.) require consultation with appropriate controlling authorities prior to initiation of Federal actions. Scoping
notifications for this EA initiated the consultation process in compliance with applicable Federal requirements, and copies of the draft EA will be forwarded to interested agencies for review and comment prior to completion of the assessment process.
Virginia Army National Guard 1-1
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
The Code of Virginia 10.1-1188 requires state agencies such as the Virginia Department of Military Affairs (VDMA) to prepare and submit an environmental impact report (EIR) for each major state project. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is responsible for carrying out Virginias Environmental Impact Review procedures. VDEQs procedures
allow submittal of an EA developed in accordance with NEPA in fulfillment of the EIR requirement (VDEQ, 2004). This document will be submitted in compliance with Code of Virginia 10.1-1188, because VDMA is an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia and several of the projects addressed by the EA constitute major state projects as defined by Virginia Code. 1.2 BACKGROUND
On 12 October 1999, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army articulated a vision about people, readiness, and transformation of the Army to meet the demands of the 21st century. In response to this vision, the Army proposed to undertake a multi-year, phased and synchronized program of transformation affecting most, if not all, aspects of the Armys doctrine, training, leader development, organizations, installations, material, and soldiers. The Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG) is dedicated to supporting the National Guard Bureau (NGB) in their roles and responsibilities under the Department of the Army. The overall mission of MTCFP is to provide a facility capable of handling up to Brigade size elements for live fire and maneuver training for Army Reserve Components and Active Components of all services (VaARNG, 2007). VaARNG proposes to undertake a multi-year strategy involving facility improvements at MTCFP that will enable the installation to meet the requirements of the Armys transformation initiative. MTCFP is located in southeast Virginia, approximately two miles east of Blackstone, Virginia. The installation is located approximately 35 miles west of Petersburg and 60 miles southwest of Richmond on U.S. Route 460 (USACE, 1998) (see Figure 1.1). The installation consists of approximately 42,000 acres spanning three counties: Brunswick (approximately 7,500 acres), Dinwiddie (approximately 14,000 acres) and Nottoway (approximately 20,500 acres). The VaARNG took over operational control of MTCFP on 1 October 1997 through a Facility Use Agreement with the Department of the Army (Department of the Army, 1998a). Under the Facility Use Agreement, the Department of Army retains ownership of the land, and the
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
VaARNG is authorized to use the land for military training activities. As directed by the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC 95) decision, MTCFP property not required for military training has been transferred to Nottoway County and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University to support local redevelopment. MTCFP offers unique training opportunities for National Guard units from several states, the active military, and a variety of federal, state and civilian agencies and organizations. For VaARNG units located throughout central and southwestern Virginia, MTCFP is the closest major training site that meets the training circular guidance for driving time and cost efficiency. In addition, MTCFP offers realistic training for units throughout the year rather than just during the two-week annual training period. MTCFP regularly supports National Guard units from other states including the 30th Heavy Separate Brigade (HSB) of the North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG) and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) of the Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG). In addition, MTCFP supports gunnery and maneuver requirements for other units, including the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG) and the West Virginia Army National Guard (WVARNG). Both of these organizations have equipment pre-positioned at the MTCFP
Mobilization and Training Equipment Site (MATES) facility on a full time basis. The active components of the Department of Defense (DoD) also use MTCFP on a regular basis. This includes the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. The Navy Seals use the installation for survival and explosives training. The Military Munitions and Maneuver Training Areas at MTCFP occupy the entire Post except for selected areas within which maneuver training access is prohibited. Maneuver training access is prohibited in the cantonment area, the munitions storage area, a target box for live-fire activities in which unexploded ordnance (UXO) poses a high-hazard and enclaves within the Post that are owned by, or proposed for transfer to, other government agencies or private entities. A portion of the Military Munitions and Maneuver Training Areas at MTCFP have been designated as Subsurface Hazard Areas (SHA). Excavation by non-Department of Defense (DoD) personnel is not permitted in the area due to the potential presence of buried UXO.
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114
The developed area includes the cantonment area and the airfield. The cantonment includes the headquarters building, training classrooms, troop housing (barracks), dining facilities, and a variety of maintenance, storage, administrative, and recreational areas. The Blackstone Army Airfield/Alan C. Perkinson Municipal Airport (678 acres) is located on the western part of MTCFP, adjacent to State Highway 40. The Airfield includes two runways (4,600 feet and 4,000 feet) as well as the control tower, hangars and other structures housing airfield operations. The Fort Pickett Range Complex is within the National Airspace System regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and includes Restricted Area R-6602 A, B, and C (from the surface up to 18,000 feet above ground level (AGL)) and three Military Operations Areas (MOAs). Because of the availability of 18,000 feet of controlled airspace above MTCFP, the installation is used by the Virginia Air National Guard (VaANG), and other appropriate governmental agencies for aerial gunnery and aerial delivery training. As the Army transforms, the National Guard will receive both new equipment and legacy equipment from the Active Army. The first fielding of the smaller, lighter equipment occurred during FY04. By FY13, the ARNG will have an interim force of one transformed maneuver brigade. By FY26, the transformation of the ARNG will be 57 percent complete. By FY32 there will be an objective force of 33 light maneuver brigades Army-wide. Currently, no U.S. Army or ARNG installations meet all of the criteria for transformation brigade training; therefore, the brigades may not be able to train to full capacity at one time (PAARNG, 2003). It is anticipated that, due to size and availability of maneuver areas and training ranges, MTCFP will remain involved in transformation and training of the PAARNG 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). The enhanced facilities, maneuver and training range areas that would be necessary to provide qualification training for the PAANRG 56th SBCT at MTCFP were evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the PAARNG. Facility improvements
addressed in the SBCT EIS are not included in this EA (2011 Future Mission Requirements EA). All facilities included in this EA are proposed for general support of the overall training mission of MTCFP, including all users of the Posts training facilities. Planning and development of facilities to meet the evolving needs for military training involve a continuing process. An EA completed in 2005 evaluated several projects and programmatic
115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143
activities that have recently been completed or are in progress. Since completion of the 2005 EA, MTCFP has completed an update of the MTCFP Master Plan (2010). This EA is being prepared to address activities identified in the 2010 MTCFP Master Plan, as well as activities identified in the Fort Pickett INRMP (2007), RPDP, and RCMP that have a reasonable expectation of implementation in the coming five years. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
The prospect of a rapidly changing, more turbulent, unpredictable, global security environment underscores the need for a high level of U.S. defense preparedness. To meet the challenges of a wider range of threats and a more complex set of operating environments, the U.S. will require an Army capable of rapid response and dominance across the entire spectrum of operations in joint, interagency, and multinational configurations. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enhance the training, support, and management capabilities of MTCFP and to enable MTCFP to meet future mission requirements in accordance with the Armys changing role in the global environment. The Proposed Action includes
projects and activities that are outlined in the MTCFP RPDP, the MTCFP Master Plan, and the MTCFP RCMP and are in-line with strategies included in the INRMP. Identification of the elements included in the Proposed Action included consultation with stakeholders in the operation and use of training facilities at MTCFP. Only projects that are reasonably expected to be carried out during the coming five-year period are included in the Proposed Action. The purpose of the recommendations proposed in these plans is to improve the operational and strategic proficiency required for peacetime readiness, civilian support, wartime mobilization and the initiation and continuation of combat. All of the proposed Mission Support and Training Facilities construction projects comply with the requirements of NGB PAM 415-12, Army National Guard Allowances dated 23 July 2003. A detailed description of the purpose of each project element of the Proposed Action is provided in the project descriptions presented in Section 2.0. To meet the challenges of a wider range of threats and a more complex set of operating environments, the U.S. requires a world class Army capable of rapid response and dominance across the entire spectrum of operations in a joint, interagency, and multi-national environment.
144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173
To this end, the Proposed Action is needed to further develop and expand the capability of MTCFP to assist the NGB with supporting the Armys vision of transformation. The Proposed Action is necessary to provide additional and upgraded training and operational resources, which meet the standards and expectations of the transformation initiative. This transformation also includes an emphasis on the use of emerging technology, digital targetry and a focus on urban warfare training. The Proposed Action is also needed to ensure that the VaARNG, and other armed forces units using MTCFP, maintain properly trained and equipped units available for prompt mobilization in times of war, national and state emergencies, or as otherwise needed. A detailed description of the need for each project element of the Proposed Action is provided in the project descriptions presented in Section 2.0. 1.4 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT
This EA describes the existing conditions in the affected area and evaluates the potential impacts of the project elements that constitute the Proposed Action. The analysis includes impacts on physical resources, including air quality, water quality, land use, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazardous materials/waste. The analysis also includes evaluation of socio-economic characteristics including impacts on community character, local services and infrastructure, at-risk population groups, and the local economy. The potential impacts of the Proposed Action are measured against the consequences of not taking the actions described, the No-Action alternative. More specifically, this document will focus on any changes or
differences in physical or socioeconomic effects between current facility capabilities, infrastructure, support, services and facilities, and the capabilities, infrastructure, support, services and facilities of the Proposed Action. The EA is an evaluation of the proposed project elements. While sites have been identified for the proposed mission support facilities, site design and building design have not been completed. The EA considers the regulatory and decision framework for design and construction of the facilities on the proposed sites in evaluating whether use of the proposed sites would cause significant adverse environmental impact. Post Operations and Military Training Activities, and Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) activities are evaluated through consideration of the regulatory and decision framework used by VDMA and VaARNG in managing daily activities at the Post.
174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191
The EA fulfills the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and other applicable Federal laws, as required by 32 CFR Part 651. This
investigation is being conducted to identify existing environmental conditions and to determine if an EIS is required to address significant impacts, if any. If the EA determines that impacts would not be significant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) will be prepared. The EA analyzes and documents the potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, associated with the proposed actions. 1.5 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND REVIEW
The preparation of this EA was coordinated with appropriate federal, state and local agencies. Copies of agency correspondence are provided in Appendix C. In addition, agency and public input will be obtained during two public comment periods. The initial public comment period was held following completion of the draft EA. During this time comments submitted by agencies, organizations or members of the public on the proposed actions or EA were considered. Following evaluation of comments received during the initial public review, the EA has concluded that there are no significant impacts, and a draft FNSI has been issued. The draft FNSI and final EA are now being made available for the final public comment period. Notices of public comment periods and availability of the documents will be advertised through the local news media. Appendix C will include copies of public notices, public comments and responses.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

MTCFP proposes to implement a number of projects in the FY11 FY16 planning period to meet the objectives outlined in Section 1.0. The Proposed Action projects were identified through review of MTCFP Master Planning Documents, the INRMP, the Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan (ICRMP) and through a series of consultation/planning meetings with the Fort Pickett Commander, Fort Pickett Directorate of Plans, Training, and Security (DPTS) personnel, DPW personnel and VaARNG Environmental Office (VAFM-E) personnel. All of the proposed project elements are needed to conduct or enhance the training mission at the installation, or to enhance the day-to-day management and operation of the installation. The
projects, which comprise the Proposed Action, fall under two general categories: support facilities development and post operations and training activities: Support Facilities Development Projects include:

Operational Readiness Training Complex (ORTC) Visitors Control Center Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Area Sports/Baseball Complex Conference Center Post Exchange (PX) Expansion Directorate of Logistics (DOL) Troop Warehouse Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Stormwater Improvements Medical Detachment Dining Facility (DFAC) Post Headquarters (HQ) DPW Facilities
Training Facilities Development Projects include: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway Site
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Post Operations and Military Training Activities Include:

Mission Support Activities Mission Training Activities Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Activities Air Operations Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Program PROJECT LOCATION
2.1
MTCFP is located in southeast Virginia, approximately two miles east of Blackstone, Virginia. The installation is located approximately 35 miles west of Petersburg and 60 miles southwest of Richmond on U.S. Route 460. All of the activities included in the Proposed Action would occur within the existing boundary or the associated airspace of MTCFP (see Figures 1.1 and 2.1). The Cantonment Area of MTCFP is the only portion of the 41,178-acre installation that is not used for maneuver training activities. All of the proposed support facilities would be located within the cantonment area or in adjacent training areas (see Figures 2.2 and 2.3). All military training activities would be located within the training areas of MTCFP. Locations are detailed in the individual descriptions of proposed project components in the following sections. 2.2 SUPPORT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
All of the Support Facilities Development projects would occur within the Cantonment Area or nearby training areas. The cantonment area contains a variety of industrial, administrative, and institutional uses needed for administering activities at the Post and for accommodating units using the training facilities available at the Post. In most cases, the proposed projects replace existing facilities already located within the cantonment area that are housed in substandard or temporary buildings constructed during World War II or the Korean War. New facilities would accommodate specialized military mission-support activities that are not currently available at MTCFP.
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
2.2.1 Operational Readiness Training Complex (ORTC) Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct a Brigade Complex to support over 3,500 soldiers. The Complex would include barracks for billeting, a brigade headquarters, motor pools, dining facilities and officer housing. Need: The existing World War II (WWII) temporary wood-frame billeting and support
buildings at MTCFP are inadequate and substandard with respect to troop health and welfare. Additionally, there is insufficient space to house 3,500 troops. Description: The planned ORTC is proposed to be situated on 77.31 acres of previously developed land located in the southeastern section of the cantonment area, as shown in Figure 2.4. The complex is intended for housing and support facilities for brigade-sized units training at MTCFP. The existing WWII temporary wood-frame buildings in the project area (Buildings 2624-2633, 2635-2636, 2638-2639, 2642-2644, 2646-2650, 2657, 2659, 2671-2673, 2680, 2811, 2813-2817, 2823, 2826-2829, 2838, 2841, 2856, 2864-2865, 3061-3063) would not be retained. These buildings are currently used as barracks, dining facilities, training, and vehicle maintenance. Surrounding uses are a mixture of residential, light industrial, recreational, and administrative activities all within the cantonment area and dedicated to the support of the military mission of MTCFP. The proposed Sports/Baseball Complex is planned to the north of this proposed project area, while Range Operations (Building 3001) is located immediately to the east. The Proposed Action would take advantage of existing infrastructure such as roads, water/sewer lines, storm water management structures, etc. The number and size of buildings that would be developed on the site has not been determined. The proposed structures would be permanent, utilizing masonry type construction: exterior walls of brick with concrete masonry unit backup or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles), single or multi-story structure or structures with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle
parking, fencing, sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113
facility signs, utilities, and stormwater retention.
Physical security measures would be
incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy conserving features will be incorporated into the design, including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. 2.2.2 Visitor Control Center Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to provide a visitor center and a security access control point at the main gate of MTCFP in accordance with Army Regulation 190-5. Need: The existing facilities consist of a small guard building and a covered ID check point with one lane designated for DoD pass holders and one lane for all other visitors to receive a written vehicle pass. These facilities are inadequate to support additional visitor services and resources and are not conducive to a security access control point without closing down all traffic coming through the main gate. Description: The planned Visitor Control Center is proposed to be located at an 8.98-acre site south of the existing main gate on the west side of Military Road, as shown in Figure 2.5. The facility would consist of a single building with an asphalt parking lot. Visitors without DoD passes would be directed to the Control Center for an ID check, issuance of a short or long-term visitors pass and to receive information on access to MTCFP. Security personnel would be located within the facility. No existing standing structures are within the proposed project area. The area is currently a revegetated mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species that will be removed. Adjacent uses include a variety of administrative, recreational, and maintenance activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post. Some evidence of former development remains in this area, in the form of roads/trails and abandoned utility infrastructure. A Southside Electric Cooperative (SEC) transmission line erected within the last decade crosses through the area as well. The structure would be permanent, utilizing masonry type construction: exterior walls of brick with concrete masonry unit backup or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope
114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142
(metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles), single or multi-story structure with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle parking, fencing, sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached facility signs, utilities, and storm water retention. Physical security measures would be incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy conserving features will be incorporated into design,
including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. The new Visitor Control Center may employ several updates to help MTCFP go green, including a solar array on the roof that converts sunlight into electricity. Some of the other new "green" aspects that may be utilized are photovoltaic (PV) lighting, solar powered light poles, skylights that provide natural light to reduce the use of electric lighting and a geothermal heat pump (GHP) that harnesses the earths constant temperature as a heat source in winter and a heat sink in summer. 2.2.3 Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Area Purpose: The MWR Area would provide facilities capable of supporting a transient troop population of up to 7,000 service members. The purpose of this proposed action is to renovate the existing pool facilities to provide an adequate location for troop swimming qualifications and training exercises, in addition to, physical training (PT) and recreation. Additionally, the purpose of this project is to construct new tennis courts, basketball courts and a field archery range. Need: The existing MWR facilities are in a state of disrepair which renders them unusable and hazardous. The renovation of these facilities is needed for troop training activities, PT and MWR. Description: The MWR Area is proposed to be located on a 24.73-acre area near the intersection of Military Road and Garnett Avenue, west and south of the existing fieldhouse (Building 1613) as shown in Figure 2.6. This project would include the renovation and reuse of the existing pool located to the south of the fieldhouse. With the exception of a bathhouse associated with the
143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171
existing pool (Building 1643), there are no standing structures in the proposed project area. The wooded area comprising the western portion of the proposed project would be retained, with paths and targets constructed for use as a field archery range. Although adjacent uses include a variety of administrative, recreational, and maintenance activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post, immediately adjacent to the project, almost all areas are unused. The former Fort Pickett Officers Club, part of Nottoway Countys Pickett Park, was renovated and now serves as a daycare facility as well as a social venue and community activity center. It is located to the north of the proposed project area, across Military Road. The proposed DPW facilities are located to the south of this proposed project area.. The renovation of the pool includes demolition of existing pool liner, plumbing, filter and pump equipment and chemical storage and distribution system. The pool renovation would involve the re-plaster of the existing pool and installation of new plumbing, electrical, pumps, and filters. The addition of new tennis and basketball courts would consist of adding two new tennis courts, fencing and lighting, in addition to two new outdoor basketball courts with striping, 12' high fencing and lighting. The addition of a new field archery range would consist of a designated wooded area with targets placed at known distances of up to 80 yards from the shooting stations. This setup helps to improve the technique required for bow hunting in a more realistic outdoor setting, but without introducing the complication and guesswork of unknown distances. 2.2.4 Sports/Baseball Complex Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to provide a new, up-to-date sports complex consisting of four contiguous baseball fields. This would provide MWR facilities capable of supporting a transient troop population of up to 7,000 service members. Need: MTCFP currently has several, out-dated softball/baseball fields that do not have adequate spectator seating or lighting. The existing softball/baseball fields are not located in areas easily accessible to troops housed at MTCFP. One is near the current DPW building, and the others are being displaced by the new Regional Training Institute (RTI) Complex. The Sports/Baseball Complex is needed for troop PT and MWR.
172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
Description: The Sports/Baseball Complex is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing baseball fields being displaced by the RTI Complex, southeast of Hospital Road, between West and East Parade Avenues, as shown in Figure 2.7. The proposed project would reuse a formerly developed area that is now a revegetated mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species that would be removed. No existing standing structures are located within the proposed project area. An RTI Complex (Buildings 2100, 2101, 2103, 2107) is currently under construction to the west of the proposed project area, while Range Operations (Building 3001) is to the southeast and the proposed Operational Readiness Training Complex is located to the south. Adjacent uses
include a variety of administrative, residential, recreational, and maintenance activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post, with WWII temporary wood-frame Buildings 2604-2606, 2608-2610, 2800-2803, 2805-2807, 3001, 2304-2306 located along the southern and northern boundaries of the proposed project area. The area to the east of the project area is unused. Some evidence of former development remains in the proposed project area, in the form of roads/trails, and existing and abandoned utility infrastructure. Development of the 38.44-acre site would include the harvest of trees and the construction of four baseball fields to include dugouts, announcer stands, spectator bleachers, adequate lighting and fences. Cost effective energy conserving features will be incorporated into the design including high efficiency lighting. 2.2.5 Conference Center Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct facilities for executive level conferences that require isolation and security during hosted events. Need: MTCFP has identified a need for a facility where conferences and/or meetings could be held with a higher degree of physical security. MTCFP does not currently have a facility to support the type of isolation and security this conference center would provide. Description: The planned Conference Center is proposed to be located at the site of the current Post HQ (Building 472) and Police Station (Building 471), just off Military Road, and would occupy 39.75 acres of previously developed land, as shown in Figure 2.8. The proposed project would also reuse Building 473 (Buildings 471-473 are all temporary WWII wood-frame structures), and a residence (Building 494, the Austin Place, likely built between 1900-1915) as
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
well as the revegetated mixed stands of conifers and deciduous species around these structures. The timber stands will be removed. Existing structures in the proposed project area, with the possible exception of Building 494 will be modified and new facilities constructed to create the conference center. Adjacent Nottoway County property to the northeast of the project area, Pickett Park, is planned for a mix of commercial, office and institutional uses. With the exception of the Nottoway County property and an electrical substation (see below), the immediately adjacent areas to the project site are unused. There is an existing gravel pit/quarry to the south of the project area while north of the proposed project area, across West Entrance Road, is an SEC electrical substation. The project would involve the construction of new facilities in conjunction with modifications to existing facilities to create a state-of-the-art conference center. The total size of the structures has not been determined. The facility would be designed with three conference rooms (one being the primary conference room and two secondary chambers). The entrance to the center would serve as a foyer/receiving area with restrooms. The structure would also include an undetermined number of superior (DVOQ) motel-style rooms, housing up to 24 senior level persons, and administrative support space. The billeting/office area would have a covered walkway in front. The two separate buildings would have an overhead cover connecting the two with a drivethrough at its center. Two houses are proposed to be located behind the conference center. These would be standard, custom-built homes with added security systems. The two side conference rooms would be for tabled discussions and meetings. The center room would consist of an executive level presentation facility consisting of multimedia and communications equipment for multipurpose training instruction or presentations. The structures would consist of exterior walls of brick or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles), single-story structures with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle parking, fencing, sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached facility signs, utilities, and storm water retention pond(s). Physical security measures would be
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259
incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy conserving features will be incorporated into design, including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. 2.2.6 Post Exchange (PX) Expansion Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to expand and update the existing PX facilities to provide more goods and additional services to the growing troop population. This would
provide MWR facilities capable of supporting a transient troop population of up to 7,000 service members. Need: The new RTI Complex, in addition to increases in the overall training man days has resulted in increases to the transient troop population. The PX Expansion is necessary for adequate troop support and MWR. Description: The proposed PX Expansion is a 4.01-acre site located adjacent to the existing PX footprint, as shown in Figure 2.9. The existing PX building (Building 2204, a temporary WWII wood-frame structure) would be updated and expanded to include new interior square footage to provide more goods and additional services to the growing troop population on Post. A portion of the proposed project site is comprised of revegetated mixed stands of conifers and deciduous species, which would be removed. Adjacent uses to the south and east include a variety of administrative, residential, recreational, and maintenance activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post, including WWII temporary wood-frame buildings (Buildings 2205, 2208-2211, 2217-20, 2226-2227) located to the southwest and southeast of the proposed project area. Areas to the north and west of the project area are unused. Some evidence of former development remains in the proposed project area, in the form of roads/trails, and existing and abandoned utility infrastructure. The proposed Dining Facility Site B is located to the northeast of this project area. The expansion may include lighting, HVAC, electrical, and plumbing improvements. Additionally, a paved patio would be added to the existing building to be used as an outdoor eating area with picnic tables.
260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286
2.2.7 Directorate of Logistics (DOL) Troop Warehouse Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct a warehouse in the Cantonment Area to be used as a DOL Troop Warehouse. Need: The existing WWII wood-frame warehouses on MTCFP are inadequate and unsafe for the needs of DOL. The current/future mission of MTCFP and increases in training and troop population requires a modern, efficient logistic supply system. There is not an existing
warehouse for DOL use to provide the materials and supplies needed for effective training operations. Description: The proposed DOL Troop Warehouse is a 9.90-acre site located along Warehouse Street, as shown in Figure 2.10. This location is a revegetated mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species directly east of the MTCFP main gate. The timber stands would be removed. No existing standing structures are located within the proposed project area. The proposed Visitor Control Center will be located to the west of this project area. Adjacent uses to the south include undeveloped portions of Fort Pickett as well as administrative, warehouse, equipment and materiel storage, and maintenance activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post. Blackstone Army Airfield is located to the east, while areas to the west and north are unused. Some evidence of former development remains in the
proposed project area, in the form of roads/trails, and existing and abandoned utility infrastructure. The facility would be a metal building constructed on a concrete slab consisting of an open warehouse with some office space. 2.2.8 DPW Stormwater Improvements Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to improve and upgrade the outdated
stormwater collection system in the vicinity of the existing DPW compound. Need: Runoff from this area is a contributing factor to the degradation of water quality in Hurricane Branch, a tributary of the Nottoway River (CMI, 2008). The stormwater collection system upgrades are needed to improve the water quality of Hurricane Branch and are a part of MTCFP's implementation of best management practices (BMPs).
287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313
Description: The proposed DPW Stormwater Improvements are located within and adjacent to the existing DPW complex and a softball field near the intersection of 9th Street and Rives Road as shown in Figure 2.11. The project encompasses approximately 30.21 acres and may include the replacement or installation of additional drop inlets, underground stormwater piping, culverts, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drainage swales and the construction of a retention basin. The project may also include the repaving of areas that area damaged, new paving on areas that are currently gravel covered and revegetation of areas that are bare. There are several WWII temporary wood frame structures and warehouses within the project area (Buildings 207-216, 218, 220, 222, AT229, 229B, 229-230, 232, 234, 239-240, 242), none of which will be affected by the proposed action of improving and upgrading the stormwater collection systems. The site is adjacent to MATES facilities to the north, warehouses and a railhead to the east and administrative and maintenance activities to the south. The area west of the site is unused. The proposed Post Headquarters complex is to the southwest of this project area. 2.2.9 Medical Detachment Facility Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct a new facility to house the Medical Detachment. Need: The Medical Detachment is currently housed in Buildings 1866/1867 as a temporary location. The Medical Detachment recently received its own Unit Identification Code (UIC) and requires a permanent facility. Description: The Medical Detachment manages medical assets across the Commonwealth and facilitates Soldier health assessments either through in-house resources or through contracting mechanisms. Medical Detachment conducts Soldier Readiness Processing for overseas The Medical Detachment Facility is
deployments and maintains Soldier health records.
proposed to be located on an open 4.10-acre site along Kemper Avenue where there is one standing structure (Bldg 1368, built 2002) as shown in Figure 2.12. This building will be demolished and a new facility constructed to house the Medical Detachment.
314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
Adjacent areas to the west, north, and east are used for administrative, residential, and maintenance activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post. The area to the south is unused. The structure(s) would be permanent, utilizing masonry type construction: exterior walls of brick with concrete masonry unit backup or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles). The facility would consist of a single or multi-story structure or structures with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle parking, fencing, sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached facility signs, utilities, and stormwater retention. Physical security
measures would be incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy
conserving features will be incorporated into the design, including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. 2.2.10 Dining Facility (DFAC) Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct a new dining facility to serve increased troop population from the 183rd RTI. Need: Existing DFACs located on MTCFP are outdated and in need of renovation.
Additionally, there are not enough DFACs currently on MTCFP to support the troop population utilizing the RTI. Description: The proposed DFAC has two potential locations; Site A and Site B as shown in Figure 2.13. Site A is an open 3.24-acre site located adjacent to the intersection of East Parade Avenue and Hospital Road, north of the RTI Facilities. There are currently no standing
structures on this site. Site B is a 6.01-acre site located along Hospital Road just west of the RTI Facilities. This area is revegetated with a mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species, which would be harvested. There are no standing structures within this proposed location for the Dining Facility.
343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371
The Dining Facility A location is adjacent to a classroom training activity to the northwest and the RTI complex to the east and south. To the north is an open unused area and to the southwest is an unused area revegetated with a mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species. The proposed Post Exchange expansion is further to the southwest, while the other proposed Dining Facility location (Dining Facility B) is to the south, south of the RTI complex. The Dining Facility B location is adjacent to the RTI complex on the north and east, with undeveloped and unused areas to the south and west. The Dining Facility A location is to the north, the proposed Post Exchange expansion to the southwest, and the proposed Sports/Baseball Complex to the east, across the softball fields displaced by the development of the RTI complex. The type of facility constructed would remain the same at either location. The structure(s) would be permanent, utilizing masonry type construction: exterior walls of brick with concrete masonry unit backup or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles). The facility would consist of a single or multi-story structure or structures with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle parking, fencing, sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached facility signs, utilities, and stormwater retention. Physical security measures would be incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy conserving features will be incorporated into the design, including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. 2.2.11 Post Headquarters (HQ) Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct a new Post HQ facility to house the Post Commander and support staff offices. Need: The Post HQ is currently located in Building 472 along Military Road. This building is outdated and does not provide the operationally and technologically secure facilities required for the Post HQ offices.
372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399
Description: The proposed Post HQ is a 9.99-acre site located on the west side of Military Road between 8th and 10th Streets as shown in Figure 2.14. The proposed location is a revegetated area consisting of a mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species. This area would be timbered. There are no standing structures in the project area. Adjacent areas to the north, west, and south are wooded and unused; administrative and storage activities supporting military personnel and activities on the Post are found to the east. Adjacent Nottoway County property to the southeast of the project area, Pickett Park, is planned for a mix of commercial, office and institutional uses. Some evidence of former development remains in the proposed project area, in the form of roads/trails, and existing and abandoned utility infrastructure. Proposed DPW Stormwater Improvements are located to the northeast of this project area, while the proposed Visitor Control Center is located to the north and the proposed Conference Center is located to the south, both along the west side of Military Road. The structure(s) would be permanent, utilizing masonry type construction: exterior walls of brick with concrete masonry unit backup or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles). The facility would consist of a single or multi-story structure or structures with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle parking, fencing, sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached facility signs, utilities, and stormwater retention. Physical security
measures would be incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy
conserving features will be incorporated into design, including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. 2.2.12 Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Facilities Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to construct a new facility to house the Directorate of Public Works.
400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429
Need: The existing DPW is located in WWII temporary style buildings. These buildings are significantly outdated and do not provide adequate facilities for the execution of the mission of the DPW. Description: The location for the proposed DPW Facilities is an 8.14-acre site located along Garnett Avenue, as shown in Figure 2.15, which is more centrally located within the cantonment area to provide better customer service. It would include the construction of one (1)
administrative/office building, and multiple shop buildings for the storage and maintenance of equipment including: tractors, mowers, small-engine equipment, vehicles, etc. The proposed location consists of a revegetated area consisting of a mixed stand of conifers and deciduous species, with the southern third of the project location a cleared open field. The northern two thirds of the project area would be timbered. There are no standing structures in the proposed project area. Adjacent areas to the north, east and west are wooded and unused. The area to the south is used for administrative and maintenance activities (Buildings 1896-1898, 2229) supporting military personnel and activities on the Post. Some evidence of former development remains in the proposed project area, in the form of roads/trails, and existing and abandoned utility infrastructure. The proposed Morale, Welfare and Recreation project is located to the northwest, while the Blackstone Water Treatment facility is located further to the southwest. Use of this location would not affect or be affected by the water treatment facility. The administrative/office building structure(s) would be permanent, utilizing masonry type construction: exterior walls of brick with concrete masonry unit backup or other suitable systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles). The shop building structure(s) would be permanent, utilizing metal frame type construction: exterior walls of metal siding systems; walls and partitions of drywall, block, or other economically suitable material; concrete floors; and roof systems of low slope (metal standing seam roof) or hip or gable type construction (metal standing seam, asphalt or fiberglass shingles). The facility would consist of a single or multi-story structure or structures with ventilation, heating and air-conditioning. Supporting facilities would include military and privately owned vehicle parking, fencing,
430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456
sidewalks, exterior fire protection, outside lighting, access roads, detached facility signs, utilities, and stormwater retention. Physical security measures would be incorporated into the design including maximum feasible standoff distance from roads, parking areas, and vehicle unloading areas, berms, heavy landscaping, and bollards to prevent access when standoff distance cannot be maintained. Cost effective energy conserving features will be incorporated into the design, including energy management control systems and high efficiency motors, lighting, and HVAC systems. 2.3 TRAINING FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
2.3.1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to use a portion of Gettysburg Road in the vicinity of Firing Point (FP) 43B as a new UAS runway. Need: There are existing UAS runways at FP 53A/B and Castles ALZ and a taxiway near the hangar at BAAF. However, since the previous Mission EA was completed, the amount of UAS utilization at the installation has quadrupled, and more capacity is required to effectively train with the UAS options currently in use on MTCFP. Description: The proposed UAS Runway location is a stretch of Gettysburg Road in the vicinity of FP 43B, an open area in the west central portion of MTCFP, close to the Post boundary, as shown in Figure 2.17. There are no standing structures in this proposed project location, and adjacent areas are also open and unused. No construction is anticipated, as the existing roadway will be used. 2.4 POST OPERATIONS AND MILITARY TRAINING ACTIVITIES
The Town of Blackstone is located approximately two miles west of MTCFP. Generally, all lands adjacent to the Post are in agricultural or forestry uses, with widely scattered residences. Pickett Park is surrounded by the airfield, cantonment area, and training areas of the Post. Military land within the boundary of MTCFP is generally classified as either cantonment area or training areas. The cantonment area supports a range of administrative, industrial, residential, and recreational facilities to serve units training at the Post. Training activities within the
457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485
cantonment area are generally limited to classroom activities, drill activities, and other personnel and unit development actions. Training areas are further classified as either unrestricted military munitions and maneuver training area, or restricted areas. Restricted access areas include the Subsurface Hazard Area, and certain areas hosting rare, threatened, or endangered species, riparian buffers, and other significant environmental or recreational features. The Subsurface Hazard Area (SHA) supports all live-fire activities. A portion of the SHA, designated as the High Hazard Area (HHA), serves as a target box for explosive ordnance, and is the only portion of MTCFP that is permanently unavailable for maneuver training activities due to the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO). 2.4.1 Mission Support Activities Purpose: There are four Mission Support activity types, including Forest Resource Management, Grounds Maintenance, Demolition, and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement, that are conducted at MTCFP on a regular basis. The purpose for including these activities in this EA is to address those that take place on a regular basis so that individual NEPA documents are not necessary for each individual action. The purpose of the activities is to ensure that the maneuver training and support areas remain accessible and viable to support future training and mission requirements. Additionally, these activities effectively integrate environmental stewardship principles and conservation management practices into training practices. Need: These activities are needed to support the maintenance of the training and support areas in an environmentally sound manner to ensure no net loss of training capabilities. The effective integration of environmental stewardship principles into training land and conservation management practices ensures that VaARNG land remains viable to support future training and mission requirements Description: Mission support activities may occur at any location within the Post boundary. Support activities are oriented to maintaining the infrastructure needed for Post operations, and occur within the cantonment area, along transportation or utility corridors throughout the Post, and in wooded areas at various locations throughout the Post. Generally, mission support activities are for the purpose of harvesting timber or maintaining or repairing infrastructure that supports existing land uses, and do not change actual land use. There are four activity types
486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515
including Forest Resource Management (timber harvests, reforestation, forest maintenance, prescribed burning and forest pest control activities), Grounds Maintenance (culvert repair, installation of stormwater conveyances, bridges, low water crossings, roads and trails, mowing, and rights of way), Demolition activities (building demolition), and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement normally conducted under the purview of the DPW. Forest Resource Management is conducted to maintain a healthy forest resource within a dynamic land management environment in order to sustainably meet present and future military training requirements. All forest management activities are undertaken in compliance with principles identified in the MTCFP INRMP, and following appropriate consultation with VAFME. Activities: i. Timber harvesting includes silvicultural prescriptions like: clear-cutting, thinning or partial cutting within selected stands to meet forest resource management, military training or construction land management objectives. Timber harvesting activity may include the development of equipment access roads and skid trails. Timber harvesting is conducted in accordance with a planned five-year strategic plan that is refined to a oneyear tactical plan. Unplanned harvests may occasionally be approved to address
unforeseen events such as weather damage, insect infestations, and unplanned military mission needs. ii. Reforestation may involve site preparation and tree planting to allow for the successful establishment of a young forest once a mature forest stand has been silviculturally clearcut or to convert a sensitive area to a forest landscape in order to protect a natural resource. iii. Forest Maintenance may involve the use of fire, chemical and mechanical means of weed control for forest habitat enhancement, improved forest health, productivity and access. It may also include soil amelioration techniques like bio-solid and fertilizer applications. iv. Prescribed Burning is used to reduce fire risk, stimulate wildlife habitat, control undesirable species, stimulate desirable species and improve the forest landscape. Maintenance of fire-breaks is necessary forest fire prevention and may include fire, chemical and mechanical strategies.
516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544
v.
Forest Pest Control is used to control unwanted invasive plants, diseases and insects that disrupt the biological and military training integrity of the forest resource.
Grounds Maintenance activities may include repair of existing infrastructure, including culverts, bridges, concrete crossings, low-water crossings, roads and trails, vegetation maintenance (mowing and brush removal along rights of way), and the installation of new stormwater conveyances including culverts. Repair activities are limited to maintenance, rehabilitation, or repair of existing structures, generally within the footprint of these existing structures. Activities are undertaken either as routine scheduled events, or in response to damage caused by acts of nature or other unforeseen events. Installation of new culverts is completed in accordance with the MTCFP Watershed Analysis and Culvert Recommendations Plan. These activities are
undertaken in compliance with the principles identified in the MTCFP INRMP, which requires appropriate consultation with numerous state and federal agencies. Demolition activities include the removal and disposal of numerous structures, some of which remain from the original development of Camp Pickett during World War II. Debris is typically disposed of at a local landfill. Demolition activities are guided by the principles of the MTCFP INRMP, the VaARNG ICRMP, and the Army Regulation (Department of the Army, 1998b) addressing demolition of buildings and structures. Demolition activities are initiated following consultation with VAFM-E. Wildlife Habitat Enhancement activities include silvicultural activities, establishment and maintenance of forage areas, and maintenance of cover such as riparian buffer areas and stands of dense cover. Most portions of MTCFP are open to some form of hunting, except three areas, which are off limits to all use because of unexploded ordnance. Habitat enhancement activities are coordinated with, and are guided by the MTCFP INRMP. Hunting and fishing on the post are controlled by Fort Pickett Regulation 210-11. The goal is to provide a framework for professional fish and wildlife management that does not interfere with the military mission, and to integrate management with other natural and environmental resources. 2.4.2 Mission Training Activities Purpose: MTCFP is a Joint Maneuver Training Center utilized by the National Guard and
Reserve Components. Tenant activities include the 183rd Regional Training Institute, the 80th
545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574
Training Division (USAR), 157th Engineer Quarry Detachment, 34th Civil Support Team, Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) II, Naval Special Warfare Group 2, and Navy Seabees. MTCFP is designated as the First Army Regional Home Station Training Site. MTCFP provides ranges and maneuver training areas principally designed to support transient DoD customer units and is also tasked with supporting reserve and active component training from the Mid-Atlantic region as well as numerous federal and state law enforcement agencies. Maneuver training may be conducted at any unrestricted location within MTCFPs approximately 42,000-acre training area. Approval of training activities and locations is strictly controlled through a review and approval process based on MTCFP, National Guard, and Army regulations that includes coordination with key environmental responsibility centers. Because of the variety of training activities, the need to provide flexibility in designing training events, and the large area available for training activities, preparation of NEPA documentation for each proposed training event would create untimely delays in the scheduling of training. The purpose for including these activities in this EA is to address those that take place on a regular basis so that individual NEPA documents are not necessary for each action. Need: As opposed to virtual and constructive training, live training involves physical interaction with personnel, weapons, equipment, and the environment. At MTCFP this includes a variety of operations such as mounted and dismounted maneuver, engineer activities, support and sustainment, direct and indirect live-fire, air operations, waterborne operations, and defense/survivability. communicate skills. In essence, this includes any activities involving shoot, move, and MTCFP training activities may include the construction of temporary
defensive positions or staging areas, provision of temporary water crossings, maneuver through difficult terrain, and operations that deny the enemy control of the battlefield. In order to provide maximum flexibility and timeliness to unit commanders, the VaARNG training approval process includes consideration of the environmental effects of proposed actions. Approval of training activities includes adequate consideration of potential environmental hazards and environmental impacts, and includes mitigation measures, as needed, to avoid adverse impacts. Description: This proposed action addresses activities that are routinely conducted throughout the Fort Pickett training area under the purview of DPTS. The MTCFP RCMP goes into further detail of the training capabilities of the installation. A general description of some of the more
575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602
prominent activities is provided in sections 2.3.3-2.3.5. The action would establish the current MTCFP Request For Training Support process as a sufficient environmental review for compliance with NEPA under this EA. The action will ensure that existing Army and National Guard as well as federal and state environmental requirements are complied with during the planning and execution of routine training events described herein. Local documents also
include the MTCFP INRMP, the VaARNG ICRMP, the Fort Pickett Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP), Fort Pickett Regulation 350-2, and the VaARNG Environmental Management System (eMS). 2.4.3 Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Activities Purpose: The purpose of this proposed action is to continue operation in a training area that will give units the ability to conduct live-fire, maneuver, and engineer operations. The Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area (CAA-MTA) is an existing training location. The purpose for its inclusion in the EA is to address the activities that take place there on a regular basis so that individual NEPA documents are not necessary for each training event. Need: Units mobilizing for wartime missions are directed by the First Army Commander to perform and complete specific training tasks before the unit may deploy, which includes live-fire training. The CAA-MTA allows units to conduct live-fire training in convoy operations, helicopter door gunnery, engineer breach lanes, defense, aerial gunnery, and combined arms operations. This area allows units to conduct live-fire training and maneuver operations
concurrently, which provides a more realistic training experience. This training resource is also available to units not deploying. These realistic training opportunities are not readily available at many installations due to external encroachment, but are a necessity to the new training mission of the Army. Description: The CAA-MTA is located entirely within the SHA. Land use within the SHA is dedicated entirely to military training activities involving the use of live weapons systems ranging from small arms to large-caliber ground and air assault weaponry. An area of
approximately two kilometers by four kilometers, the High Hazard Area (HHA) is provided as a target box for explosive ordnance, and access to the area is tightly controlled due to the potential
603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635
presence of unexploded rounds. activities.
The remainder of the area is available for unit training
Adjacent areas to the north, west, and south of the CAALF-MTA are training areas of MTCFP that are available for maneuver training. The area to the east is privately held land of a generally rural character. Scattered rural residences are associated with agricultural lands interspersed with forested areas. Live-fire training associated with the CAA-MTA takes place within the limits of Fort Pickett restricted airspace (R6602, see Figure 2.1). Live-fire training activities associated with the CAA-MTA are completely contained within R6602. This area allows for combined arms livefire exercises with other combat arms units. Some examples of what these activities entail follows:
Helicopter Door Gunnery This feature consists of a 2400 meter gunnery course with multiple soft targets consisting of soft skin vehicles, simulated communications, missile and personnel targets that can be engaged by rotary wing aircraft with 7.62mm weapons from both doors. The course is utilized by a maximum of 5 aircraft in a trail formation. Aircraft can fly, land, and take off in the area. Maneuver Lanes This training consists of convoy lanes, mounted and dismounted offense, static defensive positions, close combat attack and close air support. Features include roads with multiple soft targets consisting of soft skin vehicles, simulated communications, missile and personnel targets that can be engaged with 7.62mm and below weapons. M2 50.cal machine gun firing may be conducted in the southern engagement area. Engineer Breach Lane - This feature consists of a 2km x 2km lane that will encompass engineer live fire exercises including antipersonnel obstacle breaching systems (APOBS), M58 mine clearing line charges (MICLIC), Bangalore torpedoes, demolition training and Water Breaching (Floating and Dry Gap). This exercise area allows for Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise with other Combat Arms units. Engineer Lanes - This training allows units to conduct live-fire mobility, countermobility and survivability training. This includes the employment of Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching Systems (APOBS), M58 Mine Clearing Line Charges (MICLIC), Bangalore torpedoes, demolition (cratering and breaching), and gap bridging (floating and dry gap). Gunboat Lanes Two large waterbodies (Birchin Lake and Sheepslog) exist within the area that can accommodate waterborne gunnery from 7.62mm and below weapons.
636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664
2.4.4 Air Operations Purpose: MTCFP manages the largest block of Army Special Use Airspace (SUA) in the midAtlantic region, specifically; it is the largest block from the North Carolina border to Fort Drum in western New York and second only to the Farmville Military Operations Area (MOA) that is managed by the United States Air Force (USAF). There are two types of SUA managed by Fort Pickett; the restricted area (R6602, which is divided into three vertical layers) and the MOAs (see Figures 2.1 and 2.16). The installation staff has further increased the training value to the aviation community through completion of the Multipurpose Range Complex (MPRC), Infantry Platoon Battle Course (IPBC), sloped landing training area, pinnacle landing area and additional landing zones, and an expanded low level route structure developed in conjunction with the Helicopter Sea Combat Weapons School. Need: Since the previous EA, the amount of UAS utilization at the installation has quadrupled. VaARNG is fielded with the RQ-7 Shadow and RQ-11 Raven UAS. Other services training at MTCFP employ a wider variety of UAS from Class I through Class III to include the RQ-8B Fire Scout and larger systems such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk and Eagle Eye. The blocks of SUA under MTCFPs management are not large by the standards in the western states but are key to the continuing training of all the military forces in the mid-Atlantic region, such as the VaARNGs own 224th Aviation Battalion, Army rotary wing units from nearby installations, Navy helicopters and jets operating from Naval Air Station (NAS) Norfolk and NAS Oceana, and the Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River and MCAS Cherry Point. The distance from base to target area is beneficial for these forces and is crucial to the training conducted by the Helicopter Sea Combat Weapons School and aircraft assigned to the 2d and 4th Marine air wings. It follows that the subordinate or operational squadrons also are very interested in continuing their tactical training efforts at MTCFP. Description: Air operations include aerial delivery and movement of troops, cargo and
equipment, close combat attack and reconnaissance and target acquisition. Fixed and rotary wing, and manned and unmanned aircraft utilize MTCFP twenty-four hours a day 365 days a year from ground level to 18,000 feet AGL. The following paragraphs describe some of the operations conducted and the airspace above and around the installation.
665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694
The MOAs contain high performance aircraft conducting tactical training; normally exceeding the national speed limit below 10,000 feet AGL. Passage by aircraft operating under visual flight rules is not restricted, although aircraft operating under instrument flight rules will not be allowed into the area while high performance aircraft are operating. UAS are operated in MTCFP airspace on an increasing frequency. The RQ-7A/B Shadow 200 Shadow is a small lightweight Tactical UA System (TUAS) designed as a ground maneuver commanders primary day or night reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition system. The Shadow is launched conventionally from a runway or from a vehicle-towed catapult launcher. Shadow employment is flexible and can be tailored to support operations down to company/squad level. The RQ-11B Raven, also known as the Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS), is dedicated to providing aerial reconnaissance and surveillance to the lowest elements, such as a company commander. This man-portable, hand launched, battery operated UAS provides a mobile system that can serve as the eyes of the ground commander by providing low altitude on-demand situational awareness, and enhancing force protection and security. UAS runways are necessary to launch certain vehicles. Locations of current (FP 53 A/B; taxiway near hangar at BAAF; Castles ALZ) and proposed (FP 43B) runways are shown in Figure 2.17. UAS are also used to deliver ordnance. The restricted area (R6602) is a block of airspace, that when activated contains activities that are hazardous to non-participating entities. It is used to contain explosives, direct fire and indirect fired weapons systems and their training activities. This includes the expenditure of training ordnance from rotary winged aircraft and dropping of inert missiles, bombs or bullets from high performance aircraft or aerial delivery of ordnance from USAF special operations aircraft. The Marines bring the Osprey and the MTCFP range operations staff is beginning to see this new aircraft in increasing numbers due to operational issues at their home station and local training facilities. They are expanding their reach for new locations at which to train and MTCFP is ideally suited; meeting their requirements for landing areas, low background light, flight time and isolation from major population areas. The other aviation piece of MTCFP and not directly or necessarily related to the SUA is Blackstone Army Airfield (BAAF). The main runway, although short for routine commercial or military operations, is designed for short field aircraft such as the C-130 and the C-17. The
695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723
ability to conduct tactical assault training during periods of darkness in a low traffic density area is essential to aircrew training. Concurrently they may also conduct airborne operations
exercising any number of aerial delivery skills; this makes MTCFP very beneficial to the training units along with the central location for C-17 units from Charleston Air Force Base (AFB), South Carolina, Dover AFB, Delaware and McGuire AFB, New Jersey. Marine Corps units with assigned C-130 variant come from MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina, Stewart ANG Base, New York and Air Guard or Air Force Reserve units in Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia. 2.4.5 Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities Purpose: The purpose of conducting asymmetric training activities is to prepare the warfighter to win on todays diverse battlefield. MTCFP is constantly evaluating the emerging training doctrine in an effort to provide its users with adequate training facilities. It would be impossible to forecast, or even include every training activity during the time period covered by this EA, but a general description is provided here for analysis of the major changes and ongoing activities since the previous EA. The purpose for inclusion in this EA is to address the activities that take place on a regular basis so that individual NEPA documents are not necessary for each training event. Many of these training facilities were adequately covered under previous NEPA
documents and are included here as a consolidating effort for informational purposes only. Need: The need simply put is to ensure the technical and tactical readiness of personnel to conduct full spectrum operations and respond to unexpected contingencies. Description: A brief description of activities occurring as part of the asymmetric training mission at MTCFP follows: The Counter Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) Defeat Lane is located in the southwestern portion of the installation and includes small mock villages, abandoned vehicles, and road networks designed to simulate semi-urban environments where IEDs are essentially detected and defeated. The Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF) is an urban warfare training suite consisting of building complexes, a shoot house, and an urban assault course. The Forward Operating Base (FOB) training site can house battalion sized units and provides all the features that would be found in a similar facility overseas (laundry, showers, dining, etc). Indirect Firing Areas are areas of general clearing located throughout the installation and designed to facilitate mortar and artillery systems firing ordnance
724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752
into the high hazard dudded impact area. The IPBC is a 300-acre live fire range with Stationary Infantry Targets, Moving Infantry Targets, Stationary Armor Targets, and Moving Armor Target 300 meters long. It includes Infantry Hostile Fire Simulators which can play Battle sounds as well as Battle Effects simulators on the range. The MPRC is designed to accommodate tank table firing, small arms, and aerial gunnery with stationary and moving targets at ranges out to 3000 meters. The remainder of the MTCFP range complex consists of over 20 direct fire and demolition training facilities all situated within the non-dudded dedicated impact area. Human and non-human role players are frequently used to enhance training realism. 2.4.6 Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Program Purpose: The ITAM Program is one element of the Army's Sustainable Range Program (SRP). The SRP is the Armys overall approach to improving the way in which it designs, manages, and uses its ranges to meet its Title 10 mission training responsibilities. The core programs of the SRP are the Range and Training Land Program (RTLP) and the ITAM Program. The RTLP
consists of range modernization and range operations, and the ITAM Program consists of land management and land maintenance. The SRP core programs are integrated with the facilities management, environmental management, munitions management, and safety program functions that support the doctrinal capability to ensure the availability and accessibility of Army ranges and training lands. In accordance with the Army ITAM strategy, the VaARNG will manage land in a sound manner to ensure no net loss of training capabilities and support current and future training and mission requirements. The effective integration of stewardship principles into training land and
conservation management practices ensures that VaARNG land remains viable to support future training and mission requirements (Department of the Army, 2007). ITAM is an existing
program; therefore the purpose for its inclusion in the EA is to address the activities that take place on a regular basis so that individual NEPA documents are not necessary for each action. Need: In order to maintain and sustain land for future training and uphold environmental stewardship responsibilities, the Army has identified a consistent uniform training land management strategy (VaARNG 2001a). ITAM establishes procedures to achieve optimum, sustainable use of training lands by implementing a uniform land management program that
753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789
includes maintaining an accurate inventory and monitoring land conditions, integrating training requirements with training land carrying capacity, educating land users to minimize adverse impacts, and providing for training land rehabilitation and maintenance. These activities have not been found to cause significant adverse impacts as defined by NEPA. Description: The ITAM Program establishes a systematic framework for decision-making and management of Army training lands. It integrates elements of operational, environmental,
master planning, and other programs that identify and assess land use alternatives. The ITAM Program also supports sound natural and cultural resources management practices and stewardship of land assets, while sustaining those assets to support training, testing, and other installation missions. ITAM activities occur throughout the training areas of MTCFP, and are focused on maintaining and rehabilitating the training areas to provide for on-going use by units training at the Post. ITAM does not alter land use. Elements of the ITAM Program at MTCFP include:
Range and Training Land Assessment (RTLA): data gathering component of the ITAM program to survey and monitor conditions of training areas. To accomplish this mission, MTCFP inventories and monitors natural resource conditions and manages and analyzes natural resource information. Results are pertinent to management of training and testing lands from training area to installation scales and provides input to decisions that promote sustained and multiple uses on the land. The RTLA Program evaluates relationships between training land use and condition through the collection of physical and biological resource data. Some range and training land assessments are long term, while others are relatively short. Key to RTLA success is the evaluation of collected data. Analysis of these data drives program success. Training Requirements Integration (TRI): the decision and management procedures to integrate training requirements with land management, training management, natural and cultural resource management, and RTLA data. TRI supports MTCFPs requirements for environmentally sustainable training lands. TRI improves coordination and facilitates cooperation, decision-making, and allocation by providing uniform information regarding land conditions, trends, and any necessary modification of requirements. The TRI goals are achieved when training, testing, and environmental requirements are balanced in the decision-making process. Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance (LRAM): the implementation of preventive and corrective land maintenance practices to sustain the overall condition of installation lands. To achieve LRAM objectives, MTCFP identifies and executes projects to either prevent or solve specific problems. For example, the loss of a natural cover (e.g., vegetation) on a steep slope used for training maneuvers can increase the amount of soil
2-27
Virginia Army National Guard
790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827
erosion, affect the safe use of, and/or create a sediment build-up in or near a wetland. By combining re-vegetation with redesign of the training area, LRAM prevents recurrence of the problem. Sustainable Range Awareness (SRA): provides a means to prevent damage to natural and cultural resources through educating military land users (VaARNG 2001a). SRA is a proactive strategy that educates military land users and land managers by:

Educating land users and managers on how their training, testing, and other activities impact the environment. Teaching them how to reduce the potential for inflicting avoidable impacts on range and training land assets, including the local natural and cultural resources. Instilling a sense of pride and stewardship responsibility to support sustainability goals.
Typical project types undertaken to implement the ITAM program include: Preparation and implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for regulated ground disturbing activities to prevent introduction of sediments into watercourses during construction. Construction and maintenance of concrete (hardened) low-water crossings creates a concrete road surface through a stream or other small water crossing. Water flows freely over the concrete surface. This type of crossing reduces erosion and sedimentation from tanks and other military vehicles crossing streams. Construction and maintenance of non-concrete low water crossings is similar to a hardened crossing, except that type A aggregate interlocking rip-rap is used instead of concrete. Grubbing and clearing stumps after timber harvests. Construction of sediment basins and traps as required by facility designs and training needs helps to intercept stormwater flows and reduce sediment loads that would otherwise enter adjacent streams. Use of Gyrotrack equipment for clearing small timber and brush. The Gyrotrack contains the cutting and mulching equipment in a single vehicle to reduce the machinery required, thus avoiding unneeded soil disturbance and soil compaction. Shoreline revetment is the placing of stone or other shoreline hardening materials along stream banks that have a high erosion potential. Use of shoreline revetment helps to prevent the introduction of excessive silt and sediment into downstream areas. Best management practices for erosion and sediment control involve a variety of nonstructural methods for controlling stormwater runoff and the attendant soil erosion. Mechanical grinding entails the onsite grinding or chipping of post timber harvest. Wood chips produced by the grinder are left on site.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
SECTION 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
NEPA and 32 CFR Part 651 require consideration of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Only alternatives that would reasonably meet the defined need for the proposed action were considered for detailed analysis in this EA. Alternatives to the proposed action, including the No Action alternative, were considered. All alternatives except the No Action alternative were eliminated from further evaluation for the reasons discussed in Section 3.3. 3.2 SCREENING CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVES
Screening criteria for the proposed actions were established by the VaARNG to determine if alternatives to the proposed actions existed. Screening criteria included:
Projects being in one of the following documents: MTCFP Master Plan (2010), the INRMP (2007), the RPDP (2000), the RCMP (2010), LRCP, or FYDP.
Reasonable expectation from stakeholders, including the Adjutant General of Virginia, the MTCFP Commander, the MTCFP Range Operations Officer, and the MTCFP Director of Public Works that the project will be carried out in the next five years.
Proposed actions must occur on MTCFP to most effectively support the training mission provided by MTCFP;
Proposed actions must meet the needs of the military mission as established by Department of the Army training standards;
Whenever possible, proposed actions should occur on sites where historic and on-going activities are similar to proposed activities. This would produce no new significant adverse environmental effects.
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
3.3
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
The purpose in identifying alternatives that address both environmental concerns and still meet the underlying purpose and need for the proposed action is to ensure that all options were considered, examined and then systematically eliminated. In this case, one possible alternative is to implement only certain operations and training enhancements listed under the proposed action, rather than all of the actions. While it could be possible to substitute another location off MTCFP for any single listed action, this was considered impractical and unrealistic as it would not meet the stated purpose of consolidating activities within MTCFP. No variable could be identified which would allow development of a manageable set of alternatives for analysis. This type of analysis would also undermine the objectives set for the VaARNG to meet training requirements within the context of its specific military mission, i.e. the use of MTCFP to provide realistic military training that meets Department of the Army standards. Therefore, an off-site alternative was considered open-ended and unreasonable and was eliminated from further analysis. Except for the No Action and the Preferred Alternative, other alternatives are not assessed because they did not meet screening criteria (32 CFR 651.34(d)) (CFR, 2002). 3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Proposed Action presented in Section 2.0 is the VaARNGs preferred alternative. The individual activities that comprise the Proposed Action, although independent of one another, are required for the VaARNG to meet its mission requirements and are, therefore, evaluated together in this EA. Implementation of the actions and activities proposed in these plans would develop the installation into a modern maneuver training center for the ARNG while maintaining or improving the existing natural and socioeconomic conditions of the area. Failure to implement the Proposed Action would not meet Army training standards and requirements, and would prevent the VaARNG and other armed forces units from achieving and maintaining the military mission.
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
3.5
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action alternative, MTCFP would continue to operate with existing equipment and facilities. The No Action alternative would not implement the preferred alternative. The current baseline conditions are described in Section 4.0 of this EA and serve as a benchmark for evaluations of potential impacts of the proposed action. CEQ regulations and 32 CFR Part 651 require consideration of the No Action alternative (CFR, 2002). Implementation of the No Action alternative would undermine the objectives set for the VaARNG by the Department of the Army to provide realistic military training that meets its standards and requirements, preventing the VaARNG and other armed forces units from achieving and maintaining the military mission.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
SECTION 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Section 4.0 describes the environmental and socioeconomic conditions at MTCFP. It provides information to serve as a baseline from which to identify and evaluate environmental and socioeconomic effects resulting from implementation of the proposed actions. In keeping with the focus of this EA, postwide conditions are described for affected resources in order to provide the foundation for analysis of activities. Following the discussion of postwide conditions,
constraints on individual project sites are described, if applicable. Figures detailing the site constraints for each Mission Support Facility project and each Post Operations project and Military Training Activity are presented in the Figures Section following Section 11.0. The effects of the proposed actions and alternatives are discussed in Section 5.0. 4.1 4.1.1 LOCATION DESCRIPTION Regional Geographic Setting and Location
MTCFP is located in southeast Virginia, approximately two miles east of Blackstone, Virginia. The installation consists of approximately 42,000 acres within three counties: Brunswick (approximately 7,500 acres), Dinwiddie (approximately 14,000 acres) and Nottoway (approximately 20,500 acres). The installation is located approximately 35 miles west of
Petersburg and 60 miles southwest of Richmond on U.S. Route 460 (USACE, 1998) (reference Figure 1.1). All of the activities included in the Proposed Action would occur within the existing boundary of MTCFP and associated airspace (see Figure 2.1). 4.1.2 Climate
The climate of the Piedmont Province in southern Virginia is characterized as humid subtropical with hot, humid summers and mild winters. The average summer temperature in the MTCFP area is approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average daily maximum of approximately 87 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter temperatures average approximately 37 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average daily minimum temperature of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. However,
Gilmore Environmental Consulting, LLC
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
extreme temperatures of 106 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer and 16 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter have been recorded. Precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year, though most of the rain falls in the spring and summer. The total annual precipitation is approximately 46 inches and the average seasonal snowfall approximately 11 inches. Temperature and
precipitation data recorded from 1973 to 1993 at MTCFP are shown in Table 4.1. The growing season averages 191 days, with the average frost-free period extending from mid-April to late October. Table 4.1 Temperature and Precipitation (Fort Pickett, Virginia 1973-93)
Temperature
Average daily maximum F 46.9 51.0 59.7 69.8 77.6 84.8 88.9 87.2 81.3 70.4 61.7 50.6 69.2 --Average daily minimum F 23.5 25.4 33.1 41.3 50.9 59.5 64.8 63.3 56.2 42.6 35.0 26.5 43.5 ---
Precipitation
Average number of days with .10 inch or more Days 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 5 6 --72 Average snowfall Inches 3.5 4.2 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 1.4 --10.4
Month
January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly: Average Total
Average F 35.2 38.2 46.4 55.6 64.3 72.2 76.8 75.2 68.7 56.5 48.4 38.5 56.3 ---
Average Inches 4.14 3.21 4.32 3.48 3.98 3.36 4.63 4.46 3.68 3.69 3.37 3.44 --45.76
35 36 37 38 39 40
Source: NRCS, Soil Survey of Dinwiddie Area, Virginia, 1996.
4.2 4.2.1
LAND USE Post Overview
Land use on the post is primarily devoted to military training. MTCFP contains approximately 3,580 acres of improved and semi-improved grounds. The developed area includes the
cantonment area and the airfield (see Figures 2.2 and 2.3). The Cantonment Area includes the
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
headquarters building, training classrooms, troop housing (barracks), dining facilities, maintenance, storage, administrative and recreational areas. All of the site-specific, Support Facilities Development projects are located within the cantonment area or adjacent training areas. The Blackstone Army Airfield/Alan C. Perkinson Municipal Airport (678 acres) is located on the western part of MTCFP, adjacent to State Highway 40. The Airfield includes two runways (4,600 feet and 4,000 feet) as well as the control tower, hangars and other structures housing airfield operations. MTCFP shares use of the Airfield with Blackstone and Nottoway County. The remainder of MTCFP, with the exception of the High Hazard Impact Areas, is open and available for military maneuver training. Timber health and wildlife management are important components of land management activities. The 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC 95) recommended closure of Fort Pickett and retention as a Reserve Component training enclave. BRAC 95 anticipated that military use of the retained area would be continued. Reuse of the excess lands was evaluated at levels of low, medium-low, and medium intensity levels of future activity (U.S. Army Forces Command, 1998). The Facility Use Agreement (U.S. Department of the Army, 1998a) granting VaARNG the right to use and occupy Fort Pickett requires that plans for additions to or modification, alterations, or improvements of the premises shall be coordinated with and approved by the U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer of the U.S. Army. All permanent improvements become the property of the United States. The Facility Use Agreement also establishes encumbrances for utility and
roadway easements, and reserves certain Areas of Concern (AOC) pending further actions to survey or remediate the AOCs. 4.2.2 Surrounding Area
The region surrounding MTCFP is primarily rural, with forestry and agriculture being the predominant land uses. Scattered residences are located throughout the surrounding area.
Forestlands comprise approximately 75 percent of the total acreage surrounding MTCFP and forest management, including harvests, is conducted adjacent to the installation (VDMA, 1999). The agricultural land uses include raising crops such as soybeans, corn, wheat and hay.
Virginia Army National Guard 4-3 Gilmore Environmental Consulting, LLC
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Blackstone, a town of just under 4,000 people, is located approximately two miles from the MTCFP main gate. Although 26.5% of the towns population lives below the poverty line, the town itself is economically diverse. The Blackstone shopping district attracts people from a three county area, there are over a dozen restaurants in town, and several small companies that manufacture apparel, textiles, furniture and plastics are located in the town (USACE, 1998). An area adjacent to the cantonment area and airfield was designated excess by BRAC 95. Excess property was transferred to Nottoway County and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to support local redevelopment. The 1,675 acres owned by Nottoway County and marketed by the Nottoway County Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) as Pickett Park, is located on several parcels generally adjacent to Blackstone Army Airfield. Pickett Park is primarily zoned for industrial development. One small area of existing structures south of 10th Street is zoned for commercial and office use, reflecting tenants using the existing facilities. Nottoway County actively recruits new business development for Pickett Park. The County has targeted heavy and light manufacturing,
assembly, distribution, and similar operations for its recruitment effort. In general, the County expects expansion of the economic base at Pickett Park to be compatible with the on-going military mission of MTCFP (see Appendix C). Virginia Tech operates the Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center (SPAREC) on 1,130 acres located on the north side of Blackstone Army Airfield. SPAREC has been operating on the site since 1972, and is dedicated to research and extension programs for sustainable production of tobacco, small fruits, cotton, forage crops and grains, as well as grazing lands and cattle production. Zoning of the privately-owned land within the general area of MTCFP generally reflects the land use patterns described above. Most of the areas adjacent to the Post are zoned for agricultural use (A-1 in Nottoway and Brunswick Counties, and A-2 in Dinwiddie County). Areas adjacent to the Post within Nottoway County are also zoned for residential, industrial, and conservation uses (Figure 4.1). MTCFP has been actively involved in Army Compatible Use Buffers (ACUB) program for several years (Figure 4.2). Title 10, Section 2684a of the United States Code authorizes the Department of Defense to partner with non-Federal governments or private organizations to
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
establish buffers around installations. The Army implements this authority through the ACUB program, which is managed jointly at Army Headquarters level by the offices of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management and the Director of Training. The ACUB program is an integral component of the Armys sustainability triple bottom line: mission, environment, and community. It is an innovative tool to limit the effects of encroachment, achieve conservation objectives by proactively addressing encroachment that causes costly workarounds or comprises training realism, and maximize land inside the installation that can be used to support the installations mission. ACUB supports the Army's responsibility as a federal agency to comply with all environmental regulations, including endangered species habitat protection. An ACUB allows an installation to work with partners to encumber land to protect habitat and training without acquiring any new land for Army ownership. Through ACUB, the Army reaches out to partners to identify mutual objectives of land conservation and to prevent development of critical open areas. The program allows the Army to contribute funds to the partners purchase of easements or properties from willing landowners. These partnerships preserve high-value habitat and limit incompatible development in the vicinity of military installations. By working in partnership with conservation organizations (such as the Ward Burton Wildlife Foundation in MTCFPs case), ACUB can coordinate habitat conservation planning at the ecosystem level to ensure that greater benefits are realized towards species and habitat recovery. ACUBs also support local and regional planning and sustainability efforts by emphasizing partnerships with state and local governments and private conservation organizations to work towards common objectives and leveraging public and private funds towards those common goals. The MTCFP ACUB program was covered in a separate NEPA document in 2007 (REC) and to date MTCFP has encumbered over 2600 acres in conserved lands from willing landowners protecting rural landscape, farms and forest, water resources, and the military mission at Fort Pickett.
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157
4.3 4.3.1
AIR QUALITY Ambient Air Quality
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines ambient air quality as that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access (40 CFR 50). As required by the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1977 and 1990 Amendments (CAA), USEPA has designated criteria air pollutants and has defined National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each of the criteria pollutants. Ambient Air Quality Standards are intended to protect public health and welfare, and are classified as primary or secondary standards. Primary standards define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public health. National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Primary and secondary standards have been established for carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (total and inhalable fractions) and sulfur dioxide. Areas that do not meet these standards are called non-attainment areas; areas that meet both primary and secondary standards are known as attainment areas. Under the Clean Air Act, state and local air pollution control agencies have the authority to adopt and enforce air quality standards more stringent than the NAAQS. The Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted the NAAQS, which are presented in Table 4.2. 4.3.2 Air Pollutant Emissions at Fort Pickett
Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Lunenburg and Nottoway counties, in which MTCFP is located or adjacent, are classified by the USEPA as in attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants. MTCFP was issued a Commonwealth of Virginia Air Pollution Control Board Permit (Registration No. 30468) on August 26, 2008. The permit includes oil-fired boilers; 25
degreasing tanks; #2 and #1 oil fired boilers/heating units; miscellaneous large bore (>600 hp) stationary and portable internal combustion engines; miscellaneous (600 hp or less) emergency stationary and portable internal combustion engines; miscellaneous emergency and portable internal combustion engines burning LP gas; four (4) 20,000 gallon bulk distillate oil tanks; one (1) 30,000 gallon JP-8 (Jet Fuel) storage tank; one (1) Global Solutions, Inc. paint booth and sand blasting operation; two (2) non-metallic mineral mining processing plants (157th Engineers
158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167
and MTCFP DPW); one (1) central vacuum for woodworking operations (MTCFP DPW); and, one (1) used oil burning unit (Building T-134 at 2.51 million BTU). The permit limits the annual emissions from the facility to 99 tons per year of PM-10, 87.7 tons per year of SO2, 97.0 tons per year of nitrogen oxides as NO2, 24.6 tons per year of carbon monoxide, and 22.5 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition, the emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are limited to 10 tons of any single HAP and 25 tons of a combination of HAPs. The air emission permit does not include military operations involving mobile sources such as vehicles and weaponry. Not all of the emissions sources identified are active; however, they are listed in the air permit. Table 4.2 National and Commonwealth of Virginia Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide 1-hour Maximum 8-hour Maximum Sulfur Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour Maximuma 3-hour Maximuma Particulate Matter PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour Maximuma Primary Standard 35 ppm 9 ppm 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm --Secondary Standard 35 ppm 9 ppm ----0.50 ppm
Commonwealth of Virginia
Primary Standard 35 ppm 9 ppm 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm --Secondary Standard 35 ppm 9 ppm ----0.50 ppm
50 g/m3 150 g/m3
50 g/m3 150 g/m3
50 g/m3 150 g/m3
50 g/m3 150 g/m3
Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)b Annual Geometric Mean 24-hour Ozone 1-hour Maximumc Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean
----0.12 ppm 0.053 ppm
----0.12 ppm 0.053 ppm
75 g/m3 260 g/m3 0.12 ppm 0.050 ppm
60 g/m3 150 g/m3 0.12 ppm 0.050 ppm
168 169 170 171 172
Lead 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3 Maximum Arithmetic Mean over a Calendar Quarter a Maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. b This is a Commonwealth of Virginia Standard only. Not a federal standard. c The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a maximum hourly average concentration above 0.12 ppm is equal or less than one. ppm parts per million.
173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201
g/m3
micrograms per cubic meter.
Source: 40 CFR Part 50 and 9 VAC 5-30-10
Prescribed burning is an established natural resource and training land management practice at MTCFP, as well as a silvicultural tool. The MTCFP INRMP recognizes the potential for temporary effects on local air quality from prescribed burning operations, and identifies particulates as the primary pollutant resulting from prescribed fires. The INRMP requires that the adverse effects of particulates will be mitigated by adhering to Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) smoke management guidelines. The objectives of the VDOF guidelines are to identify and avoid smoke sensitive areas, reduce emissions, and disperse and dilute smoke before it reaches smoke sensitive areas (VDOF, 1998). The INRMP further specifies that prescribed fires will not be ignited when regional pollution alerts are issued. (Regional air pollution monitoring, and the issuance of air quality alerts is the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). Finally, the INRMP requires notification of Range Operations, Base Fire Department, and local VDOF office in the event of accidental wildfires or prescribed burning operations (VaARNG, 2007). 4.4 4.4.1 NOISE Noise Standards
The Armys operational noise management program is set forth in Chapter 14 of AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement. AR 200-1 implements federal law concerning operational noise generated by Army and ARNG activities, including aircraft operations, range fire, and weapons testing. VaARNG has a State Operational Noise Management Plan (SONMP) that includes MTCFP. It follows AR 200-1, the goals of which are to protect the health and welfare of people on and off post affected by all Army produced noise, to reduce community annoyance from operational noise where feasible and consistent with Army training, and to actively engage local communities in land use planning.
202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
4.4.2
Major Noise Sources
The primary sources of noise at MTCFP are range activities and transportation related sources, such as tactical vehicles and aircraft. Minor noise sources include repair shop maintenance and equipment operations (VDMA, 2000). 4.4.3 Noise Assessment and Monitoring
As part of the MTCFP noise program, noise maps delineating three different noise zones have been prepared (see Appendix D). The three types of noise zones defined are: Zone 1
(compatible), Zone II (normally incompatible) and Zone III (incompatible). The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USACHPPM), now the Public Health Command (PHC), conducted a study for evaluation of the MPRC in 2003 in order to identify noise zones caused from existing training activities on MTCFP. The study breaks down noise into three categories: small arms activity, existing large caliber weapons activity (blast noise), and large caliber weapons activity (blast noise) within the proposed MPRC. The noise zones for the small arms activity are generally contained within the boundaries of the installation. A small area of the Noise Zone II for the small arms activity extends beyond the eastern boundary. The Noise Zones II and III for large caliber weapons activity extend beyond the eastern boundary. Noise complaints are infrequent and minimal in number and there appears to be a general acceptance of noise levels by the surrounding community. As part of the noise program,
MTCFP staff investigates each noise complaint. Operational controls limit noise during certain days and hours during the week to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors. Noise contour information is included in Appendix D. 4.5 4.5.1 GEOLOGY Physiography/Topography
MTCFP is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Region of Virginia. The Piedmont region is primarily composed of igneous and metamorphic rock of Precambrian and Paleozoic Age. Most of the geologic rock formations found on the installation consist of granite, gneiss and quartz. Several dikes and sills of intrusive igneous rocks also occur throughout the area. The bedrock is
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256
covered with a layer of sands, silts and clays. Intense weathering has caused the bedrock to appear at different depths throughout the installation. The topography at MTCFP is characterized by rolling terrain dissected by the Nottoway River and its tributaries. The difference in elevation found on the installation is approximately 260 feet. The highest elevations, approximately 450 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), are north of the Blackstone Army Airfield/Alan C. Perkinson Municipal Airport. The topography of the Post descends toward the southeast, to an elevation approximately 190 feet AMSL at the confluence of Tommeheton Creek and the Nottoway River. A dendritic drainage pattern is present
throughout the installation. From north to south the relief gradually becomes more pronounced as downcutting by the Nottoway River has created steeper slopes and ravines. 4.5.2 Seismicity
MTCFP area is in an area of low seismic hazard as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS, 2002). 4.5.3 Soils
The soils occurring on MTCFP have been mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farmville Task Office in Farmville, Virginia. There are 27 soil-mapping units occurring on MTCFP (see Appendix B). The seven dominant soil series found on the post are the Appling and Cecil sandy loams (2 to 7 percent slopes), Appling-Ashlar complex (7 to 15 percent slopes), Appling sandy loam (2 to 7 percent slopes), Cecil sandy clay loam (7 to 15 percent slopes), Rion sandy loam (7 to 15 percent slopes), Rion sandy loam (15 to 25 percent slopes), and Wehadkee silt loam (0 to 2 percent slopes). Appling and Cecil sandy loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes. These well-drained soils, occurring on ridges and side slopes, cover approximately five percent of the post. The Appling and Cecil sandy loams form in material weathered from felsic crystalline rocks. Permeability is moderate; depth to bedrock is greater than five feet, and the hazard of soil erosion slight. The water table occurs at a depth greater than six feet and the shrink-swell potential is low. Appling Ashlar complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes. The Appling-Ashlar complex consists of well-drained soils found on shoulders and slopes, covering approximately 30 percent of the
257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285
post. The soil forms in material weathered from granite and granite gneiss. Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid and the hazard of soil erosion slight. Depth to bedrock for the Appling soil is greater than five feet. The depth to bedrock for the Ashlar soil ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The water table occurs at a depth greater than six feet and the shrink-swell potential is low. Appling sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes. Covering approximately 19 percent of the post, these well-drained soils occur on ridges and side slopes. The Appling sandy loam forms in material weathered from felsic crystalline rocks. Permeability is moderate; depth to bedrock is greater than five feet, and the hazard of soil erosion slight. The water table occurs at a depth greater than six feet and the shrink-swell potential is low. Cecil sandy clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded. The Cecil sandy clay loam consists of well-drained soils found on uplands and covers approximately five percent of the post. The soil forms in material weathered from felsic crystalline rocks. Permeability is moderate; depth to bedrock is greater than five feet, and the hazard of soil erosion slight. The water table occurs at a depth greater than six feet and the shrink-swell potential is low. Rion sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes. These well-drained soils occur on side slopes and cover approximately six percent of the post. The Rion sandy loam (7 to 15 percent slopes) forms in material weathered from acidic crystalline rocks. Permeability is moderate; depth to bedrock is greater than five feet, and the hazard of soil erosion slight. The water table occurs at a depth greater than six feet and the shrink-swell potential is low. Rion sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes. The Rion sandy loam (15 to 25 percent slopes) consists of well-drained soils found on side slopes and covers approximately six percent of the post. The soil forms in material weathered from acidic crystalline rocks. Permeability is moderate; depth to bedrock is greater than five feet and the hazard of soil erosion moderate. The water table occurs at a depth greater than six feet and the shrink-swell potential is low. Wehadkee silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded. These poorly drained soils occur on floodplains and cover approximately five percent of the post. The Wehadkee silt loam forms in material weathered from schist, gneiss and granite. Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than five feet and the hazard of soil erosion is slight. The water
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314
table occurs at a depth less than one foot and the shrink-swell potential is low. Areas where the Wehadkee silt loam is mapped are typically associated with jurisdictional wetlands. The remaining soils found on the installation along with the soil-mapping units described above are summarized in Appendix B. The table provides general characteristics of the soil series, phases and complexes. Drainage characteristics, textural characteristics, landscape position and some potential limitations associated with the mapping units are provided. In addition, mapping units that are designated as hydric or have inclusions that are hydric are also indicated in Appendix B. The two major soil limitations for activities at MTCFP are hydric conditions and steep slopes. Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded for long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen deficient) conditions in their upper part. Anaerobic soil conditions are conducive to the establishment of vegetation that is typically found in wetlands (hydrophytic vegetation). Hydric soils are typically associated with the general locations of wetlands. Steep slopes tend to be concentrated along the margins of river and stream bottoms throughout the Post. Soils on steep slopes present a potential erosion problem once vegetative cover is disturbed or removed. 4.5.4 Prime Farmland
The intent of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 USC 73 Section 4201, et seq.) is to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary or irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The FPPA also ensures that federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with private, state and local government programs and policies to protect farmland. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for overseeing compliance with the FPPA and has developed rules and regulations for implementation of the Act. There are no areas that would be regulated by FPPA on MTCFP. Several of the soils occurring on MTCFP would be considered prime farmland soils if located in areas available for commercial agriculture, livestock production or silviculture. However, MTCFPs land was
previously acquired for, and is used entirely for military and national defense purposes. There is no agriculture or livestock production on the Post. Silviculture activities are secondary activities
315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
conducted for the purpose of maintaining the suitability of training areas to meet the mission of MTCFP. As all proposed projects in this EA take place within the MTCFP boundary, there are no effects on farmland off post. 4.6 4.6.1 WATER RESOURCES Surface Water
4.6.1.1 Nottoway River MTCFP is located entirely within the Nottoway River Hydrologic Unit (HUC 03010201) of the Chowan River Sub-basin. The Nottoway River, draining an area of approximately 1,700 square miles (USGS, 2004), dissects the southern portion of MTCFP. The Virginia State Water Control Board classifies the Nottoway River as Class III water. Class III waters are the non-tidal waters of the Coastal and Piedmont Zones, and generally meet Federal Clean Water Standards. State and federal law requires VDEQ to produce a biennial report to Virginias citizens and EPA on water conditions in the Commonwealth. The waters are evaluated to determine whether six designated uses and goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are supported. The five uses are: 1) wildlife, 2) aquatic life, 3) fish consumption, 4) shellfish harvest, 5) swimming (primary and secondary contact recreation), and 6) drinking water use. Based on the evaluation, each river and stream segment is assigned a rating according to EPA assessment categories and Commonwealth of Virginia subcategories. The segment of the Nottoway River and Tributaries crossing MTCFP (Waterbody Segment ID VAC-K16R_ZZZ01A00) has been designated as Category 3A (VDEQ, 2004b). Virginia subcategory 3A indicates that no data are available to determine if any
designated use is supported, and the water was not previously listed as impaired. Monitoring of several of the Nottoway Rivers tributary streams originating on or crossing MTCFP has resulted in a designation of EPA Category 5 on those segments. The Category 5 designation requires the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan for the affected segments. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources.
343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372
4.6.1.2 Waters Originating Within MTCFP Boundaries There are two major drainages that largely originate within the boundaries of MTCFP and flow into the Nottoway River. These drainages are Tommeheton Creek and Birchin Creek. Both creeks arise in the northwestern portion of the installation and flow in a southeasterly direction, joining the Nottoway River at the Posts eastern boundary near Gills Bridge. Large manmade impoundments occur on both the Tommeheton and Birchin creeks within the CAA. Furthermore, many portions of their respective drainages are slow moving and marshy, forming extensive wetlands. 4.6.1.3 Waters Originating Outside MTCFP Boundaries Two major drainages form outside the installation and flow through portions of the installation: Butterwood Creek and Long Branch/Hurricane Branch. Butterwood Creek enters the installation in the northwest portion of Training Area 14 and flows southeasterly, exiting the installation east of Pender Road. Butterwood Creek (TMDL ID: VAP-K20R-01) has been assigned an The 5C
EPA/VDEQ Assessment Category of 5C for non-support of Aquatic Life Use.
designation indicates that the Water Quality Standard for the assigned use is not attained due to suspected natural conditions. The Creek is impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and may require a TMDL (303d list). Water quality standards for these waters may be re-evaluated due to the effects of natural conditions. Impairment within Butterwood Creek is due to low dissolved oxygen resulting from natural conditions. The segment was initially listed as impaired in 2002. Long Branch flows into the southwestern portion of the installation crossing the boundary north of Highway 46. Hurricane Branch originates in the area immediately north and west of
Blackstone Army Airfield. Long Branch joins Hurricane Branch southeast of the junction of Old Oak Road and Gettysburg Road to form a wide marsh that empties into the Nottoway River east of Range Road. A portion of Hurricane Branch (TMDL ID: VAC-K16R-03), and an unnamed tributary of Hurricane Branch (TMDL ID: VAC-K16R-01; Water body Segment ID: VACK16R_ZZZ01A00) have been assigned an EPA/VDEQ Assessment Category of 5A for nonsupport of Aquatic Life Use. The streams are impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and require a TMDL (303d list). VAC-K16R-03 is a 1.94 mile segment of
Hurricane Branch from Gettysburg Road to the Nottoway River. Impairment is due to low
373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401
dissolved oxygen resulting from an unknown source.
The segment was initially listed as
impaired in 2004, with a TMDL due to be completed by 2016. VAC-K16R-01, a 1.12-mile unnamed tributary of Hurricane Branch between the Town of Blackstone Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Hurricane Branch, has been designated as an impaired waterway under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d). The VDEQ completed a benthic TMDL assessment of this unnamed tributary in April 2004 that was finalized and approved by the EPA on September 30, 2004 and by the Virginia State Water Control Board on March 15, 2005, when the final rule was adopted. The impairment is attributed to uncontrolled stormwater runoff and sediment loading, leading to general impairment to the benthic (stream bottom dwelling) biological community. The segment was initially listed as impaired in 1994. The current sedimentation loading for any permitted action within this watershed is 60.9 tons/year of Total Suspended Solids. MTCFP has completed and is implementing a Best Management Practice to restrict the amount of runoff by designing and constructing a sediment basin for the new RTI Complex, and has designed a wetlands detention basin to reduce the flow and sediment from its many stone storage lots that directly influence Hurricane Branch. A series of small creeks, including Wildcat Creek, Rocky Run, and Red Oak Creek, originate south of the Nottoway River and drain northeast into MTCFP to join the Nottoway River. 4.6.2 Groundwater
Rock type, geologic structure, topography, and climate determine the characteristics of the ground-water flow system. Rocks of Precambrian and Paleozoic ages within Virginias
Piedmont region generally are consolidated, and are generally covered with unconsolidated material called regolith that is largely derived from weathering of the consolidated rocks. The dense, almost impermeable bedrock yields water primarily from fractures. The fractures form the only effective porosity in the unweathered rock. Regolith is everywhere more
permeable than the underlying bedrock. Because the regolith material varies greatly in thickness, composition, and grain size, its hydraulic properties also vary greatly. Most of the groundwater recharge takes place in interstream areas. Almost all groundwater recharge is from precipitation that enters the aquifers through the porous regolith. Much of the recharge water moves laterally through the regolith and discharges to a nearby stream or depression during or shortly after a
402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
storm or precipitation event. Some of the water, however, moves downward through the regolith until it reaches the bedrock where it enters fractures in the crystalline rocks. Where bedrock fractures have one or more preferred directions of orientation, as is often the case, ground water will tend to flow more readily in the direction of the fractures. Variations in well yield depend on the type of rock in which a well is completed; the thickness of the regolith; the number, size, and spacing of bedrock fractures and the degree to which the fractures are connected; and the topographic setting of the well. The size, number, and
interconnection of the fractures decrease with depth. The thicker the regolith, the greater the volume of water in storage and the more likely well yield can be sustained. Where the regolith is thin, crystalline-rock wells are more likely to go dry during the summer months or periods of drought. The water in the Piedmont aquifer generally is suitable for drinking and other uses, but iron, manganese, and sulfate can occur locally in objectionable concentrations. Some crystalline rocks contain minerals that, when weathered, can contribute iron and manganese to ground water, particularly if the water is slightly acidic. Treatment of the water usually will alleviate problems of iron and manganese concentrations. A study of groundwater characteristics in the Fort Pickett area, conducted in 1989, showed depth to shallowest groundwater ranges from six to 35 feet. The water table begins to fall in April and is replenished in the winter months. Most groundwater is found at depths of less than 150 feet, with the majority found in the upper 30 feet. The majority of natural springs on MTCFP occur at the head of major drainages and is associated with seepage wetlands (VaARNG, 2007). 4.6.3 Lakes and Other Impoundments
There are thirteen ponds and lakes located on MTCFP as indicated in Table 4.3. These lakes range from 384 acres (Fort Pickett Reservoir) to 2.4 acres (Beaver Trail Pond). Fort Pickett Reservoir, a 384-acre reservoir located on the Nottoway River, is the main source of water for MTCFP and the Town of Blackstone. The reservoir has two main branches that join west of State Highway 46 to form the main body of the reservoir. The northwest branch is formed by the confluence of the Nottoway, Little Nottoway and Reedy Creek. The southwest branch arises from the confluence of South Branch, Cedar Creek and several small, unnamed
431 432 433 434
drainages. Military personnel and civilians use the reservoir for fishing and boating. The entire shoreline is vegetated with stands of pine and hardwood trees that serve as an important scenic resource, as well as protective cover for the reservoir watershed. Table 4.3
Impoundment
Engineer Bridge Site Twin Lakes Lewis Pond Floyd Pond Wonju Pond Beaver Trail Pond Birchin Lake Reservation Pond Winterling Pond Dearing Pond Butterwood Pond Tommeheton Pond Fort Pickett Reservoir Total Acreage of Impoundments
Source: VaARNG, 2007
Major Impoundments at MTCFP

Acreage
12.8 20.0 13.2 45.0 3.0 2.4 45.0 2.5 3.0 7.2 8.0 51.0 384.0 597.1
435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 Fort Pickett Reservoir (TMDL ID: VAC K16L-01) was assessed as not supporting of Aquatic Life Use based on low dissolved oxygen levels due to unknown sources. The initial listing as impaired in EPA/VDEQ Category 5A occurred in 2004, with a TMDL due to be completed in 2016. 4.6.4 Floodplain
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assesses flood hazards in jurisdictions participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Lunenburg, and Brunswick Counties participate in the NFIP. Nottoway, Dinwiddie,
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) for MTCFP indicate narrow Zone A (100-year flood hazard) areas associated with the Nottoway River and its tributary streams (Figure 4.3). Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with construction in or alteration of floodplains.
448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475
4.6.5
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR, Part 328.3). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), VDEQ and VMRC regulate development in wetland areas pursuant to Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 CFR, Parts 320-330). Executive Order (EO) 11990 directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. Sources of information about wetlands on the installation include the study Delineation of Wetlands and Other Regulated Waters at Fort Pickett, Virginia (Gravatt et al. 1999), and information from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2004). Three elements are used to identify wetlands: hydrology, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soils. Approximately 2,810 acres of wetlands have been mapped and identified within MTCFP. These wetlands contain a variety of different community types. There are two major wetland soil types found on the installation. The first, sometimes referred to as mixed alluvial land, are somewhat poorly to poorly drained soils found on floodplains. These soils include the Chastain loam, Chewacla loam, Chewacla-Wehadkee complex and the Wehadkee silt loam. The second type of wetland soil found on MTCFP is Worsham sandy loam. This soil occurs in drainageways and has a fine sandy loam upper horizon underlain by a sandy clay loam to sandy clay subsoil (VaARNG, 2007). The majority of wetlands that occur on the Post are located in the southern training areas along the Nottoway River (VaARNG, 2007). However, smaller wetlands are scattered throughout the Post. 4.6.6 Water Resources on the Proposed Action Sites
4.6.6.1 Support Facilities Development There are no water bodies, floodplains, or wetlands on the following proposed action sites:
476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502
ORTC PX Expansion DOL Troop Warehouse DPW Stormwater Improvements Medical Detachment Both DFAC sites DPW Facilities
4.6.6.1.1 Visitors Control Center The proposed site is within the Hurricane Branch drainage area. Stormwater from the site is directed through small man-made ditches along the eastern project site boundary into unnamed tributaries of Hurricane Branch, which is located to the west of the site. A stormwater retention system is located to the east across Military Road. An intermittent stream reaches the southern boundary of the proposed site, but there are no other water bodies, floodplains, or wetlands on the relatively level proposed project site. 4.6.6.1.2 Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Area The proposed site drains to Hurricane Branch through unnamed tributaries to Hurricane Branch. Small, man-made ditches along the developed street system within the site direct stormwaters into unnamed tributaries of Hurricane Branch that are found in the southern portion of the site as well as west of the site. Two small, possibly seasonal ponds are located in the west central area of the proposed site. Prior development of the site resulted in leveling of the northern and eastern portions of the site, and besides the unnamed tributary to Hurricane Branch and the two ponds, there are no surface water bodies, floodplains, or wetlands on the proposed project site. 4.6.6.1.3 Sports/Baseball Complex The proposed site drains to Birchin Creek through unnamed tributaries of Birchin Creek that run through southern portion of the proposed site. There is also a forested wetland in the south central portion of the project area, through which drainage ditches have been cut in the past. A drainage structure/culvert related to RTI Complex construction is located in the northwest
503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528
portion of the proposed site. Man-made ditches located along the southern, eastern and northern boundaries of the proposed site also direct stormwaters to unnamed tributaries of Birchin Creek. There are no floodplains on the proposed project site. 4.6.6.1.4 Conference Center The proposed site is within the Hurricane Branch drainage area. Small drainage swales direct stormwater from the site into unnamed tributaries to Hurricane Branch, which is located west of the site. Prior use of the site resulted in some leveling of the site, but topography is still somewhat rolling. One unnamed tributary to Hurricane Branch enters the proposed site in its northwest corner; there are no floodplains or wetlands on the proposed project site. 4.6.6.1.5 Post Headquarters The Post Headquarters project site is within the Hurricane Branch drainage area. Prior use of the site has leveled the area, altering the natural drainage features of the site. A small intermittent stream, draining to an unnamed tributary to Hurricane Branch, located to the west crosses the central portion of the project area, on a roughly east-west axis. Stormwaters are also directed into a small, man-made ditch along Military Road. Except for the intermittent stream, there are no surface water bodies, floodplains, or wetlands on the proposed project site. 4.6.6.2 Training Facility Development 4.6.6.2.1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway The proposed site is located within the Hurricane Branch and Long Branch drainage areas. Prior use of the site as a roadway and Firing Point resulted in the leveling of the site, leaving no natural drainage features. All stormwaters are directed by small man-made ditches along
Gettysburg Road to intermittent streams and unnamed tributaries to Hurricane Branch to the northeast and Long Branch to the southwest. There are no surface water bodies, floodplains, or wetlands on the proposed site.
529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556
4.6.6.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities 4.6.6.3.1 Mission Support Activities Mission support activities may occur throughout MTCFP as needed to ensure that maneuver training areas remain accessible and viable to support training and mission requirements. In general, timber management, building demolition, and wildlife enhancement activities do not occur in areas occupied by surface water features (See discussion in Section 5.1 for Post regulations guiding the siting and review process for approval of these activities.) Water
crossing construction, including culvert repair, bridges, concrete crossings, and low water crossings occurs on an as-needed basis to repair or forestall damage to streams and stream banks arising from natural events such as flooding and weathering, and from frequent use by training units (See discussion in Section 5.1 for Post regulations guiding the review process, design, and scheduling of water crossing construction activities.) 4.6.6.3.2 MTCFP Mission Training Activities Training activities occur throughout the training areas of MTCFP. In general, training activities avoid areas occupied by surface waters and wetlands due to the hazards they pose for heavy vehicles and equipment. Several types of training activity, however, are water-dependent, and occur within, across, or adjacent to surface water bodies. Examples of water dependent training activities include mobile-bridge training, Special Forces training activities, water-borne live fire training, water supply and treatment. The location of training activities is coordinated by the MTCFP Range Control Officer. 4.6.6.3.3 Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Activities Birchin Creek and Tommeheton Creek flow through the CAA-MTA, with several unnamed tributary streams branching from the two creeks. There are also two large water bodies (Birchin Lake and Sheepslog Lake) that can accommodate waterborne gunnery. Water crossings and water breaching exercises may be conducted at approved points within the CAA-MTA, and are subject to approval by the MTCFP Range Control Officer.
557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583
4.6.6.3.4 Air Operations Air Operations occur throughout the training areas of MTCFP and its associated air space. In general, Air Operations do not occur in areas occupied by surface water features, floodplains, or wetlands. 4.6.6.3.5 Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities In general, training use of the C-IED Defeat Lane, the CACTF, FOB, Indirect Firing Areas, IPBC, MPRC, direct fire and demolition areas avoid areas occupied by surface waters and wetlands due to the hazards they pose for heavy vehicles and equipment. 4.6.6.3.6 Integrated Training Area Management ITAM activities occur throughout MTCFP training areas for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining land for on-going training activities. Water oriented activities may include the
construction, repair or maintenance of low-water crossings, implementation of erosion and sediment control strategies and improvements such as vegetated buffers, sediment traps, sediment basins, and other best management practices. Projects are implemented on an asneeded basis in order to maintain and sustain training areas. 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological resources at MTCFP have been characterized based on resource agency contacts, review of existing site-specific data, and direct field observations. The MTCFP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) is the guiding document for description of biological communities on the Post, and guides activities that affect the biological resources on the Post. A complete list of documented species occurring at MTCFP may be found in the 2007 INRMP. 4.7.1 Flora
MTCFP consists of four primary vegetative cover types: pine, pine-hardwood, mixed hardwood and open grasslands/shrubs. The installation has diverse forest cover comprised of over 50 tree species. Examples of tree species occurring on the post include: loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern red oak (Quercus falcate), shortleaf pine (Pinus
584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612
echinata), yellow popular (Liriodendron tulipifera), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), white oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia) river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), willow oak (Quercus phellos), American elm (Ulmus americana), black walnut (Julgans nigra), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and black oak (Quercus velutina). Open areas (grasslands/scrubs) exist on MTCFP due to training Grassland/shrub species composition varies
activities, prescribed burning, and mowing.
depending on the amount of disturbance. The dominant open area species include: broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), panicums (Panicum spp.), golden rods (Solidago spp.), and asters (Aster spp.) (VaARNG, 2007). 4.7.2 Fauna
4.7.2.1 Mammals MTCFP is home to many mammal species that are typical of the southern Piedmont region. The 2007 INRMP lists 38 species believed to be present on the installation. Small species such as the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nutalli) and the northern short tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) are commonly found throughout the installation. The most common large mammal species are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurius carolinesis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), river otter (Lutra canadensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and coyote (Canis latrans) (VaARNG, 2007). 4.7.2.2 Birds The INRMP lists 161 bird species positively identified on the installation. While several species spend their entire life cycle in the area, the majority spend only a portion of the year in the area. Examples of typical bird species expected to be found in cantonment areas on the installation include: mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641
and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Examples of bird species expected to be found in association with waterbodies on MTCFP include: belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), wood duck (Aix sponsa), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), great egret (Casmerodius albus egretta), great blue heron (Ardea herodias herodias), and green-backed heron (Butorides virescens virescens). Numerous birds occur on MTCFP in association with grasslands and shrublands. The most common grassland birds at MTCFP are the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis) and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). Indigo buntings (Passerina
cyanea) and field sparrows (Spizella pusilla) are common shrubland constituents on MTCFP. Riparian and floodplain forests associated with the Nottoway River support a wide variety of warblers and neo-tropical migrants such as the American redstart (Septophaga ruticilla), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea). Examples of typical raptor species occurring on MTCFP include northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and sharpshinned hawk (Accipiter striatus velox). In addition, owl species occurring on the installation include: barred owl (strix varia), common barn owl (Tyto alba), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and eastern screech owl (Otus asio) (VaARNG, 2007). 4.7.2.3 Amphibians and Reptiles The INRMP lists 38 amphibian and reptiles species found on the installation. Common
amphibians occurring on MTCFP include the northern spring peeper (Hyla crucifer crucifer), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), and the pickerel frog (Rana palustris). Other amphibians typically occurring in the area include spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowlers toad (Bufo wookhousii fowler), barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) and green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). Common
reptilian fauna include the Eastern rat snake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirstalis sirstalis), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina). Other reptiles typically occurring in the area include common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) (VaARNG, 2007).
642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667
4.7.3
Aquatic Resources
The INRMP lists 39 fish species on the installation. Examples of typical fish species include creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act (P.L. 94-265, as amended) provides for the management and conservation and management of marine fisheries and habitat in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. Virginia is a participant in the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. MAFMC has completed seven Fisheries Management Plans. One of the features of the FMPs is to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for species of concern. EFH is designated for waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. Federal and state agencies are required to conduct consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to achieve the EFH goals of habitat protection, conservation, and enhancement. None of the surface waters within MTCFP have been identified as EFH. 4.7.4 Wetlands
The wetland forests occurring on MTCFP are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), American hornbeam (Carpinus carolinianus), American elm (Ulmus Americana) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Common species occurring in the shrub layer include the tag alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and swamp rose (Rosa palustris) (VaARNG, 2007). 4.7.5 Biological Resources on the Proposed Sites
Flora and fauna mentioned above are found on the proposed project sites where the appropriate habitat exists. Fauna is not restricted from entering any portion of post.
668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694
4.7.5.1 Support Facilities Development Projects None of the Support Facilities Development Projects, being in the cantonment area, is a sensitive ecological area. The vegetation on the proposed project sites consists of short grasses and forbs, wooded areas with mixed age deciduous and coniferous species typical of the upland areas of the Post, or some combination of these. In addition, the area of forested wetland in the southern portion of the proposed Sports/Baseball Complex is dominated by typical wetland forest species and shrubs. 4.7.5.2 Training Facilities Development 4.7.5.2.1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway The site is primarily comprised of a graveled roadway with no ground cover. Adjacent portions of FP 43B are maintained with sparse short grasses and forbs present. 4.7.5.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities 4.7.5.3.1 Mission Support Activities Mission support activities may occur throughout MTCFP as needed to ensure that maneuver training areas remain accessible and viable to support training and mission requirements. In general, building demolition activities do not occur in areas occupied by natural biological communities. (See discussion in Section 5.1 for Post regulations guiding the review process for approval of demolition activities.) Timber management, wildlife enhancement, and water
crossing construction occur as needed to maintain base support and training infrastructure. (See discussion in Section 5.1 for Post regulations guiding the review process, design, and scheduling of water crossing construction activities.) 4.7.5.3.2 MTCFP Mission Training Activities Training activities occur throughout the training areas of MTCFP. Training activities may occur in a variety of biological communities, and is limited only by active marking of prohibited areas, training location approval by the Range Control Officer, and the limitation of equipment in use during the training exercise. The location of training activities is coordinated by the MTCFP Range Control Officer.
695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720
4.7.5.3.3 Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Training activities occur throughout the CAA-MTA. Training activities may occur in a variety of biological communities, and are limited only by active marking of prohibited areas and the limitations of equipment in use during the training exercise. The location of training activities is coordinated by the MTCFP Range Control Officer. 4.7.5.3.4 Air Operations Air Operations occur throughout MTCFP and its associated airspace, but typically do not interact with biological communities. 4.7.5.3.5 Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities Training activities occur throughout the training areas of MTCFP. Training activities may occur in a variety of biological communities, and is limited only by active marking of prohibited areas, training location approval by the Range Control Officer, and the limitation of equipment in use during the training exercise. The location of training activities is coordinated by the MTCFP Range Control Officer. 4.7.5.3.6 Integrated Training Area Management ITAM activities occur throughout MTCFP training areas for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining land for on-going training activities. Activities may include a variety of actions to restore vegetative cover, prevent degradation of existing vegetated areas, or otherwise manage the biological characteristics of training locations. Projects are implemented on an as-needed basis in order to maintain and sustain training areas. 4.7.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is the primary Federal law for conservation of species within the United States. The purpose of ESA is to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species live. Federal agencies are required to protect listed species and preserve their habitats, and must utilize their authorities to conserve listed species and make sure that their actions do not jeopardize the survival of listed species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749
Service and the Fisheries Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have the primary responsibility for administering the ESA. Three Virginia agencies have been assigned responsibility for management of rare and endangered species within the Commonwealth. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) has the responsibility for management of plants and insects, while the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) has responsibility for animal species. The Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act charges the Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Division of Natural Heritage (VDNH) with developing statewide programs for the conservation and protection of Virginias diverse natural resources. Many of these statewide programs provide for the classification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species/habitat (Fleming et al., 2004). MTCFP contains habitat for three federally listed species. In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), VDACS, VDGIF, and VDCR have been consulted to obtain further information about the rare, threatened and endangered species within the boundaries of MTCFP. State and Federal responses noted the presence of three species: the bald eagle, the Roanoke logperch and the Michauxs sumac (see Appendix C). The listed species for fauna and flora are described below. As well, DGIF noted that the Nottoway River and Butterwood Creek have been designated as Threatened and Endangered Species Waters (see Appendix C). 4.7.6.1 Fauna MTCFP contains one faunal species listed as federally threatened or endangered. Five other species are listed as species of concern, which is not a regulatory category but indicates that the species merits special concern. Table 4.4 lists these six species and indicates the status of each. The Roanoke logperch (endangered) is protected under the ESA. Location information for where listed fauna can be found at MTCFP is maintained by VAFM-E. The decline in the bald eagle population was attributed to the effects of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides, and to loss of suitable habitat. In July 1999, USFWS proposed to delist the species, citing recovery of the species following the 1972 ban on the use of DDT in the United States, and successful recovery efforts. Final delisting of the species was completed on August
750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758
8, 2007; however it is still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Removal of the species from the list of rare and threatened species requires USFWS to monitor the status of the species for at least five years. There is currently one active bald eagle nest within the boundaries of MTCFP (Mojica & Watts, 2010). The nest is located within the lower reaches of the Hurricane Branch/Long Branch basin near the confluence with the Nottoway River. MTCFP has implemented a 250-meter buffer around the nest and restricts flyovers to 1000 feet. The areal limits of the buffer have been considered in determining potential conflicts with the proposed actions. Table 4.4
Common Name
Bald eagle Roanoke logperch Bachmans sparrow Cerulean warbler Yellow lance mussel Atlantic pigtoe mussel
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Fauna at MTCFP

Species Name Federal Listing
Species of Concern Endangered Species of Concern Species of Concern Species of Concern Species of Concern
State Listing
Threatened Endangered Threatened NL Species of Concern Threatened
VDNH Listing
G4/S2S3B,S3N G1G2/S1S2 G3/S1B NL G2G3/S2S3 G2/S2
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Percina rex Aimophila aestivalis Dendrotica cerulean Elliptio lanceolata Fusconaia masoni
759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779
G1: Global Rank: Extremely rare and critically imperiled with 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2: Global Rank: Very rare and imperiled with 6 to 20 occurrences or very few remaining individuals. G3: Global Rank: Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range. G4: Global Rank; Common apparently secure globally, though it may be rare in parts of its range. NL: Not Listed. S1: State Rank: Extremely rare and critically imperiled to 5 or fewer occurrence or very few remaining individuals in Virginia. S2: State rank: very rare and imperiled with 6 to 20 occurrences or very few remaining individuals in Virginia S#B: Breeding status within the State. S#N: Non-Breeding status.
Source: VaARNG, 2007.
The Roanoke logperch is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The VDNH has classified the Roanoke logperch as extremely rare on both a global and statewide scale, with very few individuals found in Virginia (VaARNG, 2007). The species occurs in four widely separated rivers in the Commonwealth, including the Nottoway River. The major causes of decline include excessive stream sedimentation, construction of impoundments, and associated cold-water discharges (VDCR, 1994). The Roanoke logperch has been reported at MTCFP on two
occasions, approximately one river-kilometer upstream of Shacks Hole Road in the mainstream of the Nottoway River. Additional survey work is required to assess the full population and
780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808
distribution of the Roanoke logperch at MTCFP (VaARNG, 2007). Habitat at the Shacks Hole site consisted of deep pools and riffles. The area of pools and riffles where the logperch was observed was extremely complex in terms of velocity and substrate size and was comparatively silt free (VaARNG, 2007). MTCFP has implemented a 200-meter buffer around the site. The areal limits of the buffer have been considered in determining potential conflicts with the proposed actions. The Bachmans sparrow, Cerulean warbler, Yellow-lance mussel, and Atlantic pigtoe mussel have been identified as species of concern by USFWS. The Bachmans sparrow and Atlantic pigtoe mussel are designated as threatened by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Designation as a federal species of concern confers no additional protective status on the species, but indicates heightened attention by USFWS regarding the status of the species. Each of the four species has been reported on MTCFP. A majority of the locations where Bachman's sparrow has been sighted are located within the CAA. Habitat for this species occurs south of Lake Road and north of Wilcox Road. During the 2000 RTLA bird survey, two singing males were observed in the northern training area, approximately 4 km north of the CAA (VaARNG, 2007). Cerulean warblers have been documented in the Nottoway River macrobasin (VaARNG, 2007). Both the Yellow-lance and the Atlantic pigtoe mussels have been found in the Nottoway River (VaARNG, 2007). 4.7.6.2 Flora There is one federally listed flora species at MTCFP (VaARNG, 2007.) Table 4.6 below identifies the species and indicates its current status. The population of Michauxs sumac occurring at MTCFP is the largest known population and is composed of numerous colonies. The VDNH considers this species to be extremely rare both on a global and statewide scale. On MTCFP, the larger colonies occur in two plant community types, open disturbed grasslands and oak-hickory savannas. The one common feature is that all the areas have evidence of past or recent soil disturbance and frequent fire. Field observations appear to support the hypothesis that Michaux's sumac requires
809
Table 4.5
Common Name
Michauxs sumac Downy phlox Old field milkvine Sedge Torreys mountain mint Large marsh St. Johns wort
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Flora at MTCFP

Species Name Federal Listing
Endangered N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
State Listing
Endangered N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
DNH Listing
G2/S1 G5/S2 G5/S2 G5/S1 G2/S2 G4/S1
Rhus michauxii Phlox pilosa Matelea decipiens Carex vestita Pycnantheum torrei Triadenum tubulosum
810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829
G2: Global Rank: Very rare and imperiled with 6 to 20 occurrences or very few remaining individuals. S1: State Rank: Extremely rare and critically imperiled to 5 or fewer occurrence or very few remaining individuals in Virginia.
Source: VaARNG, 2007.
a combination of soil disturbance and occasional fire to maintain a healthy population (VaARNG, 2007.) The habitat has increased at MTCFP due to training operations that cause wildfires and to controlled burning for silvicultural purposes. Fire removes competition to this plant species and allows seed germination (VaARNG, 2007). 4.7.7 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species on Proposed Action Sites
4.7.7.1 Support Facilities Development There are no known occurrences of Federally-listed or State-listed endangered or threatened species on any of the proposed project sites. 4.7.7.2 Training Facilities Development 4.7.7.2.1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway There are no known occurrences of Federally-listed or State-listed endangered or threatened species on the proposed project site. 4.7.7.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities 4.7.7.3.1 Mission Support Activities The three species of federally listed endangered and threatened species occur at widely scattered locations throughout MTCFP. The management/buffer zones associated with the Roanoke
830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856
logperch and the bald eagle nest are discrete sites, isolated from routine mission support activities. Habitat management units (HMUs) are regions on MTCFP that are managed for Michaux's sumac and its critical habitat. The establishment of HMUs on MTCFP provides contiguous areas that facilitate management decisions, monitoring, research and administrative actions concerning Michaux's sumac. There are nine HMUs delineated on MTCFP. The nine HMUs encompass all known Michaux's sumac colonies occurring on MTCFP. Every large HMU is bordered by a permanent firebreak consisting of a road (paved or gravel) or watercourse (permanent stream or lake shore), which simplifies the use of prescribed fire. Refer to Section 4.7.6.1 for a discussion of Bachmans sparrow and the Pigtoe mussel. 4.7.7.3.2 MTCFP Mission Training Activities The three species of federally listed endangered and threatened species occur at widely scattered locations throughout MTCFP. Endangered species management plans (e.g., Wolf & Murray, 2005) direct active sites, including the management/buffer zones, for the Roanoke logperch and the bald eagle nest (Figure 4.4) to be off-limits for training activities; they are clearly marked for avoidance by unauthorized personnel. Colonies of Michauxs sumac are less restricted for military activity, in part because the disturbance resulting from military training activities appears to support the health of the community. Active colonies of Michauxs sumac are marked for avoidance during maneuver training exercises. Refer to Section 4.7.6.1 for a discussion of Bachmans sparrow and the Pigtoe mussel. 4.7.7.3.3 Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Active sites, including the management/buffer zones, for the Roanoke logperch and the bald eagle nest are located to the south of the CAA. As indicated above, colonies of Michauxs sumac are concentrated within the CAA. A majority of the locations where Bachman's sparrow has been sighted are located within the CAA. Habitat for this species occurs south of Lake Road and north of Wilcox Road.
857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882
4.7.7.3.4 Air Operations There is generally no interaction between Air Operations training and Federally-listed or Statelisted endangered or threatened species. However, there is a no over flight zone for the active bald eagle nest. 4.7.7.3.5 Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities The three species of federally listed endangered and threatened species occur at widely scattered locations throughout MTCFP. Refer to Section 4.7.7.3.2 for a discussion of the Roanoke
logperch, the bald eagle, and Michauxs sumac. Refer to Section 4.7.6.1 for a discussion of Bachmans sparrow and the Pigtoe mussel. 4.7.7.3.6 Integrated Training Area Management ITAM activities are concentrated in areas that experience the highest volume and disturbance from training activities, although ITAM activities may occur wherever needed to maintain training areas disturbed by military training activities. Refer to Section 4.7.7.3.2 for a discussion of the Roanoke logperch, the bald eagle, and Michauxs sumac. Active colonies of Michauxs sumac are marked for avoidance during maneuver training exercises, but may be accessed by VaARNG personnel for inventory and management purposes. Refer to Section 4.7.6.1 for a discussion of Bachmans sparrow and the Pigtoe mussel. 4.8 4.8.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Background
4.8.1.1 Prehistory Prehistoric occupation in Virginia is divided into three major periods: the Paleo-Indian (10,000 to 8,000 B.C.); the Archaic (8,000 to 1,200 B.C.); and the Woodland (1,200 B.C. to A.D. 1650) (Boyko 2010). The Archaic and Woodland periods are further divided into early, middle and late subperiods. The Paleo-Indian period is noted for diagnostic fluted projectile points. Archaic period occupations are often located in bottomlands of relatively large rivers, or in rock shelters, caves and other upland contexts. During the Woodland period in the interior Southeast, the
883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910
seasonal hunting and gathering pattern typical of the early sub-period gradually gives way to a more sedentary village life by the Late Woodland period. 4.8.1.2 History Historic Native Americans who lived in the region of MTCFP included Siouan speaking tribes who were decimated by disease and warfare associated with European contact. By the mideighteenth century, very few remained in the region. The Southside region of Virginia was slow to develop and was sparsely populated by English settlers during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. cultivated in the region. Throughout the nineteenth century, the area was dominated by agricultural development. Small crossroads settlements served as stops along stagecoach routes and, by 1850, served as railroad stops. A few Civil War battles were fought through Virginias Southside including the last major 1865 battles of Five-Forks in Dinwiddie County and Saylers Creek in Prince Edward County. The Battle of the Grove took place in 1864 three miles west of what would become Blackstone (Nottoway County). After the war, residents returned to a largely agrarian lifestyle. The town of Blackstone was founded in 1888. In 1941, the U.S. Government purchased approximately 46,000 acres on which was established the Blackstone Military Area. Camp Pickett was formally dedicated on July 3, 1942. During World War II, it was a major training installation, which also served as a prisoner of war camp. Combat training was discontinued at the camp in 1944 and the facility was closed in 1946. Camp Pickett was reactivated during the Korean Conflict as an Army medical replacement training center. The camp was placed on stand-by status in 1954. In the fall of 1960, the base was renovated as a training area for all reservists in the Second U.S. Army, until its inactivation in 1966. In 1974, the base was designated a permanent military reservation. In 1997, the regular Army garrison at Fort Pickett was deactivated and the VaARNG assumed operation of the post. Tobacco was the primary crop
911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939
4.8.2
Previous Historic Resource Investigations/Section 106 Consultation
4.8.2.1 Archeological Investigations Since Godburn (1977) completed an inventory of the historic properties at MTCFP in 1977, where she identified over 400 projected historic house sites, industrial sites (e.g., mills), agricultural lands and cemeteries, archaeological survey has been ongoing. As of the writing of this EA, over 6000 acres have been surveyed and reported on; over 2000 acres have been surveyed but not reported on; and, over 1800 acres are currently undergoing survey for which reports will be forthcoming. Over 300 archaeological sites have been recorded on post, ranging in age from Native American Early Archaic sites to those sites relating to the establishment of Camp Pickett in 1942. Over 30 of these sites have been determined eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) or sacred sites are known to be present on MTCFP. Although there are no federally recognized tribes within the state of Virginia, there are six federally recognized tribes who are associated with lands within the state. A list of the tribes contacted as part of the scoping process for this EA is provided in Section 10. 4.8.2.2 Historic Architecture Investigations In 1995 the William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research recommended that the 3000 area of the original cantonment was potentially eligible for NRHP listing as an historic district. This area consisted of the standard arrangement of the company barracks, mess halls, and storehouses arranged in a quad and flanked by the battalion administration buildings and a chapel on Armistead Avenue and the motor pool/vehicle maintenance buildings on Kemper Avenue. The buildings were vacant but in good condition. Unlike most of the cantonment buildings today, these buildings were sheathed in wood siding and not covered with vinyl. However, since 1995 this area has seen intensive demolition. The only extant buildings in this area are Buildings 3001, 3005, 3006, 3061, 3062, 3063, and 3075. Many of these extant buildings have also been heavily altered. Building 3001, the chapel, no longer retains its steeple and has had its original doors replaced with modern metal-frame glass doors. Renovations to Building 3005 and 3007 include the application of non-historic materials. Both buildings are sheathed in vinyl siding and have vinyl replacement windows. These changes have
940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967
compromised the areas integrity so that it is no longer eligible for NRHP listing as a district (Griffitts et al., 2009). Versar, Inc. (Versar) conducted an historic architectural survey at MTCFP in 2009 to determine if portions of the original World War II facility would be eligible for listing on the NRHP as an historic district (VDHR # 067-0110). A representative sample of extant buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects associated with the World War II cantonment were recorded as part of the survey. Versar recommended that no portion of the facility retains sufficient integrity to warrant listing on the NRHP as an historic district. Historic maps and aerial photographs illustrate that the original cantonment was more extensively developed than what exists today and that large numbers of buildings have been demolished leaving much of the original main cantonment cleared of its World War II buildings. Except for the hangar at BAAF (Building T0025), no individual building or structure on MTCFP has been determined eligible for the NRHP (Griffitts et al., 2009). 4.8.3 Programmatic Agreement (PA)
In 1986, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices signed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the demolition of World War II temporary buildings at DoD facilities. The PA
provided for extensive documentation of subject building types as a mitigative measure for their eventual demolition. Although the VaARNG operates MTCFP, the property is licensed from the federal government, which retains ownership of the facility. The 1986 PA, therefore, applies to all of the World War II temporary buildings at MTCFP. In 1998, the United States Army, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation signed the final Programmatic Agreement for the Closure and Disposal of Fort Pickett. This PA was provided to ensure compliance with federal historic preservation laws during disposal of excess and surplus property through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994
4.8.4
Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP)
In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, DoD Instruction 4715.3, and National Guard Bureau (NGB) guidance, the VaARNG has prepared an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) (Versar, 2008). The ICRMP is a planning tool to guide
management of identified, known, and newly discovered VaARNG cultural resources. This 5year plan has been completed, reviewed and approved by the VDHR, and is used in the management of VaARNG cultural resources. 4.8.5 Cultural Resources on the Affected Sites
MTCFP maintains records of cultural resources on the Post. Additional references include the MTCFP ICRMP, numerous previous NEPA documents, and records on file at the VDHR Archives. In addition, VaARNG contacted the six federally recognized tribes per NGB-ARE policy and DoD American Indian annotated policy dated 27 October 1999 (see Section 10). 4.8.5.1 Support Facilities Development 4.8.5.1.1 Operational Readiness Training Complex (ORTC) With the exception of the temporary World War II wood-frame buildings (not eligible for listing in the NRHP if they are to be demolished, per PA referenced above), there are no documented cultural resources on the proposed project site. The site was surveyed for archaeological
resources, with the report of investigations expected to be completed by the spring or summer of 2011. 4.8.5.1.2 Visitor Control Center The Pollard cemetery is in the northern portion of this proposed site, and archaeological site 44NT0022 is just west of this proposed site. There are no buildings or structures on the proposed site. Archaeological survey is currently underway on the western portion of this proposed site. The portion of the site adjacent to Military Road has undergone archaeological survey in 2005, and no archaeological sites were recorded (VDHR File No. 2005-0930). The remainder of the proposed site has not been surveyed for archaeological resources.
995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022
4.8.5.1.3 Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Area There is one archaeological site recorded in 1998 on this proposed site, 44NT0059, in the northwest portion of the proposed site. This archaeological site has been determined to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP (VDHR File No. 1996-1236). The portion of the proposed site east of Garnett Avenue has been surveyed for archaeological resources, as has a portion of the proposed site west of Garnett Avenue, in late 2009. No archaeological sites were recorded (VDHR File No. 2010-0305). The remainder of the proposed site has not been surveyed for archaeological resources. Except for the existing pool bath house and pool (both not eligible for listing in the NRHP, based on their 1980 date of construction), there are no structures or buildings on the proposed site. The proposed project site is opposite the former Fort Pickett Officers Club (VDHR # 67-110-1), which is located on the north side of Military Road on Nottoway County property. The Club building has been recommended as eligible for NRHP listing. 4.8.5.1.4 Sports/Baseball Complex There are no buildings or structures on the proposed site. The proposed site has been surveyed for archaeological resources in 2009; two archaeological sites were identified. Neither of the archaeological sites, 44NT0167 or 44NT0168, was determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP (VDHR File No. 2010-0305). 4.8.5.1.5 Conference Center There are three recorded archaeological sites on the proposed project site, 44NT0020, 44NT0021, and 44NT0079. None were determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP (VDHR File Nos. 1994-0217 and 2002-0428). There is one cemetery recorded on the proposed site, the Austin cemetery. Austin Place is the only building besides the three temporary World War II wood-frame buildings on the proposed site. None of the buildings is eligible for listing in the NRHP. The northern portion of the proposed site has been surveyed for archaeological resources in 2004, while the southwestern corner of the proposed site is currently undergoing archaeological survey.
1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049
4.8.5.1.6 Post Exchange (PX) Expansion With the exception of the temporary World War II wood-frame buildings (not eligible for listing in the NRHP) used for the current PX, there are no documented cultural resources on the proposed project site. The site was surveyed for archaeological resources (Fort Pickett Project No. 2006.30), but has not been reported on. 4.8.5.1.7 Directorate of Logistics (DOL) Troop Warehouse There are no documented cultural resources on the proposed project site. The southern portion of the proposed project site has been surveyed for archaeological resources; none were recorded (VDHR File No. 2009-0061). The remainder of the project site has been surveyed for
archaeological resources in 2009, but the results of the archaeological survey have not been reported. 4.8.5.1.8 DPW Stormwater Improvements With the exception of the temporary World War II wood-frame buildings and structures (none of which are eligible for listing in the NRHP), there are no documented cultural resources on the proposed project site. The site has been surveyed for archaeological resources; no archaeological sites were identified (VDHR File No. 2010-0305). 4.8.5.1.9 Medical Detachment Facility There is one existing building (not eligible for listing in the NRHP) on the proposed site. The proposed project site has been surveyed for archaeological resources, but the results of the survey have not been reported (Fort Pickett Project No. 2006.30). 4.8.5.1.10 Dining Facility (DFAC) There are no buildings or structures on either Dining Facility site. Both proposed project sites have been surveyed for archaeological sites but have not been reported on (Fort Pickett Project Nos. 2006.13B and 2006.30). 4.8.5.1.11 Post Headquarters (HQ) There are no buildings or structures on the proposed project site. The eastern section of the project site, along Military Road, has been surveyed for archaeological resources; no
1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076
archaeological sites were recorded (VDHR File No. 2005-0930). The remainder of the project site has not been surveyed for archaeological resources. 4.8.5.1.12 Directorate of Public Works Facilities There are no buildings or structures on the proposed project site. The project site has undergone archaeological survey, but has not been reported on (Fort Pickett Project No. 2006.30). 4.8.5.2 Training Facilities Development Project 4.8.5.2.1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway The proposed site is a Firing Point along the south side of Gettysburg Road in Training Area 43. There are no structures or buildings on the proposed site, and the area south of Gettysburg Road has not been surveyed for archaeological resources. 4.8.5.3 Post Operations and Military Training Activities 4.8.5.3.1 Mission Support Activities Numerous cultural resources have been documented within the boundaries of MTCFP. Mission support activities required for timber management have the potential to result in sub-surface disturbance, and field surveys are routinely conducted in accordance with the ICRMP and the Archaeology SOP, in advance of timber harvesting activity through contracted archaeological services. As well, areas proposed for excavation are routinely surveyed prior to site disturbance, in accordance with the ICRMP and Archaeology SOP. VAFM-E has an established procedure for consultation with VDHR. Undertakings involving standing structures are coordinated through VAFM-E. Under the 1986 Programmatic Agreement between the DoD and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, WWII temporary structures may be demolished following DoDs nationwide assessment of resources from the period and follow-up work to preserve important representative examples. The DoD has fulfilled its responsibilities under the Programmatic Agreement, and temporary WWII and Cold War era structures at MTCFP may be removed. Undertakings, other than demolition, involving WWII temporary structures are coordinated through consultation with VDHR. There are no NRHP listed structures within MTCFP, although the hangar at BAAF
1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103
(T0025) has been determined to be eligible for NRHP listing. Many archaeological sites have been determined to be eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing as well. VAFM-E insures that eligible and potentially eligible properties are maintained, or that appropriate additional research is conducted prior to demolition or unavoidable disturbance. 4.8.5.3.2 MTCFP Mission Training Activities Training activities may result in subsurface disturbance from excavation or equipment use. Training areas where subsurface disturbance may occur are surveyed prior to training activities to determine whether additional excavation is warranted prior to use for training purposes, in accordance with the ICRMP and Archaeology SOP. Known sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing are routinely marked as restricted for training activity. 4.8.5.3.3 Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Training activities within the CAA-MTA have the potential to disturb sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing. However, additional field investigations are severely restricted due to the high potential for unexploded ordnance in the training area. Ground
disturbance by excavators is typically preceded by clearing procedures to ensure safety for personnel and equipment, and may be accompanied by archaeological surface survey of the affected area. However, ground disturbance from munitions is not preceded by UXO clearings, and no archaeological survey is carried out. 4.8.5.3.4 Air Operations Training activities associated with Air Operations as described above do not have the potential to disturb sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing. 4.8.5.3.5 Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities Training activities may result in subsurface disturbance from excavation or equipment use. Training sites where subsurface disturbance may occur are surveyed prior to training activities to determine whether additional excavation is warranted prior to use for training purposes, in accordance with the ICRMP and Archaeology SOP. Known sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for NRHP listing are routinely marked as restricted for training activity.
1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130
4.8.5.3.6 Integrated Training Area Management ITAM activities may occur throughout the training areas of MTCFP, and are subject to the ICRMP and Archaeology SOP cultural resources protocols in effect for each training area. 4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS
32 CFR Part 651 requires an analysis of impacts to socioeconomic characteristics within the geographical Region of Influence (ROI). The ROI is the accepted geographic area with the greatest potential to be impacted by the proposed actions. Economic linkages, spatial
dimensions, population centers and commercial and business centers are all factors in determining the boundaries of the ROI. Based on MTCFPs location, the counties of Nottoway (including the town of Blackstone), Brunswick, Dinwiddie and Lunenburg were delineated as the ROI. 4.9.1 Demographics
The four county ROI experienced a 16 percent population increase between the 1990 U.S. census (63,349) and the 2000 U.S. census (73,823) (U.S. Census, 2000). The 2000 population of the ROI is one percent of Virginias total population of 7,078,515 (U.S. Census, 2000). Dinwiddie County has the largest population, which is concentrated on the eastern side of the county near the city of Petersburg. Dinwiddie County also has the greatest number of households and the highest median household income of the ROI (Table 4.7). The central and western portions of Dinwiddie County and the other three counties are rural in character with scattered farms and residences. Brunswick County has the highest percentage of minority residents at 58 percent (Table 4.8). Racial minorities make up more than a third of the populations of Nottoway, Dinwiddie and Lunenburg Counties (Table 4.8). The largest minority group within the four county ROI is African American. Three of the four counties in the ROI have a higher percentage of households and individuals living below the poverty level than does the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole. The ROI has an average of 20 percent of the population living below the poverty level. Brunswick, Nottoway and Lunenburg Counties have poverty rates almost twice the average rate for the
1131 1132 1133
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Dinwiddie County, with the lowest poverty rate of the four
counties, is slightly lower than the statewide average. Table 4.6

U.S. Census Location
Town of Blackstone Nottoway County* Dinwiddie County Brunswick County Lunenburg County TOTAL**
ROI Profile Population of the Localities

1990 Population
3,497 14,993 20,960 15,987 11,419 63,349
1980 Population
N/A 14,666 22,602 15,632 12,124 65,024
2000 Population
3,675 15,725 24,533 18,419 13,146 73,823
2003 Population (Estimate)

3,653*** 15,800 25,300 18,400 13,000 72,500
2010 Population (Projection)

N/A 15,700 26,300 18,700 13,400 74,100
* Includes Town of Blackstone. **Total includes county populations only. *** Estimate for 7/1/2002 (Table SUB-EST2002-11-51. US Bureau of the Census. 7/10/2003.) Source: 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2003 U.S. Census Bureau; Virginia Employment Commission (2010 Projection).
1134 1135 1136 Table 4.7 ROI Profile - Community Population Characteristics
Median Household Income Unemployed Rate Percent Under 18 Years Percent Below Poverty Level (HH\Individuals) Percent Over 65 Years
Percent Racial Minority

Town of Blackstone Nottoway County* Dinwiddie County Brunswick County Lunenburg County Virginia United States
49.8 42.8 35.4 58.0 40.9 27.7 24.9
24.3 22.9 24.0 20.5 21.3 24.6 25.7
21.3 17.1 12.2 14.5 16.8 11.2 12.4
7.9 5.9 3.8 7.2 5.2 4.2 5.8
20.2/26.5 15.5/20.1 6.6/9.3 13.2/16.5 14.9/20.0 7.0/9.6 9.2/12.4
$27,566 $30,866 $41,582 $31,288 $27,899 $46,677 $41,944
1,430 5,664 9,107 6,277 4,998 2.7 million 105.5 million
* Includes Town of Blackstone. Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
1137 1138 1139
Number of Households
1140
Table 4.8
ROI Profile - Racial Characteristics of the Population

African American
46.4% 40.6% 33.7% 56.9% 38.6%
White
50.2% 57.2% 64.6% 42.0% 59.1%
American Indian
0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
Asian/ Pacific
0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%
Other
2.7% 1.7% 1.2% 0.8% 1.8%
Hispanic or Latino
2.4% 1.6% 1.0% 1.3% 1.8%
Town of Blackstone Nottoway County* Dinwiddie County Brunswick County Lunenburg County
* Includes Town of Blackstone. Source: 2000 U.S. Census.
1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152
4.9.2
Housing
According to the 2000 Census, the four county ROI for the Fort Pickett area contains 29,357 residential housing units (Table 4.9). The vacancy rate in Dinwiddie County is less than the Commonwealths average vacancy rate, while the other three counties have higher vacancy rates. Other housing characteristics are presented in Table 4.10. MTCFP has barracks capacity to temporarily house 5,000 troops. Currently, over 54,000
personnel use MTCFP facilities annually (VDMA, 1999). Kitchen facilities are available on the Post for visiting ARNG units to use but are not operated on a day-to-day basis. There are no military or civilian resident personnel at MTCFP. Personnel assigned to the Post live in local communities and surrounding counties.
Table 4.9
ROI Profile - Housing Characteristics

Percent Built 1970 and After (All Units)
36.2 42.2 64.2 57.6 49.0 59.2

Town of Blackstone Nottoway County* Dinwiddie County Brunswick County Lunenburg County Virginia
Total Housing Units

1,569 6,373 9,707 7,541 5,736 2,904,192
Percent Occupied (All Units)

90.1 88.8 93.8 83.2 87.1 92.9
Percent SingleFamily Detached

78.3 76.7 79.6 68.6 75.9 62.3
Median Value (Owneroccupied Units)

$64,500 $73,200 $86,900 $73,000 $60,200 $125,400
Median Monthly Rent (RenterOccupied Units)

$427 $438 $566 $349 $394 $650
* Includes Town of Blackstone. Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau. Virginia Army National Guard 4-44 Gilmore Environmental Consulting, LLC
1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181
4.9.3
Public Services
4.9.3.1 Police and Fire Protection MTCFP has a post police department and a post fire department. The Police Department presently consists of Civil Service police officers, a police chief, police officers and dispatchers. The Code of Virginia, Section 44-123.3 designates MTCFP as a special jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes. Local law enforcement agencies, including the Virginia State Police Department, have concurrent jurisdiction. Violations are processed through the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred, predominantly Nottoway County. In 2001 the Post hired a fire chief and temporary and full time firefighters. There is a mix of Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and Advanced Life Support technicians (ALS). Mutual Aid Agreements exist among the local volunteer fire departments and Fort Pickett. The Fort Pickett Fire Department is the only full time fire department in the immediate area. The
following is a brief discussion of the other police and fire services within the four ROI counties: Nottoway County The Nottoway County Sheriffs Department and the various Police Departments (Crewe, Blackstone and Burkeville) provide police protection. The county Sheriffs Department and the three Police Departments total a law enforcement team of 38 officers and deputies. The Volunteer Fire Departments and the Rescue Squad are tied to this central system. Each town has their own fire department. The rescue squad serves the entire county. They are equipped with ambulances, crash trucks, boats and mobile generators. The volunteer members are trained in Emergency Medical Transportation (EMT), EMT Cardiac Tech, Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) (Crewe Burkeville Chamber of Commerce, 2001). Dinwiddie County Police services for Dinwiddie County are provided by the Dinwiddie County Sheriff Department. The sheriffs office is located approximately 15 miles from MTCFP. The all-volunteer Dinwiddie County Fire Department consists of approximately 270 volunteers and three fire stations located throughout the county. Of the three
stations, the closest Dinwiddie County fire station to MTCFP is in the town of McKenney located approximately five miles east.
1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210
Brunswick County The Brunswick County Sheriffs Department and the Lawrenceville Police Department provide police services covering all of Brunswick County. Brunswick County Sheriffs Department consists of 12 deputies and one sheriff. Lawrenceville, located approximately 15 miles south of MTCFP, has their own police force consisting of five officers. The Lawrenceville Police Department uses the Brunswick County
dispatcher. The all-volunteer Brunswick County Fire Department is composed of seven fire stations and two rescue squads. The closest Brunswick County Fire Department station to MTCFP is Alberta, located approximately 15 miles south. Lunenburg County The Lunenburg County Sheriffs Department, the Kenbridge Police Department and the Victoria Police Department provide police services covering all of Lunenburg County. The Sheriffs Department and the two town police departments total a law enforcement squad of 27 officers/deputies. All three enforcement departments are located with 20 miles of MTCFP. The Lunenburg Fire Department, an all-volunteer department, consists of three stations. The Victoria fire station is the closest to MTCFP, approximately 20 miles southwest. 4.9.3.2 Medical Facilities MTCFP provides medical support presently through the Medical Command (MEDCOM) during the primary Annual Training periods (April to September) only. When MTCFP facilities are not open, and for serious medical emergencies, troop units and employees rely on the Southside Regional Medical Center, Petersburg, VA and the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA. The following is a brief discussion of medical facilities within the four county ROI: Nottoway County Area residents utilize the hospital facilities available in nearby Farmville, Richmond and Petersburg. Southside Community Hospital, located 30 miles northwest of MTCFP, has a 117-bed capacity with medical services that include surgery, obstetrics, pediatrics, emergency care, coronary intensive care and diagnostic capabilities. More specialized care is available in Richmond at the Medical College of Virginia. The Blackstone Family Medical Center is the largest rural training facility for residents in the Commonwealth of Virginia. At this facility, several residents are available to offer a variety of medical services.
1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238
Dinwiddie County Southside Regional Medical Center in Petersburg is accessible to Dinwiddie County residents and MTCFP. This facility is a 468-bed acute care facility that offers extensive medical facilities and services that include emergency, intensive and coronary care; diagnostic capabilities and a school of nursing.
Brunswick County Neighboring hospitals in South Hill and Emporia, Virginia, provide medical service to Brunswick County residents. Community Memorial Hospital in South Hill maintains 120 general beds, 140 long-term beds and 18 staff physicians. Greenville Memorial in Emporia has 127 beds with a 16 physician staff. Both medical facilities are located approximately 40 miles south of MTCFP. In addition, there are two medical clinics in Brunswick County.
Lunenburg County There are no hospital facilities located in Lunenburg County; however, a privately operated health clinic is centrally located in the county between the towns of Kenbridge and Victoria. southwest of MTCFP. This facility is located approximately 20 miles
4.9.3.3
Educational Facilities
There are no preschools, elementary, middle, or high schools located on MTCFP. Each of the four counties within the MTCFP ROI operates a public school system. As well, several private schools are located within the ROI. Blackstone Primary School (public) and Lion of Judah Academy (private) are located within the Town of Blackstone, approximately 1.5 miles west of the Cantonment area. Other schools within the ROI are located more than four miles from the MTCFP boundary. Table 4.10 provides information pertaining to the number of public schools within each ROI County, as well as information about student enrollment and student/teacher ratios. Within the four county ROI, there are 24 public primary and secondary schools that had a total enrollment of 13,159 in the Fall of 2004.
1239
Location
Nottoway Dinwiddie Brunswick Lunenburg Total/Average
Table 4.10 Profile of ROI Education Systems

# of Elementary Schools
3 5 4 2 14
# of Middle Schools
2 1 1 1 5
# of High Schools
1 1 1 1 4
Total Fall 2004 Enrollment

2,491 4,423 2,477 1,773 13,159
Student Teacher Ratio (Elementary)

14:1 17:1 16:1 13:1 15:1
Student Teacher Ratio (Secondary)

11:1 9:1 9:1 12:1 10:1
Source: School Boards of Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Lunenburg, and Brunswick Counties, 2004.
1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261
4.9.4
Regional Employment and Economic Activities
Nottoway and Dinwiddie Counties have unemployment rates that are lower than both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. However, Brunswick and Lunenburg Counties have an unemployment rate that is higher than the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, the town of Blackstone has an unemployment rate double that of the Commonwealth of Virginia and almost double the U.S. unemployment rate (see Table 4.7). Approximately 22,231 persons living in the four county ROI are employed; roughly 30 percent of the ROIs population. The largest provider of employment in the ROI is the government sector. The Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) reported that in the third quarter of 2000 there were 8,163 persons employed in the government sector; 36.7 percent of the total number of employees within the ROI. The two next largest providers of employment in the ROI are the trade sector and the manufacturing sector. The trade sector accounts for 21.6 percent of employment in the ROI, whereas the manufacturing sector accounts for 17.5 percent (Table 4.11). The five largest non-government employers located in the ROI consist of: Wal-Mart Inc., Central State Hospital, Chaparral Virginia, Virginia Marble Corporation, and Piedmont Geriatric Hospital. Of the four ROI counties, the only county within the boundaries of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is Dinwiddie County. Dinwiddie County is part of the RichmondPetersburg MSA, which has a total population of 996,512. Dinwiddie Countys population only accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total Richmond-Petersburg MSA population.
1262
Nottoway County (C)
Table 4.11 ROI Employment by Sector

Nottoway County (%) Dinwiddie County (%) Brunswick County (%) Lunenburg County (%) Lunenburg County (C) Dinwiddie County (C) Brunswick County (C)
Sector
Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation Trade F.I.R.E* Services Government Total Employees
67 19 192 856 205 1,288 147 809 2,261 5,844
1.1 0.3 3.4 14.7 3.5 22.1 2.5 13.8 38.6 100
98 111 618 1,400 112 2,195 123 385 3,682 8,724
1.1 1.3 7.1 16.0 1.3 25.2 1.4 4.4 42.2 100
96 46 252 972 282 746 101 1,076 1,397 4,968
1.9 0.9 5.0 19.6 5.7 15.0 2.1 21.6 28.2 100
60 0 280 643 32 572 85 250 823 2,745
2.2 0.0 10.2 23.3 1.1 21.0 3.1 9.1 30.0 100
321 176 1,342 3,871 631 4,801 456 2,520 8,163 22,281
C = Employee Count % = Percentage * = Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275
In 2000, the four county ROI for the MTCFP area contained a resident population of 73,823 persons. The average household income for the ROI increased by approximately 30 percent between 1989 and 2000, from $23,008 to $32,908 (Table 4.12). Even with the increase, the average household income for the ROI is approximately $13,770 lower than the Commonwealth of Virginias average median household income. As for the counties, Dinwiddie Countys median household income exceeded that of Nottoway, Brunswick and Lunenburg Counties by 25 percent. Dinwiddie County has the highest median household income followed by Nottoway, Brunswick and Lunenburg counties, in that order.
Total ROI (%)

1.5 0.8 6.0 17.5 2.9 21.6 2.0 11.0 36.7 100
Total ROI (C)
1276
Nottoway County Dinwiddie County Brunswick County Lunenburg County ROI Average Virginia
Table 4.12 ROI Income Profile

Median Household Income 1989
$21,774 $29,388 $19,424 $19,459 $23,008 $33,328
Median Household Income 2000

$30,866 $41,582 $31,288 $27,899 $32,908 $46,677
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000.
1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297
4.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE/PROTECTION OF CHILDREN 4.10.1 Environmental Justice
On 11 February 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This order directs agencies to address environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities so as to avoid the disproportionate placement of any adverse effects from federal policies and actions on these populations. The general purposes of this EO are to: Focus the attention of federal agencies on human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice. Foster nondiscrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health or the environment. Give minority communities and low-income communities greater opportunities for public participation in, and access to, public information on matters relating to human health and the environment. Consideration of environmental justice concerns includes race and ethnicity and the poverty status of populations. The population of the ROI is approximately 57 percent white and 42 percent African American. The remaining one percent of the population includes other racial minority groups (i.e., American Indian). Brunswick County has the highest percentage of racial minority residents (58 percent), while racial minorities make up more than a third of the population in Nottoway, Lunenburg, and Dinwiddie Counties.
1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324
Approximately 19 percent of the ROI population may be characterized as living in poverty, higher than the state average of 11.6 percent and the national average of 13.3 percent (U.S. Census, 1997). Dinwiddie Countys poverty rate is slightly higher than the statewide average, while Brunswick, Nottoway, and Lunenburg Counties have a poverty rate that is almost twice the statewide average. 4.10.2 Protection of Children
EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risk, requires federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law and mission, to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children. The EO, dated 21 April 1997, further requires federal agencies to ensure that their policies, programs, activities and standards address these disproportionate risks. The EO defines environmental health and safety risks as risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink and use for recreation, the soil we live on and the products we use or are exposed to). There are no resident children on post. Access to training ranges is restricted and controlled by gates. These gates remain locked except when authorized use occurs. Some amounts of live ordnance are used, but primarily dummy practice ordnance is fired on the tank gunnery ranges. Controlled access and use of dummy ordnance reduces health and safety risks on MTCFP. 4.11 INFRASTRUCTURE A full complement of public utilities is available to serve the proposed projects. 4.11.1 Potable Water Supply
The town of Blackstone owns the water treatment plant (WTP) serving MTCFP (DEQ Permit # VA0005827). The WTP is located on-Post, on the west side of the cantonment area. The water treatment plant is the source of potable water for the entire installation, with the exception of one facility that obtains its water from a well. The WTP was originally designed to produce 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. The facility is currently capable of producing 3.2 mgd. The Town of Blackstone is considering an upgrade to a capacity of 4.0 to 4.5 mgd.
1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352
Water distribution mains, originally developed to serve the U.S. Army activities at Camp Pickett are located throughout the installation. Three elevated storage tanks and three pumping stations are located on MTCFP (VaARNG, 2000). Fort Pickett Reservoir, on the Nottoway River in the southwest portion of the installation, supplies raw water to the WTP. The reservoir is approximately 384 acres and is capable of supplying an average capacity of 7.72 million gallons per day (mgd). Sludge from the alum treatment process utilized by the WTP is pumped to the Towns wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). There are no outstanding Notices of Violation (NOV) or unresolved issues for the Blackstone Water Treatment Plant. 4.11.2 Wastewater Treatment
The town of Blackstone owns the WWTP serving the installation. The WWTP is located in the same area as the water treatment plant and provides primary, secondary and tertiary treatment for the town and for the installation. The facility is permitted for a daily treatment capacity of 2.0 mgd. Current average discharge from the plant is 0.95 mgd. The treatment process at the WWTP includes mechanical bar screen and grit removal, primary and secondary clarification, dual trickling filters, denitrification, chlorination and dechlorination. Centrifuge sludge disposal is included. The WWTP operates under VPDES permit #VA00025194, with a discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hurricane Branch. There are no outstanding NOVs or Consent Orders addressing operations at the WWTP. The wastewater collection system serves all areas of the cantonment, with the exception of two buildings that utilize septic tanks and drain fields for sewage disposal. Facilities outside of the cantonment area are required to use septic systems for wastewater disposal. The installations sewage collection system has been rehabilitated during the 2001 to 2003 timeframe (VaARNG, 2000); however, the town needs to replace the main sewer collection line due to its age and deteriorated condition. 4.11.3 Energy Sources
Southside Electric Cooperative (SEC) furnishes all electrical power to MTCFP and surrounding areas. An electrical transmission line originates from the Farmville Switching Station
Gilmore Environmental Consulting, LLC 4-52
1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380
approximately 30 miles west of MTCFP. The line continues to the installation and ends at the MTCFP substation. The substation, which is owned by SEC, is located near the West Entrance. The SEC substation provides power to all facilities at MTCFP and to several surrounding communities. The majority of the installation is serviced by the MTCFP substation through numerous above ground radial lines (VaARNG, 2000). 4.11.4 Telecommunication The
CenturyLink provides primary telephone service to MTCFP and surrounding areas.
telephone lines coming into the installation parallel Military Road and terminate at the Telephone Exchange Building (Building 1307). From the Telephone Exchange Building the lines extend to the training areas and facilities through aerial cables, direct burial cable and a conduit system. As communication lines are upgraded, they are replaced with direct burial cable (VaARNG, 2000). 4.11.5 Solid Waste Disposal
MTCFP operated the Trimble Road Landfill from 1982 to 1993. It was a trench-type landfill for waste generated on the installation. This landfill replaced the Dearing Avenue Landfill Area, which had been in use up through 1982. Currently, all landfills have been closed on the installation. Solid waste is collected and hauled to the Nottoway County Landfill. However, MTCFP does operate a recycling yard to reduce the amount of waste being removed from the site. MTCFP also has an agency Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan that addresses pollution,
conservation and recycling issues (VaARNG, 2000). 4.11.6 Transportation
Access to MTCFP is available through several designated routes. U.S. Highway 460 runs east to west across the state of Virginia. The Highway is located just north of the MTCFP boundary and connects to Interstate 95 (I-95) and I-85 to the east (near Petersburg), and to I-81 to the west (near Roanoke). Virginia State Highway 40 crosses MTCFP in an east to west direction
connecting Blackstone with I-85. The main entrance to the base is located at the U.S. Highway 460 and Military Road junction. The East Entrance is located at Virginia State Highway 40 and Dearing Avenue. Traffic on the installation is minimal. The streets on the installation follow a
1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408
traditional grid network. In addition to the traditional primary and secondary roads, numerous tank trails are located throughout the installation. The Blackstone Army Airfield/Alan C. Perkinson Municipal Airport is located south of State Highway 40 on the western side of the installation. The airport is open to both military and civilian aircraft. Commercial flights are not available at the airport. Richmond International Airport in Richmond, Virginia, approximately 60 miles northeast, provides the closest largescale commercial flight service to the area. The Norfolk Southern railroad runs along State Highway 460 north of MTCFP. The rail service extends from the Virginia Beach area to parts of West Virginia. A secondary rail line runs off of the main line into the northeast corner of MTCFP near the Main Entrance. The line provides a means of transporting equipment and vehicles to and from the installation (VaARNG, 2000). 4.12 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS/WASTES MTCFP activities require the use of hazardous materials, which in turn has the possibility of generating hazardous waste. These activities include vehicle maintenance, facility and building maintenance/improvements, pest and weed control, medical operations and military training. Hazardous materials are used at the following locations: the Field maintenance shop (FMS #15), the MATES, 99th RSC ECS 88, 49th Group (DRS), Army Reserve Compound and for facility improvements throughout the installation. Types of hazardous materials include asbestos, leadbased paint, pesticides, solvents, degreasers and numerous other hazardous fluids. Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes at MTCFP are primarily stored in 55-gallon drums within storage facilities that have secondary containment and adequate spill prevention. Used oil generated at vehicle maintenance facilities is stored in above ground storage tanks (ASTs). It is then collected and recycled by a private commercial company. Hazardous wastes are collected and disposed of through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) contract. VaARNG has developed procedural documents for MTCFP that are used to manage hazardous materials and hazardous waste. These documents include: the Hazardous Waste Management Plan/Standard Operating Procedures (HWMP) and the Integrated Spill Contingency Plan (ICP).
1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434
4.12.1
Environmental Areas of Concern
During the BRAC 95 analysis, 200 sites having the potential for contamination by hazardous materials were identified. Further evaluation refined the list of areas of concern (AOC) by excluding sites still in use, landfills that remain the responsibility of NGB, and sites that are addressed under other regulatory programs (e.g. USTs and ASTs). Site inspections were
performed on the remaining sites, with recommendations for further action on several of the sites. Subsequently, discussions with VDEQ identified the need for additional evaluation of several of the sites pending final disposition. In accordance with the requirements of VDEQ, VaARNG has undertaken the additional analysis and there are 13 potential cleanup sites of the original 200 that will eventually go into the AEDB-R. 4.12.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)
There are a total of 106 ASTs located in the cantonment area of MTCFP. The ASTs store used oil, No.2 fuel oil, gasoline, kerosene and diesel. The Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) specify that any new AST installed on MTCFP is, at a minimum, double-walled, vaulted and with a two-hour fire rating. All new ASTs are equipped with overfill prevention and 5-gallon overfill containment systems (VDMA, 2011). 4.12.3 Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
There are 18 regulated USTs located in MTCFPs cantonment areas. These USTs are used to store mobility fuels such as JP-8, diesel and gasoline. They are constructed of fiberglass, have adequate spill prevention devices, double-walled pressurized lines and have continual leak detection systems that meet the 40 CFR 268 Technical Specifications (VaARNG, 2011). 4.12.4 Preventative Controls and Spill Response Procedures
An Integrated Spill Contingency Plan (ICP) was developed for MTCFP in October of 2009 that satisfies the federal requirements for spill prevention control and countermeasures as codified in 40 CFR 112.1, 9 VAC 25-91-170 A.1 and Army Regulation 200-1. The ICP is an informative tool for facility personnel and serves as a reference guide of the required control and preventative
1435 1436
measures to safeguard against possible spills, and countermeasures to be taken in the event of an unlikely release.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.18) direct that environmental effects resulting from major federal actions must be analyzed for three types of effectsdirect, indirect and cumulative. A direct effect is caused by the action and occurs at the time and place that the action is initiated. Indirect effects are caused by the action but occur later in time or may be farther removed in distance. Cumulative effects are those that produce an impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Army National Guard compliance with NEPA is an NGB legal requirement implemented through state Guard organizations. VaARNG has implemented a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for NEPA review of actions at MTCFP in order to ensure that NGB legal requirements are met (see Appendix A). The SOP ensures that locations designated for unit training activities have been evaluated to avoid impacts to environmental resources. The individual activities addressed in this EA have been grouped into three types of actions for the discussion of environmental consequences: 1. Mission Support Facilities Construction: This component of the Proposed Action includes the development of twelve facilities within the cantonment area of MTCFP. The Mission Support Facility Construction projects are:

Operational Readiness Training Complex (ORTC) Visitor Control Center Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Area Sports/Baseball Complex Conference Center Post Exchange (PX) Expansion Directorate of Logistics (DOL) Troop Warehouse DPW Stormwater Improvements Medical Detachment Facility
5-1
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Dining Facility (DFAC) Post Headquarters (HQ) Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Facilities
2. Training Facilities Construction: This component of the Proposed Action includes the development of one facility located within the designated maneuver training areas of MTCFP. The single project is comprised of:
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Runway
3. Post Operations and Military Training Activities: This component includes six classes of actions that occur periodically or continuously at MTCFP as a result of normal operation of the Post, and as a result of normal training exercises. The six classes of actions are:
Mission Support Activities (Timber Management, Water Crossings, Demolition, and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement)
MTCFP Mission Training Activities Controlled Access Area Live-Fire Maneuver Training Area Activities Air Operations Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities Integrated Training Area Management Program
While sites have been identified for development of the Mission Support Facilities and Training Facilities, designs have not been completed for any of the projects. Analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the construction projects therefore uses a three-part approach. First, the analysis considers sensitive resources located on or near the site(s) that could be adversely affected by construction and operation of the facility proposed for the site. Secondly, the analysis considers whether regulations and procedures that must be followed during design, construction, and operation of the project are sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts. Finally, the analysis evaluates whether mitigating actions are needed and can be incorporated into project designs. Post Operations and Military Training Activities, unlike the facility development projects, may occur at various locations, and may be conducted either periodically according to an arranged schedule, or may be episodic in response to specific events or requirements. For instance, training activities may involve the same general operations, conducted in and adapted to a
5-2
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
variety of physical conditions. Infrastructure repair may occur in response to specific damage caused by weather, accidents or physical deterioration. Analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of operations considered by this EA will therefore focus on whether the regulations and protocols for approval and conduct of the action are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts. 5.1 LAND USE
5.1.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Implementation of the Proposed Action would not create significant direct or indirect impacts to land use. The proposed construction projects are consistent with existing land uses within the affected areas, and would not preclude planned future uses in the surrounding area. Proposed construction projects have been carefully located to avoid conflicting land uses. All of the Support Facility construction projects would occur within or adjacent to the existing cantonment area. The cantonment contains a variety of industrial, administrative, and
institutional uses needed for administering activities at the Post and for accommodating units using the available training facilities. In most cases, the proposed projects replace existing facilities already located within the cantonment area that are housed in substandard or temporary buildings constructed during World War II or the Korean War. New facilities would allow specialized military mission-support activities that are not currently accommodated at MTCFP. Mission support facilities are located in already developed areas in order to minimize and avoid impacts to undeveloped parts of the installation. The training sites and training activities would be located in appropriate training areas well buffered from competing land uses within and exterior to the Post. The proposed Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) runway would use a portion of Firing Point 43B and an existing stretch of the adjacent Gettysburg Road. Use of the site for non-live fire training activities is compatible with other training activities occurring in this portion of MTCFP. Detailed site plans would be prepared for each Mission Support Facility and Training Facility construction project. Site plans would be prepared according to existing Department of the
5-3
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
Army standards and would ensure compatible building plans. Site plans would be approved by the USACE prior to construction. Selection of the proposed facility development sites considered compatibility with surrounding uses and inter-relationships among proposed and existing activities. Development of site designs for the proposed facilities would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Potential conflicts between adjacent uses have been minimized in the siting of the proposed projects. Adequate areas have been included in the proposed project sites to accommodate required force protection measures. Mission support activities already occur throughout the area of MTCFP and continuation of the activities would not change existing land uses. Maneuver training, engineer training, live-fire training, air operations, and asymmetric warfare training activities occur on areas or associated air space previously designated for training activities. ITAM activities occur on designated training lands throughout the Post. Locations for all unit training activities must be pre-approved by the Range Control officer, in coordination with DPW and VAFM. The NEPA SOP ensures that locations designated for unit training activities have been evaluated to avoid impacts to surrounding land uses. 5.1.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on the existing land use at MTCFP or in adjacent areas. Land use designation would remain the same. Existing conditions would continue with minimal operational improvements and the possibility of environmental degradation. MTCFP would continue to operate from structures originally constructed as temporary facilities, and which have generally exceeded their expected useful life. Program activities would continue to be conducted, as needed. Timber management would continue in those areas designated for clearing and thinning.
5-4
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136
5.2
CLIMATE
5.2.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no direct or indirect effects on the climate conditions at MTCFP or in adjacent areas. 5.2.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect climate conditions at MTCFP or in adjacent areas. 5.3 AIR QUALITY
5.3.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Implementation of the Proposed Action would not create significant direct or indirect impacts to air quality. The proposed projects could cause temporary minor effects on local air quality; however, suitable control measures would be used to minimize impacts to air quality. MTCFP currently operates under an approved Air Pollution Control Board Permit (Registration No. 30468) for multiple emission sources. No determination of the Air Quality Permit requirements for the Proposed Action has been issued by VDEQ. The heating requirements and fuel sources of the proposed new facilities have not been determined; however, VaARNG would coordinate each proposed Mission Support Facility and Training Facility construction project with VDEQ to determine whether a permit modification is required. VaARNG would secure permits, if required, and comply with any permit conditions imposed by VDEQ. Emissions from construction vehicles would cause minor, temporary impacts to air quality. VaARNG would also comply with the limitations in the use of cut-back asphalt in the development of parking and circulation as required by the Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. Minor effects to local air quality would result due to construction activities and/or clearing associated with the Proposed Action. Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from the proposed
5-5
137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166
construction equipment would be sources of construction-related impacts to air quality. In order to reduce impacts due to development of any of the proposed activities, best management practices (BMPs) would be utilized during construction. Such practices typically include dust suppression methods (i.e., soil wetting), minimizing clearing and grading, reuse of previously developed sites, proper vehicle maintenance and operation, and proper use and disposal of fuels and solvents. Minor effects on local air quality would also result from operations at the proposed Mission Support Facilities. Minor emissions would be caused by combustion of fuels for heating of buildings and for vehicle and equipment operation. No major emission sources are proposed at the present time; however regulated emissions sources such as tanks or heating units would be included in the Proposed Action. The possibility exists that regulated activities could be added in the future at one or more of the proposed mission support facilities. VaARNG would comply with existing regulations of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board prior to construction of activities that include regulated sources, and would apply for permit modifications, if required. Minor effects on local air quality would also result from operations at the proposed Training Facility. Minor emissions would be caused by combustion of fuels for vehicle and equipment operation. The continuation of post operations and military training activities would cause minor impacts to air quality due to emission from military vehicles and equipment. The existing Virginia Air Pollution Control Board Permit, as discussed in Section 4.3.2, does not include mobile sources. Military tactical vehicle emissions are exempt from permitting requirements. The improvements to facilities would increase the usage of the training areas at MTCFP; however, the increase would not exceed historic training levels at the Post. The existing training areas would continue to be used for wheeled, tracked, and dismounted training, with occasional air support. No increase in air quality impacts is expected. Emissions from these sources are not subject to a permit. In order to reduce minor impacts, regular vehicle and equipment
maintenance would be performed. Air quality impacts resulting from prescribed burning used to create and maintain ranges throughout the Post would cause a short duration increase in particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and other pollutants released by combustion. In order to reduce short-term minor impacts,
5-6
167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193
existing prescribed-burning BMPs would be utilized. BMPs such as smoke management and safety guidelines have been established in the MTCFP INRMP for prescribed burnings. BMPs would also include avoiding the combustion of non-organic materials. 5.3.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect the air quality on or in adjacent areas. MTCFP would continue to comply with prescribed fire and dust-control management measures outlined in the INRMP. MTCFP would continue to comply with emission levels allowed in the Air Pollution Control Board Permit (Registration No. 30468) for MTCFP. 5.4 NOISE
5.4.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Noise would continue to be generated at MTCFP as a result of post operations and military training activities. Activities at MTCFP must comply with the requirements of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 to 4918), which directs Federal agencies to comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements respecting control and abatement of environmental noise. Few sensitive receptors are located in the rural areas surrounding MTCFP. One church and several residences on the east side of the Post may occasionally experience noise effects from training events. In order to minimize the effects of noise in those areas, VaARNG employs a variety of techniques including separation, screening, and operational controls. These measures are already being used effectively to manage noise impacts at the Post. A temporary increase in noise levels would occur due to construction activities, and possibly from an increase in traffic to and from the sites. The noise impacts would be minor, and probably would not extend beyond the boundaries of the Post. In an effort to reduce minor impacts due to development of any of the proposed activities, construction activities would be confined to normal working hours. Any construction activity at the proposed training facility would not adversely affect sensitive noise receptors. Noise levels decrease with both increasing distance (separation) and the
presence of screening features such as berms or vegetated tracts (barriers). The Unmanned
5-7
194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221
Aerial System (UAS) runway is isolated from sensitive receptors and is surrounded by forested land. Continuation of post operations and military training activities would result in minor noise impacts. Noise from training activities would generally be confined to the Post, although the USACHPPM study determined that Noise Zone II for the small arms activity already extends beyond the eastern boundary of Fort Pickett (see Appendix D). The USACHPPM study
determined that the noise zones for the small arms activity are generally contained within the boundaries of the installation. The Noise Zones II and III for large caliber weapons activity extend beyond the eastern boundary. Where activity occurs adjacent to the Post boundary, minor, temporary noise impacts could be experienced at off-Post locations. These minor noise impacts would be minimized by operational controls to avoid unnecessary disturbances. Noise impacts also result from training activities as a result of vehicle operation, aircraft operation, and firing of large and small caliber weapons. Approximately 75 percent of the land in the area surrounding MTCFP is forested providing a natural noise barrier. The remaining land is primarily devoted to agricultural uses. VaARNG has determined that noise complaints are infrequent and minimal in number and there appears to be a general acceptance of periodic elevated noise levels by the surrounding community. As part of the noise program, MTCFP staff investigates each noise complaint. Operational controls limit noise during certain days and hours during the week to minimize impacts to local residents and one church. VaARNG has implemented an SONMP which has further reduced adverse impacts from training activities. 5.4.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not alter existing noise levels on MTCFP or in adjacent areas. Noise from aircraft operations, large caliber weapons, and small-arms fire would continue at current levels. As detailed in the Noise Study by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Prevention of Medicine, Noise Zones for small arms (Zone II) and large caliber weapons (Zones II and III) extend beyond the eastern boundary of the installation (Figure 5.1).
5-8
222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
5.5
GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS
5.5.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) There would be minor effects on geology, topography, and soils from implementation of the Proposed Action. Minimal grading would be required, as most projects would reuse previously developed sites that have already been leveled. Design and construction of proposed facility improvements and post operations and military training activities would comply with applicable requirements of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. The Proposed Action would comply with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). FPPA establishes criteria to identify and take into account the adverse effects of federal programs on the protection of farmland. Several of the soils occurring on MTCFP are considered prime farmland soils. However, the entire area of MTCFP has been withdrawn from agricultural or silvicultural use for over fifty (50) years. Forest management activities at the Post are secondary to the use of land for military training purposes. Therefore, no regulated prime farmland is present at the Post. Because all of the proposed activities would occur on the dedicated military training areas or within the previously developed Cantonment Area, there would be no adverse impacts to prime farmland soils. Construction activities and operations associated with development of the mission support facilities would require selective clearing, excavation, and grading to establish suitable elevations for building sites, parking lots, and landscaped areas. The construction of the
proposed development activities would cause minor disturbances to the site geology, topography and soils during construction phases. Construction of the proposed facilities would require excavation and grading, but is expected to have only a minor impact on geological features at the proposed development sites because most sites have already been graded for prior development. That portion of the Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) area where there are soils with a slope greater than 15 % would not be graded or leveled. This portion of the project site is where an archery range using existing topography and wooded areas has been proposed. The surface terrain at all sites within the cantonment area and at the sites proposed for training facility development has been previously disturbed.
5-9
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
Minor long-term direct and indirect impacts would occur because some soils would be compacted and covered by impervious surfaces such as walkways, structures and parking lots. Construction activities and operations associated with development of the training facility would require selective clearing, excavation, and grading to establish suitable elevations for the UAS runway. The construction of the proposed facility would cause minor disturbances to the site geology, topography and soils during construction phases. Construction of the proposed facility would require excavation and grading, but is expected to have only a minor impact on geological features at the proposed development site because the site has already been graded for prior development (during road construction and Firing Point construction). Minor long-term direct and indirect impacts would occur because some soils would be compacted and covered by impervious surfaces such as paved surfaces. An erosion and sediment control plan and stormwater management plan would be reviewed by VAFC-E prior to the commencement of construction activities. VAFC-E expects to receive certification for the MTCFP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from the VDCR. VDCR's Erosion and Sediment Control Certification Program was developed to meet the mandate of Section 10.1-561.1 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Regulations and Certification Regulations (VESCL&R). Projects exceeding one-acre of land disturbance are required to submit stormwater management plans for review by VDCR prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities. An erosion and sediment control plan and a
stormwater management plan would be prepared for each construction project at the time that the site design plan is prepared. Because MTCFP is a Federally-owned facility leased to VaARNG, site designs and accompanying plans must be approved by USACE prior to construction. Post operations and military training activities at MTCFP have the potential to cause minor ground disturbance. However, suitable control measures are available to prevent significant adverse environmental impacts. Ground disturbing activities resulting from mission support and training activities tend to be small disturbances required for infrastructure improvements and maintenance. Examples would include excavations for water or sewer line repair, excavation of footings for bridges or concrete stream crossings, contouring for placement of low-water crossings, and site stabilization following building demolition. Timber harvesting may result in larger areas of ground
5-10
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
disturbance resulting from establishment of access corridors, clear-cutting, and other forest management practices. Ground disturbing activities from construction activities would adhere to the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. However, post operations and military training activities are generally limited in scope and are not normally required to prepare erosion and sediment control plans or stormwater management plans. Timber harvesting is normally conducted according to a preplanned harvest schedule. Planned harvests are identified according to a five-year timber harvest plan. Unplanned timber harvests may occasionally be conducted to address the effects of natural disturbances such as hurricane or tornado damage and insect infestations, or for unplanned military mission needs. Management practices to minimize soil impacts are identified in the MTCFP INRMP, which commits the Post to strictly follow the State of Virginia BMPs for Forestry activities. These BMPs were researched and developed by the VDOF to protect soil, waterways and biological resources from unnecessary degradation from silvicultural activities. In addition, all forestry operations observe the riparian and wetland management zones described in the INRMP. Landings and other areas devoid of vegetation within the harvested stand would be reseeded as soon as possible, primarily dependent upon time of year and weather. Standard practices developed through the LRAM component of the ITAM program are used to rehabilitate any areas experiencing soil erosion as a result of silvicultural activities. Ground-disturbing activities are occasionally required for effective maneuver training events, and may occur in training areas throughout the Post. Examples of training related ground disturbing events include activities such as the establishment of defensive positions for personnel and equipment (may include trenching and the construction of earthen berms), construction of temporary containment berms for fueling points, general soil disturbance resulting from the passage of heavy tracked vehicles. Maneuver related soil disturbance tends to be localized, and MTCFP Range Control regulations require training units to restore disturbed areas by regrading and stabilization prior to signing off of the Post. Control measures have been established by the MTCFP INRMP that avoid
significant adverse impacts to soil resources. The INRMP prohibits soil disturbing training
5-11
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339
activities within wetland areas and within defined riparian buffer zones. In addition, the INRMP recognizes the LRAM component of the ITAM program as a significant mitigating measure to restore areas affected by soil disturbing activities. LRAM actively seeks to identify areas at high risk for degradation, and apply appropriate stabilization before degradation occurs. Activities within the CAA-MTA present the same potential for causing minor soil disturbing activities as training activities throughout the Post, and add other soil disturbing activities that result from establishment of firing positions, engineer activities, and the use of live munitions. Engineer activities may include the use of explosive charges for clearing (breaching) obstacles, or training in the placement and use of demolition charges. Control measures have been established by the MTCFP INRMP as described above. Air Operations at MTCFP and its associated airspace have minimal potential to cause ground disturbance. Ground-disturbing activities are occasionally required for effective asymmetric warfare training activities, and may occur in training areas throughout the Post. Examples of training related ground disturbing events include activities such as the establishment of defensive positions for personnel and equipment (may include trenching and the construction of earthen berms), construction of temporary containment berms for fueling points, general soil disturbance resulting from the passage of heavy tracked vehicles. Maneuver related soil disturbance tends to be localized, and MTCFP Range Control regulations require training units to restore disturbed areas by regrading and stabilization prior to signing off of the Post. Control measures have been established by the MTCFP INRMP as described above. The ITAM program is a control measure for soil disturbance created by training activities. In addition, ITAM may involve soil disturbing activities as a consequence of addressing other impacts of training activities. For instance, ITAM measures may include grubbing and clearing stumps, construction of sediment traps and basins, and installation of measures to prevent or reduce streambank erosion. ITAM measures adhere to the requirements of the MTCFP INRMP to reduce soil disturbance. As well, ITAM activities will adhere to normal standards for erosion and sediment control required by state law and following the DCR Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
5-12
340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
5.5.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect the existing geology, topography and soils on MTCFP or in adjacent areas. Mission support and training activities would continue to be conducted, which would cause minor disturbance to the topography and soils. 5.6 WATER RESOURCES
5.6.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The Proposed Action would have a minor effect on surface waters. Wastewater from the proposed facilities would be treated at the Blackstone WWTP. The Blackstone WWTP has existing excess capacity accommodate wastewater flows from the proposed facilities. In the event that additional treatment capacity is required MTCFP would coordinate with the town of Blackstone to secure additional discharge capacity under the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. In-stream activities and activities within jurisdictional wetlands must comply with Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA, and with Virginias Water Protection Permit Program. Actions exceeding the regulatory threshold would be required to file a permit application for review by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), USACE, and VDEQ. The VMRC administers
Virginia's Joint Permit Application process which enables proponent agencies to submit a single application for regulated activities in jurisdictional waters. The JPA is distributed for review by USACE, VDEQ, and VMRC, as well as other interested agencies. The SOP for NEPA review of actions at MTCFP commits units at the Post to obtain required permits for proposed activities. The Proposed Action is consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management. No facility construction would occur within a floodplain, and post operations and military training activities within floodplains would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if mitigating measures are required. The proposed project is consistent with E.O 11990, Protection of Wetlands. A wetland
delineation would be completed as part of the site design process for each Mission Support and Training Facility development project. Site designs would avoid wetlands if feasible, and would minimize filling within wetlands. If required, wetland mitigation would be included in proposed
5-13
368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396
construction project budgets. Post operations and military training activities generally have a small footprint with minimal impacts to wetlands. The NEPA review SOP defines the adopted process for evaluating whether mitigating measures are required for activities in floodplains. The Proposed Action would have no impacts to groundwater resources. Facilities are typically served by public water supplied by the town of Blackstone WTP. The Blackstone WTP obtains raw water from Fort Pickett Reservoir. No groundwater withdrawals are proposed. No large scale grading or excavation that would alter groundwater character in the area is proposed. Fort Pickett Reservoir has sufficient capacity to supply raw water for treatment at the Blackstone WTP to serve the proposed projects. Current annual withdrawals from the Reservoir are
approximately 326 million gallons. The Reservoir has the capability to supply an average of 7.72 mgd, while current withdrawals are approximately 0.8 to 1.0 mgd. Construction of the proposed Mission Support Facilities and Training Facilities would result in a minor increase in impervious surfaces. The increase in impervious surfaces would be minimized by reusing previously developed sites, and by including appropriate stormwater management strategies in facility design. The additional impervious surfaces would not result in negative impacts to surface waters because site designs for the proposed facilities would incorporate effective erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater management measures as required by Virginia regulations. MTCFP is not located within any area regulated under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. No Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas or Resource Management Areas would be affected by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would be consistent with Virginias Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP). The project site is not located within Virginias designated Coastal Zone. As well, MTCFP would obtain any necessary State permit for project included in the Proposed Action. Obtaining required State permits is required for consistency with VCRMP. Construction of the proposed facilities would result in a minor increase in stormwater runoff due to the installation of impervious surfaces (buildings, parking areas, walkways, etc.). Approved stormwater management plans would be completed during the facility design phase of the project.
5-14
397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426
All of the proposed construction sites are located outside of the 100-year floodplain. Jurisdictional waters (streams and wetlands) are present on several of the proposed sites. A field reconnaissance determined that jurisdictional waters may be located on the proposed Visitor Control Center site, Post Headquarters site, the Conference Center site, Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) site, Dining Facility B site, and the Sports/Baseball Complex site. An on-site delineation and jurisdictional determination would be completed for each proposed construction site in advance of site planning for the proposed site. Delineation and appropriate site designs would ensure that wetland impacts are avoided or minimized and that all of the proposed sites are located outside of the 82-feet (25-meter) riparian management area surrounding perennial and intermittent streams and surface water bodies required by the INRMP. There would be no impact upon floodplains and only minor impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States resulting from construction and operations at the proposed development sites. Construction of the proposed facility would result in a very minor increase in stormwater runoff due to the installation or expansion of impervious surfaces (roadway, runway). Approved
stormwater management plans would be completed during the facility design phase of the project. The proposed construction site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone. Jurisdictional waters (streams and wetlands) may be present on or adjacent to the proposed site. On-site review of the training facility sites documented the presence of a stream or wetlands in areas adjacent to the proposed UAS runway. The wetlands may not be located on the proposed construction site; however an on-site delineation and jurisdictional determination would be conducted prior to preparation of site design. There would be no significant impact upon floodplains or surface water bodies resulting from proposed Mission Support Activities. All mission support activities are reviewed prior to
initiation of ground-disturbing activities. Appropriate erosion and sediment control plans are required. Where repair or new construction is proposed within jurisdictional waters, a Section 404 permit from the USACE, Water Protection Permit from DEQ, and a Subaqueous Bed Permit from VMRC are obtained, if required, prior to the initiation of construction. Proper silvicultural management procedures would also be implemented as described and discussed in the MTCFP INRMP.
5-15
427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455
Generally, maneuver areas are configured to avoid wetlands and stream beds. Infringement occurs when the maneuver lanes cross streambeds associated with the various streams throughout the Post. Permanent crossings, approved by the regulatory agencies are used
throughout the MTCFP training areas. If new permanent crossings are needed, they would be built using BMPs, in accordance with permits, and would be built perpendicular to the channel. Temporary crossing sites to be used during training exercises would be stabilized using a variety of techniques appropriate to the individual exercise. All stream crossings would be designed in accordance with BMPs identified by the INRMP, and other appropriate BMPs, which would mitigate and reduce stream bank damage, soil erosion and stream sedimentation into the waterways. Regulated impacts to stream-beds and wetlands would require regulatory review by USACE, VDEQ, and VMRC prior to initiation of training activities. In addition to the MTCFP INRMP, the LRAM component of the ITAM program specifically addresses present and future management concerns associated with sedimentation caused by military training. The LRAM program aims to sustain long-term training, while combining preventive and corrective land maintenance practices to sustain the overall condition of installation lands. Where required by regulations, the USACE, VDEQ, VMRC and other
regulatory agencies would be involved in consultation and design review to minimize stream and wetlands impacts. Surface waters, wetlands, and hydric soils associated with the Birchin Creek and Tommeheton Creek systems are present within the CAA-MTA. The same conditions applicable to maneuver training areas throughout the Post apply within the CAA-MTA. In addition, the use of liveammunition, explosive ordnance, and explosive devices associated with engineer breeching activities adds an additional potential for impacts to surface waters. As with base-wide activities, impacts to surface waters within the CAA-MTA are minimized by securing required state and federal permits. Disturbance from the use of live rounds and explosive devices is addressed by the LRAM component of the ITAM program. The program strives to identify priority sites associated with sedimentation caused by military training and rapidly stabilize the disturbance using a variety of techniques, as appropriate.
5-16
456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485
There would be no impact upon floodplains or surface water bodies resulting from proposed Air Operations. There would be no significant impact upon floodplains or surface water bodies resulting from Asymmetric Warfare Training Activities. The same conditions applicable to maneuver training areas throughout the Post apply to these training activities. All activities are reviewed prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. Appropriate erosion and sediment control plans are required. Where repair or new construction is proposed within jurisdictional waters, a Section 404 permit from the USACE, Water Protection Permit from VDEQ, and a Subaqueous Bed Permit from VMRC are obtained, if required, prior to the initiation of construction. Proper silvicultural management procedures would also be implemented as described and discussed in the MTCFP INRMP. In addition to the MTCFP INRMP, the LRAM component of the ITAM program specifically addresses present and future management concerns associated with sedimentation caused by military training. The LRAM program aims to sustain long-term training, while combining preventive and corrective land maintenance practices to sustain the overall condition of installation lands. Where required by regulations, the USACE, VDEQ, VMRC and other
regulatory agencies would be involved in consultation and design review to minimize stream and wetlands impacts. The four-part ITAM program works to minimize the causes of adverse impacts from training activities, identify areas of over-use or degraded areas, and initiate rehabilitation measures. The Environmental Awareness component of ITAM provides training materials and information for soldiers regarding appropriate and approved conduct on the ranges of MTCFP. This helps soldiers avoid sensitive wetland and stream areas, and identifies actions to minimize impacts when avoidance is not possible. Training Requirements Integration (TRI) works to ensure that sufficient, high-quality training sites are available for required training activities. This helps to avoid operations in wetlands or stream buffers. The LRAM component specifically addresses present and future management concerns associated with sedimentation caused by military training. The LRAM program aims to sustain long-term training, while combining preventive and corrective land maintenance practices to sustain the overall condition of installation lands. Finally, the Range Training Land Analysis (RTLA) component provides an object method to
5-17
486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513
identify degraded areas, assist in rotational scheduling of affected areas, and prioritize rehabilitation activities. Where necessary and appropriate, the USACE, VDEQ, and VMRC are involved in planning for ITAM activities to minimize stream and wetlands impacts. 5.6.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect the existing water resources on MTCFP or in adjacent areas. None of the proposed construction would occur. Permits for activities within jurisdictional waters of the United States would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with the existing requirements of the Clean Water Act, and implementation of effective Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control during design and construction and for mission support and training activities, would avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality. 5.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.7.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Implementation of the Proposed Action would have little impact of biological resources at MTCFP. Proposed facility construction would generally occur on previously developed sites, and within the intensively developed cantonment area. MTCFP is an actively managed military training facility with a variety of natural habitat, forest types, and wildlife population. In part, the diversity of wildlife and wildlife habitat on the Post is due to the isolation, exclusion of agriculture and urban development from the training areas, and disturbance caused by military training activities. VAFM-E maintains a GIS-based inventory of known occurrences of state and federally protected species. No known state or federally protected species would be impacted by any of the proposed development activities. Coordination with Federal and state agencies, and obtaining required permits would ensure that no adverse impacts to rare and threatened species or other species of concern would occur. The proposed training facility construction site is located within the designated training areas of MTCFP. The area that would be affected by project development has already been altered by past development; therefore, little natural habitat or wildlife resources remain on the proposed
5-18
514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543
project site. Effective design would avoid the natural habitat and forest lands surrounding the site. No known state or federally protected species would be impacted by the proposed training facility development activities. The proposed site does not provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. There would be no significant direct or indirect impact to biological resources resulting from construction and operations at the proposed development site. Post operations and military training activities include on-going actions at MTCFP. The
activities have occurred, and will continue to occur at MTCFP in order to fulfill the military training mission of the Post. The Proposed Action would continue the activities as they have been carried out previously, and would not change the impacts on biological resources. The training areas of MTCFP are maintained through an active program of planting, timber harvesting, and prescribed burning. These management actions, described in the MTCFP
INRMP, create a diverse assemblage of fire maintained plant communities such as woodlands, savannas and grasslands. Riparian buffers are established to protect water quality. Timber harvesting activities are primarily conducted according to a planned schedule, or on an unplanned basis to address specific, unforeseen disturbances such as weather related damage or insect infestation, or for unplanned military mission needs. Harvesting activity is carefully coordinated with VAFM-E to ensure that known populations of threatened and endangered species are not affected. Avoidance of known locations, enforcement of an undisturbed buffer zone, and the use of BMPs to prevent degradation are the principal methods used to prevent impacts. Timber harvesting activities at MTCFP incorporate appropriate BMPs identified in the VDOF BMP Technical Guide. The Roanoke logperch would not be impacted due to the implementation of the ITAM program and best management practices for soil and erosion control. Additionally MTCFP enforces a 200-foot undisturbed buffer around the location of the logperch site. The VaARNG has The
developed an Endangered Species Management Plan for the Roanoke logperch. Management Plan was coordinated with and approved by USFWS and DGIF.
Colonies of the federally endangered Michauxs sumac are located at various locations throughout MTCFP, but are concentrated within the CAA primarily due to a combination of frequent occurrence of fires, and low-intensity land disturbance. Colonies are surveyed and marked for avoidance. All known areas of Michauxs sumac on post have been marked as off-
5-19
544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
limits for training activities, such as wheeled and tracked vehicle maneuvers, that would have an adverse impact the species. Due to the need for fire and disturbance for propagation, the overall impact of military training is beneficial to this species (Emrick, Murray and St. Germain, 2003). A 250-meter buffer is enforced around the known bald eagle nesting site to avoid disturbance from training activities. With the exception of the American Bald eagle, Michauxs sumac and the Roanoke logperch, no other listed federal threatened or endangered species have been documented to occur in the training areas of MTCFP. The Proposed Action would not affect the State listed Atlantic pigtoe and Bachmans sparrow. Effective erosion and sediment control measures will maintain the quality of the Nottoway River as it passes through MTCFP. Known habitat for both species would not be disturbed. Relative isolation and infrequent use for military training exercises are positive factors that have supported the presence of both species on the Post. The primary impact of maneuver training on vegetation communities is the direct reduction in vegetative cover. At MTCFP herbaceous species suffer the greatest decline in vegetative cover when subjected to military maneuver training (VaARNG, 2007). However, the disturbance of plant communities by maneuver training can also have a positive effect on species richness. Several researchers/authors, such as Emrick and Hill (1998), found that moderately disturbed plant communities in the Northern Training Area of MTCFP tended to have higher species diversity due to military maneuver training. The effects of military maneuver training on faunal communities at MTCFP occur primarily through indirect impacts on species habitat, though some faunal species may be injured or killed directly by vehicle maneuvers. In 1998, Emrick and Hill also reported that the large open grasslands and shrublands needed for mechanized maneuvers can actually help create habitat not commonly found in the piedmont of Virginia. Training activity can enhance plant diversity and complexity, which can foster higher animal species diversity, as well.
5-20
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598
5.7.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not change the existing physical conditions and maintenance procedures that support wildlife resources and rare, threatened and endangered species on the installation. Timber management and controlled burning would continue to be guided by existing procedures. The VaARNG Environmental Office carries out an active
program to identify sensitive species on the installation and ensure avoidance or management of habitat resources, as appropriate. The INRMP, which is the primary guiding document for protection of biological resources at MTCFP, would continue to be applied. No significant adverse impacts to biological resources would be expected. 5.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.8.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The VaARNG has implemented an ICRMP, (Versar, 2008) which is a compliance and management tool that integrates the cultural resources program with ongoing VaARNG activities at MTCFP. The ICRMP requires a determination to be made concerning potential cultural resources, prior to any land disturbance occurring for site development. VaARNG would initiate Section 106 of the NHPA consultation with the VDHR prior to initiation of each proposed construction project included in this EA. Memoranda of Agreement or Programmatic Agreements will be prepared under NHPA for any adverse effect. The
archaeological survey of each Support Facilities Development Project and the Training Facility Development Project would be completed during the facility design and planning process and appropriate consultation would be initiated with VDHR. VaARNG does not believe that any of the proposed actions have the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, tribal rights, or Indian lands. No Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) or sacred sites are known to be present on MTCFP. Although there are no federally recognized tribes within the state of Virginia, there are six tribes that claim aboriginal land within the state (as listed in Section 10). The VaARNG commander has initiated government-togovernment consultation with these tribes. Pursuant to DoD memorandum dated 27 October 1999, entitled Annotated Policy Document for the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy
5-21
599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628
(DoD, 1999), the VaARNG forwarded scoping notices to each of the federally recognized tribes describing the Proposed Action and requesting comments on the Proposed Action. Any responses received from any of the tribes contacted will be listed here. A list of the tribes is located in Section 10. Handling of inadvertent discoveries during construction or training
activities is outlined in a VaARNG ICRMP Standard Operating Procedure. Archaeological surveys have been completed and reported for some project sites (Sports/Baseball Complex, DPW Stormwater Improvements), partially completed and reported on for some projects (Visitor Control Center, DOL Troop Warehouse, Conference Center, Post Headquarters, MWR Area), have the fieldwork completed but have not been reported on (DPW Facilities, Medical Detachment, Dining Facility Sites A and B, PX Expansion, ORTC). Some project sites are undergoing archaeological survey on a portion of the project site boundaries currently (Visitor Control Center, Conference Center). Project sites where archaeological
survey, including fieldwork and reporting, is still required include the Visitor Control Center, Post Headquarters, Conference Center, and MWR Area. Any historic properties found during surveys would be marked and avoided until appropriate consultation with VDHR is completed. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected from the construction of the proposed Support Facilities, and the Proposed Action would comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. Existing cemeteries are located in the northwest corner of the Visitor Control Center project site and the northwest corner of the Conference Center project site. The areas of both cemeteries will be marked and avoided during the design and construction phases. An archaeological survey will be required for the UAS runway project site prior to any clearing and construction. Any historic properties found during surveys would be marked and avoided until appropriate Section 106 consultation with VDHR is completed. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected from the construction of the proposed Training Facility, and the Proposed Action would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. An ICRMP Standing Operating Procedure, with VDHR concurrence, guides scheduling of contracted archaeological fieldwork. Archaeological fieldwork is normally scheduled to
accommodate planned timber harvesting activity, but all post operations and military training activities are reviewed to determine whether a Phase I archaeological survey is required prior to ground disturbance.
5-22
629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653
While conducting a survey of the entire area of MTCFP would be infeasible, limited surveys are conducted, as needed. Post regulations require that training exercises requiring excavation must be coordinated through Range Operations, and that, if artifacts or bone are encountered, VAFME must be notified. Soldiers are warned that removal of cultural or archaeological artifacts is a federal offense. While conducting a full scale archaeological survey of the CAA would be infeasible, fieldwork limited to surface survey is conducted, as needed. No significant impacts would be expected from Air Operations on MTCFP or within its associated airspace, and the Proposed Action would comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. ITAM activities are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a Phase I archaeological survey is required prior to ground disturbance. 5.8.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would not adversely affect cultural resources on MTCFP or in adjacent areas. The VaARNG Environmental Office coordinates activities with the VDHR and with the VaARNG DPW. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement for Closure and Disposal of Fort Pickett (USACE, 1998), VaARNG carries out an active program to conduct archaeological and architectural surveys in advance of ground and site disturbing activities. Protection of cultural resources at MTCFP is guided by the VaARNG Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) (Versar, 2008). The ICRMP establishes
standard procedures for preservation and protection of cultural resources at VaARNG facilities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, including MTCFP. In addition, a Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) (VaARNG, 2004) guiding the survey activities of VAFM-E at MTCFP has been reviewed and approved by the VDHR. Site surveys are conducted prior to timber harvesting activities as well as prior to site disturbance for construction or repair of buildings, infrastructure, and ranges.
5-23
654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677
5.9
SOCIOECONOMIC
5.9.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Positive benefits to the existing socioeconomic resources within the ROI would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. The proposed development activities would create employment during construction of the facilities, and require expenditures for construction materials and supplies, which would contribute to the local economy. Housing, schools and other community services are adequate for any increased demand resulting from the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would increase the over-all number of soldiers who train annually at the Post, but would not result in the stationing of a permanent cadre at the Post. Therefore, there would be no increase in the demand for housing and community services. MTCFP operates Fire and Police services on-Post. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not increase demand for Fire and Police protection from neighboring jurisdictions. 5.9.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would potentially have a negative effect on the long-term socioeconomic conditions of the communities surrounding MTCFP or in adjacent areas. If the Proposed Action is not undertaken, facilities at the Post would not be up-graded and maintained to support the on-going mission of the VaARNG. The long-term result could be a reduction of future use for training by units from within and outside of Virginia. Reduced training demand would reduce the demand for supplies and services from businesses in support of the Mission Support and Training units. In addition, the No Action Alternative would not result in construction of the proposed projects and the community benefits associated with jobs and purchase of construction materials. Under the No Action alternative, VaARNG readiness for future deployments would be compromised due to a lack of necessary improvements and modernization.
5-24
678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703
5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE & PROTECTION OF CHILDREN 5.10.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The Proposed Action would comply with E.O.12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The E.O. requires Federal
agencies to avoid actions that would have a disproportionate impact on the subject populations. The ROI of MTCFP has a higher proportion of minority residents than the Commonwealth of Virginia, and has a generally lower income level and higher rate of unemployment. The
Proposed Action would have a positive effect on the ROI due to the economic benefits of construction activities as well as the continuing economic benefits derived from the operation of MTCFP. The minor negative effects of the Proposed Action would be largely confined within the limits of the Post and would not affect minority populations or low-income populations. Noise zones for large caliber weapons firing extend off-post; however, impacts to surrounding noise-sensitive receptors are mitigated by MTCFP voluntarily curtailing intensive training during certain time periods. The Proposed Action would not create barriers to movement within the surrounding communities, and would not displace any residences or commercial/industrial businesses. The Proposed Action would comply with E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risk. All project activities are confined within the limits of MTCFP. The facility is gated and access to the Post is controlled. There are a few residences within the cantonment area that are available for use by personnel assigned to the Post. However, there are no residential communities, schools, or other concentrations of children on the Post. The Proposed Action would not expose children in surrounding communities to environmental health or safety risks. 5.10.2 No Action Alternative No impacts to low-income or minority populations, or to children would be expected to occur from implementation of the No Action alternative.
5-25
704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730
5.11 INFRASTRUCTURE 5.11.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed Support Facilities would be serviced by existing water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure. DPW has assessed the general capacity and condition of water and sewer service lines serving the cantonment area. The capacity of existing water and sewer lines is sufficient to serve the proposed facilities. Sewer lines throughout the cantonment area have been relined and are generally suitable to serve the proposed facilities. Water lines are generally in suitable condition to serve the proposed facilities, although the age of the lines may warrant the installation of replacement lines at selected locations. Installation of replacement lines would generally parallel existing lines, and would be scheduled as the need arose. The Town of Blackstone WWTP is currently operating below permitted capacity, and has the potential to accept an additional 1.05 mgd. The WTP plant has additional available capacity at present, and the Town of Blackstone is in the process of upgrading the capacity to 4.0 mgd. When the upgrade is completed, the WTP will have approximately 3.0 mgd of excess capacity available to serve MTCFP. No adverse impacts would be expected from implementation of the proposed construction projects. The roads within the cantonment area of MTCFP and on public roads around the Post experience light levels of traffic. The proposed mission support facilities would result in small increases in traffic. However, generally, the proposed projects replace existing facilities that have outlived their useful life. Therefore, no additional traffic is generated by those projects. Increased use of MTCFP for training would result in increased use of the existing Post infrastructure. The VaARNG Facilities Management Office is responsible for infrastructure improvements, upkeep and replacement. The current infrastructure was designed and installed during the time period when the Post supported a much greater Army training activity and supported more personnel than are currently on post. All roads within the training areas of the Post are controlled access, and experience very light levels of traffic except when used for military maneuver training purposes. Therefore, no impacts to infrastructure would be expected.
5-26
731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758
5.11.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effect on the existing infrastructure on MTCFP or in adjacent areas. Some aging utility lines would not be upgraded or replaced as rapidly due to lack of service needs. 5.12 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE 5.12.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Operation of the proposed Mission Support Facilities would generate small quantities of hazardous materials and wastes, including petroleum wastes from the normal servicing of vehicles, cleaning fluids, and solvents. Used oil is received at the MTCFP Recycling Center for appropriate disposal. Also, MTCFP operates a hazardous waste collection and storage facility designed to store hazardous materials pending collection by a licensed waste handling company for disposal at an approved facility. All hazardous materials are used and disposed of according to regulatory requirements. The Soldiers Field Card, available on-line to all personnel training at MTCFP, informs personnel about proper handling and disposal of common hazardous materials in use on the Post. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, an Installation Spill Contingency Plan and a Pollution Prevention Plan are in use at MTCFP. The proposed projects would be operated in accordance with the adopted spill prevention, spill contingency, and pollution prevention plans. This would provide for safe and efficient operations including the reduction of hazardous waste. All materials/waste would be handled in accordance with federal, state and local laws and VaARNG Regulation 420-27. Operation of the proposed Training Facility may generate small quantities of hazardous materials and wastes. Post operations and military training activities at MTCFP require consumption of fuel and the generation of wastes associated with the maintenance and fueling of vehicles, and the firing of ordnance. As improved facilities are provided at the Post, potentially greater quantities of wastes could be generated. However, MTCFP would remain in compliance with all appropriate federal and state environmental regulations and VaARNG Regulation 420-47, Hazardous/Special Waste
5-27
759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783
Management. No significant change in existing hazardous and toxic materials/waste handling or disposal would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. 5.12.2 No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action alternative would have no impact on associated hazardous and toxic materials/wastes on MTCFP or in adjacent areas. The VaARNG would continue the active program to remediate contaminated sites and to maintain compliance with all required regulations. Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect the existing programs. 5.13 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.13.1 Mitigation measures for impacts to land use No mitigation measures are required to avoid adverse impacts to land use. Continued use of MTCFP as a military training facility was approved by the 1996 BRAC process, and is incorporated into the Facility Use Agreement between VaARNG and the U.S. Army Forces Command. The construction of the proposed support facilities would replace existing facilities or provide additional capabilities to support the training mission of the Post. The NEPA SOP ensures that locations designated for unit training activities have been evaluated to avoid impacts to surrounding land uses. 5.13.2 Mitigation measures for impacts to air quality No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to air quality to below significant levels. Appropriate BMPs would be employed to avoid creation of fugitive dust and combustion emissions during construction and operation of mission support and training facilities. Prescribed burning activities would incorporate BMPs previously identified and approved in the MTCFP INRMP. Proposed emission sources such as heating units or industrial facilities would comply with the existing Air Pollution Control Board Permit (Registration No. 30468) for multiple sources at MTCFP, or would require a permit modification.
5-28
784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812
5.13.3 Mitigation measures for noise impacts No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse noise impacts to below significant levels. Control measures to prevent noise impacts to the areas surrounding MTCFP include separation, screening, and scheduling measures. These measures are already being used effectively to manage noise at the Post. Separation of noise sources from sensitive receptors is accomplished by maintaining a buffer area around the Post boundary, in part through the use of the ACUB program. Where possible, the buffer is maintained in dense vegetation to further attenuate noise generated by training activities. Finally, the Post maintains restrictions on time of use for some activities and ranges to further reduce impacts. A noise management program has been implemented. 5.13.4 Mitigation measures for impacts to soils, topography, and geological resources No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to below significant levels. MTCFP has received certification for its Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The Posts program requires review of all activities regulated by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 of the Code of Virginia), and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (4VAC50-30 as amended by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board). MTCFP will follow the protocols set forward in the VDCR Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Appropriate silvicultural management procedures would be implemented as described and discussed in the MTCFP INRMP to minimize the environmental consequences to site geology, topography, and soils caused by forestry activities (VaARNG, 2007). Training at MTCFP is controlled by the Chief of Plans, Training and Security. An SOP has been adopted that ensures that training activities are conducted in environmentally suitable areas. The SOP ensures that training activities avoid disturbing soils in wetlands, steep slopes, areas reserved for endangered species, and other sensitive areas as defined by the MTCFP INRMP. MTCFP has implemented the ITAM program to manage the affects of mechanized training. The LRAM component of the ITAM program at MTCFP specifically addresses impacts associated with training. Although not a requirement of the Army/ARNG ITAM Program, the Fort Pickett LRAM program requires that any area disturbed due to landscaping or military training be
813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840
regraded and reseeded promptly upon completion of the exercise to prevent erosion. Maneuver training is restricted from these areas to allow for vegetative growth. Typical LRAM projects include the installation of seeding mats and cable concrete mats for soil stabilization. Concrete crossings are constructed to create stable, semi-permanent water crossings. In addition, wire baskets, or gabions, are installed on the upstream and downstream sides of low water crossings to prevent washout and hold stones in place. Training and bivouac sites, and ranges are graded, seeded, and stabilized as needed. 5.13.5 Mitigation measures for impacts to water resources No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to below significant levels. Key control measures to prevent impacts to water resources are already in place to prevent adverse impacts to water resources at MTCFP. Erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans are required for regulated construction activities. Permanent stream-crossings have been stabilized and constructed in accordance with appropriate permits. Use of temporary sites for bridge training activities would be coordinated with USACE, VDEQ, VMRC, and other regulatory agencies, and appropriate permits would be secured. All proposed development sites are reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional waters, and consultation with USACE, VDEQ, VMRC, and other regulatory agencies is initiated, as required. Section 404 Permits, Virginia Water Protection Permits, and Subaqueous Bed Permits are obtained prior to initiating regulated activities in jurisdictional waters. Riparian buffer zones are maintained as required by the MTCFP INRMP. Training at MTCFP is controlled by the Chief of Plans, Training and Security. An SOP for review of training requests is used to ensure that training activities are conducted in environmentally suitable areas. The SOP ensures that training activities avoid impacts to
wetlands, steep slopes, areas reserved for endangered and threatened species, and other sensitive areas. ITAM activities are actively used to avoid improper use of training area resources, and to identify and rehabilitate degraded areas.
5-30
841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866
5.13.6 Mitigation of impacts to biological resources No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to below significant levels. Existing practices are sufficient to ensure that no adverse impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species would occur as a result of facility construction or training practices at MTCFP. Actions affecting biological resources at MTCFP will be guided by the programs and restriction defined in the approved INRMP. As well, the VaARNG has prepared a Roanoke logperch Management Plan coordinated with interested Federal and state agencies. 5.13.7 Mitigation of impacts to cultural resources VaARNG would consult with VDHR as required by the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Phase I archaeological surveys would be
completed in accordance with VDHR Guidelines (48 FR 44716.44742, 1996) and the VaARNG ICRMP SOP for any proposed facility site not previously surveyed and reported on, prior to clearing and development. Any historic properties found during surveys would be marked and avoided until consultation with VDHR is completed. Therefore, the Proposed Action would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 5.13.8 Mitigation of impacts to hazardous materials/wastes No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to below significant levels. No impacts from hazardous materials and wastes would be created by MTCFP would continue to practice pollution
implementation of the Proposed Action.
prevention in accordance with the spill prevention and pollution prevention plans. 5.14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Council on Environmental Quality guidelines for implementation of 40 CFR, Section 1500 (National Environmental Protection Act) define cumulative effects as: The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
5-31
867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Potential environmental impacts from the proposed projects in the preferred alternative are not interrelated as described in the CEQ definition above. These preferred alternative projects are independent of one another and potential impacts are fully disclosed in this EA thereby resulting in no segmentation or incremental analysis of impacts. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects posing the potential for cumulative environmental impacts include actions at MTCFP, and actions in the surrounding region. Prominent projects occurring or proposed for implementation at MTCFP include the construction of facilities previously assessed, for which a Finding of No Significant Impact was approved in 2005. Those facilities include: Construction of a new DoD Industrial Park situated on land bounded by Hospital Road, Kemper Avenue, E. 27th Street, and East Parade Avenue (EEE, 2005). Construction of a Special Warfare Center in the far southeast corner of the cantonment area (EEE, 2005). Construction of a new Post Support Complex within the 3000-block and surrounding areas of MTCFP (EEE, 2005). Construction of a new Battalion Complex within the 2800 to 3100 blocks area (EEE, 2005). Construction of new VaARNG Headquarters at the intersection of Military Road and W. 10th Street (EEE, 2005). Additionally, MTCFP will be involved in transformation and training of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAANRG) 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). The enhanced
facilities, maneuver and training range areas necessary to provide qualification training for the PAANRG 56th SBCT are covered in a separate Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the PAARNG (PAANRG, 2003). Private development activity within the region surrounding MTCFP is primarily focused on recruitment for new business and industrial development within Pickett Park, and on residential,
5-32
895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921
commercial, and industrial development within the surrounding community. At present, no large development proposals are under active consideration, although the potential remains that new development will be attracted to the area. 5.14.1 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 5.14.1.1 Air Quality The region is an EPA designated attainment area for National and State AAQS. All equipment on the installation must meet appropriate emission control standards and permit emissions limits. Standard dust control measures, such as site watering, must be put in place for construction activities, and Forestry BMPs are employed on the Post to minimize silvicultural impacts to air quality. Major sources of new emissions by businesses located off-Post must meet VDEQ standards. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not create adverse
cumulative impacts to air quality. 5.14.1.2 Noise Current noise levels at MTCFP have been delineated. Although areas of Noise Zones II & III extend beyond the eastern boundary, MTCFP would continue to minimize noise impacts by employing appropriate operational controls and through the use of the ACUB program. Noise complaints for proposed construction or training actions would continue to be researched and documented in accordance with the Environmental Noise Management Policy. VaARNG has prepared an SONMP that is implemented at MTCFP and which follows AR 200-1. Industrial noise from activities at Pickett Park would be largely confined within the limits of the Park and MTCFP, and should not extend Noise Zones II & III beyond the limits of the Post. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have adverse cumulative impacts on sensitive noise receptors. 5.14.1.3 Geology, Topography and Soils MTCFP would continue to use and enforce erosion and sediment control practices and best management practices to minimize soil disturbance and erosion. Vehicles on tracked vehicle ranges would continue to be restricted to gravel tank trails and hardened stream crossings. An
5-33
922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949
Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Plan would be developed during the design phase of the proposed construction projects. Because the entire area of MTCFP has been historically used for military purposes, there would be no impacts to regulated prime farmlands from any of the proposed on-Post activities. BRAC analysis of the land transferred to Nottoway County and VPI&SU found that development activity on the subject lands would not have a significant impact on prime farmland soils. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have an adverse cumulative impact on geology, topography, or soils. 5.14.1.4 Water Resources MTCFP would continue to use and enforce erosion and sediment control practices, stormwater management, and best management practices to minimize surface water impacts. VaARNG would consult with the USACE, VDEQ, and VMRC prior to activities that affect jurisdictional waters, and would obtain permits as required. Any impacts to wetlands and streams would be permitted and mitigated in accordance with USACE and Virginia regulations. Proposed facility construction and proposed training actions would not significantly affect surface water, groundwater or floodplains. Areas within riparian buffers as defined by the MTCFP INRMP would not be disturbed, thereby minimizing impacts to streams caused by sedimentation or soil erosion. The ITAM program would continue to be coordinated with Range Operations and VAFM-E to ensure that suitable training lands are available and that degraded areas are restored to minimize the potential for erosion. Nottoway County enforces an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Development of
private activities at Pickett Park would be held to similar water quality standards as those applied to activities on-Post. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not present an adverse cumulative impact on water resources. 5.14.1.5 Biological Resources There is no habitat or any documented occurrences of rare, threatened or endangered species at any of the previously approved or proposed construction sites. The Michauxs sumac colonies
5-34
950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978
located in the training areas of MTCFP have been surveyed and marked for avoidance; therefore, no significant impact to the sumac is anticipated. Impacts to colonies of federally protected Michauxs sumac would be minimized by avoiding sumac colonies or following the species management recommendations in the INRMP. The nine habitat management units described in the INRMP contain one or more colonies of sumac and are located mainly in the Controlled Access Area of post. According to a study done by Emrick, Murray and St. Germain (2003), the past and current military use and mission of MTCFP is primarily responsible for the large size and healthy status of the Michauxs sumac population. The habitat resulting from disturbance and fire is a direct consequence of military activities and appears necessary for the species survival. In accordance with its INRMP, MTCFP has developed and is implementing an Endangered Species Management Plan for the Roanoke logperch to ensure the long-term viability of the population. The Roanoke logperch would not be affected by previously approved or proposed construction, or by post operations and military training activities due to the application of best management practices for soil and erosion control and by coordinated review of training activity locations that is part of the Post SOP. A restricted zone will continue to be enforced around the bald eagle nesting site. Off-post activities would not affect rare, threatened, and endangered species located at MTCFP. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have a cumulative impact on rare, threatened or endangered species. 5.14.1.6 Cultural Resources Preservation and conservation of cultural resources would be handled under the VaARNG Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP). All proposed construction projects on the Post would be reviewed by the Cultural Resources Manager prior to the commencement of any activity that may disturb or destroy a cultural resource. A Phase 1 archaeological survey would be performed for any construction site where a survey was not previously completed. In addition, the ICRMP has implemented a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for complying with inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources. The SOP complies with the DoD annotated policy on inadvertent discovery.
5-35
979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006
The 1996 BRAC evaluation of the excessed area being developed by Nottoway County as Pickett Park found no significant impacts to cultural resources would be caused by development of the Park. Development of the Park must comply with existing Federal and State laws. Actions on private lands surrounding the Post would not affect known historic or archaeological sites located within the boundary of MTCFP. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have a cumulative impact on cultural resources. 5.14.1.7 Socioeconomics Local employment may increase during construction and as a result of new employment opportunities at MTCFP and Pickett Park. Local occupancy rates indicate that existing
permanent housing is available for new residents moving into the Blackstone area. Short-term housing is available on-Post for soldiers temporarily stationed at MTCFP for training. Any potential changes in traffic patterns due to construction actions would be coordinated between the MTCFP Facilities Management Office and local law enforcement officials. The local communities and MTCFP have enjoyed good relations for many years. MTCFP makes recreational activities available to the general public and its personnel live in the community. There would be no adverse cumulative impacts on the local communities. Adverse cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not occur. 5.14.1.8 Environmental Justice/ Protection of Children The previously approved and proposed construction projects would be completed within the existing cantonment area. The proposed training areas are currently designated for military training. Industrial development would occur on military lands or on the area excessed to Pickett Park. No residential or business displacement would occur. No areas outside of the MTCFP boundaries would be affected. No jobs would be lost and employment opportunities would increase. No families live on-Post and military training areas are restricted for entry. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have a cumulative adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or populations of children.
5-36
1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035
5.14.1.9 Infrastructure The Town of Blackstone operates both the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant serving MTCFP. Both plants have additional capacity and are capable of serving the proposed projects. The Town has upgraded the capacity of the water treatment plant. Water, sewer, and electric infrastructure already exist in the cantonment area to support the proposed mission support facilities. Water and sewer lines were originally installed to support the larger U.S. Army mission at the Post, and are adequately sized to support the proposed activities. Sewer lines have been recently rehabilitated. Selected water lines may require rehabilitation in the future. Electric service to the Post is provided by a private provider, and existing electric infrastructure has the capacity and flexibility to be upgraded as needed to service the proposed projects. Development of the training facilities and post operations and military training activities on the Post do not require installation of new water, sewer, or electric lines. Roads in the area are lightly traveled, and were originally designed and built to accommodate the higher level of traffic from the former U.S. Army garrison at Camp Pickett. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate the Proposed Action as well as other reasonable foreseeable development in the area. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have a cumulative impact on infrastructure needed to support actions at MTCFP and in surrounding areas. 5.14.1.10 Hazardous and Toxic Materials/Waste
MTCFP must comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, and regulations dealing with storage, generation, handling and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, an Installation Spill Contingency Plan and a Pollution Prevention Plan are in use. Hazardous materials are recycled where possible, or disposed of according to appropriate Federal and State requirements. Construction of the approved and proposed facilities, as well as private construction in the area, will generate small amounts of construction debris and small quantities of hazardous materials from construction-related activities. All wastes from activities at MTCFP are disposed of at private, state-licensed disposal facilities, as appropriate. There are no active disposal sites on MTCFP.
5-37
1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061
Private development in surrounding areas is required to comply with State and Federal laws concerning the handling and disposal of hazardous and toxic materials. Permitted, proposed, and anticipated future actions would not have a cumulative impact on the generation or disposal of toxic or hazardous materials. 5.14.1.11 Cumulative Effects Analysis Conclusions
There are no significant long-term impacts from the Proposed Action to environmental or socioeconomic resources. Minor impacts would be mitigated using best management practices, complying with appropriate local, state, and Federal regulations, and following internal standard operating procedures. 5.15 STEWARDSHIP MEASURES VaARNG will conduct wetlands delineation at each individual project site prior to construction, pursuant to the recommendation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No additional measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to below significant levels. No significant or adverse impacts from the Proposed Action have been identified. VaARNG has implemented measures that avoid or reduce adverse impacts from project implementation. VaARNG applies the following standard requirements and operating measures to all actions at MTCFP: The NEPA Review SOP insures that construction activities and training activities avoid sensitive locations, that appropriate surveys/consultations are conducted, and that applicable permits are obtained prior to ground disturbing activities or initiation of activities within sensitive areas. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are required for all construction projects larger than 10,000 square feet on MTCFP as required by Virginia regulations and following the VDCR Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The INRMP, ICRMP and the ITAM program will continue to be used to guide activities and design plans to limit land disturbance and impacts to surrounding land areas.
5-38
1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090
Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction, demolition and training land use to minimize dust and smoke impacts to air quality.
BMPs would be used to reduce temporary noise impacts due to construction and demolition.
Establishment of permanent stream crossings and training activities in wetlands and adjacent to streams and rivers would comply with the permit requirements of the CWA. When required, VaARNG will obtain applicable Section 404 permits, Water Protection Permits, and Subaqueous Bed permits. VaARNG will use the existing Joint Permit Application process to ensure that all interested agencies are consulted about projects affecting jurisdictional waters. Where necessary, stream crossings and streambanks
would be hardened or stabilized in accordance with USACE permits and recommendations, in order to minimize training impacts to surface water and wetlands. MTCFP will maintain an active program for the management and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species. The program will be guided by the MTCFP INRMP, which will be maintained and updated on a regular basis. Known colonies of Michauxs sumac have been surveyed and marked for avoidance by troops during training exercises. Colonies have been posted with off-limits signage. As well, signage is in place to create buffers around the known eagle nesting site and the Roanoke logperch site. Range operations staff regularly visit range areas to ensure the signage is maintained. The INRMP would be used to guide timber harvesting. Harvesting activity adheres to forestry BMPs to ensure proper soil and erosion control and minimization of smoke effects. In addition, timber harvesting is preceded by a cultural resources survey, with coordination with VDHR, as appropriate. A Phase I survey will be completed to evaluate potential effects on cultural resources prior to land disturbance for facility construction projects, as appropriate. Consultation will be initiated with VDHR during facility design. Based upon the analysis contained in this Draft EA, it has been determined that the known and potential impacts of the Proposed Action on the physical, cultural, and natural environment would not be significant. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result
5-39
1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098
in the efficient management of MTCFP.
The EA establishes explicit responsibilities,
standing operating procedures and long-range goals for managing natural resources at ARNG lands in compliance with all applicable federal laws, regulations and NGB guidelines. The goals included in the EA require close interaction between the VaARNG natural resources program manager and state regulators. As a result, all natural and human resources under the VaARNG control will receive appropriate consideration and protection than previously afforded. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant
environmental effects.
5-40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SECTION 6.0 CONCLUSIONS

According to the findings in the Environmental Consequences section of this EA there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the listed proposed actions. No mitigation measures will be necessary to reduce any adverse environmental impacts to below significant levels. Minor impacts from the proposed activities, however, may be controlled using a variety of measures, as outlined in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Resource Area Land Use Summary of Impacts/Mitigation No significant direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. Minor direct/indirect effects from construction activities and from controlled burning for silvicultural management; no mitigation required. Control measures include adhering to appropriate regulations for control of fugitive dust during all clearing and construction activities, and use of forestry BMPs for minimizing smoke effects in surrounding areas. Minor direct/indirect effects from construction activities are limited to noise from construction vehicles traversing adjacent roads; no mitigation is required. Limiting hours of construction activity to normal working hours would be a sufficient control measure. Minor direct/indirect effects from training activities extend to off-post areas along the eastern boundary of the Post; no mitigation required. Control measures currently include separation and screening. A noise management plan has been prepared for the installation.
Air Quality
Noise
Minor direct/indirect effects would result from clearing and construction practices, and from actions that result in ground-disturbing activities; no mitigation required. Control measures include the adoption of Standard Operating Procedures to insure that construction activities and training activities are reviewed by VAFM-E prior to ground disturbance, and that appropriate Topography, Geology, measures are followed to minimize soil erosion. VAFM-E has the authority to Soils stop any project until appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are in place. All facility/infrastructure construction, maintenance, and repair activities must comply with adopted erosion and sediment control laws and stormwater management laws, following the VDCR Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook Procedures. Training activities that result in significant ground disturbance will be managed under the Sustainable Range Program (SRP).
Resource Area
Summary of Impacts/Mitigation Minor direct/indirect effects to water resources would result from implementation of the proposed project; no mitigation required. Control measures include compliance with existing laws. VaARNG will comply with Virginia erosion and sediment control and stormwater management regulations. VAFM-E has the authority to stop any project until appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are in place. Appropriate permits will be obtained prior to regulated activities affecting jurisdictional waters. Wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the proposed projects. Minor direct/indirect effects on biological resources; no mitigation required. Existing management of military training sites results in higher species richness in some areas, and more suitable habitat for Michauxs sumac germination. Several rare, threatened, and endangered species are present on the Post due to the isolation afforded by military use, which restricts agricultural uses and private development. Existing MTCFP operating procedures guided by the INRMP ensure appropriate protections for rare, threatened and endangered species. Minor direct/indirect effects from construction, silviculture, and training activities; no mitigation required. Control measures include survey by VAFM-E prior to timber harvesting and construction activities, and on-going consultation with VDHR for needed survey activities and preservation of National Register eligible sites. Minor positive direct/indirect effects due to the economic stimulus of proposed construction activity and from the over-all economic benefits of the military training activities; no mitigation required.
Water Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Socioeconomic
Environmental Justice/ Positive direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. Protection of Children Minor direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. The proposed mission support projects will generate a demand for water and sewage treatment and for Infrastructure/Utilities electrical and communication services. Control measures include separate evaluation of utility needs during the facility design process. No direct/indirect effects; no mitigation required. MTCFP will continue to work with VDEQ to provide needed testing and information for all AOCs. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with VDEQ to rehabilitate or reuse contaminated sites on-Post. An active recycling program will be maintained at the Post, and all wastes will be disposed of at appropriately licensed facilities.
Hazardous and Toxic Materials/Waste
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES

Angermeier, Paul L. and James H. Roberts. 2003. A Habitat Suitability Assessment for Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) at Three Stream Crossings Within the Area Affected by the Proposed Infantry Platoon Battle Course at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. May. Boyko, Wayne C.J. 2010. Phase I Archaeological Survey of Eight Tracts 09.15A-09.15H Totaling 57.73 ha (142.6 acres) in Training Areas 12, 14, 45, 46, 51, and 53, Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Nottoway Counties, Virginia. VDHR # 2010-0391. GECO Cultural Resource Report CR-3. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32, Part 651: Environmental Analysis of Army Actions; Final Rule, March 29, 2002 (Replaces Army Regulation 200-2). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40, Part 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. Conservation Management Institute (CMI). 2008. Rapid Bioassessment for Cantonment Area Streams on ARNG-MTC Fort Pickett, Virginia. Report Prepared For MTC Fort Pickett by the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute-Military Lands Division. EEE Consulting, Inc. (EEE) 2005. Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements 2005, Virginia Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center, Fort Pickett. Prepared for Virginia Department of Military Affairs. Prepared by EEE Consulting, Inc. Montpelier, VA. Emrick, Verl R., Rebecca Murray and Michael St.Germain. 2003. Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) Management Plan for Fort Pickett-MTC (Version 1.1). Report Prepared For MTC Fort Pickett by the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute-Military Lands Division. Emrick, Verl R. and Alison Hill. 1998. Plant Community Composition of Rhus Michauxii Colonies at Fort Pickett Military Reservation, Virginia. USACERL Technical Report 98/49, United States Army Construction and Engineering Research Labs, Champaign, IL.
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1979. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. Panel Numbers 510187 0200A and 0225A, Effective Date: January 17, 1979. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1981. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Nottoway County, Virginia. Panel Numbers 510307 004A, 005A, and 007A, Effective Date: August 28, 1981. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1991. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Brunswick County, Virginia. Panel Number 510236 0025A, Effective Date: February 6, 1991. Fleming, G.P., P.P. Coulling, K.D. Patterson, and K.M. McCoy. 2004. The Natural Communities of Virginia: Classification of Ecological Community Groups. Second Approximation. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. <http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/ncintro.htm. Godburn, Mary Cecilia. 1977. Historic Properties Survey, Fort Pickett, Virginia. Unpublished ms. On file, VAFM-E Cultural Resources Office, Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett, Virginia. Gravatt, Dennis et al. 1999. Delineation of Wetlands and Other Regulated Waters at Fort Pickett, Virginia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station. Griffitts, Eric et al. 2009. Architectural Survey and Historic District Evaluation of MTC-Fort Pickett, Virginia Army National Guard. Versar, Inc. Springfield, VA. McIninch, Stephen and Greg Garman. 2002. Survey for Roanoke Logperch, Percina rex, from the Nottoway River System, Chowan Drainage, Virginia. Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Mojica, E.K. and B.D. Watts. 2010. Surveys of Nesting Bald Eagles and Great Blue Herons on MTC Fort Pickett 2008-2010. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-1008. College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, Williamsburg, VA. 6 pp. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1996. Soil Survey for Dinwiddie Area, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Prepared in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG). 2003. Final Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) for the Transformation of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
(PAARNG) 56th Brigade into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). Environmental, Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA. April.
AMEC Earth &
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Environmental Baseline Survey Report, Fort Pickett, Virginia. U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure 95 Program. By Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Denver; USACE, Norfolk District; USACE, Seattle District. February 25. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. Programmatic Agreement among U.S. Army, VA State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory County on Historic Preservation for the Closure and Disposal of Fort Pickett, Virginia. USACE, Base Realignment and Closure Division. U.S. Army Forces Command. 1998. Final Environmental Assessment for BRAC 95 Disposal and Reuse of Fort Pickett, Virginia. By USACE, Norfolk District with technical assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc. September. U.S. Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census). 2000. www.factfinder.census.gov. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2001. Preliminary Soil Survey for Fort Pickett-ARNG MTC. Farmville Task Office in Farmville, Virginia. U.S. Department of the Army, 1998a. Facility Use Agreement for Training and Support of the Virginia Army National Guard and Other Department of Defense Activities, Fort Pickett Military Reservation. Agreement no. DACA65-3-98. U.S. Department of the Army, 1998b. Washington, DC, October 1. U.S. Department of the Army. 2007. Environmental Protection and Enhancement, Army Regulation 200-1. U.S. Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau (NGB), 2001. Request for Acceptance of Environmental Areas of Concern (AOC) at Fort Pickett. Memorandum from COL Richard O. Murphy, NGB, through Mr. Dillard Horton, USACE, to Adjutant General of Virginia, Attn: VAFM, Fort Pickett. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 1999. Annotated Policy Document for the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense.
Pamphlet 200-4, Cultural Resources Management.
HQ,
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. EPA AIRS Graphics, Nonattainment Areas Map. http://www.epa.gov/agweb/nonat.html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. 7.5 Minute Topography Map: Danieltown, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1986. 7.5 Minute Topography Map: Blackstone West, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1986. 7.5 Minute Topography Map: Darvilles, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1986. 7.5 Minute Topography Map: Kenbridge, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1986. 7.5 Minute Topography Map: Warfield, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1987. 7.5 Minute Topography Map: Blackstone East, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Groundwater Atlas of the United States. HA 730-L. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. Earthquake Hazards Program; Seismic Hazard by Zipcode. http://equint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/cgi-bin/zipcode.cgi. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Hydrologic Unit Maps, Boundary Descriptions and Names of Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units, and Cataloguing Units. Water Resources Division. http://water.USGS.gov/GIS/huc.html. Versar, Inc. 2008. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan Revision for Facilities of the Virginia Army National Guard, Fiscal Years 2008-2012. Prepared for Virginia Department of Military Affairs. Prepared by Versar, Inc. Springfield, VA. Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG). 2000. Real Property Development Plan (RPDP), Fort Pickett-ARNG MTC. By Nakata Planning Group, LLC. Colorado Springs. October. Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG). 2001a. Range and Training Land Program Development Plan (RDP), Fort Pickett-ARNG MTC. By Nakata Planning Group, LLC. Colorado Springs. January. Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG). 2004. Archaeology Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Virginia Army National Guard (VaARNG). 2007. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Fort Pickett Maneuver Training Center, Blackstone, Virginia. By
108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Conservation Management Institute, Military Lands Division. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage (VDCR). 1994. Final Report, Fort Pickett, Virginia, Natural Heritage Inventory. Natural Heritage Technical Report no. 94-3. Richmond. June. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), 2004. Virginia Air Regulations, 9 VAC 5-3010: Ambient Air Quality Standards. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004b. Virginia 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Integrated Report to Congress and the EPA Administrator for the Period January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2002. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2004c. Environmental Impact Review Procedures. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/stateimpact.html. Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF), 1998. Virginias Smoke Management Guidelines. http://www.dof.virginia.gov/resources/fire-prescribed-fire-mgmt.pdf. Virginia Department of Military Affairs (VDMA). 1999. Virginia Army National Guard, Maneuver Training Center-Fort Pickett. Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasures Plan. By Marshall Miller & Associates. Ashland, Virginia. October. Weston, Roy F., Inc., 2000. Background Soil Survey of Excess Property Final. U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure 95 Program, Fort Pickett, Blackstone, Virginia. Prepared for Fort Pickett BRAC Cleanup Team. Wolf, Eric D and Rebecca L Murray. 2005. Endangered species management plan for the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) at Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett, Virginia. CMI-MLD R-29.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
SECTION 8.0 GLOSSARY

Abatement: Reducing the degree or intensity of, or eliminating pollution. Adaptive Management: A type of natural resource management that implies making decisions as part of an on-going process. Monitoring the results of actions will provide a flow of
information that may indicate the need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to adapt resource management to new information. Affected Environment: The existing environment to be affected by a proposed action and alternatives. Air Quality Standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that are not being exceeded during a given time in a defined area. Air Quality Criteria: The levels of pollution and lengths of exposure above which adverse health and welfare effects may occur. Ambient Air: Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air, surrounding air. Aquifer: A water-bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand or gravel. Aspect: The compass direction toward which a slope faces, measured in degrees from North in a clockwise direction. Attainment Area: An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than the national ambient air quality standards as defined in the Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non-attainment area for others. Best Management Practices: Methods that have been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution or other adverse environmental impacts. Biocontrol: The control of insect pests and diseases through the use of a living organism. Biological Diversity: Refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequencies. For biological diversity, these items are organized at many
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the biochemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, species and genes. Biotic Environment: A naturally occurring assemblage of plants and animals that live in the same environment and are mutually sustaining and interdependent. Buffer: A defined area adjacent to a water body or other sensitive resource, within which specific practices harmful to the water body or sensitive resource may be restricted. Designated buffers mentioned in the MTC Fort Pickett INRMP include wetland and riparian management zones, and a 250-meter buffer around all active bald eagle nests. The INRMP also discusses the use of cleared buffer strips used to control insect infestations. Carrying Capacity: The limited size of a given population that can be supported by an ecosystem over a period of time and under a given set of environmental conditions. Clean Air Act (CAA) (42U.S.C.7401-7671g): The comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. This law authorizes the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and the environment. Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.): Amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Climate: The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation and wind that characteristically prevail in a particular region. Conservation Easement: An easement restricting a landowner to land uses that are compatible with long-term conservation and environmental values. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): Established by Congress within the Executive Office of the President with passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. Criteria Pollutants: The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act requiring EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants known to be hazardous to human health. EPA has identified and set standards to protect human health and welfare for six pollutants:
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
ozone, carbon monoxide, total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead and nitrogen oxide. The term, "criteria pollutants" derives from the requirement that EPA must describe the characteristics and potential health and welfare effects of these pollutants. It is on the basis of these criteria that standards are set or revised. Critical Habitat: (Endangered Species Act, Section 4), The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, when it is listed, which contain the physical or biological features 1) essential to the conservation of the species and 2) which may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat may also include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species when it is listed if those areas are essential for the conservation of the species (ESA Section 3(5A)]. Critical habitat is described and designated by the lead Federal regulatory agency making status determinations for a species. Designations usually accompany final listing decisions, but may be delayed to allow comprehensive review of the necessary technical data. Cultural Resources: Prehistoric and historic districts, sites, buildings, objects, or any other physical evidence of human activity considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or any other reason. Cumulative Impacts: Under NEPA regulations, the incremental environmental impact or effect of an action together with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions [40 CFR 1508.7]. Dendritic Drainage Pattern: An arrangement of surface drainage in which the streams branch randomly at almost any angle, resembling in plan the branching habit of trees. It indicates that the underlying rocks offer uniform resistance to erosion. Ecosystem: The interacting synergism of all living organisms in a particular environment; every plant, insect, aquatic animal, bird, or land species that forms a complex web of interdependency. An action taken at any level in the food chain, use of a pesticide for example, has a potential domino effect on every other occupant of that system. Emergent. A rooted plant growing in shallow water, with part of its stem and leaves above the water surface.
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111
Endangered Species: "any species [including subspecies or qualifying distinct population segment] that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." [ESA Section 3(6)]. The lead federal agency for the listing of a species as endangered is responsible for reviewing the status of the species on a five-year basis. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): An act to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions. Environmental Assessment (EA): An environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether a federal action would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS). Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): The most detailed and comprehensive environmental analysis specified under the National Environmental Policy Act. An EIS focuses on significant environmental impacts of a proposed action and/or alternatives, including short-term and longterm effects. Environmental Justice: The equal protection from environmental hazards for individuals, groups or communities regardless of race, ethnicity or economic status. This applies to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies, and implies that no population of people should be forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts of pollution or environmental hazard due to a lack of political or economic strength levels. Erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water. Exotic Species: Nonindigenous species that humans intentionally or unintentionally introduce into an area outside of the species natural range. Exotic Invasive Species: Nonindigenous species that humans intentionally or unintentionally introduce into an area outside of the species natural range that proliferate, spread, and persist to the detriment of native species and ecosystems.
112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)(7 U.S.C.4201 et seq.): An Act to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to assure that Federal programs are administered in a manner that will be compatible with state, local government, and private programs and policies protecting farmland. Fault: A surface or zone of rock fracture along which there has been displacement. Fauna: Animals, especially the animals of a particular region or period, considered as a group. Felsic: Relating to or containing a group of light-colored silicate minerals that occur in igneous rocks. Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI): A document prepared by a federal agency showing why a proposed action would not have a significant impact on the environment and thus would not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. An FNSI is based on the results of an environmental assessment. Firebreak: A space cleared of flammable material to stop and/or check creeping or running fires or any natural or constructed barrier utilized to segregate, stop and control the spread of fire or to provide a control line from which to work. Floodplain: The flat or nearly flat land along a river or stream or in a tidal area that is covered by water during a flood. Flora: Plants considered as a group, especially the plants of a particular country, region or time. Gneiss: A banded or foliated metamorphic rock, usually of the same composition as granite. Gradient: The rate of increase or decrease of a variable magnitude, or the curve that represents it. Groundwater: Water found beneath the Earths surface where all empty space in the rock is completely filled with water. Habitat: The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings include both living and non-living things. Herbaceous: Relating to or characteristic of an herb as distinguished from a woody plant.
139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166
Hydric Soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded for long enough during the growing season to develop oxygen-deficient conditions in their upper part. Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, distribution and circulation of water. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have an affinity for wetlands and are found at least 50 percent of the time in wetlands. Indigenous Wildlife: Native to an area, not imported. Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A comprehensive approach to pest control or prevention that considers various chemical, physical, and biological suppression techniques; the habitat of the pest; and the interrelationship between pest populations and the potential to cause economic or environmental harm. Limestone: A sedimentary rock made mostly of the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate). Limestone is usually formed from shells of once-living organisms or other organic processes, but may also form by inorganic precipitation. Loamy: Rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and organic matter. Mesic: Characterized by, or adapted to a moderately moist habitat. Mitigate: Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. Monoculture: A population of a single kind of organism or plant variety. Multiple Use: Use of land for more than one purpose; e.g., grazing of livestock, watershed and wildlife protection, recreation, and timber production. Also applies to use of bodies of water for recreational purposes, fishing and water supply. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards established by EPA that apply for outdoor air throughout the country. The NAAQS represent maximum air pollutant standards that EPA set under the Clean Air Act for attainment by each state. The standards were to be achieved by 1975, along with state implementation plans to control industrial sources in each state. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The Act as amended articulates the Federal law that mandates protecting the quality of the human environment. It requires Federal agencies to systematically assess the environmental impacts of their proposed activities, programs and
167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195
projects including the no action alternative of not pursuing the proposed action. NEPA requires agencies to consider alternative ways of accomplishing their missions in ways which are less damaging to the environment. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.470 et seq.): An act to establish a program for the preservation of historic properties throughout the Nation, and for other purposes, Approved October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-665; 80 STAT.915; 16 U.S.C. 470) as amended by Public Law 91-243, Public Law 93-54, Public Law 94-422, Public Law 94-458, Public Law 96199, Public Law 96-244, Public Law 96-515, Public Law 98-483, Public Law 99-514, Public Law 100-127, and Public Law 102-575). National Register of Historic Places (National Register): A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects important in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and Section 101(a)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. National Wetland Inventory: A database from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that produces information on the characteristics, extent and status of the Nations wetlands and deepwater habitats. Native Species: A species indigenous to an area; i.e. not introduced from another environment or area. Nonattainment Area: Area that does not meet one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutants designated in the Clean Air Act. Nonpoint Source Pollution: Diffuse pollution sources (i.e., without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet). The pollutants are generally carried off the land by storm water. Common non-point sources are agriculture, forestry, urban, mining, construction, dams, channels, land disposal, saltwater intrusion and city streets. Particulate Matter: The fine liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes or smog, found in air or emissions or very small solids suspended in water. Particulate matter can vary in size, shape, density and electrical charge and can be gathered together by coagulation and flocculation.
196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221
Permeability: The rate at which liquids pass through soil or other materials in a specified direction. Physiographic Province. A region all parts of which are similar in geologic structure and climate and which has consequently had a unified geomorphic history. Pointsource Pollution: A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged; any single identifiable source of pollution; e.g., a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack. Prescribed Burn: Any fire ignited by management actions under certain, predetermined conditions to meet specific objectives related to hazardous fuels or habitat improvement. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met, prior to ignition. Prime Farmland Soils: Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. Rare Species: A species that has a small number of individuals and/or has a limited distribution. A rare species may or may not be endangered or threatened. Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers and streams with a differing density, diversity and productivity of plant and animal species relative to nearby uplands. Runoff: That part of precipitation, snowmelt or irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or other surface-waters. Sedimentation: The process of forming or accumulating sediments in layers, including such processes as the separation of rock particles or soils from the material from which the sediment is derived, the transportation of the particles to the site of deposition, and the actual deposition or mechanical settling from a state of suspension. Sensitive or Significant Habitat: An area inhabited by rare, threatened or endangered species; an ecosystem supporting a wide variety of plants, birds and wildlife.
222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
Sikes Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.): An Act to promote effectual planning, development, maintenance and coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and rehabilitation on military reservations. Sills: Sheets of intrusive, igneous rock that have been found between layers of existing rock to depths of a few centimeters to many meters thick. Slope: An inclined line, surface, plane, position or direction. Snag: A standing dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have fallen Soil Mapping Unit: A soil or combination of soils delineated on a map and, where possible, named to show the taxonomic unit or units included. Stream: Any channel that carries water. It may or may not be jurisdictional waters of the United States. Surface Water: All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.). Sustainability: A measure of the extent to which our activities meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Syncline: A fold in rocks in which the rock layers dip inward from both sides toward the axis. Terrain: The surface features of an area of land; topography. Terrestrial: Living on land rather than in water, in the air, in trees, etc. Growing on land or in the soil. Threatened Species: "any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" [Section 3(19) of the ESA]. The lead federal agency for the listing of a species as threatened is responsible for reviewing the status of the species on a five-year basis. Topography: The physical features of a surface area including relative elevations and the position of natural and man-made (anthropogenic) features.
247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261
Water Quality Criteria: Levels of water quality expected to render a body of water suitable for its designated use. Criteria are based on specific levels of pollutants that would make the water harmful if used for drinking, swimming, farming, fish production, or industrial processes. Water Quality Standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for water bodies. The standards prescribe the use of the water body and establish the water quality criteria that must be met to protect designated uses. Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream; the watershed for a major river may encompass a number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine at a common point. Wetlands: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Register, 1982) and EPA (Federal Register, 1980) jointly define wetlands as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. U. S. National Command Authority: The President and the Secretary of Defense or their designates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SECTION 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Gilmore Environmental Consulting, LLC 109 W. Broad St. Blackstone, VA 23824 Francis H. Gilmore, Environmental Engineer, Co-Principal B.S., Old Dominion University, 1994 Sara M. Ryan, Environmental Scientist, Co-Principal B.S., Virginia Tech, 1998 M.S., Virginia Commonwealth University, 2004 Wayne C.J. Boyko, Senior Archaeologist B.A., University of Winnipeg, 1984 M.A., Penn State University, 1987 Ph.D. (ABD), Penn State University
9-1
APPENDIX A MTC FORT PICKETT OPERATING PROCEDURE NEPA
Virginia Army National Guard A-1

Proponent formulates proposed action Coordinate with NEPA PM
VaARNG NEPA Process Overview
NEPA PM: Is project included in an existing REC, EA or EIS?
yes
no
NEPA PM: Is project categorically excluded?
no
Environmental Assessment
yes
Proponent funds EA Initiate new or Supplemental EA Scoping Environmental Analysis
NEPA PM: Extraordinary circumstances?
yes yes
NGB: Significant environmental impact?
no
Complete new or Supplemental EA
FONSI
no
Environmental Impact Statement

Proponent funds EIS Notice of intent Complete EIS Record of decision Proponent: Proceed with project?
yes
Project terminated
no
yes
NGB: Will there be significant environmental impact?
no
yes
no
Proponent: Proceed with project?
yes
EPM & NEPA PM: Is there any effect on environment?
Initiate action
NEPA PM: Is a REC needed?
yes
Proponent completes REC
no
Mitigation and BMPs
no
Monitoring
Process Diagram 22 Mar 05
ARNG RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

1. PROJECT NAME:
0
2. PROJECT NUMBER: 3. DATE:
0
0-Jan-00 4. PROJECT START DATE (dd-mmm-yy): 5. PROJECT END DATE (dd-mmm-yy): 0-Jan-00 6. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: 0
0-Jan-00
7. CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: An existing Environmental Assessment adequately covers the scope of this project. EA Date (dd-mmm-yy): Conducted By: An existing Environmental Impact Statement adequately covers the scope of this project. EIS Date (dd-mmm-yy): Conducted By: After reviewing the screening criteria and completing the ARNG Environmental Checklist, this project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (select one below). Categorical Exclusion Code:
See 32 CFR 651 App. B
This project is exempt from NEPA requirements under the provisions of: Cite superseding law: 8. REMARKS:
Concurrence:
Signature of Proponent (Requester)
Environmental Program Manager
Printed Name of Proponent (Requester)
Printed Name of Env. Program Manager
Date Signed
Date Signed
Categorical Exclusion Codes

See 32 CFR Part 651 Appendix B for the full definition of each code
B-1: Routine law and order activities performed by military/military police B-2: Emergency or disaster assistance provided to federal, state, B-3: Preparation of regulations, procedures, manuals, and other B-4: Proposed activities and operations to be conducted in an existing B-5: Normal personnel, fiscal, and administrative activities B-6: Routinely conducted recreation and welfare activities not involving B-7: Deployment of military units on a temporary duty (TDY) or B-8: Preparation of administrative or personnel-related studies B-9: Approval of asbestos or lead-based pain management plans B-10: Non-construction activities in support of other agencies B-11: Ceremonies, funerals, and concerts. This includes events such as B-12: Reductions and realignments of civilian and/or military personnel B-13: Actions affecting Army property that fall under another federal B-14: Relocation of personnel into existing federally-owned C-1: Construction of an addition to an existing structure or new C-2: Demolition of non-historic buildings, structures, or other C-3: Road or trail construction and repair on existing rights-of-ways D-1: Land regeneration activities using only native trees and vegetation D-2: Routine maintenance of streams and ditches or other rainwater D-3: Implementation of hunting and fishing policies or regulations that D-4: Studies, data collection, monitoring, and information gathering D-5: Maintenance of archeological, historical, and endangered E-1: Routine procurement of goods and services (complying with E-2: Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility and communication E-3: Conversion of commercial activities under the provisions of AR 5-20 E-4: Modification, product improvement, or configuration engineering E-5: Procurement, testing, use, and/or conversion of a commercially E-6: Acquisition or contracting for spares and spare parts, consistent E-7: Modification and adaptation of commercially available items E-8: Adaptation of non-lethal munitions and restraints from law F-1: Grants or acquisitions of leases, licenses, easements, and permits F-2: Disposal of excess easement areas to the underlying fee owner F-3: Transfer of real property administrative control within the Army or F-4: Transfer of active installation utilities to a commercial or F-5: Acquisition of real property (including facilities) where the land
F-6: Disposal of real property (including facilities) by the Army where G-1: Routine repair and maintenance of buildings, airfields, grounds G-2: Routine repairs and maintenance of roads, trails, and firebreaks G-3: Routine repair and maintenance of equipment and vehicles H-1: Use of gauging devices, analytical instruments, and other devices H-2: Immediate responses in accordance with emergency response plans H-3: Sampling, surveying, well drilling and installation, analytical testing H-4: Routine management, to include transportation, distribution, use H-5: Research, testing, and operations conducted at existing enclosed H-6: Reutilization, marketing, distribution, donation, and resale of I-1: Simulated war games (classroom setting) and on-post tactical and I-2: Training entirely of an administrative or classroom nature. I-3: Intermittent on-post training activities (or off-post training covered J-1: Infrequent, temporary (less than 30 days) increases in air operations J-2: Flying activities in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration J-3: Installation, repair, or upgrade of airfield equipment (for example J-4: Army participation in established air shows sponsored by or
APPENDIX B SOILS MAPPED ON MTC FORT PICKETT

Soil Map Unit
Abell sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 102B
Texture/Parent
Material Surface:fine sandy loam Subsoil:sandy loam to sandy clay loam Parent material:mixed loamy fluvial material
Drainage
Class Moderately well drained
Hydric
Limitations
Landscape
Position
no
slope
Small stream terraces & old floodplains
Appling & Cecil sandy loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes
123B
Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:clay clay loam Parent material:felsic minerals to
Well drained
no
slope
Ridges & side slopes
ApplingAshlar complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes
105C
Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:clayclay loam to sandy loam Parent material:granite & granite gneiss
Well drained
no
Slope; shallow to rock
Shoulders, side slopes, nose slopes, back slopes
Appling sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
105B
Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:clay to clay loam Parent material:felsic minerals
Well drained
no
slope
ApplingUrban land
3B
Surface:sandy loam
Well drained
no
Summits & shoulders
Virginia Army National Guard B-1
complex, 0 to 7 percent slopes
Subsoil:clay to clay loam Parent material:felsic minerals 3C Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:clay to clay loam Parent material:felsic minerals Well drained no slope Side slopes
ApplingUrban land complex, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Ashlar sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
110C
Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:sandy loam Parent material:granite & gneiss
Well drained
no
Shoulders & nose slopes
110D
Well drained
no
Slope; moderate erosion hazard; shallow to rock
Nose slopes, back slopes
110E
Well drained
no
Slope; moderate erosion hazard; shallow to rock
Side slopes & nose slopes
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, severely eroded
124B
Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:clay loam to clay Parent material:felsic minerals
Well drained
no
slope
Cecil sandy clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded
124C
Surface:sandy loam Subsoil:clay loam to clay Parent material:felsic minerals
Well drained
no
slope
Chastain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
11B
Surface:loam Subsoil:clay loam to clay Parent material:clayey alluvium
Poorly drained
yes
Moderate shrink swell potential; seasonally high water table (-3.0 0.0 ft); flooding Seasonally high water table (0.52.0 ft); flooding
floodplains
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
2A
Surface:loam to silt loam Subsoil:silt loam to silty clay loam Parent material:mixed alluvium
Somewhat poorly drained
No, but hydric inclusions
floodplains
ChewaclaWehadkee complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
3A
Surface:loam to silt loam Subsoil:silt loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam Parent material:mixed alluvium
Somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained
yes
Seasonally high water table (0.52.0 ft); flooding
floodplains
Congaree silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
4A
Surface:loam
Subsoil:fine sandy loam to silty clay loam Parent material:mixed fluvial material
Well to moderately well drained
no
flooding
Floodplains, bottomland base of slopes
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 7
175B
Surface:sandy loam
Moderately well
no
Slope; moderate to high shrinkswell potential;
Broad ridges, toe slopes
percent slopes
Subsoil:sandy clay to sandy clay loam Parent material:mixed fluvial material
drained
seasonal high water table (1.52.5 ft)
Helena sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
175C
Surface:sandy loam
Subsoil:sandy clay to sandy clay loam Parent material:mixed fluvial material
Moderately well drained
no
Slope; moderate to high shrinkswell potential; seasonal high water table (1.52.5 ft)
Broad ridges, toe slopes
Mattaponi sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
220B
Surface:sandy loam
Subsoil:clay Parent material:fine & medium textured alluvial material
Moderately well drained
no
Slope; moderate shrink-swell potential
Broad flats, ridge tops & side slopes
Poindexter fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
149D
Surface:loam
Subsoil:clay loam to silty clay loam Parent material:basic or mixed basic & acidic rocks
Well drained
no
upland
Poindexter fine sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
149E
Surface:loam
Subsoil:clay loam to silty clay loam Parent material:basic or mixed basic & acidic rocks
Well drained
no
upland
Rion sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
121B
Surface:coarse sandy loam
Well drained
no
slope
Dissecting side slopes
Subsoil:sandy loam Parent material:acidic rocks
121C
Well drained
no
slope
121D
Well drained
no
slope
Udorthents, 0 to 25 percent slopes
99
Refilled excavations in which gravel, road base, & other foundation material have been mined Surface:sandy loam
Site specific characterization needed to determine uses & limitations
River terraces
Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
325D
Well drained
no
Slope; moderate erosion hazard
Steep side slopes
Subsoil:loam to sandy clay Parent material:acidic rocks
Wehadkee silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
9A
Surface:fine sandy loam
Poorly drained
yes
Subsoil:sandy loam, clay
Seasonal high water table (0.00.1 ft); flooding
Floodplains, bottomland
flooded
loam, silty clay loam Parent material:mixed alluvium
Worsham sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
230B
Surface:fine sandy loam Subsoil:sandy clay loam to sandy clay Parent material:granite, gneiss, schist
Poorly drained
yes
Moderate shrink-swell potential; seasonal high water table (0.00.1 ft)
drainageways
SOURCE: USDA, 2001
APPENDIX C
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
C-17
C-18
C-19
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32
C-33
C-34
C-35
C-36
C-37
C-38
C-39
C-40
C-41
C-42
C-43
C-44
C-45
C-46
C-47
C-48
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
C-53
C-54
C-55
C-56
C-57
APPENDIX D
NOISE COUNTOUR STUDY AND DIAGRAMS
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
VaARNG-MTC Fort Pickett
0 0 5
5 10
10 15 20
15
Kilometers 25
20 Miles
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
New Richmond Powhatan City Henrico Kent Charles Chesterfield City Amelia Colonial Heights Hopewell Petersburg Prince Nottoway George Dinwiddie
Lunenburg Brunswick Sussex Greensville Southampton
Virginia, USA
1:500,000
Installation Boundary
Author: Publication Date: Document Name:
Document Information
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 10 Mar 2011 Vicinity.mxd
Mecklenburg
Data used to create this map provided by the Fort Pickett ITAM/GIS and the VAFM-E GIS offices and World_Boundaries_and_Places_Alternate and World_Transportation digital services provided by ESRI at arcgisonline.com.
Mission Environmental Assesment

Fort Pickett Vicinity
Figure 1.1
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
Airspace Restricted to 18000 ft
Airspace Restricted to 4000 ft
0 0 1
1 2 3
2 4
3 5
Kilometers
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Mecklenburg
4 Miles
Project Boundaries
1:100,000
Restricted Airspace Installation Boundary
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Proposed Projects.mxd
Data used to create this map provided by the Fort Pickett ITAM/GIS and the VAFM-E GIS offices and scanned paper maps from the USGS 1:24,000 series provided as a digital service by National Geographic Society.

Fort Pickett with all Proposed Projects
Figure 2.1
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N

Visitor Control Center
BAAF UAS Site
Directorate of Logistics Troop Warehouse
Directorate of Public Works Stormwater Improvements
Post Headquarters
Conference Center
0 0
250 250
500 500
750 750
1,000 Yards
Meters 1,000
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:20,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Cantonment Area (North).mxd
Mecklenburg

Cantonment Area (North)
Figure 2.2
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N

Medical Detachment
Dining Facility Site A Morale Welfare & Recreation Area Dining Facility Site B Directorate of Public Works Facilities Post Exchange Expansion
Sports/Baseball Complex
Operational Readiness Training Complex
0 0
250 250
500 500
750 750
1,000 Yards
Meters 1,000
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:20,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Cantonment Area (South).mxd
Mecklenburg

Cantonment Area (South)
Figure 2.3
Mission Environmental Assesment Operational Readiness Training Complex
ARNG-MTC Fort Pickett
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N

WE ST PA R
T
Sports/Baseball Complex 38.44 Acres
3R W. 3 D ST
W. 28
TH S
AD E
W. 29
TH S
W. 32
NE TT AV E
0 0
200 50
400 100 150
600 200
800
Meters 250
1,000 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:5,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 ORTC.mxd
Data used to create this map provided by the Fort Pickett ITAM/GIS and the VAFM-E GIS offices.
Mecklenburg

Figure 2.4
W. 33
GA R
RD
ST
Operational Readiness Training Complex 77.31 Acres
W. 31
AV E
W. 30
ST ST
ST EA D
TH S
AR M
ND
ST
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
Mission Environmental Assesment Visitor Control Center
Directorate of Logistics Troop Warehouse 9.90 Acres
Visitor Control Center 8.98 Acres

RIVES ST
0 0 20
100 40
200 60 80
300
Meters 100
400 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:2,000
MILITARY ROAD
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Visitor Control Center.mxd
Mecklenburg

Figure 2.5
Mission Environmental Assesment Morale Welfare & Recreation Area
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
19 W.
S TH
H 20T W.
ST
RY ITA MIL
RO
AD
ST ST . 21 W
PAR ST WE ADE
ARM
Morale Welfare & Recreation Area 24.73 Acres

RN GA AV ETT E
0 0
200 50
400 100 150
600 200
800
Meters 250
1,000 Feet
Directorate of Public Works Facilities 8.14 Acres
AD STE AVE
2 ND W. 2
ST
RD 23 . W
ST
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:5,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 MWR.mxd
Mecklenburg

Morale Welfare & Recreation Area
Figure 2.6
Mission Environmental Assesment Sports/Baseball Complex
Dining Facility Site B 6.01 Acres
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
E. 26T H
ST
DE
E. 25T H
EA ST PA RA
ST
TH S
W. 28
TH S
WE ST PA R
AD E
W. 29
W. 30
TH S
Meters 250
AV E
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:5,000
Project Boundaries
Mecklenburg

Sports/Baseball Complex
W. 32
400 600 GA200 RN ET TA VE 50 100 150 200
800
1,000 Feet
AR M
ST EA D
ND
ST
Operational Readiness Training Complex 77.31 Acres
W. 31
ST ST
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Sports-Baseball Complex.mxd
Figure 2.7
E. 27T H
3 W. 3 RD ST
ST
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
Mission Environmental Assesment Conference Center
Conference Center 39.75 Acres
0 0
200 50
400 100 150
600 200
800
Meters 250
1,000 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:5,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Conference Center.mxd
Mecklenburg

Conference Center
Figure 2.8
Mission Environmental Assesment Post Exchange Expansion
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N

3R .2 W
H 5T .2 W
ST
HO
0 0 20
100 40
200 60 80
300
Meters 100
400 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:2,000
Roads Project Boundaries
W. 26
TH S
SP ITA L
RO
AD
T ES W R PA E AD
Post Exchange Expansion 4.01 Acres
Mecklenburg
D ST
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 PX Expansion.mxd

Post Exchange Expansion
Figure 2.9
Mission Environmental Assesment Directorate of Logistics Troop Warehouse
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
W AR EH O
US
ST
Directorate of Logistics Troop Warehouse 9.90 Acres
0 0 20
100 40
200 60 80
300
Meters 100
400 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:2,000
RIVES ST
Visitor Control Center 8.98 Acres
MILITARY ROAD
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 DOL.mxd
Mecklenburg

Figure 2.10
Mission Environmental Assesment Directorate of Public Works Stormwater Improvements
MILITARY ROAD
Directorate of Public Works Stormwater Improvements 30.21 Acres
RIVES ST
8TH ST
WAREHOUSE ST
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
7TH ST
9TH ST
RW TE UT B
D OO
RO
AD
Post Headquarters 9.99 Acres
0 0
200 50
400 100 150
600 200
800
Meters 250
1,000 W. 10TH ST Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:5,000
BAKERS ROW
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 DPW Stormwater Improvements.mxd
Mecklenburg

Figure 2.11
Mission Environmental Assesment Medical Detachment
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
RIN DEA VE GA
AVE PER KEM
RY ITA MIL
RO
AD
D ARA TP EAS E
Medical Detachment 4.10 Acres
0 W. 2
S TH
0 0 20
100 40
200 60 80
300
Meters 100
400 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:2,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Medical Detachment.mxd
Mecklenburg

Medical Detachment
Figure 2.12
Mission Environmental Assesment Dining Facility
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
E.
ST 21
ST
DE AR IN
M KE R PE E AV
GA VE
E.
ND 22
ST
Dining Facility Site A 3.24 Acres
W .2 4T H
ST
EA ST PA RA
RO AD
Post Exchange Expansion 4.01 Acres

H 5T .2 W
M AR D EA ST
ST
HO
SP ITA L

600 150 200 800 1,000 Feet
W. 26 TH S T
T
50
100
Meters 250
W. 27
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:5,000
TH S
200
400
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 16 Mar 2011 Dining Facility.mxd
Mecklenburg
Figure 2.13
Dining Facility
E. 23R D
ST
DE
T ES W R PA E AD
E AV
3R .2 W D ST
Mission Environmental Assesment Post Headquarters
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
Directorate of Public Works Stormwater Improvements 30.21 Acres
9TH ST
Post Headquarters 9.99 Acres
W. 10TH ST
MILITARY ROAD
0 0
200 50
400 100 150
600 200
800
Meters 250
1,000 Feet
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:5,000
QM CIRCLE WEST
QM CIRCLE EAST
Mecklenburg

Post Headquarters
Figure 2.14
BAKERS ROW
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 Post HQ.mxd
WAREHOUSE ST
8TH ST
RIVES ST
Mission Environmental Assesment Directorate of Public Works Facilities
Morale Welfare & Recreation Area 24.73 Acres

2 W. 2
ND
ST
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
RD 23 . W
ST
T ES W R PA E AD
Directorate of Public Works Facilities 8.14 Acres
TH 24 . W
ST
50
100
150
200
Meters 250
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Roads
1:5,000
Project Boundaries
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 DPW.mxd
Mecklenburg

Directorate of Public Works Facilities
Figure 2.15
HO
SP ITA L
200
400
600
800
1,000 Feet
RO
AD
M AR D EA ST E AV
H 5T .2 W
ST
AR G TT NE E AV
Mission Environmental Assesment Fort Pickett Airspace Restrictions
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
PPPP
PPP
Pickett 3 MOA
P PPPP PP
PPPP PPP

PPPP PP
PPPP PPP

PP P PP P P PPPP PPPPP PPP

P PP PPP P P PPP P P
PPP
Pickett 1 MOA
P PPP P P
P PPP P
PPPP
PPPP
PPPP
PPPP
Pickett 2 MOA
PPPP
0 0 5
PPPP
Goochland
Mecklenburg
PPPPPPPPPPP
PPPP
5 10 15
10 20
15 Kilometers 25
Louisa
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:300,000
Restricted Airspace Military Operations Area
PPP
PP PPPP P
PPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPP
20 Miles
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 16 Mar 2011 Approach.mxd

Fort Pickett Airspace Restrictions
Figure 2.16
Mission Environmental Assesment UAS Sites
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N BAAF
Castles
Gettysburg Rd. Runway MA 42/43
UAS 53 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 5 4 Kilometers
Miles
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1:100,000
UAS Sites
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 21 Mar 2011 UAS Sites.mxd
Mecklenburg
Figure 2.17
UAS Sites
Mission Environmental Assesment Adjacent Properties
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
0 0
1 2
2 4
3 6
5 8
Miles Kilometers
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
N N N N
VT VT
N N N N
VT VT
N Nottoway Zoning R-1 N Nottoway Zoning C-1 N Nottoway Zoning M-1 N

Nottoway VA Tech VT VT
Nottoway LRA Unzoned
1 inch equals 2 mile

D D D D D D
Dinwiddie Zoning R-1
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 18 Mar 2011 Adjacent Properties.mxd
Nottoway Zoning Blackstone
Project Boundaries Installation Boundary
Mecklenburg

Adjacent Properties
Figure 4.1
Mission Environmental Assesment ACUB Areas
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
0 0
1 2
2 4
3 6
5 8
Miles Kilometers
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA

ACUB Project Boundaries Installation Boundary
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 18 Mar 2011 ACUB Areas.mxd
Mecklenburg
Figure 4.2
ACUB Areas
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
Mission Environmental Assesment Nottoway Flood Zones
0 0
2 4
4 8
6 12
10 Miles Kilometers 16
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
Flood Zones
Special Flood Hazard Area Nottoway County Outside Flood Area
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 20 Mar 2011 Nottoway Flood Zones.mxd
Project Boundaries Installation Boundary
Mecklenburg

Nottoway Flood Zones
Figure 4.3
Mission Environmental Assesment Logperch / Bald Eagle Sites
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
! A
NO-08-01
0 0
0.5 1
1 2
1.5 3
2.5 Miles Kilometers 4
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA
1 inch equals 1 mile ! A Bald Eagle Nest

Log Perch Sighting Logperch Management Area Project Boundaries Installation Boundary
Wetlands
Emergent Wetland Forested Wetland Streambed Lake/Pond Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 16 Mar 2011 Logperch and Eagle.mxd
Mecklenburg

Logperch / Bald Eagle Sites
Figure 4.4
Mission Environmental Assesment Noise Contours
0 0
1 2
2 4
3 6
5 8
Miles Kilometers
Louisa Goochland
Hanover
King
William
Virginia, USA

Noise Contours
115 dB Peak (with Stryker Training) 130 dB Peak (with Stryker Training) Firing Point Range Footprints Project Boundaries Installation Boundary
Mark Thomas (mark@geco-online.us) 20 Mar 2011 Noise Contours.mxd
Mecklenburg
Figure 5.1
Noise Contours
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
Mission Environmental Assesment Constraints - Cantonment Area (North)

S.R. 40
RT. 40
RT. 40
BAAF UAS Site
RIVES ST
8TH ST
WAREHOUSE ST
7TH ST
BAKERS ROW
MIL ITAR Y
RO A D
QM CIRCLE EAST
QM CIRCLE WEST
COMPASS TRAIL
EAST PARADE
WEST EN TRAN
CE RO A D
GARNETT AVE
ARMSTEAD AVE
WEST PARADE
E. 12TH ST
E. 13TH ST
Conference Center
W. 14TH ST
E. 14TH ST
YR RR UA Q
OA
0 0
500 200
1,000
1,500 400
2,000 600
2,500 Feet Meters 800
W. 15TH ST
W. 15 1/2TH ST
T E. 15
H ST
6TH E. 1
1 inch = 1,000 feet

Soils Special Flood Hazard Area Urban Soils (Cut & Fill) Hydric Soils Non-Hydric Soils with Possible Hydric Inclusions Soils with Slope > 15% Cultural Resources
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Wetlands
Emergent Wetland Forested Wetland Scrub-Shrub Wetland Streambed Lake/Pond Project Boundaries Installation Boundary
Louisa Goochland Powhatan Amelia Nottoway
Hanover
King William
Cultural Sites Cultural Surveyed Area Cultural Surveyed Area - Fieldwork Complete Cultural Surveyed Area - Fieldwork in Progress
New Richmond Kent City Henrico Charles Chesterfield City Colonial Heights Hopewell Petersburg Prince George Dinwiddie
Sussex Greensville Southampton
Virginia, USA
Lunenburg
Mecklenburg
Brunswick
KEMPER AVE
ST
6 S.R. 6 8
Post Headquarters
9TH ST
BUTTERWOOD
ROAD
W. 10TH ST
W. 11TH ST
E. 10TH ST
E. 11TH ST
Author: Mark Thomas Publication Date: 15 Mar 2011 Document Name: Constraints - Cantonment Area (South).mxd
Constraints - Cantonment Area (North)
Figure 1
Mission Environmental Assesment Constraints - Cantonment Area (South)

W. 15TH ST
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N
W. 15 1/2TH ST
T E. 15
H ST
T FORES
16 W.
S TH
T
ST
6TH E. 1
ST
ST ST
R OAD
7TH E. 1
RIN DEA
D ARA TP EAS
H 17T W.
SP ITA L
E.
ND 22
RO
AD
HO
E. 24T H
Morale Welfare & Recreation Area
E. 23R D
ST
E. 25T H
ST
Dining Facility Site A
ST
E. 26T H
Post Exchange Expansion Sports/Baseball Complex
E. 27T H
Directorate of Public Works Facilities Dining Facility Site B
ST
LA KE
ST
RO AD
TH S
TH S
W. 28
W. 29
W ES TA CC
ES S
RO
ROAD
W. 33
AD
RD
UTIL
R ITY
NE TT AV E
ST
OA D
GA R
W. 30
TH S
AV E
TH S
AR M
W. 27
ST EA D
0 0
500 200
1,000
1,500 400
2,000 600
2,500 Feet AD Meters COX RO WIL 800
1 inch = 1,000 feet

Soils Special Flood Hazard Area Urban Soils (Cut & Fill) Hydric Soils Non-Hydric Soils with Possible Hydric Inclusions Soils with Slope > 15% Cultural Resources
Wetlands
Hanover
King William
Virginia, USA
Lunenburg
Mecklenburg
Brunswick
TRIMBLE ROAD
OLD OA K
CO SS PA M TR
MIL ITA RY R
8TH E. 1
VE GA
L AI
18 W.
S TH
19 W.
S TH
T
T
20 W.
S TH
Medical Detachment
OA D
TRIMBLE R
21 W.
ST ST
E.
ST 21
ST
ST
OA D
KE MP ER AV E
3R .2 W D
BY MOS ROAD
ST
WE ST PA R AD E
Author: Mark Thomas Publication Date: 14 Mar 2011 Document Name: Constraints - Cantonment Area (South).mxd
Constraints - Cantonment Area (South)
Figure 2
Mission Environmental Assesment Constraints - Fort Pickett
WGS 84 UTM Zone 18N

Castles UAS Site BAAF UAS Site Directorate of Logistics Troop Warehouse Visitor Control Center Directorate of Public Works Stormwater Improvements Post Headquarters Conference Center
Medical Detachment Morale Welfare & Recreation Area Dining Facility Site A Directorate of Public Works Facilities Dining Facility Site B Post Exchange Expansion Operational Readiness Training Complex Sports/Baseball Complex
Gettysburg Rd. Runway MA 42/43 UAS Site
UAS 53 UAS Site
0 0
0.5 1
1 2
1.5 3
2.5 Miles Kilometers 4
Soils
Special Flood Hazard Area Urban Soils (Cut & Fill) Hydric Soils
1 inch = 1 mile
Wetlands
Hanover
King William
Author: Mark Thomas Publication Date: 16 Mar 2011 Document Name: 2010 EA\Constraints - Fort Pickett.mxd
Non-Hydric Soils with Possible Hydric Inclusions Soils with Slope > 15% Cultural Resources
Virginia, USA
Constraints - Fort Pickett
Figure 3
Lunenburg
Mecklenburg
Brunswick

Draft Final Fort Pickett Mission EA Mar 11

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Draft Final Fort Pickett Mission EA Mar 11

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements 2011 Maneuver Training Center, Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 9-1

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED........................................................................ 10-1

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................................................................. 11-1

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard v

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Virginia Army National Guard ix

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard x

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard ES-1

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard ES-2

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard ES-3

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard ES-4

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Table ES-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences

Virginia Army National Guard ES-5

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard ES-6

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Hazardous and Toxic Materials/Waste

Virginia Army National Guard ES-7

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Virginia Army National Guard 1-1

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard 1-3

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard 1-5

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Virginia Army National Guard 1-7

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Virginia Army National Guard 2-1

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Post Operations and Military Training Activities Include:

Virginia Army National Guard 2-2

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

facility signs, utilities, and stormwater retention.

Physical security measures would be

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett

Environmental Assessment Future Mission Requirements, MTC Fort Pickett