20021789 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20020111

?QF \NAT?c94) Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?O G North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
D `C
January 9, 2003
Lt. Col. Michael J. Coats
United States Air Force
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
4 CES/CC
1095 Peterson Ave.
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC, 27531-2355
Dear Col. Coats:
Re: Dare County Bomb Range, North Carolina
DWQ Project No. 02-1789; DOA Action ID No. 200310014
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3409 issued to Col. Michael J. Coats, dated January 9, 2003.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
67-11 Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AW K/cbk
Attachments
021789
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office
DWQ, Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
XbMNR
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H,
Section .0500 to Lt. Col. Michael J. Coats, United States Air Force, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
resulting in the discharge of fill material within 10.87 acres of wetlands to facilitate the construction of a mock runway
complex and bomb storage area at the US Air Force Dare County Bomb Range, North Carolina, pursuant to an
application filed on 23rd day of October of 2002.
The application provides adequate assurance that the proposed'work will not result in a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application and as described in the
Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us and send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. Should wetland or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation
may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and
Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent
version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual" whichever is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in
the DENR Regional or Central Offices) shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard;
2. That the activity be conducted in such manner as to prevent significant increase in turbidity outside the area of
construction or construction related discharge (50 NTU's in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by
DWQ; 25 NTU's in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTU's in trout waters);
3. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands and waters shall be removed and the original grade
restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
4. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with freshwaters of the state
until the concrete has hardened;
5. Waste or borrow sites shall not be located in streams or wetlands;
6. All temporary fill shall be removed to the original grade after construction is complete and the site shall be
stabilized to prevent erosion;
7. The enclosed "Certification of Completion Form" is to be used to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 .
Certification has been completed;
8. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) compensatory mitigation is required for 10.87 acres of wetlands
impacts. Wetland mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation plan included with your
application. This is to include 1.21 acres of wetland restoration onsite in 1999 along with 18 acres of credits to be
debited from the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge restoration project conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service in cooperation with the Department of Defense. The monitoring protocol for the wetland mitigation areas
shall be in accordance with the Corps of Engineers' requirements for the sites. DWQ shall be provided 3 copies of
all annual mitigation monitoring reports. These reports should be submitted by February 1 of the year following
monitoring. Monitoring can only be ended after five years (following construction) if the mitigation effort is.
successful.
FILE COPY
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 0 2 1 7 8 9
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ?
Section 10 Permit El
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: r
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: X
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: U.S. Air Force Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (LtCol Michael J. Coats)
Mailing Address:
4 CES/CC
1095 Peterson Ave.
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355
Telephone Number: 919-722-5142 Fax Number: 919-722-5179
E-mail Address: Michael.coats(a?,seymourjohnson.a£mil
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
/4cK P
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: A
detailed project description can be found in block 18 of the attached Corps of Engineer Form
4345. Type of equipment used: dumptruck, backhoe, geotextile, ABC gravel
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: A detailed explanation of the purpose of the
proposed work can be found in block 19 of the attached Corps of Engineer Form 4345.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/a
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future plans projected.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
r
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
none

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Please review attached talking naners on minimization and alternatives analvsis of simulated
enemy runway project
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
IX.
X.
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following
information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
A.
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302;
and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO
NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the district engineer
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principle Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in,
or affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information
provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must
be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS I THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not
US Air Force, Seymour Johnson AFB required)
LtCol Michael J. Coats, Base Civil Engineer
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
4 CES/CC
1095 Peterson Ave.
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/ AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/ AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business b. Business
[phone]
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
4-4r-k I
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. REASON(S) FOR DISCHARGE
This simulated runway and associated pads must be constructed of solid materials (geotextile and ABC gravel)
so that targets can be placed permanently and not sink and be lost in the wetland marsh after a few practice
bomb hits. This will enable safe access to the targets and appropriate upkeep and repair of the targets.
21. TYPE(S) OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE Rl CUBIC YARDS
geotextile fabric (10.87 acres) and ABC gravel (17,601 cubic yards)
22. SURFACE AREA IN ACRES OF WETLANDS OR OTHER WATERS TO BE FILLED (see instructions)
Total: 10.87 acres. Runway: 8.86 acres; target pad #1: 0.205 acre; target pad #2: 0.205 acre; target
pad #3: 0.104 acre; bomb storage site: 1.5 acres.
23. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? YES _Q NO M0 IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC., WHOSE PROPERTY ADJOINS THE WATERBODY (Ifmore than can be
entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
The DCBR is almost completely surrounded by the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
Address:
ARNWR
ATTN: Mike Bryant
P. O. Box 1969
Manteo, NC 27954
Land owner on southwest side of range (Hyde County): Address:
White Columns Land and Timber Co.
P.O. Box 3817
Eatonton, GA 31024
25. LIST OF OTHER CERTIFICATIONS OR APPROVALS/DENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR
WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS APPLICATION.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* INDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
none
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood lahi `permits
"°Z?

APPROX.
NORTH
4000'
#1 TGT 12 3 LGB LOFT
2000
800'
AF LEAD OAD #2 TGT 13

500'

°

? WATERS ROAD o
w w

w r
w
w
0- z tl
w
STRAFE ROAD C)
AF SHELL ROAD MUTES SITE
LEFT TOWER CENTER TOWER RIGHT TOWER
VICINITY MAP
1"= 2000' 1 OF 3
PURPOSE: SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCT ENEMY AIRFIELD TARGET PRODUCED BY: 4CES/CECN
ADDITIONAL F-15E TRAINING EXPANSION OF EXISTING PADS 1095 PETERSON
UNITS AT DCBR. DARE COUNTY BOMB RANGE(AF) SJAFB NC 27531-2355
OFFICE OF INQUIRY: 40SS/OSOR
DESCRIPTION: THE ADDITION OF
IN: DARE COUNTY, N.C.
APPLICATION BY: 4C£S/CEV
ENEMY AIRFIELD TARGET. APPROX. 12N.M. EAST OF 1095 PETERSON
STUMPY POINT BAY, N.C. SJAFB, NC 27531-2355
"-

LL- LO
Lo Lo
M N

,OZ=„ L :31VOS N I
Z
oz M V) LO

NO11O3S SSO0 z(w l, OE C14
LLJ 0
"'CL Z
?a z w
WLnm 0 Lo C6
- °Q
N
N
M
m
z
O
W
U
Q
D U
o J
o-
af a
a
?VNVO
1??3??f1O , b ONLSIX3 ivid 30 ,8 'XO?Iddb'
adO2l ONIiSIX3
SS3OO`d ),VMNmj
41MA ^
-
/
-Ln
N
3w Woc3
zo i-z

A z
?9 3 >
? ? m
W mm Z
o- g0 ?ZZ
0000000000000000000 00 000000 00000000000000 0 00000000000 Z ??
?
}m}
O
{
{--
X
Ur
NZ
N 01?18`d3
00 ir CL
? Qa=
?
GN`dS ??13 „bZ 3?I1X31O3O
(?3AVd 10 OOV) N? :i
o
o
U
??IdW

O
Q:
N
W
o°a
? N
0
0
Z
EQ
Z N
U-
O
Og 't 0Q
F Q

W
Z
0 W
?
H
a
m?
d'
W
Z
N
ZO
U
JoL
ow
?
Atio8:
0o W Fr °
d?NUU?
irOt= L? NN
mo Z li W
dQ=)O oQ

Simulated Runway Project and Considered Alternatives
U S Air Force
Dare County Bomb Range
The proposed simulated runway project at Dare County Bomb Range (DCBR) is of
significant importance to the training mission of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North
Carolina.
A focal point of military engagement is the infrastructure of a potential enemy, with
primary focus on the enemy's airfields. A simulated runway is of utmost importance to the
training needs of our pilots. The changing military mission requires flexibility to move and
maintain multiple targets. The proposed simulated runway would provide a changing airfield
complex, which is more realistic, and more challenging to pilots in training. Large inert
practice bombs (500 lbs and 2,000 lbs) require a durable and repairable complex that will
withstand continued utilization.
Over the past years, several alternative solutions to this need were developed and
considered:
Alternative 1: A mock runway is cut into the prevailing vegetation by mowing it one to three
times per year. Targets are placed in the marsh on the mowed area. This is the current
situation at the range. However, the-cut vegetation does not provide adequate radar or visual
representation to the pilots. In addition, the current targets are inaccessible for repair or
replacement. They eventually sink into the marsh after being hit by practice bombs.
0
Alternative 2: A canal could be dug around the runway to emphasize the radar and visual
picture. This was rejected because it would not significantly increase the radar and visual
representation and would not improve the accessibility of target structures. Canal crossings
would be necessary in order to access the targets.
Alternative 3: The outline of a runway could be painted into the vegetation using ecologically
safe paint. This was not feasible since the paint is not radar reflective thus negating one of the
important aspects of the training mission.
Alternative 4: A simulated runway could be constructed using geotextile matting (to stop
vegetation growth) and light perforated steel plates (PSP). The metal plating would give a
better radar return and visual presentation. However, this alternative was rejected for several
reasons:
This structure cannot support the heavy targets used at the range. The railcars and other
large targets would destroy the PSP.
The PSP structure cannot support the required frequent movements of targets. Moving
targets on the runway are a necessary factor for preparing pilots to respond to dynamic enemy
environments. Without permanent road connections and a permanent runway and taxiway the
Aq'?? 2
(-h FIV6 3?rs? 6(ack 11

targets would have to remain in their original position. The PSP cannot be used and traveled
on by cranes or tow vehicles.
The PSP structure would not withstand the heavy inert practice bombs (500 lbs and 2000
lbs). The practice bombs would destroy the metal sheeting and repair or replacement of the
targets would become impossible.
Alternative 5: The utilization of runway complexes at other bomb ranges is not possible:
Navy Dare, the leased impact area located in the northern part of DCBR, does not have
an airfield complex and faces the similar wetland issues as the Air Force impact area.
Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina is at a significant distance, which prohibits an
economical use by Seymour Johnson aircraft. Logistics are an additional issue in this respect.
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station and two other ranges in Eastern North Carolina
(BT-9 near Brant Island and BT-11 at Point of Marsh) are fully utilized and cannot
accommodate training requirements of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base pilots.
0
Simulated Runway Project and Minimization Efforts
U S Air Force
Dare County Bomb Range
The proposed simulated runway project at Dare County Bomb Range (DCBR) is of
significant importance to the tactical training mission of Seymour Johnson Air Force
Base, North Carolina.
The need for minimization of impacts to the wetland was considered of high priority
with the understanding that the training mission could not be compromised.
Original conceptions called for an expansive runway and target pad complex covering
large areas of the range. The attached Range Vision 1999 represents the original version
of the project, which impacted 35 acres of wetland.
After recognizing the importance of keeping wetlands intact, the project scope was
reduced. Existing target pads would be expanded to accommodate the training
requirements while 9 new pads were eliminated from the proposal. This action reduced
the wetland impact to 33 acres.
A simulated anti-aircraft artillery site and surface to air missile site were planned in a
separate area of the impact area. An additional 2-acre reduction in wetland impact was
achieved through the integration of these two sites into the runway complex.
It was recognized that the project still proposed an overly long and wide runway and
taxiway system. The connecting roadways were arranged in an inefficient way and at
locations that required more fill of wetland. They were longer and wider than absolutely
necessary for safe motorized vehicle access to the complex. A 3000 x 50 feet runway
and 3000 x 25 feet taxiway was identified as the absolute minimum requirement to
execute optimal training. Some non-essential target pads were removed altogether or
reduced in size. This action eliminated another 20 acres of necessary fill to the wetland.
The currently proposed project impacts a total of 10.87 acres of wetland. It includes a
8.86-acre runway and taxiway complex, a 1.5-acre bomb storage area, 0.104-acre
improvement to the target pad # 3 (LGB LOFT), 0.205-acre improvement to target pad #
2 (Target 13), and a 0.205-acre improvement to target pad # I(Target 12).
This proposal represents the minimum requirement to accomplish pilot training after
considering all possibilities for reduction of impact to the wetland.
Mc1n 3
(+ E/V ? L-3L64 bl®ck 18

5SP
Fai ge 0
Vi si 199 a
7
? NTieC
19
LCBTGT 9
LO 4NBd
24
ROQW6N
23
IATvAa
Mtes Site va Riga Tara
PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN
DCBR MOCK RUNWAY
The 4th FW proposes the following as compensatory mitigation for this project
1. On 9 Jul 97, a compensatory mitigation plan and subsequent
planting/ monitoring plan was submitted and accepted by the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) on 27 Oct 97 for an earlier.target pad installation project
(ACOE permit No. 199703305). This plan was to return an old logging road to
surrounding grade, creating 0.34 acres of high-quality wetlands. In the process,
we extended the construction and created an additional 1.21 acres of wetlands,
with the understanding that these unused "credits" could be used for future
mitigation impacts when National Defense dictated new mission requirements.
2. The current defense climate has, indeed, created the need for more realistic
visual targets for training aircrews. Much work in improving wetland conditions
throughout the DCBR has taken place as an option for mitigation when these
requirements would necessitate the alteration of wetlands on the range.
3. For the (now) 10.87 acres of proposed wetland fill, the following plan is proposed
as compensatory mitigation. It should be agreed that the area of fill is occurring
in an area of degraded wetland function (see ACOE Target Pad EA; HID, 20 Feb
97):
• From 24.13 acres that were painstakingly removed from the original project,
we believe that 3.8 acres (-15% of the impact avoidance, and a 1:6.4 ratio) will
provide an acceptable proportion (35%) to this mitigation plan
• 1.21 acres of uplands were converted to wetlands within the last three years
(para. 1, above). This area naturally revegetated and is an exceptional
example of created wetlands. At a 1:1 ratio, this will comprise 11 % of the
compensatory mitigation
An on-going wetland enhancement/ hydrology restoration project in
partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge) and the USGS has produced two areas of restoration totaling
approximately 7,500 acres. Though the complete effects of this project may
not be known for several years, indicators are that it will be tremendously
successful. As these wetlands contain some of the most important examples
of pocosins as well as Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) forests,
this restoration project is an important component of the "no net loss" tack of
the Department of Defense. Because of the high value of these wetlands, we
are proposing that 18 acres (at a 1:3 ratio, for a total of 6 acres, or -54% of the
mitigation plan) be used to complete this compensatory mitigation.
A j ck
(40 ENG,
24 September 2002
A pp
Planting Plan
This plan offers a combination of various types of mitigation, including avoidance,
minimization, creation and restoration. The 1.21 acre wetland that was created in 1999
in conjunction with a previous mitigation project has succeeded with minimal post-
construction intervention. A planting plan approved for that project was later
rescinded due to heavier-than-normal rainfall and the timely success of natural wetland
vegetation. For these reasons, no planting plan is proposed as part of this plan.
x•
Montorini
As the Dare County Bomb Range is under constant use and control, and access to the
range is restricted, the range is under a continuous state of observation and monitoring.
The areas proposed for mitigation will continue to be monitored on a regular basis. A
report describing successes and site conditions will be submitted each year in
December, or any time that the Natural Resources staff determines that a report is
warranted.
O
24 September 2002
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
4TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC
Lt Col Michael J. Coats
Commander, 4th Civil Engineer Squadron
1095 Peterson Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB NC 27531-2355
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh NC 27604-2260
Dear Mr. Dorney
FIL r COPY
2 1 OCT 2002
o2- n l
iihi
O 7 s '?M
Please find attached the seven required copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application
Form (Attachment 1) for the construction of a simulated runway, (inert) bomb storage area and hardened
target pad expansions at the US Air Force Dare County Bomb Range. We are simultaneously coordinating
the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington field office.
Description of the overall project as well as the purpose of the work can be found in the attached copy of
US Army Corps of Engineers Form ENG 4345 (Attachment 2).
Discussion of considered alternatives, our efforts to minimize the impact to the wetland as well as a
mitigation proposal are included in the ENG 4345.
Informal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been initiated
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office.
The required check in the amount of $475.00 for the Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality
certification is attached to the front of this package.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to call Dr. Johanna E. Arnold or Mr. Bryan
Henderson in the Environmental Management Office at [phone].
Sincerely
Attachments:
1. PCN Application Package (7)
2. ENG 4345 with attachments
MICHAEL ATS, Lt Col, USAF
cc:
4 OSS/OSOR (lLt Deahl)
Caroline Bellis, NC Division of Coastal Management

Standard Form 1034(EG)
Revised October 1987 .• „
De
art
ent
T
B
f th
PUBLIC VOUCHER FOR PURCHASES AND VOUCHER NO.
ury1
m
e
re
=
pTFM
oo SERVICES OTHER THAN PERSONAL -j
/A
34.121
1034121 -
I -A
U.S. DEPARTMENT, BUREAU, OR ESTABLISHMENT AND LOCATION DATE VOUCHER PREPARED SCHEDULE NO.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 30 Oct 2002
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE OFFICE CONTRACT NUMBER AND DATE PAID BY
1185 CANNON AVENUE

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB
NC 27531-5225 DFAS-DE
, REQUISITION NUMBER AND DATE Denver, CO
80279-5000
DSSN: 380100
I-
FILE 0
u rY
L No") 0 a
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources /
PAYEE'S Division of Water Qual
t
i
y

NAME 401 Wetlands Unit E INVOICE RECEIVED
AND Attn: Mr. John Dorney
ADDRESS 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250 DISCOUNT TERMS
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
PAYEE'S ACCOUNT NUMBER
SHIPPED FROM TO WEIGHT GOVERNMENT BIL NUMBER
NUMBER
AND DATE DATE OF
DELIVERY ARTICLES OR SERVICES
/Enter description
item number ofcontractorfederalsupplyschedule
andother QUAN• UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
OF ORDER OR SERVICE ,
, TITY (1)
information deemed necessary/ COST PER
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certificiation application fee 1 475
00 EA " 475
00
(Permit) for Seymour Johnson, AFB, NC . .
Please Identify the check as "Dare County Bomb Range -
Simulation Runway" '

U't TLRNDS GROUP
?lPT !}.I -.`.ITY `ECT!0N
.................
(Use continuationshest(s) if necessary) (Payee must NOT use the space below) TOTAL 475.00
PAYMENT: APPROVED FOR EXCHANGE RATE
DIFFERENCES
F] PROVISIONAL -S 47 =S1.00
® COMPLETE BY __...._._.._.._-

PARTIAL
FINAL C THIA A. PRUITT, GS-05 Amount verified; correct for 475.00
PROGRESS TITLE myna tureorinitialsl
? ADVANCE ALTERNATE RESOURCE ADVISOR- 4CES/CERF CAP
Pursuant to authority vested in me, I certify that this voucher is correct and proper for payment.
F MERLIN
lgc T Q a. C'. 0
jjI13G OFFICER
` =
R
, ?.
Z
M
(Date/ (Authorized Certifying Officer) 2 /Title!
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION
MORD #: AF04062903GO01
5733400 303 7824 4H4416 010000 68370 27456F 667100 F67100 work order # 93345
(FSR: 007245 PSR: 451324 DSR: 087553)

co CHECK N MB R ON ACCOUNT OF U.S. TREASURY CHECK NUMBER ON (Name of bank)

Q CASH DATE PAYEE 3
CL $
1 When stated in foreign currency, insert name of currency. PER
2 If the ability to certify and authority to approve are combined in one parson, one signature only is necessary; otherwise the
approving officer will sign in the space provided, over his official title.
3 When a voucher is receipted in the name of a company or corporation, the name of the person writing the company or TITLE
corporate name, as well as the capacity in which he signs, must appear. For example: "John Doe Company, per John
Smith Secretary", or "Treasurer*, as the case may be.
Desioned using Perform Pro. WHSIDIOR
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
The information requested on this form is required under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 82h and 82c, for the purpose of disbursing Federal money. The information requested is to identify the particular
creditor and the amounts to be paid. Failure to furnish this information will hinder discharge of the payment obligation.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
4TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC
3 0 CK" 20,D? .
MEMORANDUM FOR 4 FW/FMFL
FROM: 4 CES/CEV
SUBJECT: Application Fee for Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
1. Request a check in the amount of $475.00 be prepared for payment of the Clean Water Act
Section 401 Certification (Permit) application fee for Seymour Johnson AFB using MORD
AF04062903GO01 Basic, line item AA for FY03 Permit Fees.
2. Please make the check payable to North Carolina Division of Water Quality and mail it to:
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
Attn: Mr. John Dorney
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250
Raleigh NC 27604-2260
3. Please identify "Dare County Bomb Range - Simulated Runway" as the applicant name on
check.
4. The fund cite for this check is: AA 5733400 303 7824 4H4416 010000 68370 27456F
' 667100 F31610/93345
5. Please enclose the check in the envelope at Atch 1 and mail it along with the Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) Application Form (Atch 2) to the above address.
6. My point of contact is Dr. Johanna E. Arnold, 4 CES/CEV, 2-5168.
DONALD R. ABRAMS, P.E.
Chief, Environmental Flight
Attachments:
1. Mailing Envelope
2. 4 CES Ltr w/Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
OfogaLf-DOWET 1301t ogmszlea
i?-? v i Ira
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ACTION ID NO. 200310014 October 23, 2002
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. Coats, Base Civil Engineer for Seymour Johnson Air Force
Base, 1095 Peterson Avenue, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina 27531-2355, has
applied, on behalf of the United States Air Force (USAF), for a Department of the Army (DA)
permit TO PLACE EARTHEN AND GRAVEL FILL MATERIAL WITHIN 10.87 ACRES OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, TO FACILITATE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MOCK RUNWAY COMPLEX AND BOMB STORAGE AREA.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the existing US Air Force Dare County
Bomb Range, located on the north side of US 264, adjacent the Long Shoal River, approximately
11.7 miles west of Stumpy Point, Dare County, North Carolina. .
The following description of the project area is taken from data provided by the applicant and
from observations made during onsite inspections by representatives of the Corps of Engineers.
The soils on the project site are mapped as Pungo Muck. The project area is located within the
boundaries of the existing impact area. This area has been heavily utilized for aerial bombing
and artillery practice for many years. Frequent impacts and fires associated with this activity
have resulted in extensive alteration of the soil surface and the vegetative community. The area
is predominantly vegetated by early successional, pocosinoid species.
Included with this public notice are plans showing the proposed work, a description of
alternatives considered, additional information provided by the applicant detailing avoidance and
minimization efforts and a proposal to offer compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable
wetland impacts.
The USAF has applied for and received previous authorizations to place fill in DA
jurisdictional wetlands associated with other projects constructed within the bomb range. In
March, 1997, the USAF constructed four heavyweight target pads, involving the authorized
filling of 0.34 AC. of jurisdictional wetlands (Standard Permit, AID 199703305). In June, 2002,
the USAF constructed an additional target pad, which involved the authorized filling of 0.10 ac.
of jurisdictional wetlands (Nationwide Permit, AID 200210754).
-2-
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this determination to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for their review and concurrence. This proposal
shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina General
Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM),
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-Owned submerged land
under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-12 by the North
Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation control Plan by the Land Quality
Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant to the State
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 a-50-66).
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit
will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and
reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified
in the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public
hearing shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this site is not registered property or property listed as being
-3-
eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the extent
of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity
will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
I
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case.
The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and
if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the
outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive
Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
' permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply
with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding
sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
-4-
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need fora public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not
be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA)
permit serves as application to the NCDWQ;for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the offices of the Wetlands/401 Unit, NCDWQ, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27604-2260. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies
upon payment of reproduction cost.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water
Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650, on or
before November 12, 2002, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
in the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
Attn: Mr. Tom Walker, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina, 27889,
until 4:15 p.m., November 22, 2002 or telephone [phone], extension 24.
rra.?p ?
i
t
i
pV ? O
N
I ?-?• ? ?-vuuay nomn range I
TARGET PAD
TOTAL MATERIAL REQUIRED:
1. 840CY ABC GRAVEL
2. 1- 4'X40' CORRUGATED
ALUMINUM CULVERTS
3. 5 ROLLS OF 15.5'
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
4'x40' CORRUGATED ALUMINUM
CANAL CROSSING
(EXISTING)
00
0
x 0Y
ow
� U
a
EXISTING ROAD
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: I"=20'
PURPOSE: SUPPOoRT OF
ADDITIONAL F -15E TRAINING
EXPANSION OF HARDENED TARGET PADS
2 OF 3
PRODUCED BY: 4CES/CECN
UNITS AT DCBR.
(TARGETS 12.13 AND LGB LOFT)
1095 PETERSON
OFFICE OF INQUIRY: 40SS/OSOR
DARE COUNTY BOMB RANGE(AF)
SJAFB NC 27531-2355
DESCRIPTION: THE EXPANSION OF THREE
PADS.
IN: DARE COUNTY. N.C.
APPLICATION BY: 4CES/CEV
APPROX. 12N.M. EAST OF
1095 PETERSON

Simulated Runway Project and Considered Alternatives
U S Air Force
Dare County Bomb Range
The proposed simulated runway project at Dare County Bomb Range (DCBR) is of
significant importance to the training mission of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North
Carolina.
A focal point of military engagement is the infrastructure of a potential enemy, with
primary focus on the enemy's airfields. A simulated runway is of utmost importance to the
training needs of our pilots. The changing military mission requires flexibility to move and
maintain multiple targets. The proposed simulated runway would provide a changing airfield
complex, which is more realistic, and more challenging to pilots in training. Large inert
practice bombs (500 'lbs and 2,000 lbs) require a durable and repairable complex that will
withstand continued utilization.
Over the past years, several alternative solutions to this need were developed and
considered:
Alternative 1: A mock runway is cut into the prevailing vegetation by mowing it one to three
times per year. Targets are placed in the marsh on the mowed area. This is the current
situation at the range. However, the cut vegetation does not provide adequate radar or visual
representation to the pilots. In addition, the current targets are inaccessible for repair or
replacement. They eventually sink into the marsh after being hit by practice bombs.
Alternative 2: A canal could be dug around the runway to emphasize the radar and visual
picture. This was rejected because it would not significantly increase the radar and visual
representation and would not improve the accessibility of target structures. Canal crossings
would be necessary in order to access the targets.
Alternative 3: The outline of a runway could be painted into the vegetation using ecologically
safe paint. This was not feasible since the paint is not radar reflective thus negating one of the
important aspects of the training mission.
Alternative 4: A simulated runway could be constructed using geotextile matting (to stop
vegetation growth) and light perforated steel plates (PSP). The metal plating would give a
better radar return and visual presentation. However, this alternative was rejected for several
reasons:
This structure cannot support the heavy targets used at the range. The railcars and other
large targets would destroy the PSP.
The PSP structure cannot support the required frequent movements of targets. Moving
targets on the runway are a necessary factor for preparing pilots to respond to dynamic enemy
environments. Without permanent road connections and a permanent runway and taxiway the
Afllk 2.
Simulated Runway Project and Minimization Efforts
i
U S Air Force
Dare County Bomb Range
The proposed simulated runway project at Dare County Bomb Range (DCBR) is of
significant importance to the tactical training mission of Seymour Johnson Air Force
Base, North Carolina
The need for minimization of impacts to the wetland was considered of high priority
with the understanding that the training mission could not be compromised.
Original conceptions called for an expansive runway and target pad complex covering
large areas of the range. The attached Range Vision 1999 represents the original version
of the project, which impacted 35 acres of wetland.
After recognizing the importance of keeping wetlands intact, the project scope was
reduced. Existing target pads would be expanded to accommodate the training
requirements while 9 new pads were eliminated from the proposal. This action reduced
the wetland impact to 33 acres.
A simulated anti-aircraft artillery site and surface to air missile site were planned in a
separate area of the impact area. An additional 2-acre reduction in wetland impact was
achieved through the integration of these two sites into the runway complex.
It was recognized that the project still proposed an overly long and wide runway and
taxiway system. The connecting roadways were arranged in an inefficient way and at j
locations that required more fill of wetland. They were longer and wider than absolutely '
necessary for safe motorized vehicle access to the complex. A 3000 x 50 feet runway
and 3000 x 25 feet taxiway was identified as the absolute minimum requirement to
execute optimal training. Some non-essential target pads were removed altogether or
j reduced in size. This action eliminated another 20 acres of necessary fill to the wetland.
The currently proposed project impacts a total of 10.87 acres of wetland. It includes a
8.86-acre runway and taxiway complex, a 1.5-acre bomb storage area, 0.104-acre
improvement to the target pad # 3 (LGB LOFT), 0.205-acre improvement to target pad #
2 (Target 13), and a 0.205-acre improvement to target pad # 1(Target 12). t
This proposal represents the minimum requirement to accomplish pilot training after
f
considering all possibilities for reduction of impact to the wetland.
ft4`cn 3
PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN
DCBR MOCK RUNWAY
The 41h FW proposes the following as compensatory mitigation for this project
1. On 9 Jul 97, a compensatory mitigation plan and subsequent
planting/monitoring plan was submitted and accepted by the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) on 27 Oct 97 for an earlier target pad installation project
(ACOE permit No. 199703305). This plan was to return an old logging road to
surrounding grade, creating 0.34 acres of high-quality wetlands. In the process,
we extended the construction and created an additional 1.21 acres of wetlands,
with the understanding that these unused "credits" could be used for future
mitigation impacts when National Defense dictated new mission requirements.
2. The current defense climate has, indeed, created the need for more realistic
visual targets for training aircrews. Much work in improving wetland conditions
throughout the DCBR has taken place as an option for mitigation when these
requirements would necessitate the alteration of wetlands on the range.
For the (now) 10.87 acres of proposed wetland fill, the following plan is proposed
as compensatory mitigation. It should be agreed that the area of fill is occurring
in an area of degraded wetland function (see ACOE Target Pad EA; IIID, 20 Feb
97):
From 24.13 acres that were painstakingly removed from the original project,
we believe that 3.8 acres (-15% of the impact avoidance, and a 1:6.4 ratio) will
provide an acceptable proportion (35%) to this mitigation plan
1.21 acres of uplands were converted to wetlands within the last three years
(para. 1, above). This area naturally revegetated and is an exceptional
example of created wetlands. At a 1:1 ratio, this will comprise 11 % of the
compensatory mitigation
An on-going wetland enhancement/hydrology restoration project in
partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge) and the USGS has produced two areas of restoration totaling
approximately 7,500 acres. Though the complete effects of this project may
not be known for several years, indicators are that it will be tremendously
successful. As these wetlands contain some of the most important examples
of pocosins as well as Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) forests,
this restoration project is an important component of the "no net loss" tack of
the Department of Defense. Because of the high value of these wetlands, we
are proposing that 18 acres (at a 1:3 ratio, for a total of 6 acres, or -54% of the
mitigation plan) be used to complete this compensatory mitigation.
24 September 2002
A ACA lk
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact: tom steffens
WQ Supervisor: Roger thorpe
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Dare County Bomb Range, County Dare
Project Number 02 1789 County2
Recvd From APP Region Washington
Received Date 11/1/02 Recvd By Region
Project Type simulation Runway
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet ta IN
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req. O Y O N 30-22-8 HQWOR 30,151. 10.57 F I +?

Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N Recommendation: 0 issue 0 Issue/fond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss)
Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
Issue n/c
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
"Facility Name Dare County Bomb Range County Dare
Project Number 02 1789 Regional Contact: tom steffens
Date:
Comments (continued from page 1):
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
c? , 'L
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
4TH FIGHTER WINO (ACC)
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC
Lt Col Michael J. Coats
Commander, 4th Civil Engineer Squadron
1095 Peterson Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB NC 27531-2355
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Dear Mr. Dorney
?D 0 5 2003
r?
WgT?IV?
This correspondence is in reference to your memorandum, dated January 9, 2003, DWQ
Project No. 02-1789 and DOA Action ID No. 200310014, signed by Cyndi Karoly for Alan W.
Klimek, P.E. The project involves the construction of a simulated runway, (inert) bomb storage
area and expansion of hardened target pads at the US Air Force Dare County Bomb Range.
We have prepared a new mitigation proposal for this project and have requested a
modification to the permit application from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington
Regulatory Field Office. Please find attached a copy of this correspondence to include the new
mitigation proposal.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to call Dr. Johanna E. Arnold in the
Environmental Management Office at [phone].

Sincerely
MICHAEL J. ATS, Lt Col, USAF
Attachment:
Correspondence to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with New Mitigation Proposal
cc:
4 OSS/OSOR (1 Lt Deahl and Barry Beatty)
Caroline Bellis, NC Division of Coastal Management
!qfogaf ?JJDOarez 170T 4-,n ,dea
fi
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
4TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC
4th Civil Engineer Squadron
1095 Peterson Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFb NC 27531-2355
Mr. Tom Walker
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Walker

Reference your memorandum, subject: Action ID No. 200310014, Department of the Army,
dated December 18, 2002.
We are furnishing a proposed resolution to all objections from government agencies regarding
our mitigation proposal for the construction of a simulated runway at the US Air Force.Dare
County Bomb Range, North Carolina.
We are submitting a new mitigation plan (Attachment 1) and are offering a 1.086 :1
compensation rate for the unavoidable loss of 10.87 acres of wetland. We would like to point
out that the construction site is located in the impact area and is considered a degraded wetland.
The proposed mitigation site consists of two spur roads just west of the Navy impact area
(Attachment 2) and will provide for the required on-site, in-kind compensatory mitigation. The
restoration site will match the function of the taken wetland and we will make every effort to.
'restore a wetland of even higher quality. The attached mitigation plan contains defined,
measurable criteria for the establisl meat and monitoring of wetland vegetation and hydrology.
The time lag to reestablish the natural vegetation community will be short due to the
narrowness of the spur roads. The site is surrounded by Nonriverine Swamp Forest and
Hardwood Forest with little or no introduced or invasive species and natural recruitment of
herbaceous cover can be expected in a short period of time. This may be considered when
establishing the compensatory ratio for this project..
Due to the fact that Dare County Bomb Range has little opportunity for mitigation sites, we
are unable to provide the desired 2.5 : 1 ratio.
We hope that the new mitigation plan is ;acceptable to all agencies and our permit application
can be processed expeditiously.
gfogaf _(POWF-T 170z <-_ E,dca AC?
e L a
1
My point of contact in this matter is Dr. Johanna E. Arnold, 4 CES/CEV, at [phone].
Sincerely
MICHAEL J.-COATS ' Lt Col, USAF
Commandej.? CES
Attachments:
1. Simulated Runway Project and Mitigation Proposal
2. Map of Dare County Bomb Range and Proposed Mitigation Site
cc:
4 OSS/OSOR (lLT Deahl)
4 OSS/OSR (Barry Beatty)
4 CES/CEV (Scott Smith)

Simulated Runway Project and Mitigation Proposal
US Air Force
Dare County Bomb Range.
The US Air Force proposes to construct a simulated runway, bomb storage area and target pad
expansions, which require a 10.87-acre fill to the wetland. The US Air Force proposes the
following mitigation plan, which will offer a 1.086: 1 compensation ratio.
1. A previous mitigation project (USACE Action ID No. 199703305, map attached) still
contains 1.21 acres of unused credits. This project and the annual monitoring reports were
accepted by the USACE.
2. In addition we propose to restore 10.59 acres of wetland from two upland spur roads.
a. Location. Spring Road and Magnolia Road are located in the northern part of the
range, just west of the Navy impact area (map attached). Both roads are 40 feet wide (including
the canal and road shoulder), Spring Road has a length of 5,795 feet on Air Force property,
Magnolia Road has a length of 5,749 feet on Air Force property. Only property owned by the
US Air Force is included in this mitigation plan.
b. Site Preparation. We propose to clear the roadbed of existing vegetation, regrade to
fill the existing canal, and disk the area to help alleviate potential soil compaction problems. We
will ensure that the elevation of the area will create favorable conditions for the proposed tree
seedlings. This earthmoving work will take place during spring of 2003 depending on weather
conditions.
c. Planting plan. The selected mitigation site is surrounded by Nonriverine Swamp
Forest (dominated mainly by swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)) and by an area of disturbed Peatland Atlantic White
Cedar Forest now dominated by hardwoods. It can be expected that some of the naturally
growing trees will seed into the mitigation site.
We propose to plant 6800 seedlings consisting of a diverse and locally native mix to
include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), pond pine (Pinus serotina) and other native trees. They will
be spaced 8 feet apart and will amount to approximately 680 seedlings per acre. The planting is
projected for January - February 2004 since the nursery supply of tree seedlings for the 2003-
planting season is exhausted.
d. Monitoring. We propose to monitor the site for five years during late spring.
One transect will be established through the middle of the mitigation area at both spur
roads. Five monitoring stations will be set up at each road approximately 1000 feet apart using a
Global Positioning System. At each of the ten, stations an area measuring 30-feet x 30-feet will
/ 4C4 i

be used to determine the survival rate. A GIS database will be established including the number
of original seedlings and surviving seedlings for each year. A survival rate of 70 % after five
years will be considered adequate. We will replant appropriate tree seedlings if the survival rate
drops below 70 %.
Herbaceous cover will be visually estimated.
A soil pit will be dug to determine the depth of free water in the pit. Wetland hydrology
is established if the water table is within 12 inches of the ground surface.
If woody nuisance species (loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and red maple (Ater rubrum)) appear at a number greater than 10% they will be
removed either by mechanical means or by use of a herbicide (Rodeo).
e. Reporting. An annual report will be prepared and submitted to the Washington
Regulatory Field Office by 31 December of every year until 2008.
It will contain the survival rate of tree seedlings on a GIS- supported map with data
collection in tables for each monitoring station. Success of establishment of native herbaceous
vegetation will be included. Wetland hydrology will be established by providing the depth of the
water table at each station. Annual rainfall amount at the range will be included. The
presence/absence of nuisance species will be indicated. Representative photographs will also be
made available.
7Jan 03

al
C,4 1,.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
March 24, 2003
Mr. Tom Walker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineer
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
APR 112003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Action ID No. 200310014, U. S. Air Force, Dare County Bomb Range, Dare Co., NC
Dear Mr. Walker:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the wetland
compensatory mitigation proposal for the subject Public Notice (PN). The applicant, Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to place earthen
fill material within 10.87 acres of DA jurisdictional wetlands to facilitate the construction of a
mock runway and bomb storage area. The project area would be within the boundaries of the
existing U.S. Air Force Dare County Bomb Range (DCBR). These comments are submitted in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) should consider these comments in the
determination of compliance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public
interest review (33 CFR 320.4) as they relate to protection of fish and wildlife resources.
The Service provide comments on the PN by letter dated November 21, 2002. At that time the
Service found the plan of compensatory mitigation to be inadequate. We advocated that wetland
compensation consist of two components. First, there should be a minimum of one-to-one
restoration of wetlands with a strong emphasis of in-kind replacement near the area of impacts.
The second component could consist of either one additional acre of wetland restoration, two
acres of enhancement, three acres of creation, or 10 acres of wetland preservation. The Service,
the Corps, and other agencies have been working to establish this standard within North
Carolina.
By letter dated January 9, 2003, the applicant provided the Corps a revised mitigation proposal
for the simulated runway project. This plan retained the 1.21 acres of mitigation credit from an
earlier project and a plan to restore an additional 10.59 acres by removing two upland spur roads.
Overall, the applicant would provide 11.80 acres of wetland restoration for 10.87 acres of
wetland impacts, a compensation ratio of 1.09:1. The revised plan notes that the DCBR has little
opportunity for mitigation sites and the desired compensation ratio of 2.5:1 could not be
achieved.

2
The Service supports the restoration plan for 10.6 acre of the two spur roads. We recommend
that the application consider planting Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) instead of
pond pine (Pinus serotina) on these sites. We have enclosed a sheet which matches tree species
for restoration to the soil type on the site. While this list was developed for Pocosin Lake
National Wildlife Refuge (PLNWR) in Washington, Hyde, and Tyrrell Counties, we believe it
would be an effective planning tool for this effort.
The Service sees two opportunities for additional wetland compensation. First, areas that have
been converted to commercial timber operations within the DCBR could be restored to a natural
hydrologic regime and the planted with natural community species. We believe the applicant
could work with staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge within the context of the on-
going joint effort, to achieve adequate wetland compensation within the large area of the DCBR.
Second, mitigation credits could be purchased from the Timberlake Farm Mitigation Bank near
Columbia in Tyrrell County. These options, either separately or in combination, should be able
to provide an additional 9.94 acres of wetland restoration or other forms of compensation
discussed above. We request that these mitigation opportunities be considered by the applicant
prior to the issuance of the DA permit. We believe such an effort would satisfy both the
404(b)(1) guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Defense policy of "no net loss" of wetlands.
Overall, the Service strongly supports the goals of this project and we appreciates the opportunity
to comment on this PN. Please advise us of any action taken by the Wilmington District, Corps
of Engineers. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at
919-856-4520 (Ext. 27) or by e-mail at howard hall. )fws.gov.
•N
?lcT'
Attachment
cc (with attachment):
Sincerely,

Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
Sohn Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
David McHenry, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Creedmore, NC
Kathy Matthews, USEPA, Athens, GA
Dennis Stewart, USFWS, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Manteo, NC
Lt. Col. Michael Coats, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC
Table 3. Soils on PLNWR, and recommended tree species
Soil Map Acres Surface Subsoil Recommended Site
series symbol texture & depth texture species 1 index2
(in)
Acredale AcA 2 silty sandy LP 96
Altavista AaA 59 sandy -- 9 loamy LP, LLP 91
Arapahoe Ap 33 sandy -- 13 sandy LP, S 95
Argent Ar 41 silt loam -- 9 clayey LP, O, S 96

Augusta At 65 sandy -- 16 clayey LP, S, RB 90

Bellhaven Ba 6,533 muck (40-43) sandy; AWC, C, PP
(Tyrrel) then clayey
BmA 7,086 (") (") (11)
BnA 791 muck -- 26 sandy, then clayey; AWC, C, BG
then sandy
Ba 1,928
(Wash.)

Cape Fear Cf 648 loam -- 14 clayey LP, O, S, A 100

Chowan Ch 2 loam -- 25 sapric C, WT, BG, A
(flood plains)

Conaby Co 44 muck -- 13 sandy AWC, C, BG
CoA 418
Conetoe CtA 7 sandy (22-28) sandy LP, LLP 80
Dorovan Do 3,254 muck (90+) -- C, BG, WT
(flood plains)
DoA 422 muck -- 70 -- (" )
Fortescue Fo 4 silt loam --10 ??? LP, O, A 107
FoA 32
Hyde Hy 1300 loam --24 loamy LP, O, A 96

Hydeland HyA 7 silt loam --11 variable LP, O, A 107

Longshoal LfA 12 mucky peat -- 72 : --- AWC, C, PP
R
Newholland NeA 401 mucky loamy
sand -- 19 sandy AWC, C, A
Perquimans Pe
(Tyrrell) 137 Loam -- 7 loamy LP, O, A 94
Pettigrew Pe
(Wash.) 539 muck -- 15 clayey C, AWC, BG
Ponzer Po
PnA 812
2,318 muck -- 30
muck -- 21 clayey, then sandy
loamy AWC, C, BG
(11)
Portsmouth Pt 254 Loam (14-18) sandy LP, O, A 96
Pungo Pu
PuA 55,894
14,770 Muck (65-80) clayey AWC, C, PP 95
Roanoke Ro 35 Loam -- 6 clayey LP, O, A 86
Roper Rp
RoA 142
77 Muck (10-13) silty, clayey
variable AWC, C, BG
Scuppernong ScA
Se 5,378
593 muck (28-33) silty, clayey AWC, C, BG, PP
State StB 2 sandy--7 loamy O, S, LP 95
Tomotley To 286 sandy--8 clayey LP, YP, O, A 94
Wahee WaA 245 Loam-5 clayey LP, O, A, S 86
Wasda Wd 455 Muck (12-15) loamy AWC, C, BG, O, A
Weeksville Wk
WkA 563
127 silty; sandy -- 42
loam --13 sandy
loamy LP, O, A
(" ) 90
Wysocking WyA 2 sandy-29 muck W, Pers, RB 94
Yeopim YeA 6 silty -- 3 variable S, A 91
Species: white cedar (AWC), bald cypress (C), swamp blackgum (BG), ash (A), loblolly
pine (LP); longleaf pine (LLP); pond pine (PP); yellow-poplar (YP); sycamore (S); water
tupelo (WT), persimmon (Per), river birch (RB); Oaks, including water oak, willow oak,
swamp white oak, and cherrybark (O).
2 For loblolly pine (50 years).
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
Phone [phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney, Administrator
401/Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: David McHenry, NE Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Section
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: December 11, 2002
SUBJECT: Section 401 Water Quality Certification application for Dare County Bomb
Range, Dare County, North Carolina.
DWQ No. 021789
Action ID No. 200310014
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed
the application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and Section 401(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended).
The U.S. Air Force Seymour Johnson Air Force Base is requesting authorization to fill a
total of 10.87 acres of wetlands for construction of a mock runway, target pad extensions, and
storage facility at the Dare County Bomb Range (DCBR). The proposed runway will provide a
more realistic training opportunity than the existing vegetated target because it will be
constructed using gravel, sand, and marl. The current proposal represents a reduction from the
original project scope and wetland impact of 35 acres. Mitigation credits requested for the
unavoidable wetland impacts of the proposal include: (1) 3.8 acres for reducing the project scope
by 24.13 acres, (2) 1.21 acres for wetlands created from a previous roadway removal, (3) and 6
acres from 18 acres included in an ongoing wetland enhancement/hydrology restoration project
being conducted in collaboration with the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR).
Although the applicant specifies that the wetlands affected by the project are of relatively
low quality, it should be noted that this degradation is partly attributed to past and current
activities at the DCBR. Road and facility construction have altered the hydrology of the area and
ordnance use and facility maintenance continue to degrade the wetland vegetation. Nevertheless,
the NCWRC understands that the ongoing wetland hydrology restoration effort at the DCBR and
ARNWR may eventually improve the quality and function of the area wetlands. This potential
should be considered in the context of the current proposal and any future projects at the DCBR.
It is the policy of the NCWRC to oppose projects that unnecessarily degrade wetlands and
to support adequate mitigation for wetland impacts that are unavoidable. The NCWRC
recognizes the need for the proposed project and the efforts of the applicant to reduce its overall
401-Dare Bomb Range Page 2 December 11, 2002
wetland impact. However, the mitigation offered for wetland impacts, particularly the requested
3.8 acres of credit for minimizing wetland impacts, is not consistent with NCWRC policies. The
NCWRC considers minimization as a necessary measure that precedes and is distinct from
subsequent compensation measures that involve tangible during or post-project efforts. In
addition to the requested minimization credits, the NCWRC questions the applicability of using
mitigation credit from the wetland enhancement/hydrology restoration project given that it only
involves culvert removal and installation. Hydrologic restoration is a primary element in wetland
restoration, but restoration of vegetative communities is also a corresponding restoration
component. Since, as indicated by the applicant, the effects of the restoration project remain
uncertain, the NCWRC suggests that using acreage from this project as mitigation credit for the
current proposal may be inappropriate or premature.
Because of these concerns, the NCWRC recommends that alternative mitigation plans be
developed prior to authorizing this project. These plans should identify any other potential
wetland restoration opportunities, particularly at the DCBR, that could be used as impact
compensation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the impacts of the project on fish and
wildlife resources. If you need to discuss these comments please call David McHenry at (252)
946-6481 ext 345.
cc: Tom Walker - US Army Corps of Engineers
Howard Hall - USFWS
ec: Chad Thomas - NCWRC, District 1

Date: 10 T/n?_
,
To:
Triage Check List
? Cau ? b
Project Name:
DWQ#:
County:
? ARO Mike Parker
? FRO Ken Averitte
? MRO Mike Parker
? RRO Steve Mitchell
From: ^'1
WaRO Deborah Sawyer
? WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
? WSRO Jennifer Frye
Telephone : (919) / l
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination -
.. r_ . if lap
Wetland determination andj
'iVlnimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
?Pend fill
2/ itigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
l ' ` JAN 2 2 2003
CESAW-RG (1145b) WETLANDS Goo
-?,?,...? ? UALITY SECTf(1N
C)'Z- I'M
°313
18 December 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, ATTN: Lt. Col. Michael J. Coats, 41h Civil Engineering
SQDN/CC, 1095 Peterson Avenue, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina 27531-2355
SUBJECT: Action ID No. 200310014, Department of the Army
1. Please reference your 1 October 2002, application for a Department of the Army (DA) individual
permit to place earthen and gravel fill material within 10.87 acres of DA jurisdictional wetlands to
facilitate the construction of a mock runway complex and bomb storage area. The proposed project
is located within the existing impact area of the United States Air Force Bomb Range, off of U.S.
Highway 264, in Dare County, North Carolina.
2. By letters dated 7 November 2002 and 21 November 2002, we received comments from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their review of the
public notice on your application (copies enclosed).
3. It is DA policy to provide an applicant the opportunity to furnish a proposed resolution or
rebuttal to all objections from government agencies and other substantive adverse comments before.
a final decision is made on a proposed project. In this regard, I would appreciate receiving any
comments that you have on this matter. If you intend to comment, please give your immediate
attention to this matter so processing of your permit can be expedited.
4. Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, you may contact
Mr. Tom Walker of my Washington Regulatory Field Office staff, Post Office Box 1000,
Washington, North Carolina, 27889-1000, at [phone], extension 24.
Sincerely,
Encls CHARLES R. ALEXANDER, JR.
Colonel, EN
Commanding
VC ' I F
CESAW-RG (1145b)
SUBJECT: Action ID No
CF (without encls):
18 December 2002
200310014, Department of the Army
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Water Management Div.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Garland B. Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
1?r. John Dorney
C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2