20210927 Ver 1_P134_IP_Application_Package_SIGNED_20210610_20210610

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Form Approved -
OMB No. 0710-0003
Expires: 30-SEPTEMBER-2015
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014
George Radford
United States Marine Corps
[e-mail]
Environmental Affairs Dept. MCAS
Cherry Point NC 28533 USA
N/A(919) 678-4155N/AN/A [phone] N/A
Jason Hartshorn
Kimley-Horn
[e-mail]
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
Raleigh NC 27616 USA
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Slocum Creek N/A (Linear Transportation Project)
Cherry Point NC 2853334.916031 -76.923011
6-060-065 Cherry Point
N/A N/A N/A
10 Jun 2021
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014
Project P134 proposes to replace an existing Entry Control Facility (ECF)at Slocum Road and provide a new ECF that will serve as the
main entrance and exit point into and out of MCAS Cherry Point in Craven County, North Carolina. The new ECF would include a visitor
control center, gate house, four sentry booths, main gate inspection canopies, overwatch defensive fighting position, a truck/POV
inspection office, and a concrete two-lane bridge with a pedestrian lane over Slocum Creek. The roadway section of the improvement adds
two lanes to serve Slocum Road traffic, as well as providing access from staff housing from Alexander Road south of the ECF. The new
roadway will begin at the eastern terminus of the air station near the NCDOT overpass at US Highway 70 and will terminate at the
intersection with Roosevelt Boulevard.
The goal of the Project is to provide significant and necessary security,safety,and transportation improvements along Slocum Road to
sustain mission capability. The Project proposes to widen Slocum Road from two lanes to four lanes and relocate the road to better comply
with Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) criteria regarding Public Transportation Routes (PTR), provide an additional two-lane
bridge adjacent to the existing two-lane bridge over Slocum Creek, and provide improved gate and inspection facilities. The purpose of this
Project is to enhance the flow of mobilizing forces to the Aerial Port of Embarkation (APOE), provide proper inspection facilities for
commercial vehicles entering the Air Station, enhance the service of ordnance deliveries to MCAS Cherry Point ordnance areas, and
upgrade the entrance and traffic controls to meet current safety and security requirements in order to quickly and efficiently process
inbound traffic on Slocum Road and stop unauthorized vehicles from entering MCAS Cherry Point.
The discharge is generally associated with the roadway realignment and construction,as well as the Entry Control Facility construction and
associated structures including but not limited to: visitor control center, gate house, four sentry booths, main gate inspection canopies,
overwatch defensive fighting position, and a truck/POV inspection office. Proposed uses for the Project would result in the potential
discharge of some pollutants, including road treatment for winter weather, oil products from automobile engines, and some fertilizers for
landscaping. The secondary short-term effects expected downstream would primarily be limited to temporary discharges of sediment
during construction. The Project further proposes to construct a parallel concrete two-lane bridge with a pedestrian lane over Slocum
Creek. See attached plans and supporting documentation for additional reasons for discharge and justification.
see attached Plans
See Table 8 in the attached Individual Permit (IP) Application and Supporting Documentation
See Table 8 in the attached Individual Permit (IP) Application and Supporting Documentation
See attached supporting documentation.
From Raleigh,take I-40 East towards Benson/Wilmington.After approximately 8.1 miles,take exit 309 for US-70 East toward Smithfield/
Goldsboro. Keep left and continue on US-70 Bypass East for approximately 36 miles. Merge onto US-70 East for 12 miles, then turn right
onto US-70 East/West New Bern Road. After approximately 37 miles, keep left to stay on US-70 East. After approximately 14 miles, take
the exit towards Cherry Point/Slocum Gate. After passing through the restricted area gate, continue 1.5 miles to Slocum Road. The Site is
located along Slocum Road and Alexander Road within the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014
See the attached AProperty Owners Map (Figure 6) and associated table in Appendix E of the IP document.
--
--
N/A
10 Jun 2021 10 Jun 2021
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum Road
Entry Control Facility
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County,
North Carolina
Prepared for: Prepared By:
United States Marine Corps Navy Transportation Partners JV
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point 4525 Main Street, Suite 1000
MCAS Cherry Point, NC 28533 Virginia Beach, VA 23462
June 2021
i
Executive Summary
This document is intended to provide supplementary information in support of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) preparation of the Public Notice, Environmental Assessment,
Finding of No Significant Impact, Statement of Findings, and Review and Compliance
Determination according to the 404(b)(1) guidelines for the proposed Project P134 – Perimeter
SecurityCompliance, Slocum Road Entry Control Facility (“the Project”) in Craven County, North
Carolina.
Primary Contact for the Individual Permit Application:
George Radford
Environmental Affairs Dept.
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point
PSC Box 8006
Cherry Point, NC 28533
Agent for United States Marine Corps:
Jason Hartshorn, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
NTPJV - Kimley-Horn
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27606
Date of Application: June , 2021
ii
Location:
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point located in
southeastern Craven County and bordered to the north by the Neuse River and the Croatan National
Forest to the south. The proposed project is located along Slocum Road, which has an existing
Entry Control Facility (ECF) providing access into MCAS Cherry Point from the west via US 70.
The project continues approximately 1.25 miles east toward the existing bridge on Slocum Road
over Slocum Creek. The project terminates on the eastern side of Slocum Creek, just west of the
intersection of Slocum Road at Roosevelt Boulevard.
Applicant’s Stated Purpose:
The purpose of the Project is to enhance the flow of mobilizing forces to the Aerial Port of
Embarkation (APOE), provide proper inspection facilities for commercial vehicles entering the
Air Station, enhance the service of ordnance deliveries to the station ordnance areas, and upgrade
the entrance and traffic controls to meet current safety and security requirements in order to quickly
and efficiently process inbound traffic on Slocum Road and stop unauthorized vehicles from
entering the station. The proposed project would provide significant and necessary security, safety,
and transportation improvements along Slocum Road to sustain mission capability and furthers the
USMC execution of its congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under 10 United States
Code section 8063.
Project Description:
Project P134 proposes to replace an existing Entry Control Facility (ECF) on Slocum Road from
U.S. Highway 70 and provide a new ECF that will serve as the main entrance and exit point into
and out of MCAS Cherry Point in Craven County, North Carolina.
The new ECF would include a visitor control center, gate house, four sentry booths, main gate
inspection canopies, overwatch defensive fighting position, a truck/POV inspection office, and a
concrete two-lane bridge with a pedestrian lane over Slocum Creek. The roadway section of the
improvement adds two lanes to serve Slocum Road traffic, as well as providing access from staff
housing from Alexander Road south of the ECF. The new roadway will begin at the eastern
terminus of the base near the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) overpass
project at U.S. Highway 70 and will terminate at the intersection with Roosevelt Boulevard.
Existing Site Conditions:
The approximately 64-acre Project is primarily composed of undeveloped forested areas and
riparian corridors associated with Slocum Creek and an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Slocum
Creek. In addition, the Project includes existing roadway right-of-way along Alexander Road and
Slocum Road on the eastern and western sides of Slocum Creek. Residential housing within a
suburban landscape is located south of the Project. The proposed Project is located entirely within
the MCAS Cherry Point installation and zoned as Military Reserve (MR).
iii
The Project is located in the Neuse River Basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020204]. Slocum Creek, one UT to Slocum Creek (Stream S1)
and nine wetlands (W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W8, W10, and W11) were identified within the
Project (Figure 5.0). Intermittent and perennial stream features are subject to the Neuse River
Basin Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0233) administered by the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR).
North Carolina Wetlands Assessment Method (NCWAM):
The three wetland types observed within the Project were headwater wetlands (wetlands W3 and
W8), riverine swamp forests (W4, W5, and W11) and basin wetlands (wetlands W1, W2, W6, and
W10). Wetlands W4, W5, and W11 within the Project have a “High” overall wetland rating due
to their hydrologic connectivity and function as well as the habitat they create. Wetlands W3 and
W8 have a “Medium” overall wetland rating due to their hydrology factors and history of
disturbance and fragmentation from the surrounding landscape. Wetlands W1, W2, W6, and W10
have a “Low” overall wetland rating due to their history of disturbance, fragmentation, hydrologic
factors, and overall habitat condition.
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM):
Stream S1 is a perennial tributary to Slocum Creek that begins offsite and flows through the
Project, crossing beneath Alexander Drive. Stream S1 within the Project has an overall NCSAM
rating of “High” due to its strong hydrologic function, water quality, and in-stream and stream-
side habitat. Slocum Creek is a large perennial stream located at the eastern end of the Project.
Slocum Road crosses Slocum Creek via bridge. NCSAM was not conducted on Slocum Creek due
to the Project proposing to entirely avoid Slocum Creek with a bridge.
CAMA Regulated Areas:
The Project is located in Craven County and is therefore subject to the regulations set forth by the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) enforced by the NC Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM). The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on coastal resources. Minor
substrate impacts that may increase turbidity within Slocum Creek are anticipated during bridge
construction, however, impacts to adjacent downstream receiving waters will be minimized
through the use of erosion control measures and the use of a temporary work bridge. There are no
coastal wetland impacts associated with the Project. MCAS Cherry Point will adhere to all
applicable state and federal regulations regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of
the ECF, bridge, and new roadway. MCAS Cherry Point will be submitting a Federal Consistency
Determination to NCDCM for the Project stating that the project is consistent, to the maximum
extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s federally approved coastal
management program.
The Craven County Comprehensive Plan (CAMA Core Land Use Plan), adopted by the Craven
County Board of Commissioners on August 3, 2009 and certified by the Coastal Resource
Commission on October 30, 2010, addresses land use planning in relation to CAMA. According
to this Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the MCAS Cherry Point – Marine Air Station is considered
iv
as protected lands; however, the Project is not located within these protected lands or any other
designated protected lands. The Project is anticipated to be consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program policies and Craven County's Comprehensive Plan.
Protected Species:
As of October 8, 2020 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists ten federally threatened or
endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) known to occur in Craven
County, including American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), eastern black rail (Laterallus
jamaicensis), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea),
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis),
red knot (Calidris canutus rufa),West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), and sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). Bald
eagle is also known to occur in Craven County and is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA).
ESA Federally Protected Species Listed for Craven County, NC
Species Common Name Federal
Status
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A)
Laterallus jamaicensis Eastern black rail T
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Calidris canutus rufa Red knot T
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife E
Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive joint-vetch T
E – Endangered;T – Threatened; T (S/A) – Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
Detailed results of the habitat evaluation and biological conclusions are included in Section 1.3.9.
In summary, the biological conclusion for all federally listed threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Craven County is “No Effect” for the Project.
Additionally, the bald eagle is protected under the BGPA, enforced by the USFWS, and known to
occur in Craven County. Detailed results of the habitat evaluation and biological conclusions are
included in Section 1.3.9. Based on the presence of suitable nesting habitat in the Project, Kimley-
Horn biologists conducted pedestrian surveys of the Project and the area within 660 feet of the
Project on June 30, 2020 and March 9, 2021. No bald eagle nests or individuals were observed.
The USFWS IPaC results for the Project, as well as the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
project review letter are included in Appendix C.
v
Cultural Resources:
A review of the North Carolina State and Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Service database performed on June 3, 2021 identified two
historic resources located within 1.0 mile of the Project listed as “Determined Eligible”, and one
historical resource located within 1.0 mile of the Project listed as “Survey Only”. However, MCAS
Cherry Point data indicates the only DOE eligible hit within 1.0 mile of the Project is “Hanger
250”. Based on the general land use within the Project and its vicinity, and due to the nature of the
proposed activity, it is anticipated that the Project is not likely to have any effect on these known
resources or any other cultural or historic resource.
Proposed Impacts:
Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the extent
practical within the Project. Unavoidable impacts associated with the Project include 6.13 acres of
permanent wetland impacts, 242 LF of permanent stream impacts, 0.12 acre of permanent
jurisdictional ditch impacts, and 39,483 ft2 of riparian buffer impacts (22,210 ft2 buffer zone 1,
17,273 ft2 buffer zone 2). Permit drawings showing the location and extent of the proposed impacts
are included in Figure 7.
Mitigation:
MCAS Cherry Point proposes to provide mitigation for all permanent stream and wetland impacts
within the Project by payment into the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In-Lieu Fee
(ILF) Program. The NCDMS ILF Acceptance Letter is included in Appendix F.
Other Required Authorizations:
Other required authorizations will be obtained prior to construction of the proposed work. These
authorizations include:
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from NCDWR,
Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Authorization from NCDWR,
Stormwater Permit and Sediment and Erosion Control Permit from NCDEQ
Federal Consistency Determination from NCDCM
vi
Contents
1.0 The Applicant/Project Overview, Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project
Description...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Applicant/ Project Overview.............................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Location......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Existing Site Conditions............................................................................................ 2
1.3.1 Land Use..................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Topography................................................................................................. 2
1.3.3 Jurisdictional Features................................................................................. 2
1.3.4 North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM)……................. 7
1.3.5 North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM)............................. 9
1.3.6 Soils............................................................................................................. 9
1.3.7 Vegetation................................................................................................. 10
1.3.8 CAMA Regulated Areas........................................................................... 12
1.3.9 Protected Species and Habitat................................................................... 13
1.3.10 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites...................................................... 17
1.3.11 Regulated Floodplain................................................................................ 17
1.3.12 Zoning....................................................................................................... 17
2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 18
2.1 Land Ownership....................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Construction Sequence............................................................................................. 18
2.3 Proposed Impacts...................................................................................................... 19
2.4 Stormwater Quality Controls.................................................................................... 21
3.0 The Public Need....................................................................................................................... 21
4.0 Project Purpose and Need........................................................................................................ 22
5.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained, Required, and Pending……......... 22
5.1 State Water Quality (401) Certification and Riparian Buffer Authorization........... 22
5.2 Stormwater Permit.................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit.............................................................. 22
5.4 Site Plan Approval.................................................................................................... 22
vii
6.0 Project Alternatives/Alternatives Considered.......................................................................... 23
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites)............................... 23
6.1.1 No-Action Alternative............................................................................... 23
6.1.2 Off-Site Alternatives.................................................................................. 23
6.1.3 Preferred (Practical) Alternative................................................................ 23
6.2 Minimization (Modified Project Designs, etc.)........................................................ 24
6.2.1 On-Site Alternatives.................................................................................. 24
6.2.2 On-Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts......................................... 25
6.3 Conclusion of Alternatives Analysis........................................................................ 26
7.0 Mitigation................................................................................................................................ 26
7.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands............................................................................................. 26
7.2 Jurisdictional Streams and Riparian Buffers…….….…….………………………. 27
8.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.................................................................................... 27
8.1 Factual Determinations.......................................................................................... 27
8.1.1 Physical Substrate...................................................................................... 27
8.1.2 Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity............................................. 28
8.1.3 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity................................................................ 28
8.1.4 Contaminant Availability…………………………….............................. 28
8.1.5 Aquatic Ecosystem Effects........................................................................ 28
8.1.6 Proposed Disposal Site…………………………….................................. 29
8.1.7 Secondary and Cumulative Effects…….................................................... 29
9.0 Public Interest Review……………......................................................................................... 29
9.1 Public Interest Factors……........................................................................................29
9.1.1 Conservation.............................................................................................. 29
9.1.2 Economics................................................................................................. 30
9.1.3 Aesthetics.................................................................................................. 30
9.1.4 General Environmental Concerns (33CFR320.4(p))…………................ 30
9.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))....................................................................... 30
9.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources (33CFR320.4(e))................................... 31
9.1.7 Fish and Wildlife Values (33CFR320.4(c))……..…………................... 31
viii
9.1.8 Flood Hazards.......................................................................................... 31
9.1.9 Floodplain Values (33CFR320.4(l))......................................................... 31
9.1.10 Land Use................................................................................................... 32
9.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(o))………………….……............................... 32
9.1.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion..................................................................... 32
9.1.13 Recreation………………………............................................................. 32
9.1.14 Water Supply (33CFR320.4(m))……....................................................... 32
9.1.15 Water Quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))........................................................ 32
9.1.16 Energy Needs (33CFR320.4(n))................................................................ 33
9.1.17 Safety........................................................................................................ 33
9.1.18 Food and Fiber Production…………….................................................... 33
9.1.19 Mineral Needs........................................................................................... 33
9.1.20 Considerations of Property Ownership..................................................... 33
9.2 Previous Public Outreach...........................................................................................33
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 6: Property Owners Map
Figure 7: Permit Drawings
Appendices
Appendix A: On-Site Alternatives
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Appendix C: Agency Coordination
Appendix D: Adjacent Property Owners and Addresses
Appendix E: NCWAM and NCSAM Results
Appendix F: Compensatory Mitigation
1
1.0 THE APPLICANT/PROJECT OVERVIEW, LOCATION, EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 The Applicant/ Project Overview
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, in
conjunction with the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC),
proposes to replace an existing Entry Control Facility (ECF) on Slocum Road from U.S.
Highway 70 and provide a new ECF that will serve as the main entrance and exit point into
and out of MCAS Cherry Point in Craven County, North Carolina. Known as Project P134
(the “Project”), the proposed Project has been designed to enhance the flow of mobilizing
forces to the Aerial Port of Embarkation (APOE), provide proper inspection facilities for
commercial vehicles entering the Air Station, enhance the service of ordnance deliveries
to the station ordnance areas, and upgrade the entrance and traffic controls to meet current
safety and security requirements in order to quickly and efficiently process inbound traffic
on Slocum Road and stop unauthorized vehicles from entering the station. The proposed
Project would provide significant and necessary security, safety, and transportation
improvements along Slocum Road to sustain mission capability and furthers the USMC
execution of its congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under 10 United States
Code section 8063.
The new ECF would include a visitor control center, gate house, four sentry booths, main
gate inspection canopies, overwatch defensive fighting position, a truck/POV inspection
office, and a concrete two-lane bridge with a pedestrian lane over Slocum Creek. The
roadway section of the improvement adds two lanes to serve Slocum Road traffic, as well
as providing access from staff housing from Alexander Road south of the ECF. The new
roadway will begin at the eastern terminus of the base near the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) overpass project at U.S. Highway 70 and will terminate at the
intersection with Roosevelt Boulevard.
1.2 Project Location
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point located
in southeastern Craven County and bordered to the north by the Neuse River and the
Croatan National Forest to the south. The proposed project is located along Slocum Road,
which has an existing Entry Control Facility (ECF) providing access into MCAS Cherry
Point from the west via US 70. The project continues approximately 1.25 miles east toward
the existing bridge on Slocum Road over Slocum Creek. The project terminates on the
eastern side of Slocum Creek, just west of the intersection of Slocum Road at Roosevelt
Boulevard.
2
1.3 Existing Site Conditions
1.3.1 Land Use
The approximately 64-acre Project is primarily composed of undeveloped forested
areas and riparian corridors associated with Slocum Creek and an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Slocum Creek. In addition, the Project includes existing roadway
right-of-way along Alexander Road and Slocum Road on the eastern and western
sides of Slocum Creek. Residential housing within a suburban landscape is located
south of the Project. The proposed Project is located entirely within the MCAS
Cherry Point installation and zoned as Military Reserve (MR).
The Project is located in the Neuse River Basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020204]. Slocum Creek, one UT to
Slocum Creek (Stream S1), and nine wetlands (W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W8,
W10, and W11) were identified within the Project (Figure 5.0). Intermittent and
perennial stream features are subject to the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules (15A
NCAC 02B .0233) administered by the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR).
1.3.2 Topography
The Project is located in the coastal plain physiographic region of North Carolina.
A review of the Havelock, North Carolina USGS topographic quadrangle map
indicates that the Project and surrounding areas have relatively flat topographic
relief, varying at elevations between 5 to 30 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
(Figure 2). Steeper areas exist within topographic crenulations and drainages
surrounding Slocum Creek and Stream S1.
1.3.3 Jurisdictional Features
Figure 5 shows the delineated jurisdictional areas evaluated by Kimley-Horn staff
on June 23, 2020 and June 30, 2020. A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
(PJD) request for the Project was submitted to the USACE, and a field review of
the Project was conducted by Emily Thompson and David Lekson of the USACE
Washington Regulatory Field Office on March 9, 2021. Documentation from the
USACE is currently pending.
Based upon the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCWAM)
classification system, there are three types of wetland systems located within the
Project: three riverine swamp forests (approximately 0.51 acres), three basin
wetlands (approximately 3.85 acres) and two headwater wetlands (approximately
0.14 acres) were identified. Forested areas within the Project have been recently
timbered and now exist as clear-cut wetlands throughout the majority of the Project.
Two stream features are mapped within the Project according to the most-recent
USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2) and the most recent Natural Resources
3
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Craven County (Figure 4). During
the field investigations, Kimley-Horn determined that both streams (Slocum Creek
and Stream S1) are present in the Project. Additional information relating to the
delineated stream features within the Project is included below in Table 1. Based
on the presence of both mapped features within the Project and based on the Project
location within the Neuse River Basin, both streams are subject to Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0714).
Table 1: Characteristics of Jurisdictional Stream Features within the Project
Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Receiving
Waterbody
Slocum Creek Slocum
Creek 27-112 SC; Sw; NSW Neuse River
UT to Slocum
Creek S1 27-112 SC; Sw; NSW Slocum Creek
In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to
develop a list of water bodies not meeting federal water quality standards or that
have impaired uses. No streams in or within 1.0 mile of the Project are listed on the
North Carolina 2018 Final and North Carolina 2020 Draft 303(d) list of impaired
waters.
There are no water supply watersheds, Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
High-Quality Waters (HQW) within the Project or within 1.0 mile downstream of
the Project.
The following paragraphs describe the wetlands that were delineated within the
Project and in close proximity to the Project and are displayed on the attached
Figure 5.
Wetland W1 (6.83 acres in size, 1.13 acres within the Project) is a basin wetland
that was recently clearcut/timbered and is located northeast of Alexander Road.
Hydrology for wetland W1 is primarily driven by groundwater and runoff from the
adjacent uplands. Soils within W1 were found to meet hydric soil indicator A11
(depleted below dark surface). Hydrology indicators such as drainage patterns and
FAC-neutral vegetation were observed. The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the
wetland data form location included longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and southern wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera). Dominant species observed in the herbaceous layer typically
included chalky bluestem (Andropogon capillipes) and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea).
Wetland W2 (16.38 acres in size, 1.91 acres within the Project) is a large basin
wetland that was recently timbered and clear-cut and within the Project. W2 is
4
located south of the existing Slocum Road, and north of jurisdictional ditch (JD)
JD2. W2 has been historically modified by ditching and managed for timber
production. Hydrology for wetland W2 is primarily driven by groundwater seepage
and runoff from Slocum Road at the north end of the Project. Soils within the profile
met indicator A11 - depleted below dark surface. Hydrology indicators such as
drainage patterns and FAC-neutral vegetation were observed. The dominant
trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location included longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Dominant species observed in the
herbaceous layer typically included chalky bluestem (Andropogon capillipes) and
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Wetland W3 (2.04 acres in size, 0.11 acres within the Project) is a headwater forest
wetland adjacent to perennial stream S1, which flows southeast to a confluence
with Slocum Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River. Wetland W3 abuts S1 to a
culvert inlet carrying S1 beneath Alexander Road within the Project. Ponded water
and iron oxidizing bacteria were observed throughout wetland W3. Hydrology for
wetland W3 is primarily driven by overbank flooding from stream S1 and runoff
from adjacent uplands. Saturation was observed at a depth of 8 inches and the water
table was observed at a depth of 12 inches below the soil surface. Hydrology
indicators such as the presence of reduced iron, oxidized rhizospheres on living
roots, high water table, water-stained leaves, and drainage patterns were observed
in W3. The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location
included blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Dominant species observed in the herbaceous/woody
vine layer typically included jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), greenbrier (Smilax
laurifolia), and crossvine (Bignonia capreolata).
Wetland W4 (0.57 acre in size, <0.01 acre within the Project) is a riverine swamp
forest located between Alexander Road and Slocum Creek. The lowest portion of
W4 directly abuts Slocum Creek and appears to be tidally influenced, however the
majority of W4 is above any tidal influence of Slocum Creek. Ponded water was
observed throughout wetland W4. Hydrology within wetland W4 is primarily
driven by groundwater seepage and periodic overbank flooding from Slocum
Creek. Saturation was observed at a depth of 6 inches and the water table was
observed at a depth of 8 inches below the soil surface. Hydrology indicators such
as drainage patterns, high water table, and drift deposits were observed. The
dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location included red
maple (Acer rubrum) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) with bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) located in the lower portion
of W4 along Slocum Creek. Dominant species observed in the herbaceous layer
typically included smartweed (Polygonum sp.) and dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor),
with marsh parsley (Cyclospermum leptophyllum) and common reed (Phragmites
australis) located in the lower portion of W4 along Slocum Creek.
5
Wetland W5 (0.10 acre in size, <0.01 acre in the Project and spanned by the bridge)
is a small riverine swamp forest located along the eastern bank of Slocum Creek.
W5 is located adjacent to Slocum Creek and is tidally-influenced. Ponded water
was observed throughout wetland W5. Hydrology within wetland W5 is primarily
driven by overbank, tidal wash from Slocum Creek. Soils within W5 contained
uncoated sand grains (UCS) within the soil profile. These UCS are likely present
due to the overbank/tidal wash from Slocum Creek. The dominant trees/shrubs
observed at the wetland data form location included bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), American beautyberry (Callicarpa
Americana), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), and groundseltree (Baccharis
halimifolia). Dominant species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included
lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), and
arrow arum (Peltandra virginica).
Wetland W6 (3.61 acres in size, 2.51 acres within the Project) is a basin wetland
located north of Alexander Road. W6 was recently timbered and clear-cut within
the Project. Hydrology for wetland W6 is primarily driven by groundwater. No
evidence of soil saturation or the water table was observed within wetland W6
during field observations, however soils are indicative of a Rains flat. Soils within
the profile met indicator A11 - depleted below dark surface and hydrology
indicators were still found including drainage patterns and FAC-neutral vegetation.
The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location included
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Dominant
species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included chalky bluestem
(Andropogon capillipes) and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Wetland W8 (0.05 acre in size, 0.05 acre within the Project) is a narrow headwater
wetland that drains to a culvert beneath Alexander Drive in the eastern portion of
the Project. Wetland W8 begins as a headwater forest within a broad topographic
crenulation but narrows in size considerably as it drains closer to Alexander Road.
Hydrology from W4 ultimately discharges into wetland W4 near Slocum Creek.
Wetland W8 is seasonally inundated but appears to be primarily dry throughout the
rest of the year. Soils within W8 were saturated at the surface, but the wetland's
water table was not observed during the field investigation. Soils were observed to
be sandy throughout the profile with a strong redox presence. Hydrology indicators
such as drainage patterns, oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, drift deposits,
sediment deposits, water-stained leaves, surface water and saturation were
observed. The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location
included red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Dominant
species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included woodoats
(Chasmanthium latifolium) and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
6
Wetland W10 (0.46 acre in size, 0.42 acre in the Project) is a linear basin wetland
that appears to be a relict ditch feature that has naturalized. The land surrounding
W10 within the Project has been recently timbered and clear-cut, however a narrow
section of canopy trees within the interior of W10 were left in-tact by the timber
operation. Hydrology for wetland W10 is primarily driven by groundwater seepage
and runoff from Slocum Road at the north end of the Project. Soils within the profile
met indicator A11 - depleted below dark surface. Hydrology indicators such as
drainage patterns and FAC-neutral vegetation were observed. The dominant
trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location included longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Dominant species observed in the
herbaceous layer typically included chalky bluestem (Andropogon capillipes) and
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Wetland W11 (0.28 acre in size, 0.19 acre within the Project and being spanned by
the bridge) is a riverine swamp forest located on the western bank of Slocum Creek.
Hydrology for wetland W11 is primarily driven by groundwater and stormwater
runoff from Slocum Road, with the lower portion of W11 being subject to overbank
and tidal inundation from Slocum Creek. The dominant trees/shrubs observed at
the wetland data form location included bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sweetbay
magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), American beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana),
dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), and groundseltree (Baccharis halimifolia).
Dominant species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included lizard’s tail
(Saururus cernuus), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), and arrow arum
(Peltandra virginica).
The following table summarizes the stream and wetland features delineated within
the Project and in close proximity to the Project. Wetland and stream identification
data forms and a map showing the location of these features shown in Figure 5.0.
7
Table 2. Characteristics of Jurisdictional Features within the Project
Map ID
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated
amount of
aquatic
resource in
Project area
Type of
aquatic
resource
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject
Slocum
Creek 34.917377 -76.911505 148 LF Non-Wetland Section 404,
Section 10
S1 34.915195 -76.920046 242 LF Non-Wetland Section 404
W1 34.918320 -76.928803 1.17 ac. Wetland Section 404
W3 34.914810 -76.917503 0.13 ac. Wetland Section 404
W4 34.916487 -76.913883 0.33 ac. Wetland Section 404
W5 34.916558 -76.910788 0.01 ac. Wetland Section 404
W6 34.915233 -76.924736 2.51 ac. Wetland Section 404
W8 34.916632 -76.914560 0.05 ac. Wetland Section 404
W10 34.917018 -76.926835 0.42 ac. Wetland Section 404
W11 34.917773 -76.912549 0.18 ac. Wetland Section 404
JD1 34.915267 -76.923967 0.05 ac. Non-Wetland Section 404
JD2 34.916712 -76.926770 0.06 ac. Non-Wetland Section 404
JD3 34.914734 -76.919518 0.01 ac. Non-Wetland Section 404
* Wetland W9 is located outside of the Project Study Area
1.3.4 North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM)
NCWAM Version 5 was utilized for the Project. Assessment methodology
evaluated the following three major wetland functions and associated sub-
functions: 1) hydrology (surface storage and retention and sub-surface storage and
retention), 2) water quality (pathogen change, particulate change, soluble change,
physical change, and pollution change), and 3) habitat (physical structure,
landscape patch structure, and vegetation composition). Functional ratings are
applied to each wetland assessment area in comparison to reference conditions of
one of the sixteen North Carolina general wetland types.
Field evaluations of representative wetland assessment areas within each of the
eight delineated wetlands were conducted on June 23 and June 30, 2020, with minor
re-evaluation on March 9, 2021 following timber harvest operations within the
Project. The following table summarizes the results of the NCWAM analysis for
the five wetlands with proposed impacts in the Project. NCWAM data form score
sheets are included in Appendix E.
8
Table 3. Summary of NCWAM Results
Wetland
ID
Community
Type
NCWAM
Reference
Wetland
Type
Man-made
Alteration/
Disturbance
Function Rating
Summary
Overall
Wetland
Rating
W1 Scrub/Shrub
Basin Yes
Hydrology - Low
Water Qual. - Low
Habitat - Low
Low
W2 Scrub/Shrub Basin Yes
Hydrology - Low
Water Qual. - Low
Habitat - Low
Low
W3 Mixed Pine
Forest
Headwater
Wetland Yes
Hydrology - Medium
Water Qual. - Medium
Habitat – Medium
Medium
W4
Riverine
Swamp
Forest
Riverine
Swamp
Forest
No
Hydrology – High
Water Qual. - High
Habitat - High
High
W5
Riverine
Swamp
Forest
Riverine
Swamp
Forest
No
Hydrology – High
Water Qual. - High
Habitat - High
High
W6 Scrub/Shrub
Basin Yes
Hydrology - Low
Water Qual. - Low
Habitat – Low
Low
W8 Mixed Pine
Forest
Headwater
Wetland Yes
Hydrology - Low
Water Quality - High
Habitat – Medium
Medium
W10 Scrub/Shrub
Bain Yes
Hydrology - Low
Water Qual. - Low
Habitat – Low
Low
W11
Riverine
Swamp
Forest
Riverine
Swamp
Forest
No
Hydrology – High
Water Quality - High
Habitat - High
High
The three wetland types observed within the Project were headwater wetlands
(wetlands W3 and W8), riverine swamp forests (W4, W5, and W11) and basin
wetlands (wetlands W1, W2, W6, and W10). Wetlands W4, W5, and W11 within
the Project have a “High” overall wetland rating due to their hydrologic
connectivity and function as well as the habitat they create.
Wetlands W3 and W8 have a “Medium” overall wetland rating due to their
hydrology factors and history of disturbance and fragmentation from the
surrounding landscape.
9
Wetlands W1, W2, W6, and W10 have a “Low” overall wetland rating due to their
history of disturbance, fragmentation, hydrologic factors, and overall habitat
condition. Photographs of the three wetland types within the Project are included
in Appendix B.
1.3.5 North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM)
In order to evaluate the level of function for the stream feature within the Project,
the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) (Version 2) was utilized.
This assessment methodology evaluates the following three major stream functions
and associated sub-functions: 1) hydrology (baseflow, flood flow, floodplain access
and function, and channel stability), 2) water quality (baseflow, pollutant filtration
and thermoregulation, stressors, and aquatic life), and 3) habitat (in-stream and
stream-side habitat, and channel substrate and stability). Functional ratings are
applied to the stream assessment area in comparison to reference conditions
identified for each of the North Carolina stream categories.
Field evaluations of the stream assessment area for S1 were conducted on June 23
and June 30, 2020. The stream reach was re-evaluated on March 9, 2021 following
timber harvest operations within the Project. The following table summarizes the
results of the NCSAM analysis for S1 in the Project. Slocum Creek is proposed to
be bridged with no anticipated impacts, so NCSAM was not conducted on Slocum
Creek. The NCSAM data form score sheet for S1 is included in Appendix E.
Table 4. Summary of NCSAM Results
Stream
ID
Flow
Regime
Man-made Alteration/
Disturbance
Function Rating
Summary
Overall Stream
Rating
S1 Perennial Yes
Hydrology – High
Water Quality - High
Habitat - High
High
In summary, the stream S1 observed within the Project scored a “High” overall
stream rating due to its strong hydrologic function, water quality and its in-stream
and stream-side habitat. Photographs of the streams located within the Project are
included in Appendix B.
1.3.6 Soils
Based on information obtained in the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) NRCS Soil Survey for Craven County, the soils within the Project are
composed of nine soil series. Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of each soil
series within the Project.
10
Table 5. Soils located within the Project
Soil Series Name Map
Symbol
Drainage
Class
Percentag
e of
Project
Hydric
Status
Autryville loamy sand, 0 to 6 %
slopes AuB Well Drained 1.1 %
Primarily
Non-Hydric
Goldsboro-Urban land complex, 0
to 2 % slopes GuA Moderately
Well Drained 12.5 % Non-Hydric
Lynchburg fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
% slopes, Atlantic Coast Flatwoods Ly Somewhat
Poorly Drained 3.6 %Primarily
Non-Hydric
Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 %
slopes NoA Well Drained 0.1 % Non-Hydric
Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 %
slopes NoB Well Drained 12.5 %
Primarily
Non-Hydric
Norfolk-Urban land complex, 0 to 6
% slopes NuB Well Drained 26.3 % Non-Hydric
Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 %,
Atlantic Coast Flatwoods Ra Poorly Drained 36.5 %
Primarily
Non-Hydric
Seabrook loamy sand Se
Moderately
Well Drained 1.2 %Primarily
Non-Hydric
Suffolk loamy sand, 10 to 30 %
slopes SuD Well Drained 6.3 % Non-Hydric
1.3.7 Vegetation
The approximately 64-acre Project is composed of undeveloped forested areas,
riparian corridors, roadway right-of-way, and open water. Five terrestrial
communities were identified within the Project. Terrestrial community data are
presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the Project (Table 6).
11
Table 6. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities within the Project
Community Dominant Species (scientific name)Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/Disturbed
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
red fescue (Festuca rubra)
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum)
38.83
Mixed Pine Forest*
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris)
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
16.80
Scrub/Shrub*
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera)
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
6.04
Riverine Swamp Forest
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
red maple (Acer rubrum)
marsh parsley (Cyclospermum leptophyllum)
smartweed (Polygonum sp.)
0.18
Open Water Slocum Creek 2.12
Total 63.97acres
*portions of these communities have been recently timbered and clearcut within the Project
Wetland communities within these forested areas included basin, headwater forest,
and riverine swamp forest wetland systems. The majority of the wetlands within
the Project have been recently timbered and clear-cut. Brief descriptions of theses
wetland communities, as well as common species observed in each community
type, are provided below. Photographs of vegetation within these wetland types
are included in Appendix .
Basin Wetlands (recently timbered and clear-cut)
Prior to the timber harvest operations within the Project, the basin wetland
communities, the canopy was dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and long-
leaf pine (Pinus palustris). Common understory species observed included
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Common species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included chalky
bluestem (Andropogon capillipes), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), vasey’s
grass (Paspalum urvillei) and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides).
Headwater Wetlands
Within the headwater wetland communities, the canopy was dominated by loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) and long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris). Common understory
12
species observed included sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and southern wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Common species observed in the herbaceous layer
typically included inland sea oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea). While the headwater wetland communities in the Project
were not directly timbered, much of the area surrounding them has been clear-cut
and minor disturbance to the fringes of the headwater wetland communities did
occur.
Riverine swamp forest
Within the riverine swamp forest community, the canopy was dominated by red
maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red bay (Persea
borbonia), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana). Common understory vegetation was
dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
American beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor),
groundseltree (Baccharis halimifolia), and southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Common species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included dwarf
palmetto (Sabal minor), marsh parsley (Cyclospermum leptophyllum), smartweed
(Polygonum sp.), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), lizard’s tail (Saururus
cernuus), and arrow arum (Peltandra virginica).
1.3.8 CAMA Regulated Areas
CAMA required local governments in each of the 20 coastal counties in North
Carolina to prepare and implement a land use plan and ordinances for its
enforcement that are consistent with established federal and state policies.
Specifically, policy statements are required on resource protection, resource
production and management, economic and community development, continuing
public participation, and storm hazard mitigation, post-disaster recovery, and
evacuation plans. Upon approval by the North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, the plan becomes part of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Plan.
The Project is located in Craven County and is subject to regulation by the NC
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) under the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) are areas designated and
protected by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) from uncontrolled
development, which may cause irreversible damage to property, public health or
the environment, thereby diminishing their value to the entire state. AECs are
organized into four categories: The Estuarine and Ocean System, the Ocean Hazard
system, Public Water Supplies and Natural and Cultural Resource Areas. Slocum
Creek, which flows south to north perpendicular to the Project, is as an inland water,
designating it a Public Trust Water under the Estuarine and Ocean System AEC.
13
The Coastal Resources Commission's rules define Coastal Wetlands as any marsh
in the 20 coastal counties that regularly or occasionally floods by lunar or wind
tides, and that includes one or more of 10 plant species designated by the CRC.
Three wetlands within the Project (W4, W5, and W11) have portions along Slocum
Creek that meet the requirements to be considered coastal wetlands. These wetlands
are influenced by the tides associated with Slocum Creek and contain multiple
species of coastal wetland vegetation.
The proposed project would not have any significant coastal effect. Minor substrate
impacts that may increase turbidity are expected during bridge construction,
however, impacts to adjacent downstream receiving waters will be minimized
through the use of erosion control measures. There are no coastal wetland impacts
associated with the Project. The installation will adhere to all applicable state, and
federal regulations regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of the
ECF, bridge, and new roadway. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s
federally approved coastal management program.
The Craven County Comprehensive Plan (CAMA Core Land Use Plan), adopted
by the Craven County Board of Commissioners on August 3, 2009 and certified by
the Coastal Resource Commission on October 30, 2010, addresses land use
planning in relation to CAMA. According to this Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
MCAS Cherry Point is considered as protected lands, however, the Project area
itself is not located within these protected lands or any other designated protected
lands. The Proposed Action on MCAS Cherry Point will be consistent with the
operation the applicable policies of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program and Craven County's comprehensive plan policies.
A Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) has been submitted to the NCDCM
as part of the Project permitting process and is currently under review.
1.3.9 Protected Species and Habitat
As of October 8, 2020, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists ten
threatened or endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) known to occur in Craven County. Bald eagle is also known to occur in
Craven County and is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGPA). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is
included below, along with biological conclusion (Table 7).
14
Table 7: ESA Federally Protected Species Listed for Craven County, North Carolina
Species Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A) Yes Not Required
Laterallus jamaicensis Eastern black rail T No No Effect
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T Yes No Effect
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E Yes No Effect
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes No Effect
Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded
woodpecker E No No Effect
Calidris canutus rufa Rufa red knot T No No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E Yes No Effect
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife E No No Effect
Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive joint-vetch T No No Effect
E – Endangered; T – Threatened; T (S/A) – Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; MA-LAA – May Affect-Likely to
Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for the American alligator is present within Slocum Creek, which
is currently crossed by a bridge carrying Slocum Road. The Project proposes to
construct a parallel bridge next to the existing bridge with minimal impact to
Slocum Creek. A review of the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021)
indicates there is one known occurrence of the American alligator within 1.0 mile
of the Project. However, due to the fact that the American alligator is threatened
due to similarity of appearance only, surveys are not required for this species.
Marginally suitable habitat for the eastern black rail is present within the small
coastal wetland fringes along Slocum Creek, but habitat within the Project does not
consist of the typical open marsh conditions common required for this species. A
review of the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021) indicates there are
no known occurrences of the Eastern black rail in or within 1.0 mile of the Project.
Due to the lack of known occurrences and lack of open marshes within the Project,
it has been determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect” on the
eastern black rail.
Suitable habitat for green sea turtle is present within Slocum Creek. A review of
the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021) indicates there are no known
occurrences of the Green sea turtle in or within 1.0 mile of the Project. In addition,
according to the NCNHP database, the closest known occurrence of the green sea
turtle is located approximately 51 river miles east, downstream of the Project
corridor along North Carolina’s Atlantic coastline. Due to the lack of known
15
occurrences and the distance from known populations, it has been determined that
the proposed Project would have “No Effect” on the green sea turtle.
Suitable habitat for leatherback sea turtle is present within Slocum. A review of the
NCNHP database records (updated January 2021) indicates there are no known
occurrences of the leatherback sea turtle in or within 1.0 mile of the Project. In
addition, according to the NCNHP database, the closest known occurrence of the
leatherback sea turtle is located approximately 51 river miles east, downstream of
the Project corridor along North Carolina’s Atlantic coastline. Due to the lack of
known occurrences and the distance from known populations, it has been
determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect” on the leatherback
sea turtle.
Potentially suitable summer roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat
(NLEB) is located within the Project due to the presence of 3-inch or greater
diameter trees. However, a review of the NCNHP records (updated January 2021)
indicates no known occurrences, maternity roosts, or hibernacula in or within 1.0
mile of the Project. Additionally, the majority of forested areas within the Project
have been recently timbered and clear-cut, leaving very few 3-inch or greater
diameter trees in the Project. Due to the timber harvest within the Project, lack of
known hibernacula or roosting sites within the Project or a 1.0-mile radius of the
Project, it has been determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect”
on the NLEB.
Marginally-suitable foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was
historically present within the Project however the pine forests within the Project
have been recently timbered and clear-cut, removing any suitable foraging habitat.
In addition, a review of the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021)
indicates there are no known occurrences of RCW in or within 1.0 mile of the
Project. Due to lack of known occurrences and lack of suitable habitat within the
Project, it has been determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect”
on RCW.
Suitable habitat for the Rufa red knot is not present within the Project. The Rufa
red knot is a migratory bird that arrives at stopover areas along the Delaware Bay
and the U.S. Atlantic coast each spring, therefore coastline is not present within the
Project. In addition, a review of the NCNHP database records (updated January
2021) indicates there are no known occurrences of Rufa red knot in or within 1.0
mile of the Project. According to the NCNHP database, the closest known
occurrence of the Rufa Red knot is located approximately 19 miles southeast along
the coast of Atlantic Beach, NC. Due to the lack of known occurrences within the
Project and distance from the nearest known occurrence, it has been determined
that the proposed Project would have “No Effect” on the Rufa red knot.
16
Suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee is present within Slocum Creek which
flows south to north, perpendicular to the proposed Project bridge replacement. A
review of the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021) indicates there are
two known occurrences of the West Indian manatee within 1.0 mile of the Project.
However, the Project will only result in minimal impacts to Slocum Creek for the
construction of a parallel bridge carrying Slocum Road. Therefore, it has been
determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect” on the West Indian
manatee.
Potentially suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife (RLLS) is not present
within the Project. Wetland areas and ecotones within the Project were historically
densely vegetated and not subject to regular disturbance. Although much of the
Project has been recently clearcut, site conditions are still not favorable for RLLS
establishment or success within the wetland areas and edges. Open areas in the
Project subject to regular disturbance that would potentially support RLLS such as
roadside ditches, drainage swales, and wetland edges were investigated on June 23
and June 30, 2020 and found to be frequently maintained as a grass lawn with
evidence of chemical weed control. These areas were found to be poor quality
habitat for RLLS and no individuals were observed during the field investigations.
In addition, a review of the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021)
indicates there are no known occurrences of RLLS in or within 1.0 mile of the
Project. Due to lack of suitable habitat and the lack of known occurrences, it has
been determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect” on RLLS.
Potentially suitable habitat for sensitive joint-vetch (SJV) is present within the
Project corridor within the low, marsh-like coastal wetland areas abutting Slocum
Creek. However, these areas are not proposed to be disturbed by the Project.
Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database records (updated January 2021)
indicates there are no known occurrences of SJV in or within 1.0 mile of the Project.
Due to lack of known occurrences and the avoidance of any areas of suitable
habitat, it has been determined that the proposed Project would have “No Effect”
on SJV.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is protected under the BGPA, enforced by the USFWS. Habitat for
the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of
open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-Geographic Information Systems (GIS) assessment of the Project, as
well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the Project
limits, was performed in July 2020 using 2019 color aerials. One water body
(Slocum Creek) large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding
sources was identified. A review of the NCNHP database records (updated January
17
2021) indicate there is one known occurrences of the bald eagle within 1.0 mile of
the Project. An active nest was recorded in 2016 approximately 0.84 mi north of
the Project within a powerline easement. Foraging habitat is also present within the
Project in Slocum Creek, and therefore a nest survey of the Project and the area
within 660 feet of the Project limits was conducted on June 23 and June 30, 2020.
No bald eagle nests or individuals were observed. In addition, the final EA for the
Project indicates that the Project location is within the 60-75 decibel day-night
average sound level range for the MCAS Cherry Point runway, making bald and
golden eagle nesting habitat suitability in this area highly variable. Due to the lack
of observed individuals and/or nests in and within 660 feet of the Project corridor,
it has been determined that this Project would have “No Effect” on the bald eagle.
1.3.10 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
HPOWEB GIS Service database performed on June 3, 2021 identified no National
Register, Determined Eligible, Study List, or archaeological sites located within the
Project corridor.
The HPOWEB GIS Service lists two Determined Eligible (DOE) historic resources
are located within 1.0 mile of the project area, the “USMC Air Station at Cherry
Point Buildings and H-Style Barracks”, along with Buildings 130, 131, 298 and
Barracks CP are located within a DOE designated area. The historic site is located
approximately 0.87 miles southeast of the Project on East E Street. However,
MCAS Cherry Point data indicates the only DOE eligible hit within 1.0 mile of the
Project is “Hanger 250”.
One other historical and archaeological resource currently listed as “Survey Only”
was found within 1.0-mile of the Project. Due to the distance from the Project to
the known historic sites and the nature of the proposed activity, no known historic
or archaeologic sites are anticipated to be affected by the proposed Project.
1.3.11 Regulated Floodplain
A search of the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System (accessed
March 15, 2021) indicated that the Project is located within 0.2% Annual Flood
Hazards and 1% Annual Flood Hazards (Zone AE) in the Project corridor along
Slocum Creek and stream S1 as designated by FEMA Flood maps panel
3720642300K (effective June 19, 2020), 3720642200K (effective June 19, 2020),
and 3720641300K (effective June 19, 2020).
1.3.12 Zoning
The existing zoning conditions within the Project corridor includes one property
parcel currently zoned as “Military Reserve”, or MR.
18
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes to widen Slocum Road from two lanes to four lanes while also relocating
Slocum Road to better comply with ESQD criteria and would construct an additional concrete two-
lane bridge on a parallel alignment immediately south of the existing two-lane bridge over Slocum
Creek. Along the realigned and widening Slocum Road, the improved ECF would be located to
install safer and more secure gates and vehicle inspection facilities.
The new ECF also proposes to include a visitor center, gate house, four sentry booths, add the
main gate inspection canopies, install overwatch defensive fighting positions, and a truck and
privately owned vehicle (POV) inspection area. The realigned roadway section proposes to add
two additional lanes to better manage traffic entering MCAS Cherry Point on Slocum Road, as
well as accommodating residential traffic from the adjacent housing development south of
Alexander Road. The realigned roadway alignment will begin at the western end of Slocum Road
near U.S. Highway 70 and will terminate east of Slocum Creek, just west of Roosevelt Boulevard.
The proposed bridge over Slocum Creek has been designed to span coastal wetlands along the
banks of Slocum Creek. The proposed bridge would be constructed from a temporary work bridge
and/or barge that would be installed as to not modify or restrict the navigable opening of Slocum
Creek.
To facilitate construction, various site preparation activities would be required. While the Project
has been recently timbered/clear-cut, additional tree clearing and earthwork would be required,
along with grubbing and demolition of some existing facilities. Unsuitable soils would need to be
excavated and backfilled, and final site improvements such as paving, landscaping,
display/wayfinding signage, sidewalks, buildings, and parking lots would be installed. Buildings
#4396 and #4783 would also be demolished as part of the site preparation activities for the Project.
Utilities needed for the proposed ECF would include electrical distribution (including primary and
secondary systems), traffic signals, communication distribution (copper and fiber optic, basic
telephone, computer networking, and security and fire alarm systems), and area lighting along with
all supporting infrastructure. Water distribution, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems would
also be installed as part of the utility installation work.
2.1 Land Ownership
The approximately 64-acre subject property includes a roadway corridor and one parcel,
contained within the USMC MCAS Cherry Point, owned by one property owner, the U.S.
Government. The Project is primarily composed of undeveloped forested areas, riparian
corridors, and existing roadway corridors. The name and address of the adjacent property
owner for the Project and an adjacent property parcel map are included in Appendix D.
2.2 Construction Sequence
The overall Project P134 is not a phased project. Construction will begin with site
preparation activities and proceed as a typical roadway realignment and facility
construction project. The proposed bridge over Slocum Creek will be constructed from a
19
temporary work bridge and/or barge, which will be in place and constructed prior to
initiating construction on the new bridge.
2.3 Proposed Impacts
The Preferred Alternative would result in unavoidable impacts to streams, wetlands, and
jurisdictional ditches within the Project area. Impacts have been avoided to the extent
practical for the Preferred Alternative, however due to the presence of extensive wetlands
in the vicinity of the existing Slocum Road, impacts to jurisdictional resources are
unavoidable for the Project.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are avoided and minimized to the extent practical.
However, permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas are unavoidable. These unavoidable
permanent impacts within the Project are necessary for construction of the Project and these
totals represent the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) of
all alternatives considered. The total impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative are:
242 LF of permanent stream impact
6.13 acres of permanent wetland impacts
0.12 acre of permanent jurisdictional ditch impacts
0.91 acre (39,483 ft2) of permanent Neuse River Basin (NRB) riparian buffer
impacts
o 22,210 ft2 in Buffer Zone 1 (BZ1)
o 17,273 ft2 in Buffer Zone 2 (BZ2)
The Preferred Alternative would also temporarily impact 3,741 ft2 (2,902 ft2 of BZ1 and
839 ft2 BZ2) of the riparian buffer of Slocum Creek for the construction of a temporary
work bridge. The temporary impact area would be restored to pre-construction contours
following completion of the Project.
Each permanent and temporary impact area is depicted in the attached Permit Drawings
(Figure 7) and summarized in Table 8 below.
20
Table 8. Jurisdictional Resources Impact Summary within the Project
Impact
Site Feature Type Feature ID Type of
Impact
Permanent
Impact
Mitigation
Ratio
Site 1 Basin/Pocosin
Wetland
W1 Permanent 1.13 acres 1:1
Site 2 Basin/Pocosin
Wetland
W2 Permanent 0.01 acre 1:1
Site 3 Basin/Pocosin
Wetland
W2 Permanent 1.90 acres 1:1
Site 3 Basin/Pocosin
Wetland
W10 Permanent 0.42 acre 1:1
Site 3 Jurisdictional Ditch JD2 Permanent 0.06 acre NR
Site 4 Basin/Pocosin
Wetland
W6 Permanent 2.51 acres 1:1
Site 4 Jurisdictional Ditch JD1 Permanent 0.05 acre NR
Site 5 NRB Zone 2 S1 – BZ2 Permanent 285 ft2 1.5:1
Site 6 Headwater Forest W3 Permanent 0.01 acre 1.5:1
Site 6 NRB Zone 1 S1 – BZ1 Permanent 848 ft2 3:1
Site 6 NRB Zone 2 S1 – BZ2 Permanent 2,580 ft2 1.5:1
Site 6 Jurisdictional Ditch JD 3 Permanent 0.01 acre NR
Site 7 Perennial Stream S1 Permanent 242 LF 2:1
Site 7 Headwater Forest W3 Permanent 0.10 acre 1.5:1
Site 7 NRB Zone 1 S1 – BZ1 Permanent 16,228 ft2 3:1
Site 7 NRB Zone 2 S1 – BZ2 Permanent 9,731 ft2 1.5:1
Site 8 Headwater Forest W4 Permanent <0.01 acre 2:1
Site 8 Headwater Forest W8 Permanent 0.05 acre 2:1
Site 9 NRB Zone 1 Slocum Ck BZ1 Permanent 2,127 ft 2 NR
Site 9 NRB Zone 2 Slocum Ck BZ2 Permanent 1,428 ft 2 NR
Site 9 NRB Zone 1 Slocum Ck BZ1 Temporary 1,249 ft 2 NR
Site 9 NRB Zone 2 Slocum Ck BZ2 Temporary 839 ft2 NR
Site 10 NRB Zone 1 Slocum Ck BZ1 Permanent 3,007 ft2 NR
Site 10 NRB Zone 2 Slocum Ck BZ2 Permanent 3,249 ft2 NR
Site 10 NRB Zone 1 Slocum Ck BZ1 Temporary 1,653 ft2 NR
*NR – Not Required
21
Mitigation ratios are proposed based on the NCWAM and NCSAM functional assessments
conducted by Kimley-Horn scientists, discussed in Sections 1.3.4 and 1.3.5 above. Stream
S1 within the Project was found to have a NCSAM rating of “High”. Headwater forest
wetlands within the Project were found to have a NCSAM rating of “Medium”, and the
riverine swamp forest wetlands within the Project were found to have a NCWAM rating of
“High”. The basin/pocosin wetlands within the Project were found to have an NCWAM
rating of “Low”. Additional detail on mitigation ratios and proposed compensation for
these impacts is discussed in Section 7.0 below.
2.4 Stormwater Quality Controls
The proposed construction and demolition activities with ground disturbance would
contribute to stormwater runoff which potentially degrades water quality of nearby surface
waters from increased sedimentation. This impact would be temporary during demolition
and construction activities and would be reduced from implementation of BMPs such as
silt fencing around the construction site. The additional paved areas from the proposed
roadway, ECF, and parking areas would increase the impervious surface, further increasing
stormwater runoff. Two stormwater control features would be constructed as part of the
Project to receive stormwater runoff from the project area.
All construction and demolition would be done in adherence to MCAS Cherry Point’s
state-required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, as well as all required Erosion and
Sedimentation control procedures. Adherence to these procedures would ensure that
surface waters remain protected from uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation from
exposed soil during construction activities. Additionally, low impact development
techniques would be incorporated where practicable to restore and maintain hydrology and
groundwater recharge.
During bridge construction, minor substrate impacts that may increase turbidity would be
expected; however, impacts to adjacent downstream receiving waters would be minimized
using erosion control measures.
3.0 THE PUBLIC NEED
The goal of the Project is to provide significant and necessary security, safety, and transportation
improvements along Slocum Road to sustain mission capability. The Project proposes to widen
Slocum Road from two lanes to four lanes and relocate the road to better comply with Explosive
Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) criteria regarding Public Transportation Routes (PTR), provide
an additional two-lane bridge adjacent to the existing two-lane bridge over Slocum Creek, and
provide improved gate and inspection facilities. The proposed improvements will improve the
health and safety for the public, employees, contractors, and anyone else that accesses or utilizes
MCAS Cherry Point. The proposed improvements will also further the mission of MCAS Cherry
Point which will support safety and security for the United States and its citizens.
22
4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the Project is to enhance the flow of mobilizing forces to the Aerial Port of
Embarkation (APOE), provide proper inspection facilities for commercial vehicles entering the
Air Station, enhance the service of ordnance deliveries to the station ordnance areas, and upgrade
the entrance and traffic controls to meet current safety and security requirements in order to quickly
and efficiently process inbound traffic on Slocum Road and stop unauthorized vehicles from
entering the station. The proposed project would provide significant and necessary security, safety,
and transportation improvements along Slocum Road to sustain mission capability and furthers the
USMC execution of its congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under 10 United States
Code section 8063.
5.0 OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS OBTAINED OR
REQUIRED AND PENDING
The Applicant will obtain all permits and approvals required by federal, state, and local laws and
regulations prior to the construction and operation of the Facility.
5.1 State Water Quality (401) Certification
The NCDWR Individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Riparian Buffer
Authorization application is submitted concurrently with this Individual 404 Permit
application. NCDWR will also review the proposed plans for compliance with Neuse River
Basin diffuse flow requirements.
5.2 Stormwater Permit
All construction and demolition would be done in adherence to MCAS Cherry Point’s
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
5.3 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit
All construction and demolition would be done in adherence to the required Erosion and
Sedimentation control procedures. Adherence to these procedures would ensure that
surface waters remain protected from uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation from
exposed soil during construction activities.
5.4 Site Plan Approval
Building design, site plan approval, and roadway design approvals associated with the
Project will follow current and applicable Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), NAVFAC, and
MCAS Cherry Point requirements and standards.
23
6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES/ALERNATIVES CONSIDERED
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites):
6.1.1 No-Action Alternative:
The No-Action Alternative means that the Applicant’s proposed Project would not
be implemented, and the resulting environmental effects from taking no action
would serve as a baseline from which to compare the effects of permitting the
proposed Project or an alternative to proceed. Under the No Action Alternative,
MCAS Cherry Point would not realign Slocum Road and would not construct a
new ECF. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need as
described in Section 4.0, and therefore is not considered a reasonable or practical
alternative.Additionally, the No-Action Alternative does not provide the necessary
security, safety, and transportation improvements that are needed along Slocum
Road.
6.1.2 Off-Site Alternatives
Since the Project purpose and need is to improve safety and access to MCAS Cherry
Point on Slocum Road, off-site alternatives would not meet the purpose and need
of the project and are not feasible. Therefore, no off-site alternatives were carried
forward for consideration.
6.1.3 Preferred (Practical) Alternative
In evaluating off-site, no-action, and on-site alternatives, the Preferred Alternative
described in detail in Section 6.2 is the preferred alternative and the LEDPA.
The Preferred Alternative would realign Slocum Road and widen it from two lanes
to four, construct an additional two-lane bridge beside the existing two-lane bridge
over Slocum Creek, and construct a new ECF. The new ECF would include a
visitor control center, gate house, four sentry booths, main gate inspection
canopies, overwatch defensive fighting position, a truck/POV inspection office,
and a concrete two-lane bridge with pedestrian lane over Slocum Creek. The
roadway section of the improvement adds two lanes to serve Slocum Road traffic
as well as providing access from staff housing off Alexander Road. The new
roadway will begin at the eastern terminus of the base near the NCDOT overpass
project at U.S. Highway 70 and will terminate at the intersection with Roosevelt
Boulevard. The intersection of New Slocum Road and Stanley Road would be
constructed using a “Green T” design. In order accommodate the realignment of
Slocum Road under the Preferred Alternative, Alexander Road from Hertford
Road to Stanley Road would be realigned south of Slocum Road. The Preferred
Alternative would impact 242 LF of stream S1, 6.13 acres of wetlands, 0.12 acre
of jurisdictional ditches, and 39,483 ft2 (0.91 acre) of riparian buffer. An additional
3,741 ft2 (2,902 ft2 of BZ1 and 839 ft2 BZ2) of temporary riparian buffer impact
would result from the construction of the temporary work bridge as well.
24
6.2 Minimization (Modified Project Designs, etc.)
MCAS Cherry Point has made extensive efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands
and streams within the Project while still allowing the development to remain operationally
functional and efficient as well as practicable. The Preferred Alternative has been shifted as
far south as practicable to avoid additional impacts to Stream S1 and utilize existing roadway
corridors along Alexander Road to the extent practicable. Stormwater control features have
also been located along the south side of the proposed roadway alignment to avoid placing
them in wetlands along the Project. Retaining walls have been utilized where practicable to
tighten fill slopes and minimize impacts associated with larger fill slopes along the proposed
road. In order to avoid impacts to Slocum Creek and the sensitive coastal wetlands along its
banks, the proposed bridge abutments have been designed to entirely span these coastal
wetlands and avoid impacts. The construction of a new parallel bridge as close to the existing
Slocum Road bridge further minimizes impacts by expanding existing abutments and fill areas
rather than creating new impact areas in a new location on Slocum Creek. Of the wetland
impacts proposed, the majority of the impacts are associated with basin wetlands and are
impacting areas that have been historically managed for timber production and recently clear-
cut. The sensitive coastal wetlands have been entirely avoided by the Project, and the higher
quality riverine wetland systems have been minimized to the extent practicable by utilizing as
much of the existing roadway crossings of these systems as practicable, reducing new impact
areas that would result from a new location crossing.
6.2.1 On-Site Alternatives
The development of the proposed Slocum Road alignment and overall site layout for the
Project was an iterative process based upon numerous variables, but also included
purposeful avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional areas to the maximum
extent possible. Early in the Project development process, NAVFAC and MCAS Cherry
Point held a collaborative Concept Design Workshop (CDW) where all stakeholders
reviewed the Purpose and Need, constraints, screening factors, and any other applicable
concerns that would need to guide or otherwise alter that proposed alignment and site
layout. Coming out of the CDW, four courses of action (COAs) were developed that were
likely to satisfy most of the screening factors for alternatives analysis, however due to the
level of impacts anticipated, each of the COAs was further evaluated against wetland
impacts and avoidance of jurisdictional resources.
COA 1 from the CDW was considered but eliminated from further analysis due to
substantially increased wetland and stream impacts. COA 1 would have impacted
approximately 10.6 acres of wetlands, 1.0 acres of stream buffer, and 330 LF of stream.
COA 2 from the CDW was considered but also eliminated from further analysis due to
substantially increased stream and riparian buffer impacts. COA 2 would have impacted
approximately 7.0 acres of wetlands, 1.8 acres of stream buffer, and 750 LF of stream.
COA 4 from the CDW was considered but eliminated from investigation. While COA 4
had substantially reduced wetland and riparian buffer impacts, stream impacts were higher
but COA 4 was determined to be not practicable because it placed the main gate very close
25
to residential housing areas, increased noise and light pollution for residents, and curvature
of the realigned Slocum Road presented substantial security challenges due to line of sight
concerns and would not satisfy the purpose and need of the Project.
An alternative was considered initially that used as much of the existing Slocum Road
corridor as possible, and simply widened and improved the existing Slocum Road in place.
However, this alternative kept Slocum Road within the ESQD arcs and presented
significant health and safety concerns for all personnel accessing MCAS Cherry Point. This
alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need for the Project and was not carried
forward for review or impact calculation.
The Preferred Alternative was based on a minor variation of COA 3 that added retaining
walls and offered improved avoidance and minimization measures while still meeting the
purpose and need of the Project. The Preferred Alternative was selected based on explosive
safety requirements, needed security improvements, and the least amount of environmental
impacts while still being a practicable alternative.
Graphics showing each of the considered alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative,
is shown in Appendix A.
6.2.2 On-Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts
The Preferred Alternative has to date minimized unavoidable impacts through the
following measures:
All coastal wetlands within the Project have been avoided entirely, and fill
slopes associated with the bridge have been intentionally designed to avoid
coastal wetlands along Slocum Creek
Two SCMs are proposed that will capture and treat runoff from the new
impervious surfaces resulting from the Project. These SCMs have been
located to avoid wetland impacts and to minimize sedimentation impacts to
downstream receiving waters.
Retaining walls have been utilized in the vicinity of Stream S1 to reduce
impacts associated with fill slopes and culvert extensions.
The presence of the magazines and location of stream S1 required that any
realignment of Slocum Road to the south would need to impact stream S1.
The Preferred Alternative has been designed to align the road further south
quicker to get below the origin of stream S1, and then utilize the existing
Alexander Road corridor for the realigned Slocum Road and ECF facilities.
This allows for the minor impact to S1 associated with culvert extension,
rather than a new crossing on S1 or a parallel impact to S1.
The Proposed Alternative has been located to impact areas historically
managed for timber and not undisturbed native forests.
26
6.3 Conclusion of Alternatives Analysis
MCAS Cherry Point has evaluated multiple alternatives including a no action alternative
and has provided extensive information and graphics regarding the alternative selection
process and the associated stream, wetland, and riparian buffer impact quantities. This
analysis has demonstrated that there are no off-site alternatives that would meet the Project
purpose and need and no on-site alternatives that result in reduced impacts to WOTUS
while still meeting the Project purpose and need. After reviewing the alternatives and
avoiding and minimizing jurisdictional impacts to the aquatic environment, the Preferred
Alternative represents the LEDPA.
7.0 MITIGATION
7.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The Project would result in permanent impacts to wetlands, streams, jurisdictional ditches,
and Neuse River Basin riparian buffers identified within the Project corridor. Permanent
wetland impacts would result from the realigned and widened Slocum Road corridor,
construction of the new ECF including visitor control center, gate house, four sentry
booths, main gate inspection canopies, overwatch defensive fighting position, and a
truck/POV inspection office. The Project would also result in impacts to the riparian buffer
of Slocum Creek for the construction of a concrete two-lane bridge with pedestrian lane
over Slocum Creek immediately adjacent and south of the existing bridge over Slocum
Creek.
The Preferred Alternative utilizes existing infrastructure to the greatest extent practicable
and impacts are associated with the realignment of Slocum Road between the existing
Slocum Road and Alexander Road to the south. The total wetland impact proposed is 6.13
acres. MCAS Cherry Point proposes variable mitigation ratios for the impacted wetlands
based on their respective NCWAM scores:
2:1 mitigation ratio for NCWAM score of “High” – W4 and W8
o Total Permanent Impact: W4 (<0.01 ac.), W8 (0.05 ac.)
1.5: mitigation ratio for NCWAM score of “Medium” – W3
o Total Permanent Impact: W3 (0.11 ac.)
1:1 mitigation ratio for NCWAM score of “Low” – W1, W2, W6, and W10
o Total Permanent Impact: W1 (1.13 ac.), W2 (1.91 ac.), W6 (2.51 ac.), W10
(0.42 ac.)
This results in a requirement of 6.24 acres of wetland mitigation credits to offset the
unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the Project. Mitigation is not proposed
for impacts to jurisdictional ditches in the Project. MCAS Cherry Point intends to satisfy
this mitigation requirement with payment into the NCDMS ILF program. The NCDMS
ILF acceptance letter is included in Appendix F.
27
7.2 Jurisdictional Streams and Riparian Buffers
Stream S1 is a UT to Slocum Creek and scored “High” using the NCSAM criteria. MCAS
Cherry Point proposes a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for impacts to Stream S1. Stream S1 is also
subject to Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules, and the Table of Uses specifically lists
perpendicular roadway impacts that exceed 1/3rd of an acre of riparian buffer impact as
“Allowable with Mitigation Upon Authorization”. NCDWR requires mitigation ratios of
3:1 for impacts to BZ1, and 1.5:1 to BZ2, which is what MCAS Cherry Point has proposed
to offset impacts to riparian buffers on S1. Impacts to the riparian buffer of Slocum Creek
is considered a bridge impact, which in the Table of Uses is specifically listed as
“Allowable Upon Authorization” if impacts exceed 1/10 th of an acre.
This results in a requirement of 484 LF of stream mitigation credits and 70,122 ft 2 of
riparian buffer mitigation credits (51,228 ft2 from BZ1 impacts, 18,894 ft2 from BZ2
impacts). MCAS Cherry Point intends to satisfy this mitigation requirement with payment
into the NCDMS ILF program. The NCDMS ILF acceptance letter is included in
Appendix F.
8.0 EVALUATION OF THE 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
8.1 Factual determinations
8.1.1 Physical substrate
The Project is primarily composed of undeveloped forested areas (recently clear-
cut) and riparian corridors. In addition to residential development, the corridor
includes roadway right-of-way along Alexander Road and Slocum Road on the
eastern and western sides of the bridge that crosses Slocum Creek. Areas of
moderately dense residential areas scattered throughout a suburban landscape are
located south of the Project. The forested areas of the Project include jurisdictional
basin, headwater forest, and riverine swamp forest wetland features. Approximately
242 LF of perennial stream channel would be placed into a culvert for the
realignment of Slocum Road. In this area, the existing substrate within the channel
would be replaced by the culvert bottom. The culvert would be placed below the
streambed to allow upstream sediment to form a more natural channel bed over
time. The culvert would be sized appropriately to convey the 100-year storm
without any adverse effects to upstream properties and ensuring the passage of
aquatic life. Fill slopes associated with the roadway corridor at the culvert inlet and
outlet would be revegetated and stabilized to prevent future erosion.
28
8.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
The Project should have no appreciable effect on current or circulation. Drainage
patterns may be altered based on culvert placement. The proposed parallel bridge
over Slocum Creek will match the existing bridge’s elevation over the normal water
surface so no impacts to baseflow and stormflows are anticipated within Slocum
Creek. The culvert installed on stream S1 will also be sized appropriately to convey
normal baseflow and stormflow without impeding or impounding flow.
The Project varies in topography between 5 to 30 feet above mean sea level.
Hydrology from the Project contributes to two streams. Streams S1 (perennial)
drains southeast into Slocum Creek (perennial). Slocum Creek flows from
southwest to northeast out of the Project into the Neuse River. No impact to water
circulation, fluctuations, and/or salinity would result from the Project.
8.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
The project-specific sedimentation and erosion control measures that will be
utilized during construction will minimize downstream sedimentation. The
majority of turbidity increases would likely result from the clearing and
construction of the realigned Slocum Road and ECF, but minor turbidity impacts
may result from the construction of the parallel bridge over Slocum Creek.
Sediment loss from the Project would be minimized by the implementation of
sediment and erosion control measures. Once construction of the Project is
complete, the soils would be stabilized, revegetated, and stormwater runoff would
be directed to detention and treatment basins. Accordingly, the effects of turbidity
resulting from the proposed undertaking are expected to be temporary and minor.
8.1.4 Contaminant availability
Proposed uses for the Project would result in the potential discharge of some
pollutants, including road treatment for winter weather, oil products from
automobile engines, and some fertilizers for landscaping. Construction equipment
and vehicles would be thoroughly cleaned before brought on site. All mechanized
clearing and grading, vehicle traffic, equipment staging, and the deposition of soil
would be confined to the temporary and/or permanent project footprint or to other
disturbed or developed land. In general, the level of potential contaminant
introduction to the aquatic systems is low. Additionally, only suitable earthen
material, which should be free of toxic pollutants or contaminants, would be used
for construction of the permitted fills.
8.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
The direct effects due to the placement of fill associated with the Project would be
a total loss to the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions in the footprint of
the fill placement. However, mitigation provided by the Project would restore
aquatic ecosystem function in the watershed and offset any losses resulting from
29
the Project. The secondary short-term effects expected downstream would
primarily be limited to temporary discharges of sediment during construction. Even
with proper construction and maintenance, sediment control measures do not
eliminate all turbidity in receiving waters, though these effects should be limited to
the duration of Project construction and maintenance of required sediment and
erosion control measures.
8.1.6 Proposed disposal site
Generally, material generated by the Project will be disposed of within the Project
limits wherever practicable. During construction and demolition activities,
contractors are responsible for the removal of construction debris in accordance
with applicable USMC, MCAS Cherry Point, and NAVFAC requirements. Waste
concrete would be crushed and staged for later use, or if unsuitable would be
disposed of at an approved Construction and Demolition Debris landfill in
accordance with MCAS Cherry Point and NAVFAC regulations. Off-site disposal
is likely for timber and rootballs resulting from land clearing operations, and the
Applicant anticipates generating of construction and demolition debris from
clearing of existing buildings and asphalt within the limits of disturbance.
8.1.7 Secondary and Cumulative Effects
Based on the factors discussed above, the cumulative effect of the proposed
undertaking does not pose a significant threat to the integrity of the aquatic
environment. Additionally, the secondary impacts resulting from the proposed
plans are primarily limited to increased development pressure within MCAS Cherry
Point that could result by the Project allowing additional vehicles per day through
the Slocum Road ECF. However, based on this estimate and the findings of the
Final EA for the Project, the overall secondary effects on aquatic resources
associated with this Project are not more than minimal.
9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW
9.1 Public Interest Factors
9.1.1 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site. Stream corridors within the Project are subject to
the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0233), which requires a
50-foot riparian buffer divided into two zones (30-foot Zone 1 and 20-foot Zone 2)
applied to intermittent and perennial streams, modified natural streams, ponds,
lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and rivers that are depicted only on the most recent
printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS and the 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle topographic map prepared by the USGS. The mitigation payment to the
NCDMS would also be used to restore and preserve stream corridors and wetland
areas elsewhere in the Neuse River Basin.
30
9.1.2 Economics
The proposed construction and demolition activities could generate short-term
employment and income to civilian contractors as well as temporary beneficial
impacts in the local economy, resulting from an increase in demand for goods and
services. The Project would not change the local, regional, or statewide economics
or social conditions or affect any specific population or demographic group. The
Project would not create adverse economic impacts for the general public and will
result in a net benefit for people utilizing the Slocum Road ECF and MCAS Cherry
Point by reducing commute times and congestion while also increasing safety in
the corridor and within MCAS Cherry Point.
9.1.3 Aesthetics
The proposed Project corridor has been designed to be aesthetically pleasing and
consistent with the MCAS Cherry Point aesthetics and applicable NAVFAC
standards. It will utilize landscaped medians and sidewalks. Fill slopes will be
stabilized with herbaceous vegetation and maintained. The proposed ECF and
associated facilities would not impact the aesthetics of the existing environment in
the Project vicinity.
9.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p))
The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction of the Project
would be minimal. Temporary increases in sediment, construction noise, traffic
levels, etc., would be expected during construction of the Project. Any potential
long-term impacts to wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife would at least in part
be offset by the mitigation offered by the applicant and onsite measures such as
riparian stream buffer protection and stormwater management. Accordingly, the
proposed activity would not unjustly impact any surrounding property owner or
particular minority group (ethnic, socioeconomic, or otherwise).
9.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))
There are over 1,234 total acres of jurisdictional wetlands within MCAS Cherry
Point, and substantially more acreage immediately adjacent to but outside of the
MCAS Cherry Point installation. The Project proposes to permanently impact 6.13
acres of wetlands that currently provide nutrient filtration, sediment removal, and
aquatic habitat within the Project. In order to offset the loses to the wetland system
within MCAS Cherry Point, the Applicant is proposing to provide 6.24 acres of
mitigation credit as outlined in Section 7.0 above, as well as 484 LF of stream
mitigation credit and 70,122 ft2 of riparian buffer mitigation credit.
31
9.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))
Based on the land use within vicinity of the Project and the history of intensive land
management for timber production which requires heavy soil disturbance and
modification, and due to the nature of the proposed activity as a roadway
realignment and ECF construction, the Project is not anticipated to have any effect
on these resources.
9.1.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c))
The Project would not be expected to result in permanent adverse effects to the
overall fish or wildlife values in the area. During construction, it is likely that some
aquatic and terrestrial animals might be displaced, along with their habitat. The type
of habitat within the Project includes basin wetlands that have been recently
clearcut/timbered, headwater forest wetlands, forested upland areas, and in-stream
and riparian habitat. The more sensitive riverine swamp forest wetlands within the
Project have been avoided to the extent practicable and only minor impacts are
proposed. Following construction, the remaining natural areas and riparian buffers
would continue to provide sufficient habitat for fish and migratory bird species. No
effect is anticipated to any federally listed threatened or endangered species known
to occur in Craven County.
9.1.8 Flood hazards
The Project proposes to construct an additional parallel bridge south of the existing
bridge carrying Slocum Road over Slocum Creek. The parallel bridge has been
designed to comply with applicable flood hazard safety regulations and sea level
rise/resiliency guidelines applicable to MCAS Cherry Point projects. The Project
would not be expected to have an impact on the overall hazard of flooding
downstream of the Project. While the proposed roadway and ECF would result in
increases to impervious surface within the watershed, this increase is minimal when
compared to the overall size of the Slocum Creek watershed and has no impact on
the overall flood hazard.
9.1.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(l))
A search of the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System (accessed
March 13, 2021) indicated that the Project is located within 0.2% Annual Flood
Hazards and 1% Annual Flood Hazards (Zone AE) in the Project corridor along
Slocum Creek and stream S1 as designated by FEMA (FEMA Flood maps panel
3720642300K (effective June 19, 2020), 3720642200K (effective June 19, 2020),
and 3720641300K (effective June 19, 2020).
32
9.1.10 Land use
The proposed Project would result in the conversion of areas of forested land to a
roadway corridor and ECF. While this would be a shift in land use within the
Project, the affected areas are minimal and the land use in the Project would remain
consistent with local development plans for MCAS Cherry Point and NAVFAC
long-range planning goals.
9.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(o))
The Project crosses and proposes a parallel bridge over Slocum Creek, a navigable
waterway. The navigable opening of the existing bridge will be matched by the
proposed bridge so no impacts to navigation on Slocum Creek are anticipated.
MCAS Cherry Point is requesting USACE review of the proposed Project under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and documentation has been
submitted to the US Coast Guard requesting Advanced Approval Exemption for the
proposed bridge.
9.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion
No ponds, lakes, or other such features are located on the proposed Project. Minor
substrate impacts that may increase turbidity within Slocum Creek would be
expected during bridge construction; however, impacts to downstream receiving
waters and shorelines would be minimized by using erosion control measures.
Additionally, the Project has been designed to be consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s federally approved
coastal management program. Therefore, shore erosion and/or accretion is not
anticipated to occur as a result of the Project.
9.1.13 Recreation
The proposed Project roadway typical section will provide new sidewalk realign
Alexander Road south of the Project to be safer for resident use and recreational
activities. The proposed bridge over Slocum Creek will maintain hydrologic
connectivity and aquatic life passage within Slocum Creek and will ensure that
downstream water resources and recreational opportunities are maintained.
9.1.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))
The proposed Project is not located within a water supply watershed or near any
water supply intake points. The Project will maintain downstream hydrologic
connectivity and does not have any substantial water intake needs. No impacts to
water supplies are anticipated with the proposed Project.
9.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))
No significant impacts to water quality are expected within the Project. Temporary
increases in turbidity during construction, loss of nutrient removal capacity of the
33
filled wetlands, and some discharge of pollutants and nutrients in the runoff could
result. It is anticipated that the proposed construction of stormwater treatment
facilities on site should offset long-term impacts by removing sediments, nutrients,
and other pollutants from treated stormwater, and by attenuating peak flows
downstream. NCDWR and NCDEQ will review the proposed plans and as part of
the Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Erosion Control
submittal prior to construction of the Project.
9.1.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n))
The proposed Project would not be used for the generation of power and is not
anticipated to increase the demand for power consumption in the area.
9.1.17 Safety
The Project has been designed in accordance with traffic safety regulations and is
not anticipated to result in additional safety concerns. The Project would result in
substantial safety improvements for pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the corridor
by realigning Slocum Road away from the magazine storage area and by decreasing
congestion on US Highway 70 entering MCAS Cherry Point. During construction
of the Project, all applicable safety standards would be observed as required by
NAVFAC and MCAS Cherry Point.
9.1.18 Food and fiber production
The Project is not located on land historically used for the large-scale production
of agricultural goods.
9.1.19 Mineral needs
The Project has not historically been used for the production of mineral products,
so consideration of mineral needs is not applicable.
9.1.20 Considerations of property ownership
The Project is located entirely within MCAS Cherry Point, a federally-owned
USMC installation. Private property ownership impacts are not anticipated to result
from the Project.
9.2 Previous Public Outreach
Due to the Project’s location within MCAS Cherry Point, no previous public outreach has
occurred for this Project.
FIGURES
£¤70
£¤70
¬«101
¬«306
F
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Legend
^_
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
APPENDIX
D
8 Y3
3
5
8
A
99
c7
1
A
A
5
IM
NAVY
TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERS JV
APPROVED
FOR OpIWVOFP NWF/C
S11sICI r1 OPE MMIDDIYY
Des EAS IDRw TMG IoRP RMN
BRANCH MANAGER
CHIEF ENG/ARCH
FIRE PROTECTION
U
z
O
0
>u
cc 0
w Z
U Q
J
d
CC CC
U p
wcn
O
J J
z 0
a
c
c
CO0_
a
S d
z
OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE. GRAPHIC
EPRo,ecr NO. . 1565548
cons,RN40085-19-D-9008
NAVFpcDRAWING NO
12837599
sneer 176 of 387

3
6
Ergi
2.
vow
AD
NAVY
TRANSPORTATION
� f I\�\
\ A 0 , r\�\\V � /?
� �
/
!� \ `
FORCOYNOER WAG
r
,7 -
ACM_
_M
-
wsmarmy ID DOE
s
1_ =ram
/
iii r
�
imw Ias
I. 1
4 .� •
pip yam? . -i- ,Ai .4.
BRAM SANER
CHEF min.
FACILRIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
AND -- MIDATLANTIC
NAVAL STATION NORFOLK
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, NC
PHYSICAL SECURITY COMPLIANCE
SLOCUM ROAD
COA1
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMM
MARINE CORPS IPT
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 150 300
IN FEET
600
SCAM
EPNOJECT NO.: b000000(
CONSTR. CONTR. NO.
NANFRC oMvnNO No.
SHEET OF XX

1
2
3
4
5
D
;C
B
A
5
6
5
i�.Tiill/l�1Bi
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 150 300 600
Ns.
NAVY
TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERS JV
FOR COINNIPIR NAMAC
sAWACT YID OAIE
DES IDRN ICNN
RROM WOOER
CHEF ENGPACII
§U-
H
8 z z
U
Ep
3 z
�Q
2
=o
0
z
W
z
z
w
0)
W
H
L71
o J t
§
o
U
SCAM
EMS. NO.: X00000001
CONSTR. CONTR. NO.
NAVFAC DRAWING NO.
SHEET OF 50
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
D
C
5
B
Ql
1
A
3
a
g
E
N
*4-,p; \\.
\
/ ,
/�
I:;
/
Npilik
OR.
G�el
1
sm
liY\
PARTNERS JV
\�ANSPORTATION
���\\`1
���___4
f/jj
/� / / / ._. � ,
DF ID.CIK
- X•
F7;
y -
• / L uxaxo rwiamok po uon€mz giuIGI b €CN {2 ofa�bu�ion nick
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL FACILRIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND - MIDATLANTIC
MARINE CORPS IPT NAVAL STATION NORFOLK
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, NC
PHYSICAL SECURITY COMPLIANCE
SLOCUM ROAD
COA4
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 150 300
IN FEET
600
n..a:
EPROFECT NO.: XXXXXXXXX
CONSTR. CONTR. NO.
NAVFIC ownw No.
11
SHEET or XX
3
4
5

APPENDIX
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 1 of 12
Photo 1 – This photo depicts stream S1. Stream S1 is an (a)(2) perennial tributary that contributes surface water flow directly to
an (a)(1) water (Slocum Creek) in a typical year.
Photo 2 – This photo depicts stream S1. Stream S1 is a weak perennial channel flowing through wetland W3. Stream S1
originates offsite and flows south, southeast through the Project into a culvert below Alexander Road.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 2 of 12
Photo 3 – This photo depicts an example of a (b)(5) Ditch that is not an (a)(1) or (a)(2) water. The portions of a ditch
constructed in an (a)(4) water do not satisfy the conditions of (c)(1).
Photo 4 – This photo depicts an example of a (b)(5) Ditch that is not an (a)(1) or (a)(2) water. The portions of a ditch
constructed in an (a)(4) water do not satisfy the conditions of (c)(1).
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 3 of 12
Photo 5 – This photo depicts an example of a (b)(5) Ditch that is not an (a)(1) or (a)(2) water. The portions of a ditch
constructed in an (a)(4) water do not satisfy the conditions of (c)(1).
Photo 6 – This photo depicts an example of a (b)(5) Ditch that is not an (a)(1) or (a)(2) water. The portions of a ditch
constructed in an (a)(4) water do not satisfy the conditions of (c)(1).
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 4 of 12
Photo 7 – This photo depicts wetland W6, a densely vegetated, Pocosin wetland located north of Alexander Road. No
potentially jurisdictional connections were observed flowing from the wetland feature. Wetland W6 is not adjacent to an (a)(1),
(2), or (3) water.
Photo 8 – This photo depicts soils within wetland W6. No saturation or water table were observed within wetland W6. Soils
within the profile were depleted below a dark surface. No potentially jurisdictional connections were observed flowing from the
wetland feature. Wetland W6 is not adjacent to an (a)(1), (2), or (3) water.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 5 of 12
Photo 9 – This photo depicts wetland W3. Wetland W3 is a headwater wetland adjacent to perennial stream, S1, which flows
downstream into Slocum Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River. Hydrology for wetland W3 is primarily driven by overbank
flooding from stream S1 and roadside runoff.
Photo 10 – This photo depicts soils within wetland W3. Wetland W3 is an (a)(4) Wetland abuts an (a)(1) -(a)(3) water.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 6 of 12
Photo 11 – This photo depicts wetland W11 Wetland W11 is a riverine swamp forest influenced by tides associated with
Slocum Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River. This wetland is located adjacent to Slocum Creek and Slocum Road bridge.
Photo 12 – This photo depicts soils within wetland W11. Soils within W11 contained uncoated sand grains (UCS) within the
soil profile. These UCS are likely present due to the overbank/tidal wash from Slocum Creek.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 7 of 12
Photo 13 – This photo depicts Wetland W10, a densely vegetated, linear wetland located north of Alexander Road. No
potentially jurisdictional connections were observed flowing from the wetland feature. Wetland W10 is not adjacent to an
(a)(1), (2), or (3) water.
Photo 14 – This photo depicts wetland W8. Wetland W8 is a narrow, forested, headwater wetland located along Alexander
Drive. Wetland W8 narrows in size until it drains into a culvert along Alexander Road within the Project.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 8 of 12
Photo 15 – This photo depicts soils within wetland W8. Soils within W8 are saturated at the surface, but the wetland's water
table was not observed. Soils were observed to be sandy throughout the profile with a strong redox presence.
Photo 16 – This photo depicts Wetland W5, a small riverine swamp forest influenced by tides associated with Slocum Creek, a
tributary to the Neuse River. This wetland is located between Alexander Road and Slocum Creek and drains into Slocum Creek.
Ponded water was observed throughout wetland W5.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 9 of 12
Photo 17 – This photo depicts wetland W5. Wetland W5 is an (a)(4) Wetland abuts an (a)(1) -(a)(3) water.
Photo 18 – This photo depicts Wetland W4, a riverine swamp forest influenced by tides associated with Slocum Creek, a
tributary to the Neuse River. Ponded water was observed throughout wetland W4. Hydrology within wetland W4 is primarily
driven by overbank and tidal flooding from Slocum Creek.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 10 of 12
Photo 19 – This photo depicts wetland W4. Hydrology within wetland W4 is primarily driven by overbank and tidal flooding
from Slocum Creek. Wetland W4 is an (a)(4) Wetland abuts an (a)(1)-(a)(3) water.
Photo 20 – This photo depicts soil within wetland W4.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 11 of 12
Photo 21 – This photo depicts uplands located within the Project. This point was taken along natural topography, but has been
disturbed during construction of the roadside
Photo 22 – This photo depicts upland soils located within the Project. This representative upland point is located approximately
15 feet outside of and 5 feet higher in elevation than wetland W8.
Project P134 – Perimeter Security Compliance
Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
Individual Permit – Photo Pages
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, Craven County, NC
Page 12 of 12
Photo 23 – This photo depicts Slocum creek and the existing Slocum Road bridge. This photo was taken facing north west.
APPENDIX
■ .■■
wv A NC DEPARTMENT OF
■■M■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
May 21, 2021
Jason Hartshorn
Kimley-Horn
421 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Slocum Rd - Updated FINAL Study Area 2021; Slocum Rd
Dear Jason Hartshorn:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Uifilson, Secretary
Walter Clark
Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-14748
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
❑4 121 W JO[ ES STRE£ T_ RALEICai. NC 27603 1651 MAIL ISERWCE CENTER f2.ALEIGF#, NC 27699
IS) OFC 919.7D7.91'20 • FAX 919 707 R21

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Slocum Rd - Updated FINAL Study Area 2021
Project No. Slocum Rd
May 21, 2021
N CN H D E-14748
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point - Main Air US Department of Defense
Station
Owner Ty
Federal
s.
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/help. Data query generated on May 21, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q1 April 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Slocum Rd - Updated FINAL Study Area 2021
Project No. Slocum Rd
May 21, 2021
N CN H D E-14748
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Group
Bird
Butterfly
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
Freshwater Fish24083
Freshwater Fish38942
Mammal 5451
Natural
Community
12737
Reptile 9438
Reptile 14758
Vascular Plant 3989
18919 Haliaeetus Bald Eagle
leucocephalus
27923 Euphyes berryi Berry's Skipper
38998 Coryphaeschna ingens Regal Darner
33788 Triacanthagyna trifida Phantom Darner
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus
Trichechus manatus
Shortnose Sturgeon
Atlantic Sturgeon
West Indian Manatee
Mesic Mixed Hardwood ---
Forest (Coastal Plain
Subtype)
Alligator
mississippiensis
Sistrurus miliarius
miliarius
Cirsium lecontei
Vascular Plant 22758 Cirsium lecontei
Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
2016-03-01
2009-09-14
2004-Pre
2004-Pre
1980-Pre
2018-04-17
1994-09-17
1993
American Alligator 2017-10-05
Carolina Pigmy 1988-1989
Rattlesnake
Leconte's Thistle 1958-07-19
Leconte's Thistle 2016-08-11
Element
Occurrence
Rank
E
C?
H?
H?
H
E
H?
C
E
H
X
B
Accuracy
2-High
3-Medium
5-Very
Low
5-Very
Low
5-Very
Low
4-Low
5-Very
Low
4-Low
Federal State
Status Status
t
Bald/Golden Threatened
Eagle
Protection
Act
Global State
Rank Rank
J
G5 S3B,S3
N
Significantly G2 S1S2
Rare
Significantly G5 S2?
Rare
Significantly G5 SH
Rare
Endangered Endangered G3 S1
Endangered Endangered G3T3 S2
Threatened Threatened G2G3 S1N
G3 S3
4-Low Threatened Threatened G5 S3
Similar
Appearance
3-Medium --- Special G5T4T S2
Concern 5
4-Low Special G3 S2
Concern
Vulnerable
2-High Special G3 S2
Concern
Vulnerable
Page 3 of 5

Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Element Accuracy
Group Observation Occurrence
Date Rank
AL
Federal
Status
State Global State
Status Rank Rank
Vascular Plant 23162 Cirsium lecontei Leconte's Thistle 2009-06-24 X?
Vascular Plant 28916
Vascular Plant 28919
Vascular Plant 28918
Vascular Plant 21480
Vascular Plant 18805
Paspalum dissectum
Paspalum dissectum
Paspalum dissectum
Paspalum dissectum
Platanthera nivea
Mudbank Crown Grass
Mudbank Crown Grass
Mudbank Crown Grass
Mudbank Crown Grass
Snowy Orchid
2010-10-08
2010-10-14
2010-10-14
2012-10
1991-07-01
2-High
C 2-High
C 2-High
C 2-High
B 2-High
F 3-Medium
Special G3 S2
Concern
Vulnerable
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
G4?
G4?
G4?
G4?
G5
S2
S2
S2
S2
SH
Vascular Plant 22925 Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort 2004-07-15 D
2-High
Special G3 S2S3
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 4267
Solidago verna
Spring -flowering 2016
Goldenrod
A 2-High Significantly G3 S3
Rare Other
Vascular Plant 11682
Solidago verna
Spring -flowering 2005
Goldenrod
AB 3-Medium Significantly G3 S3
Rare Other
Vascular Plant 3444
Solidago verna
Spring -flowering 2000-06-26
Goldenrod
C 3-Medium Significantly G3 S3
Rare Other
Vascular Plant 12422
Solidago verna
Spring -flowering 2000-06-26
Goldenrod
D 3-Medium Significantly G3 S3
Rare Other
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Representational Rating
Southwest Prong Flatwoods R2 (Very High)
Cherry Point Tucker Creek Natural Area R3 (High)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
(Managed Area Name Owner
Collective Rating
C2 (Very High)
C4 (Moderate)
Owner Type
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point - Main Air US Department of Defense Federal
Station
Croatan National Forest
NC Land and Water Fund Project
US Forest Service Federal
NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on May 21, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q1 April 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE-14748: Slocum Rd - Updated FINAL Study Area 2021
May 21, 2021
Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
Ej NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Managed Area (MAREA)
1:24,019
0 0.2 0.4
0 0.325 0.65
0.8 mi
II
1.3 km
S ources: Esn. HERE, Garmin, Inlermap. increment P Corp.. GEBCO, (1SGS,
FAO. NPS, NRCAN. GeoHase. IGN Kadaster NI_ Ordnance Survey. Esn Japan.
• Esn Chula (Hong Kong)_ (p] ❑penSlreetMap conyiiuEprs, and the GIS
user Cammunlry
Page 5 of 5

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional
site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of
proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section
that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for
additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Craven County, North Carolina
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
fi [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
cp‘As"
i
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 1/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
dcp,,s\0\4
cioN4s\''
\40,c� FO
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources
2/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AO1) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near
the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and
project -specific information is often required.
46)1\
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website
and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. _
3. Login (if directed to do so). 1.111C146.
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAM E
STATUS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 3/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
ill-ilv
Wherever found \Sreatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
r,__
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4469
Birds
NAME
Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10477
ST
ATUS
Threatened
Threatened
Marine mammal
41( ix
-c04
Th
reatened
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa
1
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
Wherever found yk
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov c spec 61 z
Reptiles p
NAME
Aer'Ran Alligator Alligator mississippiensis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/776
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1493
Endangered
STATUS
SAT
Threatened
Endangered
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 4/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Flowering Plants
NAME
Rough -leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2747
Sensitive Joint -vetch Aeschynomene virginica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/855
Critical habitats
STATUS
Endangered
Threatened
Ni\A
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
NASC
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds 1 reaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds
of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn
more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 5/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on
this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general
public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the
Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird
species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and
other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your
project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IFA
BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE
BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR
PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
41/IWHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
No),
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
„elf 0
American Kestrel Falco spar riks Iliboulus
This is a Bird of Conservation ern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regi s (BCRs) n the continental USA
https://ecos ws.gocp/species/9587
ilk
egweN
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3941
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES
THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 31
Breeds May 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 6/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.)
A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be
used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that
week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was
found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence
is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any
week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
10.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 7/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
American Kestrel
BCC - BCR (This is a
1 ---- nn nn nn nn nn ---- ---- --1- - -
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
BCC Rangewpde ow ---- ---� --------1111111111111111
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
---- ---- ---- I-I-
''b%
J\
o\4s
Tell me more about conservationgasus I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Me sures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at
any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to
occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and
avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to
occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or
bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species
that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is
queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that
area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore
activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 8/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the
Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen
science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the
Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or
year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or
(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds
guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird
impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal
also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year,
including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on
marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam
Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the
Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 9/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority
concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be
in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10
km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a
red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of
presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack
of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting
point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to
confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about
conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimi e
impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
0
\d-c
dqL
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 10/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Marine mammals
Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Some are also protected
under the Endangered Species Act1 and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
The responsibilities for the protection, conservation, and management of marine mammals are
shared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [responsible for otters, walruses, polar bears, manatees,
and dugongs] and NOAA Fisheries [responsible for seals, sea lions, whales, dolphins, and
porpoises]. Marine mammals under the responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list;
for additional information on those species please visit the Marine Mammals page of the NOAA
Fisheries website.
'1"1:11/4414/1"
The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the take (to harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to
harass, hunt, capture or kill) of marine mammals and further coordination may be necessary for
project evaluation. Please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office shown.
1. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.
2. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is
a treaty to ensure that international trade in plants and animals does not threaten their survival
in the wild. 111Pr4, ! Iwo
3. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following marine mammals under the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
potentially affected by activities in this location:
NAM E
West Indian Manatee Thchechus manatus
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4469
\itteV%witt
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 11/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update
our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual
extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
ESTUARINE AND MARINE DEEPWATER
El UBL
ESTUARINE AND MARINE WETLAND
E2EM1 P
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1 B
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB
PFO1 C
PFO6C
RIVERINE
RSUBH
ND
CP
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high
altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error
is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in
revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and
the actual conditions on site.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 12/13

6/4/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.
Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.
These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish
the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in
activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may
affect such activities.
0
\d-c
dqL
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/G226TQLRJBFZLI7G3QJ44FKLJM/resources 13/13

APPENDIX
F
Parcel Number Legal Description Owner Name Source Reference Mailing Address City State Zip Code
6-060-065 U S NAVAL RESERVATION U S GOVERNMENT PROPERTY Deed Book/Page 0336/0061 141 E FISHER AVE NEW BERN NC 28560
APPENDIX
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
Function Class Rating Summary
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NO
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
HIGH
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NO
LOW
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW
HIGH
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
HIGH
HIGH
YES
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
MEDIUM
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
HIGH
HIGH
YES
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
MEDIUM
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW
LOW
YES
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
NO
LOW
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Rating Summary
Overall Wetland Rating
HIGH
HIGH
YES
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
MEDIUM
APPENDIX

Expiration of Acceptance:
Project:
County:
If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire.
.
River Basin Impact Location
(8-digit HUC)
Impact Type Impact Quantity