HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110762 Ver 2 - Final_EA_Improvements_to_the_Targets_at_DCBR_July_30_2014 - 9/24/2014FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO TARGETS AT THE NAVY
DARE COUNTY BOMING RANGE,
NORTH CAROLINA
d,
/�Ea sr\
JULY 2014
tR--` G
ry SENT Op
li
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COVER SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
TARGETS AT THE NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE,
NORTH CAROLINA
July 2014
Lead Agency: United States Department of the Navy
Cooperating Agency: None
Title of the Proposed Action: Environmental Assessment Addressing the Dare County
Bombing Range of U.S. Fleet Forces Command
Designation: Final Environmental Assessment
Abstract
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to analyze the United States Department
of the Navy's (Navy) proposal to improve target areas of the Navy Dare County Bombing
Range. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would establish a City Target with hardened
roadways, a maintenance road and three target areas for the existing Runway Target, turnarounds
at the end of 3500 Foot Road and utilization of the Moving Land Target (MLT).
This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321- 4370h), the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500 - 1508), and Navy Regulations for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR §
775). This EA evaluates the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of implementing
the Proposed Action on air quality, water resources and biological resources. This EA concludes
that impacts from the Proposed Action would not be significant.
Prepared By: United States Fleet Forces, United States Department of the Navy
Point of Contact: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic
Attn: Code EV22 (Dare County Bombing Range EA Project
Manager)
6506 Hampton Blvd
Norfolk, VA 23508 -1278
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] §§ 1500 -1508) implementing NEPA; U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) Regulations
(32 CFR § 775); and Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) M- 5090.1D; the Navy has prepared
this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the Navy's proposal to improve target areas of
the Navy Dare County Bombing Range (Navy Range) and operate Moving Land Targets
(MLTs).
Background
The Dare County Bombing Range (Range) is a United States Air Force (Air Force)- operated
weapons range located on the Dare County peninsula in the coastal plain of northeastern North
Carolina. The Range is used jointly by the Air Force and the Navy and encompasses 46,619
acres with the Navy utilizing the northern half of the Range and the Air Force utilizing the
southern half. Within the Navy Range is an impact area in which all of the Navy bombing
targets are contained. The Navy impact area comprises 2,109 acres of emergent, grassy wetlands
and the Air Force impact area consists of emergent, grassy wetlands totaling 2,279 acres. The
remaining acreage is forested wetlands that serve as a safety buffer for military operations.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this Proposed Action is to enhance the long -term sustainability of the Navy Dare
County Bombing Range and to improve the quality of training that can be provided there. The
Proposed Action would allow for more realistic training scenarios, allow for maintenance
operations to be completed, enhance range personnel safety and increase Operational Range
Clearance (ORC) capabilities. The need for this action is to support and provide range
capabilities for training forces ready to deploy worldwide.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would establish a City Target with hardened roadways,
establish a maintenance road and three target areas for the existing Runway Target, establish
turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot Road and utilize the MLT on the Range. Specific details of
the Proposed Action are provided in the following paragraphs.
City Target: Under the Proposed Action, this target area would be constructed to include a
network or grid of hardened roadways that would allow for more flexibility in target
configurations, enhancing training scenarios. The placement of targets adjacent to and on the
roadways around the City Target would simulate city buildings and other structures providing
multiple targets for pilots. These targets would be customizable depending on the training
scenario and could also be utilized for ground troops and the MLT.
ES -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Runway Target: The Navy would construct a maintenance road next to the Runway Target
running the entire length of the target, approximately 25 -feet wide, with several target pads
extending beyond the maintenance road to create additional training opportunities for pilots.
MLTs: MLTs are unmanned half -ton pick -up trucks that operate remotely using Global
Positioning System (GPS) mobile position technology to traverse a predetermined route. During
training exercises, the MLTs would traverse hardened roadways and target areas within the Navy
impact area. These trucks may be used to tow a target or may be the targets themselves. The
types of aircraft, flight paths and munitions utilized in these training exercises would be the same
as those currently used in air -to- ground training exercises conducted at the Navy Range.
Turnarounds: The Navy would construct new cul -de- sac -type turnarounds at each end of 3500
Foot Road to enhance the operation of the MLT. The cul -de -sacs would allow the MLT to turn
around on 3500 Foot Road for uninterrupted transit. The turnarounds would also enhance range
capability by providing an alternate helicopter landing zone.
Maintenance: The target areas on the Navy Range require annual maintenance to ensure
sustainability of the range. Prior to conducting maintenance requirements, the Navy completes a
range clearance effort to remove spent munitions and target debris. Once the range clearance
effort is completed, range personnel perform an evaluation of the targets, target areas and
roadways to determine if maintenance needs to be performed to repair infrastructure or replace
damaged targets. Not all targets, target areas and roadways are repaired each year. The duration
of typical maintenance activities is less than 1 week annually. Maintenance activities at the
Range include: grading roadways and fixing potholes created by munitions, repairing routine
wear and tear and replacing destroyed targets annually or as needed. While the Proposed Action
will increase the amount of hard surface and correspondingly increase the potential for
maintenance activities, the type of maintenance activities would not change and maintenance
activities would continue to have a negligible effect on the environment given their short
duration. Thus, these activities will not be discussed in subsequent chapters.
The Proposed Action would require filling 4.29 acres of wetlands to create the new hardened
target areas. Additionally, the City Target would also secondarily impact 0.15 acres of wetlands
due to fragmentation, resulting in a total of 4.44 acres of total wetlands impacted. Construction
associated with the Proposed Action would not affect operations at the Navy Range and would
take approximately 100 working days to complete.
No Action Alternative
Under the No- Action Alternative, training and maintenance would continue to be conducted as it
is now. Efforts to improve/harden target areas would not be completed under this alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative, targets and target areas would be maintained in a manner
consistent with current practice, a City Target would not be constructed, a maintenance road and
target areas for the Runway Target would not be constructed, turnarounds at the end of 3500
Foot Road would not be constructed and munition training with MLTs would not be conducted.
ES -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
The No- Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action but
represents the baseline condition against which potential impacts of the Proposed Action can be
compared.
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated
The Navy considered seven additional alternatives to the Proposed Action. Each of these
alternatives was eliminated because it did not meet the purpose of and need for the action or was
not feasible. The alternatives eliminated from further analysis are briefly discussed below.
• Using Alternate Locations Inside the Navy Range. The Navy considered placing the
improved/hardened target areas in other locations on the Navy Range. Placement of the
improved/hardened targets anywhere on the Navy Range would result in the same
impacts as those associated with the Proposed Action because the habitat and natural
resources are consistent throughout the Navy Range.
• Relocating Targets near Hardened Surfaces. The Navy considered utilizing the
existing road closest to the Runway Complex as a maintenance road and repositioning the
Runway Complex parallel to that existing road. Repositioning the Runway Complex
would conflict with other training targets and relocation of the Runway Complex too far
north or south would impact the current Surface Danger Zones.
• Using Alternate Locations Outside of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range
Property. The Navy considered utilizing other locations outside of the Navy Range.
The closest Navy property available is located in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Though the
Navy utilizes several locations in the Hampton Roads area for training, none of the
locations could be used as a bombing range. These locations are utilized for take -off and
landing training operations and other flight operations but do not allow for munitions to
be dropped.
• The Use of Air Force Targets at the Dare County Bombing Range. The Navy
considered utilizing the targets located on the Air Force - operated side of the range. The
Air Force Range is heavily utilized and though the Navy does schedule training on that
Range occasionally, the Air Force has primary use of the range and the Navy is only able
to utilize the Air Force assets when the Range is not being utilized by the Air Force. As a
result, the Navy is not able to schedule the Air Force range often enough to meet its
training requirements.
• The Use of Prefabricated Interlocking Metal Sections (Corrugated Galvanized
Roofing Panels). This alternative would use prefabricated interlocking metal sections
(corrugated galvanized roofing panels) to cover the soft marshy vegetation as an
alternative to hardening target areas. The Navy has determined the interlocking metal
sections are not feasible to use on target areas where bombs or other munitions may be
utilized because the prefabricated interlocking metal sections become degraded when
munitions strike them making them harder for pilots to see and making it difficult for
personnel to perform maintenance. Additionally, the interlocking metal sections are
ES -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
functional for static displays but are not customizable and the City Target will require
customization due to the MLT training operations, the need for the targets around the
roadways to be relocated to accommodate different training scenarios for pilots and the
potential use of the City Target by ground forces.
• Construct a Bridge or Elevated /Pile- Supported Structure Over the Wetlands
Instead of a Hardened Surface. This alternative would create a bridge or elevated /pile-
supported structure over the wetlands instead of filling the wetlands to create a hardened
surface. The structure would be damaged from dropped munitions and would become
impassable and unsafe for range maintenance.
• Utilizing the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area Instead of Creating Target Areas at
the Navy Range. The Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area is an overflow target utilized by
Navy and Marine Corps aircraft when the nearby Navy Range is experiencing heavy use
and is used to conduct seamless littoral -to -land battle scenarios. The target located at the
Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area is located entirely in the waters of the Pamlico Sound.
It does not offer flexible target configurations or training scenarios that replicate an urban
environment and the MLT would be unable to drive on the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance
Area.
Environmental Consequences
Direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could occur with implementation of
the Proposed Action would result in no significant impact on the natural or man -made
environment. Environmental resources, including geology and soils, recreation, socioeconomics,
transportation, land use and cultural resources have been omitted from further detailed analysis
in this EA because there would be no impacts on these resources from implementing the
Proposed Action. The potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action on air quality,
water resources and biological resources are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Air Quality: Air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, associated with construction
would be anticipated to be minor and temporary. Air emissions associated with the MLTs would
be minor and are expected for the reasonably foreseeable future since this would be an ongoing
activity. Dare County and its two surrounding counties (Tyrrell and Hyde) are in attainment for
all criteria pollutants. It is anticipated that any dust emissions associated with construction
would be temporary and settle within the perimeter of the Navy impact area. Since Dare County
is located in an attainment area the General Conformity Rule (this rule only applies for federal
actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas) does not apply. Therefore, implementation of the
Proposed Action would not have any significant impacts on air quality.
Water Resources: The Proposed Action would require filling 4.29 acres of wetlands with 0.15
acres of wetlands secondarily impacted due to habitat fragmentation. This proposed fill equates
to approximately 0.009 percent of the wetlands in the entire Range and approximately 0.21
percent of wetlands in the Navy impact area. The impact to wetlands would not be anticipated to
cause impacts outside of the Range. The Proposed Action would permanently fill floodplains
ES -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
within the Navy impact area; however, impacts to floodplains outside of the Range are not
anticipated to occur. Turbidity would be temporary and minor, only occurring at the time of
construction. Various management and administrative actions will be utilized to minimize the
potential for a fluid release from the MLTs during training exercises. In the event a release
occurs as a result of an MLT being impacted by a munition, site - specific spill response plans are
in place and would be implemented to minimize potential environmental consequences. No
significant or long -term impacts to water quality or water resources are expected.
Impacts to wetlands and floodplains would be mitigated as required by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers in the Section 404 wetlands permit by purchasing wetland bank credits at an
offsite wetland mitigation bank and obtaining a 401 Water Quality Certification from the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Offsite mitigation would occur
within the same watershed as the proposed impacts. Additionally, a Sediment and Erosion
Control Plan and a Stormwater permit will be obtained prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Biological Resources: Minor impacts to vegetation would be expected as a result of the
permanent fill of 4.29 acres of wetlands. As discussed above, all impacts to wetlands will be
mitigated. Various management and administrative actions will be utilized to minimize the
potential for a fluid release from the MLTs during training exercises, and in the event of a
release, the fluids would be contained per the spill response plans in place to minimize potential
environmental consequences. Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Action would not
have a significant impact on vegetation. The minimal fill of wetlands associated with the
Proposed Action and the potential for a release of fluids from MLTs would not have a long -term
or significant effect on the ability of wildlife species to perform normal biological functions.
The Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on wildlife, including the red wolf, the
American alligator and North Carolina state - listed species, based on the mostly short-term and
localized nature of the proposed activities.
Several federally protected species occur on the Navy Range. These species include the red -
cockaded woodpecker and the bald eagle. The Proposed Action would have no effect on the
Red - cockaded woodpecker and would not have a significant adverse effect on bald eagle
populations as defined by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No permit is required under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Act. The Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on federally
protected species.
Cumulative Impacts
A search was conducted to identify any past, present and future actions having the potential for
cumulative impacts. Several projects were identified as having potential cumulative impacts
when combined with the Proposed Action. These projects include: the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge fire management plan, the Bonner Bridge replacement, improvements to the
target pads and support areas of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range, replacement of the
Navy Shell Road Bridge at the Dare County Bombing Range and improvements to U.S. 64 for
ES -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Tyrell and Dare Counties. A cumulative impact analysis was performed for three resource areas:
air quality, water resources and biological resources. Cumulative impacts on all these resources
were determined not to be significant. (See Chapter 6 for more details on the cumulative impact
analysis process and findings.)
Summary of Findings
The Navy's proposal to improve target areas of the Navy Range by establishing a City Target
with hardened roadways, a maintenance road and three target areas for the existing Runway
Target, turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot Road and utilization of the Moving Land Target,
would not result in significant direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on the natural or man -made
environment.
ES -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ... 1 -1 o
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... ............................... 1 -10
1.2 Range Description ................................................................................. ............................... 1 -1
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ..................................... ............................... ...........................1 -40
1.4 Environmental Review Process ................................................................ ...........................1 -60
1.5 Related Environmental Documents and Planning Documents ............. ............................... 1 -70
1.6 Agency Coordination and Permit Requirements ...................................... ...........................1 -8M
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. ............................... 2 -10
2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................ ...........................2
-1M
2.2. No- Action Alternative ......................................................................... ...............................
2 -80
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated .............................................. ...............................
2 -8m
2.3.10 Using Alternate Locations Inside the Navy Range ................... ...........................2
-80
2.3.2M Relocating Targets near Hardened Surfaces ......................... ...............................
2 -80
2.3.3 Using Alternate Locations Outside of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range
Property................................................................................. ...............................
2 -90
2.3.4 The Use of Air Force Targets at the Dare County Bombing Range .....................
2 -90
2.3.5 The Use of Prefabricated Interlocking Metal Sections (Corrugated Galvanized
RoofingPanels) ......................................................................... ...........................2
-90
2.3.6 Construct a Bridge or Elevated/Pile- Supported Structure Over the Wetlands
Instead of a Hardened Surface ............................................ ...............................
2 -100
2.3.7 Utilizing the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area Instead of Creating Target Areas
atthe Navy Range ............................................................... ...............................
2 -100
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................. ............................... 3 -10
3.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -2m
3.2 Water Resources .................................................................................. ............................... 3 -51a
3.2.2 Floodplains ............................................................................... ..........................3 -11M
3.3 Biological Resources .......................................................................... ............................... 3 -130
3.3.1 Vegetation ............................................................................. ..............................3 -130
3.3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................ ............................... 3 -130
3.3.30 Federally Protected Species ................................................ ............................... 3 -150
3.3.4 North Carolina Protected Species ........................................ ............................... 3 -250
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . ............................... 4 -10
4.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... ............................... 4 -10
4. 1.1 No Action Alternative .............................................................. ............................... 4 -10
4.1.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................... ...........................4 -10
4.2 Water Resources .................................................................................. ............................... 4 -30
4.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................. ...........................4 -30
July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
4.2.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................... ............................... 4 -3M
4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................ ...........................4 -50
4.3.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................. ...........................4 -50
4.3.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................... ............................... 4 -50
CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION MEASURES ....................... ............................... 5 -10
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... ............................... 5 -10
5.2 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts ............................... ............................... 5 -10
5.30 Compensatory Mitigation Options and Mitigation Strategy ................. ............................... 5 -2M
CHAPTER 6: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................ ............................... 6 -10
6.1 Approach .................................................................................................. ...........................6 -10
6.2 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................. ............................... 6 -10
6.3 Discussion of Cumulative Impacts Relative to the Proposed Action .. ............................... 6 -30
6.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................... ............................... 6 -30
6.3.2 Water Resources ...................................................................... ............................... 6 -40
6.3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................... ............................... 6 -5M
CHAPTER 7: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA ......... 7 -10
7.1 Consistency With Other Federal, State and Local Land Use Plans, Policies and Controls. 7 -10
7. 1.1 Federal Actions, Executive Orders, Policies and Plans ........... ............................... 7 -20
7.20 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..................... ............................... 740
7.30 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long Term Productivity. 7 -50
CHAPTER 8: LIST OF PREPARERS ............................... ............................... 84
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES ............................................. ............................... 9 -10
LIST OF APPENDICES
A — Inter - Service Support Agreement
B — Wetlands Characterization Report
C — Coastal Zone Management Act Agency Correspondence with the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management
D — Agency Correspondence with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
E — Navy Dare County Bombing Range Air Emissions Calculations
F — Agency Correspondence with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
G — Agency Correspondence with the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, the United
States Air Force and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
11 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
No.
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Page
Figure 1 -1. Location of the Dare County Bombing Range in North Carolina . ...........................1 -20
Figure 1 -2. Location of Dare County Bombing Range ..................................... ...........................1
-30
Figure 1 -3. Impact Area ( "Keyhole ") at Navy Dare County Bombing Range . ...........................1
-50
Figure 2 -1. Proposed Locations of Target Area Upgrades ............................... ...........................2
-30
Figure 2 -2. Proposed City Target .................................................................. ...............................
24M
Figure 2 -3. Proposed 3500 Foot Road East Expansion ................................ ...............................
2 -50
Figure 2 -4. Proposed 3500 Foot Road West Expansion ................................... ...........................2
-6M
Figure 2 -5. Proposed Runway Complex Maintenance Road and Targets .... ...............................
2 -70
Figure 3 -1. Water Resources in Dare County, North Carolina ..................... ...............................
3 -80
Figure 3 -2. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Underlying Soil Type ....... ...............................
3 -90
Figure 3 -3. Wetlands Classification at Navy Dare County Bombing Range ............................
3 -1Old
Figure 3 -4. Floodplain Classification at Navy Dare County Bombing Range ..........................
3 -12M
Figure 3 -5. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Clusters at Dare County Bombing Range ..................
3 -170
No.
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Page
Table 2 -1. Summary of Upgrades Required for the Proposed Action .......... ............................... 2 -20
Table 3 -1. Resource Chapter Locations ........................................................ ...............................
3 -20
Table 3 -2. National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards .... ...............................
3 -40
Table 3 -3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species and Protected Species Occurring
or Potentially Occurring at the Dare County Bombing Range . ...............................
3 -150
Table 3 -4. Federal Species of Concern Occurring or Potentially Occurring at the Dare
CountyBombing Range ............................................................ ...............................
3 -190
Table 3 -5. State Protected and Rare Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring on the Navy
Dare County Bombing Range ................................................... ...............................
3 -25M
Table 4 -1. Resource Chapter Locations ............................................................ ...........................4
-10
Table 4 -2. Estimated Emissions Over the Life of Construction Under the Proposed Action .....
4 -2M
Table 7 -1. Summary of Applicable Statutes and Requirement ..................................................
..7 -1
nl July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
iv July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Air Force
United States Air Force
CAA
Clean Air Act
CATEX
Categorical Exclusion
CCND
Coastal Consistency Negative Determination
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CH4
methane
CO
carbon monoxide
CO2
carbon dioxide
CO2e
carbon dioxide equivalent
CONEX
Container Express (intermodal container)
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
EA
Environmental Assessment
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
GHG
greenhouse gas
GPS
Global Positioning System
INRMP
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
ISSA
Inter Service Support Agreement
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLT
Moving Land Target
MOUT
Military Operations on Urban Terrain
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAS
Naval Air Station
Navy
United States Department of the Navy
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDFR
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
V July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NOX
nitrogen oxide
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NS
Naval Station
03
ozone
OPNAV
Chief of Naval Operations
Pb
lead
PM2.5
fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in
USACE
diameter
PMI0
dioxide suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10
µg /m3
microns in diameter
ppb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
SO2
sulfur dioxide
U.S.
United States
U.S.C.
United States Code
VACAPES
Virginia Capes
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
µg /m3
micrograms per cubic meter
A July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] §§ 1500 -1508) implementing NEPA; and United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy
(Navy) Regulations (32 CFR § 775), the Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA)
to analyze the proposal to improve target areas of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range (Navy
Range). The Proposed Action would encompass the establishment of a City Target with
hardened roadways, a maintenance road and target areas for the existing Runway Target,
turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot Road and utilization of the Moving Land Target (MLT) to
support training. The Navy Range is a range utilized by Navy aircraft stationed at Naval Air
Station (NAS) Oceana and Naval Station (NS) Norfolk. This EA will only address
environmental effects associated with proposed construction activities and the utilization of the
MLT. The number, type, and intensity of training flights and the munitions utilized on the range
during air -to- ground training operations are not changing from what was previously analyzed in
the Final Navy Dare County Bombing Range Environmental Assessment completed in 2008.
That analysis remains valid, and therefore, these training aspects will not be analyzed in detail in
this EA.
1.2 RANGE DESCRIPTION
The Dare County Bombing Range (Range) is a United States Air Force (Air Force)- operated
weapons range located on the Dare County peninsula in the coastal plain of northeastern North
Carolina (Figures 1 -1 and 1 -2). It is used jointly by the Air Force and the Navy. The Range has
been operational since 1965 and has been operated by the Air Force since 1978. An Inter -
Service Support Agreement (ISSA 2013) has been established to delineate range management
responsibilities for each of the Services (Appendix A). The Navy Range is considered part of the
Navy's Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Range Complex.
The Range encompasses 46,619 acres. The Navy utilizes the northern half of the Range and the
Air Force utilizes the southern half of the Range. Within the Navy Range is an impact area
referred to as the "keyhole" due to its shape. All of the Navy bombing targets are contained in
the impact area which comprises 2,109 acres of emergent, grassy wetlands. The Air Force
impact area also consists of emergent, grassy wetlands totaling 2,279 acres. The remaining
acreage is forested wetlands that serve as a safety buffer for military operations. The Air Force
conducts all land management activities, to include wildlife, forestry and wetlands, in these
forested buffer lands. Within the 2,109 acre Navy impact area, approximately 88 acres are
currently utilized or will be utilized for target pads, roads and storage. The remaining area is
utilized as a buffer for Navy operations. As described in FACSFACVACAPESINST 3710.1A
dated December 17, 2010, the Navy impact area currently consists of 15 active bombing targets,
several inactive targets and three helicopter landing zones.
1 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
17 uth Mills __ CylYl{uck
Sunbury h
•
�-�—^� �5 ShawGo
Cufirltue i
Camden
\ �f'amdIn
Ha l ille. -= P'asquot_+n,k'
• lif t Shllah
F•e tford •
1 Pefqulinan$':_
v Ca niter Hill '` It L ,,A+ ee 5vil
e in • •
l�
V\ialhzllaY
4
into Albemarle Sound
Berlie i_. i
tYlackeYs- `% G91 f4�a
r \
ly outh `0 per `swell
V4 a611If3gt1771
6fr "ir Tyrrell
Phelps Lake
1
l
- _ °ike Road
•
Kilkenny
•
Pmetown rr
Rantego - --
re;i!. fa f
Lana nnarramusxeel
Bath !
_ '--•.:_�.--°.. � �11 ';Slwanyuarter
_— p2i7711Co �7y r a^��- ,1y`\ S j,3'j -�� t�
Aurora
LowTar �4
.Ho
Allla nce8a ftr'� T
• • all
Grantsboro r
Porn 1 1 r o
lz`;
s- a ayy -y
Arapaho - -, taI ��S "S"! • _ e -I "
-{e tet
aSt Lake
64
blare
Navy pare Countyl
_ Bo_ntbinn�g��R-ange
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
n Shores
Hawk
ill Devil Hills
Nacis Head
Groatan
Sound
ov Point
Pamlico Sound
r 1010
58- �
• City/community — Railroad
Highway Water Body
Major Road County
0 7s is
- -- Ferry IGlame .
0 75 15
hMes
Figure 1 -1 Location of the Dare County Bombing Range in North Carolina
1 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
ns Harbor
¢e
Croate ll
Sr�wid
y
are County
B Range
UA
- y R
a
sts� r
'rte x at E)jvide a x
�� H�yy`�a A tSpgC �Sturnpy Paint
Air Ah
HYDE
i¢+
Virginia
County Boundary
Location of
Dare County Road Dare County
Overall Dare County Range Boundary
,rtn earo in Impact Area Bombing Range
-
33 T a 0.5 1 2 3 4
k d� Nautical 'Ales
Figure 1 -2 Location of Dare County Bombing Range
1 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
The Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), a 152,000 -acre preservation area for
native wildlife and comprised of forested wetlands, borders and almost completely surrounds the
Range. The two largest surface water bodies proximate to the Range are the Alligator River and
Pamlico Sound, which are west and east of the Range, respectively. The Dare County peninsula,
together with the neighboring counties of Tyrrell and Hyde, are sparsely populated rural areas.
Navy Range operations are described in FACSFACVACAPESINST 3710.1A. Authorized
ordnance used within the impact area consists of only inert ordnance (i.e. nonexplosive
ordnance), including ordnance that uses marking charges and lasers. A marking charge is a
munition that releases a puff of smoke on impact to support scoring of the training exercise.
High explosive ordnance is not authorized for use within the Navy Range.
The Navy Range consists of 15 active targets (Figure 1 -3). These targets sit on top of gravel
pads (which were created by filling the surrounding wetlands) or are placed directly on top of the
native vegetation. The existing pads are a combination of layered fill material, geotextile
material and gravel. Geotextiles are permeable fabrics which, when used in association with
soil, have the ability to separate, filter, reinforce, protect or drain (CA DOT 2009). The targets
(empty Container Express (CONEX) boxes, etc.) can sit on top of the dense mat created by the
native vegetation. Many targets are constructed to be light enough and to have a large enough
footprint that they may be temporarily placed directly on the floating vegetation.
The study area for this EA includes the Navy impact area. As stated above, the Navy has an
agreement with the Air Force which allows the Navy to utilize the 2,109 acre impact. Contained
within the Navy impact area are all of the targets utilized by the Navy, gravel roads, the existing
maintenance area and the control tower. Although the Air Force controls the property, daily
training activities on the Navy impact area are managed by the Navy. The North Carolina Forest
Service has an agreement with both the Air Force and the Navy to maintain and manage the
natural resources on both the Air Force and Navy portions of the Range, including prescribed
burns and other activities to suppress wildfires, the management of threatened and endangered
species and other activities.
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose of this Proposed Action is to enhance the long -term sustainability of the Navy
Range and to improve the quality of training that can be provided there. Specifically, the
Proposed Action would allow for more realistic training scenarios, allow for maintenance
operations to be completed more effectively, enhance range personnel safety and increase
Operational Range Clearance capabilities. The need for this action is to support and provide
range capabilities for training forces ready to deploy worldwide. The Navy is charged by
Congress with training and equipping forces for prompt and sustained combat operations (10
U.S.C. 5062). The Chief of Naval Operations meets that direction, in part, by ensuring naval
forces have access to ranges and airspace where they can develop and maintain skills for wartime
missions. This Range is used year -round to train pilots and maintain high levels of military
readiness.
1 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
75 °52'0 "W 75 °51'30TV 75°51'0 "W 7550'30 "W
75'52'0 "W 75'51'30 "W 75 °51'0"W 75'50'30 "W
Legend
Targets
Yards
0 360 720
Dare County Bombing
and Electronic Combat fl,,
Range n
Tyrrell ®ae
Zoom area
va
Basemap credits: Copyright C 2013 ESRI,
(ESRI_S6i4tMap_W orld_2D }.
All rights reserved
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
NAUFAC
Figure 1 -3 Impact Area ( "Keyhole ") at Navy Dare County Bombing Range
1 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Wetlands cover nearly all of the Navy Range, making it difficult for machinery to access targets
except via constructed access roads and target pads; thus, range maintenance is challenging and
time consuming. Some targets are located directly on top of native vegetation and, as a result,
special equipment must be used for the placement and removal of these targets.
Improving /hardening target areas would increase worker safety and efficiency during routine
range maintenance activities and during the removal of used targets by reducing the roll -over
potential of heavy machinery operating adjacent to canals and wetlands. This effort will improve
the Navy's ability to recover munitions, supporting range clearance efforts. Increasing the
number of munitions recovered around the targets will assist the Navy in maintaining its
environmental stewardship goals, increasing target precision, enhancing safety and ensuring
long -term sustainability of the training mission.
The construction of a City Target is proposed to enhance the effectiveness of training scenarios.
This target will provide a useable grid of roadways which will allow for MLTs to traverse the
target area (simulating a moving vehicle driving through a congested urban setting); allow for
flexibility in target placement and configuration; and potentially provide a better training
scenario for ground forces. The Navy Range currently operates, and will continue to operate a
Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT) target. Though this target is similar to the City
Target from the air, the MOUT is made of metal matting that floats on the wetlands vegetation.
The MOUT does not allow for MLTs to traverse the metal matting, the targets are static so their
positions are not capable of being changed and ground forces cannot train on this target. The
MOUT's metal matting cannot function as a roadway or support vehicles for training or range
maintenance.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321- 4370h) of 1969 requires
federal agencies to identify and analyze potential environmental impacts associated with
proposed major federal actions before those actions are taken. NEPA established the CEQ,
which is charged with the development of implementing regulations and informing federal
agencies of what they must do to comply with the procedures and achieve the goals of NEPA.
According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated "with other
planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency so that all such
procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively" (40 CFR § 1500.2). The NEPA process
does not replace procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
regulations; it addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), enabling the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of key
environmental issues and requirements associated with a Proposed Action.
An EA is a concise public document that provides sufficient analysis for determining whether the
potential environmental impacts of a Proposed Action are significant (requiring the preparation
of an EIS) or not significant, resulting in the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). An EIS is prepared for those federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of
1 -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
the natural or human environment. Thus, if the Navy were to determine that the Proposed Action
would have a significant impact on the quality of the natural or human environment, an EIS
would be prepared. An EA is prepared when an agency is not sure if its proposed action would
significantly affect the human environment. At the completion of the EA the agency should then
either prepare an EIS or FONSI as appropriate. The EA should include: brief discussions of the
purpose and need for the proposal, the alternatives, the affected environment, the environmental
impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives, a listing of agencies and persons consulted and
a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with the alternatives.
This EA will be reviewed by the lead agency (Navy) who will make a determination regarding
the Proposed Action and whether a FONSI or an EIS is appropriate. Should the Navy conclude
that a FONSI is appropriate; a FONSI summarizing the issues presented in this EA would be
prepared. The FONSI would be signed by United States Fleet Forces Command and a notice of
availability would be published in local newspapers in eastern North Carolina.
The Navy has prepared this EA in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), CEQ
regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500 to 1508), Navy Regulations for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR §
775) and Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) M- 5090.11).
1.4.2 Public Outreach
The Navy coordinated with various federal and state agencies during the NEPA process. The
Navy submitted the draft EA to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Air Force, and the
State of North Carolina for a 30 day review and comment period. The North Carolina State
Environmental Review Clearinghouse posted the document to their public notices website
(http: / /www.doa. state. nc.us /clearing /ebulletin.aspx). Multiple North Carolina state agencies
reviewed the EA and no substantive comments were received. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Air Force did not submit any substantive comments during their review
period. A copy of all of the comments received from these agencies can be found in Appendix
G. Additionally, the EA was placed on the NAVFAC Mid Atlantic Environmental Compliance
website so interested stakeholders would be able access it
( http: / /www.navfac.nM.mil /navfac ®worldwide /atlantic /fecs /mid-
atlantic /about us /environmental norfolk /environmental_ compliance.html).
1.5 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The documents listed below pertain to actions that occur at the Dare County Bombing Range.
These documents are listed to provide additional information about the Range.
Proposed Construction of a Simulated Gravel Runway Complex, Expended Ordnance
Storage Area and Target Pad Expansions at the US Air Force Dare County Bombing
Range North Carolina
In 2004 the U.S. Air Force completed an EA involving the construction of a mock runway
complex, expended ordnance storage area and expansions of target pads using geotextile and
gravel. The Proposed Action impacted 10.87 acres of wetlands which necessitated wetland
1 -7 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
mitigation. The U.S. Air Force restored two upland roads to 10.62 acres of swamp forest. The
area was then planted with 6,000 native tree seedlings (pond pine, swamp black gum, bald
cypress). The project occurred in 2004/2005 and monitoring of the sites continued for at least
five years.
Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
In 2008 the Navy prepared an EA and signed a FONSI that analyzed the potential effects
associated with current operations and the construction of the MOUT and mock runway complex
using M -19 landing mats and CONEX boxes which are similar to intermodal shipping
containers. Under the Preferred Alternative no increase to fixed -wing operations were proposed,
H -60 operations were included and the MOUT and the runway complex were constructed out of
M -19 landing mats which did not constitute a permanent fill of wetlands.
Environmental Assessment for Improvements to the Target Pads and Support Areas of the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range, North Carolina
In 2011 the Navy prepared an EA that analyzed the potential effects associated with improving
and restoring the surface area of the Navy Range by increasing the hardened surfaces (target
pads, roads and storage areas). A FONSI was signed in May 2011 for Alternative 1, the
Preferred Alternative, to impact up to 8.5 acres of wetlands. The impacts included the
restoration of existing target pads and the establishment of new target pads and storage areas for
a total of 12 locations on the Navy Range. In 2011, prior to the start of construction, the Navy
purchased 7.434 credits in a mitigation bank. Once final designs were completed for the
Preferred Alternative, the size of some of the target /storage areas were reduced resulting an
estimated 2.1 acres of unused credits.
1.6 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
In addition to NEPA, other laws, regulations, permits, and licenses may be applicable to the
Proposed Action. Specifically, providing improved target areas at the Navy Range will require
the following:
1. Coastal Consistency Negative Determination (CCND) to the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management in accordance
with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
2. Concurrence from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
regarding effects on cultural resource.
3. A permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington
District in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
4. A 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
1 -8 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES
NEPA's implementing regulations (i.e., 40 CFR § 1502.14) provide guidance on the
consideration of alternatives to a federal Proposed Action and require rigorous exploration and
objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives. This chapter provides a description of the
alternatives analyzed in this EA.
2.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action seeks to improve target areas at the Navy Range. The improvements
would encompass the establishment of a City Target with hardened roadways, a maintenance
road and three target areas for the existing Runway Target, turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot
Road and utilization of the MLT. The number of flight operations, types of aircraft, flight paths,
and munitions utilized in these range areas are not changing from current practices.
The City Target would include a network or grid of hardened roadways that would allow for
more flexibility in target configurations, enhancing training scenarios. The placement of targets
adjacent to and on the roadways around the City Target would simulate city buildings and other
structures, thereby providing multiple targets for pilots. These targets would be customizable
depending on the training scenario and could also be utilized for ground troops and the MLT.
The Runway Target is a series of interlocking mats that float on top of the native vegetation. A
maintenance road is proposed to be constructed next to the Runway Target running the entire
length of the target, approximately 25 -feet wide, with several target pads extending beyond the
maintenance road. The existing matting cannot support the vehicles or range equipment needed
for maintenance purposes. Additionally, munition impacts have degraded the existing matting
leading to the degradation of visual effectiveness from above aircraft performing training
missions. The proposed improvements would allow the Navy Range personnel to easily
maintain and repair the Runway Target and provide more realistic training scenarios for pilots.
The Navy operates MLTs for laser training on the Navy Range. This EA evaluated MLT
training exercises with inert munitions. MLTs are unmanned half -ton pick -up trucks that operate
remotely using Global Positioning System (GPS) mobile position technology to traverse a
predetermined route. During training exercises, the MLTs traverse hardened roadways and
target areas within the Navy impact area. These trucks may be used to tow a target or may be the
targets themselves. The types of aircraft, flight paths and munitions utilized in these training
exercises would be the same as those currently used in air -to- ground training exercises
conducted at the Navy Range. Use of the MLTs would not be expected to increase the overall
number of training operations conducted at the Navy Range. Current aircraft training operations
are covered in the 2008 Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final EA; the current document will
only study the impacts associated with the utilization of the MLT as an active target on the Navy
Range.
2 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
The construction of a new cul -de- sac -type turnaround is proposed at each end of 3500 Foot Road
to enhance the operation of the MLT. The MLTs' GPS system allows the trucks to follow a
preprogrammed route. When the MLTs are required to turn around and head in the opposite
direction the GPS system has difficulty transiting backwards and forwards over the same area
during a 3 -point turn scenario. The cul -de -sacs would allow for the MLT to turn around on 3500
Foot Road for uninterrupted transit. They would also enhance range capability by providing
alternate helicopter landing zones.
New targets and the maintenance road would be installed by layering fill material (such as dirt
and sand that is clean and free of contaminants and debris from a commercial borrow site),
geotextile material and gravel. The upgrades proposed under the Proposed Action are shown in
Figures 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -3, and 2 -4 as well as Table 2 -1.
Table 2 -1 Summary of Upgrades Required for the Proposed Action
Target
Proposed Acreage
City Target
.98 acres
City Target Habitat Fragmentation
0.15
Runway Target Access Road
1.29 acres
Runway Target Aircraft Parking Target
.55 acres
Runway Target Hangar Target
.30 acres
Runway Target Aviation Fuel Storage Target
.17 acres
MLT East Turnaround
0.5 acres
MLT West Turn Around
0.5 acres
TOTAL ACREAGE OF FILL
4.29 acres
TOTAL ACREAGE OF FRAGMENTED
WETLANDS
0.15 acres
TOTAL AGREAGE IMPACTED
4.44 acres
The target areas on the Navy Range require annual maintenance to ensure sustainability of the
range. Prior to conducting maintenance requirements, the Navy completes a range clearance
effort to remove spent munitions and target debris. Once the range clearance effort is completed,
range personnel perform an evaluation of the targets, target areas and roadways to determine if
maintenance needs to be performed to repair infrastructure or replace damaged targets. Not all
targets, target areas and roadways are repaired each year. The duration of typical maintenance
activities is less than 1 week annually. Maintenance activities at the Range include: grading
roadways and fixing potholes created by munitions, repairing routine wear and tear and replacing
destroyed targets annually or as needed. While the Proposed Action will increase the amount of
hard surface and correspondingly increase the potential for maintenance activities, the type of
maintenance activities would not change and would continue to have a negligible effect on the
environment given the short duration of the proposed maintenance activities. Thus, these
activities will not be discussed in subsequent chapters.
2 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
75'52'0"W 75'51'30" W 75'51'0"W 75'50'30"W
Legend
Targets
Expansion footprints
Yards
0 350 700
75 °51'30 "W
Dare County Bombing
and Electronic Combat
Range
Ty-11 Dare
rZoom area
';
Baserri credits: Copyright C 2013 ESRI,
(ESRI_StreetM ap_W or Id_2D ).
All rights reserved
75 °51'0 "W
75 °50'30 "W
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
MUFAC
ra
Figure 2 -1 Proposed Locations of Target Area Upgrades
2 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Legend
Expansion footprints
Yards
0 50 100
Figure 2 -2 Proposed City Target
Nagy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
[Road Complex]
2 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Legend
Expansion footprints
Yards
0 30 60
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
[Turnaround]
Figure 2 -3 Proposed 3500 Foot Road East Expansion
2 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Legend
Expansion footprints
Yards
0 30 60
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
[Turnaround]
Figure 2 -4 Proposed 3500 Foot Road West Expansion
2 -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Legend
Expansion footprints
Yards
0 100 200
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
[Runway Roads]
,.,
Figure 2 -5 Proposed Runway Complex Maintenance Road and Targets
2 -7 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Table 2 -1 specifies the requirements for each training area. Based on the estimates provided
above, the Proposed Action would require 4.29 acres of wetland fill which would create the new
hardened target areas. Additionally, the City Target would also secondarily impact 0.15 acres of
wetlands due to fragmentation (see figure 2 -2), resulting in a total of 4.44 acres of total wetlands
impacted. Construction under this alternative would not affect operations at the Navy Range.
Construction would be scheduled during weekends and other times when the Navy Range is not
in use. The proposed construction activities would take approximately 100 working days to
complete. This work would not be completed all at once, but over a period of time that is
conducive to the operational requirements of the Navy Range.
2.2. NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No- Action Alternative, training and maintenance would continue to be conducted as it
is now. Efforts to improve/harden target areas would not be completed under this alternative.
Under this alternative, targets and target areas would be maintained in a manner consistent with
current practice, a City Target would not be constructed, a maintenance road and target areas for
the Runway Target would not be constructed and turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot Road
would not be constructed. The operation of the MLTs would continue as is; however, munition
training with MLTs would not be conducted. The No- Action Alternative would not meet the
purpose of and need for the Proposed Action but represents the baseline condition against which
potential impacts of the Proposed Action can be compared.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
Multiple alternatives were considered, but eliminated from further consideration. A summary of
each alternative eliminated from further consideration is discussed below.
2.3.1 Using Alternate Locations Inside the Navy Range
The Navy considered placing the improved/hardened target areas in other locations on the Navy
Range; however, the environment on the Navy Range is uniform. Placement of the
improved/hardened targets anywhere on the Navy Range would result in the same impacts as
discussed in Chapter 4 under the Proposed Action because the habitat and natural resources are
consistent throughout the Navy Range.
2.3.2 Relocating Targets near Hardened Surfaces
The Navy also considered utilizing the existing road closest to the Runway Complex as a
maintenance road and repositioning the Runway Complex parallel to that existing road. This
would eliminate the need to construct an additional hardened surface for maintaining the
Runway Complex. Aligning the Runway Complex next to the primary Navy Range access roads
(i.e., Navy Lead Road or 3500 Foot Road) would reduce the effectiveness of current training
exercises as the runway target (in its current configuration) is aligned with and parallel to the
primary run -in lines. Inert bombs hitting the roadways could prevent access to portions of the
Navy Range, making maintenance of the Navy Range difficult. Repositioning the Runway
Complex would conflict with other training targets and relocation of the Runway Complex too
far north or south would conflict with the current Surface Danger Zones. This course of action
2 -8 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
would degrade rather than enhance the Navy's ability to train at the Navy Range and therefore it
does not represent a reasonable alternative that will accomplish the purpose and need.
2.3.3 Using Alternate Locations Outside of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range
Property
The Navy considered other locations outside of the Navy Range. This option was considered to
avoid the effects that construction would have on existing wetlands. The closest Navy property
available is located in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Though the Navy utilizes several locations in
the Hampton Roads area for training, none of the locations would be appropriate for use as a
bombing range. These locations are utilized for take -off and landing training operations and
other flight operations but do not allow for munitions to be dropped. The Navy does not own or
operate a location in close proximity to the Navy range that could accommodate new targets.
Therefore, it was concluded that this was not a feasible alternative and would not be carried
through for analysis.
2.3.4 The Use of Air Force Targets at the Dare County Bombing Range
The Navy considered utilizing the targets located on the Air Force - operated side of the range.
This option would avoid any additional impacts on existing wetlands. The 4th Fighter Wing
located at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina (Wayne County)
operates and manages this range. The Air Force Range is heavily utilized and though the Navy
does conduct training on that Range occasionally, the Navy is only able to train on the Air Force
Range when the Range is not being used by the Air Force. As a result, the Navy is not able to
schedule the Air Force range often enough to meet its training requirements. The Range does
not have any additional upland areas available for the Navy to construct new targets; therefore,
any construction of new targets anywhere on the Range would result in similar wetland impacts
as discussed in Chapter 4 and will not be carried through for further analysis.
2.3.5 The Use of Prefabricated Interlocking Metal Sections (Corrugated Galvanized
Roofing Panels)
This alternative would use prefabricated interlocking metal sections (corrugated galvanized
roofing panels) to cover the soft marshy vegetation as an alternative to hardening target areas.
The use of prefabricated interlocking metal sections is currently in use at the Navy Range at
several target locations. The intent for these interlocking metal sections was to provide a visual
target for aircraft. During training as pilots trained by aiming at the targets alongside of the
interlocking metal sections, bombs have hit the interlocking metal sections degrading them
making them harder for pilots to see. As a result, the interlocking metal sections must be
maintained. However, the interlocking metal sections are now impassable for vehicle traffic
because they cannot withstand heavy vehicle traffic, such as the machinery necessary for
maintaining the target, making maintenance difficult. The Navy has now determined the
interlocking metal sections are not feasible to use on target areas where bombs or other
munitions may be utilized. The interlocking metal sections are still adequate for use at target
areas where a visual target is appropriate at no -drop target locations. Additionally, the
interlocking metal sections are functional for static displays but are not customizable. The
2 -9 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
current MOUT is a static target which is appropriate for the current training at that target and
will continue to operate with the prefabricated interlocking metal sections; however, the City
Target will require customization due to the MLT training operations, the need for the targets
around the roadways to be relocated to accommodate different training scenarios for pilots and
the potential use of the City Target by ground forces. Thus, using prefabricated interlocking
metal sections would not be considered a reasonable alternative to hardened surfaces.
2.3.6 Construct a Bridge or Elevated /Pile- Supported Structure over the Wetlands Instead
of a Hardened Surface
This alternative would create a bridge or elevated/pile- supported structure over the wetlands
instead of filling the wetlands to create a hardened surface. The structure would be rendered
impassable and unusable from the inert bombs dropped at each target. The targets and roads
must be able to withstand impact from dropped munitions. The structure would be damaged
from dropped munitions and would become impassable and unsafe for range maintenance. Thus,
this option would not be considered a reasonable alternative to hardened surfaces.
2.3.7 Utilizing the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area Instead of Creating Target Areas at
the Navy Range
The Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area is an overflow target utilized by Navy and Marine Corps
aircraft when the nearby Navy Range is experiencing heavy use. This target can be scheduled
concurrently with the Navy Range in order to conduct seamless littoral -to -land battle scenarios
enhancing training realism. The Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area is an important training asset
for the Navy and the Marine Corps. It is not, however, an adequate substitute for the Navy
Range. The target located at the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area is located entirely in the
waters of the Pamlico Sound. It does not offer flexible target configurations or training scenarios
that replicate an urban environment like the City Target would provide. Additionally, the MLT
would be unable to drive on the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area so that entire training set
could not be performed. As a result, the Long Shoal Naval Ordnance Area would not be
considered a reasonable alternative to hardening the surfaces on the Navy Range as it would not
meet the Navy's purpose and need.
2 -10 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions for resources which could
potentially be affected by the Proposed Action described in Chapter 2. Resources to be
addressed include physical resources such as; water and air, as well as biological resources
(vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, as well as species of concern).
Several resources areas have been eliminated from further discussion as it was concluded that
these resources areas would not be impacted by the construction activities described under the
proposed Action. The resources excluded from the analysis and the reasons for excluding these
resources are discussed below.
• Geology and Soils — Geology would remain unchanged as a result of the implementation
of the Proposed Action. Soils would remain relatively unchanged, with approximately
0.009 percent of soils for the entire Range and approximately 0.21 percent of soils within
the Navy Range altered. Thus, soil properties would be expected to remain unchanged.
Various management and administrative actions will be utilized to minimize the potential
for a fluid release from the MLTs during training exercises. Furthermore in the event a
MLT were hit by a munition and a release of vehicular fluids would occur, a site specific
spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to minimize potential impacts
to the environment. As a result, uncontrolled or unpermitted releases of hazardous
substances would not be expected and there would be no further mitigations required by
permit or regulatory consultations applicable to the Proposed Action. Therefore the
activities described under the Proposed Action would not have an impact on geology and
soils.
• Recreation - No formal recreational facilities or activities occur within the Navy impact
area; therefore the activities described under the Proposed Action would not have an
impact on recreation.
• Socioeconomics - The Range does not support a population of residents, recreational or
commercial fishing, local business or other factors that impact the population or
economic activity. Therefore, socioeconomic resources would not be impacted by the
Proposed Action.
• Transportation - The Range does not support a population of residents. Therefore,
transportation would not be impacted by the Proposed Action.
• Land Use - Land use would remain the same if the Proposed Action were implemented.
Therefore, land use is not discussed any further in this EA.
• Cultural Resources - A cultural resources survey was conducted on the Range by Pan
American Consultants, Inc. (Grover 1996). The survey, which included field
investigations, did not identify any significant archaeological resources within the Range.
The level of disturbance documented on the property led the researchers to conclude that
it is highly unlikely that any intact archaeological sites are present. No historic structures
are known to be located anywhere on the Range, including the Navy impact area. The
3 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
North Carolina SHPO concurred with the Pan American Consultants recommendation
that no further cultural resource investigations were required in a letter dated 6 August
1996 (Appendix E). These findings were presented in the Cultural Resource
Management Plan for Seymour Johnson AFB, Dare County Bombing Range, Fort Fisher
Air Force Recreation Area (1998). In April 2008 the Cultural Resources Management
Plan for Seymour Johnson AFB, Dare County Bombing Range, and Fort Fisher Air Force
Recreation Area was extended. The Management Plan also states there are no Traditional
Cultural Resources or related Native American issues known for the Range. On October
10, 2010 the Navy provided written correspondence to the North Carolina SHPO
concerning improvements to the Navy Dare County Bombing Range as part of an EA that
was completed in April 2011 (DoN 2011). The Proposed Action of the Navy's April
2011 EA was similar to this Proposed Action. The North Carolina SHPO responded on
November 9, 2010 concurring with the Navy's finding that the Proposed Action would
not adversely affect any historic resources on the Navy Range. In a letter dated April 1,
2014, the Navy provided written correspondence to the North Carolina SHPO for the
Proposed Action, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
On May 13, 2014 the North Carolina SHPO concurred with the Navy's determination
that no historic properties will be affected by the Proposed Action.
Table 3 -1 Resource Chapter Locations
Resource
Section
Air Quality
3.1
Water Resources
3.2
Biological Resources
3.3
3.1 AIR QUALITY
Air quality is defined as ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) to be of concern because of their impacts on the
health and welfare of the general public and the environment. These pollutants are widespread
across the United States. The primary pollutants of concern, called "criteria pollutants," include
carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), suspended
particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMIO), fine particulate matter less
than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and lead (Pb). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) (40 CFR § 50)
for these pollutants. Areas that are and have historically been in compliance with the NAAQS
are designated as attainment areas. Areas that do not meet a federal air quality standard are
designated as nonattainment areas for that pollutant. Areas that have transitioned from
nonattainment to attainment are designated as maintenance areas and are required to adhere to
maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment. The NAAQS represent the maximum levels
of background pollution that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
public health and welfare. Short-term standards (i.e., 1 -, 3 -, 8 -, and 24 -hour periods) are
established for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects.
3 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
In addition to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants, national standards exist for hazardous air
pollutants, which are regulated under Section 112(b) of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulate hazardous air pollutants
emissions from stationary sources (40 CFR § 61).
Hazardous air pollutants emitted from mobile sources are called Mobile Source Air Toxics.
Mobile Source Air Toxics are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road
equipment, which are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health and
environmental effects. In 2001, the USEPA issued its first Mobile Source Air Toxic Rule, which
identified 21 compounds as being hazardous air pollutants that required regulation. A subset of
six of these Mobile Source Air Toxic compounds were identified as having the greatest influence
on health: benzene, 1,3- butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde and diesel particulate
matter. In February 2007, the USEPA issued a second Mobile Source Air Toxic Rule, which
generally supported the findings in the first rule and provided additional recommendations of
compounds having the greatest impact on health. The second rule also identified several engine
emissions certification standards that must be implemented (40 CFR §§ 59, 80, 85 and 86;
Federal Register 72 No. 37, pp. 8427 -8570, 2007).
Unlike the criteria pollutants, there are no NAAQS for benzene and other hazardous air
pollutants. The primary control methodologies for these pollutants for mobile sources involves
reducing their content in fuel and altering the engine operating characteristics to reduce the
volume of pollutant generated during combustion.
Air quality in a given location is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the
atmosphere. A region's air quality is influenced by many factors including the type and amount
of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the
prevailing meteorological conditions. Pollutant emissions typically refer to the amount of
pollutants or pollutant precursors introduced into the atmosphere by a source or group of sources.
Pollutant emissions contribute to the ambient air concentrations of criteria pollutants, either by
directly affecting the pollutant concentrations measured in the ambient air or by interacting in the
atmosphere to form criteria pollutants. Primary pollutants, such as CO, S02, Pb and some
particulates are emitted directly into the atmosphere from emissions sources. Secondary
pollutants, such as 03, NO2 and some particulates are formed through atmospheric chemical
reactions that are influenced by meteorology, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric processes.
The Navy Range is located in Dare County, which is an attainment area for the criteria
pollutants, and is identified as part of the Northern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region (defined in 40 CFR § 81.149 and the classification can be found in 40 CFR § 81.334).
Since Dare County is located in an attainment area the General Conformity Rule (this rule only
applies for federal actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas) does not apply; however, per
NEPA and OPNAV M- 5090.113 the Navy analyzes all impacts associated with the Proposed
Action including emissions from criteria pollutants. The State of North Carolina has been
delegated authority to administer the provisions of Title V of the CAA. The primary and
3 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
secondary standards for North Carolina are provided in Table 3 -2. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) has additional state standards for
total suspended particulates, which are also included in Table 3 -2 ( NCDENR 2013c).
Table 3 -2 National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Primary/
Averaging
Level
Form
Secondary
Time
Primary
8 -hours
0.075
Annual fourth - highest daily maximum
Ozone (03)
and
ppm
8 -hr concentration, averaged over 3
Secondary
years
Carbon
Primary
8 -hours
9.0 ppm
Not to be exceeded more than once per
Monoxide
Primary
1 -hour
35 ppm
(CO)
year
Nitrogen
Primary
Annual
53 ppb
Annual Mean
Dioxide
and
(NO2)
Secondary
Primary
1 -hour
100 ppb
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
1 -hour
75 ppb
99th percentile of 1 -hour daily
Sulfur
Primary
maximum concentrations, averaged over
Dioxide
3 years
(SO2)
Secondary
3 -hours
0.5 ppm
Not to be exceeded more than once per
year
PM10
Same as
24 -hours
150
Not to be exceeded more than once per
Primary
µg /m3
year on average over 3 years
Primary
Annual
12 µg /m3
annual mean, averaged over 3 years
Secondary
Annual
15 pg /m3
annual mean, averaged over 3 years
PM2.5
Primary
24 -hours
35 µg /m3
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
and
Secondary
Lead (Pb)
Primary
Rolling 3
1.5 µg /m3
Not to be exceeded
and
month
Secondary
average
North
State
24 -hours
75 gg /M3
Annual Mean
Carolina
Standard
Total
State
24 -hours
150
Not to be exceeded more than once per
Suspended
Standard
µg /m3
year on average over 3 years
Particulates
Standard
Source: USEPA 2011; NCDENR 2013c
Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume, ppb = parts per billion by volume, µg /m3 =
micrograms per cubic meter.
3 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions
occur from natural processes and human activities. Scientific evidence indicates a trend of
increasing global temperature over the past century due to an increase in GHG emissions from
human activities. The climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce
negative economic and social consequences across the globe.
The USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on September 22,
2009. GHGs covered under the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule are
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxide (NOX), hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride
and hydrofluorinated ethers. Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential. The global
warming potential is the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global
warming potential rating system is standardized to CO2, which has a value of one. The
equivalent CO2 rate is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its global
warming potential and adding the results together to produce a single, combined emissions rate
representing all GHGs. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs,
manufacturers of mobile sources and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more
per year of GHG emissions as CO2 equivalent (CO2e) are required to submit annual reports to the
USEPA.
On a national scale, federal agencies are addressing emissions of GHGs by reductions mandated
in federal laws and EOs. Most recently, EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental,
Energy, and Transportation Management, and EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Performance, were enacted to address GHGs, including GHG emissions
inventory, reduction, and reporting.
In an effort to reduce energy consumption, reduce GHGs, reduce dependence on petroleum, and
increase the use of renewable energy resources in accordance with the goals set by EO 13123
(subsequently replaced by EO 13423) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Navy has
implemented a number of renewable energy projects.
3.2 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources are natural and man -made sources of water that are available for use by and for
the benefit of humans in the environment. Hydrology concerns the distribution of water
resources through the process of evaporation, atmospheric transport, precipitation, surface runoff
and flow and subsurface flow. Hydrology is affected by climatic factors such as temperature,
wind direction, wind speed, topography and soil and geologic properties.
Water quality describes the chemical and physical composition of water as affected by natural
conditions and human activities. The Yorktown Aquifer underlies portions of Dare County and
is a source of drinking water for the county (Dare County 1992). It ranges from approximately
330 to 660 feet below the ground (Dare County 1992), and proposed construction activities
3 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
would not be expected to affect groundwater as construction activities and proposed fill will
remain much closer to the surface than known groundwater resources. Therefore, groundwater
resources are not addressed. In addition, no natural streams or surface waters (other than
wetlands which are discussed below) exist within the Navy impact area. Therefore, for the
purposes of this EA, the only water resources analyzed are wetlands and floodplains.
The waters within the proposed project area consist of nontidal freshwater wetlands (i.e. class
WL waters). Class WL waters are defined as freshwater wetlands' which support vegetation that
is adapted to life in saturated soil conditions (NCDENR 2013b). Class WL waters are generally
protected for storm and flood water storage, aquatic life, wildlife, hydrologic functions, filtration
and shoreline protection (NCDENR 2013b).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires approval prior to discharging dredged or fill
material into the waters of the United States or adjacent wetlands. The Regulatory Division of
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the federal regulatory and permitting agency for
most matters concerning dredge and fill activities in wetlands. The mission of the USACE is to
protect wetlands and their functions and to ensure "no net loss" of wetlands. The proposed
construction requires compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Proponents
of all projects which require a 404 permit due to proposed impacts to wetlands or waters must
also obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification from the State. When the State issues a 401
certification, it certifies that a given project will not degrade waters of the state or otherwise
violate water quality standards. Coordination with the USACE, NCDENR, and following all
relevant guidance, policy and procedures for wetlands protection and mitigation are important
steps in the permit application process.
The Clean Water Act also regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources into waters of
the United States. The Clean Water Act prohibits spills, leaks or other discharges of oil or
hazardous substances into the waters of the United States without a permit. The Clean Water
Act limits any discharge of pollutants to a level sufficient to ensure compliance with state water
quality standards. Direct discharge of effluents are regulated under numerical limitations
contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the
USEPA or under the state NPDES program approved by the USEPA.
3.2.1 Wetlands
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs federal agencies to take action to
minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands through federally - funded activities on
their property and mandates review of proposed actions on wetlands through NEPA process. It
requires that federal agencies establish and implement procedures to minimize development in
wetlands. In support of the federal goal of "no net loss of wetlands," all Navy construction and
operational actions must avoid adverse impacts to, or destruction of, wetlands. If this is
impossible, then actions shall be taken to minimize wetland degradation and replace impacted
wetlands in another location.
1 Freshwater wetlands are found in freshwater environments.
3 -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
The Navy Range is situated within the coastal plain province of North Carolina. The coastal
plain extends from the Atlantic shoreline to the Fall Zone which generally runs along a north-
south axis and is located near the middle of the state. The fall zone is the boundary between tidal
rivers and nontidal rivers. Above the Fall Zone, rivers, creeks and streams flow in only one
direction, generally towards the ocean. Below the Fall Zone and in the coastal plain, rivers,
creeks and streams may flow in more than one direction depending on the tides. Interstate 95
roughly parallels the Fall Zone.
The coastal plain contains many of the state's wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas
which receive enough surface water or groundwater to support vegetation typically adapted for
life in wet soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas
(USACE 1987).
The land surface of the Navy impact area is low and relatively flat, with elevations generally less
than 5 feet above Mean Sea Level (MRCS and USDA 2012). Peatland soils, which are acidic,
saturated near the ground surface and contain few nutrients and have a very high organic content
characterize the soil on the Navy impact area. The Navy impact area is comprised of Belhaven
Muck which is the dominant soil series at the Navy impact area; followed by Pungo Muck and
Ponzer Muck (Figure 3 -2) (MRCS and USDA 2012). Figure 3 -2 depicts the soils types known to
exist within the Navy impact area. No prime farmland soils, statewide important soils or unique
soils are known to be present within the Navy impact area (MRCS and USDA 2012).
Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems that provide habitat for a diverse range of plants and
animals. Additionally, many of the various functions wetlands serve are beneficial to the human
and natural environment. For example, wetlands act like a sponge, absorbing water during
rainfalls and releasing it slowly afterwards, reducing the likelihood and severity of floods.
Wetlands also retain sediments which can prevent nitrate build -up of pollutants from nearby
water bodies; and they help with groundwater recharge and discharge (Finlayson and Moser
1991).
The Dare County Bombing Range Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for
the entire Range (USAF 2000; USAF 2008) states that approximately 99 percent of the Navy
impact area is classified as nontidal wetlands The Navy impact area is comprised of
jurisdictional wetlands except for existing roads, structures, target pads and parking areas (USAF
2000 and USAF 2008). A jurisdictional wetland is a wetland which satisfies the characteristics
of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology per the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual and applicable Regional Supplements to the manual (USACE 1987). The Navy impact
area consists of nontidal freshwater wetlands which are maintained through periodic mowing and
prescribed fire to improve safety and visibility. The wetland vegetation is dominated by reed
grasses, sedges, rushes, sphagnum mosses, cattail and giant cane. Figure 3 -3 illustrates the
wetland types within the impact area. In Figure 3 -3, "Freshwater Wetlands" refers to
nonforested wetlands, "Depressional Swamp Forest" refers to forested wetlands, "Pocosin"
refers to wetlands characterized by poorly drained soils which are high in organic material and
"Pine Flat" refers to nonwetland flat areas which contain many pine trees.
3 -7 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Calurt7hia
t
m
O
C
`Z
`Gum Neck
Fi
N
nns Harbor
y:
❑ARE
N
1 Dare
_ County
Bombing
a Fwe psm.q.' Range
1� f Stumzy Pain
+
4yr at
, —
"airfield
• HYDE
i
J
I..a�e Alattamrxsk�et ' )
f ~�NMId
Gau�Fioak�,
r
Pamlico Soupid
WA River, Stream, or Creek
`4c'ti
tx...
�4 County Boundary Water Resources
Overall Care County Range Boundary in Dare County,
NC
_ Impact Area North Carolina
N WN NAVFAAC
$ w e 00.5 1 2 3 4
s. Nautical Miles
Figure 3 -1 Water Resources in Dare County, North Carolina
3 -8 July 2014
rr
t
m
O
C
`Z
`Gum Neck
Fi
N
nns Harbor
y:
❑ARE
N
1 Dare
_ County
Bombing
a Fwe psm.q.' Range
1� f Stumzy Pain
+
4yr at
, —
"airfield
• HYDE
i
J
I..a�e Alattamrxsk�et ' )
f ~�NMId
Gau�Fioak�,
r
Pamlico Soupid
WA River, Stream, or Creek
`4c'ti
tx...
�4 County Boundary Water Resources
Overall Care County Range Boundary in Dare County,
NC
_ Impact Area North Carolina
N WN NAVFAAC
$ w e 00.5 1 2 3 4
s. Nautical Miles
Figure 3 -1 Water Resources in Dare County, North Carolina
3 -8 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
75 °52'0 "W 75 °51'30 "W 75 °51'0 "W 75 °50'30 "W
75'52'0"W 75'51'30"W 75'51'ffW 75 °50'30 "W
Legend
MExpansion footprints
Soil types (USDA, NRCS 2012)
Belhaven muck, 0 -2% slope, rarely floods
Ponzer muck, 01 slope, rarely floods
Pungo muck, 0-2% slope, rarely floods
Yards
0 410 £20
Dare County Bombing
and EiC4 mbat
-Rang-'
Tvi i ell i
Zoom area
Ua
BasemapYcredits: Copyright C 2013 ESRI,
(ESRI_StreetMap_W orld_2D).
All rights reserved
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
[Soil Types]
Figure 3 -2 Navy Dare County Bombing Range Underlying Soil Type
3 -9 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
35 "d'
w
�r
a,
E�
Hoard
Basemap cre s: upyr g C 201 3 Esri, I
iM'icrosoft UC-G imagery dated 7 1 7271207 0). ty
All rights reserved.
?5"57'3K'Vv 75 "5110'W' 51 .I -C. "N 75 "r, ,.
Legend
Yr.wo TJPe
ULUM WMAUry
®Owev Poo"
041SRI npMAMa
-4om, POMW
r Targets
M OIpra8' Mt S'WP rg.ea-
Evans nFeatpn nts
-F—Nl i rMarsh
fte Fiat
., Pot
(yll�QS
0 0.275
0.55
Feet
0 1,500
3.000
Dare County Barbing
end Dectronic Comhat,
Range =1
rymat bare Zoom area
Myde
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Targets and Towers
Wetland Type
Figure 3 -3 Wetlands Classification at Navy Dare County Bombing Range
3 -10 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
3.2.2 Floodplains
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, sets forth the responsibilities of federal
agencies for reducing the risk of flood loss or damage to personal property, minimizing the
impacts of flood loss and restoring the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. This order
was issued in furtherance of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973.
As illustrated in Figure 3 -4, over half of the Navy impact area is located within Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zone "AE." FEMA zone "AE" is defined as areas
subject to inundation by the 1- percent - annual- chance (or 100 -year) flood event. The rest of the
Navy impact area is located within FEMA zone `B" and "X ". FEMA zone "B" and "X" is
defined as a moderate risk areas within the 0.2- percent - annual- chance (or 500 -year) floodplain
(FEMA 2013; NCFMP 2009; NCDEM 2009).
3 -11 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
7752'0 "W 75°51'30 "W 75°51'0 "W 75 °50'30 "W
76'52'0" VV
Legend
MExpansion footprints
Flood Zones (NCFMP. NCDEM 2009)
M0.2% annual flooding chance
AE
X
Yards
0 430 860
75'51'30 "W
Dare County Bombing A"
and Electronic Combat
` = °Range
Tvrren Dare
Zoom area
ua
C4
Basemaperedits: Copyright C 2013 ESRI,
(ESRI_StreetM ap_W orld_2D).
All rights reserved
75'51'0 "W
75'50'30'W
Navy Dare County
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
MM 141L
[Flood Zones]
AUFAC
Figure 3 -4 Floodplain Classification at Navy Dare County Bombing Range
3 -12 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological resources addressed in this EA include native and nonnative plant and animals and the
habitats in which they exist. The Dare County Bombing Range maintains an Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that was developed in 2008. The INRMP guides the
natural resources management program and allows the Range to achieve its goal of supporting
the military mission, ensuring the sustainability of desired ecological conditions on the Range
and maintaining the viability of the ecosystem. The resources discussed in this section are
divided into three categories: vegetation, wildlife and special - status species. Each will be
discussed below.
3.3.1 Vegetation
Four coastal plain terrestrial ecosystems were identified as being found on the Range: pocosin,
floodplain forest, nonalluvial mineral wetland and tidal swamp forest and wetlands. The Navy
impact area primarily contains "pocosin" wetlands which are derived from a Native American
word meaning "swamp -on -a- hill." They are associated with a diversity of habitat types
including high and low pocosin, bogs, fresh and brackish water marshes, hardwood swamps and
Atlantic white cedar swamps. Plant species present include pitcher plants ( Sarracenia (lava and
Sarracenia purpurea) and sundews (Drosera intermedia), low bush cranberries (Viburnum
edule), two species of bays (Persea borboni and Gordonia lasianthus), Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), pond pine (Pinus serotina), two species of gums (Nyssa sylvatica
biflora and Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum) and a wide variety of herbaceous
and shrub species common to the East Coast (USFWS 2007).
3.3.2 Wildlife
Wildlife found on the Dare County Bombing Range includes fish, amphibians, invertebrates,
reptiles, birds and mammals. The Range is bordered by the Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge and shares most of the same species. Several species present on the Range are classified
as protected species and will be discussed in sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4.
There are numerous fish species occurring on and around the Refuge and the Range. These
fisheries are considered to be diverse, containing resident species and migratory species, which
use the Refuge and the Range as spawning grounds and the surrounding waters as a nursery area;
anadromous species which spawn in the Refuge's and the Range's freshwater streams and
estuaries, inhabit these areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and return to these streams to spawn
as adults; and one catadromous species (i.e. a species that spends most of its life in fresh water
and migrates to the ocean to breed) (USFWS 2008). Resident species include gar (Lepisosteus
osseus), pickerel (Esox niger and Esox americanus), white perch (Morone americana), yellow
perch (Perca flavescens), sunfish ( Enneacanthus obesus, Enneacanthus gloriosus and
Acantharchus pomotis) and catfish (Ictalurus punctatus, Ameiurus catus). Migratory species that
use the Refuge and the Range include Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), southern flounder
(Paralichthys lethostigma) and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). Anadromous species
3 -13 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
include striped bass (Morone saxatilis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis). No rare or listed fish species were found at the Range.
Sixty -one species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported at the Refuge (USFWS 2008).
Species which are known to inhabit the area include: brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota),
southern water snake (Nerodia fasciata), redbellied water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster
erythrogaster), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern red - bellied turtle
(Pseudemys rubriventris), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta picta), the southern leopard
frog (Lithobates sphenocephala), and a wide variety of other reptiles. Three species of
venomous snakes have been documented on the Range, the cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorus), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) and the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix)
(USFWS 2008). A three -year study on the Range's amphibian population demonstrated that the
pocosin habitat characteristics of the Range support a rich diversity of amphibians. No rare or
listed amphibian species were found. A total of 14 species of frogs and toads and three species
of salamanders have been observed within the Range (DoD 2006).
Over 400 species of birds have been recorded in North Carolina including over 300 species of
migratory birds (Manning 2004; USFWS 2008). Dare County is the approximate midpoint of
the Atlantic Flyway (USFWS 2002). The Atlantic Flyway extends from the offshore waters of
the Atlantic Coast west to the Allegheny Mountains where, curving northwestward across
northern West Virginia and northeastern Ohio, it continues in that direction across the prairie
provinces of Canada and the Northwest Territories to the Arctic Coast of Alaska (Birdnature.com
2010). It is regarded as a valuable foraging and resting area for many bird species. Due to a
variety of habitats in Dare County, marsh - dwelling species, forest - dwelling species, shore birds
and pelagic birds can be found there. Over 250 species of birds visit the Refuge and the Range
regularly. Since the Range is surrounded by the Refuge and many of the same habitats comprise
both locations (USFWS 2008 and USFWS 2013d). Sparrows, warblers, wading birds,
woodpeckers, bald eagles, doves, crows, hawks and many other bird species can be found.
The lower coastal plain of North Carolina is home to 47 species of commonly occurring
mammals, with 42 of those species occurring within the Refuge (USFWS 2008). Since the
Range is surrounded by the Refuge many of the species associated with the Refuge are also
associated with the Range. Black bear (Ursus americanus), the Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana) and rodents constitute the most common mammals at the Refuge. The Refuge also
provides habitat for white - tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mink
(Mustela vison), gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), the eastern gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), nutria (Myocastor coypus) and river otters (Lontra canadensis). Sightings
of the eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) have been reported but this species has never been
confirmed (USFWS 2008).
3 -14 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
3.3.3 Federally Protected Species
3.3.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Federally threatened and endangered species are those listed for protection under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1536), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The USFWS website (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /cntylist /dare.html)
lists the federally endangered species, threatened species and federal species of concern with
known occurrences in Dare County (USFWS 2012). The USFWS website
(http:Hecos.fws.-ovg /tess public /pub /candidateSpecies.jssp) lists candidate species, none of which
occur in Dare County, North Carolina.
Under NEPA the impacts of a Proposed Action to threatened and endangered species must be
considered. The ESA of 1973 established protection over and conservation of threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. An "endangered" species is a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, while a
"threatened" species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or in a significant portion of its range.
The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the ESA and are
also responsible for the listing of species (i.e., the labeling of a species as either threatened or
endangered). The USFWS has primary management responsibility for management of terrestrial
and freshwater species, while the NMFS has primary responsibility for marine species and
anadromous fish species (species that migrate from saltwater to freshwater to spawn). The ESA
allows the designation of geographic areas as critical habitat for threatened or endangered
species. Table 3 -3 provides a list of the federally protected species occurring at the Range. The
Navy submitted a letter to USFWS on December 3, 2013 requesting concurrence with the
species listed below. On January 8, 2014 USFWS concurred that the species listed below were
present or had the potential to be present at the Dare County Bombing Range. Descriptions of
the federally listed species are provided in the following paragraphs.
Table 3 -3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species and Protected Species Occurring
or Potentially Occurring at the Dare County Bombing Range
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Red - cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
Source: USFWS 2012
3 -15 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status and Management — Red - cockaded woodpeckers were listed as endangered in 1970 and
given federal protection under the passage of the ESA ( USFWS 2003) and in 1972 they became
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Distribution and Habitat — The red - cockaded woodpecker lives in a cooperative social family
structure called a "group ". Each group has up to ten birds, but contains no more than one
breeding pair. Each bird creates its own roosting area called a "cavity" and a collection of
"cavity" trees is known as a "cluster ". The endangered red - cockaded woodpecker is a species
that is being managed intensively on the Range. Within the Range, the red - cockaded
woodpeckers nest in mature pond pine trees located in mature stands of pond pine woodland,
where past fire history has created the open conditions necessary for habitat (USAF 2008). Two
active clusters of red - cockaded woodpeckers are currently located on the Range (personal
communication with Robert Montgomery). The Air Force is managing a total of 12 remaining
clusters with a goal of managing 18 clusters. The Air Force is currently working with USFWS
on the management strategy for the Red - cockaded woodpecker (communication with Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base Environmental Program Manager -Robert Montgomery). The red -
cockaded woodpecker population within the Range is considered a highly significant remnant
population, and is designated an essential support population in the USFWS Recovery Plan for
the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (2003). Their presence is a reflection of the quality of the habitat
historically found on the Dare County mainland (USAF 2008). Figure 3 -5 shows the location of
the Red - cockaded Woodpecker nests in association with the Range impact areas. This species
has the potential to be found on the Range and impacts to this species are discussed in Section
4.3.2.3.1.
3 -16 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
N
4
6
Post Fire Cluster Status Roads
00 Ac[i— R— iiment — R-1—
_ RCYJ HaGital (5.377 Acres
0 b AAenaged Rec uimant IJ Boundary
QD Rklic( uste r'
-d-ppe Irani aslire menigemtne
0.5
Air Force Dare County Bombing Range
Post Fire Status of RCW Clusters
Figure 3 -5 Red - cockaded Woodpecker Clusters at Dare County Bombing Range (Air Force 2008)
3 -17 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3 -18 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
3.3.3.2 Federal Species of Concern
In addition to federally threatened and endangered species, The USFWS also lists federal species
of concern. Federal species of concern is an informal term that indicates a species might be in
need of conservation actions. Federal species of concern do not receive legal protection and this
term does not imply the species will eventually be proposed for listing (USFWS, 2013b). Table
3 -4 provides a list of the federally species of concern occurring at the Range. The analysis for
the species listed below will be discussed in Section 4.3.2.2 Wildlife.
Table 3 -4 Federal Species of Concern Occurring or Potentially Occurring at the Dare
County Bombing Range
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
American alligator
Alligator mississippiensis
Threatened due to similarity
of appearance
Northern diamondback
Malaclemys terrapin terrapin
Federal Species of Concern
terrapin
Black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
Federal Species of Concern
Wayne's black- throated green
Dendroica vixens waynei
Federal Species of Concern
warbler
Red wolf
Canis rufus
"Endangered
(Nonessential Experimental
Population in Dare County)
Buxton Woods white - footed
Peromyscus leucopus buxtoni
Federal Species of Concern
mouse
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Federal Species of Concern
Source: USFWS 2012
Note: Although the red wolf is listed as an endangered species the population in Dare County
is a nonessential experimental population. The Endangered Species Act treats these animals as
if they are proposed for listing and the requirements for endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act do not apply.
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
Status and Management — In 1977, the USFWS downlisted the alligator from endangered to
threatened in part of its range, including Florida and certain coastal areas of Georgia, South
Carolina, Louisiana and Texas (42 FR 2071). In 1987, the USFWS downlisted the American
alligator throughout the remainder of its range to "threatened due to similarity of appearance" (52
FR 21059). This classification reflects a complete recovery of the alligator, but is intended to
facilitate necessary protections for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in the United
States and foreign countries, and other endangered crocodilians in foreign countries, whose
products are difficult to distinguish from those of the American alligator. Any proposed harvests
under this classification must comply with the USFWS's special rule on American alligators (50
CFR § 17.42(a)) and existing state statutes and regulations. The status of "threatened due to
3 -19 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
similarity of appearance" (52 FR 21059) is a formal recognition that the American alligator is
biologically secure throughout its range. As a result, federal agencies are not required to consult
on impacts to alligators under Section 7 of the ESA.
Distribution and Habitat - The American alligator is a large distinctive freshwater reptile
species that occurs from the Gulf coast states north along the Mississippi river to Arkansas and
north along the Atlantic coast to the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina (USAF 2008). The
American alligator occurs in refuge marshes, slow- moving streams and manmade canals. They
prefer areas where the water turbidity is low and the water quality is high, with the presence of
an adequate food source (USFWS 2008). According to the July 2008 Air Force Dare County
Bombing Range INRMP, the areas on the Range that have been surveyed (Ecosystem Survey
Dare County Bombing Range conducted by TNC 1994) are: part of Whipping Creek and
Whipping Creek Lake, the canals around the Air Force impact areas and the canals around the
Navy impact area. The survey results indicate that Whipping Creek Lake has the highest density
of alligators. The results also showed that alligators generally occur in very low densities on the
Range and Refuge. In 1993 population estimates on the Range were 25 to 35 alligators and in
1994 were 46 to 60 animals. Due to the limited scope and variance in types of surveys
performed in different years, data gaps exist. According to the Ecosystem Survey for the Dare
County Bombing Range there is little interaction between alligators and humans on the Range,
resulting in few threats to the American alligator (USAF 2008). This species has the potential to
be found on the Navy impact area and impacts to this species are discussed in Section 4.3.2.2
Wildlife.
Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin)
Status and Management — This species is listed as a federal species of concern in North
Carolina.
Distribution and Habitat — These turtles inhabit salt marshes or brackish -water habitats
including: coastal marshes, tidal flats, coves, estuaries, inner edges of barrier beaches and any
other type of sheltered, unpolluted body of salt or brackish water (Conant and Collins 1991). In
1995, the northern diamondback terrapin was found on the Refuge in the Long Shoal River
marshes, south of U.S. 264, and this species could be considered an occasional visitor to this
location (USAF 1995; USAF 2008). Their habitat, the Saltmeadow Cordgrass - (Saltgrass) Tidal
Herbaceous Alliance, extends north of U.S. 264 onto 109 acres south of the Air Force impact
area and therefore it is possible this species could be on the Range. It was noted however, that
wildland fire suppression and no prescribed burning of this area has likely rendered the area
unsuitable as habitat for this species (USAF 2008). As a result, an analysis of this species is not
carried forward in this EA.
3 -20 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Black rail (Laterallus iamaicensis)
Status and Management — The black rail is listed as a species of concern under the ESA and has
been designated as "significantly rare" in North Carolina by NCDENR. The population of black
rails in the United States is estimated to be between 5,000 and 50,000 individuals (SCDNR
2005). In 1972 the black rail became protected under the MBTA.
Distribution and Habitat — The black rail is a secretive sparrow -sized bird that inhabits salt and
freshwater marshes dominated by grasses and sedges. It lays its eggs in a loose cup of grass
concealed under a clump of vegetation. This species breeds along the Pacific coast in San
Francisco Bay, the Atlantic coasts from New Jersey to southern Florida and the Gulf coast from
Florida to Texas. Black rails forage on small insects, spiders, small crustaceans, seeds and
aquatic vegetation (Audubon 2013a).
In 1995, the black rail was found on the Refuge in the Long Shoal River marshes, south of U.S.
264 (USAF 2008). Their habitat, the Saltmeadow Cordgrass - (Saltgrass) Tidal Herbaceous
Alliance, extends north of U.S. 264 onto 109 acres south of the Air Force impact area; therefore,
it is possible that this species could be on the Range. However, the Air Force noted in the 2008
1NRMP that wildland fire suppression and no prescribed burning of this area has likely rendered
the area unsuitable as habitat for this species (USAF 2008). As a result, an analysis of this
species is not carried forward in this EA.
Wayne's black- throated green warbler (Dendroica vixens waynei)
Status and Management — Wayne's black - throated green warbler is listed as a species of
concern under the ESA, and has been designated as "significantly rare" in North Carolina by
NCDENR. In 1972 Wayne's black - throated green warbler became protected under the MBTA.
Distribution and habitat — These birds inhabit various habitats including open stands of hemlock
or pine. Their habitat is locally distributed within a narrow belt of forested wetlands of the outer
coastal plain from southern Virginia to the Edisto River in South Carolina (Watts and Paxton
2002). In Virginia and North Carolina, black - throated green warblers are most commonly
associated with Atlantic white cedar (Watts and Paxton 2002). In areas where Atlantic white
cedar is scarce or absent, these birds are found in non - alluvial forested wetlands or between the
transition zones between uplands and wetlands (Watts and Paxton 2002). Survey plots
containing loblolly pine, Atlantic white cedar and bald cypress found higher than expected black -
throated green warbler utilization than plots with pond pine and hardwoods (Watts and Paxton
2002). On the Refuge, Wayne's black - throated green warblers utilize the transition areas
between Atlantic white cedar and pond pine stands (USFWS 2008). Since this species primarily
utilizes forested habitat and is unlikely to be found on the Navy impact area, an analysis of this
species is not carried forward in this EA.
3 -21 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
Status and Management — The red wolf was listed as an endangered species in March 1967
under the Endangered Species Protection Act, the law that preceded the ESA, and protection was
continued under the ESA. The red wolf was historically found throughout the southeastern states
and its preferred habitat was the vast bottomland forests (USAF 2008).
The red wolves in Dare County and adjacent Tyrrell, Hyde, and Washington Counties are
considered to be a nonessential experimental population in accordance with Section 100) of the
ESA, even though this species is listed as endangered in the rest of North Carolina. A revision
published November 4, 1991, added Beaufort County to the list of counties where the
experimental population designation would apply (56 FR 56325). An experimental population is
an introduced or designated population of endangered or threatened species that is
geographically separated from nonexperimental populations of the same species. An
experimental population is deemed to be "nonessential" when the loss of that experimental
population would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species
in the wild (50 CFR § 17.80). Nonessential experimental populations receive the protection of
threatened and endangered species only within national parks and national wildlife refuges. The
Range is not located in a national park or a national wildlife refuge so for the purposes of the
Proposed Action no additional protection under the ESA applies.
In 1987 a captive breeding and reintroduction program established a population of red wolves in
Dare County and the nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. This population is closely
monitored by the USFWS using tracking collars and aerial surveillance (USAF 2008). The
captive bred red wolves released on the Refuge have since expanded onto neighboring wildlife
refuges, private land and the Range. Depending upon circumstances within and between packs,
there can be from two to five packs of wolves on the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge at
any given time. The red wolf population is estimated between 90 and 110 wolves in the Red
Wolf Recovery Area which consists of four national wildlife refuges, the Range, state -owned
lands and private lands, encompassing about 1.7 million acres (USFWS 2013a). Red wolves
have been observed or tracked in nearly every habitat type on the Range (USAF 2008; USFWS
2008). The Air Force has provided assistance by participating in field surveys, monitoring
activities of the wolves, and periodically closing roads to protect active den sites (Boice 1996).
Distribution and Habitat - The red wolf inhabits prairies, brush, forested areas, coastal plains,
swamps and bayous. They have been observed in all forest habitat types found on the Range
(USAF 2008). Social units usually consist of a mated pair, sometimes with an additional male,
but these animals are extremely social and will sometimes join other units to form a temporary
pack. Most active at dusk and dawn, red wolves are elusive and generally avoid humans and
human activity (USFWS 2013c). At the Refuge, deer, raccoons and marsh rabbits are the red
wolf's most frequently eaten prey, followed by several species of mice (USFWS 2008). This
species has the potential to be found on the Navy impact area and impacts to this species are
discussed in Section 4.3.2.2 Wildlife.
3 -22 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Buxton Woods white - footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus buxtoni)
Status and Management — This species is listed as obscure meaning the date and/or location of
the observation is uncertain.
Distribution and Habitat — The Buxton Woods white - footed mouse is found in hardwood
forests, field margins, myrtle thickets, marshes, canebrakes and brushy fencerows (NCDOT
2005). This species is not discussed in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2008) nor is it discussed in the U.S. Air Force (2008)
INRMP. This species is not expected to be found on the Navy impact area, thus it will not be
discussed any further in this EA.
Rafinesque's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)
Status and Management — This species is listed as a federal species of concern for Dare County.
Distribution and Habitat — Rafinesque's Big -eared bat inhabits forests and streamside areas
throughout the southeastern U.S. (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 2009). This
species is not discussed in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (2008). This species is not expected to be found on the Navy impact area,
thus it will not be discussed any further in this EA.
3.3.3.2 Other Federally Protected Species
3.3.3.2.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Status and Management — In 1940 bald eagles gained protection under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668- 668c), as amended, and in 1972 they became protected
under the MBTA. Bald Eagles were listed as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 on March 11, 1967. On February 14, 1978 the Bald Eagle was
listed as an endangered species in 43 of the contiguous states under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and listed as threatened in 5 states (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and
Washington) (43 FR 6230, February 14, 1978). Effective August 8, 2007, the USFWS delisted
the Bald Eagle under the authority of the ESA (see 72 FR 37345, July 9, 2007), removing it from
the ESA's List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife throughout most of its range.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the take, possession, or transport of bald
eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos); and the parts (e.g.,
feathers, body parts), nests, or eggs of bald and golden eagles without authorization from the
USFWS. This includes inactive and active nests. "Take" means to pursue, shoot, shoot at,
poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb. Activities that directly or
indirectly lead to a "take" are prohibited without a permit from the USFWS.
Distribution and Habitat — Bald eagles inhabit lakes, rivers, marshes, seacoasts, forests and
other nearshore habitats where there is an abundance of fish. Studies have shown that bald
eagles prefer bodies of water with a circumference greater than 11 km (6.8 miles) and lakes with
3 -23 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
an area greater than 10 square kilometers (3.9 square miles) for breeding. They typically build
nests in a tall tree but may also build them on a cliff. Bald eagles feed opportunistically on fish,
birds, waterfowl, mammals, reptiles, invertebrates and carrion (USDA 2007).
The bald eagle requires old - growth and mature stands of coniferous or hardwood trees for
perching, roosting and nesting. Selected trees must have good visibility, an open structure and
proximity to prey, but the height or species of tree is not as important as an abundance of
comparatively large trees surrounding the body of water. Forests used for nesting should have a
canopy cover of no more than 60 percent, and no less than 20 percent, and be in close proximity
to water (USDA 2007).
Bald eagles nest along the Alligator River west of the Range and use the Refuge for foraging.
Currently, two bald eagle nests are located within the Refuge boundary (documented near the
North Twiford Farm Unit and near Swan Creek Lake on the south end of the refuge;
approximately seven miles from the Navy impact area); however, nesting does not occur in every
nest every year. Immature bald eagles and adults are occasionally seen within the Range (USAF
2007; USFWS 2008). This species has the potential to be found on the Navy impact area and
impacts to this species are discussed in Section 4.3.2.3.1.
3.3.3.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across
international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. Migratory birds are protected
under the MBTA of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703 -712) and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal
Agencies to Proteet Migratory Birds. The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing or possessing of
migratory birds unless permitted. Take is defined as: to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50
CFR § 10.12). The list of bird species protected by the MBTA appears in 50 CFR § 10.13. The
Authorization act (50 CFR § 21.3) defines what is and is not considered a military readiness
activities for purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The utilization of the MLTs as a target is a military readiness activity. Military readiness
activities, as defined in the Authorization Act (50 CFR § 21.3), include all training and
operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat, and the adequate realistic testing of
military equipment, vehicles, weapons and sensors for proper operation and suitability for
combat use. 50 CFR § 21.15 authorizes takes, with limitations, that result from military
readiness activities of the Armed Forces. If an ongoing or proposed military readiness activity
may result in a significant adverse effect on a population of a migratory bird species, then the
proponent Armed Service must confer and cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
develop appropriate and reasonable conservation measures to minimize or mitigate identified
significant adverse effects.
Construction associated with the Proposed Action is not considered a military readiness activity.
Non - military readiness activities, as defined in the Authorization Act (50 CFR § 21.3), include
routine operation of installation support functions (e.g., administrative offices, military
3 -24 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
exchanges, commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage facilities, recreational activities),
routine operations of industrial activities, and the construction or demolition of installation
support functions. As a result, the provisions in 50 CFR § 21.11 apply to the construction
activities and a permit would be required to "take" a migratory bird incidental to these activities.
3.3.4 North Carolina Protected Species
The species listed in this document have been granted protection by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, a division of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources ( NCDENR) under the State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113 -331 to 113 -337). The
species below are rare animal species, exemplary natural communities and/or special animal
habitats potentially found at the Range. Impacts to these species will be discussed in Section
4.3.2.2 Wildlife.
Table 3 -5 State Protected and Rare Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring on the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range
Common Name
Scientific Name
State Status
American alligator
Alligator mississippiensis
Threatened
Carolina watersnake
Nerodia sipedon
williamengelsi
Species of Special concern
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Threatened
Black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
Species of Special Concern
Gull- billed tern
Gelochelidon nilotica
Threatened
Little blue heron
Egretta caerulea
Species of Special Concern
Red - cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
Snowy egret
Egretta thula
Species of Special Concern
Star -nosed mole — Coastal
Plain Population
Condylura cristata pop. I
Species of Special Concern
Cranberry
Vaccinium macrocarpon
Threatened
Source: NCDENR 2013a
American alligator ( Alligator Misissippiensis)
This species is described in section 3.3.3.1.
3 -25 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Carolina watersnake (Nerodia sipedon williamenaelsi)
This species is listed as a "special concern" species in North Carolina. This species is not
thought to inhabit the Navy Range but has the potential to occur near or within the Air Force
Range. This snake is heavy- bodied with dark markings on its belly. The front section of the
body is usually crossbanded, but on the middle and posterior portions of the body, the crossbands
break up into three alternating rows of blotches. This species is active both day and night and
eats a variety of fish and amphibians. They inhabit a variety of aquatic environments throughout
the northern Coastal Plain, Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina (Dorcas, 2004).
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
This species is described in section 3.3.3.2.1.
Black rail (Laterallus iamaicensis)
This species is described in section 3.3.3.1.
Gull- billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica)
This species is listed as threatened in North Carolina. The Gull- billed tern breeds along the
Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Florida, along the Gulf Coast and in Southern California. This
species breeds and nests along sandy or gravely beaches and islands and typically spends its
winter in salt marshes, estuaries, lagoons and plowed fields and less frequently spends its winters
along fresh water areas. These birds eat a broad diet of insects, lizards, small crabs, fish and
other prey taken from the ground, air or vegetation (Audubon 2013c).
Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea)
This species is listed as a special concern species in North Carolina. Little blue herons breed
along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida, around the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi
River Valley. They nest in small trees, shrubs and mangrove stands over water and use salt and
freshwater marshes and river bottoms for breeding. This species of heron forages in marshes,
lagoons, canals and ditches, impoundments, ponds, streams and flooded fields, where vegetation
is emerging or mature (Audubon 2013b).
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
This species is described in section 3.3.3.1.
Snowy egret (Ezretta thula)
This species is listed as a special concern species in North Carolina. The Snowy egret breeds
along the Atlantic coast from Maine southward, the Gulf Coast, the west coast from Oregon
southward, in the Caribbean and South and Central America. This species forages in both
freshwater and marine habitats. These areas generally include salt marsh pools, tidal channels,
shallow bays and mangroves. Snowy egrets feed on fish, crustaceans, snails, snakes, lizards,
worms and insects (Audubon 2013d).
3 -26 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Star -nosed mole — Coastal Plain Population (Condylura cristata pop. 1)
The Star -nosed mole is listed as a species of concern in North Carolina. This species is found in
the bottomlands, moist meadows and swamps of North Carolina. The Star -nosed mole has a
global rank of secure and its status is considered secure in North Carolina and Virginia (Laerrm
et al. 2005).
Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon)
This species is listed as significantly rare in North Carolina and is located at the periphery of its
range in the state of North Carolina. Cranberry is a northern evergreen shrub bog plant that is
largely restricted to Dare County on the Coastal Plain in North Carolina. The Range population
is likely the largest occurrence of this species this far southeast. Plants have been found at three
locations:
1. Several sites within the Air Force impact area;
2. In pond pine woodland adjacent to Jackson Road and west of Long Curve Road; and
3. Throughout the low pocosin between the Air Force impact area and U.S. 264.
The Air Force has determined the best management practice for this species is to manage the low
pocosin population including the evaluation of prescribed fire use in the absence of natural
wildland fire events (USAF 2008).
3 -27 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3 -28 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the potential impacts upon various components of the
environment that could result from the Proposed Action. This chapter is arranged in the same
manner as Chapter 3.
Table 4 -1 Resource Chapter Locations
Resource
Suction
Air Quality
4.1
Water Resources
4.2
Biological Resources
4.3
Under NEPA, impacts on resources are analyzed in terms of significance. CEQ regulation 40
CFR § 1508.27, explains that assessing whether something "significantly" impacts the
environment (for purposes of NEPA), requires considerations of both context and intensity.
Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as
society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality.
Both short-term and long -term effects must be considered. Intensity refers to the severity of the
impact. Intensity factors include, but are not limited to, the degree to which the Proposed Action
affects public health or safety; unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to
cultural resources, park lands, wetlands or ecologically critical areas; the degree to which the
action may adversely affect cultural resources and endangered or threatened species or habitat
that has been determined to be critical under the ESA; and whether the action threatens a
violation of federal, state or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the
environment.
4.1 AIR QUALITY
4.1.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, efforts to improve /harden target areas would not be completed.
The operation of the MLTs would continue as is; however, munition training with MLTs would
not be conducted. Existing conditions and baseline air quality would remain unchanged.
Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not have any significant impacts
on air quality.
4.1.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would involve the utilization of MLTs for munitions training and a
construction phase. Each MLT would be expected to drive up to 320 miles per day on the range
approximately five days per week. Up to three MLTs could be utilized per day. Construction
materials such as gravel and dirt would be transported to the Navy impact area using a tarpaulin
covered tractor trailer to prevent the diffusion of dust and loss of gravel and dirt during transport.
The material would then be utilized upon delivery. The access route from U.S. 264 to the Navy
impact area is paved for approximately 75 percent of the distance and the remaining distance is
4 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
unpaved. Dust emissions would be expected during transport of gravel and materials as vehicles
traverse the unpaved (gravel) portion of the road throughout the duration of the construction. No
dust emissions would occur from transit along paved roads. Within the Navy impact area the
gravel would be transported across semi - improved gravel roads. Particulate matter air emissions
would be created during this phase of transport and during the unloading and spreading of gravel.
It is anticipated that any dust emissions would be temporary and settle within the perimeter of the
Navy impact area and not reach the nearest human settlements (Stumpy Point, approximately
seven miles east and Engelhard, approximately 15 miles south). Table 4 -2 depicts the total
emissions that would be anticipated as a result of proposed activities (use of the MLTs and the
construction period). The emissions associated with construction would only occur during the
construction period. The emissions associated with the utilization of the MLTs are expected for
the reasonably foreseeable future since this would be an ongoing activity. Emissions
calculations for these and other anticipated pollutants are included in Appendix F of this EA.
Table 4 -2 Estimated Emissions Over the Life of Construction and Ongoing MLT Use
Under the Proposed Action
Pollutant
Construction
Emissions
(tons/ ear )
MLT Emissions
(tons /year)
Total
Emissions
(tons/ ear)
NOX
6.13
1.81
7.94
CO
1.54
1.59
3.13
VOC
0.39
0.00
0.39
PM
3.16
0.00
3.16
SO2
0.60
0.00
0.60
Air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, would be anticipated to be minor and
temporary. Dare County, where the Navy impact area is located, and its two surrounding
counties (Tyrrell and Hyde) are in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Since Dare County is
located in an attainment area the General Conformity Rule (this rule only applies for federal
actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas) does not apply. Therefore, implementation of the
Proposed Action would not have any significant impacts on air quality.
Greenhouse gases would be expected to be emitted during construction activities. Greenhouse
emissions from construction activities would occur as a result of the burning of fossil fuels to
power construction equipment. Greenhouse gas emissions would be minimal (630.70 metric
tons /year for both construction and the utilization of the MLTs and 375.29 metric tons for only
the utilization of the MLTs after construction is complete) in comparison to the greenhouse gas
emission for the State of North Carolina (142.9 million metric tons [USEIA 2010]), temporary in
nature and the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted would not have a significant impact on
global climate change.
4 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Taraets at the Navv Dare Countv Bombina Ranae Final Environmental Assessment
4.2 WATER RESOURCES
For the purpose of this analysis, water quality was evaluated with respect to impacts associated
with improving/hardening target areas and utilizing the MLTs as a target. To address potential
impacts, the analysis first identified the proposed activities that could affect the water
environment (notably wetlands and floodplains) at the Navy impact area. Relevant state and
federal regulations were also reviewed.
4.2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the target area would not be improved/hardened. The
operation of the MLTs would continue as is; however, munition training with MLTs would not
be conducted. Existing conditions and baseline water resources would remain unchanged.
Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not have any significant impacts
on water resources.
4.2.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would require filling 4.29 acres of wetlands, which is the minimum amount
of fill needed to meet the purpose and need, and secondarily fragmenting 0.15 acres of wetlands.
As discussed in Chapter 2, fill material (such as sand and dirt clean and free of contaminants and
debris from a commercial borrow site), geotextile material and gravel would be layered to
construct the target pads, roads and maintenance /storage areas. This proposed fill equates to
approximately 0.009 percent of the wetlands in the entire Range and approximately 0.21 percent
of wetlands in the Navy impact area.
4.2.2.1 Wetlands
As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires approval prior to
discharging dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the United States. Prior to the
commencement of any construction, the Navy will obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE
and a 401 Water Quality Certification from the State of North Carolina.
In order to meet regulatory requirements and to minimize impacts to wetlands, no construction
equipment would travel off of existing roads before, during or after construction. Personnel
would also adhere to all applicable laws and regulations for erosion and sediment control. In
addition, personnel would adhere to all applicable Navy policies for handling materials to help
prevent spills during construction. These policies are discussed in the Department of the Navy
2013 Hazardous Materials Reutilization, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Disposal Guide.
All applicable standard operating procedures protective of the environment would be followed.
The Navy would implement measures to reduce the chance of a release of vehicular fluids in the
instance an MLT was struck by munitions during a training scenario. Based on the training
scenario being conducted these measures could include but are not limited to: utilizing specific
types of inert munitions, modifying attack profiles to reduce the potential for vehicular damage,
conducting training exercises in specific areas, utilizing towed trailers as targets instead of the
MLTs themselves, and utilizing minimal amounts of fuel and fluids to complete training events.
4 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
In the event a MLT were hit by a munition, and a release of fluids would occur, a site specific
spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the
environment. As a result, uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances would not be expected.
As a result of these measures to limit the potential impacts of MLT use, the mitigation measures
listed in Chapter 5, and the relatively small amount of wetlands to be filled as part of the
construction, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact wetlands.
As discussed in this section and in Chapter 2, several small areas in various parts of the Navy
impact area would be filled; equaling 4.29 acres of total fill. The proposed fill would be spread
throughout the Navy impact area and would not be concentrated in any one place. Additionally,
the design of the City Target would include two rectangular sections approximately 0.075 acres
each (total of approximately 0. 15) that would potentially fragment the wetland habitat. These
two sections within the City Target would completely enclose 0. 15 acres of wetlands and leave it
hydrogically excluded from the rest of the system and fragment the habitat. Wetland impacts
would be minimized due to the fill being spread among several areas which would result in
minimal, if any impacts to existing hydrology, soils, and vegetation. The impact to wetlands as a
result of the Proposed Action would not be anticipated to cause impacts outside of the Range.
Turbidity would be temporary and minor, only occurring at the time of construction. No long
term or significant impacts to water quality would occur. As a result, implementation of the
Proposed Action would not have any significant impacts on wetlands.
Impacts to wetlands would be mitigated as required by the USACE in the wetlands permit by
purchasing wetland bank credits at an offsite wetland mitigation bank. Offsite mitigation would
occur within the same watershed as the proposed impacts so the net effect on wetlands in the
watershed will remain unchanged. See Chapter 5 for a discussion on the proposed mitigations
associated with the Proposed Action. Additionally, a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and a
Stormwater permit will be obtained prior to the initiation of construction activities.
4.2.2.2 Floodplains
As discussed in Chapter 3, over half of the Navy impact area is located within FEMA zone "AE"
and the rest is located within FEMA zone `B." FEMA floodplain "AE" is defined as an area
inundated by 100 -year flooding, for which base flood elevations have been determined (FEMA
2013 and NC Floodplain Map Program 2009).
The Proposed Action would permanently fill floodplains within the Navy impact area; however,
impacts to floodplains outside of the Range are not anticipated to occur. Impacts to floodplains
would be mitigated as required by the USACE in the wetlands permit, by purchasing wetland
bank credits at an offsite wetland mitigation bank. The mitigation set forth by the USACE will
assist in creating floodplains within the watershed. See Chapter 5 for a discussion on the
proposed mitigations associated with the Proposed Action. As a result, implementation of the
Proposed Action would not have any significant impacts on floodplains.
4 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Taraets at the Navv Dare Countv Bombina Ranae Final Environmental Assessment
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The study area for biological resources consists of the property boundaries of the Range. The
existence and preservation of biological resources is not only intrinsically valuable, biological
resources also provide esthetic, economic, recreational and socioeconomic values to society.
This analysis focuses on species that are important to the function of the ecosystem, of special
societal importance or are protected under federal or state law.
4.3.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions and baseline biological resources would
remain unchanged. Targets and target areas would be maintained in a manner consistent with
current practice, a City Target would not be constructed, a maintenance road and target areas for
the Runway Target would not be constructed, and turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot Road
would not be constructed. The operation of the MLTs would continue as is; however, munition
training with MLTs would not be conducted. Vegetation, wildlife and protected species in the
target areas would not be affected.
The No Action Alternative would not have a significant adverse effect on migratory bird
populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to non - military readiness activities. The
No Action Alternative would have no impact on ESA listed species. In accordance with the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on bald
eagles. In accordance with NEPA, the No Action Alternative would not have any significant
impact on biological resources.
4.3.2 Proposed Action
4.3.2.1 Vegetation
Vegetation predominantly associated with wetlands inhabits the Navy impact area. This
vegetation is mostly comprised of various plant species that intermingle to create a dense layer of
vegetation that covers the water surfaces around the Navy impact area. The Proposed Action
would increase the hardened surface of the Navy impact area with little impact on the total
existing wetlands (the fill equates to approximately 0.009 percent loss of wetlands for the entire
Range and 0.21 percent loss in the Navy impact area). As such, the diversity of the existing
vegetation will not be impacted by the implementation of the Proposed Action. The
implementation of the Proposed Action would not affect any of the forested habitats located on
the Range.
MLT training events are not expected to have a significant or long -term effect on range
vegetation. Various management and administrative actions will be utilized to minimize the
potential for a fluid release from MLTs during training exercises. Furthermore, in the event a
MLT were hit by a munition, and a release of vehicular fluids would occur, a site specific spill
response plan is in place and would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the
environment and the surrounding vegetation. As a result, uncontrolled releases of hazardous
4 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
substances would not be expected. Section 4.2.2.1 discusses the impacts of the Proposed Action
on wetlands.
Minor impacts to vegetation would be expected as a result of the implementation of the Proposed
Action. As a result of these measures to limit the potential impacts, the mitigation measures
listed in Chapter 5, and the relatively small amount of wetlands to be filled, implementation of
the Proposed Action would not have a long -term or significant impact on vegetation.
4.3.2.2 Wildlife
Numerous species of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish inhabit the Range including several state -
listed species. The Navy impact area is utilized by a variety of species for foraging, breeding,
roosting as well as transiting from one part of the Range to another. The Proposed Action would
fill 4.29 acres of the existing wetlands and secondarily impact 0.15 acres of wetlands by
fragmentation. Temporary displacement of wildlife during construction from suitable habitat in
the immediate vicinity of the project area is possible. Smaller, less mobile species could
inadvertently be killed during construction activities; however, long -term impacts to wildlife
populations would not be anticipated. The minimal fill associated with the Proposed Action
would not significantly impact the ability of species to perform normal biological functions. The
Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on wildlife based on the short-term and
localized nature of the proposed construction activities.
MLT training events are not expected to have a significant or long -term effect on range wildlife.
Various management and administrative actions will be utilized to minimize the potential for a
fluid release from MLTs during training exercises. Furthermore, in the event a MLT were hit by
a munition, and a release of vehicular fluids would occur, a site specific spill response plan is in
place and would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the environment or any
species that could be in the vicinity. As a result, uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances
would not be.
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 the red wolf is considered under the ESA to be a nonessential
experimental population. As a result, the species does not receive the protection of threatened
and endangered status unless they are found within national parks and national wildlife refuges.
Since the Range is not located in a national park or a national wildlife refuge, no additional
protection under the ESA applies. Red wolves have been observed using habitat found on the
Range. The utilization of the MLT for munitions training and construction activities proposed
for the Navy impact area are not likely to affect prey species, habitat use, breeding or the ability
of wolves to communicate. The red wolf population located on the Range and the nearby Refuge
are actively breeding and increasing in population, which suggests the wolves have habituated to
the constant levels of noise associated with training and maintenance activities involving heavy
machinery. This suggests the wolves would not be impacted by noise associated with the use of
the MLTs or construction activities proposed under the Proposed Action (USAF 2008). The
Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on red wolves based on the short-term and
4 -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
localized nature of the construction activities and the lack of suitable habitat on the Navy impact
area for the wolves to use for breeding, foraging and other biological functions.
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 federal agencies do not have to consult under Section 7 of the
ESA when a proposed action may impact the American alligator. American alligators have been
observed on both the Air Force Range and the Navy Range. In spite of operational training and
routine maintenance involving heavy machinery occurring on the Range, alligators actively
breed and perform other biological functions on the Range (USAF 2008). American alligators
have been observed within the Navy impact area primarily in canals but could be found
anywhere within the Navy impact area. The noise associated with the construction activities
would be isolated to a small part of the Navy Range and would occur in short intervals since the
construction activities would occur when the Navy Range is not in use for training purposes.
The MLTs would produce no more noise than what already occurs on the Range when trucks
traverse the Range during routine activities. The Proposed Action would alter the habitat of the
American alligator by filling 4.29 acres of wetlands resulting in less water habitat and creating
more terrestrial areas that could be used by alligators for activities such as sun bathing.
However, this is a negligible habitat alteration since the fill equates to a 0.009 percent loss of
wetland habitat over the entire Range. There is the potential that the alligator could be utilizing
the habitat around the proposed construction areas but it is likely any alligators would move to
another part of the Range once construction begins. The potential relocation of any alligators
from the construction areas would not impact the ability of those individuals to find other
suitable habitat, find food or find suitable breeding locations. Additionally, various management
and administrative actions will be utilized to minimize the potential for a fluid release from
MLTs during training exercises and a site specific spill response plan is in place and would be
implemented to minimize potential impacts in the event a release of vehicular fluids occurs. In
accordance with NEPA, the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the
American alligator based on the short-term and localized nature of the construction activities.
North Carolina state - listed species have the potential to utilize wetlands on the Range. Some of
these species may occur infrequently on the Navy impact area but these species would not be
expected to breed, nest or occupy the area for long periods of time. The minimal fill associated
with the Proposed Action would not significantly impact the ability of species to perform normal
biological functions. Various management and administrative actions will be utilized to
minimize the potential for a fluid release from MLTs during training exercises and a site specific
spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the
environment in the event a release of fluids from the MLTs occurs. The Proposed Action would
not have a significant impact on North Carolina state - listed species based on the short-term and
localized nature of the proposed construction activities.
4 -7 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
4.3.2.3 Federally Protected Species
4.3.2.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The endangered red - cockaded woodpecker is a species that is being managed intensively within
the Range. There are 22 red - cockaded woodpecker clusters on the Range outside of the two
military impact areas. The red - cockaded woodpecker only inhabits forested areas, also known as
the safety buffer, like those surrounding the impact areas but they are not found in the Navy
impact area itself.
Construction activities and the utilization of the MLTs for munitions training would not be
visible to the red - cockaded woodpeckers from their cavity trees since the closest active and
managed recruitment nesting locations are over a mile from the nearest proposed construction
area. The USFWS Red - cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan identifies habitat destruction and
fragmentation as major threats to the woodpecker (USFWS 2003). The use of the MLTs and
construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would not affect the forest habitat of
the red - cockaded woodpecker. Construction would only impact the non - forested, emergent and
scrub -shrub wetlands within the Navy impact area. MLTs would only be traversing existing,
hardened runways far from habitat. The Navy impact area is not used by the red - cockaded
woodpecker for nesting, breeding, roosting or foraging; although, the woodpeckers could use the
Navy impact area during transit.
Personnel performing habitat management for the red - cockaded woodpecker have not noticed or
recorded any behavior changes in this species as a result of noise from chainsaws, heavy
machinery or vehicular traffic (USAF 2004). These birds disperse from their cavity tree sites at
dawn, forage and collect food in the surrounding forest and return to their cavity trees at dusk.
Trucks would not traverse areas where the red - cockaded woodpecker clusters are known to exist.
The effects of military noise on the endangered red - cockaded woodpecker have been studied by
the USACE Construction Engineering Research Lab in a study titled: Assessment of Training
Noise Impacts on the Red - cockaded Woodpecker: 1998 -2000 (Delaney et al. 2002). This study
included not only artillery, grenades, missiles and small arms noise, but also noise from
military /civilian vehicles. Out of 81 military /civilian vehicle passes recorded during the two -
year study, the red - cockaded woodpecker flushed from its nest tree only on two occasions once
in response to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle convoy which passed within 30 meters (approximately
100 feet) of the nest tree and the second time in response to a civilian vehicle which passed
within 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) of the nest tree. One factor discussed in this study is
the visibility of the noise source. When the source of the noise is visible to the red - cockaded
woodpecker from its cavity, a response may be more likely to occur regardless of noise level.
The Recovery Plan for the red - cockaded woodpecker indicated that human - caused disturbance
during the nesting season can result in decreased feeding and brooding rates and nest
abandonment (USFWS 2003).
4 -8 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
The red - cockaded woodpecker's nest trees are all situated in dense forest. Neither the
construction sites nor the vehicle traffic would be visible to red - cockaded woodpeckers from
their cavity trees. The USACE report concludes the research team does not believe that military
maneuver training (which includes vehicle noise) is a limiting factor in the recovery of the red -
cockaded woodpecker on military installations (Delaney et al. 2002).
The Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse effect on red - cockaded woodpecker
population as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to non - military readiness activities.
Under ESA, the Proposed Action would have no effect on the red - cockaded woodpecker. The
Proposed Action would not have any effect on the critical habitat of this species because none
has been designated. In accordance with NEPA, the Proposed Action would not have a
significant impact on the red - cockaded woodpecker based on the short-term and localized nature
of the construction activities and the lack of breeding, nesting, roosting or foraging habitat
available within the Navy impact area. Though no impacts to the red - cockaded woodpecker
would be anticipated, a site specific spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to
minimize potential impacts to the environment in the event a release of vehicular fluids from the
MLTs occurs.
4.3.2.3.2 Other Federally Protected Species
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Bald eagles do not nest within the Range but have been observed within it. Breeding activities
have been observed on the Refuge in spite of Air Force and Navy training operations
(approximately seven miles from the Navy impact area). The Proposed Action would require
filling wetlands and the use of heavy machinery. Since the impact area of the Navy Range
consists primarily of emergent and scrub -shrub wetlands and does not contain trees, the nesting,
roosting and perching capabilities of bald eagles would not be affected. Although it is possible
that bald eagles could forage on the Navy impact area, most of the wetland is covered with dense
vegetation, making it difficult to catch fish or other aquatic prey species. It is not likely that bald
eagles would spend much time foraging within the Navy impact area.
Bald eagles have been found to habituate to noise on military facilities (Brown et al. 1999). In
one study, noise associated with military facilities did not affect the eagle's ability to reproduce
(Brown et al. 1999). It was also determined that even nonresident bald eagles could habituate to
a stimulus in a short amount of time. This indicates that the bald eagles associated with the
Range could become habituated to disturbances such as construction activities and training in a
short amount of time.
In accordance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Proposed Action would have
no impact on bald eagles. Due to the short-term and localized nature of the construction
activities the Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse effect on bald eagle
populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to non - military readiness activities. In
accordance with NEPA, the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on bald eagles
4 -9 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
based on the short-term and localized nature of the construction activities and the lack of
breeding, nesting, roosting or foraging habitat available within the Navy impact area. As a
result, no permit is required under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Though no impacts to bald
eagles would be anticipated, various management and administrative actions will be utilized to
minimize the potential for a fluid release from MLTs during training exercises and a site specific
spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the
environment in the event a release of vehicular fluids from the MLTs occurs.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Most of the bird species found in Dare County fall under the jurisdiction of the MBTA ( USFWS
2013e). Military readiness activities associated with the Proposed Action includes the utilization
of the MLTs as targets. The construction activities associated with the Proposed Action are not
considered military readiness activities. The Proposed Action would not diminish the capacity of
a population of any migratory bird species occurring on the Range to maintain genetic diversity,
to reproduce and to function effectively in its native ecosystem. The potential fill of 4.29 acres
of wetlands would not significantly impact the available foraging and breeding habitat on the
Range. The area of the Navy impact area where the Proposed Action would occur is heavily
utilized for training operations and though birds can be found within those areas they are not
anticipated to spend long periods of time there. Various management and administrative actions
will be utilized to minimize the potential for a vehicular fluid release from MLTs during training
exercises and a site specific spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to
minimize potential impacts to the environment in the event a release of vehicular fluids from the
MLTs occurs. The Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse effect on migratory
bird populations as defined by the MBTA. As a result, and in accordance with 50 CFR § 21.15,
the Navy is not required to confer with USFWS on the development and implementation of
conservation measures to minimize or mitigate adverse effects to migratory birds.
4 -10 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the Navy's overall mitigation approach as well as specific mitigation
measures that would be implemented to minimize impacts to wetlands and other resources
during construction activities. Proposed mitigation activities for wetlands would also be
anticipated to mitigate impacts to floodplains.
5.2 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF WETLAND IMPACTS
The Navy investigated options to implement the Proposed Action in a way that would avoid
impacts to wetlands on the Range. Wetlands comprise much of the Range and the Navy impact
area is almost entirely comprised of wetlands. Section 2.3 discussed alternatives the Navy
considered to avoid wetland impacts. None of these options were feasible and, as a result, were
eliminated from further analysis.
The Navy then explored options to minimize the impacts to wetlands. The Navy's proposal
would provide the necessary training opportunities while allowing the range personnel to
complete maintenance in a safe and effective manner. The target design minimizes the amount
of fill required by using the smallest area necessary to fulfill the purpose and need. The City
Target is small enough to minimize the impacts to wetlands, while still allowing for flexible
placement of targets, thereby fulfilling operational needs. The turnarounds on each end of 3500
Foot Road are no larger than necessary to allow the MLTs to complete a circular, 180 degree
turn without impacts to training or performance. The Runway Complex maintenance road and
targets are designed to be no larger than required to maneuver maintenance equipment and place
targets.
Personnel at the Navy Range will adhere to all applicable Navy policies for handling hazardous
materials to help prevent spills. These policies are described in the Department of the Navy's
2013 Hazardous Materials Reutilization, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Disposal Guide.
The Navy will implement various management and administrative measures to reduce the
potential of a release of vehicular fluids during utilization of MLTs. Based on the training
scenario being conducted these measures could include but are not limited: utilizing specific
types of inert munitions, modifying attack profiles to reduce the potential for vehicular damage,
utilizing towed trailers as targets instead of the MLTs themselves, conducting training exercises
in specific areas, and utilizing minimal amounts of fuel and fluids to complete training events.
In the event a MLT were hit by a munition, and a release of fluids would occur, a site specific
spill response plan is in place and would be implemented to minimize impacts to the
environment. As a result of these efforts, an uncontrolled release of vehicular fluids is not
expected.
5 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION OPTIONS AND MITIGATION STRATEGY
As discussed in Section 5.2 the Navy implemented avoidance and minimization strategies to
offset impacts to wetlands. However, compensatory mitigations would still be required to
comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and to obtain a 401 Water
Quality Certification from the State of North Carolina. According to the USEPA (40 CFR §
230.93), compensatory mitigation is typically accomplished via one of the following three
mechanisms below, in order of preference:
1. Mitigation Banks: A permit applicant may obtain credits from a mitigation bank. A
mitigation bank is a wetland, stream or other aquatic resource area that has been
restored, established, enhanced or preserved. This resource area is then set aside to
compensate for future impacts to aquatic resources resulting from permitted activities.
The value of a bank is determined by quantifying the aquatic resource functions
restored, established, enhanced and/or preserved in terms of "credits ". Permittees, upon
approval from regulatory agencies, may obtain these credits to meet their requirements
for compensatory mitigation.
2. In -Lieu Fee Mitigation: A permit applicant may make a payment to an in -lieu fee
program that will conduct wetland, stream or other aquatic resource restoration, creation,
enhancement or preservation activities. In -lieu fee programs are generally administered
by government agencies or non - profit organizations that have established an agreement
with the regulatory agencies to use in -lieu fee payments collected from permit
applicants. In the case of the currently Proposed Action, because a mitigation bank is
available, in -lieu fee mitigation is not considered. If, however, no mitigation banks were
available, in -lieu fee mitigation would be the preferred mitigation option and the option
which the Navy would pursue.
3. Permittee- Responsible Mitigation: A permittee may be required to provide compensatory
mitigation through an aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement and/or
preservation activity. This compensatory mitigation may be provided at or adjacent to
the impact site (i.e., on -site mitigation) or at another location, usually within the same
watershed as the permitted impact (i.e., off -site mitigation). The permittee retains
responsibility for the implementation and success of the mitigation project. Because the
Air Force owns the Range and the Navy leases their space, on -site mitigation is not
practicable.
The Range is located within the Pamlico Sound Watershed (03020105). In 2011, the Navy
proposed efforts to enhance various target and storage areas on the Navy impact area. The Navy
submitted a permit application to the USACE and NCDENR for the fill of wetlands which
resulted in the Navy purchasing 7.434 credits in the Great Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank
LLC. Due to a range management decision, the Navy later decided not to construct the storage
area on West Target Road, resulting in an estimated 2.1 unused credits. All other aspects of the
Navy's proposed construction activities from the 2011 permit will be constructed as described.
For the Proposed Action, the Navy will use the remaining 2.1 credits towards mitigation. The
Navy will submit a permit application to the USACE and NCDENR to mitigate the remaining
5 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
impacts. Since the Navy received compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio via purchase of
wetlands credits through the Great Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank LLC for non - riparian
wetlands in 2011, the Navy anticipates the same ratio for the Proposed Action. However, the
final determination of mitigation ratios will be determined by the USAGE.
The Great Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank LLC (or another mitigation bank approved by the
USACE) will create new wetlands within the same watershed thus restoring the amount of
wetlands lost and retaining the integrity of the watershed. The approved mitigation bank will be
responsible for monitoring the wetlands created and ensure their long -term productivity.
An erosion and sediment control plan would be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies
for approval prior to beginning construction. No construction would occur until the erosion and
sediment control plan has been approved. All required erosion and sediment control measures
would be implemented for the duration of the construction activities. Upon completion of all
construction activities, all temporary erosion and sediment control measures would be removed
and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
5 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 6: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6.1 APPROACH
CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumulative impacts analysis within an EA should consider the
potential environmental impacts resulting from "the incremental impacts of the action when
added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or
person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR § 1508.7). CEQ guidance (Considering
Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act) in considering cumulative
impacts involves defining the scope of the other actions and their interrelationship with a
proposed action. The scope must consider overlaps in the location and timing of a proposed
action and other actions. It must also evaluate the nature of interactions among these actions.
Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergy exists between a
proposed action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time
period. Actions overlapping with, or in proximity to, a proposed action would be expected to
have more potential for cumulative impacts than those more geographically separated.
As discussed in the CEQ's Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental
Policy Act, to identify cumulative impacts the following fundamental questions need to be
addressed:
• Does a relationship exist such that affected resource areas of a proposed action might
interact with the affected resource areas of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
actions?
• If one or more of the affected resource areas of a proposed action and another action
could be expected to interact, would the proposed action affect or be affected by impacts
of the other action?
• If such a relationship exists, then does an assessment reveal any potentially significant
impacts not identified when a proposed action is considered alone?
The scope of the cumulative impacts analysis involves both the geographic extent of the impacts
and the timeframe in which the impacts could be expected to occur. It is possible that analysis of
cumulative impacts might go beyond the scope of the project - specific direct and indirect impacts
to include expanded geographic and time boundaries and a focus on broad resource
sustainability. This approach is becoming increasingly important as growing evidence suggests
that the most significant impacts result from the combination of individual, often minor, impacts
of multiple actions over time. The underlying issue is whether or not a resource can adequately
recover from the impact of an action before the environment is exposed to other action(s).
6.2 PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS
Various types of past and present actions have the potential to affect the resources identified in
Chapter 3. An overview of present and future actions is provided in the following sections with a
description of the activities that are relevant to the impact analysis in Chapter 4. Geographic
6 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
distribution, intensity, duration and the historical effects of activities are considered when
determining whether a particular activity may contribute cumulatively and significantly to the
impacts on resource areas identified in Chapter 4.
For this EA, a search was conducted to identify any past, present and future actions having the
potential for additive and/or interactive effects including any actions undertaken by the Navy and
Air Force, the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS, USACE Wilmington District,
Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), N.C. Natural Heritage
Program, N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C.
Division of Forest Resources (NCDFR), NCDENR and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Additionally, no private development /activities were identified. Those past,
present and future actions that have a potential for additive or interactive effects are summarized
below. The cumulative impacts of the past, present and future actions, in combination with the
impacts assessed for the proposed alternatives (Chapter 4) were then assessed.
• Air Operations at the Dare County Bombing Range (January 2008): In 2008, the Navy
completed an EA that analyzed the annual training activities at the Navy Range. On
average between 6,000 and 7,000 training activities occur on the Navy Range per year
between all of the military services. Training activities on the Navy Range include both
fixed -wing and rotary -wing operations. The Air Force also conducts training activities
using fixed -wing and rotary -wing aircraft on the Air Force Range. Based on current and
foreseeable training requirements, future range utilization is expected to similar to current
activities.
• Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan (March 2009): An EA
was completed in 2008 to undergo prescribed burns at the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge and determined that prescribed burns would have no significant impact
to the human or natural environment. The Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
consists of eight fire management units that encompass 148,694 burnable acres. These
fire management units undergo prescribed burns during a cycle of 3 -5 years to reduce
wildfire fuels, to maintain firebreaks and to support wildlife habitat. Prescribed burns
have occurred in the past and are expected to continue to occur on a 3 -5 year cycle at the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
• Bonner Bridge Replacement (December 2010): The Bonner Bridge Replacement Project
will replace the existing bridge over Oregon Inlet and provide for the long -term retention
of N.C. 12 between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe. In December of 2010 a Record of
Decision was signed by the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to replace the Bonner Bridge with a parallel bridge. Phase
I of the Bonner Bridge replacement is anticipated to be completed in 2016; however,
North Carolina Department of Transportation is unsure when construction will begin.
Additional phases of the project could occur up through 2060.
6 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
• Improvements to the Target Pads and Support Areas of the Navy Dare County Bombing
Range April 2011): An EA was completed in April 2011 to enlarge and harden existing
range storage areas and target pads to ensure better long -term sustainability for parts of
the Navy Range. The Navy received a Section 404 permit from the USACE for the
permanent fill of 7.434 acres of wetlands and a 401 Water Quality Certification from
NCDENR; however, the Navy will only permanently fill 5.252 acres due to a reduction in
the original design. The Navy started construction in 2013 and will complete
construction in 2014.
• Navy Shell Road Bridge at the Dare County Bombing Range (October 2013): In October
2013 a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) was completed to improve the existing bridge on
Navy Shell Road by replacing it with a prefabricated concrete bridge. The current bridge
has deteriorated reducing its load capacity. The new bridge will be constructed in the
exact location of the existing bridge. The existing bridge will be demolished in sections
and new sections will be constructed within the same footprint. Contractors will use the
existing road leading to and from the bridge as well as the reconstructed bridge sections
for placement of any equipment required to repair the bridge. There would be no
significant impacts from the bridge improvement and no additional footprint will occur
within the canal. Construction started in May 2014 and will be completed in August
2014.
• U.S. 64 Improvements Project for Tyrell and Dare Counties: In January 2012 a Draft EIS
was completed to widen a 27.3 -mile section of US 64 in Tyrell and Dare counties. The
Proposed Action is to widen the current two -lane road to a four -lane highway and replace
the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge across the Alligator River. The EIS analyzes 15 study
corridors, three bridge replacement alternatives and a No -Build Alternative. Portions of
this project are funded for construction in 2014; however, the entire project is not
currently funded.
6.3 DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
6.3.1 Air Quality
Present and foreseeable future activities would continue to generate emissions of criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gases, contributing to regional air pollution. The emissions associated
with the Proposed Action are extremely small in comparison to the total emissions produced in
North Carolina. Emissions are primarily from the movement of construction vehicles to and
from the Navy impact area to deliver materials, the movement of construction equipment to
improve the target areas and the use of the MLTs. The movements of these vehicles on public
roads would combine with other vehicular traffic but due to the small level of emissions
produced from the Proposed Action there would not be a significant cumulative impact to air
quality. The prescribed burns that occur every three to five years in the Refuge have been
occurring for years are a continuing action and impacts to air quality from these burns are not
significant. The construction activities associated with the Proposed Action, the improvements
to the target pads and support areas and the Navy Shell Road bridge improvement project would
occur intermittently over a short period of time. The construction associated with the North
6 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Carolina Department of Transportation bridge projects would occur over a longer duration but
the impacts to air quality would not be significant. Emissions associated with training activities
on the Navy Range are within the historical levels and do not significantly impact air quality.
Training operations at on the Air Force Range contribute similar amounts of emissions as the
Navy Range based on the scope of the mission. The Navy would operate three MLTs at a time
and the use of the MLTs would not significantly impact air quality. As a result, training
operations on the Air Force Range also do not have a significant impact to air quality. Taken
together, the combined emissions are not expected to create significant cumulative air quality
impacts because of the small amount of the emissions in relation to the total emissions produced
in North Carolina, as well as the short term and intermittent nature of the emissions when
associated with construction. These projects when considered together would not be anticipated
to affect the attainment status of Dare County under the Clean Air Act or prevent the county
from remaining in attainment. Thus, no cumulative impacts on air quality are anticipated.
Greenhouse gases would be expected to be emitted during the Proposed Action. Greenhouse
emissions from construction activities and operation of the MLTs would occur as a result of the
burning of fossil fuels to power the vehicles and construction equipment. Greenhouse gas
emissions would be minimal (630.70 metric tons /year) in comparison to the greenhouse gas
emission for the State of North Carolina (142.9 million metric tons [USEIA 2010]), and
construction emissions would be temporary in nature. Other present and future construction
projects would emit greenhouse gases along with vehicular traffic associated with daily
commuting. Greenhouse gas emissions are by nature global and cumulative. Given the
negligible and temporary nature of the combined impacts, there would be no significant
cumulative impact.
6.3.2 Water Resources
Present and foreseeable future activities in the waters surrounding the Range and the Refuge
would contribute to additional loss of wetlands. The Proposed Action would impact 4.29 acres
of wetlands through fill and secondarily impact 0.15 acres of wetlands due to habitat
fragmentation. The improvements to the target pads and support areas project will impact a total
of 5.252 acres of wetlands. These projects when combined only represent 0.02 percent of the
total acreage of the Range. The Navy Shell Road bridge improvement project would occur
within the footprint of the existing bridge and would not result in a cumulative impact. The
Bonner Bridge replacement is anticipated to impact 0.09 acres of coastal wetlands during the
first phase of the project which is anticipated to be completed in 2016. The remaining phases of
the project could impact as much as 50 acres of wetlands up to the year 2060 and must be
approved by the USAGE. The USACE would work with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to minimize /mitigate any impacts to wetlands prior to the remaining phase of
construction. The remaining phases of the project would require either a future EA or EIS which
would analyze the cumulative impacts to wetlands. The U.S. 64 improvements are proposing to
impact wetlands around the Refuge. Since that EIS is still a draft document and a Record of
Decision has not been signed the impacts of the project on wetlands are still under analysis;
however the current analysis suggests a potential impact of 10.26 acres of wetland in Dare
6 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
County. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will work with the USACE to obtain
a permit for the fill of wetlands associated with this project. These projects when considered
together would not be anticipated to affect the functionality of the watershed because any
impacts to wetlands within that watershed would require mitigation. Generally mitigation occurs
within the same watershed as the impacts so the overall functionality of the watershed is not
impacted. Thus, no cumulative impacts on water quality are anticipated.
6.3.3 Biological Resources
All present and future activities have the potential to generate localized impacts on wildlife. The
Proposed Action and the Navy Shell Road bridge improvement project would have minimal and
temporary impacts to native wildlife and vegetation. The Proposed Action in combination with
the improvements to the target pads and support areas project would only impact 0.02 percent of
the habitat on the Range and would likely occur in succession. The bridge improvement project
would occur within the existing footprint and would therefore not impact any additional habitat.
The prescribed burns within the Refuge can occur during any year and would impact wildlife and
their habitat; however, the intent of the prescribed burns is to improve overall habitat quality and
to prevent wildfires. The overall impact to native wildlife and vegetation would not be
significant. The North Carolina Department of Transportation bridge projects would occur over
several years (possibly starting in the 2014 timeframe) but they were both determined not to have
a significant impact on native wildlife or vegetation. The projects were designed to minimize
impacts. When combined, the impacts of all of these activities together would still only result in
localized impacts, thus there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wildlife or
vegetation.
The agencies responsible for conducting all present and future activities would be required to
coordinate with USFWS on impacts to threatened and endangered species. The Proposed Action
would have no effect on the red - cockaded woodpecker. The Navy Shell Road bridge
improvement project would have no effect on the red - cockaded woodpecker. The Refuge has
completed all necessary consultations associated with prescribed burns for impacts to federally -
listed species. The North Carolina Department of Transportation would consult with USFWS on
the impacts to federally - listed species for the U.S. 64 project. The project was designed to
minimize impacts to red - cockaded woodpecker habitat and studies are underway to identify
designs that would provide the safe crossing of U.S. 64 for the red wolf. The Bonner Bridge
replacement project would not impact these particular species because the impacts would be to
more coastal and marine species. When combined, the impacts of all of these activities together
would only result in localized impacts, minimization of impacts has been included in project
designs and consultation with USFWS would occur. Thus, it is anticipated that there would be
no significant cumulative impacts to federally - listed threatened and endangered species.
6 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6 -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 7: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY NEPA
Activities associated with the Proposed Action at the Range would comply with applicable
federal, state and local requirements with respect to the human environment. Section 7.1
discusses the consistency of the Proposed Action with other federal, state and local land use
plans, policies and objectives. Section 7.2 discusses the irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources. Section 7.3 discusses the relationship between short -term use of the
environment and long -term productivity.
7.1 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES
AND CONTROLS
The Navy adheres to all relevant laws and requirements applicable to its operations,
maintenance, and new construction activities. Table 7 -1 provides a comprehensive list, organized
by environmental resource, of federal and state environmental statutes, regulations and EOs
relevant to environmental analysis of the Proposed Action and, to a lesser extent, to the
supplemental analysis of environmental impacts. The table is followed by a more detailed
description of the applicable laws and regulations.
Table 7 -1 Summary of Applicable Statutes and Regulations
Regulation
Sourc
Air Quality
Clean Air Act of 1970 and Amendments of
1977 and 1990, including the General
Conformity Rule and the Greenhouse Gas
Rule
42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., as amended
Federal Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Performance
EO 13514
It Water Resources
Clean Water Act of 1972
33 U.S.0 § 1251 et seq., as amended
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
42 U.S.C. § 300
Protection of Wetlands
EO 11990
Floodplain Management
EO 11988
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 -4129 et seq., as amended
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 -4129 et seq., as amended
Section 438 of the Energy Independence 42 U.S.C. § 17094
and Security Act
Biological Resources
Endangered Species Act of 1973
16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 -1543
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
16 U.S.C. §§ 703 -712
Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
Protect Migratory Birds
EO 13186
7 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
eguation
I Source
Biological Resources (continued)
Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1977
16 U.S.C. § 670aa -670o, 74 Statute 1052
Invasive Species
EO13112
Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality
EO 11514
Conservation of Migratory Birds
Fish and Game Code § 2050, et seq.
Coastal Zone Management
The Coastal Zone Management act of 1972
Cultural
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended and 15
CFR §§ 921 -930
Resources
16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., as amended
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
of 1979
16 U.S.C. §§ 470a -11 et seq., as amended
7.1.1 Federal Actions, Executive Orders, Policies and Plans
7.1.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act
The Navy has prepared this EA to assess the environmental effects associated with the proposal
to improve /harden target areas and utilize MLTs as targets on the Navy Range. This EA was
prepared in accordance with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321- 4370d, as implemented by the CEQ
regulations, 40 CFR §§ 1500 -1508, and DoN regulations described in Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations Instruction M- 5090.ID.
7.1.1.2 Clean Air Act
The CAA of 1970 and subsequent amendments specify requirements for control of the nation's
air quality. Federal and state ambient air standards have been established for each criteria
pollutant. The 1990 amendments to the CAA require federal facility compliance with all
requirements for air pollution control to a similar extent as nongovernmental entities must
comply. Dare County is in attainment and as a result, General Conformity does not apply.
7.1.1.3 Coastal Zone Management
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended, 15 CFR §§
921 -930) provides assistance to states, in cooperation with federal and local agencies, for
developing land- and water -use programs in coastal zones. When a state coastal management
plan is federally approved, federal agencies proposing actions with the potential to affect the
state's coastal resources are subject to review under the CZMA Section 307 federal consistency
determination requirement. Section 307 mandates that "Federal actions within a state's coastal
zone (or outside the coastal zone, if the action affects land or water uses or natural resources
within the coastal zone) be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of the state coastal management plan" (16 U.S.C. § 1456[c][1][A]). Because North
Carolina has a federally approved Coastal Management Program, the Navy is required to
maintain compliance, to the maximum extent practicable, with Section 307 of the CZMA if the
7 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
federal action has the potential to affect coastal resources or uses on non - federal lands. Pursuant
to the CZMA (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended, 15 CFR §§ 921 -930), the term "coastal
zone" does not include "lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or
which is held in trust by the Federal Government" (16 U.S.C. § 1453[1]). Although the Range is
within North Carolina's designated coastal zone the Range is owned by the Air Force. Federal
land is excluded from the definition of coastal zone and thus exempt from North Carolina's
Coastal Management Program provided that impacts from the actions on the federal installation
do not leave the installation and affects any North Carolina coastal use or resource.
Pursuant to 15 CFR § 930.35, the Navy developed a Coastal Consistency Negative
Determination (CCND) under the CZMA (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., as amended, 15 CFR §§
921 -930) (see Appendix Q. The Range and the surrounding Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge are federal property. The impacts associated with the Proposed Action are expected to
stay within the Range boundary and would not impact coastal resources or uses outside of the
Range. The wildlife on the Range could migrate to the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
but since this is also federal property the potential impacts to wildlife would not affect coastal
resources and uses. As a result of the determination that the Proposed Action would not affect
any coastal resources or uses, the Navy submitted a CCND to the State of North Carolina on
March 11, 2014. The North Carolina Department of Coastal Management did not submit a
response to the Navy's CCND, and as a result, the Navy assumed concurrence.
7.1.1.4 Endangered Species Act
The ESA of 1973, as amended, requires that any action authorized by a federal agency shall not
jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. Section 7 of
the ESA requires that the responsible federal agency consult with USFWS concerning
endangered and threatened species under their jurisdiction that may be affected by a proposed
action.
Federally listed threatened and endangered species previously documented as occurring within
the Navy Range boundaries or in the immediate vicinity of the Range include the red - cockaded
woodpecker (Picoided borealis). The Navy concluded that there would be no effect to the red -
cockaded woodpecker.
7.1.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
All birds, with the exception of non - native species, that occur at the Navy Range are protected
under the MBTA and EO 13186, which directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative
effects on migratory birds, to protect their habitats, and to consider effects on migratory birds in
NEPA documents. The Navy concluded that there would be no adverse effects on migratory
birds as a result of the Proposed Action.
7 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
7.1.1.6 Bald and Golden Eagle protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §§ 668 -668d) prohibits anyone without a
permit, from "taking" bald eagles. "Taking" includes possessing or disturbing their body parts,
nests, or eggs; or disturbance that "substantially interferes with breeding, feeding, or sheltering
behavior or results in injury." The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take" an
eagle, its nest, or eggs. In accordance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the
Proposed Action would have no impact on bald eagles. The Navy concluded that no permit is
required under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
7.1.1.7 National Historic Preservation Act
The NHPA was passed in 1966 to provide for the protection, enhancement, and preservation of
those properties that possess significant architectural, archaeological, historical, or cultural
characteristics. Section 106 of the NHPA requires the head of any federal agency having direct
or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally financed undertaking, prior to the
expenditure of any federal funds on the undertaking, to take into account the effect of the
undertaking on any historic property. There are no known archaeological sites or structures
located on the Range, including the Navy impact area. The Navy provided written
correspondence to the North Carolina SHPO on April 1, 2014 to reconfirm the SHPO's
conclusion stated in the August 6, 1996 letter stating no archaeological resources are located on
the Range. On May 13, 2014 the North Carolina SHPO concurred with the Navy's
determination that no historic properties will be affected by the Proposed Action.
7.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
NEPA (42 USC § 4332 Section 102(2)(C)(v) as implemented by CEQ regulation 40 CFR
1502.16) requires an analysis of significant, irreversible effects resulting from implementation of
a Proposed Action. Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are
those that are typically used on a long -term or permanent basis; however, those used on a short-
term basis that cannot be recovered (e.g., non - renewable resources such as metal, wood, fuel,
paper, and other natural or cultural resources) also are irretrievable. Human labor is also
considered an irretrievable resource. All such resources are irretrievable in that they are used for
a project and, thus, become unavailable for other purposes. An impact that falls under the
category of the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is the destruction of natural
resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that resource.
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a less than significant irreversible
commitment of building materials; vehicles and equipment used during the potential target
improvements. Energy (electricity and natural gas) and fuel consumption, as well as demand for
services, would not increase significantly as a result of the implementation of the Proposed
Action. The commitment of these resources would be undertaken in a regular and authorized
manner and does not present significant impacts within this EA.
7 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
7.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT -TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and
the impacts that such use could have on the maintenance and enhancement of long -term
productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the
environment are of particular concern. Such impacts include the possibility that choosing one
alternative could reduce future flexibility to pursue other alternatives, or that choosing a certain
use could eliminate the possibility of other uses at the site.
Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any environmental impacts that
would narrow the range of beneficial uses of the project site or vicinity. The Proposed Action
would not represent a new short-term use and would not impact the productivity of the natural
environment. In addition, biological productivity would not be affected as implementation of the
Proposed Action would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to any
biological resources.
7 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7 -6 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 8: LIST OF PREPARERS
In accordance with OPNAV M- 5090.11), this section lists the names and qualifications
(expertise /experience, professional disciplines) of the persons who were primarily responsible
for preparing the EA. Where possible, the persons who are responsible for a particular analysis,
including analyses in background papers and basic components of the EA, are identified. This
EA was prepared by:
Kelly Proctor (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic)
M.S., Biology
B.S., Biology
Project Manager, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
Taylor Priest (Naval Facilities Engineering Command)
B.S., Engineering
Air Quality calculations
8 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES
Audubon. 2013a. Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis). Available online:
http: // birds .audubon.org /species/blarai (Accessed: December 16, 2013).
Audubon. 2013b. Little Blue Heron (Egretta caer ulea). Available online:
http: //birds.audubon.org /species /litblu (Accessed: December 16, 2013).
Audubon. 2013c. Gull - billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica). Available online:
http : //birds.audubon.org/species/ ug lter (Accessed: December 16, 2013).
Audubon. 2013d Snowy Egret (Egretta thula). Available online:
http: //birds.audubon.org /species /snoeg_r (Accessed: December 16, 2013).
Birdnature.com. 2010. North American Migration Flyways. Available online:
http://www.birdnature.com/flyEgys.html (Accessed: January 7, 2010).
Boice, L. Peter. 1996. Endangered Species Management on Air Force Lands, Endangered
Species. Available online: http: / /www.umich.edu/—esupdate /library /96.09/boice2.html
(Accessed: December 16, 2013).
Brown, B.T., G.S. Mills, C. Powels, W.A. Russell, G.D. Therres and J.J. Pottie. 1999. The
Influence of Weapons- Testing Noise on Bald Eagle Behavior. Journal of Raptor
Research. 33(3): 227 -232.
California Department of Transportation (CA DOT). 2009. Guide for Designing Subgrade
Enhancement Geotextiles. April 28, 2009.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. Peterson Field Guides Reptiles and Amphibians, Third
Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
Dare County. 1992. Investigation and Predictive Modeling of Water Quality Changes Within
the Yorktown Aquifer, Dare County, North Carolina vol. I). Available online:
http: / /www.darenc. com/ water / Papers /YorktownAguiferVol. l - Missimer l 992.pdf
(Accessed: October 2, 2009).
Delaney, D.K., L.L. Pater, R.J. Dooling, B. Lohr, B.F. Brittan- Powell, L.L. Swindell, T.A.
Beaty, L.D. Carlilr, E.W. Spadgenske, B.A. MacAllister and R.H. Melton. 2002.
Assessment of Training Noise Impacts on the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker: 1998 -2000.
US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. November
2002.
Department of Defense (DoD). 2006. Legacy Resource Management Program, Natural
Selections, Legacy Project Highlight of the Month, Legacy Project 01 -67: Monitoring
and Management of a Sensitive Resource: A Landscape -Level Approach with
Amphibians, July 2006, Volume 2, Issue 7
9 -1 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Department of the Navy (DoN). 2008. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental
Assessment. January 2008.
DoN. 2011. Improvements to the Target Pads and Support Areas of the Navy Dare County
Bombing and Electronic Combat Range, North Carolina. April 2011.
Dorcas, M.E. 2004. A Guide to the Snakes of North Carolina. Davidson College, Herpetology
Laboratory. Available online:
http: / /www.bio.davidson.edu /projects /hep2cons /herps of nc /snakes /Sempyg /Sem pyg.ht
ml (Accessed: December 2009).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013. Definitions of FEMA Floodzones.
Available online:
https: / /msc.fema. gov /webilpp /wcs/ stores /servlet /info ?storeld =10001 &catalogld =10001 &1
an Ig d-
1 & content= floodZones& title= FEMA% 2520Flood %252OZone %252ODesignations
(Accessed: December 12, 2013).
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). 2010. Record of Decision for the NC 12 Replacement of the Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge. December 2010.
Finlayson, M., and M. Moser. 1991. Wetlands. International Waterfowl and Wetlands
Research Bureau, Oxford, UK.
Grover, Jennifer. 1996. Cultural Resources survey of the Dare County Ordnance Range,
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, AL.
March 1996.
Laerrm, J., B.R. Chapman and W.M. Ford. 2005. Star -nosed Mole, The
Land Manager's Guide to Mammals of the South, The Nature Conservancy, pp. 49 -52
Manning, P. 2004. North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Audubon North Carolina — Important Bird
Areas of North Carolina.
Montgomery, Robert. 2014. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Environmental Program
Manager - Personal Communication on Red - cockaded Woodpecker Nesting locations at
the Dare County Bombing and Electronic Combat Range. February 16, 2014.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). 2012. North Carolina Soil Survey, GIS metadata. .Available online:
http: / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda /-gov /app /websoilsurvey.aspx (Accessed: November 21,
2013).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2005. Supplemental to the Bonner
Bridge Replacement SDEIS. September 2005.
9 -2 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 2009. MapFldHazAr
(Flood Hazard Polygons), Dare County, NC, GIS metadata.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2013a.
Available online: http: / /www.ncop.org /web /nhp /database - search (Accessed:
November 15, 2013).
NCDENR. 2013b. Water Quality — Classification and Standards Unit: Classifications.
Available online: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq/�s /csu /classifications (Accessed:
November 19, 2013).
NCDENR. 2013c. National and State (NC) Ambient Air Quality Standards. North Carolina
Division of Air Quality. Available online:
http: / /daq.state.nc.us /monitor /data /stand_tab.shtml (Accessed: December 10, 2013).
North Carolina Floodplain Map Program (NCFMP). 2009. Floodplain Mapping Information
System, GIS metadata.
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2009. Available online:
http: / /www.mnh.si.edu /mna /image infocfm ?species _ id =50 (Accessed: January 21,
2010).
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005. Available online:
http: / /www.dnr.sc.gov /cwcs /pdf/Marshbird_rgoup.pdf (Accessed: October 15, 2009).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y -87 -1 (on -line
edition). January 1987 — Final Report.
USACE and NCDOT. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US 64
Improvement Project. January 2012.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1995. Ecosystem Survey of Dare County Air Force Range North
Carolina.
USAF 1998. Cultural Resources Management Plan for Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Dare
County Bombing Range, Fort Fisher Air Force Recreation Area. April 1998.
USAF. 2000. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Dare County Bombing Range. Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan, Dare County Air Force Range, North Carolina,
Environmental Assessment.
USAF. 2004. Final Environmental Assessment. Proposed Construction of a Simulated Gravel
Runway Complex, Expended Ordnance Storage Area and Target Pad Expansions.
9 -3 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
USAF. 2007. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Endangered Species Management Plan for the
Red - cockaded Woodpecker Dare County Bombing Range, North Carolina.
USAF. 2008. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Dare County Bombing Range.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, North Carolina. July 2008.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Wildlife Species: Haliaeetus leucocephalus.
Available online: http: / /www.fs.fed.us/ database / feis /animals/bird/hale /all.html
(Accessed: December 16, 2013).
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2010. North Carolina State Energy
Profile. Data from 1980 -2010, the release date was January 31, 2013.
United States Environmental protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). October 2011. Available online:
http: / /www.epa.gov /air /criteria.html (Accessed: January 6, 2014).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Factsheet.
Available online:
http: / /www.fws.gov/ southeast /pubs /facts /pldcon.pdf (Accessed: December 16, 2013).
USFWS. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded Wood
pecker (Picoides Borealis): Second Revision, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,
Georgia.
USFWS. 2007. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) 5 Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Red Wolf Recovery Program Office,
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Manteo, North Carolina. September 2007.
USFWS. 2008. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
August 2008.
USFWS. 2009. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan. March 2009.
USFWS. 2012. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and
Candidate Species, Dare County, North Carolina. Available online:
http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /cnlylist /dare.html (Accessed: November 15, 2013).
USFWS. 2013a. Red Wolf Recovery Program 3 Quarter Report July- September 2013
USFWS. 2013b. Endangered Species Glossary. July 2013. Available online:
http: / /www.fws.gov /endangered/about/ lg ossary html (Accessed: December 13, 2013).
USFWS. 2013c. USFWS Red Wolf Recovery program. What is a Red Wolf? November 2013.
Available online: http: / /www.fws.gov /redwolf /naturalhistory.html (Accessed: December
13, 2013).
9 -4 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
USFWS. 2013d. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Bird List. Available online:
http: / /www.fws.gov/ southeast /pubs /AllijzatorRbirds.pdf (Accessed: December 13,
2013).
USFWS. 2013e. Birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. December 2013. Available
online: http: / /www.fws. og v /mi rg aton birds/RegulationsPolicies /mbta /mbtandx.html #w
(Accessed: December 18, 2013).
Watts, B.D. and B.J. Paxton. 2002. Investigating the distribution, population status, habitat
requirements of the Wayne's Black- throated Green Warbler in the northern South
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series.
CCBTR- 02 -08. College of William and Mary. Williamsburg, Virginia. 21 pp.
9 -5 July 2014
Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9 -6 July 2014