20110762 Ver 2 - Final_EA_Improvements_to_the_Targets_at_DCBR_July_30_2014_Appendices - 9/24/2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX A
INTER - SERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENT
Appendix A July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
SUPPORT AGREEMENT
1. AGREEMENT NUMBER
2. SUPERSEDED AGREEMENT NO.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)
EXPIRATION DATE
(Pnrvi(h+d by Suppho")
(If M& rxrylnce_r naarh_ afrrurnrenfJ
14.
Wlay f "lrrdefrniPx "J
FB4809- - W.
FR4809- 99048 -011
Indefinite
5. SUPPLYING ACTIVITY
6. RECEIVING ACTIVITY
a. NAME AND ADDRESS
e• NAME AND ADDRESS
41.h Figliter Wing POC: MT. Fink Jay A.
I-'A(,SFA(. VACAVE$(Dare Cc1un(y Kange)POC,CDR. Jeff Blake
1280 Humphreys SL Voice: (919) 722 -3127
Commanding Officer VOICE: 757- 433 -1200
Seymour Johnson AFB Goldsboro NC, 27531 Fax: [phone]
601 Oceana Blvd, Fax.: 757 - 433 -1266
E -mail: 4 1rs .lgrdxa_seymourioluisorLafrnil
Virginia Beac11, VA 23,160 E -mail: je8'[e-mail]
b. MAJOR COMMAND
b. MAJOR COMMAND
Air Combat Command (ACC)
United States Fleet Fomes Command (USFF)
7. SUPPORT PROVIDED BY SUPPLIER
a. SUPPORT (,3p.,ify -1 f, wh—, -h.-, ­11—— ­h)
b. BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT
r. ESTIMATED REIMBURSEMENT
AIRFI.D OPS
Total F.st Reimbursement
$550,000.00
CIV PIRS
COMM
Total Est Non-Reimbursement
$0.0( 1
COMMON INFA
EN V1R CLEAN
FNVIR COMPLY
BOD
FACIL CONSTR
FACIL REPAIR
FTRF.
FUNDING
GFOI)F.,TIC SPT
LEGAL
Vi ORTIJARY
PURL AFFF'AL S
SF.,CIJRITY
SUPPLY
WEATHER
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED' X( YES
NO
S. SUPPLYING COMPONENT
9. RECEIVING COMPONENT
a COMPTROLLER SIGNATURE
b. DATE SIGNED
a. COMPTROLLER SIGNATURE
b. DATE SIGNED
SW - XZAY.JI~;NNII'L grsnnaxmmmrt m,�,n ,
I.LY'N.I093I3871 r =; �,5"rorno
210:3041.5
c. APPROVING AUTHORITY
c. APPROVING AUTHORITY
(1) TYPED NAME
(1) TYPED NAME
DR-ENT P. MOO -AN, Col, USAF
(2) ORGANIZATION
(3) TELEPHONE NUMBER
(21 ORGANIZATION
(3) TELEPHONE NUMBER
4 MSGICC
(919) 722- I]I(71
(4) SIGNATURE
777GNED
(4) SIGNATURE
(5) DATE SIGNED
10_ TERMINATION (CWolAw. -IV w)rrsrr aV­ nr is tti n; urrad p,;n rn vr:h.rrrluhrrl x plrar;rn da rx./
a. APPROVING AUTHORITY SIGNATURE
b. DATE SIGNED
C. APPROVING AUTHORITY SIGNATURE
d. DATE SIGNED
DD FORM 1144, NOV 2001
PRFVIOUS FDITION MAY FIF USFO. Reset 11AOra 1 (It .4 11agRS
Add be f'refeswnd 7
Appendix A A -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
11. GENERAL PROVISIONS (Complete blank spaces and acid additional general provisiot7s as appropriate: e.g., exceptions to printed'
pruvisians, udditiorral purtics to this agreement, billing and rcyrnGw5ement instructions.)
a. The receiving components will provide the supplying GUInpurxarnt projections of requested support. fSigrrifieunt changes in the
receiving corrrpwrent's support regL dremenm should be submitted to the supplying component in a manner that will permit
timely modifiention of resowee requirements.)
b. It is Ihrr ro%punsihility of tiro supplying r:omptlnrzrrl to hying any w(luiwd or roquestrxi chnrxju in support to the attention of
Commanding Officer, FAC:SFAC: VAC:AYE,S prior to changing or cancelling support.
c. The component pruvidirtg reimbursable support in this agreement will submit statements of costs to:
4 CFTS/F`NiA 1600 Wright brothers Ave. Bldg 3010, S]A.1�13 A.FB, NC 27531
d. All rates expressing the unit cost of services provided in this agreement are based on current rates which may be subject to
change for unr:ontrollable IOSSOrIS, such as legislation, DuD directives, and commercial utility rate increases. The receiver will be
notified immediately of such rate changes that must be passed through to the support receivers.
o. This ngonomoni may be cancelled al any limo by mutual consent of the parties concernexi. This agreement may also be
cancelled by either party upon giving at least 180 days written notice ro the other party.
f. In case of mobilization or other omorgenr..y, this agreement will remain in force only within supplier's capabilities.
g. A manpower annex is/is not required.
_ / /SIGN E D /ILH13 -2 6-13 //
JAM ES I,. 1IORNAGE, G!5 12
Chief, Manpower & Organization Flight
It. This support agreement has been reviewed for environmental compliance impact.
//Signed/&a/4/29/l311
DONALD R. ABR AMS, GS -13
Chief, Asset Mgt Flight
i. A legal review ofthis support agreement. was accomplished and is legally sufficient.
/)SIGNI D / /jbl 13 May 13_
JAMES B. LEIGrHTON, Capt
Chief; Legal Assistance
ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS ATTACHED: I I YES I X I NO
12. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS JAs appropriate: e.g„ iocation and size of occupied facilities, urmque supplier and receiver responsibiirties,
conditions, requirements, quality standards, and criteria for measurement /reim6errsemer7t of unique requirements.)
a. MISSION S'1'A'1'1-:MIENT: Rcnnbing support for NA.S Clceana attack aircraft, reserve aircraft, Air farce and Air Nafional Guard Lmcra 11.
b. A security review of this ag-roarrrent was accomplished and meets security requirements.
_ /ISIGN[A)IJIm/117 May 13`
JUSTIN T. MENDYGRAL, TSgt
4 SFSIS5P
r_ rnr��rn .►_��x�xyl�r+ia:ra +►r�rrn� r�_r�r_�.taa.��_'a�xa���� r.�
DD FORM 1144, NOV 2001 Reset page 2 of 3 Pages
Appendix A A -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX B
WETLANDS CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
Appendix B July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WETLAND HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
.NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE
IMPACT AREA
PREPARED FOR:
PARSONS, INC.
NORFOLK, VA
PREP.%.RFD RY:
CEO -NI. %RIME, INC.
HaM>'TON, VA
MAL
APRHl 2007
Appendix B B -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Appendix B B -2 July 2014
%Y FTI.AND HABITAT CHAR AM:RIZAI IL I^.
N,%YY DAKI L of \TV LkIKIBIN {i RANUV IMPAC-T Aki 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa_e
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. ............................1 -1
2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT ............................................................... ............................... 2 -1
3.0 EXISTING
CONDITIONS ............................................................... ............................3 -1
3.1
Geology and Soils ........................................................ ............................3
-1
3.2
Hydrology .................... .. ..................................... .... .. ... .. ... .. ... .................. 3 -1
33
Water Quality ............................................. .............. ......... ..... ........... .......
3 -1
3.4
Vegetation Types within and Adjacent to the NUCBR Impact Area......
3 -4
3.43
National Vegetation Classification Standard Plant Community
Al liances............... ......... .............. ------- ...... .,....,......... ,....,....,............ ., ...
.,. 3 -4
3.4.2
N©nriverine Wet Hardwood Forest .......................... ...............................
3 -5
3.4.3
Nonriverine Swamp Forest ....................................... ...............................
3 -5
3.44
Low Pocosin ....... .. ........ .. ... .. .................... - .... ............................. ..........
.... 3 -7
3.4.5
Nigh Pocosin ............................................................. ...............................
3 -7
3.4.6
Pond Pine Woodl and ................................................ ...............................
3 -7
3.4.7
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest ...................... ...............................
3 -8
3.4.8
Bay Forest ................................................................. ...............................
3 -8
3.4.9
Coastal Freshwater Marsh...... ......................................................... ......
3 -8
3.5
Wildlife Use ................................................................. ............................3
-9
3.5.1
Mammals ...................................................................... ............................3
-9
3.5.2
Birds.. .... ..................................................................................................
3-9
3.5.3
Reptiles andAmphibians ......................................... ...............................
3 -10
4.0 WETLANDS EVALUATION .......................................................... ............................4 -1
4.1
Wetland Functions Ratings and Analysis .................... ............................4
-1
4.2
Results .......................................................................... ............................4
-7
5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................... .. ............ .. .................... .. ...............
5 -1
Tahlc ur CCwlrnls
i
Appendix B B -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WETLAND HABITAT CHAPACTERt2ATI ©N
NAVY DARE CoufNTY BomaiNG RANGE IMPACT AREA
FIGURES
Pig
Figure 3 -1. Dare County Bombing Range General Location ... ........ ... ...... -- ............ 3 -2
Figure 3 -2. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Impact Area Soils ............... ........... 3 -3
Figure 3 -3. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Impact Area Alliances ................... 3 -6
Figure 4 -1. Natty Dare County Bombing Range NC -CREWS Overall Wetland
FunctionalRating ....... .. .... ........... .......................... ........................................................... 4 -9
TABLES
Paste
Table 3 -1. Characteristics of Soils and Hydrology Within the Impact area, at Navy
Dare County Bombing Range... .................................... - ......................... 3-4
Table 4 -1. NC- CREWS Evaluation of Parameters ....................... ............................4 -2
Table 4-2. Types of Vegetation Cover in the Impact Area at Navy Dare County
BombingRange..... ............... ...................... .......................... .......... ... - 4 -7
Tabie of Contents
Appendix B B -3 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
N­,1 1 : Cui... .
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Dare County Bombing Range (DCBR) is a 46,000 -acre joint Air Force/Navy weapons range
located on the Albemarle- Pamlico peninsula on the eastern coast of North Carolina. The range is
surrounded by the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Through an Inter- Scrvice
Support Agreement, the Navy uses and maintains approximately 23,000 acres at DCBR, a 2,500 -
acre portion of which comprises the Navy Dare county Bombing Range (NDCBR) impact area.
The impact area currently supports a variety of air -to- ground training exercises including
electronic combat operations, bombing, and strafing. Authorized ordnance includes inert bombs
up to 2,000 Ibs, lasers, and ball ammunition. No explosive ordnance is authorized to be dropped
an NDCBR.
With the exception of the roads, buildings and parking areas, DCBR is comprised of wetland and
open water habitats. The wetland communities within the DCBR region have historically
included pond pine (Pines serorina) woodlands, evergreen shrub pocosins, Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaectparis rhyoides) swamps, and bald cypress -swamp tupelo (Taxodium disrrchum-
Ntissa h?flora) forests (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Vegetation in the impact area however, is
maintained through periodic mowing and prescribed fire to improve visibility and safety and now
includes vast areas of freshwater marsh and low pocosin habitats. Road construction and
vegetation clearing for the NDCBR was originally conducted in the mid 1960s.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1251 -1387, discharge of dredge and
fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, is prohibited unless a permit is
issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Activities requiring a permit include
dredging, filling, or discharging pollutants or otherwise altering the physical, chemical, or
biological properties of surface waters; and any disturbance to the soil or substrate (bottom
material) of a wetland or waterbody, including a stream bed, is an impact and may adversely
affect the hydrology of an area. A permit is required whether the work is permanent or
temporary. A pre- application consultation or informal meeting with the USACE during the early
planning phase of a project may be used to determine if a permit will be required.
In addition, Section 401 of the C%1 A requires Federal agencies to obtain a water quality certificate
from the state For any action requiring a federal license or permit. A state General Certification
must be issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) in order for USACE
permits to be valid. In North Carolina, a joint prc- construction notification application is used for
the 404 and 401 permit process.
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 USC §1451 ct seq., encourages states to
preserve, protect, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable coastal resources such as
wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, harrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as fish
and wildlife. In North Carolina, the Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) carries out the
state's Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA). The coastal zone in North Carolina encompasses
20 coastal counties including Marc County (North Carolina Department of Environment and
N.iwi,d Rcsuutcea [1CDh.NK1 2UU7). CANIA rL:bulsl+ufts U441,11N Ilia' Ldcra.' ;)gCJ1dC&
Appendix B B -4 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WULAND HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE IMPACT AREA
coordinate with the DCM on activities with the potential to impact the coastal zone as established
by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (NCCRC). Under CAMA, federal
agencies must submit consistency determinations to the DCM for review prior to engaging in any ?
activities that can reasonably affect a coastal resource including. actions that require USACE
wetland permits and expansion of military operations and facilities (NCDCM 2007).
Additional protection is provided under CAMA to designated Areas of Environmental Concern
(AECs), which include important coastal resources that are sensitive to development. AECs have
set rules for managing development and require special LAMA permits. DCBR does not meet
AEC criteria and would not require a CAMA permit for planned or future actions.
1 -2 Introduction
Appendix B B -5 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to characterize and evaluate the wetland habitats that occur within
the NDCBR impact area. This study was conducted for Parsons, Inc. by Geo-Marinc, Inc. (GMI)
under Subcontract No. 743586 - 60044. In this habitat characterization, GMI has assessed wetland
functions using the North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NC-
CREWS) evaluation system. GMI has also provided a characterization of wetland cover types
within the Navy Dare County Bombing Range impact area, where existing GIS data were lacking,.
Products of both the NC -CREWS evaluation and the wetland characterization were incorporated
into GIS data coverages provided by Seymour Johnson AFB.
NC -CREWS was created by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural [Resources
to provide a more thorough accounting of wetland functions than previous methods that simply
used spatial calculations to determine replacement ratios. The NC -CREWS system assesses a
variety of wetland functions. These functions include terrestrial wildlife habitat, nonpoint source
pollution reduction, and floodwater storage capability. A series of parameters for each function
are combined to give each wetland unit an overall rating for each function. Wetlands are rated as
High. Medium, or Low for each function under consideration. This model also looks at sites that
could be converted to wetlands, thus aiding in both assessment and mitigation processes. To
satisfy mitigation requirements, the functional ratings must be calculated for the impacted area as
well as the proposed mitigation site. This would ensure the mitigation wetlands satisfy all
functional requirements of the impacted wetland.
_' -1
Appendix B B -6 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
1" f II- MITATCHARACCRIl.ATION
I ,6B1NG RANGE lmPACr ARL•A
3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Geology and Soils
The DCBR is located on the Albemarle- Pamlico peninsula in the Atlantic Coastal Plain of North
Carolina. The Albemarle - Pamlico peninsula is bounded by the Alligator River to the west,
Albemarle Sound to the north, and Creatan and Pamlico sounds to the east (Figure 3 -1). The
Albemarle- Pamlico peninsula is on the Pamlico Terrace, which is characterized by low, flat
terrain that varies in elevation from a few inches to a few feet above sea level. Elevations within
the impact area vary only slightly and arc between 0 and 5 feet above mean sea level. The lowest
portion of the NDCBR occurs in the northwest block and highest areas are in south and southeast
blocks.
The Pamlico Terrace was formed during the Quatemary Period when a thin layer of marine sands,
sandy loams, and shell marl beds was deposited by retreating seas (North Carolina Geological
Survey 1998). During the past 10,000 years, peat has been forming under swamp forests,
pocosins, and marshes, in blocked drainages, Carolina bays, and river floodplains (Moore and
Ladcrman n.d.). Soils of the Pamlico Terrace are primarily comprised of undivided surficial
deposits of sand, clay, and gravel. Deposits of peat occur in marine, fluvial, and lacustrine
environments (North Carolina Geological Survey 199$),
Soils in the impact area are Pungo muck, Belhaven muck, Ponzer muck, and Roper muck; all of
which are listed as hydric soils on the National List of Hydric soils (Natural Resources
Conservation Scrvicc 2007) (Table 3 -1; Figure 3 -2). The depth of organic soil layers over
mineral soil layers has a tremendous influence on the potential uses of the land. In general, the
greater the muck depth the less suited the soil is for crop production or development activity.
3.2 Hydrology
The water table level is within one foot of the surface year -round and flooding is considered rare
in Pungo, Belhaven, Ponzer, and Roper muck soils (Taut 1992). Hydrology within the impact
area is influenced by a series of trenches and canals that transport water northwestward from the
impact area to Milltail Creek and eventually to the Alligator River. Perimeter Road creates a
barrier to surface water flow into and out of the impact area, however culverts that pass under the
road at the extreme south end and along the north end allow for some water movement into and
out of the impact area. Water flow can be manually blocked, either totally or partially, at these
culverts, which serves to regulate flash surface flow into the impact area. As a whole the ditch -
canal system serves to regulate surface flow in the impact area and can be manipulated to create
somewhat drier conditions than are present in surrounding areas, as required.
3.3 Water Quality
There are no National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharge
into waters on DCBR. In addition, no waters are listed as impaired by the state of North Carolina
that drain from the north side of DCBR and the impact area (NC Division of Water Quality
2006).
Appendix B B -7 July 2014

Improvements to Tarqets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WETLAND HABITAT CHARACTERI%ATtON
NAV Y DAR F. COUNTY Rom HINO RANCE IMPACT AREA
d Phgarur
Riivr
- 1Ihermarle
S�rund
`tl Y Y
\ Gramm
--Z44Y Sound
SM Urger
i - rmpeetArm L
�I
rr bans County
J BOfnbkV Range •.�
J �
f F'cir+tlfcp
i sound
Pigurs 3-1. Dare County Bombing Range General Location
Existing Conditions
3 -2
Appendix B B -8 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
W1.1L.i1I)H NMI AI C"ARACTFRIZATION
NAvy DART: COUNTY Bo%inixti RANGE IMPACT AREA
Figure 3 -2. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Impact Area SON
F.xisling Conditions
Appendix B B -9 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
W ETLANb HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANrE IMPACT AREA
Table 3 -1. Characteristics of Soils and Hydrology within the Impact area, at Navy Dare
County Bombing Range
Surface Water Table Flooding Hydrologic
Series Texture Muck Depth Depth Frequency Group
Pungo Muck fay" 0 -1' Rare D
Belhaven Muck 45" 0-1' Rare C or D
Ponaer Muck 30" 0-1' Rare D
Roper Muck 10" 0 -1' Rare D
3.4 Vegetation Types within and Adjacent to the NDCBR Impact Area
The land area immediately adjacent to the impact area is forested and in various stages of timber
management. Tracts recently harvested have been allowed to re -grow from existing stump- sprout
and seed sources. Forest types that occur are generally referred to as bottomland hardwood
forest, Atlantic white cedar, and bay forests. The impact area is maintained as early successional,
herbaceous -shrub growth by prescribed fire and mechanical methods. Occasional accidental fires
also start from ignitions caused by bombing activity. Continued maintenance of the area over the
past 40 to 50 years has converted the impact area from evergreen pocosin communities to
freshwater marsh or saturated herbaceous communities. Currently, much of the herbaceous areas
are intermixed with evergreen and deciduous shrub and sapling growth in various sized clumps
and densities, effectively creating a diversity of savanna -like plant communities across the
interior impact area landscape.
3.4.1 National Vegetation Classification Standard Plant Community Alliances
The National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) was approved by the Federal
G"g[aphic D.Aw Ctniuruttcc (FODC : 047) as the standard mcd W ui claasilyilig �C60,iijui1 ft„
all federal agencies. The standard has been implemented by the National Park Service, National
Biological Information Infrastructure, the Nature Conservancy, and other federal agencies to map
vegetative communities at national parks and on other federal properties. A habitat classification
based on the NVCS was conducted at DCBR in 2404. The habitat classification identified plant
communities outside the impact area to the "Alliance" level of the NVCS. The NDCBR impact
area, however, was designated as "Administrative ", and not given a community classification. In
order to assess the functional value of the wetland communities within the impact area, GMI
assigned NVCS classification through aerial photo interpretation and field verification of the
unclassified areas.
Vegetative community types found at DCBR are described here by common name. Habitat
descriptions are adapted from L'fassifrcalion of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
Existing Conditions 3-4
Appendix B B -10 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
%% J' ­­1:, ,1411 'A :HARAcrr.ki, l
% Y UA RE COL,%I Y fit.lM li! tit. KA.NtiE IM PAL i Atti
(Shafale and Weakly 1990), The community alliances of the NVCS are also given. Alliance
name are taken from NatureServe (2007). The NVCS alliances are spatially depicted in Figure 3-
3.
3.4.2 Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
[NVCS Alliance: Nyssa Mora - Acer rubrum - (Liriodendron iulipifera) Saturated Forest
Alliance]
These are forests in poorly drained interstreann flats with fine- textured mineral soils and arc not
associated with rivers or estuaries. They typically occur on the margins of large peatland areas.
The hydrology is Palustrine, seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables, poor drainage,
and/or by sheet flow from adjacent pocosins. Vegetation typical includes an ovcrstory composed
of laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swcngum (Liquidambar styraciva), red maple (Aces
rubrum), and swamp tupelo. The understory includes species such as American hombeam
(Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), and pawpaw (Asimina
triloba). The shrub layer is generally sparse to moderate but may be dense. Species include
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), redbay (Persea palustris), coastal dogbobblc (Leucathoe
axdlaries), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantean), and
American bcautyberry (Callicarpa americana). Vines such as crossvine (Bignonia
capreolata), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),
Alabama supplejack (Berchemia scandens), and grape (Vitis spp.) may be common. The herb
layer may include sedge (Carex spp.), lizard's tail (Saururus cernutis), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrical), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), common ladyfern (Athyrium ftlix-
femina), and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens).
3.4.3 Nonriverine Swamp Forest
(NVCS Alliance: Pinus taeda - Chamaecyparis thyoides - Acer rubrum - Nyssa biflora Saturated
Forest Alliance]
These aic soot, very puurly druincd uplai:d fluls tuitl peat dcpusits wish laic ri hwial killut i`iuin
overland or tidal flooding. The hydrology is Palustrine, seasonally or frequently saturated or
shallowly flooded by high water table. The canopy may have varying mixtures of bald cypress
(Taxodium disrichum), pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens), swamp tupelo, loblolly pine (Pinus
iaeda), pond pine, Atlantic white cedar, and red maple. The understory is open to dense and
includes sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), swampbay (Persea polustris), titi (Cyrilla
racemijlara), fetterbush (Lyonio lucida), sweet pepperbush, blueberry (Vaccini'um spp.), and
laurel grccnbricr (Smilax laurifolia). Typical herbs include Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia
virginica), netted chainfem, sedge species, and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp).
ExislinL Cunditiona
Appendix B B -11 July 2014

Improvements to Tarqets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
W12TLAND HABITAT CHOA..RA('TF..RIZATION
WAVY DARI-.CDUNTY HO.M81NLt RANGL IMPACT AREA
HABITAT CHARAC I RIZATION OF THE NAVY TARGET ZONE
DARE Cowry y BOMBING RANGE, NC
rernrw .� Wor sal %*Madan Ch"15cabon 3ystam A kambs
27 Lt,am.saypnr uyan.. s.wsr,e wne,MNurea
G1 r naua.r O—%- ',:. -.,yu. c7pwnw S.a.m.p M1eae.a nrE.ews.� .acne.
x M Ma(r all Ngpn -- PM— p.Ln k Sl wwwd Foot AN * ..
Myaa. w4" - &w r W - itA+.e. *w N101WA) SMU..ad F—V An—
jw..a..rs�n. s�u-w wooduna AS.-
.� P.Wa [re.. CT.m "yp.. tryM.. - A— r� b • W— 6laera SM ,M.G iFO<.al AasM1w
p Pnu. 1—k SMU1.1W F..vAt-
CJ TfY&0iU 1
�ryr. .fir
Figure 3,3. Nary Dare County Bombing Flange Impact Area Allianm
Existing Conditions
3 -5
Appendix B B -12 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
�..� ... ......._. .. 'AI if
3A.4 Lore Po£osin
[NVCS Alliance. Lyonia lucida -Ilex glabra Saturated Wooded Shrubland Alliance]
This community type occurs on the deepest parts of domed peatlands on poorly drained
interstream flats, and peat - filled Carolina bays and swales. They occur on peat deposits greater
than 1 meter deep or shallower and over very oligotrophic (nutrient -poor) wet sands. The
hydrology is Palustrine, seasonally flooded or saturated. They occur in Carolina bays and swales
in low areas that lack mineral input, or in the interior of peat - filled depressions. Small
permanently flooded depressions may occur. Vegetation is composed of a dense shrub layer,
generally less than 1.5 meters tall, with feticrbush, titi, or honcycup (Zenobia pulvendenta) as
dominants, with frequent laurel greenbrier. Widely scattered, stunted pond pine, swampbay,
loblolly bay (Gordona lasianthus) and sweetbay usually occur. Pools or openings may be
dominated by leatherleaf (Chameredraphne calyculala), Walter's sedge (Carex striala),
Virginia chainfem, yellow pitcherplant (Sarracenia flava), bushy bluestem (Andropogon
glonreralus), and sphagnum moss.
3.4.5 High Focosin
[NVCS Alliance: Shining Fetterbush - Little GallberrY Saturated Wooded Shrubland Alhancel
This community occurs on central to intermediate parts of domed peatlands on poorly drained
interstream flats, and peat - filled Carolina bays and swales. They occur on peat deposits 1.5
meters deep or shallower and over very oligotrophic wet sands. The hydrology is Palustrine,
seasonally flooded or saturated. High pocosins occur in Carolina bays and swales occupying low
areas that lack mineral input, or occur in the interior of peat -filled depressions. Vegetation
persists in a dense shrub layer, between 1.5 and 3 meters tall, and can consist of fetterbush, titi, or
honeycup as dominants, with frequent laurel greenbrier. Widely scattered, stunted pond pine,
swampbay, loblolly bay, and sweetbay usually occur. Pools or openings may be dominated by
Icatherleaf, Walter's sedge, Virginia chainfem, yellow pitcherplam, bushy bluestem, sphagnum
moss.
3.4.6 Pond Pine Woodland
[NVCS Alliance: Pinus serotina Saturated Woodland Alliance]
These occur on outer pans of domed peatlands on poorly drained interstream flats, and peat - filled
Carolina bays and shallow swales. The soils are shallow organic deposits or deeper peas with
some input of mineral sediment. The hydrology is Palustrine, temporarily flooded or saturated.
Water table levels may drop to underlying mineral sediment during the dry season, allowing
plants to root there. These areas may also receive some influx of water with nutrients from
adjacent areas. The vegetation is open to nearly closed canopy of pond pine, sometimes
codominant with loblolly bay, and with lesser amounts of sweetbay, red maple, loblolly pine,
swampbay, and Atlantic white cedar. Shrub layer tall and very dense, greater than 5 meters tall
etl.cpt uito recently hurtled. Common shrubs arc tlti, Mictiu04 malubc: i ,, I.:. _,. -o i, :. ,: r,
Fiis in L, Crmrfitipm 3 -7
Appendix B B -13 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
W - _7U 71 Ht ...ntTATCIINRACI1,R ILA tION
T' I t -r I 1,1%4, R am& IMPAt7 AREA
and common reed (Phragmires australis) may occur in roadside ditches and on the margins of
ponds and open water areas.
The Arundinaria gigantea Shrubland Alliance consists of wetlands, including Coastal Plain peat
domes, and stream flats and saturated slopes, dominated by giant piumegrass (Arundinaria
gigantea), either without an overstory, or with widely scattered trees such as swamp tupelo and
pond pine (Pinus serotina). Herbs and other shrubs may be found in openings in stands,
particularly after episodes of fire.
3.5 Wildlife Use
The DCBR is located in the eastern portion of the Albemarle- Pamlico Peninsula. This portion of
the peninsula is covered predominantly in natural forest vegetation, with a portion in timber
management and a portion maintained as a wildlife refuge, managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) (2006). Therefore, the area mostly harbors species adapted to living in
forested habitat as apposed to open or disturbed areas such as cropland. The large expanses of
botiornland and swamp forest on the eastern peninsula create suitable conditions for an
abundance of wildlife, including large mammals such as black bears (Ursus americanus) and
the reintroduced red wolf (Canis nrfus), and legally protected species such as the rcd- cockaded
woodpecker (Pic ©ides borealis), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
Approximately 281 vertebrate species, composed of 40 mammals, 145 birds, 48 reptiles and
amphibians, and 48 fish, are permanent or seasonal residents to the peninsula (USFWS 2006).
3.5.1 Mammals
Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina,
42 are known to occur on the peninsula. The most common land mammals are the black bear,
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and rodents such as the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus). Semiaquatic furbearers such as the muskrat (Dndatra zibethica), nutria (Myocastor
covpus), and river otter (Lontra canadensis) are common. Numbers of beaver (Castor
canadensis) are increasing- The white - tailed deer population (Qdocodeus virginianus) has
remained relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. 't he black bear populatrcuG s3 runuug
the highest density populations in the southeast. Numerous sightings of eastern cougar (Puma
concolor cougtrar) have been reported, but none have been confirmed. Many species of forest
bats, such as the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), will
seek open areas (as are present in the impact area) next to forest lines to forage.
3.5.2 Birds
The avian species composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory. Although
145 species of birds are known to be year -round or seasonal residents„ the total number of birds
racily gw6ls to 250 or mart %%,hen considering specie that reeu4arly visit the peninsula ar a
migratory stop -over site (USFWS 2006). The area is centrally positioned along the Atlantic
Existintt Cmnditinnc 3 -9
Appendix B B -14 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WETLAND HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
NAyy'DARE CouNTy BOMBING RANGE IMPACT AREA
Flyway, the principal eastern migration route for birds in North America, and is a much -used and
valuable feeding and resting area.
1
Breed birds on the eastern Albemarle- Pamlico Peninsula are characteristic of species that inhabit
other coastal plain communities in the region. Due to the predominance of forest or brackish
marsh habitats, dwellers of those habitats are commonly the most abundant species. The
peninsula is rich in warblers, especially Prothonotary and Black- throated Green Warblers, and
woodpeckers, such as the Pileated Woodpecker and the endangered Red - cockaded Woodpecker.
Wading birds such as the Great Blue Heron are common and breeding has been documented in at
least two rookeries on and adjacent to the refuge. Bald Eagles have nested on the peninsula, and,
although not used every year, viable nests remain.
Winter residents of greatest abundance in the area include the American Robin, Yellow- rumped
Warbler, Red - winged Blackbird, various sparrows, and Northern Bobwhite. Mourning Doves,
American and Fish Crows, Red - winged Blackbirds, Northern Bobwhite, Song Sparrows, Fox
Sparrows, Swamp Sparrows, White- throated Sparrows, and Savannah Sparrows all use grasslands
and freshwater marshes, low pocosins, canal banks, and forest edges (as are present in the impact
area). American Kestrels, Red - tailed Hawks and Northern Harriers can also be seen hunting in
these open areas.
Many waterfowl winter in the area including Tundra Swans, Coots, and more than 25 species of
ducks. Waterfowl numbers have increased in interior portions of the eastern peninsula due to
management actions on moist soil management units (wetlands) involving the creation of ditches,
canals, freshwater marshes (as are present in the impact area) and swamps. The most prevalent
wintering species in freshwater wetlands and marshes include Pintail, Green- winged Teal,
Gadwall, Widgeon, Mallard, and Black Duck. Wintering waterfowl numbers peak during the
months of November through February.
3.5.3 Repliles and Amphibians
Sixty -one species of reptiles and amphibians are reported for die peninsula (USFWS 2006).
Reptiles and amphibians are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi - permanent
open water, marshes, creeks, lakes, and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or
modified/transitional areas. Some of the species that inhabit the area are the brown and plain -
bellied water snakes (Nerodia taxispilota and Nerodia erythrogaster); common snapping
(Chelydra serperi ine), red - bellied and eastern painted turtles (Pseudemys rubriventris and
Chrysemys picta); the southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephela); and a wide variety of snakes.
Three species of venomous snakes have been documented on the peninsula. They are the eastern
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), canebrake (timber) rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus
atricaudalus) and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
1
3 -10 Existing Conditions
Appendix B B -15 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
4.0 WETLANDS EVALUATION
4.1 Weiland Functions Ratings and Analysis
The NC-CREWS rating method assigns values of Low, Medium, and High as indices of value of
the wetland for each functional parameter. Table 4 -1 indicates step -wise ratings system with
results from each step. Wetland Functions used in Rating Wetlands are:
a Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
This function is rated on the quality of habitat provided for terrestrial wildlife. The
parameters considered are interior size, percent surrounding habitat that is natural
vegetation, and the length of a wildlife corridor that links to other natural
vegetation.
• Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction
Three parameters of the nonpoint source rating system were considered: 1) The
proximity to agriculture, developed land, pine plantation, and natural vegetation are
considered using the percent of surrounding habitat as the criteria; 2) The distance
from a water source is used, and 3) The position of the wetland relative to stream
orders is used.
• Floodwater Storage
The position of the wetland in the landscape, the duration of flooding, and the
width of the wetland perpendicular to the stream are the parameters considered for
rating the floodwater storage capacity of a wetland.
An overall rating is then assigned, which incorporates ratings for the three major wctland
functions. Overriding considerations can also trigger an automatic rating for any function. A
fourth rating factor, Potential Rt,k of Wetland Luse, ca u&kA in the ruitigatioei truces. Oncc the
rating is determined the wetland is given a value designation of "Exceptional Functional
Significance'' for above normal wetland functionality, "Substantial Functional Significance" for
normal functionality, and "Beneficial Functional Significance " for sub - normal functionality.
Acreage of the wetland is multiplied by the rating for each parameter in each function and
combined to produce a cumulative, numerical ranking that represents functional units supplied by
the wetland.
Xc;il Intl, Eval-.r:ci ii
Appendix B B -16 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Appendix B B -17 July 2014
0
'�
U
•8 4 y �.Sr. '�`
� 0.x
� �
�
cl
'O
i-�
9
bq a 3
U Y
a_
w
Lc7
�j
5
G
H 0
' E
r
x
CS
"
b 3 T3
o
°a
`4
.e
cs
m
!tlG
i7
CA
"
a
o
3�
-
Q p
O
�
CC
D V1 Q G.
. �
.47
e
a
1x
z
o t'
u
g
U3 z
w
a
3 r
41'
v m
z w
W ' .
c? cm
U y
d z
x �
v 61
Appendix B B -17 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
z
d
itl
N
OG C
tC
H
tC
to
�]
A C O
dl ifl
C
C
C C
c�
Cd
-5
LL
s 1
cc
c b o
Hw
d a
v
�,? c_
5
ce
d v
is
e
v C .� m
w
u u
r z
r E= v
a�
�
T SA4�
Id
•_L_ l
-C
Cd� Q
6 s Q
�
C 9 0 r 6 S 7
Y w
,
��
0
�rtLu�U
c V F C a
mL7
3 H
T
u
o ry
d
d
F
Z
� U
G
E
C
cC
a
a
2
....
u
u �
E? .�
L j
O
D
O
OG
*.
C6
Z
= y _O
a
�
Qk
L
.Q
» C
v .--•
O
U
-
� a
@ w
Q0
u
°
d
;yam
?r 3
v
CC
�
y
6.
ct
�'
v,
FS
kY
3
CL
rn
V7 x
[—
:j .G G G
Appendix B B -18 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
a
C
a
a
© m
N < z
z
sm
r
e z
r- a
U
W
a
as
q
a
em
0
a
Grp]
w.
m
s.
w
cp
C4
as
q
.fixx
akC4
. °mac
T r.
0
w
E
W
e
w o
r
�q
w
P.
,a 'a
�V
Aq
iL
�y9
rn 0
N
N p
.9 �4a 1 c 07 t 3 c°r > 3 d d 00
■ w ■
a
w �
uv
E 4
6 4
a
Q
0
u
c
3
Appendix B B -19 July 2014
E
ate,
a
�
?
p
� � e
4
�
u
b
.° •
b
a
■ w ■
a
w �
uv
E 4
6 4
a
Q
0
u
c
3
Appendix B B -19 July 2014
E
ate,
a
�
?
p
p c
■ w ■
a
w �
uv
E 4
6 4
a
Q
0
u
c
3
Appendix B B -19 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
r- a
C
P5 C
V L
F �
L •'
z
mac
C
p 07
L
a �
�v
q
Y
L
C
O
C
S
Q
x
fs]
� � e
7 L
°' ac
y u �
3
i
an
a�a
ado
o. F
w
E=
e�
d
V7
a
'^ C
v a
d �
G
3
0.
4
Appendix B B -20 July 2014
C
N
CD
O
L
"F•
y
V \°
5
in.
u .;�{i
y
3
w 3
CY
y
E E x
� D
°
54
o w
p � D
• O
.UU0
3wac6
E
3 d
3
n�o
3
3
J
so c
s
'
w
'•-•
;g C0
ur
C c
1L11�
d
_
4
x
U
C
CL
'
3
Appendix B B -20 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy D m County Bombing Ra noe Fn* Environmental Ass mament
Appendix B B2 July 2014
k
;
\
©
'
/
ƒ|)
2
/
E«B --
\
�■
§9�
2■
|
. �
�-
�■•
k��
a
�
e
�
C6
2.
�
2�rf
:
2
.
�
\ /
{
2
\ tea
i
\)
\\
\\\
2 /.
\\
�2§
)/
$)
Appendix B B2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WETLAND I IA kr1TAT Cu . o... C7 � !' I 4 ON
U:gtt:( +it %i) Iiijv1nw R-, 't. ,A
4.2 Results
Wetland conditions exist throughout the interior of the NDCBR impact area. A cross reference
between the common name and NVCS corrununity alliances used in this report and the NC-
CREWS communities is provided in Table 4 -2. General plant community types within the
impact area consisted of freshwater marsh (1,590 acres) dominated by rushes and other
herbaceous species and low pocosin (356 acres) with fetterbush, inkbcny, honeycup and other
common pocosin shrub species, and occasional pond pine, swamp tupelo, and bald cypress trees.
Common reed, an extremely invasive species that can colonize an area to the exclusion of other
species, was limited to relatively few roadsides and ditches in the impact area. Surface water (67
acres) primarily occurred in ditches and areas heavily impacted by ordnance. The major
community types adjacent to the impact area included high and low pocosins, Atlantic white
cedar forest, pond pine woodland, nonriverine wet hardwood forest, and nonriverine swamp
forest.
Table 4 -2. Types of Vegetation Coder in the Impact Area at Navy Dare County Bombing
Range
Common Name for Habitat NVCS Vegetation Alliance NC -CREWS Acres within
cover type Impact Area
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar
Chamaecyparis rhyoides Saturated
Swamp Forest
0
Forest
Forest Alliance
Juncus canadensis - Scirprrs
Freshwater
Freshwater Marsh
c perinus Seasonally flooded
Marsh
1,590
herbaceous alliance
Low Pocosin
kionia lucida - Ilex glabra
Saturated Wooded Shrubland
Pocosin
356
Alliance
Bay Forest
Magnolia virginiana - Persea
Pocosin
0
palusmir Saturated Forest Alliance
Nonw.erine Wet Iaardwood
Ni,sa b,,07ora Ac,, rub�o -
Forest
(Liriodendron rulipifera) Saturated
Swamp Forest
0
Forest Alliance
Pond Pine Woodland
Pinus serotina Saturated
Swamp Forest
0
Woodland Alliance
Nonriverine Swamp Forest
Pinus taeda - Chamaectparis
rhyoides -.4cer nrbrum - Nyssa
Swamp Forest
0
bri fora Saturated Forest Alliance
Shining Fetrerbush - Little
High Pocosin
Gallbe,ry Saturated Wooded
Pocosin
0
Shrubland Alliance
.�'llrl we llydrulog)
SurfaA;c Hydrolugy
N-1
Total Acres 1,414
WL4 Ilasrd.s L %aluatron
Appendix B B -22 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
WETLAND HAS ITAT CHARACFERMATIGN
NAVY DARE COUNTY BomBiNG RANGE IMPACT AREA
Wetlands within the impact area received NC -CREWS Overall Wetland Value designations of
Exceptional Functional Significance and Substantial Functional Significance. These results are
The NC -CREWS methodology uses a simplified vegetative community classification system.
The Dw L:rall. Welland Value of the wetlands within the impact area received NC -CREWS
designations of Exceptional Functional Significance and Substantial Functional Significance
(Figure 4 -1). The impact area received a Medium rating for water quality because non -point
sources of pollution are not a significant issue in the area, and received Medium or High ratings
for hydrology, which corresponds to the different values for wetland types. The impact area
received a High rating habitat because of its connectivity to other natural vegetative communities
(the Alligator NWR) and other wetlands. Cumulatively, the overall ratings for Principal
Functions are High for areas with freshwater marsh and a Medium for areas with pocosin. This is
due to the relative difference in rarity of the two cover types in the watershed.
4 -8 Wetlands Evaluation
Appendix B B -23 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
IW1 '1 1_"114)HABITAT 0iARACTVR11A111
i ... 5 1 COUNn BoMRIN G RANOE IMPACT AI:
5.0 REFERENCES
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2007, FGDC Vegetation Classification Standard.
IIttt, bj0i0,',�.u1z-,L0 Ii 11c., (Accessed: March 2, 2007).
Moore, I.H. and A.D. Ladcrman. (n.d.) A Case Study: Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands in Dare
County, North Carolina In The Ecology of Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands: A
Community Profile. law- uio-m i edu !.1111 lacuil cnl.ittttil (Accessed April 16,
2007).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Hydric Soils List by State.
h11t11. .,1,1l' -W1 la._c,, tilE IiNlirtc 11 >1> '10 1'. _ :: i. (Accessed: April 15, 2007).
NatiureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online Encyclopedia of Life. Version 6.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. _ (Accessed:
March 2, 2007).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2007. Coastal
Area Management Act Counties. h,ttl, ,ILsti'._11111 11LAC• lit u+ cams cuu11uc4 hlln..
(Accessed April 15, 2007)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public
Review Draft. Imp hi'u cttr.statc.Ile.us Intdl doeuancltts 'inkr,:t13d4 istPuhlieRel is ++
1),,, i i, ,di. (Accessed: February 20, 2007).
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). 2007. CAMA Permits: Federal
Consistency, h n2, 11emuis c+ktt,t.l.h1m. (Accessed April 15, 2007).
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1998. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
. ,., ,t , _ u n. (Accessed; March 2, 2007)
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. N.C, Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. MSC 1615. Raleigh, N.C.
Tant, P.L 1992. Soil Survey of Dare County, North Carolina. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Raleigh, N.C.
Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies. 2000. Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan for Dare County Bomb Range, N.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Dare and and Hyde
Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
Georgia.
�1.'fGIC[kl tia =
Appendix B B -24 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
W ETLANt7 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
NAVY ❑ARF COUNTY B(- )MIRING RNN[;i:. IMPACT ARLA
HABITAT CHARACTERIZATIION of THE NAVY "TARGET ZONE
DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE, NC
r
-
f
t
z2 "�.ai xs iw h I F i�I1rt t ....
•`'°'"'�
Natlonai %Aogotatiwt Classlticatlon System - AttlaneaS
Mnrnr
u_ 7
Ch.rna Ih ad.. S.tur.t.d F—M +Wluane.
rreyp.ns y
t...l
Juneus a..d. —I. - Scapua cyprmuri S—p .ally noodad het6.c+ous. aq,.ncm
I
Lyvur lucid. - Il.x al.br. "Saturat.d V b.d a St+rublan�6 Apyncr 1
Wla mrginions- Pez— p.luatis ;.t totod rm..t Alliance {
" -
-
Prue. or. - Ac.t rub,ux+ S6rc +od.nu>: an tuatati••r.: S.4u rat.d Fp.a/A1llanua
[�
M
Pinuz saran.: aturslod Woadhnd AM, once
t 1
w
Pinus toad. - CF. n+..eyparn dhy4#ws - .4c.r nabr+im - Ny». &ersr.:.ppui.b+[I io•.st AN.nc.
Pumas 1oal..^,.4uu ai.d F V .st Alh-
Saatac.. Hyd,,A gy
NC -CREWS O+ ralI Watt and Fun el ional Rat Inp
�7'
Substantial Functional $wgnificanca 'a ict
. _ .. ..
C -7
Escsplional Fun0 -61 SigniSc.... -
Figure 4 -1. Navy Dare County Bombing Range NC-CREWS Overall Wetland Functional Rating
Wetlands Evaluation 4 -9
Appendix B B -25 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B B -26 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX C
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT AGENCY
COORESPONDANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Appendix C July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix C July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
�F+ZyT 'OF d aY x
w
y r Pi
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
NAVY REGION MID - ATLANTIC
1510 GILBERT ST.
NORFOLK, VA 23511 -2737
Mr. Doug Huggett
Federal Consistency Coordinator
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, INC 28557 -3421
Dear Mr. Huggett:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
5090
EV21/24/RE142
' ' 11 2014
The Department of the Navy (Navy) is submitting this negative
determination for the proposed improvements to targets at the Dare
County Bombing and Electronic Combat Range (DCBR). The Navy proposes
to improve target areas of the DCBR. The proposed action would
encompass the establishment of target areas and maintenance roads for
three locations on the DCBR to allow for more realistic training
scenarios, allow for maintenance operations to be completed, enhance
range personnel safety, and increase Operational Range Clearance
capabilities.
The DCBR is a U.S. Air Force (USAF) operated weapons range located
on the Dare County peninsula in the coastal plain of northeastern
North Carolina. The DCBR encompasses 46,619 acres. The Navy utilizes
the northern half of the DCBR and the Air Force utilizes the southern
half of the DCBR. 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.
Within the Navy impact area, approximately 88 acres are currently
utilized or will be utilized for target pads, roads and storage.
The Proposed Action seeks to improve specific target areas on the
Navy's portion of the DCBR. The Proposed Action would encompass the
establishment of a City Target with hardened roadways, a maintenance
road and three target areas for the existing Runway Target, and
turnarounds at the end of 3500 Foot Road for utilization by the Moving
Land Target. A total of 4.29 acres of wetlands would be permanently
filled as a result of the Proposed Action and an additional 0.15 acres
of wetlands would be secondarily impacted by habitat fragmentation.
The proposed fill equates to approximately 4.009 percent of wetlands
for the entire DCBR and approximately 0.21 percent of wetlands for the
Navy impact area.
Dare County is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants
under the National Ambient Air {duality Standards. The Proposed Action
Appendix C C -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
5090
EV21/24/RE142
would not produce emissions above the Clean Air Act General Conformity
Rule de minimus thresholds thus allowing Dare County to remain in
attainment.
The Proposed Action would not significantly impact wildlife and
vegetation on the DCBR. The Proposed Action would not adversely
modify critical habitat and would have no effect on the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or the red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoided
borealis. The Proposed Action would not adversely modify critical
habitat and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the
American alligator (Alligator misissippiensis).
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 9 1451
et seq., as amended, 15 CPR § 921 -930) provides assistance to states,
in cooperation with federal and local agencies, for developing land -
and water -use programs in coastal zones. State coastal zone
management programs are used to implement CZMA. As defined in Section
304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 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."
The Proposed Action would occur entirely on federal property. The
Proposed Action would occur only on the DCBR and no impacts are
anticipated off -site of the DCBR; therefore, there will be no effects
on north Carolina's coastal uses or resources. Additionally, the Navy
would obtain all necessary permits and consult with all necessary
agencies prior to starting any construction activities. Consequently,
the Navy is making a negative determination under CZMA.
Please contact Mr. Joseph Vlcek at (757) 836 -8475 or by email
(joseph.vlcek (&navy.mil), if you have questions about this project.
Sincerely,
MICHA2t H. JONES
Director, Environmental Planning
By direction of the Commander
Appendix C C -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX D
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Appendix D July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix D July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
DEPART MNI' OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
62 FLEET FORCES E SUr COMMAND
1562 MITSCHEH AVENUE SL1iFE 254
NORFOLK, VA 23551 -2487
5090
Ser N46/008
April 1, 2014
Kevin Cherry, Ph.D.
Deputy Secretary, North Carolina Office of Archives and History
State Historic Preservation Officer
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4619
Dear Dr. Cherry:
The United States Navy (Navy) is preparing an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to analyze the proposal to improve target areas of the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range (DCBR). The improvements would include
the establishment of target areas and maintenance roads for three
locations on the Navy DCBR to allow for more realistic training
scenarios, allow for maintenance operations to be completed, enhance
range personnel safety, and increase Operational Range Clearance
capabilities.
The DCBR, a c.1964 facility jointly used by the Navy and United
States Air Force, encompasses 46,000 acres of marshland, forest and
open space, and contains targets for inert weapons delivery practice.
A cultural resources survey of the DCBR was conducted by Pan American
Consultants, Inc., in 1996. The survey, which included field
investigations, did not identify any significant archaeological
resources. 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 buildings or structures
are known to be located anywhere on the DCBR, including the Navy
impact area. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) concurred with Pan American Consultants' recommendation that no
further cultural resource investigations were necessary and that no
National Register eligible archaeological resources are likely present
in a letter dated August 6, 1996 (enclosure 1). These findings were
presented in the Cultural Resources Management Plan for Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base, DCBR, Fort Fisher Air Force Recreation Area
(1998, 2008). The current management plan also states that there are
no traditional cultural properties or related Native American issues
known for the DCBR. On November 9, 2010, the North Carolina SHPO also
concurred with the Navy's determination that no historic properties
would be affected by an action similar to the proposed undertaking
(enclosure 2).
Based on the information stated above, the Navy believes that no
historic properties are present within the DCBR, and the proposed
undertaking will have no effect upon National Register of Historic
Appendix D D -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
5090
Ser N461008
April 1, 2014
Places eligible resources. In accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Navy seeks your concurrence
with these findings by letter, with any additional comments or
questions within_ 30 days of receipt. Enclosures (3) and (4) show the
location of the proposed undertaking. Please contact Mr. Joseph Vlcek
at (757) 836 -8475 or by email (Zoseph.vlcek @navy.mil), if you have
questions about this project.
Sincerely,
G. L. EDWARDS
Director
Environmental Readiness Branch
By direction
Enclosures: 1. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
August 6, 1996 letter to the U.S. Navy.
2. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
November 6, 2010 letter to the U.S. Navy
3. Location of the Dare County Bombing Range
4. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Target Improvement
Locations
Appendix D D -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AUGUST 6, 1996 LETTER
TO THE U.S. NAVY
Rpr- 2e' -sA ?.4 :SI O_C?9
North t::at^oltna Department of Cultural Resources
r.m es D. 1 f.nr lr- Cuv►er.or Pirisloc of AUch 6w and } tan y
e,.t.y PUY r.� Sou Wy .s.rrr y r. Coo-, twnuw
Au@tcat e, 1 9se
Dr. Mike Russo
Air Force Project Coordinator
National Park Service
Southeast Regional Office
76 Spring Street
Atlsnta, Ciaor$la 30303
Re Draft Report, US Air Fetal Cultural Resources
Servicawide overview Project, Seymour Johnson AFB,
Gmldoboro, Weyne Courny, North Carolina, ER 97- 709148
Deer or. Russet
Thank you for your letter of Julys B, f S!M. con"rrang the above project.
We have ravlewed the draft report concerning Seymour Johrwon Air Forte Sass.
For the most pan, Seymour Johnson has done an excellent foil under Sections 108
and 110 of the National Hlstotic Preservation Act and is to be conpretulatad for
thafr efforts.
In terms of amhaaologiaal resawass, the following is the current status of
investigations at the various facilltles Included in site report.
1 . Saymour Johnson AAaln Bars. Arohsoologlcsl site 31 WY9, the only recorded
situ an the biome proper, was re',181 d by a member Of our ateff In 1 978. The
site had been destroyed by arosion and is not slioible for the National Register of
Historic Pieces_ We do not recommend any erchesological Investlgationa on the
main bara due to the high level of ground disturbing activitlas that have taken
place in tha past_
2. oars County ordnanes Rertps. A rrrernbar of our staff conducted an aerial
reconnaissance of this facility in 1978 to assess the potential for archaeological
ou
resrces. Given the swampy nature of the terrain Ind the continued use of the
I fl cgity as on ardnama range, it Is our opinion that no National Register sllgibis
arohseologfeal fesaurcaa are likely to be prasant. The recent survey of 21,330
aeras of the facility supports We oprnloo since no archasoleglesi resources were
I located. We were not consulted prior to the survey nor ware we g:van a copy
of the letter by David Anderson of the Natlonai Park Service concerning his
opInlon thast the survey by Parso edoan C•onsultenta was inadequate_ Ws
request that ■ copy of his latter be forwarded to us as soon as possible so that
we may respond to or. Andereon'a concwma. We do not believe that any
toy V� ra..aa 3ua.t • st,7.tyti Nonh C.M1 s 27601_2007
MAO
Enclosure (1)
Appendix D D -3 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
. Pr. MDU Rvuu4
Av"G, i%9K Nis?
additional archaeological survey is nacessary at the par* County Ordnrutce
Range.
3. sort Fisher Recreation Area, We have received the archaeological surrcey sport
by Panamsrleen CormWtsnts cencerMng the 1131 -scr■ tract controlled by the
U.S. Alr Faroe at the Fort Fisher Recreation Area. Three archaeological sites
wets either revisited or located during the lmfsstrgstlon. As stitad 1n out letter
of 3uly IQ, 1090, to Paul Wets of the Savannah Corpa: wq 0oneur that site
31 iVF{587• • Is eiig(bfe for 11atRay lit thf NtiansJ Ftitltilr e# His ;oils Plaaas.
No
recommendations or syslustlons weft Included In the report for site), -
31 NH64,2 • • or 3tf NE80, and in the some latter we requested clarlfrestivn of
their slipi'bility statue, which we have ya1 to recelve.
4. Minor Tracts. The minor tracts lnslude the Jasper and Oatltnd CQ+rimunication
Sines and tiro 5umm ralt, $,uiston and Neu" Middle Marker. Annox sk, We
need locations for these tacrAtlas as wall as pertinent Wormatfon concarnrng the
extant buildings and rand use hafore we can evaluate their potontisl for
containing slgnlflcant archaeological rsaatucas.
We trust that the above Information ciariff#e the status of Station 10 end Section
1 10 complianca for srcha sale alcal raaaureas at Soyrnout Johnson Air Fora Hasa.
8y cur .iuty 22, 1996, 1atta+r we responded to the draft historic structures survey
report try PPanamwfcan Consultants for Saymout Johnson Air Force Bait. A co
c} put letter is enclosed. We have reload the Issue of whedwr the ai2ht World War
if buildings constitute a historic dtWIct, seed are owalting a response.
The above car mtertts. are mode pursuant to Soctlan 106 of the National Hlatoric
Preservation Act and the Advlaow Cou" l on HIstarle Prsser"Von,d Fraouistlans
for Gom,pflarAw wide Seatiarf 106 codified at 36 CFR Pert 800.
Thank you for your Cooperation and conaidsration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, plaase contact Renee GladhIM- Earley, envlronmantal
review anardinator, at 919033.4763.
Sincerer,
pav�Bro�ak
Doputy State Hietorle Pressmatlon Officer
DS: o1w
Enclosure
ca: David Arrdwa ©n
Nalionel Perk Service
Southasstern Areheaeloglaal Center
P.O. Box 2416
Talloheerae, Florida 33312
tsc: FIE f iZrt O
Clageatt/f'iail
County
RF
Enclosure (1)
Appendix D D -4 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
NOVEMBER 6, 2010 LETTER TO THE U.S.. NAVY
Nardi Carolina Dcpamuent of Cultural Resotuvc
Sta1. Hi.earfc Ptc.ervation
0fl6de
r.�a.:c.na4ak,A�n.mr
.lk.adr Aaxea Feeduq Caxm`or 9:fue alANrro v3 Af T
fi�S A. i'�AiY.�r Pkmip+eSll'..w`. pa�vvt.
Htt� �. frt —, �7 5oc�caq Lheil Bmuk, Deem
Noverftb c 9, 2910
R. D_ trite
17.Paxanwt of &. *9-7
Nmval FacQti� F.sr ineezi ag Coe2=ard. Atlantic
6504 .Hanvt— So.,i.: —d
Norfolk, VA 23508 -1278
F, fnrrease the Sm ee Aiea of Tzkget Pads, Roads, mud Storage and Maiatucauoe Axc2 -%
Dot. County Bombing Sad Flec�� Combat Pang., Dais County, FR 10 -1981
17ear Mr. C� rfi au
Th..: yon for y— I.trer o f October 20, 2010, the abovd project
[We have revieecd the information and detemµned that the pto}ecr yell oar adver 1y affect any h6caric
risowmrs.
The above eoeamentd are =de pvssttaat to SSeaian 106 of the Nuiowl Hitruric Preset 46dn Act and the
above wt enu are nude pv�t to Svcdan 1.1% of the Nmi aal Histasic.P�doa Act =a the Ad-..q
Camdl an Flwouc Ptes.rrati.e. R.guLti.m for C— pliant. o¢ th $e.tion 1.06 =adwG d. a 36 CPA Part 900.
"Thank you The your coepcxttfotl.and couddmilom Lfyou have gocstions cow=niug 'tbc above comment,
pl.as. tonua Renee ledinTd- p -.l.y, environmental ­kw . diL or, at 919 - 07.6579. In all future
cotmm, niikd— conc.xning this project, pl.as. dm the aiwvUrtiei+eaced =.Idng nnmbc .
S�dexely,
Pelu Sandb.dt
.S.aaHstw kr.}ec. €a..c. w.tR accnw= Waa+. AM— ",I N:rJ tk - Rddb Yf: TIfV 17 ae4e.�n.r it�y macwl
Fnc asure 3: Location of the Dare County Bombing Range
Enclosure (2)
Appendix D D -5 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE 'TARGET
IMPROVEMENT
LOCATIONS
—
ti
Croat Ft
�Sllil q(.�
L
C
t
are County
F
Borrrbirm 'mange
b
Fo+e� X84.
Vl' iiarq
Alrsws.
Sw %w ft r
•
Ilk
Pnnalrro
aun ry Boun dory
a,
Location of
1 -0 ... C—My Roes
_ 1
bare. County
Gm W D— Cagey R-gq ewndery
aorta Cero.n � wow
Bombing Range
0 O.S t P
HW¢Y 14s
Enclosure (3)
Appendix D D -6 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Appendix D D -7 July 2014
t ait F -'
a.:
E. a.m.pacredxa:o pyr lq M1r C 107 ] Eari.
{IAi�ro v.r UC -G Ima�.�p dRid iEY27rz41bi
[�
Aq rl plH a��iC.
�j`
Legend
- -
_
Navy Dare County
Targets
FM E.pansm f-tpnnts
m+w , _ a nort
r4
Bombing Range
Infrastructure Expansion
n
4 350 740ards
B...map r. air•: ccpyrpM C 1917 ESM.
(ESRI_Str.slM y_wwW_301.
Aq r9�n r rw.l
Enclosure (9)
Appendix D D -7 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
0 CAM
a
. „�.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
limntraw ill. l4 im,s, Acl immin wr
0-- P.1 %Ic( :."y
SctircEarl� tiu.arr I�luctr
May 13, 2414
G. L. Edwards, Director via email to: j<�scpli.vlcck r7,nav�.lnil
Environmental headiness Branch
Department of the Navy
US Fleet Forces Command
1562 Mitscher Ave, Suite 254
Norfolk, VA 23551 -2487
Ofr— of Ardu— and E lmr—
nc-puty 4cro q 1:evirt C "-,
,
RE: Improve Target Areas of Navy pare County Bombing Mange, Dare County, ER 10 -1981
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Thank you for your April 1, 2014, letter concerning the abovc-refcrcnced undertaking. We have reviewed the
materials presented and concur with your finding that no historic properties will be affected.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- I Barley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579 or renec4rledhill-
arl r ,.ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this Project, Please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Loc.atiore 109 E -jores Simt,4 P.J igh NC 27601 Morning Add-- 4617,M.9 Service. (:corm, Raleigh NC 276994617 Trlcphone/Fa : 0144 EM V7- GSxa/807 -1501)
Appendix D D -8 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX E
NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE
AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
Appendix E July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix E July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment for Improvements to Targets at the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range, North Carolina
Emissions Calculations
Proposed Action
Assumptions:
- Road and non -road engine construction vehicles assume a 100 -day construction
period, and each piece of equipment operated 6 hours per day each (max) in a 8 -hr day.
- Equipment to be used at Navy Dare County Bombing Range:
excavator, truck, grader, backhoe, compactor, scraper, and POVs.
- Emissions Factors were obtained from AP -42, Sections 3.3, 11.9 and 13.2 and South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) data, and American Petroleum Institute (API) Data.
- Particulate Matter (PM) calculations include PM10 and PM2.5.
- Estimates are based on current available information at the time of calculation.
General Approach: Emissions= Horsepower *Load Factor* Operating Time *Emission Factor.
General Conformity Rule Thresholds for Maintenance Area
Ozone (NO, SOD or NOz) = 100 tons /yr
Ozone (VOCs) = 50 tons /yr
Carbon Monoxide (CO) = 100 tons /yr
PM2.' / PM10 = 100 tons /yr
(1) 40 CFR Ch. 1(17-1-11 Edition) Section 93.153
The estimated emissions are well below the allowable thresholds.
Appendix E E -1 July 2014
Summary of Estimated Emissions
Criteria Pollutants
NOX =
17,472
Ibs /yr =
7.94
tons /yr
CO =
6,879
Ibs /yr =
3.13
tons /yr
VOC =
867
Ibs /yr =
0.39
tons /yr
PM =
867
Ibs /yr =
3.16
tons /yr
S02 =
1,320
Ibs /yr =
0.60
tons /yr
Greenhouse Gasses
CO2=
1369338
Ibs /yr=
622.43
Mtons /yr
CH4 =
409
Ibs /yr =
0.19
Mtons /yr
N20 =
31
Ibs /yr =
0.01
Mtons /yr
Total COz
1387537
Ibs /yr =
630.70
Mtons /yr
Equivalent =
General Conformity Rule Thresholds for Maintenance Area
Ozone (NO, SOD or NOz) = 100 tons /yr
Ozone (VOCs) = 50 tons /yr
Carbon Monoxide (CO) = 100 tons /yr
PM2.' / PM10 = 100 tons /yr
(1) 40 CFR Ch. 1(17-1-11 Edition) Section 93.153
The estimated emissions are well below the allowable thresholds.
Appendix E E -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Calculation Factors
Load Factors
Excavator
Truck
Grader
Backhoe
Compactor
Scraper
59
100
58
21
57.5
66
Operating Time (hr /yr)
Excavator
Truck
Grader
Backhoe
Compactor
Scraper
500
500
500
500
500
1 500
Typical Horsepower
Excavator
Truck
Grader
Backhoe
Compactor
Scraper
300
350
150
100
99
266
* Reference: AP42, Sec 3.3; SCADMD Data (2007 -2026)
Criteria Pollutant Emissions Factors (lbs /hp -hr)
POV")
Delivery
Truck ")
Construction
lb/hp-hr
Excavator
Truck
Grader
Backhoe
Compactor
Scraper
NOx=
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.32
7.26
CO =
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
3.22
1 6.35
VOC 9
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
1 0.002
0.002
PM =
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
S02=
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
(1) POV and Delivery Truck Emissions Factors are in g /mi (South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Data (2007 - 2026))
* Reference: AP42, Sec 3.3; 2004 American Petroleum Institute (API) Data
GHG
Emission Factor
Construction
lb/hp-hr
POV
Delivery
Truck
CO2 =
1.15
360 g /mi
1500 g /mi
CH4 =
0.001
0.42 g/L
0.07 g/L
N20 =
0.0001
0.2 g/L
0.02 g/L
Appendix E E -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Direct Emissions Estimates
Construction Equipment /Vehicle - Green House Gas Emissions (Ibs /yr)
Construction Equipment/ Vehicle - Criteria Pollutant Emissions [Ib /yr)
Total
CO2= 101,775 201,250 50,025 12,075 32,732 100,947
Excavator
Truck
Grader
Backhoe
Compactor
Scraper
Grading
(1 /day)
(1 /day)
(1/day)
(1 /day)
(1 /day)
(11day)
NO„=
2,744
5,425
1,349
326
882
2,721
CO =
620
1,225
345
74
199
614
VOC =
177
350
87
21
57
176
PM =
177
350
87
21
57
176
S 02=
1 269
533
132
32
87
267
Construction Equipment /Vehicle - Green House Gas Emissions (Ibs /yr)
Excavator Truck Grader Backhoe Compactor Scraper
Total
CO2= 101,775 201,250 50,025 12,075 32,732 100,947
498,804
CH,= 81 160 40 10 26 80
397
N20 = 5 11 3 1 2 5
26
*Reference: AP42,Tables 11.9 -4, 11.9 -1, 11.9 -3, 13.2.3 -1, 13.2.2 -2, 13.2.2 -3
Particulate Mater Emissions - Material Handling
Emission Factor
Emisisons (tons)
Scraper
4.058 lb/Ton
0.3
Loading
4.002 lb/Ton
0.01
Grading
3.224 Ib /VMT
0.1
Compacting
0.753 lb/hr
0.2
Vehicle Traffi
1.147 Ib /VMT
2.2
Indirect Emissions Estimates
Total =
POV and Delivery Truck - Criteria Pollutant and Green House Gas Emissions I
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
EF = Emissions Factor
Miles /Day = 40 No_ Trucks = 1
Total Days= 100 No. of PDV = 10
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
CO = 348 lbs /yr 0.16 tans /yr
NOx = 31 lbs /yr 0.01 tons /yr
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CD, = 44982 lbs /yr 20.45 tons /yr
CH, = 6 lbs /yr 0.003 tons /yr
N,O = 3 Ibslyr 0.001 tons/yr
2.8
Appendix E E -3 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Indirect Emissions Estimates Continued
ITareet Trucks - Criteria Pollutant and Green House Gas Emissions
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
EF = Emissions Factor
Miles /Day = 320 No. Trucks =
Total Days= 260
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
CO = 3495 Ibs /yr 1.59 tons /yr
NOX = 3994 Ibs /yr 1.82 tons /yr
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 = 825552 Ibs /yr 375.25 tons /yr
CH4 = 6 Ibs /yr 0.003 tons /yr
N20 = 2 Ibs /yr 0.001 tons /yr
tj
Appendix E E -4 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX F
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE UNITED
STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Appendix F July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix F July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
'ter
9
dr4tks a5 �'
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
U.S. FLEET FORCES COMMAND
1562 M11'SCHLR AVENUF SUITF. 250
NORFOLK, VA 23551 -2487
5090
Ser N46/292
December 3, 2013
Mr. Fete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Benjamin.
The United States Navy (Navy) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA)
to analyze the proposal to improve specific target areas of the Navy Dare County
Bombing and Electronic Combat Range. The proposed action would encompass the
establishment of target areas and maintenance roads for three locations on the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range to allow for more realistic training scenarios,
allow for maintenance operations to be completed, enhance range personnel
safety, and increase Operational Range Clearance (ORC) capabilities (see
Enclosures 1 and 2).
In accordance with 50 CFR 402.12 (c) and (d), the Navy has prepared a list
of federally protected threatened and endangered species that have the potential
to be found within the proposed action area (see Enclosure 3). The enclosed
species list was compiled using the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina website.
We are requesting written or verbal comment on Enclosure 3 within 30 days of
your receipt of this letter. If we have not received a response within that
time, we will assume that you concur with the list we have provided and we will
proceed accordingly.
We appreciate your consideration of our request. My point of contact for
this matter is Mr. Joseph Vlcek and he can be reached at (757) 836 -8475 or
'ose h.vlcek @navy.mil.
Sincerely,
G. L. EDWPMS
Director
Environmental Readiness Branch
By direction
Enclosures: 1. Location of the Dare County Bombing Range
2. Navy Dare County Bombing Range Target Improvement Locations
3. List of Protected Species Occurring or Potentially occurring in
the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Study Area
Copy to: CNRMA REC
Appendix F F -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Location of the Dare County Bombing Range
ns Harbor
e.
Croatan
Sound
}
T'rRRELL
O
are County
B nbh. Range
a do to
1
e�
arq
lvi
•arq Aiq
19r a ;
Stumpy Point
•
Air W
Pam11Co
HYDE
Sound
:e.
q�nia
County Boundary
Location of
-Dare County Road
Overall Dare County Range Boundary Dare County
lmpectarea Bombing Range
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
``WW'' NESlticel NAteS
2
Enclosure (1)
Appendix F F -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Navy Dare County Bombing Range Target Improvement Locations
Legend
Targets
RM Expansion footprints
Yards
0 350 700
--y oomoing
_ and Electronic Combat -
Range
mree o��
Zoom area
�a
B—Ma
p,�c re dfta: Copyright C 2013 ESRI.
(ESRI_StreetMep World_2D).
All rights reserved
3
Navy Dare County
Bombing (Range
Infrastructure Expansion
ENAWFAC
Enclosure (2)
Appendix F F -3 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
List of Protected and Rare Species occurring or Potentially occurring at
the Dare County Bombing Range
Enclosure (3)
Appendix F F -4 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
United States Department of the Interio i,°
H o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
$ Post Office Box 33726
CH 3 San Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
January 8, 2014
Mr. G. L. Edwards
Director, Environmental Readiness Branch
U.S. Fleet Forces Command
1562 Mitscher avenue, Suite 250
Norfolk, Virginia 23551 -2487
Dear Mr. Edwards:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your December 3, 2013, letter and enclosures
regarding the Limited States Navy's (Navy) preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) to
analyze the proposal to improve specific target areas of the Navy Dare County Bombing and
Electronic Combat Range. Enclosure 3 of your correspondence contains the "List of Protected and
Rare Species occurring or potentially occurring at the Dare County Bombing Range." You have
provided the list in accordance with 50 CFR 442.12 (c) and (d). Based on the information contained
in your December 3, 2013 correspondence, we concur with the species list you have provided.
The accepted species list includes the endangered red - cockaded woodpecker. Please note that there
are cavity tree clusters and foraging habitat supporting red - cockaded woodpecker groups on the
Dare County Bombing Range and the surrounding Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
Review of projects requiring timber removal should include an assessment of the potential for these
activities to have impacts on red - cockaded woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat. Survey
methodology and habitat assessment guidelines are contained in the Service's Recovery Plan for the
Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Service 2003). An electronic version of the Plan can be downloaded
from this link: http:Jlwww.fws.govlrcwrecovery /recovery_plan.htmi.
Consideration of what constitutes potential habitat occupied by the red - cockaded woodpecker
applies. Based on aerial surveys and foraging habitat assessments on other projects in the
Albemarle Pamlico peninsula, the Service is aware that habitat being used by red - cockaded
woodpeckers in northeast North Carolina varies dramatically from typical habitat described in the
recovery plan. Fundamentally, none of the habitat supporting red- cockaded woodpeckers in Dare
County meets the "Standard for Managed Stability" guidelines — which are used to assess project
impacts that involve occupied habitat. We know that they use very wet habitats with a wide range
of pine density (from very sparse to dense). These stands may have tall, dense hardwood mldstorles
and a significant amount of hardwoods in the overstory and may even be dominated by hardwoods
or bald cypress. Should the proposed action require significant timber removal, we recommend that
you contact this office for additional information.
Appendix F F -5 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
In addition to the federally- protected species list, information on the species' life histories and
habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on
our web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please contact Mr. John Hammond at 919 - 856 -4520 (Ext. 28). Thank you for your continued
cooperation with our agency.
Cc: Will McDearman, USFWS
Mike Bryant, USFWS
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
2
Appendix F F -6 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX G
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE AND THE UNIAD STATES
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Appendix G July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix G July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
o�
4T Y
s s
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
U.S. FLEET FORCES COMMAND
1562 MI1'SCHF.R AVFNUF, SUITE 250
NORFOLK, VA 23551-2497
5090
Ser N46/053
May 28, 2014
Ms. Chrystal Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1301
Dear Ms. Best:
U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF) has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects
of improving specific targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing
Range in North Carolina.
USFF respectfully requests that the draft EA be made
available to all interested state agencies for their review.
To facilitate the review, two copies are enclosed and the
document can be accessed at the following link:
http: / /www.navfac. navy. mil /navfac _worldwide /atlantic /fecs /mid-
atlantic /about us /environmental norfolk /environmental compliance
.html. We request that you provide any comments to the point of
contact listed below within 30 days of the date of this letter.
We appreciate your continued support in helping us meet our
environmental responsibilities and range sustainment goals.
The USFF point of contact for this action is Mr, Joseph
Vlcek, who can be contacted by phone at (757) 036 -8475 or via
e -mail at joseph.vlcek @navy.mil.
sincerely,
G. L. EDWARDS
Director
Environmental Readiness Branch
By direction
Enclosure; Draft Environmental Assessment for Improvements to
Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range, North
Carolina
Appendix G G -1 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
awn
a
'1f
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Pat McCrory, Governor Bill Daughtridge, Jr., Secretary
July 14, 2014
Mr. Joseph Vieck
Department of the Navy
ITS Fleet Forces Command
1562 Mitscher Avenue, Suite 250
Norfolk, VA 23551 -2487
Re: SCH File 4 14-E- 0000 -0523; EA; Proposed project is for improvements to targets at the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range.
Dear Mr, Vleek:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the 'State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A -10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
CrystM Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region R
MaidingAddrm relophaa& (919)807 -2425 LpcaiionAddrM.'
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] ] 6 West Jams Strcct
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1301 Stale Courier+ 51 d}1.00 Raleigh, North Ca Tina
e-mail sfate.clearinRhouse {aedva. nc.Rav
An Equal ©pporfnlllWAffiir+Radve Auflon l mpIcver
Appendix G G -2 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
qqr
NCDEN .
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO, Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse
FROW Lyn Hardison
Division of Envcrdr�mental Assistance and Customer Service
Permit Assistance & Project Review Coordinator
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
RE: 14 -0523
Environmental Assessment — Proposed project is for improvements to the targets at the
Navy Dare County Bombing Range
Dare County
Date: July 9, 2014
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has completed its review of the proposal for the
referenced project. Based on the information provided, our agencies have identified permits that may
be required and offered some suggestions. The comments are attached for the applicant's
consideration-
The Department agencies will continue to be available to assist the applicant through the environmental
review and permitting processes
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
1639 Mall Serme Center, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27699 -1639
Cuslorner Service Tail Free 1.877.62$-6748 i Inlerner %,4mv.ncdenr.gov,
All eW2ll 02PLVlmu4 , AliimuiM halm EMOVY + - 9A2cc in port W ra'1n:�e�S pAp6i
Appendix G G -3 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance Coordinator
NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach (DEAO)
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Region Coordinator �.
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBJECT: Draft Environinental Assessment for US Navy, improvements to Targets at the Navy
Dare County Bombing Mange, Dare County, North Carolina.
OLIA No. 14 -0523
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the draft
environmental assessment (EA) with regard to impacts of the project on fish and wildlife resources. lair
comments are provided in accordance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. It 3A -1 c
seq., as amended; 1 NCAC -25), provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (ass amended).
The US Navy (Navy) proposes to make improvements to the Navy Dare County Bombing Range
(DCBR). 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 Moving Land Targets (HILT), The number of flight operations,
types of aircraft, flight paths, and munitions utilized in these range areas are not changing from current
practices. To accommodate the improvements, the Navy proposes to impact a total of 4.44 acres of
wetlands. These wetlands are within the DCBR complex and near other active target areas. To mitigate
for wetland impacts, the Navy proposes to purchase credits per the US Army Corps of Fingineers
(USACE) guidelines from an offshe mitigation bank.
The NCWRC has reviewed the information contained within the EA and does not have significant
concern regarding the project as proposed. As with all proposed wetland impacts, we urge the Navy to
pursue avoidance and minimization of impacts to the greatest extent possible prior to mitigation. Once it
is determined mitigation is Iikeiy, the USAGE guidelines should be enforced.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this CA. If there are any additional comments, questions, or
if our agency can provide further assistance, please contact me at (252) 448 -3916 or at
marira.dunty nccvplsllife_cs
Mailing Addresst Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27694 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax. [phone]
Appendix G G -4 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
_ fig
RCE)E `,R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. 5icvada, III
Governor Secretary
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Coordinator
FROM. Scott Bullock, Regional LIST Supervisor j 4
COPY: Robert Davies, Corrective Action Branch l lead
copy: Kathleen Lance, Administrative Secretary
DATE: June 12, 2014
RF;: Environmental Assessment — Project Number 14 -0523 — Proposed project is for improvement to targets at
the Navy Dare County Bombing Range in Dare County.
I searched the Petroleum Underground Storage Tank (UST) anti Non -LIST Databases and those databases did not indicai
any reported petroleum releases in the proposed project area. However, two incidents are located at the Navy Dare
County Bombing Range (Incidents 85224 and 10945). I reviewed the above proposal and determined that this project
should not have any adverse impact upon groundwater. The following comments are pertinent to my review:
1. The Washington Regional Office (WaRO) UST Section recommends removal of any abandoned or out -of -use
petroleum USTs or petroleum above ground storage tanks (ASTs) within the project area, The UST Section should be
contacted regarding use of any proposed or on -site petroleum USTs or ASTs. We may be reached at (252) 946 -6481.
2. Any petroleum USTs or ASTs must be installed and maintained in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal
regulations_ For additional information on petroleum ASTs it is advisable that the North Carolina Department of
Insurance at (919) 661 -5880 ext. 239, USEPA (404) 562 -8761, local fire department, and Local Building Inspectors
be contacted.
3. Any petroleum spills must be contained and the area of impact must be properly restored. Petroleum spills of
significant quantity must be reported to the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources —
Division of Waste Management Underground Storage Tank Section in the Washington Regional Offirc at (252) 946 -
6481.
4. Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show evidence of petroleum contain nation, such as
stained soil, odors, or free product must be reported immediately to the local lire Marshall to determine whether
explosion or inhalation hazards exist. A.lw, notify the LIST Section of the Washington Regional Office at (252) 946-
6481. Petroleum contaminated soils must be handled in accordance with all applicable regulations.
5. Any questions or concems regarding skills from petroleum USTs, ASTs, or vehicles should be directed to the UST
Section at (252) 946 -6481.
If you have nny q€ €e.stions or need additional information, please contact me at 252 - 448 -3906.
943 Washington 5q, MAI, Washington, 14C 27889
Phooe:252- 848-8481 l lnlernel. h1tpJ1podal.ncdenr.o4weWwm
An EqualOGrxnWMtY1Amrma9vekonWpwv- W%PkryfW41:0%PwCaram iPpper
Appendix G G -5 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Hardison, Lyn
From: 5carbraugh, Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:14 PM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Brady, Harold M.
Cc: Hardison, Lyn; Tankard, Robert
Subject: 14 -0523
Based of review of the subject project by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for improvements to targets at the
Navy Date County Bombing Range that proposes to impacts to 4.29 acres of wetlands with an additional 0.15 acres of
wetlands secondary impacts due to habitat fragmentation, this Office recommends coordinating with the United State.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and DWR concerning the required permitting that may be involved prior to the
implementation of this project, In addition, this Office request avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts be
addressed during the 401 review ;process and potential mitigation alternatives.
Anthony Sca rbraugh
Anthony Scarbraugh
Environmental Senior Specialist
Washington Regional Office
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Regional Operations Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 948 -3924
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statue or other regulation.
**r***##***$##*** V********r$#$#*** w#$****** ** $$$$$ #** *$ #a* * ** ** ****�***ssa #a
Appendix G G -6 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
P I,`eviewill; Office: *11t5 k.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Pto}ect Numbtr.. l y" -L)SZ3 flue Dula:-7 -?r f
After mview of this- project it has been detrained lbst The E'NR ptxmit(s) and /or approvals irtdicaied may need to he obtained in order far Ihm ptoiect to carply wills North
Carolina Law. Qu"iiuns -rA ding ihesa permits slrnuhl lx address d w the Regional Office indicsnerl On the reverse of the form. All aapplicalier s, jnformatlon And guidelines
relad,e to these plans and permas are available frool the Lame RegionoI Office,
PERMITS
SPIif.'IAL,APPI,ICXI ION PR(K'U7URES or R£QUIR12NJ EN' FS ^µ
Time
s:aeutan• rinse lull it)
jPermit 10 cmStrcl K operate w14[ewater Irednf nt
laeihlieS, sawor Sysiem e%ier1d:iom &s,we er SS:StCn15
ApplkC titlo 90 days Wont Iagin emstmction or award of construction, contracla. On -she 30 days
not discharging into state surface walms.
inxpeetinn. PASS- applicmion technical conference usual (A days)
f
NPi7E5 - grertnii to discharge into surface ¢agar an&ar
Application 180 days betbre begin aetivily. Owske dnspcc Lim PI'C, app] icai ion conference
0
permit to operate and conslntcl wmiew'atcr lkcilities
usual. Add moral ly;obtain peons[ Lo een,struat wasiewnierinal nivri r -ilty- grunted Harr
904 20 days
dixclra grog into state so, l4z wwcrm ,
NPOES. R I "time, 30 days after rccei t of flans or Ensue of Nl DES
� 3 p i3 pnrmil- whichever is
(NIA)
f
later.
!-1
m walcr use Pcrmil
Pre- application technical can ference usually names inry
30 des }a
(N /A)
�
>_;J
well Construction Emcimil
I ilmplcle application olio i,c rescivcd and summit issued pmieer In the installation at" a well
T days
f
f
(t5 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjourn ripintin property owner. On site
g 3 days
5
[)
Dredge and Fill Permit
11 r Easement to Fill From
jnspccli(m upplicaf ion confcreuce usual. FEllinp may require
days)
(5
jN.C.
I
Deparunent of Adniudstrahou and Fad=[ Drcdgc and Fill Pcrnlit.
i
Permit to misuvct & oper9le Air Poltolion Abalailew
Application must be subminocl and pnmil received prior to cdn mtclion and
1..,
facilil its and/or EnnGs mn %ources as per t5 A NCAC
apef Boos of the source. if a pl`nni[ 1!i teilnimY9d m an area 5villroflE %cal,Linljng,
90day's
(2Q•OIon Ihru 2Q,oi00)
then ilicare are additipnnl rognirements and timeliftes {2Q.4113).
Permit to ccrnsmrc[ d'c operalc Trunsporlatlon Pacthly as Application must ba sullmjtterl at least 90 days priorto ronstnt ion or modification of the
I S NCAC 90 flays
pct A (21).UR00, 2Q,0(tl1) j sour+:c.
I'
Any open burring associated wills subject plop l9al
muss be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 7D. t 9 i
i
j Demolition or renovat ions n fstmctkrm,, conlaining
{I
asbcsios material nnesl be a cornplwnce with 15 A
NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) ohich require nolilication and N!A 60 days
mr msrl print Io demolition. Corn net Asbestos Comm] (90 days)
troop 9I9 -707 -59,90.
I.i
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
MOM)
ihe'5edimenwiun Pollulioa ('out rnl Aci of 1973 muss he properly addressed fm any Evind disnuhing acn+tl} An cvusioo c@ SCdimcntnljon cY, rr. I Ptarr
r
will be required if ore or more acres to be dislurbcd. Plan filed with rn er Re moral Offices land unfit Seca an] At teas, .)U des t belurc he- m m le. 20 days
9 P p P,j G Ll y y�
�
activity. A fee of $65 for the first Here or any part of an acre. An acpress rc%iew option is arailable with additional fees. (30 days)
i
0
Sedime talion acrd erosion c nrcl must he addressed in accordance wilt NCDOT's approm'ed pipgam. Pacdcular attention Should be given to design and
( ;o days;
insraEl. i - o 'IF apprnpriatc ptrimdU *Ainrenl bopping devices as well as stable slormwarcr conveyances and outlets.
+
C1 -silo iftspe^ctlon usual. Surety band filed with EN Bond amount varies with typa n3ine
j0 dam's ,
i—p
r-1
Muting IaMOLL
and numbet of acres of a11ecled land. Any arc mined greater than one acre must bC
(30 days)
pemmncd, The appmpnaue bond mn5l tic rccell'cd he fare the pemlrt can be issued.
j
Norih Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.('. Dirisiem K,wst Resmr cus it permit xsecilx 4 days
I day
(N +A)
l
Special (ktnlrid CEearanca [fuming Permit -72
On sit: inspection by N.C. lAvisjon forest Resources required "if mom than fine acres of
I
I day '
cnunna, in vvmm NC. with organic soils
ground cicrnng activities are involwdl Inspections slmuld file requested at least len days
(WAI
before actual bum is planned."
fl
0 3
OEI Refining Facilities
MA
90.120 days
"All
If ptrrviv requircel,.application 60 days before begin comn lim. Applicant must hire. N.C.
qualified origin= to: prgvie plans, inspect :unstrvelion, certify avrslruction is according
I" I-N I2 -m ""'d plans May alto tag lire perrrrit under mosquito control program. And a
30 days
f..1
na i Sathtt' pennil
f0L1 rnnit fiord corps of tin sneers An ins ecdon of site is necessary to vetif H=rd
] orP 4 P l
(6U days)
r (^1a551f3Ca1t811. A n1inrmunl fCC of 52(10.0[1 mmrsi BCCO,nj Witty [Ire appljealmaEl. Amt additional
i
! processing fee based on a percentage or the trial prolecl cost will be. required
g
upon tnmplctim.
l
I
[
rrr�.iguc �n-a, m.m.: 1-6 _rrrr3:I .ranvo l 300 .�.. �.. .. .. .,_
Appendix G G -7 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
Appendix G G -8 July 2014
Normal Proem Time
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURFS or REQUIREMENTS
(slatutory lime limit)
-)
File surety bond or 55,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that
10 days
'
Permit to drill expimmory oil or gas hell
any well upenml by drill operator shalt, upon alb- donmem. be plugged according to
NIA
IiNR rules and regulations.
Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to tasuo of permit. Applicaion by
10 days
Gmphysical Exploration Permit
letter. Sin standard application form.
NIA
t
Stan [ �i es Construction Pt mit
Appflcalinn fee is ebarged based on sttucnere sire- Must include descriptions eC'
t 5 -2o days
.)
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian propcny.
NIA
it
401 WnterQuuliryCcni6raliwt - --
NIA
60 days
(130 days)
f-,.
LAMA Pcrmil ror MAJOR tivvulupmeal
5250.00 I've must accontpeny appl €rxlion
55 days
(15o days)
t'I
CAMA Permit for MINOR detrlopmenl 550,00 fee Imsst accompany application
22
(25 days)
Several Eeodclic rramaments art located in or near ix project area- if any monument needg to be m—i OF destroyed, pleusc notify: - -
I- i
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Bas 27637 Raleigh, NC 27611
7
Abandonment of any wells, if rcquind must be in accordancc with Title ISA. Subchapter 2(:.9100.
t
Noli Pea Iion 0 the proper resicnwl "elite is r,,.ded if "orphan' underground storage ron" (USTSI are dmoverod during any excavatipn operation.
1` i
Compliance with 15A NCAC 211 1000 (Coastal Stomm•aler Rules) is regtrlred.
45 days
(NIA)
Tor Pamiiut or Neusc Riparian €3uffar Rules mquircd-
C7
Plaits and spec!f calions W the construction, expansion, Or alto 0011.Of a public wafer system mUSI tae epproved by Ibe 6i ViSipn of Water
ResourceslPuhlic Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of constructicxt as per 15A NC'AC I&C k300 et. seq. Plruns and
days
-
speci l'caiions should be submitted to 1634 Mail Semee C'emtr. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1634. All public rvatrr supply systems must comply
u, itb state and rederal drinking water monitoring rNutremeom ror more informal ion, contact the Pub]ie Water Supply Section, (q 19) 707.9100.
tfcxist ng water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line sclocAion must be submitted to the Division of Water
F
Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 - 1634. For nrure information, "lact Ibc Fuhiic
3odays
Water Supply Section, (9 19) 707-4100.
--
+ Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary,, being ccnain to cite comment authority)
I
I
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office sharked below.
Asheville Regional Office Mooresville Regional (Office Wilmington Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Mooresville, NC 28115 Wilinington, NC 28405
(828) 296 -4500 (704) 663 -1699 (910) 796 -7215
Fayetteville Regional Office Raleigh Regional Office Winstni"alem Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714 3840 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 585 Wanghtovm Street
Fayetteville, AFC 28301 -5043 Raleigh, NC 27609 Winston- Salem, NC 27147
(910) 433 -3300 (919) 791 -4200 (336) 771 -5000
a.R hirtgyton Regional Office
943 Washington $quart Mall
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 946 -6481
Intcrtta, -ei mnentol form Sefnemher 2013
Appendix G G -8 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
COUNTY: DARE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT of ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
G07; MILITARY ACTIVITES
(TRAINING, FLIGHT ROUTES,
BASE EXPANSIONS
MS CARR.IE ATKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC #1554
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
ALBEMARLE REG PLANNING COMM
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR - COASTAL MGT
DENR LEGISLA'T'IVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Department of the Navy
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment
STATE NUMBER: 14 -E -0000 -0523
DATE RECEIVED: 06101/2014
AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/02/2014
REVIEW CLOSED; 07/07/2014
m
DESC: Proposed project is for improvements to targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing
Range. - View documents at
http.// www. navfac .navy.mil /navfac_worldwide /atlantic /fece /mid - atlantic /about us /e
nvironmental_ norfolk /environmental_compliance.html
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. state clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 - 1301..
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919y807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLO/W�I_NjG� IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT 1-1 COMMENTS ATTACHED:
._ = -GNED BY : r •V'J / V a 66{ ,�1C.p/ , DATE,
;ifs 2014
Appendix G G -9 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
XNTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: DARE G07:MILITARY ACTIVITES STATE NUMBER. I4- E -OGOO -0523
(TRAINING, FLIGHT ROUTES, DATE RECEIVED: 06/04/2014
BASE EXPANSIONS AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/02/2014
REVIEW CLOSED: 07/07/2014
M5 CAROLYN PENNY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT �� �
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM VVED
MSC # 4719
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION ,.
ALBEMARLE REG PLANNING COMM .
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR - COASTAL MG.
DENR LEGISLA'T'IVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Department of the Navy
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposed project is for improvements to targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing
Range_ - View documents at
http; //www.navfac.navy.mil/navfac_ xr rorldwide/atlantic /fees /mid- atlantic/abou[ us/e
nvironmental_ norfolk /environmental_compliance,html H
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27599 -1301.
If additional review time is needed, please. contact this office at (919)807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED; NO COMMENT � COMMENTS ATTACHEI
SIGNED BY: r_ J,�s- �� DATE,' L1
r
c>i� ifi��1 i5 � CATS C'Di Gq'S'g 4(1f�2.�SSt
JUN 2f11q
Appendix G G -10 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: DARE 007:MILITARY ACTIVITES
STRAINING, FLIGHT ROUTES,
BASE EXPANSION'S
MS RENEE GLEDHILL- EARLEY i
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
wk
DEFT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
S'T'ATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING -
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
ALBEMARLE REG PLANNING COMM
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR - COASTAL MGT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEFT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Department Of the Navy
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment
STATE NUMBER: 14 -E -0000 -0523
DATE RECEIVED: 06/04/2014
AGENCY RESPONSE. 07/02/207.
REVIEW CLOSED. 07/07/201•=
P� [ S�
DESC: Proposed project is for improvements to targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing
Range. - View documents at
http: / /www.navfac. navy. mil /navfac_ worldwide /atlantic /fees /mid - atlantic /about us /e
nvironmental_ nor€ olk /environmental_compliance.html
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 - 1301..
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at {519 }807 -2425
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: FU NO COMMENT F-1 COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: - DATE:'
�J
4" fir 2011
Appendix G G -11 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
AGENCY COORDINATION SUMMARY
From: United States Fleet Forces Command
To: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Project Manager, Washington Regulatory Field
Office
Subj: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TARGETS
AT THE NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE, NORTH CAROLINA
1. U.S. Fleet Forces Command, on behalf of the U.S. Navy, submitted the Draft
Environmental Assessment for Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County
Bombing Range to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 28, 2014 for review and
comment.
2. The Project Manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Field
Office replied on July 2, 2014 with no substantive comments.
3. The Navy did not make changes to the Environmental Assessment as a result of the
response received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix G G -12 July 2014

Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County Bombing Range Final Environmental Assessment
AGENCY COORDINATION SUMMARY
From: United States Fleet Forces Command
To: United States Air Force, Environmental Planning, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
Subj: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TARGETS
AT THE NAVY DARE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE, NORTH CAROLINA
1. U.S. Fleet Forces Command, on behalf of the U.S. Navy, submitted the Draft
Environmental Assessment for Improvements to Targets at the Navy Dare County
Bombing Range to the U.S. Air Force on May 28, 2014 for review and comment.
2. The Environmental Planner for the U.S. Air Force replied on June 2, 2014 with no
substantive comments.
3. The Navy did not make changes to the Environmental Assessment as a result of the
response received from the U.S. Air Force.
Appendix G G -13 July 2014