20171235 Ver 1_Public Notice_20171003

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Spencer, Thekla M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:01 AM
Subject: [External] US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
As you requested, you are hereby notified that the Wilmington District, United States Corps of Engineers, has issued a
Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home
Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download
at: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RevulatorvPermitProvram.asi)x.
The current notice involves:
Corps Action ID#: SAW -2017-02000
Issue Date: October 3, 2017
Applicant: USMC — Camp Lejeune — c/o: Mr. John Townson, Director Environment Mgmt.
Expiration Date: November 2, 2017
Point of Contact: Brad E. Shaver, Project Manager
Project Description: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from the
United States Marine Corps Base -Camp Lejeune seeking Department of the Army
authorization to discharge fill and associated wetland forest conversion, for the development of Battle Site Zero
(BZO) range adjacent to Tank Range SR -10 in Onslow
County, North Carolina.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This email was sent out as a result of subscribing to the Wilmington District regulatory
program public notices. Please email <mailto:Cindy.M.Corbett(cr usace.arinv.mil> with the subject or message
"unsubscribe" to remove your address from future mailings.

in
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: October 3, 2017
Comment Deadline: November 2, 2017
Corps Action ID Number: SAW -2017-02000
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from the
United States Marine Corps Base -Camp Lejeune seeking Department of the Army
authorization to discharge fill and associated wetland forest conversion, for the
development of Battle Site Zero (BZO) range adjacent to Tank Range SR -10 in Onslow
County, North Carolina.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached
plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington
District Web Site at:
http://www.saw.usace. army.mil/Missions/RegulatgaPennitProgram. aspx
Applicant: USMC-Camp Lejeune
Attn: Mr. John Townson, Director Environment Management
Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base
PSC Box 20005
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-0005
AGENT (if applicable):
Authority
Avolis Engineering, PA
Attn: Mr. Joseph Avolis
Post Office Box 15564
New Bern, North Carolina 28561
The Corps evaluates this application and decides whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of the following Statutory
Authorities:
® Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
❑ Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)
❑ Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1413)
Version 6.15.2017 Page 1

Location
Location Description: The project area is located within the Greater Sandy Run Area
(GSRA), 42,000 -acre training ground, located north of Holly Ridge bordered on the east
side by US 17 and on the west side by NC Hwy 50. Specifically, the project is located
along the east side of the existing Tank Range (SR -10).
Project Area (acres): 26.04 Nearest Town: Holly Ridge
Nearest Waterway: Juniper Swamp River Basin: Cape Fear
Latitude and Longitude: 34.5603 N, -77.5494 W
Existing Site Conditions
The proposed BZO is located at SR -10 (an existing Tank Range) within the lower half of
the GSRA training area. SR -10 is approximately 650 acres in size and the new BZO
would be located along the southeast corner of SR -10. SR -10 is cleared with a series of
targets and access roads while the BZO is currently forested with a combination of
mature Pine and scrub shrub sub canopy.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The applicant states the purpose is to develop a range to calibrate tank weaponry prior to
moving onto the adjacent SR -10 tank range for live training. The BZO range will make
the range operations more efficient from ammunition and range utilization perspectives
by conducting these functions prior to moving onto the actual SR -10 range for live
gunnery training.
Project Description
Camp Lejeune proposes to permanently fill 3.74 acres of Section 404 wetlands to
construct three gravel access drives consisting of one firing point and two target
locations. The 22.3 acres of forested area between the drives will be maintained using
Best Management Practices for Vegetation Cutting in Wetlands. This practice involves
cutting the vegetation above ground without having soil disturbance during the clearing
process. This initial clearing will be maintained to accomplish a clear line of site through
the range
The project has three separate areas consisting of an armored tank bore sighting and
firing area and two down range target areas. All three include gravel access drives. The
firing area includes a 30' x 255' gravel drive and a 63' x 164' concrete pad for tanks to
position on for firing. The first target area is located 1,670' down range and includes a 15'
Version 6.15.2017 Page 2

x 350' gravel access drive and a 255'x 51' protective berm. The second target area is
located 2,645' down range and includes 20'x 390' gravel drive and an 80'x 376' earthen
berm to protect the target supports and the gravel access drive from tank projectiles.
Avoidance and Minimization
The applicant provided the following information in support of efforts to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: The project area is sized at the minimum
footprint to accomplish the mission for a company of tanks. The location of the facility is
where it will not interfere with other SR -10 tank range training operations. All areas
around the tank range consist primarily of wetlands.
See additional information in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and
Environmental Assessment (EA) electronically attached to the Public Notice, web
address above.
Compensatory Mitigation
The applicant offered the following compensatory mitigation plan to offset unavoidable
functional loss to the aquatic environment: USMC-Camp Lejeune has developed a
mitigation bank within the Greater Sandy Run Area to offset future permit needs. This is
an established bank with all credits released. For this proposed action, the Base has
offered mitigation from the bank at 2:1 for the loss of wetlands and 0.5 to 1 for the
permanent wetland conversion from forested to scrub shrub habitat.
Essential Fish Habitat
Pursuant to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, this
Public Notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements. The
Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project would not effect EFH or
associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Appendix C of
33 CFR Part 325, and the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix C,
the District Engineer consulted district files and records and the latest published version
of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determines that:
❑ Should historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, be present within the Corps' permit area; the proposed activity requiring
Version 6.15.2017 Page 3

the DA permit (the undertaking) is a type of activity that will have no potential to
cause an effect to an historic properties.
® No historic properties, nor properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, are present within the Corps' permit area; therefore, there will be no
historic properties affected. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from
the SHPO (or THPO). This determination was made by the Base Archaeologist.
❑ Properties ineligible for inclusion in the National Register are present within the
Corps' permit area; there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed
work. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ Historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register,
are present within the Corps' permit area; however, the undertaking will have no
adverse effect on these historic properties. The Corps subsequently requests
concurrence from the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ Historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register,
are present within the Corps' permit area; moreover, the undertaking may have an
adverse effect on these historic properties. The Corps subsequently initiates
consultation with the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ The proposed work takes place in an area known to have the potential for the
presence of prehistoric and historic cultural resources; however, the area has not
been formally surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. No sites eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are known to be present
in the vicinity of the proposed work. Additional work may be necessary to
identify and assess any historic or prehistoric resources that may be present.
The District Engineer's final eligibility and effect determination will be based upon
coordination with the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate and required, and with full
consideration given to the proposed undertaking's potential direct and indirect effects on
historic properties within the Corps-indentified permit area.
Endangered Species
Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Corps reviewed the project area,
examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North
Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information:
❑ The Corps determines that the proposed project would not affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
❑ The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 4

❑ The Corps initiates consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and will not make
a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
❑ The Corps will consult under Section 7 of the ESA and will not make a permit
decision until the consultation process is complete.
❑ The Corps has initiated consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and will not
make a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
❑ The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
Consultation has been completed for this type of activity and the effects of the
proposed activity have been evaluated and/or authorized by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion or
its associated documents, including 7(a)(2) & 7(d) analyses and Critical Habitat
assessments. A copy of this public notice will be sent to the NMFS.
® The Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as threatened or
endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. The Corps will
make a final determination on the effects of the proposed project upon additional
review of the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment
and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Based on the Heritage database there are occurrences of Lysimachia
asperulifolia (Rough -leaf loosestrife) approximately 8,000 feet north of the
project area and 6,000 feet east of the project area.
Other Required Authorizations
The Corps forwards this notice and all applicable application materials to the appropriate
State agencies for review.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR): The Corps will generally not
make a final permit decision until the NCDWR issues, denies, or waives the state
Certification as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt
of the application and this public notice, combined with the appropriate application fee, at
the NCDWR Central Office in Raleigh constitutes initial receipt of an application for a
401 Certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWR fails to act on this
request for certification within sixty days of receipt of a complete application. Additional
information regarding the 401 Certification may be reviewed at the NCDWR Central
Office, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North
Version 6.15.2017 Page S

Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application
for a 401 Certification should do so, in writing, by October 28, 2017 to:
NCDWR Central Office
Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
(USPS mailing address): 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Or,
(physical address): 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM):
® The application included a certification that the proposed work complies with and
would be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2 (b)(2) the Corps cannot
issue a Department of Army (DA) permit for the proposed work until the applicant
submits such a certification to the Corps and the NCDCM, and the NCDCM notifies the
Corps that it concurs with the applicant's consistency certification. As the application
included the consistency certification, the Corps requests, via this Public Notice,
concurrence or objection from the NCDCM.
❑ Based upon all available information, the Corps determines that this application
for a Department of Army (DA) permit does not involve an activity which would
affect the coastal zone, which is defined by the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Act (16 U.S.C. § 1453).
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof, among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of
the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 6

Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidated State Viewpoint or written position of
the Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for
this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered
species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other
public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to
determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing will be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to
the proposed work, as outlined above, until 5pm, November 2, 2017. Comments should
be submitted to Brad Shaver, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 , or email: brad. e.shavergusace.army.mil.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 7

From:
0"S
Subj:
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS EAST -MARINE CORPS BASE
PSC BOX 20005
CAMP LEJEUNE NC 28542-0005
5090.12
BEMD
SEP 0 7 2017
Commander, Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune
Commanding Officer, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Brad Shaver
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BATTLE SITE ZERO RANGE ADJACENT TO TANK RANGE
SR -10 ON MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS EAST -MARINE CORPS BASE,
CAMP LEJEUNE
Encl: (1) Application for Department of the Army Permit for the
Construction of a Battle Site Zero (BZO) range adjacent to
Tank Range SR -10 on Marine Corps Installations East -Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ)
1. The enclosed application to discharge fill into Section 404
wetlands to construct a BZO range on MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ is submitted
for your review and approval.
2. Camp Lejeune proposes to permanently fill 3.74 acres of Section
404 wetlands to construct three gravel access drives consisting of one
firing point and two target locations. The 22.3 acres of forested
area between the drives will be maintained using USACE Best Management
Practices for Vegetation Cutting in Wetlands. A NEPA Environmental.
Assessment was completed for this project in February 2015.
3. The point of contact for this
Environmental Conservation Branch,
G -F at telephone [phone] or
project is Ms. Jessi Baker,
Environmental Management Division,
email [e-mail].
Sincerely,
iHf'
/ �`�
N R. TOWNSON
Director, Environmental Management
By direction of the
Commanding General
Copy to:
NCDENR, DWQ, 401 Section, Attn: J. Burdette
NCDENR, DWQ, WRO, Attn: R. Mairs

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ENG
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 30 -SEPTEMBER -2015
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor Can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW rO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Neal Middle - Last - Paul
First - Joseph Middle -Clayton Last - Avolis
Company - Commanding Officer, MCB Camp Lejeune
Company - Avolis Engineering, PA
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 1005 Michael Road
Address- P.O. Box 15564
City - Camp Lejeune State - NC Zip - 28547 Country -USA
City - New Bern State - NC Zip -28561 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
910-451-2213
252-633-0068
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Avolis Engineering, PA to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Site Design for SRI and BZO Ranges
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Juniper Swamp
Address Tank Range SR10, South Bay Road GRSA
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: �N 34.5603 Longitude: -W 77.5494
City - MCB Camp Lejeune State- NC Zip- 28547
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID N/A Municipality MCB Camp Lejeune
Section - Township - Range-
ange-
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Project site is located adjacent to the eastern side of the SR -10 tank range within the Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) of MCB Camp
Lejeune. Access to the site and the surrounding 42,000 acre military training area is by the gravel surfaced South Bay Road located 1.3
miles south of the NC Highway 210 and US Highway 17 intersection on US 17. Proceed west on South Bay Road 4.3 miles to the SR -10
tank range. Project site is in the wooded area on right hand (eastern) side of the SR -10 range.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The project has three separate areas consisting of an armored tank bore sighting and firing area and two down range target areas. All three
include gravel access drives. The firing area includes a 30'x 255' gravel drive and a 63'x 164' concrete pad for tanks to position on for
firing. The first target area is located 1,670' downrange and includes a 15'x 350' gravel access drive and a 255' x 5 P protective berm. The
second target area is located 2,645' down range and includes 20'x 390' gravel drive and a 80'x 376' earthen berm to protect the target
supports and the gravel access drive from tank projectiles. The wooded area between the firing and target areas will be cut flush with the
ground with no fill. The vegetated area between the firing position and the target areas will be maintained using USACE Best
Management Practices for vegetation cutting in wetlands (attached) in order to keep the firing lines unobstructed. These areas of
vegetation management using Best Management Practices total 22.3 acres.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Project will be used to bore site and zero the tank weaponry prior to moving onto adjacent SR -10 tank range for live training. The bore
sighting and zeroing processes will align the tank barrel with the down range targets, allow tank crews to program their firing computers,
and confirm those solutions by zeroing the weapon systems. The BZO range will make the range operations more efficient from
ammunition and range utilization perspectives by conducting these functions prior to moving onto the actual SR -10 range for live gunnery
training.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The areas adjacent to the existing SR -10 tank range consist of 404 Pocosin Pine Wetlands. The fill proposed to be placed in the wetland
areas will be high enough to bridge out of the wet conditions and will allow the gravel drives and concrete slab to support the proposed
loads associated with the tank training operations.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Soil - 14,784 Gravel - 985 (Placed over fill) Concrete - 383 (Placed over fill/gravel)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres Firing Area (45,283 SF) + Target Area 1 (49,939 SF) + Target Area 2 (67,833 SF) = 163,055 SF (3.74 AC)
or
Linear Feet Fill will be by bulldozer and motor grader. Silt fencing will be placed around work area.
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
The project area is sized at the minimum footprint to accomplish the mission for a company of tanks. The location of the facility is where
it will not interfere with other SR -10 tank range training operations. All areas around the tank range consist primarily of wetlands. MCB
Camp Lejeune operates the Greater Sandy Run Area wetland mitigation bank and has adequate credits available to complete this project.
The typical mitigation ratio is 1.5 acres per 1.0 acres impacted. MCB Camp Lejeune maintains a balance sheet for the mitigation area.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 2 of 3

24 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? ❑Yes X❑No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody to more man can to wowed hero. pease atlact, a ump'ementai n5t)
a. Address- Project area is located within a 42,000 acre military training area. The nearest private property is 1.9 miles from the site.
City - State - Zip -
b. Address-
Ctty - State - Zip -
c. Address -
city - State - Zip -
d Address -
City - State - Trp -
a Address -
city - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or ApprovalsfDenials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
NCDEQ 401 Water Quality Pending
Would include but is not restricted to zoning. building and flood plain permits
27. Ap tion is hereby made for permit or penults to authorize the work described in this application I certify that this information in this application Is
com and a
ccurate !forth certify that t possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
a ca
�)
SIGNATOF APPLICA T D , SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application mTu
be signed by he person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed
18 U.S C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or Imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORK/ 4345, DEC 2014 Page 3 of 3

L
SR -17
�.WWWW.W
rEilATo's . `�
1NIEMEKT AREA /6
KA
y "WETCAADS
4 W W NFA
IIPWDS
MANIIMENT AREA 13
W +LETAAD6 .
WMANAMEN1 MFA n
1ma
D
SR -17
.WWWWyWW
EWWyW.Wy/
WW�W1WyW
W•
70,014 S / 1.75 he
. yWEIlm W W W W W
WX7 SF / 138 k
MMUGDENf MFA 11
1%482 u / 220 k
SITE EEWHLARN
11360M S / 2AD k.
WNIGEIM]D MFA /6
08,264 S / 138 k
N-28B051.76s W W
E-24584 AN W W W
ze
aEV-50.53 W W
sTE
N=2B76&021
U
Et2436420.4M
EIEV
-
W
�
:y:WWWWWW
FYMG t
tMTron i er% d eu �'
TARGET ACCESS ROAD &
IMPACT BERM SEE SHEET
EX -4 FOR
ENLARGED SITE P�N
LMDDp6
1
TOTAL WETLAND VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT AREA = 970,390 SF
(22.3 ACRES)
TARGET ACCESS ROAD
SEE SHEET EX -3
FOR ENLARGED SITE PLAN
—ACCESS ROAD & CONCRETE PAD
SEE SHEET EX -2 FOR ENLARGED
SITE PLAN
PLAN
in
CENM 00161=31M
1. THE WON NO D=OF MW ORIIES MM ARE APPROIOI X TIE COMHACDR
SIPLL RE M31011WE FDR SCWM THE MFA OF WORK W fIt7NFY W M ON SATRACIDN
THE EXTE+N OF IMUM5 PRESI:M NCUJDNG TIE MES IMICKM W BE PMENT, THOSE IDT
WK NO THOSE MW W BE N A OffiWIT LOMM1N.
L MMOL SITE FERNS OUISEE THE AREA OF W= OR IM FEATIIRES NOT RELEW W
THE MDRM EENG PENNED ARE NOT SIMIAN FOR CIAI V.
i ALL EKISW MDEDDED AREAS DWOM DING CM6WJCWN SIAL BE M36LETA7FD N
AMIMMIff WIM TIE PMKCT YEMEN PIM, SEE MAL F. SHEET 0-502.
IFIr mm RENS Ims Ston myk
Q cur mm VEOEMTON RUSH MM THE UHHND WITH ND IND mm EwT
MRM THE THEE NDICNED IMIR aDiF AREAS.
BLP: VEGETATION CUTTING N WETLANDS:
WORK IS LIMITED 70 THE CUTTING AND/OR REMOVAL OF VEGETATION ABOVE THE GROUND.
TO AVOID SOIL DISTURBANCE, CHAIN SAWS, TREE SHHFMS, TRE PNCHEK MOWERS
ROTARY CUTTERS OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE USED TO CUT ABOVE THE GROUND
SURFACE WHILE LEAVING THE SOILS AND RODTS INTACT. ALL HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE
MOUNTED ON RUBBER TIRED VEHICLES, HIGH FLOTATION TIRED VEHICLES, OR PLACED ON
NAM
P NECESSARY, CUT VEGETATION SHOULD BE LIFTED INTO WINDROWS PROVIDED THIS
ACTIVITY DOES NOT RESULT IN MORE THAN A DE MINIMUS (INCIDENTAL) DISCHARGE OR
REDEPOSITION OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL CHIPPING OR MULCHING IS ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED
THE BIOMASS DOES NOT IMPEDE OR DIVERT NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND DOES NOT
RESULT N EFFECTIVELY FILLING THE WETLAND AREA WITH CHPPED OR MULCHED MATERIAL
CHIPPED OR MULCHED MATERIAL MAY BE PLACED IN CONTAINERS FOR REMOVAL TO AN
UPLAND DISPOSAL SITE
STOCKPILING AND/OR MECHANICAL SPREADING OF CHIPPED OR MULCHED MATERIAL MUST
RECEIVE PRIOR APPROVAL BY A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) SECTION 4D4 PERMIT
FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AEDND MWWCf IAAF
10F w4m ADA MMMT
ACCESS Ran & mNCRETE IAD 466266 sF / 1.04 At
TMfET ACCESS ROW 466440 S / 1.04 k
MW ACCESS ROW & IMPACT BERN 67,657 S / 1.66 k
YEMEN IHMMMIBR MFA I INT TARE
D
VEIMEW 16NALi1M7W MFA MWAa
W M6FNEIIT NEA 11
613M SF / 14.06 k
MN1nE W MEA %2
70,014 S / 1.75 he
WXAMIE N MFA Iu ((RM)
WX7 SF / 138 k
MMMAMU MEA #4
1%482 u / 220 k
W NIMM MIA /5
11360M S / 2AD k.
WNIGEIM]D MFA /6
08,264 S / 138 k
—hT CP+`!
SCALE: 1'=
a
00
ze
U
Y
W
O W
Z
1Lu z d
O
O
U
SCALE: 1'=

AREA OF WETLAND FILL
45,283 SF, (1.04 AC.)
�X
1. THE 1OWU AM DOW OF DOS W UMW SIOWN ARE APPROORWOE. THE CONTRIeTOR
SHULL BE RESPDNSBIE FOR SCRIM THE AREA OF WORK M VDM M HIS DIN SATUACTON
THE WENT OF WIL ESS PRESENT NCWDNO THE UTM DMAU TO BE PRIME. THOSE N07
SHOW, AND THDSE SHOWN TO BE N A WTUaN MM
Z PIRSKAL SIZE FUTURES MAE M AREA OF WORN OR 11108E FEATURES NOT MEW TO
THE WORN 906 PUMMED ARE HAT SHNN FOR OAalf.
3. ALL DEW IEGLTAED AREAS DONJR(E)D RIRRIC CM67RUCTON SHALL BE REVDBETAm N
ALCMWa WTH THE PROW YWATION RAN, SEE DEW F, SW IX-&
AEW MORN BDLR nHIS SHEET OI1L1k
0 INRS OF aFAIWc MUM AREA WER ROAD & CONEUETE NO 12 RICHE'S.
®
NEW ORF Ir RCP.
®
NEW WC'Mn PM - SEF MATE A SHEET IX -S.
O HEW wAEL ACCESS Rm - SEE DME A, sHEST E7(-&
SMALL OIUFEL MOM ENTMNCE - SEE DETAL B. SIEET EK -o.
SMALL SLT FENCE - SEE mcm C, SHEET D( -o.
© HEW GRASS SOLE - SEE DETAL D, SHEET IX-&
O HED RP NAP NLET/gW PROTECBON - SEE DELI. E, SHEET D(-&
O ROYOE JIBE NET STA Lwm ON ALL HEW SLOPED SUFACES. SEE DELL; SHEET ER-/.
v. .
. "• - "Z' AEW Od10ilE -. .
DENS CONECm
110'
B CONCRETE DRIVE CONNECTOR
t2j SCALE: 1 W
a�
X/
GRAVEL RQAD
SEE DELL A, SHEET IX -6
FENFORMIENT W Ir
NKXtEIE CN CDRDI EAON WW
X�
X
uNONEW1HENr sumaoE
QCONCRETE DRIVE CONNECTOR SECTION
IX -2 NOT TO SCALE
Dmw
mm
H rr
PLAN
L I►� EMEIT 2 - ACCESS ROAD & CONCRETE PAD
IX -2 SCALE 1'=50H

502
2
56.62
58.64
56.86
62 B8
XRLS 58.99
E� 58.67
56.67
55.59
x SS1O /
55.5,
x55.3,
\ �C .12 - /i��r
x � 55.52
550 55.'JI
5 .60
W v
• x53.9
oErxmeExraFne x�vr xgv�I FACERESENC.V[ERH000MAW
AVOUS ENGINEERING, PA. E E"SE NO.Cd
MARINE CORPS BASE
CAMP LE)EUNE, NORTH CAROUNA
NEW& RNA
NEW &)633- 2,F
PH. 252) 633.0066, FAX [phone]
SITE DESIGN FOR
DES, J. C. AVOLIS, P.E.
SRIO AND BZO RANGES
DR. MSP/WFF
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE
CHK J. K. AVOLIS, P.E.
EXHIBIT 3- TARGET ACCESS ROAD
SUBMITTEDBY:
BTR. CONTR. STUDY N0.16.17 1 SPEC N0.15-17
DESIGN DIR. T. H. BURTON

CAC41Mi b7MEL RCM
PLAN
f A \ ESMTT 3 — TARGET ACCESS ROAD do IEIPACT DERII
Df -4 SG1LE: 1-=501 '�W]
GENEGENEM CONSFREM
1. THE LJ CAM NO OWN OF DVW UM MES SHORN ARE APPRO'AIIATE THE COMRLCTOR
SHALL BE IEFO SeWE FOR SFAHMNC THE NEA OF WM( 10 MOM TO HIS OWN SKYWA RON
THE WENT OF tM MS REMIT HUM THE UIIRES NMAW 70 IE PEW, THEE NOT
S11M AND THOSE SHOMi TO BE N A pHPEW LOG1M
2 RASi1TitL SM FEMES OUTSM THE AREA OF WOW OR MM FEATURES IIA RaEyWE TO
THE WORK BENG PEf6OM NE NOF SHORN FOR 0AFW.
S. ALL DOW VEGETATED MEAS WRINEDD MUIC OOISTRLCM SHAH BE REYWATED N
ACODFWE WDH THE PROJECT 1E�E, TM ON PEAK, SEE OETAL F. SHEET EX -L
HEN In REMS AHS SHEET OIIYt
O LMS OF CLENIIIG. ULpT W AREA UM ROAD R IMPACT BEN 12 NCFES.
® LEN 125LF Ur RCP.
NEIN EMTHEN MPACT Oft M SME SLOPES
0 LEW 6WWEL ACCESS ROAD - SFE DEM A SHEET EK-&
NMI CRUEL WNW EHTRWN'E - SEE DUAL D, SHEET IX -6.
® NSTALL SEE FENCE - SEE OETAL C, %w Ex -L
O
NEW CRASS SWU - SEE DEM % SHEET a(-6.
® MV RP RAP NIST/OUW PR WOON - SFE DETAL E SHEF Ex -6.
9Q PW4X ARE NET STABtWM ON ALL NEW SLOPED SUFACM SEE DE ML G SHEET a(-6,
✓
v
NFpti C11 A��`�C

SAPED FiL
E
PLAN
A ERRED PLAN - CONCFiiE APRON
\IX -5j SCALE 1 =30
(D
rNEW C4AIEL ACCESS RAW
SEE DEW A SHEET IX -6
A1K
tt' `15 REINFORCEMENT 0 8'
I 1 ! CO�nNCRETE I / ON CENTER EACH WAY
L-GEOGRD UNDERI.AYMENT
v ACROSS SECTION - CONUM APRON
\V -5j SCALE: ITS '-I
TOP OF SUB
PREFORMED JONT FILLER
1-1/4' SMOOTH DOWEL K 30- LONG 0 12' O.C.
WRAP OR GREASE ONE END
TYP d KPANSIDN ANT fE O
C SUB-ON.GRADE JOINTS
IX -5 NOT To BALE
18'
BIASING MAT 3:1 RAPE
TD i
RIP NEAP, 12' THICK `MR-ANYL11
ACTED SUDGRADE CEOTECH FABRIC
sp' A— A-RECM.ED RIA: TREAD
~�0(tOP FORCED CABLE CLAMP
•' STEEL CORE CABLE
1A?IfS
1. BASTING MATS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF 10' THICK RECYCLED TRUCK TIRE TREADS. POMDLML
MAT SIZES SHALL BE 16'x2O'x10' THICK AND APPROXIMATELY 50 LBS PER SOUARE FDDT.
Z TRE TREADS SHALL BE THREADED DMO A NEW 5/B' STEEL CORE CABLES AT 12' O.0 WTTH
DROP =CA"' CLAMPS AND LIFTING RINGS. ALL CABLES SHALL BE DOUBLE LUMP FOR
IX -5 Di TO gr `011111111/1/
0�xA \.\•CA)� N,,
y:; �W NrI "• OV
yAH C11 p,J,�,�`�
a
1182`'
MTIHSIECKC1
:R
--
4' a 4
d4.a
it
.'
i
m
RED 1RE-
mm
RECCD T
k
a
-.:. DIASMATS.
o
o
'
BUSTING MATS
w
o
w/�
AvcR RIP RAP
z
a
F
0
OR RIP WP
m
W
W Q
CL
.
d •4d
RASS
W GCS K e
°
4- d
a
a'°.a .° ..a, a
U �
m
&1 SLOPED FILL
w�
572
d a
a•
a
�1
a
°
i F;.-.•:
a a
tl
a a a 57'
PLAN
A ERRED PLAN - CONCFiiE APRON
\IX -5j SCALE 1 =30
(D
rNEW C4AIEL ACCESS RAW
SEE DEW A SHEET IX -6
A1K
tt' `15 REINFORCEMENT 0 8'
I 1 ! CO�nNCRETE I / ON CENTER EACH WAY
L-GEOGRD UNDERI.AYMENT
v ACROSS SECTION - CONUM APRON
\V -5j SCALE: ITS '-I
TOP OF SUB
PREFORMED JONT FILLER
1-1/4' SMOOTH DOWEL K 30- LONG 0 12' O.C.
WRAP OR GREASE ONE END
TYP d KPANSIDN ANT fE O
C SUB-ON.GRADE JOINTS
IX -5 NOT To BALE
18'
BIASING MAT 3:1 RAPE
TD i
RIP NEAP, 12' THICK `MR-ANYL11
ACTED SUDGRADE CEOTECH FABRIC
sp' A— A-RECM.ED RIA: TREAD
~�0(tOP FORCED CABLE CLAMP
•' STEEL CORE CABLE
1A?IfS
1. BASTING MATS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF 10' THICK RECYCLED TRUCK TIRE TREADS. POMDLML
MAT SIZES SHALL BE 16'x2O'x10' THICK AND APPROXIMATELY 50 LBS PER SOUARE FDDT.
Z TRE TREADS SHALL BE THREADED DMO A NEW 5/B' STEEL CORE CABLES AT 12' O.0 WTTH
DROP =CA"' CLAMPS AND LIFTING RINGS. ALL CABLES SHALL BE DOUBLE LUMP FOR
IX -5 Di TO gr `011111111/1/
0�xA \.\•CA)� N,,
y:; �W NrI "• OV
yAH C11 p,J,�,�`�
GRAPHIC SCALE:1I8'=1' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1'= 30'
m
mm
k
a
cLw=
aza
o
z
o
i
U
N
w
o
w/�
W ¢
z
V /
Q
F
0
V
d
v
m
W
W Q
CL
O z
W GCS K e
U �
m
g
w�
�� z
Z
WWSW Lu
GRAPHIC SCALE:1I8'=1' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1'= 30'

COMPACTED
SLOPE IN
�DGRDUHDUU�YMEXT��
GONG PAD 4rCAA ltkl�
a--) TYPICAL GRAVEL ROAD SECTIONS
- NOT TO SCALE
SELF -ANCHORING
METAL POST 0 6' O.C. MAX
• 12 GAUGE CW WIRE MESH
FILTER FABRIC
BURY
<�­ FLOW
MAN1T]IANCE:
1. INSPECT STRUCTURESY AND
AFTER AT LEAST A I/ GREATER
RAINFALL EVENT.
2 REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM BEHIND SILT
FENCE PRIOR TO IT READING A
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 7 INCHES
C SILT FENCE
EX -6 NOT TO SCALE
° °°0000
A DU'IL.ET PIPE °o o° 0 000
0
000
FLOW o RIP RAP
0
000 00°
°000
PLAN_
OUTLET
0
pO0,
ooA
0
o°
° 0
o°O °
0 0
o°g$00 ppO
FILTER FABRI
SECTION A -A MATTISNANCB
I. S S �EEEKKLY AD
AFTER AT�fLE
GREATER RAINFALL EMIX.
2 YFDU1ELY WINE ALL NEEDED
REPAIRS
E OUW PROTECDON
EX -6 NOT TO SCALE
77-0 0 0 0 0 0 6* LAYER OF COARSE AGGREGATE (2'-3'
o o 0 OVER 12' LAYER OF STONE BASE COURSE
0000 O
000°O
00 0 00
0 uAINTENANCMAINTENANCE.0 0 00 0 0 10' 1. MAINTAIN ENTRANCE CONDITION.
0 0 0 ° 0 THIS MAY REQUIRE REPLACEMENT
0 o 0 OF STONE
O00_0_ -
EDGE OF EXISTING)
ROADWAY PAVEMENT
B GRAVEL CONTROL ENTRANCE
IX -6 NOT TO SCALE
GRASS VEGETATION
'� DR CHWNEL LIMING i
� � AS INDICA7lD � h�i �
a-) VEGETATED SWALE
-6j NOT TO SCALE
PROCEDE
STRAW MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE WHICH WILL INSURE APPROXIMATELY
THE
95% COVERAGE BE
AREA. WILL
I'
LIGHTLY DLSCED INTO THE BED GIVE R FURTHHER RESISTANCE
GRAN
� I
\\\``•, G' A,
``
OVER
THE ENTRE DISTURBED AREA IF NECESSARY,
' O�� i
THE COMRACTCR WLL WET DOWN
THE AREAS TO ASSIST IN SEED GERMINATION
LIME
OR AID IN GROWTH IN TIMES OF
EXCESSIVELY DRY WEATHER. A STAND OF GRASS WALL BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE,
ZO
//Q..o%•,.,,:..=.rr,,v.���•,r
,err:.•,
.,,`-:.,..�.- •.,:�:�i"��.,.
MULCH
REQUIRED AS NECESSARY BY THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE SPECIFIED STAND
RID r. a
TARGET
OF GRASS.
.
THE AREAS DISTURBED BY THIS PROJECT NILL BE STABILIZED NI7H GRASS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:
ACCESS ,O.M
PENSACOLA BAHIACRASS
50 LBS/AC
SEINCEA LESPEDEZA
30 LBS/AC
+,.E To
KOBE LESPEDEZA
COMPACTED
aft
SLOPE 1 4! PER
avpE
1,001 LEIS/AC�lB5/AC
l••-Ilj`yly
%`"`
U'Yrr
/H/,�TI/:y..�
•.� li•,
C� •N1IARGET
AND IMPACT BERM
ACCESS
a--) TYPICAL GRAVEL ROAD SECTIONS
- NOT TO SCALE
SELF -ANCHORING
METAL POST 0 6' O.C. MAX
• 12 GAUGE CW WIRE MESH
FILTER FABRIC
BURY
<�­ FLOW
MAN1T]IANCE:
1. INSPECT STRUCTURESY AND
AFTER AT LEAST A I/ GREATER
RAINFALL EVENT.
2 REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM BEHIND SILT
FENCE PRIOR TO IT READING A
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 7 INCHES
C SILT FENCE
EX -6 NOT TO SCALE
° °°0000
A DU'IL.ET PIPE °o o° 0 000
0
000
FLOW o RIP RAP
0
000 00°
°000
PLAN_
OUTLET
0
pO0,
ooA
0
o°
° 0
o°O °
0 0
o°g$00 ppO
FILTER FABRI
SECTION A -A MATTISNANCB
I. S S �EEEKKLY AD
AFTER AT�fLE
GREATER RAINFALL EMIX.
2 YFDU1ELY WINE ALL NEEDED
REPAIRS
E OUW PROTECDON
EX -6 NOT TO SCALE
77-0 0 0 0 0 0 6* LAYER OF COARSE AGGREGATE (2'-3'
o o 0 OVER 12' LAYER OF STONE BASE COURSE
0000 O
000°O
00 0 00
0 uAINTENANCMAINTENANCE.0 0 00 0 0 10' 1. MAINTAIN ENTRANCE CONDITION.
0 0 0 ° 0 THIS MAY REQUIRE REPLACEMENT
0 o 0 OF STONE
O00_0_ -
EDGE OF EXISTING)
ROADWAY PAVEMENT
B GRAVEL CONTROL ENTRANCE
IX -6 NOT TO SCALE
GRASS VEGETATION
'� DR CHWNEL LIMING i
� � AS INDICA7lD � h�i �
a-) VEGETATED SWALE
-6j NOT TO SCALE
PROCEDE
STRAW MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE WHICH WILL INSURE APPROXIMATELY
THE
95% COVERAGE BE
AREA. WILL
I'
LIGHTLY DLSCED INTO THE BED GIVE R FURTHHER RESISTANCE
GRAN
TDB AND
WASHING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE A FULL STAND OF GRASS
\\\``•, G' A,
``
OVER
THE ENTRE DISTURBED AREA IF NECESSARY,
' O�� i
THE COMRACTCR WLL WET DOWN
THE AREAS TO ASSIST IN SEED GERMINATION
LIME
OR AID IN GROWTH IN TIMES OF
EXCESSIVELY DRY WEATHER. A STAND OF GRASS WALL BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE,
ZO
WEN THE ENTIRE STAND OF GRASS IS AT LEAST FOUR INCHES HIGH AND HAS
.9
ACHIEVED AT LEAST 955 COVERAGE OF DLSNRBED AREAS. RESEEDING WILL BE
MULCH
REQUIRED AS NECESSARY BY THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE SPECIFIED STAND
L
OF GRASS.
.
THE AREAS DISTURBED BY THIS PROJECT NILL BE STABILIZED NI7H GRASS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:
•
•
• •
PENSACOLA BAHIACRASS
FlPoRARY stmt AIOitl6V!
IRYE
1 . FEHIL1rn fsE
!!! V�•^H
GRAN
120 LBS/AC
C� P
ANNUAL LESPEDEZA KOBE
50 LBS/AC
LIME
2,ODO LBS/AC
10-10-10 FERTILIZER
750 LAS/AC
MULCH
4,000 LBS/AC
ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITH ASPHALT.
PiHIMdi sTmc 61gINARY is - OC1�A 111
TALL FESCUE
BD LBS/AC
PENSACOLA BAHIACRASS
50 LBS/AC
SEINCEA LESPEDEZA
30 LBS/AC
KOBE LESPEDEZA
10 LBS/AC
LIME
D-10-10 FERTILIZER
1,001 LEIS/AC�lB5/AC
MULCH
4,DDO LB/AC (TACKED WITH ASPHALT)
FROM SEPTEMBER I - OCTOBER M. USE UNSCAREIED SERICEA SEED.
BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND AUGUST 15, ADD 10 LB/AC GERMAN MILLET.
PRIOR TO MAY 1 O2 AFTER AUGUST 15. ADD 25 LB/AC RYE CRAN.
CUT k FILL SLOPES WILL, WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS DAYS I
COMPLETION CF ANY PHASE OF GRADING, BE PLANTED AND OF PROVIDED
WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT GROUND COVER, DEVICES, OR
STRUCTURES SUFFICIENT TO RESTRAIN EROSION.
F VEGTATTON PLAN
IX -6 NOT TO SONE
JUTE NET MATTING
PROVIDE STAPLES 0 24"
O.C. EACH DIRECTION i
3
SECTION VIEW
OF BANK / EDGE OF FABRIC
NET MATTING
PLAN VIEW
NOTES
T. INSTALL MATTING N ACCORDANCE
WITH NANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
2 PREPARE, SEED, AND FERTLIZE
SWALE PRIOR TO MATTING
INSTALLATION.
a APPLY MATTING IN DIRECTION OF
WATER FLOW.
4. PLACE MATTING IN CONTACT WITH
SOIL
5. BUTT ROLLS OF MATTING EDGE TO
EDGE
6. U -STAPLES SHOULD HAVE 6' MIN.
LENGTH AND f MIN. CROWN.
NOTE: PROVIDE ON ALL NEW SLOPED SURFACES
G JUTE NET SLOPE PROTECTION
IX -6 NOT TO SCALE

�' rit '�
-EL —
I �
s
�* a
����� =� - - ¢ - � —•� - ��dTn yes � �-� — .-.
-
- c -CAMP}LE3EUNE WL:
-.-
Xpw-
?TANK I�10 TARGET ACCESS ROAD & IMPACT BERM
- F PROJECT AREA
ARG I C ESS AO� ,, C6 "' R
G _ •C p
a
J+.
WryLf � ._ JJffaalyy a d��y4Q
` CCfSS ROAD & CONCRETE PAD
--
6 L
PLAN
A EXHIBIT 7 - 2016 USGS MAP
IX -7 SCALE: 1"=2000'

S
poi,°S�'v
CA&
15360 02 fel
g
r t
ANK
TAR Er ACCESS ROAD & IMPACT BERMNWA
A:
o
�° PROJE T AREA -r4`T, " LL w w
a a
_N c _
� w
Gro r wvc�o o o
o
! W X w N U y Y F O
2E F Z
U'
0 W 2 n Y m y
¢ O O U vI O
ACCESS
W
z
C/)
= U
QJ
x
Lu �
Lu
O z m
=UW oz°°,N o
Z
LLJI
oz� co
Fe
¢ co w 2 N
UZ w
Z
_ N
k O
- U
l 0 1000 2000
PLAN
N
A EXHIBIT 8 - 2016 USGS AERIAL GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 2000'
IX -8 SCALE: 1"=2000'
EX -8
SHEET 8 OF 09

Map Unit Legend
Omwacdufdy Ruda cu minim WOU)
111!�Wlhsrmw ■m W1111.ri. A—In A01 p.10p1.f A01
•l -- amlan mrd prcetl 0-s= %44E
FiA `-*%� immyfte scald. 01- Z;16.E 1G.HL
-1 Lm VM and t x51.7 64%
MI MddNkrleun E8d6d 1271E
1h Murnc TnP �d ese.a SA%
HoE I 195 1.9%
p— 4w..
5l ssvunvclo.m/ Ane sena 1 wi.1 9.0%
HV VAVMrMOm 1M q4u "Ad X 6F75 7S.Si
•dpls7u Arca Dt 4drW fe,brdC9 Imp%
15310 02 fel
g
� ,
a � �'GINt�:
E`pH
t
TAR Er ACCESS
o
&IMA M
a o
w m
z a a
PP R C6N
w w
� wvUo Jo Jo
Z m z > > m
W X W N U N Y F O
(n mmN 2E F Z
C7
0 O w Z n Y m y
> a z a w x w
O O U vI O
Lu W Z
mLLI
? W J
(n 0
L I—r
W Q
`> O z
W m Q Cn
m o�
W ¢ a z
Lu o = o
oz� co
U co W N
O
w QZ
N
Z
O
U
0 1000 2000
PLAN
N
A EXHIBIT 8 - SOILS MAP GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 2000'
IX-9 SCALE: 1"=2000'
EX-9
SHEET 9 OF 09

Official Document Inventory Jan 12015 to present - SR -10 BZO Ra... Page 1 of 1
ID# 23532
Document Type Correspondence
Document TiVe SR -10 BZO Range USACE IP Application
Date Received: Created 6/22/2017
Date Signed 6/28/2017
Mail Status Outgoing
Document Status Final
Author MCBCL/EMD
Program 509012 NEPA
Keywords SR -10 BZO Range USACE IP wetland
Building/Room # EMPORTAL
Storage Electronic Copy
Route
Mailing Instructions
Comments EA was completed for this work in Feb 2015
Working File Link https,//em.usmc.mil/sites/le/wf/SG90_12NEPA/Perrnits%
20and%20Consostency%20Determinat ions/SR-l0%20and%
20 BZO%20 ra nges/S R -10%20a nd%20 B ZO%20U SAC E9b
20Cvr,.Itr. Sept6.docx
Director Comments
Permanent Yes
Reviewed by PM No
Mission Assurance Review Completed No
Content Type: Item
version: 6.0 t osa
Created at 6/22/2017 12 31 PM by Baker CIV Jessi O
Last modified at 9/6/21117 8.31 AM by Baker CIV Jessi O
https://em.usmc.mil/sites/le/hdlLists/Official%20Document%20Invent... 9/6/2017

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (USMC)
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF BATTLESIGHT ZERO (BZO) RANGE ADJACENT TO SR -10
MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS EAST -MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE
(MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ)
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Responsible Officer
Commanding General
Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base
PSC Box 20005
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-0005
Point of Contact
Ms. Stephanie McCary
Environmental Management Division
PSC Box 20005
Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-0005
[phone]
Stephanie. McCar r a.usmc.miI
February 2015

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (USMC)
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF BATTLESIGHT ZERO (BZO) RANGE ADJACENT TO SR -10
MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS EAST -MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE
(MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ)
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Parts 1500 — 1508) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, the United States Marine Corps (USMC) gives
notice that a Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed construction of a BZO Range adjacent to
SR -10, MCB CAMLEJ, Onslow County, North Carolina has been prepared.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The NEPA requires Federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations into planning and
decision-making processes along with technical and economic considerations. Specifically, Federal
agencies must formally assess environmental impacts of their actions and consider reasonable alternatives
to meet the purpose and need of the action. EAs, Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), and
Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) Decision Memoranda are the written documentation of this process.
Chapter 12 of MCO P5090.2A, Change 3, outlines the USMC policy regarding NEPA compliance. The
installation Commanding Officer has the responsibility of determining whether a proposed action as
addressed in an EA warrants a FONSI, and therefore does not require preparation of an EIS.
The current proposed action under consideration would construct a new BZO range directly adjacent to
the SR -10 Tank Gunnery Range in the Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) of MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ.
The purpose and need of the proposed action is to optimize tank crew command and control, tank crew
accuracy, and tank weaponry calibration prior to firing on the SR -10 range. Important issues addressed
during development of this document include permanent wetland impacts resulting from the construction
of various range components. Any unavoidable impacts to wetlands that occur from the project are
expected to be minimal and will be mitigated as required under the Clean Water Act at the GSRA wetland
mitigation bank. There are no remaining concerns that would preclude issuance of a FONSI.
2.0 NAME OF ACTION
Proposed construction of BZO Range adjacent to SR -10.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The USMC proposes to construct a new BZO Range directly adjacent to the SR -10 Tank Gunnery Range.
Vegetation would be cleared, and stumps would be ground down to the soil surface over the entire 37 -
acre footprint of the new range; however, root masses would be left in place. Any timber and vegetation
that is not sold by the Base forestry department would be piled onsite and burned. Once cleared of trees,
a Tank Screening Line/Co-axial Machine Gun BZO Line would be constructed. Range components
would include a concrete pad at the firing point measuring 50 meters (m) long by 10 m wide to support
eight tanks (one-half a tank Company) bore sighting and screening simultaneously, a 50 in by 2 in soil
impact berm, a 265 foot (ft) long access road to the concrete firing pad, as well as a 390 ft long access
road to the impact berm. During the verification of the zeroing process, each tank will shoot eight main
gun tank rounds at a "bullseye" type plywood target. The SDZ of the new range would fall within the
existing SDZ of SR -10. Rounds fired are expected to land predominantly within the impact area. The
entire 37 -acre footprint would be seeded with grasses and maintained by quarterly mowing. Any ruts
resulting from the tank movements and rounds would be filled with purchased fill dirt as is done on the
adjacent SR -10 range.

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative). The no action alternative is to continue using the SR -10 range
for screening with no new construction. There would be no new impacts to the resources described in
section 5 of this EA, and the SR -10 range would continue to be damaged by the BZO process. This
would not allow for the Battalion Gunner to effectively train and inspect his tank crews to ensure they are
using the computer correctly during boresighting operations while still observing and running the live fire
portion of the range, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the training operation.
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). The preferred alternative is to construct a new sighting range
directly adjacent to SR -10. This would allow tank units to calibrate their weapons immediately adjacent
to the range they will be training on, would reduce impacts and the stress of overuse of the SR -10 range,
and allow for the Battalion Gunner to inspect each tank during training operations while still observing
and running the live fire portion of the range.
Alternative 3 (Different Location Alternative). Constructing the new range at other locations in the
GSRA or on mainside MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ would reduce efficiency in comparison to the proposed
placement directly adjacent to the main tank gunnery range. Additional transport time and fuel usage
would be required for other locations. This additional cost could be substantial since calibration occurs
before each gunnery event. Environmental conditions in the GSRA are homogeneous; other locations
within the GSRA area would have similar conditions and therefore similar impacts from the proposed
construction. Other Iocations would also have to be reviewed to ensure that the resulting SDZ would not
conflict with other ranges and to avoid the need to close roadways during firing activities. Therefore,
MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ determined that other potential locations throughout the GSRA and mainside
Camp Lejeune would not meet the purpose and need of the action and are not discussed further in this
EA.
4.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.7 (a)(3), several resource areas have been eliminated from detailed analysis
because the Proposed Action either has no potential to impact them, or the potential impacts will be
negligible. These resources include Installation Restoration Sites, solid waste management units,
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or underground storage tanks (USTs). The following is a brief
summary of the anticipated impacts from the Proposed Action.
Topography and Soils. The preferred alternative would result in minor impacts to the existing
topography and soil of the area during clearing of the project area through erosion and compaction;
however, these impacts would be minimal since the predominant soils in the area have only a slight
erosion hazard. Erosion impacts due to construction would be temporary and would be minimized by
employing applicable soil erosion and sedimentation control techniques at the construction sites. Erosion
and sedimentation control devices would likely include sediment fence, silt fence, and matting.
Managed Forest/Vegetation. The preferred alternative would require initial clearing of all vegetation
within the 37 -acre project area. Base Forestry would conduct a timber operation to remove all
merchantable timber. A site clearing contract would follow the timber operation to remove all remaining,
non -merchantable vegetation. Following the initial clearing and subsequent range construction, Range
Development would maintain the footprint of the proposed BZO range in low growing vegetation through
mechanical means (drum chopping, bush hogging), prescribed burning and possibly herbicides.
Threatened and Endangered Species. There are no known occurrences of any federally listed
threatened or endangered species within the project review area, and it is not located in an area
2

determined to have a high probability of species occurrence. MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ determined that
the preferred alternative would have no effect on any federally listed threatened or endangered species.
Cultural Resources. Based on the available information and concurrence from the Base archeologist,
MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ determined that no historic properties are located within the project's APE,
and, therefore, the project would have no potential to affect cultural resources.
Wetlands. Before the project is implemented, a wetland delineation would be completed, and the project
would be designed to avoid wetland areas to the maximum extent practicable. If complete avoidance of
the placement of fill into wetlands is not possible, the Base would acquire all necessary state and federal
permits prior to any work taking place in the area. Assuming the entirety of the footprint of the road,
firing line, and berm were constructed in wetlands, the project would result in up to approximately 0.34
acres of permanent wetland fill. Any permanent wetland fill impacts that could not be avoided would be
mitigated through a debit to the GSRA wetland mitigation bank.
Wildlife. The effect to wildlife would be minor because the habitat that would be lost is a minor portion
of the similar habitat available to these species both on the Base and in the region around the Base. The
preferred alternative would have minor permanent impacts to wildlife through clearing of pine forest, and
minor recurring impacts to wildlife by the continued use of the range for tank firing operations.
Migratory Birds. Population level effects to migratory birds would not occur because the habitat that
would be lost is a minor portion of the similar habitat available to these species both on the Base and in
the region around the Base. Therefore, the proposed action would comply with the intent of the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Defense and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for coordination on activities when proposed actions could cause impacts to
populations of migratory birds and would not require coordination with the USFWS for migratory birds
prior to implementation.
Noise. The same noise standards that are currently in place for the SR -10 range would be maintained for
the new range. Additionally, the proposed BZO location is so close to the existing SR -location that the
shape and extent of noise contours would not change. Temporary noise impacts from the use of
construction equipment for clearing of the range and construction of the access roads, tank firing line, and
impact berm are expected. These impacts are temporary and are minor in comparison to the noise levels
created by the intended uses of the ranges.
Air Quality. All impacts to air quality resulting from the preferred alternative would be temporary and
air quality Ievels would return to pre construction levels once construction and vegetation burning are
completed. Therefore the preferred alternative would have minor temporary and no permanent effects to
air quality.
Environmental Justice. There are no low income and minority populations or children within or near
the proposed new BZO range. Implementing the proposed action would not cause impacts to low income
and minority populations and to children.
Unexploded Ordinance (UXO). There is the potential to encounter UXO during construction of the
preferred alternative. All areas where construction activities might impact UXO will be surveyed for
ordnance prior to commencing construction activities. In addition, a UXO safety officer will be on site
during all construction, clearing and burning. The preferred alternative will result in minor effects to the
safety of workers due to the possible presence of UXO; however, this effect would be minimized by
surveying the area for UXO prior to commencing any activities that might impact UXO, and by having a
UXO safety officer on hand during all construction, clearing and burning.

Coastal Zone Management Consistency. The proposed action was reviewed to determine its
consistency with the applicable requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ has determined that implementing the proposed action would be
fully consistent with the applicable policies of the North Carolina CAMA. The proposed action would
have no effect on coastal resources or coastal Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) and the proposed
action is not located in an AEC.
Cumulative Impacts. Since acquisition of the GSRA in 1992, approximately 3,000 acres of the 41,000
total acres in the GSRA has been converted to either range use or a landing zone, and approximately 400
acres or 1.7 percent of the total predicted wetland area in the GSRA has been impacted by construction
projects. The currently proposed BZO range will result in an additional 37 acres of vegetation clearing
and up to 0.34 acres of wetland fill. This is a very small impact when considering the sizes of the existing
ranges and other impacts from development within the GSRA. Additionally, any impacts resulting from
the proposed project would be mitigated appropriately by the GSRA wetland mitigation bank.
5.0 MITIGATION
In the event that workers encounter any potentially significant historic or archaeological sites during
construction, all activity in the area will halt until the MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ archaeologist has
determined the appropriate course of action. Project designs will avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands
and waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable. Any unavoidable permanent impacts
to wetlands as a result of the proposed project would be mitigated appropriately and as required under the
Clean Water Act. The exact amount of mitigation would be determined once the amount of impact to
wetlands has been determined.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the EA, the USMC has determined that the proposed action, as defined and
executed in accordance with the measures described, will have no significant direct, indirect, or
cumulative impacts on the quality of the natural or human environment. A FONSI is thus warranted. The
requirements of NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality have been satisfied; an EIS is not
required and will not be prepared.
4T /'+A4.,µ -4o, %--
Y.
Y. FXCALANTE DATE
Co nel, U.S. Marine Corps
Adling Commander
Marine Corps Installations East -
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
4

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF BATTLE
SIGHT ZERO (BZO) RANGE ADJACENT TO SR -10
MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS EAST -MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
(MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ)
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Responsible Officer
Commanding General
Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base
PSC Box 20005
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-0005
Point of Contact
Ms. Stephanie McCary
Environmental Management Division
FSC Box 20005
Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-0005
[phone]
Stephanie.McCaryna,usmc.mil
February 20I5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. Proposed Action.................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Environmental Review Process........................................................................................................... 5
3. Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................ 5
4. Alternatives......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................. 5
4.2. Proposed Action, Preferred Alternative....................................................................................... 5
4.3. Different Location Alternative..................................................................................................... 6
5. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 6
5.1. Topography and Soils................................................................................................................... 7
5.1.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 7
5.1.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 8
5.1.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 8
5.1.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 9
5.1.3. Mitigation..............................................................................................................................9
5.2. Managed Forest/Vegetation......................................................................................................... 9
5.2.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 9
5.2.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 9
5.2.2.1 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 9
5.2.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 10
5.2.3. Mitigation..............................................................................................................................10
5.3. Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................................................ 10
5.3.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 10
5.3.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 11
5.3.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 11
5.3.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 11
5.3.3. Mitigation.............................................................................................................................. 11
5.4. Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................... 11
5.4.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 11
5.4.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 11
5.4.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 11
5.4.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 12
5.4.3. Mitigation..............................................................................................................................12
5.5. Wetlands.......................................................................................................................................I2
5.5.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 12
5.5.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 13
5.5.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 13
5.5.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 13
5.5.3. Mitigation..................................................................................................................................14
5.6. WiIdlife.........................................................................................................................................14
5.6.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 14
5.6.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 14
5.6.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 14
5.6.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 14
5.6.3. Mitigation.............................................................................................................................. 15
5.7. Migratory Birds............................................................................................................................ 15
5.7.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 15
5.7.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 15
2

Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
5.7.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 15
5.7.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 15
5.7.3. Mitigation.............................................................................................................................. 15
5.8. Noise............................................................................................................................................. 15
5.8.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 15
5.8.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 16
5.8.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 16
5.8.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 16
5.8.3. Mitigation..............................................................................................................................16
5.9. Air Quality.................................................................................................................................... 16
5.9.1. Baseline Description.............................................................................................................. 16
5.9.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 16
5.9.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 16
5.9.2.2. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 16
5.9.3. Mitigation..............................................................................................................................17
5. 10. Environmental Justice................................................................................................................ 17
5.10.1. Baseline Description............................................................................................................ 17
5.10.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................. 17
5.10.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................. 17
5.10.2.2. Preferred Alternative.................................................................................................... 17
5.10.3. Mitigation............................................................................................................................ 17
5.11. Unexploded Ordinances(UXO)................................................................................................. 17
5.11.1. Baseline Description............................................................................................................ 17
5.11.2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................................. 18
5.11.2.1. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................. 18
5.11.2.2. Preferred Alternative.................................................................................................... 18
5.11.3. Mitigation............................................................................................................................ 18
6. Coastal Zone Management Consistency............................................................................................. 19
7. Cumulative Impact Analysis............................................................................................................... 20
8. References........................................................................................................................................... 21
Figures Page
Figure1.1. Proposed Project.................................................................................................................... 4
Figure5.1. Project Location..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 2 Soil Map 8
. ..................................................................................................................................
Figure 5.3. Managed Timber Stands........................................................................................................ 10
Figure5.4. Known Wetland Areas........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5.5. UXO Containment Area SR -10 Range.................................................................................. 18

1. Proposed Action
The project would construct a new BZO Range directly adjacent to the
SR -10 Tank Gunnery Range. Vegetation would be cleared, and stumps
would be ground down to the soil surface over the entire 37 -acre
footprint of the new range; however, root masses would be left in place.
Any timber and vegetation that is not sold by the Base forestry
department would be piled onsite and burned. Once cleared of trees, a
Tank Screening Line/Co-axial Machine Gun BZO Line would be
constructed. Range components would include a concrete pad at the
firing point measuring 50 meters (m) long by 10 m wide to support eight
tanks (one-half a tank Company) boresighting and screening
simultaneously, a 50 in by 2 m soil impact berm, a 265 foot (ft) long
access road to the concrete firing pad, as well as a 390 ft long access
road to the impact berm. During the verification of the zeroing process,
each tank will shoot eight main gun tank rounds at a "bullseye" type
plywood target. The Surface Danger Zone of the new range would fall
within the existing SDZ of SR -10. Rounds fired are expected to land
predominantly within the impact area (see figure below). The entire 37 -
acre footprint would be seeded with grasses and maintained by quarterly
mowing. Any ruts resulting from the tank movements and rounds would
be filled with purchased fill dirt as is done on the adjacent SR -10 Range.
tat 0 A&W Imepxy
Greater Sandy Run
Battle Sight Zero Range
ER -13-200
�igure 1.1. Proposed Project
Legend
Battle Sight Zero Range
- ACCESS ROAD
BERM
CLEARING
- FIRING PT
© IMPACT
- ROAD
Q SAFETY DANGER ZDNE (SDZ}
Q TARGET
too 200 400 sae Viers

2. Environmental Review Process
This document is an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in accordance with Marine Corps
Order P5090.2A, Change 3, Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual. Chapter 12 of the
order requires installations to set up and implement an environmental impact review process to
determine environmental impacts and documentation requirements of proposed actions. The purpose
of preparing the EA is to determine if implementation of the proposed action would have significant
environmental impacts.
By preparing the EA, MCB CAMLEJ complies with Marine Corps policy and responsibilities for
installations set forth in the order. Further, the Marine Corps assures compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Federal agencies are
directed to implement the provisions of NEPA by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations as contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 to 1508.
3. Purpose and Need
The project purpose and need is to optimize tank crew command and control, tank crew accuracy, and
tank weaponry calibration prior to firing on the SR -10 Range. Currently, tank units are calibrating
their weapons on targets within the SR -10 Range. This is not an efficient use of the range over the
long-term; it reduces throughput capability on the SR -10 which should be reserved for the much more
sophisticated requirements of the overall gunnery event. It also increases cost and maintenance
overall by causing damage to SR -10 target areas for an activity that could occur elsewhere with
simple plywood/paper targets.
Each time a tank crew conducts gunnery qualifications, they go through a BZO process for the tank
which is called "screening." This process trains the crews on how to align their optical sighting
systems with the main gun and co -axial machine gun. Screening is currently occurring on SR -10
itself and is damaging the targets intended for other training purposes. Also, the SR -10 Range is not
set up for screening and does not allow for the Battalion Gunner, lead tanker in the battalion, to train
his tank crews and inspect each tank to ensure they are using the computer correctly during
boresighting operations. If the tanks are closer together, the Battalion Gunner could walk from tank
to tank and still be able to observe and run the live fire portion of the range as required by Base safety
orders. Due to the wide spacing on the existing SR -10 Range, the Battalion Gunner must monitor the
live -fire portion of the range from a tower and cannot interact with the tank operators directly. The
construction of this separate screening line would support gunnery accuracy training and would take
the stress off the large number of training rounds being fired onto the SR -10 automated range berms
and roadways.
4. Alternatives
This section of the environmental assessment describes the alternatives and summarizes the
environmental impact of the alternatives. Alternatives discussed in this environmental assessment are
the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative, and the Different Location Alternative.
4.1. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative is to continue using the SR -10 Range for
screening with no new construction. There would be no new impacts to the resources described
in section 5 of this EA, and the SR -10 Range would continue to be damaged by the BZO
process. This would not allow for the Battalion Gunner to effectively train and inspect his tank
crews to ensure they are using the computer correctly during boresighting operations while still
observing and running the live fire portion of the range, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the
training operation.
4.2. Proposed Action, Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative is to construct a new
sighting range directly adjacent to SR- 10, as described in Section 1 above. This would allow

tank units to calibrate their weapons immediately adjacent to the range they will be training on,
would reduce impacts and the stress of overuse of the SR -10 Range, and allow for the Battalion
Gunner to inspect each tank during training operations while still observing and running the live
fire portion of the range.
4.3. Different Location Alternative. Constructing the new range at other locations in the GSRA or
on mainside MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ would reduce efficiency in comparison to the proposed
placement directly adjacent to the main tank gunnery range. Additional transport time and fuel
usage would be required for other locations. This additional cost could be substantial since
calibration occurs before each gunnery event. Environmental conditions in the GSRA are
homogeneous; other locations within the GSRA area would have similar conditions and
therefore similar impacts from the proposed construction. While additional time spent driving
the tanks has its own training value, the additional expense of fuel is not environmentally
justified since other potential locations would have similar natural resource impacts. Other
locations would also have to be reviewed to ensure that the resulting SDZ would not conflict
with other ranges and to avoid the need to close roadways during firing activities. Therefore,
MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ determined that other potential locations throughout the GSRA and
mainside Camp Lejeune would not meet the purpose and need of the action and are not discussed
further in this EA.
5. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
This section describes the environment of the area that would be affected by the proposed action, as
required by Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts
1500 — 1508) and the effect of each alternative on the area. The description focuses on those features
of the environment that the proposed action would potentially affect. The proposed project is located
in the GSRA of MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ which is located in Onslow County in the Southeastern
portion of North Carolina. In 1992, Camp Lejeune acquired the GSRA, located along the western
boundary of the base, increasing Camp Lejeune's size by 41,000 acres to a total area of 153,439
acres. The majority of the GSRA was once owned by the International Paper Company, and vast
wetland areas were ditched and drained to facilitate intensive timber management practice of the time.
No installation restoration sites, solid waste management units, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or
underground storage tanks (USTs) appear in the Base Geographic Information Services (GIS) layers,
and it is not expected that any would be located within the project review area. Therefore, Installation
Restoration Sites are not discussed further in the EA. Other areas of the environment that might be
affected by the proposed project are described below.

VIR NIA
si 1
u
i
e,abm GM
+ NORTH ROU A 13
Mom
land vyry
Cho" ytmCho"M
`"' leigh
YW,an 17
1 to
irMafu
rh am m e
Kinim
u
n Nwr
MYOUrA
lb
.dckwlM�e
i,uai6eAan
Tl
1
74 Camp Lejeune
i b
17
ti
OU AROUNA hfa Lolor
� P ra
A
NOR1M CAROUNA
e
p
LEGEND Figure 5.1. Project Location
0 is 30
NORTH SEe LO=Wn
Nglp
® GSRA
Xcriad � ldd� R. ani G
5.1. Topography and Soils
5.1.1. Baseline Description
The preferred alternative encompasses 37 acres of relatively flatland with an elevation
range of approximately 50 to 57 feet above sea level. Multiple man-made linear drainage
features are located throughout the project area. The project area is predominately
comprised of two soil types: approximately 53 percent is Stallings loamy fine sand and
37 percent is Woodington loamy fine sand.
Stallings loamy fine sand is found in coastal plains at elevations of 20 to 330 feet with
slopes of zero to three percent. They are somewhat poorly drained with the depth to
restrictive feature more than 80 inches. Stallings soils pose a slight erosion hazard which
7

means few modifications are necessary to prevent erosion. However, Stallings soils pose
a moderate equipment limitation which means the soil does not require exceptional risk
or cost for use, but the soil does have certain undesirable properties or features. Some
modification of the soil itself, special designs, or maintenance may be required before
equipment is used in the area. Stallings also has a moderate to severe rating for
recreational and building site development due to wetness and cut banks caving which
means there is an unacceptable risk to use the soil if not appreciably modified. Special
design, a significant increase in construction cost, or an appreciably higher maintenance
cost may be required.
Woodington loamy fine sand is found in coastal plains at elevations of 20 to 160 feet with
slopes of zero to two percent. They are poorly drained with a seasonally high water table
within 10 inches of the surface and the depth to restrictive feature more than 80 inches.
Woodington soils pose a slight erosion hazard and severe equipment limitation. They
have a severe rating for recreational and building site development due to wetness and cut
banks caving.
Greater Sandy Run
Battle Sight Zero Range
ER -13-200
Figure 5.2. Soil Map
Legend
Soil Map
soil series
SW1W
�. Tofu a
;-7 Wwdin"
Battle Sight Zero Range
= ACCESS ROAD
BERM
CLEARINO
FIRING PT
Q IMPACT
ROAD
SDZ
0 TAROET
e
s
100 2W 100 800 WO
MOMM
5.1.2. Environmental Consequences
5.1.2.1. No Action Ahernative. Implementation of the no action alternative would result
in no impacts to soils within the proposed action area. However, the soils in the
existing SR -10 Range would continue to be impacted by tank rounds during the
screening process which leave multiple ruts when hitting the ground and have
caused damage to targets and roads within the range. These would continue to be
filled in with purchased fill material. The original construction of the SR -10

Range involved clearing of vegetation, grubbing roots out of the soil, and
placement of large amounts of fill dirt to elevate the range and improve drainage.
Therefore, small amounts of fill dirt brought in to conduct repairs as needed are a
minor addition to the soil and topography impacts that have already occurred.
5.1,2.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would result in minor impacts to
the existing topography and soil of the area. The area is relatively flat with a slope
of zero to three percent; therefore, no major leveling would be necessary. Minor
impacts would occur during clearing of the project area through erosion and
compaction; however, these impacts would be minimal since the predominant
soils in the area have only a slight erosion hazard. These impacts would be further
minimized by gyro tracking stumps down to the soil surface and leaving root
masses intact. Areas to be filled for the two access roads, tank firing line and
impact bene would be graded and leveled. Erosion impacts would be temporary
and would be minimized by employing applicable soil erosion and sedimentation
control techniques at the construction sites. Erosion and sedimentation control
devices would likely include sediment fence, silt fence, and matting.
5.1.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.2. Managed Forest/Vegetation
5.2.1. Baseline Description
The proposed BZ4 Range location contains portions of three managed forest stands:
compartment 74 Stands 1, 182 and 183. All three stands were originally planted by the
International Paper Company. Stands 1 and 182 were planted in 1977, and Stand 183
was planted in 1981. The most recent harvesting activity to take place was a fourth row
thin which was performed in Stands 1 and 182 in 2003. Stand 183 has never been
harvested due to slow growth at the site. All three stands are being managed for loblolly
pine habitat. Due to the proximity of the SR -10 Range, the trees within Stands 182 and
183 are likely to contain bullet fragments and can no longer be safely run through a
sawmill. They, therefore, no longer have commercial value. The only forest
management activities that occur in these stands are prescribed burning and wildland fire
suppression. Stand 1 is close to the firing line of the SR -10 Range and not to the targets;
the trees are unlikely to contain bullet fragments.
Because the area has been managed for commercial timber, the predominant vegetation
on the site is loblolly pine with an understory of woody shrubs and a strong herbaceous
layer.
5.2.2. Environmental Consequences
5.2.2.1. No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, Base Forestry would
continue to manage the stands in the project area according to the current
Integrated Natural Resources Management PIan (INRMP) and associated
silvicultural plans. Under the current silvicultural plan, Stand 1 would receive a
thin in 2013. Within the project area, timber Stands 182 and 183 are not safe to
harvest, so no silvicultural treatment would occur other than prescribed burning.
Vegetation in the shrub and herbaceous layers within the limits of the project area
would continue to grow under current conditions as affected by prescribed burning
and the forestry operations described above.

Greater Sandy Run
Battle Sight Zero Range
ER -13-200
Figure 5.3. Managed
Timber Stands
Lend
Timber Stand Area
© I
©182
© 183
Battle Sight Zero Ranee
M ACCESS ROAD
Q BERM
CLEARING
FIRING PT
Lin IMPACT
ROAD
J SalteyDanger Zone (SM
D TARGET
N
W+E
S
o IM am MIX Ow eao
5.2.2.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would require initial clearing of
all vegetation within the 37 -acre project area. Base Forestry would conduct a
timber operation to remove all merchantable timber. A site clearing contract
would follow the timber operation to remove all remaining, non -merchantable
vegetation including trees with fragment contamination and smaller shrubs and
trees with no commercial value. Both operations would cut vegetation only to the
ground surface; roots would not be pushed out of the ground except potentially in
areas that will receive fill for targets and access roads. Following the initial
clearing and subsequent range construction Range Development would maintain
the footprint of the proposed BZO Range in Iow growing vegetation through
mechanical means (drum chopping, bush hogging), prescribed burning and
possibly herbicides.
5.2.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.3. Threatened and Endangered Species
5.3.1. Baseline Description
The Marine Corps, as a Federal agency, is responsible for managing federally listed
threatened and endangered species on its lands in accordance with the Endangered
Species Act. There are fourteen federally protected species for Onslow County that also
have potential to be found on MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ: American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), green sea turtle (Chelonia
mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Derniochelys coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta), piping plover (haradrius melodus), red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrunt), West Indian manatee (Trichechus
10

manalus), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), golden sedge (Carex lutea),
pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough -leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia),
and seabeach amaranth (Antaranthus pumilus). These species are listed as Endangered,
Threatened, or Threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed species.
Bald Eagle was delisted from the Endangered Species Act in 2007, but is still afforded
federal protection by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
The Base has in place a threatened and endangered species management program. Part of
the management program includes a requirement to determine if proposals "may affect" a
listed species. If the Base determines a proposal may affect one or more species, then it
must consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Concurrence from the
USFWS regarding the potential impacts of the proposal is required prior to performing
work associated with the proposal.
There are no known occurrences of any federally listed threatened or endangered species
within the project review area, and it is not located in an area determined to have a high
probability of any species occurrence.
5.3.2. Environmental Consequences
5.3.1.1. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative would continue to use the
existing SR- l 0 Range for tank crews to sight tanks for gunnery qualifications.
The range is already being used for this purpose as well as for other range
operations, and it has not been documented that use of this range is resulting in
any adverse impacts to any federally listed threatened or endangered species.
Therefore, the no action alternative would have no effect on any federally listed
threatened or endangered species.
5.3.2.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would impact approximately 37
acres of forest land, mainly by vegetation clearing, but also by minor amounts of
fill. There are no known occurrences of any federally listed threatened or
endangered species within the project review area, and it is not located in an area
determined to have a high probability of species occurrence. The Base threatened
and endangered species coordinator has been consulted and has no concerns with
the proposed project. Therefore, MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ determined that the
preferred alternative would have no effect on any federally listed threatened or
endangered species.
5.3.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.4. Cultural Resources
5.4.1. Baseline Description
Cultural resources include archaeological sites and historic buildings and structures that
have a high level of importance in a historic context. MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ, as a
Federal agency, protects these resources using the rules in National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 and the direction specific to Federal agencies in Executive Order 11593,
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.
Camp Lejeune has more than 1200 recorded archaeological sites. The sites represent
more than 8,000 years of occupation and land -use at Camp Lejeune. The sites consist of
material remains of prehistoric camps and villages, Native American burial sites, early
European colonial sites, and later European and African-American settlement locations.
5.4.2. Environmental Consequences
5.4.2.1. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative would continue to use the
existing SR -10 Range for tank crews to sight tanks for gunnery qualifications.

The range is already being used for this purpose as well as for other range
operations. There are no known cultural resources within the existing range
footprint. The no action alternative would have no potential to effect cultural
resources.
5.4.2.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would impact approximately 37
acres of forest land, mainly by vegetation clearing, but also by minor amounts of
fill. No cultural resources appear in the Base GIS layers within the footprint of
the preferred alternative. Additionally the Base Archeologist has been consulted
on the project. The preferred alternative's Area of Potential Effect (APE) was
surveyed as part of GSPA acquisition and SR -10 Range construction prior to
development of the high probability model, and no cultural resources were
encountered at that time. Additionally, the area is situated outside of soils with a
high probability of cultural resources. Based on the available information and
concurrence from the Base archeologist, MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ determined
that no historic properties are located within the project's APE and, therefore, the
project would have no potential to effect cultural resources.
5.4.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.5. Wetlands
5.5.1. Baseline Description
Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions
such as swamps, pocosins, and marshes. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, in
accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, regulates the placement of fill into
Waters of the U.S. which include jurisdictional wetlands. Federal agencies, as directed
by Executive Order 11990, Prolection of Wetlands, must minimize the destruction, loss,
or degradation of wetlands on their lands. The order further requires agencies to use their
established NEPA procedures to review proposals that could impact wetlands.
The total number of wetlands on MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ is estimated to be over
55,000 acres, about 44 percent of the base's land area. Many types of wetlands can be
found on Base. They are generally forested palustrine and coastal estuarine systems.
Dominant wetland communities include wet pine flatwoods, blackwater bottomland
hardwoods, pocosins, vernal pools and small depression ponds, and coastal salt marshes.
The GSRA, approximately 41,000 acres in size and during its acquisition in 1992, was
estimated that 56 percent of the area is wetland for a total of approximately 22,900 acres
of wetlands. The wetland types found in the GSRA are similar to those found throughout
the rest of the Base.
A wetland delineation has not been completed for the project area. However, based on a
previous wetland delineation on the adjacent SR -I0 Range as well as available
information on the soils, vegetation, topography, and aerial photography, much of the
project area is likely to be wetland.
12

2MOA&W Imemy
Greater Sandy Run
Battle Sight Zero Range
ER -13-200
Figure 5.4. Known
Wetland Areas
Legend
Battle Sight Zero Range
- ACCESS ROAD
BERM
CLEARING
_ FIRING FT
[� IMPACT
- ROAD
Q SDz
Q TARGET
Known MNtland Areas
WOUX4
W+ R
a
100 200 4W Sm emMdera
5.5.2. Environmental Consequences
5.5.2.1. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative would continue to use the
existing SR -10 Range for tank crews to sight tanks for gunnery qualifications.
The range is already being used for this purpose as well as for other range
operations and would not result in any additional impacts to wetlands. The initial
construction of the SR -I0 Range resulted in the filling of 66.98 acres were
pocosin pine flat wetlands and 7.49 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands for a
total of 74.47 acres of wetland fill. These impacts were mitigated at the GSRA
wetland mitigation bank by the use of 100.47 pocosin pine flat mitigation credits
and 22.47 bottomland hardwood credits.
5.5.2.2. Preferred Alternative. Assuming the entirety of the footprint of the road, firing
line and berm were constructed in wetlands, the project would result in up to
approximately 0.34 acres of permanent wetland fill. Efforts would be made to
minimize these impacts and any permanent wetland fill impacts that could not be
avoided would be mitigated through a debit to the GSRA wetland mitigation
bank. The preferred alternative would also result in a change in vegetation
through the clearing of 37 acres of forested habitat as described above. Any
wetlands within this cleared area would be affected by this as a secondary project
impact since the functionality of the wetland, specifically the habitat value, would
be altered. This would be a secondary impact, not a permanent impact, since the
area would still provide for wetland habitat. Should the range go into disuse and
was no longer maintained, the forested habitat would have the potential to
naturally reestablish. Impacts to the wetland soils would be minimized through
compliance with the requirements of appendix A and the measures contained with
the "Best Management Practices for vegetation clearing in forested wetlands."
13

The proposed action does not include any additional ditching for surface drainage
improvement.
Before the project is implemented, a wetland delineation would be completed, and
the project would be designed to avoid wetland areas to the maximum extent
practicable. If complete avoidance of the placement of fill into wetlands is not
possible, the Base would acquire all necessary state and Federal permits prior to
any work taking place in the area. The Base would also mitigate for any
unavoidable impacts to wetlands as described below.
5.5.3. Mitigation
Camp Lejeune established the GSRA wetland mitigation bank in November 2000. This
mitigation bank is located in the GSRA, the same area as the proposed project, and was
specifically created to mitigate impacts authorized by Clean Water Act permits issued for
range and infrastructure development in the GSRA. When the mitigation bank was
established, a total of 1,250.50 credits were created. Of this total, 895.817 credits have
been used to mitigate various projects on Camp Lejeune. To date, 354.683 credits are
still available to mitigate future projects. Any impacts to wetlands as a result of the
proposed project would be mitigated appropriately and as required under the Clean Water
Act. The exact amount of mitigation would be determined once the amount of impact to
wetlands has been determined.
5.6. Wildlife
5.6.1. Baseline Description
Prior to the Base acquiring the GSRA, the majority of the area was owned by the
International Paper Company and is planted loblolly pine forest. Loblolly pine habitat in
the action area of the proposed project is a typical habitat found commonly throughout
southeastern coastal plains of North Carolina. The project area currently provides high
quality habitat for many common wildlife species. However, due to the proximity of the
SR -10 Range, wildlife present in the project area would be subject to a high level of noise
and disturbance.
The project area provides nesting and foraging habitat for bird species. Virtually all birds
that occupy MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ throughout the year are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and are discussed below in section 5.7.
5.6.2. Environmental Consequences
5.6.1.1. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative would continue to use the
existing SR -10 Range for tank crews to complete the BZO process. The SR -10
Range is surrounded on all sides by pine forest with the SR -10 Range area itself
being cleared during development of the range and is now maintained as
grassland. Noise and disturbance impacts to wildlife in adjacent habitat would
continue. Wildlife would continue to use the area as they currently do, with
mobile species likely vacating the area to surrounding forest during training
operations due to noise impacts and other disturbances. Additionally, forest
management activities in the project area would continue to impact (both
positively and negatively) wildlife.
5.6.1.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would result in minor impacts to
wildlife through the conversion of 37 acres of pine forest to grasses that would be
mowed quarterly. The effect to wildlife would be minor because the habitat that
would be lost is a minor portion of the similar habitat available to these species
both on the Base and in the region around the Base. During clearing and
construction, any wildlife species utilizing the area would likely move to adjacent
pine forest and not be affected by the proposed project. Other effects to wildlife
from the proposed project include the continued impact from range operations
such as noise disturbances and tank round impacts. Wildlife that continue to use
14

the area after clearing would likely move to the surrounding forest during training
operations due to these noise impacts and other disturbances. Therefore, the
preferred alternative would have minor permanent impacts to wildlife through
clearing of pine forest, and minor recurring impacts to wildlife by the continued
use of the range for tank firing operations. However, these impacts are minor
when considering the amount of available similar habitat.
5.6.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.7. Migratory Birds
5.7.1. Baseline Description
The MBTA is the primary legislation in the United States established to conserve
populations of migratory birds. The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of
migratory birds unless permitted by regulation. The Department of Defense (DoD)
operates under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS for MBTA
coordination on activities, such as the proposed action, that are not specifically related to
military readiness. The MOU states that range development and construction activities
are not military readiness activities and that prior to starting any activity that is likely to
affect populations of migratory birds the DoD shall proactively address migratory bird
conservation, and initiate appropriate actions to avoid or minimize the take of migratory
birds.
5.7.2. Environmental Consequences
5.7.2.1. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative would continue to use the
existing SR -10 Range for tank crews to complete the BZO process. No new
impacts to vegetation or land use would occur as a result of this alternative. Any
impacts that result from this alternative are impacts that are currently occurring
with the use of the range. Any migratory birds utilizing the area would likely
move to adjacent pine forest during range use and would not be affected. The no
action alternative would have no new effect on migratory birds.
5.7.2.2. Preferred Alternative. The proposed action would convert 37 acres of vegetation
from pine forest to grasses that would be mowed quarterly. Population level
effects to migratory birds would not occur because the habitat that would be lost is
a minor portion of the similar habitat available to these species both on the Base
and in the region around the Base. Any migratory birds utilizing the area would
likely move to adjacent pine forest and not be affected by the proposed project.
Other effects to migratory birds from the proposed project include the continued
impact from range operations such as noise disturbances and tank round impacts.
Just as with the existing SR -10 Range, any migratory birds utilizing the area
would likely move to adjacent pine forest during range use and would not be
affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed action would comply
with the intent of the MOU between the DoD and the USFWS for coordination on
activities when proposed actions could cause impacts to populations of migratory
birds. The proposed action would not require coordination with the USFWS for
migratory birds prior to implementation.
5.7.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.8. Noise
5.8.1. Baseline Description
Due to the large amount of noise produced on the SR -10 Range during use, it is outfitted
with monitors to ensure the noise level does not reach unsafe levels or causes a nuisance
to the general public outside of the base. If the noise level at 500 yards from the firing
Iine reaches higher than 125 decibels (dB), range operations must cease. Only one tank is
allowed to fire at a time, but up to four could fire as they are getting zeroed. Most
15

problems with noise are encountered during heavy cloud cover with a western wind that
blows the sound over Holly Ridge and Topsail. If this occurs, the range will be shut
down until the cloud cover dissipates or the wind direction changes.
5.8.2. Environmental Consequences
5.8.2.1. No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no
changes to the way the SR -10 Range is operated, and the BZO process would
continue to take place on the SR -10 Range. Since there would be no increases to
the amount or location of activity taking place on the range, noise levels produced
would remain the same. If noise levels reach higher than 125 dB during any
activity, operations would cease until it has been determined activity may resume
without noise reaching undesirable levels as is the current procedure on the range.
5.8.2.2. Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, the BZO process would
be moved to the adjacent newly created range. This would reduce the amount of
activity taking place overall on the SR -10 Range. Due to safety reasons, the SR -
10 Range and the new BZO Range will not be operated at the same time. This
will eliminate the potential of noise increases that might have occurred had the
two ranges been operated at the same time; the same standards that are currently
in place for the SR -10 Range would be maintained for the new range. The noise
monitors that are currently in place for the SR -10 Range are set in locations that
would allow them to detect noise levels on both the SR -10 Range and the new
BZO Range simultaneously. If noise levels on either of the ranges reach over 125
dB, the operations on the ranges would be halted until it has been determined
activity may resume without noise reaching undesirable levels as is the current
procedure on the SR -10 Range. Additionally, the proposed BZO location is so
close to the existing SR -location that the shape and extent of noise contours would
not noticeably change.
Other noise impacts that may result from development of the new range would be
temporary noise impacts from the use of construction equipment for clearing of
the range and construction of the access roads, tank firing line, and impact berm.
These impacts are temporary and are minor in comparison to the noise levels
created by the intended uses of the ranges. Therefore, temporary noise impacts
resulting from the direct construction of the range are negligible.
5.8.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.9. Air Quality
5.9.1. Baseline Description
The Clean Air Act, last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health
and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality
standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health including the health of
"sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary
standards set limits to protect public welfare including protection against decreased
visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. NEPA Reviews ensure
that land use projects developed by governmental entities account for air quality emission
impacts generated by the construction and long-term use of the proposed projects
5.9.2. Environmental Consequences
5.9.2.1. No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no
changes to the use of the area. The BZO process would continue to take place on
the SR -10 Range as is the current procedure. Therefore, there would be no
changes in air quality as a result of this alternative.
5.9.2.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would have temporary effects on
air quality during construction. The use of heavy machinery for tree clearing and
16

the construction of access roads, tank firing line and impact berm would result in
minor temporary impacts to air quality; however, the air quality effects resulting
from construction would be minor when compared to the training activities
already taking place on the adjacent SR -10 Range. There would be additional air
quality effects resulting from the burning of any trees and vegetation that are not
sold as timber by the Base forestry department. All vegetation that has been
determined to be contaminated by bullets would be piled on site and burned.
Burning is a regular occurrence on base, and it is not expected that this would
result in the increase of any air pollutant to undesirable levels. Since the BZO
process is currently occurring on the SR -10 Range, there would be no increases in
the amount of activity taking place in the area, only changes in the specific
location of the activities. Therefore, no impacts to air quality would occur from
use of the new range. All impacts to air quality resulting from the preferred
alternative would be temporary and air quality levels would return to pre -
construction Ievels once construction and vegetation burning are completed.
Therefore, the preferred alternative would have minor temporary and no
permanent effects to air quality.
5.9.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.10. Environmental Justice
5.10.1. Baseline Description
Federal agencies must identify and discuss potential impacts of its proposed actions on
low income and minority populations and on children. Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations, requires identification
and analysis of disproportionate environmental impacts on low income and minority
populations. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Heallh
Risks and Safety Risks, directs federal agencies to identify and assess environmental
health and safety risks to children by all policies, programs, and activities proposed.
The project is located within the existing Base boundaries and in a location that normal
range operations would have a minor effect to the surrounding populations.
5.10.2. Environmental Consequences
5.10.2.1. No Action Alternative. There are no low income and minority populations or
children within or near the existing SR -10 Range. Implementing the no action
alternative and continuing current use of the range would not impact low income
and minority populations or children.
5.10.2.2. Preferred Alternative. There are no low income and minority populations or
children within or near the proposed new BZO Range. Implementing the
proposed action would not cause impacts to low income and minority populations
and to children.
5.10.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
5.11. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
5.11.1. Baseline Description
Since the MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ acquisition of the GSRA property, only non-UXO
producing training activities are authorized within the GSRA. UXO is an issue where
high explosive ordnance is used or where UXO has been buried. On 9 June 2008,
explosive .50 caliber rounds were fired onto the SR -6 range in the GSRA. It is also
possible that these rounds were fired on the SR -7 and SR -10 Ranges.
Fire can trigger detonation of the rounds. Due to the nature of the UXO and the inability
to determine exactly where they may be encountered, the UXO were left in place and
permanent containment lines (Figure 5.5) were established on the perimeter of the ranges
17

to contain wildfires. To ensure safety of the firefighters the Base has established a "no
direct fire suppression" area in which any incidental fires would be allowed to burn up to
the primary containment line. Fire suppression activities could and would safely be
conducted in the area between the primary and secondary containment line.
5.11.2. Environmental Consequences
5.11.2.1. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would continue to use the
existing SR -10 Range for tank crews to complete the BZO process. There are no
ground disturbing activities or intentional fire burning activities associated with
normal use of the SR -10 Range, and, therefore, the risk of UXO is minimal.
5.11.2.2. Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative would require land clearing,
grubbing vegetation down to the surface, burning piles of vegetation, and the
placement of fill for the construction of two access roads, a tank firing line and an
impact berm. There is the potential to encounter UXO during these activities. All
areas where construction activities might impact UXO will be surveyed for
ordnance prior to commencing construction activities. In addition, a UXO Safety
Officer will be on site during all construction, clearing and burning. The
preferred alternative will result in minor effects to the safety of workers due to the
possible presence of UXO; however, this effect would be minimized by surveying
the area for UXO prior to commencing any activities that might impact UXO and
by having a UXO Safety Officer on hand during all construction, clearing and
burning.
5.11.3. Mitigation
None required. None proposed.
18

6. Coastal Zone Management Consistency
The coastal zone is rich in natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, industrial, and aesthetic
resources. As such, it is protected by legislation for the effective management of its resources. The
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1451, et seq., as amended) provides
assistance to states, in cooperation with Federal and local agencies, for developing land and water use
programs in the coastal zone.
CZMA policy is implemented through state coastal zone management programs. Federal lands are
excluded from the jurisdiction of these state programs. However, activities on Federal lands are
subject to CZMA federal consistency requirements if the Federal activity would affect any land or
water or natural resource in the state's coastal zone, including reasonably foreseeable effects. There
are two tiers of regulatory review for projects within the coastal zone. The first tier includes projects
that are located in Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) which are designated by the state. The
second tier includes land uses with the potential to affect coastal waters even though they are not
defined as AECs. These projects are reviewed under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA) General Policy Guidelines.
The North Carolina CAMA of 1974 was passed in accordance with the Federal CZMA. It established
a cooperative program of coastal area management between local and state governments. The CAMA
established the Coastal Resources Commission, required local land use planning in the coastal
counties, and provided for a program for regulating development. The CAMA was federally
approved in 1978. North Carolina's coastal zone includes the 20 counties that are adjacent to,
adjoining, intersected by, or bounded by the Atlantic Ocean or any coastal sound, including Onslow
County. The coastal zone extends seaward to the six kilometers (three nautical miles) territorial sea
limit.
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)
The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission designated AECs within the 20 coastal counties
and set rules for managing development within these areas. An AEC is an area of environmental,
social, economic, or aesthetic values that make it valuable. Its classification protects the area from
uncontrolled development. Projects located within an AEC undergo a more thorough level of
regulatory review.
AECs include almost all coastal waters and about three percent of the land in the 20 coastal counties.
The four categories of AECs are:
1. The Estuarine and Ocean System, which includes public trust areas, estuarine coastal waters,
coastal shorelines, and coastal wetlands;
2. The Ocean Hazard System, which includes components of barrier island systems;
3. Public Water Supplies, which include certain small surface water supply watersheds and public
water supply well fields; and
4. Natural and Cultural Resource Area, which include coastal complex natural areas; areas providing
habitat for Federal or state designated rare, threatened or endangered species; unique coastal geologic
formations; or significant coastal archaeological or historic resources.
The Base encompasses coastal resource areas designated as AECs, including estuarine coastal waters,
coastal shorelines, and coastal wetlands of the Estuarine and Ocean System AEC, as well as habitat
for Federal or state designated species and archaeological or historic resources of the Natural and
Cultural Resource Area AEC. There are no identified AECs within the proposed project area.
The proposed action was reviewed to determine its consistency with the applicable requirements of
the CAMA. MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ has determined that implementing the proposed action
would be fully consistent with the applicable policies of the CAMA. The proposed action would have
no effect on coastal resources or coastal AECs, and the proposed action is not located in an AEC.
19

7. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts have been defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR 1508.7 as: Impacts on the environment
which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person
undertakes such other actions.
The CEQ regulations further require that NEPA environmental analyses address connected,
cumulative and similar actions in the same document (40 CFR 1508.25). This requirement prohibits
segmentation of a project into smaller components to avoid required environmental analysis.
Past projects in the GSRA area of MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ include the construction of the
following ranges: SR -5, an Infantry Platoon Battle Course; SR -7, an LAR crew qualification and .50
caliber range; SR -8, a multi-purpose machine gun range; SR -9, an Infantry Platoon Battle Course;
and SR -10, a Tank Qualification Range. Other development activities that have taken place in the
GSRA include Camp Davis North, a tactical airfield assault and seizure training area; access and
perimeter roads; a simulated forward operating base; an Improvised Explosives Device course; and a
115 -kV transmission line.
As a result of these developments, approximately 3,000 acres or seven percent of the total land area in
the GSRA has been converted to either range use or a landing zone, and approximately 400 acres or
1.7 percent of the total predicted wetland area in the GSRA has been impacted by projects. The
currently proposed BZO Range will result in an additional 37 acres of vegetation clearing and up to
0.34 acres of wetland fill. This is a very small impact when considering the sizes of the existing
ranges and other impacts from development within the GSRA. Additionally, any impacts resulting
from the proposed project would be mitigated appropriately by the GSRA wetland mitigation bank as
discussed above.
Potential future projects in the GSRA area of MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ include a unit -level armored
vehicle maneuver training course. This project is in the preliminary planning stage, and detailed
concepts for the course would be developed after initial wetland surveys are conducted. However,
based on the initial proposal, it would require tree thinning on over 15,470 acres of land to allow
vehicles to freely maneuver across the landscape (off-road) between remaining trees. The project
would cause soil and wetland impacts from vehicles. The extent of wetland impacts is not yet known
and would depend on whether the wetland mapping shows that it is possible to cross over wetlands
with bridging for example, or conversely shows that the wetlands are so extensive that avoidance is
impracticable and therefore vehicles must drive through wetland areas.
There are no other new development projects within the GSRA in the reasonably foreseeable future.
However, it is expected that modifications and upgrades to existing ranges and structures currently
existing within the GSRA would be needed in the future, and this may result in a minor amount of
additional vegetation clearing and wetland fill.
?o

8. References
Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina, Soil Conservation Service, July 1992
MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ, Cultural Resources Program Brief,
httpl/www.lejeune.marines.mil/OfficesStaff/1;nvironmentalME=.mt/CulturalResources/C_RM_ ProgramB
riefasax
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ. 2006. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plait (2007- 2011).
MCB Camp Lejeune. 2008. Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental
Assessment for Proposed Construction of Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Marine Corps Air Station New
River, Onslow County, North Carolina.
� 1