19940679 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19940622

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
September 27, 1994
The Department of the Navy
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
ATTN: Mr.Thomas C. Horsch
1510 Gilbert St.
Norfolk, VA 23511-2699
Dear Mr. Horsch:
A4? t-ol
E:) EHNR
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed multi purpose training range
Project # 94679, COE # 199400693
Onslow County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2926 issued to Department of the Navy
dated 27 September 1994.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
qs t ?on H ward, Jr. E.
Attachments
wgc2926
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Charles Walker; Naval Facilities Engineering Command
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA
Onslow County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Department of the Navy
resulting in 17.25 acres of wetland impact in Onslow County pursuant to an application filed on the
21st day of July of 1994 to construct a multi purpose training range for use by MI/A1 tank, and
infantry and aerial assault troops.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
tributary to New River in conjunction with the proposed development in Onslow County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301,302,303,306,307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTU's
or less are not considered significant).
2. Mitigation must be done for this project in the "Mitigation Banking Plan for
the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation Bank". A draft plan for this bank must be
submitted to DEM for eventual approval before construction of the training
range begins.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification. This
Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 27th day of September, 1994.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
res on Howard, Jr. P.E.
WQC# 2926

M
C-1 ?J
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199400693 July 21, 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, ATTN: Mr. Thomas C. Horsch, 1510 Gilbert Street, Norfolk
Virginia, 23511-2699, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO
PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN 17.25 ACRES OF WETLANDS ADJACENT TO GREATER SANDY RUN,
WEST OF US 17, NEAR VERONA, ONSLOW COUNTY, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during a site visit by a representative
of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the application show that the
proposed work is to occur within the area designated as Range P-949 and is to
be a multi-purpose training range for use by the M1/A1 tank, and infantry and
aerial assault troops.
Construction necessary for the completion of this range will include: a
firing area for tanks and infantry; access roads; parking areas; a dining
area; a concurrent training station which would accomodate other troops
training at the range; a control tower; utility corridors and associated
facilities for the range's electrical, water and communications systems; a
utility building which will serve as an aid station and command post as well
as a facility for the storage and maintenance of equipment associated with the
range; a storage area for ammunition; classrooms; instructional bleachers; and
loading ramps.
The proposed firing range involves the construction of a north and a
south dual-track tank trail with a single return track. These trails traverse
the range in a roughly east and west direction. There are "spurs" off the
trails at varying points and in various alignments. The tanks will travel
onto these spurs and will fire at multiple target types which are part of a
fully equipped Remote Engagement Targeting System. Only ground to ground fire
will occur at this range and only plastic non-explosive projectiles (each
weighing about 25 pounds) will be fired.
Each track (two per trail) is to be approximately 30 feet wide with
drainage swales on either side. The targets will have a bunker constructed
around them to protect them from accidental damage. The range will also have
access and service roads, which will be approximately 12 feet wide with
drainage swales located on either side.
-2-
Various constraints restrict the functional training portion of the range
to a 1,150 acre area. Various designs of the range were reviewed, and wetland
impacts were reduced to 17.25 acres. The construction of the tank trails and
service roads will result in most of the wetland impacts. Construction of the
targets and their bunkers will result in impacts to approximately 0.25 acre of
wetlands. The construction of the remaining facilities and structures on the
range may result in minor wetland impacts. Based on plans provided by the
applicant, it is assumed that, upon completion of the construction associated
with these facilities and structures, a majority of the work will be confined
to high ground or will result in negligible wetland impacts. Impacts
associated with the plastic projectiles landing in wetlands are anticipated to
be minimal.
Because of the size of the range site, the type of wetlands to be
impacted by the project are varied. Impacted areas are primarily scrub/shrub
pocosin, with smaller inclusions of forested and emergent wetlands. Some
areas have been logged and/or burned at various times in the past.
Significant areas have had their hydrological regimes altered by ditches
during conversion to loblolly pine plantations.
The applicant has redesigned the range in order to avoid wetlands to the
maximum extent possible. Various design criteria, as well as the presence of
historical resources, dictated the final layout. Where wetlands cannot be
avoided, the range has been designed to minimize these impacts. These
impacts, totalling 17.25 acres of wetlands, will be mitigated. The mitigation
plan is conceptual and under review at this time. Most of the mitigation work
will involve either restoration of loblolly pine plantations to fully
functioning wetlands or enhancement of hydrologically impaired wetlands.
The purpose of the work is to construct a multi-purpose training range
for use by both infantry and armored troops. Plans showing the work are
included with this public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM).
C. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
M
d

-3-
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any
required State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA
permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and
reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to
the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this site is not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes
the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and
he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may be lost or
destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern

-4-
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and
to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Salisbury Street,
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be
furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) plans to
take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or
after August 12, 1994.
e
-5-
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Post Office Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before August 8, 1994, Attention:
Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Jeff Richter, until 4:15 p.m.,
August 22, 1994, or telephone [phone].
It ....
C
d z ,? Q e
:,µ`+??1tt1u
n?fl
y
L
[fYY
? U
z ?
Sf?E?T / nor s

4
L1.!
? OC
4
?z
a
z?
LLI a
?J
N
4
LL aQh?-
U 4
?W
V?
uj
2
H
N
W
1
O
w Mi!i?IICIf RAV_7?1NM -INL'r-l P/.b 1.R^ cI - II i bC_.CI -I I 1'1?i-Qif1 ;I!?f11'11 TM, (I
P?1L!
FIGURE 2
P-949 Multi-Purpose
Training Rangc (SR-7)
P-933 Multi-Purpose
Range Complex (SR-10)
?,Cold
0
W
g
"?- ADDITIONAL
RESTORATION
AREA
EBASCO
RESTORATION
AREA
a
;Ti C7
u
0/z POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS
Location of the P-933 MPTR within the Greater Sandy Run Area.
Syr 3 dF .S
U
Z
w
Z
O
Q
cc
O
H
w ui
? cr
? 0
i
W
O
U)
CL
cc
CL
co
U
W
Z
Lli
w
J
U
z
W z
Y O
Q

Q
CO
O Q ?-
O W

J a Q
-? U
U H 2

>- = w f.

w Q Z
W p O
C7 W U
¢ °d W
w o
W U.
co o ~
U co rn v r- ch a; co Q? ¢
Q M r W W
ti N ti ?: M , N cr Cn
? Q o0
.
Z U
W N M 0 co r. pp
J J J J J J J J J W
L)
Q J J J J J J J J J 0
Q Z ¢ O
U U U U U U U U U W Q Z

W U ¢ z
0
O
U-
CL
O
LT- U
0 Z
Z
W Z Lij
W Q
Lr)
Q ?
I
QO
gw
0 C3
Z Iz
go
)LO
/ M _
N
\ 6 f
\ oo / U
SST ¢ of S
W
E--
z
w Z
20
W
U
Mg
LLI
J
W
LL Z
Z
J
W
U
Z
a_
ZD
O
o ?
CO "' C.7
11
w? z
w
J
Q
c) y' W
U Q O
X ? Q
° Z
Q
_ - ,
N _
W - - ? rn
?• N ? N
- Q LL
W ?
V ?
?r .JI _ Z
M N i
N % ? O
T '
1 1 I
t M ? ?a
s??--r s o<
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Domey
FROM: Ron Ferrell
DATE: September 26, 1994
SUBJECT: Range P-949, Department of the Navy
Tank training Range adjacent to Greater Sandy Run
DEM #94679
Onslow County
I have reviewed the documents concerning the subject request to fill 17.25 acres of
wetlands for the purpose of constructing a multi-purpose training range for use by the M1/Al
tank, and infantry and aerial assault troops. This project will impact forested, scrub-shrub and
emergent wetlands with the majority of the impacts being to wet flat type of wetlands. The
COE has agreed to process this permit without a completed mitigation proposal which is
being developed to compensate for this and other projects. Although I do not think it is a
good practice to issue 401 WQC's without an approved mitigation proposal I will concur with
Jim Gregson's recommendation (attached) with the following conditions:
1. Mitigation for the impacts to wetlands associated with this project will be included in
the "Mitigation Banking Plan for the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation Bank." This
banking plan must be approved by the Division of Environmental Management prior
to implementation.
2. No additional requests associated with the Greater Sandy Run Area project to impact
waters and/or wetlands will be considered by the Division of Environmental
Management until the "Mitigation Banking Plan for the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation
Bank" has been approved and implemented.
ref-ft=401.mem
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management "areA
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor •
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary F= H N F1
Roger N. Schecter, Dlrector
August 31, 1994
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg'
District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers WETI-NID;";
±?nYirr?li,l n arc
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
REFERENCE: Action ID No. 199400693, Permit to Place Fill Material in 17.25 Acres of Wetlands
Adjacent to Greater Sandy Run, West of US 17, Near Verona, Onslow County,
North Carolina, 7/21/94.
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review for consistency with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program pursuant to 15 CFR 930 of the above referenced Federal Activity proposed
by the Department of the Navy. Based upon our review, we disagree with the Navy's determination that
the proposed activity is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The basis for
our finding is that the applicant has failed to supply sufficient information (15 CFR 930.39(a) & 15 CFR
930.42(b)). Should the 401 Water (Quality Certification required from the NC Division of Environmental
Management be denied, the proposed activity would also be inconsistent with our water quality policies
found in 15A NCAC 7M .0800.
Information needs include a discussion of impacts related to uses of the facility including onsite and
offsite impacts on public trust waters, wildlife habitat and diversity, and neighboring communities. These
related use questions were raised in letters from the North Carolina State Clearinghouse dated 6/20/91 and
7/25/91 providing comments on the Final EIS, Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune (SCH # 91-0819). A copy is attached. In addition, since mitigation is included in the
proposal, a detailed mitigation plan is necessary. Finally, more specific plans for all of the proposed
construction and land disturbing activities must be provided in order to evaluate the potential impacts to
rare plant species (including the Federal and State listed endangered Lysimachia asperulifolia) and
"significant" natural areas located during a survey for Camp Lejeune by the NC Natural Heritage Program.
An Environmental Assessment entitled "MCON P-949 Multipurpose Training Range, Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina" has recently been provided to the North Carolina State Clearinghouse
for review. A copy was also provided to my office. We anticipate that many of the information needs listed
above will be found in the EA once we have had the opportunity to review the document fully.
Once we receive the above listed information needs and determine that they are adequate for us
to evaluate the consistency of the proposed activity with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
we will be happy to reconsider our disagreement with the applicant's consistency determination. To this
end, we would be happy to meet with representatives of the applicant to discuss information needs in more
detail.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A copy of this letter will be provided to the applicant. It will serve as our notice that if the applicant
has a serious disagreement with our findings, the applicant has the option of pursuing Secretarial Mediation
procedures described in 15 CFR Part 930 Subpart G. If you or the applicant have any questions about
our position, or want to schedule a meeting to discuss information needs, please contact Mr. Steve Benton
or Ms. Caroline Bellis of my office at [phone].
Since ely,
R ger . c cter
Attachments
cc: Mr. Thomas C. Horsch
Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, VA 23511-2699 (CERTIFIED)
Mr. Jeffrey Benoit
USDC NOAA/OCRM
1305 East-West Highway, Bldg SSMC4
11th Floor, Room 11513
Silver Spring, MD 02202
Mr. Jeff Richter
Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Mr. Preston Pate, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City
Mr. Bob Stroud, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
Ms. Carol Tingley, NC Division of Parks and Recreation
Mr. Franklin McBride, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
ij Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management
glZ6 ??f

cgi?w
)?-j

? 12
0 ? 1-

f
( rz
J

T\Qfib 4-od

-4-
09zl; . <-r!!, cI
rql

[phone]
AUIOVON 565-2310
YFFMORANDUM PR-l HT NAMh',:? :
To : T, hr:? 1?> >rnc?y W(_> Sll-lpv. .:
Planning Branch DATE: SUBJECT: WFl.", ,AND ; .TA.FY R.EP(-IRT AND RI?COMMENDATIC!£d;:;
**EACII ITEM MUST BE AN.1rJEI?la;D (ITSE N/A NO'T' AI'??I_.T(?AIIII=;)? ?*
PERMIT YR : 94 PEPM.1 7 H(): 000067'_ (;???;I?dTY : ?)N` Ir_ilnf
APPLICANT NAME : DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
PROJECTTYPE: FIRING RANGE PF;h_MT'T TYPE:
lA1D
COE 4: 19140069:3 #:
RCP FROM CDA : COE DATE FRM ('PA : (-7 % ' 2 / "l) 4
REG.,-.OFFICE: WTRO
R.IVER_AND_STTB BASIN #:03 O? ?3 `ITRINDEX-_NO:
-.33-9_ Zl-
STREAM .CLASS: Cs"./
WL__ IMPACT :' : C?)/N
WT._-REOUFS,TET) : 7

MITIGATION?: ®/N
M I T T GAT I (--)I\] 'T?I
WI., TYPE; : !oo e

WA' ER TMPAC'TI?D L"./ : Y16
MIT 1 (1, ATICI TYPE'
DI I> Yi)ti RE(JUE ?`I MOIL'-E INFO :. Y.6
IS WETLAND RA`I'T NC, SHEET A'CI'ACHFD1 : Y ©
HAVE PROJF'(l..' I',EEI?I DJ St'Ii' SEP WITH APPLTCANT?; Y/N
MMMENTS: _ f
???2-._.?. •_-E ..? -- - _? _ ? _ cam. _ __ _ _ - ?-- ---- -- -
cc : Regi_f'>rlcAl (?f f _i(,('
Cent-n-); Files
C r a I Z 1994
WET! -A'NDS C:i' ?L'"'
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
Expires 30.Sopfombor 1992
(33 C1 1? 325)
Public reporting burden for this collection of Informabon is osumalod 10 aAKauond ti Pbe reviewing the collection of info aton. Applical ns for largerlor more complex
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data noorlod, burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
projects, or those in ocologlcally sensitive areas, could take up to 500 hours. Send comments repardi? this rations is Projector, 1215 aersal
Including suggestions la reducing tNa burden, to Department of Dofonse, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorata for Information Ope Wasand hington, DC 20509. Please
Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0009),
DO NOT RETURN your cc nplated form to either of these addresses. Completed application must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the
location of the proposed activity.
The Department of the Am1y permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine,
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing activities in oraf oecti??e?gabo`" wa ?U United Salon pre disc arge of loan w?be fined ocean
o this material Into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of the information
r, the data requested are necessary in order to commtw®te with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary Information is
requested is voluntary: howeve issued.
not provided. the permit application cannot be processed nor can a pounit be
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings
and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the Proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
i. APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by Corps)
2. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
T. C. Horsch, P.E.
Head, Facilities Planning &
Real Estate Department
3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT
Valerie W. Hilliard, RLA
Natural/Cultural Resources
Telephone no. during business hours
A/C ( ) (Residence)
A/C ( ) (Office)
Statement of Authorization: I hereby designate and authorize to act in my
behalf as my agent in the processing of this permit applicabon and to furnish,
upon request, supplemental intormation 0 support of the application.
Telephone no. during business hours
A/C ( ) (Residence)
A/C ( ) (Office)
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE
r4a. TAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
CTIVITY sists of a dual
onstruction of a Multipurpose Training Range (MPTR) P-949' P-949 con
Targeting
rack tank trail, with a single return track, a fully equipped
ystem (RETS ) with multiple target types,
todthesfirangdrang?dwialfalsolbeeconstructedched
sheet). An access road to provide access
For additional information see attached report and cross-sections. (Attachment 1). For
information regarding mitigation, see Attachment 5.
4b. PURPOSE
See attached purpose and need statement. (See Attachment 2).
4c. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
Approximately 17.25 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed range
construction. (See attached report for detailed information. Also Attachment 3).
rcrw
EDITION OF JAN 91 IS OBSOLETE
FNG FORM 4345, Sep 91
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. LESSEES. ETC., WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY
Af,AES AND ADDRESSES OF All property adjoining the proposed range area is owned by Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune. (For additional information, see Attachment 4.)
WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATEREjODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
Activity occurs within the Greater Sandy Run Area (see attached report for vicinity map).
LOCATION UN LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSE
ADDRESS:
Sand Run Area approximately 5 miles south of the town of Verona. For additional
Greater Y
information see attached re Dort.
STREET, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION
Onslow North Carolina ZIP CODE
STATE
COUNTY
?co.uwa anDY WffH JURISDICTION UVE^SITE
portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? C] YES
i3, is any and year the activity was completed. Indicate the existing work on the drawings.
It answer is "yes give reasons. month
List all approvals or certilicatiorts and denials received from other lederal, interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, construction. discharges
OF DENIAL
9
activities described in this application. DATE OF APPROVAL
TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION
ISSUING AGENCY
NON APPLICABLE
t
fa a permit or permils to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am lamiliar wi certify th the that inlIamafion possess the contained in authority to
.
belief such information is true, complete, and accurate I further
10. Application is hereby made and
application, and that to the best of my knowledge agent of the applicant.
undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as the duly authorized DATE ?
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
The a lication must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
pp
authorized agent if the statement in block 3 has been filled out and signe .
that Whoever, in any manner within the junsdicbon of any department or agency agency anyy of false, The fictitious United titious States
18 S fraudulent
U.S.C. Suction 1hy l provides Or cars up by any trick, scheme, or device a maturkll tact or tndke
kn e and
statements elyel tabons make als, a both.
o monto shoil befvwd nol r1xx0 than $10,000 or rmp?'? r not a" than five yroars, try fictitious c.. any fraudduie ulent t statonxxlt or ebons or entry,
(Reverse or ENO FORM 41461
hLL,lchttlent 1
MOCK 411 (continued)

EACILEY- access road, in rc:asonablc proximity u> the Bring strain surfaced with
Served by
ith adequate drainage.
d

Area
Parki n
g
w
providc
gravel, rock, asphalt, or conaeu ,and
Located 250 meters from high traffic areas,150 meters from hard surfaced road, and
with drinking water, trash
uipped
e
Dining Area q
30 meters from training sites, in anon-wet area,
receptacles, and pavilion-type shelter.
Located at least 10 meters from firing line, separated from firing lint by Hof
commoda
Concurrent Training Station seating to ac
vegetation, or sound barriers, contains adequate
troops training at range.
ith clear view of firing line and target area; equipped with electrical lighting,
Control Tower Built w
communication, a & grounding systems.
ial system
Built with telephone system (field and commerc
ermit .1 syradio
stem
Communications System .
address sy
telephone system (FM & AM portable), public
target butts, and Co
o co
line
in
f
g
ff
c
,
g
ir
ice.
connected to range control tower,
l O
nications to Range Central and Rang
station; built with commu
Used for target issue, equipment maintenance, and equipment storage; built to
Utility Building accommodate an aid station and a command post.
Built to provide adequate power for equipment, lighting, and heating.
Electrical System
Built to supply potable water for drinking, dining area, and latrine.
Water System tohandle
from high traffic area; built with a lighting system; equipped
Located away
Heads both males and females.
Raised waterproof accessible structure, protected from the environment with an
re storaue for different
Ammo Point with se atti
overhead cover and good drainage, equipped P
ked with safety hazard
types of ammo and temporary storage area: appropriately mar
signs.
Source: Abstracted from the Appendix to the DEIS for Sandy Run.

1
I)
I 1
-- [)rainaf;e Swale = -?1??, ? II /
_ Crushed Stone Surface
Concrete turning pads as required. f
Geotextile underlay as required by soil conditions. 1
_ 12"-32" Roadbed - l
Excavate soil. replace with crushed stone. I I
'+/• ?"..:/:.?? -. ? I ?, K4? J? 6' yin
.f'r , •?' ~G -•c `?L er -'?^ a Jl .?•? S d'i .?. SL
30'-0"
Tank Trail Cross-Section
Attachment 1 (cont.)

Drainage Swale A
Crushed Stone Surface
-? 6"-l2" Roadbed - Excavate soil.
replace with crushed stone.
I 4" Sand subbase in peat soils
12'-0"
Access Road Cross-Section
Attachment 2
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed action, the construction of a multi-purpose training range (MPTR),
is to train both infantry and armored troops, either separately or simultaneously. Construction
of the MPTR will assist in alleviating the heretofore unmet training area needs which currently
constrain the accomplishment of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune's mission of providing the
training facilities necessary for operational units to maintain combat readiness. Two previous
baseline studies, the Special Training Analysis and the Land and Training Area Requirements
Study, documented the deficiencies in training areas and facilities at Camp Lejeune. In both of
these studies the number and quality of firing ranges and the amount of maneuver area existing
on the installation were found to be inadequate or insufficient.
See Attached EA.
Attachment 3
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AT
I)AIZE COUNTY BOMBING RANGE
PURPOSE
The purpose of this assessment is to analyze the i atsDarertCourntyiBombing Range
and and surface soil horizon within surface danger zones
and thus predict impacts at MPTR P-949. The DCBR was chosen for
syanalysiMPTR Pt is the
only known existing bombing range located entirely with pocosin firing
includ located near the Greater Sandy Run Pocosin and a large portion ois considere f the rang dsa secondary impact
this pocosin. Artillery fire into the Greater Sandy Run Po
of the Section 404 permit action authorizing the construction of MPTR P-949.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The DCBR is located in northern Dare County, North Carolina
se ara e town
ranges e located
range has been in operation since 1964 and consists o P
ceives
approximately five (5) miles apart. One range is
utilized by the explosive bombs are deployed a ?e thererange;
activity from the Air Force. No live or high
ion of the rce range.
however, a machine gun strafing area is located in h a SO oxima elyt25 poundsAiAllomaneuvers
Practice bombs (inert) utilized at both rang weigh whereas MPTR P-949 will involve
occurring at Dare County involve air to ground
ground to ground tank fire. Only plastic non-explosive r jec ise will the be fired f is m not tinks at use.
MPTR P-949, thus eliminating conflicts with maneuvering troop when range The entire DCBR complex encompasses approximately 46,600 acres including surface danger
at 31,000 pracres. Both oximately 2,5000r ores
zones and associated firing ranges. The Navy rangtarget area is
in size, while the Air Force range target area is slightly larger ger system _ occur within a large pocosin and are encircled by drainage
of each r ngepas swell meter Troad he d itching
A network of roads and ditches occur within the interior
system serves to control water levels within the bombing area. This stages Fthe requNavy ent and Air
Force to maintain the vegetation in these areas in a ow successional and/or controlled burns are utilized to accomplish these maintenance activities.
ural
The pocosin system at DCBR, classified as pond pine woodland by the The canopy layer North Carolina
consists
Heritage Program, is dominated by typical tall Pocosin vegetation.
almost entirely of pond pine (Pinus serotina) with scattered loblolly bay (Gosdcomplosednofui ti
The shrub layer, which is extremely dense and virtually ry (Ilex glabra), sweet gallberry
(Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), bitter gallber
lussacia frondosa), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
(Ilex coriacea), huckleberry (Gay Herbs are generally nearly absent
greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia) and red bay (Persea borbonia).
under the dense woody cover although occasional Virginia chainfe Sn(W lumpsrt.ayvt. glurca),
netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and peatmoss (Sphagnum
Attachment 4
HISTORY OF Till" GRI ATFIZ SANDY IZUN AREA ACQUISITION
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the proposed expansion and
realignment of Marine Corps Base Camp L.ejeune. Thirteen alternatives were proposed and
analyzed as potential solutions to existing training area deficiencies. The alternatives involved
various combinations of land acquisition, leasing, and realignment of existing facilities. A series
of criteria were established to allow comparisons between the alternatives. The criteria included
operational requirements (i.e., satisfying military requirements), environmental impacts, and
socioeconomic impacts. A complex alternatives analysis process identified the acquisition of the
Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) as the preferred alternative.
The GSRA is a 41,000+ acre tract located in southern Onslow County, adjacent to and west of
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. The GSRA tract is bounded on the east and southeast by
U.S. Highway 17, by State Road 50 on the southwest and west, and by State Roads 1104, 1105,
1107, and 1119 on the north, excluding some residential holdings (outparcels) along the northern
and western perimeter. The GSRA includes a former World War II Army training facility at
Camp Davis, located near the town of Holly Ridge. With the exception of two runways, all
support facilities at Camp Davis were removed following abandonment. These runways are
currently used for helicopter training, and will continue to be used for military training in the
future.
The GSRA was acquired by the Federal government during 1992-3. Approximately 36,500
acres of the 41,000+ acres were owned by a holding company for International Paper Company
(IPC) wh'c;h managed it for silviculture purposes. The remaining acreage acquired consisted of
privateiy owned parcels including residences, small businesses, and small farms. Historically,
the GSRA was owned by private landowners; however, over the past 45 years a number of paper
.h- major companies have
and t? ,bering companies 'gave owned the majority G. U, ?,.
incl, .,ed Canal Wood Corporation, Cape Fear IVDod Company lair - oodlands Company,
Suet":?r:Kraft Timber Company, and most recently International Paper Company.

, , - ; 1 - - N
11 y'7"N" 1 w l i
Y ?Y JC:,:..of.ltit e'.Wa,;l.S4?. u?a a+ G L.. y4+.,?r t4.n
F' a x ??
r: e hit' ° .5..' a
RON,
.h.?I JI\iil ,} h•?l E 1..,j,Y'Z'^??,? /? 7 ?VV r,J T' ^.. ' ~r !
1 ? ? y ?' - ?'•?• j i t It , ? 1 ,.\• ` , y.
't •??aia ?CZ 1,t?t?_. Tt ?,is 1, l,s, ^` \ .f ? 1 p. ? t ? ? ? J- ? f
`1 i? ?? 7 t. ? jA\II?- a ? 1 ,li 1 •t. ? 1. r !: I ? .111/
t T i
a.
??11??Y \. v \ ?? j i a 1 ? ? -_ 1 - y ? l' r ? - ? f r?r '?. ! / ?? rlrN
SIT
? > R
r;?`.p': ?ew~l
lift!
OFT a
ryy tii= Y}??7t r
t Er? % 'vi'S? 1 .'?rsa•
OWN? xt?
Attachment 5
SYNOPSIS OF EBASCO CONCEPT
MITIGATION PLAN OF 1993
Ebasco Environmental (Ebasco) was contracted by Marine Corps ampfor,the ensta provide
a wetlands management plan, as well as, a concept mitigation or wetian
creation Ebasco identified areas at the GSRA which could be ed mitillat on arelasfwere idenafled based
restoration, enhancement,
to the success of the individual mitigation types.
on factors inherent
ric
Restoration areas were identified based on the following conditions:
tic species; 1) are containing
pine plantations
soils, but with the existing vegetation dominated by non bydp y
the
on seo restore
occurring on hydric soils; and (3) areas where management ident would de necessary
factors
area to a functional wetland system. Creation areas we based eral
areas of
including: (1) areas which were suitable for creation due to hale of soinstwhichn; ( )currently
upland soils or soils with hydric inclusions; (3) areas o y
agricultural fields; and (4) areas with wetlands in close proximity. dE h construction. inc and
those pocosin systems which have been impacted by road
preservation areas include those areas containing threatened domain. endangered species, or their
critical habitat; or those areas which will become public e
According to the Ebasco study, the potential for mitigation at the GSRA is good due to the of on- history of forestry management practices, which have Ebleft a asco igestim nific d the o tat amount site
wetlands in a damaged or degraded state. Additionally, acres; area available for mitigation by type. Those totals are as follows: reservation 1145602170 acres)
restoration-12,300 acres; (3) enhancement-7,000 acres; and () p
The Ebasco study indicated that most enhancement and/orrestoration drainage will ditches result from t Howeverhe
restoration of hydrology through the filling and/or control
adequate planning is required considering the high potential for creating extensive new wetlands.
Attachment 5 (cont.d)
MITIGATION BANK WORK PLAN
Base-
Geo-Marine, Inc. was contracted by Naval Facilities
P 933 and P-949 Wetlands Mitigation Plan.
line Hydrologic Monitoring Study for the MILCON
The plan emphasizes restoration of former wetlands as mitigation, but also includes enhancement
of existing wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Training District (Corps) has
P--949 to
stated that they will allow the construction of Multi-Purpose p
ensatory mitigation
proceed on a commitment from the Navy/Marine Corps
However, bcom efoPe a final mitigation
for P-949 when the mitigation banking plan is completed.
plan can be developed, a base-line hydrologic monitoring study must be completed. This plan
provides information on how the base-line study will be conducted.
Step 1. Identification of Hydrologic Monitoring Study Area(s) e re The purpose of hydrologic monitoring is to determine
soil saturate d withint112 inches of urfa?e
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland hydrology (i.e. suggested that
for at least 10 consecutive days during the growing season). The initial concept the Ebasco Restoration Area (as identified by Ebasco Emitigation planning fordobtainung
serve as the study area for hydrologic monitoring to facilitate 49.
Ebasco a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit s°loatedRwithin3thand e GS9RA between the
is
Restoration Area is approximately 611 acres, and
land
Greater Sandy Run Pocosin and Juniper Swamp. Figure 1 provides a total of potential etance
mitigation acreage within the Ebasco Restoration Area (cells 2-8). Field
indicated that a large majority of the tract is curreftoli ation jurisdictional
areas were identified
excluded from restoration mitigation. Based on this information,
These areas include pine plantations
which could provide mitigation credit (see Figure 2).
growing on the Woodington soil type and pocosin areas which
din 1 ted as ave beenso mpact d
- hydrologically by road and/or ditch construction. Woo gton
United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service (SCS), has been severely
impacted by timber activities which have served to eliminate wetland hydrology. Five additional
areas (including the Greater Sandy Run Pocosin) were selected a additional hydrologic
monitoring study areas. These additional areas comprise approximately 3900 acres.
Step 2. Development of Hydrologic Monitoring Plan
Hydrologic monitoring is scheduled to be conducted within the selected areas for approximately
the well location strategy) for the first year
2.5 years. The hydrologic monitoring plan (e.g.,
of monitoring shall be based on existing topographic infor Wetll n. monitong e d reconn
to atonanae and soil
survey information will be utilized to specifically identify
distribution of wells. Monitoring wells will be placed S lot gn clea will p aced lines t rough
suitable areas. In areas where ditching has occurred, trap perpendicr
had coverage the,aand should
to the ditching. This transect arrangement will allow a greater area of
assist in determining the area (zone) of influence that the ditching as on . Upon
Attachment 3 (cont.)
The Greater Sandy Run Pocosin, located within the firing fan of MPTR P-949, is classified as
a short (or low) pocosin (see attached Photo 193-51). Low pocosins are distinguished from other
peatland community types by the persistent low stature of the shrubby vegetation (less than 1.5
meters tall) and the sparse distribution and low stature of the few trees present. The shrub layer
is extremely dense and is composed of fetterbush, titi, greenbriar, and zenobia (Zenobia
pulverulenta). Widely scattered, stunted pond pine, loblolly bay, red bay and sweet bay
(Magnolia virginica) also occur. The herb layer is generally sparse and consists of Virginia
chainfern, broomsedge (Andropogon glomeratus), and p
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
onvisits
Personal communication with DCBR personnel, color-infrared h aerial
the
effects o g aphy, and site
(field reconnaissance) were utilized to qualitatively assess artillery fire
vegetative cover and surface soil horizon at the DCBR. According to range personnel, stray
rounds do sometimes fall outside of maintained areas and within the natural pocosin system.
The Air Force conducts a weekly clean-up of their range, e and round has penetrated the vegetative
which fall into the surrounding pocosin. However,
root mat, salvage is usually not possible. Salvaging of these particular rounds, would result in
a greater degree of damage than the round produced initially.
Natural resources personnel at the range have indicated t complex. they a Anot erial photography
functions and values of the pocosin surrounding the attached Photo 190-57) appears to indicate that the surrounding system has remained in a tall
pocosin (or pond pine woodland) community even with range activities. No large holes, gaps,
or texture changes are apparent in the canopy coverage. The only impacts appear to be the
range footprint and associated roads and ditches.
CONCLUSION
that
Based on the analysis of impacts to the surrounding pocosin at DCB ,, it is otua? fuel siMPTR
the Greater Sandy Run Pocosin will receive little or no serious impacts P-949. Secondary impacts from artillery fire will occur, but the effects are expected to be
negligible.
Attachment 5 (cont.d)
MITIGATION BANK WORK PLAN provide
Base Geo-Marine, Inc. was contracted by Nava LFacilities CON P 933 and-949 Wetlands M gat on P an.
line Hydrologic Monitoring Study for the
The plan emphasizes restoration of former wetlands as mitigation, but also includes enhancement
of existing wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) has
stated that they will allow the construction oCorps Multi-Purpose Ropensator
theym Ptiga9on
proceed on a commitment from the Navy/Marine ps perform
for P-949 when the mitigation banking plan is pbe complete dl Tmiti h is plan
plan can be developed, a base-line hydrologic monitoring study must
provides information on how the base-line study will be conducted.
Step I. Identification of Hydrologic Monitoring Study Area(s) uiremen The purpose of hydrologic monitoring is to determine whether
d within 12 in?Ches oof sutrfa?e
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland hydrology
for at least 10 consecutive days during the growing season). The initial concept suggested that
the Ebasco Restoration Area (as identified by Ebas facilitate mitigation planning for obtaining
serve as the study area for hydrologic monitoring t
is olo atedRwithin3thand e P-949. The Ebasco
a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit
between the
Restoration Area is approximately 611 acres, a
Greater Sandy Run Pocosin and Juniper Swamp. Figure 1 provides a total of potential etane
mitigation acreage within the Ebasco Restoration Area (cells 2-8). Field
woul indicated that a large majority of the tract is currently jurisdictional
areas were identf ied
excluded from restoration mitigation. Based on this information, These areas include pine plantations
which could provide mitigation credit (see Figure 2).
growing on the Woodington soil type and pocosin areas which he
n, listed as a hydricnsoillbycthe
- hydrologically by road and/or ditch construction. Woodingt been rely
United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation
wetland hydrology?Five add teonal
impacted by timber activities which have served to eliminate
areas (including the Greater Sandy Run Pocosi ) were selected a additional hydrologic
monitoring study areas. These additional areas comprise approximately
Step 2. Development of Hydrologic Monitoring Plan approximately Hydrologic monitoring is scheduled to be conducted within ilocation sdtratareas egy)f for the first year
2.5 years. The hydrologic monitoring plan (e.g., the
of monitoring shall be based on existing topographic inffr Wetlsmon toting locationsnas well,
survey information will be utilized to specifically identify
distribution of wells. Monitoring wells will be placed salong lines cleare be transect placed lines through
usuitable areas. In areas where ditching has occurred, tra
to the ditching. This transect arrangement will allow grater
had on the area. sUpon
assist in determining the area (zone) of influence that the d g has
Attachment 5 (cont.d)
on and comparative analysis of the
of the hydrologic data for the initial growing seas
both review >ra hic survey map, an evaluation shall be made in consultation
pending hydrographic and topo? p y
wells
with the Corps to possibly relocate some of the monitoring wells in .arl monitoring tto provide
additional data for the investigation of gro stem (GPS) fforlmap presentation purposes.
will be located by a Global Positioning Sy
Step 3. Installation of Hydrologic Monitoring Wells
Ian as toring Approximately 30 monitoring wells will be installed, based on the stRestoic m n iArea as a first Ebasco priority, described i Step 2 above), throughout the entire 611 additional by the installation of approximately 30 moni will bee ns lled gooa depth of at
areas (see followed e Figure 3). The wells, constructed of PVC plastic,
with pre-programmed data-recorders to read water-depth four times
least 40 inches and equipped g cycle. The micro-p ortele tr the
daily with a 128 day wrap-around monitorin
components, and power supply are all enclosed within the weather-proof head p This is the
device. Each monitoring well will be encased unit from fire and vandag housing
The well will be a six in steel flan protective measure designed to safeguard 11 as avoidance) in the field.
clearly marked to facilitate location (as '
Step 4. Hydrologic Data Collection
slduring tthis preliminary
preliminary well data check will occur, within one month after We drolo is
wells are functioning properly. However, all data retrieved from
data check shall be collected and assimilated for inclusion into the First-Y aeffeetive data
collection, Monitoring Report. which time all monitoring wells have demonstrated
the hydrologic data retrieval schedule shall be commensurate with the 128 day wrap-
retrieval efforts shall be nine
around monitoring cycle. The cumulative total of hydrologic check during the first month
times: these data retrieval efforts will entail one preliminary data g
. Years).
monitoring and seven scheduled data retrievals for each one of tahe seven c mplet5128 day
oximately
onitoring cycles throughout the duration
data recoverynof tracthe well data to be a mpl tied on
m
the
Additionally, there shall be a special priority for
growing May 1, 1995, thereby allowing compilation of a complete monitoring dam for the last half of the the season. This special tasking shall be accowphlished the b first half compiling the 1995 growing season (March
1994 growing season of (May 1-June 30) early rowin season, which is guous 1-May 30) to assimilate a model of a od aseestablishediby the Corp ? g
the critical hydrologic monitoring period,
Step 5. Hydrologic Monitoring Report(s)
rolo is data reports incorporating the nine hydrologiicd? h collections n will be
Three annual hyd g 1 A written po
prepared. These reports shall include the following: (A comparative analysis of control wells
findings of the hydrologic monitoring regime; (2)
own re-existing uplands and adjacent wetlands with minimal disturbance)
(located in both kn p
Attachment 5 (cont.d)
undwater depressional areas identified by the well monitoring; (3) Contour maps and
An
with gro drawdown; ch dia rams indicating aeria l extent and depth of groundwater
reflect
11 be prepared at and
isopa g
prior reports
appendices of well data logs. The three annual hydrologic
construction, and to document
baseline pre-existing conditions for two g g
past construction hydrologic restoration plet success
potential monitoring cycle.
early growing owing season
complete y g
additional hydrologic report will provide a "complete"
Step 6. Long-Term Management/ Monitoring
Long-term management and monitoring of the mitigation bank site is imperative to insure
success and continued survival of the bank. Without long-term management, measures applied
oals. A number of
to the bank may be only temporary and inefctive in n of a longctermistgrategy. gExamples of criteria
criteria should be considered in the formulato
which should be considered include (but are not limited to) the following:
(1) Restrictions on construction activities; agencies;
(2) Annual/biannual reports to appropriate regulatory ag
ural activities (timber harvesting and prescribed burning management activities will
(3) Silvicult
have to be addressed);
(4) Military activities;
(5) Efforts to establish s surface waterthydrology;
and
(6) Groundwater a
(7) Preservation through perpetuity.
w
Cr
z
O
F-
Q
Cr
O
H
CD
w w
g
w
w
Cl)
a.
cc
a.
co
U
m
w
Z
w
w
J
CL
Q
U
J J
J ¢
W ?
U
O

co
co
W

Q U
W o ¢

C) r`
U v r? Cl) am co
¢ Cl)
f` N ti M - N

o
¢
CO st
W N M '1 0 0 r• M

? U U U
U U U U U U
F-

W

z _
Y
¢ O
H ?
Cn (n ¢
Z ¢
O a Q
O
>- LU
Q U z
0 o O O
LL LL U-
0 W O
m
w V¢)
c!i Z CC U
C3 z ¢ ~
J
¢ O o
¢ LL ¢
U
Z
CL
O
M U
Z
Z LLI
wZ
w Cr
SQ
Q G
O
ZQ Cr
J O
r ?
0 y J
r,
11 ?,7j
?-
CY)
Cn
c
i
FIGURE 2

P-949 Multi-Purpose
Training Ran-e (SR-7)
P-933 Multi-Purpose
Range Complex (SR-10)
Road
0

4 ADDITIONAL /

•::•: ; RESTORATION
AREA
EIlASCO
RESTORATION
AREA
0

? C7

?'
Davis

POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS
Location of the P-933 MPTR within the Greater Sandy Run Area.
?W
Z
:? O
W
U Q
M a-
LLI
J
J
W W
`-.
L Z
>- W
W
Z -?
J Q
W U
a.
N
0

U
z
a.
O
o ?
LO
U
.I ?
C,o
L
w rn W
J ? C
Q '" G
C } W
X S
° Q
Z
Q
Q X N -
- - - - zZ
\ N - - N M G
Cl ?
M T-
r , I
s ?I W
M ? ? N
n
? \ IN
? I
\ I I
? 1
/?? ?(?
??,
.. /? ? ,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E., Director
September 27, 1994
The Department of the Navy
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
ATTN: Mr.Thomas C. Horsch
1510 Gilbert St.
Norfolk, VA 23511-2699
Dear Mr. Horsch:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed multi purpose training range
Project # 94679, COE # 199400693
Onslow County
FILE copy
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2926 issued to Department of the Navy
dated 27 September 1994.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
P.es o waJdr-
.E
.
Attachments
wgc2926
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Charles Walker; Naval Facilities Engineering Command
A14
00 )A
oft IL
?EHNR
P,O, Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA
Onslow County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Department of the Navy
resulting in 17.25 acres of wetland impact in Onslow County pursuant to an application filed on the
21st day of July of 1994 to construct a multi purpose training range for use by MI/A1 tank, and
infantry and aerial assault troops.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of filAmaterial into the waters
tributary to New River in conjunction with the proposed development in Onslow County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301,302,303,306,307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTU's
or less are not considered significant).
2. Mitigation must be done for this project in the "Mitigation Banking Plan for
the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation Bank". A draft plan for this bank must be
submitted to DEM for eventual approval before construction of the training
range begins.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification. This
Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 27th day of September, 1994.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ton Howard, Jr. P.E
4 rL
WQC# 2926
_,.
State of North Carolina " WES
Department of Environment, AUG` 0 ? 1??
• •
Health and Natural Resourc 1
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
? E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
07/26/94
Z
Mr. Jim Gregson
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
REFERENCE: ACTID-94-0693 County: Onsl-ow
Applicant/Sponsor: Dept. of the Navy
Fill 17.5 Acres Wetlands for Training Range, Great Sandy Run
Dear Mr. Gregson:
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice, dated
07/21/94 describing a federal project or permit is being circulated
to interested State agencies for comments concerning the proposal's
consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Please indicate your viewpoint on the roposal and return this
form to me before 08/15/94. Sin j ely,
r?eL?en B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY
_ This office objects to the project as proposed
_ Comments on this project are attached.
_::?4his office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
cv_j--4z ?z6
Signed'
Date
Agency Dci Ym
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 11, 1994
Mr. Robert L. Warren
Assistant Chief of Staff
Environmental Management Division
Marine Corps Base
PSC Box 20004
Camp LeJeune, N.C. 2854200004
Dear Mr. Warren:
RE: 401 Water Quality Certification
Proposed multi purpose training range
Project # 94679, COE# 199400693
Onslow County
FILE COPY
The Division of Environmental Management issued Water
Quality Certification Number 2926 on 27 September 1994.
Condition No. 2 of the Certification required the Department of
the Navy to send a draft mitigation plan to DEM before
construction begins on the training range. DEM recently received
this draft plan and this condition is hereby satisfied.
Therefore DEM has no objection to the initiation of construction
of this project. DEM will need to eventually approve the final
mitigation plan at a later date once it is finalized.
I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
94679a.ltr
Sincerely yours,
Jo n R. Dorney
cc: Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Wilmington District COE
Central Files
Charles Walker, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
ED I== F1
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

s
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR MCON P-949,
MULTIPURPOSE TRAINING RANGE,
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE,
NORTH CAROLINA
11

u

t
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR MCON P-949,
MULTIPURPOSE TRAINING RANGE,
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE,
NORTH CAROLINA
f

r 26 May, 1994

Prepared for:
ATLANTIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
Norfolk, Virginia
Point of Contact: Mr. Dan Cecchini
[phone]

Prepared by:
The Environmental Company, Inc.
1230 Cedars Court, Suite 100
P.O. Box 5127
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Contract No. N62470-90-D-7696
Delivery Order 0005

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 1. Description of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment addresses the impacts associated with the proposed
construction and operation of a Multipurpose Training Range (MPTR) in the northeast
quadrant of the recently acquired Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) of Marine Corps Base
(MCB) Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The MPTR would be used to teach tank crews the
skills needed for engaging stationary and moving targets arranged in tactical arrays, and
it would also provide MCB Camp Lejeune a combined tank firing range and maneuver area
in which tanks could train in conjunction with dismounted infantry against stationary
and moving targetry. This type of range is a standardized design and it is used to certify
that the individual tank crew is qualified to begin collective, live-fire training at the
unit (section or platoon) level. It is the critical transition between individual and unit
proficiency.
2. Alternatives Considered
i
f
h
d MPTR
or t
e propose
were
tes
In the preparation of this EA, three potential GSRA s
analyzed, in addition to the possibility of siting it within the existing MCB Camp Lejeune
range structure. For operational and environmental reasons (including the inability of
MCB Camp Lejeune locations to provide the required distance-to-target for main tank
gun crew qualification, conflicts with the GSRA Master Development Plan, and wetlands
impacts), the two potential southern GSRA sites and a MCB Camp Lejeune existing range
location were dismissed. Constructing the MPTR in the northeastern GSRA became the
Proposed Action; the remaining alternative considered was No Action. This document
focuses on these two alternatives. An analysis of Marine Corps training shortfalls and
requirements, and thirteen alternative solutions to the identified training needs at MCB
Camp Lejeune is contained in a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Expansion and Realignment of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, which
was completed in May 1991 (referred to herein as the Acquisition EIS). That EIS
reviewed the expected overall environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the
acquisition, development, and use of the GSRA; however, it was recognized that additional
specific environmental analysis would be required for the various anticipated projects
as the GSRA was developed for Marine Corps training purposes.
The Proposed Action Alternative calls for the construction of a MPTR in the
northeast quadrant of the GSRA. The siting of the MPTR in this location is based
primarily upon the scarcity elsewhere in the GSRA of high ground and trafficable soils
needed for the tank maneuver trails, coupled with the requirement for a large surface
danger zone (SDZ). Additionally, long range development plans for the entire GSRA,
including various other contemplated range requirements, SDZ needs, and safety factors,
were analyzed.
The proposed MPTR would consist of two maneuver firing tank trails situated within a
740 acre rectangle containing stationary targets, moving targets, and defilade positions.
Crews scheduled for training would bring tanks (usually two per training evolution) to
the MPTR by truck from Camp Lejeune. A standard training evolution would consist of
two tanks and 22 personnel for a two day training period. The range would be used for

tank training approximately every other week (26 weeks per year); additionally,
infantry would use the range for small arms training one day per week all year. Support
facilities for the MPTR would be situated in the vicinity of the base line of the maneuver
area, and would include a control tower, operations/storage building, field service
bathroom, covered bleacher enclosure for troop instruction, and a large crushed rock
vehicle holding area. Initial access to the range would be over existing roadways, some
of which would require resurfacing. No tank washing would be performed at the MPTR,
and only operationally required maintenance, to include required emergency
maintenance, would be performed at the MPTR.
A SDZ for spent projectiles would radiate to the west of the range in the north-central
GSRA. This SDZ would cover approximately 5,900 acres. Only non-explosive steel or
copper jacketed ordnance would be used on the proposed MPTR so that the SDZ would not
be "dudded," and no long term unexploded ordnance and/or contamination hazards would
be created.
Although not within the GSRA boundary, a proposed borrow pit for construction fill
located within the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune has been identified, and fill
dirt (estimated 70,580 cubic yards) would be brought to the GSRA for construction of
the proposed MPTR. The site for the proposed borrow pit was chosen from among eight
sites identified within an area of MCB Camp Lejeune between the New River and U.S.
Highway 17. Eight criteria were applied in the selection of the borrow pit: Quality and
quantity of fill material; environmental impact on wetlands; environmental impact on
endangered and threatened species; conflicts with remedial investigation sites; impact on
archaeological/historic sites; conflict with land use plans; cost per cubic yard of fill;
and site accessibility.
The No Action Alternative would continue the status quo in the face of increasing
training pressure from the new Marine Battle Skills Training regimen and the changing
requirements of newer weaponry. MCB Camp Lejeune's documented shortfalls in
current maneuver area, identified in the LATAR Study as insufficient in size and of poor
quality, would be perpetuated. In order to qualify tank crews, the current practice of
sending personnel to off-base training facilities such as Fort Knox, Kentucky would
continue, as would the inefficiency and waste in training time, complications arising
from inter-service scheduling of heavily utilized ranges, and added monetary expense.
Based on a comparative analysis of these alternatives with respect to operational and
environmental criteria, the Proposed Action Alternative is considered the preferred
alternative. A detailed discussion of both the Proposed Action alternative and the No-
Action alternative is provided in Section 2.0, Alternatives.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed MPTR would have only
minor impacts on the environment. The majority of the GSRA tract was previously
owned and managed by a paper company for timber production, and hence most of the
natural communities have been altered to one degree or another.
The construction of the proposed MPTR would not adversely affect surrounding land use,
as the range would be wholly located within the GSRA and is consistent with plans for the
property, as evaluated in the Acquisition EIS.
2

The soils within the proposed MPTR maneuver area which would be affected by training
operations are poorly drained, sandy soils. Erosion potential would require mitigation
programs to avoid siltation of waterways and wetlands, but erosion impacts would be
localized due to the flat terrain and sluggish water flow. For this reason any mitigation
measures should be relatively easy to institute. As an example, during construction
phases, temporary ground cover and silt fence would be used to contain erosion. For long
term control, vegetative buffer zones, and possibly berms to direct or channel runoff
away from sensitive areas, would be included in the range design.
Proper water quality standards will be maintained. Requisite State construction
permits, wastewater permits, stormwater permits and water quality certification will
be obtained for both construction and operation of the proposed range. Potential siltation
of surface waters or wetlands during construction will be controlled by strict adherence
to erosion and sedimentation control measures.
A concern, as with any firing range, is the possibility of fire. Peat comprises a large
portion of the soil composition of the pocosin areas of the GSRA over which the SDZ fan
would lie, thereby adding increased dangers beyond those normally associated only with
vegetative cover. The use of non-explosive ordnance is planned for proposed MPTR
operations, thereby reducing the risk of fire. However, other incendiary devices
(smoke grenades, booby-trap simulators, hand held illumination) would be used on the
range. Fire management efforts would include increasing periodic controlled burns as
part of MCB Camp Lejeune's Natural Resource Management program, increasing fire
control personnel from nine to seventeen, and purchasing additional fire control
equipment including four more low pressure tractor and plow units, four portable
bridges and four bridge trucks . The long range plans for the GSRA development include
three 125 foot observation towers in the northern GSRA and a perimeter road which, if
constructed, would provide easier and quicker access to fire locations as well as
providing a fire break around the entire GSRA.
A revised Fire Control Plan for MCB Camp Lejeune (which includes the GSRA) has been
prepared. Mutual assistance agreements with both the U.S. Forest Service and the State
of North Carolina have been executed. Additionally, in an emergency situation, the
manpower pool for firefighters at MCB Camp Lejeune is significant.
In early 1994, remote sensing of aerial photography, soil survey, and topography,
Geographic Information System (GIS), and Global Positioning System (GPS)
technologies, in conjunction with field surveys, were used to delineate wetland
boundaries within a rectangular area comprising 1150 acres in the northeast quadrant
of the GSRA, and within which the proposed MPTR (encompassing a rectangle of 740
acres) would be sited. The delineation study revealed that within the 1150 acre survey
area there were 443 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. An analysis of this 1150 acre
rectangle was conducted to determine the best location and design for a 740 acre MPTR.
From among several alternatives, a site and design were chosen which would minimize
wetland impacts. The Corps of Engineers estimates that there will be approximately 25
acres of wetland impacts associated with the preferred MPTR range siting and design
(including access road to the range and support facility construction). A permit from
the Corps of Engineers would be required, and mitigation would be expected.
To address the mitigation requirements associated with the MPTR, and in preparation for
further GSRA development, a conceptual wetland mitigation plan has been developed
3
which is based on the creation of a Wetlands Mitigation Bank within the GSRA. Wetlands
that have been altered and disturbed as a result of previous timber practices have been
selected throughout the GSRA for wetland restoration. These drained wetlands are
historic pond pine pocosin wetlands that have been converted to plantation pine through
mechanized silviculture practices, including implementation of drainage ditches and
bedding planes to plant stands of loblolly pine. A strategic hydrologic monitoring plan
has been implemented throughout these drained wetland areas that have been converted to
pine plantation. In those areas in which wetland hydrology is found not to be present, a
site-specific wetland restoration plan will be developed. Restoration of wetland
hydrology will be accomplished by a combination of plugging ditches, which will
eliminate the wetland drain, and by cutting the planted pine, which will eliminate the
hydrologic pump. It is anticipated that these actions will result in the restoration of
wetland hydrology. The Corps of Engineers has provided recommendations concerning
wetlands mitigation and the development of a wetlands mitigation banking program. For
the initial banking effort, an extensively drained 800+ acre site underlain with hydric
soil has been identified in the southeastern quadrant of the GSRA as a potential area for
the wetlands mitigation bank. Studies are being conducted to determine the potential
wetland restoration acreage within the bank. The Marine Corps plans to mitigate wetland
impacts from the proposed MPTR at a minimum of two acres to one ratio through the use
of the wetlands mitigation bank.
Based on experience elsewhere, a concern associated with the operation of the proposed
MPTR is that tank and infantry training have the potential for erosion and sedimentation
impacts in adjacent wetlands. Mitigation measures, which could include vegetative
buffer zones, silt fences, check dams and sedimentation basins, are noted in the present
project design, and a comprehensive erosion control plan would be required as part of
the State stormwater certification and construction permit process.
The majority of impacts to vegetation would result from the clearing and use of tank
trails and targetry in the maneuver area. For the installation of targets and line-of-
sight range openings, vegetation would be maintained near ground level in an early-to-
mid successional state, depending on weapon sighting requirements. Maintaining the
vegetation in this state would be accomplished through controlled burns, bushhogging,
and/or hand clearing (as required). Converting the proposed MPTR from pine plantation
to early-to-mid successional vegetation for construction and operation of the MPTR
would increase habitat diversity in the area. Tracked vehicles are not expected to leave
the tank trails, thereby minimizing impacts upon vegetation within the proposed MPTR
maneuver area.
A 1993 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) inventory of the entire GSRA
identified 26 plant species recognized as rare at the Federal or State level (with varying
degrees of rarity and protection). Fifteen of those plant species were located in the
northern GSRA, within the potential sphere of impacts of the proposed MPTR. Of these
rare plants, only one - the rough-leaved loosestrife - is Federally protected as
Endangered. Three others are Candidates for Federal protection. The .$= protected
species ?,? -Iude three listed as Endangered, and the remainder falling into various
Candidai- -•,r protection categories. Rare plants which could arguably be affected by the
proposec "TR are generally located in two areas: the extreme western area of the SDZ
(the rougi,-:,? aved loosestrife is located in that area); and in the maneuver and support
facility areas, generally along roads and the powerline right-of-way. Any potential
4

effects to rare plants in the western SDZ area are considered negligible due to the
distance involved, and because of the use of non-explosive ordnance. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been consulted concerning the rough-leaved loosestrife
(the only Federally listed endangered species) and concurs with that belief. Impacts to
the $tate protected, and Federal Candidate plant species in the maneuver and support
facility area could result from construction and use of the proposed MPTR. As required,
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be undertaken to determine
actual impacts and potential mitigation measures.
The main impacts upon wildlife from MPTR operations would be the alteration of habitat
and stress associated with increased human presence. Those impacts are not expected to
affect any large communities. In fact, the early-to-mid successional habitat created by
the construction and operation of the proposed range through brush clearing and
maintenance of open areas in the target and maneuver area would increase overall
biodiversity within the GSRA. The current animal populations in the vicinity of the
proposed MPTR are considered only remnants of the native fauna as a result of the
previous timber operations and maintenance of a pine monoculture. No Federally
protected wildlife were located within the GSRA, but two $tate rare birds (both
currently Candidates for Federal listing) and one State endangered mammal were located
in the southern GSRA, remote from the proposed MPTR and considered outside the sphere
of impacts associated with the proposed MPTR.
There would be no permanent impact on the local human population associated with the
proposed MPTR. Construction of the range and associated support facilities would
provide some temporary construction employment. The budget for the proposed range
construction is $5.3 million and $1.3 million for target installation. The annual
operation and maintenance budget for the proposed range is expected to be $160,000,
and would include four full-time civilian employees.
The MPTR would receive electric power from the existing overhead 12.47 KV
transmission line, and telephone service would be provided by extending the fiber-optic
line that now runs from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River to the Verona Loop
area of MCB Camp Lejeune. Water is planned to be provided by construction of a well,
and a treatment system would also be constructed on the proposed MPTR site.
Wastewater is planned to be handled by construction of a leach field, however, the soils
in the area may preclude securing a construction permit. An alternative sewage system,
such as chemical toilets or sewage hookup to MCB Camp Lejeune may be required.
Traffic impacts associated with the proposed MPTR would be greatest during
construction of the range. Large amounts of fill and other construction material would
be required. This would include an estimated 70,580 cubic yards of fill which could
entail 6,000-10,000 dump truck loads. Use of signage, flagmen, and scheduling would
assist in mitigating the impacts of bringing construction material from outside the GSRA
(including the main impact associated with trucks crossing U.S. Highway 17 from the
Verona Loop borrow pit). After construction, operation of the MPTR would have
minimal traffic impacts. In the long term, direct access via underpasses from MCB
Camp Lejeune would significantly reduce traffic impacts.
An area of Restricted Airspace over the GSRA would be required for range operation. An
application for a 55.5 square mile, joint/intermittent use, stratified Restricted
Airspace covering the GSRA up to an altitude of 17,999 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
5
has been submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The substantive
restrictions and mitigation measures contained in the application were developed with
the assistance of the FAA. The Restricted Airspace, as requested, would be composed of
three vertical strata and the GSRA would be divided into two sectors (north and south) to
provide greater flexibility and allow for less impact on the use of the V-139 Airway.
The three proposed strata are: surface to 6,999 feet MSL; 7,000 to 9,999 feet MSL; and
10,000 to 17,999 feet MSL. For safe operation, the proposed MPTR would only require
the lowest stratification of airspace (0 to 6,999 feet MSL). The airspace restriction
would be in place from ground level to 6,999 feet MSL from 0600 to 1800, Monday
through Friday. If MCB Camp Lejeune should require additional restricted airspace
strata, or additional times beyond the 0600 to 1800, Monday through Friday, it would
have to be scheduled at least 30 days in advance with the FAA to allow for the publication
of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Mitigation measures to accommodate any aircraft which
would not be able to climb above the proposed MPTR restricted airspace level (normally
6,999 feet MSL) will include requiring interruption of the GSRA airspace restriction,
or in the alternative, interrupting training activities at other ranges and allowing air
traffic to pass through MCB Camp Lejeune restricted airspace to the east.
A noise impact analysis of planned range operations associated with the proposed MPTR
was conducted by the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Bio-Acoustics Division,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. The noise impact contours indicate that the proposed
MPTR operations will not create unacceptable noise impacts outside the GSRA.
In cooperation with the North Carolina State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO),
MCB Camp Lejeune classified soils within the GSRA according to their potential to
contain significant cultural resources. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the soils
were found to have a low probability, with the remaining 20 to 30 percent having
moderate to high probability. It was agreed that archaeological survey would only be
required for the moderate to high probability areas.
Within the general vicinity of the proposed MPTR maneuver and support facility area,
all moderate to high probability soils were surveyed using 30 meter transects with test
units placed at 30 meter intervals. As a result of this survey, six sites were discovered
to the north of the proposed MPTR maneuver/support facility area. These six sites
appear to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, but are
far enough away that they will not be affected by the construction or operation of the
proposed MPTR. It has been agreed between MCB Camp Lejeune and the SHPO that
further testing and study of the six sites, which appear to contain intact prehistoric
cultural remains which may yield information important to the prehistory of the
Southern Coastal Plain region, should be delayed until additional surveys of other tracts
within the GSRA are completed so that discoveries can be analyzed within a larger
regional context. However, in order to avoid inadvertent or accidental damage during the
construction phase of the proposed MPTR, the six sites would be marked in the field
prior to the commencement of any construction activities.
Because the Marine Corps real estate acquisition was not complete within the GSRA at the
time of the cultural resource survey of the proposed MPTR mane ever/support facility
area, the extreme western portion of the SDZ was not surveyed although the soils would
indicate a reasonable potential for cultural resources. Now that acquisition is complete,
archeological surveys in that area, which is far removed from the proposed
6

94
1
i
J
l
.
n
u
y
9
maneuver/support facility area of the MPTR, are scheduled to commence
Any discoveries will be coordinated with the SHPO, although no impacts from the
construction or operation of the proposed MPTR are foreseen.
With regard to cultural resources within the GSRA in general, and the overall plans for
military development within the GSRA, a programmatic agreement is being negotiated
among the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and MCB Camp Lejeune.
The programmatic agreement will provide that prior to any actual ground-breaking
activities associated with GSRA development, proper cultural resource surveys will be
completed in those areas of moderate to high potential for cultural resources which may
be impacted by planned development. The results of these future surveys will be
coordinated with the SHPO prior to the construction of any proposed ranges or facilities.
A proposed borrow pit site associated with the construction of the proposed MPTR is
located in the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune. This 55 acre area was subjected
to archaeological survey and no sites were found.
t
li

171

t
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1.1
1.2 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................
Project Background ......................................................................... 1 - 1
1 - 1
1.2.1 Project History ..................................................................
1.2.2 Description of the GSRA ..................................................... 1 - 1
1 -2
1.2.3 The GSRA Environmental Review Process ......................... 1 -2
2.0 Alternatives
2.1 Description of Alternatives .............................................................
2.1.1 Alternatives Evaluated and Discarded ................................ 2-1
2-1
2.1.2 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ....................................... 2-5
2.1.3 Alternative 2 (No Action) .................................................. 2-1 0
2.2 Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................... 2-1 0
2.2.1 Operational Criteria .......................................................... 2-1 1
2.2.2 Environmental Criteria ..................................................... 2-1 1
2.2.3 Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1
(Proposed Action) ..............................................................
2-1 2
2.2.4 Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 (no Action) ....... 2-1 6
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................. 2-1 6
2.4 Selection of Preferred Alternative ................................................. 2-1 6
3.0 Affected Environment
3.1 Natural Environment ......................................................................
3.1.1 Climate ............................................................................... 3-1
3-1
3.1.2 Topography ......................................................................... 3-1
3.1 .3 Geology ............................................................................... 3-2
3.1.4 Soils ................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.5 Hydrology ...........................................................
3.1.6 Water Quality ..................................................................... -
3-5
3.1.7 Air Quality .........................................................................
3.1.8 Vegetation (Including Endangered/ 3-5
Threatened Species) ........................................................... 3-5
3.1.9 Wildlife (Including Endangered/Threatened Species) .....
3.1.10 Wetlands. 3-1 0
3-1 1

3.2 3.1.1 1 Exemplary Natural Areas ..................................................
Man-Made Environment .................................................................. 3-1 1
3-1 3
3.2.1 Land Use ............................................................................. 3-1 3

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.2.2 Demography, Income, and Taxes ........................................ 3-13
3.2.3 Utilities/Infrastructure .................................................... 3-14
3.2.4 Traffic and Transportation ................................................ 3-1 5
3.2.5 Noise ................................................................................... 3-1 5
3.2.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 3-1 5
3.2.7 Safety ................................................................................. 3-1 8
3.2.8 Contamination .................................................................... 3-1 8
4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Natural Environment: Direct Effects and Mitigation Measures
Associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ........................... 4 - 1
4.1.1 Climate ................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 ............
Topography ......................................................................... 4 - 1
4.1.3 Geology ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1.4 Soils ............................................................... 4 - 1
4.1.5 ....................
Water Quality ..................................................................... 4-2
4.1.6 Air Quality ......................................................................... 4-2
4.1.7 Fire Suppression and Control ............................................ 4-3
4.1.8 Vegetation (Including Endangered/
Threatened Species) ....... 4
3
.................................................... -
4.1.9 Wildlife (Including Endangered/Threatened Species) ...... 4-6
4.1.10 Wetlands ............................................................. 4-7
4.1.1 1 ................
Exemplary Natural Areas .................. 4-8
................................
4.2 Man-Made Environment: Direct Effects and Mitigation
Measures Associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) .......... 4-8
4.2.1 Land Use and Policies ........ 4
8
................................................. -
4.2.2 Demography, Income, and Taxes ........................................ 4-9
4.2.3 Utilities/Infrastructure ........ 4
9
............................................ -
4.2.4 Ground Traffic .................................................................... 4-10
4.2.5 Air Traffic .......................................................................... 4-1 1
4.2.6 Noise ............................. 4
1 2
...................................................... -
4.2.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 4-1 2
4.2.8 Safety ..................................... 4
14
............................................ -
4.2.9 Contamination ........................................ 4-1 5
............................
4.3 Direct Effects and Mitigation Measures Associated with
Alternati ve 2 (No Action) ............................................................... 4-1 6
4.4 Cumulat ive Impacts ................. 4
1
........................................................ -
6

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4.5 Possible Conflicts with Federal, State, Local Land Use Plans,
Policies, and Controls ..................................................................... 4-22
4.6 Permit Requirements and Agency Approvals .................................. 4-22
4.6.1 Wastewater ........................................................................ 4-22
4.6.2 Point Source and Stormwater Permits ............................. 4-22
23
4.6.3 Drinking Water/Wellhead Protection. 4-
4.6.4 Wetlands ............................................................................. 4-23
4.6.5 Restricted Airspace ............................................................ 4-23
4.6.6 Laser Range Certification .................................................. 4-23
' 4.6.7 Federally Endangered/Threatened Species ........................ 4-24
5.0 Data Sources ................................................................................................ 5 - 1
APPENDICES

A
B List of Preparers
lt
d P
C
d
Li
f A
i
. es an
ersons
onsu
e
genc
st o
C. Borrow Pit Biological Survey
D. Borrow Pit Cultural Resource Survey
E. Disclosure Statement
TABLES

1 . Rare Plant Species Documented in Northern GSRA
2. Northeastern GSRA Rare Plant Species
FIGURES
1 - 1 Location Map, Greater Sandy Run Area, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
1 -2 Area Map, MCB Camp Lejeune and the Greater Sandy Run Area
2 - 1 The Greater Sandy Run Area with MPTR Site Selection Options
2-2 The Greater Sandy Run Area with Proposed Multipurpose Training Range
and Proposed Exemplary Natural Areas
2-3 Schematic Plan, Multipurpose Training Range and Support Area
3 - 1 Locations of Rare Species Identified in the Northern GSRA
3-2 Schematic Plan, Multipurpose Training Range and Preliminary Wetlands
Delineation
3-3 Regional Airspace Features, MPTR, Greater Sandy Run Area
3-4 Areas of Cultural Resource Survey Vicinity of MPTR, Northern GSRA
4-1 Noise Impacts of the Proposed MPTR, Northern GSRA
4-2 Cumulative Noise Impacts, GSRA Proposed Development Plan
i i i

1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment addresses the impacts associated with a proposal to
construct and operate a Multipurpose Training Range (MPTR) in the northeast quadrant
of the recently acquired Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) of Marine Corps Base (MCB)
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The MPTR would be designed to teach tank crews the
skills needed for engaging stationary and moving targets arranged in tactical arrays, and
it would also provide MCB Camp Lejeune a combined tank firing range and maneuver area
in which tanks could train in conjunction with dismounted infantry against stationary
and moving targetry. This type of range is a standardized design and it is used to certify
that an individual tank crew is qualified to begin collective, live-fire training at the unit
(section or platoon) level. It is the critical transition between individual and unit
proficiency.
It should be noted that the Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) is now an integral part of
MCB Camp Lejeune, and in the normal course of events the term "MCB Camp Lejeune"
includes the recent property acquisition. However, for ease of reference and to sharpen
focus in the following environmental analysis, this Environmental Assessment often
segregates and discusses the GSRA as though it were a separate entity.
1.2 Project Background
1.2.1 Project History
The fundamental task of MCB Camp Lejeune is to provide the necessary facilities for 2nd
Marine Expeditionary Force organizations to maintain their combat readiness. In the
period between its founding in 1941 and 1992, MCB Camp Lejeune's land holdings
remained virtually unchanged. The Marine Corps' mission, organization and weapons
systems, however, underwent substantial change during this period, reflecting
requirements of the modern battlefield. Because of significant growth in technical
training requirements (due to complexity/lethality of modern weapons systems, highly
maneuverable forces, and high speed aircraft), MCB Camp Lejeune's available facilities
were not able to satisfy many basic Fleet Marine Force training needs by as early as the
mid-1970's.
l
d
L
C
ejeune, coup
e
amp
Recently evolved changes in training, Marine Corps-wide and at
with existing constraints to land use, accentuated deficiencies in training area
requirements. A new training regimen that focuses on the individual infantryman,
known as Marine Battle Skills Training or MBST, was developed in response to the
changing requirements of the modern battlefield. Camp Lejeune is one of two sites in the
United States where the second phase of MBST, Marine Combat Training, is conducted.
The implementation of the new MBST training regimen has resulted in an additional
22,000 Marines training on Camp Lejeune facilities annually.
A Special Training Analysis (STA) was conducted in 1985, followed in 1988 by a Land
and Training Area Requirements Study (LATAR), and in 1989 by a MCB Camp Lejeune
Training Facility Requirement Study. All identified significant training facility
These studies concluded that existing firing ranges
Lejeune
deficiencies at MCB Cam
.
p
1-1
were inadequate and that land remaining for maneuver areas was insufficient on MCB
Camp Lejeune to support the combat readiness mission. The most critical training
deficiency was the lack of adequate maneuver space and the limitations imposed on
existing maneuver training by environmental restrictions. At present, in order to
qualify for unit-sized tank operations, tank crews are sent to train on U.S. Army ranges
at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Because of range scheduling problems and the extremely high
costs involved in off-base training, each Battalion receives only one qualification per
year instead of the two which are called for by training plans.
As a result of the identified land and training area deficiencies, MCB Camp Lejeune
officials began to examine alternative solutions to rectify the situation. Alternatives
evaluated ranged from maintaining the status quo to the extreme option of relocating MCB
Camp Lejeune altogether. Alternatives which considered establishment of additional
ranges and maneuver areas on existing Marine Corps-owned property at MCB Camp
Lejeune were unattainable due to environmental and man-made constraints (which
rendered much undeveloped area of the base unusable). Eventually, base officials
determined that acquisition of a contiguous area of land was the best alternative for MCB
Camp Lejeune. Consequently, the Department of the Navy programmed the purchase of a
41,100 acre tract of land, known as the Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA), for MCB Camp
Lejeune in 1991. Congress approved funds for the purchase of the property in Fiscal
Year 1992.
1.2.2 Description of the GSRA
The GSRA is an approximately 41,100
MCB Camp Lejeune complex in central
1-2). A majority of the GSRA tract ha
1940's. Initially, ownership was by ni
majority of the tract was consolidated it
International Paper Company (IPC), w
was acquired by the Federal governmE
acres, or 90 percent of the Marine Cor
parcel was privately owned as individw
In addition to the IPC holdings, 183 ott
Marine " )rps. The individual parcels v
GSRA, as the interior contains two expz
acre parcel adjoining the western boundary of the
Onslow County, North Carolina (Figures 1-1 and
been used for timber production since the mid-
merous individuals, but eventually a large
to one parcel by a holding company for
rich managed it for timber production until it
nt in 1992. IPC held approximately 36,500
)s' acquisition parcel. The remainder of the
I residences, small businesses, and small farms.
er parcels were identified for purchase by the
ere generally located around the perimeter of the
nsive pocosin wetlands and is generally
unsuitable for development. Historically called the Great Sandy Run Pocosin, it is from
this biotic community that the parcel name Greater Sandy Run Area is derived.
1.2.3 The GSRA Environmental Review Process
A thorough analysis of alternatives has been accomplished regarding the overall training
needs and concerns facing the Marine Corps and MCB Camp Lejeune and is contained in a
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Expansion and Realignment of
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. The EIS was completed in May, 1991 and this
document is hereinafter referred to as the "Acquisition EIS". The Acquisition EIS
addresses in depth the need for more training facilities, and in particular, the
development and/or acquisition of additional maneuver areas. It includes an analysis of
training requirements and the rationale and constraints surrounding the siting of
1-2

I-J
11

[7

L

s

t
¦

r
r... ...r?,,.. d `•` V
.Jj m m •m?/
d ; o
r f
r _ ro
•C \ j / 3 ???•J cz
d w lr ! a)
:•3 .
\. OC 7d
AL d l p
d
>0 cc
CL Z tCe `? _
L
? U U
Z
Z Q
F- C7
Q
ul U
?Z
Q
Q= W
Z
cc
CC O Z J
C7 QN?
_jWU
Q in
U
CC
C7
.9
R
0
Q
W
G?
ZQ
QZ
Wm
r Qui p
W Z
W J U)
C) cc acr.
Qaw
L) Q
M ul
cU M
?C)
W
I-
N
J
O

I various training ranges in conjunction with training facility realignment options on
MCB Camp Lejeune. Thirteen alternatives were proposed and analyzed as potential
solutions to existing training needs at MCB Camp Lejeune. These alternatives ranged in
magnitude and impact from maintaining the status quo (No Action), to increasing off-
base training, to the extreme of relocating MCB Camp Lejeune. Several of the proposals
analyzed included various combinations of realignment of existing ranges and/or the
purchase of up to 79,000 acres of land. The alternatives analysis contained in the
Acquisition EIS included evaluation of the operational, environmental, and socioeconomic
impacts of proposed development alternatives for the GSRA.
The Record of Decision (ROD), which was published in the Federal Register on October
3, 1991, announced the Department of the Navy's decision to acquire the parcels of land
adjacent to MCB Camp Lejeune now known as the GSRA. The ROD discussed the planned
management and use of the GSRA, and reviewed the expected environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of the Marine Corps' acquisition, development, and use of the
property. Although the Acquisition EIS discussed impacts of the GSRA's development and
use, the need to perform further environmental review of "specific proposals to site and
operate maneuver areas, firing ranges, weapons systems, and impact areas" as they are
developed was recognized in the ROD (Department of the Navy 1991).
This Environmental Assessment addressing the proposal to build and operate a MPTR in
the GSRA tract is the next logical step in the environmental review process addressing
the development and use of the GSRA. Although a discussion of a MPTR was not
specifically included in the preliminary land use concept for the GSRA (as outlined in the
Acquisition EIS), such a range is entirely consistent with the overall development plan
for the property.

E
11
G

t
171

1-5
V
1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES
1 2.1 Description of Alternatives
This section presents a discussion of the Proposed Action of constructing a Multipurpose
Training Range (MPTR) in the northeast sector of the GSRA (and supporting factors
which argue against other locations within the GSRA or elsewhere on MCB Camp
Lejeune), and the No Action alternative of continuing off-base training for tank crew
qualification. The alternatives analysis presented in this document is narrowed
somewhat because the Acquisition EIS evaluated a broad range of locational and
operational alternatives leading to the purchase of the GSRA. That document (Draft EIS
(DEIS), 1989, Vol. I, Sec. II) contains a thorough analysis of the alternatives
considered, including potential realignment of ranges within MCB Camp Lejeune, and
various combinations of range realignment and base expansion options. Within the
GSRA, the potential locational alternatives are restricted by physical constraints,
additional planned range development projects, safety and environmental factors, and
operational requirements. In terms of the No Action Alternative, which is essentially
the continuation of the status quo, the Acquisition EIS discussed the operational,
environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of continued use of existing ranges at MCB
Camp Lejeune and other military bases in the region. The analysis of the impacts of the
No Action Alternative will be briefly summarized in this document; however, the reader
again is referred to the Acquisition EIS for an extensive evaluation of the impacts of No
Action (DEIS, 1989, Vol. I, Sec. II).
2.1.1 Alternatives Evaluated and Discarded
As noted above, the driving force behind the acquisition of the GSRA was to provide a
partial solution to the long term and increasing training shortfalls faced by the Marine
Corps, particularly with regard to maneuver areas. Attempts were made to find a
suitable location for a MPTR on MCB Camp Lejeune, and realignment studies were
conducted (LATAR, STA). However, natural and man-made constraints precluded the
siting of the proposed MPTR within the established range structure on MCB Camp
Lejeune. Prior to the purchase of GSRA, it was calculated that 45 percent of existing
MCB Camp Lejeune land was inadequate for training purposes due to some type of
constraint (STA). The LATAR Study not only identified training shortfalls, but also
grappled with range realignment on MCB Camp Lejeune. A central theme throughout the
LATAR study is that additional maneuver area is required and that the importance of base
expansion could not be overemphasized.
Natural features of the land on MCB Camp Lejeune which restrict its use include general
topography, soil type, wetland systems, floodplains, and ecological communities unique
in flora and/or fauna. The principal topographic limitations are open water bodies,
including the New River, its tributaries, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW),
which comprise over 25 percent of the total area of the installation. Steeply sloped
drainage basins also negatively impact on suitability for maneuver training. Of the 31
soil types documented on MCB Camp Lejeune, a majority are classified as moderate to
severely limiting with respect to trafficability by heavy vehicles. Wetland biotic
communities are protected from development (or require mitigation measures entailing
further land set-asides), and these wetland communities are dispersed throughout MCB
Camp Lejeune in association with the floodplains of the New River and its tributaries.
2-1
Finally, the presence of endangered species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, also
represents a real constraint to land utilization. MCB Camp Lejeune (excluding the GSRA
and MCAS New River) covers approximately 106,300 acres. The total acreage of open
water areas on MCB Camp Lejeune, including associated floodplains and wetlands, is some
25,200 acres; the total acreage affected by endangered species constraints is
approximately 3,200 acres (DEIS, 1989, Vol. I, Sec. 1).
The principal man-made constraints affecting the inability to site the proposed MPTR on
MCB Camp Lejeune center on the large land area required for a tank maneuver area and
targetry, and the surface danger zone (SDZ) fan associated with live fire exercises.
Additionally, the very nature of the modern M1A1 tank and its equipment, particularly
its laser range finder, presented a serious impediment to locating the MPTR on MCB
Camp Lejeune due to congestion and human encroachment. While a tank maneuver area is
currently located on MCB Camp Lejeune, the impact area for live fire is in the Atlantic
Ocean, requiring firing across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW). For firing
exercises, use of the AIW must be interrupted or training schedules interrupted or
curtailed. But, of primary importance, the longest main tank gun shot that can be
accommodated on that range is 1200 meters; whereas, the minimum shot distance
required for tank gun crew qualification is 2500 meters (Training and Operations Div.,
MCB Camp Lejeune). Additionally, training in the use of the laser range finders
presented a problem because of the danger to unprotected eyes of individuals potentially
viewing the direct laser beam or the reflection from a flat surface, such as water. (This
hazard has been recently reduced by the Marine Corps' adoption of the ESSLR Eye Safe
Laser filter.) The combination of civilian encroachment (including boaters in the
AIW), and the amount of open water on MCB Camp Lejeune, in conjunction with the
natural constraints which impose land area limitations noted above, presented
insurmountable problems for the siting of a standard design MPTR on MCB Camp
Lejeune.
Three alternative sites within the GSRA were also evaluated. In addition to the proposed
location for the MPTR in the northeastern quadrant of the GSRA, two sites in the
southern sector also provide the requisite land area for the MPTR and allow for the
needed SDZ fan. The alternative site options were selected based upon the presence of
areas of higher ground to accommodate the tank maneuver trails, and also to avoid, as
much as possible, wetland impacts. One is located generally in the south central GSRA on
the western side of the tract, aligned from southwest to northeast. The SDZ radiates
northeastward. The second is located generally in the south central GSRA on the eastern
side of the tract, oriented from the southeast to the northwest. The SDZ radiates
generally to the northwest (Figure 2-1).
The proposed location in the northeast quadrant of GSRA was chosen over the other two
for both environmental and operational reasons. The discarded location on the
southwestern side of the tract (Option #1, Figure 2-1) involves larger wetlands
impacts and operational problems not associated with the currently proposed location.
Although the area considered generally provides some high ground for the tank maneuver
trails, the impacts to wetlands associated with Shelter Swamp Creek are estimated to be
significantly greater than the wetlands impacts (approximately 25 acres) in the
northern site. Additionally, the draft GSRA Master Development Plan anticipates another
multipurpose maneuver range called a Multipurpose Range Complex (MPRC), which,
because of its size and operational design, can only be situated in the south central GSRA
2-2
suoqujodp pue 6uiuium1 'ounolol ckuep OON! :oajnog
SNOIldO N0113313S 311S dldW HlIM
V38V Nna AONVS UMME19 3Hl
s,o,ow
000'4 0
L-z 3anow
= a= 0 a m a it w a w a a a w a w a a
70 Q 'o Y cu _ -19
a)
N . U) N C r C >' C (1) W a) CD
N d U o C CD
N
m? O p E O U cu to N -0 N -0 7 cu > O O U C -- •N C N -0 V
F- N 0 c N L cu > a> 76 - (n N 0 voi C Q O a) p a) a) p C
IL cu -0 w cn cu ? 3 m c o[ C7 c'n 0' o c° cd Z L E- cn 0 0 L o N? E° N
•«- E o ca O cu ?- 0 a E ° cu ~" Q c o 3 cu N c o o
0) O ° a) (n c c cNV 0 0 0 v a-0 a) cv a) o c Q >. p a O a) v• ? c m
O? v .N O a) 7 N? M L 'U >. d ° ? 0 fn CU N O 0) 3" C Q .0 O O
cOn CD o .- o E w E?° ° D I- o c n 3 cu U 0 d F a 0- «° .s 'p 3
U j N D ,N. R7 C O) -- N > cu U c C CD N N- N ., O O` O N a) O N D
v U " 0 M N° a) c 0) O p M C) ?o n :3
N M > cu H- ( r Y t O C r Y E 3 o 2 .8 (D = (D E a .0 > L O C .N- N L N .- N °- U 0 U Q N cu .-, p .?. O) pc a°
CL 0 N 0 N p E c c ca O M N N C N D O$ O N (n m 0 y C N O O N w F- E N
a) 3 0, cc N cu ° Q .- C U in v ° c 3 N .c o ° 3 0 m cu ? a. 8
cm r- C? D
.L C N N O C 0 p a) Q) 7 N (u CD 3 a) O -0 0 a) N ?
70 C
c`u ? Y r- c°) 0 a) a) U) -j a C a =3 a) g) ro 70 3 c c o °' a) m N CA •0 ate) v o N°
° V L O O- E O N N O O cn .? fn C CC 0 .? p m U= :3 C)) p L N a) a) 'p O
~ .«`_- D O EO 3 L cu L M o O CO X- N N Q -m U - C 0~ :~ C N cu n F- 'Np pUo N>>
E C O L" , N -- U Y U _ > 7 p d ` ON Q 0 p N U c ° 0) CD 0 x o N c °) 3. Q o c c a) a) ° d ?. o o°° .2 o N a p c° .U c o cr °
° U O O -0 C Q '? O N C r C C C C a) 3 ai > 0 E C m o N N O .0 a a) C
CL 4) U An 0 o C cn U) U' ? 0 >, 0 =3 '0 N N N (`U O E C Y` Q N 0 N 3 >' N> = L U U
Y ti F- N c>o p°° r C CD O= U 0=m O U U `O V N °) N M 0 cCU w N N o O N d E
3 ° c a c°n d c v?c°i c oa v a) a) 0 0 a`> a~oi m E a) a) > > > cm
m
N = O ,° Cc .- ` O O 0 m M O : d N o rn Y a) O p Y i fn N > O` O ? c -o C Q N
•E .E w M O o U) o :3 cn
0) a?`D o m N Y rn cu ° o E o t cu cn E c)
o o°)_ n vi cu aci z c o i? 0
o U o °a i oo E c 0) o) M 'v a) Q '- r Y oC ac) 0) o N N a C) °0 1° c w
c0`u v 3 F-- o
- cc 2 CU CU 0) a- C_ a) N O N C F- E = NT C N N U O E >, O N co L C
c ?- °c) a o o U*) () (On E a o 3 a) °) N r-- o a) a) L> m° ;° m e p E v
C () N 0) N Y c 0 E _ r N = Y O. ` cu "= U U N U a) O c0 c` C? t
73 C) 70 > a)
?, N c F-
Y L c m o f " N pa c oQC 3 cu 0 W Q C c oa c° 0() :° a) m E •a>-i m cy)
,r O •r t ° a) o cu H a c O - U) N N o oC o) ? cu `- a F- 6- c O U 0 M ?[ c"a
° _ c 3 Y w..m vi v 0 a_ cri c C7 Q) a@ cn con a) - 0) 3 n. " a) (D c c
- if CD
.0 0 _° a`) r a) 0 3 o m - => 0 0 cv >° 3 Q v o U) a O CL N c)
~ o
c `° `" T Y 0 0 cu a) 3 a c ai `?° ° :° a" LO ate) a a) ° c N --r- -0 a) N" c U >, ,? ai E E
O? U N CUtl a .O O Q E L O N a) D Q L F- cU 'u) N .? r a) a) C o •? C N N p
o O O 0) fu O H O Q) a ,U N d> a) C .C O O d 7 U 3 N '` 0) E c 3 N cu C U L C
c r? a) a) w L roc O E w rn> a g r C o n a) c c a) p a ~ E
... 0 ..
xk iu ?- t >, S $ c 0) o cu " 0 0 o c in m cu o a) a)
o C m
CD 0) c cn ;-, 0 .. v o N c 3 a E Q L o E 0) o a) L N cu a) ° U D c° o L L rn o c a vi c°c
L O O N Q) ?- U (L7 (d L c r- F-- O (n 3 'C d ,-. •cu O n C Y 0) U a) >+ U YO +' C ?0 a C C L
O 7 pp ? a) U cu d n C p L C C 0) cu N C C cu +-' N O=
O a D O a N - ` 0 O cu m r C C a) a) 0) C M N O 4) w- a)- mm
Q ? a ?? O N H O C C p 3
N 0 C N C C `- L U E C O U C N p> N Y O 3 cu N «- Y C L p? 'N
0 C c o .2) >" N cu O a a) 0 °-) " M " cd - a`? a m ` y a)~ Q E 70 o C w>
a) p 0 V O a a=i 3 cu M
O N N U jr C 6 O p ? O y N x? p E rn o t7 c fl-N V
c ca a) -- O c o °' °? rn •i c o °> N 0) - c U o v a) o m cu L cu n a) 4 a)
ro a L U a ro 0 0 0 a C
U E cn 0 O ,C. a N U C O
0 o L Fn Q O cu N a) O C
o o E Q Y a E E 3 0.'o N W N M °? ¢ .`= E v) .o a 2 3 tti o ` cc .-.
u c° a.3 `° rn v a D- axi a
m a m a m u m m . m w w w w w " W o a
o w v m v^ Q m a v m -? (o o co v ?- v >
_ w G) = w Ca CD ::r in Z cD W N 3 -0 3 l< Cm C7 D* 0 0 o C7 0?. w 3 = f W _u O ?. n N Q O» OD N)- j p Q C C W Q CD CD (1D m (=D X CD n w C w X" 3• ? O C cL C)3
:3 5 -0 WmD°: o n o(nOaCw30 -a0o•o.a? W?°N ?-_om3 ?oa co o?m ?acD
o m o W o CD :3 .. o 0 N v a r, o Q o .< o= v (n m . N- w w m . m o w m w= N 07 v
ED co
owo?°!w 3<oco3vi.. m.*wm??n°<oo ate.
3<<f ? m o
» m (D
ch :E n d co (n (D C W V° CD c (D l< vi - O w O• o m ° m D (C y o CO OL = m N °? (D <'
(n
y W m d r 3 » a 0 A- m a v _ a o w m W CD
::r m CD - ? CD (a (a - CD CD ?? ?v in v v m a L' N o•cn o a a CD `z w v Wa c m a°
m m -o co m 'r- a °) = co ?° m x `z w° ?' o° ?' -1 w a ~_ cn m 3 m o' W w a ::r ro N' O ci) ° C n CD 0 .p S O n? n O W O .. - 7• m W 3 _• O°? a O (n a m-0
=t -8 a _: O =i CD 0 N N C/ p m EO r- m w C 3. p Q w m m .? w» C (D v=i W? Oi - w, (n ?.
N>> co 3 ?- =r =3 n m o m a w n ° w o a CL M
0 v w ° -- _ 0
a Q' O.?° c° ° o a w o 3 n Z Q• _o : Z W »• c co _u m Co a <' o 3 m 3 w co N-
(D a .: 7 O W cn m= n 3 j 0 -1 3 m w .+ O O n_ C. O m w N. t:t
CD 0 CX. CD CD CD -0 -? •-• w? -w Q W
" =r 0 CD (D n -w N° C ?_ d O CD N .C O O w m O l? (?D N (C =1 K C_ m v, O» Q N' a^
not =r w c w° m - X m < p w c r ° c w o° C m a C) a X o w m m o
o w m (n CD CD m m_0 vv'C°•w 3 a cn to - o w Go QO =ate mv°
n? aW N n o -, <vo ?co m ov o 3 m cD o_?U' m °. m C ?o 0- :3 mm=r nv m°mrnwv -v-3° _ 3? _.co-.D CD m- W
m m
D m .... ."". r n in m C- CD C? ? n
N <• n m W C° 3 (D 30 m Q -° w (=DD O? 2 ° W CD (3 =
o v m? 0 o o c m ..m s -"' w mma' m -o
C a N O CL C <. O M C. ?C (o w C < -. , (C _m m in 7 w V (D D C?° C (D
rn N y w (ND W CD Q a CL W c a a w N: `G O CD Q CD O C 7" w O c m m X CD' ^. n a m
5 Q• :3 m w c m m OD 0 W o a
w .. n n» m Q m '< w w o o -,
Q c s w ca m (o m w m < G7 <>> ° w c a 3- ?, O C 3 o m
O C p N. in m w m ^? n co m W O w m O CD V C O O (D N° m m 'D W C , C W -A
0a? 3»moov`.xc o D< cn w3 -0 =3 m om 3'
-? co w m -D r. w (?D O w W .+ a w c C (n m O (C x v, m
w' (n o -1 m w 3 >> W >> cn 0 3 o x m m v D w (n -,
Cl) m w m o co ° co co CD '< D (n m m w m 0 c CD C:0 co w m ° ?' oo m o o °-?' v
=r m c ?. n c (D w x a 3 w c O u'• c m ? m .<
?w-°-'m A m3OOOII1w°=0CD W ?w ? •?< ?3' < ?(D_ wm°m_m? o
.: m 3° W C) N m n O » a -, ?° m cn ° m 3_ o W m 3° m_ N - " 7
'S m << cD w_ _» l< C " -p m V/ 7C a (n C C (n' , C 0 l< w» .< C 1 w n m m O
» x. >> O (n , -w C O co w O_ cC O n cc N W O Co m f w 0-0
n O
(n = c C :3 w .0 CD = a C -? (»D m (D w m ? W I a cD - o U ? o W m w C CD OZ n W ,z CD 0 (D m co N (aD w "° n° 0 :3 CY) CD w o' w° w n n o m o 70 a o c m w w a c 3
CD 0 3 1 n d a N m 0 v pt ° w m a O" O a (n m C w .? C c 0 0 3 a= >° C• - CD
• D o v ° w o m o w o m o> > 3 m =. c ?' n. n. a:) o >> oo v x o, w_ a w_ m
M co 0 a m o• - a 77 (n n' cn W N f° mn. o ?. 5" En v°»i o N x CD (D =1
w m
a O W m
CD CD . o m w C S w w 'O CD C O cc p O n" m, O° m ± 3' a
» w 5 (D 3 o m C 3 co _ C w O 3 0 ?_ w m» CD =r
CD CL ow°o?-com 3?weQ"-?< ?aa?°-'•3m'owcnmcomcww ww
°oa?,?
° -? O "? W C m (C w co m (C (?" w W a' n (D - n = C . . m cC a
f co 3>> m w 0 (n n o w m j •2 0 U) m° 3' o m v D W o' -? m
3 O' ::? m W m :3 ° m »
<. to :3 (1D c (CD W (=D c (n
» m (O 0
CL a = o m m w m x y a o
a = " M n o = = = w o m a n w n M
SN0I1V00I V38V ivunlVN ALIVldW3X3
4NV 3JNV8 JNINIVal 3SOdandumw O3SOdO8d
HIM
V3HV Nna AONVS H31VRID 3H1
z-z-3linJld
0661 Alnp'A,oluonul dNN ON o3,nog
s,e,aW
000,11 0
==no n o u n = r w . w w w" w m m
WOOJNIOVJAVN WNW(] opuellV-VUSJ/eunelej dueO'd1dVr 6V6-d to uoileeuilep puepeM :eamoS
30NVU JNINIVHI 3SOd»ndllinW
NVId OIlVW3HOS
E-z 3anJlzi
9,elew oog
u w m m r m m m M a m m a =maw==
?
<
w m
C N
w m
CL 0 < > > ? N•D
m o DJ a <
w
0
U) w
? j
(D

W. n
3. r
m w 3 ? .r
O ° 00
7 O (D CD N
:3
D N =r
m p ? O N
(
CL ° A
w m w 0
° " a m n
t > 3 (D
v CD ° m m ,
- 0
CD - CD CD
CD ("D ca M D)
O. O N Rl
O w N X
=
N :3
N ,
(D
o,x w w
m03
'D O
a ° w
3 a
m
+
N .' N h (D
7C
- m m (n m m
m 3 :E a= a

N ? _
? j ? s
w O (p
a a
m 0
°
> > m
o ? 0 x. o
(n m m
co c 3 N -
o
o
Co CD CD
,
w
m3

CD 0 wo

a
3
wcn?
c

CD 0 D
.?
CD .D
-? „C. (° O
c c Q N N
c
w
N CD ? ?

N

m
o 42 a O

o
W D N
p ° -?
(O
(
.. - o co
m
w Cl
m
°
c 0
r' w
: 0
°
o w
CL C
m a I
DS'
c
N m j
N 3

p
0
N m
C m
w m CL v
m
a
`z m w ?
(D
C
- °
a
N =-0 p W C w .n - =r 0
L? D =7 w c-U C N (? (a (D m N> w
O N a -' w,p ?? m =. W < S ? -? O Toro' ?cn? O CD CD -- - CD CD C
CD m (D a CD l< CD C j. 0 3 (O ? w. 0 w O 7 a j w D= w (aD p U) a (p (D CD
C_ < ° w 0 (° :3 o W (D n cCn CD (D O O ON D `G O : o 3 j Qs p -wo
CL CD a 3 a (nn N a. D m (v m 0 Cr D m a w °° °
1 C CD En CD
(n w ? w CD m c o c° m w o j 7p 0 w (n a K a N N
-0 =3 cr
C p -, w m n= m (D (=D . D W (D o m a a ° w (mD -D p (SD m Q
N (D = cn o O _0 w `L O (D "" N C 0 - O CD (D =r _ c1( < O (D
-0 3 N
S -0 ° w a- m c?D 33 , a N C7 m a w m v w o CD ° w
p O (O a i ° (D 70[ n
?. (D 7 ' ((DD (wn w N - n c3D cn S
O (7 w O C (D D< o d= 0 N 3(n _ i? w m c w G) p N
m CD =3 w w aw m Z ° .. o Tom o -m N rCn N
D O m a o m° CD -• m D" N x p) 0°
< a O c m a 7 (D ° (D 537 w c x w (D m O :13
O p
o m Q o a N W o D x w>>
=r 01) ((n a n o w v D -
w N= 3 0 --4 a? ? a 0 (na 3. w m? W?° a w Q ° w CD 0 p) w-w C O W N N w n C D C_ N :u co O D --uI 0 C) = (n CD co
w C O (CD
CL <• D N m (n ° w n > > (n OL CD 0 f7 • ? CD 33 0 ? m ? o_ Q w N
(D N ° a w° m, ((D o, m N o w o° m (n w 0 ? CD o
°
CL CD :2 a0 m nW? ° - =) o o? ?o m -U 3-5 6:o- (n c
< a `< m CD C w C CD O -° -h m m (D _0 < : U O W w O -°
o' m x in 3 (D = n°< w v Cn r m Cr
v ( n 'c
p 0) w -0 ` < -0 D CD 0 (OD ? 3 m = 5 (?D ? W C m. a ? W 0 CD
3 a > >' w 7o r a w °° w w Ci) a m -a' O .<° c 3 -o v
m c m (D ?? Cn? -w 3 -a Co o•=? = ° gOC-0 ° w
3 ? .. o m c (n c m °-' ° O 7D m w m m (D r- cND
w CO ?mm a° ?N o w -< >CLC) ? Q? -m a °
° m w C to m w m CD 3
=.
N (D a) n' N C U) N 0 N M N M -I - C o c O o w
(D X m m N a N U S (D (D n= m - (D :4
CD 'D ? N ° -, 0 n (o O w :3 - (D CO CD w m S 0 CD
w ? = n N' (p V) C m= m ' a w w ° N w N
p
c
cn C m m m p m
(D (D 7 O (O' O' (n n
co -
D = o ?. a s (_nD :3 (n I =CD 0 (0 CD =r 3 m (? (D (CND N D (mD O m
co Cr
CD CD 0 ::r *
CL =3 (D 0
m CD Co (O n m- w O =r p c= o o (p (D ' O ° c
=3 " CD _ _ -` a
n -° _ m m
R, 0
w t-, CD (n 0 -0
CD 0 n m? -° N O m 3 0 CD CD W l< _0 w _0
C W (ND N a n °• O
cr -, n (D :' w n cD w _ w L. o -p CD w o ° 3 CL - o
5* CD W W w co :3 0 N w (n a. o c o'
23. W,< CL w w(o U) a m CL C: (D =t :3
(n O p a?
:3 0 (D 0 -0 =3 CL ::r 0 CL
wm'° ? 3 a m ?o
V)) (D (n o CD
r r a = a w w = = n a a a r n n a r
t

impacts, as well as direct and indirect influences. The Acquisition EIS contains an in-
depth discussion of the operational needs and maneuver area shortfalls that resulted in
the purchase of the GSRA. That analysis will not be repeated in this document. The
operational criteria utilized in this section to evaluate the Proposed Action alternative
and the No Action alternative proceed from the prior determination of need for additional
maneuver area training facilities such as the proposed MPTR.
2.2.1 Operational Criteria
The following Operational Criteria examine the degree to which the alternatives meet
training requirements and other military considerations:
• Firing range requirements;
• Maneuver area requirements;
Surface Danger Zone (SDZ) requirements;
Range support facility requirements; and
• Range access requirements.
Ability of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) to Satisfy Operational
Requirements - The Proposed Action, constructing a MPTR in the northeast quadrant
f
h
o
t
e GSRA, would meet the listed operational criteria and would provide a significant
contribution to alleviating training shortfalls associated with MCB Camp Lejeune. As
previously noted, various training studies (STA, LATAR) concluded that the most critical
training deficiency at MCB Camp Lejeune was the lack of adequate maneuver space and
the limitations imposed on maneuver training by environmental restrictions. The
standardized design of the MPTR would provide critical firing and maneuver training and
tank crew qualification opportunities heretofore not available on MCB Camp Lejeune.
Ability of Alternative 2 (No Action) To Satisfy Operational Requirements
- The "No Action" alternative fails to satisfy any documented training shortfalls at MCB
Camp Lejeune and is therefore considered an unacceptable alternative from an
operational point of view.
2.2.2 Environmental Criteria
Environmental criteria examine the natural resource issues, regulatory concerns, and
socioeconomic factors associated with the alternatives. The environmental criteria
which will be considered include:
• Water Quality;
• Fire Suppression and Fire Control;
• Natural Resources (including Exemplary Natural Areas, Vegetation, Wildlife,
Wetlands);
• Cultural Resources;
• Airspace Requirements;
• Noise;
• Traffic; and
2-11
• Public Access and Safety.
2.2.3 Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
Water Quality
Water quality issues of concern during construction and operation of the proposed MPTR
include stormwater runoff and sewage treatment and/or disposal. Stormwater runoff
would be affected by land clearing, and road and facility construction. The operation of
tanks on roads and tank trails could also contribute to degradation of stormwater quality.
However, these potentially negative impacts would be neutralized through standard
mitigation measures. Because only non-explosive ordnance would be used on the range,
any potential effects on surface water from spent ordnance, either in the target areas or
in the SDZ, is expected to be negligible. A borrow pit for construction fill would be
required for the construction of the proposed MPTR and there is a potential for localized
impacts on water quality from stormwater runoff when the borrow pit is active.
However, potential impacts related to the borrow pit operation are also susceptible to
mitigation measures.
Sewage disposal for head facilities in the MPTR support area has been planned using a
septic tank and leach field. There exists the potential for problems in implementing this
plan, due both to the existing high water table and the predominant soil types. Soils that
exist in the general area where sanitation facilities are to be located have been typified
as poorly drained and limiting development (Onslow County Planning Dept., 1992, Land
Use Plan, Sec. IG). The potential exists that portable toilets or a direct connection to the
Camp Lejeune sewer system would be necessary for the proposed MPTR if local
conditions preclude obtaining construction permits.
Fire Suppression and Fire Control
Fire suppression and control are important issues in the GSRA. Although no explosive
ordnance will be used at the proposed MPTR, normal training activities, including the
use of incendiary devices (smoke grenades, booby-trap simulators, hand-held
illumination), would result in an increased fire potential in the GSRA. A new Fire
Control Plan for MCB Camp Lejeune (which now includes fire prevention and response
measures for the recently acquired GSRA) has been prepared. Separate Memoranda of
Understanding have been executed between MCB Camp Lejeune and the State of North
Carolina and the US Forest Service. In the event of fire, the signatories pledge mutual
assistance, if able to respond.
Natural Resources (Exemplary Natural Areas, Vegetation, Wildlife, Wetlands)
The State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR), Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has prepared a comprehensive inventory of
rare species, natural communities, and critical habitats of the entire GSRA (NHP
Inventory, Jul., 1993). Few high quality, little-disturbed natural communities remain
in the GSRA as a result of the previous timber operations. However, three exemplary
natural areas within the GSRA of sufficient size and quality to be recommended for
special attention and protection were identified. These areas are the Pocosin Basins
(north and south), an area in the vicinity of Padgett Swamp Road, and an area in the
vicinity of the South Bay Road (Figure 2-2). Portions of the northern pocosin and the
2-12
t
Padgett Swamp Road area fall within the SDZ fan associated with the proposed MPTR,
however any measurable impact or damage in these areas from training operations at the
proposed MPTR, including damage from spent projectiles, is considered extremely
remote.
The NHP Inventory identified a total of three animal species and 26 plant species in the
GSRA considered rare by Federal or State authorities. Of the 29 rare plants and animals,
six species have Federal designations, but only one (the rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia)) is protected as a Federal Endangered species. This plant
has been identified in the northwest GSRA in the vicinity of Padgett Swamp road. The
other species of Federal concern are Candidate species (Level 2 - species for which
there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as Endangered or Threatened at this time). Of the 29 State rare species,
fifteen (all plants) were identified in the northern GSRA. Nine are considered to be
located within the sphere of impacts associated with the proposed MPTR. Three of the
State listed species are categorized as State Endangered; the remainder are designated at
varying levels of rarity as Candidates for protection.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS letter of 15 November 1993) has concurred
in the opinion that it is unlikely that the development or operation of the MPTR would
have a negative impact on any Federally listed endangered species, as the rough-leaved
loosestrife locations are in the Padgett Swamp Road area at the western extreme of the
proposed SDZ fan. However, several of the Federal Candidate plant species are located in
the vicinity of the proposed MPTR maneuver and support facility area, particularly
along roads and in the eastern powerline corridor. The character of some of the
vegetative communities within the proposed MPTR maneuver area and support facility
area would be altered by construction and operation of the range. MCB Camp Lejeune
would confer as required with the USFWS in assessing the impacts and determining
appropriate mitigation measures for any Federal Candidate species (See section 4.6 for
Permit Requirements and Agency Approvals). In the SDZ, outside the actual range,
target and support facility areas, the impacts would be minimal as only non-explosive
ordnance would be used on the range. Additionally, regarding several of the rare plant
species identified within the GSRA, the NHP staff notes that the Marine Corps'
development and management of the GSRA will entail clearing, mowing and controlled
burns of roadways, powerline corridors and firing ranges. If properly done, these
practices would be beneficial to several of the listed rare species. In fact, in contrast to
the previous managed monoculture associated with timber operations, the early- to
mid-successional habitat created by the construction and operation of the range would
increase overall biodiversity within the GSRA.
The wildlife impacts of the Proposed Action appear to be limited to displacement of some
common species from the maneuver area as a result of clearing and the presence of
personnel and machines. The site has been heavily affected by previous timber
production activities, and current animal populations are considered only remnants of
the native fauna. It can be expected that as the monoculture is gradually replaced, the
successional habitat will attract an increased variety of fauna. Projectiles from the
proposed MPTR (non-explosive) would have a negligible effect upon wildlife and habitat
in the SDZ.

2-13
Respecting wetlands impacts, the proposed MPTR maneuver and support facility area are
both located in an area of relatively high ground. A wetlands delineation was conducted of
a rectangle containing 1150 acres in the northeast quadrant of the GSRA (Fall 1993-
Spring 1994) to facilitate optimum design and siting of the 740 acre MPTR in an effort
to maximize wetlands avoidance. Of the 1150 acres surveyed, approximately 39 percent
(443 acres) were jurisdictional wetlands. Several range design layouts were analyzed
in arriving at the chosen alternative. The Corps of Engineers (Huntsville) has estimated
the impacts at approximately 25 acres, and the Marine Corps has agreed to mitigate the
actual wetlands impacts of the MPTR (upon ground-truthing of the chosen design) by
restoring previously drained wetlands at a minimum of a 2:1 mitigation ratio. The SDZ
fan for the MPTR is largely hardwood swamp forests and pocosin communities which are
considered to be valuable wetland resources. This is not considered to be a significant
problem, however, due to the fact that only non-explosive ordnance will be used on the
proposed MPTR, and the impact of these rounds in the SDZ would be widely dispersed and
cause minimal physical damage.
Cultural Resources
No cultural resources have been discovered which would be affected by the construction
and operation of the proposed MPTR. A limited Phase I Archeological and Cultural
Resource Study of GSRA (historic document/map research) failed to identify any
archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed MPTR. A Phase IB Archeological Field
Survey of the proposed MPTR site was conducted (Louis Berger, Apr., 1993). No sites
were discovered within the proposed maneuver or support facility area, but six
archaeological sites (considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, NCDCR
Letter of 12 August 1993), and one isolated find were identified in an area to the north
of the proposed MPTR site. The presence of these sites, in conjunction with wetlands
considerations, were factors utilized in determining the most advantageous site for the
proposed range. It should be noted, however, that soils in the extreme western area of
the SDZ fan indicate a medium to high potential for cultural resources, and a survey in
this area is scheduled for July 1994. Because of the extreme distance to the proposed
MPTR maneuver area in the northeast quadrant of the GSRA, no impacts to cultural
resources in the western SDZ are anticipated, although any discoveries would be
coordinated with the SHPO for regional analysis. Associated with the construction of the
proposed MPTR would be a borrow pit in the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune. An
archaeological field survey was also conducted at this proposed 55 acre site with no sites
discovered (Ogden, Jul., 1993, Appendix D).
Ground Traffic
There will be impacts on local traffic caused by construction vehicles if the MPTR should
be constructed, and during range operation by the transport of tanks and personnel on
public roadways from MCB Camp Lejeune to the GSRA. During the construction phase,
construction fill and gravel/crushed stone for road construction, and other construction
material deliveries, would create the largest traffic impact associated with the proposed
MPTR. If the MPTR becomes operational, the impact on public roads is not anticipated to
be significant, as only two tanks at a time will be transported by truck to the range. In
the longer term, the use of public roads will significantly decrease if the proposed
2-14
s

military roads, tank trails and the U.S. Highway 17 underpasses are built as planned to
provide direct access from MCB Camp Lejeune to the GSRA.

Any negative impacts currently associated with transporting personnel and equipment to
off-base training locations (e.g. Fort Knox, KY) would be eliminated by the construction
of the MPTR.
Airspace Requirements
A draft agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Marine
Corps addressing restricted airspace over the GSRA, including scheduling, use, and
mitigation measures, has been negotiated and is undergoing the review and signature
process. This agreement would establish permanent restricted airspace above the GSRA
to 6,999 feet above mean sea level (MSL) 0600 - 1800 (Local), Monday through
Friday (other times by Notice to Airmen-NOTAM). Above 6,999 feet MSL, the airspace
could be scheduled for military use up to 17,999 MSL, but only with 30 days prior
notice to the FAA so that a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) could be issued. Mitigation
measures to minimize the impacts on civil aviation are contained in the agreement,
including various options to interrupt training and allow civil aviation to pass through
either GSRA restricted airspace, or MCB Camp Lejeune restricted airspace to the east.
The airspace over the GSRA would be divided into two sections (north and south) to
provide greater flexibility and allow for less impact on the use of the V-139 Airway
(see Section 4.2.5, Air Traffic, for a detailed discussion of mitigation measures). Two
private airports (Sky Manor and Holly Ridge) which might otherwise have been affected
by a three mile buffer zone requirement have been considered in the USMC/FAA draft
agreement, and the boundaries of the restricted airspace adjusted so that public use
airspace approaches and departures below 1,500 feet MSL would not be restricted at any
time.
Noise
Operation of a MPTR in the GSRA as proposed would create additional noise impacts not
now associated with MCB Camp Lejeune operations. Using the EPA approved Day-Night
Level (DNL) model noise evaluator, a noise analysis was conducted by the US Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency, Bio-Acoustics Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
based on the proposed weaponry (120 mm. main tank gun being the largest weapon
analyzed), and the proposed usage of a MPTR located in the northeast quadrant of the
GSRA. This analysis reflects that unacceptable noise impacts would not be experienced
outside the GSRA. (Training and Operations Div., MCB Camp Lejeune).
Public Access Control and Safety
Inadvertent public access (or trespass) into the MPTR, including the maneuver area, the
support facilities area, and the SDZ presents public safety concerns. Military
regulations require warning signage to be posted at ingress points and around the
perimeter of sensitive or dangerous areas, and barricades to be erected where lasers are
used. Currently, "No Trespassing" signs are posted around the perimeter of the GSRA,
and further protective measures may be undertaken if the MPTR is constructed. Based
on experience at MCB Camp Lejeune, effects on public safety from operation of the
proposed MPTR would be minimal.
2-15
2.2.4 Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 (No Action)
The "No Action" alternative amounts to a continuation of the status quo. It involves
continued heavy use of ranges on MCB Camp Lejeune, and of off-base training facilities,
with the attendant impacts associated with the additional training pressures at those
locations.
This alternative involves no construction or training-related environmental impacts
within the GSRA. Impacts on water quality within the GSRA would be minimal and would
be associated with maintenance and natural resource management responsibilities. The
potential for wildfire in the GSRA would be significantly less than that of a training
scenario. Under both alternatives, because the GSRA tract now belongs to the Marine
Corps, it could be expected that new positive effects of the MCB Camp Lejeune natural
resource management program, particularly regarding timber management, exemplary
natural area maintenance and wildlife/vegetation (including endangered or threatened
species) programs, would result. Presently, these concerns are adequately handled at
the ranges in use, and no additional impact is foreseen from continuation of the status
quo. No impact is expected upon cultural resources, either within the GSRA or at
current training locations.
Regarding airspace restrictions and noise impacts, the "No Action" alternative would not
alter the present situation, either at MCB Camp Lejeune or at off-base training
locations. Continued use of off-base ranges would result in marginal additional impacts
associated with the higher levels of usage. Minor traffic impacts are associated with the
transportation of vehicles and personnel to off-base facilities, and although safety
concerns are associated with existing range use, no additional impact is foreseen from
continuation of the status quo.
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
From the operational criteria standpoint, the Proposed Action alternative is the strongly
preferred choice; from an environmental criteria standpoint, the No Action alternative
is somewhat preferable.
The Proposed Action may have minor impacts on water quality during construction and
operation of the proposed MPTR, but these impacts are largely subject to mitigation. No
Action would avoid any water quality impacts associated with development or use of the
proposed MPTR. Activation of the proposed range would increase wildfire potential and
therefore, from the perspective of fire concerns, the No Action alternative is
environmentally preferable.
No Action would result in a more benign resource management program for the GSRA as a
whole, whereas the development associated with the Proposed Action would require a
positive program to locate, manage and protect significant natural assets. For that
reason, the Proposed Action is judged to be marginally preferred with respect to that
issue. Regarding wetlands, wildlife and vegetation (including endangered/threatened
species), or. -valance, the No Action alternative is considered the environmentally
preferred alternative (although it is impossible at this time to assess the potential
benefit for several of the rare plant species which may occur from positive resource
management -ractices by the Marine Corps). Although subject to mitigation, minor
erosion impacts to some wetlands would be difficult to avoid, particularly during the
2-16
t
construction phase of the proposed MPTR. No Action would preclude any impacts to
wetlands within the GSRA, and would also avoid any impacts to the present wildlife or
vegetation.
Since no cultural resources have been discovered which would be impacted by the
proposed MPTR, either in the GSRA or in the construction fill borrow pit area, the
l
a
ternatives are judged environmentally equal. With respect to airspace requirements
and noise impacts, the No Action alternative, or the status quo, is environmentally
preferable to establishing additional restrictions or noi
se sources. Despite some initial
negative effects, ground traffic impacts from the two alternatives are viewed as being
approximately equal. In the short term (during construction) and in the mid-term
(until direct access to MCB Camp Lejeune witho
t
f
u
use o
public roads is constructed) the
Proposed Action would have some minor negative impacts on traffic. The longer term
elimination of the need to transport equipment and Marines to off-base training locations
is a positive benefit of the Proposed Action. The No Action and the Proposed Action
alternatives are judged to be equal regarding impacts on public access control and safety
,
as the military ownership of GSRA, as with the rest of MCB Camp Lejeune, precludes
open access to the area regardless of use.
2
4 S
l
ti
.
e
ec
on of Preferred Alternative
Although the No Action alternative is marginally preferable in terms of environmental
impacts, it is clearly deficient from an operational perspective. The Proposed Action is
a significant step forward in assuring that the Marine Corps' trainin
re
i
g
qu
rements are
satisfied in an efficient and cost effective manner. On balance, the Proposed Action's
contribution to military readiness outweighs the manageable impacts associated with its
construction and operation. Furthermore, the environmental impacts identified are
minor and are largely subject to mitigation.
s
t

s
2-17

AFFECTED ENVIRO
3.0
NMENT
This section discusses the existing natural and man-made environment in and around the
site of the Proposed Action. The following descriptions are based in part on information
contained in the documents listed in Section 5, Data Sources, and on information gained
from field surveys conducted in the GSRA together with interviews and correspondence
with MCB Camp Lejeune personnel.
3.1 Natural Environment
3.1.1 Climate

The North Carolina coastal plain characteristically maintains a relatively mild climate.
The coldest month is January, with an average temperature of 47.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
The hottest month is July, with a mean temperature of 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The
relative humidity in this region averages 70 to 75 percent. While seasonal variations
are generally marginal, higher humidity tends to occur in the winter, with lower
humidity found during the spring.
The average annual precipitation is approximately 51 inches. Rainfall is well
distributed throughout the year with a distinct seasonal variation during the summer
months and September. Total rainfall ranges from approximately five to seven inches
during this period. The average monthly rainfall is 3.25 inches during the fall and
winter. Snowfall is not common in the area, with less than an inch of snow occurring in
the period from December through March
.
During fall and winter, prevailing winds are from the north and northeast. Winds
predominate from the south or southwest in spring and summer. The annual average
wind speed is nine miles per hour, with speeds highest at midday. Winds above twenty
miles per hour are rare. The highest wind speed recorded in a typical year is
approximately 40 miles per hour. Winds gusting at speeds greater than 40 miles per
hour are very unusual and typically are associated with heavy thunderstorms or tropical
disturbances.
l
Every few years, the North Carolina coastal region is subjected to the intense rainfal
and tidal surges, high winds and seas accompanying hurricanes. The hurricane season
begins in June and often extends into November. The east coast of North Carolina is
vulnerable to hurricanes, and has been affected by at least 30 such storms in the last
eighty years. These storms are accompanied by heavy rain and strong winds which may
cause unusually high tides and seas. Approximately three to five "Northeasters",
generally the most powerful of storms (other than hurricanes), occur each year. Each
of these storms lasts from three to five days.
3.1.2 Topography
The coastal topography of the region is composed of broad, relatively flat stream areas,
with relief provided by low ridges and dunes. Rivers have cut deeply into sediments, and
riverbanks are quite steep. Rivers draining the area south of the Neuse River include
the White Oak, New River, the Northeast Cape Fear, and Cape Fear. Tidal flats,
and freshwater swamps, such as bays and pocosins
marshlands
are extensive. Pocosins
,
,
,
3-1
which are freshwater wetlands commonly described as evergreen shrub bogs, occur over
flat, clay-based soils on divides between rivers and sounds of the southeastern coastal
plain.
The topography throughout the GSRA is flat or gently rolling, with elevations that vary
only from 38 to 67 feet above sea level. The eastern portion of the GSRA contains the
most varied topography, while the western and central portions are primarily broad,
flat, poorly drained instream areas. Narrow ridges, hardwood drainage ways, pond pine
pocosins, and mineral soil flats are the predominant land forms in the GSRA. Both pine
plantations and mature natural pine stands characterize the upland sites, and it is such
an area in which the proposed MPTR would be constructed. Elsewhere, creeks and
tributaries drain inaccessible lowland hardwood areas and pocosin. The GSRA drainage
basin consists of Sandy Run Swamp Creek and two runs of Shelter Swamp Creek and
Juniper Swamp Creek. The creeks flow into Holly Shelter Creek, which subsequently
flows into the Northeast Cape Fear River.
3.1.3 Geology
The geology of coastal North Carolina consists of a Cambrian granite basement, Tertiary
and Upper Cretaceous sediments, and a veneer of both Pleistocene and recent sand, gravel
and clay. A series of terraces and scarps provide surface topography and evidence of
changes in the sea level during Pleistocene and recent times.
Three stratigraphic units are associated with the Onslow County substrata, which occur
beneath a thin layer of surficial sands and clays: the Yorktown formation, and beneath

it, the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee formations. These formations are the area's primary ,
aquifers:
• The Yorktown formation is a fossilized marine sandstone and shell marl
approximately 75 feet thick occurring at depths of 0 to 75 feet below mean sea
level (MSL). This formation has great erosion potential where outcrops occur in
drainage areas.
• The Castle Hayne formation is composed of white or gray shell material and white
sand. The formation thickness rarely exceeds 100 feet, commencing
approximately 75 to 100 feet below MSL.
• The Pee Dee formation is the oldest stratigraphic unit penetrated for well water
in Onslow County. It is composed of layers of sandy clay alternating with layers
of dark-green to glauconitic sand. The formation is approximately 80 feet thick,
occurring 175 to 200 feet below MSL.
3.1.4 Soils
GSRA soils are classified in soil series by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS)(DEIS, 1989, Vol. I, Sec. III). This classification is based
upon similarities in color, texture, structure, and drainage conditions. In the GSRA,
there are nineteen soil types, ranging from muck to sandy loam and fine sand, and most
are represented in the northern GSRA. A majority of the soil types are characterized as
a fine sandy loam, with the primary soil types within the proposed MPTR maneuver and
facility support areas being Leon fine sand, Manville fine sand, and to a lesser extent,
3-2
t

Stallings loamy fine sand. Additionally, these soils are classified by the SCS as either
hydric (wet) or nonhydric (dry). A brief description of the primary soil types follows.

Hydric soils comprise nearly 77 percent of the GSRA, as a whole, and approximately 70
percent of the proposed MPTR maneuver area (740 acres)/support facility area (115
acres). These soil types include Croatan muck, Muckalee loam, Torhunta fine sandy
loam, Woodington loamy fine sand, Murville fine sand, Leon fine sand, Rains fine sandy
loam, and Pantego mucky loam.
• The Croatan soil series consists of a very poorly drained, highly decomposed and
extremely acid organic soil. The high water table of Croatan soil (0-1 foot below
ground surface) imposes a very severe limitation to development and vehicular
traffic.
• Muckalee soil series consists of a poorly drained floodplain soil which is subject
to frequent overflow. The high water table of Muckalee soil (0.5-1.5 feet below
ground surface) imposes a severe limitation to development and vehicular
traffic.
• The Torhunta and Woodington soil series consist of nearly level, poorly drained
soils on stream terraces and divides. The high water tables of Torhunta (0.5-1.5
feet below ground surface), and Woodington soils (0.5- 1.0 feet below ground
surface) impose a severe limitation to development and vehicular traffic.
• The Murville and Leon soil series consist of poorly drained sandy soils in
flatwoods, pine-hardwood forest, cleared and reforested areas. The high water
table for Murville and Leon (0-1 feet below ground surface) imposes a moderate
to severe limitation to development and vehicular traffic.
Non-hydric soils series comprise about 23 percent of the GSRA, as a whole, and
approximately 30 percent of the proposed MPTR maneuver/support facility area. The
major non-hydric soils are Foreston and Stallings loamy fine sand.
• The Foreston and Stallings soils series consist of moderately to poorly drained
sandy soils on flatwoods and broad smooth stream divides. The water tables for
Foreston soil (2.5- 3.5 feet below ground surface) and Stallings soil (1.0-2.5
feet below ground surface) impose a slight to moderate limitation to development
and vehicular traffic.
3.1.5 Hydrology
The Great Sandy Run Pocosin, along with its associated creeks and artificial drainage
ways, is the dominant hydrologic feature in the GSRA. Five major drainage outfalls are
located uniformly throughout the GSRA including Sandy Run Swamp Creek, Juniper
Swamp Creek, two runs of Shelter Swamp Creek, Haws Run, and Hick's Run. Sandy Run
Swamp Creek, Juniper Swamp Creek, and Shelter Swamp Creek provide outlets to
secondary and primary watercourses that feed the Northeast Cape Fear River 32 miles to
the west. The creeks are small with their headwaters generally located in the pocosins.
Haws Run and Hicks Run discharge in a northeasterly direction to the Southwest Creek,
which discharges into the New River (DEIS, 1989, Vol. I, Sec. 111).
Precipitation is the primary input source of water in the GSRA. The three water outputs
are evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and groundwater discharge. Evapotranspiration
3-3
and surface runoff are the primary routes of water departure from the pocosin systems,
and loss of water by discharge is the least significant.
Surface water in the creeks and ponds of the region is derived from two sources: surface
runoff and groundwater discharge. Surface runoff in the area is rather slow because of
the flat terrain. Additionally, the pocosins act like giant sponges, soaking up and
retaining water. Hydric soils, such as the Croatan soil, tend to hold water for long
periods of time. Thus, streams draining pocosins usually do not flood, and will retain
good flow even during periods of drought. Groundwater discharge to the various drainage
outfalls is slow and virtually continuous.
In the GSRA, 60 to 79 percent of water output is through evapotranspiration when
precipitation is heaviest during the summer and fall. During the summer, the water
table may be significantly lowered, giving the wetlands extensive storm water storage
capacity, and increasing the possibility of peat fires. Although average precipitation
declines during the winter and spring, the effects of a low rate of evapotranspiration
may result in the water table being at or near the surface. Increased precipitation
during this period may result in increased runoff.
During the last several decades, timber land owners have attempted to establish pine
plantations within GSRA. During the past ten to fifteen years, extensive primary and
secondary drainage ditches were constructed by International Paper Company (IPC)
throughout the GSRA to allow equipment access to previously inaccessible areas and to
remove surface runoff. Drainage ditches were installed to lower the water table to a
limited extent, but the main purpose of the ditching was to remove surface runoff to
assure the establishment and growth of the loblolly pine plantations.
Approximately four percent of the GSRA's pocosin community has been totally disturbed;
that is, drained and ditched, natural vegetation removed, and soils prepared for intensive
forest management. The majority of the GSRA, approximately 56 percent, is currently
in transition, with the pocosin areas either partially altered (drained and ditched only),
or disturbed to the point where native vegetation and ecosystem processes are changing.
Within the GSRA interior, water drainage has been greatly accelerated by the extensive
ditching network placed there by the timber industry. The direction of water flow
represents the existing flow pattern of surface water drainage from small ditches into
large channels, and eventually into the natural drainage arteries. Each of the three
primary natural drainage ways have been channeled to some extent to enhance water
flow.
The largest network of ditches drains the north central pocosin from the north into
westerly flowing man-made channels which empty into Sandy Run Swamp Creek in the
northwest quadrant. A portion of the north central area also is drained to the south by a
separate series of ditches and westerly flowing channels, eventually draining into the
northern fork of Shelter Swamp Creek. The proposed MPTR maneuver area has not been
ditched extensively, although there are ditches paralleling the dirt roads that traverse
the site.
3-4

1 3.1.6 Water Quality
Water within the Pee Dee formation, the deepest of the three area aquifers, is low in
minerals, and such constituents as silica, iron and sulfate are rarely present in
objectionable quantities. Water in the Castle Hayne and Yorktown formations is closely
related to the solubility of the calcareous deposits. The water is medium hard, and in
many places, iron is present in objectionable quantities. Hydrogen sulfide produces a
slight odor in wells throughout most of the area. Water in the surficial sands is soft and
is low in total mineral content. The chief objection to its use is corrosiveness due to the
presence of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Septic tank wastewater treatment facilities are the only known source of surficial
aquifer pollution in the immediate proximity of the GSRA. The present efficiency of
treatment provided by septic tanks in the Greater Jacksonville Area and throughout the
county is very low, but due to the low density rural development in the immediate
vicinity, domestic groundwater pollution does not appear to be a problem.
Another potential source of groundwater pollution at the proposed MPTR site, and the
primary threat to the coastal region's future water supply, is salt water intrusion. As
water load demands increase, the encroachment of salt water via seepage through the
bedrock can occur. Limestone aquifers can become contaminated by vertical
encroachment of water from the underlying salt water layer.
The creeks within the GSRA are rated Class C, which means fit for aquatic life, but not
bathing or as a water supply. The creeks of the GSRA are also designated as "swamp
waters", which are defined as waters which have low velocities and other specific
natural characteristics.
alit
3
1
7 Air Q
.
.
u
y
The proposed MPTR is located in an area where air quality is excellent. Ambient
concentrations of pollutants are well below the standards set forth by the Clean Air Act
for particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and
lead. The coastal location and flat terrain, which are subject to constant sea breezes,
ensure that inversions and other meteorological events do not contribute negative
impacts to air quality. Additionally, due to the rural character of the Onslow County
area, air quality degradation is not expected to be an issue in the foreseeable future.
There are no significant air quality issues associated with the proposed MPTR, or the
GSRA generally, with the exception of wild fires, which are discussed in another section.
3.1.8 Vegetation (Including Endangered and Threatened Species)
The various biotic communities in the GSRA generally, and more specifically in the area
proposed for the siting of the MPTR maneuver area and support facilities, include
reforested pine plantation, hardwood swamp forests, hardwood bottomland/floodplain,
and tall pocosin (DEIS, Vol. IV, Figure 32A). The vast majority of the proposed 740
acre maneuver area and 115 acre support facility area is situated in reforested upland
pine plantation community. The previously altered pine plantation does, however,
merge with sections of hardwood swamp forests, hardwood bottom land/floodplain, and
tall pocosin around the perimeter of the proposed MPTR maneuver area. The deciduous
3-5

hardwood swamps are located primarily on the edges of the northern and western
extremes of the MPTR. They occur in depressions within or adjacent to pocosins. A
small section of hardwood/floodplain community, made up of fertile, moist bottomland
with creeks, tributaries and floodplains is located to the north and east of the proposed
maneuver area. These communities are typically rich and diverse in animal life . A
section of tall pocosin, which is distinguished from the short pocosin by pond pine
(Pinus serotina) and titi-fetterbush (Cyrilla racemif/ora)-(Lyonia lucida), is situated
along the southern margin of the proposed MPTR maneuver area. Radiating westward
from the start line of the proposed maneuver tank trails into the mid-section of the
GSRA is the proposed SDZ fan, which covers approximately 5,900 acres. This portion of
the GSRA is dominated by short and tall pocosin communities. The densely vegetated
pocosins are not generally inhabited by a significant variety of animal species, however,
they may serve as a refuge and a feeding area for animals from surrounding biotic
communities.
The original vegetation in the project site, primarily the shrub/scrub pocosin wetland,
has been substantially altered by former timber management techniques. In the vicinity
of the proposed MPTR, forestry management practices ranged from clearing native
vegetation and planting large stands of loblolly pine, to channelizing stream beds and
establishing drainage ditches. The site chosen for the proposed MPTR is a substantially
cleared area of non-merchantable pine stands that were highly altered vegetative
systems low in plant biomass and species diversity. Vegetation associated with the
understory of these loblolly pine plantations include, broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), gallberry (Ilex sp.), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), sweet pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Various herbaceous species,
such as pitcher plants (Sarracenia sp.), ferns, and mosses are also common in pine
plantation understory.
Hardwood swamp forests are located in isolated stands, primarily around the northern
and western boundaries of the proposed MPTR maneuver area and generally in the
eastern segment of the SDZ fan. Dominant vegetation of the hardwood swamp forests is
swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and red maple
(Acer rubrum). Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) occurs in isolated stands on the
wettest sites with the longest hydroperiod, whereas the swamp black gum is more
numerous in areas of shorter hydroperiods. The understory is composed of fetterbush
(Lyonia lucida), gallberry species, titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), switchcane (Arundinaria
gigantea), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), ferns and mosses.
A small finger (approximately 5 acres) of a larger hardwood bottomland/floodplain
abuts the northeastern sector of the proposed maneuver area. Plant species
characteristic of these areas are dictated by specific hydric regimes as in the hardwood
swamp communities. Swamp black gum and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are
dominant vegetation. Water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetbay, red maple, loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), American holly (Ilex opaca), white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyoides), and laurel oak (Quercus /aurifolia) are also associated with this community.
Vegetation in the shrub and ground layers include wax myrtle, large leaf bayberry
(Myrica heterophyl/a), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Virginia sweetspire
(Itea virginica), switchcane, dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), myrtle dahoon (Ilex
myrtifolia), and rhododendron (Rhododendron viscosum).
3-6

A tall pocosin community, with its characteristic pond pine/titi-fetterbush community,
shallow peats and moderate hydroperiods, is located near the southwestern boundary of
the proposed MPTR maneuver area, with a small section possibly intruding into the
proposed maneuver area. The majority of the SDZ fan associated with the proposed
MPTR is comprised of tall pocosin surrounding short pocosin communities. The tall
pocosin usually occurs on the perimeter of short pocosin and contains similar
vegetation, but the pond pines, which are intermixed with longleaf and loblolly pines,
appear more mature and compose greater than 20% of the canopy. Titi and fetterbush
dominate the shrub layer, averaging heights greater than two meters. Mosses, ferns and
switchcane are included in the herbaceous vegetation of the pocosin. Associated with the
ground layer are sweet bay, red bay (Persea borbonia) and loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus). Bald cypress and Atlantic white cedar scattered throughout the tall pocosin,
are remnants of the cypress and cedar forests that were eliminated by past logging
activity.
Endangered/Threatened Flora
Twenty-six plant species recognized as rare at the Federal or State level have been
identified within the entire GSRA. Under the Federal program, rare species are given
protection either as Endangered or Threatened (and a third designation - "Proposed" -
provides a reduced level of protection). Candidate species are those under consideration
for Federal listing. Under North Carolina's program, species provided legal protection
are ranked as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern. Categories of "Proposed",
"Candidate", "Significantly Rare", or "Watch List" reflect a decreasing priority of
unprotected status. Fifteen of the 26 plant species were located in the northern GSRA,
with four species having Federal designations (NHP Inventory, Jul., 1993).
The Federally designated species include: Federal Endangered - rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia); Federal Candidate ( All Level 2 - species for which there
is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support
listing as Endangered or Threatened at this time) - savanna cowbane (Oxypolis ternata),
Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra), Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia glabra). All four of
these Federally designated rare plant species, plus an additional eleven State designated
plant species of varying levels of rarity ranging from Endangered down to Significantly
Rare
are located in the northern GSRA
,
.
The NHP Inventory has calculated that four of the rare plant species listed in Table 1 are
present in the GSRA in significant percentages of known global populations. The GSRA
contains 39 percent of the known global population of the Carolina goldenrod in 41
located sites. (Between MCB Camp Lejeune and the GSRA, the global population of the
Carolina goldenrod percentage is estimated to be 60 percent.) The GSRA contains eight
percent of the global populations of Thorne's beaksedge (one site) and venus flytrap (13
sites). Five percent of the global population of the rough-leaved loosestrife (four sites)
is identified in the GSRA. Global rank is based on a species' abundance rangewide, and is
the best available scientific assessment of a species' rarity throughout its range.
Table 1 provides a list of these rare plant species, including their Federal or State
status. The number to the left of the listed species corresponds to the location map
accompanying the Table (Figure 3-1).
3-7
Q
x
NN
WO
WZ
aM
w
U) x
owc ?
Q O
m z
oz
"- z z
00
aw
C-) LL
OW
c
o
6 c
j o m
CL iU O
CL a
O >
CL o
O
c N
C N c
C
O _
z
U L)
z
lm
m
0

Table 1
RARE PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN NORTHERN GSRA
Scientific Name Federal State
Common Name Status Status
1 . Agalinis aphylla none Candidate
Scale-leaf Gerardia
2. Amphicarpum purshii none Significantly Rare
Pinebarrens Goober Grass
3. Asclepias pedicellata none Candidate
Stalked Milkweed
4. Calamovilfa brevipilis none Endangered
Pinebarrens Sandreed
5. Dionaea muscipula none Candidate-Spcl Concern
Venus Flytrap
6. Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered Endangered
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
7. Oxypolis ternata Candidate Candidate
Savanna Cowbane
8. Polygala hookeri none Candidate
Hooker's Milkwort
9. Rhynchospora breviseta none Significantly Rare
Shortbristled Beaksage
10. Rhynchospora pallida none Significantly Rare
Pale Beaksedge
1 1 . Rhynchospora thornei Proposed Candidate Candidate
Thorne's Beaksedge
12. Solidago gracillima none Significantly Rare
Graceful Goldenrod
13. Solidago pulchra Candidate Endangered
Carolina Goldenrod
14. Tofieldia glabra Candidate Candidate
Carolina Asphodel
15. Xyris flabelliformis none Candidate
Savanna Yelloweyed Grass
Note: Thorne's beaksedge (Rhynchospora thornei) has been officially proposed for designation
as a Federal Candidate. The venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) has been recommended
for upgrading to a Federal Candidate (Level 2) from a F ederal Candidate (Level 3 - a
candidate species that has proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously
believed and/or one that is not subject to any identifia ble threat (NHP Inventory, Jul.,
1993).

1 3-9
3.1.9 Wildlife (Including Endangered and Threatened Species)
The pine plantation community that comprises the majority of the proposed MPTR
maneuver and support facility area supports a growth of grasses and forbs. This
herbaceous vegetation is a source of food and cover for the variety of birds and mammals
that may currently inhabit the general vicinity of the proposed MPTR. Herbivorous and
insectivorous species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), gray squirrel (Sciurius carolinensis) and bobwhite quail
(Colinus virginianus), are known to occur in this forest type.
The hardwood swamp forest, and the hardwood bottom land/floodplain communities
(northern and western periphery of the proposed MPTR) are typically rich in animal
life, and usually have the greatest diversity of animal species. Fauna reported and/or
frequently observed in these deciduous regions include various waterfowl, wild turkey,
mink (Mustela vison), otter (Lutra canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
squirrel, beaver (Castor canadensis), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and white-tailed deer. Small
mammals found in the hardwood swamp forest and hardwood bottomland/floodplain areas
include the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus), and eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana).
Of the four biotic communities that occur in the general vicinity of the proposed MPTR
maneuver and support facility areas and associated SDZ, tall and short pocosin are most
likely to serve as refuge and feeding habitats for wildlife that may inhabit the other
communities. The densely vegetated pocosin communities are not generally inhabited by
a large variety of animal species. No species are recognized as being truly endemic of
this community, but the native spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) is characteristically
found in creeks associated with pocosins (Wilber, 1981).
Tall pocosin, similar to that found throughout the proposed MPTR SDZ, provides feeding
and nesting areas for many bird species. Bobwhite quail, mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura) and many of the additional 38 species of birds observed in the GSRA can be
expected to frequent the pocosin. Mammals captured within the tall and short pocosin
include the southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda telmalestses), cotton
mouse, golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli aureolus), and hispid cotton rat. Other
species which are reported locally and are restricted to aquatic areas within pocosins
include the river otter, mink, and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). White-tailed deer
inhabit pocosin, but the population densities are lower than the other biotic communities
of the region. The limited amount of browse within the pocosin is considered a
contributing factor of this significantly smaller population of deer (DEIS, Vol. 1, Section
III, 1989).
It is speculated that the pocosin may offer refuge to wildlife that at one time ranged
widely, but are now confined to isolated tracts of suitable habitat due to human
encroachment and habitat destruction (Wilbur, 1981). Black bear (Ursus
americanus), which are associated with pocosins of North Carolina, have been reported
by area residents, and an ongoing bear study (tagging/radio collar) has revealed that
there are several animals presently inhabiting the GSRA.
3-10

I Endangered/Threatened Fauna
The NHP Inventory has reported no sightings or evidence of Federal or State endangered
or threatened animal species in the proposed MPTR maneuver or support facilities area
or its SDZ. During field work in the Padgett Swamp Road area under the western fringe
of the proposed SDZ, NHP staff located two sites with potential for red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) habitation, and two sites with potential for Bachman's
sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) habitation, although no birds were discovered.
Elsewhere in the GSRA, the following three rare species were identified by the NHP
Inventory: Bachman's sparrow, a Federal Candidate (Level 2)/State Special Concern
species, Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowil), a Federal Candidate (Level
2)/State Significantly Rare species, and the eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana
floridana), a State Threatened species, but all were located in the southern sector of the
GSRA below Moores Ridge Road, remote from the proposed MPTR.
3.1.10 Wetlands
In the Spring of 1994, remote sensing of aerial photography, soil survey, and
topography, Geographic Information System (GIS), and Global Positioning System (GPS)
technologies, in conjunction with field surveys, were used to delineate wetland
boundaries within a rectangular area comprising 1150 acres in the northeast quadrant
of the GSRA, and within which the proposed MPTR (encompassing a rectangle of 740
acres) would be sited. Wetland boundaries and cover types were digitized into the GIS
for analysis of wetland areas. The digital layers were georectified according to known
(surveyed) control points provided by MCB Camp Lejeune to create an accurate map of
wetlands within the proposed range area.
The results revealed that within the 1150 acre survey area there were 443 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands (39 percent). Forest scrub-shrub wetlands accounted for the
greatest wetland acreage with 315 acres (27 percent of total-not of wetlands), followed
by scrub shrub wetlands with 59 acres (5 percent), forested wetlands with 48 acres (4
percent), and emergent wetlands with 21 acres (2 percent). There were 15 wetland
cover types delineated. The greatest area (297 acres) of wetland cover type was pine
forest with gallberry or mixed bay shrubs growing on saturated sites. An analysis of
this 1150 acre rectangle was conducted and a MPTR range site and design chosen which
would minimize wetland impacts (Figure 3-2). The Corps of Engineers estimates that
there would be approximately 25 acres of wetland impacts associated with the preferred
MPTR range design (including access road to the range) which involves a rectangle
covering some 740 acres total.
With regard to the GSRA as a whole, the wetland areas have been generally categorized as
Palustrine Forested Wetland (PFO) and Palustrine Scrub or Shrub Wetland (PSS). PSS
wetlands represent the pocosin communities which comprise large portions of the
wetland mosaic within the SDZ fan (approximately 4,000 acres total), and are the
dominant type of wetland within the GSRA.
1 3.1.11 Exemplary Natural Areas
As noted above (section 2.2.3), the NHP Inventory found three natural areas within the
GSRA of sufficient size and quality to recommend special attention and/or protection be
3-11
w
a
z
a
C)
z
zz
<o
?a
ww
Nz
a w
M a.
w °G o
°C a o
? J Q
U. -j
- W
z
Q =
J H
a?
U
H
Q
W
U
Cl)
0
8
z
w
U
a
LL
a
z
0
uu
Q
a
0
C7
m
m
m
JQ
t
A
U
a
m
m ?
a
0
c
i
O
9
C
A
m
3
E

provided. These three areas include the Greater Sandy Run Pocosin (two large pocosin
basins separated by Moores Ridge Road (10,500 acres total), an area in the vicinity of
Padgett Swamp Road in the northwestern sector of the GSRA (125 acres), and an area in
the vicinity of South Bay road in the southeastern sector of the GSRA (48 acres)(Figure
2-2). The Padgett Swamp Road area (which contains exemplary pond pine woodland,
pine savanna, and wet pine flatwoods)
and the South Ba
R
d
,
y
oa
area (which contains
exemplary pine savanna and small depression pocosin) support several rare species,
including the Federal Endangered rough-leaved loosestrife. The Great Sandy Run Pocosin
(two basins) contains extensive areas of pond pine woodland, much of which has been
impacted by a network of drainage ditches. Nonetheless, the two large pocosin basins
belong to a rare habitat type essentially restricted to eastern North Carolina
.
3.2 Man-Made Environment
3.2.1 Land Use
Onslow County updated its land use plan in 1991 (Onslow County, 1991) and in the
process recognized the acquisition of the GSRA by the Marine Corps. The Plan classifies
Greater Sandy Run Pocosin as an environmentally significant area within the
"Conservation" classification and notes that "The purpose of this classification is to
provide for effective long-term management and protection of significant, limited, or
irreplaceable areas." The pocosin, hardwood swamp forests and bottomlands biotic
communities fall within this category. Conservation lands can be developed and managed
within specified guidelines, and are therefore not set aside for preservation. The Plan
notes that appropriate land uses for the Great Sandy Run Pocosin include Expansion of
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation.
The GSRA falls into Onslow County's "Developed/Military Reservation" land use
classification. This classification specifically recognizes that MCB Camp Lejeune
functions as a self-sufficient government entity and notes that "those land uses
customarily associated with the operation of a military base are considered
appropriate." A caveat is contained in the Plan, however, that "new and/or expanded
land uses and activities on the Reservation may be inappropriate, and/or inconsistent
with County policies, programs and the best interest of the County." While Onslow
County desires to review plans for new or expanded land uses, the Plan recognizes that
ordinary operation of the Reservation will generate certain negative or objectionable
factors outside the Base boundaries (i.e. traffic, both private vehicles and convoys, and
noise from training).
3.2.2 Demography, Income, and Taxes
In 1990 the total population of Onslow County was 149,838, up 32.9 percent from
112,784 in 1980. Approximately two-thirds of the county is "undevelopable" land,
which consists of 24 percent commercial forests, 22 percent military bases, 8 percent
water and marsh, and 11 percent state forest. With two thirds of the land unavailable
for private development, population growth and industrial development is limited to
specific areas of the county.
The 41,100 acre GSRA is located within the Stump Sound township of Onslow County, and
makes up approximately 40 percent of the land area of the Township. In 1990, the
3-13
Township had a population of 10,148 (including a portion of Camp Lejeune),
representing an increase of 35 percent since 1980. One of the localities in the
Township experiencing rapid growth is the Verona area, just to the north of the GSRA and
the proposed MPTR site in the northeast quadrant of the tract.
Onslow County has a relatively stable economy due to the steady source of military and
civilian employment provided by MCB Camp Lejeune. MCB Camp Lejeune is the largest
employer in Onslow County, followed by retail trade, other government (excluding Camp
Lejeune), services, and manufacturing. The average per capita income in Onslow county
more than doubled in the ten years between 1975-1985. This trend is expected to
continue as the shift from a rural to a more urban lifestyle continues.
3.2.3 Utilities/Infrastructure
Electricity
There is presently no electrical service to the proposed MPTR site. There is, however, a
regional overhead 12.47 KV transmission line which passes north - south through the
eastern portion of the proposed site. A portion of this line is scheduled to be moved
eastward toward U.S. Highway 17 in conjunction with the proposed construction of the
MPTR, and a tie-in to provide power to the site would then be affected.
Water
There is presently no public water supply in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
MPTR site, however, a county water line runs along U.S. Highway 17 immediately east of
the GSRA boundary. Current plans call for the drilling of a well in the vicinity of the
proposed MPTR to provide water to the range users, however the option exists that a tie-
in to the local commercial water source could be made.
Wastewater
There is no wastewater collection or treatment facility presently serving the proposed
MPTR site. If soils prove suitable, a septic field is planned to support the proposed
MPTR. The draft Master Development Plan includes an option to tie into the MCB Camp
Lejeune sewer system if soil conditions should preclude the construction of a septic
system.
Telephone
Although there is presently no telephone service at the proposed MPTR site, telephone
would be provided by extending the eight strand fiber-optic cable which runs from New
River to the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune. It would be extended across U.S.
Highway 17 at Moores Ridge Road to the range headquarters building and a buried
telephone cable would be installed to connect the proposed MPTR with the range
headquarters control box.
3-14

3.2.4 Traffic and Transportation
Ground Traffic
There are approximately 5.3 miles of dirt roads within the GSRA in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed MPTR site. Reys Road provides access to U.S. Highway 17 and to
the Verona Loop Road on MCB Camp Lejeune. The dirt roads were formerly used to
support International Paper Company's commercial forestry operations in that area.
Access to the GSRA is now restricted to official vehicles, and traffic into and on the
reservation is very light.
Air Traffic
The proposed MPTR site is within the MCAS New River control zone and under the
southern entry flight path for aircraft heading to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New
River, approximately four miles to the northeast. There are approximately 120,000
flight operations at MCAS New River annually. The proposed MPTR site is also under V-
139, a four mile wide, low altitude (under 18,000 feet) Federal airway between New
Hanover International Airport at Wilmington, NC and the Craven County Regional
Airport at New Bern, NC. MCB Camp Lejeune has proposed a GSRA joinvintermittent
use, stratified restricted airspace area affecting approximately 55 square miles above
the entire GSRA (Figure 3-3). This proposal for restricted airspace to accommodate
military training operations within the GSRA is currently being finalized.
3.2.5 Noise
No ambient noise level data is available in and around the proposed MPTR, however,
several noise sources predominate in the area. Low flying aircraft approaching and
departing MCAS New River fly generally over the northern GSRA. Helicopter training
flights which utilize the Camp Davis Field complex in the southern GSRA traverse along
the eastern boundary of the GSRA, leaving and returning to MCAS New River. There are
approximately 75 helicopter flights per day (Monday - Friday) between MCAS New
River and Camp Davis Field at an altitude of between 500 and 1,300 feet. Additionally,
when artillery training is conducted on MCB Camp Lejeune, muzzle blasts and explosions
in the G-10 ordnance impact area on MCB Camp Lejeune are audible in the northeast
quadrant of the GSRA.
r 6 Cultural Resources
2
3
.
.
No archaeological or historic resources have been identified in the proposed MPTR
maneuver area and support facilities site, or in the potential construction fill borrow
pit site in the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune. Field surveys have been conducted
in these areas. The Acquisition EIS (DEIS Vol. I, III-34) predicted that the most
probable locations for regionally significant archeological sites were along the northern
and eastern margins of the pocosin, based on the high to medium archaeological potential
of the soils and elevations in that area (Figure 3-4). Appropriately, the Phase IB
Cultural Resource Investigation (Louis Berger, Apr., 1993) did identify six prehistoric
sites to the north of the proposed MPTR maneuver area, generally along the Hicks Run
drainage near the northeast boundary of the GSRA. These sites have been recommended
for additional study.
3-15

cz-
Craven Co.
Regional Airport
New Bern ,
N
I cZ
".
M?AS
' Cherry Point
Ellis
A-530
GSRA oR -5306C ?.; .
Proposed Sky Manor MCAS
NC' O O
Pvt. Grass .•' New River
Restricted Airspace Strip
b 7H
X: MCALF
:MPTR . Bogue
R-5306D
StCTOR
R-GSRA W -122D
SOUTH /
SECTOR ,
'?.. Ca Hatteras
Davis MOA
F Holly R d e/ Topsail Island/
Y 9 -surf C
Topsail ,
k?.
Alert Area

/ Restricted Area
W-122H

i Military Operating Area

New Hanover
Wilmington.
Airport Control Zone

International TRSA
Wilmington Terminal Radar Service Area
/
Proposed Restricted Area
Q Small Public Airport

FIGURE 3-3 •
REGIONAL AIRSPACE FEATURES ,
MPTR, GREATER SANDY RUN AREA
Source: NOAA Charlotte Sectional Aeronautical Chart, August 1992 ,
¦
w
N
w
U
O CL
N
r? WHO
w GC LL Z
JOQ
W
LL ? Z ?
?U
Z
C)
LL
O
Cl)
Q
w
oC
Q
m
a
b
m
m
m
N
J
m
Z
7
h
m
N
cc
Q
T
7
U
9
O
8 N
O
a
O
3.2.7 Safety
Presently, public access to the GSRA and the proposed MPTR site is prohibited. "No
Trespassing" signs are posted at 200 foot intervals around the perimeter of the GSRA,
and road gates (fourteen) for key entry points into the GSRA are in the process of being
procured and installed.
3.2.8 Contamination
During research for the purchase of the GSRA, a survey was conducted to evaluate the
potential for environmental contamination on the tract (Weston 1992). The vast
majority of the 41,100 acre tract was determined to have a low potential for
environmental contamination, although a few sites around the periphery of the GSRA
were identified as requiring remediation. None of those sites, however, were associated
with or in the vicinity of the proposed MPTR or its SDZ.
3-18

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 Natural Environment: Direct Effects and Mitigation Measures
Associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
4.1.1 Climate
The Proposed Action would have no impacts on climate.
1 4.1.2 Topography
The Proposed Action would have no impacts on topography.
4.1.3 Geology
The Proposed Action would have no impacts on geology.
4.1.4 Soils

The primary soil types located in the areas slated for MPTR development include Leon
fine sand, Murville fine sand, and to a lesser extent, Stallings loamy fine sand. Both the
Leon and Murville soil series are typified as poorly drained sandy soils, with the water
table typically residing 0 - 1 feet below ground surface. The high water table, coupled
with poor drainage, impose moderate to severe development and traffic limitations.
The proposed activities which will pose the greatest negative environmental risk
involving soils include the proposed construction and use of the two maneuver area tank
trails, and the proposed installation of a leach field to handle wastes discharged from the
field head facility.
The MPTR tank trails would require the complete clearing of two lanes for an
approximate surface area of 57.6 acres. Additional cutting of brush would be required to
provide lines of sight to targets, however this would be accomplished without soil
disturbance through mechanical (i.e. bush hog) or hand clearing methods and a
vegetative cover would remain. The removal of vegetation for tank trail construction,
and the extensive soil disturbance created by heavy tracked vehicles could, however,
contribute to soil erosion in the area. The tank maneuver trails and the access road/tank
trail maintenance would require regular additions of fill material to keep the roadway
surface above the water table and to keep it from becoming severely rutted. Runoff from
these areas could contain high levels of sediment which would add silt to the drainage
system and drainage ditches in the area. However, throughout the proposed MPTR
maneuver and support facility area, soil erosion impacts would be localized due to the
flat terrain and sluggish water flow, and for this reason any mitigation measures should
be relatively easy to institute. As an example, during construction phases, temporary
ground cover and silt fence would be used to contain erosion. For long term control,
vegetative buffer zones, and possibly berms to direct or channel runoff away from
sensitive areas, would be included in the range design.
Although the proposed maneuver and support areas are not extensively ditched, the
introduction of soil sedimentation or siltation in nearby wetlands and those ditches that
4-1
are in the vicinity could present a concern, particularly during the construction phase.
As the construction of the proposed range would disturb more than five acres, a
Stormwater NPDES permit would be required. Additionally, because Onslow County is
one of the coastal counties of North Carolina, additional State permit requirements would
be applicable (See section 4.6, Permits).
Current plans for sewage disposal anticipate the construction of a leach field. The
location of the proposed MPTR buildings, including field service bathrooms, is in an area
of hydric soils (Leon and Murville). With the average water table elevations of 0 - 1
feet below surface level, it is recognized that the possibility of subsurface migration of
leachate pollutants to surface waters could create problems with water quality
degradation and create human health impacts. Coordination with county officials is
required once a location for a leach field is chosen, and a local construction permit would
be required (See section 4.6, Permits). Should a leach field not be authorized,
alternatives include portable toilets or a connection to the MCB Camp Lejeune sewage
system, neither of which would create any adverse impacts.
Approximately 70,580 cubic yards of fill are expected to be used for the construction of
the proposed MPTR. As with the proposed construction of the MPTR, erosion and
stormwater runoff issues are equally applicable to the site of the construction fill
borrow pit in the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune. Standard mitigation measures
(silt fence, vegetative buffer zones, collection/settling ponds) would be employed to
contain erosion while the borrow operation is active.
4.1.5 Water Quality
Unless the option to tie into a commercial water source is chosen, development of the
proposed MPTR would entail construction of a drinking water well along with water
treatment facilities and distribution lines. While construction of the well itself will not
have any significant environmental impacts, the potential for the well to be negatively
impacted by other activities should be considered. Any sewage treatment/disposal
facilities would be located a safe distance from the drinking water well. Because of the
high water table and soil composition in the area of the proposed MPTR, the possibility
of the planned sewage leach fields contaminating the drinking water well must be
considered (See section 4.6, Permits).
4.1.6 Air Quality
The construction and operation of the proposed MPTR is not expected to provide any
significant impacts to air quality. Construction would entail a significant amount of
earth movement, both within the range and from the off-site borrow pit. This activity
would result in fugitive dust emissions as well as emissions from trucks and other earth
moping equipment. These emissions would be short term and minor, and subject to
mitigation (fugitive dust control).
Emissions from activities associated with operation of the proposed MPTR would
primarily be particulate matter, with other pollutants emitted to a much smaller extent.
Due to the irregularity of emission production (tank movement, gunpowder detonation,
vehicle emissions) total emissions for the site are expected to be low. Emissions from
fire are the primary concern, and could have a negative impact on air quality if a forest
or brush fire should burn for extended periods, and if adverse climatological conditions,
4-2

such as an inversion, are present. Wildfire control would be addressed through MCB
Camp Lejeune fire control procedures, and site-specific plans would be developed (See
Section 4.1.7 below).
4.1.7 Fire Suppression and Control
Non-explosive ordnance is planned for the proposed MPTR operations. This will reduce
the potential for forest/brush fires, although other incendiary devices which may be
used on the range (including tracer rounds, smoke grenades, booby-trap simulators, and
hand-held illumination) would still produce a risk of fire. By far the most serious fire
risk in the proposed SDZ fan is the burning of the peat which comprises a large portion
of the soil composition of the northern pocosin. The peat can burn for extended periods
of time, both above and below ground, causing significant air emissions and possibly
posing a human health hazard if smoke is heavy and extensive.
Fire management efforts would include increasing periodic controlled burns as part of
MCB Camp Lejeune's Natural Resource Management program, increasing fire control
personnel from nine to seventeen, and purchasing additional fire control equipment
including IM more low pressure tractor and plow units, four portable bridges and four
bridge trucks (FEIS, 1991, Section III-30). The long range plans for the GSRA
development include three 125 foot observation towers in the northern GSRA and a
perimeter road which, if constructed, would provide easier and quicker access to fire
locations as well as providing a fire break around the entire GSRA.
A revised Fire Control Plan for MCB Camp Lejeune (which includes the GSRA) has been
prepared. Mutual assistance agreements with both the U.S. Forest Service and the State
of North Carolina have been executed. Additionally, in an emergency situation, the
manpower pool for firefighters at MCB Camp Lejeune is significant.
4.1.8 Vegetation (Including Endangered and Threatened Species)
Impacts to vegetation would result from construction and use of tank trails and the tank
firing lanes within the proposed maneuver area, coupled with the clearing necessary for
target construction and line-of-sight openings to sight and fire the weapons. All
vegetation would be removed from about 60 acres for the tank trails, and fill and gravel
build-up applied. In conjunction with the maneuver lanes, concrete turning pads would
be constructed at the defilade positions and at the entrance to the proposed maneuver
area. For the installation of targets and line-of-sight range openings, vegetation would
be maintained near ground level in an early- to mid-successional state, depending on
weapon sighting requirements. Maintaining the vegetation in this state would be
accomplished through controlled burns, bushhogging, and/or hand clearing (as
required). Converting the proposed MPTR from pine plantation to early- to mid-
successional vegetation for construction and operation of the MPTR would increase
habitat diversity in the area. Tracked vehicles are not expected to leave the tank trails,
thereby minimizing impacts upon vegetation within the proposed MPTR maneuver area.
® For construction of the range support facilities, an area covering about 50 acres will be
cleared of most existing pine plantation vegetation to accommodate the buildings and
vehicle parking areas. The proposed site for these support facilities, as with the entire
proposed MPTR project, lies within an area previously disturbed by commercial timber
activities and human presence, and currently includes roads and an electrical
4-3
transmission line. No significant impacts are anticipated if proper erosion control
measures are established for the construction and operation of the facility.
Overall, damage caused to vegetation from ordnance impacts, such as torn foliage,
embedding of projectiles in woody tissue, or localized soil upheaval, would be slight. In
the immediate target areas, where the majority of the non-explosive rounds would
impact, the vegetation would be affected and the earthen berms designed to receive the
rounds would be noticeably impacted. However, the wide dispersal of the misses or
ricochets within the large SDZ would result in negligible damage outside the target
arrays. Observations of existing ranges at Camp Lejeune indicate that 80 percent of
direct fire impacts are contained within the immediate target area.
Threatened/Endangered Flora
As shown in Section 3.1.8 above, (Table 1, Rare Species Table, and Figure 3-1), there
are a number of rare plant species within the northern GSRA which could be affected by
the construction and operation of the proposed MPTR. As can be seen on Figure 3-1, the
rare plant species are found in two general locations: in the northwestern GSRA under
the western end of the proposed SDZ, and in the northeastern GSRA in the vicinity of the
proposed MPTR maneuver and support facility area, with special concentrations along
the logging loop access road, along Reys Road, and in the powerline corridor.
The Padgett Swamp Road area at the western extreme of the SDZ contains the only
Federally listed endangered species in the GSRA, the rough-leaved loosestrife.
Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the potential impacts
from the operation of the proposed MPTR on the rare plant species located in the
northwestern quadrant of the GSRA under the SDZ fan (in the pocosin, and in the vicinity
of Padgett Swamp Road) resulted in concurrence with the opinion that the potential for
damage in this area from spent projectiles from the proposed MPTR is considered
negligible. In a 15 November 1993 letter the USFWS noted: "...construction and
operations of the Multipurpose Training Range is not likely to adversely affect the
Federally-listed endangered rough-leaved loosestrife." A positive effect would result
from controlled access to the area and protection afforded by MCB Camp Lejeune's
Natural Resource Management program. The USFWS also noted that while there is a
potential of uncontrolled fires resulting from range operations which could negatively
affect the loosestrife, MCB Camp Lejeune has "agreed to control wildfire as part of their
range management and beneficial habitat management; this includes properly controlling
burns, and this commitment will be part of their Natural Resources Management Plan
for the GSRA."
The rare plant species located in the northeastern GSRA in the vicinity of the proposed
maneuver and support facility areas present a different level of concern. Table 2 lists
the rare species and their Federal/State status identified in the NHP Inventory. The nine
listed plant species (of varying degrees of rarity) are located in areas that would be
affected by the construction and/or operation of the proposed MPTR (The number in
Column 1 of Table 2 corresponds to the species locations depicted in Figure 3-1).
4-4

Table 2
NORTHEASTERN GSRA RARE PLANT SPECIES
Location/Fig. 3-1 Species Name Federal / State Status"
2. Amphicarpum purshii None/Significantly Rare
Pinebarrens Goober Grass
4. Calamovilfa brevipilis None/Endangered
Pinebarrens Sandreed
5. Dionaea muscipula None"/Candidate-Spcl.
Venus Flytrap Concern
7. Oxypolis ternata Candidate/Candidate
Savanna Cowbane(Level 2)
9. Rhynchospora breviseta None/Significantly Rare
Shortbristled Beaksage
10. Rhynchospora pallida None/Significantly Rare
Pale Beaksedge
12. Solidago gracillima None/Significantly Rare
Graceful Goldenrod
13. Solidago pulchra Candidate/Endangered
Carolina Goldenrod(Level 2)
15. Xyris flabelliformis None/Candidate
Savanna Yellow-eyed Grass
' North Carolina regulations establish Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern
categories for legal protection; State Candidate status is for species which may require
protection, but for which insufficient data are available to support Endangered,
Threatened or Special Concern status; and Significantly Rare is a North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program designation (= North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
designation) for species considered to require monitoring, but which have not been
designated for protection or candidate status.
' #5 (venus flytrap) has been recommended for Federal designation as Candidate (Level 2,
a species for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not
enough data to support listing as Threatened or Endangered at this time.)
Among the above-listed plant species located in the northeastern GSRA, there are no
Federally protected species, but there are two State Endangered species in the area. Two
Federal Candidate (possibly three) and three State Candidate species are also in the area.
These plants are generally located in relatively open areas such as flatwoods and
savanna, powerlines and roadsides, and other clear-cut areas. With regard to the
proposed MPTR site, concentrations of these rare plant species are found along the
eastern powerline corridor, along Reys Road (a portion of which would be within the
proposed maneuver area), and along the logging loop road which would provide access to
the proposed MPTR.

4-5
Construction of the proposed MPTR, including the upgrading of the logging loop access
road, would undoubtedly impact several identified rare plant communities. Of primary
concern is the potential impact on the Federal Candidate species: Carolina goldenrod.
This plant is apparently thriving along the Reys Road right of way and in the eastern
powerline corridor (NHP Inventory, Jul., 1993, Figure 3-1). Although only a Federal
Candidate species at this juncture, a conference with the USFWS would be required (see
section 4.6, Permit Requirements and Agency Approvals) to discuss the potential
impacts, and possible mitigation measures which could be undertaken to minimize any
adverse effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed MPTR. The
NHP Inventory also contains recommendations for habitat management (such as
controlled burns/mowing schedules) for each identified rare species. Future GSRA
planned development calls for clearing and maintaining open areas for various facilities,
roads and ranges (including the proposed MPTR). This, combined with controlled access
to large portions of the GSRA and an active Natural Resources Management program,
would result in added habitat diversity and a net benefit to several rare species which
require an open type of environment.
4.1.9 Wildlife (Including Endangered and Threatened Species)
The main impacts upon wildlife in the proposed MPTR would be alteration of habitat
associated with range construction and clearing, and the stress associated with increased
human presence in the maneuver and support facility areas. However, some species,
such as the white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and bobwhite quail prefer more open areas in
which to forage. Additionally, for the installation of targets and line-of-site range
openings, the shift from a managed timber monoculture to the maintenance of vegetation
in an early- to mid-successional state would add to habitat diversity within the GSRA and
benefit wildlife in the area. Wildlife within the proposed SDZ is not expected to be
impacted by range operations in any significant manner. With the possible exception of
fire (which may be controlled burns or accidental wildfires), there is no anticipated
alteration of habitat or disruption of the natural areas encompassed by the proposed SDZ.
The presence of humans within pine plantations has occurred previously with timber-
related practices, hence current animal populations are considered only remnants of the
native fauna. Generally speaking, the lack of diversity noted in the current inventory of
animal and plant populations, and the deficiency of high-quality natural communities
suggests the adverse effects of previous human-induced changes within the GSRA. The
increase in human presence, coupled with the periodic intense use of military hardware
and weapons within the maneuver area, may drive some permanent inhabitants from the
immediate area of the proposed MPTR (especially near target emplacements), while
some will simply move to less utilized portions of the GSRA. Some, as has been noted at
other ranges, may be expected to adapt and take up residence despite the range
operations.
Endangered/Threatened Wildlife
The NHP Inventory identified no endangered or threatened animal species within the
proposed MPTR or SDZ fan. In the vicinity of Padgett Swamp Road (Figure 2-2), the
NHP staff did locate several sites that have the potential as red-cockaded woodpecker and
Bachman's sparrow habitat, although no birds were found. This area should be
monitored. As noted above, a portion of the Padgett Swamp Road area falls within the
4-6

I western extreme of the SDZ fan, but any negative effects in that area from operation of
the proposed MPTR, including damage from spent projectiles, are considered negligible.
4.1.10 Wetlands
In early 1994, remote sensing of aerial photography, soil survey, and topography,
Geographic Information System (GIS), and Global Positioning System (GPS)
technologies, in conjunction with field surveys, were used to delineate wetland
boundaries within a rectangular area comprising 1150 acres in the northeast quadrant
of the GSRA, and within which the proposed MPTR (encompassing a rectangle of 740
acres) would be sited. Wetland boundaries and cover types were digitized into the GIS
for analysis of wetland areas. The digital layers were georectified according to known
(surveyed) control points provided by MCB Camp Lejeune to create an accurate map of
wetlands within the proposed range area.
The delineation study revealed that within the 1150 acre survey area there were 443
acres of jurisdictional wetlands (39 percent). Forest scrub-shrub wetlands accounted
for the greatest wetland acreage with 315 acres (27 percent of total-not of wetlands),
followed by scrub shrub wetlands with 59 acres (5 percent), forested wetlands with 48
acres (4 percent), and emergent wetlands with 21 acres (2 percent). There were 15
wetland cover types delineated. The greatest area (297 acres) of wetland cover type was
pine forest with gallberry or mixed bay shrubs growing on saturated sites.
An analysis of this 1150 acre rectangle was conducted to determine the best location and
design for the 740 acre MPTR. From among several alternatives, a site and design was
chosen which would minimize wetland impacts. The Corps of Engineers estimates that
there would be approximately 25 acres of wetland impacts associated with the preferred
MPTR range design (including access road to the range). A permit from the Corps of
Engineers would be required (see section 4.6, Permit Requirements and Agency
Approvals), and mitigation would be expected.
To address the mitigation requirements associated with the MPTR, and in preparation for
further GSRA development, a conceptual wetland mitigation plan has been developed.
Altered and disturbed wetlands have been selected throughout the GSRA for wetland
restoration. These drained wetlands are historic pond pine pocosin wetlands that have
been converted to plantation pine through mechanized silviculture practices, which
included implementation of drainage ditches and bedding planes to plant stands of
improved loblolly pine. One of the most highly productive soil units for the production
of loblolly pine in the GSRA is Woodington loamy fine sand. This soil is a poorly drained
soil, and it is found in broad, flat areas adjacent to the two major GSRA Pocosins and the
associated streambed pocosins. The Woodington soil series is hydric, and under normal
conditions this series supports a seasonally saturated wetland system, having wetland
hydrology present throughout the months of December through May of each year.

The same soil properties of the Woodington soil series which facilitated easy hydrologic
manipulation for plantation pine management will also allow for relatively easy wetland
hydrology restoration. A strategic hydrologic monitoring plan has been implemented
throughout these drained wetland areas that have been converted to pine plantation.
Hydrologic monitoring wells will be strategically placed along carefully planned
transects to measure and record the existing water table to verify whether or not
wetland hydrology is present on these sites. In those areas in which wetland hydrology is
4-7
found not to be present, a site-specific wetland restoration plan will be developed.
Restoration of wetland hydrology would be accomplished by a combination of plugging
ditches, which would eliminate the wetland drain, and by cutting the planted pine, which
would eliminate the hydrologic pump. It is anticipated that these actions would result in
the restoration of wetland hydrology. The monitoring wells shall remain in place to
verify the wetland hydrologic restoration success. No further restorative measures
should be required to restore wetland functions since hydric soil is present and
hydrophytic vegetation already exists in the understory. It is anticipated that the
Marine Corps would mitigate for wetland impacts resulting from the construction of the
MPTR by restoring previously drained wetlands at a minimum of a 2:1 mitigation ratio.
The Corps of Engineers has provided recommendations concerning wetlands mitigation
and the development of a wetlands mitigation banking program within the GSRA. For the
initial banking effort, an extensively drained 800+ acre site underlain with hydric soil
has been identified in the southeastern quadrant of the GSRA as a potential area for the
wetlands mitigation bank. Studies are being conducted to determine the potential wetland
restoration acreage within the bank. The Corps of Engineers has noted a willingness to
accept the conceptual mitigation banking plan with regard to the construction of the
MPTR, and when established, the wetlands impacts will be debited from the mitigation
bank. (Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, letter of 11 February 1994).
A potential area of concern associated with the operation of the proposed MPTR is that
tank and infantry training activities occurring at military installations with similar
physiography to that of the GSRA have resulted in erosion and sedimentation impacts in
adjacent wetlands. Mitigation measures, which could include vegetative buffer zones,
silt fences, check dams and sedimentation basins, are noted in the present project design
(35 percent Design), and a comprehensive erosion control plan would be required as
part of the State stormwater certification and construction permit process.
4.1.11 Exemplary Natural Areas
The three exemplary natural areas identified within the GSRA (NHP Inventory, Jul.,
1993) include the Pocosin Wetlands (two large basins), an area in the vicinity of
Padgett Swamp Road, and an area along the South Bay Road (Figure 2-2). Only the
Northern Pocosin and the Padgett Swamp Road areas would potentially be affected by the
proposed MPTR operations, as portions of these areas lie within the proposed SDZ.
Impacts would be the result of spent projectiles (non-explosive) landing in these areas.
As observed at other ranges, any damage is expected to be minimal. Benefits resulting
from limiting human access and active management and maintenance pursuant to the MCB
Camp Lejeune Natural Resource Management plan would, on balance, significantly
enhance the long term viability of these sensitive and valuable natural assets.
4.2 Man-Made Environment: Direct Effects and Mitigation Measures
Associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
4.2.1 Land Use and Policies
The construction and use of the MPTR is compatible with the Onslow County land use
classification currently applicable to the GSRA: Developed/Military Reservation. There
are no foreseeable negative impacts or conflicts with county plans or policies associated
with the MPTR.
4-8

4.2.2 Demography, Income, and Taxes
There will be no permanent impact on the local population associated with the
construction or operation of the proposed MPTR. However, since the MPTR would
provide local training that presently must be transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, the
280 military personnel who would otherwise be sent out of the area for two weeks per
year would remain that additional time in Onslow County. Local merchants would
benefit.
The construction of the proposed MPTR would locally generate a temporary increase in
construction jobs and the sale of construction materials. The budget for constructing the
proposed MPTR and support facilities is $5.3 million. The type of construction jobs that
would be generated are mostly earth moving and carpentry related, and the duration of
the construction is anticipated to be approximately 12 months. Subsequently, the
installation of the target arrays would occur under a separate budget of approximately
$1.3 million. Additionally, the related Highway Department construction of the
proposed underpasses for direct access from the main Base to the GSRA would create
additional employment. A continuing benefit from the construction and use of the
proposed MPTR would be the creation of four permanent civilian range operator and
maintenance positions, entailing an annual operations and maintenance budget of
approximately $160,000.
Activation of the proposed MPTR would, in effect, result in the reduction of potential
timber acreage within GSRA. The maneuver area and the ordnance SDZ fan-impact area,
amounting to approximately 6,600 acres, would be removed from timber management.
Thi
ld
s wou
reduce the future timber harvest and could have a limited impact on local
logging crews which would otherwise possibly receive employment. Conversely, owners
of stumpage elsewhere in the locale would benefit by increased prices and competition
for their products.
There are no discernible impacts on the local tax base related to the construction or
operation of the proposed MPTR, beyond the impacts associated with the prior purchase
by the Federal Government and removal from the county tax base of the 41,100 acre
tract (See DEIS, Vol. I, p. IV-26).
4
2
3 Utiliti
/I
f
.
.
es
n
rastructure
Electricity
The proposed MPTR would require electrical power for range equipment, lights,
communication, and heat pumps. The regional overhead 12.47 KV electrical distribution
line passing through the proposed MPTR site from north to south is scheduled to be
relocated to the east of the site, parallel to U.S. Highway 17. This electrical line would
be used to supply primary power to the range site. A pad mounted transformer would be
installed and both underground distribution lines and overhead lines would be used to
connect the automated targets and other support facilities (Planning Branch, Public
Works Office, MCB Camp Lejeune; 35 percent Design Plans). As with the movement of a
se
t
f
f
h
gmen
o
one o
t
e power lines located in the northwest quadrant of the GSRA (See,
DEIS IV-28 for a discussion of the rerouting of the western power line), movement of a
segment of the eastern power line closer to the perimeter of the GSRA and away from
potential interference with planned training evolutions is being accomplished
4-9
independent of the proposed construction of the MPTR. Requisite environmental
investigation and documentation is being accomplished separately for that project.
Water
The proposed MPTR would require water for drinking, head facilities, local fire fighting,
and emergency medical aid. Plans anticipate the digging of a well and construction of a
chlorine treatment, storage, and distribution system on site. No impacts on local water
supplies or water quality are foreseen. State permits would be required for siting and
digging the well. (See section 4.6, Permits)
Wastewater
During construction of the proposed MPTR, portable toilets would be used. Any chemical
toilet waste generated would be disposed of by the contractor in an approved method. The
plans for the proposed MPTR include permanent toilet facilities designed to service 270
people per day. Sewage is expected to be handled by a septic tank and leach field system
on site. As noted above, poor soil percolation and the high water tables that are
characteristic of 75 percent of GSRA may present problems in securing a construction
permit for a septic system to support the proposed MPTR site. If soil tests preclude a
permit, the Onslow County Land Use Plan recommends the use of package treatment
plants or innovative treatment and disposal systems such as low pressure, modified
sites, or artificial wetlands (Onslow County Planning Department, 1992 Land Use
Plan). The option to construct a sewer line to MCB Camp Lejeune is another alternative
which is contained in the draft GSRA Master Development Plan. Should a construction
permit not be available for a septic system, the noted alternatives would ensure no
adverse impacts from wastewater would occur.
Telephone
Telephone service is required for the proposed MPTR. Plans for telephone service to the
proposed range include extending the fiber-optic line that now runs from New River to
the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune across U.S. Highway 17 at Moores Ridge Road
to the range headquarters building. A buried telephone cable would be installed to
connect the proposed MPTR with the range headquarters control box. No adverse impacts
are foreseen from the telephone connections.
4.2.4 Ground Traffic
The proposed MPTR would cause increased road traffic in the local area during the
construction phase and later, to a lesser extent, during range operations. During the
construction phase, construction fill dirt, gravel, and other construction materials
would have to be trucked to the proposed site. The greatest impact would come from the
fill dirt requirement which would be trucked from a borrow pit in the Verona Loop area
of MCB Camp Lejeune. An estimated 70,580 cubic yards of fill, entailing 6,000-
10,000 dump truck loads (depending on truck size), would have to cross U.S. Highway
17 from MCB Camp Lejeune to the Reys Road entrance to the GSRA. Other construction
material deliveries would use local highway routes. During construction, customary
signage and flagmen, in conjunction with scheduling to avoid undue impacts during high
local traffic times, should be initiated.
4-10
?j
`J
Should the MPTR b
ecome operational, traffic impacts would be significantly reduced.
For tank crew qualification training, the anticipated range usage would be two days per
week for 26 weeks per year (four days per month). That would entail the delivery of
two tanks and approximately 22 personnel to the proposed MPTR for the training
evolution. Two tractor trailers for the tanks and two trucks for the troops would be
required. Initially, the tanks would be trucked to the range using public highways, but
long range plans call for direct access from MCB Camp Lejeune via an underpass,
further limiting impacts on local traffic. In addition to the four days per month that the
range would be used for tank crew training, it would be used an additional day per week
for 50 weeks per year for infantry small arms training. As with the tank training, the
traffic impact to transport 35 - 40 infantry personnel and their equipment would be
three or four trucks delivering to and returning from the range by public highways.
Th
is impact would cease upon completion of the underpasses from MCB Camp Lejeune to
the GSRA.
As alluded to above, there are two future projects that will improve access to the MPTR
and reduce impact on public roads. In conjunction with a State project to widen U.S.
Highway 17, the State will construct three underpasses connecting MCB Camp Lejeune
with the GSRA.
4.2.5 Air Traffic
The liv
fi
d l
e
re an
aser training planned for the GSRA, including the proposed MPTR
,
require restricted airspace for safety. An application to the FAA has been filed (19
April 1994) by the Marine Corps requesting a 55.5 square mile, joint/intermittent
use, stratified Restricted Airspace covering the GSRA up to an altitude of 17,999 feet
MSL. The three proposed strata are: surface to 6,999 feet MSL; 7,000 to 9
999 feet
,
MSL; and 10,000 to 17,999 feet MSL. The substantive restrictions and mitigation
measures contained in the application have been developed and coordinated with the
assistance and recommendations of ARTCC Washington Center, Wilmington Approach
Control and FAA ATREP, MCAS Cherry Point. As proposed, the airspace over the GSRA
would be divided into two sector
N
th
s (
or
and South) to provide greater flexibility and
allow for less impact on the use of the V-139 Airway. For safe operation, the proposed
MPTR would only require the lowest stratification of airspace (0 to 6,999 feet MSL).
The airspace restriction would be in place from ground level to 6,999 feet MSL from
0600 to 1800, Monday through Friday. If MCB Camp Lejeune should require additional
restricted airspace strata, or additional times beyond the 0600 to 1800, Monday
through Friday, it would have to be scheduled at least 30 da
s in advanc
ith
h
F
y
e w
t
e
AA to
allow for the publication of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).
Since the lowest stratification is the one most often activated (0 to 6,999 feet MSL), all
altitudes above this level would be available for over-flight of the Restricted Airspace.
As noted above, in addition to the vertical stratifications, the Restricted Airspace is also
sectored into North and South sections to maximize flexibility. The intent of the
subdivisions is to be able to activate only those areas of the Restricted Airspace
necessary for training operations. For several hours each week the North sector would
not be activated, allowing a minimal diversion to the West of V-139. At other times,
when both sectors do not require activation, vectoring around the MCB Camp Lejeune
training areas may be accomplished with a minimum of impact on general aviation. On
the occasion of aircraft transiting which are unable to overfly, a cease fire would be
4-11
called to allow for the temporary deactivation of the Restricted Airspace during aircraft
transit. On rare occasions when other alternatives are unavailable, training operations
would be temporarily curtailed and aircraft would be diverted to the East through the
Restricted Airspace over the main MCB Camp Lejeune training areas (R5306 D/C).
Special consideration has been given to the two small private airports which have some
public use airspace which overlaps into the GSRA airspace. Impacts to Sky Manor
Airpark to the northwest and Holly Ridge Airport to the southeast would be reduced by
exempting peripheral segments of the GSRA airspace from the restricted zone to ensure
that continuous access is available to these two airports within a three mile radius, and
from ground level up to 1,500 feet MSL.
4.2.6 Noise
A noise impact analysis has been conducted for the proposed operations at the MPTR. The
operational noise information analyzed pertains to the noise impacts associated with the
120 mm main tank gun, which is the largest weapon proposed to be fired at the MPTR.
The following is a synopsis of pertinent operational data regarding the noise impacts of
the proposed MPTR:
• The range would be active for 120 mm gun firing two days per week, two hours
per day, every other week;
• Two 120 mm rounds would be fired approximately every 15 minutes for a total
of 16 rounds per day;
• Seventy five percent of live fire training would be conducted during day time
(0700 - 2200), twenty five percent of live fire training would be conducted at
night (2200 - 0700); and,
• Total 120 mm rounds per year would be 768 (730 day + 38 night).
There would be 50 caliber machine gun and small arms fire associated with the tank live
fire training, however the noise impacts from these smaller weapons fall within the
contours associated with the 120 mm gun and would not create unacceptable impacts
beyond the boundaries of the GSRA.
Using the EPA approved Day-Night Level (DNL) model noise evaluator, a noise analysis
was conducted based on the proposed weaponry (120 mm main tank gun), and the
proposed usage of a MPTR located in the northeast quadrant of the GSRA (US Army, 1993
Environmental Hygiene Agency, Bio-Acoustic Div.). In the noise impact model there is a
penalty, or bias, against night firing and the noise contours for the various noise-
compatible zones are enlarged as the percent of night firing increases. The 75 percent
day/25 percent night firing scenario analysis reflects that both sound contours for the
noise sensitive land use categories of "normally incompatible" (with residential
housing/hospitals - Zone II), and "incompatible" (with residential housing/hospitals -
Zone III) would remain within the boundaries of the GSRA (Figure 4-1).
4.2.7 Cultural Resources
The MPTR is proposed to be sited in the northeast quadrant of the GSRA and along the
eastern margin of the northern pocosin. The Acquisition EIS (DEIS, 1989 Vol. I, Sec.
III) predicted that the most probable locations for regionally significant archeological
4-12
•
f
t
t
t
t
F-
a
0
w
to
O
as
Om
d a
a
U, Z
?w
O F-
Ncc
F- O
UZ
Q
a
2
w
in
0
z
Q
0
z c o b
0 a) .= m
N a
a? E
m
U .ro?E _
aE o
CD 0 E o u
UZ
0
L am a) m w
c c c a
N00
0N
5
4J
LL
O
C
O
a
m
m
a+
LL
0
C
0
v
0 0
sites were along the northern and eastern margins of the pocosin. A limited Phase I
Archeological and Cultural Resource Study of GSRA (historic document/map research)
failed to identify any archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed MPTR. A Phase
IB Archeological Field Survey of the proposed MPTR site was conducted (Louis Berger,
Feb.-Mar 1993), but no sites were discovered within the proposed maneuver area or
support facility area. Six sites were located, as predicted, to the north of the proposed
MPTR maneuver area along the northern margin of the pocosin, generally along the
Hicks Run drainage. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, was provided a copy of the Phase 1-13 Survey, and concurred in its
conclusions and belief that the construction and operation of the proposed MPTR would
have no impact upon these sites. In order to avoid inadvertent or accidental damage
during the proposed construction of the MPTR, the six sites would be marked in the field
prior to the commencement of any construction activities. A recommendation was made
that further investigations at the six sites discovered to the north of the proposed MPTR
be postponed awaiting "completion of all survey work in the GSRA to provide optimal
contexts for developing evaluative testing plans and site data interpretation." (North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, letter of 12 August 1993). It has been
agreed that this evaluation can be delayed until after commencement of construction of
the proposed MPTR, should it be approved.
Because the Marine Corps real estate acquisition was not complete within the GSRA at the
time of the cultural resource survey of the proposed MPTR maneuver/support facility
area, the extreme western portion of the SDZ was not surveyed although the soils would
indicate a reasonable potential for cultural resources. Now that acquisition is complete,
archeological surveys in that area, which is far removed from the proposed
maneuver/support facility area of the MPTR, are scheduled to commence in July 1994.
Any discoveries will be coordinated with the SHPO, although no impacts from the
construction or operation of the proposed MPTR are foreseen.
Associated with the construction of the proposed MPTR would be a construction fill
borrow pit in the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune. An archaeological field survey
was also conducted of this proposed 55 acre tract with no sites discovered (Ogden, Jul.,
1993, Appendix D).
With regard to cultural resources within the GSRA in general, and the overall plans for
military development within the GSRA, a programmatic agreement is being negotiated
among the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and MCB Camp Lejeune.
The programmatic agreement will provide that prior to any actual ground-breaking
activities associated with GSRA development, proper cultural resource surveys will be
completed in those areas of moderate to high potential for cultural resources which may
be impacted by planned development. The results of these future surveys will be
coordinated with the SHPO prior to the construction of any proposed ranges or associated
training facilities.
4.2.8 Safety
Ordnance
The proposed MPTR would provide a live fire training facility for the 120 mm main tank
gun (using non-explosive Training Practice Rounds), the 50 caliber and 7.62 mm
machine gun, the 5.56 mm rifle, and the 9 mm pistol. Other incendiary devices which
4-14

may be used on the range include tracer rounds, smoke grenades, booby-trap
simulators, and hand-held illumination. Safety and standard operating procedures
(SOPs) exist for these weapons and devices, and site-specific procedures would be
developed for the individual range operation, as required by Marine Corps regulations
(MCO P3570.1 A/AR 385-63).
r Target design, the SDZ, and restricted airspace will be established to provide safe range
operations. GSRA presently has "No Trespassing" boundary signs posted every 200 feet
prohibiting entry by unauthorized personnel, and prior to range operation, the
maneuver area and the SDZ would have additional warning signs, barriers and range
guards, as required by Marine Corps regulations (MCO P3570.1 A/AR 385-63).
Lasers
The standard, unshielded laser range finders on the M1 Al tank can injure the
unprotected eyes of individuals viewing the direct laser beam or a reflected beam. A flat,
mirror-like surface, such as water or glass, is an efficient reflector, and the eye hazard
is maintained for considerable distance. If an individual is using magnifying optics
(binoculars), the hazardous distances are increased. The GSRA was recommended as a
preferred site for the proposed MPTR because, among other things, there were no large
bodies of water or other reflective surfaces similar to those found on MCB Camp
Lejeune, and the remoteness of the area further reduced the potential danger to
individuals who might inadvertently view a reflected laser beam. The Marine Corps has
recently approved the use of a laser filter (ESSLR Eye-Safe Laser Filter, or ELF) to
counter the eye hazards associated with the laser range finder. This device is a filter
which reduces the strength of the laser so that there is no hazard to personnel in the
vicinity. There is a proposal that all laser range finder use at the proposed MPTR will
employ the ELF, however, the range of the laser is reduced when it is attached. There
may be some training (such as when target acquisition must be greater than 1600
meters) when the ELF would not be used.
A laser range certification of the proposed MPTR would be required before laser
operations would be authorized. The certification process would review hazards and
include mitigation measures that would be required. Laser warning signs and barriers
would be placed around the boundary of the range in accordance with Marine Corps
regulations (MCO P3570.1A/AR 385-63 and AR 385-30) (See section 4.6, Permits).
Range Access Control
The acquisition of the GSRA and integration of the tract into MCB Camp Lejeune resulted
in the exclusion of the general public from what is now a military reservation. The
proposed construction of the MPTR does not alter the prohibited access to the area.
Requisite signage, barricades and patrols should be provided to ensure public awareness
and safety.
4.2.9 Contamination
No existing contamination has been discovered within the vicinity of the proposed MPTR
and support facility area. Additionally, since there would be no vehicle maintenance,
other than emergency repair, and no vehicle or tank washing conducted on the site, there
exists little probability that any significant environmental contamination would be a
4-15
factor at the MPTR. However, a normal operation associated with vehicles which has the
potential for contamination is the filling of fuel tanks. If fueling vehicles on site
becomes a requirement, this procedure would require planning and the development of a
spill response plan for the proposed MPTR. No surface water contamination is expected
as a result of the non-explosive ordnance (steel or copper-jacketed) usage at the MPTR.
4.3 Direct Effects and Mitigation Measures Associated
with Alternative 2 (No Action)
The No Action alternative amounts to a continuation of the status quo, with a continued
dependence on off-base ranges such as Fort Knox, Kentucky for tank crew qualification
training. Any impacts upon the natural or man-made environments from a No Action
determination would result, generally, from the additional training evolutions and
transportation activities associated with transporting men and materiel to the off-base
facilities.
Because the No Action alternative entails no new construction, only minor physical
impacts to the natural environment (See, sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.11 above for
categories of concern) would be felt at off-base locations. Existing natural resource
management programs at the off-base training facilities are assumed to be adequate to
handle the added training pressures that MCB Camp Lejeune must now export. Regarding
impacts to the man-made environment (See, sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.9 above for
categories of concern), the existing training facilities at any off-base sites to which the
tank crews are sent would be capable of assimilating the MCB Camp Lejeune training
requirements with only minor operational impacts. Ground traffic associated with the
off-base movement of tanks and personnel, and the added noise generated during the
training, are the two areas in which the most impact would be realized, however, these
impacts would be minor. In summary, all existing impacts associated with the status quo
(the No Action alternative) are believed to be minor and within the design capacity of the
receiving facilities.
4.4 Cumulative Impacts
A regional analysis was conducted of the potential cumulative effects of Department of the
Navy and Department of the Air Force proposals on the coastal region of North Carolina.
This analysis is contained in the Acquisition EIS (See, DEIS, Vol. II, and FEIS, Appendices
B and C), is broad in scope, and addresses the socioeconomic, safety and environmental
effects associated with the existing and proposed military facilities, including air and
surface water training areas, on, above, and adjacent to the coast of North Carolina. This
analysis focuses, to a large extent, on the impacts of restricted airspace and aircraft
noise on the North Carolina coastal region, but it also includes the (then proposed)
expansion of MCB Camp Lejeune through the purchase of the GSRA.
The cumulative effects analysis in the Acquisition EIS determined the regional
socioeconomic, safety and natural environmental baselines, but recognized that specific
future projects, before they could proceed, would require the collection of additional
data, focused analysis, and then specific decisions respecting project design, modification
and/or mitigation measures to minimize negative impacts. This EA, as a follow-on
document to the parent document in a tiered process, analyzes the Proposed Action, and
4-16

l
bl
f
l
a
so reasona
y
oreseeab
e actions associated with the development of the GSRA, within
the context of that regional perspective.
B
i
h
A
i
i
i
EIS
l
i
y us
ng t
e
cqu
s
t
on
cumu
at
ve effects methodology to measure the impacts
associated with the expansion of MCB Camp Lejeune through the acquisition and
development of the GSRA (both the Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable actions),
the important issues can be organized and analyzed. It must be noted, however, that
many of the "reasonably foreseeable actions" of today are in the conceptual stage and
may or may not come to fruition for any number of reasons, including the uncertainties
of the government funding process or the results of the environmental analysis.
Additional study will be required as the various proposals to develop the GSRA go
forward.
In assessing the regional cumulative effects, the Acquisition EIS discussed the following
impacts/issues which pertain to the development and use of the GSRA, and this EA has
added two additional impacts/issues - weapons-related noise and cultural resources -
for consideration and analysis:
Generation of Jobs. A recognized positive cumulative effect of the military presence in
the region is the creation of jobs, and an indirect benefit to the regional retail economy.
The Proposed Action (MPTR) would create a number of temporary construction jobs, if
built, and would employ four full-time range attendants if completed. The draft Master
Development Plan for the GSRA foresees the construction of up to nine additional ranges,
and the creation of jobs (number unknown), both temporary and permanent, would have
similar positive regional cumulative aspects.
Perception of Loss of Airspace. The Acquisition EIS (DEIS, 1989, Vol. II, Sec. VIII) notes
that a negative socioeconomic impact may be created by a misconception among some
commercial or recreational aircraft pilots that all Military Special Use Areas (MSUAs
which include Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Restricted Areas) must be avoided at
all times, and that any additional MSUA represents an incremental total loss of available
airspace for civilian travel. A dominant impact associated with the proposed MPTR, and
the other foreseeable development for the GSRA, is the requirement for restricted
airspace to allow for live fire training and laser range finder use. The airspace
requirement for the proposed MPTR, as previously discussed, and for future
development of additional GSRA ranges, would normally be from ground level to 6,999
feet MSL. This 6,999 foot requirement is based on the fact that no indirect fire weapons
(artillery, mortars) are currently planned for use in the GSRA. However, if indirect
fire weapons should be introduced into the GSRA training scenario, additional strata of
restricted airspace would be required, and eventually could require up to 17,999 feet
MSL above the GSRA. While the negotiations with the FAA regarding the establishment of
an additional restricted airspace for the GSRA operations have concentrated on mitigation
measures to lessen the negative impacts on the coastal North Carolina area, there will
be, nevertheless, an increase in the existing negative regional impact associated with
restricted air space.
Potential for Aircraft Collisions/Crashes. While the Proposed Action (MPTR) has no
potential for aircraft collisions/crashes, the planned construction of another, larger
multipurpose range complex in the future, which would include the addition of one low-
level helicopter operating with tanks and infantry, would provide a potential for such an
event. Public concern about collisions/crashes is considered to be a regionally
4-17
significant indirect negative cumulative impact, although the location of any potential
crash would be in the interior of the GSRA, and the fact that civilian aircraft would be
excluded from the area during training would reduce the actual danger to the civilian
community. The added cumulative impact would be small.
Control of Airspace and Public Safety. The increased safety resulting from the charting
of any restricted airspace associated with the Proposed Action (MPTR), and subsequent
GSRA development, is considered to be a direct positive regional cumulative impact.
Aircraft Noise. The Proposed Action (MPTR) would present no aircraft noise impacts,
however, there would be some low-level helicopter flights associated with the planned
development elsewhere in the GSRA. As noted above, the additional aircraft noise would
be associated with one low-level helicopter operating with tanks and infantry on the
ground, and though minor, it would amount to an additive cumulative impact. Until a
range design and associated data regarding the localized impacts of the potential aircraft
noise are developed, aircraft noise cumulative impacts cannot be accurately stated.
However, it is Marine Corps policy to avoid or mitigate to the maximum extent possible
any adverse effects associated with training operations.
Weapons-Related Noise. A cumulative noise impact study was conducted by the US Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency, Bio-Acoustics Division, for the entire GSRA, including
the anticipated training regimen of the proposed MPTR and for an array of nine future
ranges which may be subsequently constructed within the GSRA (Figure 4-2). This
analysis incorporated two major decisions affecting the noise picture for the planned
GSRA development: the first is that no indirect-fire weapons (artillery/mortars)
would be utilized within the planned GSRA range complex; the second is that no explosive
ordnance would be fired. These decisions have effectively erased the noise concerns
stated in the Acquisition EIS (See, FEIS, Appendix A) which centered on the impacts of
artillery and mortar positions sited very close to the boundary of the GSRA.
Additionally, without explosive ordnance being used, the effect of secondary explosions
associated with ordnance impact areas is also eliminated.
The cumulative noise analysis does not change the anticipated noise impacts of the
proposed MPTR. For noise associated with the proposed MPTR, neither the noise contour
for Zone II (Normally incompatible with residential/hospital land use) nor Zone III
(Incompatible with residential/hospital land use) extends beyond the boundary of the
GSRA. Additionally, the noise analysis for the entire GSRA, based on the present GSRA
future development concept, shows that the noise contours for Zones II and III remain
within Marine Corps property. In the northeast quadrant of the GSRA, the Zone II
contour line does extend over U.S. Highway 17, however, the property on both sides of
the roadway in that area is Marine Corps property and not available for residential use.
In any event, however, there will be an increase in cumulative negative impact as a
result of creating additional noise sources within the GSRA, and it must be considered a
direct, negative regional cumulative effect.
Protection of Endangered Species. Regarding the Proposed Action (MPTR), no Federally
endangered or threatened species impacts are anticipated, although there is the potential
that some Federal Candidate species may be affected. There is a requirement to confer
with the USFWS regarding these impacts. With respect to future development elsewhere
in the GSRA, and the additional ranges and facilities that may be built, there will be a
requirement to accurately identify and assess the potential impacts of the planned ranges
4-18
m m= r r= m m r r m= r r m== w w

and facilities. Appropriate consultations/conferences would be conducted with Federal
authorities to develop appropriate mitigation measures. Despite the localized negative
impacts that would result from the planned development of the GSRA (ranges, roads,
etc.), the overall positive effect on numerous rare species through habitat creation,
management, and maintenance would prove to be a net positive cumulative effect. In fact,
the protection and management afforded endangered species on military installations is
nationally significant and is considered a direct positive regional cumulative effect.
Wetlands. Based on the recent wetlands delineation (Spring 1994) conducted in the
northeast quadrant of the GSRA to enable an informed siting and range design for the
MPTR, it is estimated by the Corps of Engineers that approximately 25 acres of wetlands
will be impacted by the construction of the range. In choosing the site and actual range
design (placement of roads and targets), maximum avoidance of wetlands was a driving
factor in the process. In conjunction with the development of the GSRA for military use,
a wetlands mitigation banking program is being established, and some of the previously
altered or damaged wetlands which suffered as a result of the prior timber management
in the GSRA will be restored. The wetlands impacts associated with the MPTR would be
mitigated through the use of the wetlands mitigation bank at a minimum of a 2:1
mitigation ratio. Nevertheless, the Acquisition EIS recognized that even if the filling of
wetlands is mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, the filling of wetlands is
considered regionally significant because of the national importance currently afforded
wetlands preservation. The fill of any wetlands is considered a direct negative regional
cumulative effect.
For the future development of the GSRA, it is recognized that there will be unavoidable
wetlands impacts connected with the anticipated development and construction of other
ranges elsewhere in the GSRA, but the true amount of wetlands which will have to be
filled will not be known until actual range designs are completed and a site-specific
analysis of delineated wetlands is conducted. Overall GSRA development will be planned
and operated with the underlying policy of avoidance of any wetland impacts, if possible,
and mitigation to the maximum extent when avoidance is not possible. Close coordination
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina will be
accomplished.
Exemplary Natural Areas: The State of North Carolina, Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Natural Heritage Program (NHP) prepared a
comprehensive inventory of rare species, natural communities, and critical habitats of
the entire GSRA (NHP Inventory, Jul., 1993). Few high quality, little-disturbed
natural communities remain in the GSRA as a result of the previous timber operations.
However, three exemplary natural areas within the GSRA of sufficient size and quality to
be recommended for special attention and protection were identified. These areas are the
Pocosin Basins (north and south), an area in the vicinity of Padgett Swamp Road, and an
area in the vicinity of the South Bay Road. While portions of the northern pocosin and
the Padgett Swamp Road area fall within the SDZ fan associated with the proposed MPTR,
any measurable impact or damage in these areas from training operations at the
proposed MPTR, including damage from spent projectiles, is considered extremely
remote. In fact, the overall cumulative effects of MCB Camp Lejeune's natural resource
management program respecting these three relatively undisturbed areas is believed to
be positive. Limited human access and positive resource management should contribute

4-21
to the long term viability of these natural areas and is considered a direct positive
regional cumulative effect.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resource surveys have been completed for the Proposed
Action (MPTR), including a construction fill borrow pit area, with negative results.
Any other development within the GSRA would also be preceded by required cultural
resource surveys. A Programmatic Agreement among MCB Camp Lejeune, The Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) is under preparation. This Programmatic Agreement will ensure that a cultural
resource survey is conducted of potentially affected areas prior to the commencement of
any land disturbing activities. The protection and management afforded cultural
resources on military property is nationally significant and considered a direct positive
regional cumulative effect.
4.5 Possible Conflicts with Federal, State, Local Land Use Plans,
Policies and Controls
A thorough analysis of possible conflicts with Federal, State and local laws, plans and
policies concerning not only the acquisition of the GSRA, but also for the stated purpose
of expanding the MCB Camp Lejeune training mission into the tract, is contained in the
Acquisition EIS (DEIS, Vol. I, IV-36). The MPTR impacts are consistent with the
development concept and planned uses included in that analysis, and it has been
determined that no such conflicts exist.
4.6 Permit Requirements and Agency Approvals
4.6.1 Wastewater
If the Marine Corps chooses to pursue installation of a wastewater system utilizing
subsurface ground absorption (leach fields), then a permit would be obtained from the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Health, On-site Wastewater Section. All non
municipal facilities treating domestic wastewater with design flows of 100,000 gallons
per day (GPD) or less are required to pay a $75.00 application processing fee.
Additionally, the Marine Corps would submit a soil evaluation of the disposal site
conducted by a soils scientist to adequately evaluate the soils to be utilized for treatment
and disposal down to a depth of seven feet; submit plans of the complete system including
plan and profile and cross section views for all relevant system components; provide a
map of the site, with topographic contour intervals not exceeding two feet, and showing
all structures and wells, springs, lakes, ponds, or other surface drainage features
within 500 feet of the site; and, information on the location, construction, and primary
usage of all wells within 500 feet of the site, and the degree of treatment.
4.6.2 Point Source and Stormwater Permits
In the state of North Carolina, permits are required from the State for any stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity. Runoff not meeting the definition of
"associated with industrial activity" may require permits if the Director of the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management determines that water quality standards
may be violated. All state fresh surface waters are subject to standards that apply to
Class C (protected for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life including
4-22

propagation and survival) waters. This requirement includes the presence of high levels
of dissolved solids. Due to the activities which could be expected to occur on the GSRA,
both stormwater and flow discharge from the proposed MPTR areas may require National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and monitoring to ensure that
off-site surface water quality will not suffer degradation due to the introduction of
contaminants and silt generated by training activities.
Because the proposed MPTR, and also the construction fill borrow pit, would entail
construction and disturbance of more than five acres (technically an "industrial
activity"), a construction permit would be required from the State. Also, because
Onslow County is one of the coastal counties of North Carolina, an added State Stormwater
Certificate would be required if construction in the proposed MPTR area creates more
than one acre of impervious surface
.
4.6.3 Drinking Water/Wellhead Protection

The construction of water wells is regulated by the state of North Carolina. Prior to
installing a drinking water well anywhere within the GSRA, the Marine Corps would
obtain a construction permit from the Wilmington Regional Water Quality Office of the
Division of Environmental Management. The Regional Water Quality Office will need to
know what the well's intended purpose is, expected volume required, and other physical
data. This information would be provided in a construction permit application and
submitted to the regional office.
4.6.4 Wetlands
Based upon the wetlands delineation of the proposed MPTR site, the Corps of Engineers
estimates that approximately 25 acres of wetlands would be affected. This will require
the issuance of a Section 404 permit through the Corps of Engineers. The Section 404
permit is required whenever there is discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands
or navigable waters. Under the Clean Water Act, the discharge of dredged or fill material
means the addition of fill material into U.S. waters, and includes placement of fill that is
necessary for the construction of any structure or impoundment requiring rock, sand,
dirt, or other materials for its construction; site development fills for various uses;
causeways or road fills; and dams or dikes. Prior to applying to the Army Corps of
Engineers for a Section 404 permit, the Marine Corps would first obtain a Section 401
Water Quality Certification from North Carolina. State certification ensures that the
proposed activity or conduct will not result in discharges that may adversely affect U.S.
navigable waters, and that all proposed activities will comply with applicable provisions
of the Federal Clean Water Act and State standards.

4.6.5 Restricted Airspace
FAA approval is being sought for restricted airspace above the GSRA.
4.6.6 Laser Range Certification
Certification of the proposed MPTR as a laser approved range would be obtained through
the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command.
1 4-23
4.6.7 Federally Endangered/Threatened Species
With respect to Federally listed Endangered or Threatened species (i.e., rough-leafed
loosestrife), potential adverse impacts require consultation with the USFWS pursuant to
Section 7, Endangered Species Act. This has been accomplished with regard to the rough-
leaved loosestrife, and a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS letter of
15 November 1993) indicates concurrence with the opinion that the construction of the
proposed MPTR would have no effect on known locations of the Federally listed plant, and
that through active fire control, the Marine Corps' operation of the proposed range is not
likely to adversely affect the plant. If a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a Federal Candidate protected species, or one proposed for
candidacy, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species critical
habitat, the USFWS must be conferred with. Unlike the formalized consultation process,
Federal agencies are not prohibited from making irretrievable commitment of resources
once beginning the conferring process. A conference generally consists of informal
discussions resulting in the USFWS making recommendations on appropriate agency
actions.
4-24

1 5.0 DATA SOURCES
Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, 1990, Quantifying Environmental Noise Through
Automated Monitoring: Case Studies from US Military Community, Mannheim,
Germany (draft). Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Prepared for USACE, Water
Resources Support Center Institute for Water Resources.
Army National Guard Bureau and Mississippi Army National Guard, 1991, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Military Training Use of National Forest
Lands, Camp Shelby, Mississippi.
Avolis Engineering, P.A., 1992 Preliminary Report Borrow Pit Site Investigation for
Greater Sandy Run Area, Engineering Study 92-33, Prepared for MCB Camp
Lejeune.
Doerr, Walters, and Carter, 1989, "Reoccupation of Abandoned Clusters of Cavity Trees
(Colonies) by Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers," in Procedures, Annual Conference
Southeast Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 43:326-336.
l
d
an an
Ebasco Environmental, Apr., 1993, Draft Wetlands Management P
Mitigation/Mitigation Banking Plan for Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina.
EDAW, Inc., Jul., 1993, Draft Greater Sandy Run Master Development Plan, Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Federal Register 3 Oct. 1991, Record of Decision to Expand the Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune, Onslow County, NC. dated 18 Sept. 91.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 1990, Sections 401 and 404.
General Statutes of North Carolina, 1989, Chapter 130A, Public Health, Article 10-
North Carolina Drinking Water Act.
Geophex, Ltd., 1992 Wellhead Management Program Engineering Study 91-36,
Prepared for MCB Camp Lejeune.
Gunn, Joel, & Christopher T. Espenshade, 1990, Site Specific Survey of Twelve Sites,
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC & USMC.
Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc., 1985, Special Training Analysis Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. Memphis, Tennessee.
Kimmel, Richard H. & Alison L. Arnold, 1988, Historic Preservation Plan, Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Supplement I. Prepared for
Headquarters, USMC, Washington, DC.

5-1
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., Jul. 1992, Cultural Resources Research Proposal,
Greater Sandy Run Acquisition Area, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Onslow
County, North Carolina. Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Wilmington, NC & USMC.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., Apr. 1993, Phase IB Cultural Resource Investigations,
Greater Sandy Run Acquisition Area, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Onslow
County, North Carolina. Prepared for US Department of the Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History,
letter of 12 August 1993 concerning Phase 1-B Survey of Northeast GSRA.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Jul. 1993, Inventory of the Rare Species,
Natural Communities and Critical Habitats of the Great Sandy Run Area, Camp
Lejeune.
North Carolina Administrative Code
1993, Title 15A, Subchapter 2C, Section .0100, "Well Construction Standards."
1990, Title 15, Chapter 2, Subchapter 2H, "Procedures for Permits, Approvals."
Onslow County Planning Department, Feb. 1992, Land Use Plan, 1991 Update, Onslow
County, North Carolina, Final Draft.
Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. 1991, Reducing Environmental Noise
Impacts: A USAREUR Noise Management Program Handbook. Prepared for USACE,
Water Resources Support Center Institute for Water Resources.
Poplin, Eric C. & David C. Jones, 1992, Intensive Sample Survey and Data Recovery at
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina. Prepared for US
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina &
USMC, by Brockington and Associates, Inc..
Potter, E. F.; Parnell, J. F.; Teulings, R. P., 1980, Birds of the Carolinas, The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Richardson, C.J. ed., 1981, Pocosin Wetlands: An Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain
Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg,
PA.
The Environmental Company, Inc., Jul. 1993, Archaeological Surface Examination and
Subsurface Testing of a Proposed Borrow Pit Site, Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, 1990, "Natural Heritage Inventory
Agreement between N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; and Marine Corps Base,
Camp Lejeune."
5-2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, letter of 11 February 1994
addressing wetlands delineation in GSRA and Wetlands Mitigation Banking Plan.
U.S. Army, 1993, Environmental Hygiene Agency, Bio-Acoustic Division, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Md., GSRA Noise Contour Overlays
U.S. Army, Safety Color Code Marking and Signs., AR 385-30, Washington, DC.
U.S. Army (TRADOC) and U.S. Marine Corps 1983, Policies and Procedures for Firing
Ammunition for Training, Target Practice, and Combat. AR 385-63, MCO
P3570.1 A, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), 1981, Airfield and Heliport Planning Criteria. AFR
86-14/TM 5-803-7/NAVFAC P-971, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20 Aug.
1992, Charlotte Sectional Aeronautical Chart 1:500,000. Interagency Air
Cartographic Committee.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, N.C., letter of 15
November 1993 reporting on consultations concerning Federally listed endangered
species.
U.S. Geological Survey,
1970, Holly Ridge Quadrangle. Department of the Interior.
1971, Sneads Ferry Quadrangle. Department of the Interior.
1978, Jacksonville South Quadrangle. Department of the Interior.
1981, Folkstone Quadrangle. Department of the Interior.
1981, Haws Run Quadrangle. Department of the Interior.
1983, Maple Hill 1:50,000. Defense Mapping Agency.
1972, New River 1:50,000. Defense Mapping Agency.
U.S. Marine Corps, 15 Nov. 1983, Marine Corps Order P3570.1A/AR 385-63, Policies
and Procedures for Firing Ammunition for Training, Target Practice, and Combat.

U.S. Marine Corps, 26 Sep. 1992, Marine Corps Order P5090.2, Environmental
Compliance and Protection Manual.

U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
1988, Camp Lejeune Complex Master Plan and Capital Improvements Plan Update.
1991, Draft Environmental Compliance Plan 1991-1996.
1991, BO 11000.1C, Environmental Impact Review Procedures.
5-3
1992, Environmental Management Program.
25 Mar. 1992, Bul 3502, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Training Support
Plan.
1987, Multiple-Use Natural Resources Management Plan.
1992, Scope of Work, Environmental Assessment Project P-949, Multipurpose
Training Range for the Greater Sandy Run Area.
1993, Wetland Management Plan for Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune.
U.S. Navy, 11 Apr. 1988, OPNAVISNT 11010.36A, Air Installations Compatible Use
Zones (AICUZ).
21 Dec. 1988, OPNAVINNT 5530.14B
U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command:
Jul. 1989, DEIS, Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina.
May 1991, FEIS Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, NC.
Parametric Estimating and Programming (PEP) for MCON P-949, FY-94
July 1993, Design Analysis (35% Design Submittal), Multipurpose Training
Range FY-94, Project P-949, located at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina.
Wetland Delineation of P-949 MPTR, MCB Camp Lejeune/GSRA, Jacksonville,
North Carolina Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc., 1994
Wayne, Lucy B. & Martin F. Dickinson, 1987, Historic Preservation Plan, Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. Report prepared by Water and Air Research, Inc. for US
Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta & USMC.
Weston, Roy F., Inc., Jan. 1992, Environmental Engineering Phase 11 Real Estate
Survey In Support of FY 92 MCON Project P869.
5-4

APPENDIX A
LIST OF PREPARERS

u

t
t

i

11

A. LIST OF PREPARERS

The following is a list of persons who contributed to the preparation of this
Environmental Assessment for co nstructing and operating a Multipurpose Training
Range, MILCON P-949, in the Greater Sandy Run Area of MCB Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina.

Richard Heiderstadt, A.I.C.P. Project Director
Craig T. Vanderhoef, J.D. Project Manager
Jack Wilson, P.E. Environmental Engineer
Lesley Hamilton Environmental Engineer
McDewain Sandlin Land Use Planner
Jason Strayer Biologist
Lewis Albee Biologist
Amy Frescoln Biologist
Edward Dinwiddle Technical Editing/Graphics
Anne Tate Technical Editing/Graphics

hi

A-1

APPENDIX B
LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

7

B. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
I MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
T
B i
l M
E
t
t
arbee
om ronmen
anagemen
nv
a
Joe Ramirez Operations and Training
Capt Russ Smith Range Safety
Peter Black Environmental Management
Lt Col Dave Mercier Eastern Area Counsel Office
Maj Bob Conway Eastern Area Counsel Office
Charles Peterson Environmental Management
L
l B
C
R
d ti
d T
i
i
O
t
o
ruce
ee pera
ons an
ra
n
ng
Maj Jay Farrar Public Affairs
Don Haschagen Range Control
Paul Schonfield Environmental Management
John Hammond Environmental Management
Peggy Briley Public Works
Bob Warren Environmental Management
St
Mik T
i
i
d O
ti
even
o ra
n
ng an
pera
ons
Rachel Johnson Environmental Management
Debra Pickett Environmental Management
Maj Glen Kelly Eastern Area Counsel Office
Larry Brant Public Works
F. E. Cone Public Works
Julian Wooten Environmental Management

Brynn Ashton Environmental Management

B-1
ATLANTIC DIVISION - NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMAND, NORFOLK,
VIRGINIA
Contact Department
Pam Anderson Facilities Planning and Real Estate
Dan Cecchini Facilities Planning and Real Estate
John Reuther Facilities Planning and Real Estate
Nat Grace Real Estate, GSRA Field Office
Matthew Kurtz Real Estate, GSRA Field Office
MCAS NEW RIVER
Bob Livingston Airfield Operations
MCAS CHERRY POINT
Bill Rogers Game Warden
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Richard Lewis Environmental Support
Colemen Long Environmental Support
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MOBILE DISTRICT
Carol Cromer Environmental Support
Robert Beacham Environmental Support
ONSLOW COUNTY OFFICE
Brad Nofzinger Planning
HOLLY RIDGE
Gregory Hines Mayor
B-2
t
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Linda Pearsall Adminstrator
Richard LeBlond Endangered Species
LOUIS BERGER AND ASSOCIATES
William Reid
Kay Simpson
John Eppley
EBASCO ENVIRONMENTAL
Lee Andrews
EDAW, INC.
Richard Dorrier
Joseph Cloud
Joel Putterman
Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology
B-3

APPENDIX C
BORROW PIT
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY

F,

¦

t
ri

L

•

BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
TO CHARACTERIZE VEGETATIVE COVER,
DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF
THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES, AND
LOCATE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
WITHIN A PROPOSED BORROW PIT SITE
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA

September 1993
t
Prepared for:
ATLANTIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
Norfolk, Virginia
Point of Contact: Mr. Dan Cecchini
[phone]
red b
P
repa
y:
The Environmental Company, Inc.
1230 Cedars Court, Suite 100
P.O. Box 5127
Charlottesville, VA 22905

Contract No. N62470-90-D-7696
Deliver
Order 0005
y

¦
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background .........................................................................1
1.2 Project Objective ............................................................................1
2.0 Methodology .................................................................................................3
2.1 Description of the Project Area ......................................................3
2.2 Field Survey Methods ......................................................................3
2.2.1 Vegetation Survey Methods ................................................ 5
2.2.2 Wildlife Survey Methods ................................................... 6
3.0 Survey Results ..........................................................................................1 1
3.1 Vegetation ......................................................................................1 1
3.2 Wildlife .........................................................................................12
3.3 Wetlands ........................................................................................14
4.0 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................14
5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................1 5
6.0 References .................................................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
1 . Proposed Borrow Pit Site #5 .........................................................2
2. Biological Survey Grid ....................................................................4
3. Modified Belted Transect Survey .................................................... 7
4. Vegetation Sampling ........................................................................ 8
5. Vegetative Communities .................................................................. 9
6. Wildlife Observation Survey ........................................................1 0
7. Known Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Territory ................................1 3

¦
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background
The Marine Corps has recently purchased approximately 41,100 acres of land which is
known as the Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) of Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. This land was acquired to provide an area for the expansion of
existing training facilities at MCB Camp Lejeune. Various ranges and other training
related facilities are proposed to be constructed throughout the GSRA property.
Substantial amounts of fill material will be required for roads, parking lots, berms, and
other uses as part of the planned GSRA development. It is estimated that approximately
1,000,000 cubic yards of fill material may ultimately be required to support full
development of the GSRA. At this stage in the planning process, however, only about
500,000 cubic yards of material is required. This study is part of an effort to identify a
source or sources of fill material which will meet the near-term needs of GSRA
development.
Preliminary borrow pit site selection was conducted by Avolis Engineering, P.A. in
November, 1992, and documented in the Preliminary Report. Borrow Pit Site
Investigation for Greater Sandy Run Area. Engineering Study 92-33 (henceforth,
"Preliminary Report"). The siting selection criteria specified that the borrow pit(s)
be located in the Verona Loop area of MCB Camp Lejeune, and that impacts to training
areas, wetlands, archaeological and historic resources, and endangered and threatened
species be minimized. The Verona Loop area was chosen as a general location for
potential borrow material because it is located adjacent to the GSRA, is part of MCB
Camp Lejeune, and is currently used as a Marine Corps training area, thus minimizing
potential human conflicts.
The Preliminary Report identified a 55 acre site, known as Site #5 in the Preliminary
Report, adjacent to Haws Run Road in the Verona Loop training area of MCB Camp
Lejeune (Fig. 1). Site #5 is estimated to contain approximately 532,000 cubic yards
of suitable fill material, and was chosen by MCB Camp Lejeune engineering staff as a
1 primary site for further evaluation as a borrow material source for GSRA.
1.2 Project Objective
This biological survey was conducted to provide additional data regarding the
environmental suitability of Site #5 for use as a borrow pit for GSRA development. The
specific objectives of the survey were as follows:
• Generally characterize the vegetative cover of the proposed borrow pit site;
• Determine the presence or absence of Federal/State threatened or endangered
s
ecies or the existen
f
it
bl
h
bit
t t
t th
i
d
p
ce o
su
a
e
a
a
o suppor
ese spec
es; an
,
• Locate environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, within the site.
O
i
f part
cular concern to the study are the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) which are
both known to be present on Camp Lejeune.

F -
CL
O
r cc
w oc
oC O
mw
Cl w in
N
O
a
O
a
N
W
rn
v ?
N
E
am
0
Z
ui
6
m Q
m ?
o
m
N
CD
>
C
m
CL
3
0
t
m
0
rJ
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Description of the Project Area
Site #5 is composed of relatively flat, well-drained forested terrain characterized by
the presence of low hills, ridges and uplands 5 to 15 feet higher in elevation than
surrounding areas. Elevations vary from 50 to 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL) over
the site. The highest elevations are on the southwest side of the site.
The majority of the site is composed of relatively dry pine forest and pine-hardwood
forest stands. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI), (Avolis 1992), jurisdictional wetlands are located at both the north-
west and south-east boundaries of the site. These known wetland areas are identified by
the NWI as Palustrine Forested Wetlands. Palustrine systems consist of all non-tidal
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs and mosses and/or lichens.
The most recent preliminary soils mapping (Avolis 1992) indicates that Site #5 is
situated within an area of predominantly Baymeade (BmB) soil type. The borehole log
from the Preliminary Report indicates a 6-foot depth to ground water. BmB soil is
identified by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as "good" for road-fill, meaning
that it contains a significant amount of sand (at least 5 feet of material), has a slope of
15% or less, and a depth to a water table of three feet or greater (US Dept. of
Agriculture 1984). Erosion hazards are listed as slight, but shallow excavations or
cut-banks are prone to caving. The SCS survey also indicates that BmB is "very poor"
habitat for wetland plants and wildlife.
No biological surveys specific to the site have been conducted prior to this survey.
2.2 Field Survey Methods
Following a vehicle tour of the area surrounding Site #5, the survey was initiated by
establishing a grid demarcated with surveyor tape and stakes to provide site orientation
and boundary limits. The grid was designed to provide access to the interior of the site,
and to support surveys of vegetation, wildlife, and potential wetland resources.
The first line of the grid to be established was an east-west transect running the width of
the site. This mid-line was consequently intersected by the placement of five north-
south transects, identified as lines A, B, C, D, and E, that extend from the Haws Run
access road to the northern bounds of the property (Fig. 2). Transecting points indicated
on the mid-line were demarcated at intervals of 220 meters with the exception of line E
which transected the mid-line 150 meters east of line D. The five north-south
transects ranged from 150 to 450 meters in length.
The survey team used a compass to obtain an east-west bearing for the mid-line and a
north-south bearing for transects A, B, C, D, and E. Measured intervals were recorded
along the A-E mid-line to determine location. The distances of intervals recorded
depended on the density of the underbrush and the ability to maintain bearings. (A
machete was used to clear some areas of particularly thick undergrowth, facilitating the
surveying process.) Stakes were driven at the beginning of the line and at the 220,
3
Q 1Q0 2r 3i 400 500
l I Scale in Meters
FIGURE 2
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY GRID

440, and 660 meter marks. Measured intervals were also recorded during the north-
south transects to determine total distances, either south to the Haws Run Road or north
to the northern boundary of the parcel.
2.2.1 Vegetation Survey Methods
The next stage of the study involved both qualitative analysis and quantitative sampling of
vegetation at the site. Results obtained from the sampling provided a general listing of
plant species, an evaluation of habitat suitability for threatened and/or endangered
species, and a preliminary identification of potential wetland communities.
The biological survey team member began the vegetation survey by walking the entire
length of the previously established grid, recording changes in vegetation and
establishing communities of individual vegetative stands. This type of vegetative
analysis is known as the releve' method (Mueller-Dombois 1974).
Releve', or sample stand" analysis, provides a systematic record of data designed to
assist in grouping vegetation into categories. The releve' record kept during the field
survey provides three basic types of information:
• COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED (Representative communities encountered during the
biological survey):
Loblolly/Longleaf nine forest: Dominated by loblolly pine (Pious taeda)
in the overstory and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) in the
understory.
Pine-Hardwood Forest: Occurs between the hardwoods associated with
bottomlands and the pure upland stands of pine. Dominant vegetation
includes loblolly pine and longleaf pine (Pious australis) with laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia) and red maple (Acer rubrum) in the canopy, and
wax myrtle and blueberry in the shrub layer.
Hardwood Bottomland Forest: Potential wetland area. Rich, moist
community of red maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos) and live oak
(Quercus virginiana) in the canopy, and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora),
fetterbush, ferns (Woodwardia ssp.) and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum
ssp.) are present throughout the understory.
Cleared Areas: The result of previous logging activities, or discontinued
roadways. Some scattered pine and/or hardwood, but generally dominated
by grasses, sedges, and various ericaceous plants such as blueberry and
gallberry (11ex glabra).
• STRATUM CATEGORIES (Vertical classification):
-Tree layer, any plant taller than 5 meters.
.? -Shrub layer, plants between 30 centimeters and 5 meters tall.
-Herb layer, from <30 centimeters to 1 meter tall.

• COVER AREA ESTIMATIONS (Species cover or abundance):
-Greater than 75% of sample area
-50-75% coverage of sample area
-25-50% coverage of sample area
-5-25% coverage of sample area
-Numerous, but less than 5%, or scattered with cover up to 5%
-Few, with small cover
-Solitary, with small cover
Once the communities encountered on-site were identified, a second field procedure was
conducted to enable the team to estimate the cover-area of each community within the
borrow pit site. Vegetation noted within a 25 meter-wide "belt" along the survey grid
was then categorized and placed within a specific community identified by the
predominant canopy species, and meeting particular criteria based on understory
vegetation (Fig. 3). These categories and criteria were established during the releve'
analysis. For instance, if loblolly pine and longleaf pine dominate the tree stratum (or
layer) and blueberry plants are scattered throughout the shrub stratum, the community
would be characterized as loblolly/longleaf pine forest. General qualitative sampling
within a belt along a transect is a modification of the Belted Transect Survey which is the
most commonly used method of sampling forested sites.
To obtain a representative sample of plant species within each vegetative community
identified by the releve' analysis, additional sampling was conducted in sites randomly
selected along the grid (Fig. 4). The communities in each of the six sites were identified,
a general inventory of species recorded, and an approximation of each species' abundance
noted. The species list also included the stratum at which each plant was most likely to
occur (i.e., tree, shrub, or herb layer).
Areas of potential wetlands were identified during the releve' analysis process and the
belted transect survey based on vegetative properties, soil characteristics, and evidence
of flooding frequencies. Indications of standing water, wetland vegetation, or saturated
soil were recorded and mapped using the formerly established grid of transects for
orientation. The data was then used along with available aerial photography to develop a
cover map (Fig. 5).
2.2.2 Wildlife Survey Methods
The final phase of the study involved the establishment of seven wildlife observation
stations along the previously surveyed grid pattern of transects (Fig. 6). These stations
were quietly attended in an effort to identify wildlife present, and to determine if
threatened or endangered animal species might inhabit the site. Observation points were
plotted based on data gathered during the vegetation survey. The vegetative survey
identified communities that could potentially be utilized by the red-cockaded woodpecker
or other species of special interest such as the black bear (Ursus americanus).
6

¦

t
w

11

r
•

Q 1f0 2r 3r 410 510
l Scale in Metiers I I
FIGURE 3
MODIFIED BELTED
TRANSECT SURVEY

0 100 2i 300 400 500
l Scale in Meters
FIGURE 4
VEGETATION SAMPLING
•

F-1

s

E

t
t
100 2i 3i 400 500 FIGURE5
Scale in Meters VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

6
6
17
d C
@4
70
G,y
90
?o
LEGEND
WILDLIFE OBSERVATION
STATIONS
® BEAR SIGN
TURKEY SIGN
® POTENTIAL RED-COCKADED
WOODPECKER HABITAT
ROAD
O FOOD PLOT
SITE #5 BOUNDARY
5

/60
D
65
t
A??
qp)
65
1Q0 2r 3i 400 500
If
Scale in Meters
FIGURE 6
WILDLIFE OBSERVATION SURVEY
t
11
Each wildlife observation station consisted of an individual tree marked with surveyor
flagging which indicated the assigned station number. Station size was determined by the
visibility and acoustics each site offered. The stations were set up at random intervals
along both the east-west mid-line and north-south transects. Each observation point
was attended for a period of no less than fifteen minutes. Data collected was based on
visual observations, assisted through the use of binoculars, and auditory indicators
(e.g., bird calls).
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation
Results from the vegetative survey of Site #5 determined that the parcel is composed
primarily of the following communities: loblolly-longleaf pine forest, pine-hardwood
forest, hardwood bottomland forest and cleared areas. The majority of the site is
composed of the loblolly/longleaf pine forest (approximately 45%) which is dominated
by loblolly pine (Pious taeda) in the overstory and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) in the
understory.
The second largest community (approximately 40%) identified during the study is the
pine-hardwood forest. This community occurs between the hardwoods associated with
bottomlands and the pure upland stands of pine. Dominant vegetation includes loblolly
pine and longleaf pine (Pious australis) with laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and red
maple (Acer rubrum) in the canopy, and wax myrtle and blueberry in the shrub layer.
Approximately 3 acres (roughly 1 hectare) or 5% of Site #5 is hardwood bottomland
forest. This community represents the only potential wetland area encountered during
the survey. The biological survey occurred during unseasonably dry weather and
available evidence (depressions in the forest floor exposing thick organic soil) indicated
that standing water may at times be present at certain locations in this community. red
maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos) and live oak (Quercus virginiana) dominate the
canopy of the hardwood bottomland forest, and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush,
ferns (Woodwardia ssp.) and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum ssp.) are present throughout
the understory.
Cleared areas comprise a relatively small portion of the entire parcel (approximately
10%). The majority of the clearings are located adjacent to the access road and are
generally an acre or less in size. Previous logging activities or discontinued roadways
created these openings in the forest cover. One of these clearings, known as the "L-
shaped Food Plot", is located in the southeast portion of the site, and occupies
approximately three acres of the total parcel. This area was re-seeded with grasses and
various forbs, and is currently being maintained as a wildlife forage area by MCB Camp
Lejeune Environmental Management Division staff.
Threatened/Endangered Flora
Results obtained from the vegetative survey indicate that very little habitat exists to
support Federal and/or State threatened/endangered plant species. The Federally
11
endangered rough-leaved loosestrife requires open savanna areas, particularly roadsides
and powerline rights-of-way. Three roads ("North", "Mid" and "South"), that access
the property from the Haws Run road and pass east-west through the site dividing it into
thirds, could potentially provide suitable habitat to support the rough-leaved
loosestrife, though no individuals of the species were located. Several venus flytrap
(Dionaea muscipula) plants and an unidentified species of Yellow-eyed Grass (Xyris
ssp.) are located approximately 110 meters west along the North Road from the Haws
Run Road junction (Fig. 4). The State of North Carolina recognizes the carnivorous
venus flytrap as a candidate for Special Concern listing due to global rarity,
unauthorized seizures, and horticultural distributions. Though the yellow-eyed grass
recorded was not further identified, two of the species of this grass are protected by the
State with a Special Concern listing and a third is a candidate for listing.
3.2 Wildlife
Due to the height of the shrub-layer, size of the parcel, and the density of the
underbrush that effectively limited the usefulness of binoculars, the majority of the
observations recorded were based on auditory evidence or visual indicators closer to the
ground, such as deer browse and/or tracks.
Several species of birds common to the area were heard calling during the survey.
Various woodpeckers (Picidae family), such as red-headed and pileated woodpeckers,
were recorded as foraging and calling, predominantly in the pine forest communities,
however, signs such as pecking holes and wood-chip piles were present throughout the
entire parcel. During the initial transect survey of the north-south line C, an immature
turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), which is a bird not particularly common to the area, was
observed roosting in an oak tree (Fig. 6). Also noted during the survey of line C, was a
hanging nest similar to that of an orchard oriole's (Ictercus spurius).
Deer sign was apparent at several of the observation stations, particularly at the station
in the hardwood bottomland forest. Black bear (Ursus americanus) scat was also located
along the A-E mid-line in the bottomland community, approximately 50 meters west of
stake B (Fig. 6). Another observation recorded in the survey indicated that large
mammals appear to utilize former fire lines as travel corridors to pass more easily
through the dense understory of the site. These fire lines are associated with the
previous forestry management practice of using trenches to slow the spread of fires that
frequently occur in the pine forests. These fire lines (generally no greater than one
meter wide) also provide habitat for various wetland plants such as sedges, mosses and
carnivorous sundew (Drosera ssp.), which were recorded as growing in a fire line
crossing the north-south transect "E".
The absence of longleaf pine tree cavities (either active or inactive) and a lack of actual
sightings indicate that the red-cockaded woodpecker does not inhabit the proposed
borrow pit site. However, the relatively mature loblolly/longleaf pine stand located at
the southeastern portion of the site is similar to the delineated foraging areas for known
colonies, located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site (Fig. 7).
12
t
t
A
1
t
t
1
1
t
t
t
t
LEGEND
ROAD
RED-COCKADED
WOODPECKER
HABITAT CIRCLE
BORROW PIT
VERONA LOOP ROAD

FIGURE 7
o 4,000
wat.n KNOWN RED-COCKADED
WOODPECKER TERRITORY
Source: MCB Camp Lejeune, Environmental Mgt., 1993
3.3 Wetlands
Site #5 is predominantly comprised of upland forested areas, however, typical wetland
vegetation, evidence of previous standing water, and moist, deep organic soils were
encountered along the A-E mid-line at the 125 meter mark (see Fig. 4). These wetland
indicators are present throughout the hardwood bottomland community, which begins at
this location along the mid-line. The presence of Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
and Black Gum (Nyssa sylvafica), as well as thick mats of sphagnum moss, are also
significant vegetative indicators of a wetland community. Swollen basal areas of mature
canopy trees suggested frequent flooding, although no standing water was observed.
Handfuls of the organic soil surface revealed a rich mucky humus that smelled anoxic and
appeared quiet deep (> 30 cm) before approaching a mineral horizon. This specific soil
type appeared to be fairly limited in surface area (approximately 1 hectare or 3 acres),
possibly due to changes in slope and terrain.
Jurisdictional wetlands identified by the NWI as being located at the northwestern and
southeastern boundaries of the site, were visible from Haws Run Road as low-land areas
with thicker, greener lines of vegetation. These known wetlands are adjacent to the
proposed borrow site, and appear to be outside of the proposed excavation area.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Clearing the entire 55 acre site of trees and the associated vegetative cover would leave
the site susceptible to localized erosion and fugitive dust impacts. Low hills, ridges and
uplands would contribute to runoff, particularly at the southwest side of the site where
the highest elevations are recorded.
The potential of a positive identification and delineation of wetlands on-site (i.e. the
hardwood bottomland forest) presents an unknown limitation regarding the potential
yield of excavated materials expected to be recovered. In the event of this delineation,
mitigation measures would be required.
Jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the borrow pit site would need to be protected from
erosion and siltation. Sufficient vegetative barriers should be maintained between
disturbed areas and wetland areas.
No threatened or endangered plant species are known to inhabit the 55-acre site.
However, road-side savanna species such as the venus flytrap , which is a candidate for
state listing, and an unidentified yellow-eyed grass (potentially a State Special Concern
species), were recorded along a portion of the North Road. Three roads pass east-west
through the site creating openings in the forest canopy offering limited habitat to road-
side savanna species such as these.
The biological survey determined that the proposed borrow pit site is located outside of
an area designated as red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and/or forage. No indication of
inhabitation by the rare woodpecker was recorded during the survey. With the exception
of a mature loblolly/longleaf pine stand located in the southeast portion of the parcel,
Site #5 appears to lack sufficient suitable habitat to support the red-cockaded
14

woodpecker. Other communities consisting of potential foraging areas or cavity trees
lacked the necessary land area or contiguous habitat that might attract the birds.
Known red-cockaded woodpecker territory south of the site might be affected by the
widening and/or upgrading of the Haws Run access road (Fig. 7). Before site
preparations begin, consultations may be required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to evaluate possible impacts on these Federally endangered birds.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The survey determined that the selected site is not inhabited by endangered or threatened
species, or actively used by these species for forage. Use of Site #5 as a source for
borrow material would have minimal impacts if proper mitigation measures are
implemented to protect nearby sensitive resources such as jurisdictional wetlands and
the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. If the hardwood bottomland forest on the site
should prove to be jurisdictional wetlands, additional mitigation measures may be
required.
t

'J

s

F-71
15
6.0 REFERENCES
Avolis Engineering, P.A., 1992, Preliminary Report Borrow Pit Site Investigation for
Greater Sandy Run Area, Engineering Study 92-93, Prepared for MCB Camp
Lejeune.
Behler, John L. & King, F. Wayne, 1979, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Reptiles & Amphibians, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Bull, John & Farrand, John Jr., 1977, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Eastern Region Birds, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Doerr, Walters, & Carter, 1989, "Reoccupation of Abandoned Clusters of Cavity Trees
(Colonies) by Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers", in Procedures, Annual Conference
Southeast Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 43:326-336.
Gleason, Henry A. & Cronquist, Arthur, 1963, Manual of Vascular Plants, PWS
Publishers, Boston, MA.
LeBlond, Richard L., Fussell, John O., & Braswell, Alvin L., 1993, Inventory of the
Rare Species, Natural Communities, and Critical Habitats of the Great Sandy Run
Area, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Little, Elbert L., 1980, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Eastern
Region Trees , Albert A. Knopf, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Mueller-Dombois, Dieter & Ellenberg, Heinz, 1974, Aims and Methods of Vegetation
Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.
Natural Heritage Program, 1992, Progress Reports on Greater Sandy Run Area Rare
Species Inventory, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Niering, \N. ,,:im A. & Olmstead, Nancy C., 1979, The Audubon Society Field Guide to
North American Eastern Region Wildflowers, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York,
N.Y.
Niering, William A., 1985, The Audubon Society Nature Guides Wetlands, Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Petrides, George A., 1972, The Peterson Field Guide Series A Field Guide to Trees and
Shrubs, 2nd. edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Radford, A.E., Ahles, H. E., Bell, C. R., 1968, Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Marine Corps, 1984,
Soil Survey, Camp Lejeune, N.C. N.C. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
16
1
I U.S. Geological Survey, 1971, Sneads Ferry Quadrangle, Department of the Interior.
U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1989, DENS
Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,
Onslow County, N.C.
Whitaker, John O., 1980, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals,
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, N.Y.
t
t

17
[I

APPENDIX D
BORROW PIT
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY

1

J

Cj

t
?l
?I
?l
1
t
t
t
?i
?I
?J
?I
?J
1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURFACE EXAMINATION
AND SUBSURFACE TESTING
OF A PROPOSED BORROW PIT SITE
U.S.M.C. CAMP LEJEUNE
JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared For.
The Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDM
Prepared By:
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc.
1009 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 100
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
27 July 1993
Ogden File No. 3-4229-0000
f
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1
...........................................
0 INTRODUCTION
1
...
.
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................
1 1
.
2 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................
1 1
.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................. 2
0 PROPOSED BORROW PIT .......................................
2 3
.
1 SITE LOCATION ..........................................
2 3
.
2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................... 3
3 CUL'T'URAL OVERVIEW ...................................
2 3
.
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY ............... 6
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...................................... 10
0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................
4 11
.
4.1 CONCLUSIONS .......................................... 11
.................................
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
4 11
...
.
APPENDIX I PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY ..................... I-1
APPENDIX II SHOVEL TEST (ST) LOGS AND ANALYTICAL DATA ... II-1

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
PAGE
2-1 General Location of Camp Lejeune ................................ 3
2-2 Site Plan and Location of Shovel Tests .............................. 5
•K? iii

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROTECT BACKGROUND
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (Ogden) has performed an
archaeological investigation for a proposed borrow pit site located on the United States
Marine Corps, Camp Lejeune training facility as a subcontract to The Environmental
Company (TEC). The proposed action involves the utilization of a 55-acre site located
off the Verona Loop Road (Figures 2-1 and 2-1).
The site investigation was conducted by Ogden personnel from 07 June 1993 to 10 June
1993. The purpose of the investigation was to make a preliminary evaluation of potential
archaeological resources located within the proposed borrow pit sites and the potential
impacts which might result from utilization of these areas. Conclusions reached in this
investigation are based on a visual inspection and limited subsurface testing. Appendix I
contains captioned photographs of the sites.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The objective of this subcontract is to identify the presence and potential significance of
any archaeological resources within boundaries of the proposed site. The methodology
specified by TEC is outlined in the following tasks.
TEC provided the contractor with the following background literature to be reviewed
prior to the field visit.
• Soil Survey for Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina
• Land Use Plan 1991 Update for Onslow County, North Carolina
• Borrow Pit Site Investigations for Greater Sandy Run Area

t
• Camp Lejuene Complex Master Plan and Capital Improvements Plan
Update, Engineering Study 92-33
• Phase IB Cultural Resource Investigations Greater Sandy Run
Acquisition Area, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base
To ensure that all available archaeological data concerning the proposed site was
reviewed, Ogden coordinated the work with Mr. Mark Mathis of the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office.
The archaeological field surveys included surface examinations where ground visibility is
adequate and subsurface testing as appropriate. It was anticipated that limited shovel
testing would be required. TEC provided an environmental specialist to assist the
contractor during the field survey; however, survey design was the responsibility of the
contractor.
13 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Section 2.0 contains the project background, site description, and cultural overview,
project description and methodology. Section 3.0 contains the findings for the survey of
the proposed borrow pit area. Ogden's conclusions and recommendations are
summarized in Section 4.0.
tiaeM > 2

1 2.0 PROPOSED BORROW PIT
I 2.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed site is located on Hawsrun Road, approximately 800 meters north of the
southern portion of the Verona Loop Road on the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps training
base.
1 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is approximately 55 acres in areal extent. Topographically, the site is
composed of a relatively flat-lying, well drained terrain characterized by the presence of
microlandforms. These microlandforms consist of low hills, ridges, and uplands 5 to 15
feet higher in elevation than surrounding areas. Elevations vary from 50 to 70 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) over the site. The highest elevations are on the southwest side of
the proposed borrow pit site.
Vegetation on the site consists of a variety of forest cover ranging from pine upland to
hardwood lowland. A small portion of the site was cleared as a result of logging activity.
One wildlife food plot, known as the L-shaped food plot, was located in the southwest
portion of the site and occupied approximately three acres. This area had been cleared
I and planted in grasses. Some soil exposure is present in this area.
23 CULTURAL OVERVIEW
The following overview is partially derived from information found in the Cultural
Resources Research Proposal for the Greater Sandy Run Acquisition Area Camp Lejuene
Marine Corps Base prepared by Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., July 1992.
MUXkj-n). 3

"AsOUOTANK ,..•+.r1 °7'
tr... ,? •riwlrr, • 41a d. "ylNM
w N•
' E^Irf 1dA .? s '"'? ?a GerrYp', ?? '•"w" ?rnw.w Ind 1«nl Nawr •,Y MM .
A); $[0tllnd CtrwN+pn 7+ ArwwrNN \ 5 1--?,qr ^ rir•+.rl
N p 7'?rY e. h1 AL IF, 0
l?"r ,'-Neck _ wooe.'Iw ?.?.unl• E. C
HASH (`??? f • 1 W Ills - ,o n u \+D BERT IE ' r •` .--]?'.• { lS r' °• •i p llf. ?'? Cerl"len c .c r7
7 Ow O, Ier•w m 'O am n \ \pI u M?e?.,r" \E O?n10n / p1J n•Mlw•
of L Lelnneur pll>{ _ - `nn^nl /uw?J CMrnow
'o
rir on
r - k 81tp1Doro 7 •tr - g, '?H s oO°de\11W ?,:• \ Windfor Mr°r 'e / 77 '\ Deer' ,.lwrv,nnei °n (/ - on
O 1b ONp? ?, l•,.'• \ N Imo,/ - .•. N -?` f erl" '\ N •? •`to
rtlh11\ Dvnl•°f'f..III `.e?oECO,.a .4 7 011'\• ..'.' ?`?'LN `. t7 ?• , _ N + `M.nN
?/?1. •r? Nlree'
Nalll ° . ISwrn'r .rl fp • Gry \: Owln. ' •?lJ / . Mr1M - ur -1e... Gle • ,•
?` 91 e»•e 71 ?,t ]a rq r Columbia tir L• c••'• C
m. r •?_.'_ , , t e- 'ti,'c Hlmdton7 wevnra °..J(. ,s •.4n.u G,o.r 1] vodur \- Cl 1 .,'r.-.
L'+Roc ky to a ?" Y s<ueornoT 4+ _
B ?°•?Tarboio_ , •. \ - , eor'. `i ? •'Wfncnn
,oMOunl',?• •N.o.n•? n . en.rry Uefweurl n {n•'gr.n `
I7 ?'° Pirncenlle/ fe 'G we h. t?, Wdll?mtlon D.,v.n Plymouth ?d•"d'^f l j w
/Slwla» 1,• 57 ?ycMr01. ,jr is r.•• We'll p07 n Ewre r „ N'ASMIN GT ON i ./NNrn•. _I T •DARE 1
/ 7DurI ,:? ,] ?' 17/'l'J' ,?A,•,nv J,.r,.r1 ?? rt
/ n
v J •. Robtl ? J[mmruf •' TV R RELL
_, C, •I -?r•rnl
IPI^lIOD4 I Gum tromor
TTT ' 1 1 • MIMI -,,\ '01,11
/ 'Q,-• , ?lt?na.e / Nmrn 1 ?On1(f
' E
lmo ' p
4.rr 1 n, '' A [ Csrr 7, (11 wenoN - I?_ . Seer. •r-
`71 e?lry ?wn••,11 :.t? PITT " )D 1 rw RTIN r. ?,] G
YiI M[?e teL t.,+e, \?7 f 17 fm4t` nu + +n ? 70?T 1. •, , I j •?? ; 57
Pill
S?ml r--?=% Iltld a eel Lne . ?\ 7,' / ! Oor h• .,?/ Ket.nn, •,A,' 7F /
:. , • WdfDr1 /-- 7`]7 O7 7 ^ <. 1_-. • HYDE l ]•'? 13 re
/ ? ?f?ut1. 1"M»M t {ore < O Terre ?\ ?. _ '
1'• i •Is f• , Vn 1]I d rrrltmm D' C."
10, un „femKo \\ ]e. {•n ' rea trr
5 ''o '7' .m loser ,7 el? t7 a.,Nw\. .e.r
w, fo . n ?• 1f, r., . r 7e• per BEAUFORT 1 ?nr ,? rlrwMNh if ,,.tN1"' Iwre
701 Luca-. SUntoni•r Gretnvill 9 K'efh,n ton i"^^'??••'
- e.d D
1 _ me ?ntl Wig , wnnono ] f?nn r C,•nnu ^n S,mmon't\p:,? _' • . 1°nr.n• v [ rwm?ur 57 Y..cB/?j?w[n°. (.5M a % 7 GI• unomp Engelhard SO•.
is out wlle pmm? , •/ .
1 n,0 1 •, 'Id 1 UnE ? 70 Ser Mlen 1 \ 4, Mredl•lpwm 1
111 pp ` [1 W11Ilrr14 > 1. I W ? ?._ , 1 1,'1i +?+?.
GREENE E t5 \Chocowmll? pU bill,
I`1,• A+•a.r.
11y 17 f•nu Nor?nar?• W'Inler perrf Von P?r.6.I. lnrr wmnum?lir "? ?_` 0
/7.Ih vlf l! IKI I [\ / :Lp N R?nepmrdry .• S40wrJll Mrw OuII o f -e»erMl
J ?'rrnf Nr Ff[monl it ?M ry NoInM
1 nl 1` ? ? . t - 'm b--_. Snrlmuo?ne ?\?u ``? •"'O Irtw•w d .. t' I- ,' / r ir.? ?•?Sw•n Ro[1 ^'' Yn..ne
O e I I /nnemn - ?anlKe.", • r "'Ou.+,j' ,
1 7 n m: ? 77 \Cen r•'..n, b?'f C.•r •.•uln ?..
rill[ (((,,, II .• 1dm.ne
L- B•.[II 1 , L•?..•,`?-
1 ?.gNlllon 1 17 Snen •? 7d •rM• +1 CILCe wdm°r O Film
re0e OI CIS Oro' eC7 NIII 7 \vr lrlOlrnen r/ 10 ; ?p, CrpYr?ef•? fwrln . ` •.--_ ?l yr N. •/ \
Inn, ./;Glihon , \ Breunle j olonnrrlon?OCrw1' ,•,?l•S.°nwrr,r•rt O
a \? \I
Y+ r /IU1 +5 ?LE NOIR% lq I?]1 ` Crrl ?! Oc tfq ?owl[nd.i ,... •wunr4 errp• to. 33
Sryinr ?,; ,0 g % 0•.+oiw? ,,;Gear n"1Qf? V[nceDOrO, CRAVEN
vN p
E •N. 11 L1 Gunpe <„r•s {ml'^` 1 \ ° 4HoOucken 'q'/ ••., •,
nNrn 111 A.J./..1 NVnY1 ? ° •'J errm•.1• n. • Erny? Ellen /? ' 7D•" ? e?
?I ' insto //?? Npll" wt'r..• ?,. ?icst't
It.wf K
[ C S ro f Dow "n \'` Arrn / 17 IC•.r• Cvrr,•rlr ,( ?i • .
Y e 3\urpYrw °••w..r \ 4e ' Y,C A•'
r Dueue Csw f .... \
Orlh rr`'".Sir+rlt`...? wear rf Cn7 6j ,r 11 MYre•I?,ti -?... ie.r aur?
r•ce5e?y/'?
"If ' If ss r.n, \ ,o is 4 Bn/ G''•[yboro?'?tfr?r % .01
o ! r / .e•`. a U? l
lC`?? L hh ] •I ivw°.c dge•fs We
°Ml. Or 0 \ Ion Alh• . $IOnewlll\ ° •,• ° • 'NA [',' A... mwr 63
, I : \ O`lr?mea [nct i wnonsrlwilN , ,y!?:? o a
rn /Olive, 'w] [un '7 ?? +• t . - t 17 rvnvn•utrr
117] ?. ' A MuunK-.I' cro'. ?IOareurM
17 a
,? \I ( is ?' 2, ANEW$ern vhmtd AMuCD to ,_L?mIN .,re•r.•, awo
7F_e A" _d \ 7 ' ON ES '? ,City ??• AneM» ren Dr ,J( M1 wear
nne onr , rmmn r Orfnj ? t _ p 1 ?n
\' J-.n rrv.r
B o'n••n.' •• ( rangrr Nan Nat I - Spoln " Ac du lore
Q
' r
Or, \7 ?'•'n rr"1 M,r,n•rll '' ?Pn'n V .??T ].C •Me[ r 1
DU?LIN `• '•' L hn, `•, u - rellOtll 1
`
% II D :\/ NN VS Mrrw`? V•Nn•n_ /,f°/? C ?'
ute s rorr.n ??'? -11 A 1 Crr,n r0 e \n • `1 9
?Kren?[fne•;...:', ?'/ t, Nan ? - -1?'' e.nm.n `. - , 0 Lnrun C.mn ,o All fu.'• / •'-..\ ,<' 1 eAtIMIK ?a\
ill '?...• ,n- -rJr?O? _~ I ?1 p '-%? /. cno• o-.r ?,
O /lo \ • hill.
ire ?Y•?n\? t d • ?: __ .,.. M1VNill/ Mrt r,r. ::7\ la ... Str,
r. O
^?•/ 1 `^ r6euhvJlt, Rrch h,ut 1•4'•m„(?,"?H[vt•f n lo+ c'= CAR TIE RET
\ L,• nl7 eevn. .. - -• ?ea 1lr•(.•?•10[k
bndt _N•rl•-. 0.:,?? p f
M nofll
'? to ?, \ • K Ua. b nm. ?,. ?^ ,_ 7J.;?"U,• Nrle.^ \t•Willwln - 9, ?rli
w l ?- t5', •'- ' r ,,p ?, !a•r le NfIW 0r1?.S? +Ot ? (? / `j \J O
RDJe e,1 L l)
• _ •Ilum1' C Nr1 //
Hill ( C mowom r .pna rN K '• nunfl ?e _--•Mo,fhe.e\ SmrrN
_1 I S'NrrOelr
1 7 q
CItyI ?,MenhMlblrp
\ 1,S r L 7s[ "I..
••• ' ? J nn ?r \^?•,Jacksonville ron-r _
,
^TuM•, \ "' c-.11r ON OW M,,-•r hn 1 C. Onrl 70 lMnrH-le .?'•9ou.zaN enu
' er" ±^? ?Oa.rr4•rY //
u 7 Q Crwf 57 `Qr ' 7' "Cod
so
W[II[C I. Cn _ \ 1 r Ye?ieJyo =Tjyler yr 'nu.M
\ ?'R•••' rrn L?••n NvDeni?$w?n1.•? _ rne.ar I MrJ, Jr.
•e
I?AA 1
uuf? \y tt ` W c•, born.•C N Lble'e Illicit
G' Vt10n1 \ Jwww ? n fqw m.. w?l
[ r•rrr M. '' .'.? "d.,mr4 B..d JC K r?.r., A»...n
?C "' `'•1D' 15 M°pN ,t,lf 1, `?[rrrM MM'r.'IrY I»rM
St.
?1 f7 Nat (w
pr.x ( /. •.,w wr K
- i / 1. SITE LOCATTON
Bulgew; , P ewe.
ENDER \; nvnr
n`,On ,5rb???' rf, .4 all, rI
Carnes
[ 710
CurrM?? ?D;IY ?? 1. flr .
C, . +•n .71 v f r nor
MrrurrN nC'Jtll, ° torn . )Y- ?joplmil Beath /f
I- IN Hey nt ?Rirl`?^ hLthlnh"';: 1 " •``1 ?r rr.r.r
v 7 INEW MANOV ER
rlmington . Wrightfville Beath
errlvof '?»??!
1s.n Cne1, t7 ?t•\?i `/ •'-•n'a-rn•.r y
wmneee., ?j ? -?
U., 177 , ,1 1 It.
n
• Su r h. - t l 6wprw,f area ,
? 17,04-- L
Depot ryirw [•rA J K
?wlmf\ ,,i Caroling BeachA
IN t r/ r. Wrlmwgtrr•hr1,
t 7" imnn e, 1.I Ii 1
?SurW1 r,/t. lnMrh ON Sr
?N.rt • 7,+ $DUth DOS $call in Milt[
??"'`-?• "????,\•IC Mr rn'w 10 0 10 70 70
bdl pq /euaf
• - , , • t0 0 t0 70 70 Scale M Odometer[
I ?? ENe rtes ONE INCH lOYA11 AM110KreaT[lT 16.8 rAllff M 71113 [KOM[TIKS
v'•.• The a•. el mu m•a le r IM fewer. T.- Jw•.
Figure 2-1. LOCATION OF CAMP LEJUENE
4

The coastal plain of southern North Carolina shares a common prehistoric and early
historic sequence with the greater southeastern United States. The prehistoric sequence
is divided into three major periods: the Paleoindian period from 12,000 to 8,000 B.C.; the
Archaic period from 8,000 to 1,000 B.C.; and the Woodland Period from 1000 B.C. to
approximately 1650 A.D.
The Paleoindian period has been characterized by the presence of small nomadic groups,
relying on hunting of caribou and other animals as well as foraging and fishing. Cultural
material from this period consists mainly of stone projectile points. In general,
Paleoindian populations appear to have been small and campsites were temporary.
Apparently, less than two dozen Paleoindian points have been reported from'the North
Carolina Coastal Plain.
The Archaic period is subdivided into early (8,000-5,000 B.C.), middle (5,000-3,000 B.C.),
and late (3,000-1,000 B.C.) periods. Early Archaic subsistence patterns are characterized
by hunting and gathering within well defined areas and on a seasonal basis. The Middle
Archaic is differentiated by the incidence of dart points, atalatl weights, and an expanded
assemblage of stone tools. The late Archaic has been characterized as a period of
increased sedentism and the first use of steatite vessels. The late Archaic is regarded as
transitional from a gathering economy to one of early agriculture.
The Early Woodland period (1,000-300 B.C.) is marked by the first widespread use of
pottery and the first evidence of true agriculturalism. The primary diagnostic ceramics
are the sand-tempered New River pottery.
The Middle Woodland period (300 B.C.- A.D. 800) is characterized by the expanded
reliance on agriculture, indicated by presence of sites in more fertile soils and more
advanced ceramic technology. The appearance of large triangular points indicate the
introduction of the bow and arrow in the later phases of the Middle Woodland period.
Sites with Middle Woodland components are more common than sites of any other
M Bckx-) 5

period in Onslow County and Camp Lejeune. Ceramics indicative of Middle Woodland
are clay-tempered Cartaret, Hanover, and coarse sand-tempered Cape Fear or Mount
Pleasant pottery.
The Late Woodland period (A.D. 800-1650) is characterized by larger consolidated
communities with increased reliance on estaurine resources. " At Camp Lejeune most of
the late woodland sites are shell middens or sites with significant amounts of shell debris"
(Berger, 12). Diagnostic ceramics are gravel-tempered Onslow or Cashie pottery.
The historical period begins in 1705 with the first settlements in the area at Towne Point
on the New River. Following the Tuscarora War of 1715, the. area was open for
settlement. The local economy appears to have been primarily agricultural in nature.
"Substantial acres were planted in corn, with smaller investments in wheat flax, rice,
indigo and hemp. In addition, cultivation of corn, sweet potatoes, and collards typically
occurred at a subsistence level. However, the sandy soil and lack of efficient overland
transportation inhibited the development of agricultural activities on the grand scale seen
in other areas of the South" (Berger, 13). A rural agricultural economy appears to have
predominated the area for many years. Almost nothing is known of the particular history
of the proposed borrow area, however it seems likely that only small portions of the site
have been agriculturally utilized due to poor soil. 85,000 acres, including the proposed
site, were acquired by the U.S. Government in 1940-41 for construction of the permanent
base at Camp Lejeune.
Our investigation of the site revealed numerous surface disturbances by fire plows and
marine training activities, including foxholes and disposal pits.
2.4 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY
A Cultural Resources Base Map prepared by Avolis Engineering, Inc. for the study area
was furnished prior to commencement of the fieldwork. This map was based on
,,,.?? 6

correlations of known soil types with archaeological potential. The map indicated that
small portions of the site are located in areas having a high potential (foreston type soils)
for the presence of cultural/archaeological sites. Other portions of the site were said to
have a low potential, while still other portions of the site were not evaluated.

Onsite work began with an in-briefing on Monday, 07 June 1993, at the Camp Lejuene
tati
windshield
t
f th
d b
i
f
ll
Thi
ffi
ff
i
y an or
en
on
-
our o
e
owe
s was
o
ce.
a
rs o
Environmental A
site. Field work began on Monday afternoon with a pedestrian survey of the site
d
Th
i
i
l
d
d
e pe
estr
an survey
nc
u
e
including an east-west transect through the site.
investigation and surface collection on roadways and areas of exposed surface. During
the initial site walkover performed on 07 June 1992, exposed surface areas on the site
and adjoining property to the southwest were examined for the presence of cultural
material. This was followed by shovel testing areas of indicated high potential confirmed
by the pedestrian survey and surface inspection.
Vegetative cover and time constraints precluded the use of surveyed transects. However,
a grid encompassing the site was laid out using a Brunton compass and tapes. This grid
was along five parallel north-south transects approximately 220 meters apart extending'
from the main road to the northern boundary of the site (Figure 2-2). Additionally, one
east-west transect (A, etc.) was extended starting at an established orienteering station
(ammunition box 62) located on the main road and known as point A. Archaeological
transects were projected to the east from the roadway along transect A and at 50 or 100
meter intervals so as to cross the areas, of highest archaeological potential in an easterly
direction. An archaeological transect was projected northward from point E. In
addition, archaeological transects were projected from arbitrary points staked R and S
located on microlandforms which appeared to have some archaeological potential.
Shovel tests were performed at 20 meter intervals along these transects and continued
past areas of potential. Shovel testing was conducted to an average depth of 60
centimeters. Soil screenirig utilizing 1/4-inch mesh hand screens was performed on all
excavated material.
?,asck3.? 7
1 11
A total of 48 shovel tests were excavated over the site during the survey. No cultural
material was obtained. Surface collections yielded some historic cultural material
primarily along the road and on the portion of the site which had been logged. This
material consisted of glass and china fragments. Additional fragments of china and glass
were found on adjoining land to the southeast of the site. In addition to this material, a
number of bi-valve shells were recovered from the same areas. Laboratory analysis of
the material collected revealed possible dates for some of the china sherds. The
pearlware fragments collected in the roadway could have been produced from the late
18th century to the mid 19th century, as other material recovered and submitted for
analysis appears to date from the present century. A visual examination of the two
species of bivalve mollusk shells was inconclusive (see Appendix II).
ta.Ba) 8
?I
¦
?I
?I
s
e

C

FIGURE 2-2. SITE PLAN
9
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The findings of this investigation are as follows:
• No identifiable prehistoric cultural materials of archaeological interest were
visually observed in surface examination or recovered in subsurface
investigation activities on the subject site.
• No identifiable historic cultural materials of archaeological interest were
recovered in subsurface investigation activities on the subject site.
• Small amounts of historic cultural materials were found during surface
collection activities on the site and adjoining lands.
• No physical evidence of historic occupation (i.e., foundations,
chimneys, cellars) were visually evident on the site.
• Laboratory analysis and examination of cultural material submitted from'
the proposed site and surrounding areas may indicate the presence of
historic era archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area (Appendix
II).
MWOC-) 10
11
1 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 CONCLUSIONS
Small amounts of historic ceramic ware and glass found in surface collections on the road
indicate the potential presence of a house site on or near the proposed borrow pit area
at some time in the past. No cultural material was obtained from subsurface testing on
the site. No physical evidence of occupation (i.e., foundations, chimneys, cellars) was
visually evident on the site itself. Furthermore, areas of the site in proximity to the
surface collections were extensively disturbed by fire control and Marine training
activities.
No diagnostic prehistoric material was recovered on the site in surface collections or
subsurface testing. Some shell fragments were collected on the surface of the logged
area near the Ir shaped food plot. Laboratory analysis of this material was not
conclusive.
Many shell fragments as well as historic glass and china fragments were collected in the
area to the southeast of the proposed borrow pit site. As this area was outside the
proposed borrow pit area, only cursory investigations were performed. There appears to
be some archaeological potential on adjacent land to the southeast of the site.
Based on surface examination, subsurface shovel testing, analytical data, and collected
historical material, there appears to be a very low potential for the presence of significant
archaeological resources on the proposed borrow pit site.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions of this investigation, there are no further recommendations for
archaeological investigations on the proposed borrow pit site at this time.

11

t

APPENDIX I
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY
Taken On
07-10 June 1993

r

11

Photograph No. 1. Pine uplands portion of the site.
,notograpn NO. L. 1 ransittonai area - pine upianas to narawooas.

t

APPENDIX I
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY
Taken On
07-10 June 1993

Ph

t
APPENDIX II
SHOVEL TEST (ST) LOGS AND ANALYTICAL DATA

$h0i-Er _
TEST E
No g EXC. HY X CO-ORDINATE Y CO-ORDIHATt THI CXNUr SOIL f REMARKS
VALUE ¦
5r l?? Po ??,r,- ?6o X 6 Xr 00 n
c z S G ,'??" PtGccv
v?-z m 44,
^? ?,?s my a c +? - 10 io V _Gif ??1, /'SN NEB
_.

" j M 3 7s ., r?sT P<X? f A t !G n1 ' IS / / C /? Y NEG ,
L 4 m 2 SY/. ?/? ce•v
J7 -/It 1r1/1 ? k D ?n E'i?S i &Ilk rr a 0 M O G e niRo"?,J 144E-b R /V f ?r
. 0, r? rosr RP/ "' Atlo,- / !
S' /0 ye PQ 3?i,,,? .: L,7?
z. ,?,? /-9GG ,

c
4v,n FAnsf
lZ
x14At ),Om 6c
10
soe.
/0 3, , a,'u
src ?r
NFG
cr. ? F A_T' E1 (dC l ?IOJn, /p cZ, ZE ) ?A PI( J /VFG

S'j' ?, n ??+ET L'icGZ rtzc0,^1 tQem ?. >'R'Occ.nJ N
eo ro! /give? f''?7?^? AGM S 3 h ?,J L/u< ?h7ic /?P.
i

t
SHOVEL LM n j
TEST EYC_ BY v m_nenTViTr v m_t?RDIHJITE THI SOIL/ REMARKS//Yl?w.ttL VALUE
••y w
SY /D
/Yi ?w? ?rr EAST
/rr rreti 9/1010
A t?c ?s
4 ?• '
ST - )I LEA 4 ?t E r ? c - ?? M z r???? =?'^?? ? tales
?/ ? ?p Z-Sys / GT 3eo
.9 v / D { v,PJw j f,-

S/ Z D 3 D r, G G? l' .? s r Y NP
57- / r'A 4 e)
mE A-44oo G. 7 ,efY NfG
' 4u em /J lZ .. FLLDw PFD
iD rM '2,5- 7Iz -r-_ H i t

3o CPf- -7. S 7 yeuo

17- 1?1 l? D MC I'm > 7- co ---l o4 ld J?Cv SA -V r? ac 7--e jo
So,L i o %2Ot ?JO Ts,
S ?6' M r3 2 sM E' -t -o() 3 ?A
Z. Nf 6

sT-i zsh o ?-e s, A.?P

'r-,4 .c ,,j
?- 70 A F2 A -f 70 0 ;2 o f 60 1 Y S P A, ec•

M2
v m
,a f 70 v s
is e
Awee-
4 2 ,S Y k-e
z z K? t 7o o G 0 z l r? f bRQ?! NcG
13 U X 70 0 7 i Vest ??P ? i it
_ T 06 1S D F• o 0 0 to " I?ke,
Nc
6.

?r7.2? Mg .316 nJ *DQ GOt%
w
.5' 71-2 Eg-a?
NAG
o cM .S Eel-6a

I re q.,

T-2
i3B
,n
Ptov 4LO Gr
oc r -- ce,+ it
7-. .4-tt 11 L1
-TF - n nl --la7Ti*00 7j C. D :7 Gay ti? ?-
4 c 2,S •PLl-o

SHOVEL OV-7.1.0-37N
TEST EXC. BY X CO-o"IHATE v m-ORDINATE THI SOIL ? REMARKS / VN«L VALVE
sI-117 ?"? ?? r? i? N 0? 30 Cm (0 vr, -71 Q P NPG
ev2CL
c7-34 M3 pn?41 Sdsa oO 4o 7 c /01//%
o cw V S Gl-
2, ?

20 M
20 i
It
a)e e
7y,r S .9,oe I T eo ..^ T Plot^e rlO v /'Lll?.Sile MU 17,4151, 40 "CAI tidS

0

r*rtc..
SHOVE E
TEST
rxc_ fY v M_nenraarr v m-ostDlxXTE THICKNE3- SOIL." REMARKS
VALUE
ST 2- t3 4 4 60M.E. - ? .? r
G
o c? NAG.
?
(
Z / y'QILo
33 n?? 4 o n, ?r : c 4 Co _ ?. 6??

<-r2 A j0 ,Qt40 m ,S D N
_ ?D CM 7 K `?I `V
L < 2-4 40 rv; E So ? 2 v 4?2- n/ G
?j I

7 c

4? rtI l.J -
5`?
716
Rq (2 tFo A f z S?C,/. ?.,?-. NEB

-z C

Q C'I - r
D.1
ST- 3
L
M

0 M 5 . N.

c

A.)
37e Le
?c...
s-4 J vr S t D 4 s dS' ?S t / :2 . Li4CrS( NeG

SOaM 2.Sc- 2?

S-'43 QtlA o./ N/ TI+ 6"n . SOc
itnrJ
Z•f 0 oe64
- ?l 4 M s 6 F L mA a ?cuo PCDf 20 cam. .2 61,
?ie ?
ID "L nJar?Ttf F Rpno iV I
S5" lk N ojOlw d O- 40.44 f 0 c^ S 0 6R
ST 4 M SE oG G. S>yA
- M I I iN r eo o,o

044 ip c os Q /W0•?.?
S
NA
4 tool /S a, s. ° ° Lam
.sr.?{•e"•j oa
0
2. SY 0

_ N
4Ccn
.7 Ycc co.?
?- -To m tr
?-- LOW .Ad
?S
Z, S A
AIEG •

?I
O
O
Im
to
a
J
Q
t0
m
v
Q
A
O
P= ti
0
0
J
?^ 4
l
m
z
VN

o
O

4
U
9
O
Z
n
a
3
?c F
a.
?x
? u
or

t`
o a w

V ?' ° ? Dc
uj
N
1

r

n ?

c
(Ot
.v I

° I
O I 1 \
z co
q ? ? 4
_m
*0 V ?
c t

>
4 i
e
`
m:
>
E Q i
C

v ?
•
N
' y
00
t
2?

0
tl L L
0.

n

t

1-1

DuVALL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Cultural Resources & Environmental Services
RECEtuEa

Ogden Environmental and Energy -
1009 Commerce Drive, Suite 100 JUL 2 3 1993
Oakridge, Tennessee 37830
O G D E N
Attention: Mr. Mike Blackwell
r 12 July 1993

Re: Verona Loop Landfill Site (proposed);
Archaeological materials analysis
Dear Mr. Blackwell:
Thank-you for forwarding the above-referenced specimens to
this facility for processing.
I have enclosed an inventory of those materials. We have
not performed a formal malacological analysis of the
shellfish remains, insofar as such would be of little
relevance in..asse.ssing, the, importance of these loci within
the context of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the guideldnes-establis-hed--thereunder. The remainder of the
artifacts reflect depositions during both the 19th and 20th
centuries. The amber bottle glass recovered at FS# 3, and
the clear glass vessel sherd from FS# 1, are probably from
the present century. The pearlware vessel sherds could date
to the late 18th century, but continued to be manufactured
into the late 19th century. The Bristol glazed sherd likely
post-dates circa 1880. All of the artifacts suggest a
domestic use of the site area.
We thank-you for the opportunity to be of service to you,
and have returned the materials (labeled FS# 1 through FS#
7) herewith, together with our statement for services
rendered.
Sincerely,

Richard Taylor, Jr., Archaeologist
DuVall & Associates, Inc.
encl.

fl
407 Church Street, Franklin, Tennessee 37064
P. O. Box 150625, Nashville, Tennessee 37215-0625 [phone]
I
ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Proposed Borrow Pit Location at Verona Loop Road
(Collected 06107193 through 06110193, Surface context)
Sample f7p
FS# 1 1 Artifact TYDe
Oyster valve
6 Valve fragments, sp. unidentified.
1 Glazed white earthenware sherd,
bearing partial maker's mark
(wreath design?)
7 Glazed white earthenware sherds,
plain
1 Bristol glazed (interior/exterior)
heavy earthenware sherd
1 Clear flat glass sherd
1 Amethyst-colored glass vessel
sherd, rim, bottle (or vial?)
3 Plain white glazed earthenware rim
sherds
2 Plain white earthenware rim sherds,
scalloped
1 Plain white earthenware rim sherd,
scalloped with interior molded
design
Total: 24
FS# 2 1 Clear glass vessel sherd
3 Glazed white earthenware body
sherds
Total: 4
FS# 3 5 Glazed white earthenware body
sherds
1 Amber-colored glass vessel sherd,
mold formed, bottle rim
1 White glazed earthenware sherd,
body portion, with cobalt blue
colored floral design
Total: 7
FS# 4 No Material
t
t
2
FS# 5 6 Oyster shell valve fragments
17 Unidentified bivalve shell
fragments
1 Plain white glazed earthenware body
sherd
Total: 24
FS# 6 1 Pearlware vessel body sherd, hand
-painted cobalt blue interior
floral decoration
1 Pearlware undecorated sherd with a
partial foot ring
2 White glazed plain earthenware body
.sherds
1 White glazed plain earthenware rim
sherd
1 White glazed earthenware rim sherd,
bearing brown-colored interior
annular ring design, green and
brown (floral?) exterior design
1 shell fragment, unidentified
species
Total: 7
FS# 7 1 Oyster valve
1 White glazed plain earthenware body
sherd
1 White glazed earthenware body
sherd, small portion of cobalt blue
painted design
Total: 3
Total pieces in surface assemblage: 69

F1

Ll

G'

APPENDIX E
DISCLOSURE, STATEMENT

The Environmental Company, Inc. is under contract with the Department of the Navy,
Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command to prepare this Environmental
Assessment. The Environmental Company, Inc. has no financial or other interests in the
outcome of this project.

11

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199400693 July 21, 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, ATTN: Mr. Thomas C. Horsch, 1510 Gilbert Street, Norfolk
Virginia, 23511-2699, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO
PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN 17.25 ACRES OF WETLANDS ADJACENT TO GREATER SANDY RUN,
WEST OF US 17, NEAR VERONA, ONSLOW COUNTY, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during a site visit by a representative
of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the application show that the
proposed work is to occur within the area designated as Range P-949 and is to
be a multi-purpose training range for use by the M1/A1 tank, and infantry and
aerial assault troops.
Construction necessary for the completion of this range will include: a
firing area for tanks and infantry; access roads; parking areas; a dining
area; a concurrent training station which would accomodate other troops
training at the range; a control tower; utility corridors and associated
facilities for the range's electrical, water and communications systems; a
utility building which will serve as an aid station and command post as well
as a facility for the storage and maintenance of equipment associated with the
range; a storage area for ammunition; classrooms; instructional bleachers; and
loading ramps.
The proposed firing range involves the construction of a north and a
south dual-track tank trail with a single return track. These trails traverse
the range in a roughly east and west direction. There are "spurs" off the
trails at varying points and in various alignments. The tanks will travel
onto these spurs and will fire at multiple target types which are part of a
fully equipped Remote Engagement Targeting System. Only ground to ground fire
will occur at this range and only plastic non-explosive projectiles (each
weighing about 25 pounds) will be fired.
Each track (two per trail) is to be approximately 30 feet wide with
drainage swales on either side. The targets will have a bunker constructed
around them to protect them from accidental damage. The range will also have
access and service roads, which will be approximately 12 feet wide with
drainage swales located on either side.
M
-2-
Various constraints restrict the functional training portion of the range
to a 1,150 acre area. Various designs of the range were reviewed, and wetland
impacts were reduced to 17.25 acres. The construction of the tank trails and
service roads will result in most of the wetland impacts. Construction of the
targets and their bunkers will result in impacts to approximately 0.25 acre of
wetlands. The construction of the remaining facilities and structures on the
range may result in minor wetland impacts. Based on plans provided by the
applicant, it is assumed that, upon completion of the construction associated
with these facilities and structures, a majority of the work will be confined
to high ground or will result in negligible wetland impacts. Impacts
associated with the plastic projectiles landing in wetlands are anticipated to
be minimal.
Because of the size of the range site, the type of wetlands to be
impacted by the project are varied. Impacted areas are primarily scrub/shrub
pocosin, with smaller inclusions of forested and emergent wetlands. .ome
areas have been logged and/or burned at various times in the past.
Significant areas have had their hydrological regimes altered by ditches
during conversion to loblolly pine plantations.
The applicant has redesigned the range in order to avoid wetlands to the
maximum extent possible. Various design criteria, as well as the presence of
historical resources, dictated the final layout. Where wetlands cannot be
avoided, the range has been designed to minimize these impacts. These
impacts, totalling 17.25 acres of wetlands, will be mitigated. The mitigation
plan is conceptual and under review at this time. Most of the mitigation work
will involve either restoration of loblolly pine plantations to fully
functioning wetlands or enhancement of hydrologically impaired wetlands.
The purpose of the work is to construct a multi-purpose training range
for use by both infantry and armored troops. Plans showing the work are
included with this public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM).
C. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
-3-
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any
required State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA
permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and
reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to
the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this site is not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes
the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and
he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may be lost or
destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
-4-
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and
to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Salisbury Street,
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be
furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) plans to
take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or
after August 12, 1994.
-5-
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Post Office Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before August 8, 1994, Attention:
Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Jeff Richter, until 4:15 p.m.,
August 22, 1994, or telephone [phone].
r
r ?`
j ?

,? (t
L1 f ? '

V7 ??

111
k:N
` 0 "i 'S:4' ? `a

. ? f ?l QVI
1
ass ? a
}l ?
f
? CL
c
z ic

G] `' ? cr
U `

Z ?
Z
H
U
Si?/EEr / nor S
lU
Z
&L Z
rya L) .4
w0
4 CO
w?
x :E
/
V
w
a
0
, U^,Up.Jo ?L"'?'rCh Rn (!1.4, *nn r ' ' 1 1 ..n n I i 1 • - -0- . , ....
h M,llnlJr.!c RAU_7r?Hcn -nano c r.+, +,n^ t - r , +,a_.ci_I - 1 ..1T 1)STn ,ir1F' i'il;I Tn,, !a r')I!
FIGURE 2
P-949 Multi-Pwpose
Training Range (SR-7)
P-933 Multi-Purpose
Range Complex (SR-I0)
Rood

m
C
ADDITIONAL
RESTORATION
AREA
EBASCO
RESTORATION Cr
AREA 3'
4
!Si C7
Ddv is
POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS
Location of the P-933 MPTR within the Greater Sandy Run Area.
,5ffoFr 3 6F 5
U
Z
z
w z
Y a
O
Q
ZO Q C'3
O
O W
J Q a Q
U H o Q
O
co w LL z
Q z
w w p o O
< C) LL
¢ o Q o W O
U co 0) r- r? a; co Q Z4
Q o Q m r-: N r; 0 ? UwU
?
w 1- J J J J J J J J-i W z U Q
Q 2 W W W W W W W w w Q Z Q O
U U U U U U U U U w m Q z
w Lcr-
)i z p z
0 Q LL ?- Q
O Q
? CO
U
U
w
LLJ w
? g w /1 ! I/
W /
W U / \'\ \ \. ?/ ?i
T Lli
L '-7
r_
? o
J / \ N
IL
M
O
U
C3
Z Z
W W
Z
W Q
Q
¢O
W
C3
O
J w

a_
W
z
w Cl)
Z
2O
W
U Q
M a
LLJ
L7 W W
LL. ?: z
>- w
cr:
Q J
Z
J Q
W L
Ir
a_
U
z
a_
O
U
z
w rn W
J C
Q C
v > W
`) c 0
X Q
? z
N
/ ? r( rn• Q
( r, I J
M r _
I - i
Cli
M rn
clj
LL -
C' CD _? - I r1 T . ?•
r , I
r
r-,3
Ir 4
? N
i
1 / •
, O
> -
a-
/ \ tc J
? I
\ 1 I
\ I B?F1?k-_"7C_?Q
11` M ? .v

11

' WETLAND DELINEATION OF P-949 MPTR
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE/GSRA
JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

J

11

CONTRACT NO. N62470-91-D-9280
DELIVERY ORDER 011
Prepared for
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Norfolk, Virginia
13 June 1994
1

WETLAND DELINEATION OF P-949 MPTR
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE/GSRA
JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Prepared by
Geo-Marine, Inc.
Baton Rouge, LA and Plano, TX
13 June 1994

u

1
n

?I

C

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PM
1.1 Background ............................................ 1-1
1.2 Project Objectives ........................................ 1-1
1.3 Report Organization ...................................... 1-4
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF MCB CAMP LEJEUNE ............................ 2-1
2.1 Physiography ........................................... 2-1
2.2 Land Use ............................................. 2-1
2.3 Climate .............................................. 2-1
2.4 Water Resources ........................................ 2-2
2.5 Soils ................................................ 2-4
2.6 Natural Communities ...................................... 2-4
2.6.1 Upland .................................... 2-4
2.6.2 Wetland .................................... 2-8
2.6.2.1 Forested ................................... 2-8
2.6.2.2 Scrub Shrub ................................ 2-10
2.6.2.3 Emergent .................................. 2-11
3.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ................................... 3-1
3.1 Federal Regulations ....................................... 3-1
3. 1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................... 3-1
3.2 State Regulations ........................................ 3-3
3.2.1 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources ................................... 3-4
4.0 WETLAND DELINEATION ...................................... .4-1
4.1 Background ............................................ 4-1
4.2 Procedures ............................................ 4-1
4.3 Results ............................................... 4-5
5.0 RANGE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ................................. 5-1
5.1 Previous Range Design ..................................... 5-1
5.2 Relocate Targetry ........................................ 5-1
5.3 Redesign of P-949 MPTR (Preferred Alternative) .................... 5-3
6.0 LITERATURE CITED .......................................... 6-1
APPENDIX A - Redesign of P-949 MPTR (Preferred Alternative) and Wetland Boundaries,
Greater Sandy Run Area
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1-1 Vicinity map of Greater Sandy Run Area .............................. 1-2
1-2 Master development plan for Greater Sandy Run Area .... .................. 1-3
2-1 Wetland drainage pattern on Greater Sandy Run Area ...... ................. 2-3
2-2 Cover Types in P949 MPTR Study Area, Greater Sandy Run Area .............. 2-6
4-1 Delineation form ............................................. 4-3
5-1 Previous Range Design (Alternative 1) and Wetland Boundaries
for P949 MPTR, Greater Sandy Run Area .............................. 5-2
5-2 Redesign of P949 MPTR (Preferred Alternative) and Wetland Boundaries,
Greater Sandy Run Area ........................................ 5-5
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
2-1 Selected Soil Characteristics .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
5-1 Results of Wetland Delineation and Impact Assessment for Preferred Design Alternative
on P-949 Multi-Purpose Training Range, Greater Sandy Run Area, Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Alabama .................................... 5-4
iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Atlantic Division, U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDIV) is committed to
achieving and maintaining compliance with national laws and military policies regarding biological
resources and wetland protection. To this end, LANTDIV has provided contracted technical and
professional support for wetland delineation on Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) adjacent to Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) located in Onslow County, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). The
GSRA is approximately 41,000 acres and was acquired in 1992 to provide sufficient land training areas
and available firing ranges at MCBCL.
The P-949 Multi-Purpose Training Range (MPTR), designated SR-7, is the first proposed range at GSRA
(Figure 1-2). The range is designed to accommodate the Ml/A1 tank, and to train infantry and aerial
assault troops, both singly and in coordinated exercises. P-949 MPTR consists of a dual track tank trail,
with a single return track and a Remote Engagement Target System with multiple target types. Other
facilities at the MPTR will include classrooms, instructional bleachers, ammunitions storage, loading
ramps, and sanitation facilities. The Marine Corps will fire only plastic non-explosive projectiles in the
MPTR.
P-949 MPTR is located in the northeastern corner of GSRA, with its safety fan extending 9,000 meters
(m) toward the western boundary. This range is the second largest to be developed on GSRA. Ten
ranges and associated support facilities are proposed for development (Figure 1-2).
1.2 Project Objectives
The primary objective of this project is to provide a complete and accurate delineation of the jurisdictional
wetlands on P-949 MPTR. An accurate map of wetlands within the P-949 MPTR will be used by
LANTDIV and MCBCL to determine the placement of the proposed MPTR.

1-2
Source: EDAW, Inc., 1993. GSRA Master Development Plan
Figure 1-1. Vicinity map of Greater Sandy Run Area, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.

Sk 1!o" r t
Vcrona
,¦ l? y
y^ e
-. ~I A Gre To?hode P ' nt
c
(S R,
' ... Dix
LEGEND
Tank Trail
?._-...
t ' F o --- Tactical Road
Perimeter Road
Access Road
US 17 Underpass
s I >`
Minor Gated Access Point
}
Fo[Lstonc
' Camp
Davts? R
Holly Ridgc
Source: EDAW, Inc., 1993. GSRA Master Development Plan
Figure 1-2. Master development plan for Greater Sandy Run Area, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.
' 1-3

1.3 Report Organization
' This report is subdivided into seven sections, including this introduction. A description of the GSRA,
P-949 MPTR, and natural resources is given in Section 2.0. Federal and State wetland regulations are
presented in Section 3.0. The jurisdictional wetland delineations, including procedures, maps, and results
are presented in Section 4.0. Section 5.0 presents alternatives for the P-949 MPTR. The literature cited
' in this document are listed in Section 6.0.

1-4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF MCB CAMP LEJEUNE/
GREATER SANDY RUN AREA

1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF GREATER SANDY RUN AREA (GSRA)
1 2.1 Physiography
1 The GSRA lies on the Lower Coastal Plain. Most of the area is composed of wide undisseeted instream
areas. There is very little topographic relief; the highest elevation for the area is only 67 feet mean sea
' level (MSL). The area is dominated and influenced by two expansive pocosin wetlands that have been
altered by a series of canals and ditches.
2.2 Land Use

Most of GSRA was acquired from a paper company which managed the area for timber production.
Privately-owned parcels, including residences, small businesses, and small farms comprised the remaining
acreage. Various wood and paper companies have controlled most of GSRA for the past 45 years. Most
of the saleable timber was harvested prior to acquisition by MCBCL. Currently, the area is dominated
by immature, undeveloped, monoculture pine plantations of various ages. Historically, agricultural uses
within GSRA have been limited due to an overall lack of prime farm land in the area. Residential and
commercial uses have existed on small peripheral portions of the area since the 1950's. The communities
of Verona, Dixon, Holly Ridge, Folkstone, and Padgett border the GSRA. Military land use has been
limited to helicopter training on the former World War II Army training facility at Camp Davis.
2.3 Climate
The climate in the area consists of hot and humid summers with cool winters, and a relatively short cold
period. The average summer temperature is 76° F, and the average winter temperature is 45° F. The
average daily maximum temperature is 87° F with an average winter daily minimum temperature of 32°
F. The highest temperature recorded was 103 ° F in June 1954. The lowest temperature recorded was
2' F in February 1965. Freezing temperatures occur between mid-November and the end of March,
mostly in late December and January. The last freezing temperature (< 32°F) in spring for five years
in 10 years is later than April 22; the first freezing temperature in fall for the same probability is October
24. The growing season, with daily minimum temperatures higher than 32°F, for five years in 10 years
is 184 days (USDA 1992).
2-1

i The average yearly rainfall is 34 inches. Nearly 60 percent of the average precipitation falls in April
through September. Thunderstorms occur approximately 45 days each year. Snowfall in the area
' averages three inches a year. The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is 55 percent. Hurricanes
have historically crossed the area every few years. Prevailing winds are generally from the south or
' southwest in spring and summer and from the north and northwest in the fall and winter. Wind speeds
average nine miles per hour during the day.

2.4 Water Resources
Alluvial alustrian forested
p wetlands (pocosins) play an important role in the GSRA (Figure 2-1). These
' pocosins control flooding; improve water quality; and provide quality fish and wildlife habitat. The
GSRA pocosin and its associated creeks and drainages are the dominant hydrological features affecting
' the P-949 MPTR. Five major drainage outfalls are located throughout the GSRA: Sandy Run Swamp
Creek, Juniper Swamp Creek, Shelter Swamp Creek, Haws Run, and Hicks Run. Input of water into
the system is primarily by precipitation. Discharge from the pocosin system comes primarily from
surface run-off and evapotranspiration as opposed to groundwater seepage. Flooding is not a major
' problem within the GSRA. The pocosins act like giant sponges during storm events, as their thick peat
layers soak up rainwater, and release it slowly over time. Surface run-off is slow because of the level
' topography in the area.
' Artificial drainage systems have been extensively created apparently by the various timber companies that
have owned the area prior to military acquisition to assist in siviculture practices. Drainage ditches assist
in lowering the water table and expedite surface run-off. These practices allow equipment access to areas
' that were otherwise inaccessible. Pine plantations that were established in the GSRA have benetitted from
these practices. It is estimated in the Draft and Final EIS for the proposed expansion and realignment
' of the MCB-Camp Lejeune, that approximately four percent (1.6 km' or 398 acres) of the GSRA's
pocosin community has been previously drained and ditched (USMC 1989, 1990). The natural drainage
pattern for the GSRA is from east to west. There are three primary drainageways that originate on the
GSRA. P-949 MPTR is not affected by these major drainageways.

2-2

u

Source: EDAW, Inc., 1993. GSRA Master Development Plan
Figure 2-1. Wetland drainage pattern on Greater Sandy Run Area, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.
2-3
' 2.5 Soils

The majority of soil types identified at GSRA consist of tine sandy loamy, with the remainder classified
as mucks, mucky loams, sandy loams, and fine sands. The majority of these soils are hydric in nature,
and exhibit high water tables, high organic content, and small particle size. The soil types and their
generalized characteristics are described below.
In general, the soils at P-949 MPTR have low potential for water and wind erosion. The permeability
of the soils ranges from 0.06 to 20 inches per hour. The water table is near the surface, especially during
the growing season. The shrink-swell classification for all soil groups is low. The specific soil
properties vary slightly depending on whether the soil is in depressional, flooded, or upland land forms
and by the properties of the underlaying substratum. Selected properties related to soil erosion and runoff
factors of the soils found at P-949 MPTR are listed in Table 2-1.
2.6 Natural Communities
The study area for determining wetland boundaries and natural communities within siting constraints of
P-949 MPTR was 1500 m x 3100 m (1150 acres). Natural communities were identified and classified
into two broad categories; upland and wetland communities. Upland community profile descriptions were
adopted and modified from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program classification scheme (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). Wetland communities were subdivided and classified according to the Cowardin et
al. land classification system, which was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et
al. 1979). The primary objective of the Cowardin et al. system is to impose boundaries on natural
ecosystems for the purpose of inventory, evaluation, and management. Faunal descriptions were
supplemented from NCASI (1992). Fifteen wetland community types were identified during the field
surveys (Figure 2-2).
2.6.1 Upland
Upland areas cover 708 acres (61 percent) including pine woodlands, mixed pine, and mixed pine
hardwood forest. Distribution and composition of these communities throughout the study area reflect the
effects of topographic positioning, hydrologic influences, and past land use practices.
2-4

U
U
? O
F ?
b
U
N
a
o b
o ?
wx
0
? a.
N O
c'DC
F
c
3 x
by
Q ?
O
O
C ?
_O Q
U
w
cq ?
U ?
N
C?.
0
V)
c 15
bn bn on ?n ao ao bn on ao ?n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V) M Vi N V' N i 7 1
N N N N -+ ?p •-+ N N N
a P. a s aa, a'. a s a aa..
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
V7 O O O O N V7
O O O O } O O O N --
a
0 a,
Z¢

W W W W W W W W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O o 0

O
N
6 O C)
Cl

O a
N

O o
N

O
6
O
N 0
N

O 0
N

O
O O N N O
U
°'
•p ? U
o
U
N

ate.

E° O
?

O
3

?

O

i

?

rx

a
L

O
r

°

n O

u r+
a.

2-5 d ?
v?
m = m = = = = = O = m = A = m
l0
c
rn
N
i
N
a
3
?
D 0
m
~ (D O
D
ro
n Lc
0 -0
a ® s
co
N
/1 Jf N
? ? O 1 ma
3
(D r-
D l
7 ?g Xx
? ?a S
a
C?
?m
(D
D S
C'+'
(D
m m? m? O
?Y
Cl-
?Q Y
S
m
D
D g2
C
m
a?
0
Y
NCH I
RF
?m
<Z
x?
Y N ( 1
N

Pine woodlands
Areas of pine woodlands, characterized by a dominant loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) canopy, occur in a
' patchwork arrangement throughout the study area. Many of these areas were planted for pulpwood
production; however, active management no longer exists. In young stands, canopy closure is complete
' and virtually impenetrable, intertwined with greenbriar (Smilax spp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens). However, on older tracts, a variety of hardwoods may
' appear in the understory including red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
' Pine woodlands occupy nearly level, poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained areas scattered
throughout the study area. A large majority of these areas have been ditched to facilitate drainage.
' These drained areas were then bedded to allow for the planting of pine seedlings. This community type
is essentially a fire maintained community. Without the benefit of periodic fires to remove accumulated
' ground litter and newly established hardwoods, the woodlands association may eventually succeed to a
mixed pine hardwood forest. Natural functions of this vegetation community include timber production,
' mineral recycling, and some water storage and purification. Pine woodlands also provide
physical/chemical buffers to wetland areas on the property.

r
Mixed pine
This community type is dominated by loblolly pine with scattered individuals of longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) and pond pine (Pinus serotina). These stands are on the upland-wetland interface and grow
on the hydric Leon soil series, a highly permeable sand not generally utilized in crop production. They
are somewhat elevated, and do not appear to have a sustainable wetland hydrology. Common associates
in this type are sweetgum, red maple, and red bay (Persea borobonia). The shrub and herb layers are
sparse to moderate in density.
The mixed pine community type is also dependant upon fire for its maintenance. Without fire to remove
encroaching hardwood species, this community will eventually succeed to a mixed pine hardwood forest
along drier, well-drained locales or a pine-titi (Cyrilla) transitional forest along wetter, poorly-drained
areas. Mixed pine communities provide the same functions as those previously mentioned for pine
' woodlands.
1
1
2-7

Mixed pine hardwood
A variant of pine woodlands, this community is reflective of the age of the stand and degree of
maintenance. The primary identification factor is the mix of pines and hardwoods in the canopy.
Loblolly pines share canopy dominance with sweet gum, red maple, loblolly bay (Cordonia lasianthus),
and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia).
Mixed pine hardwood communities occur on relatively flat, moderately to poorly drained terrain. This
community is located in the transition zone between the upland pure pine communities and the wet
hardwood bottomlands, where some seasonal flooding occurs. Unlike most communities, the mixed pine
hardwoods do not have a dominant stress factor. There is some competition between plants for use of
water, sunlight, and available nutrients. Once established, they can withstand disturbance due to the
complex and diverse vegetation and the excellent plant growth conditions. The community is fire
resistant but fire may occur during drought conditions.
2.6.2 Wetland
Five major wetland systems are defined in the Cowardin classification system: marine, estuarine, riverine,
lacustrine, and palustrine. Palustrine wetlands were the only type found in the study area and cover 443
acres (39 percent). Palustrine wetlands include all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens. This system groups the vegetated wetlands
traditionally called marshes, swamps, bogs, fens, prairies, and ponds. Four classes of palustrine wetlands
occur in the study area: forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and a combination of forested and scrub-shrub.
A detailed description of the forested scrub-shrub and emergent wetland classes follow. A separate
discussion of the forested/scrub-shrub class is not provided since each are discussed separately.
2.6.2.1 Forested
' Palustrine forested wetlands occupy six different categories at P-949 MPTR. These include:
1) PF04B--Needle-leaved evergreen forests growing on saturated sites;
' 2) PFOIC--Broad-leaved deciduous forests growing on seasonally flooded sites;
3) PFO1 B--Broad-leaved deciduous forests growing on saturated sites;
' 4) PFO1 /2C--Broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved deciduous forests growing on seasonally flooded sites;
2-8

5) PFOI/3B--Broad-leaved deciduous/broad-leaved evergreen forests growing on saturated sites; and
6) PFO1/413--Broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen forests growing on saturated sites.
The source of flooding on these sites is either from established drainages like canals, ditches, or streams,
or subsurface sources. Such flooding, if of sufficient duration, satisfies the wetland hydrology criteria
for jurisdictional wetland determinations. Dominant canopy species typically have a wetland indicator
status of facultative (FAC) to facultative wetland (FACW), as does the shrub and herb stratum. The soils
are hydric and in most cases, highly organic. Soils reflect the anaerobic conditions produced by
prolonged saturation.
The character of the forested wetland cover types found in the study area relates directly to site
conditions, the degree of saturation, and the successional stage. The forest canopy and upper crown
classes are characterized by dominants and codominants of loblolly pine, red maple, pond pine, black
gum (Ayssa sylvatica var. biflora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginica), and sweet gum. The shrub stratum
consists of suppressed individuals of the above species and naturally smaller species like bitter gallberry
(Ilex glabra), fetterbush, (Lyonia lucida), loblolly bay, bayberry (Myrica heterophylla), horse sugar
(Symplocos tinctoria), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), red bay, titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora), and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). The herb layer commonly
consists of bamboo (Smilax laurifolia), broom sedge (Andropogon spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), and yellow jessamine. Typical animals inhabiting this community include white tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), opossum (Didelphis virginicus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), short-tail shrew (Blarina brevicauda), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), parula warbler
(Parula americana), barred owl (Stria varia), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), hairy woodpecker
(Picoides villosus), eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), mud snake (Farancia abacura), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), cricket frog (Acris gryllus), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), and dwarf
salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata).
The maintenance of natural hydrological regimes is critical to the health of forested wetlands. Species
composition will be affected if the hydroperiod is significantly altered. Some species that survive well
with extended flooding require drydowns for reproduction. Some species look healthy, but do not grow
when constantly inundated. Others may die under these conditions. Several species suffer stress and
disease when the water table is lowered or the hydroperiod is shortened. Additionally, shorter
2-9

1

hydroperiods and lower water tables allow the survival of upland mesophytic species. Forested wetlands
function in filtering and assimilating excessive nutrients and pollutants from upland runoff as well as from
ambient water sources. They also store water during periods of heavy rainfall and provide wildlife
habitat.
2.6.2.2 Scrub shrub
Scrub shrub wetlands occupy four different categories at P-949 MPTR. These include:
1) PSS313--Broad-leaved evergreen species growing on saturated sites;
2) PSS4B--Needle-leaved evergreen species growing on saturates sites;
3) PSS4/113--Needle-leaved evergreen/broad-leaved deciduous species growing on saturated sites; and
4) PSS3/4B--Broad-leaved evergreen/needle-leaved evergreen species growing on saturated sites.
A scrub shrub wetland is a transitional community in most cases; a successional stage characterized by
aggressive soil-building processes and smaller or younger vegetation. It is often found associated with
an emergent wetland or as a component of a larger forested wetland system. Left undisturbed, its woody
components will increase, leading to a forested climax type. Water regimes involve saturated soil
conditions; therefore, species composition closely follows this pattern of saturation.
The typical structure and species composition of this community consists of a low canopy of loblolly bay,
pond pine, loblolly pine, and sweet bay with a persistent shrub stratum. Where shrub competition is
slight, the herb stratum flourishes. Common species of the shrub stratum are bitter gallberry, red bay,
titi, fetterbush, highbush blueberry, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), red maple, sweet pepperbush, and
winterberry (Ilex verticillata). Common herbs are bamboo, cinnamon fern, broomsedge, meadow-beauty
(Rhexia mariana), and redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana). Common faunal inhabitants include white-
tailed deer, raccoon, marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), golden mouse (Peromyscus nuttalli), harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax virescens), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens),
broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps), eastern cottonmouth, southern toad (Bufo terrestris), and pine
woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis).
2-10

fl

Scrub shrub wetlands, like forested wetlands are also dependant upon water levels and an adequate water
regime to insure their continued existence. Because of their successional stage they often evolve into a
more mature forested system. Scrub shrub wetlands function as physical buffers to flood waters,
chemical buffers to water and air pollution, and as wildlife habitat.
2.6.2.3 Emergent
Emergent wetlands within GSRA are herbaceous wetlands found in wetland forest tracts which have been
cleared by logging. These systems are generally limited in size and distribution. The only category of
emergent wetlands found at P-949 MPTR was persistent species growing in saturated soil conditions (i.e.
PEM1B). This system, like the scrub shrub community, is also in the early stages of transition. This
is evident by the number of scrub shrub species which occur throughout the area. Without further
disturbance, the emergent wetlands at P-949 MPTR will succeed to a scrub shrub community.
Vegetation and wildlife includes those species particularly suited to flooded conditions during the growing
season. Primary productivity is high in these systems and many species of wildlife are supported. Shrub
layer vegetation, when present, is dominated by red bay, fetterbush, sweet bay, and bitter gallberry. The
characteristic herbaceous vegetation includes bamboo, broomsedge, goldenrod (Solidago spp.), spagnum
(spagnum spp.) and bracken fern. Typical animals include raccoon, marsh rabbit, green heron (Butorides
striatus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), little blue heron
(Florida caerulea), eastern cottonmouth, eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), banded water snake
(Nerodia fasciata), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), green frog (Rana clamitans), and lesser siren
(Siren intermedia).
Fire, an integral component of emergent wetland systems, maintains the open herbaceous community by
restricting shrub invasion. The normal interval between tires is one to 10 years, with strictly herbaceous
marshes burning every one to three years, and those with substantial shrub growth having gone three to
10 years without tire. Emergent wetlands function in the filtration and assimilation of excessive nutrients
and pollutants, in water storage, and in wildlife habitat.
2-11

3.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

3.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
3.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (PL 80-845) was the first comprehensive statement of
Federal interest in clean water programs (WPCF 1987). The 1972 amendments to the Act (PL 92-500),
also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), made the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) primarily
responsible for directing and defining water pollution control programs across the country. The
objectives of the CWA are to maintain and restore the condition of waters of the United States for fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. Furthermore, the CWA recognizes and preserves states' primary
responsibility to achieve these objectives.
3.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands (33 USC 1344). The selection and use of disposal sites must be in accordance with guidelines
developed by the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of the Army. Thus, the Administrator may
deny, prohibit, restrict, or withdraw the use of a disposal site if discharge of materials into the area would
result in unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies, fish and wildlife resources, or
recreational areas (40 CFR Part 230). Department of Army permits are issued under two basic formats,
individual and general permits. Permits may be issued following review of individual applications for
a specific project and to authorize a category of activities that are substantially similar in nature and cause
only minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts in specific geographical regions or
nationwide. Individual permits may be authorized by Department of Army following a case by case
evaluation of specific projects involving proposed discharges. General permits may be authorized to
avoid unnecessary duplication of Federal, state, or local agency regulatory control. Regional and
nationwide permits are types of general permits. Regional permits may be issued to cover individual
activities that are substantially similar in nature. The individual activities falling within categories
authorized by such regional permits may not require further authorization by the procedures specified in
processing Department of Army permits. A nationwide permit may be issued which may authorize
activities throughout the nation. General permits may not be valid for more than five years.
3-1

r

General policies for evaluating permit applications have been established. The benefits which may
reasonably be expected from a proposed activity must be balanced against its foreseeable detriments to
the public interest. The unnecessary alteration or destruction of wetlands, which constitute a productive
and valuable public resource, should be discouraged as contrary to public interest. The Army will give
full consideration to the views of State and Federal agencies responsible for management of fish and
wildlife resources in deciding the disposition of permit applications. Permit applications may be evaluated
for compliance with applicable water quality standards and the authority of states to allocate water
quantities shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired by issuance of a permit. Full
evaluation of the general public interest regarding historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources
is made to avoid significant adverse effects on the values or purposes of these classifications. A
Department of Army permit does not convey property rights nor authorize any injury to property or
invasion of other rights. Significant adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
floodplains should be avoided, as well as the direct and indirect support of floodplain development
whenever there is a practicable alternative. Consideration of mitigation will occur throughout the permit
application review process to ensure that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. All
other policy considerations are made to benefit public interest.
The two basic components of Section 404 are "dredged or fill material" and "waters of the United
States". Dredged material means material that is excavated or dredged from waters of the United States.
Fill material means any material (including extensive placement of pilings) used for the primary purpose
of replacing an aquatic area with dry land/material or of changing the bottom elevation of a waterbody.
Discharge of fill material means the addition of fill material into wetlands and/or waters of the United
States. Waters of the United States are broadly defined as territorial seas; tidal and non-tidal waters,
including adjacent wetlands; and all other waters of the United States, including isolated wetlands and
lakes, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, and other waters including tributaries to interstate waters or
navigable waters of the United States, the degradation of which could affect interstate commerce. Special
aquatic sites have been identified in 40 CFR Part 230 and included as waters of the United States. Prior
converted cropland is specifically excluded from waters of the United States.
Discharge of dredged material means the addition or redeposition of dredged or excavated material to a
specific site that would have the effect of destroying or degrading any area of waters of the United States,
and runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area. Mechanized land clearing, ditching,
3-2

i

channelization, or other excavation activities are specifically identified as means of discharge of dredged
material. However, discharge of dredged material does not include discharge of pollutants, which is
subject to Section 402 of the CWA, and activities that involve only the cutting or removing of vegetation
above the ground where the activity neither substantially disturbs root systems nor redeposits excavated
soil material. An activity is considered to destroy waters of the United States if it alters the area such
that it would no longer be classified a water of the United States. An activity is considered to degrade
waters of the United States if it has more than an inconsequential effect on the area by causing an
identifiable individual or cumulative adverse effect on any aquatic function.
Discharge of dredged or till material from the following activities is not prohibited by or otherwise
subject to regulation under Section 404, except as provided at the end of this paragraph: (1) normal
farming, silviculture, and ranching activities; (2) maintenance of dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap,
breakwaters, causeways, bridge abutments or approaches, and transportation structures; (3) construction
or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches or the maintenance (but not construction) of
drainage ditches; (4) construction of temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site which does
not include placement of fill material into waters of the United States; (5) any activity authorized under
Section 208 of the CWA; and (6) construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary
roads for moving mining equipment in accordance with best management practices. The two exceptions
to these scenarios which would trigger Section 404 unauthorized use are discharge of any toxic pollutant
listed under Section 307 of the CWA, and the discharge of dredged or till material where the flow or
circulation of waters of the United States may be impaired or reduced.
3.2 State Regulations
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification
for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United
States. This requirement includes Section 404 permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) for dredge and till activities.
3-3

3.2.1 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources; Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) is responsible for administering the state's 401 Water Quality
Certification program. The Division's statutory authority to enact regulations for implementation of the
CWA is contained in NCGS 143-215.3(a)(1) and (c). Effective October 1, 1989, the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0109. This rule is
consistent with EPA guidance and COE regulations and states: "Projects that alter the reach and extent
of a freshwater wetland will not be considered as removing existing uses of the wetland in violation of
the Antidegradation Policy [pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0201 (b)] if the alteration protects all existing
and designated uses of all waters of the State. In making this determination, the Director will be guided
by 40 CFR part 230, Subparts A through F. "
Wetlands in North Carolina have not yet been formally delimited or "classified" as have other waters in
the state. Classification is a process by which the EMC, with the assistance of DEM, determines the
"designated uses" of specific areas of waters and through the public rulemaking process establishes the
proper classification, standards or management practices of those waters based on their designated uses.
All significant and nonincidental existing uses of waters, including those of wetlands, are protected under
a water quality rule known as the "antidegradation policy" (15A NCAC 2B .0201), even if the waters
have not been formally classified or their uses designated. "Existing use" is defined as any use that is
actually attained in the waters on or after November 28, 1975 [(15A NCAC 2B .0202(17)]. The state's
antidegradation policy, required by EPA, states that beneficial existing uses of waters may not be
removed.
One or more of the following beneficial uses, and/or others not listed here, may exist in a given wetland:
conveyance and storage of floodwaters; abatement of water pollution; augmentation of surface water flow
during drought; groundwater recharge; shoreline stabilization; timber production; and habitat for fish,
wildlife and plants including rare, threatened and endangered species.
These and other significant, non-incidental existing uses of wetlands are protected under the
antidegradation policy. The state may not grant a 401 Water Quality Certification for a 404 permit
34

' application in a wetland if significant existing uses will be removed by the project unless no practicable
alternative exists.
Activities that result in the discharge of till material into the waters of the State (which include wetlands)
' require a Section 404 permit from the COE (Section 404, Clean Water Act) and a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM (Section 401, Clean Water Act). Certifications for use in North Carolina
' fall under two categories, general and individual. General certifications are issued for activities which
have been determined to have minimal impact on waters of the State. Projects that the Division has
' determined are likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality or projects that result in the
loss of existing uses of the wetland or downstream waters must obtain an individual Water Quality
' Certification.

3-5

L

4.0 WETLAND DELINEATION

4.0 WETLAND DELINEATION
4.1 Background
In the past 200 years, North Carolina has lost approximately 5.4 million acres of wetlands (an historical
loss of almost 49 percent). Estimates developed by the USFWS reported that North Carolina still
contained about 5.7 million acres of wetlands (about 17 percent of the State's land area) circa 1980's
(Dahl 1990). North Carolina has the fifth largest amount of remaining wetlands within the United States.
Approximately 95 percent of the State's wetlands occur within the Coastal Plain Region. Wetland
drainage, filling, and water manipulation for agriculture and silviculture operations have resulted in the
loss of large amounts of wetland habitat. According to the North Carolina Division of Parks and
Recreation, a number of wetland types (i.e., Carolina bays, bogs, pocosins, and bottomland hardwoods)
are still in need of protection due to imminent conversion pressures. Natural wetlands provide benefits
to fish and wildlife, environmental quality, and socioeconomic values (Tiner 1984).
The extent and variety of wetlands on P-949 MPTR contribute to the wetland functions and values of
North Carolina's freshwater wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District) have
jurisdictional authority over the wetlands on P-949. The COE-Wilmington was contacted to request a
review of P-949 MPTR development concerning compliance with Federal wetland regulations. The COE
stated that work on the area must be done in compliance with applicable Federal wetlands legislation, and
that compensatory mitigation could be required for all wetland impacts.
4.2 Procedures
Remote sensing of aerial photography, soil survey, and topography; Geographic Information System
(GIS); and Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies were used to delineate preliminary wetland
boundaries on 1150 acres. Federal wetland regulators were consulted to determine procedural and
permitting requirements of jurisdictional wetlands. The layout of P-949 MPTR was digitized into the GIS
using surveyed control points. Stereoscopic photo-interpretation of the P-949 MPTR area provided
preliminary wetland boundaries and cover types for field survey data collection and ground-truthing.
Wetland boundaries, cover types, and range design were digitized into the GIS for analysis of wetland
4-1
I

' areas and wetland impacts. The digital layers were georectified according to known (surveyed) control
points provided by MCB-Camp Lejeune to create an accurate map of wetlands within the range area.
Blueline copies of aerial photograph enlargements (1" = 100 m) were used for field delineation of
' jurisdictional wetland boundaries. Photo interpretation of cover types and preliminary wetland boundaries
were transferred to the blueline copies to serve as a guide for field data collection and ground-truthing.
' Parallel transect lines spaced 100 m apart were transferred to blueline maps and provided to professional
biologists who walked the length of each transect. A routine delineation based on the 1987 Corps of

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual was used to locate jurisdictional wetland boundaries. A
delineation form was completed at each cover type/wetland/non-wetland boundary and sufficient data were
recorded to support the jurisdictional determination (Figure 4-1). The wetland boundary between
transects was located and confirmed by biologists on adjacent transects. The delineation forms
corresponded to specifically numbered transects and sampling locations identified on the blueline maps.
All adjustments to the cover type/wetland/non-wetland boundaries made during the field surveys were
digitized into the GIS for calculation of the extent of jurisdictional wetlands and potential wetland impacts
from proposed development of P-949 MPTR.
Delineating an area as wetland required at least one positive indicator each of hydrophytic vegetation,
wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. If an area failed to contain positive indicators of any of the three
parameters, then the area was not delineated as wetland. Plant community designation and wetland or
non-wetland designation were determined on-site based on sample data. As mentioned previously, plant
communities (cover types) were designated according to the Cowardin classification system.
At each cover type/wetland/non-wetland boundary, biologists recorded the dominant plant species in the
tree, shrub, woody vine, and herbaceous strata. Dominance was based on aerial coverage on 0.1-acre
plots for trees and shrubs and 0.01-acre plots for herbaceous vegetation and woody vines. More than
50 percent of the dominant species recorded required an indicator status of facultative, facultative (+),
facultative wet, or obligate wetland plant for the area to be classified as having hydrophytic vegetation.
The national list of Hydrophytic Vegetation-Southeast Region issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
was used to identify indicator status of each dominant species (Reed 1988).
4-2

Project Size:
Applicant/Owner:
' Investigator:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site:
Is lire site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(Ifneeded, explain on reverse.)
DATAFORM
ROUTINE WE I'LANDDETERMINATION
(1987 COI, Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
[)are:
Parish:
Slate:
Community ID:
Transact ID: _
Plot ID:
' VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
' 1. 9.
2. 10.
' 3. 11.
4. 12.
' S. 13.
6. 14.
' 7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACWor FAC
(excluding FAC-).
' Remarks:

HYDROLOGY

_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
' Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
' Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
I Remarks
E
I Figure 4-1. Delineation form.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 inches
-Water Marks
_ Drill Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
-Water-Stained Leaves
_I,ocal Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral 'l'est
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
4-3
Figure 4-1 amt.
' Applicant: Plot ID:
SOILS

'
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations -
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
' Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretion,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Historical Low-Chroma Colors
Histic Epipedon Concretions
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Reducing Conditions Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Gleyed Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
' Remarks:
' SUMMARY

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? - Yes - No
' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? - Yes - No
' Remarks:

4-4
1

¦
Soil test pits ( z 16 inches deep) were dug to determine the location of the hydric or non-hydric soil
boundary at each sampling point. The condition of the mineral soils was assessed to determine whether
there was an accumulation of organic material in the upper surface, organic streaking below the A
horizon, or development of a spodic horizon. At least one positive indicator was required to classify the
soil in the area as hydric. The National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils List was also used to
determine whether the soil was hydric (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1987).
¦
Determination of wetland hydrology at each sampling point was based on the Soil Conservation Service
¦ description of frequency and duration of inundation for the particular soil type and positive indicators
based on field observations. Regional hydrologic indicators were obtained from Wilmington District for
application in determining wetland hydrology. A peat, muck, or mucky peat mineral surface layer was
required to designate a sampling point as having wetland hydrology. To classify the area as having
wetland hydrology, water is required to be present within the upper 12 inches of the soil for about five
percent of the growing season. In addition to the regional criteria provided by Wilmington District, at
. least one of the primary indicators or two of the secondary indicators of wetland hydrology, as specified
in the 1987 manual, were required for positive identification. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology
. included observation of inundation, saturated soils in upper 12 inches, sediment deposits, driftlines, water
marks, and drainage patterns in wetlands. Secondary indicators included oxidized root channels in upper
¦ 12 inches of soil, water-stained leaves, local soil survey data, FAC-neutral test and other parameters.
¦ 4.3 Results
Formal notification of the jurisdictional determination of wetland boundaries delineated was received from
¦
the Wilmington District, COE on 1 March 1994. It was recommended that, where possible, a minimum
50-foot undisturbed buffer be maintained between the proposed upland till and the undisturbed
¦ jurisdictional wetlands located throughout P-949 range. There were 443 acres (39 percent) of
jurisdictional wetlands delineated within the 1150 acres of P-949 MPTR (Figure 2-2, Page 2-5). Forest
scrub-shrub wetlands accounted for the greatest wetland acreage with 315 acres (27 percent of total-not
of wetlands), followed by scrub shrub wetlands with 59 acres (5 percent), forested wetlands with 48 acres
(4 percent), and emergent wetlands with 21 acres (2 percent). There were 15 wetland cover types
delineated. The greatest area (297 acres) of wetland cover type was pine forest with gallberry or mixed
' bay shrubs growing on saturated sites.

4-5

7

J

5.0 RANGE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Design considerations included the need to locate the range in an area where unavoidable wetland impacts
would be incurred, avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, and avoidance of cultural resources
and threatened and endangered species. Figure 1-2 (page 1-3) and Figure 2-1 (page 2-3) indicate that no
alternative for relocation of the entire P-949 MPTR exists because of the surface danger zone
requirements, proximity of other proposed ranges, and extensive wetlands throughout the GSRA. The
proposed site for P-949 MPTR is the only practicable alternative that could accommodate the range.
Three alternatives were considered in design of P-949 MPTR to avoid or minimize wetland impacts. The
first alternative was the design prepared by Huntsville Division COE based on preliminary evaluation of
the area prior to the delineation of wetlands described herein. The second alternative was to relocate
target positions to minimize wetland impacts without requiring major modifications to range design and
re-evaluation of the range for qualifying tank gunnery units. The third alternative is the Preferred
Alternative and involves relocation of selected targets and tank trail routes to avoid wetlands and
minimize impacts.
5.1 Previous Range Design
A total of 38.45 acres of wetlands would be impacted under this alternative which involves a total of
85.34 acres of target and road construction (Figure 5-1). The greatest area (28.3 acres) of potential
impact would be to pine forest/scrub-shrub wetland cover type which accounted for nine percent of the
available cover type area. Nine wetland cover types would potentially be impacted by this range design,
although total impacts would be less than one acre on four of the cover types.
5.2 Relocate Targetry

The second alternative was eliminated from further consideration because the slight modifications to target
locations that were possible without causing major changes to range design and re-evaluation, resulted
in an insignificant reduction (16 percent or six acres) in wetland impacts. Any significant reduction in
wetland impacts would require relocation of both targets and tank trails, which consequently would result
in major range design modifications and range testing.
5-1

`1
H
LD
c
7
(D
Ul
I
e
N?
0 (
(D
o
a
c+ LO
(D °
4
Q1 j ---?
c `
°
N \ ?1
° l
?O
g?m
P? Z
LA
N

N
LO
C '
N
Ul
I
N
a
:?-- x
(D (D
~ (D
CL LO Y S
0 p
1 _
(D
(D I
(
7 N 1\ _,
Cf)
(D
a
Q- (D
D
(D ? `=?====111 ? ?\
0 V W m
0
1 /
. ? \1 I ?g ro
mm
1
L
°
N ?
17
IM
Z
n

5.3 Redesign of P-949 M?TR (Preferred Alternative)
' Relocation of targets and tank trails would result in a 55 percent reduction in wetland impacts from the
previous range design. The cumulative total area of wetland impacts is 17.25 acres. The Huntsville
' District, COE reduced wetland impacts by avoiding wetlands where possible and minimizing the area of
impact through wetlands where impacts were unavoidable. Location of the tank trails further northward
' in the study area than presented was not possible because of cultural resources sites in the northeast
portion of the area and potential noise impacts that would result. The limit of the compatible use noise
' contour is approximately represented by the northern boundary of the study area. The redesign would
result in 94.59 acres of construction; the area of wetland impacts is 18 percent. Two-thirds of the
wetland impacts would occur in PF04/SS3B cover type which occupies an equal percentage (67%) of
' wetlands in the study area. Seven wetland cover types would be impacted under the preferred alternative
(Table 5-1).
' The proposed mitigation for these wetland impacts will be provided through development of a mitigation
bank located primarily in the southern portion of GSRA. Enhancement of existing wetlands impacted by
' previous construction of drainage ditches and silvicultural practices, restoration of areas where wetland
hydrology has been eliminated, and proposed preservation of unique wetlands will be accomplished.

5-3

Table 5-1
Results of Wetland Delineation and Impact Assessment
for Preferred Design Alternative on P-949 Multi-Purpose Training Range,
Greater Sandy Run Area, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

t
t

COVER TYPE TOTAL COVERAGE (acres) COINCIDENCE W/DESIGN
Non-wetland 706.52 77.34
PFO 1 B 04.86 00.00
PFO l /4B 03.52 00.00
PF04B 21.69 00.06
PFO 1 /2C 01.32 00.00
PSS3B 47.53 02.50
PF04/SS3B 297.04 11.49
PEM 1 B 21.00 01.30
PFO/SS3B 04.84 00.54
PSS3/4B 08.23 00.00
PSS4/ 1 B 00.91 00.00
PFO 1 /SS3B 05.19 00.00
PSS3/FO4B 08.06 01.30
PFO 1 /3B 15.65 00.00
PFO l C 00.52 00.04
PSS4B 02.56 00.02
TOTALS 1150.46 94.59
5-4
1

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
t

1
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Title 40, Part 230. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines
for specification of disposal sites for dredged or till material. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/08S-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI.
Washington, D.C. 103pp.
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1970's to 1980's. U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
EDAW, Inc. 1993. Draft Greater Sandy Run Master Development Plan. Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Norfolk, VA.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
NCASI, 1992. Preliminary report on mammalian and avian species in managed and unmanaged
pocosins. Special Report No. 92-10.
Reed, P. B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Biol. Rep. 88(26.2). 124 pp.
Schafale, P.M. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC Dept. of Env.,
Health, and Natural Resources.
Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
United States Code, Title 33, Section 1344. Clean Water Act. Authorization from Corps of Engineers
for discharge into navigable waters. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Soil survey for Onslow County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Hydric soils of the United States - in cooperation with the
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Regional Wetlands Concept Plan - Southeast Region. USDI,
Atlanta, GA. 259pp.
USMC. 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed expansion and realignment of the
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, NC. Department of the Navy, Atlantic
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA. 5 Vols.
6-1

USMC. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed expansion and realignment of the
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, NC. Department of the Navy, Atlantic
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA. 5 Vols.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1987. The Clean Water Act of 1987. WPCF Order No. P0070JR,
ISBN 0-943244-40-4, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA. 318 pp.
6-2

ROLLED MAPS PROVIDED SEPARATELY