19940287 Ver 1_Complete File_19990325

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
March 27, 1994
Mr. Roger L. Shields
Department of Defense
Harvey Point Defense
Route 5, Box 175
Hertford, N.C. 27944
Dear Mr. Sheilds:
Testing Activity
E:) FE F1
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Road crossing
Perquimans County
DEM Project #94287
We have reviewed your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 0.25 acres of wetlands or waters which are
tributary to Perquimans River for road crossing located at Harvey
Point Road in Perquimans County as described in your submittal dated
25 March 1994. Based on this review, we have determined that the
proposed fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification No.
2732. A copy of the General Certification is attached. This
Certification is necessary for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permit No. 14. This action completes DEM's review under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
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.
1786.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
Sincerely,
1 PFeston Holjd, Jr. P . E .
94287.1tr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
P,O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEP 11P: / -r ,? a f tat.11V1\ 1, ..
Na ' n ide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit ft -
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
?
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
A SENT
OF ENVIRO r 'I'II
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ,
NC DEPARTMENT
Box 1890
P
O AND NATITItAL RESOURCES
?i
.
.
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 I?ItF? ' 1994
P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW CO-E Raleigh, NC 27526-0535
?
Telephone [phone] ----°- -
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
i
WETLANW,
,
`,
Telephone [phone] k„_. WA
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Owners Name: HARVEY POINT DEFENSE
1 TESTING ACTIVITY _
.
Owners Address: ROUTE 5, BOX 175,
2 HERTFORD, NORTH CAROLINA 27944
.
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): N/A OAfork): [phone] _
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible c orporate official, address, phone number:
RFSPONSTRI F OFFTUR TS THE OTRFCTO R OF THE FACTI TTY
ROGER I SHIF OS
SAME ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE AS NOTED IN (1), (2) AND (3) ABOVE.
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: PERQU IMANS , NORTH CAROLINA
Nearest Town or City: HERTFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): LOCATED APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MILES
SOUTH OF HERTFORD, N. C. ON ROUTE 5 (HARVEY POINT ROAD).
6. Name of ClosestStream/River. _ PFRQIITMANS RTVFR RIINS OTRFCTI Y RY THE BASF
7. River Basin: P ROU I MAN S
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ J NO [ ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO ?A
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
(SEE ATTACHED)
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: ONF FOURTH OF AN ACRE
Drained: NONE
Flooded:. NONE
Excavated: NONE
Total Impacted: ON FOURTH OF AN ACRE
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): S( EE ATTACHED)
13. Purpose of proposed work:CONSTR11CTTON OF A CROSS ORATNAGF STRIICTIIRF Tn AI l nw ArrFCS
TO A RENOVATED BUILDING SITE.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize. wetland impacts.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [XA NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which maybe affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [XX] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What island use of surrounding property? FARMING. II S GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? NON APP TCARI F
PLEASE NOTE: MR. HENRY WICKER, U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (WASHINGTON, NORTH
CAROLINA), MADE A SITE VISIT TO THE PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING PASSAGE WAY ON
14 MARCH 1994. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION MAY BE ADDRESSED
DIRECTLY TO: MR. LARRY JEFFERY
HARVEY POINT DEFENSE TESTING ACTIVITY
[phone]
ATTACHMENT
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS,
LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE.
HARVEY POINT DEFENSE TESTING ACTIVITY ENCOMPASSES A TOTAL OF 1580 ACRES
OF LAND. APPROXIMATELY 400 ACRES CAN BE DEFINED AS BEING WETLANDS.
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY):
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD CROSSING PASSAGE WAY WITH CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURE.
PURPOSE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO A NEWLY RENOVATED BUILDING SITE. (A)
DETERMINE THE WIDTH AND LENGTH OF THE EMBANKMENT AND PASSAGE WAY AT THE
LOCATION WHERE THE ROAD CROSSING AND CULVERTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED. (120'
BY 25' (TOP OF STRUCTURE) 40' (BASE)); (B) ON BOTH SLOPES LEADING INTO
THE PASSAGE WAY, CONSTRUCT ROAD CROSSING HEADWALLS AND WINGWALLS TO
STABILIZE STRUCTURE AND PREVENT AND/OR CONTROL EROSION. (C) CULVERTS
ARE PLACED IN NATURAL CHANNELS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE
TRAVELED WAY; (D) WITH WINGWALLS IN PLACE ALONG ROAD CROSSING PATH,
DIRECT BACKFILL AND TAMPING OF DIRT, BY HAND AND/OR MECHANICAL TAMPER TO
STABILIZE STRUCTURE.
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
WETLANDS IMPACTS.
DIRECT ROUTE TO NEW BASE TESTING AND EVALUATION CENTER. SHORTEST
DISTANCE. DISRUPTION TO THE ESTIMATED ONE FOURTH ACRE WITH PROPERLY
INSTALLED CULVERTS WILL BE MINIMAL, AND EXCEPT FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF
VEGETATION REMOVED IN THE PASSAGE WAY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE, THE
ROAD CROSSING WILL NOT IMPEDE THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 17C: DELINEATION OF SITE PERFORMED BY MR. HENRY WICKER, U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS: 14 MARCH 1994
B. MAP OF NORTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
C. MAP OF HARVEY POINT DEFENSE TESTING ACTIVITY (2 MAPS)
D. 17A: MAP OF WETLAND DELINEATION AND AREA OF PROJECT SITE
E. SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN/BLUE PRINT OF PROJECT
F. ENVIRONMENT SURVEY
V.0. L''ll\Lvl x liviV. v vl' L' 1?vii ?+??aav
Wilmington District
Action ID: County: Po-via ta t nn a 111 ?
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner/Authorized Agent f1m p r'eU --T -X rV
Address ar???lCht? O? lJ E?e?4S P ?Gr?l? ?/ PC U ???NSP__ esT??c
Telephone Number /9I I/ o2 6, - Jr Q
Size and Location of Pro perty(waterbody,_Highway name/numbed, town, etc.)
A
Indicate Which of the following apply:
aA(6J
ere are we an . on the a ve scribed pr which we s ly suggest ould be neated and
su eyed. he surv red etland lin mu a veri ' d by r staf the s ill ma
juris onal determination on your property.
• ause of the size of your property and our pr sen workload, our iden lion and delineation of your
well rids cannot be ac shed in ?t timel anne . You may wis o em loy a consultant obtain a
more imely delinen of th wetlands. ce your c sultant ha agged a [land line o e =roperty.
Corps taff will rhe iew i, ad, i ' is ac rate, we stron reco end that you ave thne surv final ap ova Corps. The Corps will not make a fina jurisdictional determin on on your property
without an approved survey.
• The wetlands on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have been explained
to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this notification.
• ere are no wetlands present the above d ed property w ' h are sub.ec to the permit
re uirement ection 404o e Cl • n Water ct (33 SC 1344). riles there is cha a in t v
or A (r publ' ed re latio , this determ may be reli or a perio o excee ee years
from ate of this no i [cation.
• The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of
Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army
permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is
not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any
questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
at 9 19 -9'7 -S I
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature MI 144
Project Manager Signature
Date 3 - (? - 9 U
Expiration Date
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM
DELINEATION
CESA W Form Sf,6 C 14M g P/ 0 /u Ci 9/9 - a & y -3 go l
I OCT 9'_
ATTACHMENT A
C ? 0 11 D
m /.- / A?? W C7 N 1• ftt
.4 P. - is in T-:L \
C;/CIO La
D m'O `/mom .vi A ?•n ?• i? O ?r O? L IC O I. / t
F• .• ?Z. w b L7 \ r r O N • V ??? D 4 1 y A • ?_ -4 -4 0
1
° I a m' 8 0 (CIO ! /.A Q. o 3 N m o m o N 0.
o - a
D• ca
4;4
01 z a =3m g)o vl r i boo
.0 1-43'
a 0 T
w Cc
-wc
-k 3
ki 46 ? ,? _ n a•_. W ? no e b e ri ,? _ N. a?j D
N ?g W '?7 - N ., 1/1 .COi b n /e s 7 C < v c I `
O? ° P. _ N g r Y
° Bpd ?a$ = Z A ?? " m ,xYa Z: e ? ?f=,
`m ?n o Cf 47m / _? _ c?c ~Y
=r J=
n at aim • y T s
e?v' 'ate i ^j" o CL
CL C03
n L y?? / $
> Al
D, t1 4 v -q ti 0o- N . m
cl R3
w' • Ccn r m ° = s s z S \ _ ?.. {? rj: 21•°?. tom`
-c 0
10 ay , ?^ +OS o / 1 o c Sr W s fly' io Cf
,' Z• _ \ ems . c T Q. -04
0 -- j3
c Sir a-
sIO "I.
CL.
fi .l c 0 ??A/ligitor e = Rivsi n fr?lo' ^ i6? h i?Ca ?1
10
w u 0.
5-
°''? as e
CIO a? c ?a a ?? d 3 goo'
a
w N
ss!
0 CA to E 1 ? tr
low q
q0 N 7(x,5
Cc*
16
•
•... _ o ?.. e w g
atio?l N Seadiont a''." ' ' ? s?lUe9 ? s.:
,4n r._ D.;y ny ai/ t Cs: yr'`?•.._.aM? f?Y1e` c .?
• :?:XYii?K.3..'i.:?_, ?l?lfb•IL?dY.- ??15 ????~?S: t 714Pi. !
ATTACHMENT B
i
a
1
zc
cj (n
r o go o CO M
z < C.) m m
o A D S m
A m 00 o
Ag
o v
I? -
?I
c
z

H I I Huniviu-1v I v

' S C1D ??1EFE SEyi "Q.
Y
DgA
r '
'4* V
r
w
uD
y ,'". ^If k y9? "E I it ? i'?, «y. * y • h ?`''X n7 ?r "r'' a h'
t` E3r.`+3.. rsx " T A C H M E 1 Y 1 { y y ? rr? ''? ?%cY r ;1 {? , r} l
f 4i4 n??,Y ?? 1 ; t
• ,.. Y?r *{ .t -4 yk',

` l
I
- `? • i ` ?
01d Fence Line

.r.

New Fence Line
(approximate)

prop
ite
\ :
. ?.

Tat

/ ` _ 1. ``•/?L? `ti, . ;`,?y`
1

`
` 1. '?:? - .,
•
?
M. y
? r.
r
K
.
2 meter contour
(100 year flood plain) .• .-
M t.
WETLANDS
ROAD CROSSIN r '-?
`

1M
-IPRod
r
M fi
L
, ?
L
c
Mein road-in ed
!andary -
Figure 2. Location of proposed trac k and key environmental features.
(approximate s cale: 1" = 835')
3

ATTACH
11
MENT D
, i
1111 _. - -
?'? ? . ?. _ r-n.a NP ?? SOT ldtl2ptSN11? `` / ??
?/ .w.•... x1300 ??•Y
iQ /. -- .. ..?= ...y i•I:?n._ \ \ 1231
OtAfSE:0 ..` ?• 1J,lC.. •. ."i..: A:MALT TRACK
• ?•-? rr.? x128 !M[A 1218 TOE Of 0A , •.1r.
Mff A fTDY[ i1D1[ O<IX DAY
4c SiO2T AC ?-•I20 - 1r IQO GAfi A f10N[ .
I .. 2271 11.00 ? 13.00
i F ? : Yf V{V9:? ?, aD U `
?•? loo •.. w•. AS"ftir RAO(^7.: _ 1a' ty fwAffm AREA
,
i ?? ? .. C!•i .j..130D ?' '? N ... ?rt.3 wl
1 `11.00 MR r /-
1218 IA 8.8 .I( J
8
,L 1215 -------------
13 11.8 _ tree
11.03
r
r r Y. `` 1 f.
y n.M
1 ,2.• STONE -- -• - BC...O?SILT rCtK?[ 11 7?.
O1ECK DAY
t SEX OETArL / ` -
?
NO YA/pBAt R 1215 wet B
TO 8E PLA®N - I
WETLANO ARE"
10.e11 AtrO
f[a CAMS ARE To a[ CCNSMXTM
ADM WERAU/D AREAS
A6 A? At _

At
AIL Ak AL AL AL
2L
SWAMP ELEVATION 8.80
A4 AY A? Ar
AL
AlL AL
Al 6 A? AL A
C
v9
1
EIONT .1 y
SITE DATA:
c ,. I
II•
I. TOTAL SITE AREA: 1570 AMES r
rALLATION 2 TOTAL PRWECT AREA,
APPR0IL 8 AC 7
'r, f7`
2 TOTAL DISTIIRBEO AREA: 2f AC • ..
•. OMNG: NARWY PMT VVIM TESIM ACTIAry GRAPHIC SCALE
1 CONTACT; W. LARRY jEpppry
ROUTE S 80x 175
NERWORO. NC 778"
•_..... -_.
(1118) 128-8211 ( 01 r= I
I ION . 10 M1
1. $ ATTAORO MAPS FOR LOCATION AND ypRTy MAP
fA?fr? Q?t9Q
11.87
R( DATE O1AWN
m 11-6
_ :
SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
WA SCALE °y
ALE
f CRADINC PLAN
LL
E
-
PR'`D' N° AR
HARVEY POI
j
:z1 NT
sw-IrT --- DBFLI•NSJr TFSTINC ACTIVITY
1 or t

PSAWAumJ ew•iY /
~& CAMIJAU
r
r
qA/?
?n
/YY^ ?
AY
A6L
C
ATTACHMENT E
c
Al1Ei I I \\ ?OY \\
TYPICAL DITCH SECTION
NTS
NSTRUCTmN SEOl1ENCING
POINTS TD PRE
ICES AT STIR DISCI AGE \ •\
OT si VENT
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL 0[W \ \
CEF IEN, 1\?
SIR SCOppNTATIW
WT NEW SWALES AND DITCHES.
DaTALL THE REMAINING SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PIIDTELTS!!L
IMSTALL THE STONE DRIVEWAY. THAT ND AREA WILL \ ?.
TEPCIART SEED THE DISTURBED APE ApSiAIS. SUCH A MUSHIER
RENNIN DE6NOE0 FOR HERE GRADE. PERNARENTLY S®• JQ.00
\
ONCE AREAS HAVE BEDS TAKEN TO FINISH CONTROL MEASURES 7.0
r Ip111DR AND NAWTENrMACE THE INSTALLED EROSION TDN IW/B
ELLSU ED \
AND REPAIR AS 1ECESSARr. [01TROL DEVICES. ASSUMED
E ONCE v[,EIATCH IS ESTAILISHEa pCNIDVC THE e. SAT
I e' I 2r
e' --b11e(rAr
I I
..r Arlin WI"?
I `ABC STONE
DRIVEWAY TYPICAL SECTION mTS
EMSTING DITO'
AIL
1
AL
TOP Of CITCH BANK ---1-
?'tIj1?I•CLASS B STONE
LAYER OF 03
WASHED STONE
M' THICK
_'_-- TT}?aTnH BANK
LC ASS B STONE
PROFILE LRENOK SEDIMENT 04EN IT ACCUMULATES
TO 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM
FILTER DAM IS TO K IN PLACE UNTIL
GRASS IS ESTABLISHED IN BOTTOM OF DITCH
SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT EROSION
CHECK DAM DETAIL
NTS
1 Wr Ir m' Iyn •wW
CNIH7( AND
CLA55 A STONE
l r M
tafb
Ims
\ I . i X11.0 "'7- ,.,
/ _
11? RpOS[p BC?=E A ''r1LD
STONE
J CHECK DAL? '0 ? E DETAIL
lo.o
' _-
SILT FENNCE
N
R
I \
1220 '"-
II
11.2] riw I
AIA ` i
Nf
y
i
Ak NIL AY.
®OED PREPARATION
THE CONTRACTOR SMALL CUT AND DfSPOSE OF w®S OR To UNACCEPTABLE GROWTH ON THE AREAS TO BE SEEDED,
1EVE1 OR ROUEN AREAS SMALL BE SHAPED AND SMOOTHED TO PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE SLIDING AND EASE OF MOWING. THE
X SHALL BE SCAROIED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN S INCESL CIDOS SMALL BE BROKEN AND THE TOP S-A INCHES
I THE SOL AWL BE WCM= INTO A SlIDBED BY THE USE OF PULVER2ElL DRAGS . OR HARROWS. THE PREPARATION OF
XDSMS SMALL NOT K DOME WHEN THE SM 15 FROZEN OR E7EM09LY WET.
UESTONIE. FERTILIZER. AND SEED
LA93TWX FRRTILIZA, AND SEED SHALL BE APPUED WITHIN 20 HOURS AFTER COMPLETION CP SEIDDED PREPARATION. UMESTO
D FERTILIZER WAY BE APPLIED AS PART OF THE STIDBED PREPARATION. PROVIDED IT IS WORKED INTO THE SOIL. T NOT SO
WM. LIMESTONE AND FERTILIZER SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED UNIFORMLY OVER THE PREPARED SIIDBED AT THE SPECIFIED RATE
' APPLICATION AM TON NARROWED. RARED. OR OTHERWISE P40RMKMY WOOLED INTO THE SEEDBED. SEED SHALL BE
BIRIBUTED UNWMRWT OVER THE SEEDBED AT THE RATE OF APPLICATION SKIRT. AND IMMEDIATELY NARROWED. FAKED. OR
IAO® AS TO HOOVER THE S® MM A LATER Of SOEL
ADMO
ALL S®ID AREAS AWL BE MULCHED. CRAM STRAW MAT W USED AS MULCH AT ANY M O' THE YEAR. MULCH SMALL
APPLIED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER THE COMPLETION Of SFIDBIG. CARE SMALL BC TAKEN AS TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT OF
IL OR SEW TO THE SMDBID AREA DURINO MULCHING OKRATIO L WACH SMALL BC UNIFORMLY SPREAD BY HANG OR
:CHANDCAL SPREADER. AN ACCEPTABLE APPLICATION WALL K THAT WHICH PILL ALLOW SOME SUNLIGHT TO PENETRATE AND
1 THE CRCAATT BUT ALSO PARTIALLY 94ADE THE GROUND. REDUCE EROSION AND CONSERVE SOL MOrS1URE.
UNTENANfE
AREAS MICE SECOM AND MULCHING HAVE BEEN PEpORMEp SHALL BE MAINTAINED M SATISFACTORY COCITON UNTIL
CEDTARCE SF THE PROJECT BY THE OWNER. AREAS or DAMAGE CR FAILURE DUE TO ANT CADS[ 94ALL BE REPAIRED OR REDONI
NECESSARY.
B yµ .1
f --I1
AL AL
AL
SWAMP ELEVATION e.w
AL
A,
AL AL
AL
Ak
AL
J2.07
Y
10.60
AL
AL
YAt HEIGHT
Ie'
Dl
LENGTH AS NECESSARY
TO INSURE STABLE INSTALLATION
0
SILT FENCE
1. MIER FABRIC SHALL BE EK111A STRENGTH FABRIC
CAP46U OF MEETING SOI/LJN. INCL
2. FABRIC SHALL NAVE A SLURRY FLOW RATE OF
0.0 GAL/SOrT/MIN.
7. STAPLE OR "RE M FABRIC DIRECTLY TO TE POSTS.
4. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPIIOL I' WIDE AND B' DEEP
ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF POSTS UPSLOK
or THE SAT FENCE AND BURY THE BOTTOM EDGE O' THE
FILTER FADNIG BACFIL THE TRCHCH PATH COMPACTED
EARN OR GRAVEL
S INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES WEDGY AM AFTER EACH RAINFALL
REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE STORAGE FOR THE NIDR RAIN.
4. REMOVE ffMC1 NO AS THE DRAINAGE AREA IS STABILIZED.
AIL ..
AIL AL
SITE DATA:
I. TOTAL STE AREA 1570
2. TOTAL PROJECT AREA AU
S TOTAL DISTURBED AREA
1. OWNER: HARVEY POINT C
S CONTACT. N. LARRY JfFr
ROUT S BOIL
HERTFORD. rc
(Bill 426-_:
6. SEE ATTACHED NAPS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
OVAL TRACK AND SERVICE BUILDING
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
FINAL
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
PREPARED FOR:
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Harvey Neck Road
Hertford, North Carolina
Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc.
7830 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland
ATTACHMENT F
CONTENTS '
1. Introduction ........................... ..................................
...........................................................
II. Project Location .. 1
III. Description of the Proposed Action ....................• • • • • • • • • • • • • .................... 1
IV. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................4
V Alternatives Considered .......... ..... • • • • - • ... .. .. 4
V1. Affected Environment ...................................................... ........................ 6
6.1 Topography ............................................................. ........................ 6
6.2 Soils and Geology .................................................... ..........................6
d G
d ......... 7
6.3 water ....................................
roun
Surface Water an ...............
6.4 Air Quality ............................................................. ........................ 7
.8
6.5 Biota ..................................................................... .......................
..........8
6.6 Cultural Resources .................................................... ..............
VII. Env ironmental Impacts .................................................... ........................9
.......... 9
7.1 Topography ............................................................. ..............
7.2 Soils and Geology .................................................... .......................... 9
7.3 Surface Water and Groundwater .................................... .......................10
7.4 Air Quality ............................................................. .......................10
..10
7.5 Biota ..................................................................... .....................
....11
7.6 Cultural Resources .................................................... ...................
VIII. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ .......................11
11
IX. References ................................................................... .......................
12
X. List of Preparers ............................................................. .......................
FIGURES
Figure 1. General location of project site area ................................. ........................2
Figure 2. Project site area, showing key environmental features .................................. 3
Figure 3. Plan view of existing and proposed facilities .............................................. 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A: North Carolina Air Quality information ..................... ......................... A-1
i
I. Introduction
The Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity (hereinafter referred to as HDDTA, or the "Post"),
located at Hertford, North Carolina, is proposing to construct an oval, motor vehicle test track and
associated service building. The proposed action would provide a facility where special purpose
modifications to vehicles may be performance tested.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies of the Federal
government to consider the impacts of proposed actions on the quality of the human and natural
environment, and to include these considerations in the project planning and decision making
process. Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA are published by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. Department of Defense
procedures for implementing the CEQ regulations are contained in DOD directive 6050.1.
In accordance with the CEQ regulations, the HPDTA has determined that the proposed action
requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), to determine whether the project
would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. This EA has been prepared to
identify and evaluate the anticipated impacts of the proposed project, and to determine whether
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted or required.
11. Project Location
The HPDTA is located in Perquimans County, in the coastal region of northeast North
Carolina. The Post comprises the terminus of a peninsula ("Harvey Neck") defined by the
Perquimans River to the north, and Albemarle Sound to the south and east. The total surface area
of the Post is approximately 1,570 acres (approximately 2.45 square miles). The nearest
significant municipality is Hertford, North Carolina, located approximately nine miles
northwest of the Post, at the intersection of U.S. Route 17 and State Route 1336 (Harvey Point Road).
The Post is depicted in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Harvey Neck Quadrangle
topographic map (7.5 minute: 1"=2,000'). A portion of this quadrangle sheet is reproduced as
Figure 1, on the following page. The proposed project area is located in the southwest corner of
HPDTA, as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 2 provides an enlarged depiction of the project site area (approximate scale: 1"=835').
This figure is reproduced from the latest available edition of the base maps produced by the
HPDTA, and provides greater topographic detail for the proposed site area. The proposed project is
approximately 3,500 linear feet from the HPDTA front gate.
III. Desczzption of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is to construct an oval track, designed for use by motor vehicles, and an
associated one-story service building. The track would be asphalt paved, 20 feet in width, and
would include a 40 foot grassed median. The total outside dimensions of the track would
approximately 480 feet in length and 80 feet in width. The median would be sloped to the interior to
provide positive drainage of the track surface and would include a central drainageway, which
would exit at each end through buried 17 inch PVC drain pipes.
The service building would be 70 feet by 30 feet in exterior dimensions (2,100 square feet), with
a 16 foot eave height. The building would be pre-engineered, with a metal frame and exterior
metal walls, a metal roof, and insulated interior cladding. The building would be constructed on
a reinforced concrete slab-on-grade, with a thickness of approximately six inches.
,
{Old Fence Line ..`Y •
,• ?. .' _ ?. ? 1. ..?`• ,.. ?_ - ••... : t-L i• l
Fin
1 : .+ ?`.:•• :,_ ` _:;i `~`. .;' :fit .•.?: ;=L:`
New Fence Line
(approximate)
•
_ ::?i.. `;_.; , is - `_-• ,*.?L `,
t,

Main road-paved
•_t
C--
its "'' ?- ,c:,. `"•.:.
L' -
r`
bb
Tat
V " •Lj -L'
k
2 meter contour
(loo year flood plain) : ;..
1 I+ .
Figure 2. Location of proposed track and key environmental features.
(approximate scale: 1" = 835')
3
The building would be immediately adjacent to the asphalt track and include three overhead
doors opening onto the margin of the track. Access from the track to the opposite side of the
building would be provided by a 16 foot wide asphalt ramp leading to a 20 foot asphalt apron and a
second set of overhead doors.
The service building would be supplied with electricity and potable water through connections
to the existing Post water and electrical distribution systems. An on-site septic system would be
installed for wastewater from a single lavatory which would also be included in the building
design. The septic system would receive only sanitary wastewater.
A plan view of the proposed facility is provided in Figure 3.
IV. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is provide a facility where special purpose modifications to
existing over-the-road motor vehicles may be installed and tested under simulated highway
conditions. The service building would include vehicle service bays similar to a typical
commercial service station where existing vehicle components may be modified or replaced with
special purpose components. The asphalt track would then allow for the performance testing of
such modifications under simulated highway conditions.
The proposed action is needed to provide a dedicated, consolidated service and testing facility
where special purpose vehicle modifications may be tested, adjusted, and re-tested in a controlled
environment and under real-time conditions. Because no such dedicated facility currently
exists, modifications and testing must be performed at separate locations which were not designed
for such use. These conditions result in a loss of efficiency and effectiveness in ongoing testing
operations.
V. Alternatives Considered
The proposed action is to construct an integrated testing track and associated service building
at a location in the southwest portion of the Post. Alternatives to the proposed action included
constructing the facility at another location on the Post, and no action.
The no action alternative was rejected because the current lack of an integrated, dedicated
facility results in a significant loss of efficiency and effectiveness in ongoing programs because:
(1) modifications to vehicles and the performance testing of such modifications must be
conducted in separate locations, and
(2) existing modifications and testing facilities were not designed for this use.
As a result, performance testing cannot be conducted under real-time conditions (it is
necessary to travel between the geographically separated modifications facility and the testing
area), and opportunities for direct observation of the performance characteristics of special purpose
modifications are curtailed. This loss of efficiency and effectiveness would continue under the no
action alternative.
4
La

G)
'c
U
m
S
C?d+
F7
O
Yr
a
a
cis
U
Cd
w
b
as
?o
0
a
0
w
a
w
0
3
a?
'S
a
a
cvi
2
w
}

Alternative locations on the Post were rejected for several reasons. First, the proposed location
is in close proximity to existing facilities and activities which are related to the proposed, new
facility. This location therefore maximizes opportunities for coordination with existing
operations which would benefit from the proposed facility and results in increased efficiency in
these related operations.
Second, the proposed location provides for enhance security and positive control of non-related
traffic. Because the proposed location is adjacent to existing related use facilities and activities,
this location minimizes the volume of unrelated traffic in the project area. This location may be
reached through only one entrance, which is shared by related use operations.
Third, the proposed location is an old agricultural use field which does not support forest
habitat or other sensitive ecological communities. The proposed site was plowed, planted and
harvested annually prior to acquisition by the Post, and only volunteer weeds, shrubs, and small
trees exist on the site. Consequently, use of the proposed site would not result in the significant loss
or conversion of natural areas or wildlife habitat which could be avoided through selection of an
alternative site.
As a result, the proposed action was selected as best satisfying the project need. Secondly, as
discussed in Section VII, there are no significant environmental concerns associated with the
proposed action, and no compelling reason to develop and evaluate additional alternatives.
VI. Affected Environment
The proposed project site is located in the southwest corner of the HPDTA (see Figures 1 and 2),
which is largely undeveloped. The area affected by the proposed action would be limited to an
overgrown agricultural field. This area supports only low volunteer grasses, shrubs, and small
trees which do not offer unique or high quality habitat for native wildlife. The following
discussions summarize environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project site and
the surrounding area.
6.1 Topography
The general topography of the project site and surrounding area is essentially level terrain
with only gradual variations in topographic relief. The land surface at the proposed site slopes
very gradually to the northeast.
The project site area was farmed prior to acquisition by the Post. Plowing and associated land
maintenance activities associated with this prior agricultural use have further smoothed the
ground surface and minimized what little natural topographic variation as may have originally
existed. Regularly spaced low ridges (two to three inches in height) exist on the site which are
remnants of prior plowing when the site was last farmed.
Overall, surface elevations on the Post range from zero feet (sea level), to a maximum of
approximately 10 feet along a low rise which passes through the approximate center of the Post, in a
northwest to southeast orientation (see Figure 1). The elevation of the proposed site area is
approximately seven or more feet.
6.2 Soils and Geology
There are only two soils association within the immediate area of the proposed site (Tant 1986).
These association are:
• Dogue fine sandy loans (DgA & DgB) and
• Roanoke silt loams (Ro).
The proposed site is located entirely within the Roanoke silt loam (Ro) association. Ro soils
are nearly level and poorly drained, and are typical of the Harvey Point area. These soils
typically consist of-
9 a surface layer, five inches thick, of grayish brown silt loam
• a three inch thick subsurface layer of light brownish gray silt loam
• a 35 inch thick subsoil containing a gray silty clay loam in the upper and lower portion, and
a gray silty clay in the middle portion, and
• underlying material extending to a depth of 72 inches consisting of light brownish gray silt
loam in the upper part and light brown to brownish gray fine sandy loam in the lower part.
Harvey Neck and the surrounding area is underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary age
sedimentary strata consisting of clay, silt, sand, shell, marl, and limestone of marine origin
(Harris and Wilder 1966). The uppermost geologic formation which underlies the Post and which
yields useful quantities of groundwater is the Yorktown formation. This formation ranges in
thickness from between 130 and 325 feet and consist of mainly blue clays and fined grained
sands.
6.3 Surface Water and Groundwater
Although the proposed site is located less than 2,000 feet from the Albemarle Sound shoreline,
this area slopes very gradually away from the Sound, to the northeast, ultimately discharging to a
shallow runoff system which drains to the interior area of the Post. This system drains toward the
southeast, discharging to the Sound through a marshy area along the south shoreline of Harvey
Neck, near the terminus of the peninsula. This drainage system is evident in Figure 1.
The 100 year floodplain for the area is defined (FEMA 1985) by elevations which are less than
two meters (6.56 feet). The site is located above the two meter elevation and is not within the 100 .
year floodplain. The shallow, interior drainage system described above, and a narrow band
along the shoreline of the Sound, are within the 100 year floodplain, as indicated in Figure 2.
No published or assembled water quality reports are available for the waters surrounding
Harvey Neck. However, raw data have been collected by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). DEHNR personnel have indicated that
these data confirm that the quality of surface water in this area "is generally good" (Thorpe 1993).
There are no significant industrial or municipal point source discharges in the Harvey Neck
vicinity, and agricultural runoff is the principal source of surface water contaminants.
The depth to groundwater on the Post varies according to location. However, total variation is
slight, and groundwater may be typically encountered between three and seven feet below the
surface. Variations in the depth to groundwater are related to the localized site geology and the
presence of clay lenses throughout the surficial soils, and to seasonal variations in rainfall.
6.4 Air Quality
The DEHNR Air Quality Section was contacted in regards to the air quality for the area
surrounding HPDTA. DEHNR personnel reported that Perquimans County is currently
designated as "unclassifiable/attainment" for both carbon monoxide and ozone as of November 6,
1991 (Cuilla 1993). A copy of this correspondence is provided in Appendix A.
There are no significant air emission sources in the vicinity of the Post, or on Harvey Neck.
Air quality is good, and reflects the dispersed, rural agricultural land use patterns of the area.
6.5 Biota
The project site is an overgrown agricultural field. Low furrows remain from past
agricultural plowing, prior to acquisition of the area by the Post. This area supports only low
volunteer grasses, shrubs, and small trees (mimosa or locust) which do not offer unique or high
quality habitat for native wildlife. Small mammals, rodents, and birds may be expected as
resident or foraging species.
The shallow drainage system to the north and east of the site is forested, bottomland hardwoods
(mostly cypress) and pines, with a dense understory of holly and mixed grasses/shrubs typical of
coastal wetlands. This drainageway offers natural wildlife habitat for plant and animal species
native to this region of North Carolina, and provides refuge for species foraging in the less
protected project site area.
The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service for the State of North
Carolina (FWS), was contacted regarding potential endangered species in the project area. The
following list of endangered and threatened species for Perquimans County was provided by FWS
(Looney 1993).
• Red-cockaded woodpecker ( icoides borealis): Endangered
• Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorer T_.one1ros .riS f1,sheri): Threatened
• Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lenidochelvs iii): Endangered
• Loggerhead sea turtle(C aretta carreta : Threatened
• Green sea turtle (fJ1e Qnia mydas : Threatened
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 1eucoc_ephalus): Endangered
Because the proposed action would not affect any water areas, only the woodpecker, shrew, and
eagle are of potential concern. While it is uncertain whether any of these species occur on Harvey
Neck, the relatively undisturbed nature of the interior areas of the Post could provide suitable
habitat for the woodpecker and shrew. However, it is doubtful that eagles are resident on Harvey
Neck because of the level of human activity, and none are reported by local residents or HPDTA
employees.
Because there are no trees of significant size on the proposed site (the occasional locust or
mimosa trees are only a few inches in diameter at the base of the trunk), no habitat for the Red-
cockaded woodpecker exists on the site. Consequently, only the Dismal Swamp southeastern
shrew could be a potential resident or transient species within the proposed site.
6.6 Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is currently conducting a review of the Post
and surrounding area to determine the potential for any significant historic or archaeologic
occurrences (Ward 1993). This information was not available for use in this EA.
At the time of preparation of this EA, two known sites in the vicinity of the Post are considered
to be historically significance. These are the Harvey family cemetery, located on the southern
portion of the base (see Figure 1), and the Newbold-White house which is located on Harvey Point
Road, near Hertford.
8
Result of the study being conducted by the SHPO will be provided to HPDTA upon completion,
and prior to implementation of the proposed action.
Vi I . Environmental Impacts
In assessing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, those elements of the
natural and man-made (socioeconomic) environment were identified in which any reasonable
possibility for adverse impacts was believed to exist. The potential severity of such impacts on
each identified element was then considered, within the context of the environmental conditions
and resources of the project site. The purpose of these evaluations was to "red flag" any potentially
significant adverse impacts, in order to determine if preparation of an EIS would be necessary, or
whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) may be concluded. Potential impacts have
been evaluated (either qualitatively and/or quantitatively) to the extent necessary to support this
determination.
The results of these evaluations are described below, according to each potentially-impacted
environmental element. Only limited discussions are included for those environmental
elements for which no reasonable potential for impacts was identified or believed to exist.
7.1 Topography
The proposed action would have no significant impact on existing topography, either on or off
the immediate site area, and no significant earth moving or other changes in site topography
would result. The proposed action involves construction of an oval asphalt track and an
associated service building. Construction of the track would require only minimal surface
smoothing. A median area would excavated minimally (three inch depth) to provide for positive
drainage from the track, and to provide minimal fill dirt for surface preparation for construction
of the track. Construction of the 70 foot by 30 foot service building would require only minimal
surface smoothing before the proposed slab floor would be poured, and for construction of building
foundations.
Consequently, the proposed action would not result in adverse impacts on topography.
Similarly, the proposed action would also not result in adverse impacts on other components of the
natural environment which are related to changes in topography, such as surface water quality (as
relates to changes which could occur in runoff conditions and non-point pollutant transfer rates),
aquatic habitat ( as relates to potential adverse impacts which could result from increased erosion
and downstream sedimentation), and cultural resources (as relates to potential impacts on
shallow, sub-surface archaeologic resources which could result from site regrading). These and
other individual potentially-related impact areas are discussed below.
7.2 Soils and Geology
The proposed action involves only very limited surface penetration, for the purposes of
constructing the building footers, the sub-grade foundation for the proposed concrete slab floor, and
for construction of the asphalt track and median. Building construction would result in
penetration of the surface soils to depths of only a few feet, for the construction of the footers.
Construction of the concrete slab floor would only involve minor surface smoothing, affecting
only the top one foot or so of the surficial soils layer. Construction of the track would require
penetration of only the top few inches of the surface soil layer.
As a result, the proposed action would only result in minimal, short term impacts on the
surficial soils layer, which has already been subjected to annual smoothing activities associated
9
with agricultural use (e.g., plowing) prior to acquisition of these lands by HPDTA. Consequently,
the proposed action would have essentially no impact on surface soils and no impacts on
subsurface geology.
7.3 Surface Water and Groundwater
The proposed facility would involve only approximately 3,300 square feet (approximately 0.7
acres) of impervious areas (roof and track). This total increase in impervious areas is minimal,
and would not result in significant changes in surface water runoff and associated groundwater
recharge rates.
The proposed service building includes downspouts to drain the roof area. These downspouts
would discharge to gravel catchments which would allow subsequent infiltration of precipitation
into the undisturbed soils surrounding the building. Precipitation falling on the asphalt track
would drain to the median, or to the outsides of the track, where it would infiltrate into the
undisturbed, natural soils. Consequently, no significant changes in existing groundwater
recharge rates would occur.
The proposed service building would include a septic tank and associated leachate field.
Percolation tests would be conducted before installation of the septic system to ensure location of the
system in soils with adequate infiltration capacity. Because other existing facilities on the Post
have used septic systems in the same soil associations as the proposed site for many years with no
operational difficulties, no adverse impacts are anticipated from operation of the proposed septic
system. This conclusion is strengthened by the very low quantities of wastewater anticipated to be
generated from the single lavatory proposed to be included in the service building, and the
minimal number of personnel who would have access to the track/service building area.
Similarly, implementation of the proposed action would not result in any significant changes
in existing surface runoff patterns, and no adverse impacts would result in downstream surface
waters. Because of the nearly level surficial topography of the proposed site and surrounding area,
no risk of soil erosion and downstream sedimentation impacts exists. Nevertheless, an Erosion
Control Plan will be prepared by the Post and submitted to the DEHNR, Land Quality Section, prior
to the commencement of construction.
The site is not located within the 100 year floodplain, and no floodplain impacts would result.
Finally, the proposed action does not involve the outdoors use of fuels, chemicals or other potential
contaminants and would not result in any significant changes in existing surface runoff
quantity or quality conditions, and no adverse impacts on surface water quality would result.
7.4 Air Quality
The proposed action does not involve any emissions of air pollutants and would not result in
any changes in existing air emissions rates. Consequently, no adverse impacts on existing air
quality conditions would result from implementation of the proposed action.
7.5 Biota
The proposed action would result in the conversion of only approximately 1.75 acres of old field
habitat to buildings, asphalt, and maintained landscape (grass). This amount is a minimal
reduction in the total existing acreage of same or similar habitat on the Post, and insignificant if
same or similar habitat areas immediately adjacent to the Post are considered. Consequently, the
proposed action is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts on native biota.
10
Common native species occupying the proposed site which prefer the more open, field
environment (e.g., songbirds, small rodents, rabbits and other small mammals) would be
displaced to the similar habitat areas surrounding the proposed site which would not be disturbed
by the proposed action. The high quality habitat areas in the wooded swamp to the north of the
proposed site would not be affected.
As discussed in section 6.5, the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew is the only rare, threatened,
or endangered species which could be potentially impacted by the proposed action. However, this
species would be more likely encountered in the undisturbed, interior forested areas of the Post
than the previously plowed, overgrown field constituting the proposed site. Further, any shrews
that might exist on the proposed site would be displaced to the neighboring undisturbed areas which
offer the natural wooded swamp habitat type preferred by this species. Consequently, the proposed
action is not anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts on rare, threatened, or
endangered species.
Because no significant surface erosion and downstream sedimentation impacts would occur
as a result of the proposed action, no indirect adverse impacts would occur on natural areas in the
interior forested drainageway (see Section VI, parts 6.3 and 6.5).
7.6 Cultural Resources
No existing buildings or other structures of potential historic preservation merit exist on the
proposed project site, and none would be impacted by the proposed action. Consequently, no adverse
impacts on historic resources would result from implementation of the proposed action.
The proposed action requires only very limited penetration of the ground surface for
construction of the building footers and track. Further, the area to be affected by the proposed action
was previously in agricultural use and was plowed annually.
As a result, the proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on
surficial or shallow, sub-surface archaeologic resources. However, a survey of cultural resources
potential is being conducted by the N.C. SHPO. Although the results of this survey were not
available at the time of preparation of this EA, the survey would be completed prior to
implementation of the proposed action. The HPDTA would observe any Historic Preservation Act
coordination procedures (specifically, the "Section 106" process) which would become necessary if
significant cultural resources were determined to be present as a result of the SHPO's report.
VIII. Summary and Conclusions
The Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity (HDPTA) is proposing to construct an oval, motor
vehicle test track and associated service building. The proposed action would provide a facility
where special purpose modifications to vehicles may be performance tested.
The proposed action has been reviewed in comparison with environmental conditions in the
project site and surrounding areas. Because the proposed action does not involve any significant
changes in existing surface or subsurface conditions, no adverse impacts are anticipated with
respect to topography, soils and geology, surface and groundwaters, air quality, biota, and cultural
resources.
11
JX. Referemew
Cuilla, Mark, 1993. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Air Quality Section, Raleigh, N.C. Personal communications with Potomac-
Hudson Engineering, Inc. personnel.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985. FIRM Flood Insurance Rat& Mau-
Perauimans County . SDIth Carolina (unincorporated areas). Panel 230 of 255.
Community-Panel Number 370315 0230 B. Effective Date July 3, 1985. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Harris, William H. and Wilder, Hugh B., 1966. Geology and ?round-Water Resources sf t1m
HH .rte-EliznheLh fity A=, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Water
Resources, Ground-Water Bulletin 1089. Raleigh, N.C.
Looney, Kate, 1993. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services, Raleigh, N.C. Personal communications with Potomac-Hudson
Engineering, Inc. personnel.
Tant, Phillip L., 1986. &a Survey Qf Chowan alld Perguimans Counties. North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. USDA,
Washington, D.C.
Thorpe, Roger, 1993. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, N.C. Personal communications with Potomac-Hudson Engineering,
Inc. personnel.
Ward, Sandra. Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, Raleigh, N.C. Personal
communications with Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc. personnel.
X. List of Preparers
Frederick J. Carey. Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland - academic
specialization in environmental engineering and sciences and 2 years experience in
conducting environmental impact evaluations.
Geoffrey G. Kay, B.S., M.S. Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland -
academic specialization in environmental sciences and 18 years experience in
conducting environmental impact evaluations.
David C. McGaw, P.E. Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland - academic
specialization in environmental engineering and 18 years experience in conducting
environmental impact evaluations.
12
r
t
}
i
r
AppeoducA
North Carolina Air Quality information
A-1