20200581 Ver 1_ECG CatEx_New Aviation Facility 121919_FINAL_20200429

Effective Date: June 2, 2017 ARP SOP No. 5.1
APPENDIX A. DOCUMENTED CATEX
Airport sponsors may use this form for projects eligible for a categorical exclusion (CATEX) that
have greater potential for extraordinary circumstances or that otherwise require additional
documentation, as described in the Environmental Orders (FAA Order 1050.1 F and FAA Order
5050.4B).
To request a CATEX determination from the FAA, the sponsor should review potentially affected
environmental resources, review the requirements of the applicable special purpose laws, and
consult with the Airports District Office or Regional Airports Division Office staff about the
type of information needed. The form and supporting documentation should be completed in
accordance with the provisions of FAA Order 5050.413, paragraph 302b, and submitted to the
appropriate FAA Airpor5ts District/Division Office. The CATEX cannot be approved until all
information/documentation is received and all requirements have been fulfilled.
Name of Airport, LOC ID, and location:
Elizabeth City Regional Airport, ECG, Pasquotank County, NC (refer to Appendix A, Figure 1)
Project Title:
New Aviation Facility
Give a brief, but complete description of the proposed project, including all project components,
justification, estimated start date, and duration of the project. Include connected actions necessary to
implement the proposed project (including but not limited to moving NAVAIDs, change in flight
procedures, haul routes, new material or expanded material sources, staging or disposal areas).
Attach a sketch or plan of the proposed project. Photos can also be helpful.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional hangar space for existing
Airport tenants, including Elizabeth City State Universtiy (Aviation Science Program). Phase 1
of the proposed project will include:
• Grading of the site and addition of approximately three feet of suitable fill material
• Erecting two new aircraft storage hangars, one maintenance hangar, and one office building
• Construction of a service road to provide tenants with access to the new area
• Paving of a parking area to provide access to the proposed hangars and apron
• Widening of an existing T-hangar taxilane to allow for proper object free area clearance
• Paving of a taxilane and apron for access from the new hangars to Taxiway G
• Installation of the needed electric, sewer, water, and stormwater infrastructure
The proposed Phase 1 structures and impervious surfaces include 48,560 square feet of
apron, 50,540 square feet of parking area and roads, 24,000 square feet of hangar space, and
3,035 square feet of office space (refer to Appendix A, Figures 2 & 3). Construction of Phase 1
is anticipated to begin in Spring 2020 and last approximately 6 months. At full build out, the
new facility would include 47,464 square feet of additional impervious surfaces, including
33,600 square feet of hangar space and 13,864 square feet of pavement (taxilane).
RAW

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
Give a brief, but complete, description of the proposed project area. Include any unique or natural
features within or surrounding airport property.
ECG is located southeast of Elizabeth City (refer to Appendix A, Figure 1). The airport is served
by a single 7,219-foot long by 150-foot wide runway, identified as Runway 10-28. The airport is
a joint -use facility, with the United States Coast Guard occupying the property north of Runway
10-28 and general aviation activity taking place south of Runway 10-28, adjacent to
Consolidated Road. The study area is bounded by the airfield to the north, airport hangars to
the east, single family residential development and one gas station adjacent to Consolidated
Road to the south, and agricultural land adjacent to Weeksville Road to the west. The project
site is a previously disturbed, mowed and maintained grass field on existing airport property.
Site photographs are included in Appendix B. A system of large maintained ditches form the
southern and western site boundary. The ditch extends approximately 7,500 feet (1.4 miles)
east to the Pasquotank River. This drainage system is identified on USFWS National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) mapping as Riverine (R5UBFx), which includes channels that are
semipermanently flooded and excavated by humans. These are the only wetlands identified
within or adjacent to the project site.
Identify the appropriate CATEX paragraph(s) from Order 1050.1 F (paragraph 5-6.1 through 5-6.6)
or 5050.413 (Tables 6-1 and 6-2) that apply to the project. Describe if the project differs in any way
from the specific language of the CATEX or examples given as described in the Order.
1. FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4.e - Federal financial assistance, licensing, or Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) approval for the following actions, provided the action would not result in
significant erosion or sedimentation, and will not result in a significant noise increase over
noise sensitive areas or result in significant impacts on air quality.
* Construction, repair, reconstruction, resurfacing, extending, strengthening, or widening of a
taxiway, apron, loading ramp, or runway safety area (RSA), including an RSA using
Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS)
2. FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4.f - Federal financial assistance, licensing, Airport Layout
Plan (ALP) approval, or FAA construction or limited expansion of accessory on -site structures,
including storage buildings, garages, hangars, t-hangars, small parking areas, signs, fences,
and other essentially similar minor development items.
The circumstances one must consider when documenting a CATEX are listed below along with each
of the impact categories related to the circumstance. Use FAA Environmental Orders 1050.1F,
5050.413, and the Desk Reference for Airports Actions, as well as other guidance documents to assist
you in determining what information needs to be provided about these resource topics to address
potential impacts. Keep in mind that both construction and operational impacts must be included.
Indicate whether or not there would be any effects under the particular resource topic and, if needed,
cite available references to support these conclusions. Additional analyses and inventories can be
attached or cited as needed.

Effective Date: June 2, 2017
ARP SOP No. 5.1
5-2.b(1) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) resources
YES NO
Are there historic/cultural resources listed (or eligible for listing) on the National
❑
Register of Historic Places located in the Area of Potential Effect? If yes, provide a
record of the historic and/or cultural resources located therein and check with your
local Airports Division/District Office to determine if a Section 106 finding is required.
Based on review of the HPOGIS website, two architectural resources are noted
approximately 0.5-mile north of the project: Site PK0474 (c.1856 C.W. Hollowell
House) and Site PK0972 (c.1820 John Hollowell House). Both resources are identified
as Study List entries, a preliminary screening tool that indicates they may be eligible
for listing on the NRHP. These two homes are surrounded by forested property and
the viewshed would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
Does the project have the potential to cause effects? If yes, describe the nature and
❑
extent of the effects.
The proposed aviation facility would be located on existing airport property and
would be consistent with the adjacent airport development. The six houses that are
located directly across from the project site, south of Consolidated Road, were
constructed between 1987 and 1997. There are existing trees on several of these
properties that serve as a visual screen between the homes and the airport. The two
above mentioned architectural resources are also screened from the airfield by trees
that are located on the residential parcels. No trees would be cleared as part of the
proposed project. Regarding archaeological resources, ground disturbance is not
anticipated, instead the area will be receive approximately 3 feet of fill.
Is the project area undisturbed? If not, provide information on the prior disturbance
❑
(including type and depth of disturbance, if available)
Based on a review of historic aerial photography, the site was previously disturbed
in 1940 when the Coast Guard Air Station was first commissioned and has remained
a mowed and maintained part of airport property.
Will the project impact tribal land or land of interest to tribes? If yes, describe the
❑
❑
nature and extent of the effects and provide information on the tribe affected.
Consultation with their THPO or a tribal representative along with the SHPO may be
required.
The proposed project will not involve site excavation.
A-3

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
5-2.b(2) Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources
11*JME_M61
Are there any properties protected under Section 4(f) (as defined by FAA Order
❑
❑
1050.1F) in or near the project area? This includes publicly owned parks, recreation
areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state or local significance or land
from a historic site of national, state or local significance.
Will project construction or operation physically or constructively "use" any Section
❑
❑
4(f) resource? If yes, describe the nature and extent of the use and/or impacts, and
why there are no prudent and feasible alternatives. See 5050.46 Desk Reference
Chapter 7.
Will the project affect any recreational or park land purchased with Section 6(f) Land
❑
and Water Conservation Funds? If so, please explain, if there will be impacts to those
properties.
5-2.b(3) Threatened or Endangered Species
YES NO
Are there any federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species or
designated critical habitat in or near the project area? This includes species protected
by individual statute, such as the Bald Eagle.
❑
❑
Does the project affect or have the potential to affect, directly or indirectly, any federal
❑
❑
or state -listed, threatened, endangered or candidate species, or designated habitat
under the Endangered Species Act? If yes, Section 7 consultation between the FAA and
the US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and/or the
appropriate state agency will be necessary. Provide a description of the impacts and
how impacts will be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Provide the Biological
Assessment and Biological Opinion, if required.
No potentially suitable habitat for any federally protected species listed for
Pasquotank County, NC, would be impacted by the porposed project. The majority of
listed species require marine or riverine habitats, including protected sea turtles,
whales, manatee, shark, manta ray, and sturgeon. Red -knot, Northern long-eared bat,
and bald eagle are also listed for Pasquotank County; however, no potentially suitable
habitat is present within the study area.

Effective Date: June 2, 2017
ARP SOP No. 5.1
YES NO
Does the project have the potential to take birds protected by the Migratory Bird
❑
Treaty Act? Describe steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts (such as timing
windows determined in consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service).
The project would not include any tree removal or demolition of structures, so
no disruption of nesting, breeding, or feeding is anticipated.
A-5

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
5-2.b (4) Other Resources
Items to consider include:
a. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
YES
NO
Does the project area contain resources protected by the Fish and Wildlife
❑
Coordination Act? If yes, describe any impacts and steps taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts.
b. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.
YES
NO
Are there any wetlands or other waters of the U.S. in or near the project area?
❑
❑
Waters of the U.S. are limited to an extensive system of ditches, which are
identified as riverine wetlands on USFWS NWI mapping (refer to Appendix A, Figure
4). Additionally, the Pasquotank River lies immediately east of airport property,
approximately 1.5 miles from the project site.
Has wetland delineation been completed within the proposed project area? If yes,
❑
❑
please provide U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) correspondence and
jurisdictional determination. If delineation was not completed, was a field check done
to confirm the presence/absence of wetlands or other waters of the U.S.? If no to
both, please explain what methods were used to determine the presence/absence of
wetlands.
A field check was completed. Detailed soil investigations have been conducted, which
are consistent with the USDA NRCS Custom Soil Report (Appendix C) and indicate that
based on an absence of hydric soils, wetlands and other waters of the U.S. are limited
to the previously mentioned system of drainage ditches along the perimeter of the site.
The USDA Soil Report indicates that the project site is comprised of Udorthents loamy
(UdA) soils, which are identified as having high runoff and no hydric soils (hydric rating of
"0"). Based on review of the USFWS National Wetland Inventory, USDA NRCS Soil Report,
and detailed soil investigations, waters of the U.S. are limited to the drainage ditches that
border the southeast and southwest perimeters of the site.
If wetlands are present, will the project result in impacts, directly or indirectly
❑
❑
(including tree clearing)? Describe any steps taken to avoid, minimize or mitigate the
impact.
During construction, potential impacts to the perimeter ditch would be minimized by
stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Other BMPs would be required of
the contractor to ensure compliance with the policies of 23 CFR Section 650B. As
depicted on Figure 3 (AppendixA), a turbidity curtain will be installed around the
limits of the extended dry detention basin discharge pipe and overflow weir, and silt
fence will be installed along the top of bank of the perimeter ditch.
ME

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
Is a USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 permit required? If yes, does the project fall
❑
❑
within the parameters of a general permit? If so, which general permit?
It is anticipated that any temporary or minor impacts to Waters of the U.S.
(perimeter ditch) would be authorized under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 18 (Minor
Discharges) and would be below the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) threshold.
Coordination with the USACE is ongoing.
c. Floodplains
YES
NO
Will the project be located in, encroach upon or otherwise impact a floodplain? If yes,
❑
describe impacts and any agency coordination or public review completed including
coordination with the local floodplain administrator. Attach the FEMA map if
applicable and any documentation.
Refer to Appendix A, Figure 5
d. Coastal Resources
YES
NO
Will the project occur in or impact a coastal zone as defined by the State's Coastal
®
❑
Zone Management Plan? If yes, discuss the project's consistency with the State's
CZMP. Attach the consistency determination if applicable.
Although Pasquotank County is one of the 20 NC counties covered under the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA), the project is located entirely on airport property and is
consistent with existing aviation development. A representative from the Elizabeth City
District Office of the NCDENR Division of Coastal Management confirmed via phone (Ms.
Cynthia Rountree; 12/4/19) that the project would not require a permit under CAMA, as
it is not located within an Area of Environmental Concern.
Will the project occur in or impact the Coastal Barrier Resource System as defined by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
❑
❑
e. National Marine Sanctuaries
YES
NO
Is a National Marine Sanctuary located in the project area? If yes, discuss the potential
❑
❑
for the project to impact that resource.
f. Wilderness Areas
YES
NO
Is a Wilderness Area located in the project area? If yes, discuss the potential for the
❑
project to impact that resource.

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
g. Farmland
YES
No
Is there prime, unique, state, or locally important farmland in/near the project area?
❑
Describe any significant impacts from the project.
Refer to Appendix C
Does the project include the acquisition and conversion of farmland? If farmland will
❑
be converted, describe coordination with the US Natural Resources Conservation and
attach the completed Form AD-1006.
No land acquisition is required
h. Energy Supply and Natural Resources
YES
No
Will the project change energy requirements or use consumable natural resources
❑
either during construction or during operations?
Additional energy requirements would be negligible
Will the project change aircraft/vehicle traffic patterns that could alter fuel usage
❑
❑
either during construction or operations?
i. Wild and Scenic Rivers
YES
No
Is there a river on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, a designated river in the National
❑
❑
System, or river under State jurisdiction (including study or eligible segments) near the
project?
Will the project directly or indirectly affect the river or an area within % mile of its
❑
❑
ordinary high water mark?
j. Solid Waste Management
YES
No
Does the project (either the construction activity or the completed, operational
❑
❑
facility) have the potential to generate significant levels of solid waste? If so, discuss
how these will be managed.
No trees will be cleared, nor will structures be demolished. Any solid waste
generated during the project could be disposed of at the Pasquotank County Landfill,
located west of Elizabeth City.
.;

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
5-2.b(5) Disruption of an Established Community
a*13MMIM9]
Will the project disrupt a community, planned development or be inconsistent with
plans or goals of the community?
❑
Are residents or businesses being relocated as part of the project?
❑
5-2.b(6) Environmental Justice
YES NO
Are there minority and/or low-income populations in/near the project area?
❑
❑
Demographic and income data for the area within a 2-mile radius of the site was
reviewed using the USEPA's EJScreen tool (refer to Appendix D) and compared with
the U.S. Census Bureau's QuickFacts data for Pasquotank County. The minority
population (44%) within the vicinity of the project exceeds that of NC (36%), but
not that of the County (45.5%). The low income population (31%) near the site is
lower than that of NC (37%), but exceeds the percentage of persons in poverty for
the County (20.2%; *noted on Quickfacts as not a comparable statistic).
Will the project cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority
❑
and/or low-income populations? Attach census data if warranted.
Although minority and low-income populations may be present within a 2-mile radius
of the site (refer to Appendix D), the project is consistent with existing airport
development and no land acquisition or significant off -site impacts would occur.
5-2.b(7) Surface Transportation
YES NO
Will the project cause a significant increase in surface traffic congestion or cause a
❑
degradation of level of service provided?
Will the project require a permanent road relocation or closure? If yes, describe the
❑
nature and extent of the relocation or closure and indicate if coordination with the
agency responsible for the road and emergency services has occurred.

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
5-2.b(8) Noise
a*13ME-Wel
Will the project result in an increase in aircraft operations, nighttime operations, or
❑
❑
change aircraft fleet mix?
Although the project could ultimately result in new aircraft tenants and activity, it
is anticipated that such increases would be negligible.
Will the project cause a change in airfield configuration, runway use, or flight
❑
❑
patterns either during construction or after the project is implemented?
Does the forecast exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations, 700 annual jet
❑
❑
operations or 10 daily helicopter operations or a combination of the above? If yes, a
noise analysis may be required if the project would result in a change in operations.
Has a noise analysis been conducted, including but not limited to generated noise
❑
❑
contours, a specific point analysis, area equivalent method analysis, or other
screening method. If yes, provide that documentation.
Although no noise analysis was required for the proposed action, noise contours
generated as part of the 2018 Master Plan Update are provided in Appendix A
(refer to Figure 5).
Could the project have a significant impact (DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase) on noise
❑
❑
levels over noise sensitive areas within the 65+ DNL noise contour?
5-2.1b(9) Air Quality
YES NO
Is the project located in a Clean Air Act non -attainment or maintenance area?
❑
If yes, is it listed as exempt, presumed to conform or will emissions (including
❑
❑
construction emissions) from the project be below de minimis levels (provide the
paragraph citation for the exemption or presumed to conform list below, if
applicable) Is the project accounted for in the State Implementation Plan or
specifically exempted? Attach documentation.
N/A
A-10

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
YES NO
Does the project have the potential to increase landside or airside capacity,
❑
❑
including an increase of surface vehicles?
Minimal increase in landside capacity is anticipated.
Could the project impact air quality or violate local, State, Tribal or Federal air
❑
❑
quality standards under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 either during
construction or operations?
5-2.b (10) Water Quality
YES NO
Are there water resources within or near the project area? These include groundwater,
®
❑
surface water (lakes, rivers, etc.), sole source aquifers, and public water supply. If yes,
provide a description of the resource, including the location (distance from project
site, etc.).
The Pasquotank River lies approximately 1.4 miles from the project site and drains
into the Albemarle Sound approximately 11 miles southeast from the study area. The
river is part of the Pasquotank River Basin and was listed on North Carolina's 2016
303(d) list and 2018 draft 303(d) list of impaired and threatened waters from a line
across Hospital Point and Cobb Point to a line across Miller Point to Pool Point. The
Elizabeth City Airport lies between these points. According to the Land Use Plan,
Elizabeth City no longer relies on the Pasquotank River for its public water supply and
instead uses the Albemarle Sound.
Will the project impact any of the identified water resources either during construction
❑
or operations? Describe any steps that will be taken to protect water resources during
and after construction.
Temporary impacts to water quality could occur during construction of the project,
including surface water runoff, accidental release of fuel/hydraulic fluids, and
sedimentation from soil erosion. BMPs regarding stormwater management and
sediment control would be implemented during construction. Erosion controls would
be in place to minimize sediment transport, such as silt fencing and the use of check
dams to catch sediment. In addition, efforts would be made to re -vegetate areas as soon
as possible after grading activities. As depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A) and discussed
previously, a turbidity curtain will be installed around the limits of the extended dry
detention basin discharge pipe and overflow weir, and silt fence will be installed along
the top of bank of the perimeter ditch. A dry detention basin (storage volume = 61,150
cf) and a gravel infiltration ditch with 6-inch underdrain will be constructed to protect
water resources after construction (Appendix A, Figure 2).
A-11

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
YES NO
Will the project increase the amount or rate of stormwater runoff either during
®
❑
construction or during operations? Describe any steps that will be taken to ensure it
will not impact water quality.
Overall, the increase in impervious surfaces would increase the amount of stormwater
runoff following construction. A dry detention basin (storage volume = 61,150 cf) will be
constructed to protect water resources after construction (Appendix A, Figure 2).
Does the project have the potential to violate federal, state, tribal or local water
❑
quality standards established under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts?
Are any water quality related permits required? If yes, list the appropriate permits.
®
❑
Although the NCDENR is not claiming jurisdiction on the perimeter ditch (no permitting
required; per email correspondence with Garcy Ward, NC Division of Water Resources on
11/27/19), two permits related to water quality are currently being coordinated:
1. Erosion & Sedimentation Control/NPDES
2. Stormwater Management Permit (High Density; greater than 24% coverage)
5-2.b(11) Highly Controversial on Environmental Grounds
LL�,JEEV[41
Is the project highly controversial? The term "highly controversial" means a
❑
substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of a proposed federal action.
The effects of an action are considered highly controversial when reasonable
disagreement exists over the project's risks of causing environmental harm. Mere
opposition to a project is not sufficient to be considered highly controversial on
environmental grounds. Opposition on environmental grounds by a federal, state, or
local government agency or by a tribe or a substantial number of the persons affected
by the action should be considered in determining whether or not reasonable
disagreement exists regarding the effects of a proposed action.
5-2.b(12) Inconsistent with Federal, State, Tribal or Local Law
W&JEW [97
Will the project be inconsistent with plans, goals, policy, zoning, or local controls
❑
❑
that have been adopted for the area in which the airport is located?

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
YES NO
Is the project incompatible with surrounding land uses? ❑ ❑
5-2 .b (13) Light Emissions, Visual Effects, and Hazardous Materials
a. Light Emissions and Visual Effects
YES
NO
Will the proposed project produce light emission impacts?
®
❑
Lighting associated with the new aviation facility will be similar to existing
aviation development, including existing airport hangars along Taxiway G to the
north and east of the project site.
Will there be visual or aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed project and/or
❑
❑
have there been concerns expressed about visual/aesthetic impacts?
b. Hazardous Materials
YES
NO
Does the project involve or affect hazardous materials?
❑
❑
Will construction take place in an area that contains or previously contained
❑
❑
hazardous materials?
No known hazardous material sites are located on airport property.
If the project involves land acquisition, is there a potential for this land to contain
❑
❑
hazardous materials or contaminants?
N/A
Will the proposed project produce hazardous and/or solid waste either during
®
❑
construction or after? If yes, how will the additional waste be handled?
As described in the previous Solid Waste section, no trees will be cleared nor will
structures be domolished. Any solid waste generated during construction could
be disposed of at the Pasquotank County Landfill, located west of Elizabeth City.
A-13

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
5-2 .b (14) Public Involvement
a*13MMIN
Was there any public notification or involvement? If yes, provide documentation. ❑ ❑
5-2 .b (15) Indirect/Secondary/Induced Impacts
WMEM [97
Will the project result in indirect/secondary/induced impacts?
❑
❑
When considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
❑
❑
projects, on or off airport property and regardless of funding source, would the
proposed project result in a significant cumulative impact?
The resource of concern (relative to cumulative impacts) would be Water Quality
related to additional impermeable surfaces. NPDES permitting requirements will
continue to protect water quality in the vicinity of the airport; no significant
impacts are anticipated.

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
Permits
List any permits required for the proposed project that have not been previously discussed. Provide
details on the status of permits.
Sewer extension (to include gravity sewer and pump station) --State permit; coordination ongoing
Environmental Commitments
List all measures and commitments made to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and compensate for impacts
on the environment, which are needed for this project to qualify for a LATEX.
Water quality impairment during construction would be minimized by implementation of
the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan (as part of the above mentioned
NPDES construction permit), which would include:
Compliance with the terms of the construction permit;
Early re -vegetation of disturbed areas so as to minimize soil erosion;
Installation and maintenance of appropriate erosion control measures such as silt fencing,
straw bales, and biodegradable mats;
• The use of sediment basins and traps, slope drains, and surface, subsurface and cross
drains, designed as appropriate or needed, so that discharge would occur in locations and in such
a manner that impacts to surface and subsurface water quality would be avoided and minimized;
and,
• The dumping of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumen, raw sewages, other harmful waste
into or alongside streams or impoundments, or into natural or man-made channels should be
avoided.
In addition, as depicted on Appendix A, Figure 2, a dry detention basin (storage volume = 61,150 cf)
and a gravel infiltration ditch with 6-inch underdrain will be constructed to protect water resources
after construction.
A-15

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Preparer Information
Point of Contact: Laura Stevens, Parrish and Partners, LLC
Address: P.O. Box 7067
City: Columbia
State: SC
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
Zip Code: 29202
Phone: [phone] Email Address: [e-mail]
Signature: GAS Date:
Airport Sponsor 'Information and Certification (may not be delegated to consultant)
Provide contact information for the designated sponsor point of contact and any other individuals
requiring notification of the FAA decision.
Point of Contact. Gordon Rowell
Address: 1028 Consolidated Road
City: Elizabeth City
Phone Number: 910-578-8509
Additional Name(s)--
Kent Madden
State: NC
Zip Code: 27909
Email Address: [e-mail]
Additional Email Address(es):
[e-mail]
I certify that the information I have provided above is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. I also
recognize and agree that no construction activity, including but not limited to site preparation, -
demolition, or land disturbance, shall proceed for the above proposed project(s) until FAA issues a
final environmental decision for the proposed project(s) and until compliance with all other
applicable FAA approval actions (e.g., ALP approval, airspace approval, grant approval) has
occurred.
Signature: Date: // �7 0/
A-16

ARP SOP No. 5.1
Effective Date: June 2, 2017
FAA Decision
Having reviewed the above information, it is the FAA's decision that the proposed project (s) or
development warrants environmental processing as indicated below.
Name of Airport, LOC ID, and location:
cx-� (te1;Pv\4 3 EcG� Couu\�y
Project Title:
�Atw OVI��I7v c���1
®. No further NEPA review required. Project is categorically excluded per{eifie-apptieable
L0501 R!"'ATIIY th tannli tea-
❑..An Environmental Assessment (EA) is required.
❑..An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.
❑..The following additional documentation is necessary for FAA to perform a complete
environmental evaluation of the proposed project.
Name: „c��PJ �1%, ��n��'.iDin Title:Af�MV��hVIV�OV�YV��V,v\¢er
Responsible FAA Official
Signature: Date:
�2 c Date:
A-17

APPENDIX A
Project Maps

-,.c ii
�` a •�� wF�l �y
ri W t � OJ �..• I _ � IM .
V 1.
_tv,
���ti• l�Iv � y ^ � r
Lri
i •
a l
R
iL
— rr Ti,li kl
J
4=.
71 'Cl 16
1 -
3�
PASQUOTANK
COUNTY
Sources: Esti, HERE, Gar m, Inte p,M1ncrement P Corp., GEBC USGS, FAQVW NRCAN } -, .. IGN, Kadas[er NL Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
LOCATION MAP
ELIZABETH CITY, NC
# S.
Sources: Est,, HERE, Garm'n Iniermap incTeme P C }r�GtBCO'OSU3, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,p6ase, I6 N, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey Esri Jap�nTMETI, n yy Esri China (Hong Kong) d) OpenStr-'.p contributors, and the GIS User CYY44. unity
N
�
LEGEND W E
PROJECT SITE S
0 ELIZABETH CITY REGIONAL AIRPORT
Miles
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

FIGURE 2
1 1
1 11(11
T/1 1
ill I
III I I
I II1 I
,I I11
I
I IIIII \
i II II \
I IIIII \
1 �1 II I
11 1, I,1
III I11
1
I 1 0
I 1�
I W
m
Il,lbll m
III 'I m
101�II
11 I rn
1 III A
I IIIIIQc
A
1 `1wII I
1 t 1
)1 II
Iltll 1
e II [IIII
11111�14
I '1 II
pl
I n 1
I I,tl1
1111i11
Il IX
II1� I
1 (1 1
1 ili�l I
I I I11
I
I �I,InI
NOWORFORMERLY
US COASTBASE
I 1 I \ B.B. 9fi, PG.PG. 390
9- - -
I
1 \ 11 I \ \ ❑
1 \ II I \ 1
III 1 II II I I \
11 \ I I \
1111'-
pl11
l'1 I I I 11 11 \ -
I IIIII I I I II II \
11 I I
1 I
q�lil�l I I I `
II \ 1 I I
111 I ( \
IIIIII� \\ I I
� IIIII, 1 P 1 h
0
1111111 /Z�/ I I I \ \
1
1
PII �
II li �i I
I
-
{ IIII III4
IIIII IIII -
u
IIIII, IIII -
III II 6" UNDER DRAIN Cp
INV IN 3
11
'llll,i IAA INV OUT 2.50 �
0
145 LF I B" RCP
INV IN 6.27
INV OUT 5.25
;AREA
RIM 9.27
010 SUMP 5.2]
oho
A
I I \
1
IIIII �
IIIIII
EXTENDED DR DETENTION BAST
BASIO 50N OM ELEV .
illI /
IIlIi 4
/
S LV03EE.V
MP
Ilu,.tD
/
ECSU 120 X 80'
HANGAR PFE. - - -
9.25'
p (NOT IN CONTRACT)
ECSU 50' X 60'
HANGAR FFE:
9.26
(NOT IN
CONTRACT)
�ECSU 120 X 80'
HANGAR FFE:
3.50.
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
/
--- - - - --- _
5- E
80 LF 24" RCP
INV IN 4.92
NV OUT4.82
148 LF 30" RCP
INV IN 5.00
INV OUT 4.75
75 LF2 CP
INV IN 5.50 1
INV OUT 5.00 DI-6
RIM 9.00
SUMP 4.50
D-0
RIM 9.00
SUMP 400
51 LF 16" RCP
INV IN 6.25 51 LF 18" RCP
INV OUT 5.00 INV IN 6.25
INV OUT 5.00
DI-5 I DI-7
RM 9.25 RIM 9.25
SUMP 5.25 SUMP 5.25
r DI-2
RIM 9.14
SUMP 4.6o EC-
U 60' X 80'
LF 15" RCP _ HANGAR FFE:
INV IN 5.60 - - - - 9.75'
V OUT 5.00 , (NOT IN CONTRACT)
RUNWAYLIGHT (TYP.)
-9 �' F-
NSF � R PAD
120 X 80,
HANGAR FFE!-
9.25.
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
60' X 60'
HANGAR FFE:
(NOT IN T
CONTRACT)
r -
I
III ' 6a+X BY II
iANGpFFE'I
- 65 LF 1 . 0
INV INRCP Q11
INV OUT 5.50 J i ICOMt CT)
_ I
r l I 60 X 80' II
IHAN650'I FE: I
120 X80' m (NOIIIN,,,
HANGAR FFE: I CONTF4T)
9.50'
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
I
6IX 60'I
h HANGAR FF/M s.d1
6,150'
/ CQNTRACTI, -9
�11
�S
7 I I I
726
5" RCP
INV IN .95
III 17 1 I,1�11 W UNDER DRAIN
INV IN 3.50
I I 41111 11� I IN
84 LF 12" RCP
OUT 2.50 �
MP I II 1 I II 111 IIIII
I IN IN .75 N A
INV OUT 5.60
SAN -
1 outlet control EMAGIN PVM)
IIII / _ _ - _
X / structure and 18" 7 ELEV576
_ _ EMAG IN PVMT
discharge PIPE: _ � 654 _ - -__ 5 _ _- 4 ` _- ELEV553
I invert=2.5. ----32 j�- �230-T =v=== ---_-- __ = cl-1=------- - - - - -----=-4= --- 3- - -2--=- _==4-T
--f-----_-- _ 2- - --- EMAGINPP
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RIM 8.00 - 8" UNDER DRAIN @ 0.67% SLOPE.RAVE - - - - - - - - - - - - -
\F SUMP4.75 INV IN 4.50 TRENCHINFILTRATION ELEV732
IL
�_-- - --�_� - --_-=4--_-_-'_-INV OUT 3.00-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONG ENOWALL
- - - - emergency overflow weir _ _ _ __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - -
elevation = 6.0 6 - - - - 6- - - _
"-�JSB'OS'llG"�84. i---�
7 -7- - -
_ ___
-W--- W---W-----W-_H,Ca---CAW - -Y@ -- VV- --IN -w---� W- � ---W
there is a weir overflow and a 6"
underdrain that discharge at this
a CONSOL/DATED ROAD - SR 1131 (60' R/W) location. Underdrain invert = 3.00
AmKn¢Call a h you
Callccr#rcloNere.
LEGEND
BENCHMARK
®
EX. WATER METER
TAXIWAYLIGHTS
MAILBOX
•
PROPOSED WATER METER
®
PROPOSED WATER VALVES
�
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
o
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
o
PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN CLEANOUT
❑®
PROPOSED DROP INLET
TDFA
TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
TSA
TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA
PL
AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
IJGP
UNDERGROUND POWER
' . • '-��. '.. °.
EXISTING CONCRETE
PROPOSED ASPHALT
PROJECT LIMITS
EX. ASPHALT
-
EXISTING CENTERLINE OF SWALE
------------------
EX. TOP OF BANK
x x
EX. FENCE
- - UGP-
EX. UNDERGROUND POWER
- w -
EX. WATERLINE
w w
PROPOSED WATER LINE
--SAN-
EXISTING GRA VITY SEWER LINE
sAN ►
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
- - - -1 B - - - -
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
-------90-------
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
-
PROPOSED DITCH/SWALE
RD �
PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN PIPE
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
LID-
PROPOSED UNDER DRAIN
SITE DATA:
1. OWNER:
ELIZABETH CITY PASOUOTANK COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
GORDON ROWELL, AIRPORT MANAGING DIRECTOR
1028 CONSOLIDATED ROAD
ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909
252.335.5634
2. SITE INFORMATION:
PIN#: 893203224533
D.B. 778. PG. 313
SITE AREA: 10.49 AC
ZONING: N/A
ADDRESS: 1000 CONSOLIDATED ROAD
ELIZABETH CITY, INC 27909
3. PARKING:
52 SPACES PROVIDED INCLUDING 2 ADA SPACES
4. SITE COVERAGE:
EXISTING=46,264SF
PAVEMENT = 109,302 SF
SIDEWALK =2,771 SF
BUILDINGS=27,035 SF
FUTURE=47,464 SF
TOTAL=232836 SF
S. SITE LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE "X" AS SHOWN ON F.I.R.M.
PANEL 3720893200K, DATED DECEMBER 21, 2018.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT AND MAINTAIN AS NEEDED ALL
EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND AFTER
EACH MAJOR STORM EVENT. FAILURE TO KEEP EROSION
DEVICES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE
ISSUANCE OF A STOP WORK ORDER.
7. ANY FILL BROUGHT ON SITE SHALL BE FROM AN APPROVED
SITE/MINE. ANY MATERIAL REMOVED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE
DISPOSED ON IN A SINGLE APPROVED LOCATION.
8. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
9. DISTURBED AREA FOR THIS PROJECT WILL NOT EXCEED 7.81
ACRES.
10. THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THIS SITE.
SCALE 1"=40'
0 40' 60'
1 4� ,
LIZABETH CITY
REGIOPO NAL AIRRT
PARRISH&PARTNERS
PARRISH AND Pkyr- OF NORTH oUNA Ptu
a
VI
Z O
o g
w o
0
6
Z
4c N[vlEw[a
KDH BCD KDH
TIMMONSPGROUP
THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE
ELIZABETH CITY OFFICE
1605 West City Drive, Unit E I
Ellzabeth City, NC 27909
TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
ItimmOr- in
RIC LICENCE NO. C-1652 1ER NAME
AVIATION FACILITY
PHASE 1
FAAA1PNO. NIA
Nr NO. 36237.14.14.2
anry M
STORMWATER PLAN
PERMIT
DRAWING
NOV 12, 2019
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
PNU,ERNU 1234
C-402

\
\
1
1
I
I
\
\
1
I
v
v
I I
\
\
I \
1
\
1 \
I
\
I I
I
1
\ I
\ I
I
I
\
1
I
�
tia
/
D
H
/
D �
ti
/ m
0
NOW OR FORMERLY
.a US COAST GUARD BASE
� ha D.B. 96, PG. 390
-- - --- - --- --- --- - -
H
O
\ I 1 \
1 J tl _ _ orA—m A—ro�A—mrA—mrA— —Torn
I AYa o—,
i
I �1` I Ipmi
+j4 "ee''11
II I�B I Gllll
1
I o'
I 1
wX 1
V II
IIt
II lino I tin, II
I 11 W IIII
I I I 111 III
,III III
m 111 X O II
I 111 III
I I�I 1
I I I I
I 1
I I
I 11 X
I
I II I,�
I III
I III
I II I
I I I I
IIII I
I IIII
I IIII /
I III i
IIII
III h�
I III,
c
I I IJ
Ah
0�.
� IOvCall
ctocal you
ere.
O
l
I \
INSTAL
SKIM AR'GE IF
--- '
VG AREA
--- ECSU 120 X80'
HANGAR FFE: - - -
9.25'
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
ECSU 50' X 11'
HANGAR FFE:
P
9.25'
/
oho
NOT IN
CONTRACT)
�
�FSCSU 120 X 80'
HANGAR FFE:
9.50'
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
9
� �
I
IP
IP
Bm
---------------------------------
RUNWAYLIGHT(TYP)
y
—FA Torn—TEA—rsn—turn—turn—rsn rsn turn Torn Torn rffn rn ra —A r
-------------
mrA Torn ,orn—rsn-
1
ECSU 60' X 80'
HANGAR FFE:
9.75'
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
6
8 F —
1
_R PAD
_-- '
FFE?-
HANGARGARF
9.25'
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
H NGAR FFE:
-
- -
T
- - - - - - - - - - --
- --
(NOT IN
CONTRACT)
—
O
1 M IV
I I
16IX 60'
FFE:I
TANG 50
11T�tP.CT)
L J
i ICON
I I
I I I
�I I
m1 60 X 1,FO'
I IHANFE.
6S0'I
120 X80' (NOT IN
HANGAR FFE: GONTRP�T)
9.50'
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
I
rt RGRLUND (IGE
/ I 601X 60'I I 6"PVC
/ HANGAR FF : 61 (I
b 6,150' JJ/Nl "I III
I/ CONTRACT) (I
--9 _
VIN
INVOI
I
7 WASH 1
/
SEPTIC SEPTIC
GCEr
iijf♦ip♦ijp jP•�p �..-♦•.-„♦..�♦ -n a♦i•ij ��=-♦.i :♦ Y ♦`— _ i �!Y i! L! i : !�
. f_. A_••f_ ef►ln Refire i::-i♦.:ef�!:iii`::=♦w'i: •pj♦ ♦!iy: iiiif= gip. _ �:i::•iij�iaf�ijAij♦� ��i�-� �_e,.
.•. .f ► �laij�♦if!♦_ ♦ • if11f!jf �.. - _ - - ♦ ♦ ♦ •♦ f 1f♦•j1f♦ f ♦=i•1f f�.f�
sa ss us � rife.-♦�. �... jf .�1f! e- •Y♦ ♦ - ♦-♦ �
� e �� g _ 1f♦� • �f♦
a CONSOLIDATED ROAD - SR 1131 (60' R/W)
WITH
SITE DATA:
1. OWNER:
ELIZABETH CITY PASOUOTANK COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
GORDON ROWELL, AIRPORT MANAGING DIRECTOR
1028 CONSOLIDATED ROAD
ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909
252.335,5634
2. SITE INFORMATION:
PIN#: 893203224533
D.B. 778, PG. 313
SITE AREA: 10.49 AC
ZONING: NIA
ADDRESS: 1000 CONSOLIDATED ROAD
ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909
3. PARKING:
52 SPACES PROVIDED INCLUDING 2 ADA SPACES
4, SITE COVERAGE:
EXISTING=46,264 SF
PAVEMENT= 109,302 SF
SIDEWALK = 2.771 SF
BUILDINGS=27,035 SF
FUTURE=47,464 SF
TOTAL = 232,836 SF
5. SITE LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE'X' AS SHOWN ON F.I.R.M.
PANEL 3720893200K, DATED DECEMBER 21, 2018.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT AND MAINTAIN AS NEEDED ALL
EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND AFTER
EACH MAJOR STORM EVENT. FAILURE TO KEEP EROSION
DEVICES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE
ISSUANCE OF A STOP WORK ORDER.
7, ANY FILL BROUGHT ON SITE SHALL BE FROM AN APPROVED
SITE/MINE. ANY MATERIAL REMOVED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE
DISPOSED ON IN A SINGLE APPROVED LOCATION.
B. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
9. DISTURBED AREA FOR THIS PROJECT WILL NOT EXCEED 7.81
ACRES.
10. THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THIS SITE.
SCALE 1
0 40' 80,
FIGURE 3
LIZABETH CITYPO REGIONAL AIRRT
PARRISH&PARTNERS
PARRISH AND FAMEM OF NORTH ONNA, PLW
N
Z O
O .a
w o
fY
0
Z
OcxevleNea
KDH BCD KDH
A••f��W
TIMMONSPGROUP
THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE
ELIZABETH CITY OFFICE
1805 West City Drive, Unit E I
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
ww.timmors.Com
RIC LICENCE NO. C-1652
Lrcr ry
AVIATION FACILITY
PHASE 1
FAAAlPNO. N/A
D Nr NO. 36237.14.14.2
M
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
PERMIT
DRAWING
NOV 12, 2019
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
H.—No 1234
C-501

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory
Elizabeth City Airport
FIGURE 4
May 3, 2019 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife
y Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the
Wetlands base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the
Wetlands Mapper web site.
0 Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
❑ Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond 0 Riverine
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This page was produced by the NWI mapper

1 s...
+
k
i
!r
Ij
y z1
Ii
II
w �
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO.. USERS SCALE
SEE fIS RF10Ri FOR 20XERESCRIP1fON5 ANOINDErMN ON � Pw
PIE nn
WFORMAnON OEPN:i Wk i AND SNPI M44 n�'rr~ �P` nprner � IaIDy
DD bmwffNNt1AE AWWAYlEMW9FGRFQWTAT pro+"..�......ir.w wvl
KrM,//FRlS-NC-GOV/FRIS f rn Pw�.~.. w: w: «r.��. 1Mp1-50DAR1 mmo
m
D zsu eoo t.
mmFEeim HH.,
vn
�
Rw
SPEtl4 RGp0
FuywowFAs I�R.Ndwo�Fewdrar
w,,,� ..........w..,.r,..
M111w.
D is Iso sm
i 0..2%A....l fto .R—.o 1. Aunt
N l5 a�miai Cn.orP iwpp nN avarag.;.r
PANEL LOCATOR
••—�•4�• �•�
. ys.w rrrYwPrs
PepN lns toad Ooc MN v.wi�0iaioaW
Areas of LPssa'aa Pie Spur MAR•
pw y�,yF",.afyrw �vF
_
Frlurc Cond-[gns I AnnuaiM
��
Chace Flood H-W
e A wM Reduced Food Rifkeue to l.-:ee
n •�..+. •.r. nw
''O'er"SFr" 'a.w•a..ne..x•
R[tl mN D gee Neies
aad.crNel.asw..s....
uw..i.+�-w•••,....«»...�..
�^^^•^^ APoadheE xP�Pryy.wy AvppolpFp
�
��
�
OFNPou 1Rw.OIW.vr Faovvrre
5 UCNRf3 •...••...... /pn�sr,Rpeep LvTa.D4.o. MoOPRR
.ss ix.`«�P wtiw.
NeM CebinA Cetdeut Sorer EeocN men
���r r.�i.+�
NeDeul CeeOedt Surer Le�tA me.k
�aiP®
.,raw �^Y°"r�
Cmleetlee GLNCFMPS-FEeech-&
C w—$[Wam.IN 1 AnnulC iF
+wM
1FekPSuRAee Pe.em>n INEEj
rw.~.e n-. r........r a.....errn rr P—
•"'-'
. ...-.. F IT—
_ ---_-_del ilaMett BefeApP
Il.mlvf Moderele Wrn Adlon I�MNV�
RVIFe 6.MFte
COA{ALYWa111RSOYRtlJ i1•flNlte.el NOR
�y
nntLn — LFmk of 5lrPr
®IMF �OtleetltePFpEetEOP Af..
FFMWES �hfatR wBou�erF
—
NDRFN CAROIINA RDDOPUW ANPPei6 PRODRSM
RaaWflt[FlCV0 iN5lIRA�CE PROGRAM
tin NORTH CAROLINA
O
\� � L�R�•�•• CO r4E1 SIRR
t� U7 ..ilarl�iVi�d eaa.F. ra
0
9
LL
0
.vSUY].3-9.3
uuwuue
s�soe9a�DaR
kw lames
oRCPn$Pr 21. M1b

FIGURE 6
5 •as
•MP
��ir w•
4+{��rrw �rt��+•
T
F �
F�i�i! 4M1w �'�� tia� •iw•o��•
` `rtt R� Lnri�a ��arci��4.rn w wti� �i n quo~
� "�` K�""�o�
uri mot`.. �� � �.}.�,
_a" r•i.�-iwr•�.w. •.rr
—
•s .ram r�i
��w•rts+nrwwe+�•r �.•.,�,•..r.�..�r
`'��i+�Yas� i�r��
ow'�ian4�rir �rr�r��vivrwr�MJ�y�
x�}r rrMFa wry
4�v+�•w's��
v� EkasL�M fft'!
{
Yrwr
S45y¢IGTU�i+Iry#M ��
w�rrasMpr
*
441
y�•r+iyr�xi
--
4
i
I'� � ;�
r
•ff
II
♦
�rrr w
.� IS
� ` �
+
LL
Limum-
D"U1YcwkTntn
YA
x .
PLAMMdiYnyWrmT w
/,pb.OKT LA4dR
ryay

APPENDIX 2
Site Photographs

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed New Aviation Facility
Elizabeth City Regional Airport
Photograph 1: Project Site, facing north with existing hangars on right side of photo.
qW ''w
i
Photograph 2: Project Site, facing northwest with Consolidated Road on bottom left side of
photo.

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed New Aviation Facility
Elizabeth City Regional Airport
i%
w_
VVI
-
i tY ti Z AI
Photograph 3: Perimeter Ditch, facing west
P
1
f
Photograph 4: Project Site, facing east with Weeksville Road in foreground and Consolidated
Road on right side of photo.

APPENDIX C
NRCS Custom Soil
Resource Report
(select pages)

USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
N RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Pasquotank
County, North
Carolina
ECG Environmental Overview
October 4, 2016

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
SoilMap..................................................................................................................7
SoilMap................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10
MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Pasquotank County, North Carolina...............................................................12
BaA—Barclay silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................12
ChA—Chapanoke silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes......................................14
GrA—Gertie silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes...............................................16
PaA—Pasquotank silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.....................................18
PeA—Perquimans silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.....................................19
UdA—Udorthents loamy, 0 to 2 percent slopes..........................................21
Ur —Urban land...........................................................................................22
YeA—Yeopim silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................23
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................25
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................25
LandClassifications........................................................................................25
Hydric Rating by Map Unit (ECG Environmental Overview).......................25
Farmland Classification (ECG Environmental Overview)............................29
References............................................................................................................34
4

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7

392900
o
36° 1617" N r
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
393300 393700 394100 394500 394900
0
p +fir" 1 '' LJ.JrU
g 4a
V
392900 393300 393700 394100 394500
3
Map Scale: 1:17,500 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
N 0 250 500 1000 1500
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
8
395300 395700 396100
394900 395300 395700 396100
396500
36° 1617N
V
O
pM
R
36° 14' 57" N
396500
3
m
n

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
®
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Vo
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
0
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
0
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
0
Perennial Water
%s
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
a
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
oa
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
,
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
�r,
Stony Spot
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Very Stony Spot
measurements.
Wet Spot
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
�n
Other
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
.�
Special Line Features
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Water Features
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Streams and Canals
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Transportation
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
t++
Rails
calculations of distance or area are required.
t ..+
Interstate Highways
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Major Roads
Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Pasquotank County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 13, 2014
Background
Aerial Photography
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 15, 2011—Apr 4,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Pasquotank County, North Carolina (NC139)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BaA
Barclay silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
2.7
0.5%
ChA
Chapanoke silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
1.0
0.2%
GrA
Gertie silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
3.4
0.6%
PaA
Pasquotank silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
2.9
0.5%
PeA
Perquimans silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
1.3
0.2%
UdA
Udorthents loamy, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
394.8
67.1 %
Ur
Urban land
182.3
31.0%
YeA
Yeopim silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
0.1
0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
588.6
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Gertie, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Depressions on marine terraces, flats on marine terraces
Down -slope shape: Concave, linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Pasquotank, undrained
Percent of map unit. 2 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, depressions on marine terraces
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Tomotley, undrained
Percent of map unit. 1 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, depressions on stream terraces
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Barclay, undrained
Percent of map unit. 0 percent
Landform: Flats
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
UdA—Udorthents loamy, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 vt7s
Elevation: 0 to 30 feet
21

Custom Soil Resource Report
Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 58 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost -free period: 190 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Udorthents, loamy, and similar soils: 95 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Udorthents, Loamy
Setting
Landform: Berms
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy mine spoil or earthy fill
Typical profile
C - 0 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 50 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Ur —Urban land
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 vt7t
Elevation: 0 to 30 feet
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Urban land: 95 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Urban Land
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
22

Custom Soil Resource Report
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Hydric soil rating: No
YeA—Yeopim silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 vt86
Elevation: 0 to 30 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 58 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost -free period: 190 to 270 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Yeopim and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 9 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Yeopim
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy and silty marine deposits and/or fluviomarine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam
Bt - 5 to 31 inches: silty clay loam
Btg - 31 to 49 inches: silty clay loam
2C - 49 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
23

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Nixonton
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Perquimans, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, depressions on marine terraces
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
24

Soil Information for All Uses
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use
The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations
displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected
area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating
the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process
is defined for each interpretation.
Land Classifications
Land Classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are
assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behaviorfor specified
practices. Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly influence
the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site
classification, farmland classification, irrigated and nonirrigated land capability
classification, and hydric rating.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit (ECG Environmental
Overview)
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils.
Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of
which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of
hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher
positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric
soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the
landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the
percentage of each component within the map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The
five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent
hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric
components, and less than one percent hydric components.
25

Custom Soil Resource Report
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map
pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map
unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part
(Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or
inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and
reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil,
however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration
of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties
unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria
are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands.
The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff,
2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they
should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible
properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite
determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
26

392900
o
36° 16 17' N r
O
O
a
q
0
0
M-
O
C
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (ECG Environmental Overview)
393300 393700 394100 394500 394900 395300 395700
N
36° 14' 57' N'
392900 393300 393700 394100 394500
3
Map Scale: 1:17,500 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
N 0 250 500 1000 1500
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
27
396100
394900 395300 395700 396100
396500
36° 16 17N
0
0
M
oV
V
V
36° 14' 57" N
396500
3
m
n

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI) Transportation
Area of Interest (AOI) F++ Rails
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Soils
rtI Interstate Highways
measurements.
Soil Rating Polygons
US Routes
0
Hydric (100%)
Major Roads
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
0
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Local Roads
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
0
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Background
0
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Aerial Photography
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
0
Not Hydric (0%)
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
0
Not rated or not available
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
Soil Rating
Lines
~
Hydric (100%)
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
M.%/
Hydric (66 to 99%)
the version date(s) listed below.
F1 r
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Soil Survey Area: Pasquotank County, North Carolina
r
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 13, 2014
.:0
Not Hydric (0%)
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
r r
Not rated or not available
or larger.
Soil Rating Points
Hydric (100%)
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 15, 2011—Apr 4,
2011
0
Hydric (66 to 99%)
p
Hydric (33 to 65%)
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
p
Hydric (1 to 32%)
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
p
Not Hydric (0%)
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
0
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
28

Custom Soil Resource Report
Table—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (ECG Environmental Overview)
Hydric Rating by Map Unit— Summary by Map Unit — Pasquotank County, North Carolina (NCI 39)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BaA
Barclay silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
4
2.7
0.5%
ChA
Chapanoke silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
5
1.0
0.2%
GrA
Gertie silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
98
3.4
0.6%
PaA
Pasquotank silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
95
2.9
1.3
0.5%
0.2%
PeA
Perquimans silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
95
UdA
Udorthents loamy, 0 to 2
percent slopes
0
394.8
67.1 %
Ur
Urban land
0
182.3
31.0%
YeA
Yeopim silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
2
0.1
0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
588.6
100.0%
Rating Options—Hydric Rating by Map Unit (ECG Environmental
Overview)
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Lower
Farmland Classification (ECG Environmental Overview)
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide
importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location
and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed
crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in
the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
29

392900
o
36° 1617" N r
O
O
a
q
0
0
M—
O
C
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map —Farmland Classification (ECG Environmental Overview)
393300 393700 394100 394500 394900 395300 395700
W��W
O jow"idoL
N
392900 393300 393700 394100 394500
3
Map Scale: 1:17,500 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
N 0 250 500 1000 1500
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
30
396100
394900 395300 395700 396100
396500
36° 1617N
0
0
M
oV
V
V
36° 14' 57" N
396500
3
m
n

Area of Interest (AOI)
F-1
Prime farmland if
Area of Interest (AOI)
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
Soils
inhibiting soil layer
Soil Rating Polygons
®
Prime farmland if irrigated
-
Not prime farmland
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
0
All areas are prime
factor) does not exceed 60
farmland
®
Prime farmland if irrigated
0
Prime farmland if drained
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
0
Prime farmland if
0
Farmland of statewide
protected from flooding or
importance
not frequently flooded
Farmland of local
71
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
importance
Farmland of unique
0
Prime farmland if drained
importance
and either protected from
0
Not rated or not available
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
Soil Rating Lines
season
,.yam
Not prime farmland
-
Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
~
All areas are prime
0
Prime farmland if irrigated
farmland
and either protected from
~
Prime farmland if drained
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
r Prime farmland if irrigated
:-s Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
~ Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
~ Prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
r r Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
rw+r Prime farmland if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed 60
~ Prime farmland if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
r,r
Farmland of statewide
importance
r
Farmland of local
importance
r►x
Farmland of unique
importance
r r
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
®
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
0
Prime farmland if irrigated
®
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
irrigated and drained
Prime farmland if
irrigated and either
protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
0
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if
irrigated and the product
of I (soil erodibility) x C
(climate factor) does not
exceed 60
Prime farmland if
irrigated and reclaimed of
excess salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
0
Not rated or not available
Water Features
31

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
Streams and Canals
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Transportation
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
t++ Rails
measurements.
r J Interstate Highways
US Routes
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Major Roads
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Local Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Background
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
® Aerial Photography
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Pasquotank County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 13, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 15, 2011—Apr 4,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
32

Custom Soil Resource Report
Table —Farmland Classification (ECG Environmental Overview)
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Pasquotank County, North Carolina (NC139)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BaA
Barclay silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Prime farmland if drained
2.7
0.5%
ChA
Chapanoke silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Prime farmland if drained
1.0
0.2%
GrA
Gertie silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Farmland of statewide
importance
3.4
0.6%
PaA
Pasquotank silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Prime farmland if drained
2.9
0.5%
0.2%
PeA
Perquimans silt loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
Prime farmland if drained
1.3
UdA
Udorthents loamy, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Not prime farmland
394.8
67.1 %
Ur
Urban land
Not prime farmland
182.3
31.0%
YeA
Yeopim silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
0.1
0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
588.6
100.0%
Rating Options —Farmland Classification (ECG Environmental
Overview)
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie -break Rule: Lower
33

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
34

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf
35

APPENDIX D
EPA EJSCREEN Report

nite
Stades
Envirron talProtacton EJSCREEN Report (Version 2019)
AgeEPAncy
"�/
2 miles Ring Centered at 36.252165,-76.177274, NORTH CAROLINA, EPA Region 4
Approximate Population: 1,951
Input Area (sq. miles): 12.56
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
EPA Region
Percentile
USA
Percentile
EJ Indexes
EJ Index for PM2.5
60
59
63
EJ Index for Ozone
61
60
63
EJ Index for NATA` Diesel PM
60
58
61
EJ Index for NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk
60
58
63
EJ Index for NATA Respiratory Hazard Index
61
58
63
EJ Index for Traffic Proximity and Volume
62
58
60
EJ Index for Lead Paint Indicator
69
71
69
EJ Index for Superfund Proximity
59
58
61
EJ Index for RMP Proximity
65
62
63
EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity
75
73
69
EJ Index for Wastewater Discharge Indicator
N/A
74
74
V
25
U
El Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/Region/US
EI lnd�xe�
State Percentile Regional Percentile M USA Percentile
This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJSCREEN indexes. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the
estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the
selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this
means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. The years for which the
data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening -level information, so it is
essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of
these issues before using reports.
December 11, 20' 1/3

v�r EnvironmentalProtectionEJSCREEN Report (Version 2019)
ERA"'ad
states
2 miles Ring Centered at 36.252165,-76.177274, NORTH CAROLINA, EPA Region 4
Approximate Population: 1,951
Input Area (sq. miles): 12.56
December 11.2019
1:36.112
0 0.3 D.E, 1.2 rN
0 0.' 1 2km
- -sr! AN'. - y
�- 1 XA W5 rcAR NRWl�n, 5CER5.
YS�^r l!.'A gee Pt_� 4kswatersl�L GS4. Geo&ntl. FEkA.
Sites reporting to EPA
Superfund NPL 0
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) 2
December 11, 20' 2/3

EPAI 1,.24 lt= amEllJ , st t ,:. EJSCREEN Report (Version 2019)
2 miles Ring Centered at 36.252165,-76.177274, NORTH CAROLINA, EPA Region 4
Approximate Population: 1,951
Input Area (sq. miles): 12.56
Selected Variables
Value
State
Avg.
%ile in
State
EPA
Region
Avg.
%ile in
EPA
Region
USA
Avg.
%ile in
USA
Environmental Indicators
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 in µg/M3)
6.64
8.54
7
8.59
4
8.3
14
Ozone (ppb)
40.2
43.9
13
40
47
43
29
NATA* Diesel PM (µg/m3)
0.162
0.308
15
0.417
<50th
0.479
<50th
NATA* Cancer Risk (lifetime risk per million)
26
34
9
36
<50th
32
<50th
NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index
0.36
0.46
11
1 0.52
<50th
0.441
<50th
Traffic Proximity and Volume (dailytrafficcount/distance to road)
9
230
20
350
15
750
11
Lead Paint Indicator (% Pre-1960 Housing)
0.18
0.16
68
0.15
71
0.28
49
Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance)
0.016
0.082
11
0.083
24
0.13
13
RMP Proximity (facility count/km distance)
0.2
0.39
56
0.6
45
0.74
39
Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance)
0.9
0.631
78
1 0.52
83
4
62
Wastewater Discharge Indicator
(toxicity -weighted concentration/m distance)
0
0.14
N/A
1 0.45
42
14
37
Demographic Indicators
Demographic Index
38%
36%
59
38%
57
36%
60
Minority Population
44%
36%
65
38%
63
39%
62
Low Income Population
31%
37%
42
37%
42
33%
53
Linguistically Isolated Population
1%
2%
59
3%
58
4%
51
Population With Less Than High School Education
7%1
13%1
35
1 13%1
33
1 13%
1 40
Population Under 5 years of age
3%
6%1
17
1 6%1
18
1 6%1
17
Population over 64 years of age
17%
15%1
66
1 16%1
64
1 15%1
67
* The National -Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is EPA's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. EPA developed the NATA to
prioritize air toxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for further study. It is important to remember that NATA provides broad estimates of health risks
over geographic areas of the country, not definitive risks to specific individuals or locations. More information on the NATA analysis can be found
at: https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment.
For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
EJSCREEN is a screening tool for pre -decisional use only. It can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not
provide a basis for decision -making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial
uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this
screening -level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see
EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and
demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJSCREEN outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge
before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns.
December 11, 20' 3/3