19930503 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19930812

U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard /Aff
D
Commanding Officer Suite K
U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design 5505 Robin Hood Road
and Construction Center Atlantic Norfolk, VA 23513
[phone]

1 2 W3
ss
Sincerely,
L. D. EATROF E
Executive D' ector
Mr. John Dorney
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
219 E. North Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-1041
RE: Realigning of Perimeter Road and Shore Protection at U. S.
Coast Guard Support Center, Elizabeth City, NC
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Please review enclosures (1) through (3) and provide us with a
Section 401 water quality certification for our proposed project.
We have previously obtained a Nationwide No. 13 permit from the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (enclosure (4)) and approval from
State of North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (CD92-27).
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact Mr. Earl Ward, P.E., at [phone].
By direction of the
Commanding Officer
Encl: (1) Application (7 copies)
(2) Permit Drawings (7 copies)
(3) Environmental Assessment
(4) Army Corps of Engineers NW13 Pewmit
Copy: State of North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P. O. Box 2188
Washington, NC 27889
11000
Ser No. 365D
f a 199-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Governor
p E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 23, 1993
R.F. Silva, Captain
U.S. Coast Guard
FDCC (LANT)
5505 Robin Hood Road
Norfolk, Virginia 23513-2400
Dear Captain Silva:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Bank stabilization
Pasquotank County
DEM Project # 93503
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 0.53 acres of wetlands or waters which are
tributary to Pasquotank River for bank stabilization located at US
Coast Guard Support Center, Elizabeth City in Pasquotank County as
described in your submittal dated 4 August 1993, we have determined
that the proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 2665 issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the General
Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in
qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit
No. 13.
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,
reston Howard, r. P.E.
93503a.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 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY t
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
L
P.O. BOX 1890 WETLAN 3 GKOU{' " _
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 WATFR UAI_ITY SECTI+;i?
IN REPLY REFER TO
CESAW-CO-E (1145b) 7 July 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, U.S. Coast Guard, ATTN: CPT R.F. Silva, 5505 Robin
Hood Road, Suite K, Norfolk, Virginia 23513-2400
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199302234 and Nationwide Permit No. 13 (Bank
Stabilization)
1. Please reference your application received on 1&4,941 for Department
of the Army authorization to construct an approximanear foot rip
rap bank stabilization project with associated peri located at the
United States Coast Guard Support Center, east of Houth, adjacent
to the Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, in Pasquotank County, North Carolina.
The proposed project will provide erosion protection for the perimeter road,
and the base.
2. For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on 22 November 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for bank stabilization
activities provided:
a. No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion
protection;
b. The bank stabilization activity is less than 500 feet in length;
C. The activity will not exceed an average of one cubic yard per running
foot placed along the bank below the plane of the ordinary high water mark or
the high tide line;
d. No material is placed in any special aquatic site, including wetlands;
e. No material is of the type or is placed in any location or in any
manner so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetlands area;
f. No material is placed in a manner that will be eroded by normal or
expected high flows; and
g. The activity is part of a single and complete project.
Your rip rap work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This

14
CESAW-CO-E (1145b)
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199302234 and Nationwide Permit No. 13 (Bank
Stabilization)
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval. No Federal permits are required for
construction of the perimeter road provided no excavated and/or fill material
is placed, pushed, or allowed to erode into waters and/or wetlands.
3. This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
4. As discussed, you should contact the following State agencies to obtain
the required State authorizations prior to starting work: Mr. John Dorney,
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, telephone [phone],
and Mr. Steve Benton, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, telephone
[phone].
5. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be
addressed to Mrs. Laura Fogo, Washington Regulatory Field office, telephone
[phone].
G. WAYNE WRIGHT
Chief, Regulatory Branch
CF (w/o encl):
Mr. John Parker f"' John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Water Quality Section
Environment, Health and Division of Environmental Management
Natural Resources North Carolina Department of
Post Office Box 27687 Environment, Health and
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Mr. Richard Watts Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
1367 US 17 South
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909

I !
MEMORAN
TO:
PRINT NAMES: ?//??
Reviewer: k 49
WO Supv.: --- 2 1
nch DATE : -ej-2 3
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*4*EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPL_TCABLE) ?**
PERMIT YR: 93 PERMIT NO: 0000503 COUNTY: PASC)UOTANK
APPLICANT NAME: US OF AMERICA IN PERSON OF US COAST GUAR
PROJECT_TYPE : ROAD/BULKHEAD PEPh IT_TYPE :
COE_#: DOT #:
RCD_FROM_CnA: APP DATE FPM CDA: 0911-21/9?-
7-ICE- OF _F 'SRO RIVER_AND_SUI? BA-S.III_# : 7>65 1:5110
STREAIr _CLASS : s-a STR_INDEX_NO : 30 _ 3 -
WL_IMPACT?: YIN WL TYPE:
WL_REQUESTED: WL ACR EST?: YIN
WL_SC(-)RE (# ): WATER IMPACTED BY FILL : Y/?3
HYDRO_CNECT?: YIN NIITIGATIUN?: YIN
MITIGATION-TYPE: MITIGATION SIZE:
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: YIN
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One IS°.L?E ?SSUE/COND DENY
Cf)MMENTS :
t-9

cc: Regional Office
Ceritn-ql Files

Please type or print. Carefully describe all an-
ticipated development activities, including construc-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
stormwater control. If the requested information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9 must be completed for
all projects. .
f,-APPLICANT
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Improve access and safety by separating
auto and aircraft traffic.
LAND : AND WATER ' .
-.: CHARACTERISTICS '
a. Size of entire tract 822 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
a. Name R F Silva, Captain. U. S. Coast Guardc. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
Address FDCC (LANT) . 5505 Robin Hood Rd, Ste K tional Geodetic Vertical Datum+6.0 ±/-
City Norfolk State Virginia d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Zip 23513-2400 IDay phone [phone] Bertie, Mattapex
Landowner or X Authorized agent e. Vegetation on tract Grass
b. Project name (if any)
Road, Stabilize Shoreline. Elizabeth City
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
United States of America in the person
of the U.S. Coast Guard. The above
has the authority-tdO.rerreseiit the
U.S. Coast Guard concerning this property.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED.
PRU_JECT h.
i.
a. Street address or secondary road number j
SR 34
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Elizabeth City
c. County Pasquotank
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Pasquotank River
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED,
USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier).
Construct roadway and riprap shorel_i-ne
stabilization to arrest erosion and
protect road. Construct approx 40 LF
of timber bulkhead at existing nigr_
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
isting project, new work, or both? Both
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Government - Federal
Man-made features now on tract Airfield,
buildings, roadways, infrastructure
What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
How is the tract zoned by local government?
Agricultural
How are adjacent waters classified? WS 11J -- SW
Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No
If so, by whom?
5- UPLAND DEVELOPMENT: at
4
Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed Two lane roadway
b. Number of lots or parcels N/A
C. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
4.25 AC t
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
No - will be submitted.
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops. 33% .

9-
h.
i.
j•
k
1.
M.
n.
List the materials, such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved
surfaces. Bituminous Asphal r
If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmental Management? No - will be done.
Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities. N/A
Have these facilities received state or local
approval? NIA
Describe existing treatment facilities.
N/A
Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state (for examplersurface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, or "wash down"). Surf ace runo f f
and 5 point discharges.
Water supply source City
If the project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps that will be taken to main-
tain established public beach accessways or pro-
vide new access. N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor?
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
4941' 3' 3'
183' 11'
183' 5'
b. Amount of material to be excavated from
below water level in cubic yards 1647
c. Type of material Rubble, hriak, sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
land, swamps, or other wetlands? No
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards -211L,-
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area Contractor
______provided
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? No
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner. To be. obtained lat_eY_.,
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? /No
If so, where?
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swampiland,'or water areas. N/A
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? Yes
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards 223
m. Type of fill material Clean Sand
n. Source of fill material Contractor
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? No
.p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled -__lA.--
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? By f filter
fabric and stone revetment
r. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
hydraulic dredge)? Dr?gline ha khop
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site? No If yes, explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
vironmental impacts.
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 4941 1. f .
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level 0
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet 1.0
d. Type of bulkhead material riprav timber
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water 223
f. Type of fill material Clean Sand
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed ;application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 Yz x I1 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7).0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are--acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location mp-is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113-229(d).
Name Thomas M. & Charles T. Smith
Address Route 4, Box 78
Elizabeth City, NC 27909 _
Name Carolyn C. Winslow
Address Route 4, Box 37
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Name Henry Wenslor
Address2008 Wenslor Drive
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Name Frank Hollawell
Address 912 Smalls Drive
Elizabeth CIty, NC 27909
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
A 1.
} s Q "rO r
tsKi.?a'•'i.?'?l???i?:Q,
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the 23 day of A,44( L ,
19y.
X ?_.14, ?jyi % -Ap - cl s66-
Landowner or Authorized agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.

64 17
Q2
58
13
1

E
Virginia
N. Carolina
32 SUNBURY
13
42 1
CHESAPEAKE:::'::..
BAY'
•NORFOLK :
64 :VIRGINIA
44 BEACH
CHESAPEAKE
168
ATLANTIC
:OCEAN
MOYOCK
34
LI AB T
CITY
SITE ???
•900
DENTON
f
ALBEMARLE SOUND
............................. ••
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD VICINITY MAP IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASQUOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COUryTY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW Langley and McDonald SCALE: I" - 13 MILES
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERS PLAN ERS - URVEYORS
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - MLLIAMSBURG. VIRGINIA DATE:10-8-92 SHEET I OF 9

J ROAD TO BE DEMOLISHED
PROPOSED ROADWAY
K)
H
Ld
LL I
U)
w
LLB
Cn
w
z
I
U
H
Q
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD 5HUKtLINt FKU I tG I IUN IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT PLAN AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASQUOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COUNTY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW Langley and McDonald SCALE: I" - 400'
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERS uN FRS "PURVEYORS
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA DATE-10-8-92 SHEET 2 OF 9
PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER, ELIZF.rETH CITY, N.C.

PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CIENTER, ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
PASOUO TANK RIVER SHORELINE
Rf8LqL0 E SIR EXISTING REPAIR EXISTING
8?i 0 EXISriNG
-EPA REPAIR ERp1E 110N
SN?EL P
N 8H? ILO , PROrEOtION \ Y /
RE
W SNORI
2
U)
U
W \
Z
J
2
U °
Q
906 63
tp/YV •
OEMOL MON
T6?? ? ? Q
OG 67
D 800 19
B?o6 r3
9P
i LEGEND
® ROAD TO RE DEMOL/SHED /
Q PROPOSED ROADWAY
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD SHORELINE PROTECTION IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT PLAN S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
AT: U
.
DATUM: N.G.V.D.. 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASQUOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COUryTY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
SCALE: I" = 400'
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERS- PLANNERS -SURVEYORS
E
DATE:10-8-92 SHEET 3 OF 9
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL ARCANIA BEACH - MAWAMSBURG. VIRGINIA

m 3 h ??
o ?. 0 2 0
CC
? WQ
o h ail
3 h h ON iV/fY
N N
W t? Q O N
? c?' 3 ? II O
ICI k -\ $? ?i
2?j ?W h
115 rov? o N O
Zr QOr ?j ZW
Q W
o ?U o VU J
W it
kj \ J
4j
'0 L44
Re O
?m
%
Q ?
O Z I. c p
Z m p ?~ ? W Q
'K
14\ UmU? J 'K
?j K
O?oW
?oo? °j
Q
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD SHORELINE PROTECTION IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT DETAILS AT:U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D.=0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: ??6? OTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW Langley and M SCALE: N.T.S.
A rROFCSlIONAI C011POI?ATpI
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS DATE: I0-8-92 SHEET 4 OF 9
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - NALUAMSBURG. VIRGINIA
Q o? W3
3 p Z W iV/H
o W L WQ ?N ? N
y 3 11 O
III 3? -41
0
''M ?lV ?? I?f7 np lV
2
= V? o ?? ? OD o
1'- ? ti ,u W ? ?u
?W
?+ VW ? e spa ?? ?
0
Wp a
V
O fo
WQ
? m0
?e
O
R
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD SHORELINE PROTECTION IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT DETAILS AT:U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D.=0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: ??8? OTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW Langley and McDonald SCALE: N.T.S.
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENgNEERS PLANNERS -SURVEYORS
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - WWAMSBURG, VIRGINIA DATE:10-8-92 SHEET 5 ?F I

CONCRETE
1:f
PROPANE GAS LINE-
II
II
APPROX. LOCH 7ION----?1 I
DETERIORA TED
17MBER BULKHEAD
II
II
ELEVATION 6. 0--t
EXIS77NG
CONCRETE
RUBBLE (OUANTITY VARIES)
c, ORDINARY WA
SEE" PLANS FOR
WATER DEPTHS
TYPICAL E)(15771VG BANK
AT BLDG 55 STA 112*JJ TO 114f85
SCALE.- 114 =1=0"
CONCRETE ROADWA Y ELEVA TION 6.0.1-
1't
TWO LA YERS OF ARMOR
STONE W50 - 265,x'
n
0
I I 2.5' .f 0.67'
9" MIN. BURY DEP
FILTER CL07H-? I I / lv °
6" FIL 7FR STONE I/1.5 a
II ?
II °
FILL
U
BANK SECTION
AT BLDG 55 (STA 112.1-JJ TO 114f 85)
SCALE.- 1/4"-It-00
Y WA TER
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD
REALIGNMENT SHORELIN
D E PROTECTION
ETAILS IN: ELIZABETH CITY,
AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPOR N.C.
T CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D.=0.0 _
U.S.C.G. SU PPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: ??b? ?OTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABET H CITY, N.C. APPLICATION BY:U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
M SCALE: N.T.S.
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEER SP LANNERS SURVEYORS
OATE:10-8-92 SH
EET 6 OF 9
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEA CH - WILLIAMSBURG. VIRGINIA

EX/SANG STONE Ah
BROKEN CONCRETE
ELEVA 1101V VAR/ES
+6 TO +4 SEE PLAN
TYPICAL EXISRNG
r " WHERE REPAIR RE4
EX/SANG STONE AND/OR-
BROKEN CONCRETE
,3" M/N. F/L TER STONE
SLOPE VAR/ES, APPROX. 1:
ELEVA AON VAR/ES
+6 TO +4 SEE PLAN
TWO LA YERS OF ARMOR
STONE W50 = 265,0'
2.5.:1- 0.67'
4 -0 " M/N.
BANK REPAIR SECT/ON
SCALE-1/4 =1'-0"
SEE PLANS FOR
WATER DEPTHS
RY WA TER
+0.55
SEE PLANS FOR
WA TER DEPTHS
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD SHORELINE PROTECTION IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT DETAILS AT:U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D.=0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: COUNTYTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW Langley and McDonald SCALE: N.T.S.
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERSLAN ERS SURVEYORS
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - "WAMSBURG. VIRGINIA DATE:10-8-92 SHEET 7 OF 9

As-wAL T PA IE4f1VT
"All
/r 9' P!°C MAAOLUL
/ lRiWW .11 LF 114AMA/L
Ace is Aa J7 error ?K '
e F ML LxAae (nP)
zwsn C AVAIN ~ACM fZ
nip - .rx o rul-o'
MOM .9.CAAVC
PIER SECT/ON
SCALE.• 1/8"=1 - 0"
MOM ME-
*ttty-ao
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD SHORELINE PROTECTION IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT DETAILS AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPOR T CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. = 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASQ UOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COUN
APPLICATION BY: U. TY
S.C.G. FDCC
SMITH
1
& C
T
M
T K
VA
.
.
.
.
.
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
3. HENRY WENSLUR
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL
Langley and McDonald
ENGINEERS PLANNERSSSSURVEYORS
VIRGINIA BEACH - VAWAMSBURG. VIRGINIA ,
LANT NORFOL
SCALE: I/e"=I'-0"
DATE: 10-8-92 SH .

EET 8 OF 9
snw6u

BULKHEAD PLAN
SCALE.• 1/8"=1 =0"
?n
0
J
v
4-,
N
? yM
O
ti
J
„g Q
N?a
J
J
v
ti
Y
ti x
y W h
J
V ? h 3
? V
h y ~
Q
2 m W V
V 2 ? O
V
? V R ti
m m
• .k
? 7 q y
®OOO
Z
W
W
W
1
Q
M I v
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS IN: ELIZABETH CITY , N.C.
REALIGNMENT AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPOR T CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. t 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PAS 2UOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COU
APPLICATION BY: U TY
.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA
SCALE: N.T.S. .
3. HENRY WENSLUR

4. FRANK HOLLAWELL ENGINEERS P LANNERS SURVEYORS

VIRGINIA BEACH - VALUAMSBURG. VIRGINIA

10-8-92 SH
DATE:

EET 9 OF g
r
C ?O DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide No, 1-6
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 40.1 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER DIWATER QUALM PLANNING
VISION OF NVIRONMENTAL-
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO
' • ?-_ - ° . '
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Boy 29535 (2 1993
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. IOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone] WETLaP;US r;F'.G`_".
S:
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE ZENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRO NTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: U. S. of America in the Person of the U . S . Coast Guard Norfolk. Va. 23513
2. Owners Address: Facilities Design & Const. Cntr. 5505 Robin Hood Rd. Ste. K, , _
[phone]
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): Mr. Earl Ward, P . E .
4. If Applijable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
None
County: Pasquotank
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). North Carolina
Nearest Town or City: U.S. Coast Guard Support Center Elizabeth City,
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): -
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Pas otank River
7. River Basin: Pas otank River in
[) [XI
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, orWS II? YES NO NO
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES ( 1
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:l P n? Qne
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
0.53 acre
Filled:
None
Drained:.
None

Flooded: _
0.53 acre
Excavated:
0.53 acre
Total impacted:

12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only):
Please see attached excerpt from Environmental Assessment
13. Purpose of proposed work:.-.
Please see attached exce t from t
tha
evhl ? VWR? F?^"u Yf? nt °A??? s
14. State reasons why the applicantk sees s
taken to minimize wetland impacts.
This project is a shoreline erosion control project and will therefore will have a marginal
o ire ie ?eg o cSn acttt ?e1J.,4Yiish fnd Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
V3paf
(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 [X ] NO[
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NNTS 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 may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES ] 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 fsttGuardl Search an?lyRescue Operations Base
E. What is land use of surrounding property. Coast
N A
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal?
e- ) - 1)4/b" , 81I1Ig3
Owner's Signature Date
Captain R.F. Silva, P.E.
Commanding officer, U.S. Coast Guard Facilities
Design and Construction Center
*The above signed person has the authority to represent the U.S. Coast Guard concerning
this property.
F
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO

CESAW-CO-E (1145b) 7 July 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, U.S. Coast Guard, ATTN: CPT R.F. Silva, 5505 Robin
Hood Road, Suite K, Norfolk, Virginia 23513-2400
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199302234 and Nationwide Permit No. 13 (Bank
Stabilization)
1. Please reference your application received on 12 May 1993, for Department
of the Army authorization to construct an approximate 4,941 linear foot rip
rap bank stabilization project with associated perimeter road, located at the
United States Coast Guard Support Center, east of Highway 34 South, adjacent
to the Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, in Pasquotank County, North Carolina.
The proposed project will provide erosion protection for the perimeter road,
and the base.
'2-.. For the purppses of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on 22 November 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for bank stabilization
activities provided:
a. No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion
protection;
nr ?'
b. The bank stabilization activity is less than 500 feet in length;
C. The activity will not exceed an average of one cubic yard per running
foot placed along the bank below the plane of the ordinary high water mark or
the high tide line;
d. No material is placed in any special aquatic site, including wetlands;
e. No material is of the type or is placed in any location or in any
manner so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetlands area;
f. No material is placed in a. manner that will be eroded by normal or
expected high flows; and
g. The activity is part of a single and complete project.
Your rip rap work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This

CESAW-CO-E (1145b)
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199302234 and Nationwide Permit No. 13 (Bank
Stabilization)
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval. No Federal permits are required for
construction of the perimeter road provided no excavated and/or fill material
is placed, pushed, or allowed to erode into waters and/or wetlands.
3. This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
`-suspend, or revake the authorization.
4. As discussed,' you should contact the following State agencies to obtain
the required State authorizations prior to starting work: Mr. John Dorney,
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, telephone [phone],
and Mr. Steve Benton, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, telephone
[phone].
5. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be
addressed to Mrs. Laura Fcgo, Washington Regulatory Field office, telephone
[phone].
E WRI
hi Regula ry Branch
CF (w/o encl):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
1367 US 17 South
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Mr. Richard Watts Raleigh, North Carolina
Management
of
27611-7687
I

GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on
navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly
maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion and Siltation Controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls
must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during
construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently
stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the movement
of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those
species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary
purpose is to impound water.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or
other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and Case-by-case Conditions. The activity must comply with any
regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer and any
case specific conditions added by the Corps.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the
National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by
Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the
river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may
be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal
rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing
and hunting rights.
9. Water Quality Certification. In certain states, an individual state water
quality certification must be obtained or waived.
10. Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an individual state coastal
zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived.
11. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered
species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-Federal permittees shall
notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be
affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on the
activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of
CL7-GCWN

-2-
the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is
authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species
can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service.
12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect Historic Properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is
authorized, until the District Engineer has complied with the provisions of 33
CFR 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District
Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed,
determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to
believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that
the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied
and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location and existence
of historic resources can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation
Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(8)).
13. Notification.
a. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must
notify the District Engineer as early as possible and shall not begin the
act-i'rity:
(1) until notified by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed
under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the District or Division
Engineer; or
(2) if notified by the District or Division Engineer that an individual
permit is required; or
(3) Unless 30 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt of the
notification and the prospective permittee has not received notice from the
District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed
under the NWP may be modified, suspended or revoked only in accordance with the
procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2).
b. The notification must be in writing and include the following
information and any required fees:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of the prospective permittee;
(2) Location of the proposed project;
-3-
(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose;
direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any
other NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or
intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or related
activity;
(4) Where required by the terms of the NWP, a delineation of affected
special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
(5) A statement that the prospective permittee has contacted;
(a) The USFWS/NMFS regarding the presence of 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; and any available
information provided by those agencies. (The prospective permittee may contact
Corps District Offices for USFWS/NMFS agency contacts and list of critical
habitat.)
(b) The SHPO regarding the presence of any historic properties in the
permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and the available
information, if any provided by that agency.
14 '-Water Suppl? Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur
in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is
repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank
stabilization.
15. Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur
in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly
related to a shellfish harvest activity authorized by nationwide permit.
16. Suitable Material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of
unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material
discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
17. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at
the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer has approved a
compensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.
18. Spawning Areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must
be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
19. Obstructions of High Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges
must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high
flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the
fill is to impound waters).
20. Adverse Impacts from Impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment
of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated
passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
21. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory
waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
22. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their
entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.
NATIONWIDE CONDITIONS
a. No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion
protection.
b. No material is placed in any special aquatic site, including wetlands.
C. No material is of the type or is placed in any location or in any manner
so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetlands area.
d. No material is placed in a manner that will be eroded by normal or
expected high flows.
e. The activity is part of a single and complete project.
f. For projects that exceed 500 feet in length, a 30-day notification to the
District Engineer (DE) is required.
REGIONAL CONDITION
Use of trees and tree tops as stabilization material is prohibited.
?. STATE CONSISTENCY CONDITIONS
a. To be eligible for this permit, all backfill material will be obtained
from an upland source.
Q If the proposed activity is greater than or equal to 500 feet in length
and is within the North Carolina Coastal Area, the applicant must receive
written concurrence from the North Carolina Divison of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) that the activity is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
C. Should all or part of a proposed activity be located within an Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC) as designated by the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission, a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit is required
from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). Should an
activity within or potentially affecting an AEC be proposed by a Federal
agency, a consistency determination pursuant to 15 CFR 930 must be provided to
the NCDCM at least 90 days before the onset of the proposed activity.
GENERAL CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS
a. Written concurrence is required from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM) for any projects that are greater than 500
feet in length.
b. Established sediment and erosion control practices will be utilized to
prevent violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50
NTU's in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by the North
' Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's in all
saltwater classes and all lakes and reservoirs and 10 NTU's in trout waters).
C. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming
into contact with waters of the State until the concrete has hardened.
-2-
d. Riprap shall be of such size so as not to be able to be carried off by
wave or current action and consist of clean rock or masonry material free of
debris or toxic pollutants.
e. Fill in significant wetlands and waters shall be minimized.
f. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to proposed projects in
order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards.
g. Concurrence from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire
three years from the date of the cover letter from the NCDEM.
.t
f
C17-13
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
I, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
REALIGNMENT OF ACCESS ROAD
AND SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SUPPORT CENTER
ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY
LANGLEY AND McDONALD, P.C.
5544 GREENWICH ROAD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462
PROPOSED BY
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
FACILITIES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CENTER ATLANTIC
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
November 1992
U.S. COAST GUARD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
FOR
REALIGNMENT OF ACCESS ROAD
AND SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SUPPORT CENTER
ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY
LANGLEY AND MCDONALD, P.C.
5544 GREENWICH ROAD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462
PROPOSED BY
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
FACILITIES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CENTER ATLANTIC
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
NOVEMBER, 1992
U.S. COAST GUARD
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION
FOR
REALIGNMENT OF ACCESS ROAD
AND SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS
U. S. COAST, GUARD SUPPORT CENTER
ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
This action has been thoroughly reviewed by the Coast Guard and it
has been determined, by the undersigned, that this project will
have no significant effect on the human environment.
This finding of no significant impact is based on the attached
applicant prepared environmental assessment which has been
independently evaluated by the Coast Guard and determined to
adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and
impacts of the proposed action and provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is
not required. The Coast Guard takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope and content of the attached environmental
assessment.
As required under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, the United States Coast Guard certifies that the actions
proposed in this document are consistent with the Coastal Area
Management Program of North Carolina.
it /3C' / efz
Date
Date
(?vironmental Reviewer
Responsible official
Title/Positi n
CA j 1 C y7
Title/Position
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF ACCESS ROAD
AND SHORE PROTECTION MEASURES
U.S. COAST GUARD SUPPORT CENTER
ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROPOSED BY
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD FACILITIES
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CENTER, ATLANTIC
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
This Coast Guard Environmental Assessment was prepared in
accordance with Commandant's Manual Instruction M16475.1B and is in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L.
91-190), the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations dated 29
November 1978 (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).
This Environmental Assessment serves as a concise public document
to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding
Of No Significant Impact.
This Environmental Assessment concisely describes the proposed
action, the need for the proposal, the alternatives, the
environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives, comparative
analysis of the action and alternatives, a statement of
environmental significance, and list the agencies and persons
consulted during its preparation.
Date Preparer a=le/Position
ate Environmental Reviewer Title/Position
2-/1 /? z- 4)A-? ? - C-A-P T - , 0
Date Responsible official Title/Position
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION ....... 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..............5
2.1 Roadway and Traffic Needs .......................5
2.2 Erosion Control Needs ...........................6
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ........................................6
3.1 Roadway Re-Alignment and Improvements ........... 6
3.11 Introduction ...............................6
3.12 No Action Alternative ......................7
3.13 Proposed Alignment . .......................8
3.14 Alternative Road Alignment .................8
3.2 Erosion Control .................................8
3.21 Introduction ...............................8
3.22 "No action" Alternative ....................9
3.23 Proposed Method of Erosion Control ......... 9
3.24 Alternative Methods of Erosion Control ..... 9
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................10
4.1 Climate .......................................10
4.2 Topography ....................................10
4.3 Soils .........................................10
4.4 Air Quality ...................................10
4.5 Water Quality .................................11
4.6 Noise .........................................11
4.7 Cultural Resources ............................11
4.8 Solid Waste ...................................11
4.9 Floodplains ...................................12
4.10 Wetlands ......................................13
4.11 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources .............13
4.12 Threatened and Endangered Species .............14
4.13 Stormwater Management .........................14
4.14 Shoreline Stabilization/Erosion and Sediment
Control .......................................15
5.0 POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 16
5.1 Introduction ..................................16
5.2 No Action Alternative .........................16
5.3 Similar Consequences ..........................16
5.31 Air Quality ..............................16
5.32 Noise ....................................16
5.33 Cultural Resources .......................17
5.34 Floodplains ..............................17
5.35 Threatened and Endangered Species ........ 17
5.36 Stormwater Management .................... 17
5.37 Socio/Economic Impacts ...................18
5.4 Proposed Alternative ..........................18
5.41 Water Quality ............................18
5.42 Solid Waste ..............................18
5.43 Aquatic Habitat/Wetlands .................19
5.44 Shoreline Stabilization Erosion and
Sediment Control .........................19
5.45 Terrestrial Resources ....................19
5.5 Effects of Extending Base Access Road......... 20
5.51 Water Quality ............................19
5.52 Solid Waste ...............:..............20
5.53 Aquatic Habitat/Wetlands .................20
5.54 Terrestrial Resources ....................20
5.6 Effects of Alternative Erosion Control
Measures .....................................20
5.61 Vegetative Treatment ...................... 20
5.62 Bulkheads ................................21
5.63 Use of Other Materials ...................21
6.0 MITIGATION OF UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.... 21
6.1 Wetland Impacts ...............................21
6.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ..................22
6.3 Stormwater Management .........................22
6.4 Shoreline Stabilization .......................22
7.0 CONCLUSION .........................................23
8.0 List of Preparers
9.0 References
10.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted
11.0 Record of Correspondence
List of Illustrations
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph
Figure 3. Proposed Roadway Alignment and Shore
Stabilization Project Limits
Figure 4. Soil Boring Locations
Figure 5. Solid Waste Management Units
Figures 6A, 6B Shoreline Segments Showing Proposed Treatment
Methods
Figure 7. Typical Roadway Section
Figures 8A, 8B Typical Sections for Shoreline Erosion
Control
Figure 9. Typical Section for Bulkhead
Figure 10. Mitigation Plan and Profile
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION
This document is an assessment of the environmental impacts
that are likely to result from the realignment of a portion of the
base access road and the installation of shoreline erosion control
measures at the U. S. Coast Guard Support Center, Elizabeth City,
North Carolina. The two improvements will be undertaken as a single
project.
This report is based on discussions with Base personnel, site
investigations, contact with State and Federal agencies and the
background information sources listed in Section 10. The principal
issues addressed in this report are impacts on traffic and safety,
erosion control, aquatic resources and water quality.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is proposing to realign
the northern portion of the existing Base access road at the USCG
Support Center located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina to correct
traffic and safety problems. In conjunction with, and in addition
to, the access road re-alignment, erosion control measures will be
taken to address continuing deterioration of the Base shoreline
between the north entrance and the fire pump pier.
The Support Center is located 3 miles southeast of Elizabeth
City, adjacent to State Road 34 in Pasquotank County (Figure 1).
The Support Center, which has been in operation since 1938 under
the USCG command, is located on the Pasquotank River and is one of
the principal East Coast aircraft search and rescue facilities for
the Coast Guard. The Base is the staging area for a variety of
fixed wing and rotary aircraft involved in search and rescue and
drug interdiction activities.
The current access road has been determined to present
unacceptable traffic and safety problems and fails to meet a
variety of safety standards. The present alignment creates
conflicts between aviation and vehicular traffic and does not meet
Federal Aviation Administration standards for safety areas around
runways and taxiways. The existing roadway has several sharp turns
which would not meet North Carolina Department of Transportation
curvature standards. Finally, the roadway is poorly illuminated.
To correct these problems the Coast Guard is proposing to re-
route traffic in a more direct and safer manner along the northern
portion of the Base. The project involves building approximately
3,700 linear feet of two lane roadway along the waterfront area of
the Base (Figures 2, 3 and 6). The new road alignment will commence
at a point 600 feet east of the bathhouse and beach and tie into
the existing Base access road adjacent to Building 63.
Figure 7 indicates typical cross-sections of the road. The
roadway will consist of a 24' pavement width located within a
variable width corridor. The full roadway section includes a 4'
- 1 -
shoulder, sidewalk and a drainage swale in areas of the road not
transiting existing pavement. No curb and gutter is included,
however drop inlets along the grassed drainage swale will collect
and channel stormwater to the River.
The proposed roadway crosses ten storm drains varying in size
from 6" to 48". These pipes are of corrugated metal, iron and
concrete and are in various states of repair. The corrugated metal
pipes will be replaced with reinforced concrete pipe or new
corrugated pipe in conjunction with the roadway improvements.
Four new stormwater outfalls will be constructed with the
projec , owever there will no be a significant increase in
impervious surface from the area nor will pre-construction drainage
patterns be substantially altered.
A new 40' section of bulkhead will be installed at the pier
serving Building 43 due to roadway construction. Armor stone will
be placed outboard of the bulkhead for erosion control.
Although much of the corridor for the proposed re-alignment is
grassed, the new roadway will transit existing pavement near
buildings 45, 61 and 63 and the Aviation Rework Facility. In these
areas existing pavement will be used or re-surfaced where
appropriate. Where existing pavement cannot be resurfaced or where
no pavement exists, a new subgrade and surface will be installed.
In unpaved areas a variable roadway subgrade and surface will be
installed. Existing pavement will be demolished as necessary. Where
the proposed roadway transits existing parking lots, new parking
spaces will be constructed to compensate for those lost.
A new roadway lighting and traffic signage system will be
installed. Utility adjustments to accommodate the roadway will be
undertaken as required based upon final design plans.
The new roadway alignment will eliminate a number of the
turning movements, de-conflict much of the aircraft and vehicular
traffic at the north end of the Base and improve both pedestrian
and vehicular safety through signage and lighting at the north end
of the base. The project may also have beneficial effects on
surface drainage patterns.
The erosion control project will consist of the repair and
replacement (rebuild) of existing rip-rap as well as the addition
of new rip-rap along sections of the shoreline indicated in Figure
8, 9 and 10 and as summarized in Table 1. The project will involve
the improvement of 4 613 linaar feet of shoreline according to the
following categories-
* Construct new rip-rap: 535 l.f.
* Rebuild rip-rap: 2,691.1.f.
* Repair rip-rap: 1,328 l.f.
l1`
- 2 -
The project will require the filling of approximately 0.10 acre of
additional intertidal and subtidal waters in the Pasquotank River
beyond that already filled based on an estimated 1' of encroachment
beyond the toe of the existing rip-rap. However, in accordance with
a directive from the State of North Carolina the maximum limit of
rip-rap will be held to no more than five feet from ordinary high
water mark (the river is subject only to wind and storm tides). The
angle of repose of the rip-rap will be adjusted from a 2:1 slope
along each section of shoreline to conform with this standard.
The rebuild project will be undertaken where the existing rip-rap
is being undermined or failing and will consist of the following
measures to rebuild the shoreline protection structures:
* Remove the existing concrete and masonry rubble and store it
on site for possible re-use.
* Excavate the toe properly (to a maximum of -4.0 mwl),
regrade the bank, install filter cloth and filter stone.
* Examine the excavated material for suitability for re-use.
Break large concrete pieces into sizes that will be effective
for use as either filter stone or armor stone. Augment with
armor stone where insufficient suitable concrete is available.
* Place the armor stone at a slope of about 2:1 (or
appropriate angle) using a combination of salvaged concrete
and imported quarry stone. The seaward limit of the new
erosion protection will be no further than five feet from
ordinary high water and in most cases will be no more than
about 1 feet from the toe of the existing rip-rap.
Repair of existing rip-rap will be undertaken along those
portions of the shoreline where the rip-rap is functional and need
only be re-arranged or augmented with additional broken concrete or
armor stone rip-rap. Additional filter stone will be added and a
layer of armor stone placed as required.
Finally, new rip-rap will be added in those areas of the shoreline
undergoing the most severe erosion and which are not currently
protected. This work will consist of grading the bank at a 2:1
slope, installing filter cloth, placing a bedding of filter stone
and adding armor stone. The seaward limit of new rip-rap will be
held to no further than five feet from ordinary high water.
Figures 8A and 8B indicate typical cross-sections for each of
the proposed shoreline treatment methods. Approximately 7,100 cubic
yards of rip-rap material will be required for all sections of the
shoreline of which 1,730 cubic yards of material will be placed at
or beyond average water level.
- 3 -
The erosion control project will provide a comprehensive
program for addressing chronic shoreline erosion along the
waterfront of the Base in order to protect the proposed roadway
improvement as well as the remaining buildings at the Base.
It has been determined that several permits will be required
for completion of this project. These permits are:
Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act.
Section 404, Clean Water Act (CWA).
Section 401, CWA Water Quality Certification.
North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Permit.
North Carolina Stormwater Management Permit.
In addition to these permits, the project will require a Coastal
Zone Management Consistency Determination by the State of North
Carolina and may require a subaqueous easement from the State. No
local permits will be required.
Table 1
Summary of Existing Shoreline Conditions
and Proposed Shoreline Erosion Control Measures
Station - Station Category
New Rip-rap
------------ Rebuild
---------------- Repair
-----------------
--------------------
100+00 to 107+00 -- X
107+00 to 108+00 X
108+00 to 111+80 X
112+33 to 114+83 X
114+83 to 115+80 X
115+80 to 116+85 X
116+85 to 118+60 X
118+60 to 122+00 X
112+00 to 131+71 X
131+70 to 137+73 X
137+73 to 139+18 X
139+18 to 139+78 X
142+97 to 143+55 X
143+55 to 145+10 X
145+10 to 149+41 X
Total Length 535 2691 1328
Total Fill (Est) 1,070 cy 4036.5 cy 1992 cy
Total Fill
Below Average Water 267.5 cy 1009. cy 498 cy
- 4 -
2.0 SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
2.1 Roadway and Traffic Needs.
The purpose of the roadway re-alignment project is to
alleviate safety problems at the north end of the Base by
separating vehicular from aircraft traffic. The current access road
route is a significant safety hazard for both vehicles and
pedestrians. The access road intersects active taxiways at six
locations, separates parking lots from work places, and is
positioned too close to active runways, taxiways, and aircraft
refueling and storage areas (Figure 3). Aircraft are forced to
cross the existing perimeter road to access runways from hangers. Q,
The location of the existing access road also encroaches within
runway (400 feet) and taxiway (118 feet) safety areas as defined by
the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Design Advisory
Circular, September, 1989 (Tables 3-2 and 4-1).
The existing roadway forces vehicular traffic to make several
turns at points where visibility is poor, most notably around
Building 49. Such turns exceed the maximum allowable curvature for
roadways of this type established by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation. Additionally, the current secondary base roadway
adjacent to Buildings 61, 63, 65, 75, 77 and 79 separates parking
lots from buildings, forcing pedestrians to cross traffic when
going to and from work places. Finally, the existing route relies
on lighting from adjacent buildings to light the roadway after
sunset.
The proposed project will address the most serious of these
problems at the north end of the Base from just north of Building
33 to just east of Building 63. The proposed new roadway will
follow the shoreline of the Pasquotank River.- This location was
selected to meet the main objectives of the project. The chosen
route substantially increases separation between air and vehicle
traffic and will also reduce the encroachment into runway and
taxiway safety zones. Additionally, the roadway will reduce traffic
on the secondary access road along the hangers and buildings and
allow for entry and exit to the parking lots from the River side,
thereby improving pedestrian safety in moving to and from the
parking lots.
Extension of the roadway along the remainder of the Base along
the River, while examined as an alternative, has been deemed to be
unnecessary at this time.
The chosen location of the corridor will also minimize impacts
of non-developed areas. Approximately 25 percent of the proposed
road will be constructed on areas already paved. The remainder of
the corridor consists of grassed areas.
- 5 -
2.2 Erosion Control Needs.
The U.S. Coast Guard Base at Elizabeth City is suffering from
chronic shoreline erosion along the waterfront of the Base.
Prevailing winds from the north and east create wave action from
the considerable fetch on the Pasquotank River which impact the
shoreline of the Base.
Past erosion control actions have been piecemeal and only
partially effective. Demolition debris dumped along portions of the
shoreline has failed and slumped or washed into the River due to
improper seating and the lack of a suitable subgrade. The lack of
adequate subgrade and erosion control material under the rip-rap
has allowed the material to be eroded from behind causing slumping
failures. Sheet flow over the rip-rap from adjacent lands is also
aggravating erosion and causing slumping along certain sections of
the shoreline. Finally, some areas of the shoreline have no
erosion control protection at all, and wave action has caused steep
banks to develop which are eroding and advancing the shoreline
toward the buildings.
In September, 1991 a survey of the shoreline was undertaken to
assess the degree of shoreline erosion. The entire shoreline was
inspected, photographs were taken and the degree of shoreline
erosion was evaluated.
The study classified the shoreline as follows:
Poor: No protection exists or there are many large holes
behind existing rubble. Some areas are caving in.
Rebuild or provide new rip-rap.
Fair: Small holes are evident behind-rip-rap. Some
erosion was noted. Rubble is poorly graded. Repairs
required.
Good: No erosion evident. Rubble well graded. No holes
behind rip-rap noted. Appears adequate for near
term without any further work.
Based on the field assessment of erosion, the erosion control
actions recommended in Table 1 were developed.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Roadway Re-alignment and Improvements
3.11 Introduction.
Alternatives to the proposed roadway relocation action consist
of both alignment and engineering alternatives. The alignment
alternatives examined consisted of the "no action" alternative of
- 6 -
continuing to use the existing Base access roadway, the proposed
roadway re-alignment and the extension of the proposed alignment to
the eastern end of the Base.
The USCG is constrained in location of an alternative
corridors due to the facility layout (Figures 2 and 6). The
airport consumes the majority of the USCG- property. When
constructed, all facilities were established to the north of the
airport, adjacent to the Pasquotank River to facilitate seaplane
operations, since discontinued.
The location of alternative corridor selection was constrained
by many conditions including: meeting the USCG primary project
objectives, the above-listed location constraints, avoiding
wetlands, avoiding solid waste sites, stormwater management
concerns, making all alterations to the road consistent with
transportation standards (the road is being designed for a speed of
30 mph) , and safety factors for road alignment and sight distances.
The principal alternative examined, however, was that of extending
the new base road along the River to the east entrance gate.
As discussed previously, the majority of the existing access
road falls within the runway and taxiway safety areas. Airplanes
are forced to taxi across the existing road to access the runways.
To meet one of its basic purposes the new roadway must also
not separate parking areas and work places. The location of the
road was therefore proposed for construction along a section of the
Pasquotank River intersecting with the existing Base access road.
This plan moves the roadway as far as possible from aircraft
traffic, helps alleviate both aircraft and pedestrian safety
problems but avoids certain undesirable environmental impacts
associated with extending the re-aligned road along the waterfront
to the east.
3.12 No Action Alternative
The "no action alternative" consists of the U.S. Coast Guard
not realigning the base access road and continuing to use the
existing alignment.
If the road is not re-aligned, the safety problems caused by
vehicular and aircraft intersecting at the north end of the Base
will remain. The roadway will also continue to fail to meet NCDOT
curvature requirements. Vehicle traffic will not be re-routed to
avoid potential accidents with aircraft traffic. Pedestrians
safety problems will continue to exist around several of the most
active buildings and hangers.
- 7 -
3.13 Proposed Alignment.
As stated previously the main purpose of the project is to
separate aircraft traffic from vehicular traffic to the maximum
extent practicable. To accomplish this objective the alignment of
the new access road will follow along the Pasquotank River (Figures
2 and 6) to the east end of Building 63 where it will tie into the
existing base access road. This road will allow some separation of
vehicular traffic from aircraft traffic at Taxiways "A", "B" and
"H". The proposed alignment also improves pedestrian safety.
The 30 mph desing speed for the road is a major engineering
and transportation constraint that will act a s primary factor in
determining the exact road alignment.
This alignment will result in minor effects on the overall
environment. As part of the roadway improvement a failed drainage
pipe will be replaced with a concrete pipe. The proposed re-
alignment will not require the filling of intertidal and subtidal
river bottom, for the roadway itself, however, the shoreline will
be protected under the erosion control project described herein.
3.14 Alternative Road Alignment
Consideration was given to the extension of the proposed
roadway corridor along the River to the east entrance gate of the
Base (Figures 2, 3). This extension would re-route traffic off the
airfield to the north side of Buildings 75, 77 and 79 continue
north around Buildings 87, 96 and 100 and then terminate at the
east gate entrance to the Base. The alternative alignment
relocates the road to the shoreward side of the Base and allows
pedestrian access from the parking lots of Buildings 63, 75, 77 and
79 to the road. The alignment would also eliminate all conflicts
with taxiways and runways but would require the replacement of a
major drainage outfall, filling of intertidal and subtidal bottoms
at two locations along the road and the transiting of three solid
waste management units along the waterfront of the Base.
The engineering alternatives discussed above consist of sheet
flowing drainage from the proposed roadway to the River versus
draining the roadway away from the River into a grassed swale.
3.2 Erosion Control.
3.21 Introduction.
Erosion control alternatives were selected from structural and
non-structural alternatives as well as design alternatives.
Structural alternatives consisted of various forms of rip-rap. With
the exception of the bulkhead at the pier for building 43,
bulkheads were not considered due to excessive cost. Non-structural
alternatives consisted primarily of vegetative treatments.
- 8 -
Engineering alternatives considered consisted primarily of various
materials for use in rip-rap and different angles of repose for the
rip-rap.
3.22 "No Action" Alternative.
The "no action" alternative consists of not undertaking any
repair, replacement or construction of new rip-rap. Such action
will allow additional erosion to occur along those reaches of the
shoreline identified in Table 1 as having the most serious erosion.
The no action alternative will place the proposed roadway
improvements in jeopardy and threaten the parking lots adjacent to
Buildings 61 and 63.
3.23 Proposed Method of Erosion Control
The proposed method of erosion control is as follows:
* repair the existing broken rip-rap where is has slumped by
adding new broken concrete or replacing the material which has
slumped or washed into the river at a slope at or near
existing. Existing non-suitable rip-rap will be removed from
the shoreline prior to placement of new rip-rap. The final
determination of what constitutes non-suitable rip-rap will be
made during an on-site meeting between Coast Guard officials
and a representative of the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management in Elizabeth City.
* replace the material which is slumping due to undermining
from sheet erosion or shoreline erosion by removing the
material, reshaping the bank, placing a suitable subgrade
including erosion control fabric and crusher run before
replacing the used or placing suitable 'old or new broken
concrete or armor stone as rip-rap. Such rip-rap will be
placed at an approximate angle of 2:1. The new or replacement
rip-rap will be placed no further than a maximum of five feet
waterward of the ordinary high water level and in most cases
no further,than 1 foot waterward of the existing toe of slope.
* construct new erosion control using the method described
above.
3.24 Alternative Methods of Erosion Control
The alternative methods of erosion control evaluated were:
* Vegetative treatment including the planting of wetlands
grasses along the shoreline.
* Bulkheads
* Use of armor stone only
- 9 -
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Climate
The area's climate is typically characterized by having mild
winters and warm summers. The annual temperature of the area
averages 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Rainfall in the region averages
approximately 50 inches per year. The heaviest rainfalls usually
occur during the summer months.
4.2 Topography
The Base is located in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
which is typically low and flat. The topography along the proposed
corridor ranges from a low of 3.6 feet (msl) at the start of the
road to a high of 8.9 feet (msl) where the road ties in with the
existing perimeter road north of the east guard house. The
shoreline of the Base has been altered is composed principally of
fill material.
The Pasquotank River at the Support Station is influenced only
by wind and storm tides. The majority of the Base is in Flood Zone
C (areas of minimal flooding). An area of up to 100 feet in depth
along the riverfront is in the flood zone between the Special Flood
Hazard Zone and the 500 year flood plain. Along and within 10 feet
of the shoreline the elevations are in the Special Flood Hazard
Zone (Zone A3) which has a base flood elevation of +6.0 msl.
4.3 Soils
The Soil Survey for Pasquotank County', North Carolina,
identifies the soils series within the location of the proposed
corridor as Bertie, Mattapex, and made land. These soils types are
not listed as hydric soils by the National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils. A field investigation verified the general location
and type of soils as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service.
4.4 Air Quality
The Support Base has been. issued an Air Permit from the State
of North Carolina (Permit Number 4138R6, August 27, 1990). The
permit was issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 21B
of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and
other applicable laws, rules and regulations. The permit allows the
Base to construct and operate air emission sources or air cleaning
devices, and discharge the associated air contaminants into the
atmosphere. Therefore, the Support Center is in compliance with
all regulations for air emissions.
- 10 -
4.5 Water Quality
The portion of the Pasquotank River which is adjacent to the
USCG Support Center is identified as Class SC waters as defined by
the State of North Carolina in Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Pasquotank River Basin,
1989. An SC water is a tidal salt water and is designated as being
waters suitable for "fish and wildlife propagation, secondary
recreation, and other uses requiring waters of lower quality". The
principal water quality restraints are elevated bacterial levels
and elevated levels of nutrients.
A A NnicA
The entire area in which the proposed corridor is located, is
classified as a Air Installation Compatible Uses Zone (AICUZ) with
a Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) of 65-70 due its close
proximity to the USCG Air Station and airport. The purpose of the
AICUZ program is to determine land use activities that can occur in
the areas adjacent to the Support Center and within its specific
AICUZ pattern. Within the area proposed for the roadway
improvements Base noise analyses indicate that highways/roads are
not restricted land use activities due to noise.
4.7 Cultural Resources
The majority of the project involves the re-use of already
developed areas. Contact with the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources regarding the presence of cultural resources
within the proposed corridor revealed that
"there are no known archaeological sites located within
the proposed project area. Since the proposed ground
disturbance is to take place in areas where previous
construction has occurred, it is unlikely that this
project will involve significant archaeological resources.
We have no preference concerning alternative selection and
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted
in relation to the project."
Their comments were made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of - 1966 and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
(36 CFR Part 800). Therefore, no negative impacts on cultural
resources are expected.
4.8 Solid Waste
A review of studies previously conducted at the Support Center
by the Civil Engineering Unit, Cleveland, Ohio (CEU) of the U.S.
Coast Guard with regard to solid wastes as well as an on-site
assessment of the proposed corridor were used to determine if any
- 11 -
area along the proposed corridor could potentially contain solid
waste. Additionally, soil borings were undertaken to gather
additional data on the nature and extent of any contamination which
could be disturbed as a result of the road construction (Figure 4).
Three areas of solid waste have been identified by the Coast
Guard along the route of the proposed corridor and the extension
alternative (Figure 5). These Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU)
areas include a former plating shop (SWMU 2), a material storage
area (SWMU 3), and a former air station landfill (SWMU 4).
SWMU 2 is the site of an old plating shop (Building 79) which
was used from 1950 to 1984 to plate and finish various metal parts
in connection with aircraft overhaul and rework. Minor spills of
chemicals used in the operation of the facility have occurred
during the shop's lifetime. Elevated levels of chromium and
cadmium were detected in this area but have been addressed by the
U.S. Coast Guard through soil and water extraction under a program
undertaken with the oversight of the State of North Carolina.
SWMU 3 was formally a concrete taxiway used since 1960 to
store contaminated material for less than 90 days. This area is
approximately 475 feet long 36 feet wide and is enclosed by a 6
foot security fence. Materials stored in this area include
petroleum products, industrial detergents, solvents, paint
thinners, anti-freezes, pitch, roofing compounds, and drums of
hazardous waste for less than 60 days. No known uncontrolled
releases from the facility have occurred according to CEU Cleveland
according to a 1990 Coast Guard report on the SWMUs.
SWMU 4 is an former landfill and burn area north of building
63 and is estimated to be 30 feet by 40 feet by 6 feet deep. The
facility was in operation from 1939 to approximately 1950 and was
used as a trash disposal and burn area. The exact waste disposed
in the area is unknown but is expected to be all the waste
generated by the Base between 1939 and 1950. There are no known
releases from the area.
4.9 Floodplains
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map 370184 0120 for
Pasquotank County North Carolina, December 4, 1985, the alignment
of the proposed corridor is located in flood Zone B. Zone B areas
area located between Zone A which are the special flood hazard
areas and the limits of the 500 year flood plain. However, as noted
above these areas are subject to certain types of 100 year shallow
flooding in which depths are less than 1 foot. The 100 year flood
plain elevation is +6.0 msl. The proposed shoreline erosion control
will require the filling of approximately 0.50 ac. within the 100
year floodplain.
- 12 -
4.10 Wetlands
A wetlands assessment was conducted along the shoreline and
the corridors of both the proposed alignment and the extension
alternative. The shoreline assessment revealed small and scattered
patches of Spartina alterniflora and Spartina patens growing along
certain areas of the shore. These wetlands areas were estimated to
total less than 250 s.f.
The wetlands assessment for non-tidal wetlands commenced with
the review of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps for Elizabeth
City, North Carolina. The National Wetlands Inventory Map for the
Elizabeth City Quadrangle (1990), prepared by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, only depicted the Pasquotank River as an
Estuarine Subtidal wetland. The Soil Survey for Pasquotank
County, North Carolina identified the soils within the proposed
corridor as non-hydric. Since NWI maps generally only denote
larger and wetter wetland systems and soil surveys can only be used
as guides, a field investigation was initiated during the week of
August 20, 1991.
The majority of the proposed and alternative road corridor was
found to be developed with small areas of vegetated habitat. The
developed area consisted of paved roads, parking lots, storage
areas and grassed areas. Therefore, these areas are not wetlands.
The wooded areas which will be impacted by the alternative
corridor (less that 0.3 acre) are found along the eastern portion
of the proposed corridor. These areas consists of non-hydric soils
and a predominance of facultative upland (FACU) vegetation.
Therefore, it was determined that this area is not a wetland. This
was subsequently confirmed through a field inspection by a
representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
The proposed erosion control project will require the filling
of about 0.10 acre of subtidal land under Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899. The bottomlands are "trust lands" owned by
the State of North Carolina.
4.11 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources
Contact with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and subsequent field investigations indicate that the shallow water
areas adjacent to the Base shoreline do not support significant
stands of submerged aquatic vegetation, significant shellfish
resources, fish spawning areas or any other habitats which could be
considered fragile aquatic ecosystems proximate to the Base.
The shallow subtidal environment supports an assemblage of
benthic invertebrates characteristic of sandy/mud bottom shallow
water marginally brackish environments. Due to the relatively
- 13 -
shallow nature of the waters adjacent to the Base and the long
fetch of winds from the north, the waters adjacent to the Base are
subject to excessive turbidity on a periodic basis. Due to the
"hardened" nature of the shoreline (from rip-rap) the shoreline is
not deemed to be suitable for nesting areas for shore birds or
turtles.
As noted above, the proposed corridor is fully developed and
offers little terrestrial habitat. The alternative corridor
transits a stand of mature woods at the eastern end of the Base.
The vegetation found within the wooded areas were dominated by
marginal hydrophytic species and included; loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda, FAC-), black cherry (Prunus serotina, FACU), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum, FACU), American holly (Ilex opaca, FACU),
waxmyrtle (MVrica cerifera, FAC), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans, FAC), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia, FAC),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica, FAC-), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans, FAC), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia, FACU).
A field inspection of this area revealed only marginal nesting
areas for birds. The area is colonized by the usual assemblage of
small mammals characteristic of coastal woodlands.
4.12 Threatened or Endangered Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has identified
several rare, threatened or endangered species in Pasquotank
County. These species include the southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris fisheri), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
kempii), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and the green sea
turtle (Chelonia mydas). However, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program did not indicate any records of rare, threatened
or endangered species in the vicinity of the Base or the proposed
road corridor nor did the agency know of any unique natural areas
or significant ecosystems located nearby.
No sightings or suitable habitat for threatened or endangered
species were found within the property during on-site
investigations. As noted above, the shoreline has been extensively
disturbed through erosion control rendering it unsuitable for
nesting of the sea turtles listed above. Additionally, contact with
the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that the turtles
noted above are unlikely to frequent the brackish water environment
of the River.
4.13 Stormwater Management
The site generally drains to the north into the Pasquotank
River. Drainage in the vicinity of the aircraft hanger and
maintenance buildings along the riverfront generally sheet flows
over the parking areas and across grassed areas into the River.
- 14 -
Stormwater collection systems further away from the shoreline route
runoff through underground storm sewers which discharge into the
River. Several of these outfalls are in an advanced state of
deterioration and will be replaced in conjunction with the proposed
roadway construction.
The U.S. Coast Guard is in the process of preparing a project
specific stormwater management plan. The service is also in the
process of obtaining an Environmental Protection Agency NPDES
Stormwater Discharge Permit for the all stormwater outfalls at the
Base. The proposed new stormwater outfalls will be covered under
the NPDES Stormwater permit issued for the Base.
4.14 Shoreline Stabilization /Erosion and Sediment Control
As noted above, a shoreline study was conducted on
approximately 5,300 feet of the Pasquotank River shoreline in
September, 1991. The area of the proposed roadway corridor appears
to consist principally of fill material. The existing top of bank
averages 4 to 6 feet above mean high water. The majority of the
shoreline is protected by unconsolidated broken concrete, asphalt,
bricks and other rubble which has been dumped over the top of the
riverbank in the past. In areas where no such protection exists,
the erosion rate was estimated to be 1 to 2 feet per year.
Approximately 90 percent of the shoreline was found to be in
poor to fair condition due to insufficient erosion control
measures, and requires new rip-rap, repair or replacement (re-
build). These areas were mostly confined to western and northern
portions of the base shoreline. Erosion has undermined the
shoreline along portions of the riverbank resulting in the
riverbank caving in and creating large holes. This is due to
poorly graded rip-rap being dumped in the past. However, some
areas where well graded rip-rap was carefully placed, the shoreline
appears to be stable and in good condition.
The concrete material used for the existing bank stabilization
ranges in size from 1' concrete aggregates to 4' x 10' pre-cast
panels, with the average size being approximately 18" x 18" square
and 4" thick. No filter cloth appears to have been placed with the
rip-rap.
At the eastern end of the Base there are significant areas
with no bank protection. Other areas exhibit erosion behind the
rubble resulting in the rip-rap collapsing. Erosion is
characterized as moderate to severe in unprotected areas at the
eastern end of the Base and low to moderate in areas where erosion
behind the rip-rap is occurring.
- 15 -
5.0 POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the "no action" alternative
and the roadway alignment alternatives. The effects of the "no
action" alternative and the roadway alignment alternatives are
essentially the same for air quality, noise, cultural resources,
floodplains, threatened and endangered species, stormwater
management, erosion and sediment control and socio-economic
impacts. only the impacts on aquatic habitat, hazardous wastes,
shoreline erosion control and terrestrial resources differ among
the alternatives considered.
5.2 "No Action" Alternative
The "no action" alternative would not involve any adverse
impacts on the environment. However, this alternative would do
little in alleviating safety and traffic problems posed by the
existing access road. Therefore, this alternative does not meet
the primary objective of the project. The continuing chronic
erosion along the shoreline would also not be addressed and the
existing improvements at the Base closest to the River including
several parking lots will be threatened through gradually
accelerating erosion caused by the continued loss and slumping of
the rip-rap.
5.3 Similar Consequences
5.31 Air Quality
Since the construction of the access road will involve only
replacing the existing road and is not associated with any new or
expanded facility activities, the project will not cause any
increases in traffic volumes. Therefore, no significant increases
in the amount of auto emissions are expected. The proposed erosion
control project will not result in the emission of atmospheric
pollutants. However, some slight increases in emissions during
construction will occur but they are not expected to significantly
affect air quality at the Base.
5.32 Noise
There will be no increase in present noise levels associated
with the proposed project except during construction. Additional
noise levels due to construction and any additional noise
associated with the new perimeter road will not exceed the existing
noise levels produced by on-going operations.
- 16 -
5.33 Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources reviewed
the project and found no known archaeological sites located within
the proposed project area. Therefore, the project will not create
any negative impacts on cultural resources.
5.34 Floodplains
No new buildings will be constructed in the floodplain. The
proposed roadway will involve slight encroachments into the 100
year floodplain due to minor filling activities associated with
construction of the road on either alignment. The erosion control
project will involve approximately 0.50 acre of fill in the
floodplain (below +6.0 msl but above mean sea level). However, due
to the marginal and relatively minor nature of the fill the
encroachment will not significantly affect extent of the floodplain
or the frequency or duration of flooding. Therefore, the project
is judged to be in compliance with Federal Executive Order 11988 on
Floodplains.
5.35 Threatened and Endangered Species
Since no sightings or suitable habitat for threatened or
endangered species were found within the study area during the on-
site investigations, none of the alternatives should have a
significant impact on such species. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program stated that their files did not contain any
records of rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area of
the proposed project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did
indicate several endangered and threatened species that occur in
Pasquotank County. These species include the southeastern shrew,
kemp's ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and the green sea
turtle. However, as noted above NMFS indicated that the Kemp's and
loggerhead turtles are unlikely to frequent the brackish water of
the River adjacent to the Base. Since the majority of the project
area is already developed and the remainder was not found to
consist of significant or unique habitat it is unlikely that the
proposed project will directly or indirectly impact any of the
above listed species.
5.36 Stormwater Management
As stated previously much-of the proposed corridor is already
paved or consists of impervious material. Additionally, no on-site
drainage patterns will be modified to route more drainage to the
River than is currently being discharged there. The project will
include four new outfalls. However, they are largely replacement or
repair of existing stormwater outfalls. Therefore, the proposed
project will result in only a marginal increase in stormwater
runoff due to the increase in impermeable pavement. However, this
run-off will be treated in a grassed drainage swale to be located
- 17 -
on the north side of the roadway before entering a stormwater
collection system, thereby reducing velocity and sediment load.
Due to the marginal increase in additional. paved surface, the
proposed drainage alterations discussed above and the lack of a
significant increase in vehicular traffic caused by the roadway,
the impacts to stormwater management are considered to be
marginally beneficial.
5.37 Socio/Economic Impacts
The proposed roadway will not affect
functions and activities at the Base.
anticipated that any on-Base or off-Base
will result from the proposed actions
improvements discussed above.
the nature or scope of
Therefore, it is not
socio-economic impacts
other than the safety
5.4 Impacts of the Proposed Project (Road Alignment and
Erosion Control)
5.41 Water Quality
As discussed previously the majority of the area in which the
new perimeter road will be constructed is already paved. Due to the
marginal nature or the changes proposed to the drainage system, no
change in water quality causing a change in the classification of
the waters by the State of North Carolina is anticipated.
The proposed erosion control project will result in temporary
increases in suspended sediment and siltation during construction
in areas where the riverbank is exposed and reshaped prior to the
installation of replacement and new rip-rap. However, long term
reductions in the sediment load of the near shore area should
result from a decrease in bank erosion as the result of the
shoreline erosion control improvements proposed.
To ensure that all measures are being taken to protect water
quality, a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for the proposed
roadway construction and rip-rap installation will be submitted to
the North Carolina Division of Land Quality at least 15 days before
construction is due to commence. A Water Quality Certificate will
also be secured from the Division of Environmental Management. The
Coast Guard will fully comply will all applicable provisions of
both permits.
5.42 Solid Waste
Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 4 may be affected by the
proposed project. However, contact with Base officials and a review
of test data revealed that the material exposed for roadway paving
will not result in the release of significant quantities of
contaminants and that special handling requirements for the soil
- 18 -
and concrete will not be required. A stormwater drain pipe
requiring excavation is proposed to be located in the general
vicinity of SWMU 4. Accordingly, prior to construction of the
project an assessment will be made to identify.if such excavation
will disturb contaminated soils and whether any other such areas
along the length of the project may exist. Should such areas exist,
the Coast Guard will investigate any additional impacts that
construction of the project would have on environmental resources.
5.43 Aquatic Habitat/Wetlands
The proposed roadway will not involve the filling of any
shallow waters of the Pasquotank Rivers, adjacent to the shoreline.
Some minor fills will be associated with the installation of new
stormwater outfalls. Fill required for shoreline erosion control at
or beyond the toe of the existing rip-rap is estimated to be only
0.10 acre.
After on-site investigations of the areas to be filled it was
found that the fill will not involve the destruction of submerged
aquatic vegetation, shellfish or any other fragile aquatic
ecosystems. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
indicated during the on-site multi-agency meeting that the areas
requiring fill did not consist of vegetation, fish spawning beds,
or any other habitats which could be considered a fragile aquatic
ecosystem. Therefore, the fill required for the project will have
minor, if any, adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
5.44 Shoreline Stabilization/Erosion and Sediment
Control
The proposed project will arrest the loss of sediment and
check erosion of the shoreline within the project limits. These
improvements to the shoreline will decrease erosion, thus reducing
localized turbidity from shoreline erosion during periods of higher
wave action. The addition of rip-rap to currently unprotected areas
of the shoreline will arrest the erosion which threatens
underground utilities and parking lots along the River front
thereby eliminating future repair and replacement of these features
due to erosion. Some temporary siltation is expected as a result of
the construction required to alleviate the shoreline problem.
However, the effects will only be temporary and a sound erosion and
sediment control plan will be in place prior to construction.
5.45 Terrestrial Resources
The proposed action will result in less than one-half acre
disturbance of a vegetated area. This small area is located along
the eastern portion of the corridor. Its removal is not expected
to have any adverse effects on the remaining base terrestrial
habitat.
- 19 -
5.5 Effect of Extension of Base Access Road
5.51 Water Quality
The extension of the proposed base access road to the east
gate will have marginally increased impacts on water quality will
be marginally reduced as a result of this alternative. The removal
of wooded and grass lawn areas at the eastern portion of the
proposed route, adjacent to the river would be decreased. This
wooded and grass lawn helps in filtering stormwater runoff before
it reaches the river. However, these reduced impacts are not deemed
to result in a change in the water quality classification assigned
by the State of North Carolina.
5.52 Solid Waste
The extension of the base access road will require disturbance
of SWMU 2 and 3. While soil and water chemistry at depth indicated
slightly elevated levels of chromium at SWMU 2 which would not
require special handling of excavated materials, disturbance of the
area is not warranted for the proposed traffic improvements.
Transiting SWMU 3 would involve excavating a closed management area
However, contact with Base officials indicates that this
disturbance will not create problems with the closure and would not
cause the disturbance of significant amounts of contaminants.
Again, however, disturbance of the area is not desired by the Coast
Guard.
5.53 Aquatic Habitat/Wetlands
This alignment will result in filling 0.14 acres of shallow
waters for roadway fill and shoulder stabilization, or .06 acres
less than the proposed alignment. The area of fill required at the
eastern portion for roadway stabilization will be eliminated. As
discussed above these areas do not appear to contain any
significant or unique habitats-nor do they consist of any submerged
aquatic vegetation or shellfish. Therefore, there will be slight
if any effects on the aquatic environment due to this alignment.
5.54 Terrestrial Resources
There are no impacts to vegetated areas besides the mowed lawn
areas due to this alignment.
5.6 Effects of Alternate Erosion Control Measures
5.61 Vegetative Treatment
Vegetative treatment of the shoreline with species such as
Spartina alterniflora and Spartina patens was examined for
suitability as an erosion control measure but determined not to be
- 20 -
viable due to limitations in shoreline elevation presented by the
existing erosion control rip-rap.
Although use of vegetative treatments would significantly
reduce the amount of additional fill for effective erosion control,
vegetative treatments have significant limitations of
applicability. The sprigging and colonization success of the
species noted above are very "elevation dependent" and would
require the removal of all rip-rap and the regrading of the
shoreline to elevations between -0.50' and 0.50' mwl for a distance
of at least 30' to provide a suitable area for a stand of
vegetation to grow and provide adequate protection. Overtopping of
such stands, even if successful would still necessitate the
installation of erosion control rip-rap at higher elevations to
prevent erosion during high tides caused by storm events.
Accordingly, while vegetative treatment might be more attractive
for a completely unprotected shoreline, it is not considered
appropriate given the conditions present at the Base.
5.62 Bulkheads
Vertical face structures such as bulkheads were examined for
suitability for erosion control but not adopted due to the
significant cost increase, the likelihood of long term failure of
such structures as well as the requirement for periodic
maintenance. Additionally, the presence of significant quantities
of debris along the shoreline, would increase* the difficulty of
pile driving for bulkheads. However, use of bulkheads would
eliminate virtually all of the fill associated with the proposed
rip-rap improvements if installed at the landward edge of the
existing rip-rap.
5.63 Use of Other Materials
The use of quarry stone has been considered and may be adopted
by the Coast Guard based on a final assessment of the quantity and
suitability of the broken concrete removed from the shoreline as
well as generated from demolition of existing pavement for the
proposed roadway re-alignment. However, exclusive use of quarry
stone would add substantially to the cost of the project due to
transportation requirements and would overlook the possible
beneficial use of properly prepared broken concrete. Only concrete
material which is free of re-inforcing bar and of sufficient size
and integrity will be considered suitable for use.
6.0 MITIGATION OF UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.1 Wetland Impacts
As discussed above, the project will require the filling of
0.10 acres of the Pasquotank River and approximately 250 s.f. in
intertidal wetlands. In accordance with the Federal Executive
- 21 -
Branch policy of "no net loss" of wetlands, the USCG has proposed
to undertake the construction of an 10,000 s.f. of tidal (wind)
freshwater mitigation area at the location shown on Figure 2.
Figures 10A and 10B illustrate the proposed mitigation plan. The
area will be excavated to a tidal elevation of 0 msl to +1.0 msl
for marsh planting. overburden will be removed and stockpiled for
future use. Concrete rip-rap will be placed at the north side of
the marsh confluence. Spartina alterniflora, S. patens and S.
cyanosuroides will be planted on two foot centers in the excavated
area using 6-inch diameter plugs or individual plants. A turbidity
diaper filter will be installed at the marsh-river confluence to
control sedimentation. Marsh plantings will be monitored for
survival and replaced as required to ensure 90% survival after two
years.
This plan has been coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
6.2 Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sediment control practices consistent with those
employed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation will be
employed during construction. These measures include silt barrier
installation, re-seeding of all soils exposed during construction
and periodic inspection of all erosion control measures to ensure
effective functioning.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be submitted to the
Division of Land Quality at least 15 days prior to the initiation
of land disturbing activities.
A Water Quality Certificate will also be obtained for the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Quality.
6.3 Stormwater Management
The marginal increases in stormwater runoff as a result of
minor increases in impervious pavement will be reduced as much as
possible through the incorporation of grass swales and through the
maintenance of existing drainage patterns.
6.4 Shoreline Stabilization
Where broken concrete is used to replace or repair rip-rap
measures will be taken to sort and grade the material and inspect
it to ensure that no steel re-inforcing bar is contained in any of
the concrete placed along the shoreline. The incorporation of
filter cloth in the replacement and new rip-rap will eliminate
future sources of shoreline sediment.
- 22 -
7.0 CONCLUSION
The alternative of extending the base access road to the East
end gate house will create greater environmental disturbance
without acceptable increases in traffic safety. Accordingly, the
proposed project is recommended. The erosion control program
recommended is regarded as the most effective, least damaging
program available to the Coast Guard at this time for addressing
the chronic erosion at the Base.
Completion of the proposed access road and shoreline
stabilization of the Pasquotank Riverbank would have minimal long
term detrimental impacts to the natural environment. The mitigation
plan described above will minimize the short term adverse effects
of the proposed action.
Based on the analysis contained in this Environmental
Assessment the Coast Guard has determined that the proposed action
is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
available to effectively address the stated needs.
- 23 -
Wallaceton ^ Cr a sBacko Virginia
r and 4 Chesapeak 168 f j Mund Bay Beach M
jt 17 I Northwest
2 615 1 ?O
ake o e MoyocC Gibbs d 2 Ill n It Island
?, ?? PPy
b
t \ Snowden Sligo e0.E?FE °? PROJECT SITE
PROJECT
15\A South-1 Mills 1\ 34 4 168 tuck
ns
Corn 13 ` a le oL
?
\ s a
13 6 r $ory 01 Ba co Waterlil t GHITHOUSE
ndycross 0 158 11 158 ` C 'niock c
B elcros
le \% ((,, ? 2 amden Aydl?
Eliiah%City 4 ? 6 0
C , fiddle P plar nch
17
bad r t S. COAS ilo h 3
14 'PA
I6videreChapanokel C 1 AI stA Grandy
\U I MA.N 1<1 It
Old Tra ? Sanderling
9 IU
31 Winfall 17
eMs it <, 3
' i '?` t ^visburg n
H rtfor onton 34 P ells J, 5Duck
/ 7O Fi \ Camden Pt. L P Int 5
ants Neck Ma i pop y outhern Z
31 wade Pt. 3 1 t hares
7 1' Harbl e
Stevenson Pt. Poi Kitt 2
Harvey W. Harbor //,.H W Regional beach Access
1 Drummond PI. Sotri 4i I O
5 -Not, M I p Kill Devil Hills
aFle Colingto 1 RVivnate.«kAmrrf
Albers ----- h 158 Jockey's Ridge
- - -- -------'-.----- DURAN Ff. Raleig State Park
IS D Not. Mon` Nags Hea Regional Beach Acc
8 Fort La ingl
Bull Ba, ashoes 0 Elizabeth It Vessel
/ Newfoundlan ' 64 40l) o
64 264 Whalebone
5 t as Manns 8 a 0
ant Grove 6 Columbia? 12 Lake Harb -1 4 1
3 ` s qu rum (?ti n SODIE
Scuppernong oodley f 11 64 g o 34 •f, ISLAND
Creswel 3 I ?? c
Cherr i 94 s .r W a h se
L Frying an I J'
t(nmerset Place Lan ing A LIGHT HODS Oreg
TON 900`ettigrew St. Pk 21 t D A R E
Phelps ake T Y R ?R E L 2? \\,NATIONA
tumpy \\VILDLIF
1 1 oint \REFUG
u ut Lake um Neck
_ Sj4 \
Alligah r 38
Lake Sandy Pt o? \\
Kilkenny ??oa r
tl 1 7 264 ` .
H
al 94 long Shoal Pt.
ville
Intra`oast 1
°_ Q+
63 1 Fairfiel
7 Lake
B_ 45 arramuskeel La a gelhard
7 Lan n Gibbs Pf. O
Scranton 6 iddletown \
i 6
Sladesville 264 ebr s a \
17 New Holland
45 2 ? I g P.
Swan Quarter Gull Roc wysm- i ty Rau SCALE: 1"= 9.3 Mi.
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990 Wetlands Inventory Map f
1

m m
x D
r
m
M
3 ?
m 3
-q m
m
o
a v n
m =l
Z-
.?
m
EU
m
13 G)
oz
L
m
D
N
Q
c
0
D
Z
x
33
m
m

I.

A
m
2 J
H
9
N
O
r
C?
N
n
Oy
in a
c R
?r
0
m G7
?m C
m
ao m
O
8
za
r
n?
m
12
y?
?£c

•
0
r-
00
z
G?
O
n
0
z
0
N

T ?O
v
c
i
1\

76
W
f
a
o c
m
m
130
Oz
L
m
5

A
N
? II
H

c?
c
0'
mc
t/ w
mt
r
nl
a
v r
zt
•n
C
> m
? N

5
o<
Om
I lop I r7-
'; mD
?O v?
-I E: to
Do a?
? C
?m W70
z -n
D Or
m Z -n
K O
Z
i
N

3
J
1
®a
O
P ??r
a
kN?
ou
c
.1Y
?i
y
a
CD
U/F-9-E
21
m
'3 G)
0
m
m
D
r
m
z
m
13
e '3
m

3
m
m
m

r
r
>
0

D
N
p
C
0
D
Z
C?
m
m w rLq
v ?m
? m> ti
-
0
m z

t1r)
W
w
U)
w
w
U)
w
z_
J
S
U
E-
Q
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD
REALIGNMENT
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
3. HENRY WENSLUR
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL
LEGEND
® ROAD TO BE oemooswD
0 PROPOSED ROADWAY
PR
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
Langley and McDonal
A PROFESSIONAL OOtPORAnO+
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
- VIRGINIA BEACH - WWAMSBURG, VIRGI
IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
CITY/COUNTY: COUNTY TANK
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
LANT NORFOLK, VA.
SCALE: I" a 400'
DATE: 10-8-92
Fiqure 6A
PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER, ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.

N
1-
Lv
W
2
Cf)
w
W
U)
Ld
z
J
2
U
I-
Q
PA SOUO TANK RIVER
0 PROPOSED ROADWAY
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD
REALIGNMENT
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
3. HENRY WENSLUR
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL

SNORgI.INE
.'A _.e Ex15fIN? .v?SfIN6
87
9P
"` f%.,' `v1 I%JI'4 IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
PLAN AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASQUOTANK
ELIZABETH CITY. N.C. COUNTY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
A PROFESSIONAL OORPORArON SCALE: I" - 400'
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS DATE: 10-5-92
- VIRGINIA BEACH - NQWAMSBURG. VIRGINIA
Figure 6B
PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER, ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
J
i
b W
h
Ik
j
0
too ~
y0y V
aM
o
0o Q
?y0
y?V n
J
I
v
v
ti
a
41 W W
J w J ?
V W V Q
Q J Q O
t? U m y
y h ~ ?`
Q
2 m W V
V 2 ? O
• a ?
? 7 q ?n
O © O O
W
:zt
W
W
Q
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD
REALIGNMENT TYPICAL CR OSS SECTIONS IN: ELIZABETH CITY,
G. SUPPORT
S
C
AT: U N.C.
CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUP PORT CENTER .
.
.
CITY/COUNTY: PASQ UOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABET H CITY, N.C. COUNTY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
LYN
W
N
LOW
Langle
y and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
2. CARO
C.
I
S
M SCALE: N.T.S.
3. HENRY WENSLUR
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL ENGINEERS NERSSURVEYORS
VIRGINIA BEACH - WILLIAMSBURG. VIRGINIA
DATE' 10_8-92
7

EXIS77NG GRADE VAF
FROM*4.0TO*7.0

O EX/S71NG MASONRY RUBBLE
ORD/NARY HIGH
p WATER LEVEL
STAR77NG Pow
FOR BANK STABILIZA POW
TYPICAL EXI577NG BANK CONDITION
Wm=525,¢
EXIS771VG GRADE ARMOR STONE- TWO LAYERS
FI 7ER STONE-6"
APPROX. EXIST.
7Q? ?
GRADE
°° °` ?F7L TER CLOTH

O ?apv \ 5 =0"
°4>° ?
L
1
. ORDINARY HIGH
2 WATER LEVEL
STAR77NG POINT
FOR BANK STABILIZA TION
REBUIL T BANK STABILIZA 770N
REGRADE BANK-' ^ W =525
ARMOR STONE- TWO LAYERS

.
- - FIL TER STONE-6" 5.0
o
r,
MAX • I
FILTER CLOTH

EX1577NG GRADE
HOLD EXIST. TOE O F BANK

O 2 a? ?
o°o? I V WA
TER LEVEL
OR DINARY HIGH
STARTING POINT
FOR BANK STABILIZA 77ON
v °
NEW BANK STABILIZA 77ON
(NO RUBBLE EXISTING)
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD
REALIGNMENT SHUKtLINt
DE VKU 1 tU 11UN
TAILS _ IN: ELIZABETH CITY,
AT:U
S
SUPPOR
C
G N.C.
T CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D.=0.0 U.S.C.G. SU PPORT CENTER .
.
.
.
CITY/COUNTY: CAA6$ OTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABET H CITY, N.C.
APPLICATION BY: U.S
.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
Langle
M
y and McDonald LANT
SCALE: N.T.S. NORFOLK, VA.
3. HENRY WENSLUR
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL ENGINEERS
VIRGINIA BEA ?PLANNERS - SURVEYORS
CH - WIWAMSBURG. VIRGINIA 2

DATE:10-8-9c
8A I ... I 11 ?i I C
INSTALL TWO LAYERS
ARMOR STONE
W,0=525,x'
EXISANG? MAX. ORDINARY HIGH
BROKEN WA TER LEVEL
O CONCRETE
STARANG POINT
FOR BANK STASILIZA770N
BANK STAB/LIZA AON REPAIR
» EXISANG GRADE VARIES
FROM f6.0 rO f7.0
Ww=525
ROADWA Y ARMOR STONE- TWO LA YERS
/--FIL TER STONE-6"
Dad
ZO a / --FIL TER CLOTH
0
14" W.L.- II °
PROPANE
GAS LINE E GRADE I I °°p?v ORD/NARY HIGH
VWATFR LEVEL
0
G
APPROX. L OCA AON DETERIORA TFD Po
RMBER BULKHEAD II ° o
STAR ANG PO/NT
FOR BANK STAB/LIZA AON
EXISANG RUBBLE CLEAN
COMPACTED
SECRON BANK STABILIZA A
FILL
FILL REOUIRED
STA RON 112*JJ TO 114+85 ONLY
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD SHORELINE PROTECTION IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT DETAILS SUPPORT CENTER
S
C
G
AT.U
.
.
.
.
DATUM: N.G.V.D.=0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: ?OSQLOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. APPLICATION BY: UUt..S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
SCALE: N.T.S.
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERS LAN ERS-SURVEYORS
DATE: 10-8-92
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - 1MIWAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
sB

77M8ER BULKHEAD PLAN
1 7/7' S/RFAX
4' BASE G17URSE
8' AG0709AIF-I
r? x,U' SMYNaR
I ,-?xd' DMVIVO
EXIST. S) a9wNE
77E
AND
YA7ERP AND
BULKHEAD/ROADWA Y SEC770N
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD QnvRr-L-nvr- rRV 1 «. 1 wig IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT DETAILS AT. U.S.C.G. SUPPOR T CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASR
COUN UOTANK
TY
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
SCALE: I/e"-1'-0"
3. HENRY WENSLUR ENGINEERS?PL PLANNERS SURVEYORS
DATE: 10-8-92
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - WILLIAMSBURG. VIRGINIA
Fiqure 9
-9
711
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD
REALIGNMENT
DATUM: N.G.V.D. = 0.0
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. T.M. & C.T. SMITH
2. CAROLYN C. WINSLOW
3.HENRY WENSLUR
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL
9
MITIGATION PLAN IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASQUOTANK
ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COU TY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAMN SCALE: N.T.S.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
. VIRGINIA BEACH - WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA DATE: 10-8-92
Figure 10A

*4'
f 1'
MSL
SECT/ON A -A
PURPOSE: MAIN ACCESS ROAD MITIGATION PLAN IN: ELIZABETH CITY, N.C.
REALIGNMENT AT: U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER
DATUM: N.G.V.D. - 0.0 U.S.C.G. SUPPORT CENTER CITY/COUNTY: PASpUOTANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. COUNTY
APPLICATION BY: U.S.C.G. FDCC
21.. T.M. CAROL YN C.T. C. SMITH WINSLOW Langley and McDonald LANT NORFOLK, VA.
3. HENRY WENSLUR A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAMN SCALE: N.T.S.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS- SURVEYORS DATE: 10-8-92
4. FRANK HOLLAWELL VIRGINIA BEACH - WILLIAMSBURG. VIRGINIA
Figure 10B
i

STATION 3+50 LOOKING BACK TOWARD STATION 0+00 - POOR

1l , ?
r

a ?
? 1
k i

? t'7!r?.i'_' iii` I ?'. ?.1 ?' / ,,7.:?? .
STATION 20+00 LOOKING BACK TOWARD STATION 17+00 - POOR CONDITION.
i

STATION 44+00 LOOKING TOWARD
STATION 50+75 LOOKING TOWARD
8.0 List of Preparers
Kenneth A. Dierks
Principal
Langley and McDonald, P.C.
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
Langley and McDonald, P.C.
9.0 References
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Department of
Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, 1990. Air Permit Number 413886,
Effective Date: August 27, 1990 - Expiration Date: April 1, 1992
U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990. National Wetland Inventory
Mme, Elizabeth City, N.C. Quandrangle
Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, 1987. Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Waterways Experiment
Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985. Flood Insurance Study,
for Pasquotank County, N.C.
CH2M - Hill, 1980. AICUZ - Prepared for 5th Coast Guard District
for Elizabeth City, N.C. Contract #DOT-CG05-3762
U.S. Coast Guard, 1990. Permit Application for RCRA - Part B,
Support Center Elizabeth City, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management, 1989. Classifications and
Water Ouality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Pasquotank
River Basin, Raleigh, N.C.
Federal Aviation Administration, 1989. Airport Design Advisory
Circular

r

10.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Mr. Larry Hardy
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine and Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Hardy
Mr. Stephen B. Benton
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raliegh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Benton
Mrs. Mike Gantt
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raliegh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raliegh, North Carolina 27363-3726
Mrs. Gantt
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Mrs. Renee Gledhill-Early [phone]
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raliegh, North Carolina 27611
Mrs. Early
Mr. Charles R. Fulwood
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raliegh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Fulwood

Mrs. Laura Fogo
Chief, Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mrs. Fogo
Mr. Terry Moore
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
1424 Carolinas Avenue
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Moore
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
V
y
Commanding Officer
U.S. Coast Guard
FOCC Lant
5505 Robinhood Road
Suite K
Norfolk, Virginia 23513-2400
Attention: Mr. Carl Lee
Lieutenant Commander Seagraves
Facility Engineering
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909-5006
Lt. Cdr. Seagraves
Lieutenant Commander Glover
Environmental Compliance Officer
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909-5006
Lt. Cdr. Glover
Mr. Lee Pelej
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section, Region 4
Marine and Estauranine Branch
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Pelej
Mr. Richard Watts
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Mr. Watts
Mr. Rodney Bunch
Pasquotank County Planning Department
Post Office Box 39
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27907-0039
Mr. Bunch
Mr. Victor Bright
United States Department of Agriculture
Soils Conservation Service
1023-5 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Mr. Bright
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
4-
y

Mr. Steve Hall
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 27687
Raliegh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Hall
Mr. Bill Moore
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Quality
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Fax - [phone]
[phone]
1!/
11.0 Record of Correspondence
Attachment #
Correspondence Date Subject
1. Langley and Aug. 20, 1991 Record of meeting
McDonald with USCG Support
Base
2. Langley and Aug. 30, 1991 Letter requesting
McDonald agency
participation
3. National Sept. 12, 1991 Response to the
Marine request letter
Fisheries
Service
4. N.C. Dept. of Sept. 13, 1991 Comments on
Natural proposed project
Heritage
5. Langley and Sept. 19, 1991 Record of phone
McDonald calls with agencies
6. Langley and Sept. 26, 1991 Record of meeting
McDonald with various N.C.
State agencies and
request for agency
comments
7. N.C. Dept. of Oct. 2, 1 991 Comments on
Cultural proposed project
Resources
8. U.S. Fish and Oct. 4, 1 991 Comments on
Wildlife proposed project
service
9. National Oct. 8, 1 991 Comments on
marine proposed project
Fisheries
service
10. Langley and Oct. 10, 1991 Record of
McDonald conversation with
the Corps of
Engineers (COE)
11. N.C. Wildlife Oct. 10, 1991 Comments on
Resources proposed project
Commission
Attachment #
Correspondence
12. N.C. Division
of Coastal
Management
13. Langley and
McDonald
14. Langley and
McDonald
15. Langley and
McDonald
16. North Carolina
Department of
Environment,
Health and
Natural
Resources
Date
Oct. 11, 1991
Oct. 15, 1991
Oct. 16, 1991
July 14, 1992
August 28, 1992
Subject
Comments on
proposed project
Record of
conversation with
the N.C. Division
of Coastal
Management
Record of meeting
with COE
Transmittal of
Draft EA/FONSI
Review comments in
Draft EA/FONSI
RECORD OF MEETING
Project and No: 91-55-41
Meeting with: Lieutenant Commander Glover,
Date: August 20, 1991
Re: Environmental Issues pertaining to the
realignment of the Base Perimeter Road
The purpose of the meeting with Lt. Commander Glover was to
discuss the environmental concerns pertaining to the realignment of
the base perimeter road. This meeting was necessary to acquire
documents and information which would be needed in preparing the
Environmental Assessment (EIS) for the project. Mr. Joe Wright
with the Engineering Department was also present.
During our meeting, we asked numerous questions pertaining to
the project. These questions along with the answers are as
follows:
QUESTION
1. Do they have any hazardous waste studies for the Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMU) and Hazardous Waste Management Units
(HWMU) which will be crossed or impacted by the proposed
alignment of the road?
ANSWER
1. Lt. Commander Glover provided numerous studies to review which
had been conducted on these sites.
QUESTION
2. Do they have any cultural resource, ecological, and endangered
species studies for the base or for the area which will be
impacted by the perimeter road?
ANSWER
W
2. There had been some work done in these areas, but LCDR Glover
was unsure of how much. The report which contained this
information could not be located on the base, but he said they
would obtain a copy for me.
QUESTION
3. Have any State or Federal agencies been contacted about the
project?
4
ANSWER
3. LCDR Glover stated that no one had been formally contacted,
but he had mentioned the project to Laura Manuele with the
Corps of Engineers when she was on the base reviewing another
project.
QUESTION
4. Have any hydrology studies been conducted on the property?
ANSWER
4. Several hydrology studies have been completed on the base and
some were still being continued. He was able to give me a
copy of these studies to review.
QUESTION
5. Are there any permits in effect for the base which will be
affected by the project?
ANSWER
5. The stormwater permit is the only permit which he thought
would be affected. They presently have a NPDES Permit.
QUESTION
6. Have they produced a new stormwater management plan for the
base?
ANSWER
6. He is currently working on the new stormwater management plan
for the base.
QUESTION
7. Has there been any shoreline stabilization studies done on the
property?
ANSWER
7. There has been one minor study conducted by Mr. Joe Wright on
a portion of the shoreline which indicated that the shoreline
was eroding at a rate of approximately 3 inches per year.

?L
After our meeting, Lt. Commander Glover took me on a tour of
the base. During our tour he showed me the SWMU and HWMU which
would be impacted by the perimeter road. We also discussed the
utility lines which would be affected by the road. We looked at
areas along the Pasquotank River that may require filling to
complete the project. During the tour, I took photographs to
document the areas of concern.
When the tour was completed, I was able to walk the entire
length of the proposed corridor photo documenting the site. During
my assessment of the corridor, several sample points were selected
in the vegetated area at the northeastern corner of the property in
which soils, vegetation, and hydrology were assessed.
Prepared by: Langley and McDonald
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
s4
r,•
August 30, 1991
Person
Address
City, State, Zip
Dear
This letter is to solicit your participation and comment on
the development of an Environmental Assessment for the construction
of a new perimeter access road at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Support Base at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Langley and
McDonald has been retained to prepare an Environmental Assessment
for the project which is due to the Coast Guard in mid-October. To
facilitate the development of the EA, we will hold an informational
meeting and site orientation on the project on Friday, September
20, 1991. We will meet at 10:00 at the Facility,Engineer's office
on the Base (see attached exhibit) -The Base is located 3 miles
southeast of Elizabeth City, adjacent to State Road 34 in
Pasquotank County, North Carolina and is located on the Pasquotank
River. The objectives of this meeting will be to review the
project, familiarize you with the site, secure input on issues of
environmental concern which should be addressed in the EA and
determine all permits which will be required for construction.
The purpose of this project is to correct safety problems
posed by the current routing of traffic through the Base and to
provide additional ramp parking for aircraft. The project involves
building about 7,400 linear feet of two lane roadway along the
waterfront area of the Base (see exhibit). The present primary
access road intersects with active aircraft taxiways, separates
parking lots from work places, and is situated too close to active
runways, taxiways and aircraft refueling stations. There is
insufficient ramp parking space available to accommodate the number
of aircraft assigned. No additional aircraft can be accommodated at
the Air Station without an increase in ramp parking space. The
current roadway and apron configuration also negatively impacts
vehicle parking areas.
The proposed project will be located within a 50 right-of-way
for the road and will commence at a point 600 feet east of the
bathhouse and beach and tie into the existing Base road just north
of the East Gate House. At the east end of the project two
alternative routes are being examined.
il?
W
August 30, 1991
Page 2
Although the exact alignment of the project has not been set
and most of the road will be constructed on areas already graded or
paved, the proposed project will likely involve some filling of
shallow water areas adjacent to the shoreline at certain locations.
Filling will, however, be minimized. Additionally, the project will
include shoreline stabilization along those areas of the shoreline
undergoing erosion. Drainage is expected to be handled through
sheet flowing across grassed buffers or in grassed swales. No major
changes in Base drainage are anticipated, however. Soil and water
tests will be conducted in the near future to determine if the
proposed alignment will expose contaminated soils or water tables
The results of these tests may be available at the orientation
meeting. The project is not expected to significantly increase
traffic on the Base.
We would appreciate receiving word as to whether a
representative of your office will attend the meeting not later
than September 16, so that we may advise the Base Facility Engineer
of those who will attend. In the meantime should you have any
questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
LANGLEY AND McDONALD,P.C.
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
Encl: Distribution List
Yi
'?l OF CO
a Q V ~tP
o-
PQ ?TAres Of'+W
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIE $ERVI
Habitat Conserva ion llivision
Beaufort Field Office
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516-9722
September 12, 1991 F/SER21/MF
919/728-5090
Mr. Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
Langlely and McDonald
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Dear Mr. Gottfried:
This is in regard to the September 20, 1991, information meeting
for the new perimeter road to be constructed at the Elizabeth City
Coast Guard Support Base. We will be unable to attend the meeting.
If any changes in the proposed project are addressed during the
meeting, please inform us. We will comment on the project once we
review the Environmental Assessment.
Sincepe'ly yours
7
Lar H. Hardy
Br nch Chief
2
4T N
9
,,. ST TI
o
d _
q?
J ~ Q
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 13, 1991
Scott P. Gottfried
Langley and McDonald
5544 Greenwich Rd, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
Director
Re: Presence of Unique Natural Areas, Significant Ecosystems, and
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of a
Proposed New Perimeter Access Road for the Elizabeth City
Coast Guard Support Base
Dear Mr. Gottfried,
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database does not
contain any records for rare, threatened, or endangered species in
the vicinity of the proposed project. Nor do we know of any
unique natural areas or significant ecosystems located nearby.
Based on our current information, there appears to be no need for
a representative of this office to participate in the site visit
to be held on September 20.
IL-
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Hall
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

T
L P.O. [fox 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
RECORD OF PHONE CONVERSATION
PROJECT AND NUMBER: U.S.C.G. - Realignment of Access Road
L&M No. 91-55-41
PHONE CONVERSATION WITH: Federal and State Agencies
DATE: September 16, 1991
RE: Determine Agencies that will be able to
Attend the Multi-Agency Meeting on
September 20, 1991
*****************************************************************
The purpose of the phone calls to the numerous Federal and State
agencies was to answer any questions they may have concerning the
project and determine if they were going to attend the multi-agency
meeting scheduled for September 20, 1991. The following is a list
of persons contacted.
Federal
1. Mr. Larry Hardy: National Marine Fisheries Service,
Beufort, NC
2. Mrs. Mike Gant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Raleigh, NC
3. Mrs. Laura Fogo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington, NC
4. Mr. Lee Pelij: Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta, GA
5. Mr. Victor Bright: Soils Conservation Service,
Elizabeth City, NC
State
6. Mr. Stephen Benton: N.C. Division of Coastal Management,
Raleigh, NC
7. Mrs. Renee Gledhill-Early: N.C. Department of Cultural
Resources, Raleigh, NC
8. Mr. Charles Fulwood: N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh, NC
9. Mr. Terry Moore: N.C. Division of Coastal Management,
® Washington, NC
® 10. Mr. Richard Watts: N.C. Division of Coastal Management,
Elizabeth City, NC
r 11. Mr. Steve Hall: N.C. Natural Heritage Program
12. Mr. Bill Moore: N.C. Division of Land Quality

Elizabeth City
13. Mr. Rodney Bunch: Pasquotank County Planning
Department
Prepared By: Langley and McDonald, P.C
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
iT
September 26, 1991
Commanding Officer
U.S. Coast Guard
Facilities Design and Construction Center, Atlantic
5505 Robin Hood Road, Suite K
Norfolk, Virginia 23513
Attn: Ms. Victoria Worrell
Re: Contract DTCG 47-91-R-3EFK30
Environmental Assessment;
Perimeter Road Re-alignment,
Coast Guard Support Center
Elizabeth City, NC
Dear Ms. Worrell:
Attached, please find the minutes of our on-site orientation
meeting with several environmental agency representatives on
September 20 at the Support Center to review the perimeter road re-
alignment.
By copy of this letter we are providing these minutes to all
those agencies which attended as well as those who were unable to
attend. All agency representatives receiving these minutes are
advised that comments on the project must be received by our firm
not later than October 11, 1991 to be incorporated into the draft
Environmental Assessment. We would also request the agencies to
state any permits which may be required for the project. We are
particularly anxious to have the Corps of Engineers conduct a site
visit prior to this time and request that they coordinate such a
site visit through our firm.
We trust you will find these minutes thorough and accurate.
We are continuing our efforts toward completing this document on
time.
` Sincerely,
LANGLEY AND MCDONALD, P.C.
K.A. Dierks
4 Environmental Engineer
cc: Distribution List
Enclosure
L
September 26, 1991
Minutes of U.S. Coast Guard, Elizabeth City
Perimeter Road Environmental Scoping Meeting
ATTENDEES
John Parrish
Carl Lee
Ken Dierks
Scott Gottfried
James Watt
LT Louise A. Stewart
LCDR Richard H. Glover
Jim Vardy
J.W. (Pete) Kornegai
Rodney Bunch
Richard Watts
ORGANIZATION
USCG, FDCCLANT
USCG, FDCCLANT
Langley and McDonald
Langley and McDonald
Langley and McDonald
Support Center - USCG
Support Center - USCG
CEU CLEVELAND - USCG
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Pasquotank County Planning Department
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Prepared by: Langley and McDonald, Scott P. Gottfried
SUMMARY OF MEETING
An on-site meeting was held on September 20, 1991 to review
the proposed Perimeter Access Road at the U.S. Coast Guard Support
Base located in Elizabeth City, N.C.
The main objectives of the information meeting were to:
1. Ensure that the agencies have an understanding of the purpose
and need of the project.
2. Walk the proposed roadway corridor and investigate site
conditions.
3. Further explain the project and the design plan.
4. Identify the concerns or questions of the agencies.
5. Determine what permits will be required.
6. Request their written comments on the project within the next
several (2) weeks.
Ken Dierks and James Watt opened the meeting by explaining the
purpose and need of the project. The main purpose of the project
is to separate aircraft traffic from vehicular traffic. To
accomplish this objective the alignment of the new perimeter road
will follow along the Pasquotank River (see enclosed exhibit).
This will allow the vehicle traffic to be as for away as possible
from aircraft traffic. The proposed alignment will also provides
maximum pedestrian safety which is also a current problem. The
proposed alignment of the corridor will not intersect parking lots
so pedestrians will not be forced to cross the main access road.
James Watt then discussed the design plans and impacts which
will occur due to the project. The project involves filling of the
Pasquotank River in two small areas and shoreline stabilization
along the River. The area of fill is estimated to be only 0.12
acres in size (see enclosed exhibit). The final location of the
corridor has not been determined but filling activities will be
minimized as much as possible. A shoreline stabilization study is
currently being conducted, and areas requiring erosion control
measures have not been determined. However, rip rap and approved
demolition material will be used for shoreline stabilization.
Carl Lee noted that environmental impacts will be low due to
existing conditions on the site. The project will involve minimal
vegetative habitat removal since approximately 60% of the proposed
corridor is already paved. The remaining 40% of the area impacted
is composed of an estimated 37% mowed lawn and 3% wooded area.
4:

LCDR Glover discussed the stormwater drainage plan which is
presently being prepared and advised that the USCG is in the
process of obtaining a Environmental Protection Agency Stormwater
Discharge Permit. Ken Dierks stated that the new stormwater
drainage plan for the road may involve using grass swales instead
of sheet flow into the River if sufficient room is available. The
improvement of some drainage structures presently in place may also
be required during construction of the road.
There was a question raised by Mr. Watts with the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management pertaining to the project
alternatives analysis. Alternatives for the project will be
discussed in the Environmental Assessment. However, all
alternatives reviewed at the present time do not meet the primary
objective of separating vehicular traffic from aircraft traffic and
providing pedestrian safety.
Ken Dierks then asked the agencies in attendance to comment on
the project and state any concerns they may have. Pete Kornegai
with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission expressed a concern
for:
1. The material used for shoreline stabilization. They
would rather see rip rap used instead of bulkheads.
2. They would like to review the wooded areas which will be
impacted. (This was accomplished during the site visit.
Mr. Korengai indicated the wooded area did not present
fish and wildlife values warranting special attention).
3. Wanted to know if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) had been contacted to review the site for Federal
Endangered Species. Mr. Kornegai was advised that the
USFWS had been contacted and has assigned a biologist to
review the project.
4. He expressed a concern for impacts due to hazardous waste
areas located on the property .
Richard Watts with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management was
concerned if:
1. There will be any destruction of significant aquatic and
terestrial habitats and compensation for the impacted
areas.
2. They would like a description of habitats that will be
effected;
3. Methods and material which will be used in shoreline
protection are to be specified. Concrete with exposed
reinforcing material is prohibited;
4. The stormwater drainage plan and impacts on water quality
should be provided;
Ken Dierks asked the participating agencies what permits they
would require for the project. Richard Watts stated that the
project would not require a N.C. Coastal Area Management Permit,
but approval under the State Coastal Zone Management Program
Consistency Review would be required.
The agencies present were requested to provide their comments
on the project as soon as possible. The agencies were notified that
the draft Environmental Assessment is due in mid October and their
comments would be greatly appreciated before that time.
The meeting was adjourned and the on-site corridor assessment
was conducted in which the present site conditions were
investigated.
If you have any additions or revisions to these minutes,
please feel free to contact me.
Prepared by: Scott Gottfried, Langley and McDonald
SPG:mlh

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 2, 1991
Scott P. Gottfried
Langley and McDonald
Suite 200
5544 Greenwich Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Re: Perimeter Access Road at Elizabeth City
Coast Guard Support Center, Pasquotank
County, ER 92-7252
Dear Mr. Gottfried:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1991, concerning the above
project.
There are no known archaeological sites located within the proposed
project area. Since the proposed ground disturbance is to take place in
areas where previous construction has occurred, it is unlikely that this
project will involve significant archaeological resources. We have no
preference concerning alternative selection, and recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with the project.
In addition, we have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the
planning area.
The above G^=TM as '--re made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
?r
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ENT OF United States Department of the Interior
All
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
o Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
,t A 40 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 4, 1991
K.A. Dierks
Environmental Engineer
Langley and McDonald
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia
23462
Dear Mr. Dierks:

%
Reference is made to your September 3 and 26, 1991, requests
for potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed relocation of a perimeter access road at the U.S.
Coast Guard Support Base in Elizabeth City, Pasquotank County,
North Carolina. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) makes
the following recommendations in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
As you are probably aware, review by the Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required to determine the
presence and extent of wetlands along the proposed route.
Areas of concern to the Service include marshes, submerged
aquatic vegetation, shallow estuarine waters, scrub/shrub, and
forested wetlands. Such wetlands are of high fish and
wildlife habitat value, and perform important water quality and
,. land stabilization functions. If wetlands are likely to be
affected, the Service will recommend the use of alternatives
that avoid wetland impacts. For those unavoidable wetland
impacts, the fish and wildlife habitat value of affected
wetlands should be replaced with suitable mitigation.
A review of available plats, maps, and aerial photographs
indicates that wetland impacts are likely to be limited in
extent. We concur with the recommendation by other agencies at
the September 20, 1991, site inspection to use rip-rap instead
of bulkheads for shoreline stabilization. We also share
concerns over hazardous wastes that may be exposed or re-
distributed by the project. However, we cannot make final
recommendations to avoid, minimize, or replace wetland habitat
values until the Corps has completed their wetland delineation.
i
Langley and McDonald
RECORD OF PHONE CONVERSATION
PROJECT AND NUMBER: U.S.C.G. - Realignment of Access Road
L&M No. 91-55-41
PHONE CONVERSATION WITH: Laura Fogo - Corps of Engineers
DATE:
October 10, 1991
RE: Environmental Issues Pertaining to the
Realignment of the Base Perimeter Road
*****************************************************************
The purpose of the phone conversation with Mrs. Laura Fogo was to
discuss the realignment of the perimeter road and request her
comments on the project. The objective of the phone call was to
also set up a on-site meeting with her to review the site
conditions of the proposed corridor.
I briefly summarized the project to give here a better
understanding of the USCG's purpose and need for the action. We
then discussed the fill that may be required 'in the Pasquotank
River to stabilize the road in two areas and the addition fill
required for Shoreline Protection and repair (rip rap). She stated
that the filling of the River would require an individual permit
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. I ask her if a
permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would also be
required. She felt that the entire fill would fall under Section
10.
She then asked if there were any plans for mitigation. I stated
that mitigation had not been discussed and that we were waiting to
hear the comments provided by the participating agencies. She
stated that, under the Memorandum of Agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers that
mitigation would be required.
I then set up an on-site meeting with her on October 16, 1991 to
review the project.
Y
Prepared By: Langley and McDonald, P.C.
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
Several endangered and threatened wildlife species occur in
Pasquotank County (see attached list). Your environmental
analysis should address all possible impacts to these species
and their habitats. Your analysis should consider direct
affects, as well as secondary or indirect impacts that may
result from altered drainage patterns, altered offshore
currents, increased vehicular traffic, increased runoff of fuel
and lubricants deposited on the road surface by vehicles using
the new road, or any other effects. If any threatened,
endangered, or candidate species are likely to be affected,
further coordination with this office will be necessary.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. We also appreciate receipt of the September 20, 1991,
meeting notes. If you have any questions, please contact David
Dell, Permits Coordinator for this office (919/856-4520).
Sincerely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor

0
REVISED OCTOBER 3, 1991
Pasquotank County
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex lonQirostris fisheri) - T
Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) - T
Sea turtles when "in the water" are under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and should be contacted concerning your agency's
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered species Act. Their
address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

ill
61
r
'Nt or CO
tj .%~UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Q? NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES $ERV
f°$,Ares Of Southeast Regiona ll OV ice
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
October 8, 1991 F/SE021/MF
919/728-5090
i
91
Mr. Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
Langley and McDonald
5544 Greenwick Road, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Dear Mr. Gottfried:
Please reference your September 26, 1991, letter requesting our
comments regarding the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the perimeter road realignment at the Coast Guard Support
Center in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. We have reviewed the
information provided with your letter and offer the following
comments.
The Pasquotank River and its adjacent wetlands provide habitat for
a variety of estuarine dependent and anadromous fishery resources.
The waters to be filled support both commercially and
recreationally important fishery resources. Therefore, we
recommend that the EA include the following:
1. The EA should describe the location and acreage of wetlands
and aquatic habitat potentially impacted by the proposed project
and alternatives.
2. The EA should address perimeter road alignment alternatives
that will avoid and minimize wetlands and aquatic habitat.
3. The EA should provide a description of the aquatic organisms
found in the project area and an assessment of the impacts of each
projec?k-- al-ti- ernaL•ive on these resou-. ces, iI"iGluuiiig temporary 1--.n .acts
resulting from project construction methods.
4. The EA should specify the methods and materials to be used for
shoreline stabilization.
5. The alternative analysis in the EA should demonstrate that the
recommended alternative represents the least environmentally
damaging alternative.
6. If, after avoidance and minimization of wetland involvement,
the selected alternative requires unavoidable wetland losses, the
EA should provide a mitigation plan to compensate for wetlands
lost.
r
The N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries is a reliable source of data
concerning specific fishery resources in the project area.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincer yo rs-+
AC d as Mager, J .
Assistant Regi al Director
Habitat Conservation Division

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
October 10, 1991
Mr. Scott Gottfried
Langley and McDonald
5544 Greenwich Raod
Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Dear Mr. Gottfried:
This correspondence is in reference to your request for comments on the
Environmental Assessment for the proposed Perimeter Road Realignment, U.S. Coast
Guard Support Center, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
As stated by Mr. Kornegay of our staff at the scoping meeting on September 20,
1991, our concerns about this project are as follows:
1. We prefer the use of clean rip rap for shoreline stabilization rather than a
bulkhead. We also request that filling of shallow water fishery habitat be
held to a minimum and only to the extent necessary to achieve shoreline
stabilization.
2. The presence or absence of threatened or endangered fish or wildlife should
be confirmed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3. Due to the contamination of groundwater at the Support Center by jet fuel
and other hazardous materials, we are especially concerned about the
possibility of these materials entering Pasquotank River through ground
disturbing activities.
4. We share the concern of the Division of Coastal Management representative
regarding management of stormwater runoff from the project site.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into this Environmental
Assessment. Please contact us if you need further information.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
[phone]
STAYZ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Highway 17 South • Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
October 11, 1991
Mr. K. A. Dierks
Langley and McDonald
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Dear Mr. Dierks:
Roger N. Schecter
Director
The following comments refer to the Perimeter Road
re-alignment Project, Coast Guard Support Center, Elizabeth City,
North Carolina.
The proposed project is located within the Estuarine System
Area of Environmental Concern (AEC). Development within CAMA's
AEC requires state authorization. In the case of federal
projects, a statement of consistency with state regulations is
required versus the standard permit process. Requests for state
consistency determinations should be directed to Mr. Steve
Benton, Consistency Coordinator, P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina, 27611.
The N. C. Division of Coastal Management will want answers
to the following environmental questions:
[1] How many square feet of public trust waters will be
subject to filling?
r
Y

[2] Are any SAV's present in the impacted areas?
[3] How far waterward of the mean high waterline will
shoreline protection be placed?
[4] Are there any coastal and/or 11404" wetlands within the
project site? Will they be impacted?
[5] Will estuarine water quality be affected?
[6] Are there any threatened, rare or endangered plant
Route 6 Box 203, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Mr. K. A. Dierks
October 11, 1991
Page Two
and/or animal species within the project area?
In addition to these questions the Division will want to
know answers to the following questions in order to determine the
project's consistency with CAMA regulations:
[1] Have the project's impacts been minimized in the AEC?
[2] Are there better alternatives?
[3] Is any mitigation offered for impacts to the AEC?
[4] Will development result in more than 30% coverage of
the Estuarine Shoreline AEC?
[5] If so, how will surface wash be handled to keep total
surface runoff at or below that which you have with
less 30% impervious surface coverage?
[6] Will any sites of significant historical or
archeological significance be impacted by this project?
[7] Is the project consistent with the Pasquotank County
Land Use Plan?
I will be available to help you answer these questions and
others you may have. I recommend you contact Mr. Steve Benton
[phone] for information regarding Consistency Review
procedures.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Watts
Field Representative III
RLW/dc
cc: File
s
RECORD OF PHONE CONVERSATION
PROJECT AND NUMBER: Realignment of Base Access Road
L&M No. 91-55-41
PHONE CONVERSATION WITH: Stephen Benton, North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management, Raleigh, N.C.
DATE: October 15, 1991
RE: Coastal Zone Management State Consistency
Review Process

The purpose of the phone conversation with Mr. Benton was to
discuss, the realignment of the Support Center access road project
and request information on the required Coastal Zone Management
State Consisting Review. His first statement was that since the
proposed action is a federal project that it does not require a
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit. However, the State
Consistency Review is required in place of a LAMA permit.
The Consistency review can be started through the public notice and
review procedures required during the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
individual (Section 10) Permit process. The Section 10 Permit will
be required to fill the shallow waters of the Pasquotank River.
The second way the review could be started is through the submittal
of the National Environmental Policy Act Document (Environmental
Assessment Report).
We then discussed the numerous people that would be involved in the
state review process. He stated that there was 14 different
agencies to circulate the documents to in the State of North
Carolina. He then proceeded in stating the names of the agencies
and personnel that would assist in the review process, which
included the following:
1. The N.C. State Property Office - An easement may be needed to
fill portions of the Pasquotank River which is owned by the
State of N.C.
Personnel - Ann Miller or Jan Riddle
2. N.C. Division of Land Resources - They will review and approve
the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Personnel - Floyd Williams
3. N.C. Division of Environmental Management - A State 401 Water
Quality Certification is required.
Personnel - Bill Moore
F 4. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
r
5. N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
Personnel - Sara Windslow
6. N.C. Division of Archives and History
7. N.C. Division of Natural Heritage
Prepared By: Langley and McDonald
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist
RECORD OF MEETING
PROJECT AND NO. U.S.C.G. Realignment of Access Road
L&M No. 91-55-41
Attendees Organization
John Parrish
Lieutenant Bill Kyle
Scott Gottfried
David Knepper
LCDR Richard Glover
Joe Wright
Laura Manual
Date:
Re:
USCG, FDCCLANT
USCG, FDCCLANT
Langley and McDonald
Langley and McDonald
Support Center - USCG
Support Center - USCG
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
October 16, 1991
On-site Meeting to Discuss Project
*****************************************************************
An on-site meeting was held with Laura Fogo, a representative of
the COE on September 16, 1991 to review the proposed Perimeter
Access Road at the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center located in
Elizabeth City, N.C. The main objectives of the meeting were to:
review the location of the proposed corridor, ensure that the COE
has a solid understanding of the purpose and need of the project,
identify the COE concerns and questions, and determine what permits
would be required.
We opened the meeting by explaining the project in greater detail.
She was mostly concerned in reviewing the shallow water areas along
the corridor that would be filled and any wooded areas that would
be impacted. She also discussed that mitigation would be required
for the areas of wetland impacts. Based on the Memorandum of
Agreement, on Mitigation, between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the COE, mitigation would be required (avoidance,
minimization, compensation). She did not state the ratio for
mitigation that would be required, but she did discuss the type of
mitigation. She stated that the mitigation plan that had already
been prepared for another project that involved a Nationwide Permit
26 fill, which did not require mitigation, could be used as the
mitigation for the road. This mitigation plan involved creating a
herbaceous freshwater marsh.
An on-site corridor assessment was then conducted which the present
site conditions were investigated. We first reviewed the eastern
portion of the corridor in which Mrs. Fogo verified that the area
was not a wetland including the small wooded area which will be
impacted. We then reviewed the two shallow water areas that would
require fill to stabilize the road. She stated that the entire
fill including the shoreline protection (rip-rap) constructed below
high ground would require a Section 10 COE permit.
The major concerns of the COE were to:
1. Determine the acreage of fill that would be required for the
project.
2. How far out from the shore would the rip rap be placed.
3. The length of shoreline in which shoreline stabilization would
be needed.
The meeting was adjourned.
Prepared By: Langley and McDonald
Scott P. Gottfried
Environmental Specialist

Langley and McDonald, P.C.

GEOF7 E Y
5 Co GE.
nsunarA
arV
J. JOSEPH McDONALD
Engineers 1906-1982
Surveyors
Planners
Landscape Architects July 14, 1992
Environmental Consultants
Mr. Chris Baggett
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
116 West Jones Street
Raliegh, North Carolina 27603
Re: U.S. Coast Guard EA and FONSI
Realign Perimeter Road and Control Erosion
U.S. Coast Guard Support Base, Elizabeth City, NC
Dear Mr. Baggett:
Enclosed, please find 16 copies of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the above-referenced project. The project involves the relocation of
the base access road and the rehabilitation of the erosion control structures along a portion of the Base
fronting on the Pasquotank River.
Although certain State and federal permits will be required for the project, the Coast Guard is
submitting this document for the purpose of securing a "consistency determination" with the CRMP
from the State of North Carolina. The document is being forwarded as an unsigned draft and will be
signed and formally transmitted upon incorporation of all agency comments.
The EA is the result of close coordination with agency officials and a series of on-site meetings with
representatives of the principal state and federal agencies involved in the regulatory process. The
document contains a record of these meetings.
After reviewing the EA, the Coast Guard has determined that the proposed actions are the only ones
practicable and will not have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
The Coast Guard requests that all State comments be secured and forwarded not later than thirty days
from receipt of this document. By copy of this letter we are taking the liberty of forwarding an
advance copy to Mr. Stephen Benton with the NC DNR&CD.
Should you have any questions regarding this document please feel free to call me or Mr. John Parrish,
Environmental Protection Specialist with the Facilities Design and Construction Center, Atlantic of the
MAIN OFFICE
5544 Greenwich Road 201 Packets Court
Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Williamsburg, VA 23185
[phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Langley and McDonald
Mr. Chris Baggett, N.C. Clearinghouse Page 2
July 14, 1992
Coast Guard in Norfolk at 804-441-3109.
Trusting the document with meet with a favorable review, I am
Sincerely,
LA L Y AND McDONALD, P.C.
K.. A. Dierks
Principal
cc: Mr. John F. Parrish, USCG FD&CCLANT
e ?,+ 5r 7Z
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary August 28, 1992 Director
Mr. K. A. Dierks
Langley and McDonald, P.C.
5544 Greenwich Road
Virginia Beach, VA
REFERENCE: SCH93-0043 EA/FONSI Realign Perimeter Road and Control Erosion, U.S. Coast
Guard Support Base, Elizabeth City, NC.
Dear Mr. Dierks:
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Draft EA and FONSI for the U.S. Coast Guard
proposal to realign the Perimeter Road and place rip rap for erosion control at the U.S. Coast Guard
Support Base in Elizabeth City, Pasquotank County, NC. Based on our review, we offer the following
conditions and comments which need to be addressed and incorporated into the project and into the Final
EA/FONSI document before we can agree to a determination that the proposal is consistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
1. A Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan must be submitted to the Division of Land Quality
at least 15 days prior to the initiation of land disturbing activities.
2. A 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained for the project from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management.
3. A Stormwater Management Plan for the project must be approved by the Division of
Environmental Management.
4. Existing non-suitable riprap is to be removed from the shoreline prior to placement of new
riprap. The determination of what constitutes non-suitable riprap in the case of this project is to
be made during an on site meeting between the Coast Guard and a Representative from the
Elizabeth City office of the Division of Coastal Management.
5. New riprap shall be placed no further than a maximum of five feet waterward of the mean
high water level.
6. Prior to construction of the project an assessment will be made to identify any areas of
groundwater contamination. Should such areas exist, the Coast Guard will investigate any
additional impacts that construction of the project would have on environmental resources.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A r 1 11 A,- C._.._L_...,..
7. Appropriate mitigation for loss of wetlands, intertidal, and subtidal habitats must be developed
and the mitigation plan successfully implemented.
8. The U.S. Coast Guard should provide a Consistency Determination for the project according
to 15 CFR 930.39 (attached) within the document.
The Division of Coastal Management will review the Final EA/FONSI document before a final
consistency determination is made on this project. In the mean time, should you have any questions,
please contact me or Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management in Raleigh, [phone].
Sincerely,
Ste hen B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
cc: Chrys Baggett, NC State Clearing House
David Griffin, Division of Coastal Management, Elizabeth City
Floyd Williams, Division of Land Quality, Washington
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh
RF