The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21-06 Comments/DEQ ReportW 3 2005 '0"thf tll�� DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY W. Tayloe Murphy. Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 July 27, 2005 RE: Joint Permit Application Number 04 -2618 Jubal Early Drive Extension, Frederick County, Virginia Notification of Public Notice Dear Mr. Shickle: Robert G. Burnley Director R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received an application for a Virginia Water Protection (VWP) individual permit for the above - referenced project. Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for the proposed permit action for your review pursuant to Section 62.1- 44.15:01 of the Code of Virginia. Notice of the proposed action will also be published in a newspaper circulated in the vicinity of the project site. The publication will establish a 30- calendar day public comment period for this proposal. If you wish to comment on this proposed action, please respond to me at the letterhead address. If no response is received within the 30 -day public comment period, DEQ will assume that you have no objections to the proposed action. If you have any questions, please contact me at (540) 574 -7802 or ncjob @deq.virginia.gov. Sincerely, Ni/.Job V WP Regional Engineer Attachment: Public Notice 1 1 CLi�� it' �Y�l �IwkVL11(C, Valley Regional Office Street address: 4411 Early Road. Harrisonburg. Virginia 22801 Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-95 19 Telephone (540) 574 -7800 Fax (540) 574 -7878 www.deq.virginia.gov 6 0 � 2 � 29003r N � N N G� n^ ��L c 11 p I r I E PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WHITE PROPERTY MERRIMANS LANE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS, LTD. PROJECT NO. 8137-B FOR GREENWAY ENGINEERING October 24, 2003 Z 7- =-- 1 1 i i i i i i i PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WHITE PROPERTY MERRIMANS LANE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 8137 -B TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.1 Scope of Work 2 2.2 Objectives 2 2.3 Limitations 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Location 4 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydrogeology 4 4.0 PREVIOUS AND CURRENT WORK 6 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 7 5.1 Records Review 7 5.2 Regulatory Summary 8 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 9 6.1 On -Site Features 9 6.2 Nearby Properties 10 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 12 7.1 Title Information 12 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review 12 7.3 Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review 12 7.4 City Directory Review 13 7.5 Local Sources 13 7.6 FOIA Requests 13 8.0 OTHER SERVICES 15 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 16 i 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Greenway Engineering to perform an ASTM Standard E- 1527 -00, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of all or portions of several adjoining parcels comprising approximately 175 acres, known as the White Property. The site is located east of U.S. Route 37 and southeast of Merrimans Lane (State Route 621) in Frederick County, Virginia. To summarize, available historical documents, regulatory records and conversations with persons having knowledge of the property revealed no.evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally - suspect. Further, a reconnaissance of the site did not reveal the presence of: buried petroleum tanks; petroleum. pipelines; storage, leaks or spills of hazardous substances, chemicals or petroleum products; surface or ground water contamination; distressed vegetation or stained soil; chemical smells or emissions; environmental wells or remedial activities; grave sites; asbestos waste; suspicious leachate or seeps; mining activities; or, similar environmentally deleterious features or conditions. Nearby properties consist of a mixture of residential and agricultural sites. No industrial/manufacturing operations, gasoline stations, auto body shops or similar environmentally sensitive businesses or operations were observed in close proximity. Based on the regulatory records and field research, there is no perceived threat of environmental impact to the subject associated with nearby properties. In conclusion, the Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject or neighboring properties. Consequently, no further environmental investigation is recommended. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2 of this report. This Executive Summary is an integral part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report. ECS, Ltd. recommends that the report be read in its entirety. r r mP.6+ � r ECS Project No. 8137 -B —2— October 24, 2003 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Scope of Work i Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Greenway Engineering to perform a Phase I ESA of all or portions of several adjoining parcels comprising approximately 175 acres, otherwise known as the White Property. The subject site is located east of U.S. Route 37 and southeast of Merrimans Lane (State Route 621) in Frederick County, Virginia. The environmental assessment was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM Standard E- 1527 -00. The purpose of the ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject site, hereafter referred to as "subject ", "site ", "property" or "tract ". 2.2 Obiectives The objectives of the ESA were to: • evaluate the probability of impact of the surface water, groundwater and/or soils within the property boundaries through a review of regulatory information and a reconnaissance of the subject and vicinity; • evaluate historical conditions to identify previous usage that could impact on the environmental condition of the site; • determine, if contamination is believed to have occurred, the potential on -site and off - site source material(s), location(s) and activities; and, • provide an evaluation of the potential for environmental impact at the site and a list of specific conclusions and recommendations addressing any concerns noted. 2.3 Limitations The ESA involved a reconnaissance of the site and contiguous properties and a review of regulatory and historical information in general accordance with the ASTM standard. No non -scope considerations or additional issues, such as asbestos surveys, radon testing or wetland delineation were investigated, unless otherwise described in Section 8.0 of this report. The conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report are based upon a reasonable level of investigation within normal bounds and standards of professional practice for a site in this particular geographic and geologic setting. The intent of this assessment is to identify the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site; however, no environmental site assessment can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site. The lie findings of this ESA are not intended to serve as an audit for health and safety or regulatory l compliance issues pertaining to improvements or activities at the site. ECS, Ltd. is not liable I ECS Project No. 8137 -B —3— October 24, 2003 for the discovery or elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents or injury. All observations, conclusions and/or recommendations pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject are necessarily limited to conditions observed, and/or materials reviewed at the time this study was undertaken. It was not the purpose of this study to determine the actual presence, degree or extent of contamination, if any, at this site. This could require additional exploratory work, including sampling and laboratory analysis. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report. ASTM E- 1527 -00 defines a "recognized environmental condition" as: "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance, with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." This report is provided for the exclusive use of Greenway Engineering and its partners, assigns or clients involved with the acquisition and development of the subject. This ESA is not intended to be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third parties. The use of this report by any undesignated'third party or parties will be at such party's sole risk and ECS, Ltd. disclaims liability for any such third party use or reliance. u i r 1 r a L ECS Project No. 8137 -B October 24, 2003 1 6 r r 9 —4— 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Location The site is composed of several adjoining irregular- shaped parcels of land totaling approximately 175 acres. More specifically, the subject is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53 -3 -A and 53 -A -92A in their entirety and portions of parcels 53 -A -90 and 53 -A -92. The site is presently zoned for agricultural and residential use. The property is bound to the north by Abrams Creek and the remaining portion of the White property not covered by this ESA. The Winchester and Western Railroad line and a residential community currently under development are located further to the north. To the east and south lies agricultural property. Route 37 is situated to the west with well spaced dwellings, a golf course, and agricultural land beyond. 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydrogeologv The White Property is approximately 175 + /- acres situated southeast of Merrimans Lane (Route 621) in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1 -1). The terrain of the subject consists of gently sloping hills with relatively level valleys, generally oriented southwest to northeast. Overall, the subject is gently sloped from southwest to northeast, and exhibits drainage patterns which tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. Based on regional topographic patterns and field observations, it appears that areas to the south of the property for approximately one third mile drain through the property towards Abrams Creek. Additionally, upland areas of the subject do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Excluding the northeastern section of the site near Abrams ;Creek, the property is not prone to flood events, nor was there any evidence of springs, creeks, ponds, wetlands or similar surface water bodies on the remainder of the premises. i According to the soil survey (USDA -SCS, 1987. Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia), the near surface profile is characterized primarily by very ;deep, well- drained to moderately well drained, silty clay loam soils of the Frederick and Poplimento Series. There are several limitations associated with these soils including rapid surface runoff, high shrink swell potential from the clayey subsoil, low strength, moderate to low permeability, and high rock content within many areas of the site. These limitations do not pose a direct concern to the environmental integrity of the subject. The site is located within the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. According to the Geologic Map of Frederick County, Virginia (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1966; Bulletin #80), the property is underlain by the Conococheague limestone /dolomite. Exposures of limestone outcrop and ledges were observed throughout the site. Depth to rock can be extremely variable due to the pinnacled nature of weathering that can occur over these parent materials. Ledges or vertical sills of resistant rock can be encountered at or near the surface with deep zones of residual soil between. I ECS Project No. 8137 -B —5— October 24, 2003 r Karst features such as sinkholes and collapsed solution cavities are problematic to this geologic terrain. The occurrence of karst is directly linked to rock structure and lithology, overburden thickness and also to surface and subsurface hydrologic influences. Enhanced i sinkhole development near entrenched streams can be attributed to higher ground water gradient and flow. Sinkholes are not always apparent at the ground surface. Frequently, they are collapsed and filled with soft sediment. According to the publication "Sinkholes and Karst - Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle,' Virginia and West Virginia" (USGS, 1994; Map #MF- 2262), there are three sinkholes within the boundaries of the property. In addition, neighboring properties to the south and west each have one plotted sinkhole. ECS directly observed the locations of these plotted sinkholes and found no apparent signs of recent settlement or collapse. Nor was there evidence of environmentally damaging uses in these sink hole areas such as dumping or storage of manure or chemicals. ECS spoke with Alexander White (property owner) concerning the mapped sinkholes. He stated that this classification was false and that these areas have never exhibited any characteristics of sinkhole development in his lifetime. The hydrogeologic framework consists of an upper unconfined water table and a lower rock aquifer. Water -table conditions are associated with fractures and solution cavities in the limestone and dolomite beds. Sinkholes sometimes provide rapid recharge to the shallow aquifer, allowing pollutants to enter without the filtering action that occurs through the Is overburden in most other aquifer systems. Ground water recharge occurs primarily along outcrop areas of the bedrock in uplands between streams. Water table movement is usually topographically influenced, moving from higher to lower elevations, although changes in the rock profile and urban influences can distort these patterns. The drinking water aquifer is located at greater depth (typically 100 -300 feet) within the fractured bedrock. The limestone has a very low primary porosity and most subsurface flow occurs along bedding planes enlarged by fracturing and weathering. Ground water movement is strongly influenced by these fractures and other irregularities in the rock mass. 1 1 F C 11 9 1 ECS Project No. 8137 -B —6— October 24, 2003 4.0 PREVIOUS WORK ECS was not provided with previous environmental, engineering or similar studies on the subject at the time this report was completed. ECS did however; recently complete a wetland delineation and Phase I -A Archeological Assessment of the subject. The results of those studies are provided under separate cover. During the field delineation, we did not witness evidence of environmentally damaging practices taking place or observe indications of environmental impact by liquid petroleum, hazardous materials, or other foreign sources. i i i i 1 ECS Project No. 8137 -B —7— October 24, 2003 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 5.1 Records Review Public records were reviewed to identify evidence of past or present activities on or near the site which may have resulted in soil, surface water and/or ground water contamination or the generation, use, storage or disposal of hazardous waste, chemical or petroleum products /materials. This information was obtained from EnviroData. The EnviroData report is based on an ASTM standard radius search centered on the geographic coordinates of the site and includes the following databases: • Superfund National Priority List (NPL): The "Superfund" NPL List is a compilation of properties considered by the EPA as being either uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites that require priority consideration for remedial action under the Federal Superfund Program. These sites are considered to pose a significant risk of stigmatizing surrounding properties and potentially impacting property values. • State Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA/CERCLIS) LIST: CERCLIS i sites are those that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance pursuant to the 1980 CERCLA Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a formal State Superfund Program, therefore, the federal CERCLIS database is considered to be the equivalent of a State Hazardous Waste Sites List. • Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA -TS, -LG ;and -SG): RCRA regulations apply to facilities that the EPA designates as storing, transporting, generating, treating or disposing of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities include large quantity generators and small quantity generators. Non - compliant RCRA sites, RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) and treatment storage and disposal (TSD) sites are also monitored under this program. The RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) list contains information about TSD facilities that have performed remediation due to a release of hazardous waste or due to a violation of RCRA. • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS): contains information on releases of oil and hazardous substances. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LPSTs/L.USTs): contains summary information pertaining to reported leaking underground storage tanks. The information contained in this database is a combination of LUST lists maintained at the State Department of Environmental Quality Offices. r r i ECS Project No. 8137 -B —8— October 24, 2003 • Above Ground /Underground Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs): a comprehensive list of all registered active and inactive underground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. • Solid Waste Facilities (SWLF): Under Subtitle D of RCRA, the EPA establishes technical standards for the operation of solid waste management facilities (transfer stations and landfills). • No Further Remediation Action Planned Sites (NFRAP): also known as the CERCLIS archive, contains information pertaining to sites that have been removed from the CERCLIS database. NFRAP sites imay be sites where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Superfund action or NPL consideration. i • The Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) lists properties that are either undergoing or have completed voluntary remediation overseen by the VDEQ. • The VDEQ maintains a pollution response or PREP database to track surface spills of oil and hazardous substances. The listings identified as "unmapped sites" are not plotted due to inadequate address and geocoding information. ECS reviewed and field - checked the list of " ummapped sites" to verify their location and possible impact to the subject. 5.2 Repulatory Summary There are no regulatory listings that apply to the property under consideration. A review of the unmapped sites did not identify properties or facilities in the vicinity that might pose an environmental concern to the subject. A copy of the regulatory database report is included as Appendix II of this report. r 0 ECS Project No. 8137 -B —9— October 24, 2003 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 On -Site Features Robert Greenlaw (ECS, Ltd.) conducted the field reconnaissance on September 10 and 17, 2003. Weather at these times was partly cloudy and generally warm. The reconnaissance was performed to search for evidence of: hazardous waste /material, chemical and/or petroleum storage, leak or spill; stressed vegetation or soil discoloration; drinking water /environmental monitoring wells; environmental remediation activities; storage drums; industrial or commercial refuse; herbicide or pesticide containers;. farm waste; septic systems; above - ground storage tanks (ASTs); underground storage tanks (USTs); pipelines; asbestos containing material (ACM); industrial/manufacturing or similar environmentally - sensitive operations or conditions; rail spurs; ruins; landfills or I illicit dumping; air emissions /waste water discharges; leachate or seeps; surface or groundwater contamination; and/or PCB - containing articles. Photographs of the site are included in Appendix IV. The following narrative describes the property: The portion of the White property under consideration comprises approximately 175 acres and is located to the southeast of Merrimans Lane (U.S. Route 621). The subject more specifically is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53 -3 -A and 53 -A -92A in their entirety and portions of parcels 53 -A -90 and 53 -A -92. The site is ° presently zoned for residential and agricultural uses. The tract is bound to the north by the remainder of the partial tracts included with this ESA and Abrams Creek, with the Winchester and Western Railroad line beyond; to the east and south by agricultural land; and to the west by Merrimans Lane and U.S. Route 37, with residential properties, agricultural land, and a relatively new golf course beyond. i The majority of the subject is unimproved, consisting of a mixture of dense woods and open pasture which are dispersed over a series of hills and valleys that are oriented roughly southwest/northeast. In the central portion of the property is an approximately 1.5 -acre parcel currently owned by Elemaitch, Inc. This parcel is improved by a large two -story wooden -frame house with an asphalt shingle roof. To the east of the house is a wooden horse barn. The house was built in 1982 and utilizes a combination of wood burning and electric baseboards for heat. ECS did not gain access to the house during our reconnaissance. Due its age, asbestos containing materials could be present within this structure. According to Mr. Alexander White, current resident of the house and owner of Elemaitch hic., petroleum products, non - household chemicals, and hazardous materials are not stored or generated within the on -site structures. i Access to the site can be gained via two different routes off of Merrimans Lane. The northern most entrance onto the White Property crosses over the railroad tracks and travels through the area of family homes and barns in the northwestern section of the site that is not included in this ESA. Orchard Lane, located just east of U.S. Route 37 travels across the property leading to two large home sites. The land associated with these homes is i U ECS Project No. 8137 -B —to— October 24, 2003 i surrounded on all sides by the subject property. Before reaching these two homes, Orchard Lane forks to the east and travels to the house and barn mentioned in the previous paragraph. As previously stated the site contains a mixture of dense woods and pasture land. Limestone outcrops were abundant over the site and areas where they comprised the majority of surface material were generally covered with trees and dense underbrush. Overall, more level areas of land in the north, central, and western portions of the property tended to be used for pasture whereas lands having a greater slope, generally in the south, southwest, and eastern portions of the site were predominantly forested and contained large ;quantities of exposed rock. Livestock including cattle, sheep, and horses were observed grazing during our reconnaissance. Electric fences act as boundaries between separate gr azing areas. Many of the forested areas are also fenced off from livestock traffic; however, a small number of sheep were seen in the far eastern upslope forested areas during our reconnaissance. No evidence of row crops or orchards was observed within the site bounds. The site appeared very neat and clean. One small area of dumping was noted in the northeastern region of the site. This area contains minor quantities of scrap metal, wood, and fencing material that appear aged. This dump site does not appear to have been used in many years and is not thought to present a significant threat to the environmental integrity of the site. No additional signs of dumping or even minor surface debris were evidenced during the is remainder of our time on -site. ; Overhead electric lines transect the property in several areas. These, electric lines are not high voltage power lines and do not pose any threat in association with electromagnetic fields. Several transformers were observed in association with these electric lines. No PCB labeling was observed on these transformers. Regardless, the transformers appeared to be in good condition and no leakage, distressed vegetation, or stained soil lwas witnessed in the areas of these devices. No other remarkable or unusual features or uses of the site were apparent. Based on our observations, the following conditions or materials were not observed on -site: r • USTs, vent lines, fill ports or similar surface projections of buried tanks; • containers for hazardous or chemical substances; • hazwaste transportation, storage or disposal; • cemeteries or grave sites; • chemical/petroleum smells, foul odors or distressed vegetation; • chemical stains on soil or other surfaces; • distressed vegetation; • ground water or surface water contamination; • oil or chemical pipelines and related bulk storage facilities; • surface impoundments or holding ponds for liquid waste; • monitoring wells, injection wells or remediation systems; • asbestos waste; r r ECS Project No. 8137 -B — 11 — October 24, 2003 3 • incinerators, recycling or waste treatment processes; • junk or scrap yards; • industrial or manufacturing activities; • motor vehicle repairs or maintenance operations; • air emissions, leachate, seeps, or waste -water discharge requiring special permitting or consideration; • livestock burial areas or manure pits; • pesticide or herbicide misuse or over application; - • oil/natural gas or mineral exploration and mining; • evidence of discharges, leachate migration,. or ran -off of potential contaminants from an off -site source onto the subject; or, • high voltage power lines or electrical transmission towers where electromagnetic .16 fields might pose a concern. 6.2 Nearbv Properties A reconnaissance was made of contiguous and nearby properties by !viewing from public streets or accessible vantages without trespass. Based on regional topography, it appears that areas to the south of the property for approximately one third mile drain through the property towards Abrams Creek. Additionally, upland areas of the subject do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Overall, the subject is gently sloped from southwest to northeast, and exhibits drainage patterns which eventually tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. Unless otherwise noted, no opportunistic dumping, drums, ASTs, USTs, monitoring wells, remediation systems or other environmentally suspicious conditions or activities were observed on adjacent properties. The site is located within a setting composed of a mixture of farmland, and residential properties. Farms containing associated houses and barns border the site to the east and south. Recent developments across Merrimans Lane, Abrams Creek, arid U.S. Route 37 have converted what was previously farm land into mostly residential properties in these locations. Building of homes in these locations has not yet been completed. Additionally a golf course was established to the northwest of the site across Route 37. No visible signs of hazardous materials, petroleum storage, or environmentally harmful substances were witnessed in these areas of development. These sites do not appear to have an adverse effect on the environmental integrity of the subject. The remaining portion of the White property, which borders the northern portion of the subject contains three White family homes and various barns and out buildings. One of these homes reportedly is heated by an oil furnace and has. an associated heating oil AST. According to both Willis White and Sandy White, all petroleum.tanks holding fuel for farm equipment, etc. are currently aboveground. There are no reports of any releases of petroleum on this property. Additionally, no evidence of the former presence of USTs on this property was found. There are septic systems and wells located in this area. This portion of the White property drains to the northwest, north, and northeast towards Abrams Creek and does not appear to have influence over waters on the subject. F ECS Project No. 8137 -B —12— October 24, 2003 There is a cluster of two residential sites, which are several acres in size each that are separate from, yet are surrounded by the subject property. These sites are located along the top of a prominent ridgeline that extends across the White property. No heating oil tanks were observed around either of these homes. Due to the rural nature of the area these homes are presumed to be serviced by well and septic systems. No evidence of leachate or seepage, was observed coming from these properties. Additionally, no strange or noxious odors were detected within the vicinity of these homes. In summary, our review of abutting and nearby properties did not Iidentify evidence of recognized or suspect environmental conditions, operations or activities that would be expected to have a detrimental impact on the subject. r r r r r r r i i ECS Project No. 8137 -B October 24, 2003 7.1 Title Information —13— 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Chain -of -title information was obtained from a limited review of land records at the Circuit Court Clerks Office of Frederick County. The following chain -of -title was developed from the deed records reviewed: With the exception of the 1.44 -acre parcel in the central portion of the property, which is owned by Elemaich, Incorporated, The property is presently owned by two limited liability corporations, Willow Grove L.L.C. and 740 L.L.C., both of which are owned through shares held by the various members of the White family. These L.L.C.s were established in 1996 and 1998, respectively, by Charles Ridgely White and his wife Eleanor S. White. The subject in its entirety has been under the ownership and supervision of the White family since 1948, at which time the farm was purchased by C. Ridgely and Eleanor White from William D. Taylor. William Taylor owned the property for 10 years dating back to 1938. Prior to 1938 the farm was owned by the Baker family. Based on our limited review of land records, no environmental liens or encumbrances against the property were noted. Our deed research should not, however, be construed as accurate for the purposes of establishing clear title to the property. 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review Due to the rural history of the site and its surroundings, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are not available for the property. 7.3 Aerial Photograph Review Aerial photographs having coverage of the site taken on June 8, 1950 and March 23, 1976 were reviewed at the USDA -NRCS office in Stephens City, Va. ; Photographs having coverage of the site in other series years housed at the USDA -NRCS office were unable to be located because they are no longer properly indexed. U.S. Route 37 was not present in 1950. Also Merrimans Lane followed a slightly straighter path than it does today. A noticeably lesser quantity of trees can be noted in the southern and eastern parts of the property. Areas of dense vegetation in the southwestern comer of the site were open field at this time. Also, the main house and 3 to 4 out buildings/barns were observed just north of the site. Surrounding property was significantly less developed than the current condition. Orchards were observed to the northwest and southeast of the property. No signs indicating that the property was under environmental stress were observed. By 1976, vegetation had become denser in the southwest, south, and eastern portions of the n property. U.S. Route 37 was noted to have been under construction at this time, and the re- routing of Merrimans lane to its current shape had been completed. Orchard Lane was ECS Project No. 8137 -B -14- October 24, 2003 N - present at this time but appeared to be unpaved. The house and horse bam in the central portion of the site were not present. The large residential tracts located within the interior of the southwestem section of the property had been split off from the White family farm and were observed to contain large homes. Orchards previously bordering the site to the northwest and southeast were becoming overgrown. The house and bams on the remainder of the White property to the north appeared unchanged from the 1950 photograph. No signs of distressed vegetation, chemical and/or petroleum storage were observed within these photographs. There are no suspicious disturbances such as dumps evident in the photographs examined. A March 24, 1997 USGS aerial photograph, obtained online and included within Appendix I as Figure 2, revealed the site and its surroundings to be very similar to their current state. By this time forested land in the southwest, southem, and eastern portions of the site has continued to flourish, continuing to increase in density and size. There are several additional homes present on the White property to the north. The house in the central portion of the site had been built and surrounding development to the northwest and northeast has begun. In conclusion, no environmental concerns regarding the subject or its surroundings were noted during aerial photographic research. 7.4 City Directory Review Due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the site, city directories were not reviewed as part of our investigation. 7.5 Local Sources ECS spoke with Mr. Alexander White (a.k.a. Sandy), resident of the subject, president of Elemaitch, Inc., and shareholder in Willow Grove LLC, on October 13 and 21, 2003. Mr. White has lived on the farm for approximately 45 years during which time it has remained in his family's ownership. Currently he runs Elemaitch, Inc., an investment/farm management company that oversees the White family farm; his home is located in the central portion of the site. In his management of the farm, Mr. White stated that he rarely, if ever, uses chemicals. He identified for us an old dump site, in the northeastern portion of the property, which, has been out of use for over 30 years. This dump site contains mostly scrap metal and wood debris, as well as old fencing material and a few glass bottles. Mr. White did not recall any other environmentally - remarkable conditions or concerns associated with prior agricultural uses of the farm. To his knowledge, orchards have not been present within the subject bounds for over a hundred years. Mr. White stated that all of the fuel storage on the farm was kept in aboveground tanks on portions of the property not included in this assessment and that no petroleum releases or leaks had occurred. We also interviewed Mr. Kelly Robinson, a local resident for over 45 years. Mr. Robinson spent much of his childhood on the White property and has been friends with the family his i ECS Project No. 8137 -B _15— October 24, 2003 entire life. To his knowledge the property has always been used for raising beef cattle. Mr. Robinson stated that the White family has always acted as good environmental stewards to their land by fencing off forested areas, preventing erosion, helping to maintain good water quality, and using agricultural chemicals only when deemed necessary. He was unaware of any UST's on the site and stated that to his recollection there was only a single aboveground fuel tank for farm equipment. ECS spoke with Mr. Kenneth Marshall, owner and operator of the adjacent farm property to the east, during a concurrent environmental assessment of his property: Mr. Marshall stated that he has never observed any environmentally damaging practices on the White property. To his knowledge, the subject has never been used for orchards or developed in any way. Mr. Willis White, resident of the White farm and shareholder in Willow Grove, LLC, was interviewed on October 13, 2003. He stated that the land was purchased by his parents in 1948 and that he has resided there since his birth in 1954. To the best of his recollection, Mr. White stated that the farm has always been used for raising livestock and that very few chemicals have ever been used or stored on the property. Fuel storage at the site is limited to an aboveground tank located in the vicinity of the barns in the northern section of the property and that to his knowledge there had never been any leaks or spills. Mr. White currently uses a well for drinking water purposes and has not found any problems related to the local ground water supply. i 7.6 FOIA Requests Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were made in person to the following County and State agencies for information concerning environmental incidents on or near the subject. • Frederick County Environmental Health Department • Frederick County Fire & Rescue Services FIOA requests were made by ECS on September 9, 2003. A letter dated September 23, 2003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire Marshall with the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, stated that "Our records do not indicate any hazardous material spills, however, underground storage tanks may be present from installations prior to the creation of this department." ECS did not find evidence which would support the likelihood of underground i storage tanks or hazardous materials storage on site. ■ No registered municipal wells were noted on -site. One residential well and septic drain field are present in the central portion of the subject and service the house currently owned by Elemaitch Inc.. The northwestern portion of the White property, which is not covered in this assessment contains several well and septic systems which service the family homes located in this area. These septic systems drain in the direction of Abrams Creek and do not appear to influence the subject. Reportedly there have been no problems with drinking water quality from these wells. i 1 ECS Project No. 8137 -B —16— October 24, 2003 r Recently, the Frederick County Environmental Health Department responded to our request for environmentally sensitive findings. Their records indicate the presence of septic drain fields in connection with the White family homes, located just north; of the site boundary. There were no reports or records of widespread or localized ground water contamination due to agricultural or industrial sources near the site. No other findings were reported. 11 G 9 11 1 6 r 1 r r 1 1 1 1 1 ECS Project No. 8137 -B October 24, 2003 —17— 8.0 OTHER SERVICES ASTM guidelines identify non -scope issues that are beyond the scope of this practice. Some of these non -scope issues include; asbestos - containing material (ACM) inspection, radon survey, lead -based paint testing, lead in drinking water testing, soil and ground water sampling and testing and regulatory compliance audits. None of these non -scope issues were requested, proposed, or included in our scope of work. ECS Project No. 8137 -B — 18— October 24, 2003 9.0 ECS, Ltd. has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 -00. This assessment was performed on an approximately 175 -acre section of agricultural land located southeast of Merrimans Lane and east of U.S. Route 37, in Frederick County, Virginia. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report. To conclude, this assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property under consideration. Therefore, no fiuther environmental investigation is recommended. L. r r r 7 r r r r A t ECS Project No. 8137 -B October 24, 2003 —19— 10.0 REFERENCES ASTM, 2000. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. ASTM E 1527 -00. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. USGS, 1983. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map. Winchester, Virginia. I USGS, 1994' Sinkholes and Karst- Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia" (Map #MF -2262) I i P I APPENDIX FIGURES i APPENDIX H REGULATORY RECORDS I rl EnviroData Information Search Results Sununary Sheet r. r r r Customer: ECS, Ltd. Subject Property: 245 Acre Parcel Address: Merrimans Lane 0 Winchester, VA 22602 ederal Databases Searched Database File Date Agency NPL 07/01/03 US EPA Registered Incidents of Leaks or Releases from Above or Superfund Sites CERCLIS 07/01/03 US EPA CERCLIS NFRAP 07/01/03 US EPA RCRIS TSD 09/30/02 US EPA RCRA TSD Facilities RCRIS 09/30/02 US EPA RCRA Generators/Transporters ERNS 08/01/03 US EPA Emergency Response Notification System Sub Total Federal Records State Databases Searched Database File Date SOLID WASTE 12/10/02 Agency VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Solid Waste Sites VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Underground Storage Tanks VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Leaking Underground Storage Tanks VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Pollution Complaints Sub Total State Records ® L UST 05/01/03 LUST SITES 06/01/03 VRP 02/21/01 PREP NOTICES 03/23/00 r i 0 r� Report Date: 09/09/03 Report No. E101038 Standard: ASTM Phase I Search Radius ------------- --- Glossary: ASTM: American Society of Testing and Materials CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 0 Liabiliry Information System ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System NPL: National Priorities List LUSTILAST: Registered Incidents of Leaks or Releases from Above or Underground Storage Tanks PC Notice: Pollution Complaints registered with the state reflecting releases of hazardous material to the ground or water RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Genemtors and TSD (treatment, storage, and disposal) Facilities VRP: Voluntary Remediation Program �nmappable: A site which cannot be geocoded (i.e., located by longitude and latitude) because of inadequate government address information. Report Date: 09/09/03 Report No. E101038 Standard: ASTM Phase I Search Radius ------------- --- Mapped ---- ---- Unmapped -------- Total ------ 1.25 Mile i 0 0 0 i 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 0.75 Mile f 1.25 Mile i 0.75 Mile i 0.75 Mile 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 Search Radius 0.75 Mile I I 0.75 Mile i 0.75 Mile I 1.25 Mile i 0.75 Mile I i Mapped Unmapped Total 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 Limitations: The scope of this report is defined by the ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527. The Client proceeds at its own risk in relying on the use of Government data in whole or in part for any transaction. EnvlmData assumes no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of Govemment information; information provided by others; or for errors resulting from data conversion or enhancement. EnviroDains obligation regarding such data products is solely limited to providing portions of existing Government data as of the date of each update received. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. EnviroData products are intended for the specified use of the Client and shall not be used for other purposes. EnviroDam has relied upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Client on the Order Form. By signing the Order Form, the Client assumes responsibility for payment of any and all fees associated with the preparation and delivery of the products and services requested. 7 i EnviroData, Inc. Report Date: 09/09/03 s �" ortNo. E101038 n Re i ecoro nci ,.� P ft Unma ed Sites --� «� ° _ " `` Page No. LZ - 1 tx�*' , '.Serny�<✓t# fit, i Complaint #/ Date Zip Code Description Recorded Waterbody Responsible Party 93 -2177 04/30/93 Not Specified Olin Hott RELEASE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES /SOLVENTS/PCB CONTAMIN release of industrial wastes /solvents/PC13 i contaminate from AST at O lin H ott property S TATUS: CLO Facility Id 96 -1081 Not Specified Not Specified VD OT- GAINSBORO SITE LUS STATUS: CLOSED F Id: 2- 015846 i 98 -5096 Not Specified Not Specified L. J. WRIGHT OIL CO. LUST ST ATUS: CLOS Facility Id: — - -- — - -- - - . --- - - — _ - -- 98 -5116 Not Specified Not Specified i H.C. GAB IN C. LUST STA CLOS Facility Id_ 96 -4828 Not Specified Not Specified FREDERICK COUNTY BUS SHOP RT. 2, BOX 6 L UST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id:! 22601 01 -6069 10/06/00 Not Specified Not Specified F ARA/SM R TE 6 BOX IO STATUS. CL OSED Facility Id: 1 i i i i LUST, LAST, AST, and UST incidents indicate leaks or suspected leaks of above or below ground storage tanks which have been reported to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality � EnviroD Inc. 7A�ti..�Ib.. Facility Id. Facility Location Tank Id. Status Listed Year Product Capacity Installed Material 6- 000211 SHENANDOAH PLANT # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel P.O. BOX 2040 Age: 49 WINCHESTER VA 22601 - # 3 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 10000 Unknown Steel Age: # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel Age: 49 6- 000802 ARA/SMITHS (WINCHESTER) # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 10000 Unknown Steel ROUTE 6; BOX 1013 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 001293 WINCHESTER BUILDING SUPPLY # RI REMOVED FROM HEATING OIL 10000 03/08/79 Cathodic Protected RT. 6; BOX 152AA Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 003867 SHOCKEY BROTHERS INC # R1 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 15000 10/02/73 Steel P.O. BOX 2530 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 006183 PAYNE WELL DRILLING INC # R1 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 1000 04/23/70 Steel RT. 8; BOX 668 Age: 37 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 500 04/23/70 Steel Age: 37 6- 010559 ALBAN TRACTOR COMPANY, INC # R1 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: 6- 015350 W W CARLISLE ESTATE # 1 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 1000 04/22/66 Steel RT. 6; BOX 113 Age: 37 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 550 04/22/66 Steel Age: 37 EnviroDaQ, Inc. V , Listed Year Facility Id. Facility Location Tank Id. Status Product Capacity Installed Material 6- 016653 GREENWOOD VOLUNTEER FIRE & # RI REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 550 05/08/76 Steel P.O. BOX 3023 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 - 6- 018727 FRANKLIN MADIGAN # 1 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 0 Unknown Steel RT. 5; BOX 339 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 020517 FAMILY MARKET # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 8000 05/07/81 - Steel HC -2; BOX 170 Age: 22 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 4000 05/07/81 Steel Age: 22 6- 024180 CITY YARD # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 1000 04/01/91 Steel Age: 12 WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 024324 ROYAL CROWN COLA # RI REMOVED FROM GASOHOL 5000 01/01/76 Steel BOX 2300 - Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM GASOHOL 5000 01/01/76 Steel Age: # R3 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: # R4 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: # R5 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 2000 01/01/80 Steel Age: r EnviroData, Inc. r r Zip Code EPA ID # 22601 VAD070360219 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r. r- r Report Date: 09/09/03 Report No. E101038 Page No. CZA - 1 Site Information: Name and Address Event and Description WINCHESTER LAMP PLANT GEN ELEC Id Number: 0304171 RT3 BOX 310 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Assessment Activity Completed DS -- DISCOVERY Scheduled 09/17/90 EnviroData Generator Codes: A - Large Quantity Generator D - Verified non - generator -- State Regulated B - Small Quantity Generator F - Transporter of Hazardous Material C - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Violations Codes: I - Bankrupt 2 - Generator 3 - Transporter 4 - TSD Groundwater 5 -.TSD Closure /Post Closure 6 - TSD Financial Requirements 7 - Generator - Land Resu'ictions 8 - TSD Land Resh'ictions 9 - Corrective Action Compliance 10 - TSI7 Other Requirements 1 I - Formal Enforcement Agreement Enviroaa, Inc. Report D009/09/03 � r Report No E101038 �t�i�nma / pped SjteSj �tu,.. + s jv'r Page No. RZ - 1 Gen. Trans - ., � ,� Map Ref: # EPA ID Class porter Name /Address RCRA Outstanding Violations Codes VAD000762310 D SUNOCO SERVICE STATION RD 6 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action VAD988223997 B GRAND AUTO RT 7 BOX 118 WINCHESTER VA 22601 . Handler is not subject to corrective action - EnviroData Generator Codes: A - Large Quantity Generator D - Verified non - generator -- State Regulated B - Small Quantity Generator F - Transporter of Hazardous Material C - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Violations Codes: I - Bankrupt 2 - Generator 3 - Transporter 4 - TSD Groundwater 5 -.TSD Closure /Post Closure 6 - TSD Financial Requirements 7 - Generator - Land Resu'ictions 8 - TSD Land Resh'ictions 9 - Corrective Action Compliance 10 - TSI7 Other Requirements 1 I - Formal Enforcement Agreement I EnviroData,Inc. Virginia Database Sources r f r r r r r r r Database Description NPL The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sitesidentified for priority remedial action under the Superfund program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site, or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the EPA in order to become an NPL site. For specific questions concerning and NPL site, go to the EPA web page at at www.epa.gov. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a com- pilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities, which treat, store, and /or dispose of hazardous waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRIS -TSD site, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. The CERCLIS List is a compilation by the EPA of the sites, which the agency has investigated or is currently investigating of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund Act). For specific questions concerning a CERCLIS site, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov i The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEC) maintains an inventory of leaking underground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a LUST incident, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. i The Virginia of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of the solid waste facilities in the state. For specific questions concerning a sold waste site, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. RCRA-TSD CERCLIS LUST SWLF r� UST r ERNS r RCRA - non TSD r r r PREP 9 The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of registered under- ground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a UST facility, go to the ,Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. i The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to tolled infor- mation on reported release of oil and hazardous substances. The database contains information from spill or reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. For specific questions concerning an ERNS incident, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. I The EPA's Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment; or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities, which generate less than 1000 kg /month of non - acutely hazardous waste. For specific questions conceming an RCRA -Non TSD facility, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEC) maintains a database used to collect and track information on reported surface releases of oil and hazardous substances. For specific questions concerning a PREP incident, go to the DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. R APPENDIX III STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS I R 9 r rr r r r r r r r ro r r r r r r r r CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. 1.0 CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was incorporated in 1987 to meet the growing needs of our clients as a multi- service engineering firm. The managing principals of ECS, Ltd. average over 20 years of experience in their respective fields. Our staff of over 425 people includes registered professional engineers, environmental geologists, hydrogeologists, certified engineering techniciansaand support personnel. ECS, Ltd. places great emphasis on the individual qualifications and experience of its technical staff. Our geotechnical and ;environmental engineers hold Masters or Doctorate degrees in engineering and are well - versed in the subsurface conditions typically found in the Mid - Atlantic region. Our senior environmental personnel have performed a variety of environmentally - related services for major corporations on projects in over 20 states and four countries. ECS, Ltd. engineering technicians are certified by such recognized organizations as the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories (WACEL), the American Welding Society (AWS), and the Roofing Industry Educational Institute (RIEI). In addition, we have developed and implemented our own in -house training, certification and QA /QC programs. ECS, Ltd. emphasizes quality and responsive service to our clients in solving problems and providing innovative engineering and scientific analysis. With our corporate office in Chantilly, Virginia, we maintain branch offices in Baltimore, Maryland, Richmond, Fredericksburg and Norfolk, Virginia, Charlotte, Research Triangle Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, Greenville /Spartanburg, South Carolina, Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas. We focus our activities on the specific concerns of the Mid - Atlantic development area. By combining the talents from all four offices, we can offer highly qualified personnel to staff each of our projects. Our multi -phase services structure -- including geotechnical engineering, construction materials testing and inspection, and environmental services and engineering -- results in better long -term understanding of individual projects and clients, and allows us to respond quickly to potentially critical situations. ECS, Ltd. has applied this approach on many of - the larger projects in this region, including work for such firms as Trammell Crow Company, Prentiss Properties, Homart Development Company, The Oliver Carr Company, and Friendswood Development. -1- J ECS, Ltd. is certified by the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories (WACEL), and the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL), in the area of Construction Testing Services. 2- 2.0 FIELDS OF COMPETENCE Through the close working relationship of its operational departments and specialized sub - contractors, ECS, Ltd. has the total capability to evaluate a given site or operation and to develop the most practical approach to environmental site assessments, site contamination studies, ground water and soil remediation, permitting, and design of environmental control systems. Our primary focus i has been to continually develop practical and cost - effective solutions in a timely and responsive manner to changing environmental problems. One of the major reasons for our past success in the environmental ® consulting marketplace has been our ability to "customize" and combine specific services from different disciplines to individual client and project needs. Also of importance to our clients is our knowledge of the environmental regulatory agencies and our record of success working with them in our clients' interest. The environmental services available from ECS, Ltd. include: i ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: • Real estate transactions/ environmental site assessments (Phases I, II, and III) • Environmental impact studies and risk assessments • Wetland delineation and mitigation investigations • Radon investigations • Environmental facility audits and assessments • Third -party reviews ASBESTOS ASSESSMENTS: • Asbestos surveys • Sample collection and analysis • Preparation of plans and specifications UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT: Monitoring of tank removals i Site investigations and assessments ® Contaminant plume evaluations • Long- and short-term environmental site monitoring • Development of corrective actions plans (CAP's) • Regulatory permitting • Ground water recovery system design -3- HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES: ,g 0 Development and implementation of ground water resource and ® evaluation plans Design and implementation of ground water monitoring networks, including drilling and well installation Ground water modeling Aquifer testing (pumping tests, slug tests and bail -down tests) Contaminant plume investigations Electromagnetic and resistivity surveys a Design of ground water recovery and treatment systems • Seismic refraction and ground- probing radar studies ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING: Design and implementation of site remediation measures Preparation of closure plans and other hazardous facility permitting Design of new landfill and lagoon facilities Design of pumping and treatment systems for contaminated ground water Design of water /waste water treatment systems Permitting and regulatory negotiation i r r r i 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 3.1 BACKGROUND Within the environmental field, ECS, Ltd. has concentrated on providing services to the regional development and financial community, including commercial, residential, institutional and industrial clients and lenders. By concentrating on this service sector, we are able to better understand i the requirements of each group and provide services more specifically ® tailored to individual needs. For most commercial, residential and institutional developers, the most common services performed, to date, have been Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. In this area, our work includes a thorough evaluation of the physical conditions of the property using visual overviews supported by aerial photographs, an historical search of appropriate information for past historic and regulated uses, and interviews with current or previous tenants to determine previous site activities. Depending upon the results of the Phase I investigation, follow -up Phase II studies, if necessary, are provided and structured as site - specific conditions dictate and can include soil -test borings, monitoring well installations! and chemical ■ analyses of soil, ground water and surface water. r Contaminant ECS, Ltd. also provides hydrogeological and geophysical investigations -- for the municipal, commercial, industrial, development; and financial sectors. These investigations can be sub - divided into two' fields: ground the water resources studies, and contaminant / delineation' ground water and extent of monitoring investigations. Ground water resource investigations water and soil contamination. primarily concentrate on developing and /or protecting our valuable borings are ground water resources. These types of investigations are commonly ® requested by municipalities, industries, and developers in need of water and for potable, irrigation, or industrial use, particularly in those areas where ' commercial water supplies are either unavailable, difficult to attain, or analyzed to economically unfeasible. Existing published data, other consultant reports, and pertinent scientific literature are reviewed and are supplemented. by a full-scale field investigation consisting of geological and /or geophysical surveys. The synthesized information is then used to 5 more cost - effectively site future water supply wells and /or enhance old established well fields. r Contaminant delineation and ground water monitoring investigations primarily concentrate on determining the magnitude and extent of i ground water and soil contamination. Test borings are drilled, ground ® water monitoring wells are installed, and the subsurface soils and ' ground water are sampled and chemically analyzed to determine the 5 GARNETT B. WILLIAMS, C.P.G. Senior Environmental Geologist i EDUCATION B.S., Geology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1983 CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40 Hours, 29 CFR 1910.120(e)(2) OSHA Hazardous Materials and Incident Commander (16 hours) BOCA CPCCI lA Exam - National Certification Program for Construction Code Inspectors Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Managing Asbestos in Buildings Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Inspecting Buildings for Asbestos - Containing Material i CONTINUING EDUCATION National Water Well Association (NWWA) -Theory & Practice Of Ground Water Monitoring & Sampling NWWA- Treatment Technology For Contaminated Ground Water NWWA- Environmental Site Assessments Virginia Association Of Professional Soil Scientists (VAPSS)- Nontidal Wetlands Field Study Government Institutes - Wetlands & Real Estate Development National Wetlands Training Institute -Plant Identification Best Management Practices And Wetlands Cook College, Understanding Soil Conditions of Wetlands i NGWA, Principles of Ground Water Hydrology. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES e Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE /NWWA). EXPERIENCE 1989 to Present: Project Environmental Geologist, Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd., Chantilly, Virginia. Responsible for coordination and preparation of Phase I /Phase II environmental site assessments; facility audits; geotechnical engineering reports; ;M_ environmental site characterization studies; coordination and implementation of corrective action plans and contaminant remediation efforts; wetlands delineation ■ -i F studies and associated environmental permitting. Duties also include surveying with conventional transit /EDM and GPS instrumentation. 1985 to 1989: Engineering Geologist, Bengston, DeBell, Elkin and Titus, Inc., Centreville, Virginia. Assistant to the Geotechnical Engineering Group. Duties included: preparation of preliminary and final geotechnical reports; coordination of subsurface drilling and seismic refraction surveys; sanitary drainfield evaluations and infiltration testing; and, Virginia Uniform Building Code (structural and wood framing) inspections for commercial and residential structures under Fairfax County BOCA contract. 1983 to 1985: Exploration Geologist, North American Exploration, Inc., Kaysville, Utah. Responsible for collecting and logging rock and stream sediment samples for targeted anomalous areas in precious and base metals exploration. Performed preliminary field investigations of above areas by various geophysical methods using proton precession magnetometer, gravitometer, reflection seismography, and rock outcrop mapping techniques Representative sampling of recent key assignments and experience: • Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments (ESAs), environmental safety and liability audits of tenant operations and building facilities ford an assortment of commercial /industrial /residential properties involving confidential financial institutions. These studies have included acquisition and foreclosure of properties in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Connecticut. Properties included warehouses, strip retail facilities, commercial offices, railyards, industrial facilities and undeveloped tracts. • Site characterization, monitoring and remediation of fuel /solvent spills for a prominent railroad company. Sites included railyard fueling / maintenance facilities in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Projects involved: Phase I historical evaluation of events to define areas of potential contamination; installation of monitoring and recovery wells;! installation and operation of remediation systems (free product and dissolved phase); and, development of groundwater sampling and monitoring programs. i • Engineering and environmental support of omnibus contract to US Army for design, testing and evaluation of, a prototypical small arms range facility to reduce lead contamination to surrounding environment. Designed and provided oversight of range construction. Prepared and executed a sampling plan to evaluate the effectiveness of soil fixation technologies in reducing lead leachate from impact berm and migration of lead via surface waters. • Sampling, analysis and geochemical modeling of lead in soil at a private shooting range. Data was used to complete a risk characterization to develop cleanup costs i for a proposed single family subdivision. - ® Wetland delineations, functional assessments and permitting of commercial properties in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. • Phase I environmental services at a renovated tobacco warehouse project. Work included lead -based paint survey, PCB analysis of transformers, asbestos inspection, UST site characterization and a tenant and mechanical facilities audit. 2 I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I LS ` - -, 77 7" 6.4 7-1 Q, PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT MARSHALL PROPERTY 964 CEDAR CREEK GRADE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS, LTD. PROJECT NO. 8153 FOR GREENWAY ENGINEERING November 12, 2003 11 1-777777777 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT MARSHALL PROPERTY 964 CEDAR CREEK GRADE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 8153 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.1 Scope of Work 2 2.2 Objectives 2 2.3 Limitations 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Location 4 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydrogeology 4 4.0 PREVIOUS AND CURRENT WORK 6 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 7 5.1 Records Review 7 5.2 Regulatory Summary 8 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 9 6.1 On -Site Features 9 6.2 Nearby Properties 13 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 15 7.1 Title Information 15 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review 15 7.3 Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review 16 7.4 City Directory Review 16 7.5 Local Sources 16 7.6 FOIA Requests 17 8.0 OTHER SERVICES 18 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 19 I I 1 I 1 L I I 1 LJ I 1 s� 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Gteemvay Engineering to perform an ASTM Standard E- 1527 -00, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the approximate 120 -acre tract at 964 Cedar Creek Grade in Frederick County, Virginia, otherwise known as the Marshall Property. The ESA was performed to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the subject property. No soil, water, air, or other chemical sampling, testing or contaminant screening was conducted, requested or proposed during this phase of the ESA. To summarize, available historical documents, regulatory records and conversations with persons having knowledge of the property revealed no evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally - suspect. A reconnaissance of the site did not reveal the presence of: buried petroleum tanks; petroleum pipelines; surface or ground water contamination; distressed vegetation; environmental wells or remedial activities; grave sites; asbestos waste; suspicious leachate or seeps; mining activities; or, similar environmentally deleterious features. Nearby properties consist of a mixture of residential and agricultural sites. Based on the regulatory records and field research, there is no perceived threat of environmental impact to the subject associated with nearby properties. No industrial/manufacturing operations, gasoline stations, autobody shops or similar environmentally sensitive businesses or operations were observed in close proximity. Our investigation did reveal the presence of environmental concerns identified as follows: chemical and petroleum storage; petroleum stained soil; open and/or leaking petroleum containers; and, an open cistern. While we have noted several recognized environmental concerns, it is our opinion that these conditions are not likely to impact on the function:' quality of the property or its development potential. Nevertheless, we recommend that areas of stained soil be removed from the site and disposed of properly. Likewise, all of the petroleum containers, batteries, and various chemicals observed should be removed and properly disposed of prior to development. The open cistern and any wells that will not remain in use should undergo proper closure procedures. Finally, suspect asbestos containing material was observed within many of the site structures. ECS recommends that an asbestos survey be performed prior to demolition of these buildings. This Executive Summary is an integral part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report. ECS, Ltd. recommends that the report be read in its entirety. ECS Project No. 8153 -2- November 12, 2003 i s 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Scope of Work Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by G Engineering to perform a Phase I ESA on a 120 -acre agricultural tract located at 964 Cedar Creek Grade in Frederick County, Virginia. This irregular- shaped tract, otherwise known as the Marshall Property, is found abutting the north side of Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) and extending north to Abrams Creek. The environmental assessment was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM Standard E- 1527 -00. The purpose of the ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject site, hereafter referred to as "subject', "site ", "property" or "tract'. 1 2.2 Objectives The objectives of the ESA were to: • evaluate the probability of impact of the surface water, groundwater and/or soils within the property boundaries through a review of regulatory information and a reconnaissance of the subject and vicinity; • evaluate historical conditions to identify previous usage that could impact on the environmental condition of the site; • determine, if contamination is believed to have occurred, the potential on -site and off - site source material(s), location(s) and activities; and, • provide an evaluation of the potential for environmental impact at the site and a list of specific conclusions and recommendations addressing any concerns noted. 2.3 Limitations The ESA involved a reconnaissance of the site and contiguous properties and a review of regulatory and historical information in general accordance with the ASTM standard. No non -scope considerations or additional issues, such as asbestos surveys, radon testing or soil and groundwater analysis were investigated, unless otherwise described in Section 8.0 of this report. The conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report are based upon a reasonable level of investigation within normal bounds and standards of professional practice for a site in this particular geographic and geologic setting. The intent of this assessment is to identify the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site; however, no environmental site assessment can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding 1 the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site. The findings of this ESA are not intended to serve as an audit for health and safety or regulatory compliance issues pertaining to improvements or activities at the site. ECS, Ltd. is not liable ECS Project No. 8153 —3— November 12, 2003 for the discovery or elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents or injury. All observations, conclusions and/or recommendations pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject are necessarily limited to conditions observed, and/or materials reviewed at the time this study was undertaken. It was not the purpose of this study to determine the actual presence, degree or extent of contamination, if any, at this site. This could require additional exploratory work, including sampling and laboratory analysis. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report. ASTM E- 1527 -00 defines a "recognized environmental condition" as: the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in complianceiwith laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that would not be the subject of an i enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." This report is provided for the exclusive use of Greenway Engineering and its partners, assigns or clients involved with the acquisition and development of the subject. This ESA is not intended to be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third parties. The use of this report by any undesignated third party or parties will be at such party's sole risk and ECS, Ltd. disclaims liability for any such third party use or reliance. U 11 u r r F s. r 0 ECS Project No. 8153 —4— November 12, 2003 4 9 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Location The site is composed of two adjoining irregular- shaped parcels of land totaling approximately 120 acres. More specifically, the subject is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53 -A -91 and 63 -A -2A. The site is presently zoned for agricultural and residential use. The site is bound to the north by Abrams Creek with the Winchester and Western Railroad line and the Morlyn Hills at Meadow Branch residential . community currently under development beyond; to the east by mixed residential and forested land; to the south by Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) with residential parcels beyond; and to the west by agricultural tracts. 3.2 Phvsical Setting and Hydrogeology The Marshall Property is approximately 120 + /- acres situated north ofi Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1 -1). The terrain of the subject is generally made up of a single valley running north/south, flanked by gently sloping hillsides along the outer edges. Once surface drainage reaches the central portion of the property, it generally travels from southwest to northeast, exhibiting drainage patterns which tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek in the north and northeastern portions of the property. Based on regional topographic patterns and field observations, it °? appears that only limited areas to the southwest and northeast of the site extending about 1/10 mile exhibit drainage patterns which flow across or onto the subject. The majority of upland areas do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Excluding the north and northeastern sections of the site near Abrams Creek, the property is not prone to flood events. Evidence of springs, creeks, ponds, wetlands or similar surface water bodies on the remainder of the premises were noted and are outlined in detail within a Wetlands Delineation prepared by ECS. According to the soil survey (USDA -SCS, 1987. Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia), the near surface profile is characterized primarily by very deep, well - drained to moderately well drained, silty clay loam soils of the Frederick, Poplimento Series. There are several limitations associated with these soils including rapid surface runoff, high shrink swell potential from the clayey subsoil, low strength, moderate to low permeability, and high rock content. These limitations do not pose a direct concern to the environmental integrity of the subject. The site is located within the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. According to the Geologic Map of Frederick County, Virginia (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1966; Bulletin #80), the property is transected by a north/south, trending thrust fault in the eastern central portion of the property. The upper plate of the fault (east of the fault line) is underlain by interbedded dolostone, limestone, and dolomite shale of the Ellbrook formation. The remainder of the property is underlain by the Conococheague limestone /dolomite. Exposures of limestone outcrop and ledges were observed throughout C i 1 r l_1 r IP r C.1 ■J ECS Project No. 8153 —5— November 12, 2003 the site. Depth to rock can be extremely variable due to the pinnacled nature of weathering that can occur over these parent materials. Ledges or vertical sills of resistant rock can be encountered at or near the surface with deep zones of residual soil between. Karst features such as sinkholes and collapsed solution cavities are problematic to this geologic terrain. The occurrence of karst is directly linked to rock structure and lithology, overburden thickness and also to surface and subsurface hydrologic in Enhanced sinkhole development near entrenched streams can be attributed to higher ground water gradient and flow. Sinkholes are not always apparent at the ground surface. Frequently, they are collapsed and filled with soft sediment. According to the publication "Sinkholes and Karst - Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia" (USGS, 1994; Map #MF72262), there is one sinkhole within the boundaries of the property. In addition, neighboring properties to the west have plotted sinkholes within their bounds. ECS directly observed one large sinkhole on the subject in the west central portion of the site. An upland hill to the west drops off severely along an arc shape leading to the bottom of the sinkhole. The sinkhole bottom was found to contain no signs of wetlands, soft soils, and was covered with vegetation. This land feature showed no apparent signs of recent settlement or collapse. Nor was there evidence of environmentally damaging uses in these sinkhole areas such as dumping or storage of manure or chemicals. The previously mentioned publication did not indicate the presence of additional clusters of sinkholes or springs in the vicinity. The hydrogeologic framework consists of an upper unconfined water table and a lower rock aquifer. Water -table conditions are associated with fractures and solution cavities in the limestone and dolomite beds. Sinkholes sometimes provide rapid recharge to the shallow aquifer, allowing pollutants to enter without the filtering action that occurs through the overburden in most other aquifer systems. Ground water recharge occurs primarily along outcrop areas of the bedrock in uplands between streams. Water table movement is usually topographically influenced, moving from higher to lower elevations, although changes in the rock profile and urban influences can distort these patterns. The drinking water aquifer is located at greater depth (typically 100 -300 feet) within the fractured bedrock. No registered municipal wells were noted on -site. A residential well and septic drain field are present in the eastern portion of the subject and service a trailer home in which Mr. Kenneth Marshall currently resides. The septic system drains north of the trailer towards Abrams Creek and the drinking water well is located to the south between the trailer and a large bank bam. Additionally, an irrigation well is present in the eastern central portion of the property adjacent to row crop fields. Reportedly there have been no problems with water quality from either of these wells. ECS also visited the Environmental Health Department for further information on local ground water quality. Based on our review of their files, there were no reports or records of widespread or localized ground water contamination due to agricultural or industrial sources near the site. u ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 E F E 1 1 1 r r r r r r 4.0 PREVIOUS WORK ECS was not provided with, nor are we aware of; previous environmental, engineering or similar studies on the subject at the time this report was completed. I ECS did; however, perform a Wetlands Delineation and an Archeological Study of the s4ject concurrent with this ESA. Additionally, ECS has performed environmental studies on properties in the surrounding vicinity. These investigations have not revealed environmentally related issues that would be perceived as a threat to the subject. i 0 ECS Project No. 8153 —7 November 12, 2003 r 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 5.1 Records Review Public records were reviewed to identify evidence of past or present activities on or near the site which may have resulted in soil, surface water and/or ground water contamination or the generation, use, storage or disposal of hazardous waste, chemical or petroleum products /materials. This information was obtained from EnviroData. The EnviroData report is based on an ASTM standard radius search centered on the geographic coordinates of the site and includes the following databases: • Superfund National Priority List (NPL): The "Superfund" NPL List is a compilation of properties considered by the EPA as being either uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites that require priority consideration for remedial action under the Federal Superfund Program. These sites are considered to pose a significant risk of stigmatizing surrounding properties and potentially impacting property values. • State Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA/CERCLIS) LIST: CERCLIS sites are those that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance pursuant to the 1980 CERCLA Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a formal State Superfund s _ Program, therefore, the federal CERCLIS database is considered to be the equivalent of a State Hazardous Waste Sites List. i • Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA -TS, -LG and -SG): RCRA regulations apply to facilities that the EPA designates as storing, transporting, generating, treating or disposing of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities include large quantity generators and small quantity generators. Non - compliant RCRA sites, RCRA Administrative ",ction Tracking System (RAATS) and treatment storage and disposal (TSD) sites are also monitored under this program. The RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) list contains information about TSD facilities that have performed remediation due to a release of hazardous waste or due to a violation of RCRA. • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS): contains information on releases of oil and hazardous substances. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LPSTs/LUSTs): contains summary information pertaining to reported leaking underground storage tanks. The information contained in this database is a combination of LUST lists maintained at the State Department of Environmental Quality Offices. �J ECS Project No. 3153 November 12, 2003 • Above Ground /Underground Storage Tanks (ASTsIUSTs): a comprehensive list of all registered active and inactive underground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. i . Solid Waste Facilities (SWLF): Under Subtitle D of RCRA, the EPA establishes technical standards for the operation of solid waste management facilities (transfer stations and landfills). • No Further Remediation Action Planned Sites ( NFRAP): also known as the CERCLIS archive, contains information pertaining tol sites that have been removed from the CERCLIS database. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without need for the' site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough tb require Superfund action or NPL consideration. The Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) lists properties that are either undergoing or have completed voluntary remediation overseen by the VDEQ. • The VDEQ maintains a pollution response or PREP database to track surface spills of oil and hazardous substances. The listings identified as "unmapped sites" are not plotted due to inadequate address and geocoding information. ECS reviewed and field- checked the list of "unmapped sites" to verify their location and possible impact to the subject. 5.2 Regulatory Summary There are no regulatory listings that apply to the property under consideration. A review of the unmapped sites did not identify properties or facilities in the vicinity that might pose an environmental concern to the subject. A copy of the regulatory database report is included as Appendix II. LJ E IF b 1I ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 On -Site Features ELM 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Robert Greenlaw (ECS, Ltd.) conducted the field reconnaissance oI September 30 and October 7, 2003. Weather at these times was sunny and generally warm. The reconnaissance was performed to search for evidence of: hazardous waste /material, chemical and/or petroleum storage, leak or spill; stressed vegetation or soil discoloration; drinking water /environmental monitoring wells; environmental remediation activities; storage drums; industrial or commercial refuse; herbicide or pesticide containers;I farm waste; septic systems; above - ground storage tanks (ASTs); underground storage tanks (USTs); pipelines; asbestos containing material (ACM); industrial/manufacturing or similar environmentally sensitive operations or conditions; rail spurs; ruins; landfills or I illicit dumping; air emissions /waste water discharges; leachate or seeps; surface or ground I water contamination; and/or PCB - containing articles. Photographs of the site are included in Appendix N ( *Note: Due to technical difficulties the wrong dates are printed on the attached photographs. The following narrative describes the property: j The Marshall property comprises approximately 120 acres and is located between Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) and Abrams Creek. More specifically, the subject is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53 -A -91 and 63 -A- 2A. The site is presently zoned for agricultural and residential use. The site is bound to the north by Abrams Creek with the Winchester and Western Railroad line and a residential community "Meadow Branch" beyond; to the east by mixed residential and forested land; to the south by Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) with residential parcels beyond; and to the west by agricultural tracts. The subject is generally divided into five different areas of land use: wooded areas, pasture land, row cropping, .wetland areas, and an area which contains the site structures including barns, a trailer home, and sheds. Atop the western hills and their flanks is a largely wooded portion of the property. No stumps or signs of logging were obsery ed; however, wooded areas were noticeably less dense than neighboring forested land despite a lack in obvious differences in average tree age, species, or height. Reportedly several historic civil war gun positions were located in this area of the site. Near the eastern perimeter of this forested area is a large sinkhole. This feature is round with a steep slope leading to the top of the adjacent ridge along its western half. The eastern side of the sinkhole has a much more subdued slope where it ties into the lower portion of the overall hillside. The sinkhole bottom was heavily vegetated and appeared relatively stable. No signs of recent settlement or collapse were observed. The central portion of the site is utilized for pasture. The landscape here is composed of rolling hills with numerous scattered rock outcroppings. Some trees are present here but are few in number and generally are found near to the delineated wetlands boundary or in areas largely composed of near surface rock. Cattle were observed grazing here during our time I L I ECS Project No. 8153 —to— November 12, 2003 on -site. Electric fencing separates pasture .areas from the majority of the surrounding locations. Additionally the electric fencing separates individual fields so as to allow for management of the cattle. Both PVC and iron pipes were exposed at various points across these fields and are presumably a part of the irrigation system. An irrigation well was noted in the eastern central portion of the site. It was not determined whether or not the entire network of pipes is currently in use and/or interconnected. Row crops consisting of fruits, vegetables, and flowers were observed in the southeast and eastern central portions of the subject. Rows were rounded top linear mounds covered with plastic and/or weed fabric. No signs of excessive chemical use or hazardous materials storage were noted here. In the far north and northeastern portions of the property are wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. No noxious odors or petroleum sheens were observed. Overall these wetlands appeared healthy and largely undamaged. Just to the west/northwest of the row crops is an area which contains all of the noted site structures. Improvements to the subject include a historic bank barn a trailer home, two greenhouses, an abandoned tenant house, and several other wooden and metal bams and sheds. The bank barn had a rock foundation, wooden walls, and a standing seam metal roof. The lower story has an earthen floor and is used for storage. Lawn equipment, plant containers, jars of food, old 12 Volt batteries, and a variety of agricultural chemicals were observed here. A 2.5- gallon gasoline container was observed in the area of the lawn equipment. This container was closed and appeared to be stored properly. Chemicals appeared in relatively good order. No stained soil or noxious odors were detected. A semi - buried pile of eight to ten 12 -Volt batteries was present in the southeastern comer of this y level. Several of the batteries had been broken or were visually noted to have leaked onto the ® surrounding bare ground. The upper floor of the bank barn contains large commercial grade refrigerators and freezers for storage of produce grown at the site. Numerous baskets and boxes were stored on this level of the barn. Additionally the southwestern comer of this floor isl used as a machinery shop. Various tools, parts, and hardware were stored here. Some associated lubricants and solvents were found in this shop area as well. No leakage or environmentally hazardous practices or materials were observed. The upper level of the barn had large doors on tracks. These doors were open at the time of our reconnaissance. Portable air conditioning units were also observed inside the barn. Two greenhouses were located just south of the large bank barn. These buildings appear to be heated by liquid propane, which is stored outside of these structures in pressurized steel tanks. One of the greenhouses is notably smaller than the other. The smaller did not contain plants at the time of our reconnaissance. Several buckets were upside down on racks inside of this structure and chemical residue was observed on the floor. Numerous buckets and other containers were present outside of this building next to a garden hose. Several IJ n ECS Project No. 8153 — November 12, 2003 containers held water and a scrub brush was hanging off of one +of them. The larger greenhouse was open but had a sign which instructed not to enter) the structure due to chemical usage. Tomato plants filled this structure and chemical residues were noted on the floor and slight chemical odors were detected in close proximity to the building. No signs of distressed vegetation, stained soil, or chemical residue were noted surrounding the outside of these structures. To the west of these greenhouses were two barns which contained round hay bails. These barns had wooden frames with metal roofs and siding. Tattered plastic - enclosed fiberglass insulation was present within the barn ceilings. Three other storage structures were present to the north of the hay barns. The nearest of these is an elongated wooden structure with a metal roof. The eastern half of this building has an open front and contains scrap lumber and some trash cans. This structure was dilapidated and appeared structurally unsound. The western half of this structure had a sagging front wall made of wood siding. This area contained abundant quantities of old fruit boxes. This entire structure was observed to have ripped insulation hanging from the ceiling. The remaining two barn/shed structures are located next to one another, west of the trailer home and north of the elongated shed structure mentioned above. The easternmost is a three - sided wood frame bam with a dirt floor and metal roof and siding This building was observed to contain two tractors in addition to eleven metal drums of engine oil and hydraulic oil. Quantities within these drums vaned but most had a substantial volume within. Several of these drums were open, one of which had pooled oil atop its lid with a hand pump lain across it. Stained soil surrounded the largest collection of (these drums in the i northeastern corner of the shed. On the eastern end of this building was a small side rooni ■ which contained numerous buckets and small containers of petroleum products such as motor oil, grease, other lubricants, and gasoline. These containers were strewn about so widely that ECS was unable to view the condition of. the flooring and/or soils beneath. It was apparent that at least minor spillage /leakage had occurred from many of these containers. Due to its apparent structural instability this side room was not entered by ECS. The adjacent western structure is a wooden fully enclosed bam. This building was in poor condition but was entered by ECS. A mixture of old furniture, equipment, metal drums, refrigerators and freezers, and numerous types of chemicals including fertilizers and pesticides were stored here. No obvious signs of leakage from drums or chemical containers were noted in this area. r In addition to the large concentrations of drums mentioned in the previous paragraphs, there were numerous metal and plastic drums observed scattered around the barns and storage sheds. Most of these drums were either sealed or empty. Several were rusted and their former or current contents could not be identified. No stained soil, distressed vegetation, or apparent leakage was observed nor were noxious odors detected around these containers. Amidst the on site structures are two ASTs. One 500- gallon diesel fuel AST is located between the trailer home and the metal bam west of the trailer. This AST had a locked hand U I F F �J F r L U 11 11 U ECS Project No. 8153 —12— November 12, 2003 crank dispenser attached to it. The tank had some minor rust on its surface; however this did not compromise the integrity of the tank. No stained soils, distressed vegetation, or petroleum odors were noted surrounding this tank. Additionally, our research has found no leaks or spills to have been reported in connection with this AST. Tlie second larger AST was mounted onto a cart and was visibly rusty. Reportedly, this Itank has never held petroleum; rather it has been used for water storage and transportation exclusively. An open box truck containing various chemicals was noted in the vicinity of the diesel AST at the time of our visit. This vehicle held ammonia, and a variety of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. No leakage was apparent; however, odors were detected in the open air around the vehicle. Various pieces of equipment were observed surrounding the on -site structures, most notably including several sprayers, vehicles, and a small combine. The majority of this equipment appeared to have been out of use for some time and was overgrown (with vines and other vegetation. No signs of chemical or petroleum leakage were noted nor was there apparent distress to surrounding grounds or vegetation. A small two -story house is located to the northwest of, and is found sitting apart from, the remainder of the on -site structures. This house appears to have formerly been used as a tenant house but is now in poor condition and has since been abandoned. This home has a kitchen and bedroom downstairs containing some broken furniture, appliances, mattresses, and books. The upstairs loft was not accessed due to the decrepit condition of the staircase. A metal drum labeled "Glyodin solution" and a wooden trunk could be seen through a hole in the metal roof from the ground. Glyodin is a common fungicide. A trailer home is present to the northeast of other buildings on -site. Reportedly this trailer was put at this location sometime in the early 1970's after the original home at this location burned down. ECS was not able to access the interior of this structure. This home is serviced by oil heat, well and septic systems, as well as liquid propane for kitchen appliances. The septic system drains north of the trailer towards Abrams Creek and the drinking water well is located to the south between the trailer and the large bank bain. Reportedly there have been no problems with drinking water quality from this well. The heating oil tank is located on the east side of the trailer and was covered with honeysuckle at the time of our visit. No evidence of stained soil or distressed vegetation was noted surrounding this tank. An open cistern is present just east of the trailer. This opening is approximately 2.5 feet in diameter and is surrounded by a concrete apron. This cistern has been abandoned and has been partially filled with rocks and other debris. Access to the site is gained via a dirt road off of the north side of Cedar Creek Grade. This dirt roadway runs along the eastern property border before turning and extending west towards the trailer home. This path loops around in between many of the sheds and barns before connecting back to the dirt pathway. Adjacent to the pathway loop through the barn area was a large pile of manure. According to Mr. Marshall this pile of material was I ECS Project No. 8153 — 13— November 12, 2003 composed of degrading poultry- liter -based cattle feed. Two chicken douses were formerly located in the near vicinity of this pile. Along the eastern border of the site is a utility easement. Overhead electric lines and a gas pipeline run adjacent to the roadway extending across Abrams Creek. Overhead electric lines also transect the central portion of the property in a roughly east/west direction. Several transformers were observed in association with these electric lines. No PCB labeling was observed on these transformers, however, they appeared to be in good condition and no leakage, distressed vegetation, or stained soil was observed. No other remarkable or unusual features or uses of the site were apparent. Based on our observations, the following conditions or materials were not observed on -site: • USTs, vent lines, fill ports or similar surface projections of buried tanks; • hazwaste transportation, storage or disposal; • cemeteries or grave sites; • distressed vegetation; • chemical stains on soil; • ground water or surface water contamination; • oil or chemical pipelines and related bulk storage facilities; • surface impoundments or holding ponds for liquid waste; • monitoring wells, injection wells or remediation systems; • asbestos waste; • incinerators, recycling or waste treatment processes; • junk or scrap yards; • industrial or manufacturing activities; • motor vehicle repairs or maintenance operations; • air emissions, leachate, seeps, or waste -water discharge requiring special permitting or consideration; • livestock burial areas; • pesticide or herbicide misuse or over application, • oil/natural gas or mineral exploration and mining; • evidence of discharges, leachate migration, or run -off of potential contaminants from an off -site source onto the subject; or, • high voltage power lines or electrical transmission towers where electromagnetic fields might pose a concern. i 6.2 Nearby Properties A reconnaissance was made of contiguous and nearby properties by viewing from public streets or accessible vantages without trespass. Based on regional topography, it appears that only limited areas to the southwest and northeast of the site extending a maximum of a tenth mile exhibit drainage patterns which flow across or onto the subject. The majority of upland 1 areas of the subject do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Overall, the subject is gently sloped from southwest to northeast, and exhibits drainage patterns which I ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 U l�J F U F r rZ U U 0 0 11 0 t MEM i eventually tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. Unless otherwise noted, no opportunistic dumping, drums, ASTs, USTs, monitoring wells, remediation systems or other environmentally suspicious conditions or activities were observed on adjacent properties. The site is located within a setting composed of a mixture of far properties. Farms containing associated houses and barns border tl south. Homes on these largely agricultural tracts are reported to systems. No evidence of leachate or effluent seepage was obsery properties. It was revealed in a previous ESA that a diesel fuel AST are present on the neighboring White Property, east of the site. ECS c any releases or spills in association with these tanks. Newer homes, tc residential developments to the east of the site and to the north across are currently converting what was previously farm land into mostly r these locations. No visible signs of hazardous materials, F environmentally harmful substances were witnessed in these areas o sites do not appear to have an adverse effect on the environmental inte, and, and residential site to the west and ave well and septic coming from these id a heating oil AST not find evidence of a homes, and current brams Creek have or Jential properties in roleum storage, or levelopment. These ty of the subject. In summary, our review of abutting and nearby properties did not I identify evidence of recognized or suspect environmental conditions, operations or activities that would be expected to have a detrimental impact on the subject. 11 ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 sw 7.1 U u ■J U !� 1 rz [1 11 1 Title Information -15- 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Chain -of -title information was obtained from a limited review of land Clerks Office of Frederick County. The subject is composed of two s larger parcel (Tax Map #53 -A -91) contains approximately 112 acres. (Tax Map #63 -A -2A) is roughly 7 acres and makes up the southern pan site. The following narrative describing the chain -of -title was deve records reviewed: ;ords at the Circuit arate parcels. The The second parcel indle portion of the )ed from the deed Records of ownership for the land currently within the bounds of Tax Map Parcel #53 -A -91 were traced back to 1929, at which time the subject was purchased from Harry W. Butler and his wife by F.J. Marshall and Ann Marshall, his wife. In April of 1948 Mr. and Mrs. Marshall deeded the property to their two sons Francis J. Marshall, Jr. and Clyde Lee Marshall. No changes in ownership took place until the death of Francis J. Marshall, Jr. in January of 1995, at which point his one -half interest was conveyed to his son Kenneth F. Marshall. On February 2, 1995, both Kenneth and Clyde Marshall's equal shares of the property were consolidated to form Pembroke Cove Properties, LLC. I The entire 112 -acre parcel of land is currently under the ownership of Pembroke Cove Properties, LLC. Legal documents pertaining to the ownership of the second parcel (Tax Map Parcel 63 -A- 2A) were viewed dating back as far as 1935. In July of 1935 the referenced property with additional acreage was purchased by Stewart Bell from within his own family. Mr. Bell held the property until his death in 1948, at which time the parcel was willed to Lanier Gray. Lanier Gray, et. ux., sold the 147.8 -acre parcel, which included the roughly 7 -acre parcel in question, to Carroll E. Campbell and his wife, Rosemary B. Campbell, by deed dated June 4, 1958. Carroll Campbell died on October 18 of that same year and Rosemary Campbell retained the property through the expressed right to survivorship in their deed. Rosemary was remarried years later to John H. Eadie. In November of 1981 John land Rosemary Eadie sold the property to Kenneth Marshall and his wife, Mary Marshall. Following their separation in 1997 Kenneth Marshall took over sole ownership of the property. Based on our limited review of land records, no environmental liens or encumbrances against the property were noted. Our deed research should not, however, be construed as accurate for the purposes of establishing clear title to the property. 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review Due to the rural history of the site and its surroundings, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are not available for the property. C ECS Project No. 8153 —16— Novernber 12, 2003 7.3 Aerial Photograph Review Aerial photographs dated June 8, 1950 and March 23, 1976 were reviewed at the USDA - NRCS office in Stephens City, VA. U.S. Route 37, presently located approximately a half mile west of the site, was not present in 1950. An orchard is visible in the southwest and western portions of the site. Reportedly a portion of the site was used for growing apples up until around 1960. A smaller orchard can be seen on the adjacent White property. The large sinkhole located in the western central portion of the site was visible. Also, the former manor home, which reportedly burned down around 1970, could be seen in place of the current trailer home. All of the other barns and sheds in addition to the Iformer wooden shed west of the hay barns appeared to be present. Surrounding property was much less developed than it is currently. Orchards were observed on several of the surrounding properties. No signs indicating that the property was under environmental stress were observed. I By 1976, vegetation had become much denser on the, neighboring White property and in western portions of the subject. Orchards were not apparent on -site at this time. U.S. Route 37 was noted to have been under construction. The manor house was replaced by the trailer home. Residential development had increased in the area. Many of the nearby orchards had been taken out of production and were becoming overgrown. The house and barns on the White property appeared unchanged from the 1950 photograph. No signs of distressed r vegetation, chemical and/or petroleum storage were observed within these photographs. A March 24, 1997 USGS aerial photograph, obtained online and include d within Appendix I as Figure 2, revealed the site and its surroundings to be very similar to their current state. There are several additional homes present on the White property and residential development has expanded onto adjacent property. In conclusion, no environmental concerns regarding the subject or its surroundings were noted during aerial photographic research. 7.4 Citv Directory Review Due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the site, city directories were not reviewed as part of our investigation. 7.5 Local Sources ECS spoke with Mr. Kenneth Marshall, owner of the subject, during our reconnaissance. Mr. Marshall appeared quite knowledgeable of the site and local history. He recalled that his grandfather purchased the property around 1930 and it has remained in agriculture use since that time. Mr. Marshall had no recollection of leaks from the ASTs onsite. Further, he was not aware of any USTs being present. When asked about the large collection of metal drums, he explained that the shed containing opened drums and stained soil was often used as a work t area for vehicles and equipment. He stated that many of these drums contained waste oil and D ECS Project No. 8153 -17- November 12, 2003 other fluids. Mr. Marshall recalls that there was an orchard on the pro perty until the early 1960's. He stated there were no chemical mixing sites related to the former orchard. He also explained that the former manor home was a pre -Civil War structure that burned in 1968. The trailer was put up sometime in the early 1970's. The large bank bam reportedly is also a pre -Civil War structure. On October 13 and 21, 2003 ECS spoke with Alexander White at the neighboring White farm. Mr. White has lived on the farm for approximately 45 yearn. Currently he runs Elemaitch, Inc., an investment/fann management company that oversees the farm. Mr. White stated that all of the fuel storage on the White farm is kept in aboveground tanks and that no releases or .leaks had occurred. Mr. White stated that he has never known Mr. Marshall to participate in environmentally damaging practices. He was unaware of any dumping at the Marshall property. Kelly Robinson, a local resident for over 45 years confirmed that the Marshall property has always been used for raising beef cattle and row cropping. He was not aware of UST's on the Marshall property and did not recall environmentally suspect practices. During our visit to the Environmental Health Department we spoke with Mr. Steven Lee. Mr. Lee has been with the Health Department since 1971. Since that time he has been involved with well and septic permitting, etc. and has had direct knowledge of many of the local farms. Mr. Lee stated that he was unaware of any UST'i or other potential environmental concerns at the subject. 7.6 FOIA Requests Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were made in person to the following County and State agencies for information concerning environmental incidents on or near the subject. C Frederick County Environmental Health Department • Frederick County Fire & Rescue Services A letter dated September 23, 2003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire Marshall stated "Our records do not indicate any underground storage tanks or hazardous materials incidents for this property." The Health Department provided records of construction pen for a potable well and irrigation well onsite. There were no reports or records of widespread or localized ground water contamination due to agricultural or industrial sources on or near the site. U 1 L' ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 M-M i 8.0 OTHER SERVICES ASTM guidelines identify non -scope issues that are beyond the scope of this practice. Some of these non -scope issues include; asbestos - containing material (ACM) inspection, radon survey, lead -based paint testing, lead in drinking water testing, soil and ground water sampling and testing and regulatory compliance audits. None of these non -scope issues were requested, proposed, or included in our scope of work. F 11 P F u l�J 1 F' ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 1 i i i i i l 1 d t ;' —19— 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ECS, Ltd. has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 -00. This assessment was performed on an approximately 120 -acre tract of agricultural land located north of Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) in Frederick County, Virginia. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed the following environmental concerns: • Full, opened, spilled, and/or leakin g to contain petroleum products are sc removed from the site and thei development. drums: numerous drums, most of which appear altered about the site. These, containers should be r contents be properly disposed of prior to • Stained soil: Stained soil surrounds several of the aforementioned drums. Contaminated soil should be excavated and removed from the site in an environmentally proper manner. • Storage of chemicals: Agricultural chemicals should be stored according to manufacturer's recommendations or be removed from the site and properly disposed of, as necessary. • Potential Asbestos Containing Material: Given the age of the on-site structures an asbestos survey should be performed prior to demolition of these buildings. In closing, we emphasize that these conditions are not expected to impact on the functionai quality or proposed development of the property. However, planners should consider these issues as the project progresses further. F 9 ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 SZ1E 10.0 REFERENCES ASTM, 2000. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. ASTM E 1527 -00. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. USGS, 1983. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map. Winchester, USGS, 1994 Sinkholes and Karst- Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia" (Map #MF -2262) I r APPENDIX I FIGURES I I I i r� r 1 r r 9 F 1 APPENDIX 11 REGULATORY RECORDS H p p IP u p F p 11 I u I 1 b 1 E u i i 1 1 i EnviroData Information Search Results Summary Sheet Customer: ECS, Ltd., Report Date: 09'09/03 Subject Property: 245 Acre Parcel Reoon No. E101038 Address: Merrimans Lane Standard: ASTM Phase I Winchester, VA 22602 Federal Databases Searched Glossary: ASTM: American Society of Testing and Materials Database ---------------- File Date ---- Agency ----------------------------------------------- ------- -- --- Search Radius --- --- --------- --`--- Mapped - - --- - -- Unmapped --- ----- Total NPL 07/01/03 US EPA 1.25 Mile 0 0 - - - -- -- 0 Registered Incidents of Leaks or Releases from Above or Superfund Sites i PC Notice: Pollution Complaints registered with the state reflecting releases CERCLIS 07/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 CERCLIS NFRAP 07/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 1 1 RCRIS TSD 09/30/02 US EPA 125 Mile 0 0 0 RCRA TSD Facilities i RCRIS 09/30/02 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 _ _ RCRA Generators/Transponers ERNS 08 /01/03 US EPA 0.75 Milc 0 0 0 Emergency Response Notification System Sub Total Federal Records i 0 3 _ State Databases Searched Database File Date Agency ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Search Radius - - - - -- Mapped -- - - - - -- Unmarred -- -- - - -- Total - - - - - -- SOLID WASTE 12/10/02 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Solid Waste Sites I UST 05/01/03 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 12 12 Underground Storage Tanks LUST SITES 06/01/03 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 6 6 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks i VRP 02/21/01 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1.25 Mile 0 0 0 Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program PREP NOTICES 03/23/00 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Pollution Complaints Sub Total State Records 0 18 18 Limitations: The scope of this report is defined by the ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process El 527. The Client proceeds at its own nsk in relying on the use of Government data in whole or in part for any transaction. EnviroData assumes no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of Government information; information provided by others: or for errors resulting from data conversion or enhancement. EnviroDara's obligation regarding such data products is solely limited to providing portions of existing Government data as of the date of each update received. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. EnvincEsta products are intended for the specified use of the Client and shall not be used for other purposes. EnviroData has relied upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Client on the Order Form. By signing the Order Form, the Client assumes responsibility for pavment of any and all fees associated with the preparation and delivery of the products and services requested. I Glossary: ASTM: American Society of Testing and Materials CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System NPL: National Priorities List LUSTILAST: Registered Incidents of Leaks or Releases from Above or Underground Storage Tanks PC Notice: Pollution Complaints registered with the state reflecting releases of hazardous material to the ground or water RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Generators and TSD (treatment, storage, and disposal) Facilities VRP. Volumary Remediation Program Unmappable: A site which cannot be geocoded (i.e., located by longitude and latitude) because of inadequate government address information. Limitations: The scope of this report is defined by the ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process El 527. The Client proceeds at its own nsk in relying on the use of Government data in whole or in part for any transaction. EnviroData assumes no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of Government information; information provided by others: or for errors resulting from data conversion or enhancement. EnviroDara's obligation regarding such data products is solely limited to providing portions of existing Government data as of the date of each update received. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. EnvincEsta products are intended for the specified use of the Client and shall not be used for other purposes. EnviroData has relied upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Client on the Order Form. By signing the Order Form, the Client assumes responsibility for pavment of any and all fees associated with the preparation and delivery of the products and services requested. I ® ® ® ■■Ir air w■r �r �r � � � s� � 11■r � � � E nv i r oD ataSubject EDI File No: E101038C 1.25 Mile Search RadiuS Site: 245 Acre Parcel September 9,2003 Legend Subject Site norR, No Facilities Rail Features Prim�arryry Roads Rail Features /'gyp / V Secondary Roads P p EPRY / V / V' Other Trails Pipelines - Water Features Miscellaneous "L�&_ I EnviroData, Inc. kn �tecord.of LIJST/I�AST Incidents Unmappe_d Sites - Report Date: 09 /09./03 Report No. E101038 Page No. LZ - 1 i 1 i 1 LUST, LAST. AST, and UST incidents indicate leaks or suspected leaks of above or below ground storage tanks which have been repotted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality I - Complaint #/ Date Zip Code Description Recorded Waterbody Responsible Pam 93 -2177 04130193 Not Specified Olin Hatt RELEASE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES /SOLVENTS/PCB CONTAMIN release of industrial wastes /solventsiPCB contaminate from AS at Olin Hatt property STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 96 -1081 / / Not Specified Not Specified VDOT- GAIN SITE LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 2- 015846 98 -5096 / / Not Specified Not Specified L. J. WRIG OIL CO. LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: _ 98 -5116 Not Specified Not Specified H.C GA BLER, INC LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 96 -4828 7 / Not Specified Not Specified FREDERICK COUNTY BUS SHOP RT. 2, BOX 6 LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id:i 22601 01-6069 10/06/00 Not Specified NotSpecified FORMER ARA/SMITH RTE 6 BOX ]OB STATUS: C LOSED Facili [d i 1 i 1 LUST, LAST. AST, and UST incidents indicate leaks or suspected leaks of above or below ground storage tanks which have been repotted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality I Gnvirol ata, Inc. m me �'aG111t1eS L Report Date 09 109/03 Roport No. L101038 tailed Tank Information) p age No. Uz - I Facility Id. Facility Location Tank Id. Status Product Listed Year Capacity Installed Material 6- 000211 SHENANDOAH PLANT # I CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL, 20000 01/23/55 Steel P.O. BOX 2040 - - -- -- Age: 49 REMOVED FROM DIESEL WINCHESTER VA 22601 Steel Age: # 3 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 10000 Unknown Steel Steel RT. 6; BOX 113 Age: 37 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel # 2 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 550 04/22/66 Steel Age: 49 6 -000802 ARA /SMITHS (WINCHESTER) # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 10000 Unknown Steel ROUTE 6; BOX IOB - Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 001293 WINCHESTER BUILDING SUPPLY # RI REMOVED FROM HEATING OIL 10000 03708/79 Cathodic Protected RT. 6; BOX 152AA Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 003867 SHOCKEY BROTHERS INC # Rl REMOVED FROM DIESEL 15000 10/02/73 Steel P.O. BOX 2530 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6- 006183 PAYNE WELL DRILLING INC # RI REMOVED FROM DIESEL 1000 04/23/70 Steel RT. 8; BOX 668 Ag WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 500 04/23/70 Steel Age: n- UIU32�9 ALBAN I RAC I UR COMPANY, INC # RI REMOVEDFROM DIESEL 50005/02/74 Steel Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 - - -- -- # R2 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: 6- 015350 W W CARLISLE ESTATE # I CLOSED IN GASOLINE 1000 04/22/66 Steel RT. 6; BOX 113 Age: 37 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 550 04/22/66 Steel Age: 37 r: s Gnviro ata, Inc. Facility Id. Facility Location Tank Id. Status g aCjll]�IQS ? 'C x a T�;` Report Date: 09 /09/03 ReportNo. E101038 tailed TankrInformation) t. Page No. UZ - 2 Listed Year Product Capacity Installed Material 0- 1)100�s UREENWOOD VOLUNTEER FIRE& P.O. BOX 3023 WINCHESTE VA 22601 # R 6- 018727 FRANKLIN MADIGAN # I RT. 5; BOX 339 WINCHESTER VA 226 6- 020517 FAMILY MARKET # I HC -2; BOX 170 - -- teel teel Steel WINCHESTER VA 22601 Age: # 2 6- 024180 CITY YARD # I WI VA 22601 6- 024324 ROYAL CROWN COLA # RI BOX 2300 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 550 05/08/76 Steel Age: CLOSED IN GASOLINE . - 0 -- teel teel Steel Age: CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 8000 05/07/81 Steel Age: 22 CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 4000 05/07/81 Steel - Age: 22 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 1000 04/01/91 Steel Age: 12 REMOVED FROM GASOHOL 5000 01/01/76 - Steel Age: REMOVED FROM GASOHOL 5000 01/01/76 Steel Age: REMOVED FROM DIESEL 4000 01/01/80- Steel Age: # RI # R4 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: # R5 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 2000 01/01/80 Steel Age: ■ EnviroData, Inc. Zip Code EPA ID 9 22601 VAD070360219 u 1 1 C L n L U I 1 CERIC LIS No Further,Ac id"n' , NFRAP)! Report Date: 09/09/03 ([3nmappedSttes) 't ° M ya Report No. E101038 § Page No. CZA - I Site Information: Name and Address Event and Description WINCHESTER LAMP PLANT GEN ELEC Id Number: 0304171 RT 3 BOX 310 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Assessment Activity I Completed Scheduled DS -- DISCOVERY ! 09/17/90 i I 1 i � � Report Date: 09/09/03 Report No. E101038 Page No. RZ - I envmottata Generator Codes: A - Large Quantity Genm itor I7 - Verified non- generator — Sme Regw..'ad 13- Small Quantily Gancialor F- Transposer of llazu'dous �l:ucri;J C - Conditionally lixcmpl Small Quantity Generator Violations Codes: I naukmpt _ - Gcucralnr 3 l'muspnr1, -I -TSD Non ... k,alcl S -'FSD C Io,,,wPom C'lonure G -'I SD FinanciN Rnpiir.mmnts 7- Gcncnuor. I. and R,,, inuo 8- l'SD Land RL mt win, `I- Cm,C,0cc Aclinn Cumpllaucc IIl- TSD0II, RC,J,m, mcuu I I - pw mat F,n f<. ra:mcn; A"cwuuu Envir '� ta, Ina .: u RCR1&Fid1i<tW§ (non:TSD) (Unmapped; Sites) Gen. Trans - Map Ref. # EPA ID Class porter Name /Address RCRA Outstanding Violations Codes VAD000762310 D SUNOCO SERVICE STATION RD 6 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action VAD988223897 B GRAND AUTO RT 7 BOX 118 - WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action i � � Report Date: 09/09/03 Report No. E101038 Page No. RZ - I envmottata Generator Codes: A - Large Quantity Genm itor I7 - Verified non- generator — Sme Regw..'ad 13- Small Quantily Gancialor F- Transposer of llazu'dous �l:ucri;J C - Conditionally lixcmpl Small Quantity Generator Violations Codes: I naukmpt _ - Gcucralnr 3 l'muspnr1, -I -TSD Non ... k,alcl S -'FSD C Io,,,wPom C'lonure G -'I SD FinanciN Rnpiir.mmnts 7- Gcncnuor. I. and R,,, inuo 8- l'SD Land RL mt win, `I- Cm,C,0cc Aclinn Cumpllaucc IIl- TSD0II, RC,J,m, mcuu I I - pw mat F,n f<. ra:mcn; A"cwuuu I EnviroData, Inc. Virginia Database Sources Database Description -?'rr NPL The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sitesidentified for priority remedial action under the Superfund program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site, or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the EPA in order to become an NPL site. For specific questions concerning and NPL site, go to the EPA web page at at www.epa.gov. RCRA -TSD The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a com- pilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities, which treat, store, and /or dispose of hazardous waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRIS -TSD site, go to the EPA web page at www,epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal faciliti Is and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. , CERCLIS The CERCLIS List is a compilation by the EPA of the sites, which the agency has in is or currently investigating of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ( Superfund Act). For specific questions concerning a CERCLIS site, go to the EPA web page at wwwlepa.gov LUST The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of leaking underground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a LUST incident, go to the Virginia) DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. SWLF i The Virginia of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of the solid waste facilities in the state. For specific questions concerning a sold waste site, go to the Virginia DEQ .ndzn UST web page at www.deq.state.va.us. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of registered under- - ground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a UST facility, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. ERNS The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to collect infor- mation on reported release of oil and hazardous substances. The database contains information from spill or reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. For specific questions conceming an ERNS incident, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. RCRA - The EPA's Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program identifies and tracks hazardous non TSD waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities, which generate less than 1000 kg /month of non - acutely hazardous waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRA -Non TSO facility, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. PREP The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a database used to collect and track information on reported surface releases of oil and hazardous substances. For specific questions concerning a PREP incident, go to the DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. i U r APPENDIX III STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS lJ 1 l�l g C '1 i ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. 1.0 CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was incorporated in 987 to meet the growing needs of our clients as a multi - service engineering firm. The managing principals of ECS, Ltd. average over 20 years of experience in their respective fields. Our staff of over 425 people includes registered professional engineers, environmental geologists, hydrogeologists, certified engineering technicians and support personnel. ECS, Ltd. places great emphasis on the individual qualifications and experience of its technical staff. Our geotechnical and lenvironmental engineers hold Masters or Doctorate degrees in engineering and are well - versed in the subsurface conditions typically found in the Mid - Atlantic region. Our senior environmental personnel have performed a variety of environmentally - related services for major corporations on projects in over 20 states and four countries. ECS, Ltd. engineering technicians are certified by such recognized organizations as the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories (WACEL), the American Welding Society (AWS), and the Roofing Industry Educational Institute (RIEI). In addition, we have developed and implemented our own in- house training, certification I and QA /QC programs. ECS, Ltd. emphasizes quality and responsive service to our clients in solving problems and providing innovative engineering and scientific analysis. With our corporate office in Chantilly, Virginia,` we maintain branch offices in Baltimore, Maryland, Richmond, Fredericksburg and Norfolk, Virginia, Charlotte, Research Triangle Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, Greenville /Spartanburg, South Carolina, Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas. We focus our activities on the specific concerns of the Mid - Atlantic development area. By combining the talents from all four offices, we can offer highly qualified personnel to staff each of our projects. Our multi -phase services structure -- including geotechnical engineering, construction materials testing and inspection, and environmental services and engineering -- results in better long -term understanding of individual projects and clients, and allows us to respond quickly to potentially critical situations. ECS, Ltd. t has applied this approach on many of the larger projects in this region, including work for such firms as Trammell Crow Company, Prentiss Properties, Homart Development Company, The Oliver Carr Company, and Friendswood Development. e11 F ECS, Ltd. is certified be the Washington Area Council oti Laboratories (WACEL), and the C °ment ant C o nc 1 Laboratory (CCRL), in the area cf Consiruction i C F u F F F a F F i 2.0 FIELDS OF COMPETENCE ts: i "hr ugh the close working relationship of its operatior and specialized sub - contractors, ECS, Ltd. has the tot evaluate a given site or operation and to develop the approach to environmental site assessments, site contam ground water and soil remediation, permitting, environmental control systems. Our primary focus i continually develop practical and cost - effective solutions responsive manner to changing environmental problems. r r 1 IP i i 1 One of the major reasons for our past success in t consulting marketplace has been our ability to "custon specific services from different disciplines to individual needs. Also of importance to our clients is our I environmental regulatory agencies and our record of with them in our clients' interest. The environmental from ECS, Ltd. include: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: • Real estate transactions/ environmental site assessn II, and III) _ • Environmental impact studies and risk assessments • Wetland delineation and mitigation investigations • Radon investigations • Environmental facility audits and assessments • Third -party reviews ASBESTOS ASSESSMENTS: • Asbestos survevs. • Sample collection and analysis • Preparation of plans and specifications UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT: • Monitoring of tank removals • Site investigations and assessments • Contaminant plume evaluations • Long- and short -term environmental site monitoring • Development of corrective actions plans (CAP's) • Regulatory permitting • Ground water recovery system design tl departments .1 capability to most practical nation studies, id design of has been to n a timely and environmental ' and combine nt and project wledge of the ccess working iices available is (Phases I, r i HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES: Development and implementation of ?round evaluation plans • Design and implementation of ground -, eater i including drilling and well installation • Ground water modeling • Aquifer testing (pumping tests slug tests and bail- , 10 %V!, .est5 • Contaminant plume investigations • Electromagnetic and resistivity surveys • Design of ground water recover, and treatment syste .:s • Seismic refraction and -round- radar sr.dics i ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING: • Design and implementation of site remediation measulres • Preparation of closure plans and other hazardous faciiir. • Design of new landfill and lagoon facilities • Design of pumping and treatment systems for contariinau i water • Design of water /waste water treatment systems • Permitting and regulator- negotiation I n H 1 1 I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES I Within the environmental field, ECS, Ltd. has concentrated on providing sen-ices to the regional development and financial community, including commercial, residential, institutional and industrial clients and lenders. By concentrating on this service sector, we are able to better understand the requirements of each group and provide services more specifically tailored to individual needs. For most commercial, residential and institutional developers, the most common services performed, to date, have been Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. In this area, our work includes a thorough evaluation of the physical conditions of the property using visual overviews supported by aerial photographs, an historical search of appropriate information for past historic and regulated uses, and interviews with current or previous tenants to I previous site activities. Depending upon the (results of the Phase I investigation, follow -up Phase II studies, if necessary, are provided and structured as site - specific conditions dictate and can include soil -test borings, monitoring well installations land chemical analvses of soil, ground water and surface water. IP ECS, Ltd. also provides hydrogeological and geophysical jinvestigations for the municipal, commercial, industrial, development, land financial sectors. These investigations can be sub - divided into two fields: ground water resources studies, and contaminant/ delineation ground water monitoring investigations. Ground water resource 'investigations primarily concentrate on developing and /or protecting our valuable ground water resources. These types of investigations are commonly requested by municipalities, industries, and developers in need of water for potable, irrigation, or industrial use, particularly in those areas where commercial water supplies are either unavailable, difficult to attain, or economically unfeasible. Existing published data, other consultant reports, and pertinent scientific literature are reviewed and are supplemented by a full -scale field investigation consisting of geological and /or geophysical surveys. The synthesized information is then used to more cost - effectively site future water supply wells and /or enhance old established well fields. Contaminant delineation and ground water monitoring investigations primarily concentrate on determining the magnitude and extent of ground water and soil contamination. Test borings are drilled, ground water monitoring wells are installed, and the subsurface soils and ground water are sampled and chemically analyzed to determine the ® f 5 types and concentrations of the various contaminants) _hat are potentially present. The number of borings and monitoring - ,velis s dependent on the estimated extent and nature of the contaminants -_ 1 question. Through hydraulic testing and measurements. the direcr.on and rate of ground water flow, and hence, contaminant migration and dispersion, can be calculated. Geophysical techniques are often used r_o supplement the environmental sampling and analvses as a means of more effectively locating a contaminant plume. StIcn n. of hydrogeological investigations are necessary for determinirig the potemie.. impacts from leaking underground storage tanks (UST's)!, old and landfills, surface impoundments, hazardous spills of hazardous chemical materials and wastes, etc. Finally, ECS, Ltd. can comprehensively assess industrial processes - _c determine wastewater flows and loads, develop permitting Vi and treatment strategies, perform treatabilin studies and design waste �: ate reatm_en systems. 3.2 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS 11 AOKI Corporation Birtcher- Butcher Partnership Boston Properties Buvermo Properties Caffein Development Carey Winston Companv Cambridge Companies Centennial Development CenterMark Properties Citistate, Inc. CSX Realty Cushman and Wakefield Danac Corporation Development Resources, Inc. Dome Real Estate The Donohoe Company The Evans Company Evergreen Development Federal Real Estate Investment Trust Friendswood Development Gilbane Properties Greenbaum & Rose Homestead Village 1 &B Enterprises The 1BG Companies KLNB Management Service=_ Lincoln Propertv Company The Henry A. Long Companv Manckin Corporation The Staniev Martin Comrrunics Mason Hirst Companies Metropolitan Part nership. Ltd. Mobil Land Development National Dev. Mid- Atlantic Office Space Management. loc- Osprey Investment Compamj Pence- Freidel Development Prentiss Properties. Ltd. Prudential Realtv Group The Radnor Corporation Reston Town Center Associate= -. Inc. The Michael T. Rose Comeanies B.F. Saul Company Savage- Fogarty Realty I Sequoia Building Corporation The Shapiro Companies Simpson Development Company The Staubach Company The Svatos Companv The Taubman Compav Trammell Crow Companv Tuner Harwood Ventures Union Pacific Realtv Corporation William H. Dolben & Son. inc. Winchester Commercial The world Bank IP I �J Banks and Financial Institutions 6- L F 1 E r E F 1 wr r lJ lam' :American Security Banff: :Amresco Institutional. Inc. Crestar Bank Eastern .American Bank Equitable Real Estate finesrment �%Iemt Financial Conservators. Inc. First Union Bank Bank of America Perpetual Bank Potomac Capital Investment Corporation Principal Capital Management, LLC Riggs National Bank Resolution Trust Corporation Security Trust Company, N:A. 3.3 SPECIFICATIONS AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS Resumes of key personnel are attached. -7- 11 GARNETT B. WILLIAMS, C.P.G. Senior Environmental Geologist 0 O i I EDUCATION B.S., Geology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 198 I CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40 Hours, 29 CFR 1910.120(e)(2) OSHA Hazardous Materials and Incident Commander (16 hours) BOCA CPCCI IA Exam - National Certification Program for Construction Cone Inspectors I Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth Universit} - Manl Ling - 'sbcstos in Buildings Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth Universitc - Inspecting 3uiidings for Asbestos - Containing Material p CONTINUING EDUCATION I National Water Well Association (NWWA)- Theory & Practice Of Ground Dater -Monitoring & Sampling NWWA - Treatment Technology For Contaminated Ground Water NWWA- Environmental Site Assessments Virginia Association Of Professional Soil Scientists (VAPSS)- Nontidal Wetlands Field Study Government Institutes - Wetlands & Real Estate Development National Wetlands Training Institute -Plant Identification Best Management Practices And Wetlands Cook College, Understanding Soil Conditions of Wetlands NGWA, Principles of Ground Water Hydrology. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE /NWWA). t 1989 to Present: Project Environmental Geologist, Engineering Consulting Sen•ices. Ltd., Chantilly, Virginia. Responsible for coordination and preparation of Phase 1 /Phase II environmental site assessments; facility audits; geotechnical engineering reports; environmental site characterization studies; coordination and implementation of corrective action plans and contaminant remediation efforts; wetlands delineation -I- i studies and associated environmental permitting. Duties also include surveying with conventional transit /EDM and GPS instrumentation. 1985 to 1989: Engineering Geologist, Bengston, DeBell, Elkin and Titus, Inc., Centreville, Virginia. Assistant to the Geotechnical Engineering Group. Duties included: preparation of preliminary and final geotechnical reports; coordination of subsurface drilling and seismic refraction surveys; sanitary drainfield evaluations and infiltration testing; and, Virginia Uniform Building Code (structural and wood framing) inspections for commercial and residential structures under Fairfax County BOCA contract. 1983 to 1985: Exploration Geologist, North American Exploration, Inc., Kaysville, Utah. Responsible for collecting and logging rock and stream sediment samples for targeted anomalous areas in precious and base metals exploration. Performed preliminary field investigations of above areas by various geophysical methods using proton precession magnetometer, gravitometer, reflection seismography, and rock outcrop mapping techniques. Representative sampling of recent key assignments and experience: • Phase . 1 and Phase II environmental site assessments (ESAs), environmental safety and liability audits of tenant operations and building facilities fort an assortment of commercial /industrial /residential properties involving confidential financial institutions. These studies have included acquisition and foreclosuIre of properties in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Connecticut. Properties included warehouses, strip retail facilities, commercial offices, railvards, industrial facilities and undeveloped tracts. • Site characterization, monitoring and remediation of fuel /solvent spills for a prominent railroad company. Sites included railyard fueling/ maintenance facilities in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Projects involved: Phase I historical evaluation of events to define areas of potential contamination; installation of monitoring and recovery wells; I installation and operation of remediation systems (free product and dissolved phase); and, development of groundwater sampling and monitoring programs. • Engineering and environmental support of omnibus contract to US Army for design, testing and evaluation of a prototypical small arms range facility to reduce lead contamination to surrounding environment. Designed and provided oversight of range construction. Prepared and executed a sampling plan to evaluate the effectiveness of soil fixation technologies in reducing lead leachate from impact berm and migration of lead via surface waters. 1 Sampling, analysis and geochemical modeling of lead in soil at a private shooting range. Data was used to complete a risk characterization to develop cleanup costs for a proposed single family subdivision. • Wetland delineations, functional assessments and permitting of commercial properties in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. • Phase I environmental services at a renovated tobacco warehouse project. Work included lead -based paint survey, PCB analysis of transformers, asbestos inspection, UST site characterization and a tenant and mechanical facilities audit. 2 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Northern Virginia Field Office 18139 Triangle Plaza, Suite 213 Dumfries, VA 22026 &iect Number: 04 -R2242 Waterway: Abrams Creek September 27, 2004 ' 1. Participant: Greenway Engineering Attn: Mr. Evan Wyatt 151 Windy Hill Lane ® Winchester, VA 22602 3. Project Location: 2. Authorized Agent: Engineering Consulting Services Ltd. Attn: Mr. John Magistro 166 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 he project is located on a parcel adjacent to Jubal Early Drive and Abrams Creek in Winchester, Frederick County, V irginia. Project Description: project consists of the confirmation of a wetland delineation. The project is called City of Winchester property. Findings A site inspection has verified that waters and /or wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ' (33 U.S.C. 1344) exist at the location stated above. The delineation, described by letter, report and plans by Engineering Consulting Services Ltd. dated June 3, 2004, is in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and 33 CFR 328.3 (a). Your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of this determination may be ' found at 33 CFR Part 331 or http: / /usace. army. mil /inet/functions /cw /cecwo /reg. This confirmation is valid for five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration date. r i F— F F �J LJ Corps Contact: Mr. Ron Stouffer at 703- 221 - 6967(0) 703 - 221 -6575 (f) FL 13 REVISED DEC 90 1 Z rmce F. Williams Chief, Northern Virginia Regulatory Section 1 I Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Page 1 of 18 Project/Site: Marshall Property_ Date: 8/12/03 ' Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T /R: ' Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: 1 Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: M1 Explanation of atypical or problem area: (For "strata, indicate T =tree; S =shrub; H =herb; V =vine) ' VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Acorus calamus H OBL Sparganium spp. H OBL ' Vernonia noveboracensis H FACW+ Eupatorium perfoliatum H FACW+ subcordatum H OBL ' Alisma Impatiens H FACW capensis Typha angustifolia H OBL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100% ydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ® Yes ❑ No 1 Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Along toe of slope 1 Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 -6 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12n: E] Yes ®No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: 0 inches ® Yes ❑ No Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ' ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. Page 1 of 18 I Community ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 1 —� Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Massanetta loam Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained ' Taxonomy (subgroup) Fine -loam, carbonatic, mesic Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Fluvaquentic Hapludolls Profile Description ' Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile ' inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -18 A/B 10YR 2/1 MUCK ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ' ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ® Sulfidic Odor ® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils . ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks ' Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ' Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale /Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. E LJ i 1 Page 2 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual 1 ' F Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T /R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Woodland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No I Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: M2 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For "strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Juglans nigra T FACU Graminae H NI Gleditsia triacanthos T UPL Ailanthus altissima T NI Plantanus occidentalis T FACW- Lonicera japonica V FAC - Berberis thunbergh S FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ° o of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 14.3 j ydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on I Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. 1 Page 3 of IS LJ Community ID: Upland Woodland Transect ID: Plot ID: 2 SOILS ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained i Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth inches Horizon (Munsell moist ) (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions, structure, etc: Drawing of soil profile (match description 0 -2 A 10YR 3/3 SILT LOAM 2 -13 B 7.5YR 4/4 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions i ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles: Rock below 13 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ®No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ®No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. L Ot 1 Page 4 of 18 LJ Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual i ' " I Page 5 of IS . roject/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 T.ApPI icant/ow ner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va i S/T /R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: A13 Explanation of atypical or p roblem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T =tree; S =shrub; H =herb; V =vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Acorus calamus H OBL Peltandra virginica H OBL Vernonia noveboracensis H FACW+ Mimulus a /atus H OBL Eupatodum perfoliatum H FACW+ Alisma subcordatum H OBL Impatiens capensis H FACW Cyperus esculentus H FACW HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: j o of dominants OBL, FACW,& FAC: 100% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No . Along toe of slope , Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain 1 Depth of inundation: 0 -2 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ® Yes ❑ No Channels <12 in.: E] Yes ®No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: 0 inches 1 El Yes ®No . Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No ® Rationale for decision /remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. i ' " I Page 5 of IS . �J lJ F r 1 �J u F Community ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 3 SOILS ap Unit Name (Series and Phase): Massanetta loam Taxonomy (subgroup) Fine -loam, carbonalic, mesic Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained Field observations confirmimapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Fluvaquentic Hapludolls Profile Description I Mottle' Depth Matrix color (Munsell colors (Munsell Mottle abundance Texture, concretions! Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -2 A 10YR 311 MUCK 2 -10 B 2.5Y3/1 CLAY LOAM 10 -16 C 10YR5 /8 10YR5 /1 15% SILTY CLAY Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles E) Histic E i edon p p ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ® Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in S i urface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chrome of 1 without mottles Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No IS the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale /Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. �y. 1 Page 6 of 18 r Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ' } Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 Applicantlowner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick 1 Investigator(s): J Fiorello State Va SMR Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Pasture 1 Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes M No Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes M No Transect ID: Plot ID: M4 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species `Stratum Indicator Solanum carolinense H UPL 1 Prunella vulgaris H FACU+ Tiifolium repens H FACU - _ Setaria glauca H FAC Cirsium vulgare H FACU- DROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: f dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 20% rophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes M No k onale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? M Yes E] No Water Marks: ❑ Yes M No Sediment Deposits: El Yes M No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: El Yes M No Drainage Patterns: E] Yes M No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: El Yes M No Channels <12 in.: E] Yes M No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes M No Water - stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes M No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes M No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. L 1 Page 7 of 18 Il Community ID: Upland Pasture Transect ID: Plot ID: 4 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No i Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile (i nches) Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -5 A 10YR 4/2 SILT LOAM 5 -12 B 2.5y4/3 CLAY LOAM 12 -18 C 10YR5/4 10YR5 /8 30% SILTY CLAY Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions '* ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. C C t � i Page 8 of 18 lJ Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corns Wetland Delineation Manual) Site' Marshall Property Date; 10/07/03 7Appficant/owner: Greenway Engineering Courity: Frederick. Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va SIT/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: I Is Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ®No Plot ID: M5 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For 'strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant SiDecies 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Acersaccharinum T FACW Polygonumpensylvanicum H FACW Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW Bidensfrondosa H FACW Cyperus esculentus H FACW I A /isma subcordatum H OBL Impatiens capensis H FACW calamus H OBL I Acorus HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100 % Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ®No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Along toe of slope Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No Based on ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 -1 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ® Yes [I No Channels <12 h.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: E] Yes 0 N Depth to free water in pit: 15 inches Depth to saturated soil: 16 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Ratiorale for decision /remarks: Wetland hydrology parameters have been met. a�w I Page 9 of 18 0 Coml munity ID: PEM Wetland Transact ID: Plot ID: 5 '* Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick- Poplimento Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No i Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description H d' S '1 1 di cators• (check all that a I) Drawing of soil profile rip (match desction y nc of n pp y ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 1 with mottles S Wetland Determination ~ Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale /Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been 1 Page 10 of 18 Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions; inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. 0 -8 A 1 OYR 3/2 SILTY CLAY 8 -18 B 10YR3 /1 10YR4/2 10% CLAY H d' S '1 1 di cators• (check all that a I) Drawing of soil profile rip (match desction y nc of n pp y ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 1 with mottles S Wetland Determination ~ Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale /Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been 1 Page 10 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA state Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 CorDs Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Marshall Property Dater 10/07/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State; Va SMR: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Community ID: Upland Field Trans ect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? El Yes ® No Plot ID: M6 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For "strata, indicate T "= tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plants ecies 'Stratum Indicator Echinochloa cncsgalli H FACW Dactylisglomerata H FACU Cyperus esculentus H FACW Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 75% r ydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): braided channeling ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. i y z i L L F i Page 11 of 18 I I Communitv ID: UDland Field Transect ID: Flot lu: b I ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm m 1 Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Descri tion Mottle Matrix color colors Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast 0 -16 AIB 1 oYR5 /4 10YR5 /6 10% Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon y* ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chrome of 4 with mottles. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ®No Is the sampling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: The wetland hydrology and by C Texture, structure, etc. CLAY LOAM type? ® Yes ❑ No Drawing of soil profile (match description ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (explain in remarks i have not 1 Page 12 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination 11 11 11 DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA St9tP Wetland nPlineation Manual or 1987 Corns Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello Stater Va SIT /R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Scrub Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: M7 Explanation of atypical or ` problem area: VEGETATION (For 'strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Daucus carote H UPL Rubes allegheniensis SH FACU - Phytolacca Americana H FACU+ Rosa multi flora SH FACU Trifolium repens H FACU - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL', FACW, & FAC: 0% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ONO Rationale for decision /Remarks: less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ONO Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No. ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ONO Channels <12h.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. i I 1 Page 13 of 18 Community ID: Upland Scrub Field Transect ID: Plot ID:7 SOILS 5 Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick- Drainage Class Well Drained Poplimento, very rocky Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapiudalfs Profile Descri tion 1 Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 04 A/B 10YR3 /3 SILTY CLAY Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions I ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No i Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Refusal at 4 inches due to rock Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. b 1 Page 14 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corns Wetland Delineatinn Mammal Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering Investigator(s): J Fiorello County: Frederick State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Scrub Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ®No (Sink -hole) Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: M8 VEGETATION (For'strata, indicate T =tree; S =shrub; H =herb; V =vine) Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Rubus alleghentensis H FACU- Dipsacussylvestris H NI Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW Rosa multiflora SH FACU Cirsium vulgare H FACU - Solanum carolinense H UPL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 0 of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 20% ydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. i Page 15 of 18 Community ID: Uoland Scrub Field (Sink -hole) Transect ID: Plot ID: 8 1 ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirmi mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludelfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance linrhaQl Hnri?nn I moist) I moist) size and contrast 0 -8 A 10YR4/4 8 -15 B 5YR4 /6 10YR4 /4 1 30% Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfldic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chrome of 6 with mottles. Wetland Determination Texture, concretions, structure, etc SILTY CLAY LOAM Cg1S�L�YiSe7_1u Drawing of soil profile (match description) ❑ Matrix chrome <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions I ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List. F Other (explain in remarks) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ®No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria ha been met. i Page 16 of 18 Routine Wetiand Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual El H oject/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 nr: Greenway Engineering FApplicant/oestigator(w County: Frederick s )E : J Fiorello St ate: Va S/T /R: Do normal cii&cumstances exist on the site? ® Yes El No Community ID:Upland Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? El Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? El Yes ® No Plot ID: W1 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For 'strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Cyperus esculentus H FACW Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU Solanum carolinense H UPL Phleum pretense H FACU Rumex crispus H FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 33.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑Yes No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: E] Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: El Yes ®No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: El Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No El Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: E] Yes ® No FAC Neutral: El Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: E3 Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 12 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 12 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): E3 Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? El Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. Community ID: Upland Field Transact ID: Plot ID: 1 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth inches Horizon (Munsell moist ) (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description 0 -2 A 10YR 4/4 SILT LOAM 2 -10 B 10YR 514 SILT LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Gravel below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. I Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 t/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick ator(s): J Fiorello rDonormal State: Va S/T /R: circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ®No I Transact ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot I W Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For 'strata, indicate T =tree; S =shrub; H =herb; V =vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Sambucus Canadensis S FACW - Cyperus esculentus H FACW Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW j Asclepius incarnata H OBL Marrubium vulgare H UPL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 80 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant specie! . YDROIOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 n.: []Yes ❑ No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water - stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 6 inches ❑ Yes 0 N Depth to saturated soil: > 6 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Hummocks, some standing water in areas (1 inch). ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. L L L C C L 1 I I I I I l 0 5 I IJ u [. 1 I C' Community ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 2 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -3 A 10YR 4/2 SILT LOAM 3 -13 B 2.5Y 4/2 2.5/N Few and distinct CLAY Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ® Mg or Fe Concretions 1 ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in!Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ® Reducing Conditions ❑Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ O ther (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 with mottles. Gravel below 13 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale /Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. ;s I E 1 H U ICJ H H H n 0 lJ 0 b a Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8112103 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T /R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Community ID: Upland Field Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem.area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W3 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For 'strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator. Daucus carota H UPL Solanum carolinense H UPL Trifolium repens H FACU- Ambrosia artemisdfolia H FACU Plantogo lanceolata H UPL Cyperus esculentus H FACW Juncus tenuis H FAC - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 14.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No )Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species.' HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: [:]Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: [:]Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAG Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 12 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 12 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. i I 1 l_1 1J F 11 u U1 !�J Upland Fi eld TransectlD: Plot ID: 3 rUnit (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth` inches Horizon (Mu moist (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions,) structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description 0 -2 A 10YR 4/2 SILT LOAM 2 -10 B 2.5YR 5/3 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils I ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Gravel below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ®No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the samp ling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. 9 1 Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va SR /R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM /OW Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W4 l Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species ' 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW Carex spp. H FAC Polygonum lapathi/olium H FACW+ Cyperus esculentus H FACW Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW Juncus tenuis H FAC - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 83.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on ground /surface cracking Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain I Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12in.: ® Yes ❑ No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 12 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 12 inches I Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Hummocks. ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. V. u 0 .t� w 1 11 L� 1 11 11 11 1 I 11 Community ID: PEM /OW Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 4 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained loam, very rocky Field observations confirm mapped type? pp yp [D Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -1 A 10YR 2/2 LOAM 1 -10 B 10YR 2/1 LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes_ ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks:. Chroma of 1 without mottles. Rock below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ®Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale /Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. U I Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State:. Va S/T /R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ®No Community ID: Upland Field I Transect ID: PlotlID: W5 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For 'strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species `Stratum Indicator Festuca pratensis H FACU- Solanum carolinense H UPL Ambrosia artemisilfolia H FACU Plantogo lanceolata H UPL Cyperus esculentus H FACW Juncus tenuis H FAC - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 16.7 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12n.: ❑ Yes ®No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. H 1 H 1 I O E l_J li 1 lJ u >k 1 I Plot ID: 5 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained loam, very rocky Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Prnfilo npsrrintinn Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon . ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles. Rock below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ®No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ®No Ratinnalp /Remarks: The wetland vegetation and hvdrology criteria have not been met. 9 Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -1 A 10YR 2/2 LOAM 1 -10 B 10YR 2/1 LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon . ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles. Rock below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ®No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ®No Ratinnalp /Remarks: The wetland vegetation and hvdrology criteria have not been met. 9 I Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? E3 Yes ® No Community ID: Upland Scrub Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W6 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S =shrub; H =herb; V =vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Juglans nigra T FACU Daucus carota H UPL Gleditsia triacenthos S UPL Rosa multiBora S FACU Elaeagnus commutata S NI Rubus allegheniensis S FACU- Lonicera japonica V FAC - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches El Yes ®No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. I 9 r 11 l J Com nunity ID: Upland Scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: 6 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Rock outcrop complex Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No i Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth inches Horizon (Munsell moist ) (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description 0 -5 A/B 10YR 4/3 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 5 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. 9 I r I I I I 1 Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick nvestigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va SMR: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PFO /PSS Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Trarisect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No PlotlD: W7 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Plantanus occidentalis T FACW- Vernonia noveboracensis H FACW+ Liriodendron tulipifera T FACU Eupatorium perfoliatum H FACW+ Salix nigra T FACW+ Alisma subcordatum H OBL Viburnum dentatum S FAC Impatiens capensis H FACW Sambucus canadensis S FACW- Typha angustifolia H OBL Rosa multiflora S FACU Sparganium spp. H OBL . HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 83.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. IIIIYDROLOGY Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ® Yes ❑ No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Along toe of slope Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 -6 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 ii.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: ® Yes ❑ No Depth to free water in pit: 0 inches Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision /remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. 9 U I Community ID: PFO /PSS Wetland Tn SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Massanetta loam Taxonomy (subgroup) Fine -loam, carbonatic, mesic Fluvaquentic Hapiudolls Profile Description Depth inches Hor 0 -18 A/B Mottle Matrix color colors (Munsell (Munsell 10YR 2/1 To] Plot 113:7 Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? N Yes ❑ No Texture, Mottle abundance size and contrast i Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ® Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions N Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix Hydric soils present? N Yes ❑ No ® Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles Wetland Determination MUCK Drawing of soil profile (match description ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions N High Organic Content in ;Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List n Other (exMain in remarks) i Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? N Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? N Yes ❑ No RationatelRemarks: Ali of the wetland criteria have been met. n 0 11 0 0 i6 0 11 11 11 1 Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va SIT/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Community ID: Upland Woodland Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: Wg Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For `strata, indicate T =tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Juglans nigra T FACU Graminae H NI Gleditsia triacanthos T UPL Ailanthus attissima T NI Plantanus occidentalis T FACW - Lonicera japonica V . FAC - Berberis thunbergii S FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 14.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species: HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12h.: El Yes ®No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. 9 I Community ID: Upland Woodland Transect ID: Plot ID: 8 SOILS 4. Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick - Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Descri tion Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -2 A 10YR 3/3 SILT LOAM 2 -13 B 7.5YR 414 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chrome < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions I ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 13 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ®No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. 4I Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicantlowner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Scrub Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ®No Transact ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W9 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Elaeagnus commutate S NI Daucus carota H UPL Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU Oenothera biennis H FACU- Phytolacca americana H FACU+ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ®No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Channel shown on maps does not exist. No defined ❑ Stream, lake or gage data bed and bank. ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. E L�' I U land Scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: g (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam rTaxonomy Drainage Class Well Drained roup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Ty pic Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes El No Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth inches Horizon (Munsell moist ) (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description 0 -6 A 10YR 5/6 SILT LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 6 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. I ProjectlSite: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): _ J Fiorello State: Va SIT/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Scrub Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W10 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species `Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Ailanthus attissima T NI Pinus virginiana T UPL Elaeagnus commutate S NI Rosa multiflora S FACU Phytolacca americana H FACU+ Daucus carota H UPL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. w 4HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: []Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water- stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. r C C I I 4 H U Community ID: Upland Scrub Transact ID: Plot ID: 10 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description f Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist ) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description 0 -2 A 10YR 3/3 SILT LOAM 2 -13 B 7.5YR 4/4 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Suifidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National /Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low - Chroma ( =1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision /Remarks: Chrome of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 13 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale /Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. G b [ 1 Wetland Data Sheet C1 Project /Site: City of Winchester Property Investigator: Magistro (ECS) Date: May 2004 County: Frederick State: Virginia Plant Community Name / # Wet Woods #1 Vegetation Indicator Scientific Name Common Name Stratum Status Froxinus pennsylvanica green ash tree FACW Salix nigra black willow shrub FACW+ Lindera benzoin spicebush shrub FACW+ Juncus e,/fuses soft rush herb FACW+ Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge herb FACW Typha latifolia broad leaf cattail herb OBL Scirpus cyperinus wool grass herb FACW+ Vernonia noveboracensis New York ironweed herb FACW+ Percent dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100% Is hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? YES Rationale: Greater than 50% dominance by hydrophytes IP Soils Series /phase Masanetta loam (based on Frederick County Soil Survey) Is soil on hydric soil list? No Is the soil: Mottled? No Gleyed? No Matrix color: 10YR 2/1 Mottle Color n/a Other hydric soil indicators: saturated to surface Is the hydric soil criterion met? YES Rationale: Low chroma, saturated soils Hydrology Is ground surface inundated? Yes (up to 2 inches in places) Is soil saturated? Yes Other evidence of surface inundation or saturation. evidence of ponding Is wetland hydrology criterion met? YES Rationale: Field indicators present Is this plot a wetland? YES Rationale: All three parameters satisfied 1 C 1 F Wetland Data Sheet C2 ProjectlSite: City of Winchester Property Investigator: Magistro (ECS) Date: May 2004 j County: Frederick State: Virginia Plant Community Name / # Wet Woods #2 Vegetation Indicator Scientific Name Common Name Stratum Status Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash tree FACW Linera benzoin spicebush shrub FACW+ Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle vine FAC- Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy vine FAC Iris versioclor yellow iris herb OBL Percent dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100 % Is hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? YES Rationale: Greater than 50% dominance by hydrophytes t Soils Series/phase Masanetta loam (based on Frederick County Soil Survey) Is soil on hydric soil list? No Is the soil: Mottled? No Gleyed? No Matrix color: 10YR 5/1 Mottle Color n/a Other hydric soil indicators: none Is the hydric soil criterion met? YES Rationale: Low chroma, saturated soils Hydrology Is ground surface inundated? Yes (up to 2 inches in places) Is soil saturated? yes Other evidence of surface inundation or saturation. drainage patterns, saturated soils Is wetland hydrology criterion met? YES Rationale: Field indicators present Is this plot a wetland? YES Rationale: All three parameters satisfied C 1 F