21002_Eagle Island_PIR_20170113

2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607
PH 919.870.0576
www.geosyntec.com

GN6146/ Phase I ESA

13 January 2017

Mr. Vince Burgess
Burgess Corporation
605 Warsaw Highway
Clinton, NC 28328

Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Subject Site: Parcel No. 0390000901, 03900008, and 03900011 located on Battle Ship Road
NE, Eagle Island, Leland, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Burgess:

In accordance with your authorization of Geosyntec Consultant’s (Geosyntec’s) proposal dated 9
August 2016, Geosyntec has prepared the enclosed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
report for Burgess Corporation (“Client”) for the approximately 23-acre property located on Battle
Ship Road NE, Eagle Island, Leland, North Carolina (“Site”). Enclosed is an electronic copy of
the report.

Should you have questions regarding this submittal or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you.

Sincerely,

Kaitlyn Rhonehouse
Senior Engineer

Eric Nesbit
Senior Principal

Prepared for:
Burgess Corporation
605 Warsaw Highway
Clinton, NC 28328

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Subject Site: Parcel No. 0390000901, 03900008, and
03900011
Battle Ship Road NE
Eagle Island
Leland, North Carolina
Prepared by:

2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607

Project Number: GN6146

January 2017

GN6146/Phase I ESA i Jan-17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary presents the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
performed by Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) for the property consisting of Brunswick County
parcels 0390000901, 03900008, and 03900011 located on Battle Ship Road NE, Eagle Island,
Leland, North Carolina (the “Subject Property” or the “Site”). This Phase I ESA was prepared in
accordance with the scope of work, terms and conditions described in Geosyntec’s proposal dated
9 August 2016. The objective of performing this Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM Standard
E1527-13 was to identify, to the extent feasible, “Recognized Environmental Conditions” (RECs)
at the Site as the “REC” term is defined by ASTM E1527-13.

The Site is located on Battle Ship Road NE in Leland, North Carolina and is largely surrounded
by unoccupied or undeveloped land in a formerly primarily commercial/industrial area. Records
identified by Geosyntec indicated the Site was developed for industrial use as early as the mid to
late 1800’s. Additionally, historical aerial photographs depicted significant marine activity on-
Site and nearby during the early to mid-1900’s. The Site appears to have been unoccupied since at
least the 1990’s. Several deteriorated structures (e.g. concrete pads, an abandoned above-ground
storage tank [AST], 55 gallon drums, etc.) and buildings are present on-Site along with remnants
of a boat dock, slips, and pilings along the Site shoreline. The three parcels comprising the Site
are currently owned by Vulcan Materials.

The Site is bounded to the north by vacant land followed by the Battleship North Carolina
Museum; to the east by the Cape Fear River followed by downtown Wilmington, North Carolina;
to the south by an electrical substation followed by the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the Eagle
Island Engineer Yard; and to the west by vacant land and a radio tower followed by State Road
74. Agricultural use (rice planting) on Eagle Island dates to the early 1700’s, and from the 1800’s
through mid-1900’s, commercial/industrial activities including shipbuilding, lumber production,
sawmills, naval stores, cotton processing, and turpentine distilling were reported to be widespread
on Eagle Island and at least some of this industrial activity was identified on adjacent and nearby
properties.

The Phase I ESA performed by Geosyntec has concluded the following:

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
• FINDING A (Historical Shoreline Property Use for Marine-Related Industrial
Operations): Aerial photographs depicted docks, slips, and significant boat/vessel storage
at the Site from at least 1938 to the 1950s. Interviews indicated that maintenance and repair
of Liberty ships was performed at the Site during World War II. No specific information

GN6146/Phase I ESA ii Jan-17

was found regarding chemicals used at the Site; however, naval and/or or commercial
marine-related land use is commonly associated with the storage and handling of hazardous
materials and petroleum products such as solvents, paints, and metals. Notably, the Site
appeared to be mostly unpaved during this observed land use. Geosyntec concludes there
is a high potential that the former marine-related industrial operations at the Site adversely
affected the surface or subsurface at the Site; therefore, this finding is considered a REC.
• FINDING B (Historical Industrial Land Use and Incidents): During the late 1800’s
and early 1900’s when there was a large industrial presence on Eagle Island; records
showed widespread use and storage of tar, resin, rosin, and turpentine in the up-gradient
vicinity of the Site related to the marine industry and naval applications. Numerous
accounts of fires and apparent releases of these substances into the environment were found
in the Bill Reaves Archives Collection at the New Hanover County Public Library. A lamp
black factory was also reportedly to be constructed at or near the Site. Other reported
activities included lumber production, fertilizer storage, and rice farming. In addition,
longstanding maritime activity was observed on aerial photographs and fire insurance maps
in proximity to the Site, including on the adjacent property to the north. The observed
and/or reported industrial activities at or in close proximity to the Site are projected to have
a high potential to have adversely affected the surface or subsurface at the Site; therefore,
this finding is considered a REC.
• FINDING C (Above Ground Storage Tank and Drums): During the Site visit on 16
August 2016, several rusted and deteriorated drums and an apparent above ground storage
tank were observed on the eastern portion of the Site. No historical information was found
regarding their contents or uses. Given the historical level of industry in the vicinity and
the past presence of operational boat docks and slips at the Site, a range of potentially
hazardous substances could have been stored in the tank and drums. This assumption
combined with the deteriorated state of the tank and drums is projected to have a high
potential to have adversely affected the surface or subsurface Site impacts; therefore, this
finding is considered a REC.
• FINDING E (Adjacent Properties with Known or Potential Contamination): The
Muddy Waters Property and Eagle Island Engineer Yard are located west of the Cape Fear
River within ¼ mile north and south of the Site respectively. Both properties were listed
in databases indicative of releases or historical contamination. The Muddy Waters property
is projected to be hydraulically upgradient from the Subject Site and contamination in
groundwater and soil exceeding applicable standards was detected as recently as 2015. The
contaminants included metals, organics, and inorganics. No apparent off-site testing has
been performed to evaluate the extent of identified impacts. The Eagle Island Engineer
Yard is projected to be in a hydraulically downgradient location. However, detected
petroleum contamination in groundwater could migrate on-Site due to the close proximity

GN6146/Phase I ESA iii Jan-17

and variable groundwater flow. Due to the proximity of these two sites to the subject Site
and the recent presence of both soil and groundwater contamination, Geosyntec concludes
that there is a high potential for adverse effects to the Site surface or subsurface from one
or both of these nearby properties; therefore, this finding is considered a REC.
Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs)

No HRECs were identified during this Phase I ESA.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs)

No CRECs were identified during this Phase I ESA.

Suspected Recognized Environmental Conditions (Suspected RECs)

• Finding F (Apparent Concrete Mixing Area) – During Geosyntec’s Site visit, several
open pipes emanating from the subsurface were observed near the southernmost clearing
on parcel 0390000901. An underground source or connections of these pipes was not
identified. Additionally, no information was found through Geosyntec’s efforts regarding
on-Site underground storage tanks, septic systems, or underground hazardous chemical
storage. Due to this absence of information regarding associated chemical storage for these
pipes, this finding is not classified as a REC. However, given the historically high level of
industry on-Site and in the vicinity, it is possible that these pipes are or were at one point
connected to a UST or a similar vessel containing hazardous chemicals or petroleum
products. Therefore, this finding is considered a suspected REC.

De Minimis Conditions
• FINDING D (Solid Waste/Debris): Non-hazardous solid waste was observed scattered
throughout the Site during the 16 August 2016 Site visit. The waste included plastic bottles
and crates, glass bottles, tires, and rubber hosing. The location and types of debris indicates
dumping onsite and/or washing of debris from offsite locations. Based on the lack of
hazardous material or petroleum products observed associated with the observed solid
waste/debris, this finding is considered to be a de minimis condition

GN6146/Phase I ESA i Jan-17

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................................................1
1.3 Significant Assumptions .............................................................................................2
1.4 Limitations, Deviations, and Exceptions ....................................................................2
1.5 Special Terms and Conditions ....................................................................................2
1.6 User Reliance ..............................................................................................................3
2. SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................4
2.1 Site Location and General Characteristics ..................................................................4
2.2 Current and Former Use of the Site ............................................................................4
2.3 Description of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site ...........................5
2.4 Current and Prior Use of Adjoining Properties...........................................................7
2.5 Physical Setting ...........................................................................................................8
2.5.1 Topography and Geology ..............................................................................8
2.5.2 Hydrology ......................................................................................................8
3. USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ...............................................................................10
3.1 Title Records .............................................................................................................10
3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations .............................................10
3.3 Specialized Knowledge .............................................................................................10
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .................................10
3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ........................................................10
3.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information ............................................10
3.7 Reason for Performing This Phase I ESA.................................................................10
3.8 Additional Information .............................................................................................11
4. RECORDS REVIEW.........................................................................................................12
4.1 Standard Environmental Records Sources ................................................................12
4.1.1 Environmental Database Search Approach .................................................12
4.1.2 Environmental Database Search Results .....................................................12
4.2 Historical Use Information .......................................................................................13
4.2.1 Historical Aerial Photographs .....................................................................13
4.2.2 Fire Insurance Maps ....................................................................................15
4.2.3 Property Tax Files .......................................................................................16
4.2.4 Historical Topographic Maps ......................................................................16

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

GN6146/Phase I ESA ii Jan-17

4.2.5 City Directories............................................................................................17
4.3 Other Documents ......................................................................................................17
5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..............................................................................................21
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions .....................................................................21
5.2 Utility Service & Materials Management Provider Information ..............................21
5.3 Interior and Exterior Observations............................................................................21
5.3.1 General Usage of Hazardous Substances ....................................................21
5.3.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks .......................................................................21
5.3.3 Underground Storage Tanks ........................................................................22
5.3.4 Odors ...........................................................................................................22
5.3.5 Pools of Liquid ............................................................................................22
5.3.6 Drums ..........................................................................................................22
5.3.7 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers (Not Tanks and
Not Drums) ..................................................................................................22
5.3.8 Unidentified/Other Substance Containers ...................................................22
5.3.9 Indications of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .......................................22
5.3.10 Heating/Cooling (Methods Used On-Site) ..................................................23
5.3.11 Stains and Corrosion ....................................................................................23
5.3.12 Drains and Sumps ........................................................................................23
5.3.13 Pits, Ponds, Pools, and Lagoons ..................................................................23
5.3.14 Stressed Vegetation .....................................................................................23
5.3.15 Solid Waste ..................................................................................................23
5.3.16 Wastewater (Not Including Septic Systems) ...............................................24
5.3.17 Wells ............................................................................................................24
5.3.18 Septic Systems .............................................................................................24
5.3.19 Filled Areas..................................................................................................24
5.4 Observations of Adjoining Properties .......................................................................24
6. INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................25
6.1 Interview with Current Owner Representatives ........................................................25
6.2 Interview with Former Owner Representative ..........................................................25
6.3 Brunswick County Environmental Health Interview ................................................25
6.4 Brunswick County Emergency Services Interview ..................................................25

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

GN6146/Phase I ESA iii Jan-17

7. EVALUATION & CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................26
7.1 Findings.....................................................................................................................26
7.2 Opinion .....................................................................................................................27
7.2.1 Opinion Regarding Current Potential to Impact Site ...................................27
7.2.2 Opinion Regarding Additional Investigation ..............................................30
7.3 Data Gaps ..................................................................................................................31
7.4 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................31
8. NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................33
9. SREFERENCES ................................................................................................................34
10. SIGNATURE BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL ............................................35
11. QUALIFICATIONS OF STAFF .......................................................................................36

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

GN6146/Phase I ESA iv Jan-17

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Environmental Regulatory Database Review Findings

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Layout Map

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Selected Reviewed Documents Provided By Owner, Site Contact(s), the Client,
and/or Others
Appendix A-1: Brunswick County Parcel Information
Appendix A-2: Select Reviewed Documents
Appendix B: Environmental Database Search Report
Appendix C: Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix D: Sanborn® Fire Insurance Map Report
Appendix E: Historical Topographic Maps
Appendix F: City Directories Report
Appendix G: Selected Site Photographs

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 1 Jan-17

1. INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) was retained by Mr. Vince Burgess of Burgess Corporation
(“Client”) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of Brunswick County
parcels 0390000901, 03900008, and 03900011 located on Battle Ship Road NE, Eagle Island,
Leland, NC 28451 (referred to herein as the “Subject Site”, or “Site”). The Site location is depicted
on Figure 1 (Site Location Map), and a recent Site layout is provided on Figure 2 (Site Layout
Map).
1.1 Purpose
This Phase I ESA was conducted in general accordance with the scope and limitations of the
guidance contained within the ASTM International (ASTM) Practice E1527-13. Deviations or
exceptions to the guidance contained in the ASTM E1527-13 standard of practice are described in
Section 1.4. The intent of Geosyntec’s effort is to provide the user with a Phase I ESA that includes
a search for the existence of potential or known subsurface environmental impacts at the Subject
Site. For the purposes of this Phase I ESA report, Burgess Corporation represents the “user,”
defined as “the party seeking to use Practice E 1527-13 to complete an environmental site
assessment of the property…”
The Phase I ESA was conducted to identify, to the extent feasible, “Recognized Environmental
Conditions1” (RECs) at the Site, as the “REC” term is defined by ASTM E1527-13. This REC
definition eliminates from consideration a number of conditions that could fall under the general
definition of “environmental” issues and focuses the Phase I ESA on known or potential releases
of hazardous substances and petroleum products. Such conditions include the items asbestos,
radon, wetlands, etc., as identified in Section 1.4; unless in the case where these out of scope items
are specifically included in the Client’s scope of work.
1.2 Scope of Services
Geosyntec was authorized by the Client to complete a Phase I ESA of the Site. This work was
conducted in accordance with the Client’s authorization of Geosyntec’s 9 August 2016 proposal.
The Phase I ESA scope of work included: (i) review of pertinent information/documents provided
to Geosyntec; (ii) review of local, state, and federal environmental databases for the Site and in
the vicinity of the Site pursuant to the ASTM E1527-13 Practice; (iii) evaluation of historical land

1 As defined by ASTM E1527-13, a Recognized Environmental Condition is: “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, ground water, 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 threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be
the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions
determined to be de minimis are not Recognized Environmental Conditions.”

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 2 Jan-17

usage through obtaining/reviewing historical aerial photographs, Sanborn® fire insurance map
report, city directories, property tax files, and/or topographic maps; (iv) a Site visit to perform a
visual reconnaissance of the interior and exterior site features and use of adjoining properties; (v)
interviews with one or more individuals familiar with the Site; and (vi) preparation of a Phase I
ESA report. In accordance with Geosyntec’s scope of work for this project, no “non-scope
considerations2” were evaluated as part of this Phase I ESA.
The Site visits3 were conducted by Eric Nesbit, Kaitlyn Rhonehouse, and Amber Greune of
Geosyntec. The report was prepared by Grant Wallace and Kaitlyn Rhonehouse and reviewed by
Mark Johnson. Ms. Rhonehouse and Mr. Johnson are “Environmental Professionals” (as defined
under the ASTM Practice E1527-13). Their professional qualifications are presented in Section
11.
1.3 Significant Assumptions
Except as may be noted in Geosyntec’s proposal dated 9 August 2016, no significant assumptions
were taken into account by Geosyntec as part of this project.
1.4 Limitations, Deviations, and Exceptions
This Phase I ESA contains a property description and history, an environmental database review,
a summary of visual observations made during the site reconnaissance, and descriptions of
information obtained during interview(s) of person(s) knowledgeable with the Site. The findings
and conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA are the result of professional interpretation of the
information collected at the time of this study. The Phase I ESA does not necessarily include an
exhaustive search of all available records nor does it include detailed assessment of all Phase I
ESA findings. Therefore, Geosyntec cannot “certify” or guarantee that any property is free of
environmental impairment; no warranties regarding the environmental quality of the property are
expressed or implied.
1.5 Special Terms and Conditions
Except as may be noted in Geosyntec’s proposal dated 9 August 2016, no special contractual terms
and conditions were taken into account as part of this project.

2 “Non-Scope Considerations” are described in ASTM E1527-13 and include, but are not limited to: asbestos-
containing building materials, biological agents, cultural and historic resources, ecological resources, endangered or
otherwise protected species/habitats, health and safety, indoor air quality, industrial hygiene, lead based paint, lead in
drinking water, mold, radon, regulatory compliance, wetlands, wildlife, etc. Notably, Phase II ESA work (such as may
be done through a sampling effort) is a Non-Scope Consideration.
3 Two visits to the Site were conducted; first on 16 August 2016 and subsequently on 28 September 2016 after an
additional parcel was added to the scope of the assessment

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 3 Jan-17

1.6 User Reliance
This Phase I ESA report has been prepared solely for the benefit of Burgess Corporation (Client).
Geosyntec has issued the Phase I ESA Report to Burgess Corporation and grants the Client the
right to rely on the report contents. Except as specifically set forth in Geosyntec’s proposal to
Client to perform this work, no third party shall have the right to rely on Geosyntec opinions
rendered in connection with the Services without Geosyntec’s written consent which may be
conditioned on the third party’s agreement to be bound to acceptable conditions and limitations
similar to those agreed to by the Client. Please note that Geosyntec’s consent to provide a right-
to-rely on the Phase I ESA report is subject to Client’s approval and to agreement to Geosyntec’s
terms and conditions associated with Geosyntec’s performance of this specific Phase I ESA.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 4 Jan-17

2. SITE DESCRIPTION
This section provides a description of the key characteristics of the Site. This description is derived
from information provided by the User and information gathered during the site reconnaissance
unless referenced otherwise.
2.1 Site Location and General Characteristics
The Site consists of three contiguous parcels (Brunswick County Parcel No. 0390000901,
03900008, and 03900011) totaling approximately 23 acres located on Battle Ship Rd NE on Eagle
Island in Leland, North Carolina. Site parcels 0390000901 and 03900011 are each divided into
two portions by the presence of Battle Ship Road NE which runs north to south dividing the parcels
into east and west portions. The listed owners and acreage of each parcel are as follows:
Parcel
Number Owner Approximate
Acres
0390000901 SG Prestress Co (S&G Prestress Concrete Co.; a
subsidiary of Vulcan Materials) 12.7
03900008 SG Prestress Co (S&G Prestress Concrete Co.; a
subsidiary of Vulcan Materials) 0.25
03900011 Arundel Corp (a subsidiary of Vulcan Materials) 17.1
Source: Brunswick County GIS website
The Site is located in what formerly was primarily a commercial/industrial area in the eastern
central portion of Eagle Island. The general area is now relatively vacant and overgrown. The
Site is bounded by the Cape Fear River to the east, an electrical substation and US 17 to the south,
vacant land and a radio tower to the west, and vacant land to the north.
The Site location is shown on Figure 1, and a Site layout with relevant features is provided on
Figure 2. Parcel maps of the three Subject Site properties were obtained from the Brunswick
County Geographic Information System (GIS) website and are provided as Appendix A.
2.2 Current and Former Use of the Site
At the time of Geosyntec’s performance of this Phase I ESA, the Site was unoccupied, however,
remnant portions of former buildings/structures and boat docks were observed to be present at the
Site. The property owners as listed on Brunswick County property records are provided above in
Section 2.1The User has indicated that Vulcan Materials Inc. (Vulcan or Seller) is the current Site
owner.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 5 Jan-17

From the 1700’s through mid-1900’s, agriculture (rice planting) and commercial/industrial
activities including shipbuilding, lumber production, sawmills, naval stores, cotton processing, and
turpentine distilling were reported to be widespread on Eagle Island. Based on a review of
historical Site-related documents4 and files pertaining to Eagle Island (summarized in further detail
in Section 4), a lamp black factory was reportedly constructed on the northeast part of the Site
(parcels 0390000901 and 03900008) in 1895, but subsequent records did not indicate if or how
long this factory operated at the Site. Based on a review of historical topographic maps and aerial
photographs, the Site was developed by at least the 1930s. As early as 1942, two cleared corridors
that appeared to be electrical lines emanating from the adjacent substation were present on the
southwest of the Site (parcel 03900011). Additionally, in the mid 1900’s several boat docks or
slips and associated boats were present on the Site along with several onsite buildings on the
eastern portion of the Site. Boats were observed to be docked at the Site through the 1980s. The
remains of this use were still present on Site in the form of wooden pilings, concrete/metal
remnants of docks, and dilapidated concrete, wooden, and metal buildings (discussed in Section
2.3).
The north central portion of the Site was cleared from at least the 1940s with at least one apparent
building or larger structure present in the 1980s and 1990s. During Geosyntec’s site visit, several
structures (discussed in Section 2.3 below) were observed in this area that appeared to be related
to an apparent area of concrete mixing which is consistent with site ownership by S&G Prestress
Concrete Co. Since the 1990’s, the Site has appeared overgrown with vegetation with no apparent
activity.
2.3 Description of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site
Geosyntec observed several abandoned and deteriorating buildings on the Site during the 16
August 2016 Site visit as follows:

Building
ID
(see Fig 2)
Material Comments/Observed Condition
A Concrete block No roof, windows gone
B Wood with corrugated metal
siding and roof
Roof caved in, metal heavily rusted, windows
gone

4 Documents were found in the Bill Reaves Archives located at the New Hanover County Public Library in
Wilmington, North Carolina; see Section 4 for more information.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 6 Jan-17

Building
ID
(see Fig 2)
Material Comments/Observed Condition
C Wood with corrugated metal
siding and roof
Roof caved in, metal heavily rusted, sides of
building have fallen
D Wood with metal roof Roof intact, portions of wooden floor and siding
gone, windows gone

The previous uses and construction dates of these structures was not reported; however, historical
topographic maps from 1942 showed three structures present on the Site in the general area of the
current abandoned buildings.
During Geosyntec’s 16 August 2016 and 28 September 2016 site visits, numerous miscellaneous
objects (debris) and structures were observed at the Subject Site in addition to the on-site buildings.
To the east of Battleship Rd NE, the following objects/structures were observed on the northeast
portion or shoreline of parcel 0390000901:
• An approximately 30-foot metal above-ground storage tank (AST) just south of Building
B; it was noted that portions of the AST were rusted away and it was observed to be empty;
• A partially sunken and deteriorated wooden tugboat;
• Two rusted metal boat winches; the first was located southwest of the buildings and the
second was located in the water south of the tugboat;
• The remnants of several boat slips and pilings; and
• A rusted metal dock area.
Based on the location of the wooden tugboat, northern winch, and pilings with respect to the Cape
Fear River, it is uncertain if these objects were located within the Subject Site boundary or within
the channel of the Cape Fear River (thus owned by the State of North Carolina).
To the west of Battleship Rd NE, the following objects/structures were observed on parcel
0390000901:
• Concrete barricades located near Battleship Rd NE on the southeast corner of the parcel;
• A concrete foundation and concrete and metal mounting structure on the southern edge of
the southernmost clearing;

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 7 Jan-17

• Several large concrete I-beams located slightly west of the concrete/metal slab;
• A large concrete I-beam mounted on empty rusted 55 gallon drums located between the
concrete barricades and concrete/metal slab;
• An apparent former electrical panel located near the concrete/metal slab;
• Large diameter PVC and rubber tubing running toward the concrete/metal slab;
• Two 4-inch diameter open pipes emanating from the ground located near the
concrete/metal slab apparently used for underground conveyance/pumping of water; and
• An approximate 2-inch diameter metal stick-up pipe of unknown use.
Notably, electrical switching equipment (presumed to be associated with the adjacent electrical
substation to the south) and a driveway (associated with the adjacent Carolina Christian Radio
property and radio tower to the west) were observed to be located on the Subject Property. Power
lines also run north-south through the property to the east of Battleship Rd NE.
The locations of existing Site features are shown on Figure 2.
2.4 Current and Prior Use of Adjoining Properties
At the time of completion of this Phase I ESA and in recent prior years, the vicinity surrounding
the Site consisted primarily of commercial and industrial land use. As discussed in Section 2.2,
Eagle Island has a long history of agricultural and commercial/industrial usage. The northern
adjoining properties in particular have a long history of industrial and commercial maritime
activity documented back to the 1800’s. In summary, the area land use immediately surrounding
the Site was noted to be as follows:

Current Geosyntec-Observed (16
August 2016) Use Identified Prior Use
Considered to be More
Likely to Result in
Soil/Groundwater Quality
Impacts (Yes/No)
North Vacant land followed by the
Battleship NORTH CAROLINA
Commercial/industrial use
including fertilizer
manufacturing, resin and
turpentine distilling, and marina
railway (see Section 4)
Yes
South
Eagle Island Substation, Ocean
Highway E, and Eagle Island
Engineer Yard
Commercial/industrial Use Yes
East Cape Fear River followed by
downtown City of Wilmington Residential/commercial Use Yes
West Vacant land and a radio tower
followed by State Road 74 None reported No

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 8 Jan-17

2.5 Physical Setting
2.5.1 Topography and Geology
Figure 1 shows the location of the Site, as indicated on the United States Geological Survey’s
(USGS’s) Wilmington, North Carolina (2013) quadrangle map. In conjunction with the
performance of this project, Geosyntec obtained an environmental database report for the area of
the Site from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). According to the EDR report (Appendix
B), the Site has an elevation of approximately 5 feet above mean sea level (ft MSL). The land
surface elevation within 1 mile of the Site to the west of the Cape Fear River (north, west, and
south of the Site) remains relatively flat at elevations between 0 and 6 ft MSL with maximum
elevations of 24 ft MSL. To the east of the Site, the elevation gradually increases from 0 ft MSL
at the eastern Cape Fear River bank to a maximum of 59 ft MSL in locations east of the river. The
EDR report indicates that surficial soils in the vicinity of the Site are “Johnston”, which is
characterized by a very poorly drained loam with a very slow infiltration rate. The EDR database
search identified the regional geology underlying the Site to consist of Cenozoic-age stratified
sequence materials. According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (NCDNR, 1985), the Site
vicinity is underlain by the Peedee Formation which is characterized by Cretaceous-aged sand,
clayey sand, and clay; massive, glauconitic and locally fossiliferous and calcareous.

Large portions of the Site and other areas of Eagle Island are classified as freshwater emergent
wetlands by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and lie within the 100-year flood zone. To the east
of the Site, wetlands and 100-year flood zone areas are confined to the bank of the Cape Fear
River.
2.5.2 Hydrology
The nearest surface water body to the Site is the Cape Fear River, which is adjacent to the Site and
flows north to south along the Site’s eastern property boundary and eventually flows into the
Atlantic Ocean. The Brunswick River is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the Site, west of
Eagle Island. The Cape Fear River and Brunswick River converge at the southern end of the
island, over 3 miles from the Site.
A search of local/regional water agency records by EDR reported one Federal USGS water well
within one mile of the Site (Appendix B). This well was not reported to be located at the Site. No
public water supply (PSW) systems or State database wells were identified within one mile of the
Site by EDR.
Local groundwater flow direction may vary depending on area groundwater pumping, surface
water bodies, land use and development, localized topography, and other macro- and micro-
features. No groundwater flow data was reported by EDR. Based on the topography, location of
surface water bodies, and wetland status of the area, Geosyntec anticipates the primary surficial

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 9 Jan-17

regional groundwater flow to be east/southeast toward the Atlantic Ocean. However, for the Site
and local vicinity, Geosyntec projects local groundwater flow to be southeast in locations west of
the Cape Fear River, or southwest in locations east of the Cape Fear River. Based on a review of
tidal data for the Wilmington Harbor (located on Eagle Island just south of the Site) from US
Harbors, which indicates an approximate 3- to 5-feet fluctuation in water levels at high and low
tide, groundwater flow in close proximity to the river is likely to be tidally-influenced.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 10 Jan-17

3. USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
This section describes certain information provided to Geosyntec by the Client (the Client is the
“User” of this Phase I ESA).
3.1 Title Records
Geosyntec was not provided with and did not review title records for the Site. A property title
search was not included in the scope of Geosyntec’s services.
3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
The User did not supply Geosyntec with information regarding environmental liens or activity and
land use limitations associated with the Site property.
3.3 Specialized Knowledge
The User indicated to Geosyntec that it has no specialized knowledge (as defined in AAI)
regarding the Site.
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
The User indicated to Geosyntec that it has no commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information (as defined in AAI) regarding the Site.
3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User did not supply Geosyntec with information regarding how the Site is valued such that
Geosyntec can draw a conclusion that there has been a valuation reduction for environmental issues
(as defined in AAI) for the Site.
3.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information
The User indicated the Site was owned by Vulcan and was unoccupied. Geosyntec was provided
with contact information at Vulcan as follows: Mr. Matt Arbuckle, Director of Real Estate and
Business Development for Vulcan.
3.7 Reason for Performing This Phase I ESA
Geosyntec understands that Burgess Corporation has contracted Geosyntec to perform this Phase
I ESA to assist in identification of RECs (as defined in ASTM E1527-13) in order to help identify
potential environmental liabilities associated with the Site located at Battleship Rd NE, Eagle
Island, Leland, North Carolina.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 11 Jan-17

3.8 Additional Information
The User did not provide Geosyntec with any additional information.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 12 Jan-17

4. RECORDS REVIEW
Geosyntec’s records review consisted of the following, to the extent Geosyntec found these to be
available and reasonably ascertainable: (i) review of identified federal, state, and local
environmental databases; (ii) review of identified historical aerial photographs; (iii) review of
identified historical topographic maps; (iv) review of the identified Sanborn fire insurance map
report; (v) review of identified City Directories; (vi) review of local authority permits/records; and
(vii) review of property tax information. Geosyntec contracted with EDR to provide portions of
the records reviewed as described below. In addition, Geosyntec reviewed some Site-related and
local area documents obtained from other sources in particular with respect to the long industrial
and naval history of the Eagle Island area.
4.1 Standard Environmental Records Sources
4.1.1 Environmental Database Search Approach
Geosyntec reviewed applicable and reasonably ascertainable federal, state, and local
environmental-related databases as part of this Phase I ESA. The environmental database search
was performed by EDR in an attempt to ascertain whether the Site or neighboring properties were
suspected of having environmental conditions that could have impacted the surface or subsurface
conditions in a way which could be considered a REC for the Site. Specific records and search
distances (measured from the approximate property boundary of the Site) for the environmental
databases were reported by EDR to be consistent with ASTM Practice E 1527-13 and are discussed
in the EDR report (9 August 2016). Database descriptions are included in the EDR report. The
EDR Radius Map™ Report is presented as Appendix B.
4.1.2 Environmental Database Search Results
Table 1 summarizes the findings from the environmental-related database review and evaluates
the potential for these listed sites (presented in the table) to have impacted the surface or subsurface
conditions in a way which could be considered a REC for the Site. The locations of these listed
sites are shown on the Overview Map and Detail Map in the EDR Report.
Subject Site
The Site was not listed in any of the environmental databases researched by and included in the
EDR report.
Vicinity Properties
EDR identified multiple sites, including Muddy Waters Property (located on the adjacent property
to the north) and Eagle Island Engineer Yard (located approximately 500-feet south), listed in
databases potentially indicative of releases or historical contamination including North Carolina

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 13 Jan-17

State Hazardous Waste Sites (NC SHWS), leaking aboveground storage tank (LAST), and incident
management database (IMD). Additionally, EDR identified two Brownfields Sites and three
Superfund Sites within the1-mile radius; however, these sites were located approximately 900-feet
east of the Subject Site (east of the Cape Fear River). Details of the sites are summarized in
Table 1.
EDR identified multiple sites, including Moran Environmental Recovery LLC (located
approximately 800 feet south), on various databases such as Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (RCRA-CESQG), Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Non-Generator (RCRA-NONGEN), Facility Index System (FINDS), and some
others, which are listings typically associated with the management of chemicals and waste and
are not per se directly indicative of releases or spills at these locations. These listings also are
included in Table 1 and in the EDR Radius Map™ Report (Appendix B).
Orphan Sites
EDR identified three “orphan sites”, which could not be mapped by EDR due to lack of sufficient
address information. Geosyntec attempted to map the orphan sites using the associated EDR-
reported site location information. These orphan sites were not found to be located within
approximately 1-mile of the Site.
4.2 Historical Use Information
4.2.1 Historical Aerial Photographs
An aerial photograph review was conducted to help evaluate past uses of the Site, as well as
adjoining properties. Geosyntec requested the EDR aerial photo decade package, which included
aerial photographs from 1938, 1956, 1958, 1969, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009,
2010, and 2012. A copy of the aerial photographs package is included as Appendix C to this
report. Additionally, Geosyntec obtained a 1980 aerial photograph from the Bill Reaves Archives
at the New Hanover County Public Library in Wilmington, North Carolina (Appendix A-2). The
photograph was not georeferenced; however, it appeared that the photograph included the Subject
Site. In review of these aerial photographs, Geosyntec made the following observations:

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 14 Jan-17

Location Description
Site In 1938, a road ran through the eastern portion of the Site and connected to the
adjacent properties to the north and south. West of this road, the Site was nearly
entirely vegetated with the exception of a clearing in the central northern portion
of the Site while in the east, what appeared to be several boat slips and buildings
were present. Numerous boats could be seen docked in the boat slips in the 1938
and 1956 aerial photographs. In 1956, Battleship Road was observed in its
current state which was west of the road in the 1938 photograph. At this time,
two cleared corridors were also observed in the southwest of the Site emanating
from the adjacent electrical substation. These corridors were present in all
remaining photographs and appeared to be the only development on the
otherwise unoccupied southwestern Site area. In 1969, the eastern portion of
the property appeared heavily forested and a large building or clearing in the
northeast portion of the Site was observed. This building or building foundation
was observed through the 1983 aerial. In the 1980 Bill Reaves Archives aerial
photo, this area was depicted as a clearing with an apparent rectangular
foundation. The Bill Reaves Archives 1980 photo also showed two buildings
slightly south of the clearing near the Cape Fear River and two boat slips. In
1983, an apparent building or structure was seen on the central northern portion
of the Site; this structure did not appear to be present in subsequent photographs.
In 1993, structures consistent in size, shape, and location with the present day I-
beams were observed. From 2005 to 2012 photographs, no buildings could be
distinguished on the Site due to heavy tree cover and vegetation on the majority
of the Site other than one large building (this building was observed during
Geosyntec’s site visit) located on the eastern central portion of the Site. Other
than the road in the 1938 aerial, no improvements, structures, or activity were
observed on the southernmost parcel associated with the Site.
Vicinity In 1938, the western bank of the Cape Fear River was heavily forested with
intermittent clearings along the shore. An apparent marina with a marine
railway, dock, and at least one large building was present on the adjacent
property to the north. The marina appeared active through at least the 1980s;
however, the large building was not present after the 1938 photograph. From
1975 to 1999 photographs, a large clearing was seen in the central portion of
this property north of the marina area and there appeared to be a large mound in
this area. The 1980 Bill Reaves Archives photo showed this clearing along with
two docked ships and at least one building located near the docks southeast of
the clearing. In 1938, the adjacent property to the west was vacant and the
existing adjacent substation to the south was present. Further south, several
buildings appeared at the present day Eagle Island Engineer Yard. By 1956, this
area had been expanded into a large (~1/4 mile long) dock with numerous
buildings present. From 1938 to 2012 photographs, the eastern bank of the Cape
Fear River was heavily developed with both residential and
commercial/industrial areas. The present day Cape Fear Memorial Bridge

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 15 Jan-17

Location Description
which connects the eastern and western banks of the Cape Fear River and US
74 and 17 were first observed in the 1969 historical aerial photograph.
In summary, the review of aerial photographs revealed usages (commercial/industrial and naval
(military) land use as early as the 1938 aerial photograph, including marina use at and in close
proximity to the Site) that could be potentially indicative of hazardous materials/chemical storage,
management/usage, or disposal practices in the immediate vicinity the Site that could pose a threat
to the soil and/or groundwater quality at the Site.
4.2.2 Fire Insurance Maps
EDR initially did not identify Sanborn® fire insurance maps for the Site or vicinity; however exact
mapping of the Subject Site was complicated due to its location along the Cape Fear River.
Geosyntec independently identified two Sanborn® maps from 1889 and 1904 for the area of Eagle
Island and requested that EDR expand its search area to ensure that no maps were missed. EDR
conducted a broader search of Eagle Island and identified Sanborn® fire insurance maps for the
area in general proximity to the Site for 1889, 1893, 1898, 1904, 1910, 1915, 1951, 1955, and
1964; however, these maps did not appear to contain the Subject Site. A copy of the Sanborn®
maps package is included as Appendix D to this report. In review of these Sanborn® maps,
Geosyntec made the following observations:
Location Description
Site The Site was not observed on the provided Sanborn® maps.
Vicinity The EDR-provided Sanborn® maps depicted areas to the north of the Site. In
maps from 1889 to 1915, the area was heavily populated by industry including
naval stores, shipyards and docks, fertilizer warehouses, a turpentine distillery,
and a lumber company. A common feature on the maps of this period was areas
labeled as tar and resin storage, particularly surrounding the naval stores. The
1915 and 1951 maps showed the area that included the adjacent property to the
north which depicted a marine railway. In 1915, the “Wilmington Marine
Railway Co.” was depicted which included an engine house and pump and two
railways in the river. In the 1951 map, this area was shown as the “Stone Marine
Railway Co” with numerous railways. A large rectangle labeled “oil storage”
and a smaller rectangle labeled “pitch kettle” were drawn north of Stone Marine.
In 1955 and 1964 maps, only sporadic small buildings and sheds were depicted
along the Cape Fear River shore.

In summary, the review of Sanborn® fire insurance maps revealed numerous activities involving
hazardous materials/chemical storage, management/usage, or disposal practices in the immediate
vicinity the Site that could pose a threat to the soil and/or groundwater quality at the Site.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 16 Jan-17

4.2.3 Property Tax Files
Geosyntec researched publicly available online tax records through Brunswick County records.
The information retrieved included property boundary information, property owner, and property
size. The owner of parcels 0390000901 and 03900008 is listed as “S G Prestress Co” and the two
parcels as being 12.7 acres and “85x200” (approximately 0.39 acres) respectively. The owner of
parcel 03900011 is listed as “Arendel Corp” and the size is 9.8 acres. Notably, it appears the
reported acreage of the parcels may not be correct. The retrieved tax map parcel information is
provided in Appendix A-1.
4.2.4 Historical Topographic Maps
EDR supplied portions of USGS topographical maps of the Site and vicinity for additional
historical information regarding the Site and surrounding areas. EDR supplied topographic maps
from 1942, 1948, 1970, 1979, 1993, and 2013. A copy of the topographic maps package is
included as Appendix E to this report. In review of these historical topographic maps, Geosyntec
made the following observations:
Location Description
Site From 1942 to 1979, three buildings were observed on the northeast portion of
the Site. In 1993, a single building was located on the north central Site area
and in 2013 no buildings were present. From 1942 to 1948, a road running north
south located west of the original three buildings was observed. From 1970 to
2013, the present day Battleship Rd NE was observed and the former 1942 to
1948 road was gone. From 1942 to 1993, two lines leading from the adjacent
electrical substation were shown running west and northwest across the
southwest portion of the Site. These lines corresponded to the cleared corridors
observed in the historical aerials; however, the line formats were not consistent
across maps and no key was given to identify their meaning.
Vicinity In 1942 and 1948 maps, a road running east-west across Eagle Island was
observed approximately ¼ mile north of the Site. This road also intersected
another road running north south from approximately ¼ mile north of the Site
to the northern edge of both the 1942 and 1948 maps. In 1970, 1979, 1993, and
2013, a major road system and bridge appeared to the northwest and southeast
of the Site on both sides of the Cape Fear River. Additionally, the USS North
Carolina Battleship Memorial appeared approximately ¼ mile north of the Site
in these years. In maps from 1942 to 1993, several buildings were present to
the South of the Site on the western Cape Fear River shore. In 1942 and 1948,
three buildings were present to north of the Site on the western Cape Fear River
shore. In available maps, the eastern Cape Fear River shore (e.g. downtown
Wilmington, North Carolina) was heavily developed with a gridded roadway
system and buildings, with the exception of the 2013 map which showed no
buildings.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 17 Jan-17

In summary, the review of USGS topographical maps revealed commercial/industrial land usage
that could be potentially indicative of hazardous materials/chemical storage, management/usage,
or disposal practices at or in the immediate vicinity the Site that could pose a threat to the soil
and/or groundwater quality at the Site.
4.2.5 City Directories
A search of historical city directories for the area of the Site was conducted by EDR. Business
directories including city, cross reference, and telephone directories were reviewed, if available,
for 1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2008, and 2013. The Site was not found in any searched directories,
but entries were found for the nearby property 109 Battleship Rd NE in 2013. The EDR City
Directory Abstract Report is included as Appendix F to this report. The review of city directories
revealed the following observations:
Location Description
Site No entries for searched dates from 1992 to 2013.
Vicinity In 2013, the following entries were found for 109 Battleship Rd NE:
Carolina Christian Radio, Gospel Joy, Olin Bohanan.

In summary, the review of the city directories suggested that the Site has been unoccupied in recent
decades. Nearby property land uses were only listed for 109 Battleship Rd NE in 2013. As
indicated by the names listed on the records, the property appeared to have been used as a
church/radio station and possibly residentially.
4.3 Other Documents
The User did not provide Geosyntec with previous environmental assessment reports for the
Subject Site. Additionally, Geosyntec was not able to identify previous environmental reports for
the Subject Site through publically available archives. However, Geosyntec was able to obtain and
review the following publically-available documents which included historical land use
information regarding the Subject Site and surrounding area:

• “Eagle Island: A History of a Landscape” – obtained from the New Hanover Soil and Water
Conservation District by Environmental Services, Inc. website;
• “What is Eagles Island” – online news article obtained from MyReporter.com;
• Portions of the Bill Reaves clippings – obtained from a file review conducted at the New
Hanover County Public Library;

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 18 Jan-17

• Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) for Muddy Waters Property;
(northern property adjacent to the Site) – obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Superfund File Records database; and
• Muddy Waters Property Brownfields Notice – obtained from NC DEQ website.

The following sections summarize the publically-available reports as reviewed by Geosyntec.

History of Eagle Island Report

Geosyntec obtained a July 2011 report titled “Eagle Island: A History of a Landscape” prepared
for the New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District by Environmental Services, Inc. This
report is included in Appendix A-2. The study was initiated in an effort to promote conservation
and management of Eagle Island’s natural resources and to educate about the history and current
condition of the island. According to the report, numerous rice plantations existed on Eagle Island
in the early eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with some still operating in the early twentieth
century. Based on the maps in the report, a plantation named Bleak House located approximately
two miles to the southeast was the closest to the Site. The island was also host to significant naval
activity through both naval stores and port facilities which often housed steam sawmills, railways,
blacksmith shops, and rigging lofts. Due to this activity, the report showed a map of numerous
abandoned ships both upstream and downstream of the Site along the Cape Fear River. As
discussed in section 4.2.2, this naval activity was observed in the immediate vicinity of the Site
during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Additional industrial activity in the vicinity during this
time period included turpentine distillation and logging/lumber production which persisted until
the 1980’s.
What is Eagles Island?
Geosyntec reviewed this news article written by Ben Steelman for StarNews and posted on
www.myreporter.com on 22 May 2009. The article is included in Appendix A-2. According to
the article, parts of the island were used for rice planting up until the early 1900s. In the 1900s,
sawmills and turpentine distilleries occupied the island. Ferries between Wilmington (located east
of the Cape Fear River) and Eagle Island operated from the 1760s until 1929. The island was also
home to various steam sawmills, shipyards, and marine railways in the 1800s and 1900s.
According to the article, Wilmington Iron Works operated a ship yard and marine railway as late
as 1924 and the “rusted iron gears” used to pull ships from the water are reported to still be present
(it is possible that these iron gears are among the apparent winches observed at the Site by
Geosyntec). Additional marine railways operated through the 1980s. This article also indicated
that the US Army Corps of Engineers began building docks on the island in 1910 which are still
in use (an Army Corp property is located south of the Site).

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 19 Jan-17

Bill Reaves Archives at New Hanover County Public Library
On 25 August 2016, Grant Wallace traveled to the New Hanover County Public Library in
Wilmington, NC to review the Bill Reaves collection in the Library’s archives. The collection
largely consisted of newspaper clippings and miscellaneous historical documents largely from the
1800’s to present day. Geosyntec found numerous articles related to Eagle Island both for the Site
and vicinity. The originals of these documents were scanned and are included in Appendix A-2.
Related to the Subject Site, the Bill Reaves Archives generally indicated that most industry and
commerce on Eagle Island occurred north of the Site during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
However, several records were found for the Site indicating that industrial activity did occur at the
Site throughout its early history. An advertisement from 1876, showed a portion of property
containing the Site up for sale. A newspaper article from 1895 indicated that a Mr. C.H. Dock was
building a lamp-black (black carbon from incomplete combustion of heavy petroleum products)
factory at a location which may have been the Site based on the description of the location provided
(“opposite Nun Street”). He planned to manufacture lamp black from rosin. The article detailed
a building on Site that was “one hundred and forty feet in length by thirty feet in width.” No
subsequent records were found describing the operations of the factory or any incidents at the Site.
Through the above-referenced articles, the existence and activities of numerous sites found on the
Sanborn maps was confirmed including the D.L. Gore Naval Store, W.A. Martin & Co., and
Patterson Downing & Co. Notably, numerous fires were noted in the Reaves Collection at these
Eagle Island industrial sites throughout essentially their entire periods of operation (~late 1800’s
to early 1900’s). The articles detailing these incidents regularly stated that barrels of tar, resin,
and turpentine were lost in the fires with the numbers often reaching thousands of barrels. A
December 1894 article detailing a fire starting in the M.J. Heyer naval stores yard stated “seven or
eight thousand barrels rosin, crude turpentine, tar and pitch went up in flame and smoke.” These
incidents led to apparent releases into the environment as shown by an October 1896 article stating
“The fire…broke out afresh yesterday in the loose rosin incorporated with the earth and burned
fiercely for several hours.”
As discussed in section 2.5.2, the Site and vicinity are almost entirely classified as wetlands located
within the 100-year flood zone. Articles detailing major flooding on Eagle Island were found in
the archives for 1878, 1893, 1901, and 1922. The 1901 flood was large enough to merge the
Northeast Cape Fear River and Cape Fear River currently located north of the Site. These records
showed that abnormal hydrologic events have occurred and directly impacted the Site and
surrounding area in the past.
Phase I and II ESAs for Muddy Waters Property
A Phase I ESA dated 30 May 2014 for the Muddy Waters Property adjoining the northern border
of the Site was obtained from the NCDEQ database and is included in Appendix A-2. The report

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 20 Jan-17

was prepared by Engineering Consulting Services Carolinas, LLP (ECS) for Muddy Waters
Properties, LLC. The report detailed the prior agricultural and commercial/industrial site usage
including rice cultivation, naval stores, turpentine distillation, fertilizer manufacturing, and
shipbuilding. The Phase I ESA also stated that a truck maintenance shop was on the property in
1955, but was demolished by 1974 leaving the property unoccupied since the 1970s. Ultimately,
the report listed two REC’s for the site: 1) past industrial site usage (suggested a sampling regimen
“to determine if the site has been impacted by turpentine, tar, resins, fertilizers, heavy metals,
and/or petroleum products.”), and 2) a partially buried engine/motor observed on the southern
portion of the site. ECS also listed three business environmental risks including: 1) obtaining
necessary permits for developing on or adjacent to coastal wetlands, 2) removal of trash and debris,
and 3) management of cultural and historical naval resources (submerged ships and naval yard)
along the property shoreline.
A Phase II ESA for the Muddy Waters Property dated 17 July 2015 was also obtained from the
NCDEQ Superfund database and is included in Appendix A-2. The report was prepared by ECS
Carolinas, LLP for Diamond Black Development, LLC. As part of this ESA, ECS collected soil
and groundwater samples from seven quadrants of the property. Soil samples were analyzed for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), RCRA metals
plus hexavalent chromium, pesticides, and herbicides. Groundwater samples were analyzed for
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, total and orthophosphorus, ammonia, and nitrate/nitrite.
For soil samples, several metals, pesticides, petroleum compounds, and one non-petroleum
compound were detected; however, only arsenic and 1,2,3-trichloropropane exceeded the
applicable NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) at the
time of the assessment. In groundwater samples, only ammonia exceeded NC DEQ 15A NCAC
2L Groundwater Quality Standards.
Muddy Waters Property Brownfields Notice
Geosyntec obtained from the User a notice of intent to redevelop the 19 acre Brownfields property
with known groundwater and soil contamination located at 105 and 125 Battleship Rd NE adjacent
to the north of the Site. The notice listed TCM, Inc. as the prospective developer and gave the
start of the public comment period as 17 August 2016. This document is included in Appendix
A-2.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 21 Jan-17

5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
A reconnaissance of the Site was conducted by Geosyntec’s representatives, Eric Nesbit and
Kaitlyn Rhonehouse, on 16 August 2016 to assess the current conditions on and around the Site.
A second site visit was conducted by Geosyntec’s representatives Eric Nesbit and Amber Greune
on 28 September 2016. This second site visit was completed at the request of the client to evaluate
an additional parcel beyond the initial scope identified for the 16 August 2016 visit.
As part of the Site reconnaissance, Geosyntec looked for evidence of the presence of hazardous
substances used, stored, or discarded and reviewed the Site for areas of disturbed or discolored
soil, suspect equipment and/or building materials that may contain hazardous substances, areas of
distressed vegetation, wastewater discharge areas, evidence of storage tanks/septic systems, waste
management/disposal areas, lagoons, pits, sumps, surface water management areas, stained
surfaces, etc.
Selected photographs taken during the Site reconnaissance are presented in Appendix L.
Adjoining properties were observed from the perimeter of the Site or from access roads and
entrances into these properties.
The following information is based on Geosyntec’s visit to the Site and/or Geosyntec’s
interviewing effort.
5.2 Utility Service & Materials Management Provider Information
An electrical corridor was observed running through the Site; however, no active utility service or
materials management providers were identified for the Site.
5.3 Interior and Exterior Observations
5.3.1 General Usage of Hazardous Substances
No chemicals or hazardous substances were observed to be stored or used on the Site as no active
on-site activities were noted.
5.3.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks
One abandoned AST was observed at the Site just south of Building B. The tank was metal and
approximately 30 feet in length and approximately 3 feet in diameter. This piece of equipment is
identified here as an AST, although its intended purpose is unknown. The tank was observed to
be empty and significantly deteriorated. No staining was observed.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 22 Jan-17

5.3.3 Underground Storage Tanks
No underground storage tanks (USTs) were observed at the time of reconnaissance at the Site. A
metal stick-up pipe was observed in the central western portion of the Site; however, it was not
apparent if this pipe was a vent pipe or other piping associated with an underground tank.
Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify active or former USTs at the Site.
5.3.4 Odors
No notable odors were identified during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the Site. Geosyntec’s
interviewing effort addressed but did not identify past odor conditions of concern.
5.3.5 Pools of Liquid
Pools of liquid were not observed at the time of reconnaissance at the Site. Geosyntec’s
interviewing effort addressed but did not identify pool of liquid that could be indicative of a
chemical release.
5.3.6 Drums
Two heavily rusted and empty approximately 55-gallon metal drums were seen in proximity to
Buildings A and B (located on parcel0390000901). The drums were deteriorated and no labeling
was observed to indicated the original contents. Additionally, several empty rusted drums were
observed west of Battleship Rd NE on Parcel 0390000901. The drums were used as support for a
large concrete I-beam. All drums were located in heavily vegetated areas and no stressed
vegetation or soil staining was observed.
5.3.7 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Containers (Not Tanks and Not
Drums)
No hazardous substance/petroleum product containers were noted during Geosyntec’s
reconnaissance of the Site. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify
hazardous substance/petroleum product containers.
5.3.8 Unidentified/Other Substance Containers
No unidentified/other substance containers were noted during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the
Site. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify unidentified/other substance
containers.
5.3.9 Indications of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
No indications of PCBs were observed at the Site. However, based on age of former
buildings/structures (structures were present on Site as early as the 1930’s), it is considered

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 23 Jan-17

possible that PCB-containing materials (these could include paints, oils, light ballasts, electrical
transformers, and other materials) were present at the Site in the past and PCBs could have
remained onsite. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify PCBs at the Site.
5.3.10 Heating/Cooling (Methods Used On-Site)
No heating/cooling systems were noted during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the Site.
Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify heating/cooling systems.
5.3.11 Stains and Corrosion
No staining indicative of a release was observed. Metal structures (buildings, drums, AST) were
observed to be heavily rusted.
5.3.12 Drains and Sumps
No drains or sumps were noted during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the Site. Geosyntec’s
interviewing effort addressed but did not identify drains or sumps.
5.3.13 Pits, Ponds, Pools, and Lagoons
No constructed pits, ponds, pools, or lagoons were noted during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of
the Site. However, the majority of the Site is included in the National Wetland Inventory by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Areas of standing water were observed in areas on the eastern
portions of the Site close to the Cape Fear River. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but
did not identify constructed pits, ponds, pools, or lagoons.
5.3.14 Stressed Vegetation
The Site was almost entirely vegetated with the exception of a clearing located on the northwestern
portion of the Site. Vegetation consisted of large trees and shrubs for most of the property and
transitioned to wetland grasses as the property approached the Cape Fear River. None of this
vegetation showed signs of apparent stress from chemical release or non-natural factors.
5.3.15 Solid Waste
Non-hazardous solid waste was observed in various locations throughout the Site (likely associated
with illegal dumping and/or tidal wash up/flooding from the Cape Fear River). The waste included
plastic bottles and crates, glass bottles, tires, and rubber hosing. In addition, a wrecked ship was
observed just off the eastern coast of the Site. Geosyntec did not observe hazardous or non-
hazardous solid waste storage areas or containers at the Site.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 24 Jan-17

5.3.16 Wastewater (Not Including Septic Systems)
Geosyntec did not observe wastewater or a wastewater system in place at the Site.
5.3.17 Wells
No monitoring or supply wells were observed at or in the immediate vicinity of the Site at the time
of Geosyntec’s Site visit, nor through Geosyntec’s interviewing effort.
5.3.18 Septic Systems
A metal stick-up pipe was observed in the central western portion of the Site; however, it was not
apparent if this pipe was a vent pipe or other piping associated with an underground septic system.
No other evidence of septic tanks was observed at or in the immediate vicinity of the Site.
5.3.19 Filled Areas
No filled areas were observed by Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the Site. Geosyntec’s
interviewing effort did not identify historical filled areas at the Site.
5.4 Observations of Adjoining Properties
During the Site reconnaissance, Geosyntec observed the adjoining properties from the Site. The
purpose of this observation was to attempt to identify possible sources of obvious environmental
impairment emanating from the adjoining properties that could affect soil and groundwater quality
at or result in vapor migration into the Site as a result of surface water runoff, groundwater
transport, or similar pathways.

Due to the nature of the operations at some nearby properties north and south of the Site, and
Geosyntec observations (such as current shipyard and electrical substation to the south), there is a
potential that surface or subsurface chemical release-related impacts could be associated with these
land uses. Geosyntec’s Site visit noted no obvious evidence of chemical discharge to the ground
at adjacent properties.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 25 Jan-17

6. INTERVIEWS
6.1 Interview with Current Owner Representatives
Geosyntec conducted an interview with Mr. Matt Arbuckle, who indicated he was the Director of
Real Estate and Business Development for Vulcan. Mr. Arbuckle provided Geosyntec with
contact information for Mr. Mike O’Berry, who indicated he was Manager of Environmental
Services for the Southeast Division of Vulcan and has worked for Vulcan for 29 years. Mr.
O’Berry reported that Vulcan acquired Florida Rock Industries in November 2007 and that
Arundel Corporation and S&G Prestress Concrete Co. were owned by Florida Rock Industries.
He also indicated that a “limited environmental report” was completed at the Site in 2006. At the
time of this writing of this report, Vulcan had not provided a copy of this report to review.
According to Mr. O’Berry, the Subject Site and surrounding properties were used for repair and
maintenance of Liberty ships during World War II. He also indicated that the western portion of
the Sit was reportedly used for concrete mixing but did not have additional details related to this
operation.
Information obtained from these interview is provided in other portions of this report.
6.2 Interview with Former Owner Representative
Geosyntec requested but was not provided with contact information for previous owners/operators
of the Site.
6.3 Brunswick County Environmental Health Interview
Geosyntec contacted the Brunswick County Environmental Health Department on 21 September
2016. The Brunswick County representative searched the Department’s available records for the
three Site parcels; however, no records were found.
6.4 Brunswick County Emergency Services Interview
Geosyntec contacted the Brunswick County Emergency Services Department on 21 September
2016. A request was made for records related to the three Site parcels; however, as of the date of
this report, no records have been provided to Geosyntec by the Emergency Services Department.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 26 Jan-17

7. EVALUATION & CONCLUSIONS
As required by ASTM’s Phase I ESA Standard E1527-13, this section presents known or suspect
RECs, historical RECs (“HRECs”), controlled RECs (“CRECs”), and/or de minimis conditions
identified by Geosyntec at the Site. These findings (discussed below) are based on Geosyntec’s
evaluation of the information gathered for this Phase I ESA, through the following means:
environmental database review; Site visit; aerial photographs; topographic maps; environmental
file review; and a review of other obtained information regarding the Site and historical land use
in the vicinity of the Site.

Following the Findings section (Section 7.1), Geosyntec presents our opinions, data gaps, and
conclusions (Sections 7.2 through 7.4) regarding our identified known or suspected RECs, HRECs,
CRECs, and/or de minimis conditions associated with the Site.
7.1 Findings
The following findings which Geosyntec identified as having the potential to be known or suspect
RECs, historical RECs, controlled RECs, and/or de minimis conditions at the Site are listed below
(these are not presented in a particular order of importance):
• FINDING A (Historical Shoreline Property Use for Naval-Related Industrial
Operations): Aerial photographs showed several buildings and boat docks with apparent
marina or shipyard activity beginning in at least the 1930s through the 1950s. These
operations are clearly definable along the shoreline in multiple historical references
reviewed. Mr. O’Berry indicated that maintenance and repair of Liberty ships was
performed at the Site during World War II. No specific details regarding operations or
chemical usage associated with this usage of the shoreline for naval/marine operations were
reported or obtained.
• FINDING B (Historical Industrial Land Use and Incidents): Sanborn maps, aerial
photographs, and information obtained from the Bill Reaves Archives indicated that
portions of the Site beyond just the shoreline noted in Finding A were utilized for industrial
operations. For example, at a minimum, the northern areas bordering the Site were used
for a variety of commercial and industrial activities throughout the late 1800’s and early
1900’s including naval commerce, marine railways, lumber production, turpentine
distilling, and fertilizer sales or production. Tar and resin storage barrels and drums were
commonly depicted on the maps of this period in these northern bordering areas. In 1895,
the Site or vicinity was reportedly being developed as a lamp black factory as well. When
these industries populated the area, archives indicated that fires involving tar, resin, rosin,
and turpentine were a common occurrence and often significant in scale. Reviewed
documents also indicated areas of Eagle Island were formerly utilized for agricultural use
(rice production) in the 1700s and 1800s.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 27 Jan-17

• FINDING C (Above Ground Storage Tank and Drums): During the Site visit, two
rusted and deteriorated drums and an above ground storage tank were observed on the
eastern portion of the Site. The previous uses and contents of these containers is unknown.
No records of leaks or cleanup were reported for the Site because no site-related records
were available. The Site was not listed on regulatory environmental databases reviewed.
• FINDING D (Solid Waste/Debris): Non-hazardous solid waste (e.g. construction debris
and trash) was observed scattered throughout the Site. The waste included plastic bottles
and crates, glass bottles, tires, rubber hosing, and an old boat. The waste was identified in
various areas of the Site, leading to a conclusion that dumping had occurred. Geosyntec
did not observe organized hazardous or non-hazardous solid waste storage areas or
appropriate containers at the Site.
• FINDING E (Adjacent Properties with Known or Potential Contamination): The
Muddy Waters Property and Eagle Island Engineer Yard are located west of the Cape Fear
River and within ¼ mile north and south of the Site respectively. Both properties were
listed in regulatory databases indicative of releases or historical contamination. The
Muddy Waters property is projected to be hydraulically up-gradient of the Site and both
soil and groundwater contamination were reported for this property as recently as 2015.
No cleanup efforts have been reported for the Muddy Waters site. This property has
applied for acceptance into the NC Brownfields Program. The Eagle Island Engineer Yard
is projected to be hydraulically downgradient from the Site; however, groundwater
contamination has been detected at the property from a 1995 petroleum release and no
cleanup or site closure has been reported.
• Finding F (Apparent Concrete Mixing Area): During Geosyntec’s Site visit, several
open pipes emanating from the subsurface environment were observed near the
southernmost clearing on parcel 0390000901. Two four-inch metal pipes appeared to be
utilized for conveyance/pumping of water. The purpose of an additional two-inch metal
pipe was not identified; however, it is possible that it was used as a venting pipe for an
underground tank or related apparatus. This area is suspected to be a location for concrete
mixing that may have utilized fuel- or oil-powered equipment.
7.2 Opinion
7.2.1 Opinion Regarding Current Potential to Impact Site
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
As defined by ASTM E1527-13, a recognized environmental condition is: “the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to
release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3)

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 28 Jan-17

under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis
conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.”
• FINDING A (Historical Shoreline Property Use for Marine-Related Industrial
Operations): Aerial photographs depicted docks, slips, and significant boat/vessel storage
at the Site from at least 1938 to the 1950s. No specific information was found regarding
chemicals used at the Site; however, naval and/or or commercial marine-related land use
is commonly associated with the storage and handling of hazardous materials and
petroleum products such as solvents, paints, and metals. Notably, the Site appeared to be
mostly unpaved during this observed land use. Geosyntec concludes there is a high
potential that the former marine-related industrial operations at the Site adversely affected
the surface or subsurface at the Site; therefore, this finding is considered a REC.
• FINDING B (Historical Industrial Land Use and Incidents): During the late 1800’s
and early 1900’s when there was a large industrial presence on Eagle Island; records
showed widespread use and storage of tar, resin, rosin, and turpentine in the up-gradient
vicinity of the Site related to the marine industry and naval applications. Numerous
accounts of fires and apparent releases of these substances into the environment were found
in the Bill Reaves Archives Collection at the New Hanover County Public Library. A lamp
black factory was also reportedly to be constructed at or near the Site. Other reported
activities included lumber production, fertilizer storage, and rice farming. In addition,
longstanding maritime activity was observed on aerial photographs and fire insurance maps
in proximity to the Site, including on the adjacent property to the north. The observed
and/or reported industrial activities at or in close proximity to the Site are projected to have
a high potential to have adversely affected the surface or subsurface at the Site; therefore,
this finding is considered a REC.
• FINDING C (Above Ground Storage Tank and Drums): During the Site visit on 16
August 2016, several rusted and deteriorated drums and an apparent above ground storage
tank were observed on the eastern portion of the Site. No historical information was found
regarding their contents or uses. Given the historical level of industry in the vicinity and
the past presence of operational boat docks and slips at the Site, a range of potentially
hazardous substances could have been stored in the tank and drums. This assumption
combined with the deteriorated state of the tank and drums is projected to have a high
potential to have adversely affected the surface or subsurface Site impacts; therefore, this
finding is considered a REC.
• FINDING E (Adjacent Properties with Known or Potential Contamination): The
Muddy Waters Property and Eagle Island Engineer Yard are located west of the Cape Fear
River within ¼ mile north and south of the Site respectively. Both properties were listed
in databases indicative of releases or historical contamination. The Muddy Waters property
is projected to be hydraulically upgradient from the Subject Site and contamination in

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 29 Jan-17

groundwater and soil exceeding applicable standards was detected as recently as 2015. The
contaminants included metals, organics, and inorganics. No apparent off-site testing has
been performed to evaluate the extent of identified impacts. The Eagle Island Engineer
Yard is projected to be in a hydraulically downgradient location. However, detected
petroleum contamination in groundwater could migrate on-Site due to the close proximity
and variable groundwater flow. Due to the proximity of these two sites to the subject Site
and the recent presence of both soil and groundwater contamination, Geosyntec concludes
that there is a high potential for adverse effects to the Site surface or subsurface from one
or both of these nearby properties; therefore, this finding is considered a REC.
Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs)
An HREC is “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred
in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority,
without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions,
activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).”

No HRECs were identified during this Phase I ESA.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs)
A CREC is “a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous
substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or
equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous
substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of
required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional
controls, or engineering controls).”

No CRECs were identified during this Phase I ESA.
Suspected Recognized Environmental Conditions (Suspected RECs)
Suspected RECs are findings which Geosyntec concluded do not meet the definition of a REC
based on the information Geosyntec obtained; however, a suspected REC finding does indicate
Geosyntec believes there is at least a moderate potential to indicate that surface or subsurface
quality impacts remain at the Site as of the writing of this Phase I ESA.

The following suspected REC was identified by Geosyntec:

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 30 Jan-17

• Finding F (Apparent Concrete Mixing Area) – During Geosyntec’s Site visit, several
open pipes emanating from the subsurface were observed near the southernmost clearing
on parcel 0390000901. An underground source or connections of these pipes was not
identified. Additionally, no information was found through Geosyntec’s efforts regarding
on-Site underground storage tanks, septic systems, or underground hazardous chemical
storage. Due to this absence of information regarding associated chemical storage for these
pipes, this finding is not classified as a REC. However, given the historically high level of
industry on-Site and in the vicinity, it is possible that these pipes are or were at one point
connected to a UST or a similar vessel containing hazardous chemicals or petroleum
products. Therefore, this finding is considered a suspected REC.

De Minimis Conditions
A de minimis condition is a condition that “generally does not present a threat to human health or
the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought
to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies”.
The following de minimis condition was identified during this Phase I ESA:
• FINDING D (Solid Waste/Debris): Non-hazardous solid waste was observed scattered
throughout the Site during the 16 August 2016 Site visit. The waste included plastic bottles
and crates, glass bottles, tires, and rubber hosing. The location and types of debris indicates
dumping onsite and/or washing of debris from offsite locations. Based on the lack of
hazardous material or petroleum products observed associated with the observed solid
waste/debris, this finding is considered to be a de minimis condition.
7.2.2 Opinion Regarding Additional Investigation
ASTM E1527-13 requires that “the environmental professional provide an opinion regarding
additional appropriate investigation, if any, to detect the presence of hazardous substances or
petroleum products.” ASTM clarifies that “this opinion should be provided in the unusual
circumstance when greater certainty is required regarding the identified recognized
environmental conditions” and ASTM indicates “a Phase I ESA which includes such an opinion
by the environmental professional does not render the assessment incomplete.” ASTM says “this
opinion is not intended to constitute a requirement that the environmental professional include
any recommendations for a Phase II or other assessment activities.”

Geosyntec believes, from an ASTM E1527-13 perspective and, taking into account the below-
indicated data gaps as well as the above-indicated findings, no additional investigation is needed
to complete this Phase I ESA. However, the User may elect, based on its own risk tolerances to
further evaluate the degree to which the above findings may affect the Subject Site;
recommendations of this nature are not included in this Phase I ESA report.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 31 Jan-17

7.3 Data Gaps
In accordance with ASTM E1527-13, this section documents data gaps in the information obtained
and reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA and discusses the associated significance to reaching
conclusions in this Phase I ESA. A data gap is defined in ASTM E1527-13 as being “a lack of or
inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the
environmental professional to gather such information”.
Identified data gaps are presented below:

• Information regarding the first Site development, previous Site occupants, and previous
uses of Site structures were not provided or found in reports from EDR or publicly
available records researched by Geosyntec. The earliest aerial photograph obtained
was from 1938 and the Site appeared developed as a marina at that time; however other
information obtained dates the use of the area back to the 1800s;
• Geosyntec attempted to obtain information to allow an interview but was unable to
interview former owners/operators of the Subject Site, other than Vulcan Materials,
pursuant to ASTM E1527-13 guidance;
• Mr. O’Berry indicated that a limited environmental report was completed for the Site
in 2006; however, a copy of this report was not provided for Geosyntec to review;
• Information regarding specific chemical usage or storage on-site in connection with
former maritime or other activities were not provided or found in EDR reports or
publicly available records researched by Geosyntec;
• Contents and specific historical use of the deteriorated AST and 55 gallon drums were
not reported to or identified by Geosyntec; and
• Information regarding location and extent of operations for the planned lamp black
factory at or near the Site were not provided or found in EDR reports or publicly
available records researched by Geosyntec. Information regarding the purpose of the
subsurface piping listed as Finding F were not provided or found in EDR reports or
publicly available records researched by Geosyntec.
Collectively these data gaps are considered to be significant to Finding and REC identifications;
these have limited the evaluation which Geosyntec has provided herein.
7.4 Conclusions
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM
Practice E 1527-13 of the facility located on Battleship Rd NE, Eagle Island, Leland, NC. Any
exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4of this report. This

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 32 Jan-17

assessment has not revealed evidence of RECs, HRECs, or CRECs in connection with the property
(a.k.a. “Site” or “Subject Site”), except for the following:

• REC 1 – FINDING A (Historical Property Use for Boat-Related Industrial Operations);
• REC 2 – FINDING B (Historical Industrial Land Use and Incidents);
• REC 3 – FINDING C (Above Ground Storage Tank and Drums); and
• REC 4 – FINDING E (Adjacent Properties with Known or Potential Contamination)

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 33 Jan-17

8. NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
At the time of this writing, the User had requested a Phase II ESA for this Site. The Phase II ESA
results will be provided under separate cover and the results of that work have not been considered
in the completion of this Phase I ESA. No other non-scope considerations, as defined by the
ASTM Standard, have been requested by the User or evaluated by Geosyntec.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 34 Jan-17

9. SREFERENCES
ASTM E1527-13, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment”
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 10 August 2016, “Certified Sanborn® Map Report”
EDR, 11 August 2016, “EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package”
EDR, 9 August 2016, “EDR Historical Topographic Map Report”
EDR, 6 September 2016, “EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck®”
EDR, 11 August 2016, “The EDR-City Directory Abstract”
Inc, Environmental Services, July 2011, “Eagles Island: A History of a Landscape”.
LLP, ECS Carolinas, May 2014. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report”. Retrieved
from NC DEQ website: http://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/0/edoc/274731/NON
CD0002951%20Muddy%20Waters%20Property%2020140530%20Phase%20I%20Envir
onmental%20Site%20Assessment%20Report-OCR.pdf?searchid=973857e3-6a9a-44cc-
92ee-f72d1cde4063
LLP, ECS Carolinas, July 2015. “Phase II Environmental Site Assessment”. Retrieved from NC
DEQ website: http://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/0/edoc/274733/NONCD00029
51%20Muddy%20Waters%20Property%2020150717%20Phase%20II%20Environmental
%20Site%20Assessment%20Report-OCR.pdf?searchid=973857e3-6a9a-44cc-92ee-
f72d1cde4063
Nicholson, Bruce, August 2016. “Summary of Notice of Intent to Redevelop a Brownfields
Property”. Retrieved from NC DEQ website: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Waste%20Management/DWM/BF/Website/PC%20Docs/BF-Battleship%20Road-
final%20Draft%20SNI.pdf
Eagle Island Folders, Bill Reaves Collection, The North Carolina Room, New Hanover County
Public Library.
Steelman, Ben. “What is Eagle’s Island?” StarNews, 22 May 2009,
http://www.myreporter.com/2009/05/eagles-island/.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 35 Jan-17

10. SIGNATURE BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
“I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of
Environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR §312. I have the specific
qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature,
history, and setting of the Site. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in
conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.”

Signed by Kaitlyn Rhonehouse - Geosyntec Consultants

Qualifications of the above-signed professional are included in Section 11.

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 36 Jan-17

11. QUALIFICATIONS OF STAFF

Kaitlyn S. Rhonehouse, P.E.

Ms. Rhonehouse is a licensed professional engineer (Florida and North Carolina) possessing over
ten years’ experience in the environmental field. Ms. Rhonehouse has worked as an environmental
engineer and consultant on a variety of environmental projects in many areas of the United States,
including in North Carolina. These projects have dealt with environmental analyses,
investigations, and/or remediation of chemical contamination which involve the understanding of
surface and subsurface environmental conditions and for which professional judgment has been
used to develop opinions regarding conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances or petroleum products. Included in her experience are the following types
of work: property transaction environmental due diligence (e.g., Phase I and II ESAs; estimation
of costs to address certain environmental findings; etc.); evaluation of compliance with
environmental regulations; performance of remedial investigation/feasibility studies for
contaminated properties; field testing for soil, groundwater, and soil gas; performance of
geophysical investigations; and evaluation of the applicability of remedial measures for
contaminated soil, groundwater and sediments. Ms. Rhonehouse has served as the primary author
or reviewer of over one hundred environmental due diligence reports (Phase I and/or II ESAs)
located in many areas of the United States. Ms. Rhonehouse holds a B.S. in Environmental
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Mark A. Johnson
Mr. Johnson is a Principal with Geosyntec Consultants in our Washington, DC and Maryland
offices with over 20 years of experience in the environmental field. He has conducted and managed
numerous Phase I and Phase II site assessments at industrial, manufacturing, and commercial
facilities throughout the eastern and central United States, and internationally in Canada, Latin
America, and South America conducting site investigations and remediation at sites to address
petroleum products, chlorinated solvents, and metals impacting soil, sediment, and groundwater.
He assists commercial and attorney clients in evaluating potential future environmental
remediation requirements and costs associated with industrial facilities as part of due diligence and
related transaction support, as well as for insurance clients in evaluation of cost recovery claims.
Mr. Johnson has developed numerous remedial investigation work plans and reports, baseline
human health risk assessments, feasibility reports, and remedial action closure reports under a
variety of state-lead enforcement programs including underground storage tank and voluntary
cleanup programs. He has completed external training for the ASTM E1527 standard and meets
the requirements of an "Environmental Professional", as described in EPA's All Appropriate
Inquiries Rule. Mr. Johnson holds a Bachelor’s degree in Earth and Planetary Sciences from the

GN6146/ Phase I ESA 37 Jan-17

Johns Hopkins University, and a Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering from
the University of Maryland, College Park.

TABLE

Table 1
Summary of EDR Database Review Findings
Parcel No. 0390000901, 03900008, and 03900011
Battleship Rd NE, Eagle Island, Leland, NC
EDR Property Name EDR Map
ID
Approximate Distance
(miles) and Direction from
the Subject Site Parcel
Is Listed EDR Site
Located in Direction
which is Projected to be
Upgradient from Subject
Site?
EDR-indicated Databases
Associated with Listed
Site
Has Contamination
Been Reported at this
Listed Site in EDR
Report?
Is there a Better than Average Potential for Surface or Subsurface
Contamination to be Present at this Listed Site?
Is there Likelihood for Contamination at this Listed Site to have
Contaminated the Subsurface (Soil, Groundwater, and/or Soil Vapor) or
Surface or at the Subject Site (based on database listings?)
Does Listing Result in the Conclusion that the
Listed Site is likely to be a known or suspect REC,
HREC, CREC, and/or de minimis condition for
the Target Property/Subject Site (if "Yes" then
please see Section 7 of this report for further
evaluation)?
Muddy Waters Property
105 & 125 Battleship Rd
Wilmington, NC 28401
1 1/8 - 1/4 mile NNE Yes SHWS Yes
Yes (Phase I and Phase II ESAs were submitted for this site in 2015. The
reports indicate groundwater contamination from ammonia and soil
contamination from 1,2,3-trichloropropane, methylene chloride, and metals.)
High (Phase I and Phase II ESAs indicate both soil and groundwater contamination exceeding applicable standards as recently as 2015. The available records do not
show any cleanup or site closure actions for the listed site. The listed site is
projected to be hydraulically upgradient from the subject site and it is between 1/8 -
1/4 mile away making contaminant migration onto the subject site highly likely.)
Yes (REC)
Cape Fear River DrumsOn the Banks of Cape Fear River
Navassa, NC 28451
2 1/8 - 1/4 mile ENE No SEMS No No (no violations or discharges reported by EDR)Low (EDR report lists no discharges or violations and tank removal was completed in 2003.)No
Eagle Island Engineer Yard
SR 1300, West Side Cape Fear River
Wilmington, NC 28401
3 1/8 - 1/4 mile SSW No IMD, LAST Yes
Yes (EDR indicates groundwater contamination has been detected due to a
known petroleum release that occurred in 1995.)
Moderate (Groundwater contamination from a petrolemeum surface spill was
detected in 1995 and no subsequent cleanup or site closure has been reported.
Although the site is likely hydraulically downgradient from the subject site, the
listed site is located within 1/8 - 1/4 miles making contaminant migration onto the
subject site a possibility.)
Yes (REC)
Wilmington Iron Works (Former)
S Water, S Front, & Orange Sts
Wilmington, NC 28401
4,5 1/8 - 1/4 mile ENE No LUST, IMD, SHWS Yes
Yes (NCDEQ received complaints of petroleum and turpentine odors during
condominium construction at the site in 2000. Groundwater contamination was
detected in 1999 due to an underground storage tank petroleum leak and as of 2016, benzene exceeds 2L groundwater standards.)
Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Wilmington Coal Gas Plant 0, 6, 9, 10, 11 1/8 - 1/4 mile SE No
NC HSDS, SEMS, SHWS, VCP, EDR MGP, FINDS, ICIS, ECHO Yes Yes (property is listed as a Superfund site)
Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Moran Environmental Recovery LLC
262 Battleship Rd Suite B
Wilmington, NC 28401
7 1/8 - 1/4 mile SSW Yes RCRA NONGEN/NLR No No (no discharges reported by EDR)Low (EDR report lists no discharges)No
USS North Carolina Battleship
1 Battleship Dr
Wilmington, NC 28401
8 1/8 - 1/4 mile N Yes RCRA-CESQG No No (no violations or discharges reported by EDR) Low (EDR report lists no discharges or violations)No
Old Mt Holly Road PCE Site 0 1/4 - 1/2 mile SE No NC HSDS Yes Yes (property is listed as a Superfund site)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Merita Bakery (Former)121 South Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
12 1/4 - 1/2 mile NE No LUST, IMD Yes
Yes (EDR indicates soil contamination detected in 2004 due to gasoline leak from underground storage tank. Soil excavation and tank removal began in
2004. Site closure occurred in 2012.)
Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
City of Wilmington
South 2nd & Ann St
Wilmington, NC 28401
13 1/4 - 1/2 mile ENE No IMD No No (no violations or discharges reported by EDR) Low (EDR report lists no discharges or violations)No
Cape Fear Recyclers, Inc.
728 Surry St
Wilmington, NC 28401
14 1/4 - 1/2 mile SE No SWRCY No No (no violations or discharges reported by EDR) Low (EDR report lists no discharges or violations)No
PM AG Molasses Storage Facility15 Queen StWilmington, NC 28401 15 1/4 - 1/2 mile SE No IMD Yes
Yes (EDR indicates arsenic, lead, and chromium were detected in groundwater and the site was closed in 1997.)Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Butler Residence17 S 2nd St
Wilmington, NC 28401
16 1/4 - 1/2 mile NE No LUST TRUST No No (no violations or discharges reported by EDR) Low (EDR report lists no discharges or violations)No
Catherine Kennedy Home
207 S 3rd St
Wilmington, NC 28401
17, 18 1/4 - 1/2 mile ENE No IMD, LUST, LUST TRUST Yes
Yes (EDR indicates soil contamination due to an underground gasoline leak was
detected in 2000. Site closure occurred in 2001.)Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Church Street - 313
313 Church StWilmington, NC 28401 19 1/4 - 1/2 mile E No LUST Yes
Yes (EDR indicates groundwater contamination due to an underground storage
tank leak. Soil to groundwater cleanup was achieved in 2015 and site was closed in 2016.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
The Views on Water Street, LLC101 N Front StWilmington, NC 28401 20 1/4 - 1/2 mile NNE No LAST Yes
Yes (Soil contamination from petroleum was reported in 2011 and site was closed in 2011.)Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Love Grove Landfill
Unknown
Wilmington, NC 28401
21 1/4 - 1/2 mile NE No
FINDS, US
BROWNFIELDS, ECHO No No (no violations or discharges reported by EDR) Low (EDR report lists no discharges or violations)No
City Gas & Transmission Corp
801 Surry St
Wilmington, NC 28401
22, 23 1/4 - 1/2 mile SSE No
IMD, SHWS, RCRA-
CESQG Yes Yes (Groundwater contamination from metals was detected in 1987 and the site
was closed in 2003)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Sally Shop
141 N Front StWilmington, NC 28401 24 1/4 - 1/2 mile NNE No LUST, IMD Yes
Yes (Groundwater and soil contamination from a gasoline tank leak were
detected during underground storage tank removal in 2001. Soil to groundwater cleanup was achieved and the site was closed in 2001.)Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
S 4th Street - 201201 S 4th St
Wilmington, NC 28401
25 1/4 - 1/2 mile ENE No LUST, LUST TRUST Yes
Yes (A petroleum leak from an underground storage tank was reported in 2014.
Soil to groundwater cleanup and site closure occurred in 2014.)Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Storage Tank No. 2
7 N 3rd St
Wilmington, NC 28401
26 1/4 - 1/2 mile NE No LUST Yes
Yes (Soil contamination from petroleum was reported in 2011 from a tank of
unknown ownership. Clean up and closure occurred in 2012.)Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
MVC - Instersection I-140 Off Ramp & Hwy 421
Intersection I-140 & Hwy 421
Wilmington, NC 28401
27 1/4 - 1/2 mile SE No LAST Yes
Yes (Soil contamination from petroleum was reported in 2013 after a tractor
trailer overturned. Clean up occurred in 2013 and the site was closed in 2015.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Coughlin Residence104 S 4th StWilmington, NC 28401 28 1/4 - 1/2 mile ENE No LUST, IMD Yes
Yes (Soil contamination from heating oil leak from underground storage tank was discovered during a property transaction in 1997 and the site was closed in 2004.)Low (The listed site is separated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Queen Street - 310
310 Queen St
Wilmington, NC 28401
29 1/4 - 1/2 mile ESE No LAST Yes
Yes (Soil contamination from petroleum was reported in 2014. Clean up and
site closure occurred in 2015.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Southern Wood Piedmont Co# 0 1/2 - 1 mile S No NC HSDS Yes Yes (The property is listed as a Superfund site)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Table 1
Summary of EDR Database Review Findings
Parcel No. 0390000901, 03900008, and 03900011
Battleship Rd NE, Eagle Island, Leland, NC
EDR Property Name EDR Map ID
Approximate Distance (miles) and Direction from
the Subject Site Parcel
Is Listed EDR Site Located in Direction which is Projected to be
Upgradient from Subject
Site?
EDR-indicated Databases Associated with Listed
Site
Has Contamination Been Reported at this Listed Site in EDR Report?
Is there a Better than Average Potential for Surface or Subsurface Contamination to be Present at this Listed Site?
Is there Likelihood for Contamination at this Listed Site to have Contaminated the Subsurface (Soil, Groundwater, and/or Soil Vapor) or
Surface or at the Subject Site (based on database listings?)
Does Listing Result in the Conclusion that the Listed Site is likely to be a known or suspect REC, HREC, CREC, and/or de minimis condition for the Target Property/Subject Site (if "Yes" then please see Section 7 of this report for further
evaluation)?
Hilton Hotel301 N Water St
Wilmington, NC 28401
30 1/2 - 1 mile NNE No SHWS, IMD, LAST Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for groundwater contamination related to petroleum products and solvents. However, no wells had contaminant concentrations exceed the 2L standards during the most recent
sampling event in December 2012.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Southern Metals Recycling, Inc.
1002 S Front St
Wilmington, NC 28401
31 1/2 - 1 mile SSE No SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for groundwater
contamination related to petroleum products. Gross petroleum contamination
was encountered in three wells on Site during November 2015 sampling event.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.) No
JLM Terminals
1002 S Front St
Wilmington, NC 28401
32 1/2 - 1 mile SSE No UST, LUST, SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for soil and groundwater
contamination related to petroleum products, including a recent November 2015
methanol release.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.) No
Waccamaw Transport (Former)1106 S 2nd StWilmington, NC 28401 33 1/2 - 1 mile SE No SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for soil and groundwater contamination related to chlorinated solvents.)Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is projected to be hydraulically downgradient.) No
Coastline Inn Property
503 Nutt St
Wilmington, NC 28401
34 1/2 - 1 mile NNE No SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for groundwater
contamination related to trihalomethanes; potentially attributeable to off-Site
contamination source.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
STK Properties
501 N 3rd St
Wilmington, NC 28401
35 1/2 - 1 mile NNE No LUST, SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for soil and groundwater
contamination related to petroleum products and tetrachloroethene.)Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Allen's Farm Supply
511 N 3rd StWilmington, NC 28401 36 1/2 - 1 mile NNE No BROWNFIELDS, SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for soil and groundwater
contamination related to a release of chlorinated solvents, metals, and petroleum products.) Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
CSX-Nutt St515 Nutt St
Wilmington, NC 28401
37 1/2 - 1 mile N No SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for soil and groundwater contamination related to a petroleum release. The Listed Site is currently in the
process of obtaining a Brownfields Agreement.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Coca-Cola bottling Facility
1002 Princess St
Wilmington, NC 28401
38 1/2 - 1 mile ENE No VCP, SHWS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on the State IHSB (SHWS) list for groundwater
contamination related to chlorinated solvents.)Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Kerr - Mcgee Chemical Corp - Navassa
North Navassa Rd
Navassa, NC 28451
39 1/2 - 1 mile NNE No
FINDS, PRP, NPL, LIENS
2, ICIS, ECHO, SEMS Yes
Yes (Listed Site is on NPL; PRP begin remedial investigation/feasibility study in
June 2006; RI/FS work not completed; PRP settle for bankruptcy in January
2011.)
Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River.) No
Southern Wood Piedmont CompanyGreenfield St
Wilmington, NC 28401
40 1/2 - 1 mile SSE No VCP, SHWS, IMD Yes Yes (Groundwater contamination was reported.)Low (The listed site is seperated from the subject site by the Cape Fear River and is
projected to be hydraulically downgradient.)No
Notes:
(1) Information listed in table was taken from 9 August 2016 EDR Radius Map Report
(2) Based on topography data given in the 9 August 2016 EDR Radius Map Report, groundwater flow for the Site and vicinity was projected to be southeast or southwest toward the Cape Fear River for the western and eastern river banks respectively
(3) Criteria for RECs, HRECs, CRECs, and de minimis conditions was taken from ASTM Practice E2247-08(4) REC indicates recognized environmental condition (5) HREC indicates historical recognized environmental condition
(6) CREC indicates controlled recgonized environmental condition
(7) ESA indicates environmental site assessment
(8) SHWS indicates State Hazardous Waste Site
(9) SEMS indicates Superfund Enterprise Management System database(10) LAST indicates Leaking Aboveground Storage Tank database (11) IMD indicates Incident Management Database
(12) LUST indicates Leaking Underground Storage Tank database
(13) NC HSDS indicates North Carolina Hazardous Substance Disposal Site database
(14) VCP indicates voluntary cleanup program database
(15) EDR MGP indicates Environmental Database Report Manufactured Gas Plant database
(16) ICIS indicates Integrated Compliance Information System database(17) FINDS indicates Facility Index System database(18) RCRA NONGEN/NLR indicates Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Nongenerator
(19) RCRA CESQG indicates RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
(20) SWRCY indicates Solid Waste and Recycling Facility
(21) ECHO indicates Enforcement and Compliance History Online database
(22) PRP indicates Potentially Responsible Party database(23) NPL indicates National Priority List database(24) NCDEQ indicates North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

FIGURES

Site Location Map
Figure
1

Raleigh, NC January 2017
Legend
Subject Site Boundary
Notes:
1. 2013 topographic map obtained from USGS The National
Boundaries Dataset.
2. Site is within the Wilmington Quadrangle.
3. Site Boundary was estimated based on information provided by
Brunswick County.
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
0390000901
03900011
03900008
Subject Site: Parcel No. 0390000901, 03900011,
and 03900008
Battle Ship Road NE
Eagle Island, North Carolina
N:\GN6146 Burgess Eagle Island\GIS\MXD\F1_SiteLocationMap.mxd
Muddy Waters
(Former Marine Railway)
Cape Fear
River
Cape Fear Memorial BridgeEagle Island
Engineer YardBattleship RoadSubstation
Metal Building
with Tank B
Winch
Boat
Winch
Wood Shed D
Metal
Dock
Area
Concrete Slab and
Concrete Block
Building A
Remnants of
Metal/Wood
Building/Roof C
Concrete I-Beams
Concrete Barricades
Concrete Foundation, Metal
Mounting Structures, Electrical
Box, and Stick Up Pipes
Subject Site: Parcel No. 0390000901, 03900011, and 03900008 Battle Ship Road NEEagle Island, North Carolina

Raleigh, NC January 2017
Figure
2
0 250 500Feet
Notes:
1. Site Boundary was provided by Brunswick County
Property Apprasier.
2. 2013 Aerial Map was provided by ESRI Online Database.
3. Refer to Phase I ESA Report for A B C D description.
Legend
Subject Site Boundary
Concrete I-Beam on
55 Gallon Drums Electrical Box Owned by
Adjacent Substation Present
on Subject Property
Carolina Christian Radio
Driveway to Adjacent Property
Present on Subject Property
N:\GN6146 Burgess Eagle Island\GIS\MXD\Figure 2.mxd

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A-1:
%5816:,&. COUNTY PARCEL
INFORMATION

!""
#"!! #"!$""# %
&’()""*+,)"*-.
/(#" 0(#" 1 2#""33#-""" 4
5678#" !#"#""&9"# 9"" ,9"$ 29 9 #" "
!"# "$"#!"#"%$"#
"#$"#
#!"!&
:;
,
(2
;
..-
( (
%1 ""<=!’#!$"#("!"
( >
(
!’)%$"#("!"
"#"!$"#("!$+ ""
"#"$"#("!$+ ""
"#""!$"#("!$+ ""
"#""!$"#("#$+ ""
"#$"#("#"
"#$"#!%!("#"
"#")"#$"#("#*$+ ""
=>"
2,>"
>#%+"""
>"
,>"
>#%+"""
; ;
&
"#!""
%%’
! !"!!
+$
!""#
"
""
"" ,
#
%#"
""
"#
!+"#!#--
,
! #!.
/
%" "
"!
" $
,
!
)%!’
$"#
"#)%$"#"
#!!
#"!%"
--
"!
!
#"#
/
%
" !-
!-
/
#!
!
!
%"
-
"!&
"!
%"#"!#"!
"#
#"!"#
"!&
"!&!#"!
$"#
$!
$"#
#"!
;( "3" = 1 ##" -"""" " -"""" #$ +"""-"" "-#" -""" #$ +"""-"" $ "" "
"#"#"!!"""-#"$+ ""
"#!""
!"#$% &
!"
!
"#$%&%’()*+,+()%-.
/’0’ 1-!%1-! % #%2
3456#7+$8 %8 ,8 +98 8 #%
#$#
#
%&
:#;+
,%
’+9
#+ ;
+..-"#+
+ % +’" ’"%++%+
1! <=’%#(
’+ >%
#’+
’)$#(
#(*
#(*
#(*
#(*
#(
#$(
)#(**
"=>+
"9,>+
>+*1*
+#+#+>+
+,++>+
>+*1*
%+ + + ;"+ ;
$#7
$$’
+#%
7+++
%
,
$
+--
%,
%.
/
$ #
,)$’
#
)$#
%
$
-%-
/%
$
% -
-
/$
-
&
$
&
&
#
#
#
;#7%+ = ! - - # - -! % -- !
-!*
!"#$ %
!"#$#%&’()*)&’#+,
-%.% +#+ # !#/
0123!4)"5 #5 *5 )65 5 !#
!" !#!" !"!$#!"
!"#!"
" ! %
7!8)
*#
%)6
!) 8
),,+ !)
) # )% % #))#)
9: ;< &" #!"’!
%) =#
!%)
&($#!"’!
!"! #!"’! (
!"!#!"’! (
!"!! #!"’! (
!"!! #!"’!"(
!"#!"’!"
!"#!" $ ’!"
!"!(!"#!"’!")(
<=)
6*=)
=)(>(
)!)!)=)
)*))=)
=)(>(
#) ) ) 8 ) 8
"!4
!" !!
$$&
!
*#
!!"
!
4)))
84)8*<#)#) #$##)!!
#)#)#>>9>
!!
!! +
"
$"!
!!
!"
*!" ",,
+
" -
.
$! !
!
! #
+

($ &
#!"
!"($#!"
"
"! $!
,,
!

"!"
.
$
! ,
,
.
"

$!
,
! %
!
$!"! "!
!"
"! !"
! %
! % "!
#!"
#
#!"
"!
8 % > < : + + ????
5
! (+ :+ # + :(+
!"!"! !!:+(
!" !!
!!"#$ %
APPENDIX A-2:
5(9,(:(' DOCUMENTS
!
"
#
#
#!
$
%
&
’
"#
()!
*+)!
,
’-
..
’
#/("!0&12
34/546+/57440!046++34+84 ,4
!!9!9 !6(91
:;9 !&0
1/5(/91 <<11 0=1
/((>9<<?9 !1@
$:!<<0AB
1C 9/(68
0="!19
?AD0B
$1!!::1=1B0
1 /3630
#19 !/3++99 :
-90:9!0%0/>339
!!009
9!:E+,8+0
!/>++91 &9
9 0!/>++
9 0
;D!D&1
/(5+;’;/3630
1/>E>9!!1!F/69+++0
9!"G 968+,!/>8+0 !
H!/>8699!
!=:!:B9:01/>5/9H&
!0$9
/>5*9’9/8+I>,9
!0 =B9’
:9::0
1:&&19
:=9B0
$&1&:!!=:?’!AB
1/36E0$9 9!0$
!/35 +0$0 1
/3>60
1/3/+9%00!:!1J
0
$%’1-069/35/9!
639/3569’&&0$
5/,9 0
$!9’#9:
?K!A:;0$9
00&9 /3>+9
I;"9>/E":09&L"M 0
#6 ("!0&12
34/546+/57440!046++34+84 ,4