20061503 Ver 2_401 Application_20070607

DIAL CORDY
AND ASSOCIATF_S INC /~/` /~b~ I/~
Enuir~~r~rncr~tul Cc~nsi~ltci~~ts (/lo l V
May 30, 2007 n ~~~~~
~D
FpY~~EN~ 6 zoos
Mr. Ian McMillan JUN
North Carolina DWQ, 401NVetlands Unit RECEIVED
1650 Mail Service Center ~~' sTraii~~'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: Bayberry Farms at the Preserve Subdivision, Pender County, NC
Previous Action ID: 2006 40390 071
Dear Mr. McMillan:
On 13 September 2006, a 401 Water Quality Certification was requested from
the Division of Water Quality for the proposed subdivision known as Bayberry
Farms at the Preserve (DWQ Project # 20061503). In late 2006, the subject
property was sold to Jamestown Pender Residential, L.P. and Jamestown
Commercial, L.P. In your letter to Mr. Jim McFarland, dated 7 December 2006,
you requested additional information to complete the application. In your
subsequent letter to Mr. McFarland, dated 22 April 2007, you stated that the
application had been withdrawn and that the entire application package must be
resubmitted. In accordance with your request, we are resubmitting the
application. Please note that the new application addresses the comments in
your original 7 December 2006 letter, as described below.
In Item 1, a copy of the draft language to be included in the Restrictive
Covenants was requested. A copy of the draft language is included with the new
application.
Item 2 requested a survey for federally protected species. A survey for red-
cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) was performed in late 2006. Five cavities and
one start were found on the site. After an on-site meeting with Mr. John
Hammond of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in January 2007, we
began more intensive surveys to determine if RCWs were actually utilizing the
site for nesting or foraging. A forestry analysis was also performed to determine
the site's suitability for use as RCW foraging habitat. A copy of our 23 March
2007 letter to Mr. Pete Benjamin of the USFWS, which details survey
methodologies and findings, and requests clearance to remove trees from most
of the uplands on-site, is included with the new application. Also included is a
copy of our correspondence to Mr. Brad Shaver dated 30 April 2007, which
includes Mr. Benjamin's letter dated 26 April 2007; prepared in response to our
FIRST UNION BUILDING, SUITE 601 • 2~1 NOKCH FRONT S7R~l':C • WILMING"fON, IvOR"fH ~,AKOLINA 28401
910-251-9790 Hnx 910-251-9409 ~ MNL info@di:ilcordycom
OFFICES JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA • CHARLESTON, SOU"fH CAROLINA

23 March 2007 letter. In his response, Mr. Benjamin has indicated that the
USFWS believes the proposed site preparation and clearing within the Bayberry
Subdivision will not result in the take of red-cockaded woodpeckers or any other
federally listed species known to occur in Pender County. Based on the
comments set forth in his response letter, surveys for additional threatened or
endangered species will not be necessary on the site. As noted in the letter, the
actual inactive cluster area will not be developed until clearance is granted from
the USFWS, following monitoring by Dial Cordy and Associates for activity.
Item 3 requested an authorization letter from the new owners of the property, if
applicable. As mentioned above, the property has been sold. An agent
authorization letter from the new owners is included with the new application.
With this letter, we are attaching copies of all previously submitted applications,
plans, and agency correspondence pertaining to this project. The included
materials, coupled with the responses in this letter should provide a complete
application fora 401 Water Quality Certification. A check in the amount of
$200.00 is also included to cover the application fee. Please proceed with the
processing of this application. Please call me at [phone] or a-mail me at
jcoward(c~dialcordy.com if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
ffrey T. Coward
Natural Resources Specialist
Cc: Joanne Steenhuis, NCDWQ
Brad Shaver, USACOE, Wilmington District
Joe Lesch, Foltz Martin LLC (cover letter only)
Enclosures
J06-1000

DIAL CORDY
nlv~ nssc.~c-n-r~s ~ivc
l:rluir~~rlrn~•~ttr.~l (:r)~lstlll~lrll.~
September 13, 2006
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
p~-15o3~1~
Re: Bayberry Farms at the Preserve -Nationwide 14 Permit Application
Corps Action ID: 2006 40390 071
Dear Ms. Karoly:
~~~ ~~
coe
On behalf of Hampstead Lands LLC, Dial Cordy and Associates Inc is pleased to
submit seven (7) copies of the Section 404 permit application to fill 0.49 acres of
wetland on the subject property. The application includes the following:
• $200.00 application fee
• Signed agent authorization letter
• Signed application form
• Plan view drawings with proposed wetland impacts identified
• Compensatory mitigation plan
• List of adjacent landowners
The Corps of Engineers has already made an initial review of the application
package and issued preliminary comments. Copies of their comment letter are
included with this package, as well as copies of our response letter and revised
graphics. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~ ~ -
Jeffrey T. Coward
Natural Resources Specialist
cc: Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ
Brad Shaver, USACOE, Wilmington District
FIR51' UNION I3L'ILUIN(i, $UIl'F. GQl • Sul i\I~)FI'll f'Ri~YI' $I'RILG'I' • WII.,~IIN(~1'UN. ~l)R'I'11 GR~)LINA _'3401
9lU-_'S 1 ~)i9U F.~.~ 91l}-:S l '}+l)`) t M,~II. inti)~~dialcuniy.com
OFFK'.E\ ~~CKSUNVILLL', FLORIU~ • t~l'l iNl'A, ~iE()I:(ilA • CHARLES'T'ON, $uUl'H l.f1Rl)LIN~)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON OISTRJCT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
August 23, 2006
Action ID No. 2006 40390 07I
Hampstead Lands, LLC .
Attn: James McFarland, 7r.
Post Office Box 2277
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Mr. McFarland:
BOO G-`~
On August 7, 2006, this office received a pre construction notification for Department of
Army (DA) authorization to discharge fill material into 0.494 acres of Section 404 jurisdictional
wetlands for the purpose of constructing a subdivision to be known as Bayberry Farms at the
Preserve, located behind the Topsail High School north of Hampstead, Pender County, North
Carolina.
After an initial review of the PCN application the following items need to be addressed
before processing of the request can continue:
a) Sheet C104 does not appear to show all of the applicant's property. The vicinity map
displayed on the cover sheet shows a more extensive property boundary than what is
displayed on sheet C104. This office needs to review the plans which should include
the entire property boundary and the associated wetlands delineation. The only way
to conclude that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative has beea
identified is to review the entire property exploring all highground alternatives.
b) Please provide the site drawings at smaller scales. Current plan view drawings are at
300 ft to 1 inch scale and are difficult to review. At each proposed crossing, please
provide a smaller scale drawing preferably at 50 ft to 1 inch or less. Additionally, in
order to adequately review the permit application this office needs cross section
drawings at each impact area and each area where wetlands will be spanned_ The
current package has some typical bridge cross sections but they are unreadable due to
their small size. Each bridge and bottomless culvert section should be displayed for
this office to concur with your findings of no impact. The impact areas should show
the fill areas in reference to the ground elevation as well as the means proposed to
stabilize the crossing (fill slope, bulkhead, etc.).

-2-
c) Please provide a close up view of similar scale as described above for road "A"
between lots 170 and 233. It appears that the right of way and possible some of the
road may be within the jurisdictional wetlands as planned. If so this will also need to
be evaluated as possible impacts.
d) Additional avoidance and minim;zation information needs to be evaluated to concur
with the stated findings that all avoidance and minimisation efforts have been taken.
Current plans show a significant crossing at impact area RS along road "E". There
appears to be two alternatives which would drastically reduce the magnitude of
wetland impact. First, there appears to be an existing road through the middle of the
northeast side of the tract. It appears to be labeled outside an existing phase but it
should be explored as a possibility for access to the subdivision. Please discuss using
this existing road for access. Secondly, it seems practicable that the subdivision
could be accessed from road "A", therefore eliminating the need for road E and once
again reducing the amount of wetland impact necessary for access. The least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative needs to be identified and these
options should be investigated.
e) The current mitigation plan offers on-site preservation to offset the proposed impacts.
The Corps is supportive of this approach but questions why not all of the wetlands are
proposed to be preserved. Preservation as mitigation is appropriate when the
wetlands are in demonstrable threat of being impacted. Lots 83-109, 130-133, 137-
141, 77-80, 75, 30-32, and 1-13 alI have wetlands running through the rear of the
properties but are not offered as part of the preservation. These are the wetlands, if
the subdivision is permitted, that would face an imminent threat of being impacted.
These should be included as part of the preservation plan. Also please show how
each lot can be developed for its principal use without additional wetland impacts.
This can be accomplished by displaying the minimum building footprint, driveway,
and yard on the plan view map for the aforementioned questionable lots. Also, the
plans received do not show wetland preservation for the north or northeast center
section of the property. If there is no development planned for these areas please
include these within the final preservation area or explain why they are not included.
f) Please provide a draft copy of the preservation mechanism and the draft preservation
plat so that our Office of Counsel can review the document.
g) According to nationwide general conditions, compensatory mitigation (i.e.
replacement or substitution of aquatic resources) at a minirlum one-for-one ration
will be required for all wetland impacts requiring a PCN. The current mitigation plan
offers preservation solely and does not fulfill this replacement or substitution
standard. Please provide additional mitigation necessary to offset the proposed
impact.
Currently the application is considered incomplete. Please clarify and provide the additional
information within thirty days of receipt of this notification or we will consider your application
withdrawn and close the file.

S i
-3-
Understanding that I have not been party to some of the early discussions surrounding this
project it may be helpful to set up a meeting to discuss this correspondence. If you would like to
arrange a meeting or if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please. contact me
at (9I0) 251-4611.
Sincerely,
Brad Shaver
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Famished:
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Attn: Noelle Lutheran
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250
i,h, North Carolina 27604
ial Cordy and Associates
Attn: Jeffrey T. Coward
First Union Building, Suite 601
201 North Front Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

DIAL CORDY
nNL~ n~~c~c~ln^rcS Il~t(~
l:rll~ir~~rlirl~~rtl~~l ~:~,Ilslllr~ntlti
September 13, 2006
Mr. Brad Shaver
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Bayberry Farms Subdivision- PCN for Nationwide 14, Pender County NC
Action ID: 2006 40390 071
Dear Mr. Shaver:
We have received your letter dated August 23, 2006 regarding our request for a
Nationwide 14 for proposed construction of the Bayberry at the Preserve subdivision.
This letter and the attached drawings serve as our response to your comments.
a) Sheet C104 does not appear to sho>-v all of the applicant's property. The vicinity map
displayed on the cover sheet shows a more extensive property boundary than what is
displayed on sheet C104. This office needs to review the plans which should include the
entire property boundary and the associated wetlands delineation. The only way to
conclude that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative has been
identified is to review the entire property exploring all highgrotcnd alternatives.
In this comment you expressed concern with the site plan, citing that all of the applicant's
property is not depicted, furthering that all high ground alternatives must be explored to
conclude that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternatives have been
identified. Sheet C 104 shows all of the property except for a portion to the south. The
area not depicted is a drained Carolina Bay which is currently planned for use as a
mitigation bank. The large tract depicted north of the proposed subdivision is almost
entirely composed of wetlands and provides no alternatives for future development. The
applicant does not own the land to the west of the proposed subdivision. The property to
the east is Topsail High School, and a commercially zoned tract is to the northeast. We
met with Keith Harris and Lillette Granade on July 10, 2006 and all parties were satisfied
as to the impacts under 0.5 acres, aside from requesting additional detailed drawings.
The mitigation was also agreed upon, which calls for preservation of the remaining
wetlands on the subdivision tract as deed restricted.
b) Please provide the site drawings at smaller scales. Current plan view drawings are at
300 ft to 1 inch scale and are difficult to review. At each proposed crossing, please
provide a smaller scale drativing preferably at SO ft to 1 inch or less. Additionally, in
order to adequately revietiv the permit application this office needs cross section
drawings at each impact area and each area where wetlands will be spanned. The
FIRST UNION BUILDINIi, $Ul'1'6 60l • 201 NOR~CH FRl)Nl' S I'RGLiI' • V~~IL~IINI~I'ON, Nl1Rl'H l..iRULINA 28~O1
910-251 )'90 • PAX 910-'S1 ')40H • I:-~I:\IL inful.~ai:dconl):com
OFFt(1~5 ~ACt:SON~9LIF, FLORIDA • ,'~'ILiNI'A, CiliORlilA • CHAItLL'S'1'ON, SOU'T'H (:.\ROL(NA

current package has some typical bridge cross sections but -they are unreadable due to
their small size. Each bridge and bottomless culvert section should be displayed for this
office to concur with your findings of no impact. The impact areas should show the fill
areas in reference to the ground elevation as well as the means proposed to stabilize the
crossing ~Il slope, bulkhead, etc:).
c) Please provide a close up view of similar scale as described above for road "A"
between lots 170 and 233. It appears that the right of way and possible some of the road
may be within the jurisdictional wetlands as planned. If so this will also need to be
evaluated as possible impacts.
In sections b) and c) of your response, you requested modifications to the site plans and
asked for wetland crossing diagrams. The modified site drawings and diagrams of all
wetland crossings are attached for your review and acceptance.
d) Additional avoidance and minimization information needs to be evaluated to concur
with the stated findings that all avoidance and minimization efforts have been taken.
Current plans show a significant crossing at impact area RS along road "E. There
appears to be two alternatives which woa~ld drastically reda~ce the magnita~de of tivetland
impact. First, there appears to be an existing road through the middle of the northeast
side of the tract. It appears to be labeled outside an existing phase but it should be
explored as a possibility for access to the sa~bdivision. Please discuss using this existing
road for access. Secondly, it seems practicable that the sa~bdivision coa~ld be accessed
from road "A", therefore eliminating the need,for road E and once again reducing the
amount of wetland impact necessary for access. The least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative needs to be identified and these options should be investigated.
Per this comment you require justification for the ``Road E". Originally, the applicant
proposed a single entrance with "Road A". Pender County; however, required the second
entrance to alleviate traffic congestion and for fire and emergency vehicle access. The
road will also serve as an avenue to the adjacent schools, thereby reducing the need for
students in the area to use the heavily traveled US Highway 17. The other potential road
you have referred to is not on the platted subdivision property and would be on a separate
commercially zoned property. Pender County has given this project plan approval and
the applicant has agreed to all their requirements.
e) The current mitigation plan offers on-site preservation to offset the proposed impacts.
The Corps is supportive of this approach but questions why not all of the wetlands are
proposed to be preserved. Preservation as mitigation is appropriate when the wetlands
are in demonstrable threat of being impacted. Lots 83-1 09, 130- 133, 137- 141,77-
80, 75, 30-32, and 1-13 all have wetlands rz~nning through the rear of the properties but
are not offered as part of the preservation. These are the wetlands, if the subdivision is
permitted, that world face an imminent threat of being impacted. These should be
included as part of the preservation plan. Also please show how each lot can be
developed for its principal use tivithoc~t additional wetland impacts. This can bye
accomplished by displaying the minimt~n: building footprint, drivetivay, and yard on the

plan view map for the aforementioned questionable lots. Also, the plans received do not
show wetland preservation for the north or northeast center section of the property. If
there is no development planned for these areas please include these within the fcnal
preservation area or explain why they are not incla~ded.
g) According to nationwide general conditions, compensatory mitigation (i. e.
replacement or substitution of aquatic resources) at a minimum one for-one ration will
be required for all wetland impacts requiring a PCN. The current mitigation plan offers
preservation solely and does not fulf 11 this replacement or substitution standard. Please
provide additional mitigation necessary to offset the proposed impact.
As we discussed previously, I met with Mr. Keith Harris and Mrs. Lillette Granade on
July 10, 2006 to discuss mitigation that would be required for the construction of the
proposed Bayberry subdivision. It was agreed to by Mr. Harris and Mrs. Granade in that
meeting that deed restriction of all wetlands not proposed for impact within the
subdivision boundaries would be sufficient mitigation for the project impact of less than
0.50 acres. They also did not have any new concerns relative to wetland crossing
impacts. We have submitted revised drawings showing the deed restricted wetlands on
the property. The large tract to the north is almost all wetlands and is in part being used
as mitigation for the Topsail High School improvements. It is not on the subject
subdivision plat. We do not have drawings showing the footprint of the house pads and
driveways. If we are deed restricting the remaining wetlands, and the house pads are on
uplands, then these drawings are not needed. We have not requested fill for any of the
lots.
f) Please provide a draft copy of the preservation mechanism and the draft preservation
plat so that our Office of Counsel can revietiv the document.
As we indicated in our original request we will submit the deed restriction covenant and a
preservation plat, per the Corps required format published on your website, within 30
days of issuance of the Nationwide 14.
Our client decided to pursue the Nationwide 14 process at some considerable expense for
crossings with the understanding that the permit would be issued in 45 days. We would
be grateful if this could be processed and issued no later than October 10, 2006. Please
advise us if this will not occur. Should you have any questions, please give either Steve
Dial or me a call.
Sincerely ~ ~ -
c/
J Coward
Natural Resources Specialist
cc: Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ
NCDWQ/Wetlands Unit (7 copies)

DIAL CORDY
n~l~ nss~~cl~~~-cs 11N<,
l:nl~irr,iull~~rlt~~l (;r ,l)sllll~ull.~
September 13, 2006
Mr. Brad Shaver
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Bayberry Farms Subdivision- PCN for Nationwide 14, Ponder County NC
Action ID: 2006 40390 071
Dear Mr. Shaver:
We have received your letter dated August 23, 2006 regarding our request for a
Nationwide 14 for proposed construction of the Bayberry at the Preserve subdivision.
This letter and the attached drawings serve as our response to your comments.
a) Sheet C104 does not appear to show all of the applicant's property. The vicinity map
displayed on the cover sheet shows a more ostensive property boundary than what is
displayed on sheet C104. This office needs to review the plans which should include the
entire property boundary and the associated wetlands delineation. The only tivati' to
conclude that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative has been
identified is to review the entire propern• exploring all highground alternatives.
In this comment you expressed concern with the site plan, citing that all of the applicant s
property is not depicted, furthering that all high ground alternatives must be explored to
conclude that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternatives have been
identified. Sheet C 104 shows all of the property except for a portion to the south. The
area not depicted is a drained Carolina Bay which is currently planned for use as a
mitigation bank. The large tract depicted north of the proposed subdivision is almost
entirely composed of wetlands and provides no alternatives for future development. The
applicant does not own the land to the west of the proposed subdivision. The property to
the east is Topsail High School, and a commercially zoned tract is to the northeast. We
met with Keith Hams and Lillette Granade on July 10, 2006 and all parties were satisfied
as to the impacts under 0.5 acres, aside from requesting additional detailed drawings.
The mitigation was also agreed upon. \vhich calls for preservation of the remaining
wetlands on the subdivision tract as deed restricted.
b) Please provide the site drawings at smaller scales. Current plan view drawings are at
.00 ft to 1 inch scale and are difficult to revietiv. At each proposed crossing, please
provide a smaller scale drawing preferably ctt ~0 ft to 1 inch o-- less. Additionally, in
order to adegzzately revietiv the permit application this office needs cross section
drutivings at each impact area and each area where wetlands will be spanned. The
FIRST UNION BUII_DINC, $L9'1'li GOl • _'OI VOIa'lt FI:UNI' JI'R4a•:f • \~~I1.\IW~~fON, Nl)RTH l..\RULIN:\'_S-tOl
9I0-'_5l ~~ 9U P.iX 91U-'Sl `)~U`? li-~\lAlt. inlo~~dialionit~.rom
OFFI(:1S JACI:SONb'ILLE, FLORID.i • ,~l'1_1N1':\, C~lil)RI;IA • Clip\Rl1:Sl'ON, SvU'rH C\R(~LIN~\

current package has some typical bridge cross sections but -they are tcnreaduble due to
their small size. Each bridge and bottomless culvert section should be displayed for this
office to concur with your findings of no impact. The impact areas should show the fill
areas in reference to the ground elevation as well as the means proposed to stabilize the
crossing ill slope, bulkhead, etc.).
c) Please provide a close up view of similar scale as described above for road "A"
between lots 170 and 233. It appears that the right of way and possible some of the road
may be within the jurisdictional wetlands as planned. If so this will also need to be
evaluated as possible impacts.
In sections b) and c) of your response, you requested modifications to the site plans and
asked for wetland crossing diagrams. The modified site drawings and diagrams of all
wetland crossings are attached for your review and acceptance.
d) Additional avoidance and minimization information needs to be evaluated to concur
with the stated findings that all avoidance and minimization efforts have been taken.
Current plans show a significant crossing at impact area RS along road "E. There
appears to be ttivo alternatives which would drastically reduce the magnitzecle of wetland
impact. First, there appears to be an existing road throzegh the middle of the northeast
side of the tract. It appears to be labeled outside an existing phase bzct it should be
explored as a possibility for access to the subdivision. Please discuss using this existing
road for access. Secondly, it seems practicable that the szbdivision cozeld be accessed
from road "A", therefore eliminating the need for road E and once again reducing the
amount of wetland impact necessary for access. The least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative needs to be identified and these options should be investigated.
Per this comment you require justification for the '`Road E". Originally, the applicant
proposed a single entrance with "Road A". Pender County; however, required the second
entrance to alleviate traffic congestion and for fire and emergency vehicle access. The
road will also serve as an avenue to the adjacent schools, thereby reducing the need for
students in the area to use the heavily traveled US Highway 17. The other potential road
you have referred to is not on the platted subdivision property and would be on a separate
commercially zoned property. Pender County has given this project plan approval and
the applicant has agreed to all their requirements.
e) The current mitigation plan offers on-site preservation to offset the proposed impacts.
The Corps is supportive of this approach bzct questions tivhy not all of the wetlands are
proposed to be preserved. Preserwatior~ rxs rrritigation is appropriate when the wetland
are in demonstrable threat of being impacted. Lots 83-1 09, 130- 133, 137- 141,77-
80,73,30-32, and 1-13 all have tivetlands rzcnnittg through the rear of the properties but
are not offered as part of the preservation. These are the tivetlands, if the subdivision is
permitted, that would face an imminent threat of being impacted. These should be
included as part of the preservation plan. also please show how each lot can be
developed for its principal use without additional tivetland impacts. This can bye
accomplished by displaying the minimtent building footprint, drivetivay, and yard on tfte

plan view map for the aforementioned questionable lots. Also, the plans received do not
show wetland preservation for the north or northeast center section of the property. If
there is no development planned for these areas please include these within the final
preservation area or explain why they are not included.
g) According to nationwide general conditions, compensatory mitigation (i. e.
replacement or substitution of aquatic resources) at a minimum one for-one ration will
be required for all wetland impacts requiring a PCN. The current mitigation plan offers
preservation solely and does not fulfill this replacement or substitution standard. Please
provide additional mitigation necessary to offset the proposed impact.
As we discussed previously, I met with Mr. Keith Harris and Mrs. Lillette Granade on
July 10, 2006 to discuss mitigation that would be required for the construction of the
proposed Bayberry subdivision. It was agreed to by >V1r. Harris and Mrs. Granade in that
meeting that deed restriction of all wetlands not proposed for impact within the
subdivision boundaries would be sufficient mitigation for the project impact of less than
0.50 acres. They also did not have any new concerns relative to wetland crossing
impacts. We have submitted revised drawings showing the deed restricted wetlands on
the property. The large tract to the north is almost all wetlands and is in part being used
as mitigation for the Topsail High School improvements. It is not on the subject
subdivision plat. We do not have drawings showing the footprint of the house pads and
driveways. If we are deed restricting the remaining wetlands, and the house pads are on
uplands, then these drawings are not needed. We have not requested fill for any of the
lots.
f) Please provide a draft copy of tl2e preservation mechanism and the draft preservation
plat so that oz~r Office of Counsel can revietiv the doca~ment.
As we indicated in our original request we will submit the deed restriction covenant and a
preservation plat, per the Corps required format published on your website, within 30
days of issuance of the Nationwide 14.
Our client decided to pursue the Nationwide 14 process at some considerable expense for
crossings with the understanding that the permit would be issued in 45 days. We would
be grateful if this could be processed and issued no later than October 10, 2006. Please
advise us if this will not occur. Should you have any questions, please give either Steve
Dial or me a call.
Sincerely
c~
J Coward
Natural Resources Specialist
cc: Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ
NCDWQ/Wetlands Unit (7 copies)

DIAL COl ~DY
l:r~r~i;~~~iirri~'r~lrrl ~:r,ri~ril~rnil~,
4 P.ugust 2~G6
Mr. Keith Harris
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
~J~lilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
V'/ilmington, NC 2402
R.e: Bayberry Farms at the Preserie - i~laticnwide 14 Fermit Application
Dear Mr. Harris:
Cn behalf of Hampstead Lands LLC, Diai Ccrdy and r.sscciates Inc is please to
SUbmlt a Section 40'1 permit apG!ICatiCn tG fill ~.~~ acres Cf 'NetianC Cr. th.e
subject property. The application inci~des the following:
• Signed Anent Authorization letter
• Signed application form
• Flan view drawings with prooosec '~betianC IriiGcCtS IGerii!iieC'
• Compensatory mitigation plan
• List of adjacent landowners
~Ve are forwardinc a cony of this acplication pac:~ace tc i~ce!le Lutheran cf
NCD~VQ. Flease proceed expeditiously wit;. the public notice.
Should you have any cuestions, please fee! Tree to contact me.
Sincerely,
G ..~ :~
r~
Jeffrey T. Coward
cc: Jim McFarland _
Noelle Lutheran, NCD~VQ
FII:ST UNIl1N BGU.UINi;, 1l'fCli 0l)I • .01 ~i)Iil'll I'tii'V I' \i'IiG.I':I' • ~~•IL~IINI;IY)N, ~itR'lli C.\Rl)LIN.1 :~-1l)l
9Ul-:il:);`)q • na~91U•_51=?-ttri) • iai.tu.intii~'di~lcunly.~um
nttYrcc la~•rc~~ti~•niu Ri;~uiila • A~r~ wry 1:Ia,1R;2t~ • CHARIFS'iC)N. SuLTH GROLINA

~~.~~_'/L~J.~'o =1: :a 151y''~1'3"~9 E-:':r ~,i::.'~! Ec'E:UJN!~~ _;~ ,r_i.~_
East Coast .Ueveloprn~ent
& Br~~kerauP._Inc.
~. J. Ec;x 2277 ~ W'Im~n~7ron • Ncr. r. r;-,~.-y 2~ ~:~7.
P`,on?. > 10-201 •0770 + Far 9' Q-'? ~ i -' 779
jdt~r; A ti(c~.rr~ixJ fY. J
PrN•~ert
:~~:ZLLSi ~ ~!)r15
~I:. ?4eit_h Harris
t;'5.~~,D-RG, Wilmtn2ton
P.G. Bost 1390
aii.~irgton, i`iC 23-~4?-189Q
Re: Bav~ez-v SuGdiviSinn ~ia:iontivdc 1~. Ha.~-:~~-te.~si Lands Li.C
Deter y1r. a , s.
Tiis Iettc. serves a_5 notific:•atior, to the Cons e_- E.z2:nee;s t a: D;al Cord~• a ,~1 ,~~soc::.te::. Inc.
viii x: ~c as my aQe:t for t«c abo~•e r`fez~c_~' Droi~c:.
Should you have anv gt:csti~ns- please cor_tsc; .:~e.
~~~
Sinc~~y, / ~
~ // ~~%
~amta/A. ~1cFariand, 7r.
l/ '

I~ ~ t
Office Lse Un1y: f=orm Vcc;ion March 0:
USACE Action ID 1Yo. bWQ Rio.
(If an/ particular item is not applicable to this pr c,cct, phase eater "tiot ~~ppltcabte" or ":~uA°.)
I. Processinb
rAY~~ENT
R~C~EIVED
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DW'Q
401 Water Quality Certification j~ Express 401 Water Quality Certificatior.
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit ~umber(sj Requested: dWP 11
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement ProVram (dCEEP) is proposed
for mitivation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete se~.aior. VIII,
and check here: ^
f. If your project is located in any of Norte Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on pa`Je
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of pa~~e ~ for further details), check here ~~
II. Applicant Information
~ ~~~LI~~
Owne.'Applicant Information JUN 6 2007
Name: Hampstead Lands. LLC
Mailing Address: PO Bo~c ??~- W~TlAND3Pu4DSTORlA~/ATER9RANCH
Wilminvton. North Carolina ?340''
Telephone dumber: 910-2~ 1-3770
E-mail Address:
Fax dumber. 910-?~ 1-3779
?. Ageat/Consultant Information (A sinned and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be artached if the Agent has sivnatorv authority for the owner;'applicant.)
Name: _ -
Company Affiliation: Dial Cordv ~C Associates
iVlailina Address: First Union Building Suite 60l
?Ol North Front Street
`Uilmin~Tton. Nonh Carolina ?3401
Telephone Number: 9 l 0-? ~ l -9790 Fax Number: 910-'_ ~ l -9409
E-mail Address:
Updated l l:l/=UUS
Page ~ of l3

[II. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing propery
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad vlap and MRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawin~7s, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size constrsction
drawings rather than a sequential shut version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is ille~71ble, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bayberry Farms At The Preserve
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project `umber (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):3293-~,g-9211-0~)~1). 329-I-30-9992-~~~)0.
3293-99-573-~99Q
-~. Location
County: Pender Nearest Town: Hampstead
Subdivision name (include phaseilot number):Bavbern• Farms At The Preserve -Phases I~~:II
Directions to site (include road numbers; names. landmarks, etc. j: From ~Vilmin~ton. take
U.S. HiQhwav 1"North to Topsail High School, which is iust north of Hamnstead. .-~diacent
to the northern boundary of the hiuh school's propert~~ is an unmarked. dirt road which
accesses and is included in the site. The access road is immediately north of the ne~.y water
tower that sits east of the high school.
~. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a shut that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbodv.)
Decimal Degrees (sis digits minimum): 3~.-10?~°N. 77.682°W
6. Propem size (acres): 3-I-I 36 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Trumpeter Swamp =
3. River Basin: Cane Fear
(Note -this must be one of v'orth Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http• h~o.enr.state.nc.us admin, mans'.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is currently undeveloped pine forest and pocosin/gine
Up~atcd 1111/=nUS
Page 6 of 13

flarNOOds Topsail High School borde~s the site nn the east. Other adjacent lands are
composed oP undeveloped pine forest and pocosin/nine Elatwoods.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: See
supplemental information .
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The numose for this project is to develop a 2~0
lot residential subdivision.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and,%or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. L^.clude
the USACE Action ID Number, D~Z'Q Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland. stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated miti?ation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
List and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.LP. project, alon` with
construction schedules. USACE jurisdictional areas have been delineated on the site and
documented with a Jurisdictional determination (Action ID = ?O~~~ 1 1 X31. -'0~ iur,sdictional
areas documented by Action ID~?00a~ 1 1 ~~ are depicted on attached sire plans.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project'' If so, dose^~be the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future Mans anticipated at present
VI. Proposed Impacts to `Vaters of the I:nited States~tiVaters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, w•hedler or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
`Vetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section `'III below. If additional
;pace is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Updaccd f ill/:UUS
Page i of l3

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: To utilize upland areas on the site,
roads are proposed to cross wetlands in three daces. Total wetland impacts equal 0.49 acres.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are net limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditchin„ drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact Type of Wetland

(e.y., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bo~_, etc.)
~
Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(ves/no)
Distant:: to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feed
Area of ~
Impact ~
(acres)
R-5 I Road crossing I Pocosir pine Iar,voods ~ do ~ Appr. 1 miie 0.90
U-1 ~ Road crossing Pocosiriipire t:ar.voods j No ~ Appr. 1 miie 0.07;
U-2 ~ Road crossing (Pocosin/oine flarvoods ~ No ~ Appr. 1 miie 0.0?7
I
I ~ ~ ~'
~ I -___
~ Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.~9-I j
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the propemr: 21~3.~9 ac^es
~. Individually list all intermittent and pere:.nial stream impacts. Bo sure to identit;~ temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of till or csivet~s, dam
construction. flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap. crib walls,
gabions, etc.), excavation, ditchin~7~straighte:.ing, etc. If stream relocation is proposed. plans and
profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original end relocated streams must be included.
To calculate acreage, multiply length Y width. then divide bv -~3.~60.
Stream Impact
dumber

i (indicate on maol
Stream Name Pere:tnial ur ~ A`''era~~e Impac: .-~:ea of
Type of Impart ! Stream ~~idth Len~_ttt Ir.:pact
Intermittent'.
~ ~ Before Impact ~~ (linear :eetl ~ (acresl
v,'.-~ ~
I
1
( ! i ~
'. ~ ~ I
I
I ~

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
~. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, seLmds..~tlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to fill,
,a.-e,a.. fl,.,,,~: .a r.,~.,~~.,~ h~~11-h,>~~ic err
Open water Impact..

Site Number W ^---~• --------^•
Name of Waterbudy ----~-- -

T~~pc ut Impact Type of ~Vaterbudv

~lakc, pond, estuary, sound, ba}', Area of

Impact
(indicate un ma )
(if appiicabic)
ocean, ett.l
tacres)

via ~ ~ ~

upaat~ t tnr_oos
Page 3 of l3

Total Opcn Water Impact (acres) ~,
4. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): I ~~A I
Wetland Impact (acres): ~ 0.494 I
Open Water Impact (acres): I ti/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 10.494 ~
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): I ~/A
5. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? 0 Yes ^ ~o
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the npe of water (wetland or stream] and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
As proposed 0 08 acres of isolated wetlands would be impacted by one road crossin~7.
6. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed. associated wetland and stream i:-,~pacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ©uplands [stream [wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam, embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): dam;'embankment
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond.
local stormwater requirement, etc.): effluent stora~~e
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: woodland
Size of watershed draining to pond: ~- A Expected pond surface area: ~.'A
`ZI. Impact Justification (:voidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibilit`•, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The applicant and design
professionals have worked hard to limit wetland impacts and still achieve the purpose of the
project The current design has excluded portions of upland from proposed development,
thereby substantially reducin~T the footprint of wetland impacts associated with roadw~av
crossings Additionally, bottomless archways (zrched culverts) and brid~Tes will be used at
proposed roadw•ly crossings to minimize the constnlction footprint. Drawings of the brides and
zrch culverts included with this application illustrate the construction design.
Updated Ilill:g0~
Page 9 ut' 13

VIII. IVIitil;ation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .000, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects im~olving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 1~0 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January l~, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable irclude,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project: establishing and maintaining wetland
and,'or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserring similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached ir. order
for USACE or D~!'Q to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in D`~ Q's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream ~~~ork in North Carolina, available at
hrtp:.~-`h2o.enr.state.nc.usincwetlands,~strm«ide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including. but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and. or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage: linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
To mitigate for wetland impacts, it is proposed that all of the 213.02 acres of remaining
wetlands on-site be placed under restrictive covenants. Language for the res.:;ctive
covenants will be drafred according to the Wilmington District's Process for Preservation of
Mitigation Property a Compensatory Lfitigation Plan is attached. and a map depicting
wetland area~roposed for preservation is included with the site plans.
'_. l~fitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
(919) 71~-0476 to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http:!h2o.enr.state.nc.us;'wrp~index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
UpJatcd l Ul;]U0~
Page IU of 13

Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of lion-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IY. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state,/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA,%SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA,-SEPA document is required, cail the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to revie~.v current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^ N/A
3. I yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse'? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No [' N,` ~.
Y. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by D~Z~Q)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
reeuired state and local buffers associated ~.~~ith the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section `'II above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein.
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be sho~t~n on a
map. whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the D~Z~Q
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. «'ill the project impact protected riparan buffers identified within l~A NCAC ~B .0?33
(\euse), 1~A NCAC 2B .029 (Tar-Pamlico), l~A NCAC 0?B .0?=13 (Catawbal 1~A NCAC
~B .020 (Randleman Rules and ~~ ater Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
?. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multi Tiers. ~ "
Zone* Impact ~(ultipiier
(s ogre feed Required
Mitigation
1 ~ 3 1. for Catawbal Ni A
t.~ I NiA
Totai ~ NLa
Zone l extends out 30 feet petpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zune_ estcnds an
additiunal'_0 feet from the edge ufZune 1.
Updated t UL_Utu
Pa~c t 1 of 13

3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/.A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20°%, please provide
calculations demonstrating total proposed impervious level._
The site consists of 344.36 acres of existing wetlands and uplands. Stormwater will be controlled
using crass lined swales which run along the lens-th of every road. The roads. which take up
approximately 23 acres, are the only known impervious surface. The 2~0 lots will be limited to
4 000 sgifePt of impervious surface each. for approximately 23 acres of impervious surface. This
equates to approximately 13.5 percent of impervious surface for the subdivision.
XII. Setivage Disposal (required by D`VQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or dischar`e) of
w•aste:vater Generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
.~ :vaste:vater treatment plant has been permitted throu~7h NCDE~R and will be cor.stnsct°d for
the treatment of sewage from the subdivision. The treatment plant utilizes an efi•Iuent pond and a
spray field. All of the homes in the subdivision will be treated by this facility. Infrastricture
associated with the se:vage treatment facilities are displayed on the site mans.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (1~.~ NCAC 2H .000) or any Buffer Rules''
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality'? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our tivebsite at
hrtp:!/h2o.enr.state.nc.usincwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: As
proposed 0 49 acres of wetlands will be impacted by three road crossinvs. Additionall~•. 0.08
Zeros of isolated wetlands will be impacted by a ro•~d crossim~. All state,~local stormwater
management ;uidelines will be adhered to in order to minimize any additional impacts to water
gualirv
uPdu«a ~ iiir_uos
Page l3 of 13

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently iri advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
.work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~ /~. aB o G
plicant/Agent's Signature Date`
:gent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated l 1!1/2005
Page t3 of 13
~~
w

Bayberry Farms at the Preserve
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Bayberry Farms at the Preserve is a 250 lot subdivision proposed adjacent to
and approximately northwest of the existing Topsail High School. To develop this
property, 0.49 acres of wetland impacts are proposed, to create three short road
crossings so that upland portions of the site can be utilized. Additionally, 0.08
acres of non-jurisdictional isolated wetlands will be impacted by a road crossing.
This mitigation plan was developed to compensate for the 0.49 acres of wetland
impacts associated with the proposed development.
A total of 218.59 acres of wetlands exist on the 344.36 acre site. Wetlands
on the site are all pine flatwood/pocosin systems. Pond pine (Pines serotina)
and loblolly pine (Pines taeda) occur sparsely through most of the wetland areas
and dominant subcanopy species includes loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus),
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), swamp red bay (Persea palustris), red maple
(Acer rubrum), lyonia fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Groundcover is limited within the wetland areas where the subcanopy shrub layer
is dense. Loblolly pine and longleaf pine (Pines palustris) are dominant canopy
species in the upland areas, but are scattered due to past logging activities. The
shrub layer in the uplands is dominated by inkberry (Ilex glabra) and swamp red
bay. Groundcover includes bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), wiregrass
(Aristida stricta), creeping blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium), and broomsedge
(Andropogon spp.).
Soils on the site are composed of excessively drained Kureb Series soils in
the uplands, with slopes ranging from 2 to 6 percent; poorly drained Leon fine
sand in both uplands and wetlands, when associated with Murville soils and a
slope of 0 to 2 percent (USDA SCS Pender County Soils Survey). Murville muck,
a very poorly drained soil type, is the dominant series mapped in wetland areas
on the site.
Per discussions with Mrs. Lillette Granade and N1r. Keith Harris of the U.S.
Corps of Engineers, the applicant proposes to place all of the remaining 218.01
acres of wetlands on-site in preservation to compensate for the 0.49 acres of
impacts. Restrictive covenants protecting these wetland areas will be drafted in
accordance with the Wilmington District's Process for Preservation of Mitigation
Property. Areas proposed for preservation are depicted on the site plans
included with this application package.

Adjacent Landowners
State of NC Mark L. Maynard
116 W. Jones St P.O. Box 1229
Raleigh, NC 27603 Wilmington, NC 28402
Caroline S. Baldwin Pender County Board of Education
c/o Charity P. Sidbury _ g25 Penderfea Highway
2519 Middle Sound Loop Road Burga~a, NC 28425
Wilmington, NC 28405
KJ Holdings Group LLC Kathryn Lee Trustee
17117 US Hwy 17 Fitzhugh Lee Marital Trust
Hampstead, NC 28443 692 Osprey Place
Wilmington, NC 28405
Charles L. Marshall, Et AI Alton Y. Lennon Trustee
632 St. Johns Church Road 602 tilarket Street
Hampstead, NC 28443 Wilmington, NC 28401
Aqua North Carolina, Inc Castle Bay Property Owners Assoc
P.O. Drawer 4889 P.O. Box 10137
Cary, NC 27519 Wilmington, NC 28404
David B. Phillips, Et AI
P.O. Box 3649
Wilmington, NC 28406
J. L. Morris Enterprises
P.O. Bax 280
Hampstead, NC 28443
Pender County Library
P.O. Eox 1047
Burgaw, NC 28425
Ethel L. Johnson, Et AI
750 St. Johns Church Road
Hampstead, NC 28443
Randy L. Elantcn, Et AI
P.O. Eax 10137
Wilmington, NC 28405
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
3806-6 Par{ Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
:~a
aid

90-GL-SO
M-ESSU 33
1r11in8f15 SONYll3M 36w5n
vu V 1 we 3+tl353ld 3Hl
\ 7 d '9~ntl33eCd3 Sn3m
~" V
`^~
~~
J
~_
w
W
F-~
U
a F
H ~ w
w
W O vx,
z
W p w w
'^ Q U 3 Q
~ 1 ~ ~ -~
~ S o ~_
W U U U
x W W LW.-1
C!) in ~ cxn
w
Z ~
~'•~ .. U
i.
E'"~ ~ C/~
F~7-I
~__ ~ ~ O
~p ~' • r~
_-,_ r = J0
- ~~, ~
~ ~ N W CV ~
11 ~~ ~ ~` ~
W .-, ~ s shy y~ O r-~ ~ ~h v
V L ~ _ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W __~
V1/-~ Z~.l w~~~
~Q ~ a~W ~~
r--~ O G ~- • -~
~ •~ ~ ~ v ~ ~
~~T.~ ~~`~ wU°3~.~v
~\
_~ ~-__ _
~ _;~ ~
rTl ~ ~` ~ ,
W ~ -- -
O a
~ s
n ~~
`/ 1 ~s=a° Y=~oa g~s~ ~ ~aa ~~~~a~
3
~6

0

---y--- - - ---+
1

~~ ~:~ =
_ ~3^rl ~~~_ k.
c F, C
~
..- s ~
a
~
c x
r ~
~E

~ u
S~ o z
..~. i °a
~ v
~
~ ~
~
I
i _. _~~ l
l ~
~ ~'~' c °`
~
i
f
i i ~
~

~. i! ~ ~~.
I... -. 'lii -~~~ ~;~._. ._, ~ I
I~I ~~ 1 ~ ~=
~
~
N~

~
' Q ,7y
~
~15
1`'
,' I
i V ~ ~ ~
~
511 '~ ~~ W w ~
~
n~ i ini
~ ;~ ~ i~
Ili ~
~ ~ - ~'i; ~ ~,, - I i.
i,,I~, a
a ~ 3~
- ~•~m~a=
W v ~ za

P '
~f
^ ~w a ~ .~^ ~I I~~

' ...
.. . .

7s ~ ^~ i~ i4. ~ _ ~
5 ° $' ~
o ~
5 ~ o ti
W
~ ~Y YYY Y ~ ~ Y YY ~ Y Y
S(IYYYY~aglg ~ ~YYY ; ~~ ~ ~ °
~Y ooooddo o Y ° o00 ° d6 ° °
~~ ~"! o
to - ~~
~~ a~a ~' ~~ ~~ ~a ~ ~' ~b a
~~ooeg~al~ a~ ~oaa ~ ~$ o $ ~ e
~a ° `"~ ~
e~_ ~ o ~ ..
'~~ ~~"~3 a ~~ base -~~~ ~
8 8 8 yY~yc~Y ~~ ~~'Y~Y ~~ ~ X
~ e S r S~$.~ ~~ S~~.l o~ ~ C
' ~ t`~y~ ~~2 s~~ ng o~~ ~g~ g~~~~ ry ~~'~8~ ~`g ~ ~ ~~~=^ ~a~i'R r~~YrY
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Eat°° G~aa ~ =~a.
a~ ~ ~~~3 ~g~~ ~~~ ~~ ~3~~~ ~ooo~ ~~ s~ee~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~d o~ ~~o~~~s ~~n~~~
~ ~ ~ t 9 ~ 3
~ ~=- as ~~
~~ Y i ~ ~~
j~
s
;:
!''.' )
j•.•.•(
j;.;.'%
,~.~., ~
.:.:.;
~~::~
~..
•:'`
a
Y

v

f~; ~o
-_
d'
O
r
U
E
47
:v
N
>.
~ 9
p
o v
-_----i- --------- -
• ( Q
~)
^~ ~, NQ
~~ ~~ o
^ ~I ~
^ ~~
-~
~I
h^x P
i ~ i f i i
~ i :r-I '~ s i i
~j .
~ I .
`
,\ ~ ~_,
-~< w
~'~~
;~~
t..
~"i ' r
_ - ~ . ~
s i + f
i ,. ~ f s
s 1 ) ~ ~
~ `_~ i i i
~ _ s ~ r i
i r i i s
> . ~ ~ ~ s
~ i' ~ • i
/ . ' .
•~
^ ~~~!
I ~~_
4~
~ ~ I
i
,~ 1
' ;l
i i » ~\\~
~{
~~ ~ ~ \. ~
;,~ \; ~~
~. ~
~ ~ ~\
/ \ \
. .
ZIgIHX~
,L~F1dL~II SQN~'I.L~m
;7N `.l.I.NfIOJ 21:IUN~d ' dIHSNMO.L'I[~SdO.L
~~2I~S3~Id ~HZ I.~
SL~I2I~:I ~H~S~~g

I Z
0

.L~~HS
S'IIFT.L~Q
SL~I2I~~1 ~12I2I~I~I~~ff
~n~I~s~rxa ~1-I.L Z~
o
,.,,,1~~ y, o
~•. z o F;
~ ~
q
~`

a:
~~
~o
z
..r
u
f"'i ~ re
Ca ~
9
QJ
~ cS
~A~ a I<

~ ~~ ~

.~ ~~~`
W ~' ~
,
~ .~Q 1 „~
s~ ~ d ~
a~ ~ sos~
~ ; n m ~-
Wi~s~3~
9
~ ~
/ H
S m
t
C U

1~
Ill
~i
I ~;; 1 i
IL il! ~u
r .:~
~~
u':ii~1 ~hi
~J~IW~ 11t
.1
7I~I '.I.LI~Ifl()J 21:1UN3d ' d11ISP1~t~OJ_'1lWS~IO.L
f ~
~ w ~~~ ~1
1
t/~ 1•
P ~sl ~ '~,
~, ~ ~. ®;
CI IIIIIIIIIII~ .
~1 ~,~ ~ _
,I~ ~~. r IIIII®~
.. ®'
1 ~ III IIIIIIIII~
~ IIIIIIIIiIi~
i j ®~
~ IIIIIIillll~
$~ l ~ _ ~ ®~
1 ' IIIIIIIIiII~ ' 1
~ ~;
~~
C~
2
i
s
' ~e
S;
~~ ( ~
-~ ~i I ~1
~' ~ t;l
- - -
• /
Sy
~k
~:
_ll
_~
i
~;
ail
1 I ~
~ t
. ~i
f
I '
~I

.`
. ,
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
November 22, 2006 v ~ 15a3
Action ID No. 2006-40390-071
Dial Cordy & Associates
Attn: Mr. Steve Dial
201 North Front Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Dear Mr. Cordy:
':CA Ce~`~
-qoS
_ ' `
V~.
Q~~~ae~~
~uN s zoos
DENFc - wATEft QUALITY
WSTLANDg AND ST07'[IIWATER @RANCH
On August 7, 2006, this office first received aPre-Construction application for impacts to
0.494 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the development of a subdivision (Bayberry Farms at
the Preserve) in Pender County. On August 23, 2006 this office notified the property owner that
additional information was needed to finish the review process. On October 2, 2006, this office
met with you in regards to the missing information and your office responded accordingly to the
requested information on October 5, 2006. After review of the package it was noted that the
preservation document that requires review from our office of Counsel was not included in the
package. Please be reminded that our office must review this draft document prior to the use of
Nationwide 14 (NW 14).
On October 11, 2006, our office emailed your company requesting the missing preservation
document. As a response to our coordination with State and Federal agencies, our office
received an email correspondence from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission noting the
presence of the Federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) in the vicinity of the
project. On October 17, 2006, our office emailed your company again not only to request the
preservation document but also inquiring whether or not a RCW survey had been completed on
the subdivision tract. Several other email exchanges have happened between our office and your
company but to date we still do not have the draft preservation document nor any assurance that
a survey has been complete on the property for the federally endangered species.
Since there has been a lack of any additional information concerning the possible presence
of the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker, our office conducted informal consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to this matter on November 21, 2006.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Mid Atlantic coastal plain recovery unit of
the species is located near the project area. Whereas the Service is concerned about habitat loss,
they are equally concerned about the loss of foraging areas for the protected species. The
conclusion of this informal consultation is the need to conduct an endangered species survey for
the Federally protected species.
CERTIFIED Ma1L
RET~:" tiCV RECEIPT REQUESTED

-2-
This information is necessary to assure compliance with condition 1 l of the nationwide general
permit conditions. Please provide the requested survey and draft preservation document so that
we may be able to complete the processing of the subdivision permit. Without the assurances
that there is no effect to this federal protected species, the verification of NW 14 will be denied.
Please clarify and provide the additional information within thirty days of receipt of this
notification or this office will move toward denial of the use of NW 14. If you have any
questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (910) 251-461.
Sincerely,
Q„r r11.,,
Brad Shaver
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Hampstead Lands, LLC
Attn: Jim McFarland
Post Office Box 2277
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
JP Commercial and JP Residential
c/o Foltz Martin LLC
Attn: Nathan T. Johns
5 Piedmont Center, Suite 750
Atlanta, Georgia 30305-1541
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Howard Hall
Post Office 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Attn: Noelle Lutheran
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Attn: Steve Everhart
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405

~~ ak
DIAL CORDY `°r~`
Alen A55(~CIA7-E:`~ I1VC
lirl~~irn~lir)~•~)tr~l c:r,r1.5111r~ulr~
OG I~V~
October 5, 2006 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
Mr. Brad Shaver ,JUN 6 2007
Regulatory Specialist DEN~t - W'ATEi2 (~i1ALITY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers wETUwosa~DSTO~+wATERar~NC~
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Bayberry Farms Subdivision- PCN for Nationwide 14, Pender County NC
Action ID: 2006 40390 071
Dear Mr. Shaver,
As per our meeting on Monday, October 2, the following detailed items were discussed
and additional information was requested. Please find our responses below, with the
supporting revised plans and letters enclosed.
1. Need cross-section of wetland impacts on access road and wherever else we
may put culverts connecting wetlands.
Culverts have been added where needed to assure connection of wetland
areas. Plan sheet C161 has been provided for clarity.
2. Letter from Pender County stating requirement for both roads.
A letter from Pender County concerning the need for two access roads has
been included with this submittal.
3. Revise plans to avoid impact to wetland on access road.
Curves 3 and 4 on sheet C101 are at NCDOT's minimum centerline radius
of 310'. The impact to these wetlands can not be avoided.
4. Noelle would like a copy of stormwater calculations for her file.
Stormwater calculations for the impervious areas have been included with
this submittal.
5. Please show house pads on lots where we have a lot of wetlands to
demonstrate what will be done.
8% X 11 plots have been included for the lots that we discussed in our
meeting to show building pads. (lots 84,104 & 108)
FIRST UNION BUILDINIi. $UI'1'G 601 • 201 NURI'H Fl:UN1' $ I'RL'Fa' • \~1l ~IINt~ It~N, NUIt'1'H C.4RULINA 2301
910-251-9790 • FAX 910-?51 `}~iU') • t:-~L~ll. infuC~di:~corc1}~.mm
OFFICES ~ACKSONViLLE, FLORIDA • ATLANTA, GEl)RI;IA • Ct1ARLFaTUN, SJUTH GiRI)UNA

6. Prepare draft deed restriction/conservation easement fusing example on
website.
Please find attached draft conservation easement.
7. Provide a letter stating that outparcel is not dependent upon construction of
Phase 1 and 2. -concern for more wetland impact.
A letter stating that the outparcel is not dependant upon construction of
Phase 1 and 2 has been provided.
8. Mitigation -plan needs revising to include 0.49 ac of upland preservation and
justify why ecologically leaving the upland is more valuable than creating
wetlands.
The wetland impact Sheet 104 has been updated showing an additional
0.54 ac of uplands to be preserved. A revised mitigation plan is also
attached.
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Coward or me.
Sincerely,
R. Steve Dial
President
cc: Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ, Wilmington
Keith Hams, USACOE Wilmington district
Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ, Raleigh
~~

Bayberry Farms at the Preserve
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Bayberry Farms at the Preserve is a 250 lot subdivision proposed adjacent to
and approximately northwest of the existing Topsail High School. To develop this
property, 0.49 acres of wetland impacts are proposed, to create three short road
crossings so that upland portions of the site can be utilized. Additionally, 0.08
acres of non jurisdictional isolated wetlands will be impacted by a road crossing.
This mitigation plan was developed to compensate for the 0.49 acres of wetland
impacts associated with the proposed development.
A total of 218.59 acres of wetlands exist on the 344.36 acre site. Wetlands on
the site are all pine flatwood/pocosin systems. Pond pine (Pious serotina) and
loblolly pine (Pious taeda) occur sparsely through most of the wetland areas and
dominant subcanopy species includes loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus),
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), swamp red bay (Persea palustris), red maple
(Acer rubrum), lyonia fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Groundcover is limited within the wetland areas where the subcanopy shrub layer
is dense. Loblolly pine and longleaf pine (Pious pa/ustris) are dominant canopy
species in the upland areas, but are scattered due to past logging activities. The
shrub layer in the uplands is dominated by inkberry (Ilex glabra) and swamp red
bay. Groundcover includes bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), wiregrass
(Aristida stricta), creeping blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium), and broomsedge
(Andropogon spp.).
Soils on the site are composed of excessively drained Kureb Series soils in the
uplands, with slopes ranging from 2 to 6 percent; poorly drained Leon fine sand
in both uplands and wetlands, when associated with Murville soils and a slope of
0 to 2 percent (USDA SCS Pender County Soils Survey). Murville muck, a very
poorly drained soil type, is the dominant series mapped in wetland areas on the
site.
Per discussions with Mr Brad Shaver and Mr. Keith Harris of the U.S. Corps of
Engineers (USCOE), the applicant proposes to place all of the remaining 218.01
acres of wetlands and 0.49 ac of uplands on-site in preservation, as deed
restricted areas, to compensate for the 0.49 acres of impacts. Mr. Brad Shaver
and Mr. Keith Harris of the USCOE agreed on 2 October 2006 that preservation
of an additional 0.49 ac of uplands within the wetland preservation area would
suffice instead of creating 0.49 ac of wetlands from the uplands as would
generally be required to meet the 1:1 creation/restoration guidelines. The agent's
professional opinion is that the uplands and their associated ecotonal area offer
more ecological benefits to wildlife than would occur through the conversion of
this small area to pine pocosin wetlands. Restrictive covenants protecting the
wetland and upland preservation areas will be drafted in accordance with the
Wilmington District's Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property. Areas
proposed for preservation are depicted on the site plans included with this
application package.

,since
1983
E1`IC1I1`IEERITiC~ COI`ISULTAI'~TS, II`iC. www.trigoneng.com
107 Stokley Drive, Suite 104 • ~/ilmington, ~1C 28403 • p 910.256.9300 • f 910.256.9302
October 4, 2006
Mr. Brad Shaver
USACOE
Civil Works Office
69 Dazlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Bayberry Farms at the Preserve
Deaz Brad:
This letter is in response to a meeting we had on Monday October 4, 2006. At that meeting you
requested a letter stating that the outpazcel at the end of road "K" was not dependant of the construction
of Phases I & II. This letter is simply confirming that Phases I & II can be built and completed as a stand
alone subdivision without any connection being made at the end of road "K". I trust this satisfies your
concerns. Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Brad Whitehurst, P.E.
Project Engineer
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Ttian~ vvu !{~~r uur 3ucrc•..+.

,Since ~--
1983
EI`IaII`IEERIIYCY CO1`ISULTAI`iTS, II`IC. www.trigoneng.com
107 Stokley Drive, Suite 104 • V~lilmington, NC 28403 • p 910.256.9300 • f 910.256.9302
TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Steve Dial/ Jeff Cowazd
FROM:
Brad Whitehurst, P.E. '
COMPANY: DATE:
Dial Cordv 10/4/06
RE:
Baybeay Farms Via Hand Delivery
^ URGENT ^ FOR REVIEW ^ PLEASE CObf~fENT ^ PLEASE REPLY ^ PLEASE RECYCLE
ATTACHED:
# Item
1 Revised Sheets C101, C104, C161
1 Letter from Pender County concerning two entrances
1 Stormwater Calculations for Noelle
3 81 /5 X 11 plots of lots showing building footprints
1 Letter to Brad Shaver regarding the outparcel

NOTES:
Steve,
Please call with any questions or if you need additional information.
T~an~ vuu E<~r vur eurrr+~.

1Q/04/2006 14:41 9102591295
~~ct'04 2006 2s12PH HP LRSERJET FRX
PENDEP COUNTY
9102569302
PAr,E 02
p.2
LTitJRYE>•R1Tid COT18(JI,T~TlT,g, 1PiC, s~.fzi~oneng.oa,a
107 Stokley Drlve. Su~le 104 • V'/ilmington, NC 28443 • p 810.256.9300 • f 810.256.9302
October 4, 2006
Mr. Andrew Collins
Peadcr County Planning
Ite: Bayberry Farms st the preserve
Dear Andrear.
This letter is in rzspouse to a meeting I bad with the Army Corps of Er~ginecrs on Monday October 2,
2006. In that tweeting the Corp wartbecl a letter from 1?crwdrs Cotmty as to why we needed two entrances
at Beybcrry Farms Subdivision. I explained to the Coup that through Pen,der Courrty's review process for
the prelimitary plan that Frank Palmer, former planning director, didn't wart Topsail High School and
the r~ehtil section o~'our development to use the same access. Fwthermore, our transportation engineering
consultant, Chas. H. Sells, Imo., deTerrnin,od that two entrances would be necessary due to tha amount of
traffic thu development was ®eaeratln8.7'his icticr is simply you aclmowledging to the Army Corps of
Engineer's the nccossity for two access points far Bayberry Farms. Keep in tlind that this development
has already bceu eppmv,cd by Pender County and thin is simply to obtain a wetland ira}>act permit In no
~''ay does this ~Be ~y~n8 that Peader County has previously has approved. If you aclczlowledge this
please do so b7r signing this letter at the bottom. 'Ibanks for your cooperstion.
Please call with any questions
~y'`S~i~n_c~e/reelyN/,.~', J~J''
~JaV l "' "~(/YS
Brad Wtrioahurst, P.L.
Project Engineer
Trigon Engineering Comsultants, inc.
L`SG" ~J ~
Andr+aw Collins !
Ponder County Planning
77+aalr rou doe uur suaoe-r.
,:,:
.~..
. _:~'' .

10/Oa/2005 la: al 9102591295 FEllGER COUIlTY
PAr,E 01
r.o. Dox a4a
Ijurgnw, NC 28425
N ~U
* *~
~ ~
~ ~
~'t!
rhonc(910)259-1201
Fox (910) 2.59-12')S
FACSIMILE- TR~INSVIISSION SHEET
T~nTE:_ k~y-~ ~ _
To:, ~r~~ ~.~~_
I~AX NUMAER! ~~~~~
1'L-T_EPHONF NUMBER:
FROIvl:_ ~~~~~~
fAX NL'MT3ER:-a~= (~
TFLEPT•ic~NE ti'L'MBER:
TOTAL P/~('iE5 (1NCLUDiNG COVER S1~F.ET): ~
~ ,
COMMFNTS:_ ~ P ry~~.[,,~ t~~-~.e ~Cf:rf'
/ -
~;~~ l
~1' ~~~s ~ tiQr'E . I~2 CG~~~'~ ac,~Q~ w aS~ - ~ ~~ ~~
www.peadcr-county.com
Note: If the following information is not clear or if you do not receive all the indicated sheets, plesse
notify our office imlrediately.
T-IAVI/ A NICE DAB'

' i
~ ~ 4 - ~
.~
_..-_..__ .. ..._.._ ___-....._. _ .. _. i 1
-~-- ---t- -•----- ._..._._.. _....-._.._._ _ _ ... .. .._.. ...__._..._ .- - ..._._.__..-------- -- -
`- -
--~---_ --_~c~ens..En.gineering,:P:C._.___. ._ _ ~_-!
J Civil Engineering • Land De~~elohment Services _ ___
_._..__ -------~- ---r----__-__._____ ______ __.__...__~_ _.. ._.-....----- ..... ..-----•- ..._ --- --- - - -
--.
~.__ ~__.
~-/- -
^~ i
---- ~...
-• --_
/~~ ~.
' f i ~ -
~ ~ ~ r 1
~ { r
. _~- -_ _-_.r-
(, / /I ~VI ' i i
_ _
--- -_
// _
--
- ._.
_.._
-;
. ~ /
_ -_ _ - ----- ---._ __ _ -._ -~- -//-/-J- ----- - - - _ _ _ _ ///y __
` J y ` _ .... ._
_ ~
. ~ _r - ._- __-__.__ ___.. _.._. - _.. _.-.. _
-- ^ ----
~f~i = -.
-----_- ____~ . -__ ...~ ~_~ .~1-- ~~------_ . __
-- -.
r --- -------
-~ ~-.
of / _
-----r-----=-----b-*~~_ _1_.!',~_'._-~~;~~ ~ .~:M .r~,~'~~ . -- / i 6 ~~ ACC
i ,_ ; I
~- -- - --~ --- ------ -- ~ -- f N _ `w T C ~ ,
., . ~
.•
• ~i i
,r. ~ ~.~_
/~ ~~ -y •f'
/' /` ~
i
____
i7~. c~', II` ~.~bi~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~I i ~ j ~ i
~ -
~ ~ ,
_ __ _ / ,,r
----
~ ..~. __ _ _ . _.._ ._ _ ..__ _ _.___.___a--
,,
_.___ __. _..__d,7~t't~cedmnnr ;Road .: - ---7~- ~tokte~ Brim __.__ ._ _. _... .._ .. _ _. _ ._ _ _ _ .._.. .__ ... ___--..~---•----;--------- --

t
~J
X
O ~ ~~
~ ~
L8 S~
~~
~~
00 o
0o X ~~ ~
~~:~ ~
~r

~_ '
~. ~~,
00

0

+<
~'
~~\
C~
h-
~~.
s~
~o
0
„~o/
i

OF W ATF9 M ichacl F. Easley, Govcmor
\U~ OG William G. Ross lr., Secretary
(q ~ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O „C Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 7, 2006
DWQ Project # 20061503
Pender County
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7005 0390 0001 3200 5403 ~~~~
RETUR:v RECEIPT REQUESTED ~j,1
y ~;C~
Mr. James McFarland ~~E~
Hampstead Lands, LLC ~"^ Y ? 2~~6
PO Box 2277 $y.`~
Wilmington, NC 28402
Subject Property: Bayberry Farms at the Preserve
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATIOti
Dear Mr. McFarland:
On September 15, 2006, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated August 3,
2006 to impact 0.494 acres of wetlands to construct the proposed residential subdivision. On October 9,
2006, the DWQ received additional information for this project. The DWQ has determined that your
application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The D~VQ will
require additional information in order to process your application to impact protected wetlands and/or
streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the additional information requested below,
we will have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will
place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. Please provide the
following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. The additional information provided on October 9, 2006 stated that the draft conservation easement
was attached. This document was not attached to the information provided. Please provide a copy
of the draft deed notifications or conservation easement.
2. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (w'RC) has provided DWQ with comments concerning
the proposed project (attached). Please address these comments in your response and provide a
copy of your response to Steven Everhart of the WRC. This response should include a federally
protected species survey, including but not limited to the red-cockaded woodpecker.
3. It is the understanding of this office that the property is no longer owned by Hampstead Lands
LLC. If this is the case please provide the new owner information and an agent authorization letter
from the new owner authorizing Jeff Coward of Dial Cordy and Associates to act as the agent. If
you still own the property, please provide an agent authorization letter authorizing Jeff Coward of
Dial Cordy and Associates to act as your agent.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Servicel-07723.8748
Wilmington Reganal Office Wilmington, NC 28405.3845 FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal OpportunitylAffirrttativeAetion Empbyer - 50% Recycled110~ Post Consumer Paper
N~~o~~` Carolina..r
~JVRt1l1Yl~~11,~> ..`~
..:

Hampstead Lands, LLC
Page 2 of 2
December 7, 2006
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and 5 copies to Cyndi Karoly of the DWQ 401 Oversight Unit Office. If we do not hear from you within
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn.
This ]etter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call me at 910-797-7215 or Cyndi Karoly at 919-733-
1786 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
-~,~-
Environmental Specialist III
CBK1nm!
Enclosures: WRC Comments
cc: Jeff Coward, Dial Cordy and Associates
Ian McMillan, DWQ 401 Oversight and Express Unit, Raleigh
Brad Shaver, USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office (File Copy)
Stephen Rynas, DCM Morehead City
Central Files
Filename: 061503.noc06

-~~' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Cyndi Karoly
NC DENRiDWQ
From: Steven H. Everhart, PhD ~"^'"
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: October 16, 2006
RE: Hampstead Lands, LLC -Bayberry Farms at The Preserves, Pender Co. 4011404 Application
DWQ # 20061503, USACE Action ID #200401153
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have review-ed the subject
application for impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.), and
Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Wa[er Act (as amended).
The project is located on the west side of US I7, adjacent to Topsail High School, in Pender County. The
property consists of approximately 344.36 acres including approximately 218.59 acres (63 %) of pocosinipine
flatwoods wetlands.
The applicants propose to impact approximately 0.494 acre of wetlands through filling!culverting to construct
roads and provide infrastructure fora 250-lot residential subdivision. The applicants propose to mitigate for
wetland impacts by preservation of all remaining wetlands on-site.
We have the following concerns,'recommendati©ns:
• The property provides outstanding white-tail deer and black bear habitat and has supported hunted
populations of these species in the past. The preservation of all remaining wetlands on-site will
continue to provide this habitat.
There are historical records for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker in the vicinity. We
recommend that a thorough surve~• be made for this and other protected species that inhabit
pocosiu/pine flat~-•oods wetlands.
1`'Iailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 iviail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Iiampstead Lands, LI_C - Bayberry Farms
October 16, 2006
• We recommend that all utility crossings of wetlands arc made using directional bore
techniques.
• Where standard culverts are used, we recommend they are embedded sufficiently to allow for the
passage and settlement of aquatic organisms. We do not support the filling of wetlands or streams
for road crossings as this practice destroys wetland connectivity.
The draft conservation area restrictions were not included with the application. V1'e recommend that
all (including any owned by the applicant but not marked as to be preserved in C-104)
remaining wetlands on-site are preserved in perpetuity through conservation easement that
prohibits: cutting, pruning, mowing, or burning of vegetation; construction of any kind; use of
herbicides; any land disturbing activities; dumping or storing of soil, trash, or other waste; and
the pasturing, grazing or watering of animals, or any other agricultural or horticultural
purpose within wetlands. We further recommend that no exclusions for wetlands occurring on
platted lots be allowed and that no exclusions be made for removal of dead or diseased trees or
poisonous/noxious plants.
The proposed mitigation does not provide "no net loss" of wetlands. Ako, the applicant states in
Section VII, paragraph 2, that 0.49 acre will be impacted, but 0.~7 acre is the total given in Section
XIV. In addition to preservation we recommend buy-in to the ~'C EEP for at least 0.57 acre of
non-riparian, preferably pocosin, wetlands.
We have no objection to the project provided our recommendations are included as permit conditions. Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. If you have anv questions or require
additional inforntation regarding these comments, please call me at [phone].
CC: Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ
Brad Shaver, USACE
Howard Hall, USFWS

,,
DIAL CORDY
ANV n55c~c.i~~~r~~ ~l~c.
Yf:rrl~irr~rlnlr•rlrr.rl (:r,rl.titlllrrrllti
March 23, 2007
Mr. Pete Benjamin
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
O 17cA. raP`1
j~
Q~-15a3 U~
~ La ~ L~ L1 \'I ~~,. '.~j
t
JUN 6 ZUUI
~1D.4AND TTEORMINATERN
Re: Bayberry Subdivision (Action ID: 2006 40390 071) and Hampstead Sewage
Treatment Facility, Pender County, NC
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. has initiated coordination with John Hammond of
your office for the Bayberry Subdivision located in Pender County, just northwest
of the North Topsail High School. This action was first initiated through our
client's request for a Nationwide 14 permit from the Corps of Engineers, and
subsequent request from the USFWS and NCWRC for the applicant to perform a
survey for RCW cavity trees. An on-site meeting with John Hammond was held
on 9 January 2007. At this time he requested that we conduct an assessment of
the potential foraging habitat on-site, as well as perform periodic checks
(including dawn and dusk) for RCW activity through the early breeding season.
Five cavities and one start were found on-site (Figure 1) and no RCWs were
observed or have been observed since the meeting. The five cavity trees and
one start tree do not appear to have been recently used, and so far, no roosting
has been observed. The closest active RCW cluster is over one-half mile north
of the subject cluster under study and is located on the Holly Shelter Game
Preserve.
While the dawn/dusk activity surveys are on-going and will continue, this request
is for approval to remove 36 ft2 BA of pine trees ? 8" dbh within the '/-mile radius
of the cluster for construction of the new sewage treatment plant, as required for
the new school presently under construction. In addition, we are requesting
Section 7 clearance from USFWS for allowing all but the area of the cluster
under study to proceed. Construction of the road network and lots, excluding the
cluster area, will result in the loss of 127 ft2 BA of pines 8" and greater within the
'/~-mile foraging area. No other pines will be cut for construction of the
subdivision other than indicated in this letter and shown on the enclosed figures.
In support of this request, we have provided the following narrative and
referenced attached figures and tables. The following summary of our forest
Ftw'r UNION (3UIWINC, $UI'rF. GOl • 201 ~1~)RrH {~Bi~\1 ~II:fICI' • \ti'll.\IINt;i'l)N, l~li)Rrll L\ROLINA _'1101
910-251 `I790 FA.~ 910-251 `1-IU`) t;-~\I,ul, into~~di.ilcunh•.u~m
UFFI(~S ~ACKSONVII.ll, FLOHIUA • .a'I'I_\Nr.\, l,t URCIA • CH:\I1Ll:\'I1~N, 1i)Ul'll ~riK~)l.lN~\

inventory data, comparison of the data to managed stability criteria, and impact
assessment is provided for your consideration.
Summary of forest inventory data collection and foraging analysis
To assess the potential foraging habitat for the RCW cluster recently identified on
the Bayberry property, forestry data was collected within '/4 and '/z mile of the
epicenter of the cluster (Figure 1), as requested by John Hammond. The area
within the '/z-mile planning area was divided into three areas (referred to as
Survey Areas 1, 2, and 3) where pines were surveyed using GPS and into five
areas where basal cover was remotely analyzed (referred to as Aerial Survey
Areas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) (Figure 2). Aerial Survey Area 4 was excluded, as no
timber meeting the minimum size was identified in this area. All pines ? 8" dbh
were identified, surveyed, and the dbh measured within the three surveyed areas
from 23-28 January 2007 (Figure 3). Once it was determined that the '/<-mile
planning unit would not contain the required 3,000 ft2 of basal area, pines were
cruised within the'/Z-mile area.
The total BA of pine trees within the '/z-mile planning unit, comprising 461 acres
of potential foraging habitat, is estimated to be 4,773 ft2 (Table 1, Figure 4). This
includes a total basal area of 557 ft2 for longleaf pine and 4,216 ft2 for pond pine.
This area includes 126 acres of predominately pine flatwood and pine/scrub oak
sandhill habitat on the property and 334 acres of predominately pocosin wetlands
on and off the property. A total of 126 acres of the 461 acres within the '/z-mile
planning unit was surveyed for all pines ? to 8" dbh. A total of 1,006 trees (895
longleaf, 111 pond pine) were surveyed, yielding a total BA of 616.8 ft2. The
surveyed areas had a total pine density of 8 stems/ac of trees >_ to 8" dbh. The
pine stands occurring within the dense pocosin wetlands on-site, as well as the
pocosin and pine flatwoods located off the property, were estimated using aerial
photographic analysis and standard forestry practices. For the aerial survey
areas, a 1/10"'-acre plot was aerially assessed for pines for every three acres of
potential habitat. An average basal area of 10.6 ft2 was assumed based on the
actual tree survey data of the surveyed areas. There was no correlation between
canopy cover area and dbh size for the trees surveyed. Thus for the remotely
assessed areas, reliance was placed on an average BA representative of the
habitat type present in that area from similar areas where trees were surveyed.
The size distribution of all surveyed pine trees, longleaf pine and pond pine, are
shown on attached Figures 5 and 6. The total basal area for each of the aerial
survey areas was estimated by the following: BA per tree = 3.1416 x
(dbh/2)/576, where BA is in ft2 and dbh is in inches. BA per plot = (number of
stems per 1 /10`h-acre plot) x (BA per tree). BA per acre = (BA per plot) x 10.
Within the 335 acres of potentially suitable foraging habitat aerially assessed,
there is an estimated 6,783 pond pine trees with a density of 20.2 stems/ac.
based on using the average dbh of 10.6" from the surveyed trees, the total pine
basal area for the aerial surveyed areas was estimated to be 4,216.5 ft2, with a
basal area of 10.35 ft2/ac.
2
~;,.
.;.

inventory data, comparison of the data to managed stability criteria, and impact
assessment is provided for your consideration.
Summary of forest inventory data collection and foraging analysis
To assess the potential foraging habitat for the RCW cluster recently identified on
the Bayberry property, forestry data was collected within '/4 and '/z mile of the
epicenter of the cluster (Figure 1), as requested by John Hammond. The area
within the '/z-mile planning area was divided into three areas (referred to as
Survey Areas 1, 2, and 3) where pines were surveyed using GPS and into five
areas where basal cover was remotely analyzed (referred to as Aerial Survey
Areas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) (Figure 2). Aerial Survey Area 4 was excluded, as no
timber meeting the minimum size was identified in this area. All pines ? 8" dbh
were identified, surveyed, and the dbh measured within the three surveyed areas
from 23-28 January 2007 (Figure 3). Once it was determined that the '/<-mile
planning unit would not contain the required 3,000 ft2 of basal area, pines were
cruised within the'/z-mile area.
The total BA of pine trees within the '/z-mile planning unit, comprising 461 acres
of potential foraging habitat, is estimated to be 4,773 ft2 (Table 1, Figure 4). This
includes a total basal area of 557 ft2 for longleaf pine and 4,216 ft2 for pond pine.
This area includes 126 acres of predominately pine flatwood and pine/scrub oak
sandhill habitat on the property and 334 acres of predominately pocosin wetlands
on and off the property. A total of 126 acres of the 461 acres within the '/Z-mile
planning unit was surveyed for all pines >_ to 8" dbh. A total of 1,006 trees (895
longleaf, 111 pond pine) were surveyed, yielding a total BA of 616.8 ft2. The
surveyed areas had a total pine density of 8 stems/ac of trees >_ to 8" dbh. The
pine stands occurring within the dense pocosin wetlands on-site, as well as the
pocosin and pine flatwoods located off the property, were estimated using aerial
photographic analysis and standard forestry practices. For the aerial survey
areas, a 1/10`h-acre plot was aerially assessed for pines for every three acres of
potential habitat. An average basal area of 10.6 ft2 was assumed based on the
actual tree survey data of the surveyed areas. There was no correlation between
canopy cover area and dbh size for the trees surveyed. Thus for the remotely
assessed areas, reliance was placed on an average BA representative of the
habitat type present in that area from similar areas where trees were surveyed.
The size distribution of all surveyed pine trees, longleaf pine and pond pine, are
shown on attached Figures 5 and 6. The total basal area for each of the aerial
survey areas was estimated by the following: BA per tree = 3.1416 x
(dbh/2)/576, where BA is in ft2 and dbh is in inches. BA per plot = (number of
stems per 1/10~h-acre plot) x (BA per tree). BA per acre = (BA per plot) x 10.
Within the 335 acres of potentially suitable foraging habitat aerially assessed,
there is an estimated 6,783 pond pine trees with a density of 20.2 stems/ac.
Based on using the average dbh of 10.6" from the surveyed trees, the total pine
basal area for the aerial surveyed areas was estimated to be 4,216.5 ft2, with a
basal area of 10.35 ft2/ac.
2

Comparison to managed stability criteria
Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the forestry data and the stand
characteristics, as related to the standards for managed stability. As shown in
Table 2, the potential foraging habitat is comprised of pine flatwoods and
pine/scrub oak sandhill (surveyed areas), and pocosin (aerial survey areas). A
majority of the surveyed areas are pine flatwoods and pine/scrub oak sandhill
habitat that were easily accessible for survey purposes, whereas the majority of
pocosin wetland habitat was very dense and not accessible for tree surveys.
While most of the criteria can be met in considering this habitat suitable for
foraging, the very low total BA of pines ?8" dbh may indicate otherwise. Based
on the analysis, the basal area per acre is on average less than 11 ft2/ac with 4.4
ft2/ac for longleaf in the surveyed areas, and 12.4 ft2/ac for pond pine in the aerial
surveyed areas.
The following serves to address the specific standards for managed stability, as
provided in Appendix 5 of the RCW Recovery Plan.
1. Provide each group of RCW a minimum of 3,000 ft2 of pine basal area,
including only pines greater than or equal to 10" dbh.
As indicated above and in the attached summary tables, the total estimated
pine basal area for pines ? 8" dbh within '/4 mile of the cluster was less than
the required 3,000 ft2, so the assessment was completed for the '/z-mile
planning area. Based on this assessment, the total pine basal area was
calculated to be 4,773 ft2 for the 461 acres of potential foraging habitat within
the'/z-mile area.
2. Provide the above pine basal area on a minimum of 75 acres.
Due to the sparse nature of the remaining ~ine stands within the pine
flatwoods and the pocosin wetlands, the 3,000 ft can not be met on 75 acres.
Most of the pines historically present in the study area have been lost to
intense fires in the early 1980's, hurricanes in the late 1990's, and some
selective clearing. Aside from the few stands of mature longleaf pines
remaining on the property, the density of remaining longleaf pines is very low.
3. Count only those pine stands in suitable habitat that, for this standard
only, has each of the following characteristics:
a. Stands are at least 30 years old or older.
Stands counted were longleaf and pond pine 8" dbh and greater, which
are likely all over 30 years old.
b. An average pine basal area of pines greater than or equal to 10"
dbh between 40-70 ftZ/ac.
3

Comparison to managed stability criteria
Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the forestry data and the stand
characteristics, as related to the standards for managed stability. As shown in
Table 2, the potential foraging habitat is comprised of pine flatwoods and
pine/scrub oak sandhill (surveyed areas), and pocosin (aerial survey areas). A
majority of the surveyed areas are pine flatwoods and pine/scrub oak sandhill
habitat that were easily accessible for survey purposes, whereas the majority of
pocosin wetland habitat was very dense and not accessible for tree surveys.
While most of the criteria can be met in considering this habitat suitable for
foraging, the very low total BA of pines ?8" dbh may indicate otherwise. Based
on the analysis, the basal area per acre is on average less than 11 ft2/ac with 4.4
ftz/ac for longleaf in the surveyed areas, and 12.4 ft2/ac for pond pine in the aerial
surveyed areas.
The following serves to address the speciric standards for managed stability, as
provided in Appendix 5 of the RCW Recovery Plan.
7. Provide each group of RCW a minimum of 3,000 ft2 of pine basal area,
including only pines greater than or equal to 10" dbh.
As indicated above and in the attached summary tables, the total estimated
pine basal area for pines >_ 8" dbh within '/4 mile of the cluster was less than
the required 3,000 ft2, so the assessment was completed for the '/z-mile
planning area. Based on this assessment, the total pine basal area was
calculated to be 4,773 ft2 for the 461 acres of potential foraging habitat within
the'/z-mile area.
2. Provide the above pine basal area on a minimum of 75 acres.
Due to the sparse nature of the remaining 2pine stands within the pine
flatwoods and the pocosin wetlands, the 3,000 ft can not be met on 75 acres.
Most of the pines historically present in the study area have been lost to
intense fires in the early 1980's, hurricanes in the late 1990's, and some
selective clearing. Aside from the few stands of mature longleaf pines
remaining on the property, the density of remaining longleaf pines is very low.
3. Count only those pine stands in suitable habitat that, for this standard
only, has each of the following characteristics:
a. Stands are at least 30 years old or older.
Stands counted were longleaf and pond pine 8" dbh and greater, which
are likely all over 30 years old.
b. An average pine basal area of pines greater than or equal to 10"
dbh between 40-70 ft2/ac.
3

Based on the likely use of smaller pine trees for foraging in southeast
North Carolina, trees surveyed included those 8" dbh and greater, as
allowed by John Hammond. The average pine basal area for pines
meeting this size was considerably lower than the desired 40 ftZ/ac,
with 8.42 ft2/ac for longleaf pine in the surveyed areas, and 12.41 ft2/ac
for pond pine in the aerial survey areas.
c. An average pine basal area of pines less than 70" dbh, less Phan 20
ftZ/ac.
Pines less than 8" dbh were not surveyed, but are clearly far less than
20 ftz/ac based on site observations.
d. No hardwood midstory or if a hardwood midstory is present, it is
sparse and less than 7 ft in height.
Hardwood midstory in the pine flatwood and pine/scrub oak sandhill
habitats (surveyed areas) is very sparse. Within the pocosin wetlands,
there is a tall, dense shrub layer. The average height of the very
sparse midstory is about 10 to 15 feet.
e. Total stand basal area, including overstory hardwoods, less than 80
ft2/ac.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the total stand basal area is clearly less
than 80 ft2/ac, due in part to the past loss of pine on the site from fire,
hurricanes, and some selective clearing.
f. Recommend that all land counted as foraging habitat be within 0.25
mile of the cluster, and that any stand counted as foraging habitat
be within 200 ft of another foraging stand, or the cluster itself.
Adequate basal area of 3,000 ft2 could not be met within a '/<-mile of
the remnant cluster; however, the foraging requirement was exceeded
within the '/z-mile radius. Therefore, the stand considered potential
foraging habitat for this assessment is not likely to be within 200 ft of
another foraging stand or the cluster itself.
Impact assessment for proposed sewaoe treatment plantJspray irrigation field
and the subdivision
Construction of the new sewage treatment plant and spray irrigation field is
proposed to be initiated in early May to serve the recently permitted North
Topsail High School, located adjacent to this site. As shown on Figure 7, the
new plant and spray field will require clearing of upland located within the'/z-mile
study area. Based on the tree survey completed for this area, the basal area of
pines lost will be 36 ft2'. This will result in a reduction of the total BA from 4,773 ft2
4

Based on the likely use of smaller pine trees for foraging in southeast
North Carolina, trees surveyed included those 8" dbh and greater, as
allowed by John Hammond. The average pine basal area for pines
meeting this size was considerably lower than the desired 40 ftz/ac,
with 8.42 ftz/ac for longleaf pine in the surveyed areas, and 12.41 ft2/ac
for pond pine in the aerial survey areas.
c. An average pine basal area of pines less than 70" dbh, less than 20
ftz/ac.
Pines less than 8" dbh were not surveyed, but are clearly far less than
20 ftz/ac based on site observations.
d. No hardwood midstory or if a hardwood midstory is present, it is
sparse and less than 7 ft in height.
Hardwood midstory in the pine flatwood and pine/scrub oak sandhill
habitats (surveyed areas) is very sparse. Within the pocosin wetlands,
there is a tall, dense shrub layer. The average height of the very
sparse midstory is about 10 to 15 feet.
e. Total stand basal area, including overstory hardwoods, less than 80
ftz/ac.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the total stand basal area is clearly less
than 80 ftz/ac, due in part to the past loss of pine on the site from fire,
hurricanes, and some selective clearing.
f. Recommend that all land counted as foraging habitat be within 0.25
mile of fhe cluster, and that any stand counted as foraging habitat
be within 200 ft of another foraging stand, or the c/usfer itself.
Adequate basal area of 3,000 ftz could not be met within a '/<-mile of
the remnant cluster; however, the foraging requirement was exceeded
within the '/z-mile radius. Therefore, the stand considered potential
foraging habitat for this assessment is not likely to be within 200 ft of
another foraging stand or the cluster itself.
Impact assessment for proposed sewage treatment plant/spray irrigation field
and the subdivision
Construction of the new sewage treatment plant and spray irrigation field is
proposed to be initiated in early May to serve the recently permitted North
Topsail High School, located adjacent to this site. As shown on Figure 7, the
new plant and spray field will require clearing of upland located within the '/Z-mile
study area. Based on the tree survey completed for this area, the basal area of
pines lost will be 36 ftz'. This will result in a reduction of the total BA from 4,773 ftz
4
...
.,~-,

to 4,737 ft2. Based on this assessment, construction of this project will not
adversely impact foraging habitat for the RCW cluster presently under evaluation
for activity and use. Based on early morning surveys performed so far, no RCWs
have been observed on-site. _
Table 3 provides a summary of the trees ?8" dbh that are proposed to be cut for
the proposed subdivision, excluding the road segment and cluster area that will
be left undeveloped until the activity and use of the cavity trees is resolved.
Figures 7 and 8 show the portion of the subdivision that we are requesting
clearance for under Section 7. The road segments and lots (46-76) that will not
be cleared or constructed with this request are also shown. The total BA of pine
that will be lost for this portion of the subdivision includes 50 ft2 for the road
network and 77 ft2 for the 220 lots, totaling 127 ft2. The balance of pine BA
remaining is estimated to be 4,610 ft2 when debiting the sewage treatment plant
and the subdivision. In accordance with criteria for managed stability, the
remaining BA exceeds the 3,000 ft2 BA required. The applicant/owner of the
Bayberry property agrees to protect all other pines >_8" dbh on the property until
which time the status of the cavity trees is determined. Construction of the
subdivision is proposed to begin in August 2007.
We appreciate your timely evaluation of this request. Should you have any
questions, please give me a call. Should you concur with our assessment,
please forward your concurrence to Mr. Brad Shaver with the Corps of
Engineers, such that the Nationwide 14 permit can be issued for the subdivision.
Regards,
~~--...~«.e
R. Steve Dial
President
cc: Joe Lesch, First Colony Land Development w/enclosures
Brad Shaver, Corps w/enclosures
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ w/enclosures
Steve Everhart, NCWRC w/enclosures
Enclosures
5

:a
Half-mile RCW Survey Radius
Parcel Line
Half -mile Radius Survey Zones
0 Area of Aerial Plot Survey
© Area of GPS Survey
500 0 500 1000 1500 Feet

7
o RCW Cavity Tree
GPS Surveyed Trees
® Longleaf pine
y Pond pine
Half -mile RCW Survey Radius
500 0 500 1000 Feet
3
Longleaf and Pond Pine Trees Surveyed on Bayberry Subdivision
Bayberry Subdivision RCW Survey
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet Drawn By: MR
Date: March 2007 Approved By: SD
DIAL CORDY J06-996
,, , , Figure 3
0

Bayberry Longleaf Pine DBH Distribution - 895 Trees Measured
2so
zoo
. 1 so
9
V
M
~' 100
50
0
^ Lonpleat Trees

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DBH Class (inches)
Bayberry Pond Pine DBH Distribution -111 Trees Measured
40
35
30
25
a
m
A
U
a 20 ^POntl Rne Trees
« --
e
e
r
15
10
5
0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DBH Class (inches)
Size Class Distribution for Longleaf and Pond Pine within Surveyed Areas
Bayberry Subdivision RCW Survey
Scale: NA Drawn By: MR
Date: March 2007 Approved By: SD
DIAL CORDY Jos~996
<~~ Flgure 4

Baybeny DBH Distribution -1006 Trees Measured
Size Class Distribution for All Measured Trees within Surveyed Areas
Bayberry Subdivision RCW Survey
Scale: NA Drawn By: MR
Date: March 2007 Approved By: SD
:~--:~:: DIAL CORDY ~~~

+ ~x,y ~
aJ ~~ ~. r , a -~;
y IDj ,~ s,~,~ T-°' ~, ~ 7 "r, Y.. ti`''p ~p ~ ~` s ~~ ~
+.,,Ky, ti 4~. x try ~~1~~M + '~ r 7.~
~ ~
~
~
'•r ~r ti „~~e aW~~ ,~ y- A t, t.~ .}
.~'
1.
iv+-
i ~ ry~b~~v~ d.
~
L
~
~~~~ LC ~Rk.. .F r. .~ ^~' 4~ r ~t.
L ~y ~
9 1 ~~f 1 .
~
`

r y.- .~ ~ .r ~+y~, yyj~~ ~R~~~ti
! ti ~ f .
,, >;;j '~ Calculated and Estimated Totat Basal Area within Bayberry Planning Units
':. ~~~,,~"_,.~ r~_ h. ,~~,`;='.'~- ~ .- "~a *: '~rr,,Aa`4 x~~' .;Y.; Bayberry Subdivision RCW Survey
" "" HaH-mile RCW Survey Radius '~ ~-~+~.~
Half-mile Radius Survey Zones Scale: finch = 1,000 feet Drawn By: MR
~ Area of Aerial Plot Survey ® Date: March 2007 Approved By: SD
® Area of GPS Survey r ~~~r~~ _ ~~~~
500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feet ,t" (L~. J06A96
„..aa~s , ,~;~~,,,, , „~„~ ~ „.~„~,,,~~,.. Figure 6

..a,4
E>1~i'-
~~ ~ ~,.~
`b
r
f+' b~.• ~
R ~i'• \
r ;s ~ y
~~•:'a. ~ 5.. i
~1e. ~ e
4x? i +~4 ~ +~` ~ _a~~`1a y
~~e t x0.7 ~~ J ,+. -Y~Y;gM `~'t1; 3~ w R~
t ti ~: t (~~/ ~e~Lw
kreas Proposed for Construction and Pine Removal ..
bayberry Suodiwsion Site Plan
~ -' Waste Water Treatment Plant
~ Half-mile RCVa' Survev Radius
500 0 _500 1000 1500 2000 Fee;
~.
~,_. ~
~:,

• DIAL CORDY
AND ASSOCIATES INC
_ Enr~irc~rurL<•ntcrl C~~nsL.rltanrs
April 30, 2007
Mr. Brad Shaver
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Bayberry at the Preserve Subdivision, Pender County, NC
Action ID: 2006 40390 071 '
Dear Mr. Shaver:
~~ ~`~~
~~
(~-l~3 U.~
D ~~~~
~~
~uN s za ~
07
'~%avosra4~q .~~~; v
HRH
Attached please find a letter from USFWS regarding clearance of most of the subject
site under Sector 7. As indicated in the letter, and from subsequent information copied
to you, the only area that will not be developed at the present time is the actual inactive
RCW cluster location.
We would request that the subject Nationwide permit be processed, as no other issues
remain to be resolved. A revised plan view drawing showing the area of the subdivision
that will not be developed until clearance from USFWS this summer, following
monitoring, will be forwarded to you this week.
Should you have any questions, please contact Jeff Coward or me.
Sincerely
DIAL CORDY AND ASSOCIATES INC.
R. Steve Dial
President
cc: Joe Lesch
Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ
Enclosure
J06-1000
FIRST UNION BUILDING, SUITE 601 • 201 NORTH FRONT S'I'RLL'1' • WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401
910.251-9790 • FAx [phone] • E-MAIL, info@dialrnniycom
OFFICES ]ACIiSONVILI.E, FIARIDA • ATIIINTA, GEORGIA • CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
~;~

..~i-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV[CE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 26, 2007
~1r. R. Steve Dial
Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc.
First Union Building, Suite 601
201 North Front Street
~~~'ilmin~~ton, North Carolina 28-I01
Dear I~lr. Dial.
This follows L'.S. Fish and ~~'ildlil~ Service IS~r~ i~~) review of your March 23, 2007 letter
re~~ardins the Baybel-ry Subdivision (.Action 1D: 2006 ~039U 07I) and Hampstead Sewage
Treatment Facility, Pendor County, NC. Based on observations of the red-cockaded woodp«!:~r
cluster made during the January 9, 200; site : isit (attended by you, Ms. Annotto Taylor, and :h~
property owner, ivlr. Joseph T. Lesch and Julul Hammond of the Service's Ralei~zh Field Of;i~~
and subsequent visits to the cluster by your statt•, it appears that this cluster was and remains
inactive. -The proposed development would tale place within thr: ;%-mile radius fura~rin~,
partition of a red-cocl:~zded woodpecker. (Picoi~i~s hrx•ealL~: RCW) cluster. Uur comments ;':'e
provided in accordance with the Elldan`ered Sp~ci~s Actor 1973, as anlonde;d (16 L'SC 1 ~~ . ~:
seq.). .
The average diameter at breast hei~_ht (DBE-'.l ti<<ure for pine treos rcferencod in your ~~Iarc'.1 =:.
2007, letter was based on the indi~~idually measured n~ees (10.6 inches). Based on this
assessment, ~~'e belies e that there are around -161 arcs ~~ ithin the %-mile fora``ing paItition .vr
this cluster It also appears that there is ~~~el l o~ ~r tl~< 3,000 square foot minimum pine basal ar~:~
within the paI•tition.
Based en the infornlatior, contained in your letter, appro :i:aately 36 square feet of eight-incll-
plus pine basal area will be removed from the duster's ' -mile radius fora`ing partition. .about
127 square feet of pine basal area for stems > ei~,ht inches DBH will be removed for this
construction phase of the subdivision and road net~~ ork. The cluster is inactive and the nest
closest active cluster lS I11oI'e thall ;, mile awa~~. Based on the information in your iVlarch 23
con-espondence, we concur with your determination that the proposed construction is not likely
to ad~~erseiy affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
~Vhile the cluster currently appears to be inactive, ~~ ~ encoura~~e you to continue monitorin~_
activi[}~ status and apprise as if it~becorries reactivated. In the process of construction, we
eneoura~_~the o~~~ner to eonseeve as many pine treys as possible. To maintain the suitabilit_~~ ~~t
remainin` habitat, ~Ve.also sug~,est the use of native shrubs fur landscaping. ~ Shrubs`or
omamc~ntal plants selected for use iIti the cumnlunity should be varieties thatdo nor usually
exceed seven feet in heis~ht.
:t ks

,.~ ..:
..~
-' , Based on the information contained in your March 23, ?007 letter, we believe that the proposed
site preparation and construction within the Bayberry Subdivision will not result in the "take" of
the red-cockaded woodpecker or any other federally listed species known to occur in Pender
Counry County. Please use this letter to ensure all potentially affected parties are informed. If
you have any questions rewarding this matter, please contact NIr. John Hammond at 919-8~6-
4~20 (Ext. 28). Thank you for your cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
~`
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: Ralph Costa, USF~VS

f;
-,~.
.~.
K ~;
~~.

of W ArF ~e~ -'`~°" " ~ Michael F. Easley, Governor
a~ 9pG
William G. Ross, Jr,, Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O ~
`C
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 25, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL - 7006 0810 0004 4475 2512
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. James McFarland
Hampstead Lands, LLC
PO Box 2277
Wilmington, NC 28402
Subject Property: Bayberry Farms at the Preserve
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
Dear Mr. McFarland:
On September 15, 2006, you requested a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) for your project. On October 19, 2006, you provided additional
information concerning the subject project; however, the application was still incomplete. We
wrote to you on December 7, 2006 discussing concerns that we have regarding the project
and stating that it would be placed on hold for three weeks giving you time to address DWQ's
concerns. As of today, DWQ has not received a response to this request. The only
correspondence received was a copy of the federally protected species survey that was
submitted to the Wilmington Regional Office only. Please note that all requested additional
information must be submitted to the DWQ 401 Oversight and Express Unit in Raleigh
before staff can continue the review process. In addition, two items in the December 7, 2006
letter have not been addressed. Therefore, your file is hereby considered withdrawn and will
not be reviewed until DWQ's earlier concerns are addressed. Once you have collected
sufficient information to have a complete application, you will need to reapply for DWQ
approval. This includes submitting a complete application package with the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clear Water Act for
this activity and any work done within waters of the state would be a violation of North
Carolina General Statuses and Administrative Code. Please call Ian McMillan at 910-796-
7215 if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincer y-r<I~,
,~j ~ ~.
Ed Beck
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
cc: Steve Dial, Dial Cordy and Associates Inc,
Ian McMillan, 4010versightJExpress Review Permitting Unit
Brad Shaver, USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
WiRO File Copy
Cenlzal Files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington Regional Office Phone (91D) 796.7215 Customer Servicel-877.623.6748
Wilmington, NC 284053845 FAX [phone] IntemeL h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal OpportunitylAffim~ative Action Empbyer-Sox, Reryded11096 Post Consumer Paper N0n,~t11C81'0llna
-- -~~
DWQ # 061503
Pender County

~o~~ SIN ~
A?TOR. K E Y S A T L A W
5 PIEO~+AONT CENTER SUITE 7SC ATLANTA GA 30905- •541
TELEPHONE 4C4-2°_"-997 / FFCSIMILE 4G4-Z37-ta~9
VIA U.S. 1~IAYL
November 13, 20CJf,
Mr. Brad Shaver
Regulato:,y Specialist
Wilming~:on District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
~~Vilming:on, NC 28402-1890
RE: Bayberry Permzt Action ID 200G 40390 0', 2
Dear Ivlr. Shaver:
RECEIVED
lIQ~Y i 7 ~
~oQ~
OIAf CU°%~Y P,~~IU 1,SSOC,~'E~ !'~C
V`!e represent Jamestown Qender Commercial, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("JP
Commercial") and lamesto~`~n Pender Residential, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("JP
Residential") in the above referenced matter. Please be advised that as ofNovernber 1, 200ti,
JP Cemrnerciai and JP Residential are the record o-a~nezs of the property which is the subject of
the above referenced permit.
F7ease note the 5pecial Warranty Deeds evidencing the ownership of the property in JP
Commercisl and JP Residential is recorded in Deed Bvok 3C35, Pagz 18b and Dred Bcok 3085,
Page 180, respectfully. Further, please Hate that Mr. Steve Diai of Dial Cardy 8i: Associstes,
Inc., rezrtdins the Agent of Record.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding tl-is matter.
Sincerely,
FOLTZ A4ARTII~T,,LLC
~ ~
i~ ~
Lam, ,
;~iatJinn T. J u1s
NTJ:`tm
Cc: :dir. Steve Dial
:Vlr. George B. Taylor
Mr. Allen Brativn
ti1r. Clay Adams
Sla7?a I
4t~'~ ~~~t ~Ot?4 .j ~~N SOS~iti?-bU6:x~'~ ,~[l~l'J lh+Iil

~ i5a3~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
PENDER COUNTY
CONSERVATION DECLARATION
This DECLARATION of CONSERVATION COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, and
RESTRICTIONS is made on this 14th day of May, 2007, by Jamestown Pender
Residential L.P., E. Allen Brown, Jr., Member/ Manager, 4500 Cameron Valley Parkway,
Suite 350, Charlotte, NC 28211.
RECITALS & CONSERVATION PURPOSES
A. Declarant is the sole owner in fee simple of the certain Conservation
Property (Property) being approximately acres, more particulazly described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and
B. The purpose of this Conservation Declaration is to maintain wetland and/or
riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent the use or
development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with
the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition. The preservation of the Property
in its natural condition is a condition of Department of the Army permit Action ID
issued by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), required
to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States authorized by that
permit, and this Conservation Declaration may therefore be enforced by the United States
of America.
NOW, THEREFORE the Declarant hereby unconditionally and irrevocably declazes that
the Property shall be held and subject to the following restrictions, covenants and
conditions as set out herein, to run with the subject real property and be binding on all
parties that have or shall have any right, title, or interest in said property.
ARTICLE I. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Declaration is prohibited. The Property shall be maintained in its natural,
scenic, and open condition and restricted from any development or use that would impair

or interfere with the conservation purposes of this Conservation Declaration set forth
above.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are
expressly prohibited or restricted.
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction ofnon-native
plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display,
antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or
permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. Industrial. Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the property.
G. Signage• No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property,
signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property
and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other
materials on the Property is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredge or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Oualit~and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing

or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or dischazging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Declaration shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited.
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is
prohibited.
ARTICLE II. ENFORCEMENT & REMEDIES
A. This Declaration is intended to ensure continued compliance with the
mitigation condition of authorizations issued by the United States of America, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, and therefore may be enforced by the United
States of America. This covenant is to run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under the Declarant.
B. Corps, its employees and agents and its successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Property to determine whether the Declarant, Declarant's representatives,
or assigns are complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation
Declaration.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Declaration shall be construed to
entitle Corps to bring any action against Declarant for any injury or change in the
Conservation Property caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Declazant's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement,
or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the Declarant under emergency
conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to Property or
harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE III. PUBLIC ACCESS
A. This Conservation Declaration does not convey to the public the right to
enter the Property for any purpose whatsoever.

ARTICLE IV. DOCUMENTATION AND TITLE
A. Conservation Property Condition. The Declarant represents and
acknowledges that the Property is currently undeveloped land, with no improvements
other than any existing utility lines, Declarations and rights of way.
B. Title. The Declarant covenants and represents that the Declarant is the
sole owner and is seized of the Property in fee simple and has good right to make the
herein Declaration; that there is legal access to the Property, that the Property is free and
cleaz of any and all encumbrances, except Declarations of record.
ARTICLE V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Conservation Purpose.
(1) Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees that this
Conservation Property shall be held exclusively for conservation purposes.
B. Entire Agreement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the Conservation Declaration and supersedes all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Declaration. If
any provision is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation
Declazation, and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
C. Recording?. Declarant shall record this instrument and any amendment
hereto in timely fashion in the official records of Pender County, North Carolina, and
may re-record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights.
D. Environmental Condition of Conservation Property. The Declarant
warrants and represents that to the best of its knowledge after appropriate inquiry and
investigation: (a) the Property described herein is and at all times hereafter will continue
to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local environmental laws and
regulations, and (b) as of the date hereof there are no hazardous materials, substances,
wastes, or environmentally regulated substances (including, without limitation, any
materials containing asbestos) located on, in or under the Property or used in connection
therewith, and that there is no environmental condition existing on the Property that may
prohibit or impede use of the Property for the purposes set forth in the Recitals.
4

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and
year first above written.
JAMESTOWN PENDER RESIDENTIAL, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership
By: Pender G.P., LLC,
as its General Partner
By: Jamestown Pender, L.P.,
as its sole Member
By: Pender Holdings, LLC,
as its General Partner
By: (SEAL)
E. Allen Brown, Jr., Manager
Date: