20070026 Ver 1_Individual_20070104

LM G
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP irrc.
Environmental Consultants
20070026
December 29, 2006
TO: Ms. Noelle Lutheran
Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28445
RE: 401 Water Quality Certification Application
Surf City Market; Pender County, NC
Barnett Properties LLC & Wilco-Hess LLC
Dear Noelle:
Pf~l'I~~ENT
RECEIVED
Enclosed is a 401 Water Quality Certification application for your review. This application is submitted
on behalf of Barnett Properties LLC & Wilco-Hess LLC. The applicant is proposing to construct the Surf City
Market, a retaiUcommercial shopping center to be located at the northeast intersection of Highway 17 and
Highway 210 in Surf City, NC. The applicant plans to build 275,000 square feet of commercial and retail space
within the site. The proposed project would impact 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands. In order to mitigate for these
impacts, the applicant proposes to preserve remaining wetlands on site and buy into the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
The application form, project narrative, associated maps, and site plan are enclosed for your review.
The $475 application fee has been submitted to the Raleigh office. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you for your assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
~ ~; ~~~
Kim Williams
Encl.
C: Mr. Brad Shaver, ACOE
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Mr. Stephen Rynas, DCM
Mr. Hall Barnett, Barnett Properties LLC
Mr. Steven Williams, Wilco-Hess LLC
Mr. George House
Mr. Hill Rogers
Mr. John Kuske
1"~
~~
a `i~~~
J~~ ~ ,~~;~`+ .~.
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Rve., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP irrc.
Environmental Consultants
December 29, 2006
TO: Mr. Brad Shaver
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
RE: Individual Permit Application
Surf City Market; Pender County, NC
Barnett Properties LLC & Wilco-Hess LLC
Dear Brad:
Enclosed is an Individual Permit application for your review. This application is submitted on behalf of
Barnett Properties LLC & Wilco-Hess LLC. The applicant is proposing to construct the Surf City Market, a
retaiUcommercial shopping center to be located at the northeast intersection of Highway 17 and Highway 210
in Surf City, NC. The applicant plans to build 275,000 square feet of commercial and retail space within the
site. The proposed project would impact 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands. In order to mitigate for these impacts, the
applicant proposes to preserve remaining wetlands on site and buy into the Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
The application form, project narrative, associated maps, and site plan are enclosed for your review.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
Sincerely, _ ,
--w`L~'
Kim Williams
Encl.
C: Ms. Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Mr. Stephen Rynas, DCM
Mr. Hall Barnett, Barnett Properties LLC
Mr. Steven Williams, Wilco-Hess LLC
Mr. George House
Mr. Hill Rogers
Mr. John Kuske
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP 1rrc.
Environmental Consultants
December 29, 2006
TO: Stephen Rynas
Federal Consistency Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
RE: Request for concurrence; Surf City Market; Pender County, NC
Dear Mr. Rynas:
On behalf of Barnett Properties LLC and Wilco-Hess LLC., Land Management Group, Inc. requests concurrence
from the Division of Coastal Management of the applicant's consistency certification. The applicant is proposing to
construct the Surf City Market, a retail/commercial shopping center to be located at the northeast intersection of Highway 17
and Highway 210 in Surf City, NC. The applicant plans to build 275,000 square feet of commercial and retail space within
the site. The proposed project would impact 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands. The applicant has applied for an Individual Permit
and a 401 Water Quality Certification for thicTrn~}ert._____
We have reviewed the State's coastal program regulations (ie.15A NCAC 07M) and the local Land Use Plan for
Pender County. The proposed project complies with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's approved coastal
management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. Enclosed is a copy of the Project
Narrative and the Individual Permit application, which describe this project's compliance with the coastal program
regulations, specifically avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, water quality protection, and mitigation.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this process. Thank you.
Sincerely,
`~-~`~
Kim Williams
Encl.
C: Mr. Brad Shaver, ALOE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Mr. Hall Barnett, Barnett Properties LLC
Mr. Steven Williams, Wilco-Hess LLC
Mr. George House
Mr. Hill Rogers
Mr. John Kuske
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

06-28-06;02:18PM;
C1D/ .C {J/ GCJ CJD CI7:'iD '1CJY JGCI CJO CI
LJiIVLI•IHIVH~7CJ•ICIY 1
AG~N'T DTSCLQST~~ FOB
TO WHOM IT IviAY CONCi<RN;
;2524925107
# 2/ 3
rHUC ny~ n~
,ilvve, tho undersigned, iaereby autb~oxizc Land Management Group, Inc. to act a5 our went ins the
prcparatian ~a-d representation of information related to the permit a~pli,cation for the Sidbury
$~~ith Capps site, Fender County, NC. Ail questions in regaXda to this project should be directed
to hand Management Group, Inc.
Sincet~Xy,
~~
.~
Qwoer/t~pplicant Signature
~~ ~l ~ G~~ r-n
Frint l~iame
CQ ~~
Date

12-11-OB;02:14PM;
Dec i l tlb 1 1 : U:la
;2524925107 # 4~ 4
p.
AGLNT T.7ISCLQSYJRE ~OkM
~'O WkIOM IT MAX CONCERN:
Uwe, the undersigned, hereby authorize Land Manasement Group, Inc. to act as our agent in the
preparafiorti and representation of infomnation related to the permit application for tlac
LLI/GC.O /~E'~1 ~ site. All. questions in xe~azds to this project should be directed
to Land 1Vlanagemen~t Croup, Inc.
Satlccreiy,
~, ~~GL!/fya~Cl
pwner/Appiicant
~;~ T. ~~
Print Name
/.~ - //-- o G~
Date

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Privacy Act Statement
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for
the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routing Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating this application for a permit.
Disclosure; Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided however, the permit application cannot be processed nor
can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPL. COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not
1. Barnett Properties, LLC; c/o Mr. Hall Barnett required) Kim Williams
Environmental Consultant
2. WilcoHess, LLC; c/o Mr. Steve Williams Land Management Group, Inc.
A.T. Williams Oil Company
~ Y~~~E~~~~T
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS RECEIVED
1. 1775 Graham Avenue; Suite 201
Henderson, NC 27536 Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
2. 5446 University Parkway Wilmington, N.C. 28402
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NO. W/AREA CODE
a. Business 1. [phone] 2. [phone] a. Business 5910) 452-0001
b. Fax 1. [phone] 2. [phone] b. Fax [phone]
11
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize Land Management Group, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application. SEE ATTACHED FORM
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE -Surf City Market
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
UT of Virginia Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Pender North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Intersection of Hwy 210 and Hwy 17
Surf City, NC
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN
Tax parcel ID numbers: 4226-10-4335-0000; 4226-10-3885-0000; 4226-11-6009-0000; 4226-11-7363-0000;
4225-19-4405-0000; 4225-09-6350-0000; 4225-09-3376-0000; 4225-09-2566-0000

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Wilmington, take Hwy 17N into Pender County. Site will be on the right, directly after intersection with
Highway 210 (see vicinity map).
18. NATURE OF ACTIVITY (Description of project, include all features) -The preferred project consists of constructing
275,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and associated parking. Wetland fill for building pads and
parking lots is requested (See Project Narrative).
19. PROJECT PURPOSE (Describe the reason or purpose of the project) - To provide a commercial development within
an expanding section of Surf City (See Project Narrative).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. REASON(S) FOR DISCHARGE - To provide buildable areas that are visible from Highways 17 and 210 and
that interconnect with each other (See Project Narrative).
21. TYPE(S) OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS -Clean,
compacted sub-grade soil materials, clean ABC aggregate, pavement etc. See map for area in each location.
22. SURFACE AREA IN ACRES OF WETLANDS OR OTHER WATERS FILLED
7.04 acres of 404 wetlands
23. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? no IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, Etc., WHOSE PROPERTY ADJOINS THE WATERBODY
(see attached sheet)
25. LIST OTHER CERTIFICATIONS OR APPROVALS/DENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL
AGENCIES FOR WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS APPLICATION N/A
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL"` IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the
information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work
described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF /kRPtt~RtT ~~.,.,-I- DATE
18. U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations o rmakes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

PROJECT NARRATIVE
December 2006
Surf City Market
Barnett Properties LLC & Wilco-Hess LLC
Pender County, NC
INTRODUCTION
Barnett Properties LLC and Wilco-Hess LLC propose to develop the Surf City Market, a
regional shopping center that will contain 275,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. Total
proposed impacts are 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands. The project area is located within the Cape
Fear River Basin and is 62.48 acres in size.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area is located in Pender County, northeast of the intersection of Highway 17
and Highway 210 in Surf City, NC (Figures 1 & 2). The project area actually consists of eight
separate tracts. One tract (Wilco-Hess) already has a valid wetland survey. A site delineation of
404 wetlands for the other seven tracts was performed by Land Management Group, Inc. and
was approved in the field by Ms. Lillette Granade of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
February 22"d, 2006. LMG staff then met with Mr. Brad Shaver of the Corps on December 19th,
2006 to evaluate the drainage effect of ditches within the project area. It was determined that the
ditch running north-south on the property had an approximate 50' foot drainage effect on either
side of it. The Swale located adjacent to Highway 17 had less of an effect. (The wetland line in
this area was redelineated by LMG and will be evaluated by the Corps during a site meeting in
early January.) The project area contains approximately 22 acres of 404 wetlands. Most of the
wetlands can be classified as non-riparian wetland flats. No streams exist within the site. Two
small wetland fingers flow southeast into a main wetland system that forms the southern and
eastern project boundaries. In addition, there are two wetland pockets located directly off of

K
Highway 17. All of the wetlands located adjacent to Highway 171ikely receive some stormwater
runoff from the road. A functional assessment of these wetlands was recently conducted by Land
Management Group, Inc (Appendix A). The Division of Water Quality has determined that the
project area is not located within 1/2 mile of an SA-classified waterbody.
According to the Pender County Generalized Soil Survey, uplands within the site are
classified as Leon fine sand and Kureb fine sand (Figure 3). Wetlands within the site are shown
as Murville fine sand and Leon fine sand.
Most of the site is forested, except for a few small areas that have been previously
developed (Figure 4). These developed areas have been converted into residences and contain
several homes and sheds. A small dirt road cuts through the wetlands located on the southern
part of the tract to provide access to these structures. The wetlands that form the southern and
eastern project boundary contain a very dense assemblage of pond pine (Pinus serotina), loblolly
bay_ (Gordonia lasianthus), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), gallberry (Ilex glabra), and cat briar
(Smilax laurifolia). The forested areas near Highway 17, both uplands and wetlands, appear to
have been mowed in previous years and support a sparse canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees with little or no shrub layer. The pines trees range
in size from 4" diameter at breast height (DBH) to 18" DBH. A ditch approximately 3' deep runs
southeast from Highway 17 between two wetland fingers and may have some drainage effect on
the adjacent wetlands. Uplands located further away from Highway 17 contain younger and
thicker stands of longleaf and loblolly pine trees with scattered titi (Cyrilla racem~ora) and
loblolly bay shrubs. Surrounding land use consists of Highway 17 to the northwest, Highway 210
to the southwest, scattered residential development to the south and southeast, and undeveloped
land to the east.
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was conducted to
determine whether any state or federally listed rare species have previously been observed within
or near the project area. No rare species were noted within or surrounding the tracts (%2 mile
radius).
2

Table 1.Federally-listed endangered and threatened species known to occur in Pender County, NC,
excluding coastal and marine species.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Animals
American alligator Alli ator mississi iensis T(S/A)
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus T
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Shortnose stur eon Aci enser brevirostrum E
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E
Plants
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E
Golden sedge Carex lutea E
Rough-leaf loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range."
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance - a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
The project area has recently been annexed by the Town of Surf City and provided with
water and sewer. The property is zoned Extended (entranceway) Commercial District, which
allows additional commercial uses which are suitable, practical, and appropriate for the mainland
area of Surf City's planning and zoning jurisdiction. Its regulations are designed to: 1) encourage
a continuity of uses along the main thoroughfare onto the island; 2) enhance the landscaping of
properties in the district; 3) provide a commercial district with an expanded number of permitted
uses; and 4) limit access points on NC 50/210 to preserve the transportation capacity of the
highway.
Because until recently the entire project area fell under the jurisdiction of Pender County,
the Pender County CAMA Land Use Plan was consulted to determine land classifications. The
Land Use Plan, updated in 2005, classifies the project area as an `Urban Growth Area'. "The
Urban Growth Area classification provides for the continued development of areas provided with
3

water and/or sewer services or where the county is actively engaged in plannin ~ these
community services. These areas also have excellent access to the regional transportation system
for a mixture of more intensive commercial and industrial or job creating uses and a r~mge of
residential land uses and housing types. It is focused on the Rocky Point area and the Highway
17 Corridor.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The alternatives evaluated include a no-action alternative, off-site alternatives, on-site
alternative site layouts, and the preferred project.
No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would keep the site in its current, undeveloped condition and
would prevent the applicants from developing it. The no-action alternative is not considered
feasible for several reasons. The Surf City area is experiencing rapid growth. Currently there are
few available shopping centers to meet the needs of this. growing community. This alternative
would leave a minimum of forty-one acres of uplands undeveloped. The inability to expand
development within this tract of land would be a significant loss of return for the current owners
and a loss of a retail center for people living in this area. This alternative would be detrimental to
the public's interest because it would prevent the development of a regional shopping center in
the area served by Surf City water and sewer and at a location providing the best traffic pattern
for people living in this area.
Alternate Sites
The study area that was originally identified for this project was limited to the Highway
17 corridor, 10-miles in both directions from the subject property. Highway 17 serves as the
primary north/south traffic artery for eastern Pender County. When selecting a site, the applicant
searched for properties that could tap into local water and sewer lines, were already zoned for
commercial use, had established traffic infrastructure, were at least thirty acres in size, had
limited environmental impacts, and were located in an area convenient to residents of Surf City.
Several tracts were rejected because they did not meet one or more of these criteria (Figure 5;
Table 2).
4

Off-site Alternatives
1. Highway 17 and Sloop Point Road
This is a 20-acre tract located at the corner of Highway 17 and Sloop Point Road.
Because the site is only 20 acres, the development potential is diminished. Furthermore,
of the 20 acres, approximately 70% appears to be wetlands (Figure 6). Finally, there is no
water or sewer infrastructure to this tract. Based on these conditions, this is not
considered a practical alternative or one with less environmental impact.
2. Highway 17 and Sloop Point Loop
This 10-acre tract appears to be approximately 80% wetlands (Figure 7). Furthermore,
water and sewer infrastructure is not available. Therefore, this is not considered a
practical alternative or one with less environmental impact.
3. Highway 17 and Country Club _
This 25-acre tract is surrounded by residential uses. It has a long and narrow shape,
which would limit the size of commercial buildings that could be placed within the tract.
Furthermore, preliminary wetlands analysis shows it to be approximately 60% wetlands
(Figure 8). Finally, water and sewer infrastructure is not available. Because of these
reasons, this is not considered a practical alternative or one with less environmental
impact.
4. Highway 17 and Dan Owen Drive
This tract is located near Hampstead. It is already in commercial use and does not have
access to water or sewer utilities (Figure 9). Furthermore, it is not located at a major
intersection. Because of these reasons, this is not a practical alternative.
5. Highway 17 and Highway 50
This 150-acre project area is fairly large and appears to have limited wetlands issues
(Figure 10). However, water and sewer infrastructure is not available. Furthermore, the
site is already in industrial use. Therefore, this is not a practical alternative.
5

6. Hi~hway 17 and Highway 172
This tract is 470 acres in size. Preliminary analysis shows up to 90% of the site to be
wetlands (Figure 11). Furthermore, this site is in active industrial use and water and
sewer infrastructure is not available. For these reasons, this is not considered a practical
alternative or one with less environmental impact.
On-site Alternatives
Once the specific project location was determined, two site plans other than the preferred
project were evaluated. The first option is a site plan that would not impact any wetlands within
the property. The second alternative'is a site plan that would maximize development within the
tract.
1. Alternate Site Plan with No Wetland Impacts
An alternate .site plan was evaluated in which. no wetlands would be disturbed (Figure
12). Because several wetland fingers span the entire project area, avoiding wetlands
completely would severely limit the development potential of the site. Only small buildings
could be placed in between wetland fingers and there would be limited interconnectivity
between buildings. This site plan would allow three small outparcels, up to eighteen small
office units, and two medium-sized retail/commercial buildings. Multiple driveways off of
Highway 17 would be needed to provide access to these buildings. These smaller building
footprints would limit the type of retailers that could use this development, which would
diminish the overall marketability of the site. Furthermore, the multiple driveways off of
Highway 17 would make it cumbersome to access the site, creating a hazardous traffic
situation. Because of these problems, this site plan is not considered a practical alternative to
satisfy the developer's or the public's purpose and need.
2. Alternate Site Plan with More Wetland Impacts
The applicant's original site plan maximized development within the entire tract,
including a residential development southeast of the commercial development. This site plan
contained all of the commercial/retail buildings and parking shown on the preferred site plan
6

plus residential development to the south. Total wetland impacts would have been
approximately ten acres and would impact the wetlands on the site which have the highest
functional value. Even though this site plan would maximize the economic value of the land,
the wetland impacts were greater. Furthermore, the developer could satisfy its purpose and
need without the residential component. Therefore, this alternative was not considered
feasible.
Preferred Project
The applicant's purpose and need is to develop an economically viable community
shopping center of thirty or more acres with at least one anchor tenant with complimentary
business services, being primarily office and retail in nature to serve the population located on
Topsail Island, especially the Town of Surf City. The center will serve the population located
approximately ten (10) miles north and south along US Highway 17.
The preferred project consists of constructing 275,000 square feet of commercial/retail
space, associated parking, and access roads within the property (Figure 13). The site plan
contains the minimum amount of parking required by the Town of Surf City for commercial
development; five spaces per 1000 square feet of building.
The number of buildings planned within the project area is based on the price of the
tracts, development costs, and the applicant's anticipated profit margin. The applicant is
purchasing twenty-four acres for $6 million. Please note that the applicant has taken the large
retail development out of the economic analysis because it is not making any profit on it. Barnett
Properties LLC is essentially selling this part of the project area directly to a retailer for the price
it pays for it. The applicant understands that this large retailer will bring many customers to the
shopping center and will have an overall benefit on the development. The estimated development
costs for the remaining twenty-four acres of the proposed project, including construction of roads
and utilities, engineering, land planning, and finance costs are anticipated to be approximately
$15,452,750. Therefore, total expenses to the applicant would be $21,452,750. The developer is
proposing to sell three outparcels for an estimated total price of $2,502,000 ($834,000 each). In
addition, the net operating income once the center is fully leased is expected to be $1,425,774
7

per year which equates to a 4% return on equity after debt service. Given this scenario, it will
take approximately ten years to achieve market returns.
In addition to any economic benefit to the applicant, it should be noted that the
development of this shopping center .will greatly benefit the Town of Surf City and Pender
County. This project will meet the goals of the Strategic Plan of the Town of Surf City (adopted
14-Mar-O1 and updated 11-Sept-O1). One of the stated goals of this plan is to "Improve the
availability of business services for residents and visitors." A few of the implementation
measures to accomplish this goal -as stated in the plan -are the following:
• Specifically encourage the establishment of new service businesses.
• Develop a Thoroughfare Plan for the mainland portion of Surf City, to guide well-planned
development of new commerce.
• To make improvements to the Town's water and sewer infrastructure which support the
development of new business services.
Another stated goal of the Town's Strategic Plan is "To maintain and improve a municipal
water and sewer utility system that will sustain continued growth of the community and which
will improve fire protection for persons and property." In summary, the Town's development
of the water and sewer infrastructure, the desire of Town planners for commercial development
at the Highway 210/17 intersection, and the existing transportation network at this intersection,
make this proposed site the best alternative in the described trade area. Furthermore, this project
will create jobs for the community. This project has the full support of the Town of Surf City
(Appendix B).
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project would impact 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands (Figure 13). The majority
of these impacts would be to wetlands that appear to have limited functional capacity (Appendix
A). Secondary impacts to wetlands and water quality could occur during and after construction
of the project through erosion and stormwater runoff. These potential impacts will be minimized
by the development and implementation of a Stormwater Plan and a Sedimentation and Erosion
8

Control Plan. These plans will reduce the potential for erosion or runoff into wetlands and other
water bodies located off site.
As noted earlier, this site is classified as an `Urban Growth Area' by the Pender County
CAMA Land Use Plan, dated 2005. The proposed project meets the stated purpose of this land
classification. The proposed project complies with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's
approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such
program.
MITIGATION
To mitigate for proposed wetland impacts, a conservation easement will be placed on all
remaining wetlands within this tract to prohibit any wetland fill beyond what is being requested
by this permit application. This will protect approximately 14.57 acres of wetlands. In addition,
the applicant plans to buy into the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for the restoration of
thirteen acres (2:1 ratio) ofnon-riparian wetlands within the Cape Fear River watershed.
9

~ o
on
~,
o~
~
~ ...
~ ...
~
y
~
~
~~~
~~~~ ~
30

' ~
30

' ~
30 ~
30

' ~
3~

' ~,

o
3~
~ ~ ~ ~ d
~ d
~ d ~ d
~ d
~ •~
d~

3~v
o~
o~
o~
o~
o ~_
~
,~ ~
o~,~ ~ o
~.~

y ~ ~ ,~. ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~
E'' o ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ -~s ~ -~ ~ -d ~ -a ~ -rs
o~ 3~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~

z3o.~
33
3~
33
3a
33 o
33

~ ~ °'

~ s, O Y~i O ti • 3 (~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ U ~ N U s0,„ ~ c~ c~

.~ ~ ~ ~; o ,b ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ° 3 ~ ~ ~; a, ~ ~ ~, u. i ~

N ~ ,.~ Y • U ti ~ N
~
~ O
U ti N ~ ~ vi
>> .
cC ~--i ai
>> . .~. ~ •% ~
bq ~ "U ~ y ~ ~ O
A
~ ~ V
cc3
b U ~ O ,~ % N
~~ ~
y U c~
~
~
~
c~ v, a~+ bA ~ >
•
O ~
~ ~ b
O Q. i-i . ~
~
~ ~
O t-~ i-1
~ a~ ~ ~
~ ~y ~
y..
y
N ~ ~ O ~
y s"' .I..~ O ~ O
~
VJ
(~.~ n-.I N ~~i O-.I, •.-i t.
.l .
-I Q~
~'r ~ ~~+.1 ~
' ~ ~-I
.~ ~ 7-i 3y~
CC!
fQ ~"i
"
1,~
~ I~r~l.~~ ~ '~
"
~ ~ .~>.1 > ~ ~
d oU~l ~~ ~U v~~0-rs v~~ ~ ,~0 °~ d aO.~z ~~ .~ ~a-d °u:

~ o
~ ~
O ~ N
x
o
,--i ~".
r~+ ~ N O
O ~
~
O ~ ~

,.~ ~ .~ ~
y
~. ,~
~,
~
'
~ v .~ 3 ~ o ~
~ 3 Y 3 ~ 0
~ 3 3 ~ ~
~ 3 ~ 3 ~ ~
o 3 ~' °
~
~ o,
°,
3 °~
~
~ ~
~ ~ V] V1 Y
~ Vf ~ rn ~ V] ~
~ VI ~
3 y !n ~
3
3~Hr~ zzz~ zz~ zz~ zz~ zz~ zzz~
U
~+
~
~" O ~
~ O ~
~''" O ~
~ O ~
~" ~
~ O
~
^" v]
N 00 vi 00 v] ~ vl O
M C.' M L:
A M lp 00 d' 00
o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
U ~ ~~
N ~ o ~
~N ~ p rP. O t~
,.o ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~

xx °oa ~ ~~ c
a O
x~ x~ x~ xQQ x x xx

'o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
y"' ~~ U
•--~ N ~ N
c+C N
~ N
~ ~
C
r
C N
~ N
~ ~
~
O N N ^
y
; N
~
•+
a N N N
" d d d d d d
U
~O
-d
a~
0
a
0
S-.i
"~
a~
0
.~
a
N
N

LIST OF FIGURES and APPENDICES
Surf City Market; Pender County, NC
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Topographic Map
Figure 3 SCS Soils Map
Figure 4 Aerial Photograph
Figure 5 Off-site Alternatives Vicinity Map
Figure 6 Off-site Alternative #1
Figure 7 Off-site Alternative #2
Figure 8 Off-site Alternative #3
Figure 9 Off-site Alternative #4
Figure 10 Off-site Alternative #5
Figure 11 Off-site Alternative #6
Figure 12 On-Site Alternative: No Wetland Impacts
Figure 13 Proposed Site Plan
Appendix A. Wetlands Functional Assessment
Appendix B. Letter from the Town of Surf City
Appendix C. Adjacent Property Owners

*Boundanes are appr~xirnate ana are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas 8~ Gazetteer. Pg 85.2003
Surf City Market Land Management Group, Inc.
Barnett Properties, LLC Environmental Consultants
Pender County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
03-06-404P December 2006
r ~ - ~-..
_ ~~,
~„ ~, ::
~,
~~~.
~~:
...~ ~*"a~ .x s
..
~~
R'
..
n.
':~ F:.
~ ~.~ ~:
*;
aiTE
SCALE 1" = 1 Mile
Figure 1
Vicinity Map

*Boundaries are approximate ana are a~TE
not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" - 800'
Map Source: Holly Ridge Quadrangle 7.5 minute (topographic) 1990.
Surf City Market Land Management Group, Inc.
Barnett Properties, LLC Environmental Consultants Figure 2
Pender County, NC Wilmington, N.C. USGS Topgraphic Map
03-06-404P December 2006

*Boundanes are approximate ana are a~TE
not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" - 400'
Map Source: NRCS Soils Map.
Surf City Market Land Management Group, Inc.
Barnett Properties, LLC Environmental Consultants Figure 3
Pender County, NC Wilmington, N.C. Soils Map
03-06-404P December 2006

"t3ounaarles are approximate ana are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
Surf City Market
Barnett Properties, LLC
Pender County, NC
03-06-404P
~~TE
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
December 2006
SCALE 1" = 400'
Figure 4
Aerial Photograph

f ES
"tsounaaries are approximate ana are
not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" = 2.4 Miles
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas 8~ Gazetteer. Pg 84 & 85.2003
Barnett Properties LMG Figure 5
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP~vc Vicinity Map of
Pender County, NC Environmental Consultants Alternate Sites
03-06-404P December 2006

&r
)'
NOTE: This map is for preliminary planning purposes only. Findings are based
upon a review of available aerial photography and limited ground-truthing.
Lines depicted on the map are approximate based upon preliminary field sketches
and do not represent distinct boundaries. US Army Corps of Engineers review
and approval is recommended prior to specific site planning. Property boundaries
are based upon available tax parcel information.
Total: -~-13.44
Wetland: -9.75 (73%
Upland: 3.69 (27%)
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
Mapped Wetland Area
~~.
Mapped Upland Area
SCALE 1" = 200'
Barnett Properties T ~ ~ Figure 6
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis L D M1x~EMENT GROUP inc Off-Site Alternative 1:
Pender County, NC Environmental Consultants Aerial Photograph
03-06-404P December 2006 with Wetland Overlay

NOTE: This map is for preliminary planning purposes only. Findings are based
upon a review of available aerial photography and limited ground-truthing.
Lines depicted on the map are approximate based upon preliminary field sketches
and do not represent distinct boundaries. US Army Corps of Engineers review
and approval is recommended prior to specific site planning. Property boundaries
are based upon available tax parcel information.
Total; 8.49
Wetland; 7.01(83%)
Upland; --1.48 (17%)
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
Mapped Wetland Area
. .
Mapped Upland Area
SCALE 1" = 200'
Barnett Properties Figure 7
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis LMG MEIQTGROUP i~c Off-Site Alternative 2:
Pender County, NC Environmental Consultants Aerial Photograph
03-06-404P '~ December 2006 with Wetland Overlay

Total : ~ 17.14
Wetland: ~ 12.01(70%)
Upland: ---5.13 (30%)
Mapped Wetland Area
:~
Mapped Upland Area
SCALE 1" = 300'
Barnett Properties L~ Figure 8
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis L~xmm~xncEMENTGROUPixc Off-Site Alternative 3:
Pender County, NC Environmental Consultants Aerial Photograph
03-06-404P December 2006 with Wetland Overlay
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography

~~,:
,,~;,
~;
.. ~~_
NOTE: This map is for preliminary planning purposes only. Findings are based
upon a review of available aerial photography and limited ground-truthing.
Lines depicted on the map are approximate based upon preliminary field sketches
and do not represent distinct boundaries. US Army Corps of Engineers review
and approval is recommended prior to specific site planning. Properly boundaries
are based upon available tax parcel information.
Total; -x6.79
Wetland:~4.78(70%)
Upland; -2.01 (30%)
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
Mapped Wetland Area
,;~; ~.
Mapped Upland Area
_ SCALE 1" = 300'
Barnett Properties Figure 9
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis LM~G MENT GROUP ixc Off-Site Alternative 4:
Pender County, NC EnvironmentnlConsuttants Aerial Photograph
03-06-404P December 2006 with Wetland Overlay

NOTE: This map is for preliminary planning purposes only. Findings are based ~~,;;~ ~:.~;
upon a review of available aerial photography and limited ground-truthing. ± ' J.,
Lines depicted on the map are approximate based upon preliminary field sketches
and do not represent distinct boundaries. US Army Corps of Engineers review -
and approval is recommended prior to specific site planning. Property boundaries
are based upon available tax parcel information. _ ._
Total: ---469.86
Wetland:-~-404.11(86%)
Upland: 65.75 (14%)
"Potential Waters of US"
~. :w'~. Mapped Wetland Area
Mapped Upland Area
rE SCALE 1" = 1500'
Barnett Properties Figure 11
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis LMG 1ENTGROUP~xc Off-Site Alternative 6:
Pender County, NC Environmental Consultants Aerial Photograph
03-06-404P December 2006 with Wetland Overlay
':;J..,

Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography

~~ ~~
NOTE: This map is for preliminary planning purposes only. Findings are based
upon a review of available aerial photography and limited ground-truthing.
Lines depicted on the map are approximate based upon preliminary field sketches
and do not represent distinct boundaries. US Army Corps of Engineers review
and approval is recommended prior to specific site planning. Property boundaries
are based upon available tax parcel information.
Total: ~ 152.85
Wetland;~2,41(2%)
Upland: -~-150.44 (98%)
"Potential Waters of US"
~. .w~:. Mapped Wetland Area
n Mapped Upland Area
rE SCALE 1" = 800'
Barnett Properties Figure 10
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis LM~G ENT GROUP me Off-Site Alternative 5:
Pender County, NC Environrnen[al Consultants Aerial Photograph
03-06-404P December 2006 with Wetland Overlay

Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography

~N ~A.LI~ ~k~t15
1000-Z5~ (016)
01-Z AMh! ~N lbr LL AMH Sfl BBSl~BSO(S161'3131 Zp{,gZ ON `NOlONIW~IM
'
EISLL ON
ANtlO ~31tl1SlAllO

13~ia17W Ally ~af1S 7
1Nf1001NIOd1S3NOSSl 6S3NOOtl ZZSZ X08 '0'd
'

f.l..~~~~P~19 ®PtR~'°1.~.~EVw CJG~!} Nb'"1~1 x.1.95 ~1b~EU~~.L~lb' S311N3dOkld 113NtltlS ~3WVN
Oll
~aaNnno 'ONI `df10~J`J 1N8W30dN`dW oNbrl

AFS NUEl~9R!J5311 3SYE] 70 NtlS __. _ __
/...... _____
`
4 ~I I~
n
1~
1
j
r
~~<
C
II ii I
!I II
it ii i t~' ~-
II i r ~ '~--~...,
~i 111 I !/ i i i i~
i i r~`',.,,~
I! I! ! i r i r ~..
jj ii r i i i r i i ~.
tl ~', r
1 ~' i i r ii i
~v I i i i i r
f __ i i+ i i
\` ~ '' r r i i i i r i i~
M i
_~~ i \\ ` i rii i i r i ire
II i r i f
~j ~ i \ i f r i f r i
II 11 \ f i i i i i i
4~ I r i r r f i i i
! ; r r i i i i i i~
I! ~ ~ \' f r i i i i r i i ~
! I I ~ r f i i t iii i i i i\
I t e ~\` i i i i i t i i r ii
i i i
~{ \~ i r i iii i i i iii i`
~ i r i r f i i i
i ~ i f i t i i
I r o ~ i i ii i rf i$ if ~

LI
y~
yi
Ci

\ i i i
i i
\~---~ i t i t i i
i i i
i r i i iii i~
_._, i i i i i i i
i i
i r
e f t s i f
ii i r i 1
i i i t
i i i i~
i i i
x i
i r
i i I
} i r I
e` r
7 r
~,
i } II i iI
ii i 1
i I
* ~!s i
i i i r {1 i4 1 4 i! i} If i1 1~ 1 r i f
i i IR r i~n
i i ~' i i
i - li r i ~
i i
i i i - ~ i iii \y
i i
i ~
i i I I. i i i i~
i - ~€ ~ i
i rii Ii i1 li ii i4 it 1~ ii r i~
- !
i if 11 if it i! ~~ i i
I
! I iii !i! -
i i •~ ~ i
I~ V
11 ~I g f i
r Id r ri i i i
O i i i
i iii i i i i
i r
i i
i
i i
i i r
i~
i
~_ i__ _ __ _. _ __ _ .
i
i
i r ~ i~ i
i
i r t ~ it >> 'r ~~ i r
~I ,..w .. .. __ ...._,__ .......,
' ~ i i i
> r f f i i ~°i
d `^°^~r ' i i ~~~~d iii rii
''' i ~ffa i i
~ Q~~ I I I I~fT.jl i i i i
IIIIIRIIV r r i
i i t r i i i
t
~I' ~
IIi ~ i
I~ [ ~ ~~~
~! ~ ~ G
I~. i
I~ i 1!+ I
!i
F I
1 i i
i i
r i
i i
~_ i
,~ i
r ~ i i
i f i
' i
i r
i
1
!! --~.~~
~oora~I
/ 1
! ~ ~ o ° I LI
I I
~ o _* o~ u
t i i i i
r ~~-.~ i i i i r i i i
1 i r f i f i q i
i i f a i i i r i i i
i i ~ i t r i i r i i i i
i i i i
t.. ___. i i r f i i i/
i f r r i t i i r
~ .... i i /~, ~ i r ii
r i i t ~~~~~~~~f /~i 3r` i fir i i i//
i ~~{~ i i /
i tt ~~ r i
i ., - i i i i
i
s
``t `
3~ ~

_...._..
-::~:z.:_:...
-.,~ E3p' c'UC~! fC
r i i
~ iii i i i i rii f r i/
r i i i i i r/
i i
i f i i i ry
...,. f i i i i i i
i i i ~_ f ~' a
i r
i i ri
if
i i
i1
i i d
i i i!
i i i I
i i ~v
r i c
i r r v
i =~
i i '' ~
i i i
i i o
d-
i
i
a
a t r~
O
O
~f"
O
O
N
O II
O
N
W
J
U
(n
O
-1-~
U
.~
+L
-1-~
.~
!~
Q~
/~~
V J
N
N
J
Q
~ Z
wa
z
Z O
W 2
00~
~ U
~ Q
d
~ Z ~
m ~ p
z
O J
Z Z
~O~
Z ~ ~
~p0
dz=
a~
HNC
~ Z I-
O z
Q ~
~U~..
~ ~
H W WW
OdW
Z Ul O

~N `Alts pans
w a

O LZ A1~H ~N lb` 14 ~1MI~ sn
~ t99L-Z661Z9Z13131
9
~
l~
'~oa/w
~~
+ b498-fi4£' {9lfi)
kY~ tt3Z '3N 'NQl:SPi€YiltXi
~~8-Ebb (OdP,} 3Ntddtd l:~xh'.(S 13?9~!748 Zll$ ~
l _
y..
~ x73 iK
~~ .- j ng
iIiq tl
E'

~.~~~~w ALe~ ~~ns
~pp q~ryl ~~+,nr B wc~~ ~y1 I 'pl9 p~1p eb..+~y. p ~.gB ~

,
1 V i9 ~ ~ ~.6.L.~ Wl V Y ~ i.A tl tl'i..° ~i.wi eE
[Z ~N
31V1S
Al
P
H
L9Z a11~S'any weVni~j 9Lll ~SS3HOOtl
' ~ll'931Lll3dOLd 113NIItlN ~3WtlN
~ti3NM0
~ aG:"
•~r.~~ ~~~fr~ ~rv~~-~ns~o~

-l- ...y_.m......~~h...~~e/.'.~.._.~..
i t~i.~.Jivl l..l. "tT ~~~~~i aC,..' (~c~c.~'~~ (~
~~
~,

p

ffi
~~
I
[~

`~
j
i
i
C~
p}
vi
fl:
c5
vs
~i
r-
c'~
i
Gh
LC
ca
ii ii
/ ;' ;j
~ „
I if ~j I
/ n r.
it ii ii
it i tj ~ I
it i! 1~,tI
it I I i! it ~ 1
II 11
'1 I it 'q
~l i ~ !i
1
II ; j i~
IIe it
Ill.fl it
I!~~
!1~ III
III ~~I
jj :,I
I'
II
I~ I
Ir I
~~
ii
r i
ii ; ; 11 I
I III I 61~
II ¢' ¢I4 ~i i% I i
III .~~x41f
ilt !~
1-
+~I
/p I
~! I j! ~ !t
A I1! I9II~
31 ' if ii. I i
Itlll if I'7
iNl¢~I ° 1 j ~
~~= .,
~.
~ '' ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~~ fl
~ ~ 9;
. sY e~ cn ~,~ ~ ~ ~ c. ,~ n. ~ u 4''
~ f n x 1 r ~ ~ c. ~
.~ ~ '~ a '~ u~'r5~ ~Q yX r ~.i9Q~., ~
~ 5 , H. Yp
.~ ~ # ~ ~ 1 E... ~i s~ ~ i-M1~--~=~ ~~'.In'r~i n~' c~,_aie% a Lawn u:~w~iv ~,6'c~ ~r"i cin
qry~~'~~77~~pp 1 ~ i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !
~ ~ ~ d ~ ~
3r~u ~ ~< ~ ~ ~ e
r._.____~ ,• ~ ~r ~ ~
' ~ ~ ~
,, ,.
... r\ \ R a' ~. x ~i \ ~
. w arm....a.....a._,. wWr ~ ,..rrM~~ ~ ~. i
f __;
_.
3 ,~ o
I ~ ~
~ 1 ' ~ ~ f~ ~
~ ~ ~ w
E ~ L~ ~ r $ ~ ~ v
~ ~ ~ rn
da .-
.: ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
~ ~ ~
~~~
~.
~ ~ ~___ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~cy 9 0
_-_ ~ f'
--~ i I f~ 1 1 ~ o I~r
... r>
Vin. ~~.i%~~ .._....__ "~~ , ~......., s - i ~' ~~ i ~€~
,,~~ :~ \~ ~ {
r~, d "?. i #..4. .fi f_. f..'~~,''i..! f 1 f"IiBT ~ ~ ,g ~ ~
.a ~ ! #
~ ~1
~ n- ~
..~ ~ ~~~
°G"~,: i Q y` ~
J P\ ~P ,~ ¢ GCC3 ~ ¢.
4:. 1
-~ _ - j ~' f r -?~~a r,~, d i 1 d i d ~i f i f ~ ~f ~~"''..,,~.. ,~ ~~~~~` ~ ~ }
i v _ _ 1
~ ~~ ~„l
fV..+
~~JJ.LIJ~J~13~1_I.1Jml_l11_LLM L _ JJ~~.l~nllLl ~~~ ~ "~. ~ ~ ~ ~,~.:-''~ ~`®
,z ~ \ 3 d Ci %i ~, to ~ ~ ,~-~='' ~j \ ~,
_._.m_______~ .. _ .~// ~, e ~
~_. _.m w
v .. ~ !
i
i
r!
~~I
t,L
1
e~!~
i~ i~f Nl~
¢~ fn aj
~~.
~:~
a. L~~,v
I ~'~
r~
f ~ ~~
S ij
c'a
~ II
~r
~~
i ~'".
~~ ~
~\ -~ ~
r_ ~ z~~ 3
(( 3 1 ~
I~
~~
~Iv
R `
a
~ m
_ f•
!dl
id
' I ~ 11 .t I !~I 5
I i ~~ 'i I
I ~,
Ilii €€li
11
~r
,'~~ ¢,
6r6~'
i ;!
.; 1 \.T
~.~ ~
a _
:~ I ~ filly/
a d~~ ~/;
...~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1.
d, \ z ; l ;'~ ;i ; i ~
!lia` 11 irr
Ij 1 f
<' p
Mi ~! 1 I
.. ;,!i
f' i 1
~ I
~i,~!
„~
i¢ r \~f`
drJ
d ~ ~
(. ~~,~1 ~
~~ j~
~ ' ~ ! u~w~..---
E r i
Via, `~ci ~ c~~ ~"~"L ~i i
`,,
1i
J ~'
i
r ~ ;~-ten,
~. ~ G ~~
~.....~--.~.., f...
w
~1. i
`, r \
P ~
131 1 ca`~;
~ ~~~
N ~ 't s' ~~
J ~ YJ
it d
m des ! \ Ijl% ~i~ Y ~ } ~
...e rx: ~' .'~ aM d Z O L}i ~ ti \
t ,
sn ~ ,~
~~:~~. +~ ' ~L,1~ ~ ~d r
. ~' ~~
' ....
~. n. ~
-~I- ,-_
I. _..\ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~ ~~
$ ~ ~
f y
_a.., , J 1
~:; <,.. I
1>t ~ ~ $ ~ ~
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
RT 1'`•
I i re\ 4' ~ ~ ~ _a 4 v
I 1 ~ ~ ~ $ d
t E ro ~,~~' ~ ~
~ j~ ~ 0 1 y aa~€' ~6 O
~~ ~ i / a d ~
an ~ to
U
~1 ~~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~ / o
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a
~1
i ~ }! _..a'.' ~ ~
~. __.. _.._. ~,3y/~
--
-'- - -_
_~
~`
~,
~ N
t7
d- t'-
0
o ~
o~
~,
Z
Q
H
U
z
O
U
0
F--
d
z
z
J
w
rr
w
Q

APPENDIX A. WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

Wetlands Functional Assessment
Surf City Market
Pender County, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Prepared for:
Barnett Properties LLC
1775 Graham Avenue; Suite 201
Henderson, NC 27536
December 2006

PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
Ecosystem functions can be defined as the activities or processes that characterize an
ecosystem. Four general categories have been used for evaluating wetland function: hydrologic,
biogeochemical, plant community maintenance, and animal community maintenance (Brinson et
al, 1994). The purpose of this evaluation is to make comparisons of the Surf City Market Tract
(project site) to a similar ecosystem that is relatively intact (reference site). The reference site
will be used as a reference standard (Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996) for evaluating the relative
health of the project site.
This document draws heavily on a regional guidebook developed for this type of
ecosystem (Rheinhardt et al, 2002). However, to properly use this document, it must be stated
that this report is designed as an attempt to broadly describe the health of the project site's
_._--
wetland ecosystem. It is not a detailed assessment utilizing long term data. It is subjective and
requires the reviewer to utilize professional judgment. Care should be exercised not to use it as a
substitution for complete scientific data.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROJECT SITE
The project site is located in Pender County, northeast of the intersection of Highway 17
and Highway 210 in Surf City, NC (see Permit Application; Figures 1 & 2). The wetlands can
be classified hydrogeomorphically as mineral soil flats (Brinson, 1993). These ecosystems
occupy large flat interfluve terraces throughout the coastal plain. Precipitation is the principal
water source of flats with runoff and groundwater seepage playing minor roles. The vegetation
communities are typically dominated by shrub communities.
According to the Pender County Generalized Soil Survey, uplands within the site are
classified as Leon fine sand and Kureb fine sand (see Permit Application; Figure 4). Wetlands
within the site are shown as Murville fine sand and Leon fine sand.
Most of the project site is forested, except for a few small areas that have been previously
developed (Figure A1). A small dirt road cuts through three wetland fingers to provide access to
several houses on the property. Small culverts are located at two of the three wetland crossings.

2
The wetlands that form the southern and eastern project boundary contain a very dense
assemblage of pond pine (Pinus serotina), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), gallberry (Ilex glabra), and cat briar (Smilax laurifolia). The forested areas
near Highway 17, both uplands and wetlands, appear to have been mowed in previous years and
support a sparse canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees
with little or no shrub layer. The pines trees range in size from 4" diameter at breast height
(DBH) to 18" DBH. A ditch approximately 3' deep runs southeast from Highway 17 between
two wetland fingers. Uplands located further away from .Highway 17 contain younger and
thicker stands of longleaf and loblolly pine trees with scattered titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) and
loblolly bay shrubs.
REFERENCE SITE
The Eagle Brunswick tract is located in Brunswick County, North Carolina (Figure A2).
In 1999, wetland hydrology on the tract was restored through the back filling. of ditches as part of
a compensatory mitigation plan in the creation of the Wilmington Bypass. The restoration was
followed by a now completed five year monitoring plan. The tract was selected as a reference
because it represents a large, relatively intact wetland system typically associated with the flats
ecosystems found on the project site.
FUNCTIONS IDENTIFIED
The first wetland function identified by Rheinhardt et al, 2002 is to maintain a
characteristic water level regime. In order to facilitate a rapid assessment, it was assumed that a
flat will maintain its characteristic water level fluctuations if it is not hydrologically modified.
The second function identified is to maintain a characteristic plant community. .This
function reflects the capacity of a flat to maintain the characteristic attributes of plant
communities normally associated with natural pine flat ecosystems (Rheinhardt et al, 2002). It
was assumed that a flat is maintaining its characteristic plant community if the vegetation is
similar to that of the relatively undisturbed reference site.
The third function identified is the ecosystem's ability to maintain a characteristic animal

3
community. This function is defined as the ability of a flat and its surrounding landscape to
provide the resources required to maintain the entire suite of animal species characteristic of
unaltered ecosystems (Rheinhardt et al, 2002). We assumed that an intact vegetation community
and surrounding landscape was needed to maintain the animal community.
The final function identified is the system's ability to maintain characteristic
biogeochemical processes at the rate, magnitude, and timing characteristic of the ecosystem,
including nutrient and elemental cycling, biogeochemical transformations, and export of
dissolved organic constituents. The assessment assumes that an ecosystem will maintain its
ability to perform this function if its hydrological and soils regimes remain relatively intact.
METHODS
Three sample points were identified within the project site (Figure A3). Sample point 1 is
located in wetlands just south of the existing dirt road running through the property. Sample
point 2 is located in wetlands on the southwestern part of the property, approximately 200' from
Highway 17. Sample point 3 is located in the western part of the tract, approximately 150' from
Highway 17.
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC HYDROLOGICAL REGIME
The main indicators identified in determining the presence of this function were the
presence of drainage ditches, the depth and age of any ditches, and the soil series adjacent to
these ditches. The ditch spacing and age were examined using aerial photographs and from field
observations. The soil types were field verified and NRCS drainage guidelines were used to
make observations about potential drainage. The observations were compared subjectively to
those of the reference site.

4
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES
The vegetation was sampled at points shown in Figure A3. Key species identified at the
project site were Pinus serotina and Gordonia lasianthus. The densities of these plants were
compared to that of the reference site. Visual observations and professional judgment were also
used to compare and contrast the plant community at the project site to that of the reference site.
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Landscape attributes and vegetation community were examined at the project site.
Professional judgment was then used to compare these attributes to that of the reference site.
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC BIOGEOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
On-site observations of the hydrological regime and any alterations to the soil regime
were made and compared to that of the reference site.
RESULTS
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC HYDROLOGICAL REGIME
Project Site
There appears to be little impact to the hydrological regime at sample .point 1. Water
flows south through this area and the dirt road located upstream has little effect on its function.
The closest ditch observed either on-site or on aerial photographs is more than 500' away. This
ditch is approximately three feet deep (Figure A4). Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) guidelines (1998) show a lateral effect of approximately 360-585 feet for a ditch of this
size. The soils in this area are mapped as the Leon Series but appear to resemble the Murville
senes.
The hydrologic regime is somewhat disturbed near sample point 2 of the project site. The
closest ditch observed was a roadside Swale located along the right-of--way of Hwy 17. This
Swale is approximately 200' from this wetland. The soil profile in this section appears to

5
resemble the mapped Leon series. NRCS guidelines show a drainage effect of 150' to 385' from
ditches of this size, therefore, the roadside Swale likely has a drainage effect on these wetlands.
Sample point 3 is located in wetlands that are within 150' of a three-foot drainage ditch.
The soil profile at this point is mapped as the Leon series. As stated above, NRCS guidelines
show a drainage effect of 150' to 385' from ditches of this size, therefore, the 3' deep ditch likely
has a drainage effect on these wetlands.
In general, the hydrological regime of the wetland areas located closest to the ditches is
more impacted than those located further away.
Reference Site
All drainage ditches on the Eagle Brunswick Tract have been back filled to restore
wetland hydrology. The soil types are similar to those of the project site. The ditches have now
been filled for seven years.
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITIES
Project Site
Total target species densities for the site average 96.7 trees per acre. Tree densities are
highest at sample point 1, where no mowing has taken place. The shrub and herbaceous
communities located around sample point 1 are relatively intact. The herbaceous and shrub
communities around sample points 2 and 3 have been mowed, reducing overall plant densities.
Rafaranr~a Oita
The tree densities of the Eagle Brunswick Tract average 555.7 plants per acre
(Monitoring report, 2005). The herbaceous and shrub communities are relatively intact.

6
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Project Site
The animal habitat conditions are largely influenced by the quality of the other conditions
present on the site. The relatively intact vegetation community around sample point 1, along
with less potential impact of traffic on Highway 17, show that this section of the tract would
provide habitat superior to that of the areas around sample points 2 and 3 which lack a more
complete vegetation community and are adjacent to Hwy 17.
Reference Site
The Eagle Brunswick tract has an intact vegetation community. It is not near any major
roads and all ditches have been filled. The surrounding landscape is not developed, leaving
suitable habitat for far-ranging species. It appears to provide habitat for a wide variety of fauna.
MAINTAINING CHARACTERISTIC BIOGEOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Project Site
There is little or no noticeable soil bedding or past logging damage on site. It appears
that biogeochemical processes are relatively intact near sample point 1. The hydrological regime
has been altered near sample points 2 and 3.
Reference Tract
The hydrological regime of the Eagle Brunswick tract has been restored through the
mitigation process. There appears to be little noticeable soil manipulation. Biogeochemical
processes should be undisturbed at the reference Brunswick Tract.

CONCLUSIONS
The wetland functions of the Surf City Market have been altered to varying degrees. In
general, the wetlands located farthest away from Hwy 17 and from ditches (sample point 1)
appear to have significantly less anthropogenic impacts than those wetlands located closer to
Hwy 17 and closer to ditches (sample points 2 and 3). While having less dense overstory
vegetation than the reference site, wetlands located farther away from Hwy 17 have an intact
vegetation community. These areas are not affected by drainage and are part of a larger, intact
wetland ecosystem. The wetlands closer to Hwy 17 appear to have a lower functional capacity.
Vegetation is degraded from mowing, ditching has altered hydrology, and the major road
deteriorates the animal habitat function.
The main conclusion drawn from this report is that those wetlands on the project site
which are adjacent to Hwy 17 appear to have a lower functional capacity than those of located
further away from the highway (Figure A4).

LITERATURE CITED
Brinson, M.M. and R. Rheinhardt. 1996. The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional
Assessment and Mitigation. Ecological Applications 6(1):69-76.
Brinson, M.M., W. Kruczynski,l.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, and D.F. Whigham. 1994.
Developing an approach for assessing the functions of wetlands. Pages 615-624 in W.J.
Mitsch, editor. Global wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Farley, P. 1996. The Effects of Silvicultural Practices and Stand Development on Surface
Water Storage in Forested Wetland Flats. Masters Thesis. East Carolina University.
Rheinhardt, R.D., M.C. Rheinhardt, and M.M. Brinson. 2002. A Regional Guidebook for
Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Function of Wet Pine Flats on
Mineral Soils in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. ERCD/EL TR-02-9. US Army Corps
of Engineers; Engineer Research and Development Center. Washington, D.C.

*Boundaries are approximate ana are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas ~ Gazetteer. Pg 85.2003
Surf City Market Land Management Group, Inc.
Barnett Properties, LLC Environmental Consultants
Pender County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
03-06-404P December 2006
SCALE 1" = 1 Mile
Figure Al
Vicinity Map
aiTE

0 1 2
SCALE 1" = 1 MILE
Barnett Properties, LLC Figure A2
Surf City Market LMG Reference site
Pender Count , NC LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP we
y Environmental Consultonts (Eagle Brunswick)
03-06-404P December 2006

zs ~~ y
h±~~ ci /-
`
'
~gGi
~ ~ ~

d
~

~
`
~ vx~no~sv~~x ~:t.xnoaa~anrsaa assesx,~oy'iswsaol
!-~t t y!i 7 `7 7 T 7 ~t~7Vr
~
'~'
~
^
~

~ ~ 1)~e
k
1 ~j ~./~
~r ~J
4 ~ ~.
d
tl. tw
~ L~' 1i
(rt~ n ~ r a Prl
^ ''2 ~ ~ y ~ ~` ^ N tl a tl .L,.L
1 V. rl Y C
l:iCl
J:ll.l. ry
4 ! ~ nt~j f
Jl
H~
~, ~ ~ ~ ,~ A
,.~~ .
,~
~~
"' ~ Y.
~ ~
~ ~c~5 ., oil ~~rq
~ ~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~ ~ a ZTpIT
S.L~d2T.L .i1,I~ :12[I1S
_
~
~~
~rf 4 ao.~N~ 1
~ .~an~nsatavrianlartv.~uacsxnoH ~zw,
`.3
`'~, r y i
~ v
~~ ~
,'.~ °~ Yx ~4 9 4~C~`~0 1~ 112.81 1.~~ L`~ I.a
(rWry f
z sn d ~
~ ~ / J
,~, r
~ " ~/fir i'ii~( ^y~~F`~~.....•6Zn•,~ "~.a ~~~ ~~ - ~~ ~t ~ ~{~~,~~,.~\
v,
r
•7 a y"~ M . Nl y41 ,rb '~ ~ ~ cD N M ~ N ~ ; C'^
r ,
s ' ,~ ,'\.
n
~ u.
~- CV
L"W
ri
u
~.
~ ~a
s Gs
yu ~i
~~ :~ Ua
p~ 5~ G ~
~.~~~~ ~~
~~~~~ ~~
~6~~7~p <P
EZfY &~K
~ ~ a
~g~~ °~~'
~C
~~ C~ ~~ C r~ I;'~ ~ r~
K f~ ~~pp f,;
~i~1 ~N~~u ~~ ,,55u2
~{ 4`~ ' ~ `YS^ 4u
i'Z x' o ~ z is
ul ~ fi ~'
a
~r w
~.5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~1
a ~~a~'~
~ ~ .ti7y '~? + _ W
w d.
( p¢ o n N y `i._~~~ • aMr~,/ {fir f` ~,..•-,~„~s^J, (~~ 4 m T r~ p J 7... ~„ a
*`wL Z A \ r' YYl1 ~.'7 d ~ IR~d ~ty i U
V r~4 ~~^y' ' 1~ ,~.lvlr ~~~ O . ~`.. ~ 1, b 9 ~~`~+~~~~
' P /~, `3 ^1... ~a=~ , ~ ~re~~~~ ~ ~j r~,...~iJ'i ~ ~i ~ z Q ~ . k , LtiS~'f~ 44a.~ ; ,r° ~.~ !
.,,"^~, ::t*~~r ~ /' ' ~ "oj1 ` ~' ~ ,~4ti'A ~11i i?~ qh.-` kdl ,. ~3t~, ~-
d `~-. ; ~ t~)ri F
(~~ ~ ~ i'~4ay')~ ~Ar '` \~ 1 (..,_ ` y,` ~ti1 jry~ lo-~„~: Y+~B~' ~ ~ ~ C. m
i /- S ,x^419. eia~ Vl~ y` r `+, "/~ 1 ~`~ ~ ~ Yn n. `v. a
ui a,., / r ''/' ! ;'" Gh~1~ v~ \ ~S~`~y ~~•1° ~ ~gt~ i $5 C ry~Cl ~ y} ~~+y 1 ~' ~
`~ ~~ ~ 3~ ~ _ rI ~~ x
rwn ~^ ~, ~~'~'5~S ez~r~ a « iiffz~YeY.~ yZ9 ~~{ ~ ~ ~r~{~
•, tw ~~ 3 ~.• aC caI t'~ 91 °rj ° `~" rid ~ ~ d ~. rt~ ~ "-
iii ~.. 4i '~~ X ri ~y~Jts ~o ,~^~` ~ a~.~~.~p
o n. ~ .1 3 ern. `;,,. ~ {y. 3 0 a S
~ _ ~ r"'~+~•~;~~ 1 1~, /'y.y~~..~~~~.,<w /"~.~..~n.~,\ .r ai9/~ ~'J~`1F~ a4~1E
! J1 ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ 1 ~lJ to t r •? ~+ } ~~!" ~ ~- g~ m
~ ~~
Ur
°r
~ ~(
~~x
/ • d ±r ~. 'S g~ 8
1 f
~p~N~ t» % ~r k'i53Y
a~ a ~ ~~ya~~s
c>r~.- v
oana.;
3`U~V~

~KO•=
w
~~J iy
,~
zee f13
i
~
~ ~~
~
~
~i b5.
~Y+~n'R
+l ~ a ~ ,,~ ~ vv~
~~ ~ u ~~~~ ;U 4,>p't~ p b
~w,.
v o ~ 44~QV N ^J^
; tiR'`1~'o y t~' ~ w
a N
~ ~ . ~
4 ,y
~
Q'
a
cb 'U
d t.
1' c
y
~M ~ o3A
O J o
'~ ~ ~°~
'
L
'4
e ~ ~~.
~ ,i
.M
U ~ ~ . . ~.~....
~j
y f~` ,'I
z
m m
,,pry f
~~ r r~
..~ z
_ ~ Fl '
- ~ a
e .r' S ~ ~ i/
t~ r.' iyg~i
jj ~ ~E"a~ t
5 f~ U
1~+7• '~ :~ ~Q
n " // ~u
,/ ~<
n ~~
+~
~ ~ ~ -

/`
;~
-~ }
C~ ~
C
~~
U ~
C'~
N 'f-
(}j U
_~ -~
D ~

vi <+~` ~~
-t r e
~ NP1UTStl~ N ,W.Nf10J 1{iIUP:~id di(iSN.h1Ul'IiVSdU.C z ;; ~e~S~

a j ~ ~,~ ~~ " ~ ~ a ~
2 w ~ ~ , ~r ~, ~ a
S3I,L?I3d02id ,L.L~1~t2I'd £I
N ~
!
w I`-~ni~ cn °v 3 ~~
'L ,/
W E'~~U~r'" i~ ~~3
z e > a NO:I ~
n-, o
~: $I~i _l] ~ ~' w
1 ~
t~
" ~ ~
p o ~~x ~? 4
~
AIIA2IE75 Qt~lti LLIIA1 QNV A2lHQl1(lOII a
~c ~a
J,~A g'S
.; t I ~ n °d~~

n L
~ ;~~~~" '
V7
r,~
a
'
m
~ ~
a
Z
r ~1
~ U~
~ t
lu
F

n
~ -
tl ~ ~j ..
~ ~ L
\
'~~
~rc
i U o ..
~
f
UU 1 a *
2
( p
J
~
1 ng
~
,ruzrc 7 Y
>-
t r, &
^
r
~,„
~~

ti
n
tJ~N ~..r

~ ~`"
{emu
z
I'7

I ~ N
ii~
a ~' ~,~'
~~„ F~~ ~/~ e~ x,19
k ~~
a N J ~ y ~7 ~ ~JQ„ 7n r
Rs
5~fi „y"a ~a2. ~ /~~~ rkaci ,?~"t,.~'i(ii'..,,~ ~ ~~f' ~,.. i ~ :' ~~ ~ ~'~4I~. \
1A ~ yy>•" c. ~ v7 n. M a ~'> ~4~ ~ ~y ~ ~ U 4 n. c~ ~ ~ ~ .iY~ Y ~ ` \
'~ 05~~'~ t51 a~'p~L"" r~+~S~O ~tnwnrv~p (o ~rp~~ ~~9x ~ ,7~~
~rry//"./ ~ ~ pa~~j~~ ~f(1'"".`o, ~`r~yy/ ~~~~ `~~'~~~ m~M ` z n"V°~ ~g~.. ~4~~~~~a \\
r J/dry, z ~. \ ~j. ` ..._., ±~. .r ~++.i Z~ ~ ~/•.. ~,rl~t~ ~p~orvw
~,~- ~ ~s a ~ ~,~
~,
d ~ <1
,; ~-...a'sary r~ ~~ '~` '~~{ ,r"Cita tiL 4 ~ n ¢ x i r. x ~'-
.Z$, ~' {~ F Y ~ ~~ L,'.~v~Y ~Z4 ``',`~ ~..,....,. j .` y ~y~e r .;: ~ ~ F r ~i
+ tiy~~'~ sr~~, r/7 \ '".+` ~~\~ - 7i v~i' Ci c' }
+'~ W..A ~ 7 Yhq ~
~tb^.i t~ /,y i. W~ 7,T ,~ ~~ ~~ fit: ~' ~~w~;'
~`jg, ~ ~ ? ~ ~ 2, ~
r$z•~. 5 nryR,, d i ,,.1rti'r~t .y ~ ~s
rr.yn t 8 \ t'7~'' ~ '?u
r a 7 `3 '2
~ts~; ,
II ~ !;~ ~ ~ mac, `$' ,r
nab, ~,,,.,,.,•j r.. sA Lti',+~tis ~/~ $}~~~
w ~ ~~ s ,~ . ~ ~ r
Q oy ~3.?.~,~~e~r7 •~ ~ p ~°a r` :i ,fri n' ~ ~ 5
/ A ~~3 a~
~ ~ ~~aae ~ ~ ~~~ / ti~QnB
~ sA / ~.~ gt6~.
~ ~j ~.^"' I yk^y" ~ ~' ~ ~aglgl~~:l~fr.. °Rn~v:"^6`6.~~°frRF.,7~~~~m.,~
( ~~^i6.i Ala ~ :~
4 Y1 ® f /J L 7 -
a l
,~ ~ s'tl ~ Eg, ~ ~,% ~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ i ~ W ~~ ~, ~~ r i I ~ i~ ~ ~ i `~' ~'~~ r 7~i c s i
y ~ ~ , .
~ ~ ~1' ~? ~. _-w Ia~K ~ ~~ ~t i r~~~~ r ~7~ RS~~' i-~ fir: Y~s ~i e}~ r ~ ,~.~. ifyv v~i
~ .`.~
--~,r'a~--- ~'~
~~g~ l ~ ~ ~w ~I i..i. ~~~ r. ~ trra~~etis.3ray~.~~ ~is~~~ ~'~ .~' ~Y~ ~
`~{ig3S / aw ~. Ja .X~n €~ :: .'~. ~ iiJ_rG; '~' 2"q i°
~..
C
~ ~
~ _U
~.- ~
.~
o ~
O c~
U U
_~ -~
~ ~

APPENDIX B. LETTER FROM THE TOWN OF SURF CITY

T4~-TN aF SURF' CITY
P. O. BOX 2475 214 N, NEW RIVER DRIVE SURF CITY, NC 28445
Telephone: (9I0) 328-4131 Fax; (910} 328-4132
htCp;//surfcity, govoffice. com
A, D. (Zander) Cruy, Jr., Mayor Donald A. Helms, Council Member
Naha R. Albury, Mayaur Pro-tem Douglas C. Medlin, Councll Member
Michael H. Curley, Council Member William J. (Buddy) Fowler, Council Member
To Whom it may Concern;
Todd 1. Rademacher

7. '~! RRI '(lN 11dH N~h{~I A11:~ ~?{(1S
~~
~-- ~'~~-
~s ~~~
Wdst~s 900Z'6l '~~a

APPENDIX C. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS

Surf City Market
Adjacent Property Owners
Tag Parcel ID # Pro er Owner
Jeffrey C. Lanier Et al.
4225-08-9934-0000 P.O. Box 2448
Surf City, NC 28445
Paul Gillioz
4225-18-0823-0000 221 NC Highway 210 East
Hampstead, NC 28443
Nancy Johnson D' Alio Et al.
4225-18-3602-0000 269 NC Highway 210 East
Hampstead, NC 28443
Cordts Family Trust
4225-29-0053-0000 100 Broadview Lane
Hampstead, NC 28443
Harry Cordts
4225-29-5335-0000 100 Broadview Lane
Hampstead, NC 28443
Francisco Perez
4226-30-0454-0000 24060 US Highway 17 N
Hampstead, NC 28443
Melvin D. Sidbury
4226-21-9367-0006 1436 Talbot Road
Pleasant Garden, NC 27313
Ronnie W. Ottaway Sr. Et al.
4226-11-9590-0000 23770 US Highway 17 N
Hampstead, NC 28443