20210653 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20210712

DWR
Dlrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
June 1, 2021 Ver4.1
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20210653
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Wilmington Regional Office - [phone]
'Information for Initial Review
la. Name of project:
Mulberry Branch Water Reclamation Facility
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
John Nichols
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
7/12/2021
Nearest Body of Water
Mulberry Branch
Basin
Lumber
Water Classification
C,Sw
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
33.997336-78.376220
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Brunswick
Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
IT $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Holley Snider:eads\hasnider
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Is this a courtesy copy notification?*
r Yes r No

ID#
20210653
Pre -fling Meeting or Request Date
3/30/2021
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:
nick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
File type mast be FCF
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
V Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
r Yes
r No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
W Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
NWP 39
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
fJ 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
Version
1
51.58KB
58 - Utility Line Activities for Water and Other Substances (frequently used)
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - E>q)ress
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1i. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
r Yes r No r Unknown
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
W Owner r Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Brunswick County
2b. Deed book and page no.:
DB 2627. PG 1344
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

2c. Contact Person:
John Nichols
2d.Address
Street Address
PO Box 249
Address tine 2
Brunswick County Public Utilities
City
Slate / province / Ragion
Bolivia
NC
Fbstal / Zip Code
Country
28422
USA
2e. Telephone Number:
2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Daniel Zurlo
4b. Business Name:
WK Dickson
4c.Address
Street Address
1213 W Morehead St
Address Line 2
(Sty
State / province / Fd:gion
Charlotte
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28208
USA
4d. Telephone Number: 4e. Fax Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
dzurlo@v*dickson.com
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Shallotte, NC
F-
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
18100072,1820004217
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Forest St Extended NW
Address Line 2
City
Shallotte
Postal / Zip Code
28470
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Mulberry Branch
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C,Sw
2b. Property size:
693
State / province / Pegion
NC
Country
USA
U

3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Lumber
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030402080202
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The site currently consists of an existing wastewater treatment plant and related facilities, unpaved access roads, and undeveloped pine forest and mixed pine and broadleaf forest.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
208.8
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
3,853
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the project is to construct a new regional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on the site of the eAsting Shallotte WWTP.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The project is a new regional treatment facility at the Shallotte site that vdll treat regional wastewater that is currently pumped from the southern portion of the County in a transmission
main along US 17 to the WBWRF. A metered flow of 0.75 MGD from the southern portion of the County will be redirected by force main along NC 211 to the new WWTP for treatment
and disposal. The new wastewater treatment plant will be a conventional extended aeration tertiary treatment facility. Treated effluent will be disposed through a highlrate infiltration
system on the County property. The new 750,000 gallons per day treatment facility will be located in two of the Shallotte WWTP eAsting spray application fields. The two spray irrigation
fields will be relocated on the property. Highlrate infiltration basins (HRIB) for 750,000 gallons per day will be located on the property with the appropriate buffer from property lines and
wetlands. The proposed highlrate infiltration system has been evaluated by Edwin Andrews & Associates, P.C. (See Appendix E) to determine the impacts of the treated effluent on
groundwater. The results showthat the proposed highlrate infiltration and gravity drain system will control water mounding so that there are no negative impacts to the quality of
groundwater. The wastewater treatment process will be designed, constructed, and monitored to provide effluent water compliance with the highlrate infiltration system standards per
15A NCACO2T.0700. Impacts to Waters of the US will result from installation of the force main bringing wastewater to the treatment plant, associated access road, and construction of
the new WWTP. Impacts resulting from the sewer line and access road will be permitted under NWP 58 and impacts from the new WWTP will be permitted under NWP 39 (See the
Impact Figures for further detail).
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Ward Marotti
Agency/Consultant Company: WK Dickson
Other:
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
i D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r' Buffers
F Open Waters r- Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts

2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested*
F2fTpe of2g.
dicition*(?)
Impact
area*
W1
Conversion to
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland 12
Yes
Corps
0.018
hebaceous
(acres)
W2
Sewer installation
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland 12
Corps
0.032
(acres)
W3
Conversion to
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland 8
Yes
Corps
0.033
herbaceous
(acres)
W4
Clearing and fill for
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland 7
Yes
Corps
0.095
access road
(acres)
WS
Clearing and fill for
P
Bottom Hardwood Forest
Wetland 7
Yes
Corps
0.176
access road
(acres)
and fill for
P
Bottomland Hardwood For est
Wetland 7Corps
ff77]FCIearing
WTP facility
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.032
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.356
21. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.324
W6 results from grading related to the construction of the spray field and will be permitted under NWP 39 for commercial and institutional development
(See Impact Figures).
3. Stream Impacts
F
3a. Reason for impact (?) 3b.lmpact type * 3c. Type of impact * ��nm. * 3e. Stream Type * 3f. Type of 3g. S. width * 3h. Impact
1 (?) Jurisdiction* length*
S1
Sewer installation
Temporary
Excavation
Mulberry Branch
Perennial
Corps
6
Average (feet)
30
(linearfeet)
S2
Road crossing
9
Permanent
Culvert
Mulberry Branch
Y
Perennial
Corps
P
10
Average (feet)
16
(linearfeet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
16
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
46
3j. Comments:
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
30
S2 will involve utility and road crossing. The pipe and a culvert will be installed via open trench. The trench Will be backfilled with native sediment.
Impacted streams banks Will be stabilized via natural stabilization techniques such as coir matting and live staking (See Impact Figures).
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Streams and wetlands were delineated prior to design. The site was designed to minimize impacts to waters to the ma)dmum extent practicable. The
initial limits of disturbance proposed to impact over 0.5 acre of wetland, but those impacts were deemed unacceptable and the limits of disturbance
were amended to the proposed impacts, which are belowthe 0.5 acre NWP threshold. However, an access road crossing of wetland 7 and Williams
Branch is unavoidable. The crossing is necessary to access the proposed spray fields which are being constructed in the only on -site upland area
large enough. The stream crossing and minimal wetland impacts are necessary so that more significant wetland impacts can be avoided. Impacts
related to the sewer line installation and permanent maintenance easement have been minimized to maAmum extent possible, however narrow, -20 ft
wide easements must be maintained to allow access for maintenance vehicles (See Impact Figures).
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Where possible, construction techniques will be used to minimize impacts to wetlands. Wetland 11 (WOTUS figure) Will be avoided entirely, as the
proposed force main will be directionally bored beneath it, resulting in no impacts. Impacted streams banks will be stabilized via natural stabilization
techniques such as coir matting and live staking (See Impact Figures).
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes
r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
i- DWR 9 Corps

2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
r Mitigation bank 9 Payment to in -lieu fee r Permittee Responsible
program Mitigation
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
r Yes r No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
0
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
0.324
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes f• No
If no, explain why:
This project is not adjacent to any state regulated riparian buffers.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
An erosion and sediment control plan has been submitted to the local stomwmter authority and is being reviewed. Construction will not commence until approval has been received.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? *
r Yes
r No
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized bythe State Clearing House?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r- Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r- No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r- Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r' Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r- Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS correspondence, NC Natural Heritage Program data, and field reconnaissance indicated the presence of Red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW;
Picoides borealis) habitat and potential presence within the project area. As a result, a field survey for the presence for the RCW was conducted
during the summer of 2018. No individuals were found and a conclusion of No Effect on the RCW was made. Please see the attached survey results
for further detail.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r- Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA essential fish habitat mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r- Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO Web mapper
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r- No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
No no -rise certification was obtained from the NC Division of Emergency Management -National Flood Insurance Program. A floodplain development
permit is being obtained from the local FEMA administrator.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA firm panel 3720108900K
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one
file when possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.

dick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
RCW_SurveyResuIts. pdf
3.57MB
USGS.pdf
3.01 MB
WOTUS.pdf
2.62MB
Soils.pdf
3.31 MB
VicinityMap.pdf
3.83MB
Impact Figures.pdf
6.97MB
DP1-WetlandData Form. pdf
140.13KB
DP2-UplandDataForm.pdf
139.82KB
Wetland Photo.pdf
948.14KB
Upland Photo.pdf
926.43KB
SignedAgentAuthorization.pdf
46.18KB
File rust be FLF or I M
Comments
Project in NEPA approval process. All agency comments have been responded too and the project is now in the public notification process.
Signature
FJ By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act"),
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Daniel Zurlo
Signature
Date
7/12/2021

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Applicant: Brunswick County
The undersigned applicant for 404/401 permitting, does hereby authorize
Daniel Zurlo , of W.K. Dickson & Co..Inc.
(Contractor/ Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Applicant's Address:
-I ", Tex
Telephone: ft-Z53,26
53
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
;_ lzil / -
Authoriz ds�Signature
Date: ` U1Z14
e
Authorized Signature
Date: 7/12/21

4 .sties. _ : " * �� • { ''7{.;- ,.. ' - r ,, y. r ' 4- ,, . a
T "� �• �.. t' i -� i � i�" - erg - �
.~•��•` r�� �.. ,'��� � r.- , � r`� _ rt�} '',`��� ,it .S' rat` ��� ry `
- _ x' '-fir yj� til ''�� - �`� r:,�,•+ ;�• _ ' • � , .
• :.' :;; _' :' Sf —.f� = ,..�7JI . ,r. .. .Y mow. - - - ,.� n ; � 7 r
�; r ��-'. r.�►.f Y4-r `. _ '�'�+` '�f y1 it - Y�Y -
�• r
•� fn .��"M1l�:.�r. r`4 ,.-.,ry�.n�' _yr �- �r. rr. {N ,l Jy l,.{-r*, `,1 I
�, a Syr.:._ •'.�. r`r—.t'-- .*:��, � 'u'.'�.���" ."•. : � d�
•� - r• ��,J,�� " TiNv r
,
J - _ _ _� - . ___ — — �}T }"p,. : _ ..�: � �� i}� .ti � •:Tim. � .{ • �f�
71,
Af
VIP
�,"+:.'r '_[t' .'.�•..- ., k.. F is ',j_ -
r ; r.:.r:.... • st 1 ', ti .. 1•Il JdVI. kit

a

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Waste water treatment plant for Southport City/County: Brunswick Sampling Date: 6/17/21
Applicant/Owner: Brunswick County State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): DJZ Section, Township, Range: Shallote
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 34.007935 Long:-78.376823 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ma, Mandarin fine sand NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Data form representative of on -site uplands bordering the palustrine forested wetlands
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (B1)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology present
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Quercus nigra
15
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
15
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
3.
Acerrubrum
15
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Quercus alba
10
No
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
55
=Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50% of total cover:
28
20% of total cover:
11
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FAC species 95 x 3 = 285
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
15
Yes
FAC
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
2.
Symplocos tinctoria
10
Yes
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
3.
Acerrubrum
15
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: 115 (A) 345 (B)
4.
Ilex glabra
10
Yes
FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.01
50
=Total Cover
_
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
25
20% of total cover:
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5
Yes
FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
9.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
5
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
Vitis rotundifolia
5
Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
5
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
100% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy
6-18 10YR 4/2 100 Sandy
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
X Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
—Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
X Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
—Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
X Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
High organic content in soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Waste water treatment plant for Southport City/County: Brunswick Sampling Date: 6/17/21
Applicant/Owner: Brunswick County State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): DJZ Section, Township, Range: Shallote
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 34.008548 Long:-78.376480 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: DO, Dorovan muck NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data form representative of palustrine forested wetlands on -site
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _Aquatic
Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (B1) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 12
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 10
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology present
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Quercus nigra
30
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
25
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
3.
Acerrubrum
25
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Pinus taeda
10
No
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88.9% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
90
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
45
20% of total cover:
18
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
15
Yes
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Symplocos tinctoria
15
Yes
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Ilex cpaca
15
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Ilex glabra
15
Yes
FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.01
60
=Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
30
20% of total cover:
12
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
Carex lurida
5
Yes
OBL
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
9.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
5
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
Lonicera japonica
5
Yes
FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
5
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
88.9% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18
10YR 2/1 100 Sandy
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al) —Thin
Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) —Barrier
Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
—Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) —Loamy
Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) _
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
—Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) _
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _
Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Depleted
Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) _
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) —Delta
Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6) _Piedmont
Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
X Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_Anomalous
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U) _Very
Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
High organic content in soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

e w L133HS-Ntld311S 11VH3O
:31L1DNw9tl00 p
Co 0 Im
IHWHlf AOA103H1 tl031VS SI00NV 1N3...1tl31tlM31StlM > a O
auoo3u No1s1n3u awvN �o3roud 3 �
NouonHISNOO a03 03SV313a ION - NSIS30 IVNI3
II � h--
v-" ixt
v`vv/ iv
v 1 1 i vv v v1
I 1 I i Ivvl�/��v �: v � r li � �v vvvvv�� `w� - -_' ` - M`i �'p •>�
v i� v i_ I p�� // /,�% v��w I v,�wv v`�� �� v _ � A��v � r.v j I I /Q •. �E ��
�I/�/�� i� —" fee a Imo
-' or x b a° / / � to
VA�, �-
n Nu
go61v
-
v vvv•
1��\\�TREE` � loo �f7`- \ .�\_o "-- �✓i�I� III ��¢_
•FOREST ST EXT.
\ \\\\\ Ilf uE
\ a
- _ r
_ �-4,,_`L.
�N \ l m
ga��%-
I
v n
- - �v Q v �.� •' ✓%�1i v � /h v v III I � // // I / /�
���_
o E\�w�a �' �:• �C 7 -- pa"_ w � / I ��lidli �� \:
,ae°�� :•I ,t 1 v�.�a�v $ �(*.y:� � � ,`I /_�/� ,�/yam_ Iv � `� ;/`I _��11v ) ��
p\%✓�`...}`',/lam- �o \;`:.:::.:::::::::..:`"_..:,Y.-..{teen>✓.`, I ; c _/� -_\ ,I/ii\\\_��
I � •; � oo e 8 �. :�^•�: _ — � - I i � = - III �� �,
.':f✓mo •..
.;3:a u8 8is .'y.•n'-u,.y'L� I •.v.•.•.•. {..'•.• /� o /vvvvvvv`_. v v _____/ vI'/�
"`,:''';h•I,p k;; • %I
p
.f.�9;.;.' •: hi94' ^�� .\.1. .; \\\ \ I -\'.:. .:.:.:.:.. \ - �--ram � � \ -. \ \ l

e w Z133HS-Ntld311Sl VH3O
:31L1DNw9tl00 p
IHWHlf AOA103H1 tl03lVS SI00NV 1N3wltl3tl1 tl31tlM31StlM > a O
�e � s goaga o 0
auoo3u No1s1n3u awvN �o3roud 3 �
NouonHISNOO a03 03SV313a ION - NJIS30 IVNI3
i—
it
1�
i

7e n gy$ � �
0 0y3 y3
y —
0uoo3u NOISIn3u
3 IJOHd 9 Ntld ONISS HO HONVHG AHHAoinW
31L1 �JNW1tlH0 p
1tlOdH1f10S jO ALIO 3H1 tlOj ltl�SI00Ntl 1N3W1tl3tl1 tl31tlM31StlM
awvN —roud 3 �
NouonHISNOO a03 03SVzMd ION NJIS30IVNH
6
RJ
I
__
ul
-
— o �
dO
CNN
o op, w =e
-Wpm
w
-
w o it l �p0
's
Nry
l
Q I—
^os ,2QQailM
���
I .I 0ww' ��
-
ago oo E w
�m�® 0 o=
o �o
T w.-ao
l
TRIo m
o�
l /� jam_ / OO+gS •
i /
—
m m
r� _
-'
10
0
i I,
�S1u,l' Il i
IIl
vt
II J'J�
I x II
z

1IV13Ul _Utl3H
7�e n R$BB 2 y — 31L1DNW9tl00 p
o n
f"° 3 0 _ IHWH1f10 JO0 103H1 HOJ lVS SIU UNtl 1N3Wltl3tl1 tl31tlM31StlM > a O
Ouoo3u Nolsln3u awvN ­roud 3 �
NouonHISNOO a03 03SV313a ION NJIS30IVNI3
F m " iP^pR^RB W
0M, a 3
"adOH
am gyp = 4s e«tg'$' tq
oo
0 of
�oo30.
N�m a_
°pro°
53 w -o
� RJ "o
a0 -
0
oa
3
3 E a a 3 a z m a ° -
LLrc �� ?0 30 W
o ego 5a <w U1
3 40 3 .E z
w E aY'a - ag Z
Y
Q
y
Wao��� m
rc 3 0 o
Iz
-10 W
0
Ym
d'a
a .y
Z
F�¢ _ 3 ° -
N W o
z
N " _
O

S310N 9NI1Ntlld ONV lOtl1N W NOISOtl3 r
7�e n gy$ � � y — �31L1 �JNW1tlH0 ¢ T p
Y�r/]'1; 00y3q Dao
.. 1tlOdHlf105 j0 ALIO 3H1 tlOj ltlSOdSI00Ntl 1N3Wltl3tl1 tl31tlM31StlM
M
0
�e goaga o
0uoo3u NOISIn3u awvN —roud 3 �
NouonHISNOO a03 03SV313a ION NJIS30IVNI3
"- _
-
1� _ -
U
77
w.
¢ aw _
64 uz rc6Y r _-
C7 Sl
o� - - P. _ _
go - - - �rc -a5 - _ tz
F w - -
81 -
z-11
Ww p wk�- _ rt _ .mr- _ �k __ o�pm o.,m _oZ aam
z 12
a - - - 0o
`
_ I �rc
1,2
a - a
__
_ _ - w _
1-1
�azN sm�
w _
22
O o�LLz, 6_ ¢ _ - _ o0
_ 20
w -1.
-
- -- - - - > -
- - - - -� w❑ -
o
71 07.

M I� W N M Ln lD N
0 0• O O O O c-I O
O O • O O O O O O
O lD
ro -1
Q Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z z
L
c
4
c
L
4-
c
4-
c
4-
c
4-
c
L
c
c
L
c
c
c
c
E:EEEE
:EE
v
v
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
v
�
O
L
ao
Q
Ln
L
m
�
a�
Ln
0
O
Ln
O
O
O
—
V
L
L
Ln
Lncu
c
cu
a)'O
>
O
>
u
u
c
c
cn
V
cn
V
Q
Q
(7
O
co
H
+-
V
co
CQ
C
d
•
4-+
O
•
Q
•
. c-I
N
M
Ln
lD
Ul)
cn
cn

North Carolina
�i
ea
Brunswick County
Wilmi
'Pik 17
fi
Ro
a
Shallolte
pa
04
l.l: rr o
0
e
6S
O
Y
L
O
1 N
N � U
t)
m
Legend
Project LOD (37.6 ac.)
Waters Survey Limit (505.5 ac.)
>W
N
Vicinity Map 0 2,500 5,000
�DIICI<SON Mublerry Branch Water Reclamation Facility OFeet w E
community infrastructure consultants Southport, Brunswick County, NC 1 inch = 5,000 feet
S

N
�WK USDA NRCS Soil Survey 0 500 1,000
DICKSON Mublerry Branch Water Reclamation Facility OFeet
community infrastructure consultants Southport, Brunswick County, NC 1 inch = 1,000 feet
5

a,
Limit (505.5 ac.)

a�Er1
\f \
- �I1,111ntt:
Legend
Project LOD (37.6 ac.)
Waters Survey Limit (505.5 ac.)
USGS Topo Quads: Exum, NC; Supply, NC; Shallote, NC; and Holden Beach, NC (2017).
N
USGS Topography 0 1,000 2,000
�DICI<SON Southport,
Branch Water Reclamation Facility OFeet w E
community infrastructure consultants Brunswick County, NC 1 inch = 2,000 feet S

Red Cockaded Woodpecker Survey Results
Southport WWTP Expansion Project
Brunswick County, NC
Prepared for:
Brunswick County, NC
Prepared by:
Ward Marotti
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28205
704-334-5348
WKD Project Number 20170253.00.WL
August 2018

Executive Summary
Preliminary red cockaded woodpecker habitat assessments within the Southport WWTP
Expansion project area indicated that both potential nesting and foraging habitats are present
within and adjacent to the project area. Formal surveys for the presence or absence of red
cockaded woodpeckers indicated that no active or historic colonies are present within or
adjacent to the project area.
As a result, the proposed project will have no effect on the federally endangered red cockaded
woodpecker.
Methods
Preliminary red cockaded woodpecker (RCW: Picoides borealis) habitat assessments were
completed throughout the project area from October 2017 through May 2018, concurrent with
wetland delineations and spring rare plant surveys. Potential nesting and foraging habitats
were then mapped throughout the project area using a combination of desktop aerial
photography analysis and ground truthing (Figure 1). After it was determined that both
potential foraging and nesting habitat was present within the project's limits of disturbance
(LOD), particularly the northern spray fields and high rate infiltration areas, a formal survey for
active and historic RCW colonies (i.e. cavity trees and start holes) was completed within the
mapped nesting habitat areas within the LOD and up to 0.5 mile from it, pursuant to Guidelines
for Surveys to Assess Potential Project Impacts to Red -cockaded Woodpecker Nesting and/or Foraging
Habitat (Guidelines; USFWS;
www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/files/RecoveryPlan/survey protocol.pdf):
The first step in the survey procedure is to determine if suitable
nesting or foraging habitat exists within the area to be impacted
by the project. If no suitable nesting or foraging habitat is
present within the project impact area, further assessment is
unnecessary and a "no effect" determination is appropriate. If
no suitable nesting habitat is present within the project impact
area, but suitable foraging habitat is present and will be
impacted, potential use of this foraging habitat by groups
outside the project boundaries must be determined. This is
accomplished by identifying any potential nesting habitat
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the suitable foraging habitat is then
surveyed for cavity trees. This procedure is described in greater
detail below. If no active clusters are found, then a "no effect"
determination is appropriate. If one or more active clusters are
found, a foraging habitat analysis is conducted (see 8I) to
determine whether sufficient amounts of foraging habitat will
remain for each group post -project.

For nesting and foraging habitat surveys within project impact
areas and within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project site, potential
habitat is assessed at the level of the stand. A stand is a term
often used to refer to a wooded area receiving past or current
silvicultural treatment as a single management unit. Here we
expand the term to include any subset of a tract of wooded land,
divided by biological community type, management history, or
any other reasonable approach. A small tract of land may be
considered a single stand.
Identification of Suitable Foraging Habitat
For the purpose of surveying, suitable foraging habitat consists
of a pine or pine/hardwood stand of forest, woodland, or
savannah in which 50 percent or more of the dominant trees are
pines and the dominant pine trees are generally 30 years in age
or older. These characteristics do not necessarily describe good
quality foraging habitat (see 2E, 81); rather, this is a conservative
description of potentially suitable habitat.
Identification of pine and pine/hardwood stands can be made
using cover maps that identify pine and pine/hardwood stands,
aerial photographs interpreted by standard techniques, or a
field survey conducted by an experienced forester or biologist.
Age of stands can be determined by aging representative
dominant pines in the stands using an increment -borer and
counting annual growth rings. Stand data describing size
classes may be substituted for age if the average size of 30-year-
old pines is known, i.e., at least 25.4 cm (10 in) dbh or larger, for
the local area and habitat type.
If no suitable foraging habitat is present within the project area
(that is, no pines 30 years or older will be impacted), then
further evaluation is unnecessary and red -cockaded
woodpeckers are considered absent. If the project area contains
any suitable foraging habitat that will be impacted by the
project, that habitat, if it contains any 60-year-old trees or older,
and all other suitable nesting habitat within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of
the project site, regardless of ownership, must surveyed for the
presence of red -cockaded woodpeckers.
This project site contained many possible pine and
pine/hardwood stands that could be potential suitable foraging
habitat for red -cockaded woodpeckers. Aerial photographs
were used to assess the best possible locations. The project area

was broken down into a grid with a 0.5 mi buffer added, and
each row was 50 yards wide running north -south. The grid was
walked going east -west ensuring each possible pine and
pine/hardwood foraging tree was inspected. All possible
suitable foraging habitat was documented by a GPS point.
Possible foraging habitat outside, but adjacent to, the project
site was also inspected.
Identification of Suitable Nesting Habitat
For the purpose of surveying, suitable nesting habitat consists
of pine, pine/hardwood, and hardwood/pine stands that
contain pines 60 years in age or older and that are within 0.8km
(0.5 mi) of the suitable foraging habitat to be impacted at the
project site (see above). Additionally, pines 60 years in age or
older may be scattered or clumped within younger stands;
these older trees within younger stands must also be examined
for the presence of red -cockaded woodpecker cavities. These
characteristics do not necessarily describe good quality nesting
habitat (see 2D, 8E, 8F); rather, this is a conservative description
of potential nesting habitat.
Determination of suitable nesting habitat may be based on
existing stand data, aerial photo interpretation, and/or field
reconnaissance. All stands meeting the above description,
regardless of ownership, are surveyed for cavity trees.
This project site contained many possible pine and
pine/hardwood stands that could be potential suitable nesting
habitat for red -cockaded woodpeckers. The project site was
broken down into a grid with a 0.5 mi buffer added, and each
grid row was 50 yards wide running north -south. The grid was
walked going east -west ensuring each pine and pine/hardwood
in a row was inspected. Two pine trees were identified as
possible nesting habitat. Possible starter holes and fresh sap
were apparent on the two trees and were located roughly 12 -
13 ft up the two trees. The two possible nesting trees were
logged with a GPS, and two game cameras were installed and
set up to monitor the two trees. Possible nesting habitat outside,
but adjacent to, the project site was also inspected.
Surveying for Red -cockaded Woodpecker Cavity Trees

Once suitable nesting habitat is identified (above), it must be
surveyed for cavity trees of red -cockaded woodpeckers by
personnel experienced in management and/or monitoring of
the species. Potential nesting habitat is surveyed by running
line transects through stands and visually inspecting all
medium-sized and large pines for evidence of cavity excavation
by red -cockaded woodpeckers. Transects must be spaced so
that all trees are inspected. Necessary spacing will vary with
habitat structure and season from a maximum of 91 (100 yards)
between transects in very open pine stands to 46 m (50 yards)
or less in areas with dense midstory. Transects are run north -
south, because many cavity entrances are oriented in a westerly
direction and can be set using a hand compass.
When cavity trees are found, their location is recorded in the
field using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, aerial
photograph, and/or field map. Activity status, cavity stage
(start, advanced start, or complete cavity), and any entrance
enlargement are assessed and recorded at this time. Again, it is
extremely important to have all surveys and cavity tree
assessment performed by experienced personnel.
If cavity trees are found, more intense surveying within 457 m
(1500 ft) of each cavity tree is conducted to locate all cavity trees
in the area. Cavity trees are later assigned into clusters based on
observations of red -cockaded woodpeckers as described in 3A.
Any cavity trees or other evidence of red -cockaded woodpecker
activity is reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at either a
local office or the Clemson Field Office, Clemson, South
Carolina.
Surveys were completed within the potential nesting habitats during three site visits in June
and July 2018.
Results
Approximately 27 live pines 60 years in age or older, almost all longleaf (Pinus palustris), with
varying amounts of sap streaking on their trunks were observed. All streaking observed
appeared to be the result of relatively shallow holes (i.e. primarily within the bark (inner and
outer) and vascular cambium, with little extension into the trees' wood (secondary xylem)). The
holes were consistently round, approximately 0.25 inch in diameter and arranged in largely
uniform patterns (rows). Two of these trees (Figure 1, photos 1-4) had particularly dense and
prominent sap streaking. At these locations motion activated game cameras were installed on
adjacent trunks and pointed at the densest concentration of sap on the pines. The intent was to

t ION 'Si114S
'r€A� ��
dAl
r�
t � x y;, a • � � tJ � r >a
f q
s
f¢ o
1 b A

Cnncluainnc
After detailed surveys and analysis of the game camera footage were completed, no evidence of
active or historic RCW populations were observed within the study area.
While several live pine trees with significant sap streaking were observed, none have either
nesting nor start holes. Because of the relatively uniform hole size and distribution, it was
determined that yellow bellied sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus varius) are likely to be foraging on the
trees observed during their winter residency in the coastal plain. Because these birds are
migratory and typically present within Brunswick County only between late September and
late April, the lack of motion activated photos of their presence is to be expected.
Because no active or historic populations of RCWs are present within or adjacent to the LOD,
the proposed project will have no effect on the federally endangered bird.

ID#* 20210653
Version* 1
Regional Office * Wilmington Regional Office - [phone]
Reviewer List* Holley Snider
Pre -Filing Meeting Request submitted 3/30/2021
Contact Name* Daniel Zurlo
Contact Email Address* [e-mail]
Project Name* Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for the City of Southport
Project Owner* Brunswick County
Project County* Brunswick
Owner Address: Street Address
1213 W Morehead St.
Address Line 2
aty State / Province / Region
Charlotte NC
Postal / Zip axle Country
28208 United States
Is this a transportation project?* r Yes r No
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - F 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
F- Individual Permit F- Modification
F Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
C Yes (-- No
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Please give a brief project description below and include location information.*
Proposed Mulberry Branch Water Reclamation Facility on the site of
the e)asting Shallotte Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.

4/14/2021
4/21 /2021
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
VicinityMap.pdf 2.01 MB
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:
This form completes the requirement of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
1 understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre -filing
meeting request.
1 also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.
Your project's thirty -day clock started upon receipt of this application. You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary. You will receive notification when the thirty -day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.
Signature
O_W�d
Submittal Date 3/30/2021

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Bob Tweedy
Brunswick County Public Works
PO Box 249
Bolivia, NC 28422
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
July 12, 2021
Project: Wastewater Treatment & Disposal -City of Southport
Expiration of Acceptance: 1/12/2022
County: Brunswick
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Impact Location
8-di it HUC
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Lumber
03040207
Riparian Wetland
0.324
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact [e-mail].
Sincerely,
11 du�
FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Dan Zurlo, agent
D Q'North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
P217 West Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
�+oRrw crww.i+va i
daft /'� 919.707.8976