NC0023965_Hearing Officer Report_20040823

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0023965
Wilmington Northside WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
(Hearing Officer) Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
August 23, 2004
This document is printed on reuse paper - igiiore any
content on the resrerse side

Division of Water Quality
v� /1!/n
re#
August 23, 2004 �' V
(zi
:0:.
MEMORANDUM
To: Alan Klimek, Director �i z
Division of Water Quality
From: Matt Matthews' nvironmental Biologist Supervisor
Subject: Report and Recommendations: City of Wilmington James A. Loughlin WWTP
NPDES No. NC0023965
Cape Fear River (SC), Cape Fear River Basin
New Hanover County
As you requested, I served as Hearing Officer for a public hearing in Wilmington in New Hanover
County on the evening of Thursday, July 29, 2004 concerning whether to re -issue an NPDES permit to
the City of Wilmington that includes a significant expansion of its James A. Loughlin (Northside)
wastewater treatment plant. The hearing was held at the request of persons who had expressed through
written submittals concern for secondary effects associated with the flow expansion included in the
NPDES wastewater discharge permit (NC0023965).
Based on the history of the permit, site visit, the public hearing proceedings, and discussions with
Wilmington Regional Office and Central Office, I offer the following recommendation:
Reissue NPDES Permit No. NC0023965 for the City of Wilmington's James A. Loughlin
WWTP.
Additional details on the above recommendation are on page three of this memo.
History/Background
The facility is located inside the northwestern section of the City of Wilmington in New Hanover
County at 2311 North 23rd Street. The Division initially issued the permit in November 1979. The
facility currently has a permitted flow of 8.0 million gallons per day (MGD) to the Cape Fear River. At
this point the river is designated class "SC." The draft permit includes two effluent monitoring pages —
one for discharge before and during construction of an expansion/upgrade to the facility and a second
that will apply to the facility once the expansion/upgrade is complete. The expansion will result in
doubling the existing permitted flow of the facility to 16.0 MGD. With that expansion will come a
stricter limit for BOD: 5.0 mg/L post -expansion compared to 30.0 mg/L pre -expansion. Also, prior to
expansion the facility is required to monitor for ammonia; upon expansion an ammonia limit of 1.0
mg/L will be implemented. These more stringent limits are required due to the Impaired for dissolved
oxygen classification currently applicable to the Cape Fear Estuary. These limits will result in
decreased loading of nutrients to the Cape Fear River despite the doubling of wastewater volume
discharged. Attachment I consists of a topological map indicating the proposed discharge location.
Site Visit
DWQ staff members were given an extensive tour of the wastewater treatment plant. The facility
appeared to be well maintained and competently operated. The wastewater staff was knowledgeable
and informative.
5g9
Environmental Sciences Section Page 1 of 3

Public Hearing
The July 29th public hearing was held at the request of individuals associated with the North Carolina
Coastal Federation and Cape Fear River Watch. Submitted written comments prior to the hearing are
contained in Attachment II. An announcement of the hearing was published in the local paper
(Attachment III).
Twenty-seven people attended the public hearing excluding eight Division of Water Quality staff
members and the hearing officer. The registration list is contained in Attachment IV. Mr. Joe Corporon
of the NPDES Unit gave a brief presentation of DWQ's permitting procedures, summarized the history
of the permit and pertinent technical data. He also addressed concerns expressed in the previously
submitted written comments about the permit renewal. Attachment V contains his presentation. Mr.
Mike Randall of the Stormwater Permitting Unit summarizing stormwater management programs
applicable to New Hanover County. His presentation is contained in Attachment VI. The facility was
represented by Mr. Bill Caster, New Hanover County Commissioner and Chairman of the Board of the
New Hanover County Water and Sewer District, and Ms. Laura Padgett, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of
Wilmington. These persons explained the need for the expansion in wastewater capacity at the
Loughlin WWTP. Thirteen other attendees registered to speak and did so. No speaker advocated denial
of the permit re -issuance or flow expansion. Attachment VII contains written comments and
documentation received during the hearing.
The primary points of the verbal comments are as follows:
1) Several speakers advocated immediate re -issuance of the permit.
A.) Several speakers cited existing housing developments with high rates of septic tank failure
that have resulted in potential public health problems and pollution of local creeks. With
expansion at the Northside plant and subsequent connection of those homes, the failing
systems could be taken off-line. One speaker specifically asked that priority in sewer line
extensions be given to those existing developments with failing septic tanks.
B.) One speaker cited safety issues at the adjoining Wilmington International Airport that would
be addressed through improvements to the plant. Currently, the plant attracts birds that are
an air navigation hazard. Improvements at the plant would include the enclosure of some
wastewater processes that would make the WWTP less attractive to birds.
C.) Two speakers cited nuisance odors from the plant that affect the aesthetic environment at
the airport and a nearby industrial park. The same improvements cited above would mitigate
this problem.
2) Several speakers advocated re -issuance of the permit, including the expansion, but with specific
additional requirements intended to address potential effects of secondary impacts caused by the
increase in wastewater capacity and subsequent development that will follow. Those persons
asked that the permit require the following:
A.) Issuance of an NPDES stormwater permit.
B.) Creation of a New Hanover County Stormwater Management Services Department
comparable to that of the City of Wilmington or a contractual agreement for the City of
Wilmington Stormwater Services Department to provide the appropriate services.
Response
As you are aware, secondary and cumulative impacts associated with NPDES permits are evaluated
by the Division upon submittal of an Environmental Assessment (EA) by the permittee prior to
issuance of an Authorization to Construct. The City submitted an EA and the Division issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in October 2003.
Environmental Sciences Section Page 2 of 3

Under current rules, stormwater regulation is a fairly complex issue. Programs that affect New
Hanover County include the North Carolina Stormwater Management Rules for Coastal Counties,
the North Carolina Phase II Stormwater Management Rules as implemented in Senate Bill 1210,
the Sediment Pollution Control Act administered by the Division of Land Resources and the
Coastal Area Management Act administered by the Division of Coastal Management. As noted
above, Mike Randall of the Stormwater Permitting Unit summarized these programs during the
meeting. Given the Division's issuance of a FONSI and our current rules and procedures, it would
be inappropriate for the Division to require an NPDES stormwater permit as a condition of the
NC0023965 individual wastewater permit. This also applies to creation of a New Hanover County
Stormwater Services Department or a contract by the County for those services from the City of
Wilmington.
The comments concerning stormwater have been forwarded to the Stormwater Permitting Unit and
the Wilmington Regional Office for consideration in future permitting decisions related to
stormwater.
As hearing officer for the April 3, 2001 public hearing proceedings for the re -issuance of NPDES
permit number NC0023965 for the City of Wilmington James A. Loughlin WWTP, I recommend re-
issuing the permit with no modifications from the existing draft.
If needed, I will make myself available to talk with you face-to-face concerning the hearing. Please call
me at [phone] if you require such a meeting or have questions that can be addressed by phone.
Attachments
cc: with attachments
Rick Shiver, Wilmington Regional Office
Bradley Bennett, Stormwater Permitting Unit
Joe Corporon, Eastern NDPES Program Unit
without attachments
Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director
Jimmie Overton, ESS
Dave Goodrich, Point Source Branch
Environmental Sciences Section Page 3 of 3

List of Attachments
I. Topological Map of Discharge Location
II. Written comments submitted prior to the hearing
III. Hearing announcement text transmitted to local paper
IV. Meeting registration list
V. Text of Joe Corporon's presentation
VI. Text of Mike Randall's presentation
VII. Comments and documentation received during the meeting

Attachment I
Map of Discharge Location

({ t I.
a21t
Al� stream) 1) Sampley i* t'
T r 33
P,
- \ `— / FiA/S
. .= ---„ 1
Downstream Sample
DI located --3.2 miles
downstream of the dis
City of Wilmington
James A. Loughlin (Northside) WWTP
Receivine Stream:
Latitude:
Loneitude:
Stream Class:
Cape Fear River
34° 14' 27" N
77° 57' 10" W
SC
Drainage Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
Sub -Basin: 03-06-17
Permitted Flow: 8.0 MGD
Grid/Quad: K 27 NW / Wilmington, NC
Facility
Location
not to scale
WilikraWitricor
North
NPDES Permit No. NC0023965
New Hanover County

Attachment II
Written Comments — Pre -Hearing

5/27/04
1433 Villa PI. E.'-�
Wi!ming
Ms. Valery Stephens
Div. of Water Quality
NC Dept. Of Environment & Nat. Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Ref.: James A. Loughlin - Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant
Project # NPDES Draft Permit #NC0023965
Dear Ms. Stephens,
1 would like to request that DWQ require the City & County to
hold a public hearing so that residents can learn how this project
will affect our local environment and our quality of life.
Secondly 1 request that DWQ determin that a NPDES stormwater
permit be required and issued as a condidtion of the permit for
the WWTP expansion. 1 understand that you have the authority
to require this permit.
Very truly yours,
Jeanne L. Case
Cc: NCCF CAPE Fear Coastkeeper
CFRW Cape Fear Riverkeeper

Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965]]
Subject: Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965]]
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:44:30 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965]
Date:Fri, 28 May 2004 08:31:50 -0400
From:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To:Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>, Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Joe
A public comment e-mail.
Bradley -
FYI. Would you please advise Joe how we might respond to the request for coverage under a stormwater permit? (I assume this
is in the works under the Phase II rules. Would that include the entire county area?)
Thanks,
Dave
Original Message
Subject:NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965
Date:Thu, 27 May 2004 19:04:19 -0400
From:Camellia Cottage Bed and Breakfast <[e-mail]>
To:<dave.goodrich @ncmail.net>
I request that DWQ require the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County to hold a Public Hearing so that residents can learn how
this project will affect our regional environment. I further request that DWQ determine that a NPDES stormwater permit be required
and issued as a condition of the permit for the WWTP expansion.
Steven Skavroneck
Camellia Cottage Bed and Breakfast
118 S. Fourth Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
[phone]
1 of 1 6/9/2004 2:36 PM

Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: Wilmington Northside WWTP NP...
•
Subject: Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: Wilmington Northside WWTP NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965]]
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:42:20 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: Wilmington Northside WWTP NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965]
Date:Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:20:15 -0400
From:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To:Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:Wilmington Northside WWTP NPDES Draft Permit # NC0023965
Date:Fri, 28 May 2004 14:16:51 -0400
From:Coastkeeper <[e-mail]>
Reply -To: <coastkeeper-cf@ ncc oast.org>
To:<Dave.Goodrich @ ncmail.net>
Dear Mr. Goodrich,
On behalf the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) I am submitting
comments during the 30-day public comment period for the Wilmington
Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Draft Permit # NC0023965 Applicants:
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County.
I faxed a copy of the comments to you today Friday May 28,2004 at 1:30 pm. I
am also attaching them to this email. In addition, I have mailed them to you
via USPS 1st class mail.
Some of the members of NCCF and Cape Fear River Watch have submitted email
comments on the draft NPDES permit. As listed in the public notice, they
emailed them to Ms. Valery Stephens, who I believe is no longer on staff. I
am forwarding copies of these emails to you directly. May I request that you
also check Ms. Stephens' email account for additional emails? Thank you.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. NCCF appreciates
the opportunity to continue to participate in the discussion of this
project. Please feel free to contact me at 910-790-3275 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely
Ted Wilgis
Cape Fear Coastkeeper
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Wilmington Field Office
3806-B Park Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.nccoast.org
1 of 2
6/9/2004 2:33 PM

North Carolina
Coastal Federation
North Carolina Coastal Federation 1 3806-B I Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Phone: [phone] I Fax[phone] ( Email: [e-mail] I Web: www.nccoast.orq
May 28, 2004
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Wilmington Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Draft Permit # NC0023965
Applicants: The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) has reviewed the draft National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Draft Permit # NC0023965 for the Wilmington
Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion submitted by the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County dated April 28, 2004. The following represents
the comments of the NCCF on the draft NPDES permit.
NCCF represents approximately 8,000 members across coastal North Carolina and
participates actively in all facets of regulatory and environmental protection activities
affecting the state's coast. NCCF has a long history of environmental advocacy
regarding the beachfront and estuaries of the Southeastern coastal area and other
segments of the North Carolina coastline, and appreciates the opportunity to submit these
comments.
NCCF respectfully requests that the Division of Water Quality Director require the City
of Wilmington and New Hanover County to hold a Public Hearing to provide more
information to the general public on the specifics of the project and enable city and
county residents to provide comments on this significant project. In addition NCCF
strongly recommends that the Division of Water Quality use its discretionary authority to
require a NPDES stormwater permit to be applied for and issued as a condition of the
NPDES permit for the WWTP expansion.
The draft NPDES permit for the project provides the following basic project description.
City of Wilmington and New Hanover County are seeking to increase wastewater
capacity at the James A. Loughlin - Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant from
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
1

the current 8 MGD to 16 MGD. The project involves renovating the existing plant
and placing an additional 30" effluent force main from the Northside WWTP that
will terminate in a new outfall at the Cape Fear River."
"The lower Cape Fear River is classified by DWQ as not supporting its existing
and designated uses because of dissolved oxygen standard violations. DWQ has
placed this segment on its Clean Water Act -based 303(d) list that identifies
impaired segments and prioritizes them for development of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). Both the Cape Fear River and Smith Creek are classified as
Primary Nursery Areas (PNA)."
NCCF supports the Division of Water Quality's monitoring and parameter limits
described in the draft permit and its supporting documents. NCCF concurs with DWQ's
assessment that reductions in the system's actual nutrient loading is mandated at this time
and that further evaluation of this condition may occur if a DO TMDL is established for
the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary. However NCCF does not agree with the removal of
the free cyanide monitoring requirement. In addition, NCCF recommends that post-
treatment monitoring for mercury be included as a permit requirement. Mercury remains
a concern and is an increasing risk in the Cape Fear estuary.
Of primary concern is the potential for secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from
the proposed WWTP expansion and extension of service. The Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the project described the service area for the Northside WWTP as approximately
128 square miles and encompassing the northern part of New Hanover County. Of this,
approximately 12.6 square miles is located within the City of Wilmington and 115.4
square miles is located within New Hanover County.
The EA also described some of the growth statistics and pressures facing the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County and the resulting effects on the service area for the
proposed project. Increased growth and several large regional transportation projects in
the area will put significant pressures on the environmental resources in the service area.
In fact Wilmington and New Hanover County planning staff have already indicated that
the number of proposed large high -density developments in the WWTP's service area has
increased dramatically as the proposed WWTP expansion nears approval.
The EA stated that "ample wastewater system capacity is a critical component in support
of this projected growth", and that environmental harm from existing package plants and
septic tanks would occur if the Northside WWTP were not expanded. While there might
be some initial water quality benefits from replacing old septic tanks and package
treatment plants, these will be quickly offset by the loss of habitat; impacts to wetlands;
and increased acres of parking lots, driveways and other impervious surfaces. This will
result in the loss of the area's tidal creeks' watersheds buffering capacity and a dramatic
increase in the amount of stormwater runoff entering the creeks.
While the EA for the proposed project described the preferred alternative for the
proposed project, it did not fully and adequately address the cumulative and secondary
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
2

impacts to the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County's environmental resources
resulting from the project. The assessment recognized that there will be significant
secondary effects caused by the increase in population growth and developable land as
the Northside WWTP is expanded and sewer lines are extended throughout its service
area. For example, effects on wetlands and changes in adjacent land use as the service
area is built out are listed as resulting from the proposed project. However the EA did not
contain specific descriptions of these effects, i.e. how the amount of increased impervious
surface area and storm water run-off, might affect resources such as the surface water
quality, and how they will be effectively mitigated.
Using one tidal creek in New Hanover County as an example, Howe Creek, will illustrate
these concerns. In 1989 Howe Creek was classified as Outstanding Resource Waters to
its source because of its exceptional water quality, affording it the state's strongest
protection. Since that time, water quality protection measures used to protect the creek
have failed to maintain its exceptional values, resulting in its closure to the harvest of
shellfishing and its listing on the state's 303(d) list as "impaired waters."
A retrospective analysis in 1997 by William B. Farris, a former Wilmington City
Manager and now a planning consultant, documented the effects of sewer expansion on
Howe Creek. New Hanover County supported a $46 million bond referendum in 1984 to
build the first "county wide" sewer, encompassing Howe Creek, on the coast. Proponents
of the earlier project utilized the same rationale, cleaning up and protecting the water
quality of the area's tidal creeks, for supporting the project as is being used for the
current proposed Northside WWTP expansion. In reality, the initial countywide sewer
system enabled wide spread growth in the tidal creeks' watersheds and a significant
decline in the water quality of the area's tidal creeks. This is supported through water
quality monitoring conducted by UNC-W on behalf of the City and County for the past
several years. The secondary impacts of this growth were not considered.
Farris' case study used a land suitability -development policy approach for estimating
development potential in the Howe Creek watershed before and after the availability of
public sewer. At the time the sewer was built about 34 % of its watershed was made up of
freshwater wetlands. Ten years later only 16% percent of the entire watershed was still
undeveloped.
The case study indicates, "that the availability of public sewer service increases the pace
and density of development when compared to developmental potential with septic
tanks". The dense development and resulting increases in impervious surfaces triggered
increased storm water run-off, and the creek is now polluted and listed by the State as
permanently closed for shellfishing. The study found that, "Development in the Howe
Creek Watershed proceeded without benefit of a comprehensive plan that addresses both
the quality and quantity of storm water run-off".
The Howe Creek Case Study outlined some steps that should be taken to manage the
impacts of public sewer. These steps should be considered when reviewing the draft
NPDES permit for the proposed project.
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
3

1. Use sewer as a growth management too. Sewer can manage the timing and
location of growth. Develop policies to prevent developer financed extensions
from creating undesired development patterns.
At the time of the case study, the County's sewer extension polices focused on the right
to approve all system extensions and approval of the development where the sewer was to
be extended. There were no polices that addressed situations where sewer extensions
would be withheld. These polices appeared to allow any extension or connection as long
there was treatment capacity, the system met installation and approval standards and that
the sub -divider or developer was willing to pay for the extension and improvements.
Today, a review of Sec. 56-256 — "Additional acceptance procedure for sewer extensions
of the Code of New Hanover County" indicates that the policies have not been amended
as recommended by the findings of the case study.
The EA stated, " that the County has given sewer extension priority to the tidal creek
watersheds in order to eliminate the risk of faulty septic systems proximate to these
valuable resources. Although this policy could allow development of land that was
otherwise "marginally" developable, the County's density limits as defined in the zoning
ordinance and the COD section still apply."
Again, as indicated by the Howe Creek Case Study, utilizing zoning and COD
restrictions alone are not adequate to fully protect the water quality and uses of the tidal
creeks. The sewer extension polices should be amended to ensure that existing
development is given priority for sewer service, and that the local governments and
planners, utilizing approved land use plans, are guiding growth, not developers through
approval of sewer extensions. Amended sewer extension polices should affirm the
commitment to prioritize servicing existing development before extending lines to new
developments.
2. Implement basin -wide stormwater management programs and improve the design
of facilities to significantly reduce sedimentation and improve the quality of run -
of
The City and County have submitted NPDES Phase II stormwater applications. The
County's MS4 service area only includes the County parks. The County's stormwater
ordinance, adopted in 2000, requires new development to manage post -development
runoff from the 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year frequency storms such that the discharge
rates of post -development stormwater runoff do not exceed the predevelopment rates.
A stormwater ordinance was passed in 2000. Section 23-342 states, "It shall be the
responsibility of individual property owners of developed or undeveloped land within the
unincorporated areas of the County, to maintain stormwater conveyance facilities". This
is highly impractical for the average urban homeowner in New Hanover County, on most
occasions even impossible.
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
4

The ordinance further states in Section 23-345, "Nothing in this article shall create
additional duties on the part of the County". The County admits it has a role. Section 23-
341 states, "The County has a role in the management of stormwater through
authorization, planning, construction, operation & maintenance of facilities to reduce the
adverse effects of stormwater runoff & to satisfy State & Federal statutes & regulations"
& a method to pay for it as Section 23-406 states, "The County Commissioners may
adopt a resolution to establish stormwater/drainage districts that may be funded by a
district tax providing revenues collected w/in a district are used w/in the district for the
enhancement of the district's stormwater management, maintenance or expansion."
Wilmington's Stormwater Service Program, with significantly more resources than the
County, has implemented significant and specific environmental measures to control
stromwater. However the County with fewer resources and environmental measures is
responsible for over 115 square miles of the service area for the proposed project, and
lacks an adequate stormwater program.
In addition, the current NPDES Phase II storm water rules are currently in suspension and
in jeopardy due to action from the Legislative Rules Review Committee and pending
litigation. The future of the rules are uncertain, and at best full implementation will not
occurring until 2007. NCCF strongly recommends that the Division of Water Quality use
its discretionary authority to require a NPDES stormwater permit to be applied for and
issued as a condition of the NPDES permit for the WWTP expansion. An NPDES
stormwater permit covering the entire expanded service area of the Northside WWTP is
needed to account for the increased impervious surface and resulting storm water run-off
that will occur as the WWTP's capacity is increased and sewer lines are extended into
previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas.
3. Exercise better controls to prevent sedimentation during site development.
The EA stated that some impacts to surface waters are possible during the expansion of
the treatment plant and the installation of the additional force main. Construction
activities could cause erosion and runoff of sediments and temporary turbidity into
nearby surface waters. To minimize direct impacts to surface waters, an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan will be prepared for this project. The City and County land
use controls to minimize these secondary impacts.
Examination of New Hanover County's compliance with sedimentation and erosion plans
and maintaining water quality standards connected with the on -going New Hanover
County sponsored Middle Sound Loop Rd. Sewer Expansion Project (MSLSEP)
indicates that additional measures must be required in the EA for the proposed project.
The MSLESP project has resulted in numerous citizen complaints regarding wetland
impacts, sedimentation and erosion problems and increased turbidity in the tributaries and
waters of Howe and Pages Creeks. The County and two of its contractors for the project
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
5

have received three Notices of Violations and enforcement actions as a result of their
failure to comply with environmental regulations and requirements for the project.
This record indicates that permits for the proposed Northside WWTP Expansion must
contain: strict and effective guidelines for controlling sedimentation and erosion during
the construction phase; a commitment to utilize contractors with acceptable
environmental records on previous projects; and accountability for the County if it fails to
comply with the approved sedimentation and erosion plan and maintenance of water
quality standards.
4. Develop agreement on environmental management measures before system
installation.
The City and County have outlined reasonable measures in the EA that may limit some of
the degradation of surface waters resulting from higher densities and increased areas of
development resulting for the proposed project. These measures must be enforced and
complied with for them to be effective in reducing some of the impacts from the project.
Permits for the project should contain a strong and binding commitment from the City
and County to not only uphold and implement these environmental measures, but to
assure their strict compliance and enforcement.
In summary, Farris' analysis convincingly indicates that expanding WWTP capacity and
extending sewer lines into tidal creek watersheds with out adequate planning, policies
and environmental controls will lead to the degradation of water quality and the loss of
uses in the receiving waters. It is strongly suggested that Farris' four recommendations be
adopted and included as requirements in the planning for the Northside WWTP
expansion and upgrade.
Finally, According to the EA and the National Wetlands Institute mapping database,
approximately 20,000 acres of freshwater and coastal wetlands, approximately 25% of
the service area, are located within the service area and include areas adjacent to the
creeks, streams, and rivers as well as isolated wetlands.
The EA stated that wetland permit requests throughout the service area may increase but
through established regulations, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and State Water
Quality Certification Rules 15A NCAC 2H .0500, including required mitigation, there
should be no net loss. In addition, the County has established Conservation Overlay
Districts, which require setbacks from the wetland resource of between 25-100 feet and
require a certain percentage of wetlands within this district to be preserved, depending on
the type of resource. A commitment to implement measures to adequately demonstrate
avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts should be required for this project and
the resulting secondary and cumulative impacts.
Reliance on established regulations to protect wetlands and achieve a "no net loss goal"
for wetlands is not adequate. Considering that in 1984 34 % of Howe Creek's watershed
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
6

was made up of wetlands, and then ten years later the watershed had only 16% or less of
undeveloped land, wetland regulations are not adequately protecting these resources. In
addition mitigation for wetland impact are increasingly occurring outside the watershed
where the impact occurs. The values the wetlands provide are then lost to that watershed.
Due to the scale of the WWTP expansion, its direct effects on the Smith Creek and
Lower Cape Fear River Estuary, and potential for significant secondary and cumulative
effects to the local environment, wetlands, and water quality of the area's tidal creeks, a
public hearing for the project is needed. NCCF and the Cape Fear River Watch, on behalf
of their members, respectfully request that the Division of Water Quality Director require
the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County to hold a Public Hearing to provide
more information to the general public on the specifics of the project and enable city and
county residents to provide comments on this significant project.
In addition, as described above the need and requirement to account for and control the
significant increases in stormwater runoff generated by the secondary effects from the
WWTP's expansion and increase in service area, warrants an NPDES stormwater permit
for the project. NCCF strongly recommends that the Division of Water Quality use its
discretionary authority to require a NPDES stormwater permit to be applied for and
issued as a condition of the NPDES permit for the WWTP expansion.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. NCCF appreciates the
opportunity to continue to participate in the discussion of this project. Please feel free to
contact me at 910-790-3275 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or
need additional information.
Sincerely
Ted Wilgis
Cape Fear Coastkeeper
cc: Alan Klimek - NCDWQ
Doug Huggett — NCDCM
Ron Sechler - NMFS
Ken Jolly - USACE
Garland Pardue - USFWS
Bennett Wynne — NCWRC
John Dorney — NCDWQ
Ed Beck - NCDWQ
Patti Fowler — NCDEH
Hugh Caldwell - City of Wilmington
Trip Van Noppen - SELC
Bouty Baldridge - CFRW
Todd Miller - NCCF
NCCF
Northside WWTP Draft NPDES Comments
5/28/04
7

Carolina
Nort 1
Coastal Federation
NCCF Headquarters: 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean) Newport, NC 28570
Field Office: 3806-B Park Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
May 28, 2004
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Wilmington Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Draft Permit # NC0023965
Applicants: The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) has reviewed the draft National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Draft Permit # NC0023965 for the Wilmington
Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion submitted by the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County dated April 28, 2004. The following represents
the comments of the NCCF on the draft NPDES permit.
NCCF represents approximately 8,000 members across coastal North Carolina and
participates actively in all facets of regulatory and environmental protection activities
affecting the state's coast. NCCF has a long history of environmental advocacy
regarding the beachfront and estuaries of the Southeastern coastal area and other
segments of the North Carolina coastline, and appreciates the opportunity to submit these
comments.
NCCF respectfully requests that the Division of Water Quality Director require the City
of Wilmington and New Hanover County to hold a Public Hearing to provide more
information to the general public on the specifics of the project and enable city and
county residents to provide comments on this significant project. In addition NCCF
strongly recommends that the Division of Water Quality use its discretionary authority to
require a NPDES stormwater permit to be applied for and issued as a condition of the
NPDES permit for the WWTP expansion.
"Citizens Working Together For Healthy- (-oast"
NCCF Headquarters Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • Email: [e-mail] • Website: www.nccoast.org
Field Office Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
ers
toz

The draft NPDES permit for the project provides the following basic project description.
City of Wilmington and New Hanover County are seeking to increase wastewater
capacity at the James A. Loughlin - Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant from the
current 8 MG,D to 16 MGD. The project involves renovating the existing plant and
placing an additional 30" effluent force main from the Northside WWTP that will
terminate in a new outfall at the Cape Fear River."
"The lower Cape Fear River is classed by DWQ as not supporting its existing and
designated uses because of dissolved oxygen standard violations. DWQ has placed this
segment on its Clean Water Act -based 303(d) list that identifies impaired segments and
prioritizes them for development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Both the
Cape Fear River and Smith Creek are classified as Primary Nursery Areas (PNA)."
NCCF supports the Division of Water Quality's monitoring and parameter limits
described in the draft permit and its supporting documents. NCCF concurs with DWQ's
assessment that reductions in the system's actual nutrient loading is mandated at this time
and that further evaluation of this condition may occur if a DO TMDL is established for
the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary. However NCCF does not agree with the removal of
the free cyanide monitoring requirement. In addition, NCCF recommends that post-
treatment monitoring for mercury be included as a permit requirement. Mercury remains
a concern and is an increasing risk in the Cape Fear estuary.
Of primary concern is the potential for secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from
the proposed WWTP expansion and extension of service. The Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the project described the service area for the Northside WWTP as approximately
128 square miles and encompassing the northern part of New Hanover County. Of this,
approximately 12.6 square miles is located within the City of Wilmington and 115.4
square miles is located within New Hanover County.
The EA also described some of the growth statistics and pressures facing the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County and the resulting effects on the service area for the
proposed project. Increased growth and several large regional transportation projects in
the area -will put significant pressures on the environmental resources in the service area.
In fact Wilmington and New Hanover County planning staff have already indicated that
the number of proposed large high -density developments in the WWTP's service area has
increased dramatically as the proposed WWTP expansion nears approval.
The EA stated that "ample wastewater system capacity is a critical component in support
of this projected growth", and that environmental harm from existing package plants and
septic tanks would occur if the Northside WWTP were not expanded. While there might
be some initial water quality benefits from replacing old septic tanks and package
treatment plants, these will be quickly offset by the loss of habitat; impacts to wetlands;
and increased acres of parking lots, driveways and other impervious surfaces. This will
result in the loss of the area's tidal creeks' watersheds buffering capacity and a dramatic
increase in the amount of stormwater runoff entering the creeks.
While the EA for the proposed project described the preferred alternative for the
proposed project, it did not fully and adequately address the cumulative and secondary
2

impacts to the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County's environmental resources
resulting from the project. The assessment recognized that there will be significant
secondary effects caused by the increase in population growth and developable land as
the Northside WWTP is expanded and sewer lines are extended throughout its service
area. For example, effects on wetlands and changes in adjacent land use as the service
area is built out are listed as resulting from the proposed project. However the EA did not
contain specific descriptions of these effects, i.e. how the amount of increased impervious
surface area and storm water run-off, might affect resources such as the surface water
quality, and how they will be effectively mitigated.
Using one tidal creek in New Hanover County as an example, Howe Creek, will illustrate
these concerns. In 1989 Howe Creek was classified as Outstanding Resource Waters to
its source because of its exceptional water quality, affording it the state's strongest
protection. Since that time, water quality protection measures used to protect the creek
have failed to maintain its exceptional values, resulting in its closure to the harvest of
shellfishing and its listing on the state's 303(d) list as "impaired waters."
A retrospective analysis in 1997 by William B. Farris, a former Wilmington City
Manager and now a planning consultant, documented the effects of sewer expansion on
Howe Creek. New Hanover County supported a $46 million bond referendum in 1984 to
build the first "co.unty wide" sewer, encompassing Howe Creek, on the coast. Proponents
of the earlier project utilized the same rationale, cleaning up and protecting the water
quality of the area's tidal creeks, for supporting the project as is being used for the
current proposed Northside WWTP expansion. In reality, the initial countywide sewer
system enabled wide spread growth in the tidal creeks' watersheds and a significant
decline in the water quality of the area's tidal creeks. This is supported through water
quality monitoring conducted by UNC-W on behalf of the City and County for the past
several years. The secondary impacts of this growth were not considered.
Farris' case study used a land suitability -development policy approach for estimating
development potential in the Howe Creek watershed before and after the availability of
public sewer. At the time the sewer was built about 34 % of its watershed was made up of
freshwater wetlands. Ten years later only 16% percent of the entire watershed was still
undeveloped.
The case study indicates, "that the availability of public sewer service increases the pace
and density of development when compared to developmental potential with septic
tanks". The dense development and resulting increases in impervious surfaces triggered
increased storm water run-off, and the creek is now polluted and listed by the State as
permanently closed for shellfishing. The study found that, "Development in the Howe
Creek Watershed proceeded without benefit of a comprehensive plan that addresses both
the quality and quantity of storm water run-off'.
The Howe Creek Case Study outlined some steps that should be taken to manage the
impacts of public sewer. These steps should be considered when reviewing the draft
NPDES permit for the proposed project.
3

1. Use sewer as a growth management too. Sewer can manage the timing and
location of growth. Develop policies to prevent developer -financed extensions
from creating undesired development patterns.
At the time of the case study, the County's sewer extension polices focused on the right
to approve all system extensions and approval of the development where the sewer was to
be extended. There were no polices that addressed situations where sewer extensions
would be withheld. These polices appeared to allow any extension or connection as long
there was treatment capacity, the system met installation and approval standards and that
the sub -divider or developer was willing to pay for the extension and improvements.
Today, a review of Sec. 56-256 — "Additional acceptance procedure for sewer extensions
of the Code of New Hanover County" indicates that the policies have not been amended
as recommended by the findings of the case study.
The EA stated, " that the County has given sewer extension priority to the tidal creek
watersheds in order to eliminate the risk of faulty septic systems proximate to these
valuable resources. Although this policy could allow development of land that was
otherwise "marginally" developable, the County's density limits as defined in the zoning
ordinance and the COD section still apply."
Again, as indicated by the Howe Creek Case Study, utilizing zoning and COD
restrictions alone are not adequate to fully protect the water quality and uses of the tidal
creeks. The sewer extension polices should be amended to ensure that existing
development is given priority for sewer service, and that the local governments and
planners, utilizing approved land use plans, are guiding growth, not developers through
approval of sewer extensions. Amended sewer extension polices should affirm the
commitment to prioritize servicing existing development before extending lines to new
developments.
2. Implement basin -wide stormwater management programs and improve the design
of facilities to significantly reduce sedimentation and improve the quality of run-
off `:
The City and County have submitted NPDES Phase II stormwater applications. The
County's MS4 service area only includes the County parks. The County's stormwater
ordinance, adopted in 2000, requires new development to manage post -development
runoff from the 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year frequency storms such that the discharge
rates of post -development stormwater runoff do not exceed the predevelopment rates.
A stormwater ordinance was passed in 2000. Section 23-342 states, "It shall be the
responsibility of individual property owners of developed or undeveloped land within the
unincorporated areas of the County, to maintain stormwater conveyance facilities". This
is highly impractical for the average urban homeowner in New Hanover County, on most
occasions even impossible.
4

The ordinance further states in Section 23-345, `Nothing in this article shall create
additional duties on the part of the County". The County admits it has a role. Section 23-
341 states, "The County has a role in the management of stormwater through
authorization, planning, construction, operation & maintenance of facilities to reduce the
adverse effects of stormwater runoff & to satisfy State & Federal statutes & regulations"
& a method to pay for it as Section 23-406 states, "The County Commissioners may
adopt a resolution to establish stormwater/drainage districts that may be funded by a
district tax providing revenues collected w/in a district are used w/in the district for the
enhancement of the district's stormwater management, maintenance or expansion."
Wilmington's Stormwater Service Program, with significantly more resources than the
County, has implemented significant and specific environmental measures to control
stromwater. However the County with fewer resources and environmental measures is
responsible for over 115 square miles of the service area for the proposed project, and
lacks an adequate stormwater program.
In addition, the current NPDES Phase II storm water rules are currently in suspension and
in jeopardy due to action from the Legislative Rules Review Committee and pending
litigation. The future of the rules are uncertain, and at best full implementation will not
occurring until 2007. NCCF strongly recommends that the Division of Water Quality use
its discretionary authority to require a NPDES stormwater permit to be applied for and
issued as a condition of the NPDES permit for the WWTP expansion. An NPDES
stormwater permit covering the entire expanded service area of the Northside WWTP is
needed to account for the increased impervious surface and resulting storm water run-off
that will occur as the WWTP's capacity is increased and sewer lines are extended into
previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas.
3. Exercise better controls to prevent sedimentation during site development.
The EA stated that some impacts to surface waters are possible during the expansion of
the treatment plant and the installation of the additional force main. Construction
activities could cause erosion and runoff of sediments and temporary turbidity into
nearby surface waters. To minimize direct impacts to surface waters, an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan will be prepared for this project. The City and County land
use controls to minimize these secondary impacts.
Examination of New Hanover County's compliance with sedimentation and erosion plans
and maintaining water quality standards connected with the on -going New Hanover
County sponsored Middle Sound Loop Rd. Sewer Expansion Project (MSLSEP)
indicates that additional measures must be required in the EA for the proposed project.
The MSLESP project has resulted in numerous citizen complaints regarding wetland
impacts, sedimentation and erosion problems and increased turbidity in the tributaries and
waters of Howe and Pages Creeks. The County and two of its contractors for the project
5

have received three Notices of Violations and enforcement actions as a result of their
failure to comply with environmental regulations and requirements for the project.
This record indicates that permits for the proposed Northside WWTP Expansion must
contain: strict and effective guidelines for controlling sedimentation and erosion during
the construction phase; a commitment to utilize contractors with acceptable
environmental records on previous projects; and accountability for the County if it fails to
comply with the approved sedimentation and erosion plan and maintenance of water
quality standards.
4. Develop agreement on environmental management measures before system
installation.
The City and County have outlined reasonable measures in the EA that may limit some of
the degradation of surface waters resulting from higher densities and increased areas of
development resulting for the proposed project. These measures must be enforced and
complied with for them to be effective in reducing some of the impacts from the project.
Permits for the project should contain a strong and binding commitment from the City
and County to not only uphold and implement these environmental measures, but to
assure their strict compliance and enforcement.
In summary, Farris' analysis convincingly indicates that expanding WWTP capacity and
extending sewer lines into tidal creek watersheds with out adequate planning, policies
and environmental controls will lead to the degradation of water quality and the loss of
uses in the receiving waters. It is strongly suggested that Farris' four recommendations be
adopted and included as requirements in the planning for the Northside WWTP
expansion and upgrade.
Finally, According to the EA and the National Wetlands Institute mapping database,
approximately 20,000 acres of freshwater and coastal wetlands, approximately 25% of
the service area, are located within the service area and include areas adjacent to the
creeks, streams, and rivers as well as isolated wetlands.
The EA. stated that wetland permit requests throughout the service area may increase but
through established regulations, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and State Water
Quality Certification Rules 15A NCAC 2H .0500, including required mitigation, there
should be no net loss. In addition, the County has established Conservation Overlay
Districts, which require setbacks from the wetland resource of between 25-100 feet and
require a certain percentage of wetlands within this district to be preserved, depending on
the type of resource. A commitment to implement measures to adequately demonstrate
avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts should be required for this project and
the resulting secondary and cumulative impacts.
Reliance on established regulations to protect wetlands and achieve a "no net loss goal"
for wetlands is not adequate. Considering that in 1984 34 % of Howe Creek's watershed

was made up of wetlands, and then ten years later the watershed had only 16% or less of
undeveloped land, wetland regulations are not adequately protecting these resources. In
addition mitigation for wetland impact are increasingly occurring outside the watershed
where the impact occurs. The values the wetlands provide are then lost to that watershed.
Due to the scale of the WWTP expansion, its direct effects on the Smith Creek and
Lower Cape Fear River Estuary, and potential for significant secondary and cumulative
effects to the local environment, wetlands, and water quality of the area's tidal creeks, a
public hearing for the project is needed. NCCF and the Cape Fear River Watch, on behalf
of their members, respectfully request that the Division of Water Quality Director require
the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County to hold a Public Hearing to provide
more information to the general public on the specifics of the project and enable city and
county residents to provide comments on this significant project.
In addition, as described above the need and requirement to account for and control the
significant increases in stormwater runoff generated by the secondary effects from the
WWTP's expansion and increase in service area, warrants an NPDES stormwater permit
for the project. NCCF strongly recommends that the Division of Water Quality use its
discretionary authority to require a NPDES stormwater permit to be applied for and
issued as a condition of the NPDES permit for the WWTP expansion.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. NCCF appreciates the
opportunity to continue to participate in the discussion of this project. Please feel free to
contact me at 910-790-3275 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or
need additional information.
Sincerely
Ted Wilgis
Cape Fear Coastkeeper
cc: Alan Klimek - NCDWQ
Doug Huggett — NCDCM
Ron Sechler - NMFS
Ken Jolly - USACE
Garland Pardue - USFWS
Bennett Wynne — NCWRC
John Dorney — NCDWQ
Ed Beck - NCDWQ
Patti Fowler — NCDEH
Hugh Caldwell - City of Wilmington
Trip Van Noppen - SELC
Bouty Baldridge - CFRW
Todd Miller - NCCF

Request for Hearing: [Fwd: [Fwd: Wilmington, NC, WWTP]]
Subject: Request for Hearing: [Fwd: [Fwd: Wilmington, NC, WWTP]]
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:40:35 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: Wilmington, NC, WWTP]
Date:Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:21:23 -0400
From:Dave Goodrich <dave.goodrich@ncmai I.net>
To:Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:Wilmington, NC, WWTP
Date:Fri, 28 May 2004 14:20:38 -0400
From:jsouders <[e-mail]>
To:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Dave Understand you are taking Valery Stephens' e-mails
Pls. have a public hearing of the Wilmington WWTP to acquaint the public w/ the secondary effects of the proposed major expansion.
Thanks
Jim Souders
1 of 1 6/9/2004 2:32 PM

Request for Hearing[Fwd: [Fwd: FW: WWTP public hearing]]
Subject: Request for Hearing[Fwd: [Fwd: FW: WWTP public hearing]]
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:41:09 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: FW: WWTP public hearing]
Date:Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:20:55 -0400
From:Dave Goodrich <dave.goodrich@ncm a i l.net>
To:Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:FW: WWTP public hearing
Date:Fri, 28 May 2004 14:18:56 -0400
From:Coastkeeper <[e-mail]>
Reply-To:<[e-mail]>
To: <Dave.Goodrich @ ncmai l.net>
Original Message
From: McCabe Coolidge [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:44 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: public hearing
valery, as one who deeply believes in public feedback and open
communication, I urge you to request that DWQ require the city of Wilmington
and New Hanover County to hold a public hearing concerning the James A
Loughlin-Northside wastewater treatment plant addition. Could you also
requests that DWQ to determine that a NPDESD stormwater permit be required
and issued as a condition of the permit for the WWTP expansion? thank you,
mccabe coolidge
1 of 1 6/9/2004 2:32 PM

Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: James A. Loughlin - NWWTP]]
•
Subject: Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: James A. Loughlin - NWWTP]]
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:41:44 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: FW: James A. Loughlin - NWWTP]
Date:Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:20:38 -0400
From:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To:Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:FW: James A. Loughlin - NWWTP
Date:Fri, 28 May 2004 14:18:55 -0400
From:Coastkeeper <[e-mail]>
Reply -To: <coastkeeper-cf @ nccoast.org>
To: <Dave.Goodrich @ ncmail.net>
Original Message
From: jadiehn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:27 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: James A. Loughlin - NWWTP
With reference to NPDES Draft Permit #NC0023965, I would like to
request that Division of Water Quality require that the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County hold a public hearing so we can learn
how this project will affect our local environment because development
in this county is running rampant and as citizens we need to be aware of
all that impacts us.
I would also like to request that the Division of Water Quality
determine that a NPDES stormwater permit be required and issued as a
condition of the permit for the WWTP expansion.
Sincerely,
Jewell Ann Diehn
4953 Tanbark Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28412
New Hanover County
1 of 1 6/9/2004 2:33 PM

Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: Wilmington Northside Wastewater ...
Subject: Request for Hearing [Fwd: [Fwd: Wilmington Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant]]
From: Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:42:51 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: Wilmington Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant]
Date:Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:19:58 -0400
From:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]
To:Joe Corporon <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:Wilmington Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant
Date:Fri, 28 May 2004 14:00:05 -0400
From:Martin, Ned <[e-mail]>
To:<dave.goodrich @ ncmail.net>
Dear Mr. Goodrich,
I am writing to voice my concern over the potential environmental impact of
the proposed expansion of Wilmington's Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES
Draft Permit # NC0023965). I urge the DWQ to require the City and County to hold a
Public Hearing so that residents can learn how this project will affect our local
environment and our quality of life. I further request DWQ to determine that a
NPDES stormwater permit be required and issued as a condition of the permit for
the WWTP expansion.
Our area has already lost one outstanding resource water (Howe Creek) because
of poor planning regarding the secondary effects of providing county sewers to
previously undeveloped land. This is likely to happen again unless the FULL
environmental impact of the proposed expansion is examined openly.
In the interest of protecting our environment and preserving our water
quality, I urge you to act under your authority and have a hearing and request a
NPDES stormwater permit be required for that proposed exapansion.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely yours,
Ned H. Martin
1 of 1 6/9/2004 2:35 PM

Attachment III
Hearing Announcement Text

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
TO BE HELD BY
THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ON INTENT TO ISSUE STATE NPDES PERMIT
SUBJECT: A public meeting has been scheduled concerning the proposed
issuance of State NPDES Permit for the following facility:
PURPOSE:
Permit NC0023965 City of Wilmington's James A. Loughlin
(Northside) WWTP
The facility listed above has applied to renew their permit to
discharge treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River. On the basis of
preliminary staff review and application of Article 21 of Chapter 143,
General Statutes of North Carolina, and other lawful standards and
regulations, the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission proposes to issue State NPDES permit subject to
specific pollutant limitations and special conditions. The Director of
the Division of Water Quality pursuant to NCGS 143-215. 1(c) (3)
and Regulation 15 NCAC 2H, Section .1000 has determined that it is
in the public interest that a meeting be held to receive all pertinent
public comment on whether to issue, modify, or deny the permit.
AGENDA: The meeting will be conducted in the following manner:
1. Explanation of the NC Environmental Management
Commission's Permit Procedure by the Division of Water
Quality;
2. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the
applicants or their representative(s);
3. Public Comment - The public meeting is a forum for the Division
to obtain water quality information that was either overlooked or
unavailable during the draft permit preparation period.
Information presented in this forum should address
specifically those issues resulting from this facility's
wastewater discharge and its potential to impact water
quality. Before entering the meetinghouse, persons intending to
speak should indicate this intent to the meeting clerk at the time
of registration. Comments, statements, data and other information
may be presented orally, or may be submitted in writing prior to,
or during the meeting. However, oral presentations exceeding
three minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written copies to
be filed with the meeting clerk at the time of registration. To
Page 1 of 2
23Jun2004

accommodate all persons desiring to speak, oral statements
may be time -limited at the discretion of the hearing officer.
4. Cross-examination of persons presenting testimony will not be
allowed; however, the hearing officer may ask questions for
clarification.
5. The meeting record will be closed at the conclusion of the
meeting, or at the discretion of the hearing officer.
WHEN: July 29, 2004 at 7 p.m. (Registration begins at 6:30 pm). Speakers
will be assigned in their order of registration.
WHERE: New Hanover County Arboretum
6206 Oleander Dr.
Wilmington, North Carolina
FOR INFORMATION: Permit renewal documents and other information remain on file at the
Division of Water Quality, 512 North Salisbury Street, Room 925,
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, and at the Wilmington
Regional Office (WiRO) located at 127 Cardinal Drive Extension,
Wilmington, North Carolina. Documents may be inspected during
normal office hours. Upon request, the Division will provide copies
of all public documents, but interested parties must pay the cost of
document reproduction.
Interested persons may obtain copies of the draft NPDES permit,
including a map showing the location of the discharge(s), by writing
or calling:
Mr. Charles Weaver, NPDES Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Telephone: [phone], ext. 511
Date
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Page 2 of 2
23Jun2004

Attachment N
Registration List

NCDENR
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
#
NAME
DO YOU
WISH TO
SPEAK?
Y/N
SUBMITTING
WRITTEN
COMMENT?
Y/N
WHO DO YOU REPRESENT?
1
qi c4i,,iJI
4'
Y
c b4 4l/- ,
d-,. x z.,/,-4,7,,v,*..„
3
G .�
1/
y
j\Ie Hr-�,�0�-e' Cc,,.-,1`/
4
J
-� II1,'d l'I cc C
CG /er,-/ene.-- �/�
'
a �� /,, ,�
, , _
�j/
l nici-e___
6
.�
ti, -4, G—
zti�
~I
\i-r'LM
(A-I2PO4—
Ury t ! sTUeou.6 frt/
8
/ is vi vt ,- r UQ I !
C/
e CMG 7! 7)1'
/
'
9
/
ki)---- / 74/c ,
f.(6/767 4/(,,i
10
X t 4ic 117(e-Ceak
I\
l
11
1
L'
1.1 g s(-0,_
12
----rw
r 6Y
C07F4:Uti
/'
!,
13
y-(Lic
NO
lV 0
Ci4-1 atv)
14
��,, ,r, W L5
kJ
1,Ua, J Nt w.._-f �-0 ,
\.

#-
NAME
DO YOU
WISI-I TO
SPEAK?
Y/N
SUBMITTING
WRITTEN
COMMENT?
Y/N
WHO DO YOU REPRESENT?
16
PD i C)°' S
��
y
(�
Ath C 6,1 't S /); s1L.-, ,-`f
17
/2i (—NIIl S
Y
NG cogs . FJP1 6",
18
� Q r s \N, i-i-LS
/7
Nt
iv
C e, 4l--
19
r a N
h o
V
(\i
rn \n -k,N)t txe
I_ ,
(-(-4 0-4/'� Val
IGr.
-
20
TO___), 1 (§iii„.L)
21
key\ 1
/
i
J1eo a1, 0 d e. 0,`t
((. 1Aa'-n2e-
22
��) it 0e4,/
A/
/✓
Jl //.J � e- t,
•
23
, i a( 4.ee/ 74-
11-
)24A., gawp;,cam C V1�
61: ". ,3-, At e..>
24
/ ate ��;%hd e a.:✓L
/ `-/
C// 77-{_-'-,/
25
cKcA,6„4.-e....-- /7),"-tep,;/
7
/I)
74,4,?pnr- PA 7---0---
26
27
..-j-c"-e-3(2--
n
A- c c
Y
N
E
28
Y'
29
30
31
32
Paae 2 of 4

Attachment V
Text of Corporon Presentation

Permit Writer's Speech
Joe Corporon, NPDES Unit
Public Hearing
Wilmington Northside WWTP
July 29, 2004
My name is Joe Corporon; I'm a permit writer with the NPDES Unit. I drafted
Wilmington's permit for review and public comment. This remains a public process. You
may obtain copies of this draft permit, including its sister document — the permit Fact
Sheet — detailing how it was prepared. I urge you to do so, and thank you for showing
interest by coming here tonight.
The NPDES program requires point -source discharges to be permitted. My job as a
permit writer is to draft a legal document, a contract between the State of North Carolina
and the applicant. I'd like to present some detail of Wilmington's permit and
Wilmington's discharge history insofar as they relate to the lower Cape Fear River.
Please keep in mind that it is the receiving stream's health that dictates permit limits and
monitoring requirements. To clarify this permitting principle, I have three comments here
tonight:
1. to discuss briefly the Lower Cape Fear River and its problems,
2. to explain some differences between the previous permit and this latest draft,
3. to comment on any potential for this discharge to impact the receiving stream.

The Cape Fear Estuary -- is both fresh and saltwater; it is significantly influenced by
both ocean tides and wind tides, and by seasonal variations. Portions of the estuary are
classified Impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). Impaired conditions have prompted the
Division to require all "new and/or expanding" dischargers to provide the best available
treatment technology. For major discharges (> 1.0 MGD), treatment shall be sufficient to
meet strict limits for BOD and NH3 (ammonia nitrogen), i.e., Monthly Average limits not
to exceed 5.0 mg/L BOD, and 1.0 mg/L NH3. This brings us to Wilmington's request to
expand its permit.
Expansion Details -- Wilmington has requested permission to upgrade its treatment
facilities and increase discharge flow from their current 8 MGD to 16 MGD. This permit
therefore contains two effluent pages — one for discharge before and during construction
of new facilities, and a second effluent page governing discharge after the upgrades are
complete. The first page is similar to their current permit (limits BOD of 30 mg/L —
monitoring only for NH3, no limit); the second page requires they meet the new limits
BOD 5.0 mg/L and NH3 1.0 mg/L, as I previously noted. Also, the Division has included
limits and monitoring for metals and toxicants, and we've received comments requesting
clarification on the presence of cyanide and mercury.

Concerning Cyanide Monitoring -- analytical data submitted by the permittee over the
previous permit cycle initially suggested that cyanide showed reasonable potential to
exceed its water quality standard. Wilmington, in cooperation with their certified
laboratory, did a two-year study. The study concluded that these cyanide hits were "false
positives" due to problems in sample preparation and submitted new analytical data
indicating that cyanide was not detected. Based on this study, cyanide monitoring will be
monitored through Wilmington's pretreatment program.
Concerning Mercury Monitoring — The Division continues to study mercury in the
Cape Fear River and throughout North Carolina. Wilmington's effluent data for mercury
do not show reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard. Therefore, effluent
monitoring is no longer required. However, because an advisory for mercury exists in the
lower Cape Fear River, stream sampling for mercury (upstream and downstream of the
outfall) remains in the permit. Moreover, Wilmington continues to monitor industries as
part of their pretreatment program. Samples are collected every six months and tested for
Mercury downstream of each of six industrial contributors. An additional mercury test
evaluates "uncontrolled influent" or non -point -source contributions to the WWTP.
Wilmington also monitors for mercury at five internal locations within the plant, and also
its sludge prior to disposal as part of their sludge management Plan.

Potential Impacts — Wilmington completed its evaluation of potential project impacts as
required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). They have received officially
from SEPA a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). To the extent that this process
related to receiving stream impacts, the NPDES Unit contributed to this review. We
noted particularly Wilmington's stated intent to design new facilities to meet permit
limits required for expanded flow that I mentioned earlier. And Finally, the Division
notes that, despite doubling the flow to the Cape Fear River, the net contaminant load
delivered to the river will be substantially less than previously, due to these stricter
permit limits. Given these conditions, we have no objections to approving this flow
expansion.

Attachment VI
Text of Randall Presentation

We have a two regulatory and two non -regulatory programs administered by the Division
of Water Quality, for which I work for, and two programs administered by other state
agencies that address Stormwater Management in New Hanover County
North Carolina Stormwater Management Rules for the Coastal Counties, High
Quality Waters and Outstanding Resource Waters
One program administered by the Division of Water Quality's Regional Office in
Wilmington is the North Carolina Stormwater Management Rules for the Coastal
Counties, High Quality Waters and Outstanding Resource Waters. Under this program
State stormwater regulations apply to developments within the 20 coastal counties and
high quality waters. The State Stormwater Management Program requires developments
to protect sensitive waters by maintaining a low -density of impervious surfaces, maintain
vegetative buffers, and transporting runoff through vegitative conveyances. Low -density
development thresholds vary from 12-30% built upon area, also known as impervious
surface, depending on the classification of the receiving stream. If low -density design
criteria cannot be met, then high -density development requires the installation of
structural best management practices (BMP's) to collect and treat stormwater runoff from
the project.
North Carolina Phase II Stormwater Management Rules
Another program administered by the Division of Water Quality is the North Carolina
Phase II Stormwater Management Rules. On July 12, 2004 the North Carolina General
Assembly ratified Senate Bill 1210. This bill implements the federal NPDES Phase II
stormwater program in North Carolina. Senate Bill 1210 requires designated
communities to develop, implement and enforce an approved stormwater management
program. Currently, this program is being administered by the Storm Water Unit in
Raleigh, but since the program effects nearly 70% of New Hanover County the details of
administering such a far-reaching program are yet to be worked out.
Under the federal program automatic designation applies to areas defined as an
Urbanized Area by the U.S. Census Bureau including the "Wilmington Urbanized Area"
within New Hanover County. The Wilmington Urbanized Area includes Wrightsville
Beach, Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach as well as much of the unincorporated areas in
New Hanover County.
New development and redevelopment in these communities as well as the unincorporated
areas surrounding these communities must meet post -construction stormwater
management requirements if the development is located in an area that is considered an
"urbanized area" or within the potential extra -territorial jurisdiction of these
communities. The extra -territorial jurisdiction is the area outside the city limits in which
the city may exercise planning and zoning authority. A community's potential extra-
territorial jurisdiction extends 1-3 miles beyond its boundaries, depending on its
population.
1

Federal rules also require that the State consider regulating additional publicly owned
storm sewer systems under Phase II based on water quality impacts.
Federal rules also allow any person to petition the State to require a Phase II stormwater
permit for a storm sewer system or an individual stormwater discharge.
Senate Bill 1210 and a summary can be viewed the NC Department of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section, Stormwater and General Permits Unit.
Non -point Source Management Program and Basin -wide Water Quality
Management Plans
Non -regulatory programs administered by the Division of Water Quality include a multi-
year action plan to control various non -point sources including urban stormwater runoff
and the preparation of water quality management plans for the Cape Fear river basin to
identify actions to address point and non -point sources of pollution.
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
We also have two stormwater programs administered by other state agencies
First, the North Carolina Division of Land Resources administers programs to control soil
erosion and sedimentation caused by land disturbing activities. This program affects
development activities that require Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for disturbances
of one or more acres.
Second, The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) administers coastal
management programs. Amendments to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) will require the development of coastal non -point source control programs.
DCM and DENR are currently reviewing their existing programs to determine where
modifications may be needed to comply with the CZMA requirements.
2

Attachment VII
Written Comments/Documentation — Hearing

Draft comments for Commissioner Caster for the 7 PM, Thursday, 7/29/04 Public Hearing on the
NPDES permit for the expansion of the NSWWTP
-Tint a 1*1.1c carpi Iss/v1er kid
Good evening. My name is Bill Caster, Chairman of the New Hanover County
Water and Sewer District and Commissioner for the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners.
New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington began a joint project over
a decade ago to expand and upgrade the North Side WasteWater Treatment Plant. We
realized that this project was necessary not only to provide for controlled growth, but
also to provide environmental protection by eliminating pollution from failing septic
tanks and by reducing the mass volume of pollutants discharged under the current
,o t (7;Ie Weie a.t .fr r 7"ritca(, (P1A-4
NPDES permit at the NSWWTP.
We believe that we have more than adequately addressed all environmental
aspects of the project, as evidenced by the acceptance of the Environmental
Assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact. New Hanover County has an
excellent record of environmental protection. There is no need to further delay the
granting of our permit and we ask that you expeditiously complete this public hearing
and permit application process. Thank you.

WLkT ON
Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
NPDES Permit Public Hearing
NHC Arboretum
July 29, 2004
City of Wilmington Comments
In 1999 the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County entered into an agreement to develop
a joint Wastewater Master Plan. The Master Plan reviewed the existing wastewater
infrastructure and projected future needs through a 20 year planning period. A primary outcome
of the master planning effort was the identification of the need to expand the City's James A.
Loughlin (Northside) Wastewater Treatment Plant for joint City and County use. Although the
County already held a 4 MGD discharge permit for building a County treatment plant, both
parties recognized the benefits of a regional approach to wastewater treatment and management.
The project was approved by the City Council and County Commissioners in late 2000.
The regional concept has been supported and encouraged by the NC Division of Water Quality
and its predecessors. As early as 1981, state and federal regulatory agencies supported and
approved amendments to the 201 Facilities Plan which resulted in funding and construction of
the Northeast Interceptor sewer, the expansion of the Southside WWTP and the elimination of
the Wrightsville Beach WWTP which discharged to the ICW. The Northside Plant has already
demonstrated "regional" value through coordinated efforts with NCDOT to take a 100,000 GPD
Public Utilities Department
Administration Division • P.O. Box 1810 • Wilmington • North Carolina • 28402-1810
[phone] phone • [phone] fax • [phone] TDD

treatment plant offline, thus eliminating a discharge to Smith Creek; coordinating with New
Hanover County to take the Northchase treatment plant offline, thus eliminating a 1 MGD
permitted discharge to the Northeast Cape Fear River; and receiving remediated groundwater
from a former gasoline station site, thus preventing a discharge to Howe Creek. Five additional
small wastewater treatment facilities with total permitted capacity of 295,000 GPD have also
been eliminated through connection to either the Northside or Southside WWTPs.
Under consideration tonight is the NPDES permit for the expansion of the Northside WWTP
located at 2311 N. 23rd Street. The proposed project will expand the Northside WWTP from a
capacity of 8 MGD to 16 MGD. A second effluent pipe line will be constructed to the Cape Fear
River. Portions of the receiving waters are listed as impaired by DWQ due to dissolved oxygen
level concerns. According to the DWQ Fact Sheet for this NPDES Permit, DO levels have
generally remained above the DO Standard of 5.0 mg/L, typically 11 or 12 mg/L, except during
hurricane conditions. In accordance with the Cape Fear River Basin Plan, DWQ has
recommended treatment limits in the draft permit for the expanded discharge for TSS, BODS and
ammonia nitrogen. The proposed plant expansion is designed to meet these limits. These
proposed limits, even at the expanded flow rates, will result in reductions in BOD and ammonia
nitrogen loads to the Cape Fear River of 1,482 and 1,268 pounds per day respectively, or a 69%
and 90% reduction in these loadings.
Following initial project scoping meetings with DWQ and receipt of speculative discharge limits,
the City and County proceeded with preliminary design and with developing the Environmental
Assessment Document. The EA described the purpose and need for the project, reviewed
alternatives, examined existing environmental characteristics of the project site and service area,
2 of 5

reviewed direct and secondary impacts, outlined mitigative measures and summarized the
findings.
An important aspect of the environmental assessment effort was the development of a water
quality model for the lower Cape Fear River estuary. The model examined the effects of the
Northside WWTP existing and proposed discharges on the receiving stream. Extensive water
quality data gathering took place. Existing data bases were supplemented by additional field
sampling. Dye studies tracked the existing discharge and were used to estimate dilution and
mixing effects. Emphasis was placed on determining the effect of the discharge on dissolved
oxygen levels within the estuary. The results indicate that the expanded discharge will have
negligible impact on dissolved oxygen levels in the Cape Fear estuary. The model is now being
further refined by DWQ for use in developing the dissolved oxygen TMDL for the Cape Fear
River estuary.
A second identified area of environmental concern is the effluent pipeline route as it crosses
Smith Creek. To minimize disturbance at this crossing, a series of ball and
socket joint ductile iron pipes will be laid slightly beneath the mud bottom at no greater of an
angle than 15 degrees. Furthermore, construction will occur outside of the period of peak
biological activity (April 1 to September 30). A CAMA Major permit application has been
submitted to the Division of Coastal Management for this activity.
Lastly, the EA addressed issues related to secondary impacts. Existing stormwater management
and land use controls were described. Feedback received during the public comment period was
addressed. Most of the public comments were concerns about stormwater run-off associated
3 of 5

with growth that may come as a result of sewer availability. The City of Wilmington and New
Hanover County each have strong stormwater management ordinances in place. In addition to
the ordinances, enforcement units are in place and extensive public outreach efforts are ongoing.
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County have each applied for Phase II Stormwater
NPDES permits. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is in place for the plant site.
The final EA document resulted in the issuing of a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI)
by DWQ on October 7, 2003.
DWQ issued the DRAFT NPDES permit on April 28, 2004. During the public comment period,
DWQ received six comment documents. The most lengthy comments were received from the
NC Coastal Federation and, except for two points, covered issues related to secondary impacts
that have already been reviewed by DWQ and the Clearing House agencies during the EA
process. All other responses mirrored some or all of the NCCF comments. The two points
related to the NPDES permit were regarding cyanide and mercury monitoring.
During the NPDES permit application process effluent data for cyanide and mercury was
submitted to DWQ for review. DWQ performed their Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) and
determined that no reasonable potential existed for mercury, therefore, monthly monitoring
would not be required. Monitoring for mercury was relegated to the City of Wilmington
industrial pretreatment program. Monitoring for total cyanide was actually increased from once
per month in the current permit to twice per month in the expansion permit. Free cyanide
monitoring was not required by DWQ due to concerns about reliable certified test methods.
4 of 5

In summary, the proposed project offers many benefits to the environment and the region. The
SEPA process resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact. Construction methods are
proposed that will minimize erosion and impacts to wetlands. Nutrient and oxygen demanding
waste load to the Cape Fear River will be reduced. Wastewater residuals treatment will be
improved to produce a Class A recyclable product. New treatment processes will virtually
eliminate nuisance odors at the plant site. Use of chlorine as a disinfectant will be replaced with
a UV disinfection system. The plant design includes a post aeration process as a further
precaution in protecting DO levels in the receiving stream. The water quality model developed
for the project has been made available to DWQ for use in the TMDL development for the Cape
Fear River estuary. Treatment capacity will be available to serve existing developments with
marginal septic tank systems. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is in place for the existing
plant site and will be updated for the expanded plant. The expanded plant will provide additional
opportunities for regionalization and consolidation of wastewater discharges. And, finally,
construction of the plant expansion project is consistent with good, proactive wastewater
infrastructure planning.
I respectfully request that DWQ proceed to promptly finalize the NPDES permit for the
expansion of the Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant. Thank you.
Submitted by:
Hugh T. Caldwell, P.E.
Public Utilities Director
City of Wilmington, N.C.
5 of 5

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Engineering Department / Water and Sewer District
230 Market Place Drive • Suite 160
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
July 29, 2004
Gregory R. Thompson, P.E., P.L.S.
County Engineer
James S. Craig, P.E.
Deputy County Engineer
My name is Greg Thompson, County Engineer for New Hanover
County. I wish to present the following comments in support of issuance of
the present draft NPDES permit for the NSWWTP and in response to
concerns raised by the Coastal Federation and others.
The Coastal Federation relies heavily on a 1997 case study by
William Farris on the Impact of Public Sewer on Howe Creek to substantiate
their position. The Coastal Federation quotes the study to say
that, "Development in the Howe Creek Watershed proceeded without benefit
of a comprehensive plan that addresses both the quality and quantity
of storm water runoff " (p. 3, 5/28/04 letter from Ted Wilgis, Coastal
Federation). That quote does not appear in the Farris case study.
In fact, the Farris case study states " the impacts of
land development on water quality are outside of the scope of the case study
and beyond the scope of available data." (p. 1-2 Farris case study)
The Coastal Federation inappropriately cites the Farris case study in
numerous other aspects. For instance, the Coastal Federation states, "At the
time the sewer was built about 34% of its watershed was made up of
1

freshwater wetlands. Ten years later only 16% of the entire watershed was
still undeveloped." (p. 3, 5/28/04 letter from Ted Wilgis). The calculations
of "freshwater" wetlands includes acreage for Type IV soils, which includes
salt marsh. More importantly, the development of land by large lot or
performance residential subdivision does not mean that wetlands are lost.
The original wetlands may still exist in new development through such
measures as preserved green space in clustered housing development or as
unbuilt areas in the back of individual lots.
Finally, it is absolutely critical to note that the County has enacted one
of the most strict local government drainage ordinances on the N.C. coast
since the Farris study was published. This ordinance not only surpasses the
State stormwater regulations in some respects, but also establishes a
framework for the County to pursue existing drainage problems.
The Coastal Federation, in the 5/28/04 letter, makes four
recommendations:
Recommendation # 1. Use sewer as a growth management tool." (p.4)
The County does use sewer as a growth management tool, along with other
tools. Other tools include the CAMA LUP Policies, which are closely
considered in any proposed re -zoning, CAMA Major Permit consistency
review, and other implementation actions. Growth is also managed through
2

the County's stormwater ordinance and zoning and subdivision
requirements. These actions have already been thoroughly addressed in the
County's Environmental Assessment and affirmed by the State's Finding of
No Significant Impact. County extension of sewer to existing development
has always been high priority for use of County funds. The County does not
extend sewer solely for the benefit of new development.
Recommendation #2. Implement basin -wide stormwater management
programs and improve the design of facilities to significantly reduce
sedimentation and improve the quality of run-off." (p.4)
The County agrees that it does not have a County -wide stormwater
management plan. To adequately address all drainage issue in the County
would take well over 100 million dollars. The County, however, does have
adequate ordinances in place to prevent the drainage problem from
worsening due to new development. In addition, the County is involved in
several programs that continue to address existing drainage problems, such
as through land and stream buffer acquisition through the Tidal Creeks
Advisory Board with a combination of County and State funding.
Recommendation #3. Exercise better controls to prevent sedimentation
during site development."
The State will enforce sedimentation and erosion control requirements on
the project. The County is committed, however, to sedimentation and
3

erosion control as evidenced by its prompt responses to Notices of Violation
on County projects and by the County's outstanding voluntary
implementation of the State's sedimentation and erosion control program.
The County's program has consistently received excellent reviews from the
State and the County's staff has been recognized as among the best in the
State.
Recommendation #4. Develop agreement on environmental
management measures before system installation." (p.6)
The Coastal Federation states within their letter, "The City and County have
outlined reasonable measures...." (p.6). This recommdation is
directed to the State seeking reassurance that these measures will be
enforced requiring the permit to contain language for a "strong and binding
commitment." (p.6) The County has always been and will continue to be
committed to honoring our obligations identified within this permit as we
have with any permit issued to the County.
The Coastal Federation closes their letter stating that:
"In summary, Farris' analysis convincingly indicates that expanding the
WWTP capacity and extending sewer lines into tidal creek watersheds
without adequate planning, policies and environmental controls will lead to
the degradation of water quality and the loss of uses in the receiving waters."
(p.6).
4

This statement is not supported by the Farris study. Again, the Farris study
states "...the impacts of land development and on water quality are outside
the scope of the case study and beyond the scope of the available data."
Additionally, there have been significant changes in developmental and
environmental policies, ordinances, rules and regulations since the study,
based on data collected between 1986 and 1996, was completed
some 8 years ago.
The issue of secondary and cumulative impacts to the environment
associated with new land and development was addressed within the
Environmental Assessment. Additionally, this issue and the measures taken
by the County and the City to address this aspect was clearly identified as
acceptable by the NCDENR — Division of Water Quality, Water Quality
Section in the Finding Of No Significant Impact issued on October 7, 2003.
As stated in the F.O.N.S.I., ".... The proposed project will not result in
significant impacts on the environment.
The County continues to improve its environmental ordinances and
programs. The County has submitted a NPDES Phase II permit application
in compliance with State regulations. Further delay of the permitting and
construction of the NSWWTP, however, will only delay the environmental
and other benefits that the project will bring to the area.
5

We will glad to provide further information.
Gregory Thompson, P.E., R.L.S.
County Engineer
New Hanover County
6

617 Suny Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
[phone]
1-800-380-3485
[e-mail]
www.cfrw.us
OFFICERS
Steve Skavroneck, Co -President
Jim Souders, Co -President
Richard Cecelski, Vice President
Rob Moul, Secretary
Dave Pyle, Treasurer
CAPE FEAR RIVERKEEPER
D. Bouton Baldridge
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Audrey Albrecht, Ph.D.
Chris Dumas, Ph.D.
Sue Hayes
Ed Kreul
Paul Nelson
Fritz Rohde
STAFF
Jennifer O'Keefe,
Program Coordinator
Katharine Jarrell,
Greenfield Lake
Program Coordinator
Anna Edwards,
Greenfield Lake Assistant
Loretta Almekinder,
Program Assistant
INTERNS
Christina Mason
)411111**
wAraeuwar4c.t.avca
MEM DER
'1.3; Printed on Recycled Paper
Comments by the Cape Fear River Watch, Inc.
On Proposed Permit NC0023965
For the City of Wilmington Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant
July 29, 2004
First, the Cape Fear River Watch, Inc (CFRW) applauds the level of effluent
quality for BOD and suspended solids (5 mg/1 each) that will be provided at
the upgraded Northside wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). It is totally
appropriate to provide the best level of treatment possible for a discharge
directly upstream of a major urban riverfront area.
The problem that we see, and the reason for requesting this hearing, is not
point source pollution from the WWTP, but rather nonpoint pollution
manifested as secondary and cumulative impacts of expansion of this facility.
All of the studies and plans that have assessed the lower Cape Fear River
basin over the last 10-15 years have identified urban and suburban
stormwater runoff as a major, if not the major impact on water quality in this
area. The facility upgrade plans, environmental assessment and proposed •
permit do a good job of addressing point source pollutant loadings; however
they are inadequate in addressing nonpoint source loadings and habitat
destruction arising from the new development that will be facilitated by
expanding the WWTP.
In addressing secondary and cumulative impacts of expanding the Northside •
WWTP, the Environmental Assessment relies on three elements for
protection of water quality and critical habitat from stormwater runoff in
New Hanover County:
➢ • 1999 Comprehensive Plan (CAMA Land Use Plan Update)
> Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Committee
➢ New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance
CFRW asserts that none of these elements, singly or in combination, are
adequately protecting existing water quality from existing development. This
is borne out by the annual reports summarizing water quality by Professor
Mallin at UNCW. And, none of them, singly or in combination, will protect
future water quality from additional development facilitated by expansion of
the WWTP.

Let's take a look at these three pillars of water quality protection.
New Hanover County adopted the following Water Quality policies in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan.
➢ Prevent further deterioration of estuarine water quality and loss of public trust uses in the creeks
and sounds, and bring all coastal waters quality up to appropriate use designations. This has not
happened.
➢ Ensure the protection of water quality throughout the Cape Fear River Basin within the County,
and the management and maintenance of drainage within coastal watersheds through
participation in regional water quality%stonnwater management programs. This has not
happened. •
➢ Ensure the protection, preservation and wise use of our natural resources by careful review and
consideration of the anticipated impacts of development through the creation and implementation
of an Environmental Review Program. This has not happened.
➢ Provide for the protection and improvement of water quality through a Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO). The UDO should specify standards for water quality, buffers, setbacks,
density, impervious surface area, and overlay corridors. It should consider estuarine, river and
other feeder creeks water.quality. „See. UDO comments below.
➢ Require that the cumulative and secondary impacts of land use and development, and the limited
carrying capacity of our coastal ecosystems be considered in all landuse decisions and in the
development or revision of local plans, capital facilities, services and ordinances. Some work
has been done on buffers and voluntary stormwater best management practices.
The UDO Committeewas organized in 2000 and concluded activity in June, 2004. Some work was done
on buffers and setbacks. Controls on impervious service area in floodplains and estuarine watersheds
were not addressed:.
The third leg supposedly supporting this wobbly water quality protection system is the county
stormwater ordinance. We attach our May 18, 2004, letter which addressed the deficiencies of the New
Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance. Stormwater management for existing neighborhoods is not
covered by this ordinance. There is no county stormwater management program, except maybe in
county parks.
In conclusion, the environmental assessment's claim that secondary and cumulative water quality and
habitat impacts of the Northside WWTP expansion are adequately addressed rests on unfulfilled policies
and restricted activities with extremely limited mitigative,benefits. We request that this permit be
granted only if it includes the requirement that New Hanover County adequately address secondary and
cumulative water quality and habitat impacts from existing developed areas in the county as well as new
development that will be facilitated by plant expansion. Meeting this requirement would be evidenced
by either (a) creating and funding a New Hanover County Stormwater Management Services
Department with authorities and activities comparable to those of the City of Wilmington Stormwater
Services Department, or (b) contracting with the Wilmington Stormwater Services Department for
stormwater management activities in the county that are similar tothose provided in Wilmington.
Submitted by:.
Steven Skavroneck
Co -President
Cape Fear River Watch, Inc.

New Hanover WWTP
Wilmington, NC 28403
May 18, 2004
Ms. Valery Stephens
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
•
Re -Wilmington Northside WWTP Permit NC0023965
Dear Ms. Stephens;
Cape Fear River Watch would like to request a public hearing & submit the following comments re the
Wilmington Northside WWTP-NPDES Permit NC0023965.
New Hanover County will increase urban area by providing for future development as well as replace
existing septic systems by using the capacity increase of the proposed Northside WWTP. Urban area
governments historically provide the following water services (compared w/ New Hanover County policies):
-Supply drinking water
-Provide wastewater services
-Provide stormwater management
-New Hanover County currently justifying a major well
field in the Pee Dee & Castle Hayne aquifers.
-Subject project-NPDES Permit NC0023965.
-New Hanover County provides nothing for existing urban
areas.
New Hanover County has not addressed the secondary & cumulative effects of stormwater in existing,
urbanized County neighborhoods.
A stormwater ordinance was passed in 2000. Section 23-342 states, "It shall be the responsibility of
individual property owners of developed or undeveloped land within the unincorporated areas of the County,
to maintain stormwater conveyance facilities". This is highly impractical for the average urban homeowner in
New Hanover County, on most occasions even impossible.
The ordinance further states in Section 23-345, "Nothing in this article shall create additional duties on the
part of the County". The current County policy is to wait for a natural disaster then spend FEMA money for
endangered property or buildings.
The County admits it has a role. Section 23-341 states, "The County has a role in the management of
stormwater through authorization, planning, construction, operation & maintenance of facilities to reduce
the adverse effects of stormwater runoff & to satisfy State & Federal statutes & regulations" & a method to
pay for it as Section 23-406 states, "The County Commissioners may adopt a resolution to establish
stormwater/drainage districts that may be funded by a district tax providing revenues collected w/in a district
are used wfm the district for the enhancement of the district's stormwater management, maintenance or
expansion."
Cape Fear River Watch has suggested an interlocal agreement w/ the very successful City of Wilmington
Storm Water Services Department. Discussions were terminated after an initial meeting of City/County
Managers. The County indicates it is both low priority & too much of a problem.
We recommend that the permit be issued contingent on the organization of a New Hanover County
Stormwater Services Department. At a minimum, the services to be provided would be either:

-Create a County Department that would provide equivalent services.
Sincerely
J.W. Souders
Co -President
Cape Fear River Watch
617 Surry Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
E-mail [e-mail]

League of Women Voters
of
New Hanover County
WILMINGTON, N.C. 28401
League of Women Voters of New Hanover County
To the City of Wilmington
July 29, 2004
The League of Women Voters of New Hanover County would like to
comment on the request from the City of Wilmington for expansion of the
Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant. We would like to make it clear
that we do not object to the expansion and are in agreement with the
upgrading of the effluent quality from the plant. We do however, have
some concerns which we hope you will address.
Our biggest concern is that expansion of the wastewater treatment plant
and the resulting extension of sewer lines will permit considerable
development in some areas of the county where the secondary and
cumulative impacts of such development have not been addressed. This
increased expansion, with its loss of vegetative cover and increased
impervious surface, could result in further deterioration of water quality,
particularly in the county tidal creeks.
We ask that:
• The county be required to address the secondary and cumulative
impacts of the development which will result from the expansion
• An NPDES stormwater permit be required and that no further
stormwater discharges be permitted in shellfishing (OSA) waters.
• The county give priority in extending sewer lines to existing
development, particularly in areas currently experiencing
difficulties with septic tanks.
Thank you for consideration of our concern
Audrey A ' - i t, resid
League of men Voters of New Hanover County
911 Haymarket Lane
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910-799-0309

Airport Authority
Carter T. Lambeth
Chairman
E.L. Mathews, Jr.
Vice -Chairman
Paul G. Burton
Secretary
Robert S. Rippy
Harry W. Stovall, III
Airport Director
Jon W Rosborough
July 29, 2004
TO WHOM I T MAY CONCERN:
RE: Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit
Dear Sir/Madam:
On behalf of the New Hanover County Airport Authority and the Wilmington International Airport
(ILM), we submit this letter of support and respectfully request that the Hearing Officer find in
favor of the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County's Northside Wastewater Treatment
Plant expansion/upgrade project and recommend to DWQ that they issue the NPDES Permit.
ILM has been in favor of, and anxiously awaiting the completion of this project for several years.
For the reasons stated below we also request that the decision process and the issuance of this
permit be done as expeditiously as possible.
1. Capacity: The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County is a beautiful place to live
and work and whether we like it or not, this region as well as all of Southeastern North
Carolina is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. As the adage goes, you can't
stop growth; you must manage it and manage it as safely and efficiently as possible.
Therefore, the NSWWTP must be expanded and upgraded to adequately and safely meet
the needs of this growing community now and for years to come.
2. Safety: Compatible with this community's growth, ILM is one of the fastest growing
airports in North Carolina. From 1990 until the terrible September 11, 2001 tragedy
commercial air service boardings at ILM grew an average of 5% per annum. Since
September 2003, corrunercial service has rebounded to record levels with the average
monthly boardings increasing from January through June 2004 to 31.4%. International air
service through our U.S. Customs facility has increased on an average of 35.5%. 76% of
all boardings are business passengers.
Safety is the number one priority in aviation. To promote and insure aviation safety,
several legislative and federal regulations have been issued with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) responsible for their interpretation and strict adherence by all
airports. One such regulation is the Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5200-33: Hazardous
Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports.
This Circular pertains to airport -related regulations that relate to compatible land use
planning. It provides guidance on locating certain land uses having the potential to attract
hazardous wildlife to or in the vicinity of public -use airports such as wetlands, ponds,
stormwater retention facilities and wastewater treatment plants. Wildlife use of these
areas within an airport's approach or departure airspace, aircraft movement areas, loading
areas etc. may cause conditions hazardous to aircraft safety. Gulls, Waterfowl and deer
pose the most serious threat to aircraft safety and are more involved in aircraft strikes than
other wildlife.
According to this Circular, the FAA does not recommend having a wastewater treatment
plan within five (5) statue miles of an airport as active as ILM. Due to the fact that the
NSWWTP is within these limits the FAA recommends that the wastewater treatment plant
operator incorporate appropriate mitigation techniques into their operating practices to
correct any wildlife hazards. As part of this treatment plant expansion and upgrade, parts
of the treatment process will be covered and/or upgraded with new technology which will
1740 Airport Boulevard • Wilmington, NC 28405 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • www.flyilm.com

be less attractive to wildlife. As a result, this refurbished plant will be more safe and
compatible with this FAA Aviation Circular.
3. Economic Impact: ILM plays an instrumental role in the local economy. Ticket sales in
CY 2003 exceeded $60,000,000. With the tremendous growth in passenger utilization at
ILM (as noted above) local businesses greatly depend on the airport to get their employees
to where they need to be safely and on time in order to meet their business objectives. If
the NPDES Permit for this construction project is not approved it will have tremendous
detrimental economic impact on the airport and the entire community.
4. ILM Business Park: - With financial uncertainty currently existing within the aviation
industry, air carriers are looking to their partner airports to help them defray costs by
decreasing airport charges such as landing fees and lease space fees. ILM has to meet its
operating expense obligations without financial support from New Hanover County or any
other entity. In order to meet the air carriers request for reduced charges and our
increasing operating expenses due to passenger growth, ILM must look to other
alternative funding sources.
A major funding alternative funding source is the ILM Business Park. With over 240
acres available for development, ILM has an opportunity to not only generate additional
revenue for the airport, but in partnership with the Wilmington Industrial Development,
the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, bring much needed economic
development to this community. During the last year several businesses that have
expressed interest in our business park elected not to relocate here primarily due to the
terrible nuisance odors generated from the existing plant. The NSWWTP
expansion/upgrade will virtually eliminate these odors in addition to increasing the
capacity levels that will allow economic development at ILM to become a reality.
5. Environment: I believe all parties: the City, The County, the Airport and others are
concerned and supportive of the environmental issues in our community. We all want a
clean environment, but we need to be realistic. I understand that some opponents of this
permit are primarily concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts of the project and
not to the discharge itself. It is also my understanding that these issues were reviewed and
discussed extensively in the EA document that was prepared for the project as part of the
SEPA requirements, and that the state approved the EA and issued a finding of no
significant impact for this project. We conclude that if this is correct, the permit should be
issued and issued as soon as possible.
This project is long overdue and we request that you rule in favor of letting this permit so that the
NSWWTP can meet the needs of this community in terms of capacity, safety, economic
development and a better environment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
L. . thews, Jr.
Vice Chairman
New Hanover County Airport Authority
Jon W. Rosborou
Airport Director
Wilmington International Airport

7/29/04 Public Hearing Re: NPDES Expansion Permit - NSWWTP
I am Dianne Harvell, Environmental Health Services Manager of the New
Hanover County Health Department. New Hanover County is intimately connected with
water through miles of coastline on the Atlantic Ocean, the Intracoastal Waterway and
the Cape Fear River estuary. Many people choose to live in --- or visit --- New Hanover
County because of its proximity to water. Our quality of life, our health and our
economic well-being all depend to a great extent on the condition of water in and around
the county. Our citizens vote to construct centralized wastewater collection and
treatment systems in the early 80s is strong testament to the value placed on preserving
our natural resources and protecting water quality. From a public health perspective, we
are comforted to know that roughly 1500 homes in the areas of Kings Grant and
surrounding neighborhoods will soon have access to the centralized wastewater
collection and treatment. Further, we anticipate even greater ecological and health
benefits or reductions in health risks as the subdivisions of Middle Sound and Ogden in
the next 12-18 months can be serviced by centralized wastewater collection and
treatment. The absence or limited capacity of this infrastructure would ultimately put
property owners in the Health Dept, and in the offices of engineers and soil scientists
seeking designs for constructing individual systems that rely heavily on the soil's natural
potential to absorb and treat wastewater. While we have much greater technological
resources for developing individual systems than were available 10-15 years ago, it is
normally an expensive venture easily approaching $25,000 in cost. Those costs do not
end upon construction of the system as there are also inherently frequent and high costs
associated with maintenance features necessary to overcome site/soil limitations found
in the North Carolina coastal plain. Home and small business owners are typically ill -
prepared and unequipped to deal with individual wastewater system maintenance
issues. Finally, when we retreat to the more urban areas of New Hanover County, we
can easily visualize ourselves among the leaders on a national scale in numbers of
commercial food service operations per capita. These operations generate phenomenal
amounts of grease that must be collected and removed before entry into the wastewater
collection system. The proposal for enhanced capacity and treatment at the North Side
Wastewater Treatment Plant will provide more acceptable options for managing waste
grease generated by restaurants and other commercial food service operations in New
Hanover County.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. William J. Hart, 401 Crooked Creek Road, Wilmington, NC 28409
B. As a Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor, I was elected by the
voters of New Hanover County to further "...the conservation,
tilization and disposal of water, and the development of water
resources and thereby to preserve natural resources..."
C. Had a role in the Comp Plan Steering Committee and the UDO
oversight committee
D. Appreciate the opportunity afforded to comment on Wilmington
Northside WWTP-Permit NC0023965.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Compliment City Utility Department
1. Need to upgrade an aging plant affording secondary
treatment
2. Design of a plant with advanced tertiary treatment
B. Initial engineering proposal raised concerns
1. Led to formation of a Waste Water Advisory Group 11 July
2002
2. Objectives:
a. Find ways to extend time line for expansion
b. Reduce or eliminate discharges into the river
c. Maximize reuse of treated water
3. Process
a. 13 individuals
b. Met once a month 40 meetings
c. Examined a range of technologies from Durham's
water conservation program (reduced demand for
water and hence extended time line for water and
waste treatment) to artificial wetland
III. POSITIONS
A. Disappointment
1. Little or no change in the application
2. So-called environmental assessments tailored to justify the
already made decision to proceed with a conventional
facility
a. Environmental assessments ought to be viewed as
planning documents
1). Not just biological and physical
2). Economic and social costs and benefits
3). Institutions, such as rate structures
b. Intent of the adopted Wilmington -New Hanover
Comp Plan: evaluate long-term cumulative and
secondary impacts

3. That the city administration that makes a 10 change in tax
rate pays so little attention to the financing of its utilities.
B. Conclusions
1. As noted, from water quality and good government points
of view,
a. Shift to tertiary treatment should proceed
b. Even though vigorous water conservation programs
can extend the time line for construction, the
deteriorating conditions of the plant dictate moving
expeditiously
2. No discharge of the highly treated and expensive water
should be discharged into the ambient waters of the state
a. It is a valuable resource that can be used as an
incentive for industrial location
b. Can extend the useful life of the Sweeney water
treatment facility, even after ground water recharge
takes effect
c. It is consistent with statewide water resource policy.
3. There is no reason to think that the projected 78,000 new
residents will occupy space in New Hanover County
a. What is at issue is where they will live
b. Proposals to extend collectors and interceptors into
the north of the county defy all concepts of smart
(read efficient public finance) growth
1). It is wet re: county jail built on piles
2). Once removed, the surface water
management system becomes overloaded
(see retention ponds in pocosins)
c. Far better to remain within the urban boundaries
determined by existing infrastructure and upgrade
aging sanitary and storm sewer systems. This
means retrofitting storm water treatment facilities in
the unincorporated areas before extending
development into new areas.
4. While not within the purview of DWQ or DENR, someone
needs to seriously examine the institutional framework
(read rate structure) for water management in this urban
county.
IV. CONCLUSION
A. It is my judgement that the only way these results can be obtained
is for the great and sovereign state of North Carolina to mandate
them in terms and conditions of a permit.
B. It is nonsensical to have put in place a treatment facility with the
latest technology surrounded by outmoded inputs, methods of
handling outputs, and institutional arrangements.

North Carolina
Coastal Federation
NCCF Headquarters: 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean) Newport, NC 28570
Field Office: 3806-B Park Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
Public Hearing on the draft NPDES Permit # NC0023965 including the upgrade and
expansion from 8.0 MGD to 16.0 MGD for the James A. Loughlin (Northside)
WWTP by City of Wilmington and New Hanover County
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Good evening my name is Ted Wilgis and I am the Cape Fear CoastKeeper for the North
Carolina Coastal Federation.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) is the state's largest non-profit
organization working to restore and protect the coast. NCCF represents approximately
8,000 members across coastal North Carolina and focuses on three main program areas:
habitat restoration and protection; environmental education, and the encouragement of
sound environmental rules and regulations and their enforcement.
NCCF has reviewed and commented on the Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) and the draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Draft Permit # NC0023965 for the Wilmington Northside Wastewater
Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion submitted by the City of Wilmington and New
Hanover County. NCCF appreciates the opportunity to continue to participate in the
discussion of the proposed project and respectfully offers the following comments and
suggestions:
NCCF supports the Division of Water Quality's monitoring and parameter limits
described in the draft permit and its supporting documents. NCCF concurs with DWQ's
assessment that reductions in the system's actual nutrient loading is mandated at this time
and that further evaluation of this condition may occur if a DO TMDL is established for
the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary.
Of primary concern is the potential for secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from
the proposed WWTP expansion and extension of service. As described in the
Environmental Assessment (EA), the project has the potential to result in the removal of
some failing septic tanks and package treatment plants, which may result in some gains in
improved water quality. However these gains may be offset if the secondary and
cumulative impacts resulting from an expanded capacity and the extension of sewer lines
throughout the service area are not planned for and adequately addressed.
The 128 square mile service area for the Northside WWTP encompasses approximately
"Citizens WorinligTogether ForA Healthy Coast"
NCCF Headquarters Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • Email: nccf@n coast.org . Website: www.nccoast.org
Field Office Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

12.6 square miles within the City of Wilmington and 115.4 square miles is in New
Hanover County. The EA stated, " that the County has given sewer extension priority to
the tidal creek watersheds in order to eliminate the risk of faulty septic systems proximate
to these valuable resources. Although this policy could allow development of land that
was otherwise "marginally" developable, the County's density limits as defined in the
zoning ordinance and the COD section still apply."
Expanded WWTP capacity and extension of sewer lines into marginal lands have the
potential to result in high density development and increased growth in sensitive areas
including wetlands and areas adjacent to shellfish waters. The resulting loss of habitat
and increase in impervious surfaces has the potential to result in significant increases in
the amount of non -point source pollution, stormwater, entering estuarine and coastal
waters. If not managed correctly this stormwater run-off may result in closure of
shellfishing waters, closure of swimming areas, harmful algae blooms and fish kills.
Ensuring strong, enforceable and effective stormwater control measures and sewer line
extension polices are critical to the permitting for the proposed WWTP expansion and
upgrade.
Using one tidal creek in New Hanover County as an example, Howe Creek, will illustrate
these concerns. In 1989 Howe Creek was classified as Outstanding Resource Waters to
its source because of its exceptional water quality, affording it the state's strongest
protection. Since that time, water quality protection measures used to protect the creek
have failed to maintain its exceptional values, resulting hi its closure to the harvest of
shellfishing and its listing on the state's 303(d) list as "impaired waters."
A retrospective analysis in 1997 by William B. Farris, a former Wilmington City
Manager and now a planning consultant, documented the effects of sewer expansion on
Howe Creek. (I would like to submit this report for the record) The initial countywide
sewer system enabled wide spread growth in the tidal creeks' watersheds and a
significant decline in the water quality of the area's tidal creeks. This is supported
through water quality monitoring conducted by UNC-W on behalf of the City and County
for the past several years. The secondary impacts of this growth were not considered.
Farris' case study indicated, "that the availability of public sewer service increases the
pace and density of development when compared to developmental potential with septic
tanks". The dense development and resulting increases in impervious surfaces triggered
increased storm water run-off, and the creek is now polluted and listed by the State as
permanently closed for shellfishing. The study found that, "Development in the Howe
Creek Watershed proceeded without benefit of a comprehensive plan that addresses both
the quality and quantity of storm water run-off".
The Howe Creek Case Study outlined some steps that should be taken to manage the
impacts of public sewer. These steps should be considered when reviewing the draft
NPDES permit for the proposed project.

1. Use sewer as a growth management tool. Sewer can manage the timing and
location of growth. Develop policies to prevent developer -financed extensions
from creating undesired development patterns.
New Hanover County should ensure its sewer extension polices affirm the
commitment to prioritize servicing existing development before extending lines to
new developments. Local ,governments and planners should be guiding growth
utilizing approved land use plans, not through the approval of sewer extensions to
new developments.
2. Implement basin -wide stormwater management programs and improve the design
of facilities to significantly reduce sedimentation and improve the quality of run-
off.
The City and County have submitted NPDES Phase II stormwater applications.
With the most recent legislation and status of the rules, it appears as though the
entire City and the portion of the County within a 3-mile radius of the City will
fall under the Phase II program. A significant portion of the County will not be
covered under the Phase II program. Even with the Phase II program, the
County's MS4 service area only includes the County parks.
With the future of the rules uncertain, and full implementation not occurring until
at the earliest 2007, a NPDES stormwater permit with mitigative measures should
be required and issued as a condition of the NPDES permit for the WWTP
expansion. DWQ has the discretionary authority to require this as permit
condition.
Recently, officials in Morehead City worked with NCCF staff to devise a set of
voluntary measures that will help mitigate for some of the secondary effects of
stormwater pollution from the establishment of a centralized WWTP. They
include:
• Voluntary application for a Phase II NPDES permit
• Inventory and attempt to acquire environmentally sensitive land
• No additional or enlarged stormwater discharge points into SA waters in
accordance with state regulations
• A plan to retrofit existing stormwater outfalls
NCCF applauds Morehead City for taking these steps, and recognizes the. City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County have already initiated some of these steps.
However, due to the lack of full coverage of the Northside Plant's service area
under the Phase II rules and lack of mitigative measures for secondary and
cumulative impacts, NCCF strongly recommends that DWQ require a NPDES
stormwater permit with mitigative measures for the proposed Northside WWTP
project.
3. Exercise better controls to prevent sedimentation during site development.

The City and County share and support an excellent local sedimentation and
erosion control program that is well able and equipped to review S&E plans and
measures, and conduct compliance and enforcement activities. However,
experience with the recent New Hanover County sponsored Middle Sound Loop
Rd. Sewer Expansion Project (MSLSEP) indicates that the County should take
additional steps for its sponsored projects, including: strict and effective
guidelines for controlling sedimentation and erosion during the construction
phase; a commitment to utilize contractors with acceptable environmental records
on previous projects; and accountability for the County if it fails to comply with
the approved sedimentation and erosion plan and maintenance of water quality
standards.
4. Develop agreement on environmental management measures before system
installation.
The City and County have outlined several initiatives, ordinances, programs and
reasonable measures that may limit some of the degradation of surface waters
resulting from higher densities and increased areas of development resulting for
the proposed project. These measures must be enforced and complied with for
them to be effective in reducing some of the impacts from the project. Reliance on
voluntary measures and programs and ordinances subject to frequent change and
major exceptions are not adequate to afford the necessary measures to prevent
significant environmental degradation from the potential secondary and
cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Permits for the project should contain a strong and binding commitment from the
City and County to not only uphold and implement these environmental measures,
but to assure their strict compliance and enforcement. In addition NCCF
recommends that the proposed expansion should be incorporated and integrated
with the -current review of the City's Land Use Plan.
In summary, Farris' analysis convincingly indicates that expanding WWTP capacity and
extending sewer lines into tidal creek watersheds with out adequate planning, policies
and environmental controls will lead to the degradation of water quality and the loss of
uses in the receiving waters. NCCF strongly recommends that DWQ require a NPDES
stormwater permit with mitigative measures for the proposed Northside WWTP project.
It is strongly suggested that Farris' four primary recommendations be adopted and
included as mitigative measures in the NPDES permit for the Northside WWTP
expansion and upgrade.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Please feel free to contact me at
910-790-3275 or [e-mail] nccoast.org if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ted Wilgis - Cape Fear Coastkeeper

SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CASE STUDY: IMPACT OF PUBLIC SEWER ON
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
William B. Farris, Inc.
DRAFT
July 1997

! s •1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
1.0 OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY
1-1
1.1 Purpose of Study • 1-1
1.2 Study Area 1-1
1.3 Study Approach 1-2
2.0 LAND USE POLICIES
2-1
2.1 CAMA Land Use Plan 2-1
2.2 Zoning 2-2
2.2.1 Performance Zoning 2-2
2.2.2 Conservation Overlay District 2-4
2.3 Required Subdivision Improvements 2-5 •
2.3.1 Subdivision Regulations 2-5
2.3.2 Waste Water Collection 2-5
3.0 1986-1996 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
3.1 1986 Development
3.2 1996 Development
4.0 SOIL SUITABILITY
5.0 AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SEWER
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
5.1 New Hanover Sewer Extension Policies 5-1
5.2 System Development and Service Areas 5-2
6.0 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 6-1
6.1 Residential Development Allowed by Current Zoning 6-2
6.2 Description of Development Alternatives 6-3
6.2.1 Alternative One —Residential Development with
i

4
•
Septic Tanks 6-3
6.2.2 Alternative Two —Residential Development 6-5
with Public Sewer and Minimal Wetland
Development
6.2.3 Alternative Three —Residential Development 6-6
with Public Sewer and Maximum Wetland
Development
6.2.4 Business Development Potential
6.3 Implications of System Availability
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6-7
6-8
7-1
8.0 REFERENCES 8-1

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
SECTION 1.0
Figure 1.1
SECTION 2.0
Table 2.1
SECTION 3.0
Figure 3.1
Table 3.1
SECTION 4.0
Figure 4.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
SECTION 5.0
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Howe Creek Watershed Boundary and Zoning
Howe Creek Watershed Zoning
General Development Patterns-1986 and 1996
Major Subdivision Development in Howe Creek
Soil Suitability
Interpretation of Soil Suitability
Acreage of Soil Groupings
Development Permitted by Current Zoning
Alternative One— Residential Development
with Septic Tanks
Alternative Two —Residential Development with
Public Sewer and Minimum Wetland Development
Alternative Three —Residential Development
with Public Sewer and Maximum Wetland Development
Business Development Potential
111
1-la
2-3
3-la
4-2
4-1a
4-2,3
4-4
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Howe Creek Case Study assesses the land development impacts of installation of a
public sewer system in rapidly urbanizing New Hanover County. The case study focuses
on the Howe Creek watershed which is located in an urbanized area in eastern New
Hanover County just north of the municipal boundaries of Wilmington and Wrightsville
Beach. The Landfall and Pembroke Jones at Landfall resort/retirement developments are
located in the southern portion of the watershed south of Howe Creek. A strip of
commercial and residential uses are located in the US Route 17 corridor on the western
edge of the watershed. North of the creek, the watershed includes a number of new
residential subdivisions that extend from the Village of Ogden at US 17 east toward the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway on the east at the mouth of Howe Creek.
The Howe Creek watershed was selected for the case study because it has development
characteristic that are similar to those anticipated in the area served by the South
Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority. The area is unincorporated; it contains upscale
residential development with a focus on golf course recreational uses; and it has public
wastewater collection and treatment systems available.
One possible difference is that package wastewater treatment systems have not been a
significant factor in watershed development. Availability of public sewer has precluded
the need for developers to use package plants. In addition, Howe Creek is included in the
Middle Sound ORW designation which would prohibit state permits for package plants.
The case study uses a land suitability -development policy approach for estimating
development potential in the watershed before and after availability of public sewer.
Using soils limitations and densities permitted by zoning as a base, the study estimates the
number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on land that remained undeveloped
in 1986, the approximate date of sewer availability.
• Alternate One-1Vlinimal Residential Development with Septic Tanks —
approximately 2,200 units with septic tank limitations.
• Alternate Two -Development with Public Sewer and Minimal Development of
Wetlands --approximately 3,100 dwelling units.
• Alternate Three Development with Public Sewer and Maximum Development
of Wetlands —approximately 4,800 dwelling units.
Similar results were obtained in the evaluation of development potential for business uses.
The Howe Creek Case Study indicates that the availability of public sewer service
increases the pace and density of development when compared to development potential
iv

with septic tanks. The study outlines some steps that can be taken to manage the impacts
of public sewer. These include the following:
• Use sewer as a growth management tool —sewer can manage the timing and
location of growth. Develop policies to prevent developer -financed extensions
from creating undesired development patterns.
• Implement basin -wide storm water management programs and improve the
design of facilities to significantly reduce sedimentation and improve quality of
runoff.
• Exercise better controls to prevent sedimentation during site development.
• Develop agreement on environmental management measures before system
installation.
v

1.0 OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The New Hanover County Sewer Impact Case Study assesses the induced impacts of a
public wastewater treatment system on land development in a high growth mainland
setting. The case study includes an estimate of development potential of the study area
before and after installation of a public sewer system. The study also uses anecdotal
information from real estate developers and professionals to describe the factors involved
in decisions to provide wastewater treatment via on -site systems, package treatment
plants, or a public system.
1.2 STUDY AREA
The case study centers on the Howe Creek watershed. This watershed is selected for
several factors which are comparable to the South Brunswick area: It is located in a high
growth area and is unincorporated. The watershed has a mixture of land uses, including a
range of residential uses, commercial and commercial services, and golf resort recreational
uses. And finally, a public entity (New Hanover County Water and Sewer District)
provides wastewater treatment service in the watershed.
The Howe Creek watershed contains approximately 3,000 acres. As shown on Figure 1.1,
the watershed lies generally in an area bounded by Middle Sound Loop Road on the north,
Military Cutoff Road and US Route 17 on the west, the southern boundary of Pembroke
Jones at Landfall on the south, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway on the east. The
watershed is near the municipal boundaries of the Town of Wrightsville Beach to the
southeast and the City of Wilmington to the southwest, but at the present time, it lies
entirely within the unincorporated area of New Hanover County. The village of Ogden, at
the intersection of US 17 and 1Vrddle Sound Loop Road is located in the northwestern
area of the watershed.
The watershed may be characterized as predominantly developed. With the exception of
the extreme western area along Military Cutoff Road and a small area in the northeast
along Middle Sound Road, the watershed is subdivided for residential, residential -related
recreational uses, and business uses.
The Howe Creek study area includes a range of land use types. Pembroke Jones at
Landfall, a large section of the Landfall community, is located south of Howe Creek and
occupies most of the southern area of the watershed. Pembroke Jones includes residences
and golf courses.
1-1

Figure 1.1
Howe Creek Watershed Boundary and Zoning

Military Cutoff Road (beginning approximately 0.5 miles south of its intersection with US
Route 17) and all of US 17 are developed for a mixture of business and business support
services. The businesses are predominantly highway -oriented uses, convenience
establishments serving the surrounding residential areas, and shopper goods
establishments, such as furniture stores, that serve a regional market.
Ogden at US 17/Middle Sound Loop Road was a traditional rural village with a mixture of
residential and business land uses. Since the 1980's, the village has evolved into an area
that includes almost entirely business uses. Land uses east of Ogden north and south of
Middle Sound Loop Road are predominantly residential. There are older individual
residences, older subdivisions dating from the late 1960's and early 1970's, and newer
upscale subdivisions that have been developed since the late 1980's and early 1990's.
With the exception of an early phase of Gorham Plantation fronting on Middle Sound
Loop Road, these newer subdivisions are connected to the county's public sewerage
system. There are also mobile homes and mobile home parks.
1.3 STUDY APPROACH
The case study addresses only the impact of sewer facilities on the development potential
of land in the Howe Creek watershed. The impacts of the availability of sewer on regional
population growth trends and the impacts of land development on water quality are
outside of the scope of the case study and beyond the scope of available data.'
Development potential is defined as the number of duelling units that may be placed on
undeveloped land in the watershed consistent with public land use policies and with waste
water collection, treatment, and disposal as limiting factors. Public land use policies are
embodied in the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, the
CAMA Land Use Plan, and Federal statutes and regulations regarding wetlands —
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Hypothetically, there may be a range of wastewater treatment options in the watershed.
However, practically there are only two treatment options available: septic tanks as
defined in G.S. 130A-33.4(12) and regulated by the NC Administrative Code Section
1900; and the public sanitary sewer system provided by the New Hanover Water and
Sewer District and regulated by Chapter 15 of the New Hanover County Code.
The development potential of land in the watershed, assuming that septic tanks are used
for wastewater treatment (without public sewer), is determined by three factors:
1) impervious surfaces in business areas and dwelling unit densities permitted by
the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance;
2) suitability of soils for septic tanks; and
3) Iimitations of potential wetlands.
I -?

Development potential assuming availability of a public sewerage system is determined
primarily by densities allowed by zoning and the limitations imposed by wetlands.
Package treatment plants are not considered as a wastewater treatment alternative in this
study.
—Howe Creek is classified as an SA tidal saltwater. This classification is applied to
waters that are suitable for commercial shellfishing and other tidal saltwater uses. This is
the highest classification for tidal saltwaters. In addition, Howe Creek is included in the
Middle Sound Area Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) designation. The ORW
designation is applied to surface waters of the state that "...are of exceptional state or
national recreational or ecological significance and that ...have exceptional water
quality..."2 According to discussions with Division of Water Quality stag the SA
classification and ORW designation prohibit permitting package plants in the Howe
Creek watershed.
--In addition, interviews with land developers indicate that package plants are a
significantly less attractive treatment alternative than a public sewer system. Package
plants are expensive to operate and they represent an on -going maintenance risk for the
developer.
—Finally, New Hanover County's sewer policies tend to favor the public system by
discouraging package plants and requiring connections when the public system is
available.
• 1986 to 1996 General Development Trends. The study documents general
development trends between 1986 before installation of public sewer and 1996 after
public sewer is generally available in the watershed. Documentation includes mapping
of 1986 and 1996 development patterns from aerial photos (New Hanover County Tax
Office and Engineering Department) and analysis of major subdivisions approved
during the analysis period. The amount of vacant land is estimated for 1986 to
provide a base for determining development potential.
• Land Use and Development Regulations. Development densities permitted by
public policies were determined from a review of the county's CAMA land use plan,
zoning ordinance and map, and subdivision regulations. Zoning districts in the
watershed were mapped. The zoning map and the map of land that was undeveloped
in 1986 were used to estimate the total number of dwelling units. and the amount of
non-residential impervious surfaces allowed (in 1986) by the county's development
policies.
• Soil Suitability. Soil descriptions and maps from the New Hanover County Soil
Survey published by the Soil Conservation Service were used to determine the
1-3

limitations of the soils in the watershed for the use of septic tanks for waste treatment
and to determine soils with potential wetlands. A preliminary assessment was
developed from the Soil Survey. The preliminary assessment was refined through
reviews by knowledgeable soil scientists. The soil mapping units were then placed in
one of four categories of development suitability based on septic tank limitations and
potential occurrence of wetlands.
• Availability of Public Sewerage System. The availability of public sewer service in
the watershed was determined through interviews with the New Hanover County
engineering staff a review of the county's sewer extension policies contained in
Chapter 15 of the County Code, and review of subdivision sewer plans. These reviews
also provided information on the methods for extending the county's.system to serve
subdivisions and the extent to which subdividers have provided funds to finance
system extensions.
• Interviews. Soil scientists, real estate professionals, subdividers, and public officials
were interviewed regarding the impacts of sewer availability. These interviews guided
the details of the case study and provided information on the importance of public
sewer to development and ideas for improving land development supported by public
sewerage systems.
• Development Alternatives. The case study includes three development alternatives.
These are described as follows:
... Alternative One —development potential based on New Hanover
County land use policies and use of septic tanks for wastewater
treatment.
... Alternative Two —development potential based on county land use
policies, use of public sewer system, and assumption of a wetland
development factor of 25 percent.
... Alternative Three —same as Two but assuming a wetland development
factor of 75 percent.
Alternatives Two and Three provide a minimum to maximum range of development
potential for the watershed.
1-4

2.0 LAND USE POLICIES
Applicable local land use policies for the watershed include New Hanover County's
CAMA Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. The key
provisions of each of these policies are described below.
2.1 CAMA LAND USE PLAN
The New Hanover County Land Use Plan was adopted by the Board of Commissioners on
November 1, 1993 and certified by the Coastal Resources Commission on November 19,
1993. "The Land Use Plan is intended to provide substantial guidance to City
(Wilmington) and County officials on development plans, programs, regulations and
incentives." The county is in the process of updating the Land Use Plan at the present
time.
The current plan classifies all of the Howe Creek watershed as either Resource Protection
or Conservation. The Resource Protection classification `provides for the preservation
and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources."
In this land class, residential density cannot exceed 2.5 units per acre. The Conservation
classification encompasses the marshes and 100-year flood plains and related estuarine
resources. The Conservation land class "provides for the effective long-term management
of significant, limited or irreplaceable areas," and it limits residential densities to 2.5
dwellings per acre. The land' class allows exceptions to the floodplain restrictions for
water dependent uses, shared industrial access corridors, and development on relatively
high ground where adverse impacts to the estuarine system will be minimal.
The land classification policies for the watershed are supplemented by the county's overall
statement of Policies for Growth and Development which is a component of the CAMA
plan. Three of these policies are closely related to an assessment of development
potential:
• In order to protect areas of environmental concern, the policies commit to
continuing and encouraging phased development and extension of the county
sewer system as a means of eliminating pollution from malfunctioning or
inadequate septic systems and package treatment plants.
• The policies only allow package treatment plants of the "highest quality" with
operation plans that assure "the greatest measure of protection;" discharge into
public waters is only allowed if connection to public system is not feasible.
2-1

• In the policies, the county commits itself to timely and cost-effective provision
of capital facilities (including sewer) based on anticipated growth and demand.
The overall effect of these policies for the Howe Creek watershed is to encourage the use
of the public sewer system. With the availability of the public system in the watershed, it
appears that use of package treatment plants would be difficult. Individual lots and
parcels can be evaluated for septic tank permits. However, for development occurring
since 1986, the use of septic tanks appears to be very limited.
2.2 ZONING
The County's Zoning Ordinance controls the land uses and to a major extent the
development densities in the watershed. Figure 1.1 shows the location of zoning districts
in the watershed and Table 2.1 describes the land use and development provisions in each
district. The table also has an estimate of the area of undeveloped land (1986) in each
zoning district.
As shown in the table, the zoning of the watershed provides a low density residential
development pattern. Nearly ninety-five percent of the undeveloped land in 1986 is in low
density residential zoning districts. Of the total undeveloped land, 44.5 percent is zoned
R 20 which allows from 2.2 to 2.5 units per acre depending on whether it is single-family
detached or duplex buildings.
Less than 5.0 percent of the undeveloped land in 1986 is zoned business. However, field
surveys show evidence of redevelopment of business areas in the watershed along US 17.
The redevelopment appears to result in more intensive use of land which would be allowed
with the availability of public sewer.
New Hanover County has implemented two zoning tools that are designed to conserve
important natural resources by allowing subdividers and developers flexibility, and
requiring preservation of the most important resources. These tools, Performance Zoning
and Conservation Overlay District, are described below.
2.2.1 Performance Zoning
In addition to its traditional zoning districts, the county zoning ordinance provides for
performance residential that allows the subdivider or developer flexibility to "cluster"
lots and to lay out site improvements to preserve significant natural and manmade
features. To be eligible for performance residential the developer is required to obtain
approval of a site plan that meets added standards for drainage, water and sewer, and
streets. The overall density of the performance residential area may not exceed the density
limits of the underlying zoning district. In addition, in resource protection and
2-2

TABLE 2.•1
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS .
WATERSHED ZONING
A,�res
Und�v
AA ,1.�erwR
,_ `Paved . ••
.AEU
.:.... :Q ::.
Pernuited'Reaidantiel
Dcrisay
- - .
.
:..•.,:.::
Zoning Distract
it ..: - - - ,
; .. ,
:: Descri.:
>; ption
Total.. . ::
9
�i/o . � ::.
0.4
0.5
':' Singlerfc�mily
n.a
. Duplex �.
n.a
B-1
Business District
Designed to provide convenient shopping facilities
of necessity goods and personal services primarily to
serve a neighborhood. Must be at least 2 ac. tract.
Max. building height 35 feet.
B-2
Highway Business
Intended for development of roadside businesses to
accommodate needs of motoring public. Must be at
104
4.2
•
0.45
n.a.
n.a.
0 & I .
Office & Inst.
Provides areas for institutional, professional office
uses, and other compatible uses. Min. lot area
15,000 square feet; min. width 90 feet; max.
15
0.6
0.5
,
n.a.
n.a.
It-10
Provides area for higher density residential uses
with access to either public water or sewer. Min. lot
area for single-family is 10,000 square feet; min. lot
0
0
n.a.
4.4
5.8
R-15
Intended for higher density residential uses that do
not have public water and are dependent on septic
tanks. Min. lot area for single-family is 15,000
square feet; min. lot area for duplex is 25,000
927
37.3
n.a.
•
2.9
3.5
R-20
*Intended for development of low density residential
and related recreational uses. Min. lot area for
single-family 20,000 square feet; min. lot for duplex
1,105
44.5
n.a.
2.2
2.5
.
R-20S
Provides areas for low density residential
compatible with rural character and limited growth.
322
13.0
n.a.
2.2
0
Source:
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance
2-3

conservation land classes, as is the case of the Howe Creek watershed, the residential
units may not be clustered at a density greater than 1.9 units per acre.
If the developer elects to use the performance residential provision, then pocosin soils
(Dorovan, Johnston, and Pamlico) must be subtracted from the overall tract unless the
pocosin area is preserved using one of the methods prescribed in the Conservation Overlay
District outlined below. (These soils are included in Type 4 soils described in a later
section of this report.) If the developer does not preserve the pocosin soils, the effect is to
lower the overall residential permitted on the tract.
Since use of the performance residential zoning alternative is at the election of the
subdivider or developer, it is not considered in estimating the development potential of the
watershed. However, it is noted that the option allows the developer to obtain residential
density credit for land that may otherwise be considered "undevelopable."
As an example, the `Pembroke Jones at Landfall" development has used the performance
residential approach in conjunction with the creation of golf courses and preservation of
wetlands.
2.2.2 Conservation Overlay District (COD)
The County's Zoning Ordinance has a Conservation Overlay District's that is intended to
protect important environmental and cultural resources within the county. The Board of
Commissioners identified the following purposes for the COD ordinance provision:
• maintain the county's diverse and ecologically important natural systems;
• preserve county's estuarine resources important for finfishing and shellfishing;
• provide open space; and
• retain the county's archaeological and historical heritage.
The COD is based on a report, Conservation Resources in New Hanover County,
prepared in 19845. The report describes the values, sensitivity, and frequency of
occurrence of important resource conservation areas in the county. The COD uses the
descriptions in the report to assign priorities to various resource categories. These
priorities are then used to calculate the extent of the resource area that must be preserved.
A worksheet used to calculate minimum conservation space is provided in Appendix One
of this report.
The COD includes additional performance controls for development adjacent to resource
areas and for retention of storm water.
Several methods of conservation space preservation are provided in the COD:
Z-4

• Dedication of the land or an easement in perpetuity and acceptance by the
County, state or federal agency, or non-profit charitable organization;
• Retention by owner of parcel with provision that it shall not be developed; or
• Transfer to a properly established homeowners association.
Interviews with the county's planning staff indicate that the COD has been effective in
preserving the highest priority natural resources and in achieving a minimal level of
management of storm water runoff in the absence of a comprehensive storm water
management plan.
2.3 REQUIRED SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS
New Hanover County's development regulations, as outlined in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2,
below strongly encourage the use of the public sanitary sewer for waste water collection
and treatment by requiring connection to the system if feasible and requiring installation of
"dry" collection systems if the system is not currently available.
2.3.1 Subdivisions Regulations
New Hanover County's Subdivision Regulations6 specify the improvements that
subdividers and developers must install in their developments prior to the sale of lots.
Subdivision plats must receive preliminary approval prior to issuance of building permits
and, before a final plat can be recorded with the Register of Deeds, all required
improvements must either be installed and inspected or they must be guaranteed by a
bond, certified check, or irrevocable letter of credit.
For major subdivisions with more than 5 lots and requiring easements and/or
improvements, Section 52-3 of the Regulations require a subdivider to design and install a
sewage collection system that meets County standards prior to final plat approval. The
collection system must be installed whether or not it can be connected to the county
system. In some cases, the collection system will remain "dry" for a period of time until
the county system is available in the area and the system can be connected.
2.3.2 Waste Water Collection Requirements
Section 15-30 (Waste Water Collection and Treatment) of the New Hanover County
Code prohibits the "construction or use of any facility other than the public sanitary
sewer..." unless it is determined by the County Engineer that the premises cannot be
connected to a public sanitary sewer and "there is a reasonable expectation that a septic
tank can function effectively in compliance with County and State regulations." The code
goes on to require that private wastewater disposal systems be connected to the public
sanitary sewer within six months of the date that it is available.
2- 5

Section 15-91 of the County Code reinforces the Subdivision Regulations by requiring "all
subdivisions in the district...to install a sewage collection system...designed and built in
accordance with (county standards)."
2-6

f
3.0 1986-1996 DEVELOPMENT
TRENDS
Aerial photos flown in 1986 and 1996 were used to describe development trends in the
watershed. Figure 3.1 provides a comparison of development in 1986 and 1996.
3.1 1986 DEVELOPMENT
According to the information from the aerial photos, it is estimated that 487 acres, or 16
percent of the total area, in the watershed were developed for either business or residential
uses in 1986. Development was concentrated in four areas:
1. In the extreme southwestern area, portions of the Windemere and Long Leaf Acres
subdivision were developed. These subdivisions are exclusively residential, contain
lots of approximately one-half acre, and use septic tanks for waste treatment. These
subdivisions have access to Eastwood Road and Market Street (US 17). In addition,
there was a mobile home park in this general area with access to Military Cutoff Road.
2. On the western boundary of the watershed, along US 17, there was an extensive area
of primarily strip commercial uses with a limited number of residences.
3. The village of Ogden at the intersection of Middle Sound Loop Road and US 17
contained a traditional mixture of business and residential uses. The El Ogden
residential subdivision, with access from US 17, and a mobile home park, with access
from Middle Sound Loop Road, were also present in 1986.
4. There were concentrations of traditional "sound" homes along Middle Sound Loop
Road from Ogden to Middle Sound. These properties tended to be older homes on
large lots.
3.2 1996 DEVELOPMENT
Between 1986 and 1996, nearly 2,000 additional acres of land, two-thirds of the land in
the watershed, were developed. The development occurred both north and south of
Howe Creek. South of the creek, the primary influence is the Landfall development.
While the initial phases of Landfall were outside of Howe Creek, nearly all of Pembroke
Jones at Landfall lies within the watershed. All of Pembroke Jones is served by public
sewer.
On the north side of the creek, the traditional low intensity "sound" development was
replaced by a series of residential subdivisions from Ogden east to the sound. These
subdivisions are served also served by public sewer.
3-1

Figure 3.1
General Development Patterns - 1986 and 1996

,
Table 3.1 provides a description of these post 1986 subdivisions. According to
information available on the public sewer system,, the majority of these developments have
been installed since 1990-7.5 years. However assuming a 10 year development period,
an annual average of more than 250 lots have been approved in the watershed. Of this
total, an annual average of nearly 160 lots have been improved and recorded in the
watershed.
These lots have been developed on approximately 2,000 acres. Assuming that 15 percent
of the land area will be devoted to streets, easements, and so on, the net development
density is 1.48 dwelling units per net acre. This development density is comparable to the
density permitted under the county's Rural Agriculture zoning classification.
The business properties along US 17 and in the village at Ogden appear to be undergoing
redevelopment. The redeveloped .properties have a more community -wide focus than the
traditional uses, and they appear to result in more intensive use of the land. In addition,
the residential properties in this area are being converted to non-residential uses.
TABLE 3.1
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
MAJOR SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT IN HOWE CREEK,
1986 TO 1996
Subdivision
Lots with Preliminary
Approval
Lots with Final Approval
Covil Estates
330
180
Demarest
44
24
Lucia Point (1)
53
53
Pembroke Jones
1839
1085
Providence
128
127
Timber Creek
125
125
T
Totals
2519
1594
�
Source:
New Hanover County Planning Department
3-2

4.0 SOIL SUITABILITY
The New Hanover County Planning Department provided soils mapping for the
watershed. The soils map, from the county's GIS, is based on the 1977 Soil Survey'. As
an indicator of development potential, the properties of the watershed's soil mapping units
were evaluated for two factors: (1) septic tank limitations and the number of dwelling
units (on septic tanks) that the soil can support; and (2) the potential for the presence of
wetlands. The evaluation was based on information on soil properties and limitations
described in the Soil Survey and comments from soil scientists with field experience in the •
area. The soil mapping units and results of the evaluation are summarized in Table 4.1.
To make the process of determining development potential more manageable, the soil
mapping units were grouped into one of the following categories:
Type 1(excellent)--slight to moderate septic limits; no wetlands normally
present
Type 2 (good) --moderate to severe septic limits; expect up to 25% of the
mapping units to be wetlands
Type 3 (fair) —severe septic limits; expect 50 to 75% of the unit to be
wetlands
Type 4 (poor) —severe septic limits; expect 75 to 100% of the unit to be
wetlands
The grouping for each mapping unit is shown in Table 4.1.
The distribution of the four soils groupings are shown on Figure 4.1. The better suited
soils, Types 1 and 2, tend to occur in two long corridors on the higher elevations north
and south of Howe Creek and in two bands located between US 17 and Military Cutoff
Road in the west. Type 3 and 4 soils tend to be located adjacent to Howe Creek and its
tributaries, in a broad band between US 17 and Military Cutoff, and in a large area in the
southeastern area of the watershed.
Table 4.2 provides estimates of (1) the total watershed acreage in each grouping; (2) an
estimate of 1986 undeveloped land in eachgrouping; and (3) an estimate of 1986
developed land in each grouping. Comparisons of these acreage estimates indicate
expected conclusions. First, earlier development in the watershed used the better soils.
Approximately 65% of the 1986 developed land used Types 1 and 2 soils. Second, soils
remaining to be developed in 1986 are predominantly poorer soils in Types 3 and 4.
4-1

Figure4.1
Soil Suitability

For the purpose of estimating development potential, this study assumes that Type 1 soils
have no wetlands; Type 2 soils have 25% wetlands; Type 3 soils have 50% wetlands; and
Type 4 soils have 75% wetlands.
TABLE 4.1
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
III 1 racrrcr., 1 A 1 iuiN or SOIL SUITABILITY
s-
.
. . •
Soil ma ping .
. .
•
• - •
.
. . -
Symbol
._.., . . ••
•
.• • -• .
.. . . . :.. ..
. c ori 9 . a • ...
thit
. ,..
..
Dwell g
• . :........ ..... %
.: Units ....per.
Net Acre
••
..
.
'Percentageunit
Wetland
.
.
Type
Bayboro
Ba
very poorly drained, slowly
permeable; flooding
0
75
Baymeade
Be
well drained, mod. rapid
permeability
4 0
1
Baymeade
Bh
4 0
1
Craven
Cr
moderately well drained,
very slowly permeable
1-2 0
3
Dorovan
DO
very poorly drained, very
slowly permeable; on flood
plains and in bays
0 100
4
Johnston
JO
very poorly drained,
moderately rapidly
permeable; on flood plains
0 100
4
Kenansville
Ke
well drained, moderately
rapidly permeable; on flats
in uplands
4 0
1
Kureb
Kr
excessively drained, rapidly
permeable (sandy)
4 0
I
Lakeland
La
excessively drained, very
rapidly permeable (sandy)
4 0
1
Leon
Le
poorly drained, rapidly
permeable
0 50
3
Lynchburg
Ls
somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable
2 0
2
Lynn Haven
Ly
poorly drained, moderate to
rapid permeability; organic
materials in top layers
0 100
4
Murville
Mu
very poorly drained,
moderately rapidly
permeable; organic material
in top larrs
0 100
4
4-2

ued
Soil rnappmg
NI
I.
•
Desc tion. of M
nP aPP�
: Potential
• D�crellu�
Um•ts er
.:: P
Net Acre
..Percentage
g
: Wetland :
..: Type `::
Newhan
Nh
excessively drained, very
rapidly'permeable
4
0
1
Norfolk
No
well drained, moderately
yermeable
4
0
1
Onslow
On
moderately well drained,
moderately permeable
3
0
1
Pamlico
Pm
very poorly drained,
moderately permeable;
decomposed organic matter
over mineral sediment
0
100
4
Pantego
Pn
very poorly drained,
moderately permeable
0
100
4
Rains
Ra
poorly drained, moderately
permeable
0
50
3
Seagate
Se •
somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils
2
0
2
Stallings
St
somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils
2
25
2
Tidal marsh
TM
0
100
4
Torhunta
To
very poorly drained,
moderately rapidly
permeable
0
100
4
Wakiilla
Wa
somewhat excessively
drained, rapidly permeable
3
0
1
Woodington
Wo
poorly drained, moderately
permeable
0
75
3
Wrightsboro
Wr
moderately well drained,
moderately permeable -..
3
. �,_ -..
25
2
Sources:
New Hanover County Soil Survey, SCS, 1977
Comments from Craig Turner and Vincent Lewis, Licensed Soil Scientists
William B. Farris
4-3

6
public doesn't like the decisions we make suppose maybe he is not
working for all the people.
If you think I am angry really I am.
In closing I will read the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
definition of Environmental Justice:
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair
treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or
a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal,
state, local, programs and policies.
In summary, environmental justice is the goal to be achieved
for all communities and persons across this Nation. Environmental
justice is achieved when everyone, regardless of race, culture, or
income, enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and
health hazards and equal access to the decision -making process to
have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.*
*(epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html)

f • 1 .
• `.
5
The County has taken our money and used it for a purpose not
specified by the 1984 Bond Referendum. Therefore, the County is out of
trust with the unsewed residents and in violation of equal treatment as
required by the EPA and Federal Constitution.
Adding insult to this, the County has shown plain outright disregard
and disdain for the citizens of the unsewered communities by assessing us an
unfair tap fee of $2,000 per house on top of this giant atrocity.
Again, the records and evidence show that when anyone questions
these governmental actions, the Commissioners react punitively not
because it is the right thing to do —but because they have the power to do so.
Perhaps the County officials believe that beating a dog will cause him
to turn away. Well, it won't work with us. We are standing pat.
We are tired of the untruths, the blatant abuse and the County being
out of trust with us. We are tired of the pontifications prevarifications.
We have been ravaged before. We have been over taxed and
slicked repeatedly. We know what the officials are trying to accomplish
with phrases like "You must believe us when I say that everything we do is
legal."
Mr. Caster once stated (and by the way, I have his on tape) that he just
didn't get it the general public elected us to make decisions and now the

8. There is no capacity in the wastewater treatment plant.
All the while millions in sewer user fees have been and still are being
injected into a failing incinerator each year, beach re -nourishment, world -
class gardens, new jail and courthouse, and a myriad of other places. The
county records prove that there was always waste water treatment plant
space and money available to take in the older neighborhoods along with the
new development. Capitalism coupled with self-interest and greed has put at
risk the health of thousands of County citizens. Specifically, those who have
not received service amounts to 14,000 home sites and approximately
52,000 residents.
For over 40 years, unsewered communities have suffered the
conditions of unsanitary failing septic tank systems in plots not big enough
for adequate and legal repairs. Millions have been spent in maintenance cost.
These communities have not enjoyed the quality of life that other wealthy or
connected people because they live in a sewered community. Numerous
complaints over the decades by unsewered residents to the Health
Department, the Engineering Department, State representatives and officials,
and to the County Commissions fallen on deaf ears. THIS IS A
SITUATION OF MIND OVER MATTER; THAT IS, THEY DON'T
MIND AND WE DON'T MATTER.

3
that the County was doing what was right for the taxpayers. And, yes, for a
long time we believed these tales and did believe in our elected officials.
Then, it became apparent that the County took our money to bring
interceptors to the new developments while assuring us that user fees, taxes,
and other forms of revenue would soon bring the county sewer system to our
homes. And just to make everything seem on the up and up, the Master Plan
was rewritten completely in 1987, 1993, 1999—each time writing it so as to
make it look like the County government was sympathetic to our needs
while chasing the rainbow for the landowners, developers, and realty
companies.
When questioned why these changes were made to the original
promised county sewer, we were given excuses such as:
1. The county is broke.
2. The county is not in the sewer business
3. The county does not have to do this
4. Someone didn't apply for the grant money.
5. Cost overrides by fly-by-night contractors from Texas.
6. And the latest is that there are too many rental homes there in order to
get grants.
7. It takes too long to get the grants and requires too much effort.

2 4
the Commissioners did not feel that areas such as "Kings Grant" deserved
equal sanitary living conditions for personal hygiene. The responsibility,
therefore, was not taken as evidenced by the fact that the King's Grant Area
has been referred to by a number of different names when discussed in audit
and report documents that were designed to account to the Federal
Government and bond money expenditures.
At the time this change was made, there was some 19 million dollars
of the original bond money that became the "seed" or start up money for this
interceptor system. Of course, this interceptor production is directly
responsible for the intense development spurt that the County has
experienced in the past two decades. For this, we congratulate the County
Commissioners and their predecessors on their skillful use of "smoke and
mirrors" that on the surface makes it appear, especially, to the new comers
who think that the County was always this way and that Commissioners are
the model marvels of the land.
But let us address the reality of what Commissioners have done. Each
year that we patiently waited for the sewer and paid our fair share, we have
been conned with a different "excuse" for our inconveniences. The allegory
and rhetoric was skillfully designed by the spin -doctors to make us believe

[` -
SEWER PRESENTATION ON KING'S GRANT
By Mark Cope and Betty Scott
The records show that the bustle and general interest for the upcoming
holidays in December 1987 at the meeting of the New Hanover County
Commissioners Water and Sewer District gave and excellent opportunity for
the members of that Commission to change the goals and method of
operation of the Water and Sewer District. There was no public resistance
or opposition to this action as it was done without referendum or public
meeting process.
In this procedural change, the Water and Sewer District cast away its
obligation to the remaining existing unsewered communities throughout the
County. Instead of providing infrastructure within these communities as
spelled out in the Henry von Oesson Plan that was originally adopted in
order to acquire the bond money in 1984, the Water and Sewer District
decided to provide interceptor piping to areas that were not populated but
were to be developed by the landowners and their development companies.
This new interceptor plan drawn up by Talbert & Cox was accepted and the
Von Oesson Plan was scuttled.
Although a number of existing "special people" communities were
given county sewer service under the 1984 Bond Referendum, it is obvious

8.0 REFERENCES
The following studies address data needs and water quality:
Peter Braasch, An Evaluation of the Development and Impact of the New Hanover County Sewer
System, Coastal Federation, 1992.
Michael Mallin, et al, Water Quality in New Hanover County Tidal Creeks, 1993-1994, Center
for Marine Science Research, UNC-W, 1994.
Michael Mallin, et al, Water Quality in New Hanover County Tidal Creeks, 1993-1996, Center
for Marine Science Research, UNC-W, 1996.
2 North Carolina Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 2B .0100 and 15A NCAC 2B .0200, as amended
April 1, 1997.
3 New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51.5-2, pg. V-7.
4 Ibid., Section 59.4, pg. V-23.
5 David DuMond, Conservation Resources in New Hanover County, New Hanover County Planning
Department, 1984.
6 New Hanover County Subdivision Regulations, updated 1995.
Arlin Weaver, Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North Carolina, USDA, Soil Conservation Service,
1977.
8-1

4. County has implemented creative provisions in zoning ordinance to
give developers flexibility to preserve natural features and to require
preservation of priority natural areas. Performance zoning allows the
developer to "cluster" units to preserve natural areas. The availability of sewer may
facilitate the use of this provision because the density in the "cluster area" may exceed
what can be supported with septic tanks. Minimal storm water management standards
are associated with this provision.
The Conservation Overlay District (COD) is the second tool. This zoning provision
requires preservation of a percentage of land with the highest priority natural areas.
This overlay also has storm water management provisions.
5. Measures can be taken to limit the water quality impacts associated
higher densities on public sewer. Professionals on the county staff have
outlined reasonable measures that might limit any degradation of surface waters
resulting from development on sewer —improved design of pump station sites to limit
discharges in the case of failures; implement storm water management program and
improve the efficacy of facilities and management practices; better controls during site
development and construction; and improving the buffer between lawns and surface
waters. Ideally these measures should be agreed to before construction of the sewer
system begins, and the process of amendment should include the state.
7-2

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The 1986-1996 experience in the Howe Creek Watershed indicates
that the availability of public sewer service increases the pace and
density of development. The case study examines three development
alternatives: 1) development with septic tanks results in a potential overall residential
density of 1.1 du's per acre; 2) development with sewer and with minimal wetlands
development results in a potential density of 1.5 du's per acre; and 3) development
with sewer and with extensive wetlands results in a potential density of 2.4 du's per
acre.
A key difference between the alternatives is that public sewer makes it possible to
develop wetlands that would not be possible with septic tanks. The potential
residential density with sewer and assuming no wetland development is 1.2 du's per
acre.
Nevertheless, the potential overall density under alternative three (2.4 du's per acre) is
below the target for the watershed of 2.5 du's per acre set by New Hanover County in
its CAMA Land Use Plan.
2. Developers will incur significantly higher capital costs in order to
gain public sewer for their development. Several factors enter into these
decisions for developers: buyer demand for central system; uncertainty of approvals
associated with septic systems and package treatment plants; high operating costs and
risks associated with package plants; and higher densities allowed by public sewer
systems. One developer indicated a willingness to pay up to three times the cost of a
septic system per lot for central sewer.
With the exception of a regional outfall along Market Street (US 17), an outfall/force
main system in Military Cutof and a small collection system and pump station at El
Ogden, the systems for the watershed have been financed by developers. Pembroke
Jones at Landfall, and all of the subdivisions developed between Middle Sound Loop
Road and Howe Creek since the late 1980's are connected to the public sewer system.
3. New Hanover's development regulations encourage extension of the
public sewer system.. Since 1987, the county's subdivision regulations require
subdividers to install sewer collection systems whether or not it can be connected to
the public system. These collection systems may remain "dry" for a period of .time
until the public system is available. In addition, the county's sewer policies do not
allow on site systems unless the premises cannot be connected to the public system.
7-1

extended to an industrial area in a northwestern area of the county where sewer is not
available. Second, they explain that septic tanks may limit the intensity of development.
The requirement for sufficient septic tank "repair" area on -site tends to limit the size of
structures that can be placed on a lot, and as a result, reduce impervious surface area.
The interviews also addressed possible operational issues with central sewer systems that
may have significant impacts in the coastal area. Due to the flat topography, sewage
pump stations are a necessity to serve most areas. These stations tend to be located along
water courses, and when they fail, significant amounts of untreated wastewater can be
discharged into surface waters. At the same time, it is noted that home owners tend to
provide less than adequate maintenance of septic tanks which can result in failures and
discharges into surface waters.
Everyone interviewed indicated that steps can be taken to manage both the positive and
negative aspects of sewer improvements. These comments are outlined below:
• Sewer is a powerful growth management tool. With septic tanks, if regulations
are met, land will be developed and little control can be exercised over its
location and timing. By managing sewer improvements, the public can
exercise some control over location and timing of development.
• Policies allowing subdividers and developers to extend the system should be
carefully developed. Related to the comment above, these types of system
extensions may result in undesirable development patterns.
• Careful design of pump station sites with failure in mind.
• Implement storm water management programs and improve the design of
facilities to significantly reduce sedimentation and improve the quality of
runoff.
• Exercise better control during site development and construction.
Professionals believe that significant amounts of erosion and sedimentation
occur during the construction process and that better controls could reduce
impacts. Preservation of site vegetation rather than clearing and replanting is
an important suggestion.
• Improvinathe interface, or buffer, between lawns and surface waters. Current
regulations require building setbacks. However, without an adequate buffer
between Lawns and surface waters, significant runoff of nutrients can occur. A
team led by the New Hanover Cooperative Extension Service is preparing
recommendations to address this issue.
• Environmental management measures should be formally agreed to prior to
system installation. Prior agreement on the measures that will be implemented
to limit environmental impacts will allow the public to have greater confidence
in the system and will avoid the pressures that may occur after the system is
installed. The State of North Carolina should be a party to this agreement and
a mechanism should be developed to require the State's approval of any
amendments.
6-9

TABLE 6.5
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
'Zoning Soil
(Classification Grouping
.-T
131
1B2
it° &I
Source:
:Noe 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Edevelopet
0
0
0
0
27.94
1.9
30.3
17.28
William B. Farris
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.75
7.14
28.53
5.62
44.23
25.92
0
0
4.1
10.48
0
0
1
6
24
5
38
22
0
0
3
9
Total acres
DEVELOPMENT-POTEN
0
0
0
0
11
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
19
817028
0
0
0
1
11
2
9
3
0
0
1
2
29
1265384
1
2
11
1"
3
1898492
Because the assumptions regarding business development follows those for residential
development, comparisons between the alternatives is similar. Use of septic tanks allows
the lowest level of business development-19 acres, or more than 800,000 square feet of
impervious area. Alternative Two, with public sewer and limited wetland development,
allows development of 1.3 million square feet of impervious surface-58% more than
development with septic tanks. Alternative Three, with public sewer and extensive
wetland development, allows development of 1.9 million square feet-130% more than
septic tanks.
6.3 IMPLICATIONS OF SYSTEM
AVAILABILITY
The implications of sewer availability for development were discussed with both real
estate professionals and the county's professional engineering and planning staff. In the
judgment of those interviewed, the availability of sewer is a "magnet" for development in
New Hanover County and it results in more intensive development. Two examples they
gave illustrate the point: First, they report that the water and sewer staff has been flooded
with calls from developers who are interested in gaining access to a sewer line being
6- 8

0
R2OS
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
TABLE 6.4
0
3
333
43
continued)
283
37
Dwelling units
permitted by zoning
917
119
42
5
ALTERNATIVE
THREE'
591
74
2
299
254
825
37
449
6
430
366
1185
54
597
27
36
Source:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
101
110
94
303
0
196
15
75
64
206
0
129
6
21
17
56
0
31
Totals
33
487
117
2482
99
2001
322
6487
0
300
162
4557
0
223
William B. Farris
Under this alternative, the availability of public sewer coupled with extensive wetland
development allows 2,575 dwelling units more than would be allowed using septic tanks.
The residential development potential of this alternative is 117% greater than the septic
tank option.
6.2.4 Business Development Potential
The business development potential of the watershed estimated for the three alternatives is
shown in Table 6.5. The three alternatives describe the total area of impervious surfaces
that could be developed in business districts under the same assumptions used for
residential development potential. Impervious surface, i.e. buildings, parking lots,
driveways, and so on, is used as a measure of development potential comparable to
dwelling units in residential districts. Impervious surface ratios are calculated for each
business district using assumptions regarding lot size and the zoning ordinance
requirements for building setbacks and off-street parking. These ratios are included in
Table 2.1.
6- 7

The availability of public sewer, coupled with minimal wetland development, allows
development of an additional 872 dwelling units, or 40%, over the number allowed with
septic tanks. A key distinction between alternatives One and Two is that provision of
public sewer allows development of wetlands that would not be possible on septic tanks.
For comparison, the total number dwelling units assuming sewer but no wetland
development is estimated at 2,449, or only 11 % higher than the septic tank alternative.
6.2.3 Alternative Three --Residential Development with Public Sewer
and Maximum Development of Wetlands
The estimate of development potential of this alternative is shown in Table 6.4. The
assumptions of this alternative are similar to Two; however, it assumes that 75% of the
probable wetland soils will be developed. Alternative Three describes the maximum end
of the development potential scale for the watershed.
TABLE 6.4
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
ALTERNATIVE THREE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL WITH PUBLIC SEWER AND MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT OF WETLANDS
Zoning
Classification .
••
Soil ::
.Grouping
•
Acreage
(develope d
. :1986) .•:....
- `::Acreage .
(undeveloped
1986) .
Net Acres
. .•• Dwelling twits. `� •
• pennitted by Zoning
ALTERNATIVE
Duplex
• .,
THREE.... ...
Single
family units
. Single
family units
Duplex
.:.: units
R10
Type 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Type 2
26
0
0
0,
0
0
0
Type 3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Type 4
2
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
R15
Typel
138
261
222
718
46
610
39
Type 2
2
116
98
319
20
263
17
Type 3
29
89
•76
247
16
177
11
Type 4
44
461
392
1269
81
1279
54
6- 6

s.
6.2.2 Alternative Two —Development Potential with Public Sewer and
Minimal Development of Wetlands
Table 6.3 shows estimates of residential development potential after public sewer services
became available. The estimates are based on an assumption that only twenty-five percent
of the wetlands in the watershed will be developed. For example, Type 2 soils are
assumed to contain 12.5% wetlands and 87.5% non -wetlands. Under this alternative, a
total of 91% of Type 2 soils would be developable. Alternative Two describes the lowest
end of the development potential range.
TABLE 6.3
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
ALTERNATIVE TWO —RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL WITH PUBLIC SEWER AND MINIMAL
DEVELOPMENT OF WETLANDS
,R10
(developed
1986) -
Type 1
0
(undeveloped
.- 1986)
0
Single-
- family
units
0 0
Duple:c
units
0
• ALTERNATIVE
DEVELOPMENT: .
POTEN'rIAI
family
units
0
Duplex :
units
Type 2
26
0
0
0
0
0
0;
Type 3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Type 4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0'
:R15
Type 1
138
261
222
718
46
610
39
Type 2
2
116
98
319
20
246
16;
Type 3
Type 4
29
44
89
461
76
392
247
1269
16
81
103
371
7:
24,
„R20
Type 1
Type 2
0
3
333
43
283
37
917
119
42
5
591
69
35!
4
Type 3
2
299
254
825
37
263
16
Type 4
6
430
366
1185
54
263
16
, 20S
Type 1
101
110
94
303
0
196
0
Type 2
15
75
64
206
0
121
0
Type 3
6
21
17
56
0
18
0
Type 4
33
117
99
322
0
71
0
Totals
487
2482
2001
6487
300
2922
155
Source:
William B. Farris
6- 5

w - w
could have occurred in the watershed during the analysis period if sewer had not been
provided.
Using septic tanks as the primary means of waste water treatment and disposal, these
estimates indicate that the 2,500 acres of the remaining undeveloped land in 1986 could
support approximately 2,205 residential units. This estimate assumes current residential
zoning patterns. This is roughly one-third of the residential development potential set by
the zoning ordinance.
TABLE 6.2
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
ALTERNATIVE ONE -RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL WITH SEPTIC TANKS
..:`Zonis
Classification
C
> •
•Soil
•
• Grouping
Acres
(developed
198 -
•. 6)' `.
r L
Acreage
•�
undevelo
19•8•
6i ;
ellmg units... .._
periiitied by• zoning;
DEVELOPMENT
•
.PO
1 et Acres
Sin a
�
family>•
. ` inits .:
-�
Duplex
units :
•
Sin e.`
8
fanuly
Duplex
.. - units : ,
> Unity �<
-��.
0
0.
iR10
Type 1
0
0
0
0
0
Type 2
26
0
0
0
0
0
0:
Type3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Type 4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0.
L15
Type 1
138
261
222
718
46
610
33,
Type 2
2
116
98
319
20
187
10:
Type 3
29
89
76
247
16
72
. 4t
Type 4
44
461
392
1269
81
0
0`
20
Typel
0
333
283
917
42
591
35!
Type 2
3
43
37
119
5
70
41
Type 3
2
299
254
825
37
242
13
Type 4
6
430
366
1185
54
0
0:
R20S
Typel
101
110
94
303
0
196
0
Type 2
15
75
64
206
0
121
0
Type 3
6
21
17
S6
0
17
0
Type 4
33
117
99
322
0
0
0
Totals
487
2482
2001
6487
300
2106
99
Source:
William B. Farris
6-4

TABLE 6.1
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY CURRENT ZONING
• Zoning
Sad
Rt10
Type 1
0
0
0
0
0
Type 2
26
0
0
0
0�
Type 3.
2
0
0
0
0
Type4
2
0
0
0
0&
1115
.
Type 1
138
261
222
718
46'
Type 2
2
116
98
319
20`
Type 3
29
89
76
247
16i
Type 4
44
461
392
1269
81
iR20
Type 1
0
333
283
917
42
Type 2
3
43
37
119
5
Type 3
2
299
254
825
37!
Type 4
6
430
366
1185
54
'1220S
Type 1
101
I10
94
303
01
Type 2
15
75
64
206
0�
Type 3
6
21
17
56
0:
T
Type 4
33
117
99
322
0:
r T Totals
437
2482
2001
6487
300'
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance
William B. Farris
6.2 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
6.2.1 Alternative One —Minimal Residential Development with Septic
Tanks
The residential development potential for this alternative is shown in Table 6.2. Using
septic tanks, residential development is significantly limited by soil conditions and the
requirement for adequate space for the infiltration system and the requirement to have
sufficient space on -site for construction of a "repair" system should that be necessary. In
addition, there is a very strong direct correlation between septic tank suitability and soils
with high wetland potential. Alternative One approximates the level of development that
6-3

South Brunswick
Water & Sewer Authority
Environmental Impact Study
Howe Creek
Case Study
1:1600
Watershed Boundary
and Zoning Districts

44,
SLITI\e/64310444(176
''''123t* ;A_:!:3VPH:::tw::,:t6ort'teo.,114f331Ee!i!94:r4::pR:::eti:7:::::7:„.T,.9Air
j„:11rottxt
4;7
tile.001,44z, 411 1-1, ,),„ti.tor
vc-k;ixrc,oefoatig.xitv„tuto
441641:\ %*
•
14444%;&4117; * f
South Brunswick
Water & Sewer Authority
Environmental Impact Study
Figure 3.1
Howe Creek Watershed
General Development
Patterns
1986
1996
Sewer lines
ilk Pump station

0
L;
..---"------., l--' -1 L
N , ____7_ . ,_.•i -' • .
a77N Nil •------'-- -,-11. / • -- .---- --//.. '''''",..'
/
South Brunswick
Water & Sewer Authority
Environmental Impact Study
Ftf:.?. 9S
Figure 4.1
Howe Creek Watershed
Soils Capability
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Water

Soil Tvpe Du's/Acre
Type 1 3
Type 2 2
Type3 1
Type 4 0
• Percentage of wetlands. The soil groupings are based on a range of
percentages of wetlands expected in each soil mapping unit. For estimation of
development potential, an average percentage of wetlands was used. These
averages are shown below:
Soil Tvpe Percent Wetland Soils
Type 1 0%
Type 2 25.0%
Type 3. 67.5%
Type 4 87.5%
• Development of wetland soils. Alternative Two assumes that 25% of the
probable wetland soils will be developed. Alternative Three assumes that 75%
of these soils will be • developed. The two alternatives bracket the best and
worst cases. Actual experience will be somewhere between these assumptions.
The development alternatives and the development potential of each is described below.
6.1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED
BY CURRENT ZONING
Table 6.1 shows the maximum number of residential units that would be permitted on the
undeveloped land in the watershed in 1986. With approximately 2,000 acres available for
development and a maximum of nearly 6,800 dwelling units permitted by zoning, the
permitted residential density of the watershed is approximately 3.4 dwelling units per acre.
According to these estimates, the residential density permitted by the county's zoning
exceeds the desired density stated in the CAMA Land Use Plan. The LUP states a
maximum desired density for Resource Protection Areas as 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
However, the actual development practices in the watershed appear to have resulted in
development densities below the maximum set in the LUP and substantially below the
maximum permitted. Rough estimates for development in the watershed since 1986
indicate that overall residential density is approximately 1.48 du's/acre.
6-2

6.0 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The case study uses three development alternatives to establish a development potential
range for the Howe Creek watershed before and after the availability of public sanitary
sewer. Alternative One describes a minimum development alternative by assuming that no
sewer is available in the watershed and that no sewer will be provided. Alternative Two is
a mid -range development option that recognizes the availability of sewer but projects
limited wetland development. Alternative Three is a maximum development alternative
that recognizes the availability of sewer and assumes extensive development on wetland
soils. The wetland development assumed in Alternatives Two and Three could occur
through several processes: (1) owners could legally drain a portion of the wetlands so that
they no longer qualify as wetlands; (2) wetland losses could be mitigated with preservation
or creation of wetlands on other sites, possibly outside of the watershed; and (3)
performance zoning and one of the wetland preservation options in the county zoning
ordinance could be used to transfer development "credits" to other land in the watershed.
In the future at full development, the actual experience of the watershed may be between
Alternatives Two and Three. Discussions with staff at the Army Corps of Engineers,
Regulatory Branch, confirm that these alternatives "bracket" the best and worst cases for
wetlands development.
The assumptions used to estimate development potential for the alternatives are outlined
below:
• Maximum development density. Regardless of the physical capacity of the
land considering septic tanks and wetlands, the dwelling unit densities pemitted
by the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance are assumed to determine the
upper limit of the residential densities in each of the watershed's zoning
districts.
• Impervious surface in business areas. Impervious surface is used as a measure
of development potential for business areas comparable to the more familiar
development density (du's/acre) in residential areas. An impervious surface
ratio is estimated for each business district in Table 2.1. These ratios assume a
single -story building on a 100' by 200' with required setbacks, parking, and
access. These ratios are applied to the "net buildable" acreage in each business
district to calculate total impervious area.
• Residential building types. Field surveys indicate that a very small percentage
of the dwelling units in the watershed are duplexes; a ratio of 95% single
family and 5% duplexes is assumed.
• Residential development density with septic tanks.
6-1

an 8" "dry" force main associated with the Timber Creek station. This force main will be
activated after installation of a large regional interceptor in Middle Sound Loop Road.
Construction of this interceptor is scheduled to begin in 1999.
By extending from subdivision to subdivision, developers have been able to obtain sewer
service for their projects well ahead of the county's schedule.
Interviews with professionals involved in land development indicate that use of public
sewer service is currently the most attractive wastewater option in New Hanover County.
Opinions are summarized below:
• Customers currently demand central sewer. Most purchasers of homes in New
Hanover do not want the perceived risks and complications associated with
operation and maintenance of on -site systems.
• Obtaining septic tank permits is risky and potentially expensive. Current
practices require that each lot in a subdivision be approved at the time of
issuance of the permit. As a result, there is a risk that lots once .developed
cannot be sold.
• Willing to pay significantly more for central system. Currently, septic tank
installation costs $1,500. Developers are willing to pay up to three times as
much for central system.
• Package treatment plants cannot be permitted. There is widespread perception
that package treatment plants will not receive required state permits in eastern
New Hanover County.
• Operation of package treatment plants are not part of developers' business. If
they are permitted, package plants are competitive with public systems in terms
of capital costs. However, operation of the plants is expense and complex.
Often times developers do not have adequate flows to achieve economies of
scale for efficient operations. They are viewed as a stop -gap solution.
The county's capital improvement program for sewer construction includes a $10,282,000
interceptor and collection system for the Middle Sound area. Design on this project is
scheduled to begin in 1999. This system will provide sewer service to some of the older
subdivisions in the area, most of which are north of Howe. Creek in the Pages Creek
watershed. However, the installation of the interceptor and collection system may result
in some realignment of the service to subdivisions south of Nfiddle Sound Loop Road.
5-3

tl
5.2 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE
AREAS
Figure 3.1 provides a diagram of the major sewer outfalls and force mains in the Howe
Creek watershed. For all practical purposes, the entire watershed has access to public
sewer service. According to interviews with the county planning staff members, there is
currently no consequential use of septic tanks to serve new development in the watershed.
In the area south of Howe Creek, the Landfall (Pembroke Jones) development has
generated the bulk of the sewer service. Most of the land south of the creek and included
in the Howe Creek watershed is served by the Woodside pump station just east of Nfllitary
Cutoff Road. Wastewater from this station flows via a force main in Military Cutoffto the
Bradley Creek pump station on the Northeast Sewer Interceptor. Wastewater from this
system is treated at the Southside Waste Water Treatment Plant on River Road in
Wilmington. This plant discharges to the Cape Fear River.
Covil Estates and Pebble Cove, two smaller subdivisions located north of Arboretum
Drive at the headwaters of Howe Creek, also use the Woodside pump station for
wastewater service.
The area north of the creek provides a good illustration of the extent of developer
extensions of the system. In this area, the first phase of Gorman Plantation fronting on
Middle Sound Loop Road uses septic tanks and is the only recent residential subdivision
not connected to the public sewer system. This subdivision was approved just prior to the
requirement for sewer installation implemented by the county in 1987. The remainder of
the newer subdivisions are served by a line that "snakes" along the north side of the creek,
connecting from the El Ogden Subdivision all the way east to the Demarest subdivision.
Wastewater from these subdivisions is pumped to a 30" outfall in the former CSX right-
of-way west of US 17. This outfall connects to the Military Cutoff Road force main
which pumps to the Northeast Interceptor at Bradley Creek. These outfalls and force
mains were installed by the county in 1990-91.
The El Ogden pump station is the key to public sewer service availability in the area north
of the creek. The El Ogden station was installed as part of collection system provided for
the subdivision by the county. The subdivision system was part of the same 1990-91
construction contract that installed the 30" outfall west of US 17 and 16" force main in
Military Cutoff. Once the El Ogden station was installed, it provided an outlet for the
subdivisions to the east. Gravity lines or force mains from all of these subdivisions are
connected to a developer -installed, county -owned pump station in Timber Creek
subdivision which in turn pumps via a 4" force main to the El Ogden station. There is also
5-2

5.0 AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC
SEWER
5.1 NEW HANOVER SEWER EXTENSION
POLICIES
County policies for extension of the public sewer system by subdividers and developers
are contained in Sections 15-93 and 15-94 of the County Code. The key provisions of .
these policies are outlined below:
• Any connection to the county's public sewer system requires a written
application approved by the county. The application specifies the county's
minimum design and construction standards that must be followed by the
applicant. The application process also requires an affirmative decision
regarding the county's treatment capacity.
• All gravity collection lines must be at least 8 inches inside diameter. If the
minimum diameter pipe exceeds that required by the developer, then there is a
provision for the county to give a prorated cash refund or to assign to the
developer the county's rights to connection fees from adjoining owners. These
connection fee rights extend for 15 years or until the reimbursement is
complete, whichever comes first.
• When the developer installs a line that is part of the county's system plan, the
county may cost -share with the developer and may assist with right-of-way
acquisition.
While the County reserves the right to approve all system extensions and the policies
require that the development to which or in which the sewer system is to be extended must
be approved, there are no policies that address situations where sewer extensions will be
withheld. The policies appear to allow any extension or connection as long as there is
treatment capacity, the system is installed according to County standards and receives
proper approvals, and the subdivider or developer is willing to pay for the extensions and
improvements.
5-1

TABLE 4.2
SOUTH BRUNSWICK WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY EIS
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
ACREAGE OF SOIL GROUPINGS
Sod .
Grouping
Total• Acreage
in Watershed:
Percent .of
Total:...
Acreage
(undeveloped
::::1 98• •9 :.•
1
Percent of
total
.Acreage
(developed
•.•.
. C
. Percent of::
•.
otai .> :>
Type 1
999
34%
_,
732
29%
267
55%
Type 2
288
. 10%
240
10%
48
10%
Type 3
529
18%
459
19%
69
14%
Type 4
1154
39%
1051
42%
103
21%
Source:
William B. Farris
4-4