20061581 Ver 1_USFWS Comments_20070108

United States Department of the Interior
a.T F
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 12, 2006
Ms. Jennifer S. Frye
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dec - 158 1
o ~~~~
~~~~7~~
Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2003-1188-065, New Hanover County Engineering Department,
North Carolina
Dear Ms. Frye:
This letter provides U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments on subject Public
Notice, dated November 8, 2006. The applicant, the New Hanover County Engineering
Department, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to construct a water
treatment plant (WTP), well sites, and various water and wastewater transmission lines. These
comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments related to the FWCA are to be used in
your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public
interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection offish and wildlife resources.
Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's determination of project
impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C.1531-1543).
Proposed Actions and Environmental Impacts
In March 2006, the Service received the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the New Hanover
County Water Treatment Plant and Well Field, dated June 2005, prepared by Arcadis G&M of
North Carolina, Inc. This office provided early comments on federally listed species requiring
consideration to the project consultant, Arcadis, by letter dated March 23, 2004 (included in
Appendix F of the EA). A Service biologist attended the interagency meeting in Wilmington on
March 28, 2006.
The applicant proposes to construct a six million gallon per day (GPD) groundwater treatment
plant (WTP). This facility would be located on a 44- or 45-acre tract in the northern part of the
county. The site was historically a wet pine flatwood which was mostly drained in the late
1990s. The site was recently mowed and contains mostly shrubs and a few scattered loblolly
pines (Pious taeda). The site is within the headwaters of Smith Creek, a tributary of the Cape
Fear River and contains pockets of jurisdictional wetlands.

2
The project also includes the construction of 30 wells, two at each of 15 well sites. Two well
sites would be constructed at the site of the WTP. One well site would be in the Westbay Estates
Subdivision. Eight well sites would be in undeveloped portions of the Greenview Ranches area
north and northeast of the WTP. Four well sites would be in Odgen Park, a public recreational
facility.
The project would require raw water transmission lines from the well sites to the WTP. Since
the treatment process, membrane technology, generates a backwash, the waste flow of up to two
MGD would be transmitted to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) for disposal. The
concentrate main for the waste flow would follow street rights-of--way from the WTP to the
AIWW.
Overall, the proposed work would permanently impact 1.937 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and
1.108 acres of Waters of the United States, ditches created under the Tullock rule, a total of
3.045 acres. The work would temporarily impact 0.55 of an acre ofnon-riparian wetlands, 0.064
of an acre of coastal wetlands, and 0.18 of an acre of open water.
The applicant has proposed a plan of compensatory mitigation which includes restrictive
covenants on wetlands at each well site which are not impacted by construction. The PN states
that this measure would include approximately 25 acres ofnon-riparian wetlands. The applicant
would also restore 3.045 acres ofnon-riparian wetlands within the WTP site.
Federally Protected Species
The Service reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species
known to occur in New Hanover County. We have also reviewed information from the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the
special status species, both federal and state. This database can be accessed by topographic
quadrangle (quad) of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). Data from USGS quads provide the
most project-specific information on species which should be considered in permitting this
project. The WTP is located in the Scotts Hill quad. The occurrence data of special status
species within this quad can be obtained on the Internet at the "Database Search" heading of
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pa~es/herita~edata.html >.
The EA of June 2005 discusses (Section 5.5, pp. 5-15 to 5-30) the rare and protected species that
may occur in the project area. The project narrative within the PN states (p. 2) that a threatened
and endangered species "evaluation" was preformed for the site in December 2004. The results
of these evaluations are presented in the "Threatened and Endangered Species Report for the
New Hanover County WTP Site" (TES Report), dated January 2005. Table 2 of the TES Report
notes that habitat is present for Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), rough-leaf loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia) (RLL), as well as the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), a Federal
Species of Concern (FSC). The TES Report states that habitat is not present for the federally
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW).
Section 3.0 of the TES Report discusses the survey methods used and the person, Ms. Kim
Williams, who conducted the surveys. The site of the surveys appears to be a 10-acre tract (p. 1)

t
3
within the larger WTP site. It is unclear why the TES Report considers only a 10-acre tract
within WTP site which consists of snore than 40 acres. If the remainder of the WTP site has
been mowed and/or timbered in the recent past, such actions should be clarified.
The PN states that the proposed project "may affect" federally listed species, including the RCW
and RLL. The PN also states consultation under section? of the ESA will be initiated and no
permit will be issued until the consultation process is complete.
With regard to the RCW, the primary area of interest is the site of the WTP and the various well
sites. The EA notes (p. 4-3) that the water pipes would follow dirt roads or road easements. The
45 (or 44) acres of the WTP are undeveloped, recently cleared, and consist of early natural
successional vegetation (EA, p. 4-3). However, the EA later notes (p. 5-23) that ten acres
located in the southwestern part of the WTP sites were surveyed for the RCW in December
2004. The TES Report notes that young loblolly pines, four to eight inches diameter breast
height (DBH), were observed and states that these would not provide RCW habitat. Larger pines
were observed north and east of the tract. The TES Report states these larger pines were
inspected for RCW cavities. No RCWs or RCW cavities were seen. The NCNHP occurrence
records show a single RCW record roughly a mile north/northeast of the WTP location. The
main text of EA provides additional information and states (p. 5-22 and 5-23) that field surveys
"did not reveal the presence of cavities or red-cockaded woodpeckers within the 10-acre tract or
within ahalf--mile radius of the 10-acre tract."
The EA states (p. 5-23) that RCW surveys have not been performed within the well field since
well site locations have not been finalized. Upon finalization of the well field sites, field surveys
for the RCW and cavity trees would be performed at each well site and within ahalf--mile radius
of each well site. The evaluation of the well sites should consider whether RCW foraging
habitat would be adversely affected.
Neither the EA nor the PN makes a definitive statement regarding project impacts on the RCW.
The Service requests that the applicant finalize and clarified information of project impacts to the
RCW. Before summarizing the RCW data, the applicant should review the Second Revision of
the RCW Recovery Plan issued in January 2003. This plan is available on our web site at <
httn://www.fws.~ov/rcwrecovery/finalrecoveryplan•pdf >. Information in the revised plan
should supersede that in the 1999 Service document referenced in the TES Report.
The TES Report states (p. 7) that no RLL were observed during the survey of December 2004.
However, the survey was not made during the optimal survey period for the RLL which is mid-
May through June (see the Service site at < http://nc-
es.fws.gov/plant/optimal survey windows for~lants.htm >). The general habitat for this
species given in Table 2 is correct. There are occurrence records in the NCNHP database for
RLL north of the project area. The Service requests that the Corps not make a determination on
impacts to the RLL until all areas of appropriate habitat have been survey during the optimal
survey period.
The TES Report states that habitat, wet savannahs, is present for Cooley's meadowrue
(Thalictrum cooleyi) in the project area. The December 2004 field survey did not find this

species, but correctly noted that the survey occurred outside the optimal survey period, mid-June
through early July. While records for this species in New Hanover County are considered
"obscure" and most current records occur to the north in Pender County, the Service supports the
position given in the EA (p. 5-30) that surveys for Cooley's meadowrue should be conducted
within the well sites and WTP site before construction.
The EA discusses a number of plants which are Federal Species of Concern (FSC). The
Service's scoping letter of March 2004 specifically mentioned coastal goldenrod (Solidago
villosicarpa) as a source of concern. The TES Report mentions (Figure 2) the presence of Venus
flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), a FSC, and savannah milkweed (Asclepias pedicellata), a species
with no federal status, near the WTP site. The TES Report states (pp. 7-8) that limited habitat
for Venus flytrap may occur in the project area. Similarly, the EA notes (pp. 5-26 to 5-30) that
other rare plants, which do not have the protection of the ESA, could occur in the project and
surveys should be performed prior to construction.
While surveys for threatened or endangered plants must be conducted as part of the section 7
consultation, the Service strongly recommends that such surveys also seek to location other rare
plants, such as Venus flytrap and coastal goldenrod. If such plants are located, this information
should be supplied to the NCNHP and Mr. Dale Suiter of this office. There may be opportunities
to relocate these plants.
The EA briefly considers (p. 5-24) the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), a federally-
endangered mammal, and notes that there is suitable habitat for the species in the eastern most
part of the project area. The document notes that the species has not been documented within
two miles of the WTP site, well field, or transmission corridor. The EA concludes that the
project would have no direct or indirect impact on the manatee.
While there are no current records for this species in the Scotts Hill quad, the species has been
reported in the coastal waters of New Hanover County. The shallow, estuarine waters of the
AIWW area may provide suitable habitat for manatees that move along the Atlantic Coast during
summer months and are seasonal transients in North Carolina, primarily from June through
October. Manatees may use water as shallow as one meter (3.3 feet) deep. The species moves
extensively when in North Carolina waters and past occurrence records cannot be used to
precisely determine the likelihood that it will be presence at a particular construction site.
If excavation would occur in the AIWW in order to place the outfall pipeline, the Service is
concerned that such construction near the discharge location could impact the manatee. The
project narrative within the PN states (p. 8) that "excavated material below MHW [mean high
water] will be temporarily placed on the seabed next to the trench." This pipeline would extend
from uplands on the mainland to a discharge location in 12 feet of water. After the pipeline is
installed, material excavated from the trench will be returned to the trench, burying the effluent
line.
Any excavation of sediment in the AIWW may pose a risk to manatees. To protect manatees in
North Carolina, the Service developed guidelines entitled "Precautions for General Construction
in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina." These guidelines

address all types of in-water construction, except blasting, and should produce little, if any,
additional expense. The guidelines are intended mainly to ensure that: (1) construction
personnel are informed that manatees may occur in the work area; (2) work should cease if a
manatee approaches the work area; and (3) work should not resume until the manatee leaves the
work area. They also include procedures for reporting the death or injury of a manatee. These
guidelines are available on our web site at < htt :/p /nc_
es.fws.gov/mammal/manatee ~uidelines.pdf5. The risk to manatees could be reduced to an
acceptable level by the implementation of the Service's guidelines. The risk would be further
reduced by performing the work during the period of November through May.
Service Concerns and Recommendations
The project narrative accompanying the PN discusses (p. 9) efforts to avoid and minimize
wetland impacts. Wherever possible, wells would be placed in uplands and as close to existing
roads as possible. The width of access roads would be minimized. No permanent wetland losses
would. result from installation of the water main. These efforts are adequate.
The Service finds the plan for wetland restoration to be adequate. The restoration of 3.045 acres
of wetlands on the WTP site would achieve a ratio of 1:1 for permanent wetland losses.
However, the plan should state the type of wetland community to be restored and the effort to be
made to restore and maintain wetland hydrology.
The preservation of 25 acres ofnon-riparian would be at a ratio of approximately 8.2:1. While
such preservation is desirable, there should be a discussion of the type(s) of wetland
communities to be preserved, current condition of these wetlands, the nature of the conservation
easement, and the easement holder. Wetlands to be preserved should be of high quality. The
Service does not support preservation credits for historic wet pine flatwoods which have been
timbered and/or mowed, a condition noted for a portion of the WTP site. If these areas have
been degraded by drainage or vegetation removal, there are opportunities for
restoration/enhancement of hydrology and natural vegetation. If the areas are undisturbed, the
conservation easement should include all the prohibited and restrictive activities given in article
II of the Corps' model conservation easement (available at <
www. saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/Documents/conservation%20easement%20r8-
03.pdf >), revised in August 2003. The 11 restrictive activities include (Sections A-M) measures
to prevent the introduction ofnon-native plants (A); construction of paved surfaces or utility
poles (B); any removal, cutting, or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation (E); any change
in topography (I); certain changes to drainage patterns (J); and, the operation of mechanized
vehicles (L). These prohibited and restrictive activities should be part of the permit conditions
and become part of the property deed.
The Service supports the decision of the Corps to withhold a DA permit until it can be
documented that the work is not likely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species.
Overall, there are issues which must be clarified and resolved regarding federally protected
species. While there is a great deal of good information in the text of the EA and the TES
Report, this information is fragmented. There is no clear justification for consideration of only
ten acres of the 40+ acres of the WTP site. Areas to be disturbed by the WTP, wells, and

pipeline corridors should be surveyed for listed plants during the optimal time period for
detection. Any area requiring the removal of mature pines should be evaluated as potential
RCW foraging habitat unless there is evidence that no RCWs occur within ahalf--mile if the
impacted area. The evaluation should not be limited to active nest trees.
The Service recommends that the applicant submit a Biological Assessment (BA) to the Corps to
facilitate your determination of project impacts. The BA would consolidation the information in
existing planning documents and add new information, such as surveys for federally listed plants
during the optimal survey period and survey information from the well sites. Each species
consideration should end with a determination of "no effect," "may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect," or "may affect, and is likely to adversely affect." After reviewing the BA, the
Corps may accept or reject the conclusions of the applicant. As part of the consultation process,
the Corps should forward the BA to this office along with your determination for each listed
species. The Service will review the Corps' determinations and advise you on whether the
Corps' obligations under section 7 have been fulfilled and consultation can be concluded.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on this proposed work. If
you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext.
27 or by e-mail at < howard [e-mail] >.
cc:
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Steve Everhart, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilmington, NC
Jim Gregson, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington, NC