20061581 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070212

LM G
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP nvc.
Environmental Consultants
February 7, 2007
TO: Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management - ~-.; : -
. ° .f ~.
4000ommerceAve. 's~ '~` _ ~~~~ ;~.~
4~ t~ "`^.,. ~
Morehead City, NC 28557 _.,
RE: New Hanover County Well Field and WWTP ; DW4 # o ~ i58 ~ ~ b~
_1 :.5 ..; a.,S I~~
. ? ~FrLx~t:Fi
Dear Doug:
Thank you for your letter in which you ask us to respond to agency comments generated by the CAMA
Major Permit application review process. Comments were received from the Division of Coastal
Management, Division of Water Quality, Division of Marine Fisheries, Wildlife Resources
Commission, Division of Land Resources, and Public Water Supply. We also received comments from
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Individual Permit
Public Notice review process. Below is a response to each of these comments.
Division of Coastal Mana eg ment
It is recommended that the applicant consider the installation of the outfall line at the AIA'W utilizing
directional bore in order to eliminate the impacts to coastal wetlands, eliminate the need to stockpile
spoil material within Public Trust Areas and eliminate potential impacts to shel~sh resources If the
directional bore option is deemed not to be feasible, it is recommended that all spoil material be
temporarily stockpiled on a barge or on highground until the trench is ready to be backfilled
The following response was prepared by Mr. Chris Gibson of Gahagan & Bryant Associates, the
engineering firm designing the outfall location.
During the initial design, the directional bore oprion was considered at length. However given the
working parameters of the site, it was considered not feasible for several reasons. Safety and longevity
of the structure and other existing utilities were the foremost considerations. In order to prevent
movement or flotation of the pipeline, the pipe must either be weighted or have sufficient ground
cover. Since there is the potential for the pipeline to be full of air at various times, this is the worse
case design condition. A directionally bored pipeline cannot be weighted externally, thus the line must
be drilled significantly below existing grade. In our experience this would be 10-15 feet. These design
constraints resulted in the following issues for the directional drill option.
1. Because of the limitation of a standard drilling rig and the HDPE pipeline characteristics, there
is insufficient horizontal distance within the allotted easement to drill deep enough to provide
sufficient ground cover and still surface west of the bridge fendering system.
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

2. There are both cable and phone utility lines which share the utility easement being utilized.
Based on the USACE requirements for utilities crossing the AIWW, these lines are estimated to
be buried at approximately elevation -25 ft NGVD29. In the event additional working space
could be obtained so that desired depth could be reached, the directional drill would likely cross
these lines vertically. The easement is only 30' wide so there is a substantial risk of interrupting
phone and cable service to the island during the installation process.
3. The third issue with the direction drill option is not directly related to design, but is an
environmental one. The drill rig would have to "surface" in open water. It has been our
experience in other states that the release of "drilling mud", specifically bentonite, into open
waters is an environmentally unsound practice that we would like to avoid.
If a permit is issued to authorize the project it should be subject to the following conditions:
In order to protect juvenile shrimp/frnfish/shrimp and finfish populations, no excavation of filling will
be permitted between April 1 and September 30 of arty year without the prior approval of the Division
of Coastal Management, in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
All proposed work at the outfall location will occur between October 1~` and March 31~ to protect
populations of finfish and shrimp.
The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or vegetated
wetlands is not authorized.
The project has been revised to stockpile material from the trench directly to a barge. Once the pipe
has been installed, the material will be transferred from the barge back to the trench.
No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in arty vegetated wetlands/marsh or
surrounding waters outside of the alignment of the fill area indicated on the workplan drawing(s).
The applicant will comply with this .condition.
No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable
waters at or adjacent to the authorized work.
The applicant will comply with this condition.
The authorized structure and associated activity must not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation.
The applicant will comply with this condition.
The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
2

The applicant will comply with this condition.
This permit does not authorize the interference with arty existing or proposed Federal project, and the
permittee will not be entitled to compensation for damage to the authorized structure or work, or
injury which may be caused,from existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the
public interest.
The applicant will comply with this condition.
In order to protect water quality, runoff from construction must not visibly increase the amount of
suspended sediments in adjacent waters.
The applicant will comply with this condition.
Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures must be implemented
to ensure that eroded materials do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property (e.g. silt
fence, diversion swales or berms, sand fence, etc).
The applicant will comply with this condition.
A ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be provided within the shorter of IS working or 30
calendar days of completion of arty phase of grading on cut or filled slopes.
The applicant will comply with this condition.
The permitted activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside of the area of construction or construction-related discharge. Increase such that the
turbidity in the waterbody is 25 NTU's or Zess in all saltwater classes are not considered significant.
The applicant will comply with this condition.
Division of Water Quality
In a letter dated October 19, 2006, Ms. Linda Lewis with the Division of Water Quality provided the
following comments:
The North Carolina Administrative Code requires any project that must receive either Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Plan approval and/or a CAMA Major permit to apply for and received a
Stormwater Management Permit by the Division, of Water Quality. Either a Stormwater Permit
Application package .... or a written response regarding the status of this project and the expected
submittal date must be received in this Office no later than November 19, 2006.
LMG submitted a letter to Ms. Linda Lewis on November 7a', 2006 describing the expected submittal
date of the Stormwater Permit application. Since that time, the application has been finalized and the
County plans to submit it through the express review process in February of 2007.
3

In a letter dated January 16, 2007, Ms. Noelle Lutheran of the Division of Water Quality provided the
following comments:
1. Impact Just cation:
It appears that impacts associated with installation of the efjZuent pipeline could be minimized
by directionally drilling the section of pipeline adjacent to the ICWW that is currently proposed
in 404 and Coastal Wetlands..... Please revise the narrative and plans accordingly.
Please see the response given by Gahagan & Bryant on page 1.
2. Mitigation
Please provide a copy of the mitigation plan, including but not limited to, monitoring plan for
mitigation area and draft preservation documents and associated maps for the well sites and
the WTP site.
Enclosed is the complete wetland restoration plan. The applicant is currently preparing the
preservation documents and associated maps showing the wetland areas to be preserved. The
language will follow standard language provided by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. We will
submit this information to you as soon as it is complete.
3. NPDES General Stormwater Permit No. NCGO10000 Monitoring Requirements
Please provide a written narrative explaining how New Hanover County intends to comply with
this Permit and who will be delegated to inspect the site and maintain required rain gauge and
monitoring reports.
The County will include this monitoring in the contractor's scope of work to ensure that it is
completed.
Division of Marine Fisheries
To prevent damage to the 225 ft of coastal marsh, the pipe should be directional bored.
Please see the response given by Gahagan & Bryant on page 1.
To prevent problems with navigation, anchoring, etc. the line should be marked appropriately.
The line will be marked to avoid problems with navigation.
Wildlife Resources Commission
To prevent damage to the 225 ft of coastal marsh, the pipe should be directional bored.
Please see the response given by the project engineer on page 1.
4

To prevent problems with navigation, anchoring, etc. the line should be marked appropriately.
The line will be marked to avoid problems with navigation.
The draft deed restrictions for the wetlands to be set aside as mitigation for wetlands impacted by the
project were not provided We recommend that all remaining wetlands on-site are preserved in
perpetuity through conservation easement that prohibits: cutting, pruning, mowing, or burning of
vegetation; construction of arty kind; use of herbicides; arty land disturbing activities; dumping or
storing of soil, trash, or other waste; and the pasturing, grazing or watering of animals, or any other
agricultural or horticultural purpose within wetlands.
The applicant is currently preparing the preservation documents and associated maps showing the
wetland areas to be preserved. The language will follow standard language provided by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that will prohibit the above-listed activities. We will submit this information to you
as soon as it is complete.
We recommend that all sub-aqueous utility stream crossings be made using directional bore methods
rather than trenching.
The only stream crossing is located on Porters Neck Road (Sheet CS}. This crossing will be
directionally bored to avoid impacts.
Division of Land Resources
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan application and approval is necessary for this project.
The County is currently preparing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan application and plans to
submit it through the express review process in February of 2007.
Public Water Sunnly
This project must be approved by PWS.
The PWSS received a partial submittal for the New Hanover County Well Field and Water Treatment
Facility project on December 29, 2006, which included the plans and specifications for the Water
Treatment Facility and the PER. The Plans and Specifications for the Well Field portion of the project
and the updated NHC Water System Management Plan will be submitted by the first week in February
of 2007.
U. S. Army Corps of En ig, neers
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed
work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please furnish information
regarding arty other alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or wetland
areas.
5

A complete Alternatives Analysis was included in the Environmental Assessment prepazed by Arcadis
and in the Project Narrative, which was a part of the Individual Permit application.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize wetland
losses. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
A description of the applicant's attempt to avoid and minimize wetland impacts is included in the
Project Narrative, which was a part of the Individual Permit application.
c. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has employed all appropriate and practicable
minimization. Please indicate your plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or
wetlands or provide information as to the absence of arty such appropriate and practicable measures.
Enclosed is the complete wetland restoration plan. The applicant is currently preparing the preservation
documents and associated maps showing the areas to be preserved within the well field sites and the
wetland restoration area. The language will follow standard language provided by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. We will submit this information to you as soon as it is complete.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
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.
The wetlands to be preserved are located within the well field sites and the wetland restoration area
within the WTP site. The well field sites consist of densely vegetated pocosin habitat (please see
Project Narrative for additional details). The wetland restoration area within the WTP tract was ditched
and does not currently support wetland hydrology. Vegetation within this area has been mowed and
consists mostly of fetterbush, sweet pepperbush, and cinnamon fern in the herbaceous layer, with a few
scattered loblolly dine trees in the canopy. Ditches within the wetland restoration azea will be filled to
restore hydrology and the area will be planted with wetland vegetation. Please see the enclosed
mitigation plan for additional details. The applicant is currently preparing the preservation documents
and associated maps showing the specific wetland areas to be preserved. The language will follow
standard language provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We will submit this information to
you as soon as it is complete.
Areas to be disturbed by the WTP, wells, and pipeline corridors should be surveyed for listed plants
during the optimal time period for detection. Arty area requiring the removal of mature pines should be
evaluated as potential RCW foraging habitat unless there is evidence that no RCW's occur within a
half-mile of the impacted area. The evaluation should not be limited to active nest trees.
Please see the enclosed Biological Assessment for an evaluation of RCW habitat.
6

The Service recommends that the applicant submit a Biological Assessment (BA) to the Corps to
facilitate your determination of project impacts. The BA would consolidate 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
a, ffect, and is likely to adversely affect ". After reviewing the BA, the Corps may accept or reject the
conclusions of the applicant.
Enclosed is a Biological Assessment for the NHC Well Field and WWTP Project. This BA found that
the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the West Indian manatee, the red-cockaded
woodpecker, Cooley's meadowrue, and rough-leaf loosestrife. The BA concluded that ditch banks and
several small wetland pockets within the WTP tract could potentially provide suitable habitat for the
rough-leaf loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue. The project proposes to impact two of these pockets
(0.013 acre) and 0.24 acre of ditch banks. The flowering period for these two plant species is in June.
The applicant requests that permitting be allowed to proceed with the condition that these areas be
evaluated in June to make a final determination about the presence/absence of these species. No
earthwork will occur until after these areas have been inspected and it has been determined that these
species do not exist within the areas. If these species are observed, the plants will be relocated to the
wetland mitigation area on site with the supervision of the USFWS and the NCWRC.
Please note that the WTP site plan was recently modified by the project engineers due to stormwater
considerations. These modifications have decreased the amount of impacts to Waters of the U.S on site
from 0.67 acre to 0.24 acre. Please see the attached revised WTP plan (Sheet 12). The overall amount
of proposed impacts to Waters of the U.S. from the project has been reduced from 1.108 acre to 0.678
acre. I have enclosed a revised impact table.
I hope this response adequately addresses the agencies' concerns. Please contact me if you require any
additional information. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
Si cerelyl, 1
InJ ~~'
Kim Williams
Wetland Scientist
Encl.
C: Mr. Greg Thompson, NHC
Mr. David Hollis, NHC
Mr. Paul Goss, WK Dickson
Mr. David Briley, Arcadis
Ms. Jennifer Frye, ACOE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Mr. Ian McMillan, DWQ
Mr. Howard Hall, USFWS
7

List of Wetland and Waters of the U.S. Impacts
(revised February 2007)
Permanent Area
404 Wetland
Im act Area
Square Feet
Acres Location
1 574 0.013 Well Field
2 1461 0.034 Well Field
3 825 0.019 Well Field
4 109 0.003 Well Field
5 3910 0.090 Well Field
6 11911 0.273 Well Field
7 377 0.009 Well Field
8 264 0.006 Well Field
9 9831 0.226 Well Field
10 207 0.005 -Well Field
11 12227 0.281 Well Field
12 10485 0.241 Well Field
13 18952 0.435 Well Field
14 11091 0.255 Well Field
15 1492 0.034 Well Field
16 359 0.008 Well Field
17 245 0.005 WTP
Total 84320 1.937
Permanent Area
Waters of the U.S.
Im act Area Square Feet Acres Location
1 1324 0.030 Well Field
2 483 0.011 Well Field
3 621 0.014 Well Field
4 5861 0.135 Well Field
5 562 0.013 Well Field
6 529 0.012 Well Field
7 221 0.005 Well Field
8 188 0.004 Well Field
9 575 0.013 Well Field
10 41 0.001 Well Field
11 3620 0.083 Well Field
12 728 0.017 Well Field
13 692 0.016 Well Field
14 784 0.018 Well Field
15 549 0.013 Well Field
16 1890 0.043 WTP
17 439 0.010 WTP
18 29199 0.24 WTP
Total 48306 0.678

List of Wetland and Waters of the U.S. Impacts Contd.
Temporary Area
404 Wetland
Im act Area Square Feet Acres Location
1 1699 0.039 Concentrate
2 695 0.016 Concentrate
3 24 0.001 Concentrate
4 754 0.017 O den Park
5 20761 0.477 Outfall
Total 23933 0.55
Temporary Area
Coastal Wetland
Im act Area Square Feet Acres Location
1 2807 0.064 Outfall
Total 2807 0.064

N

I
I~
~4
., O
4N
W
ti
Q j
3 w
2
i~
~~
„o
C~

3
DITCH ....
(WATERS OF THE US) ~
-gym

~~ DITCH
fWAZF~C,mOF TI(~nfJS>
U7
~ y

x
x~
~4
0
`
a ,~
w
~
w<,,
F
.
,
wus IMPnCTs
(AREA. = 98222 S.F.)

N 55'S9'00'W
' ~ ;:N S
~~t~,P
60' PUBLIC R/W
~0
,~
e- ` • ~ ~a
~
~ O
~
PR~U~TISN 1~ A
t
~' (Sqee Sheet Cd for wetland Ifn ac dethils~
~. .,.
~~
!
.
'
~jpp ~ ~.
'
1

,~ ' ~~
~ O ~
U
W
`4~ ~~ =F
~ '~
~ ~6
O
4y
~
o
W Q ~
4
i
_1 u
~ I
J
r •-----a ~ `I
~ WUS IMPACTS cwATERS l>FuT us)
i !AREA = 2770. S,F.)
2~
U1 ~ o
Qh
W
~~~`. ~
x
0
~" ~ _ _.
W
T
nrrcH
fwaTERS of rHE us) ~ j
I'JI N
SF
JACQUELINE -R
ti5 I 1p
2 I 3
RECHELLE R(JAD
35 .Sb
3g O
n~9
DIANE DRIVE
pp p5
®Proposed Impacts to IrNaters of the U.S. (10,6 ~ 0.66 sf; 0.24 ac~
Proposed Impacts to ~`04 4"Wetlands ~244.~? sf; 0.005 ac)
Please note these numbers do not include impects from Wells A & B (see Sheet CB)
PRE~IMINARI': NoT FoR GoNSTRUGTIaN
RANCH DRIVE
DRAWING BY:
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Roleigh, NC 27601
Weltontl survey fnfofmation provided by Hanover Design
h,~odif;ed 6y Lond Management Group, Inc. to show proposed weUonds ontl Waters of Lhe L.S. irr~pocls.
SHEET 12 of 14
`Water Treatment Plant `/ite Plan
July 2006; revised February 2007
0
SCALE: 1° = 15G

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WELL FIELD AND WATER TREATMENT PLANT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
February 2007
Submitted to:
Ms. Jennifer Frye
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Applicant:
New Hanover County, North Carolina
230 Market Place Drive, Suite 16
Wilmington, NC 28403
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table of Contents
1.00 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1
2.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 2
3.00 PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................................................................4
4.00 PRIOR CONSULTATIONS ............................................................................................................ 7
5.00 LIST OF SPECIES ...........................................................................................................................7
6.00 SURVEY AND ANALYSIS METHODS .......................................................................................9
7.00 GENERAL EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................9
8.00 SPECIES ASSESSMENTS ..............................................................................................................9
8.01 West Indian Manatee ..............................................................................................................9
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ........................................ 9
b. Effect Determination ...............................................................................................:..... 10
8.02 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker ................................................................................................. 10
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ...................................... 10
b. Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 13
8.03 Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Leatherback Sea Turtle, Green Sea Turtle,
and Loggerhead Sea Turtle ............................................................................................... 13
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ...................................... 13
b. Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 14
8.04 Shortnose Sturgeon ............................................................................................................... 14
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ...................................... 14
b. Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 15
8.05 Cooley's Meadowrue ............................................................................................................. 15
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ...................................... 15
b. Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 16
8.06 Rough-leaf Loosestrife .......................................................................................................... 16
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ...................................... 16
b. Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 17
8.07 Venus Flytrap ........................................................................................................................ 17
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area ...................................... 17
b. Effect Determination ..................................................................................................... 18
9.00 LONG TERM M'ACTS OF CONCENTRATE ..........................................................................18
10.00 SUMMARY EFFECT DETERMINATION ...................................................................................19
11.00 SUMMARY OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES ...............................................................................19
12.00 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................20
i

List of Figures, Tables, and Appendices
Table 1. List of threatened and endangered species considered in BA .........................................8
Figure 1. Vicinity map of project area ...........................................................................................22
Figure 2. Service area for project ...................................................................................................23
Figure 3. SCS Soils Map for WTP and Well Fields ......................................................................24
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of WTP and Well Fields ...................................................................25
Figure 5. Aerial Photograph of Ogden Park ..................................................................................26
Figure 6. Aerial Photograph of Outfall Location ...........................................................................27
Figure 7. WTP Site Design ............................................................................................................28
Figure 8. Diffuser Plan View with Elevations ............................................................................... 29
Figure 9. Cross Section of Diffuser ............................................................................................... 30
ii

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WELL FIELD AND WATER TREATMENT PLANT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
February 2007
1.00 INTRODUCTION
New Hanover County (County) proposes to improve its existing water supply and treatment for
the northeast part of the County. This project includes additional treatment to improve finished water
quality and better management of groundwater supplies through better spacing of wells and balancing
water supplies from the Pee Dee aquifer and the Castle Hayne aquifer. The County is proposing to
construct a new six million-gallon-per-day (mgd) groundwater treatment plant (WTP) and well field
system in the northern part of the County. Fifteen well sites (two wells at each location for a total of 30
wells) will be used to tap into the Pee Dee and Castle Hayne aquifers. Two parallel raw water
transmission mains will transmit raw water from the well sites to the WTP. One main will transmit
water pumped from the Castle Hayne aquifer, while the other main will transmit water pumped from
the Castle Hayne aquifer. The County is also applying for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to discharge up to two mgd of membrane concentrate into the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) at the Figure Eight Bridge. In order to assess the potential impacts of
this project on the environment, an Environmental Assessment was prepared by Arcadis G&M of
North Carolina, Inc. and submitted to NCDENR; Division of Environmental Health. A Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued. A CAMA Major Permit application and an Individual Permit
application were submitted to the Division of Coastal Management and to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, respectively, on July 31, 2006. Comments were received from various state and federal
agencies. This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared in response to comments received from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the application review process. This report evaluates the
potential of federally protected species to occur within the above-mentioned project area. Federally
protected species are those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT).
1

Z.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area is located in the northern part of New Hanover County, NC (Figure 1). The 88
square-mile service area encompasses the northern half of New Hanover County with the exception of
the US 421 corridor between the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers (Figure 2). The project
area is bounded by Pender County to the north, the City of Wilmington to the south, the Northeast
Cape Fear River to the east, and the Atlantic Ocean to the west. Below is a description of each project
area (WTP, well field, corridor, and outfall location).
Water Treatment Plant
The proposed Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is 44 acres in size and is located off of Old Oak
Road in the Ogden area of New Hanover County. According to the New Hanover County Generalized
Soil Survey, the site consists of Johnston loam, Murville fine sand, and Seagate fine sand soil types
(Figure 3). Historically, this site most likely supported a wet pine flatwood community type. However,
the area has been significantly altered through time. Several ditches were placed within and around the
tract many years ago to drain the site. Only a few wetland pockets now exist within the tract and the
ditches have been classified as Waters of the U.S. Ms. Jennifer Frye of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers signed the wetland survey for this site on March 10, 2006. Vegetation within the site has
been mowed and consists mostly of fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) in the herbaceous layer, with a few scattered loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) trees in the canopy. A dirt path approximately 20'-wide runs east-west across the site.
Two wells have already been installed within the tract; one located in the southeast corner near Old
Oak Road (Well A) and one located in the northwest corner (Well B) of the site. Surrounding land use
is residential or undeveloped. The property is located within the New Hanover County jurisdiction.
The property is currently zoned for single-family residential (R-15) development and is classified as a
Wetland Resource Protection Area by the New Hanover County Land Use Plan. All properties
adjacent to the site are currently zoned for single-family residential (R-15) development. A threatened
and endangered species evaluation was performed for 10 acres of this site in December of 2004. Please
see Appendix E of the EA for the complete report. The additiona134 acres were surveyed in December
of 2006.
2

Well Field Sites
Fifteen well sites are proposed for the well field (Figure 4). Two of these are existing well sites
at the WTP tract. One well site is located across the road from the WTP. Eight well sites are proposed
within Greenview Ranches and four well sites are proposed within the Ogden Park tract. Eight lots
within the Greenview Ranches area have been purchased by the County. These undeveloped, forested
lots are between two and five acres in size. Dirt roads were installed many years ago to provide limited
access. to the area. Plantation Road runs east from Murrayville Road and terminates just before
reaching Market Street. This road is approximately 22' wide and has ditches running parallel to it for a
majority of its length. Several smaller dirt roads run north-south through the area. These roads have not
been maintained as well as Plantation Road and large potholes (some of which have naturalized back
to wetlands) exist throughout them. Ditches (Waters of the U.S.) run parallel to most of these roads.
According to the New Hanover County Generalized Soil Survey, these lots consist of Leon fine sand.
Most all of these lots consist entirely of 404 wetlands, however upland areas were found on lots K and
L. Furthermore, old ditches that were dug parallel to the existing dirt roads have a minor drainage
effect on the lot located furthest north (J). Surrounding land use is residential, agricultural (horse
farms), or undeveloped. Vegetation within these lots consists of a dense assemblage of pond pine
(Pinus serotina), gallberry (Ilex glabra), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora),
and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida).
Four additional well sites are proposed within the Ogden Park tract (Figure 5). This tract is 160
acres in size and is located off of Market Street. The County received a Nationwide Permit 26 in 1993
to fill 5.71 acres of wetlands for park facilities. This acreage plus the natural uplands have been
developed into a park that contains baseball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds, rest
rooms, a picnic area, a trail, a pet exercise area, and parking. The wetlands are forested and support
Murville fine sand soils. Habitat is similar to that found in Greenview Ranches. Wetlands are vegetated
by pond pine, gallberry, loblolly bay, titi, and fetterbush.
Route of Concentrate Main
The proposed route of the concentrate main will lead from the WTP, along the right of way of
Market Street and then turn right onto the right of way of Porters Neck Road (Figure 1). The line will
then turn right onto Edgewater Club Road and follow this road to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at
3

the Figure Eight Bridge. The majority of this route consists of forested or mowed uplands located
along a 50'-wide corridor measured from the centerline of these roads. Surrounding land use is mostly
residential. The route will cross wetlands in five separate areas.
Outfall Location
The project proposes to discharge membrane concentrate into the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW), on the south side of the Figure Eight Bridge (Figure 1). The AIWW in this area is
classified as SA and Outstanding Resource Water. The SA classification indicates salt waters used for
market shellfishing. The ORW classification is for unique and special surface waters that are of
exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance and have exceptional water quality.
The average tide range in the AIWW near the Figure Eight Island Bridge is 3.58 feet. The mean water
depth at the proposed discharge location is approximately 12 feet at low tide and the mean
concentration of salinity is approximately 35 ppt. Freshwater and coastal wetlands have been
delineated adjacent to the AIWW and an estuarine Area of Environmental Concern is located 575'
landward of mean high water. The portion of the AIWW in which the discharge is proposed is an area
that is presently open for shellfishing. The adjacent land use is residential and a boat ramp and pier
exist in this vicinity for water access. According to the New Hanover County Soil Survey, upland soils
consist of Wakulla and wetland soils are Tidal Marsh muck (Figure 6). The NPDES permit application
contains additional tide data from this area and a mixing zone analysis.
3.00 PROPOSED PROJECT
Please see Section 1 of the Environmental Assessment (Proposed Project Description) for a detailed
description of the proposed project.
Water Treatment Plant
The proposed WTP will be located in the northwestern portion of the property off of Old Oak
Road (Figure 7). The northern portion of the WTP site is reserved for wetlands mitigation to offset
impacts from the WTP site, well sites, and other offsite construction activities. The southern portion of
the parcel as well as the remaining northern portion of the property is reserved for future County uses.
The proposed access road will connect with Old Oak Road opposite of Rochelle Road. The
4

main plant entrance and exit will be located along the southern property boundary. It will be equipped
with an electric slide gate. All roadways will be asphalt pavement roads. Most roads will be 24-feet
wide with the exception of the chemical unloading area, which will have a 12-ft wide road. The
visitors parking area will be located adjacent to the Administration Building and will include
handicapped spaces for staff and visitors. Parking for WTP staff will be located behind the WTP
building. Parking is also proposed for plant operators and maintenance staff near the Chemical Storage
Area.
The primary treatment process for the WTP will be nanofiltration for softening total organic
two source waters to alleviate the potential for membrane fouling from biological growth or saturated
carbon (TOC) removal and color removal. Separate membrane filtration units will be provided for the
salts. Treatment processes will include cartridge filtration and nanofiltration in series. Following
nanofiltration, permeate from both the Pee Dee and Castle Hayne treatment trains will be blended and
conveyed to packed tower aerators for removal of carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and oxidation of
any remaining iron in the permeate. Sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, and corrosion inhibitor
will be added and then the finished water will be stored in two 1.0-million gallon clearwells prior to
pumping to the distribution system.
Two one-million gallon (MG) circular, pre-stressed concrete tanks will be provided for finished
water storage. The proposed tanks will be 100-feet diameter with 17-ft side water depth. Each tank
will include curtain-type baffle constructed of Hypalon and stainless steel hardware. Influent
connection will be 24-inch diameter and effluent connection will be 30-inch diameter. A tank overflow
and drain will be piped to an onsite stormwater detention pond. Level will be recorded and reported to
SCADA by an ultrasonic level indicator and transmitter.
Well Field Sites
Fifteen well sites are proposed within the northern part of New Hanover County. Both the
Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers will be tapped at each well site. Therefore, the 6-mgd WTP will
have a total of 30 wells. Two of the well sites (Wells A & B) will be located within the WTP tract. One
well site (Well Q) will be located across the road from the WTP. Four well sites (Wells M, N, O, & P)
will be located within the Ogden Park Tract. The remaining eight well sites (Wells C, F, G, H, I, J, K,
& L) will be located along Plantation Road and two roads located perpendicular to Plantation Road.
Wells must be placed at least 100 feet from any property line, but will be installed as close to the roads
5

as possible to reduce wetland impacts from the proposed driveway. The width of roadway
improvements will be minimal; only a 12' wide gravel road is proposed with 2' shoulders. This will
minimize wetland impacts from the road and reduce access by trespassers.
I Route of Water Main
Two parallel raw water transmission mains will be constructed to convey raw water from the
well sites to the WTP. One main will convey water pumped from the Castle Hayne aquifer, and the
other main will transmit water pumped from the Pee Dee aquifer. Raw water from each aquifer will be
conveyed to the WTP separately to avoid potential biological fouling. Each raw water transmission
main will consist of approximately 17,000 feet (3.2 miles) of line ranging in size from 6-inch to 30-
' inch, for a total of 34,000 feet (6.6 miles) of main. The discharge line will be routed from the WTP site
south to US 17, run northeast along US 17, east on Porters Neck Road, and southeast along Edgewater
Club Road toward the bridge to Figure Eight Island. The line will cross wetlands at five different
locations, two of which will be directionally bored. The other wetlands will be open cut and backfilled
t to original grade.
Outfall Location
The proposed discharge location is at the Figure Eight Island Bridge at Bridge Road. The
County is proposing to discharge up to two mgd of membrane concentrate to the AIWW. The proposed
discharge would include amulti-port diffuser outfall located along the bottom of the AIWW (Figures 8
I & 9). The diffuser would be within the bridge easement of the USACE's AIWW right-of--way. During
the NCSEPA process, the planned design for the effluent outfall structure was to suspend the pipeline
under the bridge structure and the have the pipeline run vertically down the last set of pilings west of
the bridge fender system. Consultation with the bridge designers resulted in several logistical problems
with attaching the effluent pipeline to the bridge. The issues were as follows:
1. Penetration. of the concrete bridge abutment with the pipeline.
2. Uncertainties with attaching suspension elements to an aging concrete girder structure.
3. Foreseeable future maintenance of the bridge that might cause disruption in the use of the
I outflow pipeline within the next decade.
i

1

For these reasons it was determined that the best course of action was to make the pipeline a
stand-alone structure. The pipeline will be placed underground, utilizing trench and fill construction
methods, out to approximately the -10.0 ft mean low water contour, then extend 55' along the seabed
to the diffuser structure. The pipeline will be secured by a series of pre-cast 4'x4'xl' concrete collars.
The end of the structure will be approximately 60' west of the western bridge fender.
During initial construction, it will be necessary to temporarily excavate 225-ft long, by 4-ft
deep, by 4-ft wide trench with 3:1 side slopes. The trenching operations will result in the excavation of
550 cubic yards of sandy material and the temporary disturbance of a marine area 35-ft wide by 225
long. The trench will be dug utilizing a small barge and excavator/dragline. Material will be excavated
and temporarily placed on a barge. After the pipeline is installed, material excavated from the trench
will be returned to the trench, burying the effluent line. Final grades will be within +/- 1 ft of pre-
construction conditions. The mean water depth at the proposed discharge location is approximately 12
feet at low tide.
4.00 PRIOR CONSULTATIONS
An Environmental Assessment was prepared by Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc. and
submitted to NCDENR; Division of Environmental Health. A Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was issued. A CAMA Major Permit application and an Individual Permit application were
submitted to the Division of Coastal Management and to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
respectively, on July 31, 2006. Comments were received from various state and federal agencies. This
Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared as requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
evaluate anticipated impacts to federally protected species.
5.00 LIST OF SPECIES
Species to be considered in this biological assessment were provided by the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and are contained in the following table.
7

t

Table 1. List of threatened and endangered species known to occur within New Hanover County and
considered in BA.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
present? Known
observation*
Mammals
Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus E no no
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E no no
Right whale Eubaleana glacialis E no no
Sei whale Baleanoptera borealis E no no
Sperm whale Physeter catodon E no no
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E yes no
Birds
Piping plover Charadrius melodus T no no
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E yes yes*
Reptiles
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) no no
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T yes no
Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E no no
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempi E yes no
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E no no
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T yes no
Fish
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E yes no
Plants
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E yes no
Rough-leaf loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E yes no
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T no no
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC yes no
KEY:
Status Definition
E Endangered: A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened: A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance: A species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
FSC Federal Species of Concern: a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing).
* Observation obtained by NC Natural Heritage Program data. Observed within''/2 mile of project area.
8

6.00 SURVEY AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Impacts to the natural environment of the project area were determined by data gathered
during field surveys conducted by Land Management Group, Inc. Additional information was
obtained from literature sources and consultation with informed individuals.
7.00 GENERAL EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES
j The presence of listed species in the project area depends on the availability of
appropriate habitat. Since the project area does not contain any sandy beach areas, the piping
plover and seabeach amaranth are not likely to be found within the project area and will not be
affected by the project. Furthermore, because the outfall location will be located in shallow (less
than 12' MSL), brackish water, whale species and the American alligator are not likely to be
found within the project area.
Listed species that could potentially be located at the well field site and the WTP site are
the red-cockaded woodpecker, Cooley's meadowrue, rough-leaf loosestrife, and Venus flytrap.
Listed species that could potentially be located at the outfall location are the West Indian
manatee, green sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and shortnose sturgeon.
The short-term and long-term impacts that this project may have on each of these species are
evaluated below.
8.00 SPECIES ASSESSMENTS
8.01 West Indian Manatee
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
The manatee is an occasional summer resident of the North Carolina coast.
Manatees inhabit both salt and fresh water of sufficient depth (1.5 meters to usually less
9

i
1
i ,.o~
1
1
1
1
1
than 6 meters) throughout their range. The species can be found in shallow, slow-moving
rivers, estuaries, saltwater bays, canals, and coastal areas. The West Indian manatee is
herbivorous and eats aquatic plants such as hydrilla, eelgrass, and water lettuce (USFWS,
1999). It has been sighted frequently in southeastern North Carolina with most records
occurring in the Cape Fear River basin in July, August, and September (Clark, 1993).
However, scattered records of this species in the region span all seasons. Based on this
data, the manatee is considered ayear-round resident with a maximum population in the
late summer months.
b. Effect Determination
Since the proposed trenching work at the outfall location is scheduled to occur
during the time of year when manatee populations will be minimal (between October 1
and March 31), it is unlikely that there will be any manatees in the project area during
construction of the project. The trench to be dug will be small in size and a single barge
with excavator/dragline will be used dig it. If manatees occur in the area during the
proposed excavation, they would likely be able to avoid the disturbance. The contractors
performing the work will have a copy of USFWS guidelines "Precautions for General
Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North
Carolina". Because of the timing of the project, the limited amount of disturbance, and
the precautions of the contractors, this work is not likely to adversely affect the West
Indian manatee.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
The red-cockaded woodpecker is generally found in open pine woodlands and
savannas with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat (USFWS, 2003). Cavity
trees are located in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory or overstory.
Minimum age of cavity trees is between 60 and 80 years depending on tree and site
factors. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or
l0

older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inch DBH or larger. In good, well-
stocked pine habitat, sufficient substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres. The
aggregate of cavity trees (cluster) may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60
acres. The average cluster is about 10 acres. The territory for a group averages about 200
acres, but may range from 60 to over 600 acres.
The NC Natural Heritage Program database in Raleigh, NC documented one

0

L~

known cavity within '/2 mile of the project area. This cavity was noted in an area
approximately 700' to the west of Well I, 1000' to the southeast of Well F, and 1000'
south of Well J. However, this cavity was found to be abandoned in 1996 and inhabited
by a bluebird. Two other cavities have been reported greater than '/z mile north of the well
field project area. These cavities were described in 1996 as being abandoned as well.
The project area was evaluated for its potential to support the red-cockaded
woodpecker in December of 2004 (10 acres of the WTP site) and in January of 2007
(force main corridor, well field sites, and remainder of WTP site). A'/2 mile of the project
area was also evaluated for suitable habitat.
As described above, the WTP site has been significantly altered throughout the
years. Several ditches were placed within and around the tract many years ago to drain
the site. Based on the current wetland survey, the tract now consists entirely of uplands
except for several small isolated wetland pockets located in the middle of the tract.
Vegetation within the site has been mowed and consists mostly of fetterbush (Lyonia
lucida), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea) in the herbaceous layer, with a few scattered loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
trees in the canopy. Most of the trees observed in the canopy of the WTP site were young
loblolly pines (DBH 4"-8") and would not provide appropriate habitat for RCW's.
Several mature (12-15" DBH) loblolly pine trees were observed within the southeastern
corner of the tract. These trees were inspected for RCW cavities. However, no cavities or
red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed during the survey. Some mature pines were
11
1

1 also noted within a'/2 mile north of the site. These trees were also inspected for cavities,
but none were observed. The wooded area to the northeast of the site was densely
vegetated and would not provide appropriate habitat for the RCW. Residential
development existed to the southeast and northwest of the tract.
Each well field site and the surrounding forested area was inspected for RCW
habitat. Well sites C, F, G, H, J, K, and L contained young loblolly pines (DBH <8") and
supported a very dense shrub layer of gallberry and sweet pepperbush. These sites would
not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species. Well site I was found to
contain some mature loblolly pine trees in its canopy, but the shrub layer was still very
dense. This site would not provide suitable nesting or foraging RCW habitat. The area
located between well sites F and I was inspected since this is where a previous cavity had
been located. This area contained a greater amount of mature loblolly pine trees,
however, the shrub layer was very dense. The Greenview Ranches area most likely once
contained suitable habitat for the RCW, but previous logging and a lack of fire have
significantly altered it.
The well sites within Ogden Park were also evaluated. Well site M was located
adjacent to uplands that currently contain restrooms, picnic shelters, and a mowed grassy
area where dogs can be walked. This mowed area supported several mature loblolly pine
trees. These trees were inspected for cavities, but none were observed. The other forested
areas within 1/2 mile of well site M were densely vegetated and would not support the red-
cockaded woodpecker. Well sites N and O were both located within densely vegetated
habitat with young loblolly pine trees and would not support this species.
t The pipeline corridor was the final area evaluated for RCW habitat. This corridor
is located along Market Street, Porters Neck Road, and Edgewater Club Road. Most of
the corridor is located within a road right-of way that has been previously disturbed from
the installation of other utility lines and general road maintenance. Some of the corridor
includes easements obtained from various parcels adjacent to the roads. Several mature
12
i

loblolly and longleaf pine trees were noted along Porters Neck Road and Edgewater Club
Road. No cavities were observed. These trees were surrounded by residential
development and major road traffic and would not provide suitable habitat for the red
' cockaded woodpecker.
b. Effect Determination
Appropriate nesting and foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker was
located in the southeastern corner of the WTP tract and within a 1/2 mile north of the tract.
Pine trees in these areas that had a DBH of at least 10" were inspected for cavities, but
none were observed. Of the well sites, only well site M had suitable RCW habitat within
'/z mile of it. Pine trees that had a DBH of at least 10" were inspected for cavities, but
' none were observed. Mature pine trees along the pipeline corridor were observed, but
they were located in fragmented patches and would not be appropriate habitat for this
' species. Most of the project area did not contain appropriate habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Of the areas that did have mature pine trees and an open understory, no
cavities or individuals were observed. Therefore, the project is not likely to affect the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
8.03 Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Leatherback Sea Turtle, Green
Sea Turtle, and Loggerhead Sea Turtle
' a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
In North Carolina, the green sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, and loggerhead
sea turtle are known to occur in estuarine and oceanic waters, whereas the leatherback
and hawksbill are found primarily in oceanic waters (Schwartz, 1977; Epperly et al.,
1995). These species are found in North Carolina waters all year but can be present in
inshore waters April through December (Epperly et al., 1995). Of these five species, only
the loggerhead is considered to be a regular nester in North Carolina, while the green
nests occasionally in the state and the Kemp's ridley has been documented to nest in the
r state only once.
13

b. Effect Determination
No nesting habitat for sea turtles was found within the project area, but foraging
habitat may exist at the outfall location. It is unlikely that the green, Kemp's ridley, or
loggerhead sea turtle would occur in the project area during the installation of the pipe
and diffuser (between October 1St and March 31St), however, should it occur, its foraging
habitat would be only minimally altered by project construction. Material will be
excavated and temporarily placed on a barge. After the pipeline is installed, material
excavated from the trench will be returned to the trench, burying the effluent line.
Furthermore, any sea turtles in the area should be able to avoid being affected by a small
barge and excavator/dragline. Therefore, it has been determined that the actions of the
proposed project are not likely to affect the green, Kemp's ridley, or loggerhead sea
turtle.
8.04 Shortnose Sturgeon
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
This species ranges along the Atlantic seaboard from southern Canada to
northeastern Florida (USFWS, 1999). The shortnose sturgeon feeds on invertebrates and
stems and leaves of macrophytes. From historical accounts, it appears that this species
was once fairly abundant throughout North Carolina waters, however, many of these
early records are unreliable due to confusion between this species and the Atlantic
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus). The distribution of the shortnose sturgeon in the Cape
Fear River basin was poorly known until it was investigated by the Corps. This study has
found that the species is very uncommon in the system (likely less than 50 individuals;
NMFS, 2004) and uses primarily freshwater portions of the river. No tagged or tracked
shortnose sturgeon were documented to use the ocean during the course of the three year
study (Moser and Ross, 1995). Because of the lack of suitable freshwater spawning areas
in the project area and the requirement of low salinity waters by juveniles, any shortnose
sturgeons present would most likely be non-spawning adults.
14

b. Effect Determination
It is unlikely that the shortnose sturgeon occurs in the project area, however,
should it occur, its habitat would be only minimally altered by project construction. This
species feeds on a wide variety of invertebrates and while some food resources may be
initially affected by installation of the outfall pipeline, the area affected would be very
small and most invertebrates will quickly reestablish from adjacent unaffected areas or
through recruitment processes. Furthermore, any sturgeons in the area should be able to
avoid being affected by a small barge and excavator/dragline. Material will be excavated
and temporarily placed on the barge. After the pipeline is installed, material excavated
from the trench will be returned to the trench, burying the effluent line. For these reasons,
it has been determined that the actions of the proposed project are not likely to affect the
shortnose sturgeon.
8.05 Cooley's Meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyt~
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
Cooley's meadowrue prefers moist to wet bogs and savannas with neutral soils
(Leonard, 1987). The flowers of this unisexual plant have no petals. The sepals on male
plants are pale yellow to white and those of female plants are green. Cooley's meadowrue
flowers in mid- to late June. This plant is shade-intolerant and wet sites exposed to
sunlight provide suitable habitat. Most of the WTP tract has been drained by large ditches
and would not be considered appropriate habitat for the species. However, some open
areas such as ditch banks and the existing wetland pockets may provide suitable habitat
for this species. The well sites within Greenview Ranches and Ogden Park contain dense
vegetation and would not provide appropriate habitat for this plant. The banks of most of
the ditches located throughout the well field area in Greenview Ranches are heavily
vegetated as well. An evaluation of these ditches and wetland pockets near roads in June
of 2005 did not locate any rare plant species.

15
i

b. Effect Determination
Two small wetland pockets (0.013 acre) and several ditches (0.24 acre) within the
WTP site will be filled in order to construct the plant and to restore wetland habitat.
These areas have not specifically been evaluated during the plant's flowering period. The
applicant requests that permitting be allowed to proceed with the condition that these
areas be evaluated in June of 2007 to make a final determination about the
presence/absence of these species. No earthwork will occur until after these areas have
been inspected and it has been determined that this species does not exist within these
areas. If these species are observed, the plants will be relocated to the wetland mitigation
area on site with the guidance of the USFWS and the NCWRC. Because any rare plants
located in the areas of proposed disturbance will be relocated to an area containing
suitable habitat that will be preserved, it is the determination of this document that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Cooley's meadowrue.
8.06 Rou h-leaf Loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia
g ~ y P .f )
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
' Rough-leaf loosestrife generally occurs in the ecotones between pine savannas
and pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand (USFWS, 1993). Because this plant is shade-intolerant, moist areas
exposed to sunlight may provide suitable habitat. Flowering occurs from mid-May
through June, with fruits (capsules) present from July through October. Most of the WTP
tract has been drained by large ditches and would not be appropriate habitat for the
species. However, open wet areas throughout the site, including ditch banks and existing
wetland pockets, may provide appropriate habitat for this species. The well sites within
Greenview Ranches and Ogden Park contain dense vegetation and would not provide
appropriate habitat for this plant. The banks of most of the ditches located throughout the
t well field area in Greenview Ranches are heavily vegetated as well. An evaluation of
these ditches in June of 2005 did not find any rare plant species.
16
i

b. Effect Determination
Two small wetland pockets (0.013 acre) and several ditches (0.24 acre) within the
WTP site will be filled in order to construct the plant and to restore wetland habitat.
These areas have not specifically been evaluated during the plant's flowering period. The
applicant requests that permitting be allowed to proceed with the condition that these
areas be evaluated in June of 2007 to make a final determination about the
presence/absence of these species. No earthwork will occur until after these areas have
been inspected and it has been concluded that this species does not exist within the
project area. If these species are observed, the plants will be relocated to the wetland
mitigation area on site with the guidance of the USFWS and the NCWRC. Because any
rare plants located in the areas of proposed disturbance will be relocated to an area
containing suitable habitat that will be preserved, it is the determination of this document
that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect rough-leaf loosestrife.
8.07 Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)
a. Status and Natural History of the Species in the Project Area
The Venus flytrap is a perennial, insectivorous herb that is endemic to the Coastal
Plain of the Carolinas. It is found most often in ecotonal areas between pine savannas and
pocosins, but is also observed in moist ecotones between streamhead pocosins and
longleaf pine/scrub oak/wiregrass uplands. These sites are generally flat with wet or
moist soils for much of the year. Most of the WTP tract has been drained by large ditches
and would not be appropriate habitat for the species. However, open wet areas throughout
the site, including ditch banks and existing wetland pockets, may provide appropriate
habitat for this species. The well sites within Greenview Ranches and Ogden Park contain
dense vegetation and would not provide appropriate habitat for this plant. The banks of
most of the ditches located throughout the well field area in Greenview Ranches are
heavily vegetated as well. An evaluation of these ditches in June of 2005 did not find any
rare plant species.
17

b. Effect Determination
Two small wetland pockets (0.013 acre) and several ditches (0.24 acre) within the
WTP site will be filled in order to construct the plant and to restore wetland habitat.
These areas have not specifically been evaluated during the plant's flowering period. The
applicant requests that permitting be allowed to proceed with the condition that these
areas be evaluated in June of 2007 to make a final determination about the
presence/absence of these species. No earthwork will occur until after these areas have
been inspected and it has been concluded that these species do not exist within the project
area. If this species is observed, the plants will be relocated to the wetland mitigation area
on site with the guidance of the USFWS and the NCWRC. Because any rare plants
located in the areas of proposed disturbance will be relocated to an area containing
suitable habitat that will be preserved, it is the determination of this document that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Venus flytrap.
9.00 LONG TERM IMPACTS OF CONCENTRATE
As mentioned before, pipe to be installed will be releasing up to two mgd of membrane
concentrate into the AIWW. The proposed discharge would include amulti-port diffuser outfall
located along the bottom of the AIWW. The diffuser would be within the bridge easement of the
USACE's AIWW right-of--way. Any long-term effects that this discharge will have on species
such as sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and the manatee will be indirectly associated with
impacts imposed on the water quality. The plant plans to produce nine million gallons of fresh
water a day with a byproduct of between 0.9 and 2.0 million gallons a day of partially saline
water. The saline discharge water is planned to have a concentration of 536.4 mg/L or 0.536 ppt
and will be discharged into the Intracoastal Waterway at the Figure Eight Island Bridge. The
New Hanover County Water Treatment Plant Outfall Diffusion Study (part of the NPDES
application) concluded that the diffuser will have minimal influence upon the surrounding
salinity regime because of the rapid dilution and persistent~id~l flows in the area of the Figure
Eight Island Bridge. Furthermore, this study concluded that the diffuser would not have an effect
on existing tidal flow patterns in this location. Based on this information, the release of
18

' concentrate into the AIWW will not have along-term negative effect on federally protected
species.
10.00 SUMMARY EFFECT DETERMINATION
This assessment has examined the potential short-term and long-term impacts of the
proposed project on listed species of plants and animals that are, or may be, present in the project
area. Both primary and secondary impacts to habitat have been considered. It is the
determination of this analysis that the project may affect the West Indian manatee, red-cockaded
woodpecker, migrating sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, rough-leaf loosestrife, Cooley's
meadowrue, and Venus flytrap. However, based on data collected from the project area and the
conditions established to protect these species, it has been determined that this project will not
adversely affect these species.
11.00 SUMMARY OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES
In order to minimize impacts to migrating sea turtles, West Indian manatee, and short-
nose sturgeon, work at the outfall location will occur during the winter months. All material will
be temporarily stockpiled on a barge. To ensure that rare plants will not be impacted within the
WTP site, the wetland areas and ditch banks to be disturbed within this site will be evaluated in
June of 2007 for prior to any earthwork. Furthermore, remaining wetlands within the well field
sites and the restoration area within the WTP site will be preserved in perpetuity.
19

t 12.00 REFERENCES
Ackerman, R.A. 1996. The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea turtles. Pp.
83-106 in The Biology of Sea Turtles (Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds.) Boca Raton, FL,
CRC Press.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 85 pp.
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 2005. New Hanover County Water Treatment
Plant Outfall Diffusion Study, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Clark, M.K. 1993. Curator of Mammals, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Personal communication regarding seasonal distribution of manatees in the Cape Fear
region; p.6, In: Biological Assessment: Channel Realignment Masonboro Inlet, New
~ Hanover County, NC. August 1995. USACOE.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, & A. Veishlow. 1995. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conservation
Biology 9(2): 384-394.
LeBlond, R.J. and A.S. Weakley. 1992. Report on the conservation status of Carex lutea, a
newly discovered species.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 91 pp.
Morrimen, J. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles, Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Institute, Press, Washington, D.C.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic
sturgeons in the Low Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. 124 (2): 225-235.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery Program
for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2002-September 30,
2004.Washington (DC): Department of Commerce.
Ross, S.W. and J.E. Lancaster. 1996. Movements of juvenile fishes using surf zone nursery
habitats and the relationship of movements to beach nourishment along a North Carolina
beach: pilot project. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No.
NA570Z0318.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
L 20

Carolina- Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC, 325 pp.
Schmidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the southeastern United States coast and the Gulf of
Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Office of Biological Services Report No. 80/41.
165pp.
Schwartz, F.J. 1977. caretta caretta caretta (Linnaeus), Atlantic loggerhead; Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus), Altantic green turtle; Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata (Linnaeus), Atlantic
hawksbill; Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), Atlantic ridley; Dermochelys coriacea
coriacea (Linnaeus), Atlantic leatherback; p. 303-308 In: Cooper, J.E. S.S. Robinson, and
J.B. Funderburg (Eds.). 1977 Endangered and threatened plants and animals of North
Carolina. N.C. State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, N.C. 444 pages.
Slay, C. 1993. Right Whale Research Project, New England Aquarium. Personal communication
regarding seasonal occurrence of right whales of the Cape Fear region; p.5, In: Biological
Assessment: Channel Realignment Masonboro Inlet, New Hanover County, NC. August
1995. USACOE.
USFWS, 1999. Shortnose sturgeon in North Carolina http: //web.ral.r4.fws.gov/fish/shortst.html.
USFWS, 1999. West Indian Manatees in North Carolina,
http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/mammaUmanatee.html.
Wildlife Resources Commission, Unpublished Loggerhead Sea Turtle nesting data between
1972-2002.
21

1 _ ,..
*Boundanes are approx~rriaie ana are ~ SITE
not meant to be absolute
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas 8~ Gazetteer. Pg 84 .2003 SCALE 1" = 1 Mile
NHC Well Field and WTP Land Mana ement Grou ,Inc.
New Hanover County, NC g p
01-05-371 Environmental Consultants Figure 1
Wilmington, N.C. Vicinity Map
Biological Assessment February 2007

a
~~ ro
N
-/~ p
``. , ~ ~
.f
o.
,~ r
= Z
~ ~ ~w
U - {~.
W ~
.~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ N ~ ci. ~ W
~ ~ 3 0. ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ U~?
=~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~QW
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It
ui ~ a '~ s a n ~ ~ ~
~ ~ t ( ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
k 3~
;~ o©~
`~ ~°~ cL z
~~\ ~ s~,>, d A,
N =
~ _~
9 W
\_1 '~ ~ Z
~ ~ i
/~ ~ .
Mfr ~~/~~` ~.-~~G/`•:. ,{~
~~ ti
. ,
~_:, ~ l ,
,, r;
~.. ~,
~~ ~ - ~
_;.,>.
~ ~~ ~.
~ ~~
~- ~. r , ~ __._
r`

Le
Le
Le L
Y
L ~~
DO
Le
Se
Le ~~ D
S Le
Le
Mu
Le
r Le
Se (~ LY Kr
Y'
~~ DO M
Se
M Se Le w LY
Se Se Se
Be
DO
e Le ~ Le
J
Be Se Se
m Br
Se •• u Rm
~~ ~~) Kr ,
DO
~ Le
NA Mu
~~ ~r, , w
Se
NA A
Y Se
L ~~ Se e NA
Mu Se
NA
Mu
DO ~ Rm S
/ Le Mu
~Le r' Ly , Le e J P
•+....
~ Proposed Well Locations
*BOUndaiiCa aiC aNNiuxniia~C diw are
not meant to be absolute
Map Source: NRCS Soils Map.
NHC Well Field and WTP
New Hanover County, NC
01-05-371
Biological Assessment
aiTE
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
February 2007
SCALE 1 " = 1500'
Figure 3
Soils Map for
Well Field and WTP

*BOUndariCS are aN~ruxirndre criiu dre
not meant to be absolute
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
NHC Well Field and WTP
aiTE
New Hanover County, Nc Land Management Group, Inc.
01-05-371 Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
Biological Assessment February 2007
SCALE 1 " = 1500'
Figure 4
Aerial Photograph of
Well Field and WTP

*Boundaiics aie a~{~iuxursa~e driu are aiTE
not meant to be absolute SCALE 1" - 800'
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
NHC Well Field and WTP Land Mana ement Grou , /nc.
New Hanover County, NC g P Figure 5
01-05-371 Environmental Consultants Aerial Photograph of
Wilmington, N.C. Ogden Park Tract
Biological Assessment February 2007

*Boundanes are approximate ana are aiTE
not meant to be absolute
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography SCALE 1" = 400'
NHC Well Field and WTP Land Management Group, Inc.
New Hanover County, NC Environmental Consultants Figure 6
01-05-371 Wilmington, N.C. Aerial Photograph of
Biological Assessment February 2007 Outfall Location

Proposed Impacts to U~'aters of the U.S. (1C,6a.66 sf; 0.24 ac)
Proposed Impacts to 404 ~"~etlands (244.87 sf; 0.005 aaj
Please note these numbers do nai include impacts from N'ells A & B {see Sheet C8)
PRELIv11~ARY: NQT FCR CONSTRUCTION
DRA'~NING BY:
A,RC,gDIS G&P~ of Narth Carolina
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 2760;
~eltand survey intormatian provided by Honover 6esign
klacited by land Management croup, nc. to show prcpased wetlands and Waters of the U.S, impacts.
Figure 7
!Y''v'ater Treatment Piant Site Dian
Duly 2000; revised Februar,,~ 2007
0 75 1 0 300
S~AIE: 1" _ ':5C%

8 3unolj
Z'1D .09 - l :4DOS Dand 11!jPuh u0140n00x3 pasod(lJd
' �asn 1pub a}oo8a.ul adld 11D n0 Pasodad SUD�d U0AQAJUO,l 1 U
OJ RS
04b AN -i. aDN 6uIMw0 .
.0 Q ,Pg4O mr :48. UADJO 6261 WN :wn}bO 1D01PaA
90/£ l/ZO :a}oO .(anmS £9OdN auDld a}D}S DwIo�D3 WON :wn}DQ ID}uozuoH a /�� I,l I /� (� I� `�I a s n I `a u I a.d
sauaS 09L algwul :uol}v}S as08 Sd9 0l}Dwaupl, : } } 8 PUD ii.. Q d
90/9l/ZO M0 iia 00L9 algwul :app PUD uol}Isod
�: '. lli9Z�l1'uW�wuy,W + II>1W OOZ£ �lopgo4Q3 woPO :japunoS 0403 Cullpdgj li}J0� tl�}un� �SMUD.H MON
on a uspbo Tll. Bun LIiL d �Mouuiri baS„ :lassaA 6anunS'
•.Vg90 VJUD e.7UDBDyDD � }uewdlnb3 }UDId JU;DWID2Jl J;91DM OHN
,r
r
r
v
G=,
r
.D,r.r r.Nroc z
}-
r•,WNmV---�11-.y'�IflY('�t�lP�t17C]ONC''��AQ''O�•-CDCCO) i.,.�cv_
O O
II(
Co O
W
1'
it
..
-1DLr) U7tAtflMN.grt17(Y)0�(T)OhP-t "Q �U�qU? -.
cioiaowoocoaa,Sphhr,W+AQllpW wv�rfiu��•ci
I
00
L
I
e::
hcQa( QQ�.-. In QUO cN O Nh N N I;() 4 c rn N •...
rim a i(�ciric`iriri rrrivvv,n(n�i�a�hr:aor"r>,hu?�
:3
v
I
i
! InhcQga�0lOi%?Q?('?"r'NON`D
I CV CV (V N n r\ n f`�. h 0.1 ao r\ r<
+,
f
(V (T) M (� Ch •V' !!� �D �O
J
A
M"S"S•
:.. qv ,�
.,.
IQ
i
Ncli0
"WOW
N %D. nWN i
.: O hwlJ? I

` { ~
I ~ i

-
-
~
-
-5
-
- I
-
T
-
-
-
-
--I
--
_.~
~
--
-
- B
- IDGE
- FEN~~
- ER
- ~
- ~ ~
-
-

I i

~ See D tail ~
ee Det ail
I
1 " HD PE P PE.

- - - - -,, ,,, ~ ~„ ~ ter, n ~n i nn ~ ~n R(
- 50 0 5U lUU ICU
50' 0 50' 100'
Horizontal Scale : 1" = 50'
P

PLAN
e
LUU LJV .lvv ~.w ~..~ ~..... ___ ---
10' 0 10' 20'
PIPELINE DETAIL Vertical Scale : ," = 10'
SECTION A-A
DIFUSER DETAIL
rar ros ..c
12`
24`
12" ~ ~ 6,

d ~ J
U N
~
O ~
, ~ G N
O
0 ~ m +~ O
Q m O t
C o~ m
L ~ ~
RR
b'~
V M
o

1~~Z m
~
~
a
~
E N E
~ o
M
U
~~
: o 3 m ~
a o ~ ~ o Z
au ~ ° ~' ~ ~

a t ; ; o
O U1 ~ 0 N
~M
O ~
r
C
~ ~a
0 c
M~ Ey
uo~y
.; ,°y uni c °c
orv°'P
~Wa~va~
E~ N
0 c~ ~~~Q'
N D ~ m Z>
.+ y O ~ -D
cip` «E c
o Z I'm o c-
GN WdY~~
7 S>
W ,-
as
._
v
c o
---- ---------- a
0
0
Co°
~ O
U
~
EZ ~
---- ---------- o .
~ „~, ~
v
U ~

L ~
m
~~ m

w
12` 3 = ~
w
UZ c
_ •-
COLLAR DETAIL I` ~ s
rv rTOs
~0
1"x28" Threaded Rod
~24'~
c
O
0
U
3
L
++
C
0
U
w
_~
LL

Water Treatment Plant
Wetland Restoration Plan
Prepared fora
New Hanover County
Engineering Department
Prepared by:
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROLiP ~.~
Fnvironmentnl Consultants
December 2006
_ ;~~' ~
',~
r- : ,~-e-
~ t;
'4
c~

t Water Treatment Plant Wetland Restoration Plan
Introduction
I. Background
New Hanover County (County) proposes to improve its existing water supply and treatment for the
northeast part of the County. This project includes additional treatment to improve finished water
quality and better management of groundwater supplies through better spacing of wells and
balancing water supplies from the Pee Dee aquifer and the Castle Hayne aquifer. A total of fifteen
well field sites will be installed throughout the Greenview Ranches area. These wells will supply
water to the proposed treatment facility located off of Old Oak Road. The plant will be located in
the northwestern corner of the parcel and will include an approved stormwater detention facility.
At the present time, wetland impacts for the ro osed ro'ect total 1.93 acres and "Waters of the
P p p J
US"impacts total 1.1 acres. In order to provide compensatory mitigation for these impacts, -the
County is proposing a project which would provide 4.5 acres of in-kind restoration. The restoration
area would be located on the northeastern portion of the water treatment plant (WTP) parcel
(Figure 1). The parcel is approximately 44 acres and is currently zoned for residential use.
' II. Pre-restoration Site Conditions
The tract is located in northeastern New Hanover County directly adjacent to Old Oak Road.
Extensive mowing has been done leaving only mature pines and understory vegetation throughout
the area. Earthwork (i.e., grading) has also been conducted throughout the upland portion of the
tract. Stockpiling of on-site material has been stored at various locations along Old Oak Road.
Several large ditches are found along the perimeter and throughout the interior of the parcel
(Appendix A). These ditches, in addition those in adjacent parcels, have effectively drained the site
and lowered the water table. As a result of these activities only a few isolated wetland areas
remain on the property. These areas have been delineated and approved by the Corps of
' Engineers.
t

III. Wetland Classification and Functions
Much of the southeastern North Carolina coastal plain, including this tract, is underlain by an
extensive Pleistocene marine terrace that is flat and poorly drained. Saturated conditions
produced by this terrace have driven the development of hydric soils and large interstream divide
wetlands. Many of these wetland ecosystems are classified hydrogeomorphically as flats. These
ecosystems receive precipitation as their sole water source and lose water primarily by
evapotranspiration with overland flow and gradual seepage to the underlying aquifer. Soils of wet
flats can be either histosol or mineral. Flats with organic soil are dominated by bay type vegetation
(e.g. Magnolia virginiana, Persea borbonia, Ilex spp., Lyonia spp.) while mineral soil flats tend to be
dominated by pine species (e.g. Pinus taeda).
Restoration at the WTP tract will re-establish 4.5 acres of pocosin habitat. The goal is to provide
for functional restoration via re-establishment of characteristic hydrology and vegetative
__
assemblages. By re-establishing these criteria, wetland functions such as nutrient cycling and
removal, sediment retention, and water storage will be realized on the tract.
IV. Soil
The soils of the property are mapped as Seagate, Johnston and Murville soil series (Figure 2). A
majority of these soils are poorly to very. poorly drained and maintain a seasonal high water table at
or near the surface under normal conditions. The Johnston series is typically associated with small
stream floodplains and is considered a hydric soil. The Murville series is associated with broad,
interstream flats and is also considered a hydric soil.
V. Vegetation Community
Although the tract has been mowed and maintained for several years, vegetation typical of
pocosins including pond pine (Pinus serotina), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), hollies (Ilex spp.), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), sweet pepperbush (Clethra
alnifolia), American ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), and laurel-leaf greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia) are found
2

throughout the property. Undisturbed areas adjacent to the tract also contain a similar assemblage
of species.
VI. Prior Anthropogenic Impacts
In addition to the aforementioned drainage network, several unpaved roads are also found on the
property (Figure 3). Large spoils are located adjacent to these ditches as well as the entrance to
the property. The spoil will likely be used in grading activities associated with the construction of
the WTP.
VII. Adjacent Land Use
The land use in the surrounding area consists of residential and light commercial development.
Residential developments consisting of 0.33 to 0.5 ac. lots bound the subject property while light
commercial development-occupies the road frontage of HWY 17 (Market Street). -
Restoration
I. Initial Hydrologic Monitoring Study
Due to the complexity of the on-site drainage network and stormwater management constraints a
preliminary hydrologic study will be conducted. A series of monitoring wells will be installed at 50',
100', and 150' intervals adjacent to interior and perimeter ditches (Figure 4). The wells will collect
water table data on a daily basis. These data will be used to ascertain the extent of drainage
throughout the site as well as the response to rain events.
II. Physical Restoration Plan
Restoration activities at the WTP tract will restore 4.5 acres of pocosin habitat (Figure 5). In order
to restore hydrology throughout the project area measures will betaken to reduce the drainage
effect of the adjacent ditches. Due to hydrologic trespass concerns the perimeter ditches will be
left intact; however, anon-permeable geotechnical fabric will be installed along the restoration
footprint (Appendix B). The geotechnical fabric will dramatically reduce the lateral drainage effect
of the ditches and increase the seasonal high water table levels. Smaller interior ditches will be
3

filled to the original grade. Installation of a weir at the outflow point will allow larger flow events
(hurricanes, etc.) to access the perimeter ditches, bypassing the restoration and stormwater
retention areas.
While the hydrology of the site has been altered, the appropriate vegetative community remains in
place throughout the site. Unmanaged areas contained saplings of American ti-ti (Cyrilla
racemiflora), red bay (Persea palustris), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus). In addition to the available seed source, saplings of native species will also planted
during the dormant season (Winter 2008). Specific species planted will be based on availability,
but will likely include loblolly bay, red bay, sweet pepperbush, and American ti-ti (Table 1).
Table 1. Tentative list of plantings to be done in 4.5 ac. pocosin wetland
Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Designation Densit Quantit
Lobfolf Ba _ Gordonia lasianthus FACW 400/ac 400
Ti-Ti Cyrilla racemiflora FACW 300/ac 400
Red Ba Persea palustris FACW 400/ac 400
Sweet Pepper Bush Clethra alnifolia FACW 400/ac 600
TOTAL 1800
III. Additional Restoration Potential
In addition to the initial 4.5 acre restoration, approximately 3.5 acres could be restored through
similar methodologies (Figure 6). The 3.5 acre would extend from the center ditch towards Old
Oak Drive. This area of the restoration project has an identical landscape position and vegetative
assemblage as the initial phase and will likely react favorably to the decrease in drainage. Grading
activities in the second phase of restoration can be designed to match the existing wetland areas.
Installation of the same non-permeable geotechnical fabric could also occur along the perimeter
ditch.
4

Monitoring Plan
I. Annual Report Schedule
All restoration monitoring will be conducted for five years or until deemed successful, whichever is
longer. Annual reports will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) no later than November 30th of the following year. Each report will include
a narrative summarizing the findings of the monitoring. Vegetative and hydrologic data will also be
included to document conditions of the restored area over the course of the year. Photographs
will be incorporated to illustrate the evolution of site soil and vegetative communities.
III. Restoration Monitoring
Hydrologic Criteria
Three shallow automated groundwater monitoring wells will be installed as shown in Figure 6.
These wells will be located throughout the tract to document hydrologic activity in both wetland and -
upland habitats. Groundwater levels will be recorded daily. The success criterion will be the
establishment and maintenance of a static water table at or within 12" of the soil surface for 12.5%
of the growing season during normal precipitation conditions. The growing season in New Hanover
County lasts for 271 days from February 27 to November 26. In order for this criterion to be met,
the water level must be within 12" of the soil surface for 33 consecutive days. During abnormal
conditions, levels will be compared with the reference site to gauge the hydrologic response in
surrounding areas.
Vegetation Criteria
While the primary success criterion for the restoration will be based on hydrology, vegetation
community development will also be monitored. A vegetation monitoring study will include five
0.10 ac. circular plots which will be randomly selected throughout the restored area. The number
of acceptable volunteer species and planted individuals will be quantified and the results will be
compared with those from the reference site. Overall, survivorship must meet or exceed 320
stems per acre by the end of the monitoring period for the project to be deemed successful.
5

Contingency Plan
In the event that the hydrology and vegetation success criteria are not fulfilled, a contingency plan
will be implemented. The contingency plan will require consultation with all regulatory agencies if
success is not achieved during the monitoring period. Sample contingency measures may include
selective re-grading or replanting. Recommendations for further activities will be implemented and
monitored until the hydrology and vegetation accurately represent the reference site and meet or
E exceed regulatory statutes.
Restoration Implementation Schedule
Restoration planning is currently underway. Groundwater monitoring commenced in mid-August
2006 at the WTP site to gather pre-restoration hydrology data. Earth work and plantings will take
place~hroughout the winter of 2007-2008. Monitoring m the restoration site will begin- after the
earth work and plantings are complete and will continue for the duration of the project. Annual
vegetation monitoring will be conducted in the spring of each year following planting and will
continue until 2013.
Summary
A 4.5-acre restoration plan is proposed as potential mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts in
conjunction with the expansion the water treatment facility. The plan will provide for a functional
restoration via re-establishment of characteristic hydroperiod and vegetative communities. Earth
work will restore contours to their original grades and over 1,800 trees and shrubs will be planted.
The target stem density (for planted and characteristic volunteer species) will be 320 stems/acre by
the completion of the fifth year of monitoring.
When completed, the site will serve as both a functioning wetland system and an educational
resource. This synthesis of development and wetland restoration will act as a model to
municipalities seeking to expand in an environmentally conscience manner.
t

„~ e _ ,- ..
~`~
l
s i ~~, ~~
.~ ,#
Kings ~' ~ao '~~' ~.~` ~~ ~ . 9
Grant ~" ~, ~',of ~~
-,~
.,. 1
~~
_ ,
1 ~ F
,~ «.' ..
t: t - ~ "=
4
' _ __V
_~_
_ ~ Y f. ~
.+ ~ A~. _,
a F ~,
i,, ;
-. V
~ ~ - ~~ ~~
..1 ~ ~ t"i f Y C 9 tr4 ". ~, r.
*Boundanes are approxima~e anU are S, .
not meant to be absolute SCALE 1" - 1 Mile
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas 8~ Gazetteer. Pg 84 .2003
Greg Thompson Land Management Group, Inc.
Water Treatment Plant Environmental Consultants Figure 1.
Wetland Restoration Wilmington, N.C. Vicinity Map
New Hanover County, NC
01-05-371 August 2006

Se
o i
5e I Le
\\

Y /
~'. ~

kBOUndarrC~ are aNNruxnriare dnu are SfTE
not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" - 400'
Map Source: NRCS Soils Map.
Greg Thompson Land Management Group, Inc.
Water Treatment Plant FI ure 2.
Wetland Restoration Environmental Consultants NRCS So SurVe M~
New Hanover County, NC Wilmington, N.C. Y K?
0105-Q~7? At.agust 200

. ,~y~.rc. ,~ - ~k ~t '~ ~ r t~ ~ ~.~+•.i1 ~ S`l '~ ` ''~~ ~ ~i ~ ~ t ' x ~ ~ ice/ ,:r'F+e „~' I I~ ~ ~" t °~f ~ '~~~ f.+~' ~
~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ : 1 Ism '~-, - ~•. , ~i +
v . s °~ •s`
'~ i` ~~• ~+*., a.~_b~`~ - ~_~'.;_ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~~r~ j ysr J r ~ r ` `^'~p ,i~~ fJ , >/~y~',.,~'A .;_{' ,1
I ~ . ~ Z~ ~~ Y i~ 1 •~'. ~»I + ~.~ - wt ` yj~ !j.7J ' • Y - ..'.~~4`S ~ a, ~ !' 3 ~ ~ ? .
~i • . r i `~'`r f~r+~ tt i~ '~'~' ~ 1 ~I4 at1' f,"; j ~ ~ ~, ~-'. .~ ~~1' ,I y - f ~'i
~ ~ ~ ~' 1~
,r'r ~ ~~ ~ ~ •~ - -+ ~ t,~,~ ~. ti r.-. f j ~~",~~ ~: ~ t ~ • / .~} ,Y -. .•*•;. Ate:' r'-." ~ ~'a~i'~_ ~,° .~ ..~ ~ +~
Jn. 1R, `~ s . ~ ~ r~,i! ~ 'k , ~ `•_i'~ ~7's.F~ .~} _f~~r;., ri' •%~ ~. ~,~i! ~ ,r
r~ ii ~ k, ~~M'4~`p"#_ JI°. f_~n ~ ti. T ~ ~ .i. ~~ i ~ IF'a ~ ~.r r„.ar /4 r s
'' fib' ~ w ,/v~. ~ R ~ ~ 4 ~` r' ~ ,. i1"+, ; .}~ ,~ ~ ~ • t ~+i"'! ~ ~s.,'r ~ !,w ,-t ~ i
,, '' ~ '*'
+~ 'r"4. >f ! Dili ~ ~
~' ~~j ~ Imo' .. •-- r+ 2~ .~~~~!'( ~ ~~, ~ `~ ~ • ~ ~~' t-J '. ~ ~ >ti^4:'. y ,+ ;? ~•~' ~ ~ >~j ~~~'S ,'Jt, ~t~ ^ ; ~i
+~' ~ r `~ ~-~ s r ! f ~ ~~r~ f ~ ~ n y ,~ ~! y ~ .~r *• { 'I~ ~I~le ~I ~ ~~~'r~`i! + I
`' ,~ ! ' IA
~ l ~ ~.
,~
t
.~+. _ ~ L t •.. ~ (~~I. _ ~~iY~~ ,.~ . ~ ''~. _ f 1. ~ // _ ~~ ..
~~Y
r-..
..~j~r
y
!r ~
~ .,
4
„~,
*BOUnCiai~ea aie aNNi~~uiia~C aiw aie
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
Greg Thompson
Water Treatment Plant
Wetland Restoration
New Hanover County, NC
01-05-371
SCALE 1" = 400'
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants Figure 3.
Wilmington, N.C. 1998 Aerial Photography
August 2006
~ SITE

aNCN DRIVE
.incam.n~ nR,
-j-- - -
--I----
;RECCE READ
.~
1
DRIVE
I
-J
Mo. Rmldon/law Dab
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 2522
NILMINGTON, NC 28402
[phone]
r.
~,.~
r, .
~~
xy~l Ir M Wr
Water Treatment Plant
OI-05.371
New Hanover Cour~y
Figure 4.
Preliminary Well layout
Well Momtonng
o~
7124106
w
1200

\~
~~
~\
.\
General Notes

No. Revision/Issue Date
rmm x,~ am wa.w
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 2522
WILMINGTON, NC 28402
[phone]
°: o
.,-a
_T
Water Treatment Plant
O I -05-371
New Hanover County
FIGURE 5.
Proposed
Wetland
Restoration !I
oro.~ry sntti
~al~zo~ Sheet
s<oi.
\ ~:2~
\_.-
i nra rrnni n~ rcnr~vrri r- ~~ n~r~

3NCN DRIVE
.~cuane nR.
- -
- ~ - - -
:HELLE READ
_ ~1
DRIVE
I
_ .!
c~dr~
Na Re~won{wue ooM
~~~~
IAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC,
POST OFFICE BOX 2522
WILMINGTON, NC 28402
(9 I O) 452-0001
n
~,. ~
~~r~ .. It~~7
LJD~l--v
Water Treatment Plant
O I -05-371
New Flanover County
Figure 6.
Phase II Restoration Plan
~.,
7rzaro6
..
i zoo

Appendix A. Site Photographs

A.yG.
Greg Thompson
Water Treatment Plant
Wetland Restoration
New Hanover County, NC
01-05-371

Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
August 2006
~~~Ye~°3 ~~c;
Appendix A.
Site Photographs
Large perimeter ditch on western property boundary
Outlet ditch discharging water to Smith Creek

._ ~
_ 4-~
-

/
~~
' Y..
tn!r. ..
• ~
T
~
~
- J f
'b
~'
- "4 :t lC
~
~
~
w
~' r ~
i
c
~ l~~ 4~
~
~
~i
~
.av.Aiw.. ,~,.. J'
''q
.
'1`. .,
Greg Thompson Land Management Group, Inc.
Water Treatment Plant Environmental Consultants Appendix A.
Wetland Restoration Wilmington, N.C. Site Photographs
New Hanover County, NC
01-05-371 August 2006
Large ditch bisecting WTP parcel (facing North)
Perimeter ditch adjacent to subdivision (facing East)

4:: ,
.l5° _ r ~ ++~~. -
fi ~ g.
F~!s Hr' ~ _ _ A ~
t~`y s~ }" air .. . w,l~' 6r~ tr ,] ~ _ »c ,:
I91 h7' ~~{y~~ ~ ~ ~ft~ ..°~ ,~{;'. r ,".wr~~ ~9psr ~ tq., 7ga :`,cn~' ' vF~` f'P
,, r f~.• r~~ a'~E1K. i h f <~~ + ,Y'~' 4y'1'~ `" ~ e T fa ~ i ~ `,
~ .S ~{r{ _ f f i~~ ~ ~ ~ F ,~ 6 ~' ,
~ ~ 1 >f5 ,~5 b~'~,,.~: Ail ~1•-
E '~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1XSpp 4~1. k ~ R" '~ ~t JI' "I L ' i!
Li 4, i ~ ~ ~~~ L~ ~~ ~~
(! E t
~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ F F~ V ~ ~ ~~ R ~ A a . u "4 R F i
Typical vegetation found in shallow interior ditches
Greg Thompson Land Management Group, Inc.
Water Treatment Plant A endix A.
Wetland Restoration Environmental Consultants pp
New Hanover County, NC Wilmington, N.C. Site Photographs
01-05-371 August 2006
Typical vegetation found in mowed areas throughout parcel

Appendix B: Details for Geotechnical Fabric Installation

General Notes

No. Revision/Issue Date
rrm xon ..e,w.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 2522
WILMINGTON, NC 28402
[phone]
r'.
,~„ e
,.:
v,.yn wm. ma eea~
Water Treatment Plant
O I -05-371
New Hanover County
Appendix B.
Geoteztile
Fabric
Installation
s~
~iz~zao6 Sheet
e~
~:z~ ~
i non rrnni nr ~r-nrrvrri r rn nnrr

4' TOPSOIL (fYP.)
SANDY LOAM:
5071- 80x PASSING
OX-207L S 0.005 M
COMPACTm TO 95X
DRY DENSf1Y (BY Mi
PROCTOR)
NATURAL SO1L~
6'
4' TOP SOR dt SEEDfA W/ BANK
STABILQATION NETi1N6 (TYPICAL
INSIDE Ec OUTSIDE BERM-~ ,,./
POLYETHYLENE LMER
SANDY LOAM:
~~~-EXIST. GRADE
CLAYEY 59.TS: 4~MIN. j
507L- 8071 PASSING #200 ~ ~
2076-507¢ S 0.005 MIN.
COMPACIEO TO 957L MAX.
DRY DETiS71Y (BY MODIFlED GRADE REM04ED
TYPICAL EXIST
PROCTOR) TO BE EXIFNDED .
~P~4 lOQSE ~ ~~
UNDER BASIN BOLTON MATERULS AND AU. VEGETATKIN
AND RODT.
DETENTION BASIN BERM DE`T'AIL
NOT TO SCALE