Agenda 2011 07-11New Hanover County,
North Carolina
6=%:b &I
July 17, 2011
Agenda
Mission
New Hanover County is committed to progressive public policy, superior
service, courteous contact, judicious exercise of authority, and sound fiscal
management to meet the needs and concerns of our citizens today and tomorrow.
Vision
A vibrant prosperous, diverse coastal community,
committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come.
Core Values
Integrity • Accountability • Professionalism • Innovation • Stewardship
This page intentionally left blank.
AGENDA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301
Wilmington, NC
JONATHAN BARFIELD, JR., CHAIRMAN • JASON R. THOMPSON, VICE - CHAIRMAN
TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER • BRIAN M. BERGER, COMMISSIONER • RICHARD G. CATLIN, COMMISSIONER
BRUCE T. SHELL, COUNTY MANAGER • WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY • SHEILA SCHULT, CLERK TO THE BOARD
M & A
JULY 11, 2011
�III�
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr.)
CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to G.S. 143 - 318.11 (a)(6) to Conduct Annual Performance Appraisals for the
County Manager, County Attorney and Clerk to the Board
INVOCATION (Dr. Ann H. Hadnot, Pastor, Apostolic Humble Highway Holiness Church)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Commissioner Richard G. Catlin)
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
1. Approval of Minutes
2. Adoption of State Road Resolution
3. Ratification of Grant Application to the NC Association of Insurance Agents
4. Approval of 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Economic
Recovery (ER) Program and 2010 Scattered Site Housing (SSH) Program for
New Hanover County: Compliance Documents
5. Approval of Request to Partner with the Nature Conservancy to Submit a
Grant Application to NAWCA
6. Adoption of Ordinance for Budget Amendment
ESTIMATED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
TIMES
3:10 p.m.
7. Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the Fiscal Year
Beginning July 1, 2010
3:15 p.m.
8. Introduction of Elections Director
3:20 p.m.
9. Consideration of Approval to Apply for Two North Carolina Governor's
Highway Safety Program (GHSP) Grants and Submit Local Government
Resolutions
3:30 p.m.
10. Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application
with the City of Wilmington to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for 2011 Funding from the U.S. Department
of Justice for Assisting State, Local, and Tribal Efforts to Prevent or Reduce
Crime and Violence
3:35 p.m.
11. Consideration of a Resolution to Award Bid for the Purchase of a Remotely
Operated Vehicle (ROV) to VideoRay, LLC
3:35 p.m.
12. Consideration of Parking Deck Changes to Extend Hours of Operation
Effective August 1, 2011 and Adoption of Budget Amendment 12 -001
3:45 p.m.
13. Consideration of a Resolution for Approval of Exception to Competitive Bid
Process, "Piggybacking"
3:50 p.m.
14. Update Presentation by the New Hanover Commission for Women
3:55 p.m.
15. New Hanover County Board of Social Services Annual Update
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4:05 p.m.
16.
New Hanover County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Annual Update
4:15 p.m.
17.
Presentation: Water Quality Monitoring in New Hanover County
4:45 p.m.
18.
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z -910, 04/11) — Request by James Yopp on Behalf of
Rockford Partners, L.L.C. to Rezone Approximately 27.23 Acres at 1300 and
1305 Rock Hill Road from R -20 Low - Density Residential to R -15 Medium-
Density Residential
5:20 p.m.
19.
Committee Appointments
5:25 p.m.
20.
Foreign Trade Zone Presentation
5:35 p.m.
21.
Consideration of Approval to Accept the Home and Community Care Block
Grant Funds in the Amount of $983,891 for FY 2012
NON - AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
5:50 p.m.
22.
Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
6:00 p.m.
23.
ADJOURN
Note: Times listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move
forward until the agenda is completed.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
CONSENT
ITEM: 1
DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Chairman Barfield
CONTACT(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the following meetings:
Agenda Review Meeting held on June 16, 2011
Regular Meeting held on June 20, 2011
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve minutes.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved with amendments to the minutes of the regular meeting held on June 20, 2011 by a vote of 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
1 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
CONSENT
ITEM: 2
DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
CONTACT(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
SUBJECT:
Adoption of State Road Resolution
BRIEF SUMMARY:
NCDOT is considering the addition of the following roads and requesting the Board to adopt a resolution in
support of adding the roads to the state system:
Gerome Place, Brewster Lane, Tisbury Court, and Marquette Drive (Division File No. 1170 -N) located
within Brewster Place subdivision in New Hanover County.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt SR -2 resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
NCDOT Request Letter
SR -2 Resolution
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
2 -0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE '(
J E
i
GO VERNOR -�
rr
!f
June 14, 201 JUN 201
Ms. Sheila Schult, Clerk to the Board NEW H A t 0 E R M
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners BD. Of COFVAiSSIDNf R5
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175
Wilmington, NC 28403
Subject: Proposed Addition to the State System of Highways; Gerome Place,
Brewster Lane, Tisbury Court and Marquette Drive.
(Division File # 11 -
Dear Ms. Schult:
COYII, JR.
This office is considering the addition of; Gerome Place, Brewster Lane, Tisbury Court
and Marquette Drive located within Brewster Place subdivision in New Hanover County
(Division File # 1170 -N) to the state roadway system. After the Board's consideration, if
they concur with our recommendation, please furnish this office with the current county
resolution and official road name for our further handling.
If I may be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
- � W q 4
Anthon Z aw
District Engineer
AWLrdd
Attachments: SR -1 Road (Petition request form) and locator map
300 Division Drive, Wilmington, N.C. 28401 Tel: (910) 251 - 2655 Fax: (910) 251 - 2759
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
2 -1 -1
NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO STATE MAINTAINED
SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
North Carolina
County of New Hanover
Road(s) Description: Gerome Place, Brewster Lane, Tisbury Court, and Marquette Drive
(Division File No. 1170 -N) located within Brewster Place
Subdivision in New Hanover County.
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the Board of County Commissioners of the
County of New Hanover requesting that the above described road(s), the location of which
has been indicated on a map, be added to the Secondary Road System,. and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is of the opinion that the above
described roads) should be added to the Secondary Road System, if the roads) meets
minimum standards and criteria established by the Division ofHighways of the Department
of Transportation for the addition of roads to the System.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the County of
New Hanover that the Division of Highways is hereby requested to review the above
described road(s), and to take over the roads) for maintenance if they meet established
standards and criteria.
CERTIFICATE
The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the
County of New Hanover at a meeting on the 11 th day of Jul , 2011.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 11 th day of , 2011.
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Form SR -2
Please Note: Forward directly to the District Engineer, Division of Highways.
resolute.doc
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
2 -2 -1
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
CONSENT
ITEM: 3
DEPARTMENT: Health PRESENTER(S): Joshua Swift, Deputy Health Director
CONTACT(S): Joshua Swift, Deputy Health Director
SUBJECT:
Ratification of Grant Application to the NC Association of Insurance Agents
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This funding would educate the public concerning fire safety and prevention. Education and prevention
messages include having an escape plan, proper smoke alarm installation and maintenance. Community
education includes partnership with New Hanover County and Wilmington Fire Services to check and
replace /install smoke alarms.
No new positions are being created as a result of this action.
No matching County funds are required as a result of this action.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ratify grant application submission.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Budget Siummary
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
3 -0
NCAIA SURPLUS FUNDS
R
2.
8.
REQUEST FOR FUNDS APPLICATION
Name of person or organization making request:
New Hanover County Health Department
. . ........ -
If organization, name of contact person:
Kim Budde
Addre
2029 S 17th Street
Wilmington, NC
4. Phone Number:
1 910 - 798 - 6636
5. E -Mail Address.
Q
28401
kbudde @nhcgov.com
Purnose of request: (attach additional details if necessary)
This funding would educate the public concerning fire safety and prevention.
Educational and prevention messages include having an escape plan, proper smoke
alarm installation and maintenance. Community education include partnerships with
New Hanover county and Wilmington Fire services to check and replace /install
smoke alarms.
7. Amount of request: $ 1000
8. Under the corp oration charter, contributions can only be made for the following type
projects. select one category.
Fire and accident prevention programs
❑ Scholarships
❑ Continuing education in the field of insurance
❑ Other insurance risk reduction activities
9. Attach additional documentation for review.
10. Would you be willing to make a presentation to the Committee? Y s0✓ ,
DATE: Si nature:
RETURN To: N.C. ASSOCIATION of INSURANCE AGENTS, INC.
P.O. BOAC 1185
CARY, NC 27512
�l
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
3 -1 -1
New Hanover County Health Department
11 Fire Prevention Grant NC Association of Insurance Age
Safe Kids
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
3 -2 -1
Year 1
Contract Period
7/1/11- 6/30/12
Operating
Fire Prevention Educational Materials and Incentives
$ 1
including smoke alarms with 10 year batteries.
Total Operating
$ 1
Total Expenses
$ 1
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
3 -2 -1
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
CONSENT
ITEM: 4
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Wanda Coston, Community Development Planner
CONTACT(S): Wanda Coston, Community Development Planner
SUBJECT:
Approval of 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Economic Recovery (ER) Program
and 2010 Scattered Site Housing (SSH) Program for New Hanover County: Compliance Documents
BRIEF SUMMARY:
On April 4, 2011, the Board of Commissioners approved the 2010 CDBG -ER grant award in the amount of
$500,000.00 for the demolition and clearance of three houses, the reconstruction of three houses, the
temporary relocation of the three households that will receive a reconstructed house and the rehabilitation of
two houses, all of which are occupied by five very low income homeowners.
On May 2, 2011, the Commissioners also approved the 2010 SSH program grant award in the amount of
$400,000 for the demolition and clearance of two houses, the reconstruction of two houses, the temporary
relocation of two households that will receive a reconstructed house and the rehabilitation of three houses,
which are all occupied by five very low income homeowners.
In order to comply with the terms and conditions outlined in both grant agreements, the County must ensure
that efforts are being undertaken to identify and make available to the greatest extent possible equal
opportunities in employment and procurement to low and very low income citizens within the County. As an
entity receiving federal financial assistance, the County must also ensure compliance with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act 1964 as it relates to persons with Limited English Proficiency and Title VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 as amended, and the State of North Carolina Fair Housing Law, which prohibits
discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or
national origin concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing in the housing market.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff requests the Commissioners approve and adopt all grant compliance documents and authorize the
Chairman to sign.
ATTACHMENTS:
Language Access Policy & Plan
Fair Housing Plan
Equal Employment & Procurement Plan
Local Economic Benefit Plan
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -0
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -0
Language Access Policy and Plan
New Hanover County, North Carolina
The purpose of the Policy and Plan is to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and other applicable federal and state laws and their implementing
regulations with respect to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on the ground of race, color
or national origin by any entity receiving federal financial assistance. Administrative
methods or procedures, which have the effect of sub j ecting individuals to discrimination
or defeating the objectives of these regulations, are prohibited.
In order to avoid discrimination on the grounds of national origin, all programs or
activities administered by New Hanover County must take adequate steps to ensure that
their policies and procedures do not deny or have the effect of denying LEP individuals
with equal access to benefits and services for which such persons qualify. The Policy
defines the responsibilities the agency has to ensure LEP individuals can communicate
effectively.
This policy and plan is effective September 30, 2010.
I. Scope of Policy
These requirements will apply to New Hanover County (herein referred to as "the
County ") including subcontractors, vendors, and sub recipients.
The County will ensure that LEP individuals are provided meaningful access to benefits
and services provided through contractors or service providers receiving sub grants from
the agency.
II. Definitions
A. Limited English Proficient (LEP) individual — Any prospective, potential, or
actual recipient of benefits or services from the agency who cannot speak, read,
write or understand the English language at a level that permits them to interact
effectively with health care providers and social service agencies.
B. Vital Documents — These forms include, but are not limited to, applications,
consent forms, all compliance plans, bid documents, fair housing information,
citizen participation plans, letters containing important information regarding
participation in a program; notices pertaining to the reduction, denial, or
termination of services or benefits, the right to appeal such actions, or that require
a response from beneficiary notices advising LEP persons of the availability of
free language assistance, and other outreach materials.
C. Title VI Compliance Officer: The person or persons responsible for compliance
with the Title VI LEP policies.
D. Substantial number of LEP: 5% or 1,000 people, whichever is smaller, are
potential applicants or recipients of the agency and speak a primary language
other than English and have limited English proficiency.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -1
III. Providing Notice to LEP Individuals
A. The County will take appropriate steps to inform all applicants, recipients,
community organizations, and other interested persons, including those whose
primary language is other than English, of the provisions of this policy. Such
notification will also identify the name, office telephone number, and office
address of the Title VI compliance officer(s).
B. List the current name, office telephone number and office address of the Title
VI compliance officer(s):
Signage Compliance:
Mike Winebar, Phone: 910 - 798 -7037 — Fax 910 - 798 -7157
230 Government Center — Suite 4125 -A — Wilmington, NC 28403
Monitoring and Reporting:
Kemp Burpeau, Phone: 910 - 798 -7157 — Fax 910 - 798 -7157
230 Government Center — Suite 4125 — Wilmington, NC 28403
Training:
Mark Francolini, Phone: 910 - 798 -7436 — Fax 910 - 798 -7179
230 Government Center — Suite 4135 — Wilmington, NC 28403
C. The County will post and maintain signs in regularly encountered languages
other than English in waiting rooms, reception areas and other initial points of
contact. These signs will inform applicants and beneficiaries of their right to
free language assistance services and invite them to identify themselves as
persons needing such services.
Signage shall be placed in the following:
Animal Control: 108 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
Fire Services: (various locations)
Youth Development Services (YES) 718 S. 3 rd St., Wilmington, NC 28401
Health Department: 2029 S. 17 St., Wilmington, NC 28403
Libraries: (various locations)
Cape Fear Museum: 814 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
Social Services: 1650 Greenfield St., Wilmington, NC 28403
Senior Resources: 2222 S. College Rd., Wilmington, NC 2840
Sheriff Office /Jail: 3950 Juvenile Center Road Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Government Center: 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
D. The County will include statements of the right to free language assistance in
Spanish and other significant languages in all outreach material that is
routinely disseminated to the public and the County web -site.
IV. Provision of Services to LEP Applicants/Recipients
A. Assessing Linguistic Needs of Potential Applicants and Recipients
1. The County will assess the language needs of the population to be served,
by identifying:
2
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -2
a. the language needs of each LEP applicant /recipient
b. the points of contact where language assistance is needed; and
C. the resources needed to provide effective language assistance,
including location, availability and arrangements necessary for
timely use.
2. Determining the Language Needs of the Population to be Served
The County is responsible for assessing the needs of the population to be
served. Such assessment will include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The non - English languages that are likely to be encountered in its
program will be identified.
b. An estimate of the number of people in the community for who
English is not the primary language used for communication will
be completed and updated annually. To identify the languages and
number of LEP individuals local entities should review:
i. census data
ii. school system data
iii. reports from federal, state, and local governments
iv. community agencies' information, and
V. data from client files
C. The points of contact in the program or activity where language
assistance is likely to be needed will be identified.
3. Determining the Language Needs of Each Applicant /Recipient
The County will determine the language needs of each applicant /recipient.
Such assessment will include, but not be limited to the following:
a. At the first point of contact, each applicant /recipient will be
assessed to determine the individual's primary language.
Check all methods that will be used:
❑ Multi - language identification cards, a poster -size language
list, or the use of "I speak" peel -off language identification
cards for indicating preferred languages
❑ English proficiency assessment tools, provided they can be
administered in a manner that is sensitive to and respectful
of individual dignity and privacy
b. If the LEP person does not speak or read any of these languages,
the agency will use a telephone interpreting service to identify the
client's primary language.
C. Staff will not solely rely on their own assessment of the applicant
or recipient's English proficiency in determining the need for an
interpreter. If an individual requests an interpreter, an interpreter
3
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -3
will be provided free of charge. A declaration of the client will be
used to establish the client's primary language.
d. When staff place or receive a telephone call and cannot determine
what language the other person on the line is speaking, a telephone
interpreting service will be utilized in making the determination.
e. If any applicant /recipient is assessed as LEP, they will be informed
of interpreter availability and their right to have a language
interpreter at no cost to them with a notice in writing in the
languages identified in Section C. Provisions of Written
Translations.
B. Provision of Bilingual /Interpretive Services
1. The County will ensure that effective bilingual /interpretive services are
provided to serve the needs of the non - English speaking population. The
provision of bilingual /interpretive services will be prompt without undue
delays. In most circumstances, this requires language services to be
available during all operating hours.
This requirement will be met through contract with independent contractor
for interpretative series, supplemented by bilingual County staff.
2. The County will provide language assistance at all level of interaction
with LEP individuals, including telephone interactions.
3. Interpreter Standards
a. Those providing bilingual /interpretive services will meet the
linguistic and cultural competency standards set forth below. The
agency will ensure that interpreters and self - identified bilingual
staff, have first been screened to ensure that the following
standards are met before being used for interpreter services:
i. Can fluently and effectively communicate in both English
and the primary language of the LEP individual
ii. Can accurately and impartially interpret to and from such
languages and English
iii. Has a basic knowledge of specialized terms and concepts
used frequently in the provision of the agency's services
iv. Demonstrates cultural competency
V. Understands the obligation to maintain confidently
vi. Understands the roles of interpreters and the ethics
associated with being an interpreter
b. When staff members have reason to believe that an interpreter is
not qualified or properly trained to serve as an interpreter, the staff
member will request another interpreter.
11
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -4
4. Using Family Members or Friends as Interpreters
a. Applicants /recipients may provide their own interpreter; however
the agency will not require them to do so.
b. The County will first inform an LEP person, in the primary
language of the LEP person, of the right to free interpreter services
and the potential problems for ineffective communication. If the
LEP person declines such services and requests the use of a family
member or friend, the County may utilize the family member or
friend to interpret only if the use of such person would not
compromise the effectiveness or services or violate the LEP
person's confidentiality. The County will monitor these
interactions and again offer interpreter services, if it appears there
are problems with this arrangement.
C. The County will indicate in the LEP individual's file that an offer
of interpreter services was made and rejected; that the individual
was informed of potential problems associated with using friends
or family members and the name of the person serving as an
interpreter at the LEP individual's request.
d. Only under extenuating circumstances shall the agency allow a
minor (under the age of 18 years) to temporarily act as an
interpreter. The agency will keep a written record of when it has
used a minor as an interpreter, and this information will be shared
with the DCA upon request.
5. The County will not require the applicant /recipient to pay for
bilingual /interpretive services.
C. Provision of Written Translations
1. The County must provide written materials in languages other than
English where a substantial number or percentage of the population
eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by the program needs
services or information in a language other than English to communicate
effectively.
2. Translation of Vital Documents
a. The County will ensure that vital documents for locally designed
programs are translated into Spanish.
b. When DCA forms and other written material contain spaces in
which the local entity is to insert information, this inserted
information will also be in the individual's primary language.
When such forms are completed by applicants /recipients in their
primary language, the information must be accepted.
C. If, as a result of the local language assessment, it appears there are
a substantial number of potential applicants or recipients of the
agency (defined as 5% or 1,000 people whichever is less) who are
5
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -5
LEP and speak a language other than Spanish, the agency will
translate and provide vital documents in the appropriate language.
d. The County will keep a record of all vital documents translated,
and will submit this information to DCA at their request.
3. If the primary language of a LEP applicant or recipient is a language other
than Spanish AND the language does not meet the threshold for
translation as defined in the preceding paragraph, the LEP individual will
be informed in their own language of the right to oral translation of written
notices. The notification will include, in the primary language of the
applicant /recipient, the following language: IMPORTANT: IF YOU
NEED HELP IN READING THIS, ASK THE COUNTY FOR AN
INTERPRETER TO HELP. AN INTERPRETER IS AVAILABLE FREE
OF CHARGE.
D. Documentation of Applicant /Recipient Case Records
1. The County will maintain case record documentation in sufficient detail to
permit a reviewer to determine the agency's compliance with this policy.
2. The County will ensure that case record documentation, including
computerized records if appropriate, identifies the applicants /recipient's
ethnic origin and primary language. In those cases where the
applicant /recipient is non - English speaking, the County will:
a. Document the individual's acceptance or refusal of forms or other
written materials offered in the individual's primary language.
b. Document the method used to provide bilingual services, e.g.,
assigned worker is bilingual, other bilingual employee acted as
interpreter, volunteer interpreter was used, or client provided
interpreter. When a minor is used as interpreter, the County will
document the circumstances requiring temporary use of a minor
and will provide this information to DCA upon request.
3. Consent for the release of information will be obtained from
applicants /recipients when individuals other than County employees are
used as interpreters and the case record will be so documented.
E. Staff Development and Training
1. The County will provide staff training at new employee orientation and
continuing training programs. The training will include, but not be limited
to:
a. Language assistance policies and procedures, resources available to
support such procedures, methods of effective use of interpreters, and
familiarization with the discrimination complaint process.
b. Cultural awareness information, including specific cultural
characteristics of the groups served by the agency to provide a better
Z
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -6
understanding of, and sensitivity to, the various cultural groups to
ensure equal delivery of services.
2. The County will provide or ensure training is provided for bilingual staff
and interpreters employed or utilized by the agency. This includes the
ethics of interpreting, including confidentiality; methods of interpreting;
orientation to the organization; specialized terminology used by the
agency; and cultural competency.
3. The County will ensure that applicable grantees, contractors, cooperative
agreement recipients and other entities receiving state or federal dollars
are trained in the requirements of this policy by informing /educating
regarding such requirements.
4. The County will collect and maintain the following information about
training provided to staff: the date(s) of such training, the content of such
training, the number and types of credit hours awarded; and the names and
identifying information of each attendee at the training. The County will
ensure that grantees, contractors, cooperative agreement recipients and
other applicable funded entities collect and maintain such information as
well.
V. Compliance Procedures, Reporting and Monitoring
A. Reporting
1. The County will complete an annual compliance report and send this
report to DCA.
(Format will be supplied by DCA)
B. Monitoring
1. The County will complete a self - monitoring report on a quarterly basis,
using a standardized reporting system providing by the DCA. These
reports will be maintained and stored by the Title VI compliance officer
and will be provided to the DCA upon request.
2. The County will cooperate, when requested, with special review by the
DCA.
VI. Applicant /Recipient Complaints of Discriminatory Treatment
A. Complaints
1. The County will provide assistance to LEP individuals who do not speak
or write in English if they indicate that they would like to file a complaint.
A complaint will be filed in writing, contain the name and address of the
person filing it or his /her designee and briefly describe the alleged
violation of this policy.
2. The County will maintain records of any complaints filed, the date of
filing, actions taken and resolution.
7
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -7
3. The County will notify the appropriate agency or Division within DCA of
complaints filed the date of filing, actions taken and resolution. This
information will be provided within 30 days of resolution.
B. Investigation
1. The DCA Compliance Office will conduct an investigation of the
allegations of the complaint. The investigation will afford all interested
persons and their representatives, if any, an opportunity to submit
evidence relevant to the complaint.
2. The investigation will not exceed 30 days, absent a 15 -day extension for
extenuating circumstances.
C. Resolution of Matters
1. If the investigation indicates a failure to comply with the Act, the local
unit of government, agency Director or his /her designee will so inform the
recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever
possible within 60 days.
2. If the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, then the individual
will be informed of his or her right to appeal further to the Department of
Justice (DOJ). This notice will be provided in the primary language of the
individual with Limited English Proficiency.
3. If not resolved by DCA, then complaint will be forwarded to the DOJ,
HUD Field Office.
SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST
Sheila Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -1 -8
Recipient's Plan to Further Fair Housing
Grantee: New Hanover County
Recipient's Address: New Hanover County
Planning & Inspections Dept., 230
Government Center Dr., Ste. 110,
Wilmington NC 28403 Grants #: 10 -C -2153 & 10 -C -2171
Contact Person: Wanda B. Coston Contact Phone #: 910- 798 -7442
Contact Email: wcoston M c ov.com TDD #: N/A
I. Indicate if the Recipient will be affirmatively furthering fair housing for the
first time or has implemented specific activities in the past.
First Time Past Activities X
II. Identify and analyze obstacles to affirmatively furthering fair housing
in recipient's community. (Use additional pages as necessary)
The 2010 Analysis of Impediments identified four possible Impediments to Fair
Housing within new Hanover County and the City of Wilmington:
1. Lack of affordable housing, specifically for disabled and low- income
populations.
Service providers report that demand exceeds the supply of accessible, subsidized
units for disabled individuals. The lack of affordable rental housing, especially
for elderly, disabled, and other special populations is well documented by the
Consolidated Plan and by practitioners. The 3,500 families on the Wilmington
Housing Authority Section 8 waiting list is one of the indicators of the need for
affordable rental housing.
2. Lack of transportation in the outlying areas of the County.
Lack of transportation outside of the city limits housing access for special
populations (e.g. low income families and seniors) in those areas.
3. Lack of fair housing enforcement by a local agency or department.
Presently, the New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington do not have a
fair housing department or agency to receive complaints or promote education
and outreach. Lack of effective enforcement is a potential barrier to fair housing
in the city and county. Without a local presence and efforts of a local fair housing
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -2 -1
agency, it is more than difficult to raise awareness of the law and rights granted
under the law. Many who are aware of their rights may not be aware of how or
where to file a complaint. This lack of a central location for filing complaints or
obtaining information about fair housing may constitute a barrier to fair housing.
Additionally, a lack of education by both citizens and housing professionals may
lead to discrimination or a violation of fair housing laws.
4. Disparity and inequity in lending.
Analysis of 2008 HMDA data reveals a disparity in loan origination patters and
denial rates of minorities and non - minorities in the Wilmington MSA. Despite
similar income levels, minorities have a higher rate of denial than non - minorities.
The data however is limited in scope and further investigation would be necessary
to determine if discrimination is present. Note that the perception of lending bias,
or undue burdens on minorities seeking home loans could be a barrier to fair
housing.
III. Will the above activities apply to the total municipality or county?
Yes _X No If no, provide an explanation.
(Use additional pages as necessary)
IV. Briefly describe the quarterly activities that the recipient will undertake over
the active period of the grant to affirmatively further fair housing in their
community. A time schedule and estimated cost for implementation of these
activities must be included. Activities must be scheduled for implementation at
least on a quarterly basis.
See the table on pages 3 — 4.
2
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -2 -2
Grantee: New Hanover County, North Carolina
Table of Quarterly Activities
Quarterly Fair Housing Activity
Months
Year
Estimated
Actual
Cost
Cost
• Coordinate with City of Wilmington staff to
distribute Fair Housing brochures in English
Jan-March
$0
and in Spanish at apartment complexes
throughout the County
• Publish New Hanover County complaint
procedure in the local newspaper and on the
County's website
April -June
$350
• Public Service announcements during Fair
Housing Month on New Hanover County
Government Channel
• Distribute Fair Housing brochures in English
and Spanish at the Wilmington Regional
Association of Realtors event
• Meeting with City of Wilmington
Community Development staff to plan future
April -June
$0
Fair Housing Activities
• Provide a link to HUD and the NC Human
2011
Relations Commission housing
discrimination complaint procedure forms
• Provide New Hanover County Schools Art
Supervisor with rules and guidelines for Fair
Housing poster and /or essay contest for
middle school students
July -Sept.
$0
• Contact area businesses and organizations
about donating prizes for the middle schools
Fair Housing poster and /or essay contest
winners
• Middle Schools poster and /or essay contest
winners announced and winners work
displayed
Oct. -Dec.
$200
• Distribute Fair Housing brochures and
information in English and in Spanish at the
annual Latino festival
• Continue to work with City of Wilmington
Community Development staff to promote
Fair Housing
• Work with County government television
Jan.-
2012
$0
staff to develop skit about Fair Housing to air
March
on government channel
• Submit Fair Housing article to the local
newspapers
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -2 -3
Quarterly Fair Housing Activity
Months
Year
Estimated
Actual
Cost
Cost
• Prepare Proclamation for Board of
Commissioners to adopt in recognition of
National Fair Housing Month
April -June
$0
• Recognition of Middle School contest and /or
essay winners at board of Commissioners
meeting
2012
• Coordinate a Fair Housing training session
waiting
for local housing providers through the North
July -Sept.
for figure
Carolina Housing Coalition
• Print Fair Housing posters to post on local
July -Sept.
$100
public transit
• Distribute Fair Housing brochures and
information in English and in Spanish at the
Oct. -Dec.
$200
annual Latino Festival
• Publish County's Fair Housing complaint
Jan.-
$350
procedure in the local newspaper
March
• Prepare Proclamation for Board of
Commissioners to adopt during National Fair
April -June
$0
Housing Month Fair Housing PSA on NHC-
TV
2013
• Post one (1) fact or figure about fair housing
on the County's and the Planning and
July -Sept.
$0
Inspections Department's Facebook and /or
Twitter pages on a weekly basis
• Distribute Fair Housing brochures and
information in English and in Spanish at the
Oct. -Dec.
$200
annual Latino Festival
Total Cost
2011 -2013
$1400
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -2 -4
V. Describe recipient's method of receiving and resolving housing
discrimination complaints. This may be either a procedure currently being
implemented or one to be implemented under this CDBG grant. Include a
description of how the recipient informs the public about the complaint
procedures. (Use additional pages as necessary)
1) Any person or persons wishing to file a complaint of housing discrimination in
New Hanover County may do so by contacting the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), Atlanta Regional Office or the North Carolina
Department of Administration, Human Relations Commission (NCHRQ the
facts and circumstance of the alleged discriminatory acts or practice. The CDBG
Program administrator for New Hanover County will be available to assist persons
wishing to file a complaint by making referrals to the HUD, Atlanta Regional
Office or the NCHRC.
2) Upon receiving a housing discrimination complaint, the CDBG Program
administrator for New Hanover County shall acknowledge the complaint within 10
days in writing to inform Community Investment and Assistance and the North
Carolina Human Relations Commission about the complaint.
3) The CDBG Program administrator for New Hanover County shall offer assistance
to the Commission in the investigation and reconciliation of all housing
discrimination complaints which are based on events occurring in New Hanover
County.
4) The CDBG Program administrator for New Hanover County shall publicize in the
local newspaper, with the Telephone /TTY /TDD number, the agency to contact
regarding housing discrimination complaints.
Approved By:
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman Signature Date
Board of Commissioners
New Hanover County
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -2 -5
New Hanover County
Grant Number 10 -C -2153 &Grant Number 10 -C -2171
Equal Employment and Procurement Plan
NEW HANOVER COUNTY maintains the policy of providing equal employment
opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap,
age, political affiliation, or any other non -merit factor, except where religion, sex, national
origin, or age are bona fide occupation qualifications for employment.
In furtherance of this policy, NEW HANOVER COUNTY prohibits any retaliatory action of
any kind taken by any employee of the locality against any other employee or applicant for
employment because that person made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner
in a hearing, proceeding or investigation of employment discrimination.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY shall strive for greater utilization of all persons by identifying
previously underutilized groups in the workforce, such as minorities, women, and the
handicapped, and making special efforts toward their recruitment, selection, development and
upward mobility and any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
Responsibility for implementing equal opportunities and affirmative action measures is hereby
assigned to the New Hanover County Manager or his designee to assist in the implementation of
this policy statement.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY shall development a self - evaluation mechanism to provide for
periodic examination and evaluation. Periodic reports as requested on the progress of Equal
Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action will be presented to the Chairman.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY is committed to this policy and is aware that with its
implementation, the County will receive positive benefits through the greater utilization and
development of all its human resources.
Adopted this 11 day of July, 2011.
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Sheila Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -3 -1
Local Economic Benefit for Low- and Very Low - Income Persons Plan
Grant Number 10 -C -2153 & Grant Number 10 -C -2171
To ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, contracts for work are awarded to business concerns
located or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the Section 3 covered area, as required by
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, New Hanover County has developed and
hereby adopts the following Plan:
This Section 3 Plan shall apply to services needed in connection with the grant including, but not limited
to, businesses in the fields of planning, consulting, design, building construction /renovation, maintenance
and repair, etc.
This Section 3 covered project area for the purposes of this grant program shall include New Hanover
County and portions of the immediately adjacent area.
When in need of a service, New Hanover County will identify suppliers, contractors or subcontractors
located in the Section 3 area. Resources for this identification shall include the Minority Business
Directory published through the State Department of Commerce, local directories and Small Business
Administration local offices. Word of mouth recommendation shall also be used as a source.
New Hanover County will include this Section 3 clause in all contracts executed under this CDBG
Program. Where necessary, listings from any agency noted above deemed shall be included as well as
sources of subcontractors and suppliers.
The prime contractor selected for major public works facility or public construction work will be required
to submit a Section 3 Plan which will outline his /her work needs in connection with the project. Should a
need exist to hire any additional personnel, the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina,
Wilmington Office shall be notified and referred to the contractor.
Each contract for housing rehabilitation under the program, as applicable, for jobs having contracts in
excess of $100,000 shall be required to submit a Section 3 Plan. This Plan will be maintained on file in
the grant office and shall be updated from time to time or as the grant staff may deem necessary.
Early in our project, prior to any contracting, major purchases or hiring, we will develop a listing of jobs,
supplies and contracts likely to be utilized during the project. We will then advertise in our local
newspaper an advertisement, prominently located as a display advertisement, the pertinent information
regarding the project including all Section 3 required information.
Adopted this 11 day of July, 2011.
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Sheila Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
4 -4 -1
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
CONSENT
ITEM: 5
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager
CONTACT(S): Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of Request to Partner with the Nature Conservancy to Submit a Grant Application to
NAWCA
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Southeast Coastal Plain office of the Nature Conservancy is requesting to submit a grant application to
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act ( NAWCA) to protect 772 acres of wetlands and adjacent
uplands in the southeast coastal plain and has asked the County to partner with them on this effort. The
County would benefit from this grant with the purchase of a 10.2 -acre tract of land within the proposed
Smith Creek Greenway known as the "Ramsay Tract." The County submitted an application to the
Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF) in early 2011 for this property, however, the CWMTF has
since announced that they will be unable to fund acquisition projects in 2011. No cash match will be required
from the County.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve request to partner with the Nature Conservancy to submit grant application.
ATTACHMENTS:
NAWCA Application
Smith Creek Greenway Map
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -0
NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT PROPOSAL
PROJECT OFFICER'S PAGE
What is the proposal title? Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative II
What are the geographical landmarks for the proposal?
1. State(s): North Carolina
2. County(ies): Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender
3. Congressional District(s): District 7
4. JV : Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
5. B CR : 27
What is the date you are submitting the proposal? July 29, 2011
Is an Optional Matching Contributions Plan (MCP) submitted with the proposal? No Or
Does the proposal contain match associated with a previously submitted MCP? Yes
Are you requesting that this proposal be considered as a continuation of a previous grant
agreement (a Programmatic Project Proposal)? Yes
Do you expect this project to be the first phase of a Programmatic Project? No
How many more proposals are planned for the same project area? There are not a specific number of
proposals planned for the same project area, but further applications are anticipated with the variety of
partners engaged in wetland conservation and restoration in Southeastern North Carolina. The Cape Fear
Arch Conservation Collaboration, a partnership of likeminded conservation agencies and organizations in
Southeastern North Carolina, has similar objectives to the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture South Atlantic
Migratory Bird Initiative, and therefore it is anticipated that further applications will be submitted.
Project Officer information:
1. Name: Dan Ryan
2. Title: Program Director, Southeast Coastal Plain
3. organization: The Nature Conservancy
4. Address: 2807 Market St Wilmington NC 28405
5. Telephone number: (910) 395 -5000
6. Email address: dryan@tnc.org
7. Grantee organization or proposal website, if available: www.nature.org
Will any of the NAWCA funds requested as part of this proposal be received or spent by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or another Federal agency? No
If yes, which agency(ies) will receive these funds and what is the fund amount:
Agency: n/a Amount: n/a
Are carbon sequestration credits involved in the proposal? No
Will any portion of any tract or activities associated with any tract be used to satisfy wetland or
habitat mitigation requirements under Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, Water Resources Development Act, or other related statutes now or in
the future? No
Have you confirmed that all partners, key personnel, and contractors are eligible to participate in
Federal grants? Yes
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -1
To ensure that the proposal complies with available guidelines and that partners are aware of their
responsibilities, the Project Officer certifies to the following statement: I have read the 2010 standard
grant instructions, eligibility information, and grant administration policies and informed partners or
partners have read the material themselves. To the best of my knowledge, the proposal is eligible and
complies with all NAWCA, North American Wetlands Conservation Council, and Federal grant
guidelines. The work in this proposal consists of work and costs associated with long -term wetlands and
migratory bird habitat conservation.
Do you have any comments about, or suggestions for, the NAWCA program? No
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -2
NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT PROPOSAL SUMMARY
Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative II
COUNTY(IES), STATE(S), CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT(S): Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender
Counties, North Carolina, District 7
GRANT AMOUNT $1
Allocation: The Nature Conservancy $889,491.25
New Hanover County $110
MATCHING PARTNERS $3
Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative MCP $2
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Grant $600
New Hanover County $2
GRANT AND MATCH - ACTIVITIES, COSTS, AND ACRES $4,257,815/772.19 acres
Fee Acquired $1,598,633.75/772.19 acres
Indirect Costs $4
Previously Approved MCP $2
funds (SENC Wetlands Initiative)
NON - MATCHING PARTNERS $24,952
US Fish and Wildlife Service $24,952
NON -MATCH - ACTIVITIES, COSTS, AND ACRES $24,952/144 acres
Enhancement - $24,952/144 acres
PROPOSAL PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION: This proposal is a second phase of the Southeastern
North Carolina Wetlands Initiative (SENCWI) that began in 2008. It is a continued effort to permanently
protect palustrine wetlands as well as uplands (including longleaf pine savannas) in the Southeast Coastal
Plain of North Carolina. This region of North Carolina incorporates the southern half of the coastal plain
physiographic region in the state and contains a wide diversity of wetland habitats including coastal salt
marsh, semi permanently flooded gum- cypress swamps, seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods,
Carolina Bay lakes, pocosin and beaver ponds. However, like other parts of the state, this region is
experiencing unprecedented growth and development, and the threats to wetlands loss, degradation and
fragmentation increase each year. Over 50 percent (6 million acres) of North Carolina's original wetlands
have been lost. Most acreage in southeast North Carolina is in private ownership and no federal wildlife
refuges exist in the region. Therefore, state -owned lands and private conservation initiatives have become
vital to conserving and protecting wetlands and wildlife habitat in the area. Phase II of the SENCWI
continues to combine the funding and expertise of the original partners (Ducks Unlimited, The Nature
Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service) as well as a new collaborator, New Hanover County. The
SENCWI was successful in its 2008 NAWCA application by supporting the goals and objectives of the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (ACJV SAMBI) within North
Carolina. Phase II will continue this work through additional wetland acquisition.
Tracts to be funded by this NAWCA application fall within the Cape Fear and Lumber basins and within
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan's Waccamaw River and Lower Cape Fear Focal Areas.
Phase II will protect three tracts, totaling 772.19 acres. All 772 acres of these acres have been designated
as Nationally Significant Heritage Areas by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. These acres
include 380 wetland acres and 392.19 upland acres that will benefit breeding, migrating and wintering
birds. Non -match partner USFWS is funding habitat enhancement work on 144 acres of private land in
the proposal area.
The first tract to be purchased through this NAWCA application, the Rock Creek II Tract (RC II), is
located within the Lumber River basin. It is located adjacent to The Nature Conservancy's 16,000 acre
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -3
Green Swamp Preserve (an Audubon - designated Important Bird Area), which in turn borders the State of
North Carolina's 18,000 acre Juniper Creek Game Lands (part of the SENCWI Phase 1 project & MCP).
The Nature Conservancy will be the lead in acquiring this property. Protection of the RC II tract will
further expand an existing wildlife corridor to approximately 21 miles from east to west. The RC II tract
contains 265 acres of palustrine forested wetlands and 191 acres of current and former longleaf pine and
wet pine flatwoods habitat. Some of this acreage has been converted to loblolly pine plantation by
previous owners. The site is considered important due to the great diversity of landbirds associated with
one of the state's best examples of longleaf pine savannas and pocosins on site as well as in the adjacent
Green Swamp Preserve.
The second tract to be purchased by the NAWCA grant is located along Smith Creek in the Cape Fear
basin. The property, the Ramsay Tract (Ram), is located within the Smith Creek Greenway, an initiative
New Hanover County began more than five years ago as part of an environmental education effort. The
greenway also serves to improve water quality in this tributary to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The ten
acre tract is primary dominated by mature palustrine forested wetlands that include bald cypress. The
subject tract is situated between two tracts of protected land owned by the county as part of the
aforementioned greenway. Protection of the Ramsay Tract will preserve habitat for a variety of migratory
birds, waterfowl and will consolidate a corridor of protected areas 1.20 miles long along the creek.
The match provided as part of this application consists of a land acquisition to the north of the RCII tract
and a portion the matching contributions plan (MCP) established in 2008 by Ducks Unlimited. The land
acquisition project to be used as match was funded by the State of North Carolina's Ecosystem
Enhancement Grant program. The property, Rock Creek I (RC I), is 306 acres of mixed palustrine
forested wetlands and longleaf pine savanna. The RC I tract shares the designation of a Nationally
Significant Heritage site as well as being adjacent to the Green Swamp Preserve and Important Bird Area.
The MCP originated from the first phase of the Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative in 2008
that protected over 18,000 acres in the nearby Juniper Creek natural area. This State Significant Natural
Heritage Area will be part of the contiguous wildlife corridor that the RC I and RC II will anchor as the
eastern most component. Partners involved in the establishment of the MCP included Ducks Unlimited,
The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund, North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The non -match component of this application consists of a Partners for Fish and Wildlife grant awarded
to The Nature Conservancy by the USFWS to enhance 144 acres of upland longleaf pine and streamhead
pocosin in Pender County, NC. The Haw Bluff (HB) tract was acquired by TNC in the 1990s to protect
the upland bluffs adjacent to the palustrine and riverine wetlands of the Black River. The Black River is
home to 1,700 year old bald cypress trees.
HABITAT TYPES AND WILDLIFE BENEFITTING: Conservation measures associated with this
NAWCA application will protect a total of 772 acres of wetlands and uplands in the south east coastal
plain of North Carolina. Tract RC II tract consists of 456 acres, of which 265 acres are palustrine forested
wetlands; Tract Ram is 10.19 acres with 7.6 acres classified as palustrine forested wetlands; match Tract
RC I is 306 acres, with 108 acres classified as palustrine forested wetlands. These tracts contain habitat
vitally important to multiple priority species including three NAWCA Priority waterfowl species, three
NAWCA Other Priority waterfowl species and four other species of waterfowl. Additionally, 10
NAWCA Priority Species of wetland - dependent migratory birds from Bird Conservation Region 27 will
benefit from increased foraging, nesting, or roosting habitat. At least 36 other species of wetland -
dependent or wetland associated species will also benefit directly from this work, including 6 federally
listed, threatened or candidate species and 4 federally- listed species of concern. The proposal will
enhance other wetland values and functions by improving local and regional water quality and enhancing
soil conservation by reducing sediment in precipitation runoff.
PUBLIC BENEFITS /PUBLIC ACCESS: All three tracts associated with this NAWCA application will
have both public benefit as well as public access opportunities. Tracts RC I and RC II will eventually be
conveyed to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for inclusion into their Game Lands
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -4
program, allowing for hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities. RC I and RC II both conserve
headwater tributaries of the locally important Town Creek and Lockwood Folly blackwater rivers. Tract
Ram will be included in the New Hanover County Smith Creek Greenway; whose ultimate goal is to
create a greenway that will include a passive trail. A Smith Creek paddle trail is also under development
and would include the segment of the creek that borders this property. The protection of the property will
benefit water quality by permanently protecting the riparian buffer along this increasingly urban stream.
NEW PARTNERS: New Hanover County.
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUSLY FUNDED NAWCA PROPOSALS: This proposal complements
previous work accomplished through the 2008 Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative I
NAWCA project. That project successfully protected and /or restored four tracts of land totaling 20,211
acres in the same initiative area. The tracts included in this 2011 NAWCA proposal are within the same
focal areas defined in that application. Tracts RC I and RC II will build upon the habitat linkage that the
2008 phase established; effectively increasing the corridor of protected lands to a span of 21 miles.
THREATS AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: All three tracts are found within a rapidly developing
area of Southeastern North Carolina. Tracts RC I and RC II are situated in Brunswick County which, up
until the 2008 recession, was rated as the 17 fastest growing county in the country. Although the
majority of the development has eased, this property is currently owned by a real estate speculator who
sees new opportunities in the 5 to 10 year range. Furthermore, Brunswick County itself has lost a huge
expanse of wetlands in its history. Ditching and draining of palustrine wetlands by timber companies, golf
course construction on sensitive habitats and residential development along rivers and tidal creeks have
greatly exacerbated loss of important wetland habitats. Conversely, Brunswick County is the most
biologically diverse county in North Carolina. 59 rare animal species and 112 rare plant species have been
identified within the county. Most of these rare species rely on the unique wetlands that continue to
endure. Tracts RC I and RC II contain habitat that supports 14 different carnivorous plant species
including the Venus flytrap.
Tract Ram is located in New Hanover County, which is not very far behind Brunswick County
in growth or biological diversity. The property is within an urbanizing area right outside the
City of Wilmington, whose natural open spaces are nominal. The property creates an
important connection between two adjacent protected properties as part of the greenway
project. Additionally, the New Hanover County Parks Department is in the process of
developing a county park upstream of the Ram tract that will be called Smith Creek Park. The
Smith Creek Greenway will connect Smith Creek Park to the Ram tract.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -5
BUDGET AND WORK PLAN
Is the required Budget Table submitted here or as an attachment? Here
PROPOSAL BUDGET TABLE
ACTIVITIES
GRANT $
MATCHING & NONMATCHING PARTNERS
TOTAL $
TRACT
ID
ABBREVIATED
PARTNER NAME
OLD
MATCH $
NEW
MATCH $
NON -MATCH
$
Land Costs: Fee Acquired
$966,400
NCEEG, DU
$2,654,940
$581,500
$4,202,840
1 -RC 1
2 -RCII
3 -Ram
4 -MCP
Appraisals & Other Acquisition
Costs
$22,350
NCEEG, NHC
$16,875
$39,225
1 -RCI
2 -RCII
3 -Ram
Non - Contract Personnel & Travel
$7,008.75
NCEEG
$4,500
$11,508.75
1 -RCI
2 -RCII
3 -Ram
TOTAL ACQUIRED
$995,758.75
$2,654,940
$602,875
$4,253,573.75
1 -RCI
2 -RCII
3 -Ram
Contracts
USFWS
$14400
$14400
5 -HB
Materials & Equipment
USFWS
$2,700
$2,700
5 -HB
Non - Contract Personnel & Travel
USFWS
$7,852
$7,852
5 -HB
TOTAL ENHANCED
$24,952
$24,952
5 -HB
GRAND TOTAL DIRECT
$995,758.75
$2,654,940
$602,875
$4,253,573.75
TOTAL INDIRECT
$4,241.25
$4,241.25
GRAND TOTAL
$1,000,000
$2,654,940
$602,875
$4,257,815
Ducks Unlimited
DU
$2,654,940
$2,330,000
New Hanover County
NHC
$2,875
$4,875
North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Grant
NCEEG
$600,000
$600,000
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS
$24,952
GRAND TOTAL
$1,000,000
$2,654,940
$602,875
$24,952
$4,282,767
Do you need to explain any abbreviations in the Budget Table? NHC (New Hanover County)
If your grant request exceeds $1,000,000, what is your justification? n/a
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -6
If any match was previously approved by the Council via an Optional Matching Contributions Plan, did you
include a copy of the letter approving the Matching Contributions Plan and give the following information: tracts
affected, and how much of each partner's match has been used in previous proposals, how much is being used in
this proposal, and how much will remain after the current proposal is funded? Yes, the email from USFWS dated
December 17, 2008 giving approval for the Matching Contributions Plan is attached. The match tract affected is the
Juniper Creek tract. The SENCWI Phase 1 project used $2,000,000 of match funds. In this Phase II, $2,654,940 of the
remaining $13,274,698 MCP will be used, which will leave a balance of $10,620,028 MCP to be used for future NAWCA
applications.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -7
9
WORK PLAN
TRACT 1 Rock Creek I
OVERALL ACRES AFFECTED: 306 acres
STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES HOLDING INTERESTS: Interest in property will be conveyed to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission
Acreage Summary of Grant/Match Activities on the Tract:
Acquisition:306 Restoration: Enhancement: Establishment:
Describe all applicable grant /match activities occurring on the tract here: Match funds will be used to acquire 306 acres of
palustrine wetlands and associated uplands in Brunswick County by The Nature Conservancy using funds from the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Grant Program. The property will be then conveyed to the State of North Carolina for use
as a publicly accessible game land for hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing. The property is currently privately held.
Tract —Rock Creek I: Acquisition Budget Justification - $600,000 and 306 acres
Grant - $ Match - $600,000 Non -Match - $ Completion: November 2011
LAND ACQUISITION DISCLOSURE
Type of acquisition: fee title
Holder of NAWCA conservation interest: The Nature Conservancy (to be conveyed to NC Wildlife Resources Commission)
Grantor /Seller of conservation interest: Figure 8 North Carolina LLC
Tenure of conservation interest: perpetuity
All funding sources for acquisition: NCEEG grant funds
Are mineral rights severed or included? Included
Are water rights severed or included? Included
Item & Work
Units
$ /unit
Total $
Schedule
(month, year)
Funding Source
(Grant or Partner
name)
APPRAISALS and OTHER ACQUISITION COSTS
Appraisal
1
$5,000
$5,000
August, 2011
NCEEG (match)
Phase 1 Environmental
1
$2,500
$2,500
September, 2011
NCEEG (match)
Survey
1
$2,500
$2,500
September, 2011
NCEEG (match)
Legal Fees, title work, closing costs
1
$4,000
$4,000
September, 2011
NCEEG (match)
Fee Title
1
$581,500
November, 2011
NCEEG (match)
Subtotal Appraisals and Other Acquisition Costs
$595,500
NON - CONTRACT PERSONNEL and TRAVEL
Land protection staff time: acquisition
of grant tract, coordinating due
diligence required, conducting state and
federal compliance activities ( *hourly
rate includes 40% fringe benefits)
88
hours
$50/88
$4
Ongoing till
proj ect's
completion
NCEEG (match)
Project Manager Travel
200
$.50/200
$100
Ongoing till
proj ect's
completion
NCEEG (match)
Subtotal Non - Contract Personnel and Travel
$4,500
TOTAL ACQUISITION DIRECT COSTS
$600,000
6
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -8
TRACT 2 Rock Creek II
OVERALL ACRES AFFECTED: 456 acres
STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES HOLDING INTERESTS: Interest in property will be conveyed to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission
Acreage Summary of Grant/Match Activities on the Tract:
Acquisition:456 Restoration: Enhancement: Establishment:
Describe all applicable grant /match activities occurring on the tract here: Grant funds will be used to acquire 456 acres of
palustrine wetlands and associated uplands in Brunswick County by The Nature Conservancy using funds from NAWCA.
The property will be then conveyed to the State of North Carolina for use as a publicly accessible game land for hunting,
fishing and wildlife viewing. The property is currently privately held.
Tract —Rock Creek II: Acquisition Budget Justification - $889,491.25 and 456 acres
Grant - $889,491.25 Match - Non -Match - $ Completion: April 2012
LAND ACQUISITION DISCLOSURE
Type of acquisition: fee title
Holder of NAWCA conservation interest: The Nature Conservancy (to be conveyed to NC Wildlife Resources Commission)
Grantor /Seller of conservation interest: Figure 8 North Carolina LLC
Tenure of conservation interest: Perpetuity
All funding sources for acquisition: NAWCA grant funds
Are mineral rights severed or included? Included
Are water rights severed or included? Included
Item & Work
Units
$ /unit
Total $
Schedule
(month, year)
Funding Source
(Grant or Partner
name)
APPRAISALS and OTHER ACQUISITION COSTS
Appraisal
1
$5,000
$5,000
January, 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Phase 1 Environmental
1
$2,500
$2,500
February, 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Survey
1
$2,500
$2,500
February, 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Legal Fees, title work, closing costs
1
$4,000
$4,000
February, 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Land Costs
1
$866,400
March 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Subtotal Appraisals and Other Acquisition Costs
$880,400
NON - CONTRACT PERSONNEL and TRAVEL
Land protection staff time: acquisition
of grant tract, coordinating due diligence
required, conducting state and federal
q g
compliance activities ( *hourly rate
includes 40% fringe benefits)
95 hrs
$50/95
$4,750
Ongoing till
proj ect's
completion
com p
Grant
Project Manager Travel
200
$.50/200
$100
Ongoing till
proj ect's
completion
Grant
Subtotal Non - Contract Personnel and Travel
$4,850
TOTAL ACQUISITION DIRECT COSTS
$885,250
7
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -9
OTHER ACTIVITIES INDIRECT COSTS BUDGET JUSTIFICATION - $4,241.25
Grant - $4,241.25 Match - $ Non -Match - $
TRACT 3- Ramsay
OVERALL ACRES AFFECTED: 10.19 acres
STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES HOLDING INTERESTS: n/a
Acreage Summary of Grant/Match Activities on the Tract:
Acquisition: 10. 19 Restoration: Enhancement: Establishment:
Describe all applicable grant /match activities occurring on the tract here: Grant funds will be used to acquire 10.19 acres of
palustrine and riverine wetlands as well as associated uplands by New Hanover County using NAWCA funds. The county
will incorporate the tract into a greenway for use as a publicly accessible recreation area. The property is currently privately
held.
Tract — Ramsay: Acquisition Budget Justification - $113,383.75 and 10.19 acres
Grant - $110,508.75 Match - 2 875 Non -Match - $ Completion: February 2012
LAND ACQUISITION DISCLOSURE
Type of acquisition: fee title
Holder of NAWCA conservation interest: New Hanover County
Grantor /Seller of conservation interest: Robert and Kristen Ramsay
Tenure of conservation interest: Perpetuity
All funding sources for acquisition: NAWCA grant funds
Are mineral rights severed or included? Included
Are water rights severed or included? Included
8
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -10
Specific
Direct
Approved
Allowable
Budget Line
Cost
Rate ( %) */
Partner to
I.C.
I.C.
Total
Category
Items to
Base
Agreement
which I.C.
Grant
Match
Indirect
from I.0 Rate
Which
Amount
Date
Rate
Amount
Amount
Cost
Agreement
Indirect Cost
Applies
is Applied
Total Direct
$5,000
22.5%
TNC
Project Costs
Appraisal
(NICRA;
$1
$1
7/1/2010)
Total Direct
Phase 1
$2,500
22.5%
TNC
Project Costs
Environmental
(NICRA;
$562.50
$562.50
7/1/2010)
Total Direct
$2,500
22.5%
TNC
Project Costs
Survey
(NICRA;
$562.50
$562.50
7/1/2010)
Total Direct
Legal Fees,
$4,000
22.5%
TNC
Project Costs
title work,
(NICRA;
$900
$900
closing costs
7/1/2010)
Total Direct
Non - contract
$4,750
22.5%
TNC
Project Costs
personnel
(NICRA;
$1,068.75
$1,068.75
7/1/2010)
Total Direct
Travel
$100
22.5%
TNC
Project Costs
(NICRA;
$22.50
$22.50
7/1/2010)
TRACT 3- Ramsay
OVERALL ACRES AFFECTED: 10.19 acres
STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES HOLDING INTERESTS: n/a
Acreage Summary of Grant/Match Activities on the Tract:
Acquisition: 10. 19 Restoration: Enhancement: Establishment:
Describe all applicable grant /match activities occurring on the tract here: Grant funds will be used to acquire 10.19 acres of
palustrine and riverine wetlands as well as associated uplands by New Hanover County using NAWCA funds. The county
will incorporate the tract into a greenway for use as a publicly accessible recreation area. The property is currently privately
held.
Tract — Ramsay: Acquisition Budget Justification - $113,383.75 and 10.19 acres
Grant - $110,508.75 Match - 2 875 Non -Match - $ Completion: February 2012
LAND ACQUISITION DISCLOSURE
Type of acquisition: fee title
Holder of NAWCA conservation interest: New Hanover County
Grantor /Seller of conservation interest: Robert and Kristen Ramsay
Tenure of conservation interest: Perpetuity
All funding sources for acquisition: NAWCA grant funds
Are mineral rights severed or included? Included
Are water rights severed or included? Included
8
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -10
Item & Work
Units
$ /unit
Total $
Schedule
(month, year)
Funding Source
(Grant or Partner
name)
APPRAISALS and OTHER ACQUISITION COSTS
Appraisal
1
$2,875
$2,875
February, 2011
County Match
Survey
1
$6,000
$6,000
January, 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Legal Fees, title work, closing costs
1
$2,350
$2,350
January, 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Fee Title
$100,000
February 2012
NAWCA (Grant)
Subtotal Appraisals and Other Acquisition Costs
$111
NON - CONTRACT PERSONNEL and TRAVEL
Land protection staff time: acquisition
of grant tract, coordinating due
diligence required ( *hourly rate
includes 40% fringe benefits)
43
hours
$50/43.175
$2
Ongoing till
proj ect's
completion
Grant
Subtotal Non - Contract Personnel and Travel
$2
TOTAL ACQUISITION DIRECT COSTS
$113,383.75
TRACT 4 Juniper Creek
OVERALL ACRES AFFECTED: n/a
STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES HOLDING INTERESTS: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Acreage Summary of Grant/Match Activities on the Tract:
Acquisition: n/a Restoration: Enhancement: Establishment:
Describe all applicable grant /match activities occurring on the tract here: Match funds were generated through the acquisition of
a fee title ownership of the 18,624 acre Juniper Creek Game Lands, a publicly accessible game land for hunting, fishing and wildlife
viewing. This match was approved by USFWS through a Matching Contributions Plan in December 2008. Acreage associated with
the Juniper Creek acquisition was used in a previous application, leaving only the remaining acquisition money as match.
Tract Juniper Creek: Acquisition Budget Justification - $2,654,940 (MCP)
Grant - Match - $2,654,940 Non -Match - $ Completion: December 2008
LAND ACQUISITION DISCLOSURE
Type of acquisition: fee title
Holder of NAWCA conservation interest: NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Grantor /Seller of conservation interest: International Paper
Tenure of conservation interest: Perpetuity
All funding sources for acquisition: North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, private fundraising
Are mineral rights severed or included? Included
Are water rights severed or included? Included
Item & Work
Units
$ /unit
Total $
Schedule
(month, year)
Funding Source
(Grant or Partner
name)
ACQUISITION COSTS
Fee Title
$2,654,940 December 2008 Grant, Match
Subtotal Appraisals and Other Acquisition Costs
$2,654,940
TOTAL ACQUISITION DIRECT COSTS
$2,654,940
TRACT 5 Haw Bluff
OVERALL ACRES AFFECTED: 144 acres
STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES HOLDING INTERESTS: n/a
Acreage Summary of Grant/Match Activities on the Tract:
Acquisition: Restoration: Enhancement:144 Establishment:
Describe all applicable grant /match activities occurring on the tract here: Non -match funds were generated through the a Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Grant to enhance uplands and wetland habitats at the Haw Bluff Preserve owned by TNC in Pender County, NC.
9
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -11
Tract- Haw Bluff: Enhancement Budget Justification - $24,952 and 144 acres
Grant - Match - Non -Match - $24,952 Completion: 2009 -2014
Item & Work
Units
$ /unit
Total $
Schedule
(month, year)
Funding Source
(Grant or Partner
name)
CONTRACTS
Fire Lines
$1,500
January, 2012
USFWS Partners Grant
Herbicide Application
$12,900
March, 2011
USFWS Partners Grant
Subtotal Contracts
$14
MATERIALS and EQUIPMENT
Seed collector, chain saw, fire supplies
$2,700
Ongoing
USFWS Partners Grant
Subtotal Materials and Equipment
$2,700
NON - CONTRACT PERSONNEL and TRAVEL
Stewardship Staff Time
$3,140
Ongoing
$3,140
Indirect Charges (NICRA)
$4,712
Ongoing
$4,712
Subtotal Non - Contract Personnel
$7,852
TOTAL ENHANCEMENT DIRECT COSTS
$24,952
10
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -12
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 1
How does the proposal contribute to the conservation of waterfowl habitat?
HIGH PRIORITY SPECIES: (3) American Black Duck, Mallard, Northern Pintail
OTHER PRIORITY SPECIES: (1) Wood Duck
NARRATIVE
1. Describe how the proposal will aid in meeting objectives of waterfowl conservation plans.
This proposal's framework follows the success of the SENCWI (Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative) Phase I
project in deterring further destruction of palustrine forested wetlands. This habitat type has been affected substantially by
development in the latter half of the 20 century; over 1,000,000 acres were converted in BCR 27 alone. Acquisition of
the 371.1 acres of forested palustrine wetlands will discourage further decline in this vital waterfowl habitat.
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture has identified the Waccamaw River region as a focal area for waterfowl habitat
conservation. The combined 762 acres of the Rock Creek tracts are situated within this focal area and will achieve
effective conservation by protecting these tracts as well as by adaptively managing the habitat and by establishing
connectivity between established conservation lands. The Ramsay tract is situated just outside of the Lower Cape Fear
Focal Area, but its protection will undoubtedly benefit waterfowl as it will become a central component of a mile's worth
of protected stream contiguous to the Northeast Cape Fear River.
The SENCWI Phase II proposal also supports the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan (NAWMP). Acquisition of the Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and Ramsay tracts will conserve essential wetlands and
uplands that the plan outlines as necessary for sustainable waterfowl populations. The proposal will realize this land
protection through partnerships between non - profit organizations, county, state and federal agencies; an important
principle highlighted in the plan.
The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative ( SAMBI) Implementation Plan outlines objectives that the SENCWI Phase II
project will aid in completing. Like the NAWMP, SAMBI emphasizes partnership development, which this proposal
clearly does with the addition of a new partner, New Hanover County, to waterfowl conservation. Further habitat
conservation in the delineated SAMBI focal areas of both waterfowl and waterbird will benefit the goals of the plan as
well.
2. For the species listed above, describe how many individuals /pairs will use the proposal area before and after the
proposal is completed and for what life cycle stage(s) after the proposal is completed.
Breeding Migration Wintering
Species Before After Before After Before After
High Priority Mallard C C C C
Black Duck
Northern Pintail
R R R R
R R R R
Priority Wood Duck C C C C C C
Ring- necked Duck C C C C
American Wigeon C C C C
Other Hooded Merganser C C C C
Blue- winged Teal C C C C
Green - winged Teal C C C C
Gadwall C C C C
11
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -13
3. How will the proposal impact species affected and improve habitat quality (describe before- and after - proposal
environment) ?
Waterfowl species will benefit from the permanent protection and management of the palustrine forested wetland habitat
outlined in this proposal. The primary advantage will be avoiding deforestation or conversion to another land use. All
three tracts are within growing areas of New Hanover and Brunswick Counties and their development is a valid threat.
Moreover, the forested wetlands will continue to mature, allowing for larger hardwood trees and superior habitat for
certain waterfowl species.
4. What is the importance of each tract or logical groupings of tracts shown in the proposal to the species (if tracts are not
yet identified, explain what procedure will be used to ensure that high quality habitat is targeted)?
This proposal abides by the logic outlined in the first phase of this project: that habitat conservation within the geographic
area delineated as the Southeastern North Carolina Wetland Initiative is essential for waterfowl population subsistence.
DU and NCWRC concluded that that the five focal areas within the SENCWI required concerted attention by all
interested partners. The tracts outlined in this proposal are located within the initiative boundary and all three build off of
successful conservation projects completed in the past. The Rock Creek tracts extend the Juniper Creek- Green Swamp
conservation complex to approximately 35,000 acres, most of which is suitable habitat for waterfowl species. The Ramsay
tract extends protection of Smith Creek to over a mile of water frontage. A consolidated management approach between
TNC, WRC and New Hanover County allow for best practices to be achieved across this landscape.
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 2
How does the proposal contribute to the conservation of other wetland- associated migratory birds?
Species/Plan
Numbers
Benefits of Project
Tract Importance
Affected
Little Blue Heron
10 birds
Protection of
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and Ramsay provide foraging
BCR 27, North
foraging habitat.
habitat.
American Waterbird
Plan — Continental and
Regional Concern —
Immediate Action;
SAMBI High Priority
American Woodcock
10 birds
Protection and enhancement of
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and Ramsay provide nesting and
PIF Plan BCR 27 — High
nesting, migration and wintering
foraging habitat.
Priority U.S. Shorebird
habitat (prescribed fire).
Conservation Plan - High
Concern; SAMBI
Highest Priority
Wood Thrush
25 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting and foraging habitat.
PIF Plan
BCR 27 — High Priority,
SAMBI High Priority
Northern Parula
48 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting and foraging habitat.
PIF Plan
BCR 27 — High Priority,
SAMBI- Moderate
Priority
Red - cockaded
5 clusters
Protection and enhancement of
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting and foraging habitat.
Woodpecker BCR 27,
nesting and foraging habitat.
SAMBI- Highest Priority
(currently not present but
enhancement will create suitable
12
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -14
B. OTHER WETLAND - ASSOCIATED BIRD SPECIES
Species/Plan
Numbers Affected
habitat)
Tract Importance
Henslow's Sparrow
9 wintering
Protection and enhancement of
Rock Creek I and Rock Creek II provide nesting and
BCR 27, SAMBI
individuals
foraging habitat.
foraging habitat.
Highest Priority
Black- throated Green
2 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting habitat.
Warbler
92 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
PIF Plan
Ramsay provide nesting habitat.
BCR 27 — Moderate
Priority, SAMBI Highest
Priority
4 birds
Protection of nesting, migration
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
Prairie Warbler
45 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting and foraging habitat.
PIF Plan
habitat.
BCR 27 — Highest
Priority, SAMBI High
Priority
Prothonotary Warbler
32 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting and foraging habitat.
PIF Plan
8 birds
Protection of wintering habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
BCR 27 — Moderate
Ramsay provide foraging habitat.
Priority, SAMBI -High
Priority
1 pair
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek II and Ramsay provide
Swainson's Warbler
32 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I and II provide nesting habitat.
PIF Plan
BCR 27 — Highest
2 birds
Protection of wintering habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
Priority, SAMBI -High
Ramsay provide foraging habitat.
Priority
B. OTHER WETLAND - ASSOCIATED BIRD SPECIES
Species/Plan
Numbers Affected
Benefits of Project
Tract Importance
White Ibis (PIF Plan BCR 27 —,
12 birds
Protection of foraging habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
NAWCP /SUSRWCP —
Ramsay provide foraging habitat.
Regional Concern /Management
Attention, SAMBI High Priorit
Acadian Flycatcher
92 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
PIF BCR 27 — Moderate
Ramsay provide nesting habitat.
Priority, SAMBI Moderate
Priority
King Rail
4 birds
Protection of nesting, migration
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
NAWCP Tier I Immediate
and wintering habitat.
Ramsay provide nesting and foraging
Management; SUSWCP BCR
habitat.
27 - High Responsibility
PIF Plan BCR 27 — Highest
Priority, SAMBI High
Priority
Common Snipe — USSCP
8 birds
Protection of wintering habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
SCPCSRSP — Moderate
Ramsay provide foraging habitat.
Concern
Mississippi Kite PIF Plan BCR
1 pair
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek II and Ramsay provide
27 — Local Interest (NC),
nesting habitat.
SAMBI Moderate Priority
Spotted Sandpiper — USSCP —
2 birds
Protection of wintering habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
Low Concern, SAMBI
Ramsay provide foraging habitat.
Moderate Priority
Yellow- crowned Night Heron
2 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
NAWCP /SUSRWCP Regional
Ramsay provide nesting habitat.
Concern PIF Plan BCR 27 —
Regional Interest, SAMBI
High Priority
Barred owl
2 pairs
Protection of nesting and
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
wintering habitat.
Ramsay provide nesting habitat.
13
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -15
Snowy Egret
4 birds
Protection and enhancement for
Rock Creek I, Rock Creek II and
NAWCP /SSURWCP High
foraging and migrating birds.
Ramsay provide foraging habitat.
Responsibility PIF Plan
BCR 27 — Regional
Interest, SAMBI High
Priority
Green Heron
7 pairs
Protection of nesting habitat.
Rock Creek II and Ramsay provide
NAWCP /SUSRWCP —
nesting habitat, particularly along
Regional Concern /Management
riparian areas.
Attention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 3
How does the proposal location relate to the geographic priority wetlands described by the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners In Flight, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and /or the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan?
A. NATIONAL PRIORITY WETLAND AREAS.
Tracts associated with the Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative II project are within identified geographic
priority areas for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight South Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird
Conservation Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Southeast United States Regional Waterbird
Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan. All four sites (including non -match tract Haw
Bluff) are within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) Bird Conservation Region 27 — Southeastern Coastal Plain
which is recognized as a continental geographic priority wetland in all four major bird plans as discussed below. Details
regarding how proposed activities will address the current regional geographic priorities based on Joint Venture science
and planning information are provided below as they relate to each of the four major bird conservation plans for the
ACJV.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The ACJV encompasses a geographic priority wetland area under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NANAAMP), including the recent 2004 Update (Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation) that
identifies the Mid- Atlantic Coast as an "area of continental significance to North American ducks, geese and swans."
Protection and enhancement work tracts proposed herein (Tracts RC I, RC II, Ram, non -match tract HB) are within the
ACJV boundary, and as such fall within the NAWMP geographical priority area.
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
The ACJV is a geographic priority wetland area under the PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan for the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain (PIFNALCP). This designation is based mainly on the large amount of forested bottomland
hardwood wetlands and the associated suite of land bird species. The ACJV has cooperated with Southeastern Partners in
Flight to develop and stimulate conservation partnerships to achieve the goals and objectives of PIF within this geographic
priority area. Tracts proposed for protection are within the ACJV- boundary, and as such fall within the PIF North
American Landbird Conservation Plan geographical priority area. Protection of Tracts RC I, RC II, and Ram and non -
match enhancement activities on Tracts HB will improve nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of wetland associated
land birds, including many area - sensitive forest bird species.
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan
The Atlantic Coast is identified as a geographic priority wetland area in the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan
2001 ( USSCP). It is identified and specifically discussed in the USSCP Part 5: Regional Shorebird Conservation Goals
and Strategies (Southeastern Coastal Plain — Caribbean section of the plan] . The ACJV through SAMBI has worked to
develop and stimulate conservation partnerships to achieve the goals and objectives of USSCP within this geographic
priority area.
14
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -16
Protection and proposed non -match enhancement work on all proposal tracts are within the ACJV boundary, and as such
fall within the USSCP geographical priority area. Permanent protection of forested and scrub -shrub wetlands on Tracts
RC I, RC II and Ram will provide nesting habitat for the American woodcock.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The ACJV is a geographic priority wetland area under the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP). The
Mid- Atlantic Coast is identified as a NAWCP geographic priority area. The ACJV has cooperated in the development of
the Southeast United States Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan (SUSRWCP) to develop and stimulate conservation
partnerships to achieve the goals and objectives of the plan within this geographic priority area. Protection and non -match
enhancement work on all tracts are within the ACJV boundary, and as such fall within the NAWCP geographical priority
area. Protection of stream edges, swamps, pocosins, Carolina Bays and isolated wetlands on Tracts RC I, RC II and Ram
will provide increased foraging capacity and potential nesting habitat for a variety of waterbird species. Protection of
natural hydrologic conditions, water quality and water chemistry on forest, riparian and shrub habitats will on Tracts RC I,
RC II and Ram will ensure nesting, foraging and roosting habitat is protected for waterbirds.
B. REGIONAL IMPORTANT WETLAND AREAS.
The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) was adopted by the ACJV Management Board in 1999 to ensure
integrated bird conservation planning and implementation within the ACJV. The SAMBI Implementation Plan 2006
provides a regional scale framework for the conservation of waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, landbirds and upland game
birds using existing national and regional plans. Protection and non -match enhancement work on forested and scrub -shrub
wetlands and associated uplands in this proposal explicitly follow conservation planning of the ACJV through the SAMBI
as detailed in the four major bird conservation plans and the SAMBI Implementation Plan. Work completed under this
proposal provides an excellent example of how science- based, integrated bird conservation planning can drive
conservation activities within key landscapes such as the ACJV. Work proposed herein addresses geographic conservation
goals and objectives for all four major bird conservation plans based on ACJV SAMBI science and planning information
as follows:
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The geographic area of the ACJV primarily provides wintering and migration habitat for large numbers of waterfowl of
many species. The 2004 NAWMP Update includes regional species prioritization based on Waterfowl Conservation
Regions (WCRs) that correspond to BCRs, with the exception of BCR 27 (Southeastern Coastal Plain) which has been
divided into three separate WCRs. All projects sites fall within BCR 27, subregion 1. The ACJV, in its Waterfowl
Implementation Plan June 2005 Revision, defined Focus Areas in each state — habitat complexes that are priorities for
waterfowl conservation. Four of the five project sites proposed herein fall within the defined ACJV Focus Areas in
southeast North Carolina: Tracts RC I, RC II and JC (MCP) fall within the Waccamaw River Focus Area; Tract HB (non -
match enhancement work) falls within the Lower Cape Fear Focal Area; Tract Ram is just to the east of the Lower Cape
Fear Focal Area. The ACJV has also defined waterfowl habitat conservation strategies which meet one or more of the
stated objectives of the plan. The work proposed herein supports one of the primary recommended strategies for habitat
protection, enhancement and management and other conservation actions: fee title acquisition of land to be owned by a
conservation agency in focus areas to build upon networks of contiguous existing protected lands. The ACJV has
developed target estimates of acreages for each Focus Area that need to be conserved through protection, restoration or
enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands to meet the ACJV commitment under NAVv`MP . For the three Focus
Areas in this proposal, the acreage goals are as follows: Lower Cape Fear River Focus Area — 10,000 acres protected,
2,000 acres enhanced, 3,000 acres restored; Waccamaw River Focus Area — 1,000 acres protected, 200 acres enhanced
and 200 acres restored. Acquisitions in this proposal support those acreage goals by protecting 762 acres of wetlands and
associated uplands in the Waccamaw River Focus Area (Tracts RC I and RC II). The non -match contribution to this
proposal adds to the enhancement goal for the Lower Cape Fear Focal Area by enhancing 144 acres in Tract HB.
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
The Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (2004) serves to: 1) assess the conservation
vulnerability of all species of landbirds in North America; 2) identify species of continental importance; 3) establish
continental landbird population objectives, (4) identify landbird monitoring and research needs, and (5) stimulate
development of conservation partners to implement needed actions to secure the future of populations of North American
landbird species. The Plan establishes avifaunal biomes covering all of North America, which are then further divided into
BCRs, such as BCR 27 — subregion 27.1 South Atlantic Coastal Plain (SACP) based on physiography. The ACJV through
15
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -17
SAMBI has adopted "integrated bird conservation planning" and has worked in cooperation with the Southeastern
Partners in Flight to develop the South Atlantic Coastal Plain PIF Bird Conservation Plan (SACPIFBCP) ( Physiographic
Area #03; 2000) under the umbrella of the North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Land conversion in the 25
million acre South Atlantic Coastal Plain has resulted in a 40 percent loss of natural vegetation (southern mixed forests
and oak/hickory /pin, with intervening floodplain forest and pocosins, and live oaks /sea oaks along the coastlines) in this
physiographic region. The focus of the SACPIFBCP for the ACJV is to protect remaining tracts of forested wetland and to
restore or enhance forested wetlands to create blocks of forest that will support source populations of a suite of area -
sensitive bottomland hardwood forest bird species such as Swainson's warbler. A primary goal and objective of the
SACPIFBCP that relates to this proposal is its goal for pocosins, Carolina Bays, swamps and other non - alluvial
transitional forested shrub -scrub wetland: minimize pocosin land conversion. Acquisition of the RC I and RC II tracts
would achieve this goal.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Lower, Southeastern Coastal Plains - Caribbean Regional Shorebird Plan
The USSCP has conservation goals structured to scale, including: 1) a hemispheric goal to restore and maintain stable and
self - sustaining populations of all species of shorebirds in the western hemisphere; 2) a national goal to stabilize
populations of all shorebird species known or suspected of being in decline due to limiting factors occurring within the
U.S., while ensuring that stable populations are secure; and finally 3) common regional goals including (a) provide
sufficient high quality habitat to ensure that shorebirds in each region are not unduly limited by habitat availability or
configuration; (b) ensure that efforts to provide habitat for shorebirds are integrated into multiple species habitat
management initiatives where appropriate; and (c) increase understanding of how local habitat conditions affect shorebird
abundance and use of a region, and in turn, how conditions affect hemispheric shorebird populations. The common
regional goals of the USSCP were stepped -down through appropriate habitat joint ventures. The Southeastern Coastal
Plains- Caribbean Regional Shorebird Plan (SCPCRSP) - October 2005 rev. as referenced in TAQ 2 covers four BCRs —
Southeastern Coastal Plain, Southern Piedmont, Peninsular Florida, and Puerto Rico /Virgin Islands. All proposal sites fall
within the Southeastern Coastal Plain, which supports substantial shorebird habitat. About 4.8 million shorebirds pass
through the Southeastern Coastal Plain during migration, and the average migration is ten days (during which time
shorebirds forage); foraging habitat in freshwater wetlands limits the carrying capacity of BCR 27. Although none of the
habitat management goals outlined in the plan will be achieved through this proposal, available foraging habitat will be
available in perpetuity.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Southeast United States Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan
The habitat goal of the NAWCP is "to protect, restore and manage sufficient high quality habitat and key sites for
waterbirds throughout the year to meet species and population goals." The NAWCP is stepped down into conservation
planning units that encompass all of North and Central America and the Caribbean Islands. The Southeast United States
Planning Region takes in the ACJV. The general conservation goals for the Southeast United States Regional Waterbird
Conservation Plan (SUSRWCP) are: 1) recovery of declining or otherwise vulnerable high priority species and subspecies
to healthy population levels region -wide; 2) maintenance of healthy populations of other species; and 3) management of
depredation issues, including, the establishment of maximum acceptable population reduction objectives if justified. The
SUSRWCP identifies habitat loss as the largest threat to waterbird conservation in the region. In light of that threat, the
plan indicates that enhancing or restoring lost habitat and protecting existing habitat from human disturbances as two high
priorities for waterbird conservation in the Southeastern U.S. Within BCR 27, river edges, isolated marshes, swamps
provide aquatic habitat for herons, ibises, storks and rails. Within the "Habitat Management" section of the SUSRWCP,
fee title acquisition is listed as an important tool for habitat protection. The three acquisitions in this proposal will
collectively protect 772.19 acres of forested, shrub - scrub, open water and associated uplands in perpetuity (Tracts RC I,
RC II and Ram) .
Other Regionally Important Plans
Each state in the ACJV has developed discreet focus areas for waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds and landbirds through
SAMBI. These all bird -focus areas for North Carolina are defined in the SAMBI Implementation Plan. Two proposal sites
(Tracts RC I and RC II) fall within waterfowl focus areas identified by SAMBI for North Carolina. Tract Ram falls within
the SAMBI waterbird focus area.
16
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 4
How does the proposal relate to the national status and trends of wetlands types?
ACTIVITY AND
TRACTS IN THE
PROPOSAL
STATUS, TYPES, AND ACRES OF WETLANDS
Note: Types subsidiary to types listed below have the same status.
UPLANDS
TOTAL
DECREASING
STABLE
INCREASING
NO TREND
DATA
PEM
PFO
PSS
E2
Veg
E2AB,
E2US
L
R
M2, PAB,
PUB/POW,
PUS
E1, PML,
PRB
SECTION A
Fee
371.6
400.59
772.19
ACQUIRED TOTAL
STATUS TOTALS
GRAND TOTALS
SECTION B
Tract: RC I (match)
108
198
306
Tract: RC II (grant)
256
200
456
Tract: Ram (grant)
7.6
2.59
10.19
*This proposal includes restoration of 144 acres of uplands on private lands by non -match partner USFWS; because these are non -match acres they
are not included in this table or discussed here.
Narrative
North Carolina has seen a decrease in historic wetland acreage by over 50 %. This has occurred through direct
development, land conversion and hydrologic alteration. That being said, development of adjacent uplands have also
negatively impacted the health of the associated wetlands through increased storm water runoff as well as limiting
foraging, breeding and roosting habitat for migratory birds.
Relationship between Upland Habitat & Wetlands
This proposal includes three acquisition tracts that contain 371.6 acres of palustrine forested wetland as well as 400.59
acres of upland habitat. The relationship between the two habitat types are literally intermixed, as the wetlands meander
through the adjacent xeric and mesic longleaf pine habitat. It is not possible to protect the wetlands without also protecting
the uplands, as they are contained in discrete tax parcels that the landowners are unwilling to subdivide. This, however, is
not the chief motive behind the importance of protecting the uplands in this proposal. As undeveloped land, the uplands
serve as a buffer between adjacent land use and the wetlands.
Relationship between Upland Habitat & Priority Bird Conservation
Upland habitat contained in this grant provides extensive benefits to bird species considered priorities to all parties
involved. TNC and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission plan on actively managing the uplands with prescribed fire
that will mimic the natural fire disturbance that is absent from most of the landscape. Birds that will benefit from this
recurring fire regime include red - cockaded woodpeckers, Bachman sparrows, northern bobwhite and eastern towhee.
Furthermore, the planned fire regime will create early successional habitat that will benefit those species already
mentioned as well as loggerhead shrike, prairie warbler, painted bunting and common yellowthroat.
17
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -19
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 5
How does the proposal contribute to long -term conservation of wetlands and associated habitats?
ACTIVITY
ACRES BY LONGEVITY OF BENEFITS
Includes water control structures made of material other than wood.
** Includes wood water control structures and pumps.
TOTAL
ACRES
PERPETUITY
*26 -99
**10-25
< 10
SECTION A
Fee
772.19
772.19
TOTAL ACQUIRED
772.19
772.19
TOTAL
772.19
772.19
SECTION B
Tract: RC I
306
306
Tract: RC II
456
456
Tract: Ram
10.19
10.19
Significance of the Proposal to Long -term Conservation
The acquisition of these three tracts has a great deal of significance for long -term conservation in the southeast coastal
plain of North Carolina. The Rock Creek tracts build and expand upon thirty years of acquisition efforts in Brunswick
County. The addition of these properties to the Juniper Creek -Green Swamp conservation complex extends an already
impressive wildlife corridor to 21 miles in length. Protection of the Rock Creek tracts also allows for additional wet pine
flatwoods and longleaf pine savanna habitat to be conserved. These habitat types are very rare to begin with and the plant
and animal species that rely on them are also becoming increasingly uncommon. The Rock Creek II tract will connect the
Green Swamp Preserve to an "island" of protected land owned by TNC that is currently disjunct from the main body of
protected lands, allowing for better management and connectivity. Furthermore the acquisition of the Rock Creek tracts
allows for legal access to the east side of the Green Swamp Preserve, which is currently non - existent and hampers
prescribed fire management. The addition of the Ramsay tract to the Smith Creek Greenway would consolidate
conservation efforts that the county began more than 10 years ago. Acquisition of the tract will allow for more effective
management and will abate threats from the development or timbering of the tract in the midst of a mile of protected
lands.
Significance of the Proposal in Helping to Address Climate Change
Extensive analysis by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and TNC has taken into consideration the potential
impacts of climate change on priority habitats in the coastal plain. It can be said with certainty that this proposal will help
address those potential impacts on palustrine forested wetlands and uplands. The protection of aquatic communities and
associated floodplains will allow for necessary upstream migration of salt - intolerant flora and fauna species that will be
impacted by sea level rise and saltwater inundation. The acquisition of the Rock Creek tracts will allow for the
consideration of hydrologic restoration onsite as well as the adjacent Green Swamp Preserve. Restoring hydrology by
reversing the effects of artificial drainage will allow for precipitation -fed pocosins and savannas to retain water and fend
off increased severe wildfires associated with predicted longer periods of droughts. Furthermore the added access to the
east side of the Green Swamp through this acquisition will allow for more prescribed fire, robbing future severe wildfires
of high fuel loads. Finally the extension of habitat corridors at both Smith Creek and the Green Swamp will benefit wide -
ranging species that will require migration to more accommodating habitats.
18
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 6
How does the proposal contribute to the conservation of habitat for wetland associated federally listed or proposed
endangered species; wetland associated state - listed species; and other wetland- associated fish and wildlife that are
specifically involved with the proposal?
A. Federally Threatened, Endangered or Proposed candidate species:
1. Wood stork (Mycteria americana) is federally listed as endangered. Wood storks are known to occur along the
Waccamaw drainage into North Carolina. Their foraging range of 60 -80 km will allow them to utilize streams and
wetlands located on the Rock Creek tracts. According to the USFWS' recovery plan for the wood stork, one of the
primary actions needed to bolster their numbers is restore and enhance habitat, which this acquisition will
achieve.
2. Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCWs) is federally listed as endangered. Habitat for RCWs is
mature longleaf pine and pond pine pocosin, which both Rock Creek tracts contain. There are RCWs in the
adjacent Green Swamp Preserve. Once the Rock Creek tracts are managed with local ecology in mind, it is
assumed that the habitat will encourage further RCW activity on the landscape. The USFWS' recovery plan for
the RCW states that the following actions would benefit the eventual delisting of the RCW: application of
frequent fire to clusters and foraging habitat, protection and development of large, mature pines
throughout the landscape, restoration of sufficient habitat quality and quantity to support the large
populations necessary for recovery. This acquisition will achieve all of these action items with protection of
the Rock Creek tracts and the application of prescribed fire, which will be the primary management tool. It is
anticipated that the area, when properly managed, could support upwards of five clusters of RCWs.
3. The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is federally listed in North Carolina as threatened (similarity
of appearance). Smith Creek, as a tributary of the Northeast Cape Fear River, has a known population of
American alligators that utilize its short run. Protection of the Ramsay tract will conserve alligator habitat as well
as avoid its future development, which would most likely further degradation of water quality in the creek. It is
probable that upwards of five alligators may use the habitat annually. No habitat conservation plan exists for the
American alligator.
4. The Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mikistocholas) is a federally listed endangered species that occurs in the Cape
Fear basin. It can assumed that habitat exists in Smith Creek for the Cape Fear shiner. Further degradation to
water quality will be avoided by protecting the Ramsay Tract. It is unknown how many individuals will use the
area, but probably less than 250 individuals year round.
5. The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a federally listed endangered species. Like the Cape Fear
shiner, it is assumed that habitat exists in Smith Creek for the sturgeon. It is unknown the number of sturgeon will
use the proposed area, but the tracts protection will impact probably 5 -50 individuals year round, if for no other
reason besides protecting water quality.
6. Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) is a federally listed endangered species. It is wetland dependent plant that has
seen its numbers drop due to habitat conversion. The swampy depressions, seasonally flooded wetlands, shallow
depressions and wet pine flatwoods that exist on the Rock Creek tracts will provide 360 acres of potential habitat
for pondberry.
7. American Chaffseed (Schwalbea Americana) is a federally listed endangered species. The USFWS recovery plan
recommends protecting and managing the pine flatwoods and savannas that the chaffseed relies upon for its future
delisting. The Rock Creek tracts contain ample amounts of this type of habitat and planned prescribed fire will
create the ideal environment for its habitation. The USFWS recovery criterion cites managing and protecting
habitats appropriate for American Chaffseed as primary delisting actions.
8. Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) is a federally listed species of concern. The flytrap is known to occur on the
Rock Creek tracts and planned prescribed fire application will only benefit the population numbers as well as
extend suitable habitat.
In addition to the species already mentioned, the following species are listed in the State of North Carolina as species of
concern: Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus), Northern pine snake (Pitupphis melanoleucus melanoleucus) and
Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus)
19
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -21
How proposal will improve habitat quality (describe the before- and after - proposal environment):
Protection of Rock Creek tracts will improve the ecological value and habitat quality of the immediate landscape by
expanding the Green Swamp and Juniper Creek wildlife corridors and by allowing land management to occur at a larger
scale. The Nature Conservancy has worked for years to restore the natural ecosystem in the Green Swamp, which is fire-
dependant. Currently, work on the eastern edge of the swamp is stymied because TNC cannot conduct effective controlled
burning in the area. Protecting the Rock Creek tracts will allow TNC and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to burn
up the ridge and improve restoration efforts throughout the area. Protection of the Ramsay tract will allow cohesive
management of the core protected area that New Hanover County has established along Smith Creek. The Ramsay tract's
deforestation and /or development will hamper the entire effort as it is situated within the protected greenway.
Whether the completed proposal will relieve the need for any special protective status for the species:
The proposed activities are not expected to directly relieve the need for any protective status of these species.
Importance of each tract or logical groupings of tracts shown on maps in the proposal to the species (if tracts are
not yet identified, explain what procedure will be used to ensure that high quality habitat is targeted): As
mentioned and as can be seen on the attached map, all three tracts build off of already established protected areas and
consolidated management actions will benefit all species listed above.
B. State - listed endangered or threatened species (not included above) :
I. The eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) is listed as threatened in the state of NC. Their numbers
within the project area are unknown. The salamander is a year round permanent resident that will utilize the
project areas for all its life cycle stages.
2. The pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersoni) is a state listed threatened species. Their numbers within the project
area are unknown. The pine barrens treefrog is a year round permanent resident that will utilize the project areas
for all its life cycle stages.
3. The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a state listed endangered species. It is estimated that the
proposed project will benefit at least one individual during migration and throughout winter.
4. The glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) is a state listed species of special concern. It is estimated that the project
will three individual foraging during nesting season and migration.
5. The little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) is a state listed species of special concern. It is estimated that the project
will benefit IO individuals foraging during nesting season and migration.
6. The snowy egret (Egretta thula) is a state listed species of special concern. It is estimated that the project will
benefit six individuals foraging during nesting season and migration.
7. The tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) is a state listed species of special concern. It is estimated that the project
will benefit at least one individual foraging during nesting season and migration.
8. The eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana floridana) is a state listed threatened species. Their numbers within the
project area are unknown. The eastern woodrat is a year round permanent resident that will utilize the project
areas for all its life cycle stages.
9. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)) is a state listed threatened species. It is estimated that the project will
benefit at least one individual foraging during nesting season and migration.
10. The star -nosed mole (Condylura cristata) is a state listed species of special concern. Their numbers within the
project area are unknown. The star -nosed mole is a year round permanent resident that will utilize the project
areas for all its life cycle stages.
11. The Rafinesque's big eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) is a state listed threatened species. Their numbers
within the project area are unknown. The Rafinesque's big eared bat is a year round permanent resident that will
utilize the project areas for all its life cycle stages.
12. The Carolina pigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius miliarius) is a state listed species of special concern. It is
anticipated that the project will benefit between 5 -20 individuals. The Carolina pigmy rattlesnake is a year round
permanent resident that will utilize the project areas for all its life cycle stages.
20
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -22
13. The eastern coral snake (Micrurus fulvius) is a state listed special endangered species. It is anticipated that the
project will benefit between 5 -20 individuals. The eastern coral snake is a year round permanent resident that will
utilize the project areas for all its life cycle stages.
14. The eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) is a state listed endangered species. It is anticipated
that the project will benefit between one individual. The eastern diamondback rattlesnake is a year round
permanent resident that will utilize the project areas for all its life cycle stages.
15. Savanna indigobush (Amorpha confusa) is listed as a state threatened species. A. confusa is a perennial shrub
confined to a small population in Brunswick and Columbus Counties, NC. The project contains the largest
population of this listed species recorded (NC Natural Heritage Program).
16. Carolina bishopweed (Ptilimnium species 1) is a state listed threatened species that exists in the upper Smith
Creek floodplain. It is known to occur in the vicinity, but has not been confirmed on the Ramsay tract.
How proposal will improve habitat quality (describe the before- and after - proposal environment):
Permanently protecting the three tracts as outlined in this proposal will be the first step in improving habitat quality by
avoiding their development or deforestation. This, in turn, will hinder further degradation of water quality in both Smith
Creek (Ramsay), tributaries of Lockwood Folly (RC II) and Town Creek (RC I). Reintroduction of prescribed fire back
into the uplands in RC I and II will benefit all species that have evolved with fire in these systems.
Whether proposed actions and proposal area are identified in a recovery plan or other species plan:
Recovery plans for the state listed species do not exist. However, most species have recommendations published with
each re- evaluation for listing. Shallow water habitats such as those found in river swamps and impoundments are listed in
these recommendations. The NCWAP and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) also place these
large patches of forested wetlands among the top habitats for conservation for the Eastern tiger salamander, glossy ibis,
little blue heron, snowy egret and tricolored heron.
Whether the completed proposal will relieve the need for any special protective status for the species:
The proposed activities are not expected to directly relieve the need for any protective status of these species.
C. Other wetland- dependent fish and wildlife species and narrative:
Southeastern North Carolina and Brunswick County in particular are known for their extensive carnivorous plant
populations. The Venus flytrap has already been mentioned, but thirteen other species have been identified in the adjacent
Green Swamp. It is very likely that the RC I and RC II tracts contain habitat that, when properly managed, will provide
excellent grounds for further population expansion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION 7
How does the proposal satisfy the partnership purpose of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act?
The SENCWI II proposal signifies a continued partnership effort by several non - profits and state agencies. These
relationships have always existed and have been successful, but the execution of the first phase of the SENCWI and the
subsequent organization of likeminded groups into the Cape Fear Arch Conservation Collaboration has accelerated
partnership efforts. Joint projects, like this proposal, have focused on acquiring, restoring and enhancing wetland habitat
on a landscape level for migratory birds and other wetland dependent wildlife and plants. Acquiring the two Rock Creek
tracts (Tracts RC I & RC II — 762 acres) in Brunswick County and the Ramsay tract (Tract Ram - 10.19 acres) in New
Hanover County and by the county (a new NAWCA partner) expand existing conservation projects on the ground,
allowing for a greater return on investment than if the projects were stand alone sites. Growing these existing core areas is
vital to an area that has been losing palustrine and riverine forested wetland habitat to encroaching development. This
proposal involves a long- standing partnership among state and federal agencies and nonprofits devoted to protecting,
restoring and enhancing wetlands in North Carolina. Each project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the four
major bird plans.
A. Ratio of the Non - Federal Match to the Grant Request: 3.25:1
B. 10% Matching Partners: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Grant (NCEEG), Ducks Unlimited (MCP)
21
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -23
C. Partner Categories (includes non - match)
State agencies: NCEEG
Non - governmental conservation organizations: DU, The Nature Conservancy
Local governments, counties or municipalities: New Hanover County
Federal agencies: USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife (non- match)
D. Important Partnership Aspects (new grant recipient, significant new partners, unique partners, large numbers
of partners under any category in C. above, non - financial contributions) :
The Southeast Coastal Plain of North Carolina is an area of extraordinary biological diversity that has seen a successful
focus on conservation efforts, primarily because of the strong partnerships that exist. The Cape Fear Arch Conservation
Collaboration is a group of non - profit, private, state, and federal conservation partners that have worked together to
identify and promote a community conservation vision within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture's Waccamaw and Lower
Cape Fear Waterfowl Focus Areas. This Phase II proposal brings together non - profit conservation organizations (TNC,
DU), local government (New Hanover County), a state entity (NCEEG) and a federal partner (USFWS) to work towards
achieving the Arch's conservation plan as well as the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture South Atlantic Migratory Bird
Initiative.
New Hanover County is a new grant recipient for NAWCA. The county is home to the City of Wilmington and has been
rapidly developing in the past several decades. The county's planning department has a dedicated interest in water quality
and local environmental initiatives as the population increases. This has led the department into conserving land. The
County has received donation land or acquired properties with grant funding in order to protect water quality, provide
recreation opportunities and conserve significant natural habitats. Each property has been or will be placed into
conservation easement to ensure that the property will not be developed. At most, the properties can be developed into
passive recreation areas or serve as storm water improvement projects. Most of the properties serve as riparian buffers and
help to protect water quality. New Hanover County is a Cape Fear Arch memorandum of understanding signatory.
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Grant Program seeks to improve the air, water and land quality of North
Carolina by funding environmental projects that address the goals of the Smithfield — Attorney General Agreement.
Grants are awarded to projects that reflect the goals of the Smithfield- Attorney General Agreement to improve and
preserve the natural resources of North Carolina and to develop and implement environmentally superior swine waste
management technologies. The EEG Program funds immediate restoration or improvement projects to restore and protect
impaired, degraded or endangered surface waters, groundwater and other natural resources. In addition, the EEG Program
promotes long -term environmental enhancement programs to conserve and protect targeted natural areas.
Ducks Unlimited is a stalwart of wetlands conservation in the region. Sound CARE (Conservation of Agriculture,
Resources and the Environment) is DU's comprehensive initiative to restore, enhance and protect wetland habitat to
benefit waterfowl and other wetland - dependent species and people. With financial contributions from private citizens,
corporations, foundations and other non - profits, and federal and state agencies, Sound CARE aims to protect, restore and
enhance 70,000 acres (23,000 acres in North Carolina and 47,000 acres in on the breeding grounds) from 2007 to 2012 at
a cost of $27 million.
The Nature Conservancy has worked in North Carolina since 1960, with the North Carolina Chapter officially established
in 1977. The Conservancy has protected nearly 700,000 acres across the state, primarily working in conjunction with the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program to identify and inventory unique natural areas and to establish protection
priorities based on information gathered by the Heritage Program. The Conservancy protects lands through acquisition by
gift or purchase, and also by using conservation easements, leases and voluntary management agreements between
landowners and the Conservancy. Many natural areas are acquired and transferred to government agencies such as the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (224,595 acres), the Division of Parks and Recreation (20,000 acres in
State Parks), the National Park Service and US Forest Service (61,835 acres), and the US Fish and Wildlife National
Refuges (180,488 acres). The Conservancy has also conserved and maintained ownership of more than 50 preserves
22
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -24
across the state from the Green Swamp and Nags Head Woods on the coast to Big Yellow Mountain, Bluff Mountain and
Bat Cave in the mountains.
Why each non - matching partner listed in the Proposal Summary is important to the proposal and what work they
will do to support and complement the match- and grant- funded work: The USFWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program has been extremely beneficial to the area's conservation efforts as it achieves voluntary restoration on private
lands for the benefit of Federal Trust Species. The Nature Conservancy is a recipient of a Partners' grant on a
tract of land within the Lower Cape Fear Focal Area. The work funded by the program will benefit wetland -
associated migratory birds and waterfowl by enhancing upland and wetland habitat within the project's scope.
23
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -25
ATTACHMENTS
Tract Table:
Tract ID/
Wetland
Upland
Riparian
Funding
Proposal V
Total $
Central Tract Location in
Final Title
Activity
Acres
Acres
Miles
Category
Funding Source
County and State
Decimal Degrees
Holder
Tract RC I
108
198
Match
NCEEG
Brunswick County,
- 78.1948 34.1244
NCWRC
NC
Tract RC II
256
200
Grant
NAWCA
Brunswick County,
- 78.2167 34.0819
NCWRC
NC
Tract Ram
7.6
2.59
Grant
NAWCA
New Hanover
- 77.8752 34.2715
NHC
County, NC
FINAL TITLEHOLDER SUMMARY:
NCWRC: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NHC: New Hanover County
Optional Matching Contributions Plan
What is the Match Plan Amount and Purpose?
$2,654,940 to be applied to Phase II of SENCWI
What is the Match Plan Intent?
Partners within the Cape Fear Arch Conservation Collaboration plan on utilizing the remaining MCP in future
NAWCA applications.
What is the Match Plan Need?
The SENCWI has been successful in joining the resources of federal, state and county governments as well as
private non - profit conservation groups. NAWCA has been a central focus of this initiative and the 2008 MCP
allows for progress on future applications.
Is there a Match Plan Chart?
Matching Contributions Plan Chart
Match Plan Partners
Current
Proposal I
Proposal II
Proposal III
Proposal IV
Proposal V
Total $
Ducks Unlimited
$2,654,940
$2,654,940
$2,654,940
$2,654,940
$2,654,938
$13,274,698
Matching Contributions Plan Totals
$2,654,940
$2,654,940
$2,654,940
$2,654,940
$2,654,938
$13,274,698
Optional Projirammatic Pro' ect Proposal Request
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -26
- The existing grant agreement number and title.
- The number of proposals previously added to the existing grant agreement (if any).
- How the additional project is related to warrant consideration as a continuation of the existing grant
agreement.
- The evidenced progress that has been made on the original grant agreement.
- How the new proposal is part of a long -term strategic planning and programmatic effort.
- How the grantee organization has performed on prior and current NAWCA grants
- The planned termination date of the revised grant agreement.
Standard Form 424 and Assurances Band/or D to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service applicants)?
Maps
EASEMENTS, LEASES, AND INDIRECT COST RATE AGREEMENT
Have you included a copy of the following:
Copies of easements and leases? n/a
Current approved negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or statement that Council Coordinator has a copy? yes
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
5 -1 -27
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
CONSENT
ITEM: 6
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director
CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Ordinance for Budget Amendment
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The following budget amendment amends the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2012.
2012 -01 Sheriffs Office
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adoption of the ordinance for the budget amendment listed.
ATTACHMENTS:
B/A 2012 -01
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
6 -0
AGENDA: July 11, 2011
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET
BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 2012 -01
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North
Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 2012 -01 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment:
Fund: Controlled Substance Tax
Department: Sheriffs Office
Expenditure:
Decrease
Increase
Controlled Substance Tax:
Supplies
$3
Interest on Investments
9
Total
$3
Revenue:
Decrease
Increase
Controlled Substance Tax:
Controlled Substance Tax
$3
Interest on Investments
9
Total
$3
Section 2: Explanation
To budget Controlled Substance Tax receipt of $3,547 on 6/22/11 and budget interest on investments of $9
for period April and May 2011. Controlled Substance Tax funds are budgeted as received and must be used
for law enforcement as the Sheriff deems necessary.
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption:
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New
Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 2012 -01, amending the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, is adopted.
Adopted, this day of , 2011.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
6 -1 -1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 7
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Bruce T. Shell, County Manager
CONTACT(S): Bruce T. Shell, County Manager, and Cam Griffin, Budget Director
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the Fiscal Year Beginning ,July 1, 2010
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Notification has been received from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United
States and Canada that New Hanover County has qualified to receive the Distinguished Budget Presentation
Award for the 20th consecutive year. The award is for New Hanover County's budget submitted for the fiscal
year beginning July 1, 2010.
This award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting. Its attainment represents a
significant achievement by the Budget Department. The budget is reviewed by a panel of independent budget
experts, who use extensive criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the budget as a policy document, a
financial plan, an operations guide and a communication device. Award - winning documents must be rated
"proficient" in all four categories. The Budget Department also received many "outstanding" ratings for this
year's document content.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Present the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the New Hanover County Budget Department for
their outstanding achievement in governmental budgeting.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Present award.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Presented award.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
7 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 8
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Andre R. Mallette, Assistant County Manager
CONTACT(S): Andre R. Mallette, Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT:
Introduction of Elections Director
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Andre Mallette will introduce Marvin McFadyen, New Hanover County's new Elections Director.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear introduction.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear introduction.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard introduction.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
8 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 9
DEPARTMENT: Sheriff PRESENTER(S): Sheriff Ed McMahon
CONTACT(S): Sheriff Ed McMahon
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Approval to Apply for Two North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program
(GHSP) Grants and Submit Local Government Resolutions
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Sheriff would like to apply for two grants from the NC Governor's Highway Safety Program (GHSP).
Explanation of the two projects are as follows:
1. Two Motorcycles- including emergency lighting, siren, radio, console, etc. The total
cost is $50,000; federal amount is $37,500 or 75 %; local match is $12,500 or 25 %.
The match will come from the Sheriff's Fiscal Year 11 -12 Budget.
2. DWI Task Force Grant - funding for 1 Sergeant and 3 Deputies.
Total Project Amount is $431,226 for first year and is 100% grant- funded;
No County match.
The first year would also include vehicles, equipment and uniforms.
Second year would be 85% funding with a 15% County match.
Third year would be 70% funding with a 30% match requirement.
Fourth Year would be 50% funding and 50% County match.
There is no required match for year -one of this project.
NCGHSP encourages extending these positions beyond the grant cycle; however it is not mandatory.
The department has to re -apply every year for funding.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Authorize the Sheriffs Office to submit two grant applications to NC Governor's Highway Program (GHSP)
and Local Government Resolutions for each.
Recommend approval of the two grants if awarded. Budget amendments will be submitted after award.
ATTACHMENTS:
GHSP Contract -DWI Task Force
GHSP Motorcycles
GHSP Local Government Resolutions
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
9 -0
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved grant number 1 by a vote of 5 -0.
Approved grant number 2 by vote of 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
9 -0
e from # 21
3,, Location of Pro'ect (if d1iff rent
J J
Federal Tax ID Number T of A 9. T of Application
i
Federal Tax ID Number: *56-6,000,324 (e' Initial C Continuation
Count Year: C 1 C 2 C 3
T of A
C State Non-Profit 1O.Fundin Share
(o' Count C Hi Education Federal % 100.00
Municipalit C Hospital
11. Pro Title (Optional): Operation DWI and Speed Enforcern%aInt
t
1 12. Bud
Total Project Amount
I lPerso,nnel Costs
$224,646400
ontraCtUal Services
,k.onimodities Costs
1 0then Direct Costs
$206,580.00
I_ndirect Cos ts"
�Total Project Costs
. . . ...... .
$431,i 6'.001-
"p How Non-Federal
Share Will Be Provided:
MA
. .............
Pro um r CFDA#- 20.
Work T
Version 1.0
Pa I of 6
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-1-1
$37,546.00�
$37,546.00!
$37,546.00
Total Contractual Services:
M ON
Version 1.0
. . . ......... . ..
Total, Frin Benefits Cost,
Total Personnel Costs:
Contractual Services
Pa 2 of 6
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-1-2
$15,377.001
- — - - -- -------- - ---
$63,435.00
$224,646.00
st
3
4
Version 1 O Pa 3 of 6
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-1-3
I y peUl -NYUHUY 10 , Fundin Share
C State C Non-Profit
Count C Hi Education
Federal % 75.00
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-2-1
1 . Name of Applicant A
4. Narne of Proi I ect Contact Person for A
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Fonda S D. MacAlpine
2. Address of Applicant A
5. Telephone Number of Contact Person
SHERIFF
+1 (910) 798-4216
3950 JUVENILE CENTER RD
6. Email Address of Contact Person
CASTLE HAYNE, NC 28,429
fs
3. Location of Project ( if different from # 2
7. Fa,x Number of Contact, Person
+1 (910) 798-4230
8. Federal Tax ID Number / T of A
9. T of Application
Federal Tax ID Number: "56-6000324
i
(0" Init 1 al C Continuation
Count NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Year'r 1 C 2 C 3
I y peUl -NYUHUY 10 , Fundin Share
C State C Non-Profit
Count C Hi Education
Federal % 75.00
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-2-1
11 i Jil I I I 1 11
III MINOR FRIII 1151 I 111 11 111! � ii a
WHER. E'ASt the New Hanover Coun 3b s Office (herein called the "A
( The Applicant Agenc
has, completed an application contract for traffic safet fundin and that New Hanover Countv Board
2. That New Hanover Coqn1 eriffs Office is authorized to file, on behalf of the Governin
( Narne and Title of Representative)
i Safet Pro for federall
Bod an application contract in the form prescribed b the Governor"s H
A*
o deTra
fundin in the amunt of $ 37,500 to be rinaide to the Governin Bod to! assist i I
( Federal Dollar Re
the cost of the pro described in, the contract application; and
I That the Governin Bod has formall appropriated the cash contribution of 12 500 as
( Local, Cash Appropriation)
p
4. That the P 'ect Director desi in the application contract shall furnish or make arran for othei
if
appropriate persons to furnish such information, data, documents and reports as re b the contract I
approved, or as, ma ble re b the Governor's Hi Safet Pro and
5. That certified copies of this resolution be included as part of the contract referenced ablove; and,
uk
DONE AND ORDERED in open meetin by (Chairperson/Mayor)
=I
Rev. 02/09 Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-3-1
Form GHSP,,02,,A
( To bo completed, attached to and beconle part, of Form GI-ISP-0:2, Traffic Saflet Pro Contract
R --tow
OMA
101 OR
WNTZIMINAM
THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED BY THE New Hanover, County Board of Commisioners IN OPEN
(Governing Bod
12 1
THI'S DAY
•
1.1 That the pr referenced above is ini the best interest of the Governin Bod and the g eneral public; and
iP i on behalf of the Governin
2. That New Hanover Coun, Sheriff s Office is authorized to file,
--,tv
(Name and Tille of Representative)
Bod an application contract in the form prescribed b the Governor's Hi Safet Pro for federal
fundin in the amount of
4,31,266 to be made to the Governin Bod to assist in defra
(Feiii Dollar Re
the cost of the project described in the contract, application,,, and
St
3. That the Governing Bod has formall appropriated the cash contribution of $0 yggL as,
( Local, Cash Appropdatilo
All
That the Pro Directordes in, the application contract shall ftirnish or make arran for oth0
0
appropriate persons to furnish such infibirrination, data, documents and reports as re b the contract,
approved, or as ma be re b the Governors Iiiiiiiiii1i Safet Pro and
m'
5. 'That certified copies of this resolution be included as part of the contract referenced above; an
6. That this resolution shall take effect Immediatel upon its adoption.
DONE, AND ORDERED in open meetin by (Chairperson./Mayor)
U11111MIJAMM
MIMI
Rev. 02/09 Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
9-3-2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 10
DEPARTMENT: Sheriff PRESENTER(S): Sheriff Ed McMahon
CONTACT(S): Sheriff Ed McMahon
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of
Wilmington to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for 2011
Funding from the U.S. Department of Justice for Assisting State, Local, and Tribal Efforts to Prevent
or Reduce Crime and Violence
BRIEF SUMMARY:
New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are certified as disparate agencies; therefore, 2011 JAG
grant funding in the amount of $107,326 is eligible as a joint allocation, $53,663 each agency. Submittal of a
joint application is required for disparate agencies. The New Hanover County portion of the funding would
be used for the purchase of Sheriffs Office vehicles.
The JAG grant process requires a public hearing to be held for discussion on use of funds.
A Memorandum of Understanding between New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington is required as
part of the JAG grant process. There is no local match requirement.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Conduct a public hearing on the use of the 2011 JAG grant funding. After closing the public hearing,
authorize the Sheriff's Office to submit a joint 2011 JAG grant application with the City of Wilmington, and
authorize County Manager to execute the required County /City Memorandum of Understanding.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Conducted public hearing. Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
10 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 11
DEPARTMENT: Sheriff PRESENTER(S): Ed McMahon, Sheriff
CONTACT(S): Matt Payne, Lieutenant; Lena Butler, Purchasing Supervisor
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a Resolution to Award Bid for the Purchase of a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
to VideoRay, LLC
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Sheriffs Office received a Homeland Security grant in the amount of $109,770 to purchase an
underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). This equipment will be used for homeland security purposes
to search for and identify underwater hazards and explosive devises.
Bids were solicited and received on July 5, 2011. Only one company, VideoRay, LLC responded to the
County's Request for Bids (RFB). This company met all of the requirements of the specifications detailed in
the RFP.
VideoRay submitted a bid in the amount of $127,696 which included the purchase of the equipment and four
days of training. Grant funding in the amount of $109,770 is available for this purchase. Staff negotiated
with VideoRay, LLC to bring the bid within the funds available. VideoRay, LLC submitted a revised bid in
the amount of $109,762, bringing the bid within the project's budget.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to VideoRay, LLC in the amount of $109,762 for the purchase of
the ROV and the necessary training required for proper operation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
11 -0
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION
AWARD OF REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV)
WHEREAS, after due advertisement, bids were received and publicly opened by the Purchasing
Supervisor at 3: 00 PM, Tuesday, July 5, 2011 in the New Hanover County Finance Office, Suite 165,
Conference Room 5 02 located at 23 0 Government Center Drive, Wilmington NC, and only one (1)
bid was received for the purchase of one (1) REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE; and
Original Bid Revised Bid
VIDEORAY, LLC $127 $109
WHEREAS, VideoRay, LLC; met all of the requirements of the specifications detailed in the
Request for Bids (RFP) and submitted a bid in the amount of One Hundred Twenty -Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Ninety -Six Dollars ($ 127,696) for the equipment and training; and
WHEREAS, staff negotiated with VideoRay, LLC to bring the bid amount within the $109,770
Homeland Security grant funds available for the purchase; and
WHEREAS, VideoRay, LLC submitted a revised bid of $109,762 to bring the bid within the funds
available through the Homeland Security grant; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the bid be awarded to VideoRay, LLC for the purchase of the
Remotely Operated Vehicle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of New
Hanover County that the bid for the purchase of one (1) REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE
(ROV) is awarded to VideoRay, LLC, in the amount of One Hundred Nine Thousand Seven
Hundred Sixty -Two Dollars ($109,762).
ADOPTED this the 11 th day of July, 2011.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
ATTEST:
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
11 -1 -1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 12
DEPARTMENT: Finance PRESENTER(S): Avril M. Pinder, Finance Director
CONTACT(S): Avril M. Pinder, Finance Director
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Parking Deck Changes to Extend Hours of Operation Effective August 1, 2011 and
Adoption of Budget Amendment 12 -001
BRIEF SUMMARY:
In an effort to generate additional revenue for the County's parking deck approval is requested for extending
the hours of operation on the deck on Thursdays and Fridays from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. and operating on
Saturdays from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. with an evening deck fee of $5.00 due upon entry for the times listed.
Also requesting approval to increase the event fee on the deck from $5.00 to $7.00 flat rate for special events
to include the following: Azalea Festival, July 4th, Riverfest, and add New Year's Eve as another event for a
flat rate fee of $7.00.
These proposed changes would become effective August 1, 2011 and would result in approximately
$112,000 of additional revenue per year. The increased parking revenues of $112,000 would be used to
install security cameras in the deck and upgrade Scan Net, the parking financial software.
Requesting adoption of associated Budget Amendment 12 -001.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recommend approval of the proposed changes and adoption of the ordinance for associated Budget
Amendment 12 -001.
A TT A V U NTC •
Parking BA #12 -001
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
A motion to table the item until August 15th to evaluate the best choice of security options was approved 5-
0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
12 -0
AGENDA: July 11, 2011
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET
BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 12 -001
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North
Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 12 -001 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment:
Fund: General Fund
Department: Finance
Expenditure:
Decrease
Increase
Finance:
Contracted Services — Parkin
$42
Capital Outlay - Equipment
70
Total
$112
Revenue:
Decrease
Increase
Finance:
Parking Revenue
$112
Total
$112
Section 2: Explanation
This budget amendment is to appropriate additional revenue received from extending operating hours of the
Parking Deck on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays from 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., in addition to increasing
the special event parking from a flat fee of $5.00 to $7.00. These changes will be consistent with the City of
Wilmington and will be effective August 1, 2011.
These increased funds will be used to install security cameras in the deck and upgrade Scan Net, the parking
financial software.
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption:
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New
Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 12 -001, amending the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, is adopted.
Adopted, this day of , 2011.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
12 -1 -1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 13
DEPARTMENT: DSS PRESENTER(S): Leslie Chaney, IT Director
CONTACT(S): Chris McNamee, Assistant Director for Economic Services and Business Systems, DSS
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a Resolution for Approval of Exception to Competitive Bid Process, "Piggybacking"
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Department of Social Services has been approved to purchase an Electronic Document Management
System. The purchase of this equipment would enhance the master client data base and case management
system currently used by the Department of Social Services. The enhancements would integrate
scanning, indexing and retrieval within the current system and would allow for grouping, merging of
demographic information and storage of state and local forms and documents. This new system would
improve staff efficiency by grouping required forms together by task and allow for electronic
signatures, thereby decreasing printing cost, application processing time, and off -site storage costs.
North Carolina General Statute 143- 129(g) allows an exception to the bidding process when purchasing
apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment from any person or entity that has, within the previous 12
months, after having completed a public, formal bid process substantially similar to that required by this
Article, contracted to furnish the apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment to:
(1) The United States of America or any federal agency;
(2) The State of North Carolina or any agency or political subdivision of the State; or
(3) Any other state or any agency or political subdivision of that state, if the person or entity
is willing to furnish the items at the same or more favorable prices, terms, and
conditions as those provided under the contract with the other unit or agency.
This exception is referred to as "piggybacking" and the Board of Commissioners must approve the
exception. Notice that an exception to the bidding procedures would be considered was posted on the
County's website on June 27, 2011 and advertised in the Star News on June 29, 2011. A copy of the notice is
attached.
After issuing a formal Request for Proposals, the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners awarded
the contract for the purchase of its Electronic Document Management System to Northwoods Consulting
Partners, Inc. at their regularly scheduled meeting held on November 1, 2010.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the resolution approving the exception to piggyback the award of the Electronic Document
Management System to Northwoods Consulting Partners, Inc. Total cost of the system is $602,498, which
has been approved in the FY 2012 budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
NOTICE OF INTENT
Resolution Piggybacking
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
13 -0
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
13 -0
New Hanover County
Notice of Intent
The North Carolina General Statute 143 - 129(8) allows an exception to the bidding process
when purchasing apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment from any person or entity that has, within
the previous 12 month, after having completed a public, formal bid process substantially similar to that
required by this Article, contracted to furnish the apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment to:
(1) The United States of America or any federal agency;
(2) The State of North Carolina or any agency or political subdivision of the State; or
(3) Any other state or any agency or political subdivision of that state, if the person or entity is
willing to furnish the items at the same or more favorable prices, terms, and conditions as those
provided under the contract with the other unit or agency.
This statute is known as the "piggybacking" statute.
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners will consider an exception of competitive bidding under
G.S. 143 - 129(8) at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 11, 2011 for the purchase of an Electronic
Document Management System from Northwoods Consulting Partners, Inc., the seller having agreed to
extend to New Hanover County the same pricing and terms set forth in its bid award with Lincoln
County, NC awarded by the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners on November 1, 2010.
Any questions regarding this notice should be directed to Lena Butler, Purchasing Director at (910) 798-
7190 or email Ibutler @nhcgov.com.
Published : June 27, 2011
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
13 -1 -1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION
EXCEPTION TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS
WHEREAS, funds have been approved in this year's budget for the purchase of an Electronic Document
Management System for the Department of Social Services; and
WHEREAS, Lincoln County, NC solicited proposals for the purchase of an Electronic Document
Management System for their Department of Social Services; and
WHEREAS; at their regularly scheduled meeting held November 1, 2010; the Lincoln County Board of
Commissioner awarded the contract for the purchase of their Electronic Document Management System
to Northwoods Consulting Partners, Inc., and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 143 - 129(8) allows an exception to the bidding process
when purchasing apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment from any person or entity that has, within
the previous 12 months, after having completed a public, formal bid process substantially similar to that
required by this Article, contracted to furnish the apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment to:
(1) The United States of America or any Federal agency;
(2) The State of North Carolina or any agency or political subdivision of the State; or
(3) Any other state or any agency or political subdivision of that state, if the person or entity is
willing to furnish the items at the same or more favorable prices, terms, and conditions as those
provided under the contract with the other unit or agency; and
WHEREAS, this exception referred to as "piggybacking" must be approved by the Board of
Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County
that the exception to bidding for the purchase of an Electronic Document Management System is
approved and staff may proceed with the purchase of the Electronic Document Management System from
Northwoods Consulting Partners, Inc.
ADOPTED this the 1 Ith day of July, 2011.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman
ATTEST:
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
13 -2 -1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 14
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Khalilah 01okunola, Chair, New Hanover
Commission for Women
CONTACT(S): Bruce T. Shell, County Manager
SUBJECT:
Update Presentation by the New Hanover Commission for Women
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover Commission for Women has requested the opportunity to make an update presentation to
the Board of Commissioners for a possible reinstatement.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear presentation.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
A motion to table the item until the August 15, 2011 meeting to allow the Board time to review the group's
documentation was approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
14 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 15
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): John E. Craig, New Hanover County Board of
Social Services Chairman
CONTACT(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board and LaVaughn Nesmith, Department of Social Services
Director
SUBJECT:
New Hanover County Board of Social Services Annual Update
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Board of Social Services will make its annual presentation to the Board of
Commissioners. Attached is the information regarding this board.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear presentation.
ATTACHMENTS:
New Hanover County Board of Social Services Information
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
15 -0
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Number of Members: 5
2 appointed by County Commissioners
2 appointed by N. C. Social Services Commission
1 appointed by DSS Board
Term of Office: three years - members can only serve two consecutive full 3 -year terms. If
originally appointed to fill an unexpired term, can serve this term and two consecutive three -year
terms. Special provision for County Commissioners. G.S. 108A -4.
Qualifications: Must be a bona fide resident of New Hanover County.
Regular Meetings: First Tuesday of every month at 10:00 a.m. in the multi - purpose room at DSS,
1650 Greenfield Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
Statute or cause creating Board: General Statutes 108A -1.
Brief on Functions: Shall establish county policies for the programs established by the General
Statutes in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Social Services Commission and under the
supervision of the Department of Human Resources.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
15 -1 -1
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Brian M. Berger
Unexpired 12/20/10
6/30/2013
County Commissioner
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175
Wilmington, NC 28403
798 -7149 (NHC) 431 -3115 (C)
Patrick G. Riley, Vice - Chairman
First 6/16/08
6/30/2011
6240 Towles Road
Second 6/20/11
6/30/2014
Wilmington, NC 28409
264 -2153 (H)
NC Social Services Commission Appointees:
Evelyn A. Bryant
First 7/08
6/30/2011
P.O. Box 1292
Second 7/11
6/30/2014
Wilmington, NC 28402
228 -9854 (Cell)
D. Diana Woolley
First 9/10
6/30/2013
348 Friday Drive
Wilmington, NC 28411
686 -6008 (H)
DSS Board Appointee:
John E. Craig, Chairman
Unexpired 4/05
6/30/2006
7507 S. Promontory Court
First 7/06
6/30/2009
Wilmington, NC 28412
Second 7/09
6/30/2012
392 -0022
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
15 -1 -1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES (Cont.)
Director: LaVaughn Nesmith
Department of Social Services File: /DSS
1650 Greenfield Street B/C #27
Wilmington, NC 28401 6.11
798 -3400
Revised: 6/22/2011
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
15 -1 -2
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 16
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Connie H. Branch, New Hanover County Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board Chairman
CONTACT(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board and Jim McDaniel, Parks, Gardens and Senior Resources
Director
SUBJECT:
New Hanover County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Annual Update
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will make its annual presentation to the
Board of Commissioners. Attached is the information regarding this board.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear presentation.
ATTACHMENTS:
New Hanover County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Information
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
16 -0
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Number of members: 8 (includes one County Commissioner and one Board of Education
Member)
Term of Office: three years - may not serve more than two consecutive terms and cannot be
reappointed until at least one year after last term.
Qualifications: County resident 18 years of age or more who has a sincere interest and
commitment to the importance of park and recreation services; a willingness to give freely of
time and energy to learn about and to carry out responsibilities; the ability to work well with all
other Board members; complete open- mindedness and respect for varied points of view and
consideration of all Board business; good judgment, intelligence and courage of conviction; a
dedicated interest in the Park and Recreation welfare of all citizens of the county; the capability
of speaking out and articulating parks and recreation needs; the ability to accept and weather
criticism gracefully; the strength to refuse to be intimidated by pressure groups and issues which
are not in the best interest of the whole county; a strong feeling for team work between the
Director, Board of County Commissioners, and other Advisory Board members and a desire to
truly know the community and the recreational needs of all citizens.
Regular Meetings: First Wednesday of every month at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room 500 of
New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC
28403.
Statute or cause creating Board: Board was established by the Commissioners at their
meeting of June 20, 1988 and adoption of By -Laws Governing the Advisory Board at July 18,
1988 meeting. Board of Education Member included on March 22, 1999.
Compensation: None - member may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in the
performance of duties as long as such expense receives the prior approval of the Board of
Commissioners or its designated agencies and is within the approved budget.
Brief on the functions: The Board shall suggest policies to the Department, the Manager, and
the Board of County Commissioners; serve as liaison between the Department, the Manager,
the Board of County Commissioners and citizens of the county; shall consult with and advise
the Department, the Manager, and the Board of County Commissioners in matters affecting
recreation policies, program, personnel, finances, and the acquisition and disposal of lands and
properties related to the total county recreation program, and to its long- range, projected
program for recreation.
The Board shall assume duties for park and recreation purposes as follows: (1) Make
recommendations to set apart land for use as parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, water
areas, or other recreation areas and structures, and suggest improvements of such lands and
for the construction, equipping, and staffing of such buildings and structures as may be
necessary to operate the park and recreation program. (2) Advise in the acquisition of lands
and structures through gifts, purchase, lease or loan. (3) Advise in the acceptance by the
County of any grant, gift, bequest or donation, any personal or real property offered or made
available for park and recreation purposed and which is judged to be of present or possible
future use for parks and recreation. (4) Advise in the construction, equipping, operation, and
maintenance of parks, playgrounds, recreation centers and all building and structures necessary
or useful to Department function, and advise concerning other park and recreation facilities that
are owned or controlled by the County, or leased or loaned to the County.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
16 -1 -1
PARKS &RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (CONY.)
Revised: 6/22/2011
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
16-1-2
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Frank Amoroso
First 6/20/11
6/30/2014
1912 Ashbrook Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
399 -2508 (H) 465 -0535 (C)
Connie H. Branch, Chairman
Unexpired 6/19/06
6/30/2008
6409 Purple Martin Court
First 6/16/08
6/30/2011
Wilmington, NC 28411
Second 6/20/11
6/30/2014
686 -5006 (H) 297 -2032 (C)
Dr. Henry D. Browning IV
First 6/19/06
6/30/2009
604 Junction Creek Drive
Second 6/22/09
6/30/2012
Wilmington, NC 28412
772 -8066 (H) 793 -2520 (W)
Walter R. Conlogue
First 6/18/07
6/30/2010
102 Braxlo Lane
Second 6/21/10
6/30/2013
Wilmington, NC 28409
392- 1111(H) 262 -6507 (C)
Dr. Derrick G. Hickey, Vice - Chairman
First 6/19/06
6/30/2009
6101 Old Branch Road
Second 6/22/09
6/30/2012
Wilmington, NC 28409
793 -4283 (H) 409 -2609 (C)
Andy Mills
First 6/21/10
6/30/2013
1209 Tremont Court
Wilmington, NC 28411
791 -0804 (H) 254 -9333 (W)
Board of Education: Donald S. Hayes
7805 Cypress Island Drive
Wilmington, NC 28412
799 -3228 (H) 367 -9543 (C)
County Commissioner: Jason Thompson
Appt. 12/08
230 Government Center, Suite 175
Wilmington, NC 28403
Office 798 -7260
Jim McDaniel, Director of Parks, Gardens,
and Senior Resources Center
Tara C. Duckworth, Parks Manager
New Hanover County Parks Division
File: /Parks
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 120
B/C #23- 6.11
Wilmington, NC 28403
798 -7198
Revised: 6/22/2011
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
16-1-2
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 17
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager
and Brad Rosov, Coastal Planning and Engineering
CONTACT(S): Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT:
Presentation: Water Quality Monitoring in New Hanover County
BRIEF SUMMARY:
New Hanover County contracts with Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP &E) to monitor water quality on
seven creeks located within the unincorporated County. These creeks include Barnards, Futch, Lords, Motts,
Pages, Prince George, and Smith Creek. At each monitoring station, water quality samples are collected and
analyzed for biological, chemical and physical parameters. The purpose of the monitoring program is
twofold: to protect public health, and to gage the overall health of the creek and respond appropriately to
declines in water quality. To further analyze data, County staff facilitate a quarterly meeting with a Water
Quality Task Force to review and discuss County data, as well as other data monitored throughout New
Hanover County. The purpose of this presentation is for County staff and CP &E staff to present data from
the FYI 0- 11 monitoring program.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear presentation.
ATTACHMENTS:
10 -11 Water Quality Monitoring Annual Report
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -0
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
2010 -2011
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Marine Scientist: Brad Rosov, M.Sc.
Prepared For:
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Recommended Citation: Rosov, B., 2011. New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Program: 2010 -2011 Final Report. New Hanover County, North Carolina: Coastal Planning &
Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 55p.
June 2011
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the results of the New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Program between June 2010 and May 2011. Nineteen (19) monitoring stations within seven (7)
creeks in New Hanover County were monitored on a monthly basis for physical, chemical, and
biological parameters of water quality. The results presented in this report are described from a
watershed perspective.
In order to provide a quick - glance assessment of the water quality within a particular sampling
station and watershed, a rating system has been established for a number of parameters. This
quantitative system assigns a rating of "GOOD ", "FAIR ", or "POOR" to a sampling station
depending on the percentage of samples exceeding the State standard for dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, chlorophyll -a, Enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria. If the recorded value of a
parameter exceeds the State standard less than 10% of the times sampled, the station will receive
a "GOOD" rating for the parameter. A "FAIR" rating is assigned when a parameter exceeds the
State standard 11-25% of the times sampled. Parameters measured that exceed the State
standard more than 25% of the sampling times are given a "POOR" rating.
As displayed in the tables below, turbidity and chlorophyll -a were determined to be "good"
within all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen varied considerably
between watersheds and within sites. Specifically, Barnards Creek, Lords Creek, Motts Creek,
and Smith Creek were deemed to be "good" while Futch Creek contained "fair" levels of
dissolved oxygen. Both Pages Creek and Prince Georges Creek were rated as "poor" for
dissolved oxygen. Generally, Enterococci was problematic within a number of these watersheds.
Four of the watersheds were rated as "poor" including Barnards Creek, Motts Creek, Prince
Georges Creek, and Smith Creek. Pages Creek rated "fair" while Futch Creek and Lords Creek
were deemed "good ". Fecal coliform, another indicator of bacterial contamination, was assessed
monthly within Pages Creek and Futch Creek. These creeks generally exceeded the State
shellfish standard for fecal coliform bacteria resulting in "poor ratings ".
Ratings by Watershed
Parameter
Prince
Smith
Barnards
Futch
Lords
Motts
Pages
r
Georges
Creek
C ee
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Turbidity`:°
Dissolved xygen
„ t
POOR,
POOR,
Chloro h ll -a
°
E nterococci
s s
s
POOR,
POOR,
POOR,
Fecal Coliform
N/A
POOR,
N/A
N/A
POOR,
N/A
N/A
Long Term Trends
Using data collected on a monthly basis since at least November 2007, the long term trends of
select water quality monitoring parameters were assessed in this report as well. In general,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and chlorophyll -a levels oscillate on a seasonal basis. Water
i
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -2
quality, as it relates to these parameters, generally decreases during the warmer months when the
water temperatures increase. However, during the cooler months, when the water temperature
drops, these parameters improve.
Since 2007, dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the State standard within surface samples 30%,
23%. and 20% of the time within Prince Georges Creek, Pages Creek, and Futch Creek,
respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better within Smith Creek, Motts Creek, and Lords
Creek where the State standard was breached 8%. 5%. and 2%. respectively. None of the
observations within Barnards Creek exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard.
Enterococci bacteria has been a chronic problem within several of the creeks monitored in this
study. Since November 2007, samples collected within Motts Creek, Barnards Creek, and
Smith Creek have exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 36%. 35%. and 34% of the time,
respectively. Both Prince Georges Creek and Pages Creek exceeded this standard 24% of the
time. Relatively low Enterococci bacteria counts have been observed within Lords Creek and
Futch Creek where the State standard has been exceeded within 6% and 2% of the samples,
respectively.
Turbidity and chlorophyll -a were not problematic in any creeks. Of the 817 samples collected
since November 2007, only 11 contained chlorophyll -a concentrations higher than the State
standard of 40 ug /L. Five of these were in Pages Creek and 3 were in Smith Creek and Lords
Creek. The turbidity standard was only breached 3 times in total; 2 from within Smith Creek and
1 within Pages Creek.
ii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -3
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................... ..............................1
2
1.1 Parameters ............................................................................................... ..............................4
l
3
1.2 Standards ................................................................................................. ..............................6
2.0
Methods ......................................................................................................... ..............................8
5
2.1 Physical Parameters ................................................................................ ..............................9
6
2.2 Chemical and Biological Parameters ...................................................... ..............................9
3.0
Results ........................................................................................................... ..............................9
8
3.1 Rating System ......................................................................................... ..............................9
9
3.2 Barnards Creek .......................................................................................... .............................10
10
3.3 Futch Creek .............................................................................................. .............................13
11
3.4 Lords Creek .............................................................................................. .............................17
12
3.5 Motts Creek .............................................................................................. .............................20
3.6 Pages Creek .............................................................................................. .............................24
3.7 Prince Georges ......................................................................................... .............................29
3.8 Smith Creek ........................................................................................... ...............................
33
3.9 Comprehensive Rating by Watershed ...................................................... .............................38
3.10 Long Term Trends ................................................................................. .............................39
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen
3.10.2 Turbidity
3.10.3 Chlorophyll -a
3.10.4 Enterococci
4.0
Discussion ...................................................................................................... .............................50
5.0
Literature Cited .............................................................................................. .............................54
List of Figures
Figure No.
1
Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study ..... ..............................3
2
Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed ..................... ..............................1
l
3
Dissolved Oxygen at BC -CBR ................................................................. .............................12
4
Enterococci at BC- CBR ........................................................................... .............................12
5
Water Quality Sites with the Futch Creek Watershed ..................................... .............................14
6
Dissolved Oxygen at FC- 4 ........................................................................ .............................15
7
Dissolved Oxygen at FC- 6 ........................................................................ .............................15
8
Dissolved Oxygen at FC- 13 ...................................................................... .............................15
9
Dissolved Oxygen at FC- FOY .................................................................. .............................16
10
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC -4 .................................................. .............................16
11
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC -6 .................................................. .............................16
12
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC -13 ................................................ .............................17
iii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -4
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC -FOY ........................................ .............................17
Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed ........................ .............................19
DissolvedOxygen at LC -RR ................................................................ .............................20
Enterococci Levels at LC- RR ............................................................... .............................20
Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed ....................... .............................22
Dissolved Oxygen at MOT- CBR .......................................................... .............................23
Dissolved Oxygen at MOT -ND ............................................................ .............................23
Enterococciat MOT -CBR .................................................................... .............................23
Enterococciat MOT -ND ...................................................................... .............................24
Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed ....................... .............................26
Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDDS ........................................................... .............................27
DissolvedOxygen at PC -BDUS ........................................................... .............................27
DissolvedOxygen at PC -M .................................................................. .............................27
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -BDDS ..................................... .............................28
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -BDUS ..................................... .............................28
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PGM ............................................ .............................28
Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed ........ .............................30
DissolvedOxygen at PG- CH ................................................................ .............................31
DissolvedOxygen at PG- ML ................................................................ .............................31
DissolvedOxygen at PG -NC ................................................................ .............................31
Enterococciat PG -CH .......................................................................... .............................32
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PG- ML .......................................... .............................32
Enterococciat PG -NC .......................................................................... .............................32
Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed ....................... .............................34
DissolvedOxygen at SG23 .................................................................. .............................35
DissolvedOxygen at SGCD ................................................................ .............................35
DissolvedOxygen at SC-CH ................................................................ .............................35
DissolvedOxygen at SC -GR ................................................................ .............................36
DissolvedOxygen at SC- NK ................................................................ .............................36
Enterococciat SC -23 ............................................................................ .............................36
Enterococciat SGCD ........................................................................... .............................37
Enterococciat SGCH ........................................................................... .............................37
Enterococciat SGGR ........................................................................... .............................37
Enterococciat SC -NK .......................................................................... .............................38
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek ....... .............................40
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek ............. .............................40
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek ............. .............................40
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek ............. .............................41
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek ............. .............................41
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek ..........................41
iv
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
53
Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek ............ .............................42
54
Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek ...................... .............................42
55
Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek ........................... .............................43
56
Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek ........................... .............................43
57
Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek ........................... .............................43
58
Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek ........................... .............................44
59
Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek ........... .............................44
60
Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek .......................... .............................44
61
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Barnards Creek .......................... .............................45
62
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Futch Creek ............................... .............................45
63
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Lords Creek ............................... .............................46
64
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Motts Creek ............................... .............................46
65
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Pages Creek ............................... .............................46
66
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Prince Georges Creek ................ .............................47
67
Long term chlorophyll -a data within Smith Creek ............................... .............................47
Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek ........................... ...............................
Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek ................................ ...............................
70
Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek ................................ ...............................
71
Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek ................................ ...............................
72
Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek ................................ ...............................
73
Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek ................ ...............................
74
Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek ............................... ...............................
List of Tables
Tall P Nn
1 List of Sampling Sites .............................................................................. ..............................2
2 North Carolina Water Quality Standards ................................................. ..............................7
3 Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA ..............................7
4 Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR Recreational
WaterQuality Program ............................................................................ ..............................8
5 Proposed Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
SamplingSites ......................................................................................... ..............................8
6 Mean values of select parameters from Barnards Creek .......................... .............................11
7 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek .. .............................12
8 Mean values of select parameters from Futch Creek ................................ .............................14
9 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Futch Creek ....... .............................17
V
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -6
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
10
Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek ................................ .............................19
Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek ..... ...............................
12
Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek ................................ .............................22
Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek ..... ...............................
14
Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek ................................ .............................26
Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek ..... ...............................
16
Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek ................ .............................30
17
Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek .....................33
18
Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek ............................... .............................34
Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek ..... ...............................
Ratings of parameters within each watershed ......................................... ...............................
List of Appendices
Appendix No
A Photographs of Sampling Sites
B Raw Data
Vi
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The creeks in New Hanover County, North Carolina provide a wide range of recreational
activities for thousands of local citizens and visiting tourists each year. Tidal creeks are rich
areas in terms of aquatic, terrestrial and avian wildlife and can support complex food webs
(Odom et al, 1984; Kwak and Zedle, 1997). Protection of the water quality within these creeks is
a high priority for New Hanover County. As growth and development continue within the City
of Wilmington and the County, water quality has been increasingly threatened due to many
factors including aging infrastructure, increased impervious surface area and subsequent
stormwater runoff. To address these issues, the County has administered a long- standing water
quality monitoring program since 1993 designed to assess the water quality within the creeks
located within the County.
Coastal Planning &Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. began monitoring seven (7) tidal creeks
within New Hanover County on a monthly basis in November 2007. The information presented
in this report represents the results of this monitoring between the months of June 2010 and May
2011. The creeks included in this study are Pages and Futch Creek, which drain into the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and Lords, Motts, Barnards, Smith, and Prince Georges Creek,
which drain into the Cape Fear River (Figure 1) (Table 1). Thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19)
sampling sites were previously monitored by the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. In
order to assess any changes to historical trends within individual sites and entire watersheds, data
provided by UNCW has been analyzed and incorporated into the results and discussion section
of this report. Photographs of each sampling site are found in Appendix A.
1
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -8
Table 1. List of Sampling Sites
Creek Name
Site Name
Site Code
Latitude
Longitude
Motts Creek
Carolina Beach Road
MOT -CBR
34° 08.610
77° 53.830
Motts Creek
Normandy Drive
MOT -ND
34° 08.373
77° 54.580
Lords Creek
River Road
LC -RR
34° 05.185
77° 55.275
Barnards Creek
Carolina Beach Road
BC -CBR
34° 09.522
77° 54.712
Smith Creek
Castle Hayne Road
SC -CH
34 15.541
77° 56.325
Smith Creek
23rd Street
SC -23
34 15.472
77° 55.178
Smith Creek
Candlewood Drive
SC -CD
34 17.438
77° 51.332
Smith Creek
North Kerr
SC -NK
34 15.744
77° 53.256
Smith Creek
Gordon Road
SC -GR
34 16.639
77° 52.037
Prince Georges Creek
Marathon Landing
PG -ML
34° 21.088
77° 55.349
Prince Georges Creek
Castle Hayne Road
PG -CH
34° 20.675
77° 54.217
Prince Georges Creek
North College
PG -NC
34° 20.331
77° 53.607
Futch Creek
4
FC -4
34 18.068
77° 44.760
Futch Creek
6
FC -6
34° 18.178
77° 45.038
Futch Creek
13
FC -13
34 18.214
77° 45.451
Futch Creek
Foy Branch
FC -FOY
34 18.405
77° 45.358
Pages Creek
Mouth
PC -M
34 16.209
77° 46.270
Pages Creek
Bayshore Drive Down Stream
PC -BDDS
34 16.685
77° 47.673
Pages Creek
Bayshore Drive Up Stream
PC -BDDS
34 16.623
77° 48.104
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -9
Figure 1. Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study
The State of North Carolina has employed a series of classifications that apply to all waters in
the State including streams, rivers, and lakes (NC Administrative Code, section 15A NCAC 2B
.0200). These classifications are meant to protect the specified uses within waterbodies. These
include aquatic life survival and reproduction, secondary recreation, primary recreation,
shellfishing, and water supply. The classifications that apply to the creeks examined in this
study are:
3
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -10
C Sw: Freshwater that is protected for aquatic life and secondary recreation uses. The
"Sw" supplemental classification indicates that these are swamp waters, and so are likely
to have lower dissolved oxygen and pH than non -swamp streams due to natural
conditions. However, a majority of the sites, including Lords Creek, Motts Creek,
Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek, designated as C Sw by the
State, are tidally influenced and have a brackish salinity range.
SA: Saline water bodies that are protected for shellfishing uses. This use requires a more
stringent standard for fecal coliform. Areas protected for shellfishing are also subject to
the protection requirements for the less stringent classifications of SC and SB, which
include aquatic life, secondary recreation, and primary recreation. This designation
applies to Futch Creek and Pages Creek.
1.1 Parameters
Physical, chemical, and biological water quality monitoring data are currently being collected for
this study. Physical parameters include temperature, salinity, conductivity, pH, turbidity, and
dissolved oxygen. Chemical parameters monitored in this study include orthophosphate and
nitrate /nitrite. Biological parameters include Chlorophyll -a and two suites of fecal indicator
bacteria: Enterococci and fecal coliform bacteria. Due to limited funding, fecal coliform
samples were only collected from sampling sites located within Futch Creek and Pages Creek.
Temperature:
Thermal pollution can result in significant changes to the aquatic environment. Most aquatic
organisms are adapted to survive within a specific temperature range. Thermal pollution may
also increase the extent to which fish are vulnerable to toxic compounds, parasites, and disease.
If temperatures reach extremes of heat or cold, few organisms will survive.
Thermal pollution may be caused by stormwater runoff from warm surfaces such as streets and
parking lots. Soil erosion is another cause, since it can cause cloudy conditions in a water body.
Cloudy water absorbs the sun's rays, resulting in a rise in water temperature. Thermal pollution
may even be caused by the removal of trees and vegetation which normally shade the water
body. In addition to the direct effects of thermal pollution on aquatic life, there are numerous
indirect effects. Thermal pollution results in lowered levels of dissolved oxygen, since cooler
water can hold more oxygen than warmer water.
Salinity
Salinity is a measure of the amount of sodium chloride ions dissolved in water. This is important
to monitor since changes in the levels of salt concentration can impact the ability of salt sensitive
species to survive. An estuary, such as the lower Cape Fear River, usually exhibits a gradual
change in salinity throughout its length, as freshwater entering the estuary from tributaries mixes
with seawater moving in from the ocean. Salinity levels control, to a large degree, the types of
plants and animals that can live in different zones of the estuary. Freshwater species may be
restricted to the upper reaches of the estuary, while marine species inhabit the estuarine mouth.
Some species tolerate only intermediate levels of salinity while broadly adapted species can
acclimate to any salinity ranging from freshwater to seawater.
n
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -11
Conductivity:
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current.
Similar to salinity, it measures the amount of dissolved ions (including sodium chloride) in the
water.
The pH of water is a measurement of the concentration of H+ ions, using a scale that ranges from
0 to 14. Natural water usually has a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. While there are natural variations
in pH, many pH variations are due to human influences. Unanticipated decreases in pH could be
indications of acid rain, runoff from acidic soils, or contamination by agricultural chemicals.
Turbidity:
Turbidity is the amount of particulate matter that is suspended in water. Turbidity measures the
scattering effect that suspended solids have on light: the higher the intensity of scattered light,
the higher the turbidity. During a rainstorm, particles from the surrounding land are washed into
the river making the water a muddy brown color, indicating higher turbidity.
Dissolved Oxygen:
Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the volume of oxygen that is contained in water. Oxygen enters
the water as rooted aquatic plants and algae undergo photosynthesis and as oxygen is transferred
across the air -water interface. The amount of oxygen that can be held by the water depends on
the water temperature, salinity, and pressure.
Rapidly moving water, such as in a flowing stream, tends to contain a lot of dissolved oxygen,
while stagnant water contains little. Oxygen levels are also affected by the diurnal (daily) cycle.
Plants, such as rooted aquatic plants and algae produce excess oxygen during the daylight hours
when they are photosynthesizing. During the dark hours they must use oxygen for life processes.
Bacteria in water can consume oxygen as organic matter decays. Thus, excess organic material
in waterbodies can cause oxygen deficits. Aquatic life can become stressed or die in stagnant
water containing high levels of rotting, organic material in it, especially in summer, when
dissolved- oxygen levels are at a seasonal low.
Phosphates:
Phosphorus is a nutrient required by all organisms for the basic processes of life. Phosphorus is a
natural element found in rocks, soils and organic material. Phosphorus clings tightly to soil
particles and is used by plants, so its concentration in clean waters is generally very low.
However, phosphorus is used extensively in fertilizer and other chemicals, so it can be found in
higher concentrations in areas of human activity. High levels in the water column can be
detrimental to water quality as phosphates can cause algal blooms resulting in decreased
dissolved oxygen levels.
Orthophosphate is sometimes referred to as "reactive phosphorus." Orthophosphate is the most
stable kind of phosphate, and is the form used by plants. Orthophosphate is produced by natural
processes and is found in sewage.
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -12
Nitrate/Nitrite:
Nitrate is highly soluble (dissolves easily) in water and is stable over a wide range of
environmental conditions. It is easily transported in streams and groundwater. Nitrates feed
plankton (microscopic plants and animals that live in water), aquatic plants, and algae, which are
then eaten by fish. Nitrite is relatively short -lived in water because it is quickly converted to
nitrate by bacteria.
Excessive concentrations of nitrate and /or nitrite can be harmful to humans and wildlife. If
excessive amounts of nitrates are added to the water, algae and aquatic plants can be produced in
large quantities. When these algae die, bacteria decompose them, and use up oxygen.
Chlorophyll-a:
Chlorophyll -a is a green pigment found in plants. It absorbs sunlight and converts it to sugar
during photosynthesis. Chlorophyll -a concentrations are an indicator of phytoplankton
abundance and biomass in coastal and estuarine waters. High levels often indicate an algal
bloom which can induce the depletion of oxygen in the water column due to the microbial
degradation of plant cells. Chlorophyll -a concentrations are often higher after rainfall,
particularly if the rain has flushed nutrients into the water. Higher chlorophyll -a levels are also
common during the summer months when water temperatures and light levels are high because
these conditions lead to greater phytoplankton numbers.
Fecal Coliform:
Fecal Coliform bacteria are present in the feces and intestinal tracts of humans and other warm -
blooded animals, and can enter water bodies from human and animal waste. If a large number of
fecal coliform bacteria are found in water, it is possible that pathogenic (disease- or illness -
causing) organisms are also present in the water. Pathogens are typically present in such small
amounts it is impractical to monitor them directly. High concentrations of the bacteria in water
may be caused by septic tank failure, poor animal keeping practices, pet waste, and urban runoff.
In order to adequately assess human health risks and develop watershed management plans, it is
necessary to know the sources of fecal contamination.
F.ntiarnrnrri
Enterococci are distinguished from fecal coliform bacteria by their ability to survive in saltwater,
and in this respect they more closely mimic many pathogens than do the other indicators.
Enterococci are typically more human - specific than the larger fecal streptococcus group. EPA
recommends Enterococci as the best indicator of health risk in saltwater used for recreation and
as a useful indicator in freshwater as well. In 2004, Enterococci took the place of fecal coliform
as the new federal standard for water quality at public beaches. It is believed to provide a higher
correlation than fecal coliform with many of the human pathogens often found in sewage (Deng,
et al., 2004). Results indicated that Enterococci might be a more stable indicator than fecal
coliform and, consequently, a more conservative indicator under brackish water conditions.
1.2 Standards
Water quality standards have been established legislatively for a number of these parameters
(Table 2). Many of the water quality standards are described in the NC Administrative Code,
section 15A NCAC 2H .0100. The water quality standards for Enterococci bacteria are
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -13
described by the US EPA (US EPA, 1986) and in the NC Administrative Code, section 15A
NCAC 18A .3402. The US EPA standards for Enterococci bacteria are based on incidents of
gastrointestinal illness following contact with bathing waters. Bacterial contamination is
quantified by "colony forming units" or CFU. Single sample maximum allowable Enterococci
density is 104 CFU / l 00ml, 158 CFU / l 00ml, 276 CFU / l 00ml, and 501 CFU / l 00ml for
designated beach areas, swimming areas with moderate to full body contact, lightly used full
body contact swimming areas, and infrequently used full body contact swimming areas,
respectively (Table 3). When at least five samples are collected within a 30 day period, the US
EPA recommends utilizing a geometric mean standard of 35 CFU /100ml. Geometric means are
often useful summaries for highly skewed data, as are often found with bacteriological datasets.
The North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program (RWQ) adopted similar standards for
Enterococci bacteria, also determined by the frequency of swimming activity. As defined by
RWQ, Tier I swimming areas are used daily during the swimming season, Tier II swimming
areas are used three days a week during the swimming season, and Tier III swimming areas are
used on average 4 days a month during the swimming season. Single sample standards for Tiers
I, II, and III are 104 CFU /100ml, 276 CFU /100ml, and 500 CFU /100ml, respectively (Table 4).
A geometric mean of 35 CFU /100ml within Tier I swimming areas may also be utilized if at
least five samples are collected within 30 days. The creeks included in this study have not been
classified within the RWQ tier system; however an analysis of accessibility as an indicator of
swimming and boating usage has been performed (Table 5). Based on this analysis, of the
nineteen (19) sampling sites, three (3) could be considered Tier II and sixteen (16) could be
considered Tier III.
Table 2. North Carolina Water Oualitv Standards
Parameter
Standard for SA Waters
Standard for C Sw Waters
Dissolved Oxygen
5.0 mg/1
4.0 Mg/la
Turbidity
25 NTU
50 NTU
H
6.8 -8.5
6.0 -9.0
Chloro h 11 -a
40.0 a /1
40.0 a /1
Fecal Coliform
Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <14 CFU /100m1; or 10%
of samples <43 CFLT /100m1
Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <200 CFU /100m1; or single
sample <400 CFU /100m1
Enterococci c
Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <35 CFU /100m1
Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <35 CFLT /100m1
'a' Swamp waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions
(b) For swamp streams, pH may be as low as 4.3 if caused by natural conditions
(c) See Table 4 for single sample standards based off the tiered system employed by NC DENR Recreational Water
Quality Program
Table 3. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA
%I
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -14
Single sample maximum
Designated beach areas
< 104 CFU /100ml
Swimming areas with moderate full body contact
< 158 CFU /100ml
Lightly used full body contact swimming areas
< 276 CFU /100ml
Infrequently used full body contact swimming areas
< 501 CFU /100ml
%I
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -14
Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR
Recreational Water Oualitv Program
Table 5. Proposed Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Sampling Sites
Site Name
Single sample maximum
Tier I, swimming areas used daily during the
Comments
MOT -CBR
<104 CFU/ 1 OOmI
swimming season
Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
Tier II, swimming areas used three days a week
Tier III
No
2 F 1 ml
<76CU /00
during the swimming season
Tier III
Tier III, swimming areas used on average four days
Adjacent to bridge on River Road
BGCBR
<500 C U/ 00 F 1 ml
a month during the swimming season
Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
Table 5. Proposed Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Sampling Sites
Site Name
Proposed
Tier
Classification
Accessible
for
Boating or
Swimming
Comments
MOT -CBR
Tier III
No
Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
MOT -ND
Tier III
No
Adjacent to small bridge on Normand Drive
LC -RR
Tier III
No
Adjacent to bridge on River Road
BGCBR
Tier III
No
Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
SGCH
Tier III
No
Adjacent to bridge on Castle Ha ne Road
SC-23
Tier III
No
Adjacent to bridge on 23rd Street
SC-CD
Tier III
No
Narrow, shallow. Adjacent to Candlewood Drive
SC -NK
Tier II
Yes
Small boat launch site off North Kerr
SC -GR
Tier III
No
Adjacent to culvert on Gordon Road
PG -ML
Tier III
No
Small boat launch site on private propert
PG -CH
Tier III
No
Adjacent to culvert on Castle Ha ne Road
PG -NC
Tier III
No
Adjacent to culvert on North College Road
FC -4
Tier III
No
Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC -6
Tier III
No
Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC -13
Tier III
No
Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC -FOY
Tier III
No
No clear access points (no docks on Foy branch)
PC -M
Tier II
Yes
Direct access via docks and boat ramp at Pages Creek Marina
PC -BDDS
Tier III
No
Private docks are the only means of direct access
PC -BDUS
Tier II
Yes
Public boat ramp off Ba shore Drive
2.0 METHODS
The seven creeks included in this study were selected by County staff and individual sampling
sites were selected by County staff in consultation with Coastal Planning & Engineering of North
Carolina, Inc. These seven creeks are primarily located in the unincorporated portion of New
Hanover County. Sampling sites were accessed from land, generally near a bridge or culvert
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -15
crossing, or by boat. Each site was sampled one time per month during a high ebb tide. Tides
were determined utilizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Tides and Currents website ( : i rr . . n ).
2.1 Physical Parameters
All physical measurements (temperature, salinity, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and
pH) were taken in situ utilizing a 6820 YSI Multiparameter Water Quality Probe linked to a YSI
650 MDS display unit. The YSI Probe was calibrated each day prior to use. Physical
measurements were taken from the surface at all sites (depth = 0.1 m) and near the creek bottom
at sites with depths greater than 0.5m. Following each sampling trip, the YSI Probe was post -
calibrated following each sampling date to ensure that the physical parameters measured were
within an acceptable range.
2.2 Chemical and Biological Parameters
Water samples were obtained for the laboratory analysis of chemical (nitrate /nitrite and
orthophosphate) and biological (Enterococci, fecal coliform, and Chlorophyll -a) parameters.
These grab samples were collected in sterile bottles during a high ebb tide from the surface at
each site (depth = O.lm). Water samples were placed on ice immediately following collection
and were delivered in coolers to Environmental Chemists, Inc. of Wilmington, North Carolina
for analysis. All analyses performed by Environmental Chemists, Inc. were conducted utilizing
the following standard EPA approved methods:
Orthophosphate:
SM 4500E
Nitrate /Nitrite :
EPA 353.2
Chlorophyll -a:
SM 10200H
Fecal Coliform:
SM 9222D
Enterococci:
EnterolertE
3.0 RESULTS
The results described in this report represent the physical, biological, and chemical data collected
from all sampling sites on a monthly basis between June 2010 and May 2011. These results are
organized by watershed. All raw data, including parameters not summarized in this section, are
included in Appendix B.
3.1 Rating System
In order to provide a quick - glance assessment of the water quality within a particular sampling
station or watershed, a rating system for a number of parameters has been employed. This
quantitative system assigns a rating of "GOOD ", "FAIR ", or "POOR" to a sampling station
depending on the percentage of samples exceeding the State standard for dissolved oxygen,
r
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -16
turbidity, Chlorophyll -a, Enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria. If the recorded value of a
parameter exceeds the State standard less than 10% of the times sampled, the station will receive
a "Good" rating for the parameter. A "Fair" rating is assigned when a parameter exceeds the
State standard 11-25% of the times sampled. Parameters measured that exceed the State
standard more than 25% of the sampling times are given a "Poor" rating.
3.2 Barnards Creek
The Barnards Creek watershed includes 4,953 acres and is located in the southwestern portion of
the County, just along the City line. The watershed drains portions of Carolina Beach Road at its
headwaters and flows towards River Road before entering into the Cape Fear River. Zoning
within the watershed is comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses. The land is
classified as a mix of transition, urban, and conservation according to the CAMA land use plan.
This watershed contains approximately 16.9°Io impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009).
Sampling was conducted at one site (BC -CBR) within the Barnards Creek watershed (Figure 2).
Surface dissolved oxygen within BGCBR ranged between 4.5 mg/1 and 9.4 mg /1 with a mean
value of 7.1 mg/1 (Table 6). These values were within an acceptable level above the State
standard of 4.0 mg /1 for C Sw waters during all sampling events at both the surface and near the
bottom of the water column (Figure 3).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug /1 and 8.0 ug/1 with a mean value of 2.0 ug/1 at BC -CBR
(Table 6) . These values did not approach the 40ug /1 standard.
Enterococci ranged between 55 CFU /100m1 and 1,650 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value
of 360 CFU /100m1, which is above the NCDENR standard of 500 CFLT /100m1 for Tier III waters
(Figure 4, Table 6). Five (5) of the twelve (12) samples collected during this period exceeded this
standard.
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.03 mg/1 and 0.15 mg /1 with a mean of 0.11 mg /1 (Table 6).
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.03 mg/1 with a mean of 0.01 mg/1(Table
6).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 12 NTU with a mean value of 4
NTU (Table 6). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C SW waters.
Table 7 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
10
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -17
Table 6. Mean values of select parameters from Barnards Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter
BGCBR
Turbidity (NTU)
4(0-12)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1)
7.1 (4.5 -9.4)
Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/1)
0.11(0.03 -0.15)
Orthophosphate (mg /1)
0.01 (0.01 -0.03)
Chlorophyll -a (ug /1)
2.0 (0.0 -8.0)
Enterococci (
360 (55- 1650)
(1) Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
11
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -18
Figure 2. Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed
Enterococci Levels at BC-CBR
2400
2000
�j 1600
�, 1200 ��
ej I
Soo
400
L Entero.'_
Fi 4. Enterococci at BC-CBR
Table 7. Ratin of parameters within samplin stations within Barnards Creek
Parameter
BC-CBR
Turbidit
Dissolved Ox
Chloroph
Enterococci
I 1 11 -z'
12
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
17-1-19
v fi .3. vissowea ox at
3.3 Futch Creek
Futch Creek is located on the New Hanover- Pender County line and drains into the Intracoastal
Waterway. The Futch Creek watershed encompasses approximately 3,136 acres extending from
Scotts Hill Loop Road and Highway 17 on the north and east, to Porters Neck Road on the south.
Zoning within the Futch Creek watershed is predominately residential with a small business
district along Highway 17. The land within the Futch Creek watershed is classified as watershed
resource protection or transition in the LAMA land use plan. This watershed contains
approximately 11.0% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at
four (4) sites (FC -4, FC -6, FG13, and FC -FOY) within the Futch Creek watershed (Figure 5).
Surface dissolved oxygen within the creek ranged between 2.9 mg/1 and 10.5 mg/1 with a mean
value of 6.3 mg /1 (Figures 6 -9, Table 8).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug /1 and 7.0 ug /1 with a mean value of 2.5 ug /1 (Table 8).
None of these values approached the 40ug /1 Chlorophyll -a standard.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 210 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value of
12 CFU /100m1. No samples collected within Futch Creek exceeded the NCDENR Enterococci
standard of 500 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters (Figures 10 -13, Table 8).
The geometric mean of fecal coliform in Futch Creek was 15 CFU with a range of 5 to 273
CFUs. This geometric mean was above the NCDENR Shellfish Sanitation single - sample
standard of 14 CFU /100ml (Table 8). Twenty -three percent (23%) of all samples analyzed for
fecal coliform levels exceeded 43 CFU /100ml. The State standard requires "no more than 10%
of samples shall exceed 43 CFU /100ml) ".
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.03 mg /1 with a mean of 0.01 mg /1 (Table 8)
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.04 mg /1 with a mean of 0.01 mg /1 (Table
8).
Turbidity values were generally low ranging between 0 and 12 NTU with a mean value of 2
NTU (Table 8). No observations exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU for SA waters.
Table 9 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
13
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -20
Table 8. Mean values of select parameters from Futch Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter
FC -4
FC -6
FC -13
FC -FOY
Turbidity
(NTU)
1(0-4)
1(0-3)
3(0-12)
3(0-12)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/1)
6.6 (3.4 -10.6)
6.3 (3.6 -9.4)
6.1 (2.9 -10.5)
6.0 (3.0 -9.7)
Nitrate /Nitrite
(mg1l)
0.01 (0.01 -0.01)
0.01 (0.01 -0.01)
0.01 (0.01 -0.03)
0.01 (0.01 -0.03)
Orthophosphate
(mg1l)
0.01 (0.01 -0.01)
0.01 (0.01 -0.03)
0.02 (0.01 -0.04)
0.01 (0.01 -0.03)
Chlorophyll -a
(ug1l)
2.4 (1.0 -5.0)
2.2 (0.0 -5.0)
3.0 (1.0 -7.0)
2.4 (0.0 -6.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml)
9(5-37)
10(5-55)
19(5-145)
13(5-210)
Fecal Coliform
11(5-127)
8(5-118)
23(5-273)
22(5-200)
(#CFU/100ml)
(1) Enterococci and Fecal Coliform values expressed as geometric mean
14
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17-1-21
Figure 5. Water Quality Sites within the Futch Creek Watershed
Fi 6. Dissolved Ox at FC-4
FC-6'Dissolved Ox
10
Ir
10
II���
6
I
3, 0 - 1,
(( — —�
\11s
_
�
�tS,s..
� _.tS, � F,
en 't
(tl,,���
�: l P S����
ti,
ti,
-,. tS,,._
�tY=
0
4
k7'
tY:��
v
tv �
tY= tY= � �_� WDO -B
Fi 6. Dissolved Ox at FC-4
FC-6'Dissolved Ox
Fi 7. Dissolved Ox at FC-6
FC-13 Dissolved Ox
10
Ir
10
II���
I
6
(( — —�
\11s
_
�
�tS,s..
� _.tS, � F,
en 't
(tl,,���
�: l P S����
ti,
ti,
-,. tS,,._
�tY=
0
4
tY=�� � � ��
tY:��
v
tv �
tY= tY= � �_� WDO -B
D O-B
cc ccc
2
�� ���
� CC
��� CCI IIII
CC ��� ����
2
cccc :
�
� �
�
��� r
E
��� :
���� �
� t � � I r
� r I
0
0
�
� ,r
F e
it
it
it
it
it
it
Fi 7. Dissolved Ox at FC-6
FC-13 Dissolved Ox
Fi S. Dissolved Ox at FC-13
15
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
17-1-22
12
10
II���
LDO-S
6
�tY=
0
tY=�� � � ��
tY:��
v
tv �
tY= tY= � �_� WDO -B
4
cc ccc
�� IIi
II��
�� ���
� CC
��� CCI IIII
CC ��� ����
2
cccc :
�
� �
�
��� r
E
��� :
���� �
� t � � I r
� r I
0
�
� ,r
Ir
Fi S. Dissolved Ox at FC-13
15
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
17-1-22
rvY Dissolved Ox
Fi 9. Dissolved Ox at FC-FOY
Enterococei and Fecal Coliform. Levels at
FC-4
Entero.
�Ikl Fecal Col.
Fi 10. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC-4
Fi It. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC-6
16
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
17-1-23
Enterococet and Fecal, Coliform Levels at--
L Entero .
NFecal Col.
Figure 12. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC -13
Figure 13. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at FC -FOY
Table 9. llatini!s of parameters within sampling stations within Fetch Creek
3.4 Lords Creek
The Lords Creek Watershed is located in the southwestern portion of the County and
encompasses approximately 3,047 acres. Zoning within the watershed is completely residential.
This watershed contains approximately 12.6°Io impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009).
According to the LAMA land use plan, the land in the watershed is classified as a mix of
conservation, transition, watershed resource protection and a small natural heritage resource
protection designation. Sampling was conducted at one (1) site (LC -RR) within the Lords Creek
watershed (Figure 14).
17
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -24
Surface dissolved oxygen LC -RR ranged between 4.4 mg /1 and 11.4 mg /1 with a mean value of
7.2 mg/1 (Table 10). All values were within an acceptable level above the State standard of 4.0
mg /1 for C Sw waters during both the surface and near the bottom of the water column (Figure
15).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 1.0 ug/1 and 27.0 ug/1 with a mean value of 10.4 ug /1 (Table 10).
Samples obtained in August 2009 exceeded the State standard of 40ug /1 for Chlorophyll -a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 290 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value of
41 CFU /100m1 (Table 10). No individual samples contained high levels of Enterococci beyond
the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters.
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.01 mg /1 and 0.29 mg /1 with a mean of 0.19 mg /1 (Table
10).
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.17 mg/1 with a mean of 0.06 mg/1 (Table
10).
Turbidity values were generally moderate ranging between 1 and 30 NTU with a mean value of 8
NTU (Table 10). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters in
Lords Creek during the study period.
Table 11 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -25
Table 10. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter
LC -RR
Turbidity (NTU)
8(1-30)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1)
7.2 (4.4 -11.4)
Nitrate /Nitrite (mg /1)
0.19 (0.01 -0.29)
Orthophosphate (mg /1)
0.02 (0.01 -0.04)
Chlorophyll -a (ug/1)
10.4 (1.0 -27.0)
Enterococci (
41(5-290)
(1) Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -26
Figure 14. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed
LC-
IV
Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen at LC -RR
ji r o Levels at LC-
35
300
25
200
'
150
100
a�
50
L Entero.
0
Figure 15. Enterococci Levels at LC -RR
Table 11. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek
Parameter
12
Turbidit
Dissolved Oxygen
Chloro h ll -a
Enterococci
Ir
r
1
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
- �
~,
I
I
I,
t
j� yggtytj }jttj}j
s
it
i,
I
D o - S
1 1 1 (S
111
111
1s1 1 S 1 1 1 (S
llr 1 (S
t
'3
,r
D o -B ;r
i
_
(
S
S
S
tp
S
iT
x
° � R�
ti v��
� ���
x a� n
4�_. T
't� , °u. �.'
,
090 ID
n � k
.pie,. ii
*,
�
9•° —+� �.�
y, ,,` �S
4 •
e � T$ J , • � i 4
+3
�
1`k
�
t
iT
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen at LC -RR
ji r o Levels at LC-
35
300
25
200
'
150
100
a�
50
L Entero.
0
Figure 15. Enterococci Levels at LC -RR
Table 11. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek
Parameter
LC -RR
Turbidit
Dissolved Oxygen
Chloro h ll -a
Enterococci
3.5 Motts Creek
Motts Creek watershed encompasses approximately 2,389 acres and is located in the
southwestern portion of the County, just below Sanders Road. The Creek drains portions of
Carolina Beach Road at its headwaters and then drains toward River Road before entering into
the Cape Fear River. Zoning in the watershed is predominately residential with commercial
business districts along Carolina Beach Road. Land in the watershed is classified as transition,
conservation or wetland resource protection according to the CAMA land use plan. This
watershed contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling
20
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -27
was conducted at two (2) sites (MOT -CBR, MOT -ND) within the Motts Creek watershed
between the months of June 2009 and May 2010 (Figure 17).
Surface dissolved oxygen within Motts Creek ranged between 3.2 mg /1 and 9.7 mg /1 with a mean
value of 6.5 mg/1(Figures 18 and 19, Table 12).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 1.0 ug/1 and 32.0 ug/1 with a mean value of 4.0 ug/1 (Table 12).
These values did not approach the 40ug /1 standard.
Enterococci ranged between 127 CFU /100m1 and 8,000 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean
value of 628 CFU /100m1 (Table 12). MOT -ND and MOT -CBR each exceeded the NCDENR
standard of 500 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters during five (5) and seven (7) of the twelve (12)
times they were samples, respectively (Figures 20 and 21).
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.02 mg/1 and 0.19 mg /1 with a mean of 0.08 mg /1 (Table
12).
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg /1 and 0.08 mg /1 with a mean of 0.03 mg /1 (Table
12).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 14 NTU with a mean value of 5
NTU (Table 12). No turbidity observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw
waters.
Table 13 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
21
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -28
Table 12. Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter
MOT -CBR
MOT -ND
Turbidity (NTU)
7(0-14)
4(0-10)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1)
7.4 (4.3 -9.7)
5.5 (3.2 -8.7)
Nitrate/Nitrite (mg /1)
0.8 (0.02 -0.15)
0.09 (0.03 -0.19)
Orthophosphate (mg/1)
0.02 (0.01 -0.04)
0.03 (0.01 -0.08)
Chlorophyll -a (ug /1)
3.0 (1.0 -9.0)
5.0 (1.0 -32.0)
Enterococci (
576 (127 - 7000)
684 (127 - 8000)
(l) Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
22
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -29
Figure 17. Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed
Figure 18. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT -CBR
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT -ND
a 4 �m
10000
1000
100
10
��, � ', ' � 4 '�• ,, ^� � E rb { ,. es }` °.
i,vit Enter o.
Figure 20. Enterococci at MOT -CBR
23
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -30
Enterococci Levels t M.OT-N
Entero.
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT -ND
Table 13. Ratings of Darameters within samDlini! stations within Motts Creek
Parameter
MOT -CBR
MOT -ND
Turbidit
Dissolved Oxygen
Chloro h ll -a
Enterococci
m _:m
_ .
3.5 Pages Creek
Located in northeastern New Hanover County and encompassing 2,044 acres, Pages Creek
watershed drains into the Intracoastal Waterway, north of Middle Sound Loop Road. Zoning
within the Pages Creek watershed is predominately residential, with commercial zoning along
Highway 17. The land within the Pages Creek watershed is predominately classified as
watershed resource protection and conservation, with a small portion classified as transitional
according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains approximately 23.2%
impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at three (3) sites (PC-
BDDS, PC -BDUS, and PC -M) within the Motts Creek watershed (Figure 22 ).
Surface dissolved oxygen within Pages Creek ranged between 2.4 mg /1 and 9.0 mg /1 with a mean
value of 5.8 mg/ (Table 14). While dissolved oxygen at PC -M was acceptable during all
sampling events, the dissolved oxygen within PC -BDDS and PC -BDUS were lower than the
State standard of 5.0 mg /1 for SA waters on numerous occasions (Figures 23 through 25).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug /1 and 27.0 ug /1 with a mean value of 4.6 ug /1 (Table 14).
No samples exceeded the State standard of 40 ug /1 for chlorophyll -a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 60,000 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value
of 84 CFU /100m1 (Figures 26 -28, Table 14). While samples collected from PC -M did not
contain high levels of Enterococci, three (3) and four (4) samples from PC -BDDS and PC-
BDUS, respectively, contained levels higher than the NCDENR standards.
24
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -31
Fecal coliform levels ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 24,000 CFU /100m1 with a geometric
mean of 86 CFU /100m1 (Table 14). Fecal coliform levels exceeded the NCDENR Shellfish
Sanitation single - sample standard of 14 CFU /100m1 on all twelve (12) sampling events at PC-
BDDS and eleven (11) occasions at PC -BDUS. This standard was breached at PGM on three
(3) occasions (Figures 26 through 28). Seventy -two percent (72%) of all samples analyzed for
fecal coliform levels exceeded 43 CFU /100m1. The State standard allows "no more than 10% of
samples shall exceed 43 CFU /100m1 ".
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.06 mg /1 with a mean of 0.01 mg /1 (Table
14).
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg /1 and 0.1 mg /1 with a mean of 0.03 mg /1 (Table
14).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 20 NTU with a mean value of 5
NTU (Table 14). None of the observed turbidity values exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU
for class SA waters.
Table 15 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
IFW
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -32
Figure 22. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed
Table 14. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter
PC -BDUS
PC -BDDS
PGM
Turbidity (NTU)
6(0-20)
6(0-20)
2(0-9)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1)
5.7 (2.8 -9.0)
5.5 (2.4 -8.8)
6.3 (2.9 -9.0)
Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/1)
0.01(0.01 -0.03)
0.01(0.01 -0.02)
0.02 (0.01 -0.06)
Orthophosphate (mg /1)
0.04 (0.02 -0.1)
0.02 (0.01 -0.06)
0.01 (0.01 -0.01)
Chlorophyll -a (ug/1)
6.8 (0.0 -27.0)
4.5 (0.0 -19.0)
2.5 (0.5 -6.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml)
672 (5- 33000)
265 (10- 60000)'
10(5-172)
Fecal Coliform
(#CFU/100ml)
457 (82- 24000)'
122 (5- 1273)'
11(5 -163)
(1) Enterococci and fecal coliform values expressed as geometric mean
FM
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -33
'rC-BDDS Dissolved Ox
Figure 23. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDDS
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDUS
? C-M Dissolved Ox
10
�
I
,
I r
I
r
I ,
r
I
I ,
i ,
i ,
3 D 0_
' i
D _ r
J
�
t
; 4
it
q
:.
� �T '�3 n � s ��'
_• z Y
Pi. �°'� 4 � �.'s. y °'4
"= �ri� Y^ ' � � �:
•
: ii
Ij
Ij
Ij
Ij
Figure 23. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDDS
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDUS
? C-M Dissolved Ox
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M
27
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -34
10
I
I
r
I
i ,
i ,
J
�
t
; 4
t
Ij
r �£
f° '...:
' +��, `�
-, •:
s ".dn .A`r. , +.� ? e �ti
� '. F , � '0 � t
7i
it
it
it
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M
27
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -34
Figure 25. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -BDDS
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform Levels at
100
it
it
F ecal Enterococci and Coliform e at ;
it
i
PC-BDD it
100000
t�
1 000
1000
,
r
,
,
r
10
C
Entero.
Fecal Col. �r
,may
lami
1111k,
r
tS {{ tS
�11 Fecal Col.
r
Fecal Col.
1 0
r
7i
it
it
it
it
Figure 25. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -BDDS
Enterococci and Fecal Coliform Levels at
100
t�
10
1000
r
r
1000
11,iiit Enter o.
lami
1111k,
r
�11 Fecal Col.
r
Fecal Col.
1 0
r
1
11
1
t
Ij
Ij
Ij
Figure 27. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -BDUS
t
,
r
E nterococciand Fecal Coliform Levels at
r
�
PC- M
,
r
1000
r�
Figure 28. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -M
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -35
t�
10
r
r
11,iiit Enter o.
lami
1111k,
�11 Fecal Col.
r
,
r
r
r
r
r
Figure 28. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PC -M
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -35
able 15. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Yages (ire
Parameter
PC -BDDS
PC -BDDS
PC -M
Turbidity
Dissolved xygen
POOR
PO
Chloro h ll -a
Enterococci
PO
Fecal o 1 orm
POOR
PO
, k
3.7 Prince Georges
Prince Georges Creek drains into the Cape Fear River. The Prince Georges Creek watershed is
approximately 14,589 acres and drains most of Castle Hayne, extending eastward across I -40
into the Blue Clay Road area. Zoning within the Prince Georges Creek watershed is
predominately residential with some business and light industrial districts within Castle Hayne.
Most of the land within the Prince Georges Creek watershed is classified as aquifer resource
protection, conservation or transition according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed
contains approximately 10.1°Io impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was
conducted at three (3) sites (PG -CH, PG -ML, and PG -NC) within the Prince Georges Creek
watershed (Figure 29).
Surface dissolved oxygen within Prince Georges Creek ranged between 1.8 mg /1 and 9.7 mg /1
with a mean value of 5.4 mg /1 (Table 16). Surface dissolved oxygen values at PG -CH and PG-
NC were below the State standard of 4.0 mg /1 for C Sw during seven (7) and six (6) sampling
events, respectively. PG -ML was below the standard on three (3) occasions (Figures 30 through
32).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug/1 and 25.0 ug/1 with a mean value of 5.1 ug/1 (Table 16).
These values did not exceed the 40ug /1 standard.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 3,200 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value
of 213 CFU /100m1 (Table 16). During this study, five (5) and eight (8) samples from PG -CH
and PG -ML, respectively, contained Enterococci levels above the NCDENR standard of 500
CFLT /100m1 for Tier III waters. No samples from PG -NC exceeded this value during the same
time period (Figures 33 through 35).
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.18 mg /1 with a mean of 0.7 mg /1 (Table 16).
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg /1 and 0.1 mg /1 with a mean of 0.03 mg /1 (Table
16).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 32 NTU with a mean value of 3
NTU (Table 16). No observed turbidity values exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw
waters.
Table 17 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
WE
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -36
Table 16. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range in
parentheses.
Parameter
PG -CH
PG -ML
PG -NC
Turbidity (NTU)
3(0-16)
0(0-3)
7(0-32)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1)
5.1(1.8 -8.7)
6.0 (3.1 -9.7)
4.0 (0.1 -9.3)
Nitrate /Nitrite (mg /1)
0.11 (0.01 -0.18)
0.05 (0.01 -0.14)
0.05 (0.01 -0.14)
Orthophosphate (mg /1)
0.02 (0.01 -0.05)
0.04 (0.01 -0.08)
0.02 (0.01 -0.10)
Chlorophyll -a (ug/1)
4.3 (0.0 -2.5)
5.3 (0.0 -15.0)
5.8 (0.0 -18.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml)
291 (37- 3200)
512 (208- 1,455)
65(5-490)
(1) Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
30
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -37
Figure 29. Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed
rkx CH D issolved
Figure 30. Dissolved Oxygen at PG- CH
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -ML
PG - ' NC D issolved Oxygen
10
1
6
t
i
p i\
is t
i,
CCU
�4
t
I,
k
« DO -B ;r
t
!r
f
t
t
2
i
;.R
°�,
erg\
& 0 �y ' �k
e,° �Y� },5 i '•„ '�
� A �� � v � ��� ,�*� `�'ryY+ 'y,
'f •r.= it
r
4•
�r
it
it
it
it
it
r
r
r
r
r
Figure 30. Dissolved Oxygen at PG- CH
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -ML
PG - ' NC D issolved Oxygen
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -NC
31
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -38
10
6
t
i
is t
i,
k
t
!r
f
t
t
i
;.R
°�,
erg\
& 0 �y ' �k
e,° �Y� },5 i '•„ '�
� A �� � v � ��� ,�*� `�'ryY+ 'y,
'f •r.= it
1�` T,„"
4•
�r
it
it
it
it
it
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -NC
31
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -38
Figure 33. Enterococci at PG- CH
s € Entero.
Figure 34. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PG -ML
E nterococci Levels at PG-NC
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG -NC
32
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -39
Table 17. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek
Parameter
PG -CH
PG -ML
PG -NC
Turbidity
Dissolved xygen
POOR
POO
Chloro h ll -a
Enterococci
POOR,
POO
3.8 Smith Creek
Located in north - central New Hanover County and containing approximately 14,665 acres, the
Smith Creek watershed drains into the lower northeast Cape Fear River, just north of the Isabelle
Holmes Bridge. The watershed drains land within the City limits and the unincorporated
County, including the Wilmington International Airport. Zoning within the Smith Creek
watershed is a mix of industrial, residential, and commercial. The land within the watershed is
predominately classified as urban and transition, with a small portion classified as conservation.
This watershed contains approximately 21.9% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009).
Along with increased development and impervious surfaces, water quality in Smith Creek has
declined in recent years. High bacteria levels have been reported, as well as low dissolved
oxygen levels. As a result, Smith Creek has been listed on the 303(d) list for impaired waters
due to impaired biological integrity. Sampling was conducted at five (5) sites (SC -CH, SC -23,
SC -NK, SC -GR, SC -CD) within the Smith Creek watershed (Figure 36).
Surface dissolved oxygen within the creek ranged between 3.0 mg/1 and 11.5 mg/1 with a mean
value of 6.9 mg /1 (Table 18). With the exception of observations from SG23, SGCD, and SC-
NK in August 2010, these values were within an acceptable level above the State standard of 4.0
mg /1 for C Sw waters (Figures 37 through 41).
Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug/1 and 67.0 ug /1 with a mean value of 7.3 ug /1 (Table 18).
Two samples exceeded the State Standard for chlorophyll -a.
Enterococci ranged between 28 CFU /100m1 and 12,000 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean
value of 329 CFU /100m1 (Table 18). A number of samples exceeded the NCDENR standard of
500 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters including ten (10) from SC-CD and nine (9) from SC -GR.
Fiver (5) samples from SC -NK exceeded the NCDENR standard of 276 CFU /100m1 for Tier II
waters (Figures 42 through 46).
Nitrate /nitrite levels ranged between 0.01 mg/1 and 0.47 mg /1 with a mean of 0.15 mg /1 (Table
18).
Orthophosphate levels ranged between 0.01 mg /1 and 0.11 mg /1 with a mean of 0.05 mg /1 (Table
18).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 72 NTU with a mean value of 5
NTU (Table 18). One observation from SC-CH exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for SW
class C waters.
Table 19 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
33
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -40
Table 18. Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter
SC-23
SC-CD
SC-CH
SGGR
SC -NK
Turbidity
(NTU)
9(1-28)
1(0-8)
14(0-72)
1(0-6)
2(0-6)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/1)
6.6 (3.3 -11.4)
7.8 (3.0 -10.8)
6.8 (4.0 -11.5)
7.8 (4.3 -10.9)
6.5 (3.1 -11.0)
Nitrate /Nitrite
(mg1l)
0.17 (0.02 -0.25)
0.09 (0.01 -0.17)
0.31 (0.02 -0.47)
0.10 (0.02 -0.15)
0.07 (0.01 -0.15)
Orthophosphate
(mg1l)
0.07 (0.04 -0.11)
0.02 (0.01 -0.04)
0.08 (0.04 -0.11)
0.03 (0.01 -0.11)
0.03 (0.01 -0.07)
Chlorophyll -a
(ug1l)
10.0 (1.0 -24.0)
8.1 (0.5 -67.0)
3.8 (1.0 -8.0)
2.3 (0.0 -7.0)
12.4 (1.0 -46.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml)
93 (28 -270)
1993 (154 - 12000)
83 (28 -181)1
1077(380-
1000)
231 (28 -819)
(1) Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
34
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -41
Figure 36. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed
S- C -23 Dissolved Oxyge
Figure 37. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -23
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -CD
7' 5C-04 Dissolved Ox
12
,
r
r
1
,
r
Ir
I
I
r
I
1
1
F
t
I
t,
I I I
,
I .
,¢
r
y
k
�
}
} st d
,
�
� „..�� D 0- S
qj
ii X`
t
ii
I,
I
r
.n,
qII
- ",,,
t `
4
t #f
0
II
Sl�� D O ?
Q�'
'r
1G£
ti
ti
ti
ti
s
ti
ti
SG s
ti
ti
t
t
7i
it
it
it
it
Figure 37. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -23
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -CD
7' 5C-04 Dissolved Ox
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH
35
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -42
14
,
r
r
1
r
Ir
I
I
1
F
t
I
,
,¢
r
y
k
i
D O -B
qj
ii X`
t
ii
I,
qII
0
Q�'
'r
7r
it
it
it
it
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH
35
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -42
Figure 40. Dissolved O xygen at S C - GR
SCAK Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at S C -NK
E nterococci Levels at SC-2
Figure 42. Enterococci at SC -23
36
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -43
12
,r
r
r
r
,
,
r
E
6 �
r
�r
'
tls
tls
tls �a
i
D O -B ,r
ffrr
-�
��II
��II
�����
r
it
_.
�._ .:
_
�
4•
T
a
6
7i
it
it
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at S C -NK
E nterococci Levels at SC-2
Figure 42. Enterococci at SC -23
36
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -43
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC -CD
Enterococci Levels at S,C-CH
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC -CH
E nterococci Levels at SAC R
Figure 45. Enterococci at S C - GR
37
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -44
Ent erococci Levels at SC-CD
Ij
Ij
Ij
100000
Ij
i
1
Ij
1000
1
1
1
i
�, {$� 1111
j
F T •
1 000
Ilk
S
CC CC S1�
a
it
lollt E nter a.
NMI
1
CCC�F,, CCC�,,
CCC�F
1
T T- - , - T - I T
i
i
i
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC -CD
Enterococci Levels at S,C-CH
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC -CH
E nterococci Levels at SAC R
Figure 45. Enterococci at S C - GR
37
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -44
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC -NK
Tahle 19. Ratings of narameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek
Parameter
SC - 23
SC - CD
SC - CH
SC - GR
SC - NK
Turbidit
Smith
Barnards
Futch
Lords
Dissolved Oxygen
Pages
r
Georges
Cre
C ee
Creek
Chloro h ll -
Creek
Creek
Creek
Enterococci__
a tt
�.��
�_`�`tN�
3.9 Comprehensive Rating by Watershed
When combining all results from each site within individual watersheds, it is possible to obtain a
"snapshot" of water quality within each watershed (Table 20). Barnards Creek demonstrates
"good" water quality with the exception of Enterococci, which was in the "poor" category.
Futch Creek also contains good ratings; however dissolved oxygen was shown to be "fair" while
fecal coliform was determined to be "poor ". Lords Creek was deemed "good" for all parameters.
Smith Creek and Motts Creek rated "good" for all parameters with the exception of "poor" for
Enterococci. Pages Creek also demonstrated "good" ratings for turbidity and chlorophyll -a,
however dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform were "poor" while Enterococci was "fair ". Prince
Georges Creek had "good" ratings for turbidity and chlorophyll -a and "poor" ratings for
dissolved oxygen and Enterococci.
1 a Die zu. Kaungs oz parameters wimn eacn watersnea
Parameter
Prince
Smith
Barnards
Futch
Lords
Motts
Pages
r
Georges
Cre
C ee
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Turbidity
Di ssol ve d Oxyge
````
``a`
Chloro h ll- a
Enterococci__
Fecal Coliform
N/A
�_
"_
N/A
N/A
x-)t� ,
N/A
NIA
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -45
3.10 Long Term Trends
Water quality data has been collected within New Hanover County since the mid 1990's.
Several of the historical monitoring sites continue to be utilized for the ongoing monitoring
effort. In order to assess the long term trends in water quality, a database has been created to
include the all data collected within the seven (7) tidal creeks under current investigation. Prior
to 2007, UNCW collected data within three (3) of the tidal creeks included in the present study.
These include Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Smith Creek. Accordingly, the data from these
three creeks dating to 2004 has been incorporated in the analysis of long term trends. The long
term trends from the remaining creeks (Motts Creek, Lords Creek, Prince Georges Creek, and
B arnards Creek) have been derived from data obtained between November 2007 to the present.
For each parameter examined, data was plotted on a line graph over time and a trend line was
created. Trend lines, also known as regression lines, can be used as a way of visually depicting
the relationship between the independent (x) and dependent (y) variables in the graph. In this
case the independent variable is time and the dependent variable is the water quality parameter.
A trend in water quality is defined as an increase or decrease in a particular constituent
concentration over time. Statistical analysis was not performed; therefore the significance of
these long term trends should be interpreted with caution.
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Figures 47 -53 depicts the long term trends in dissolved oxygen within the seven (7) creeks
examined within this study. The figures illustrate a distinct seasonal pattern including higher
dissolved oxygen during the cooler winter months and lower dissolved oxygen during the
warmer summer months. Generally speaking, the dissolved oxygen levels within each creek
have not changed drastically from year to year. The apparent increasing trend line associated
with Smith Creek is not necessarily representative of an actual improvement in dissolved oxygen
levels due to the fact that sampling was only conducted seasonally between 2004 and 2006
thereby skewing the data. Since 2007, dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the State standard
within surface samples 30%, 23%, and 20% of the time within Prince Georges Creek, Pages
Creek, and Futch Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better within Smith Creek,
Motts Creek, and Lords Creek where the State standard was breached 8%. 5%. and 2%.
respectively. None of the observations within Barnards Creek exceeded the dissolved oxygen
standard.
WE
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -46
t
it
it
r Barnards Creek Dissolved Oxygen
r
r
r (Surface)
r
Figure 47- Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek
Figure 48 - Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek
r
Lords Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface)
,
r
r
r
14
, 12
,
,
r
9 10
,
,
�j
i# al, X68- 53ffsFVt
������f _ f..1
S
� � �n Y AtW'asf isFW
((
(11(
I,
i
•�
�j
pp
V
Ij
~)
>)
'' yy
1
�
�
�
�1�
+� c
N'
F.w
MT
w�
F
y .e
✓.�
R
iT
j
j
Figure 49- Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek
E
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -47
Figure 50- Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek
12
is 10
6
4
0
Figure 51- Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages
Figure 52- Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek
41
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -48
Pages Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface)
Ij
Ij
r
Smith Creek Dissolved oxygen (Surface)
�
I
r
r
r
�
14 , �
I
t 12
'r
I �
10
All �-
h > >f+
r ,
4
2
r ! 1`I '11 t'11
Figure 53- Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek
3.10.2 Turbidity
Figures 54 -60 depict the long term trends in turbidity within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. In general, the long term trend of turbidity has remained fairly constant within
each creek on an annual basis, however seasonal patterns emerge. This includes higher turbidity
observations during the warmer months and lower turbidity during the cooler months. The
trends within Futch Creek and Lords Creek have demonstrated a slight decrease in turbidity over
time. Turbidity has remained within the State standard within all sampling sites included within
this long term analysis.
Barnards Creek Turbidity (Surface)
Figure 54- Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek
42
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -49
10
14
1 2
1
H
Figure 54- Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek
42
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -49
Futch Creek Turbidity {Surface}
Figure 55- Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek
Figure 55- Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek
Figure 57- Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek
43
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -50
Pages Creek Turbidity (Surface)
Figure 58- Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek
1S
16
14
12
10
6
2
0
Figure 59- Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek
Figure 50- Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek
Arm
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17-1-51
3.10.3 Chlorophyll -a
Figures 61 -67 depict the long term trends in chlorophyll -a within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. In general, the long term trend of turbidity has remained fairly constant within
each creek. Similar to the trend observed with dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll -a levels appear to
increase during the warmer months and decrease during the cooler months. Since sampling
began, only several exceedences of the chlorophyll -a standard were observed.
Barnards Creek Chlorophyll -a
Figure 51- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Barnards Creek
Figure 52- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Futch Creek
45
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -52
Figure 53- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Lords Creek
Figure 54- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Motts Creek
Figure 55- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Pages Creek
46
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -53
Prince Georges Creek Chlorophyll -a
Figure 55- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Prince Georges Creek
120.0
- 100.0
S 50.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Figure 57- Long term chlorophyll -a data within Smith Creek
3.10.4 Enterococci
Figures 68 -74 depict the long term trends in Enterococci within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. Motts Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek have
all maintained a relatively high level of bacteria over time. Pages Creek also contains high levels
of bacteria which has apparently increased within recent years; however this increase may be due
to several anomalously high individual samples. The opposite trend was observed within Lords
Creek where relatively low Enterococci levels appear to decrease over time. Futch Creek,
however, has maintained consistent low levels of Enterococci since sampling began in 2007.
Since November 2007, samples collected within Motts Creek, Barnards Creek, and Smith Creek
exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 36%, 35%, and 34% of the time, respectively. Both
Prince Georges Creek and Pages Creek exceeded this standard 24% of the time while Lords
Creek and Futch Creek exceeded the standard 6% and 2%, respectively.
AM
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -54
Figure 58- Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek
Figure 59- Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek
Figure 70- Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek
.,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -55
Figure 71- Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek
Prince Georges Creek Enterococci
Figure 73- Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek
■ i
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -56
I' lg ul - C I L- LUIIg LCI - III LIl LCIUL'.UL'ul Ua 4a W 1 Llllll Y ages
Figure 74- Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek
DISCUSSION
Water quality is an important issue in the region due to the fact that there are many economic and
recreational opportunities that are supported by the aquatic resources in and around these
waterways. one of the greatest threats to water quality in this area is stormwater runoff created
by increased impervious surface coverage (Mallin et al., 2000). Polluted stormwater runoff can
have many adverse effects on plants, fish, animals and people. Excess nutrients can cause algal
blooms while bacteria and other pathogens can wash into swimming areas and create health
hazards. New Hanover County has experienced rapid growth and development over the past
several decades. In 1990, the population within the County was 120,284. By 2006, the
population grew over 50% to 182,591 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 ). The most recent assessment
conducted in 2010 determined the population to be 202,667. Along with this population increase
and subsequent stormwater runoff, numerous septic tanks, aging wastewater infrastructure, and
other factors potentially impact the water quality within the County's creeks. With this in mind,
it is important to monitor the water quality of these local systems to determine potential impacts
to both human health and ecosystem function.
Typically, water quality degrades as the water temperature increases and oxygen is not as readily
dissolved in the water column. This was observed while investigating the long term trends of
water quality in this study. The dissolved oxygen along with chlorophyll -a and turbidity levels
increased during the warmer summer months. Furthermore, longer days allow for increased
photosynthetic activity allowing for an increase in phytoplankton blooms. While often more
problematic in the summer months, algal blooms are less common in the fall and winter when
water temperature decreases. High levels of chlorophyll -a and nutrients along with increases in
pH and turbidity may indicate the presence of an algal bloom. Throughout the course of this
study, pH values were found to be within acceptable ranges as were turbidity values. The lack of
elevated pH and turbidity along with generally low chlorophyll -a levels indicate that algal
blooms were generally not a problem. In fact, no algal blooms were identified within any
sampling site during the course of this study.
50
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -57
The chemical parameter nitrate /nitrite showed a marked difference between the tidal creeks
located in proximity to the Intracoastal Waterway and the creeks flowing into the Cape Fear
River. The nitrate /nitrite levels were approximately an order of magnitude lower in Pages Creek
and Futch Creek, the two creeks draining into the ICW. When excessive nitrate /nitrite enters
aquatic systems, algal growth otherwise limited by these nutrients becomes rapid and available
oxygen becomes consumed as these organisms die and decompose. While relatively higher
nitrate /nitrite levels have been identified within several watersheds, algal blooms have not been
problematic.
A number of sites contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard during the course
of this 12 -month study. Two sites within Pages Creek, PC -BDDS and PC -BDUS, experienced
low dissolved oxygen during four (4) and five (5) sampling events, respectively. All five sites in
Futch Creek experienced low dissolved oxygen during July. Several of the sites within Futch
Creek also experienced low dissolved oxygen during the months between June and September
when the water temperature was the warmest. Of the creeks draining into the Cape Fear River,
Prince Georges Creek demonstrated the lowest dissolved oxygen most likely due to the physical
setting surrounding the creek. PG -CH and PG -NC demonstrated low dissolved oxygen seven (7)
and six (6) times of the twelve (12) times sampled, respectively. This portion of the creek is
characterized by a broad shallow bank in a swamp -like setting. It is typical of swamps to contain
low levels of dissolved oxygen and higher levels of pH, as observed. Therefore, the low
dissolved oxygen observed in Prince Georges Creek, particularly at PG -NC and PG -CH could be
regarded as a natural phenomenon.
High levels of Enterococci bacteria persisted within five (5) of the seven (7) watersheds
throughout the study period. Samples collected from Futch Creek and Lords Creek, however did
not contain levels of Enterococci above the State standard. Enterococci levels exceeded the
State standard in individual sampling sites within Prince Georges Creek, Smith Creek, Pages
Creek, B arnards Creek, and Motts Creek 33%. 3 5 % 33% 42 %. and 50% of the time,
respectively. The sites with the most frequent high concentrations of Enterococci bacteria were
located within the headwaters of Smith Creek (SC -CD and SCGR). These sites have
consistently contained high levels of Enterococci, however the source of the contamination
remains unclear at this time. Further investigation in this area is warranted.
Along with Enterococci, fecal coliform bacteria were tested within Pages Creek and Futch
Creek. A very high percentage of samples exceeded the single - sample NCDENR Shellfish
Sanitation standard of 14 CFU /100m1 within these creeks. In fact, 40% of all samples collected
within Futch Creek exceeded this standard. Seventy -two percent (72%) of all samples collected
within Pages Creek also exceeded this standard.
Sources of nutrient and fecal bacteria pollutants can include fertilizers, septic system leachate,
leaking sewer mains, wild and domestic animal wastes, and overland runoff (Spivey, 2008). In
order to understand and manage fecal bacteria pollution in any body of water, one must first be
able to identify the source of the pollution (Kelsey et al. 2004). Previous studies have concluded
that increasing the amount of impervious surface coverage increases runoff, stream flow, and the
amount of pollutants reaching surface waters (Griffin et al, 1990; Schueler, 1994, Mallin, 2001).
Mallin et al. (2000) determined a strong correlation between impervious surface coverage and
51
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -58
fecal coliform bacteria levels in New Hanover County. Higher impervious surface coverage was
found to correlate with a higher geometric mean of fecal coliform bacteria within individual
watersheds. New Hanover County has experienced high rates of growth over the past several
decades. Along with population increases, the associated development of buildings, roadways,
and parking lots within the county has created increased areas of impervious surface coverage.
These pollutants include hydrocarbons, bacteria, and nutrients including nitrogen. Major sources
of anthropogenic nitrogen are fertilizer application, wastewater disposal and atmospheric
deposition (Howarth and Marino, 2006). The conversion of natural landscapes to impervious
surfaces removes the natural filtration capacity of the land, thereby facilitating increased
concentration of pollutants migrating directly into waterways. A recent assessment of the
impervious surface coverage within the watersheds of New Hanover County was performed
(Hume, 2008). Impervious surface percentages were determined to be 10.1% in Prince Georges
Creek watershed, 11.0% in Futch Creek watershed, 12.6% in Lords Creek watershed, in 13.5%
Motts Creek watershed, in 16.9% B arnards Creek watershed, 21.9% in Smith Creek watershed,
and 23.3% in Pages Creek watershed.
Another potential source of degraded water quality could originate from failing sewage and
septic systems. A source tracking study found bacteria originating from humans, ruminants, and
canines within six (6) tidal creeks in New Hanover County (Spivey, 2008). In the New Hanover
County Water Quality Monitoring Report 2008 -2009, it was reported that human borne fecal
bacteria was also present within two (2) sites within Pages Creek. The source of this human-
borne bacteria may be indicative of either sewer -line problems, septic system failures, or a
general persistence in the bacteria itself (Spivey, 2008). New Hanover County and the Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) have investigated the presence of abandoned septic tanks
and malfunctioning sewage lift stations in proximity to Pages Creek. These efforts were
inconclusive and high levels of Enterococci bacteria and fecal coliform occasionally persist
within these sites. As mentioned above, high levels of Enterococci bacteria have been identified
within the headwaters of Smith Creek and additional investigation to determine the cause is
recommended.
Failing sewage infrastructure may have contributed to declining water quality within several of
the County's watersheds over recent years. Between June 2010 and May 2011, the CFPUA
reported a total of twenty -two (22) sewage spills within New Hanover County. During this time
period a total of 279,744 gallons were spilled with 272,210 gallons reaching surface waters
(Ricks, pers. comm.). These sewage spills were reported in two (2) of the seven (7) creeks
monitored in this study. One spill occurred in Pages Creek with 7,525 gallons reaching the
surface waters. A relatively large spill of 120,000 gallons flowed into Smith Creek on June 2,
2010. An additional 5,176 gallons was spilled at the same location several weeks later.
Subsequent to those events, an unrelated spill entailing 23,400 gallons entered Smith Creek
following a break in a force main at the James A. Loughlin wastewater treatment plant (Ricks,
pers. comm.). As noted above, several of the sites monitored within Smith Creek exceeded the
State standard for Enterococci on a regular basis, however these sites are located upstream from
the sewer spills. Two (2) of the three (3) sites monitored within Pages Creek exceeded the
standard for both fecal coliform and Enterococci bacteria on a regular basis as well. Although
sampling was not conducted immediately following these spills, it is possible that the bacteria
released into the creeks settled into the sediments where they persisted over time.
52
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -59
Four (4) of the twenty -two (22) spills reported between June 2010 and May 2011 were attributed
by material (including grease, paper, and baby wipes) clogged in sewer lines. Seven (7) spills
were attributed to equipment or pipe failures. The majority of the spills, however, were caused
by severe natural conditions when heavy rains caused the system to overfill. The CFPUA is
engaged in a number of sewer infrastructure improvement projects along the Ogden interceptor
and other locations to help resolve these issues. In order to minimize future spills, the CPFLTA
has initiated a public awareness campaign focused on educating its customers on what materials,
if flushed into a toilet, could be problematic to the wastewater infrastructure.
53
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -60
LITERATURE CITED
Grizzard, T.J., Randall, C.W., Helsel, D.R., and Hartigan, J.P. 1980. Analysis of non -point
pollution export from small catchments. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 52:
780 -790.
Howarth, R.W. and Marino, R. 2006. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in
coastal marine ecosystems: Evolving views over three decades. Limnology and Oceanography,
51: 364 -376.
Hume, A. 2008. Determination of Impervious Surface in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Report submitted to New Hanover County. Wilmington, North Carolina.
Jeng, J.G., Bradford, H, and Englande, A.J. 2004. "Comparison of E. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform as indicators for brackish water quality assessment". Water Environmental Research.
76: 245 -55.
Kelsey, H., Porter, D.E, Scott, G., Neet, M., and White, D. 2004. Using geographic information
systems and regression analysis to evaluate relationships between land use and fecal coliform
bacterial pollution. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 298:197 -209.
Kwak, T.J. and Zedler, J.B. 1997. Food web analysis of southern California coastal wetlands
using multiple stable isotopes. Oecologia 110: 262 -277.
Mallin, M.A.; Williams, K.E.; Esham, C.E.; and Lowe, P.R., 2000. Effect of human
development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications
10:1047 -1056.
Mallin, M.A., Ensign, S.H., McIver, M.R., Shank, G.C., and Fowler, P.K. 2001. Demographic,
landscape, and meteorological factors controlling the microbial pollution of coastal waters.
Hydrobiologia. 460: 185-193.
Mallin, M.A., 2010. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Aquatic Ecologist. Personal
communication regarding findings of water samples obtained within PG -NC.
Odum, W.E., Smith, T.J., Hoover, J.K., and McIvor, C.C. 1984. The Ecology of Tidal
Freshwater Marshes of the United States East Coast: A Community Profile. , U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service FWS /OBS- 83/17, 177 pp.
Ricks, C., 2011. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Personal communication regarding sewage
spills in New Hanover County.
Schueler, T., 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Water Protection Technology. 1: 100-
111.
54
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -61
Spivey, 2008. The use of PCR and T -RFLP as a means of identifying sources of fecal bacteria
pollution in the tidal creeks of New Hanover County, North Carolina. Masters Thesis.
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. 54pp.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates, Census 2000, 1990 Census
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health effects criteria for fresh recreational
waters. EPA-600/1-84-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -
1986. EPA - 440/5/84 -002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
55
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
17 -1 -62
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 18
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Nicole Dreibelbis, Current Planner; and Jane
Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager
CONTACT(S): Nicole Dreibelbis, Current Planner; and Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning
Manager
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z -910, 04/11) — Request by James Yopp on Behalf of Rockford Partners, L.L.C. to
Rezone Approximately 27.23 Acres at 1300 and 1305 Rock Hill Road from R -20 Low - Density
Residential to R -15 Medium - Density Residential
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At their April 7, 2011 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the R -15, Medium -
Density Residential, rezoning request. No one from the public spoke in support of or in opposition of the
request. This item was continued from the May 2, 2011 County Commissioners meeting at the request of the
applicant.
Both parcels are classified as Wetland Resource Protection Area on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification
map.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff supports approval.
ACTION NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A -341 which requires that "Prior to adopting or
rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement describing whether its
action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the
action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest."
EXAMPLE MOTION for approval:
I move to approve this request to amend the zoning map from R -20 Low - Density Residential district to R -15
Medium - Density Residential because the proposal is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policies and Land Classification in the 2006
CAMA Land Use Plan relating to development in resource protection areas. It is also
consistent with the goals and objectives contained within the 1991 Wrightsboro
Neighborhood Plan; and
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to rezone 27.23 acres from R -20 Low - Density
Residential to R -15 Medium - Density Residential in this location adjacent to similarly
approved development.
ATTACHMENTS:
Z -910 CC Staff Summary
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
18 -0
Z -910 Petition Summary
Z -910 Adjacent Property Owners Map
Z -910 Sunset Reach - TRC Approved Perf Res Plan
Z -910 Application Package
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
18 -0
CASE: Z -910
PETITIONER: James Yopp, Agent for Rockford Partners LLC
REQUEST: Rezone from R -20 Low - Density Residential to R -15 Medium - Density Residential
ACREAGE: 27.23 acres
LOCATION: 1300 & 1305 Rock Hill Road
LAND CLASS: Wetland Resource Protection Area
STAFF SUMMARY
PLANNING BOARD ACTION: At its April 7, 2011 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend
approval of the R -15, Medium - Density Residential, rezoning. No one from the public spoke on behalf of
or in opposition of the request.
This item was continued from the County Commissioners May 2, 2011 meeting.
PROPERTY SPECIFICS The properties are located at the terminus of Rock Hill Road. There are two
parcels which are part of this request, 1300 and 1305 Rock Hill Road. 1300 Rock Hill Road is a 1.94 acre
tract, owned by Martha Loughlin and 1305 is a 25.29 acre tract, belonging to Rockford Partners LLC., for
a total of 27.23 acres.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Current Zoning R -20 Residential District is established as a district in which the principle use of land is
for low density residential and recreational purposes. The regulations of this district are intended to
discourage any use which because of its character would substantially interfere with the development of
residences and which would be detrimental to the quiet residential nature of the area.
Proposed Zoning R -15 Residential District is established as a district in which the principle use of land is
for residential purposes and to insure that residential development not having access to public water
and dependent upon septic tanks for sewage disposal will occur at sufficiently low densities to insure
environmental health.
Although the front portion of 1305 Rock Hill Road is located within the Special Highway Overlay District
(S.H.O.D), residential development is exempt from the ordinance requirements outlined in Section 59.6.
The subject properties are currently zoned R -20 low- density residential. However, both parcels are
currently part of the Sunset Reach Performance Residential subdivision, preliminarily approved by TRC
on September 12, 2009 for a total of 52 lots. Zoning immediately south and east is a continuation of the
R -20. However, there is a variety of zoning in the area. Southeast of the site is an R -10 performance
residential subdivision, Walnut Hills, with a density of 3.3 units per acre and a sewer treatment package
plant to accommodate the higher density. North, is a Planned Development, identified as Rose Hill
Landing, with an approved density of 2.5 units per acre. West of the subject properties, across the N.E.
Cape Fear River is an intense 1 -2 Industrial District.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
18 -1 -1
DENSITY R -20 zoning allows up to 1.9 units per acre or a maximum of 52 lots. The approval of this
rezoning to R -15 would increase the performance residential density to 2.5 units per acre and allow for a
total of 68 units, a n increase of 16 units.
ACCESS: Rock Hill Road is a neighborhood collector street maintained by NCDOT. A planned collector
street within Rose Hill Plantation, a planned development district to the north, will stub to this property
and may provide future access through that development to Chair Road.
TRAFFIC: Traffic counts are not typically provided for local roads; however, the WMPO conducted a
study on Rockhill Road in early April and the results illustrate the average weekday trips are 1,520. The
capacity of Rockhill Road is 10,000 average daily trips. Therefore the volume to capacity ratio is 0.152,
which translates to a Level of Service A. In conclusion, Rock Hill Road appears to be operating at optimal
efficiency without congestion during peak travel periods. The ADT on Castle Hayne Road, slightly south
of Chair and Rock Hill Road, between Swartville and Old Mill Road, have decreased from 13,927 (2009)
to 12,261 (2010). The 2007 LOS for the Rockhill /Castle Hayne Road intersection is E, meaning the
roadway is currently operating at capacity and traffic is experiencing delays at intersections. No TIA will
be required for the maximum number of lots allowable.
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Water /Sewer Water is available per Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Septic tanks will be required to
serve the area until such time as public sewer is provided. Dry sewer has been installed. Environmental
Health will evaluate the adequacy of any subdivision proposal to be served by septic tanks.
Fire Protection The property will be served by Wrightsboro fire district.
Schools: School districts are determined by the New Hanover County Board of Education periodically.
LAND CLASS The subject property is located in the northern portion of the county in an area classified
as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The Wetland Resource
Protection Area designation is designed to decrease the intensity of development because of the areas
vulnerability to flooding and /or the need to preserve environmentally sensitive areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The subject property is located within the Little Creek watershed
drainage area which is classified C (Sw).
Approximately 1.4 acres total, between both 1300 and 1305 Rock Hill Road are located within the AE
floodplain. Development within the AE flood zone would be subject to the regulations outlined in the
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
The soil maps indicate a variety of soils located on each parcel. 1300 Rock Hill Road contains Dorovan,
Class IV, unsuitable soils and Kenansville fine sand, Class I, suitable with slight limitations, containing a 0
to 3 percent slope. 1305 Rock Hill Road contains Dorovan, Class IV, unsuitable soils; Kenansville fine
sand, Class I, suitable with slight limitations, containing a 0 to 3 percent slope; and two Class II soils,
Baymeade fine sand (which contain 1 to 6 percent slopes) and Stallings fine sand, with moderate
limitations, modification, and maintenance requirements.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
18 -1 -2
PLANS and POLICIES: In Policy 2.3, the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan specifically encourages development
patterns that preserve natural areas, buffers, and trees by developing types that allow greater design
flexibility. To date Sunset Reach has been sensitive to the natural surroundings and has preserved a
number of significant trees, natural features, and topography of the property.
The Wrightsboro Plan, established November 4, 1991, reemphasizes the need and desire of the
community for growth to take place rationally, with adequate services and appropriate provisions for
protection of the environment and overall quality of life residents are accustomed to.
STAFF POSITION: Staff feels that the request for rezoning of both 1300 and 1305 Rock Hill Road are
consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan, the stated intent of the R -15 zoning district, and the
Wrightsboro Small Area Plan. The impact of the increased density will be consistent with the adjacent
planned development and the land classification. Density will also be restricted by septic suitability until
sewer is available. Therefore, staff recommends approval.
ACTION NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A -341 which requires that "Prior to adopting or
rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement describing whether its
action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the
action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest."
EXAMPLE for approval:
The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R -20 Low - Density
Residential district to R -15 Medium - Density Residential as described is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policies and Land Classification in the 2006 CAMA
Land Use Plan relating to development in resource protection areas. It is also consistent with the
goals and objectives contained within the 1991 Wrightsboro Neighborhood Plan; and
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to rezone 27.23 acres from R -20 Low - Density Residential
to R -15 Medium - Density Residential in this location adjacent to similarly approved
development.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
18 -1 -3
Case Z -910 (04/11)
Rezone 27.23 acres from R -20, low- density residential, to R -15, medium - density residential
Petition Summary Data
Parcel ID R02400- 002 - 010 -000 & R02400- 002 - 025 -000
Owner /Petitioner: James Yopp on behalf of Rockford Partners
Existing Land Use: 1305 Rockhill Rd is vacant, unused land and 1300 Rockhill Rd contains a single family
residence
Zoning History: Area 10A (July 1, 1974)
Land Classification: Wetland Resource Protection Area
Water Type Public
Sewer Type: Septic, dry system
Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Park and Castle Hayne Park
Access & Traffic Volume: Two routes of access: A.)Chair Road (local) to Castle Hayne Road (major arterial) no
counts on Chair Road or Rock Hill Road. B.) Rock Hill Road (local) to Castle Hayne Road (major arterials). The
ADT on Castle Hayne Road, slightly South of Chair Road and Rock Hill Road at the between Swartville Road
and Old Mill Road, have decreased from 13,927 (2009) to 12,261 (2010). The 2007 LOS for the Rockhill /Castle
Hayne Road intersection is E.
Fire District: Wrightsboro Fire District (WVFD)
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Little Creek; C: Sw
Aquifer Recharge Area: Recharge area of Sand -hill aquifer -water table conditions
Conservation /Historic /Archaeological Resources: Front portion of the 1305 Rockhill Road property is located
in the S.H.O.D. and will be subject to the regulations outlined in Section 59.6. No C.O.D. regulations are
applicable, 1300 is entirely pine forest and 1305 is a mixture of pine forest and urban and developed land.
There is an area of AE flood zone, with a static base flood elevation of 8, located in the rear yard of both
1300 and 1305 Rockhill Road.
Soils: 1300 Rockhill Rd contains Dorovan soils and Kenansville fine sand. 1305 Rockhill Rd contains Dorovan,
Kenansville fine sand, Baymeade fine sand and Stallings fine sand.
Septic Suitability: 1300 Rockhill Rd contains Dorovan, Class IV, unsuitable soils and Kenansville, Class I,
suitable with slight limitations fine sand, containing a 0 to 3 percent slope. 1305 Rockhill Rd contains
Dorovan, Class IV, unsuitable soils; Kenansville, Class I, suitable with slight limitations fine sand, containing a
0 to 3 percent slope; and two Class II soils with moderate limitations and moderate modification and
maintenance requirements, Baymeade fine sand (which contain 1 to 6 percent slopes) and Stallings fine sand.
Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary School
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
18-2-1
4-;
(1)
Q 0
>1 0
.j 00
a. >
TOM CL 0
0 (D CL (1)
> W
0 0 M
r- (D N " %- &w+ (D
co Z 0
'E a)
N cL E a
0 < L.
z 0
N N U) LL
NM
z Q �� 0
'00
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-3-1
I
Al-
t3oarct of Commissioners meetin
07/11/2011
18 -4 -1
Petitioner Inforty.taCon Propert Owner MiNir,,_�ct '11rco.,peilkv
Ff d qf ewnt than Petitioner
N 4
,1111141
Jaln,--_�� YO MeMber/ri--i'll-a enr
3EMEMNEW
M-artha Lou Re'v Trust
ONvner Naiiie 2,
'Ad (I res S
Rnckford Flcii:'tne-rs JJ""C
Address
P.O. Box 1-019
001i, s4Atc' zip
Wil tip ,inqLnri, N.C. 28402
910 - 14 3 - 3 0 6 0
1300 Rock Hill Road
C"it State, zip
Castle Na, N.C. 28429
910 675-00-41
Enlail
P-15
U111 Cµ7
ocle f ordpar tn., r s . ne t t1and Resoui,,% )i' o
J a ni r
we
SUBMISSION R 1''EMEATS
E911—RCIM1.1
PLEAS F,','READART1 CLE X1 OFTHE ZONING ORDINANCE PR10,_,R 1`0 S1,_JR1RflSSK0N
pet i t 10 11 S I'll t I s t be rev i e ed b P 1,,fi n n! i n o' & Z o n 1 11 g 156 r co m p I ete 1.1 ess p ri o r t o, accept a ii c e. 0 U [ITC C I I C 0 1, 1 N'A t o n s i_i I t v i t h
1. -ions itivolvin -five ( 5 ) , acres or less a fee of$400.,00 vvill be char -66 1hose ofn-mce
41 I 1-1 1. a )1 11 C r p r i o r to i
s u b iii i,"- sio i - F o r Pct t 1� ,
t h ari 11 vc (5) ac res �a fee ol * $60 0. 0 0 \v 111 h c: c har d. "I" h, 1 s ],-cc, pa , to N e w H an ov c r C 0 Ll 11 tV, M U S'T ac c o ai p (.Ui,�y s
P Ctition"I'"he 1"011owilI SU. iii.foni,iatioti is re
1. 011e cop ot'dic New HLi,,nmer COL111t Tax. Map, wh_ich deH ire ,-:ites the propert re for rezotimi
2. Le descrlptio:i (b mctes and. L)OWids) of propert re -rot, il'ezonlil'
. op
- 1011 1111111) �11) O or
r 1'ecded pkat \,k-hich delirieates -the property.
3 C of the s -L i b ch v 1, S'
4. p p I I c i ii C s ans-Ners to the ciuiestion.s on this application.
5. A u t ho H t fo r a i F po i rit ni e ii, t u f' a n t -fo r i n ( If app I i ca b I c)
6. Verif Y I -C P aSt 1
1, 11011 11,11S (C'0 11s tllt It
"!'h
y , that uio, actloii has tak--en, place oi-i an porfi.,0.1,1� of the P ropert y �'vith ill 1. 11
staafl).
7. Aii s ret ' L.j i rein ents ol"thie ordiiiatice ( For emlmple, Sectioti, 53.5 for Pjal-11.1c"d !D eve' lopi -lie !'it Dis�lricl, Sc'clioil
t".xcc F)csi Zwilri District or Sectioij 59.9 Rlverftoiitt Mixed Use Districf
8. Re t on Corni-MlIn t A t eeflm4
(see sectioll 1) if appl icahle.
REVIEW PROCEDURES
I)etitions for ch., of ino arc llirst re-ferred to the New Hcaiiover Count Manniii Roard taj.id then llctcd iipon hTV?
the New Fla.n,over Comit Certain specializcd districts ( Riverfi-mit Mixed Use, f"'I�-imicdl
1
Development, and Exccptiona] Desic)-n Zonfl.i. District) nia re rcview b Review coll'-1,111ittee 10
It"
to apphultion subj.11ission.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-1
Colllplcl ctifions �.'ind SUppleflIel'It Elf ): Infori-nution rnust be reviews d and Cweeptecl h 131(annin & z0fliti
( 20 ) workin da before thle I'llannino Board nIectin to 911ow adepate t1me lbr processino nd "advertiseni,crit ns re
V7
b flic North Carolinn. Genei-al Stat(o,es.
UnJess other VVISe published or anlIOLHICed, Plannina Board aieeti I n are lie 1 d on the 11i rst Th UNCkl Of C11-C 11, 111.x[11 111 al t
5:30PM in the Comniissioner's Assc-IR.-ibl Room at the Old COL111t COLIIIIIOUSC, ,.i.t TI u, rd. and; Pl,-inccss ��,,)Itreels. W111111111
North Carolin,a.
Iftlie Plc,lnjlinl g Board approves Y our petition, the re will 'cALIWMaticall be re-6c-rrecl to the Ro,,R,rd of'Couinly
CormiIissioners. If y our petition is dcniecl., y ou 111a 'appeal to the Boaed. of Commission.ers. plannin.g i
-Idvs l.
l, y ou
& Zonin ciln
reonxclin appeal proc res
edu. 1`)Ie,)sc note t]i.ere is Li 12 mion
2-th wait re betw bs
een SUe rezol"Illi g re eL is mi, lhc, sainc
Z?
p a rc c I o r an p ca rl ot' it ( i -e fe i,° e n c c S e c t i o i. 1 11 '1 - 3)
The owrier/applicant WICI 0J-' '(AUth.(),HZed [10ellt S11-10LIld plan. to alt iii all nieeti I ngs at which this rc Neil be h,
cL,ir�_L
ZIn U_
WH A T Y 0 U A/1 U S T E S T A 13 1A, S 1-1.
FOR A 011-A.N
,a 0 F ZONING
YOU iJ1tC1I(lC([ USC Of� P rOpel - IN' 0 I'CZ011in is conipletel irrelevant-, except for condikon,,al L[Se district pr opus fls. " • Noah C,,.irohna General Statutes I-e tll�lt Wilin + eulatis, shall be ni.ade in accordance with ta con1prehensive
The g overnin g oar is to adopt statements tliart the chdin is or is not cons steut, P tun(J in (he
puiblic's Interest. Since an'lenchilefils to Zonin niaps ShOUld also be based on a Land USC Mail, Y OLI. HILISt C�X lI0NV Y OUt'
re ire St satisfies each ot'tlic 1`611mviril".). 1'ec ( Fill in below or attach additional paues).
V
1. Flow would the re GkIll be C011SIStent Witli the Count Policies for ('v'rowth ai,W Developruent?
ser. rat tEtchment A
2qi 1 10W WOUld L11C re chan be consisl�en.t with the propert class HI cation oil, tfiv L"IRAnt C-1-sissific-ation
ma p?
see -LttachmenL T
3. Wli:cit si nei chan have OCCU11-1-ed to nial<e the of zonin imappropriale, orho.,,,v istlicki'l-I'd
Involved unsultable ro-1- the tises permitted under flie existin zonin
,S.,ee attachment
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-2
4. I-Jove vii I i t 's chan ol-zon'11I SC.1-VC fl-IC- pUblic interesi.
at-I�,achrnent:. Tl�
1-1-h Si t1fis petiflon" I -unclerstancl that tile existing,zoning,map -1 is presumed to be coa-i-ect :and t1i 4 k
tlr�
burd.cm or p-rovin why a chanue is in dic public 1.1iterest. I further understand tbe sin otit of otke p,dIrcc-A of �,"aud f6r
Speefli to Comit poficies, and the sut-rouildin neighborhood wotflid prohl'ibl be 111cc2al. i
, I Zonin trcattiaol,,�,it, unxel-atc(Ij I t�
certif th'at. this a is cornplete K-Ind. that'all information presented. iti this cappheation 'i's to (he
lil knowled infai-Im.,1"fion, and h-ellef.
Jaiiies Yopp
Si of Pehhotier and/or Propert Owner Pt-111.0 Name
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-3
AT-l-ACHIAENT A,
comin months as well as residents in the g rowin g Castle Ha area.
The followiri,, are sores of the policies contained in the New Hanover Count Land Use Plan that
kvill be proinoted b -the proposed R-15 rezonin and the flexibilit of a Performance Residential
D evr 1 o p nn e- n t.
-Pol r-ncoura development patterns that preserver tt ra areas, buff ers, and trees
b developin, stai,idards for cluster development and other development and other
developmerit -t that allow g reater desi flexibilit
Q I')
Desi and Re Polic 5'2 Encoura innovative developi-nent. strate while
-clin desi that enhan ce the calesthetics and minimi ze adverse
p rovil n g ul
environmental impacts of the built environment.
FACILITLS AND SEI-WICES
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-4
PO R 4. Prot � ct Water q ualit y b ensurin that draina from land use activities has a
rate of flow 'C311nd volume characteristics as near to pred"evelopmetit conditions as possible..
TH IS REZONI N G IS CONSISTENT WITH NEVV HANOVER COUNTY LAND USE PLAN AND POLIG ES
FOR A WE.-L-PLANNED GROWTH.
2) H011V 11VOWd Fhe 1"e zone
chan be consistent with the pert clossificution on the
Lat-jcl Class�ficatloo.Mop? The propert classification the Land Cl� Map is Wetland
Resource PruLectif,,)n. The allowable densit of the R-15 rezonin is consistent wi . th the Land
C I ass i f i t ;i i i M ap. Th e S urest Rea ch d eve]o prent has been se n s itive to 'L h e nature I
u r ro undi in ai -i%-1 i icas preserved a number of si icant trees, na Lura I Teat s a nd topo
0-IF this uni la, idscape.
3") Whotsl, r)ei hove occurred'to make the 0
wilth, the an Ciassification Map and surroundi,n properties.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-5
A
4'
rl
:PROPERTY DESCRIPTION'"
1110,1 fill VA thO aertskot A T h`' uni, I w 11
mere
Comit �tJ o u 7 , e, H . , ,- a::
yyaa
I S) 4 tic AT r,;,o
r r to s s, 1 s �s
and w0s, hiburlha, IT
;,e .or ded ill Ulan Thorc)k
-Pa 243, of It he" TA3,i,-A!
1-11naver
Churt 'P.cf iqr reflownce
W whirsh TIN W, burhv
T Qf! C
ee- c () 1 1 1 1 (y t cc 4 r Is" C - F r
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-6
,New Hanover COLIVA
P,
V
r
L
n -.i i i f o
P
"R L 1,noT
1 I D
Address
U r] it,
Cit
Zip Code
Nei
Class
Land Use Goer
Cryin Uni�ts
AcreF,
Zonin
Le Descrip lip n
Tax Dic.trict
Owncr
Cit
State
Countr
Zip
I
k 1, ")f
0 v
321011.55.6965A00
1300 ROCK HILL RD
CASTLE HAYNE
�1,948ACRES) LOT 2 RECOMBINATION WILLIAM %"X MARTHA
LOUGHLIN
FD
LOUGHLIN MARTHA P REV TRUST
CASTLE, I-IA` I\JE
NC
284129
THE DATA IS FROM 2011
1 of I
[ 1 Sonu-11L'Ir
r�- "I F"rintablic Ver,;inn
Data Cop New Hanover Count [Diisdalmer] [Privac Pok Last Updated, 26 Feb 2011.
Site Desi Cop 1999-2006 Akanda rOU I-LC. All ri reserved.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
18-5-7
'K T
,Nc)Al Hanove,-,r Count
yii
Ih I
tch
Juq')-�" H Info
Ori sed Info
e I of Ij
I of I
Last GIS Data Update: 4-Jan-2010
Data Cop Now Hanover COUI-It (Disdaimer] fPrivac Polic U-3-11't Updatcd: 28 FA) 201.1
Site, Desi Cop 1999�,2006 Akanda t-OUp LLC. All rr g !)L'7 reserved.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
&Idx- I
18-5-8
xj;
Petit'lon,er Iiiformatioll
-) -s
S L 1, it I 10
W1111'.1in
910-798--7 1 (")5 phone
910-708-7(b3
Propert Ownvr(s)
ff fl� fj � re'
tt thaul"elitioner
stfl)jr,A�ct
Rockford Partners LLC
0),v j.1 e r N a in c 2
Ad'dress
ScUlle
Cit State, Zip
s 'ame
s 'uiie
1305 Reck H:i-'.11, road
Parcel �D
R02400-002-
.,,0, - 0 0 0
ik f1 Fcc�
2 -5.'11
E�xiksfll� zoniwx and V.Se
n,
P"'Proposed zoilin 3nd, Ul
UA n I S S i f"i C,
m e, r c) c k f o r d pa r t r�) e 3- s . n. W J-
3anv-� etl".n..d Ke , sourt `rot-(---cti(,-
SUBMISSION B,EQLIREWTNTS
PLEASE READ AR.11CLE X1 OF THT ZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR T0 SUBMISSION
PetitiOIIS 11RIst be reviewed b Pl,,itininia & Zonji:io -fbr con-ipleteness prior to acceptwice. You,,rirc encomrc-lo-ed tO C011SUIA ""'I
a Planiler P rior to subiliission. For PeT111011S involvin -17ive (5) acres or less a fee of $400.,00 will be, 1-ur,�,),,cd-, -ror 01
t1lan filve (5) ac rcs a fee ol'$600. 00 1,'v i I I be cluil-acd . fli 1 s 11e c,, pa I e to New H,---U1,0Ve,r COU Ill M '
L-I SY ac coni� j x-i�il y t S
C7
pefitioi-i. The -followin SUpplenien.t,,P] Information 'is re
.
I Y stc,,d -for.rezonitii
I One cop o,f the New Flar10,Vel- COUnt Tax N/lap.,,which delineates the property re
Le clesci-i ( b y illetes and bOUnds) of propert re for rezonin
I Cop of the subdivision nia oi- i-ecorded plat wehicli delineates the propert
4. Applicant's answers tO t11C ( Oil tills applic" 1011:
54 ALIthOrit foi.- appoiniment of a J:'orm ( if appliuiblcf)
6w Verd' that no zonin action Ncis taken place on any port-Jon ofthe propert with-in �hqc past I "I, r1lonths ( mm':1,11 I I, Nk,,i'tf)
staft)
I D I s t r i c t, S c
7. An special re ot the ordinance ( For exan-1pfie, Section 515 for PlaillItA Dc'� dopil-wil
Exceptional De , ��i Zonin,'o District. or Section 59.0 Rivert-ront Mixed Use District).
eport i coi 1 in,format" l Sec ot-, 111cetin ( see ti on 1� I 1 -2. 1 ) if appl, iuiblc.
8. R Ol ll ill Lill I Y
REVIEW PROCEDURES
4
Pc-�Iitions for ch(ange rel-erred to the New 1-1a,nover Count Plannin Bo,,lrd n.nd then
the New 1-1a.110VU C'(MI'll ROci.rd ofComn-iissioners, Cert�iin specialized districts ( RIverfront Mixed, Usc-,
rnn, -Iittee. FRO nr]'01
Development, and Exuptional Dcsi Zoning IDistrict) m,a re review b the "FechnIcal 4Rc-vic-vV Co
tO @ SUbn-tission.
T,,JEW HANOVER COUNTY
P1 ..,ANN'1NG & INSPECTIONS
,DEPARTMENT
ZONING 111L4 P A.M. AIDAYENT
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-9
("oniplete petitions and su.pplen�ientaj- in,17*6rmaTiO1.1 111LIst be i-eviewed and acce b Plannin N',_, Zonln(: b�vv'TnP,,,,
(20) workin beCoire the Plai'min Board 111cenri to allow ade tate, time for processin Evid .,idvernseaicrif as I'LL
9
h the Noy-th Caixflina Genei'al S'tLAtL1tC:-`,S-
n I e s rs. o t h c t- w i s c, 1? u b 11, s he d cl i " an 110 Ll n c e d, P 1 a i i i -t I n g B oa ad nwet �i n g s at-e h c I d o n, the fi i-Li i T h u, rsd a o Feach 'at
5:30-PNI in the Comi.iiissioner's Asseii'A -fl y RoO111 at thC Old COUnt CourthOU.se, at "I"hird , d Princuss Streets, Wihl-li
Not1h Carolina.
H'the Pla.i.inin 13o,at-d apprON-eS Y OU117 petition, flie j'e will aL110,171afial l be refer i-ed w the Rocm-d
commissiollers. It'vOIJIF j )CtJtJ0t1 IS CjOli l., U. nia C-ippeal to the 13oaid of C0111 III ission l .S. Zonin c,,(m advise y ou
re appeal procedUl-eS. Pleasel note the is a 112-,moi.1111 wait re between SL1bS(_X IrCZ01-lin re oil the san-le
L_
parcel or tan pai-t of' it, (rel"erence Stalon 1. 11-3).
The ov,.ener/applicant (Eflld OT 'ALIthOt-ized a, ShOUld plan to attead, all. nieetinos ,--A which this i-e �vill N lict'ic(A14
WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISI-11
FOR A. CHANGE OF ZONING
Y o L.i. r 1 n te n d C Cl L1 SC 01" J ) i-o p e rt u p o n, t-0. znon g , is co m. p I ele I � I i-iv 1 ev a n t exc e pt -['0 r C (-)� n, d i t i o ti, Al t i s c d I st r i c t 1 .,) ro 1 ) o s a I �. - I ' 'i I P
North Cc,ffolina General StaftitOS re that zonin re shall be made in accordance Nvith,� -), compi-ehellsive j N),hfl1_
The g overnmi g bmaii-d 'IS iv � pt sfirltements, t. at the cb-an is or is not cmisis-teiit, re. .somOole ailcP i r� (hi:
public's inl ere st. Since. an,-ieiidmei to zonilI 11'1,'-I ShOUld also be based on a Land Use VOU 111U St .X ,'iii„ 110XV �-CLII-
re satisfics each ofthe i-e ( Fill in bclow or aftach addjflon,,.,�] pa S
1. F[ONV WOUld f-11C I-eC chan be consistent with the Count Policies 1'0i, Growth anfi Developntiennt".1
sce att;�tchaterat A
2 Flow would the i- e zone chan be consistent with. the pro classi-fication ii the
M a P
P
3, What si nifi a lTe
gcnt neighborhood changes ha OCCU'd to makc the Or zonin: 1 !"0 P im" hov., i's lhc h'ild
i 11vo e fi)AUv-,, use permitted Wider the existin Z011
" i , 11g?
v e cl u ii s �i 1, 1 ta b I - I I,)
sec,, attac.Jawent A
P
a g e' 2. o 1.'3
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-10
A wil] fli's chatio'e, ol'zomiiu s err e the public inteirest)
I+ t low I C� t,
see attachmeTj,� A
W
in zonin rmap is presumed to 1-),e corl-ect Tancl -flurit I have t-he
,1,11 si g nin thi p ti on, u
g s eti I" n(le�.-,stand thal the exist'
hurdt.sn of pi-ovin wh a cbange,is in t1w public intuest. Ifurthei- ttodet-s tan d dije singfin out o le P Mul.ccl
0i
spedal zonin tre,,atm,ent uni-elated to Count policies amid. the surrounditi neighborhooA wot-ZAd probaW be flto 1
cutfl`v that this a1pplication is conu-)Iete and that aid l information presented in tj S
,jj,� appfication is accurate to the best of
In knowled in.foi-mation, and belief.,
Si of Petitioner andlor P"ropert Owner
James Yopp
P r 1 n t Na, rua e
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-11
comin months, as well as residents in the g rowin g Castle Ha area.,
Polic 2.3 Encoura development patterns that preserve natural areas, buffers, and trees
b developin standards f -or cluster development and other development and other
development t that allow g reater desi flexibilit
Desi and, Re Policy Encoura innovative development strate whk
providin flexible clesi g uidelines that enhance the aesthetics and minimize adverse
environmental impacts of the built environment...
t
Poljc 9.3, Exp I o re a Ite rnative fo rms of f i na nd n for the 1 nfrastruct u. re i m p rove m e in
L
needed to have a hi q ualit y level of service and to prevent a decline in the levels of service
provided to Count and Cit residents. Infrastructure needs to be addressed in this effort shall
include transportation,, education, sewer,, water,, recreation, libraries, policies, fire,, storm water
mana schools, and other services, deemed to be appropriate.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-12
LI Wel IMPIEK W11 FIT VI a - IDkI
Polic 10A Protect Water q ualit y b ensurin t, hat draina from land use activities has a
rate of f low a nd, voil u me cha racte ristics as nea r to predeve lopme nt co nd itio ns as polss] b I e.
11 1 RI
3) What si g nificant nei g hborhood chan have occurred to make the original zonint,
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-13
Ncw 1--h-unovu COL1110'�/
i r c! rn i i f
S h
E
L ob - 1:-- re IF n ra
n
P N!,. P
� - ", , , , g " ,, 4 6'
Pi n,
Le Description
(25, 't 4 AC RES) LOT -1 REC 0 M B T 110N WI It L IANA, MAR-THA
LOUGHLIN
Tex 00r
0C I k A
04"VI 's
Aft ID
32101 1.55-8485.000
Addres3
1305 ROCK I!LL RD
Unil,
N C
Cit
CASTLE HAYNE
Zip Code
-
Nei
2003
Clas-,
KIES-Residenfial
Land Use Codc.
95"5.-Unused Land
L.Mri Units
1
Acres
25-29
Zonin
R-20-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
� - ", , , , g " ,, 4 6'
Le Description
(25, 't 4 AC RES) LOT -1 REC 0 M B T 110N WI It L IANA, MAR-THA
LOUGHLIN
Tex 00r
FD
04"VI 's
Owner
ROCKFORD PARTNERS LL.0
C it y
WILMINGTON
State
N C
Countr
Zip
28AOJ
THE DATA IS FROM 2.011
I of I
Rl- tu
F'rintabir Vei Joji
Data Cop New Hanover Cou nt [Disda imer] [Privac Pok Last LI I odated: 28 Feb X 0:1.. 1
'11' 1 All 1 'j,
Site Desi Cop 1999-2006 Akanda Group LLC. All rj reserved.
Board of Commissioners Meetin /0
01'1P1S/Data1ets.aspx ?I dwi1,&w1ndcx
18-5-14
Nc lfi,,1-110vcr (..ount
--- ------------- ............. .. ....... .......
t
c
rnpro
'T I nfo
Tt')
[,;�, 7-411
L
of
kA
11 C)
R
D,ata Cop New no -Pr Count (Disclaimer] [Pr[vac Polic Last Updated: 28 Feb 2011
Site Desi Cop 1999-2006 Akanda Group LL C. All ri reserved,
Board of Commissioners Meetin
9 0 1
—21
18-5-15
Last GIS Data Update: 4-Jan-2010
2006au
FOR REG15TRATION RkG1?TFR OF DEEDS
REDEC CA P
I
MnNo - SMH
NEW VER COUNTY, Nc
2N6 OCT 06 04:33:06 PM
BK:5089 K:2108.21f,2 FEE423 00
NC REV STIPP471006,00.
..........
WARRANTYDEEf
N
III IJI
III ADDRESS-, Rockford Partners, LLC
F;7bn+ All
YK*
PREPARED BY MARSHALL, WILLIAMS & GWORHHAWK -
P. 0i. Drawer 2098, Wilmin NC 2840�2
B 1EF DESCRIPTION- Uot 1. Lou Recombination, - Cape Fear T own,ship
rIj 0(!",0s 00 �11
P111
WARRA-NTY DELD
M21 TPffi55E TH.
The GRANT, OR, for a valuable consideration paid b the GRANTEE, the -receipt ofwhich is
hereb acknowled has and b these presents does g rant, bar sell, and conve unto the
GRANT, EE in fee simple,. all that cerWn real propert located in Cape Fear T, ownship, New Hamver
Count North, Carolina, and more particularl described on EM11BIT A - PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION' attached hereto and "incorporated herein b this reference.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above g ranted and described, propert to vaith aJ1
privile easements, tenements and appurtenances, thereto belon to the GRANTEE in, &I
i
simple.
And the GRANTOR covenants with, the GRANTEE., that the GRANTOR is seized of the
premises in fee simple, has the ti to conve the same in fee simple, that title is, marketable and
ftee and clear ofall encumbrances, and that GRAN, TOR will warrant and defend the title a th-2
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-16
lawf 1 41 claims of all persons, whomsoever, except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. Title to the
pro- berem-above described is subject to the followin exceptiom
Ad valorem. taxes for the y ear 2006 and subse y ears-,
I Utilit easements and street, ri of record;
3. Applicable restrictive covenants of record- and
4. Locat, count state, and federal g overnment laws and re relative:
zonin subdivision, occupanc use, construction, and development of th
subject propert I
IN TESTIMONY V4ffiREOF,, the GRANTOR has hereunto se his hand and seal, the da
and y ear fiTst above "itten.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
I COtJOH V OF 1#W 114490-W-,R
id, dol cm�-,
g
btw Public ofthe Count and', State a%rew
aN
l Martha P. Jou and husband, Wdfim H10 Lau personall appeared before me this
!'da and each acknowled to me that he or she voluntwil si the fore document for the
�purposes stated therein and in the capacit indicated.
- 117
Witness m hand, and official staimp or scal, this -,:) W da of October, Mi
[ NOTARY SEAL]
I
/ Si of Notar Public
500 111!
Printed or T Naine of Notar Public
i i
M Commission Expires,
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-17
STAIE OF; NORTH CAROLRA--
COUNTY O
a, Notar Public of the Count and State aforesaid, do certif
that Martha P. Ia-u Trustee uader a Revocable Tr mt A d*W: Octobcrl,6, 20011,
personall appeared befbre me this da and each acknowled to, me that he or sbe voluntanil
si the fore document for the purposes stated thavin and in the capacit indlicated,
Witness, m hand and official stamp or sea this .5-W , da of October,, 2006.
[ NOTARY SEA14'
L
Si of Notar Public
Printed or T Name of Notar Public
A Commission Expires,
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-18
i
Bein all of that certain parcel of land situated, l and bein in Cape Fear To
New Hanover Count North, Carolin and more particularl described as follow&
W26
All of Lot 1, containin 25.29 acres, more or less, as shown on a map
entitled ecombination, of Previousl Divided Propert for William
R Lou and wife, Mar—tha P. Lo�n, recorded in Map Book
-49, Pa 248, of the New Hawve:r Count R4si reference to
wfuch map is hereb y made for a more complete description.
SUBJECT TO that, catain 30-foot access and Lkalit easement, th4
same bein shown as "30' wcess and, uWit casemenf` on, mid, map
recorded in Map Book 49, Pa 248, of the New Hanover Count
Re the same bein an easement appurtenant to and benefitin
Lot 2 (1.94 acres) as shown on said map.
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-19
77
17
_ � �1 ! rr 4 11 cs � t i,. � 1 S �L ' �t �' ' t c
}, t �.. ' f� !i tj4 \S r } 1 " =., ,;i � �t i6' � �, 1��1
f is
?P T
REBECL"A P". SMITH
R"rEU"1z'"3'TER U`W DEED"'Si, 1`14O0 HAN'U'VE]
"TREET
021116 NORTFI
2 01
Filed For Re
Boo
Document No
NC REAL ESTATE EXCISE
Recorder
10106/2006 04-633:06 PM
"all T I
�E7
Ott{ s
...........
411111,
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
18-5-20
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 19
DEPARTMENT: Commissioners PRESENTER(S): Chairman Barfield
CONTACT(S): Sheila Schult, Clerk to the Board
SUBJECT:
Committee Appointments
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Vacancies exist on the following Boards and Committees:
Cape Fear Museum Advisory Board
New Hanover County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee
New Hanover County Planning Board
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Make appointments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Committee Information Sheets and Applications
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Make appointments.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
The following appointments were made.
Cape Fear Museum Advisory Board:
J. Tucker Stevens was appointed.
New Hanover County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
Julie Brewer and Christopher Ryan Thomas were reappointed.
New Hanover County Planning Board:
Daniel Hilla and Andrew Heath were reappointed.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
CAPE FEAR MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD
2 Vacancies: 3 -Year Terms expiring 0/30/2014
APPLICANTS:
J. Tucker Stevens
Attachments: committee Information Sheets
Applications
ELIGIBLE FOR
REAPPOINTMENT
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -1
CAPE FEAR MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD
Number of Members: 12, which may include one County Commissioner
Term of office: Three years - may not serve more than two consecutive terms and cannot be
reappointed until at least one year after the last term.
Qualifications: Any County resident 18 years of age or older who has a sincere interest and
commitment to the preservation of the history of the Lower Cape Fear region. Members shall be
required to sign a conflict of interest agreement which will be provided in advance of their
appointment.
Compensation: None, but may be reimbursed for approved expenses incurred in performance
of their duties.
Regular Meetings: Third Wednesday of every month at 4:00 p.m. at the Museum, 814 Market
Street. (No meeting in July)
Functions: To develop necessary policies for the efficient and responsive operation of the
Cape Fear Museum; to advise the Museum Director and staff on programs and exhibits; to advise
the County Manager and County Commissioners concerning the operating and capital needs of
the Museum; and to serve on relevant committees. In addition, Board members are expected to
actively promote the Museum's programs, and to assist and participate in its programs, including
efforts to solicit outside funding for the Museum. (Changed from board of trustees to an advisory
board effective 8/4/2003 (Book 29 page 694).
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-2
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Stuart Borrett
First 6/21/10
6/30/2013
1806 Ann Street
Wilmington, NC 28403
795 -7502 (C) 692 -2411 (W)
R. Jack Bragg
First 6/22/09
6/30/2012
3316 Amber Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
791 -1171 (H) 200 -5117 (C)
Linda Fallon Chapman
Unexpired 11/21/05
6/30/2008
131 Cannon Road
First 6/16/08
6/30/2011
Wilmington, NC 28411
Second 6/20/11
6/30/2014
686 -5625 (H)
Elizabeth (Beth) F. Dawson
Unexpired 6/22/09
6/30/2010
422 Forest Hills Drive
First 6/21/10
6/30/2013
Wilmington, NC 28403
762 -0766 (H)
Mechelle Sheree' Gay
First 6/20/11
6/30/2014
415 Walnut Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
(336) 455 -4263 (C)
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-2
CAPE FEAR MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD (CONT.)
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Dr. John H. Haley, Vice- Chairman
Unexpired 1/24105
6/30/2006
8703 Decoy Lane
First 6119/06
6/30/2009
Wilmington, NC 28411
Second 6/22/09
6/30/2012
686 -6555 (H)
Jack H. Mills
Unexpired 7124/06
6/30/2008
1004 Bay Head Circle
First 6116108
6/30/2011
Wilmington, NC 28405
Second 6120111
6130/14
256 -8213 (H) 617 -6932 (C)
Sandra J. Sheridan, Secretary
Unexpired 7120109
6/30/2010
4600 Bentley Drive
First 6121110
6/30/2013
Wilmington, NC 28409
799 -5541 (H)
Allen N. Trask, III
First 6/21 /10
6/30/2013
2814 Hydrangea Place
Wilmington, NC 28403
470 -8631 (H) 794 -4804 (W)
Museum Associates, Inc. President:
Tom Cunningham
County Commissioner: Ted Davis, Jr.
Appointed 12/20/2010
798 -7149 (NHC) 763 -6249 (W)
Director: Ruth Haas
File: /Museum
Cape Fear Museum
B/C #21- 6.11
814 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
798 -4350 Fax 798 -4352
Revised: 612'1111
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -3
06/10/2011 11:25 8664625101 EDWARD JONES PAGE 02
NEwHianrovER couNTv
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
230 Goverrvrearft Center Diva, 5ufte 175
w,�m�,,, me 294 02 COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Telephone (910) 798.7149
fAX (9 10) 798.7145
jwar ( 4 62 - -5.01 cell, (010 ) G15 -114 den 79 -21
I
fijoB ljftq: Cape Fear bftseum Advisory Boar
Name: J. Tucker Stevens E -Mafl; tucker. stevana @edward jams . fal
!Home
Address: 3117 w1 r..kford Dr . wilmingtoa r Rc 2840
Mafling Address if dllfemn i
(City) (Zo Code)
Moil m �I r ►a; ( 010) 791-6291
Years living In I
Now Hanover County; 1 9 M V Female: Race: C aucasian Ag 43
hfwmetion for the
purpoaa of ae,earrrrg a omsd-eeotbn of the cammungy)
Do yw have a family member employed by New Hanover County? if yes, name Nancy stwmra
Fmp Edward Janes l nve s tmeuts
Pwam CWW* d by 4Ae1 Y 09ps tmat for which M spy kown is mrnd ►mss n NaA,sr
� on m Now Hanau+sr Cain upon Oni* In
amrdanae wkh Arm lid 8w. 4 of the New Hemver County Pbraoanel PoffcY_ Fu r#herrnar�a, a�v�o�lloa�t shourd havo na rrrtm9d t t� member bar au h apenc�r or
depart�rron�
I
occupation: Financial Mviaor
Prafssal Acthrl# oar. KnI 1 y Tree PlI ewtentary School Stock Club t
V01uha@1r AcWVities: NilmiacJton South Rotary, Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church Youth leader
!Why do you wish to servo on this bcarWearnrnittee? To f urther the eomm=i ty out reacax of the tm sum
I
and foster awareness throughout the reglon of museum content /programs .
C*nNa of hit . p a bow me baffom h&Ww has a conft or powWar contllct otwmm m a perdcuw ism, that member should awte this b owla the oDW
membem of hlOw m*w** based duff as public msednv. The member should state the mature at the cwftt dotWing ttt holW has a separaa, P&SM, it tnavfetaary
l ros�t, allh�r d!►rorf or 1�adL�c�, !n Rio 1 ua urad�r aonirldaralla�. 7ft mam"r ohou1d than &wvVe hlm2a1f1 w nahf *um uoung on the mafr. '
Wh areas of concem world you like to see addressed by this com mittee? Znhanewmnt o f p ubl i c a are ft-
Aass.
Qu2ifflcalf"ons for aerujng: RA History UM - CH ' 8 9
Other municipal or county boardaVccmmit0mm on which you are Ong: none at this
List 9hree local personal refemnces and phone numbers:
1. Parke Griff3,n - (910) 232 -2885
2 Dr Cb Kays - (91 793 -NO
3. Dr. Z111a Tinsley - (910) 517 -1754
Date: 06/10/2011
Appilootlons are kept on rile for 18 months
Phan use raffia �Wde for sddi6orr -t eomrnanfa
I
f rnti+ w 1 r I
C 9
,
JU
airier t1ikM 1K'Q rn
Slanaftir '
! unde,rvtand that hotrO or cmmnIt#ee ap to may be remand
brut cog" by ei6rYty ofurr�y Oo►rrnf►ssl'one�rs.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -4
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Membership : 14 maximum, 9 mandated based on the number of facilities
Current Members: 8
Vacancies: May appoint up to 0
Terms: 3 years thereafter 7/31/2014
ELIGIBLE FOR
APPLICANTS: REAPPOINTMENT
Julie Brewer X
Christopher Ryan Thomas X
ADMINISTRATORS' NOMINEES
None
Attachments: committee Information Sheets
Applications
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
le
Number of Members: 9 State mandated; may appoint up to 14 based on the number of nursing
homes. The Nursing Home Administrators may nominate one -third of the members.
Term of office: 1 -year term initially; 3 -year term thereafter
Brief on the functions: Each member shall be aware of the general conditions under which the
persons are residing in the homes, and shall work for the best interests of the persons in the homes.
This may include assisting persons who have grievances with the home and facilitating the resolution
of grievances at the local level. Each member shall make quarterly Visits to the nursing home it
serves and more often if it is necessary to carry out the duties. Statute or cause creating Board:
N.C. General Statutes 131 E -1 28
Qualifications: Must be a resident of New Hanover County. No person or immediate family
member of a person with a financial interest in a home served by the committee, or employee or
governing board member of a home served by the committee, or immediate family member of a
resident in a home served by the New Hanover County Nursing Home Community Advisory
Committee may be a member of this committee. Immediate family is defined as mother, father,
sister, brother, child, grandmother, and grandfather, as well as in -laws. See Volunteer Job
Description for more information.
Regular Meeting: Quarterly Meetings are held on the second Tuesday of January, April, July, and
October at 4:00 p.m. at the Cape Fear Council of Governments, 1480 Harbour Drive, Wilmington, NC.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -6
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
John E. Brett, Chairman
Initial 6/20/05
6/30/06
325 S. Third Street
First 6/19/06
6/30/09
Wilmington, NC 28401
Second 6/22/09
6/30/12
762 -7295 (H) 815 -3497 (W)
Julie Brewer
Initial 6/18/07
6/30/08
3107 Durbin Court
First 6/16/08
6/30/11
Wilmington, NC 28409
799 -4325 (H)
Glenn I. Burdick
Initial 12/20/10
12/31/11
316 Raye Drive
Wilmington, NC 28412
313 -1109 (H) 431 -3168 (C)
John M. Coble
Initial 3/16/09
3/31/10
5003 Villa Place W.
First 3/15/10
3/31/13
Wilmington, NC 28409
796 -6627 (H) 619 -2829 (C)
Sharon R. D . Brea �
Initial 2/16/09
2/28/10
5210 P n Point Road
First 2/15/10
2/28/13
Wil gton, NC 28409
-9864 (H) 763 -6257 (W)
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -6
NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CONY.)
Revised: 1 2/22/2010
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-7
TERM of OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Kristi Dews Dale
Initial 2/18/08
2128/09
1312 Legacy Lane
First 2/16/09
2128/12
Wilmington, NC 28411
681 -0365 (H) 540 -0706 (C)
Catherine Davis
First 9122108
9130/11
5613 Greenville Loop Road
Wilmington, NC 28409
395 -5512 (H)
Dorothy L. Grime
Initial 12/15/03
12/31/07
5583 Wood Duck Circle
First 1/24/05
1/31/08
Wilmington, NC 28409
Second 1/22/08
1131111
350 -0672 (H)
Tamara Parker
Initial 12/20/10
12/31/11
32 Elisha Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
409 -2881 (H)
Denise L. Shuart
Initial 8113107
8131/08
111 Florida Avenue, #16
First 8/18/08
8/31/11
Carolina Beach, NC 28428
617 -7005 (Cell)
Christopher Ryan Thomas
Initial 4/19110
4130/11
713 orchard Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
264 -1237 (C) 800- 343 -3401 (W)
Members Nominated by Nursing Home
Administrators: None
Re ion C Lona Term Care ombudsman
File: /Nursing, B/C #22- 12.10
Audrey Marshall
Cape Fear council of Governments
1480 Harbour Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
395 -4553
Revised: 1 2/22/2010
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-7
NEW HA No VER CO UNTY
BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175
Wilmington NC 28403 COMMITTEE A
Telephone (910) 798 -7149
FAX (910) 798 -7145
BoardlCommittee:
br
v
Name: I P Crewe r E -Mail:
Home
Address:
(Street)
Mailing Address if different:
(City)
C o oNTY.
�
'A'-f
(Zip Code)
(City)
Home Phone: r W - y32s Fax:
cen: 231- 3y5�
Years living in
New Hanover Coun . 3 1 �r5. Male: Female: l� Race: W
tY'
(information for the purpose of assuring a cross - section of the community)
Age: qy
Do you have a family member employed by New Hanover County? if yes, name NO
` :PreScJr-)cc>
Employer. r �
A person currently employed by the agency or department for which this application is made, must resign hislher position with New Hanover County upon appointment, in
accordance with Article Vi, Sec. 4 of the New Hanover County Personnel Policy. Furthermore, applicant should have no immediate family member employed by such agency or
department.
Occupation: +t�ack
Professional Activities: 1
Volunteer Activities:
tk
Why do Y ou wish to serve on this boardlcommittee? kA& c rer -.'e r c 6 i
i �\ur�1 0 1ome� .
Conflict of Interest if ooboa member believes helshe has a conflict or potential conflict of interest on a particular issue, that member should state this belief to the other
members of his/her respective board during a public meeting. The member should state the nature of the conflict, detailing that he/she has a separate, private, or monetary
interest, either direct or indirect, in the issue under consideration. The member should then excuse himselflherself from voting on the matter.
' this co mmittee? Q j + a r �
What areas of concern would you like to see addressed by t s co
:Cann 5 a ncl qeffln M6 1 n Ave w !"fin o C
Qualifications for serving: i YI U r5 i cl LQ,VL t>e�
_Kn '5
mi ees on which you are serving: M i C3
Other municipal or county boardslcom tt : y g
L I M ) b r V
List three local personal references and phone numbers:
b c� - �3� 3 -
2. Caro l Ht5 c K a33- i t a (
-7 NEW NA�J(1` CO
3. �a1�1� - 7 Qq" �� /� BD OF COMMISSIONERS
T
Date: Ce- 3- Signature
Applications are kept on rile for 18 months i understand that rd or committee appointee may be removed
without c use by a ' rity of County Commissioners.
Please use reverse side for additional commWv of Commissioners 1V�eetmg
07/11/2011
19 -1 -8
(Zip Code)
Business:
MAR -16 -2010 13:36 Fr om: AAROW F INPWIAL 9107638022 To : 910 798 7145 P.1/1
Ncw Hanover C:vatr .210 reverameor reeler otirt
Bwrd of Cool dWovers COMMMM APPLICATION sol 17b NC Jr4uJ
Y� d� (9 s 4) 7*0 7 1 4 1 0
�■�- 44101
Boo+W vatmi rr: Now Wm o"r C* m w y Nursing Ho Camun i ty Advi C�ai t tee
Naar: Cdristapher Ryan Thomas _
Hone
Address: 7 13 orahard Av Wilmin 20403
tSirc'�ll Icky) (Z Code)
Mailing Addrau If differetit: .
Home Pfww. Fax: 910- 763 -8022 ceff. 510 --264 -1237 Bu S11�!"•C.S. 4a0 -343 - 3101 . .
Y ears Lhiog in
NCW Haamr ('enmity: Ma Lois: ' .. Female: ha re: slam ._ Age,,, 30
ies(erastiem for 4h* ■rrp*" o r mweriat a e ru•a weAlaR R tkr to minv ■ky)
Employe r: Tast Coast Financial Group /Aarow Finaacial Group _.
iA pres*a torrrwliy cmp soya 4 by the as e■ry •r dopsrso@*i Ire wbkh AIs ■prI!tv1lwa Is Maur, on psi re soon kilobw polio is■ with N #w 11 Dow va # wooly
ep ee erpelateeeat. In ■ec w 10 M tic V SiS dua • at t *r MeW (A W*rtr i MMY i'"trt h4cr.
00 A ham: Self oaplayed - Independent =noarance and Financial Bale* and service
Prvtes iorral Aetiritits: ting with Prospective yr and ourren t Cl ien is r Odd oa o their needs
Volmocer AetWMan: Span Translation rowk wj th Centre La
Why do you wish to serve as this baetrdicommittee? 14Y Grandfather was io a Nursing Hose wa tb
Alzheimer $ a DLsea■e , al so to add value for spy aliant' a through u odteation of syatee
Ceellit M �hraw r 1 "fff MI &ft bel►ews 49 She n#$ / 60AN61 w swlremw vanwasr vi ftwimt as a panimier mow. oat ar i o ler snow gjaie tort awwf to oa maw T
mew of hog as bet frtpodned boa 140 "J"Fing M aYbft M ee ft no aeons/ show A(am the ftlote w (no VenNlaa OWAWAV 1*00 04/09 Ms o a ■Jpehtf, onve" or 0onflary
Ift"MAL ***or gloom or Inama ttl at jS440 va4w %*"Wdrielioo rho mnOar aftsom Olen #AC &@ #tren all ! Artwo Rom ra an too moo
What area of concern would yna ilk* to see addressed by this *...iliac' Clean, o f patfents and
faciliti physical han dling a nd aoV n of patien N1th soni ds■ren
Qualifications for serviwg: pC long -Ter* Case insurance Licen I recomaend and service products
r
that comer long case in th se nursing faeilitias n T
Other municipal nr county boardottmoltsfts on wbieh y4on are nen►iar.
MAR 1 8 ZU1
L ist tl tw local p erwael ref orwees and Vbcao nuoubers: NEVI H Ali OVE R CO
�� of cn��!��ss��r�F��
Deacon O :lareao per: - St. Mark's Catholic Church �� �� 7
2. aary Ga&-dner - Area Mnager for Awxioen General Life, 1 !ns _ t represent (620
3, falmla mitt - mighbror and Fmiiy irriend for let yre 1297 -0737)
Datr Nixah Ile, 201 S store:
Applimobw■ are k"to an 1W fir 1 A Ai Atilt Ut* "V#rs! A" for s /iitue;l trw M" if
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-9
This page intentionally left blank.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -10
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
PLANNING BOARD
2 VACANCIES
3 -YEAR TERMS -EXPIRING 7/31/2014
APPLICANTS:
ELIGIBLE FOR
REAPPOINTMENT
James D. A. ` =Jim" Felds
C. Andrew (Andy) Heath, Jr. X
Daniel Hilla X
Mark T. Imperial
Lisa Mesler
R. Frank Smith, Jr.
David F. Weaver
Attachments: Committee Information Sheets
Applications
A
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -11
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Number of Members: 7
Term of office: Three years
Compensation: $20.00 per meeting
Regular Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the
New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC.
Statute or cause creating Board: N. C. General Statutes 153A -321. New Hanover County
Ordinance and Resolution establishing Planning Board dated September 2, 1980, for the purpose
of planning and making recommendations in order that the elected and appointed officials of the
County may competently perform their duties.
Brief on the functions: Make studies of the County and surrounding areas; determine
objectives to be sought in the development of the study area; prepare and adopt plans for
achieving these objectives; develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative
procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a coordinated and efficient manner; advise
the Board of Commissioners concerning the use and amendment of means of carrying out plans;
exercise any functions in the administration and enforcement of various means for carrying out
plans that the Board of Commissioners may direct; perform any other related duties that the
Board of Commissioners may direct. Much of the Board's time is consumed with Land Use
Planning, Zoning, and Growth Management Issues.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -12
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Troy Barboza
Unexpired 7/12/10
7/31/12
6118 Chilcot Lane
Wilmington, NC 28409
796 -0672 (H) 262 -0321 (W)
Richard M. Collier, Chairman
Unexpired 5/21/07
7/31/09
3708 Needle Sound Way
First 7/20/09
7/31/12
Wilmington, NC 28409 -2829
790 -5769 (H) 520 -7754 (W)
C. Andrew (Andy) Heath, Jr., Vice - Chairman
First 7/21/08
7/31/11
3513 Aster Court 40
Wilmington, NC 28409
790 -4580 (H) 799 -8181 (W)
Daniel Hilla
Unexpired 10/18/10
7/31/11
311 -8A Judges Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
686 -4464 (H) 443 -4454 (W)
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -12
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD (CONY.)
Revised 11/17/2010
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -13
TERM OF OFFICE
CURRENT MEMBERS
APPOINTMENT
EXPIRATION
Melissa Gott Johnson
First 7/24/06
7/31/09
602 Chestnut Street
Second 7/20/09
7/31/12
Wilmington, NC 28401
547 -8050 (H) 251 -6088 (W)
Tamara Carter Murphy
First 7/12/10
7/31/13
5105 Exton Park Loop
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
623 -4011 (H) 251 -4048 (W)
Anthony Prinz
Unexpired 11/15/10
7/31/13
2116 Klein Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
750 -2418 (C)
Director: Chris O'Keefe
File: /Planning
Planning &Inspections Department
B/C #24- 11.10
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 150
Wilmington, NC 28403
798 -7165
Revised 11/17/2010
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -13
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ����,
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - � `
230 Govemnwt Center Drive, Suite 175 t �
:: wftingtM W 28403 COMM1TT APPLICATION �.
-FAX (010) 79&71
Board1commime Plannin Board
Name: Jaime b. A, "Jim" Velds SMa Jim@ Focus takCapital i6on.
i iww -
Home
--AddM,W. 5309 Clear Run Drive, Wilmin NC 28403
(Gty) (Zo co")
Aleffln A ddmss if V
.(CAY) (Zo. C�X*
Honve Phone: WOO 206-888-6806 910-352-7119
Fa Wk. Business: 796 -1955
1
Y"rS fl in
New Hanover Cbujjt 19 caucasian so
Mole: 40' Female:' Race: A
( Informehon for the purpose of assurin a m iss-sectnn of the communl
Do y ou have a famil member_Umplo b Now Hanover Count if y � Dame .210
Employer: Focus tar Capital Group, LLC
A person curnvW em b Me a for - thi is made, must rest hi~ po"m with Now Hancww Gmmf upon appdir t11014 in
WON_. Co
Y_dM ArOde W, Sec 4 of the Now Hanover Count PemowW Pbk Furffamxve, s should twos no immedate fanft member enwbyed b such a or
occup"on: Executive structure debt/e for aoemer industr
Profe&Wonal A awtiar Member Bankin Committee, BrunswIck Count EDC
VoluntmW AcOvidexPast President, B1nai I srael Con
My do y ou wh* to same on this boarWcon:Mftft9? The plans adopted b the Board will have - & hu
old
'impact on the g ro'wth,and sus tai nabilit of our -unit and future citizenr
Co~-ofEst: 9,9 KWrd� m ember Weves h&'Ww has's con poftMel c of Anoffist on a perftWer issue, that member Whould sNft OWs befef to the O&W
herro" CW N~ b=yddw1h
We either dmd or in4rec in No issue under cotaWwagw.
The mwrgmpr shwd then excuse M? from vokin on ff*mM*
MW arms of concern would y ou like to se addressed b this cor" Sustainabilit of the beaches.
waterwa , of P arke r oe fac.111 ties , solid waste m , lrifrastructure and CPPUA!
QualffiCadonS for qWWng: Experience in re oommercial/industrial/ finance and
air/water flltta lifelon �entrepreneur . Solid communication skills/ne
Omer municipal or count he&r#A1coninsJFf!1wes-'*n Which. y ou are servin none
r r q V Fp Fn
List three local personal references and phone numb
Joel Tomase-11i (910) 367a-1590
�Iwj="Iom
JUN 2 2 2011
2. ion Vincent ( 910 ) 256-6507
3. Walt Conlo (910) 262-6507
Date: W si g nature
Applicationt we k on fftfor 18 months i undw,8011d
without tau" by
F%A" u reverse side for a4dQdltional commenft
Board of Commissioners Meetin
07/11/2011
19-1-14
BD OF C ,� ? FmiWONFRS
or cot"miffsO " " ma be removed
Of County Commhownem.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS = -�
230 Government Center DrAm Su4e 175 '
Wi lrtgt+vn, N C 28 403
COMMITTEE A ' r
Telephone (910) 798 -7149 f
FAX (910) 798 -7145
C;
Board/cofnrl' &ee: New Hanover County Planning Board
Name C. Andre Heath, Jr. (Andy E- 1111411: sheath @ mulkeyi nc . con
— - — — N uriuinrnn
Home
Address: 3513 ,Aster Court - Wilmington, N.C. 28409
Mailing Address if IRMO Ur+ent:
Horne Phone: (910) 790 - 4 58 0 Fax:
(CRY) - -
(Zip code)
cell: �910) 368 -9610 BustneSS: 858 -1944
Years living in
New Hanover Coun 5 Male: V( Female: Racer white
tY'
(information for the purpose of assuring a cross- section of the communly)
Do you have a family member employed by New Hanover county? if yes, name No
Age: 48
Employer. 1+lulkey Engineers and Consultants
A person currently employed by the agency or department for which this appkcakw is made, must resign h &ftr position with New Hanover county upon appoin#ment, in
accoidynce with Arfrde Yl, Sec. 4 of the New Hanover county Personnel Policy. Furdwrnore applicant should have no imme ate family member employed by such agency or
deparhmnt.
occupation: Program Manager - Professional Land Surveyor
professional Activities: LEER Accredited Professional, NCSS ,
Volunteer Acdvities: Youth volunteer - Northwest Christian Church
My do you wish to serve on this boardlcomrr W ee? To protect our environment and conserve our
resources while providing for smart /planned growth that improves our quality of life.
CAmdict a ingest if a board member believes heFahe has a conflict or potential conflict of interest on a particular issue, that member should state this beef to the ofher
nXW*M of NOW I board during a pubic r mm*ng. The member should state the nature of the caorefia detailing that haWw has a separafe, priv or monetary
interest, either c1rect or indr+eO in the issue under cowderabon. The member should then excuse himseltIherself from voting on the matter.
What areas of concern would you like to see addressed by this Committee? Transportation Infrastructure
Interconnectivity, Beautification and Parks improvements.
Qualfcations for serving: Current Member soaking re-appointment. over 20 years experience with
planning /zoning and Land Use matters, transportation planning and environmental concerns.
ocher municipal or county boardslcommittess on which you are serving:
List three local personal references and phone numbers: U 1, JU — % 20
�. Jay Biba - (910) 791 -4429
J.K Hall - (910) 395 --5322 NEW ���',i` OVF N
I� F
John Croon - (
(W Date: 7/7/2011 Signature 2r /) I . )
AppNcadons are kept on rile for IS months I understand that any board or committee
without cause by a majority of County Co
Please use reverse sW for a ddi oral CO fnIT' of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -15
miry be removed
06/20/2011 13:44 FAX 9107998223 HILLA BUILDERS Q002/002
IVE11Y MMVER COLT W
BOARD of C: J�1�SS�DIVERS ;��
234 Cb'*f Dine, &00 175 ' i
NC 2603
COMM EE APPUCATION
TehOww (910) 794-7149
x
FAX(910) 7W7145 .; ► tti ; , �,�
1n e: Pl*nning Board
Name: Daniel Hi l la ����. danki l l al aol . vom
I�"IOIDe
A jgg�; 622 Timberlake Ln, wila�ington, NC 28411
A�Iallang AddrM ff drff 311 --SA so Rd. , Wilmington r SIC 28405
MY) (4 Code)
Home Ph one: 910
FeW' 910- 799 -6223 1. 910 --443 -4454 B
Years lhdng In
New ftnover Coanty: l Made: � :_ R ; Whi to
(l for the purpose of nsay*v a of th aommu nty)
Do you have a fsrnlly n by Now FMnowr County M yrs, name pO°
EjnpkW. Billet Builders , Inc , self - wplcged
A Perms Y Ww
wM Anft* VI, Spec. 4 cWN m New 1' amwer C+aur�r Aerarx� W Pb�Nay app�rlt ahowhowr no kmmdala AWW jow9w srr�,�l�o�r�ed by aw* 4 rcy or
OCCtl on: Home Bui ldar/ Rival as tats Developdant
Pro onai AcMdam: gas t mss 1gC / Pa►a t SOD SAM /80D Wilmington Interfaith Hosp Network
Volunh ActMem, 9t . Marks Churtxb /Coastal Carolina Clippers Ice Hockey
Why do pu *** to awn on thla ��� To use my expsrisaea �d j t to se rve the
public and act as an advisor to the C missi in their Vision for the county future
CM00 olbs■e Aga board n�en r bahe`►ee hs�►�e ha a eat cf arp ear cE of bmr an a p� Ilwt n�err�bpr sly afar b f lv !1N ofha�r
nor�l 4vP of tiWw mVa&m bard d ft o pubfc ' i as od i TIN m&r*ar sftW awe the naWm of � aeraft io aet r N fm a aapw ift prtvai% or mo►bry
kfer@A Oft' Mod orl►rdrt In Nt wrdrr 77* rrta ftwalwW hm am" hh,waft Thom ";g an ft nE ft
Mat are= of concem r VUM you lyre to Me ad&uued by gob cOI — Irr tt+ee7 ids • other than treating
rie fairly and assuring that everyone follows the same rules
25 yrs. building and developi all levels of ho using
Quo�tla�s for sa wing: g
Other or qty conmNew on wbk* you are serving: one
UN three A=W pw=vW reftmces an pho ne nu :
1. Monte Coughlin 910- 233 --0544
2. Ray u lt 910- 233 -2229
3. Dr. Ken White 910 -232 -8368
Daft
App e s are kept an fib for 18 mode
PAsse we rsvom skb far 1 corsn�vnhs
F P V
_�►
JUN 2 D 20 Imo`
I
BD. Of OOMMISSIONFRS
jrat�rre
d!5�6
1 sn dwaMW tlwt A or commAn awah 1 may be rremowd
wWK d cause Oy a nNom qr of Coanly C arir.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -16
Age: L
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175 s
Wilmington, NC 28403
COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Telephone (910) 798 -7149 .�
FAX (910) 798 -7145 ,3'sd1► +i''�*
Bo New Hanover County Planning Board
Name Mark T. Imperial E - Mail: i.mperia3m@uncw.edu
Home
Address 4943 Dewars Circle Wilmington 28409
( St reet) (Zip Code
Mailing Address if different:
(City) (Zip Code)
Home Phone: 910- 313 - 2 5 88 Fax: Cell: 9 1 0 - 431 -2496 Business: 952 - 7928
Years living in
New Hanover County: 1 Male: v" Female: Race: Whi
(Information for the purpose of assuring a cross - section of the community)
Age: 4 3
Do you have a family member employed by New Hanover County? If yes, name Cathe rine Imperial
Employer: NHC Schools
A person currently employed by the agency or department for which this applicaflon is made, must resign his/her position with New Hanover County upon appointment, in
accordance with Article Vi, Sec. 4 of the New Hanover County Personnel Policy. Furthermore, applicant should have no immediate family member employed by such agency or
department.
Occupadon: Pr UNCW
Professional Activities MPA P rogram Director, Professor, Land use/coast planning consultant
Volunteer Activities Board Member, Lower Cape Fear SDC , First Baptist Church, Codington Elem .
Why do you wish to serve on this boardlcommitt I have more than 20 years of experience with
land use and environmental policy in coastal communities. My expertise can benefit the Bd
Conflict of Interest ff a board member believes helshe has a conflict or potential conflict of interest on a particular issue, that member should state this belief to the other
members of hislher respective board during a public meeting. The member should state the nature of the conflict, detailing that helshe has a separate, private, or monetary
interest, either direct or indirect, in the issue under consideration. The member should then excuse himselflherself from voting on the matter.
What areas of concern would you like to see addressed by this committee? Balancing the need for econ .
development while protec the envi r o nm e nt and enhancing our quality of life in NHC
Qualifications for serving policy analyst with RI's coastal management agency, land use and
envt planning in NC (Developed 3 LAMA plans, and harbor plan). Ph.D in Public Admin.
Other municipal or county boardslcommittees on which you are serving N one
List three local personal references and phone numbers: JU I JUN 2 1 2p11
1 Shawn Rawlston, Senior Environmental Planner, NHC 798 -7444 ` FIFW
Z.
Earl Sheridan, Chair, Dept. of Public & International Affairs COMM
3. Tom Barth, In terim Dean, Publ Service & Continuing Studies, UNCW - 465 -0239
pigitally signed by Mark T. Imperial
cn � �1A, ark T lmperFal, imp of North Carolina
Wilmington, vu email =im r�al m@uncw.edu. {=U5
Mar T • Impe
Wil
Date.
Ju 21, 2 Signature pate: 2 0 1 1 06 -21 1 1 8.36 -04'00'
Applications are kept on file for 18 months / understand that any board or committee appointee may be removed
Board of CommisWJ#fflKt RM npy a majority of County Commissioners.
Please use reverse side for additional comments 07/11/2011
19 -1 -17
JUN. 24.2011 l ;1bPM N0.0492 P. 1/1
nrE-'w HaNOVER couNnY
BOARD OF COINMISS1aNERS
230 Gavemment CeMW Onire, Sv1Ce 175
+�. NC 2e403 COMMITTEE APPUCATION
T91Aphorro (040) 798 -7149
FAX (910) 799.7146
ftardlMlrlli'!1'i'f a Planning Board
NaMe:
Lisa Tesler 1isa, meslere wells fargo. coax
Home
Addr+esa. 4025 Cas tlebora C ourt Wil KC 28411
M ailing Addre if different: IN/A
fc (7jo dv�
Home Ph one: 910 - 2171 Fax: 666 -26a -3431 C911: 914 - 297 -2171 �u�1Res�: 793 --3903
Yea rs living in
Now HanoVer Corn . � Dale: Female: � Racv; caucas ian �qe: 33
(InAwm m for the prpa$e of asswYnq a cress - sed ion of the oommu
Dc you have a family member employed by New Hanover County? if yes, name NO
Employer': Well Fargo HomW mortgage
A won coil 0 by the 89MY or dsp�r+�nt for oF+ phis apWalon is made, mW m+p NOW with New l�e�tever Coup In
� com+d "h ArM V. 5ac. 4 of the Now H& ww County Pdffiom I PWW- J r�h�rrrwr , �p�o�icc�ratsho d h�1n �4 imrna�a#e farl'�iJy 111Amb �7#�playgd by fie► y c
deperb�ot
Occupat on: Branc Manager,, Wj jxingtcn-- Leland
Pr+ofeseion Ac"e5: WM Profe"'onal Development Coumi.ttee l TIMA— i Sales l+ arks .ing
------
VolunkWACUvi ►e Participates in fundraising events- Hospioe , Leuk=Lia ..Ma:coh of Dimes , '�i . vwmw Why d o you wish to sove on th is boardtom rliLtee? V ery interested in giving book to the area
coa�un;i tty by utilizing my exger�.ence in barking and constMction industry
Cony of mot; O e bNM membwbe s h&he has a oast or pohmeal oonfdd of Wwr — on v p pWcutar taaue, th member should clan s bald io On Other
MWnb" of him tgpm*W ward &jft a pubkG mood* the membiw shoWd etas the mane of ft as WA dsft1rq msf h&ijhe has a mss, pdV& yr mMeely
tni�s� el�r d� orin� in �o I cr4r��er �a�+dlerrat►ort The r�r should lher+ axle hin�aall�ia�seli f� voar�► � �e rr�tt�.
what am" of co tern world you like 90 a addrzsed by Mile oor9 i
t"/PLAao" 0
110 68
1P I �� 0 49 co
a :�ft
¢.fie' ► o . ` r7 w Ab � A„ Vs t / 100 0 0 1 "om r�.. A04K �
�ual�roa� farsernn�
Maters o 8us�ness �nistratscn r a ye a=s as a F.a s,. dents.al
Mogtgage lender with focus on the Real Estate Sector [R.esydentia cial}
Other rnunidpal or county boards1committees on which you are seMng ; None
List three local pemnal refer1ences and phone numbers
. Randy VOMSA60 , WachWia Market President- Business Banking Dire to;r 910-���
CO MMISSIONERS
David Barn r Area lftnagar a Walla Fargo Home Mortgage t 914 - 409 - -567
3, Donna G E autive Officer, wilmington Cape Fear MA, 910 - 799- -2611
Dame; June 26th 2 43.1 si
Apyrlio
no am kept an file for ft 10onths t true owd or e'a eppalnt�ee may be remov9d
WOW sans y a Ma *;W * of County commissioners.
Please use runic side for addiftwel emmsfs
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -18
eaaRn OF coMMissIan►ERs
230 Govemm9ni Confer DnbB, Sine 175
w�,1, NC 2e403 COMM EE APPLICATION
teteprxtine (Sito) 79e -7748
FAX {Q10) 79 8-7145 Ilk
0jjr& `onVWtj"* Planning Board
eMe R . F ri Smi Jr - #. � t d �i 9n com
HoMe
A drew. 2 814 Park Avenue Wilmington ,, NC
------------ q ....... .. .
Mailing Addrns if dif renf. 322 Causeway Drive W rightsville Beach N C
(cfty) (o Co de)
Home P oner, 91 0-616-285 7 285 Fax.
C011y
Businew.0 256-0065
Yea living I
N H anover County: 25 Afal F Race* Cauc �: 49
(information for the po of assuring $ Gres - tion of the common .4y)
Do you hs e a family member employ by New Hanover County? tf yes, name nO
E�
Sefl �ml +�. r�l tecture + Desi ........ . .......
- - A person M�y ,�� the ag cy or �rtent whkh this 00kaM A made, nwst M� POMM woh New Hanover couftty upon awintment in
a=r6ance w1W Arm 0, Sec.. 4 of Mo Now Hanow County Pa rvW PWIcy Ft1rftrMWq, VpUcaellshwV have no immedtete tawty M&Iftremplayod by such agency or
depanYmn
O C , CUpe ff on o Architect Planner
ProfessionalA AmOrican Institute of Archi
MunfterAcdvitfes.
Why do yo wish to serve on thi boa k ommN PrevJ ous.ly served for 2 terms I des 1 re to
continue to give Haack to the commun by offering my knowledege / ejqne tl se in pl anning
C=11kt of 10(~ f a board member b0 i4vVS h "ho has a confftt or potential cwfixt of )nterest on a paiftuMO that member shoWd state t 5 W of to the oth r
memo of hWw rwpective beard during ,a pvNic mee#09. The member should state Me nature W the nmffiot delaWng that n" he hVS a separate, p jrg, of ,qtoaerar
r'r a st th r ct �r r' Cam, ttre ire r� r �� rat n The member' s sue them excuse nimsOMd r if from voting ort the matter
What arms of co ncern waotd yoo like to Se addressed by thi committee? " Smart G rowth " planning
improved m oning policy and impl on to ti can to *l s , encourage mix use zoning / development -- -- -- -
QualificaVons for serWn : Serv on N14C Plaming Board, CA14A Land Use P lan Advisory Committ
T rM - N HC UDO Committee, Pa NHC TRC Choi rman , 1 -140 Bypass Ccomitt
Other m * * al or count boards1committees an which y ou are sendn
URICIP
City of Wi 3.n i ngton Board of AdJ us ant
List three kcal personal references and phone numbem:
1. Mr. Chri O'Keefe, NHC Planning Dl rector 798 -7164
2. Me, Kaye Graybeal, City of Wilmington Planning Director, 341 -pos
-, ��
. .... - MAY I 20I
1
.. . ...... . ..... NMX0G;;=
N EW HAfJOVER CO
BD O F C0V1,VA1
3 " Mr. Ken Dull, Ci of 'W ilmington Pl aI'tni.ng Board C i rman , 395-6036
Dew: 5 -16 -2011
AW Icatlons are kept on ft for 18 months
I undWvftndr that any board or com' appoi ntee may be remove
bout cause by a malty of County Commissionws.
Pkase use reverse skW for adcNionaf comments
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19 -1 -19
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -
! I
230 Govemment Center Drive, Suite 175
~+ fr I
Wilmington NC 28 403
COMM11TEE APPLICATION
Telephone (910) 798 -7149
FAX (910) 798 -7145
Boar&Committee: New Han County P lannin g Boa rd
■� A�rA I�rI�I1P1PP�1�r •1•I•PP191 PPI�I�11.111�1�
Name; David F. Weaver E4w,sit.dfweaver4@aol.com
Horne
Address 4929 Pine St., Wilmington, NC 28403
( Street ) (ZO Code)
Mailing Address if different:
(Cgy) {zl) code)
Home Phone 910-- 799 --9 772 Fax. na Cell. � 9 10 - 620 - 7800 Business. same
Years living in
New Hanover County. 30 Male: Female: Race: white A ge: 60
(Information for the purpose of assuring a cross - section of the communRy)
Do you have a family member employed by New Hanover County? if yes, name No
Employer: self - employed (limited part -time)
A p cu�y onployed by the agency for 07 this applicaton is made, must resign his/her position with lVew Harrow County upon appointment, in
acavardance with Rriide V1, Sec. 4 of the Now Hanover Courtly Personnel Pblicy. Furthemwe, applicant should have no invnedate family member employed by such agency or
department
Dccupadon: consultant
Professional Activities: AICP -past cent. member, NC Beach Inlet and Waterways Assoc - Treasurer
Volunteer Activities: church activi ties , prison ministries
Why do you wish to serve on this boarftommittee? I haVe a Passion for NHC and its residents. I
Trish to continue my career of public service in a field I enjoy.
Cwffkt of krtwwt - ff aboard member believes h&Ww has a cor*kt or potenda f conflict of int+er+est on a pardcufar issue, that member should state this belief tb the other
mefters of his/her respective board during a public rmeedng The member stK dd state the nature of the conflict, detailing that hwfte has a separate, private, or monetary
interact, either dr+ect or indirect, in the issue unbar cwn1dwvfion. The member should then excuse 1Whn&YAxwsW from voting on the matter
What areas of concern would you like to see a ddressed by this comm In this tig economy , I want
to help provide for progressive development, while preserving our high quality of life.
C. uallflcadons for serving: Nearly 30 years o f s with the County, culminating as Asst Mgr
with development - oriented departments. and considerable familiarity with the community.
Other municipal or county boareWcommittees on which you are serving: P orts , Waterway, and Beac
Commission -- Vice Chair; NC Coastal Resources Advisory Council, former Vice Chair
List three local personal references and phone numbers;
1. Ms.Cami Herle E xec. Director, NC Coastal Land Trust, 7 90 -4524
Z• Ms. D Giradot, CEO, BASE a W i l m -Cape Fea H ome Builders Assoc, 7 99 -2611
3 Mr. Rob Moul, President, Land Management Group, Inc., 452 -0001
-June 21 2011 -
Date. r S 4, /.,-.
App9cedon are kept on file for 18 months 1 untalarsWNW! drat any board or comrnittee
without cause by a mvjodty of County Co,
Please use reverse side for additkwal comments
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
19-1-20
i 7DD - c
Y be remo
•
JU 2 2 2011
NFW F1VJI MTR U,
8D OF
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 20
DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Commissioner Richard Catlin and Chris Coudriet,
Assistant County Manager
CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT:
Foreign Trade Zone Presentation
BRIEF SUMMARY:
County staff has begun researching the feasibility of expanding the current Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) issued
to the Wilmington Port to include undeveloped land at Wilmington International Airport. Commissioner
Catlin wishes to brief the Board on the work regarding FTZ expansion to date and outline a path for
finalizing an approach for expanding the FTZ.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear presentation.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Heard presentation.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
20 -0
This page intentionally left blank.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2011
REGULAR
ITEM: 21
DEPARTMENT: Aging PRESENTER(S): Jim McDaniel, Director, Parks, Gardens & Senior
Resources
CONTACT(S): Janine Powell, Development Coordinator and Brenda "Ben" Brow, Senior Resource Center
Manager
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Approval to Accept the Home and Community Care Block Grant Funds in the
Amount of $983,891 for FY 2012
BRIEF SUMMARY:
New Hanover County Senior Resource Center is designated as the Lead Agency for the Home and
Community Care Block Grant funding. The County is eligible to receive $983,891 for fiscal year 2011/2012.
The Home and Community Care Block Grant Advisory Committee, which is appointed by the County
Commissioners, recommends the following distribution of funds for the Commissioners' consideration:
Senior Resource Center funding-
$89,781 for Transportation Services
$298,204 for Home Delivered Meals
$92,799 for Congregate Meals
$78,233 for Case Assistance & Information and Referral
$77,223 for Senior Center Operations
$240,000 for In -Home Aide Services
Elderhaus, Inc.
$52,018 for Adult Day Care Services
$55,633 for Adult Day Health Services
The required 10% match is included in the Parks, Gardens, and Senior Resources Department requested 2012
budget. Elderhaus is required to provide the match in order to receive Home and Community Care Block
Grant funds.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
21 -0
Approve the request to accept the Home and Community Care Grant in the amount of $983,891 for FY
2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
Home and Community Care Block Grant Advisory Board Minutes
Home and Community Care Block Grant Worksheet
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5 -0.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
21 -0
Brenda "Ben" Brow
Manager
MINUTES HCCBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
ATTENDEES:
Elizabeth Grace, Chairperson HCCBG Advisory Committee*
Ben Brow, Manager Senior Resource Center
Janine Powell, Donor Relations Parks, Gardens, & Senior Resource Center
Melissa Richardson, Aging Specialist, Area Agency on Aging
Jane Jones, Director Aging Services, Area Agency on Aging
Kathy Rawlings, Chairperson RAAC *
Teresa R. Hewett, NHC Budget
Kathy Mullen, Potential HCCBG Advisory Committee Member
Frannie Shively, Potential HCCBG Advisory Committee Member
Presenters:
Linda A. Pearce — Elderhaus Inc.
Faye Jacobs — Independent Life Services
Sue -Ann Rush- SRC Transportation Services
Greg Kennedy- Senior Center — unable to attend
Absent:
Marion Johnson
Jewell Neeley
Barbara Walker (Requested to be released from service due to health issues)
2:18 PM Meeting was called to order by Elizabeth "Betty" Grace.
Introduction of presenters by Ben Brow.
First Presenter: Linda Pearce, Elderhaus Inc. for Adult Day Care and Adult Day Health Services
funding. Elderhaus is currently serving 40 clients with approximately 26 clients attending daily. A
poor economy, increased fuel prices, and increased demand for service have forced an increase in
service fees. Transportation services have been unbundled from Day Care and Day Health service at
$3 /trip. Elderhaus is seeking overnight stay capability (Senate Bill 512) as a private pay service.
Second Presenter: Faye Jacobs, Program Manager Independent Life Services SRC. See Attached Fact
Sheet. Ninety (90) clients on waiting list with wait time of 2 weeks to 1 year. Partnering with other
agencies such as Angel Food Ministries to serve HDM (5) waiting list clients, with expansion of
program as funding becomes available. Social Workers receive 5 -7 new referrals daily with mean age 90
years of age. Congregate nutrition site clients have demonstrated a shift to more Asian, Hispanic, and
Oriental language. With help of the ServTracker database, HDM accountability has improved and
reduced the percentage of un- served meals from 5% to just over 2 %.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
21 -1 -1
Third presenter: Sue -Ann Rush, SRC Transportation Coordinator. Sue -Ann reviewed program
participation qualifications for new members. Reported that WAVE transit has implemented a new
software program (IVR) which is a voice reminder system which makes automated calls to clients prior
to pickup in an effort to reduce "not ready" and "no show" occurrences. Beginning June 1, 2011, WAVE
will activate a reminder call the night prior to service in addition to the pre - pick -up call.
Ben presented recommended distribution of funds (attached) using allocations from 2010 — 2011, with
change: transfer of $2,170 from In -Home Aide Service (which is in Bid Process) to Case Assistance/
I &R. Transportation was aided by two other grants in 2010 -2011. These grants will be applied for in
2011 -2012, in an effort to release HCCBG transportation funds to support other NHC HCCBG services.
Kathy Rawlings: Moved to accept proposal "as is"
Discussion, with following recommendation:
• Accept proposal "as is ".
• If allocation is increased, Ben is to notify ACCBG Advisory Committee with recommendations
of distribution.
• If allocation is decreased, Ben is to reconvene HCCBG Advisory Committee.
Kathy Rawlings: Moved to accept above proposal
Betty Grace: Seconded
All voting members agreed. No further discussion.
Meeting was adjourned by Elizabeth Grace.
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
21 -1 -2
HCCBG Total S $983,891 $983,891
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
21-2-1
County: New Hanover
Date: 05/23/2011
SFY 2011/2012
Home & Community Care Block Grant Meeting
Worksheet
Decisions
Is this a budget revision?
Yes _ No
Federal /State Home & Community Care Block Grant Funding:
Total $983,891
FY 2011/2012
What amount of monies should the identified
services receive?
Recommended
Service
Provider Current
Allocation Balance
Transportation
SRC 89
$89
Home Delivered Meals
SRC 298
$298
Congregate
SRC 92
$92
Case Assistance /I &R
SRC 76
$78
Senior Center Operations
SRC 77
$77
In Home Aide Services
SRC (TBD) 242 170
$240
Adult Day Care
SRC (Elderhaus, Inc.) 52,018
$52
Adult Day Health
SRC (Elderhaus, Inc.) 55,633
$55
HCCBG Total S $983,891 $983,891
Board of Commissioners Meeting
07/11/2011
21-2-1