Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 2016 01-19
AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC BETH DAWSON, CHAIRMAN - JONATHAN BARFIELD, JR., VICE - CHAIRMAN SKIP WATKINS, COMMISSIONER - WOODY WHITE, COMMISSIONER - ROB ZAPPLE, COMMISSIONER CHRIS COUDRIET, COUNTY MANAGER - WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY - TERESA ELMORE, CLERK TO THE BOARD JANUARY 19, 2016 9:00 AM MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Beth Dawson) INVOCATION (Father Jon Emanuelson, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Vice- Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr.) APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Approval of the November 15, 2015 Edition of the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for County Sheriff's Offices as Announced by the NC Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) 3. Approval of Changes to the Aviation Chapter (8) of the New Hanover County Code 4. Approval for Leading Into New Communities, Inc. (LINC) to Apply for Grant Funding from the N.C. Governor's Crime Commission with New Hanover County as the Applicant Agency 5. Approval of Board of Education Budget Amendments #3 and #4 6. Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Permanent Repairs to Edgewater Club Road ESTIMATED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS MINUTES 15 7. Presentation of Service Awards and Introduction of New Employees 30 8. Presentations: Programs to Address Substance Use Disorder and Consideration of Course of Action 20 9. Presentation: Water Quality Monitoring in New Hanover County - 2014 -2015 Annual Report 40 10. New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan - Presentation and Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt Chapter 4. Visualizing the Future as a Part of the Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes) ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS MINUTES Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 10 11. Additional Items County Manager County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Attorney 12. ADJOURN Note: Minutes listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed. 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 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Teresa Elmore, Clerk to the Board CONTACT(S): Teresa Elmore SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approval of minutes from the following meetings: Agenda Review Meeting held on December 30, 2015 Regular Meeting held on January 4, 2016 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Sheriff PRESENTER(S): Chief Deputy Kenneth Sarvis CONTACT(S): Chief Deputy Kenneth Sarvis SUBJECT: Approval of the November 15, 2015 Edition of the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for County Sheriffs Offices as Announced by the NC Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) III N 101 ON101ILI L11 1141119 According to NCGS 121 -5 and 132 -3, agencies may only destroy public records with the consent of the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR). The records retention and disposition schedule is the primary way DCR gives its consent. Without approving this schedule, agencies are obligated to obtain permission to destroy any record, no matter how insignificant. As directed by DCR, the schedule should be presented to the Board of Commissioners, which may approve the schedule by consent agenda, discussion item, resolution, or any other procedure in an open meeting. The November 15, 2015 edition of the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for County Sheriffs Offices is available for review at http://archives.ncdcr.gov /Portals /26/PDF /schedules /schedules revised /County Sheriff 11- 15- 2015.pdf. The executive summary is attached and the major updates are highlighted in the attached letter to all Sheriffs. f0I"AN Y or" [f» ILIV1LII 0 fffU►1I OWN 9 Effective County Management • Increase efficiency and quality of key business processes RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the November 15, 2015 edition of the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for County Sheriffs Offices. ATTACHMENTS: Letter to All Sheriffs Executive Summary Signature Page COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 2 From: Eddie Caldwell [ mailto :ecaldwell @ncsheriffs.net] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 12:34 PM To: NCSA List - -- Sheriffs and Sheriffs' Personnel Subject: Revised County Sheriff's Office Records Retention Schedule To: All Sheriffs The Government Records Section of the North Carolina State Archives located within the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has issued a revised version of the County Sheriff s Office Records Retention and Disposition Schedule. A copy of the updated schedule can be found at the following address: http: / /archives.ncdcr.gov /Portals /26/PDF/ schedules /schedules_revised /County Sheriff _11 -15- 2015.pdf Some of the major updates to the Schedule include the following: - Addition of an item for mobile audio /video devices - Removal of the dashboard camera item - Splitting the weapons permits into two separate items: one for concealed weapons and one for handgun permits - Deleting several items that are covered by other standards to avoid clutter Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -5 and § 132 -3, public records (including sheriff s office records) cannot be destroyed without the consent of the Department of Cultural Resources. The primary way that the Department gives its consent is provided by the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule. This document is a tool for the employees of sheriffs' offices across the state to use when managing the records in their offices. It lists records commonly found in a sheriffs office, and gives an assessment of their value by indicating when (and if) those records should be destroyed. Please note the request from the Government Records Section located below this email regarding notifying them once the new schedule has been approved by the board of county commissioners. This schedule must be approved by your board of county commissioners for use by your office. That approval should be made in a regular meeting and recorded as an action in the minutes. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Smith, NCSA Associate General Counsel, at (919) 459 -6467 or j smith(cr�ncsheriffs. net <mailto:j smith(c_,,ncsheriffs.net>. Thanks.... Eddie C. [Sheriffs' Logo.] Edmond W. (Eddie) Caldwell, Jr. Executive Vice President and General Counsel North Carolina Sheriffs' Association, Inc. Post Office Box 20049 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27619 -0049 Telephone: (919) 459 -1052 Fax: (919) 783 -5272 Email: ecal dwell gncsheriffs. net <mailto:ecal dwell( a�ncsheriffs.net> Webpage: www.ncsheriffs.org<http://www.ncsheriffs.org/> North Carolina Sheriffs' Association Serving the Sheriffs and Citizens of North Carolina since 1922 Once your Sheriff s Office has approved the new schedule, please remember to send a copy of your signature page to the Government Records Section at the address or fax number below, or email a copy to a Records Management Analyst<http:Harchives.ncdcr.gov/For- Government/Services- and - Training #analyst>. Government Records Section 4615 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -4615 Fax: 919.715.3627 We appreciate the feedback and comments we received during the review process. If you have any questions or concerns about the new schedule, please contact the Government Records Section at (919) 807 -7350. Kyna Herzinger Records Analyst/Appraisal Archivist Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Direct: 919.807.7366 Main: 919.807.7350 kyna.herzingergncdcr. gov <mailto: kyna.herzingergncdcr. gov> Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ✓ According to G.S. § 121 -5(b) and G.S. § 132 -3, you may only destroy public records with the consent of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR). The State Archives of North Carolina is the division of DNCR charged with administering a records management program. This schedule is the primary way the State Archives of North Carolina gives its consent. Without approving this schedule, your agency is obligated to obtain the State Archives of North Carolina's permission to destroy any record, no matter how insignificant. ✓ Each records series listed on this schedule has specific disposition instructions that will indicate how long the series must be kept in your office. In some cases, the disposition instructions are simply "Retain in office permanently," which means that those records must be kept in your office forever. In other cases, the retention period may be "destroy in office when reference value ends." An agency may have reference copies of materials, meaning "a copy of a record distributed to make recipients aware of the content but not directing the recipient to take any action on the matter" (From Richard Pearce - Moses, A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology). Your agency must establish and enforce internal policies by setting minimum retention periods for the records that the State Archives of North Carolina has scheduled with the disposition instructions, "destroy when reference value ends." ✓ E -mail is a record as defined by G.S. § 121 -5 and G.S. § 132. It is the content of the e -mail that is critical when determining the retention period of a particular e-mail, including attachments, not the media in which the record was created. It is important for all agency employees and officials to determine the appropriate records series for specific a -mails and retain them according to the disposition instructions. ✓ The State Archives of North Carolina recommends that all agency employees and officials view the tutorials that are available online through the State Archives website in order to familiarize themselves with records management principles and practices. The State Archives of North Carolina's online tutorials include topics such as records management, utilizing the retention schedule, e-mail management, and scanning guidelines. ✓ The State Archives of North Carolina provides microfilming services for the minutes of major decision - making boards and commissions. Once those records are filmed, we will store the silver negative (original) in our security vault. There is a nominal fee for filming and duplicating film. Contact the Records Management Analyst in charge of microfilm coordination for the most current information. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1 County Sheriff's Office Records Retention and Disposition Schedule The records retention and disposition schedule and retention periods governing the records series listed herein are hereby approved. In accordance with the provisions of Chapters 121 and 132 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, it is agreed that the records do not and will not have further use or value for official business, research, or reference purposes after the respective retention periods specified herein and are authorized to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the agency or official having.custody of them without further reference to or approval of either party to this agreement. The local government agency agrees to comply with 07 NCAC 04M .0510 when deciding on a method of destruction. Confidential records will be destroyed in such a manner that the records cannot be practicably read or reconstructed. However, records subject to audit or those legally required for ongoing official proceedings must be retained until released from such audits or official proceedings, notwithstanding the instructions of this schedule. Public records, including electronic records, not listed in this schedule are not authorized to be destroyed. This local government agency and the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources agree that certain records series possess only brief administrative, fiscal, legal, research, and reference value. These records series have been designated by retention periods that allow these records to be destroyed when "reference value ends." The local government agency hereby agrees that it will establish and enforce internal policies setting minimum retention periods for the records that Natural and Cultural Resources has scheduled with the disposition instruction "destroy when reference value ends." If a local government agency does not establish internal policies and retention periods, the local government agency is not complying with the provisions of this retention schedule and is not authorized by the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to destroy the records with the disposition instruction "destroy when reference value ends." The local government agency and the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources concur that the long -term and /or permanent preservation of electronic records requires additional commitment and active management by the agency. The agency agrees to comply with all policies, standards, and best practices published by the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources regarding the creation and management of electronic records. It is further agreed that these records may not be destroyed prior to the time periods stated; however, for sufficient reason they may be retained for longer periods. This schedule is to remain in effect from the date of approval until it is reviewed and updated. County Sheriff Chairman, Bd. County Commissioners 11/15/2015 APPROVAL RECOMMENDED APPROVED Jou, a,. � - Sarah E. Koonts, Director Division of Archives and Records vAh't, W. V Susan W. Kluttz, Secretary Department of Natural and Cultural Resources County: Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1 K. Herzinger NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Julie Wilsey, Airport Director and Gary Broughton, Deputy Airport Director, Wilmington International Airport CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager and Wanda Copley, County Attorney SUBJECT: Approval of Changes to the Aviation Chapter (8) of the New Hanover County Code BRIEF SUMMARY: A letter requesting approval of changes to the aviation chapter of the New Hanover Code is attached, along with the changes requested. Upon adoption by the Board of Commissioners the amended ordinance will be incorporated as part of the minutes. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Increase public safety and crime prevention RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Consider the proposed changes to the New Hanover County Code. ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Request Executive Summary Red Lined Version Showing Edits Proposed Revised Minimum Standards COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 J� ILM Airport Authority Dr. Jonathan Crane Chairman Thomas Wolfe Vice - Chairman Carter T. Lambeth Secretary Thomas C. Barber, II Donna Girardot Dan Hickman John O. Perritt Airport Director Julie A Wilsey, AAF January 8, 2016 New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 230 Government Center Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Dear Commissioners, Wilmington International Airport has revised our Minimum Standards for General Aviation Services to reflect changes in the current state of Aviation. It is our intent to ease a number of restrictions that our current Minimum Standards place on Aviation Service Providers which prevent them from possibly doing business at ILM. The revised Minimum Standards will hopefully open the door to new Aviation Organizations including new start-up companies. We have consulted with an Aviation Attorney on the proposed changes to the Minimum Standards for General Aviation Services at ILM. We have also reached out to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) , who reviewed the proposed changes, and received a letter from them stating they have no objections to these changes. Please see the attached documents outlining the changes made to the Minimum Standards for General Aviation at ILM. The first document is a brief summary of the major changes to the Minimum Standards. The second document is the red lined document showing what was removed and added to the minimum Standards. As you can see with this document, most of the changes are administrative and cosmetic in nature. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary W. Broughton; . M. Deputy Airport Director Cc: Mr. Chris Coudriet, New Hanover County Manager Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 1740 Airport Boulevard, Suite 12 • Wilmington, NC 284CITEM: Aoni: 9110 -341 -4333 • Fax: 910 - 341 -4365 • www.flyilm.com Section 8- 271(b) — Administrative change from the Federal Aviation Act to the FAA Advisory Circular series that dictates minimum standards. Section 8- 271.5 — Definitions: Basic Aircraft Maintenance was changed to Aircraft Maintenance. This better defines the degree of maintenance that can be performed by Maintenance Facilities with or without a Part 145 Certificate. This also leads to the removal of the below definition. Specialized Aircraft Maintenance and Repairs was removed because the FAA does not define specialized maintenance. Section 8- 274(b) — Several changes made to this section to include the following: Aircraft Rental and Air Charter/Tax! was removed as a requirement for an FBO. This may be an unrealistic expectation for a start up company to do business at ILM. 10,000 square foot hangar requirement was removed as this too could be an unreasonable expectation for a start up company. "Optional Permitted Services" was removed. Optional Permitted services will be discussed and written out in any lease assigned to do business at ILM. Section 8- 274(d) - Minimum FBO Facility Standards: The following were removed as they may be too restrictive for smaller start up companies that want to do business at ILM: Requirement for the lease to be 10 Acres, and have a 6,000 square foot building and 10,000 square foot of hangar space was removed. These requirements will be discussed in the applicants lease. Requirement for the FBO to own aircraft was removed. Requirement for the FBO to make a two million dollar ($2,000,000) capital investment was removed. Section 8 -275 - Several changes made to this section include the following: Removed all references to specific Square footage requirements for SA50's as this may be too restrictive for smaller start up companies that want to do business at ILM. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 1 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM Sec. 8 -271. - General. (a) The Airport autha 4tyAuthority desires that certain a ianGeneral Aviation services and activities on the airport be furnished by and engaged in for the benefit of the general flying public and to the benefit of civil aviation by geneffil aviai General Aviation service providers (I- kew:-, Fixed Base Operators and/or :Tervtees epeffitei� sSpecial Aviation Services Operators) who meet the standards set forth and administered by the New Hanover County Airport Authority. Such standards are prescribed in this article. (b) The aifpen atitheMyAiraort Authority in recognition of its responsibilities as to exclusive rights imposed by r etien ;08 tF the FedeF°' A via iag °°*¢49 USC §x}7101, FAA AC 15015190 -7 series and in certain obligations contained in certain contracts and agreements between the authe 4yAirport Authority and the United States of America relative to the development and operation of the airport, desires and determines that all such — aeronautical activities be conducted on the airport by general -a General Aviation service providers in a fair and equitable manner. (c) The operating standards outlined in this section are the minimum requirements for eeiiei,al Etvia General Aviation service providers as a condition of their right to lease premises and provide stated geftentl aviai General Aviation activities at the Wilmington International Airport (ILM). (d) In the event of a direct conflict between the 504eyMinimurn Standards Policy and any agreement entered into prior to the effective date of the PA:a �ufn ,,Minimum Standards Policy, the agreement shall govern to the extent of such conflict. It is not intended in the Minimum Standards Policy to alter or change the rights under any pre - existing agreement, however, if any pre - existing agreement requires the lessee or operator there under to comply with airport rules or regulations, then the ��Minimum Standards Polic shall be incorporated into —such pre - existing agreement as a result of such provisions and shall apply to the lessee or operator there under to the extent that such policy is not in direct conflict with the . -- agreement. (Ord. of 1 -20 -2004) ? � fee -Fhe edkers Hete ie an, V P. Sec. 8- 271.5. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 1 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM Air r• °'ew f&, ;°° me H , a Charter/Taxi: An entity that provides on- demand, non- scheduled passenger service in aircraft having no more than thi 301 passenger seats. This entity must operate under the appropriate Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Air 0peratin,,Area (AOAf mean -s-Ehe): The ramp, apron, runway and taxiway system at the airport. IAirport niea,., 'uthority: A corporate body that is appointed by the coup :�-h-oardNew Hanover County Board of _,....miss:e.. Commissioners and serves as the governing body of the Wilmington International Airport and adopts the policies, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the airport and its facilities by its tenants and the public. t 0� ••q#Aircra t maintenance naeaHs ih s: The inspection, repair, calibration, preservation and preventive maintenance or replacement of parts that . _ . a pe ahzed r9echan3ea}U� katkRA- -falls within the scope of work that can be performed by an A &P Mechanic or IA and may require the need of a certificate issued under FAR Part 145. Count), means the- �eumi -: The County of New Hanover, North Carolina that is supervised by the New Hanover Board of Commissioners. Fixed 4tvv,&- opetw�w :Base Operator (FBO E n}ean nl�, Only those individuals, firms or corporations that satisfactorily furnish and engage in the full and complete range of aircraft services and activities for the general public as required by the au',harli iy IP_Aimort Authority in Sec. 8 -274. FBOs may offer other services at their discretion above and beyond the required services. General Aviation Service Providers: Any aeronautical activity intended to secure earnings, income, compensation or profit to corporate and /or geal aviatie General Aviation aircraft. General aatAviation service providers may be classified as either a fixed base operator (FBO) or a specialized aviation services operator (SASO). Independent Operators: Is an individual operator who has been permitted by the Airport Authority to perform a single- service aeronautical activity on the airport such as maintenance, aircraft washing, etc. The 12ermit will provide a level of regulation and compensation satisfactory to the ai ort. This permit mgy re wire an annual fee or percentage of the operator's gross receipts. Repair . ° Station: An aircraft maintenance operation that is certified by the FAA and possesses a license in accordance with FAR Part 145. : 'i _ 4- Ei }- lite-{#Er iaSrile, p- F- AR -Part - *x.tice��a :cir�r•,�Specialized Aviation Services Operator (SASO): SASOs are sometimes known as single- service providers or special_FBOs performing less than full services. These lees of companies differ from a full service FBO in that they typically offer only a Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 2 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM specialized aeronautical service such as aircraft sales, flight training, aircraft maintenance, or avionics services for example. pecialized Flight Operations: Specialized flight operations are services, persons or corporations engaged in activities specifically excluded from FAR Part 135. Examples include: banner towing and aerial advertising, aerial photography or survey, fire fighting or fire patrol, power Iine or pipeline patrol, or any other operation with written approval of the eiFpei-t iiwli AiMort Authority. (Ord. of 1 -20 -2004) Sec. 8 -272. – Procedures of introduction. All parties wishing to provide aviation services at the airport shall introduce themselves to the awliei-kAirport Authority by using the following procedures: (I) Request a meeting with the aig3m , ir-eet of his desiggneeAirport Director; (2) Submit a letter of intent to the )rt -iAi ort Director; (3) Submit a proposal and working drawings to the a- 1- Fxxt- dtifeuttt i ter -ih"ep dkeete- Airport Director and (4) Submit an audited financial report, or financial statements of the principals in the firm, to the UIT- OFF I H1dF)Ce d:T-euu)rAi ort Director. (5) Final approval rests with the aifpei4 Airport Authority. o Sec. 5 -273. - General aviation service providers. (a) Any gene -avl a ion General Aviation service provider who wishes to engage in the business of --providing -ef}General Aviation services at the W i 1n i K...n.. Intern ' Internatienal Airp ILM must comply with - applicable regulations and standards; local, state, and federal laws and regulations; and the requirements and _procedures established by this code. eter -Ye -}rim- There shall be two categories of General Aviation service providers: Fixed Base 012erators (FBO) shall provide for: the sale of aviation petroleum products, basic aircraft engine and accessory maintenance and — repair, aircraft rental, aircraft charter and taxi, tie -down, line service and -ground handling, disabled aircraft recovery, hangar rental and aircraft Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 3 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM storage, aircraft washing, and flight planning and flight service facilities. x.U2 Specialized w,,Aviation Service Operators (SASO) shall provide one (1) or more of the services listed in Sec. 8 -275 and meet requirements for that specific activity. sale ef n .==l:._., i a...n,a sHte"trac ed. The atirfwt-atW rity Airport Authority reserves the right to temporarily waive any requirement provided a maximum time limit is set to comply. (1,c} All applicants desiring to establish and operate an aviation operation at the airport must furnish evidence satisfactory to the airpen diFee! Airport Authority and the �14 H01 0 Airport Director that such person possesses all of the following qualifications: (1) Has never been held in default of any lease agreement, contract, license or permit relating to the operation of a business, by a court of law or other cognizant legal authority. (2) A composite credit appraisal rating of "satisfactory" as determined by the applicants' financial institution -p ul eee r". 48F�the� - f lnaa is #��� 1 l uau.'•' a i2&Rt- 4eEn4u r €fir -c ati efi. or Dun & Bradstreet (3) A current financial net worth showing the applicant holds unencumbered current assets in a total amount at least equaling three months' estimated maintenance and operating expenses. The applicant must also demonstrate that he has the capital required or unconditional financial backing sufficient to construct all leasehold improvements required by these standards and must unconditionally commit himself to the construction. -(4) Employs a staff and full -time, on -site manager or supervisor with adequate experience in the operation of gene -ft' a iat i General Aviation operations -as e�-ideneed by iei ef:s €a� simiiar- r�3er�ert€€ -...._ _ to the eeu aiyTeWiediy and _the _ _gent , etf.w..,,l : _ ,.a fbi: general � i „a[7 ke p : Ein.a pri�pe .y ifi-surar�ee . r ,- reasonable satisfaction of the .. .€e _..... _.._- ceul -pre€t datlla i - frw4$i ?i4t3t 3 ki ehe en6re lea< ie •....»..., #':...,, eh --peemi applieie y Pe ..t (if the ..t.f e4 ' `diI PF i'eF Ei„ ff .+r ntal , .,=r liffiii.._- y -- ..... -.. ar-FeEiee shall be iha ...wry t...-.d . eie r.-.} -by -th f3:ip,,.t Guth r:►.. 4 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 4 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM k Wirc'tnit 3€k�krrtt lilies 1 aveilab4ky _ pi-iT�,'rc--� �?:.,.,,.,.. - •- ,_.�..,v_ ._ _.. _._r � :....��i��t#�:�i'{�•ttFl+l�-�Ei r�xtre�k�En �eakrs_Authority. (d) All construction required of or desired by general ay'kat eeGeneral Aviation service providers on the -- airport shall be in accordance with applicable- 1, state, local and ILM ! -eh keetur -a •-°nn EiMsArchitectural Standards required for the facility or activity involved. Construction standards include but are not Iimited to building, American Disabilities Act (ADA), and fire code requirements. (e) All gen rzal Hvia °nGeneraI Aviation service providers shall be required to furnish the payment and performance bonds commensurate with any construction required under the rgiffli ufnfn _ -:�tan6ai-d- .Minimum Standards fixed in this article or under any contract or lease by and between any aviation operator and the atrpe- aark -t _. Wit,. ate, , }+� . . k-- kcrkc� rti3re� *�t rr�ert�ctAirport Authority. The Airport Authority may accept letters of credit or personal guarantee in lieu of performance bond requirements referenced. (f) All gei,t {ral -k vlat eFiGeneral Aviation service providers shall conduct their activities and render their services in a safe, responsible and efficient manner and shall be solely responsible for all the acts of their agents and/or employees and shall save and hold the air-Pail Airport Authority, its -- - agents, t#e ee"New Hanover County and isits agents, harmless from any act of the aviation _operator, its ..agents and employees. (g) All �. nerai- aYia�ieii General Aviation service providers shall abide by and comply with all of the laws and ordinances of the state, the eeuntyCount , and the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. (h) All contracts and leases between all gLffleffll IRViai General Aviation service providers and the a:rpart -- auhAirport Authority shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreements between the Airport Authority, the eeantyCounty and the United States of America, relative to the operation, maintenance or development of the airport, the execution of which has been or may be required as a condition precedent to previous or future expenditure of _federal funds for the operation, maintenance or development of the airport property. (i) All General Aviation service providers shall provide certificates of insurance with the County, Airport Authority and their agents listed as additional insured for comprehensive General Liability, Hangar Keeper and Property Insurance. For General Liability, the minimum liabilit y limit 12er single occurrence for bodily injury and property damage shall 5 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 5 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM be that amount determined by the Airport Authori .. Companies providing such insurance will be subject to Airport Authority approval. Sec. 8 -274. - Fixed base -epera sBase Operators (FBO). -lase epete�a (a) FBOs at ILM shall be subject to minimum service standards, minimum staffing standards and minimum facility requirements as follows. A € Ned- e-oper-atoYAn FBO will be required to provide either directly or by sublease /subcontract all of the following services )2: AiF i e€ae€�Ie flight -See.) Aircf -alt wushing. n9.:.:,. n:r,.,.rvtt „,.gnat+ee- and- re}irfar�a�: R�-tEtil fuel and �1�11��1- "!1'd'�!� ■IL�RII�R ■".'�I'lltMC�:II� (b) In the case of the specific activities, the following minimum service standards shall apply. (1} Bot f i- -in tiin (e .wt,,&eAircraft Maintenance and Repair - a. Sufficient equipment, supplies, and spare parts to perform maintenance H_1_ - — - _ — ae-eer-daf�eeand repairs with personnel who are currently certified by the FAA lieense a with ratings appropriate to the work being_ performed and who holds an airframe, power plant. or aircraft inspector rating; or (2) maintain a current FAR Part 145 as - euFfent eF amelided. Certificate b. Uniformed and trained personnel in sufficient numbers to meet demand for the maintenance services. Specifically, at least one LLA & P mechanic available during normal business hours. One LLA & P mechanic shall be on — call at all other times. (2) Tie down. Line Service or Ground Handling Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 6 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM �r}rt�b lgee} {fate is€3#iii3iitf -... � 'ti k erti -4n�p s ignated by the FRO BreF t 5 h e k klkk EiiTie S- Witif- p6oF. acntplired at j ast , airwenhy , a jjdiTie!4 - t�-M r-i - y- retedAdequately trained personnel: ;,;r de per- seRnel, sep4eing and y 9 s � of sscrrg .i3 Q' }!3 \k- sl3 4E`, 6i;cw Pefs{ tiei and equipment, with never Iess than one LD person on duty on the - -- E•t_ _; d r Leased Premises at all times during required hours of operation. b. Aircraft parking and tie -down facilities and equipment, including ropes, chains, wheel chocks, and any other types of restraining devices suitable to accommodate at least 15 aircraft. C. Ground support equipment for the turnaround of aircraft, including energizers, and starters, ground power units, fire extinguishers and an auxiliary power unit. d. Transportation for transient passengers and pilots (i.e. access to a +ate —car for hire, shuttle or crew car). e. Equipment, parts and personnel for performing minor maintenance such as inflating aircraft tires, window Viand interior cleaning:. and aircraft washing. (-�3) Disabled Aircraft Recovery a. Aircraft towing and other equipment as necessary for removal of disabled aircraft from the runway, taxiway or other operational areas on the airport. b. Aircraft towing and other equipment as necessary for retrieval of disabled aircraft from any landing area off the airport. C. Trained and experienced personnel as necessary to operate the equipment identified above in a timely and efficient manner (6-4j Retail W. Oil and.•".Fuel Sales 7 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 7 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM a. Retail aviation fuel sales fully trained and qualified service personnel to dispense aviation fuels and lubricants on the premises during all hours of operation b. FBOs shall dispense aviation fuels and lubricants to aircraft in the customs area in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs. FBO personnel and vehicles shall have proper identification/markings, credentials and equipment prior to entering the cn -isCustoms area. c. At least two L2Lmetered, filter - equipped fueling trucks adequate for dispensing aviation fuels. Trucks shall meet all applicable safety and other regulatory requirements. d. Construct and maintain permanent, above ground, aviation fuel storage facilities for a minimum of ten thousand 10,000) gallons of both Jet A and 100 LL aviation fuel. Maintenance shall be in accordance with all applicable airport, county, stateState, and 1ederalFederal laws, rules and regulations. e. FBOs shall maintain a current 'ti#i4 *A'ft}ton con reISpill Prevention Control and eountef Counter measure (SPCC) plan. The plan shall be maintained and updated in accordance with 40 CFR 112. A copy shall be provided to the4seotorAirport Director. ( =5) Hangar FewWRental and Aircraft Storage a. A FBO shall provide at least one aircraft storage hangar, for the permanent and itinerant storage of aircraft e. The hangar shall meet the Minimum Standards for storage hangars ledffi t6ry fetal sq ter fHef ge r-n R. eunder Minimum FBO Facilit y Standards set forth below. b. FBO managers shall provide a periodic review of their vacant hangar space and make provisions to build additional hangars as required to meet reasonable market demands. C. The following items shall not be stored in FBO aircraft hangars: containers of flammable liquids, paint thinners, fuels, volatile materials, uncovered waste containers, compressed gasses and other items which may cause a fire hazard. (;�i) Flightp4aNwiH Planning and„ Flight Service Facilities a. A flight planning facility equipped with adequate communication-,4eeal r g and other necessary flight planning materials. Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 8 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM 6. des fdotlHiems t!F a v .: ,.a fii2h+ a�cso �: 1 • ' rr .`: ` =-- ; , I34 �s pr ti ile t iliei!- di&efeden and with the SASO as asseFibed iH _- �c) Minimum s vfl p ?g .sic athird.r-Staffing Standards. An FBO offering any of the services listed herein shall have at a minimum one en OeyeeLwo (2L employees (with ratings appropriate to the work to be - — performed) on -site during all eentr-el 1-8 we r epem normal business hours. At all other times, the FBO . _shall have one L11person available, on call, to respond to customer inquiries and - airport emergencies. In addition, minimum service, management and staffing standards for the activities listed above shall be provided. Multiple responsibilities may be assigned to personnel to meet per sennelstaffina requirements for required activities. 4% del Minimum FBO Facility Standards 1. tease. The leasehold shall contain oken -,eg o!' larA To the appropriate acreage to provide for the specific use area requirements established for the services of the following required giHIEiple activities: aircraft maintenance and - - repairs, n� R}14' r- ,.,ti-: SeFY ..d;ar- e r plus the requirements - set out in this section for the dispensing of aviation fuel and lubricants and hangar rental. (Specific use spaces need not be additive where combination use can be reasonably and feasibly established.) 2. A building ..,.,:.,:.,n 094 °• lore to provide WequaEe,�, f null itLttE - -- adequate and heated space for office, public lounge, pilot briefing room and restrooms must be leased or constructed. Aircraft hangar rental space shaN appropriate for the type of aircraft to be a Ei }_. 04 }f q: aye-# -{ it # ' stored. For FBO's with an FAA certificated repair station a separate hangar facility with minimum shop and floor space I_W_ AA--- -- eefsifieEiti is required. 3. Ample public amenities for their customers to include a conveniently located, heated and air - conditioned lounge and separate sanitary restrooms for men and women, public telephone service, pilot briefing room and snack and/or beverage vending services available during required hours of operation. 9 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 9 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM 4. Sufficient facilities and/or procedures for washing aircraft. Shit old -EL{3 y 91z�a"a`rr''rr C yd!F,,..r _ 5. Paved off - street parking outside of the apinsiAir Operations Area (AOA), but, within the sea _•' Y._....,._ Le_as_e_d__ Premises, for a minimum number of automobiles as specified by - ., � L ' New Hanover County 6. Electronic security gate with closed circuit camera monitoring and continuous recording equipment to restrict unauthorized access to the ramp. + Other ioews -r -e tiit- 'c items Re uired by i ', an FBO I 3.Of toffee of Whieli Faust be 'YAhe- eil .....................l#+ �e4ee s4e;lld- l.. All equipment specifically required for each required activity and elected additional activities must be provided with appropriate company identification markings, rotating beacon and radio equipment to move on the AOA. equipment, erekisiv elan-': ll e R. e ,rann ne t s o#1 r �be depes' e- rrtrnpliee- Wftk, tai , regi_lf Set W Ff3',£i#3'- :13 if3ire3f E i�r# Sec. 8 -275. — Specialized a Viet ten - tine opffatof- sAviation Service Operators (SASO). had -� to h rar#s as mss; -�_Ay SASO can operate through a direct lease with the aim Airport Authority or through an eud AiMort Authority approved sublease /subcontract with a w e eperateran FBO or other SASO, provided it ffieets the _ _ _ __-- _ _ _ __n° _n(5)_ satisfies the Minimum Standards. SASOs at ILM shall be subject to minimum service standards. minimum staffinp, standards and minimum facility requirements as follows. (b) Minimum eertd�Service Standards. Aviation services permitted to be conducted, if permitted by —the applicable ': seLease, by a SASO eF that may e - -t- T4ieirmay include, but shall not be limited 10 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 10 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM to the services listed herein. SA80s may He! - (1) Aircraft sales. Pig FEk:W1 i.,. -n .,: z��,•�- '4�"��i -tom — -+j+- AfirerafI -Sa -A SASO offering aircraft sales shall have one 1) person with a current commercial pilot's certificate with rating appropriate for the type of aircraft to be -- - demonstrated as well as adequate staffing to service aircraft and accessories during warranty periods (new aircraft only). (2) peeiali Aircraft Maintenance and Repairs. A SASO offering_ maintenance and repairs- .0, peel al _..__...._• . _.._.__._ . -.-Aai4eR&Ree shall have oneL1 •) uniformed and trained mechanic certified by the FAA as an A & P mechanic with ratings appropriate for work being performed with sufficient pef- sonnet_ equipment, supplies and availability of parts to maintain f t =. - �ept�:r 1 #i PE3Fie .�,,: �..,� in aeeeFdanee PaA 135. —the operation. The office shall be attended during hours a�j vvella ,3 haVe °n o a4k eis� naranie -tor errea-.-set by the SASO. (3) Avionics fepaif.Sales, Installation and Re air. SASOs desiring to provide a radio or instrument or repair must hold a FAA repair station certificate and rating. One L,FAA certified repairman qualified in accordance with the terms of the repair station certificate must be - -- - - provided. The hours of operation shall be -to f-epak,i. as set by the SASO. (4) Instrument and Propeller Repair Services. SASOs desiring to provide propeller repair service must hold a FAA repair station certificate and rating. One-Ll)) FAA certified repairman qualified in accordance with the terms of the repair station certificate must be available f-en 8!00 Et. te,51.40 p.ffl., five days peF week, with email dwift-,veek- enduring hours set by the SASO. (5) Fl�i it in Instruction. A SASO offering flight instruction services shall make available for flight training a! least two ,.en i r;eaEed _ currently airworthy aircraft, including at least one (1) aircraft suitable for instrument flight instruction. 1'he-seThe aircraft may be owned or - leased. 11 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 11 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM (6) Specialized ', ,Commercial Flight Operations. Specialized commercial flight operators must have one person with a current commercial pilot's certificate with appropriate rating for the aircraft to be flown. (7) Aircraft Washing and Detailing. Sufficient facilities and/or procedures as per the ILM NPDES permit. (c) -M4tiffia m SA80 staffi .. min �il tit] 1-have h -rapt En ei�ial flight ate 1e !iie we r* to be .tarp'. r fled) ar, _ i!e "m 4'0 Vi .a: fft....t.r..4'OG p- iq., fi i &-YS per-se.-l- a ya i lab le- — �3 c°3 #� �resp€[�- kcnait�ir , !it aFjd ajq& 4 he ,k.,. 6e ,:.4"ka -shalI- pi-e ed- Minimum SASO Facility Requirements. ni �rt�n }- 4D- �`ae�t t�req�� (1) Where the SASO has a direct leLease with the ai�poa�yAirport Authority, the ground ' ° °$ Tease and facility requirements will be thEin twe aeFes of laHd and t#c SASS shall ean'-AF[jet L�-rSi��1�li vhar n- rro r+ f6 r. =G =F -..tin With i. na.gris g aled rihe]:.vna! i _i page .Lf —. ! €x�ryi publi . large ene-1- determined by the -90-a -meet re �e d e a authority based on the specific operation to be conducted and will be provided for C lt)rfiler Rtrer E - - ' ! I -ihan , 000 sqiiaFe feet. f4owgig € Ublle teiephetle r �ite a e Weei fteilideT !`f- te+ - parltii t �e hi the .� OA, bu F�lie -}ear _ ., 4 Fqi_m as speeified by, within khe4 lease. (2) Any SASO performing activities or services under a sublease shall have sufficient office space, hangar space, ramp area, tie -down area, public areas, parking spaces and other facilities and amenities adequate to support its commercial activity and as specified by governmental requirements. a. Prohibited SASO ,ef--.Services: A SASO shall be prohibited from the sale or dispensing of aircraft fuels.-An sei" 12 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 -3-12 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM _ fi�.... .:.el -•v :mow [wed _beae eperater a; inee� okqnea�s okirieh ail 6 Pe Sec. 8 -276. — Hangars and Associated Buildings to be Constructed on the Airport. All structures constructed on the- t - "+F1:7—Whe t €he -H3 e-oF�-iwuetieR aver e ti,L) .. A] 1- hangar or installed by GA Service Providers. shall comply with ILM's ff-e'al star- dsArchitectural Standards and must be constructed with properly designed doors and shall be stressed for hurricane area winds as dictated by _local, state and national building requirements. Floors and ramps - - -shall be of concrete with properly compacted subgrade of sufficient design load strength to sustain all types of aircraft that may use the facility. Buildings shall be of metal or - masonry construction or any other comparable fire- resistant material and shall be - - properly fireproofed in . i __accordance with the local �ar-shaZire Marshal and NFPA requirements. -Sufficient hose connections, oil and water separators for washing of aircraft, washing ramps or other purposes must be installed. Construction of hangars shall include adequate paved, off - street parking in accordance with governmental requirements and installation of an electronic security gate for controlled vehicle access. In addition, the a u i ko i, a i }Airport Authority may require a new fire hydrant if the new facility is more than five hundred (5001 feet from an existing fire hydrants. -a.� 4=4 13 Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 -3-13 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM Sec. 8-271. General. (a) The Airport Authorit) desires that certain General Aviation services and activities on the airport be furnished b) and engaged in for the benefit of the general flying public and to the benefit of civil aviation by General Aviation service providers (Fixed Base Operators and/or Special Aviation Services Operators) who meet the standards set forth and administered b) the Nei% I lano�er Count) Airport Authorih. Such standards are prescribed in this article. (b) The Airport Authority in recognition of its responsibilities as to exclusive rights imposed b) 49 USC§ 47101, FAA AC 150.5190 -7 series and in certain obligations contained in certain contracts and agreements bemeen the Airport Authorit) and the United States of America relative to the development and operation of the airport, desires and determines that all such aeronautical activities be conducted on the airport by General Aviation service providers in a fair and equitable manner. (c) The operating standards outlined in this section are the minimum requirements for General Aviation service providers as a condition of their right to lease premises and provide stated General Aviation activities at the Wilmington International Airport (ILM). (d) In the event of a direct conflict between the Minimum Standards Policy and any agreement entered into prior to the effective date of the Minimum Standards Polic), the agreement shall govern to the extent of such conflict. It is not intended in the Minimum Standards Policy to alter or change the rights under any pre - existing agreement, honever. if any pre - existing agreement requires the lessee or operator there under to comply n ith airport rules or regulations, then the Minimum Standards Polic) shall be incorporated into such pre - existing agreement as a result of such provisions and shall appl) to the lessee or operator there under to the extent that such polic) is not in direct conflict %%ith the agreement. (Ord. or 1 -20 -2004) Sec. 8- 271.5. Oe ti n i tions. The folio%%ing words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except there the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Air Charter Tari An entity that provides on- demand, non - scheduled passenger service in aircraft having no more than thirty (30) passenger seats. This entit) must operate under the appropriate Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Air Operating Area 00Aj The ramp, apron, rum%a) and taxiwa) system at the airport. Airport Authority: A corporate bod) that is appointed b) the New I lanover County Board of Commissioners and serves as the governing bod) of the Wilmington International Airport and adopts the policies, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the airport and its facilities b) its tenants and the public. Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 1 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILht .lircrafi maintenance The inspection, repair, calibration, presenation and pre�cntive maintenance or replacement of parts that falls within the scope of work that can be performed by an A &P Mechanic or IA and may require the need of a certificate issued under FAR Part 145. Comae The County of New Hanover, North Carolina that is supervised by the New I ianover Board of Commissioners, Fixed Base Operator (F80).- Only those individuals. firms or corporations that satisfactorily fumish and engage in the full and complete range of aircraft services and activities for the general public as required by the Airport Authority in Sec. 8 -274. FBOs may offer other services at their discretion abo%e and beyond the required services. General Aviation Service Providers. Any aeronautical activity intended to secure earnings, income, compensation or profit to corporate and for General Aviation aircraft. General Aviation service providers may be classified as either a fixed base operator (FBO) or a specialized aviation services operator (SASO), hrdependent Operators Is an individual operator who has been permitted by the Airport Authority to perform a single- service aeronautical activity on the airport such as maintenance, aircraft washing, etc. The permit will provide a level of regulation and compensation satisfactory to the airport. This permit may require an annual fee or percentage of the operator's gross receipts. Repair Station: An aircraft maintenance operation that is certified by the FAA and possesses a license in accordance with FAR Part 145. Specialized .lviation Scrvices Operator (S,.ISO) SASOs are sometimes known as single - service providers or special FBOs performing less than full services. These types of companies differ from a full service FBO in that they typically offer only a specialized aeronautical service such as aircraft sales, flight training, aircraft maintenance, or avionics services, for example. Specialized Flight Operations Specialized flight operations are services, persons or corporations engaged in activities specifically excluded from FAR Part 135. Examples include: banner towing and aerial advertising, aerial photography or survey, fire lighting or fire patrol, power line or pipeline patrol, or any other operation with written approval of the Airport Authority. (Ord. of 1 -20 -2004) Sec-8-272 Procedures of introduction, All parties wishing to provide aviation services at the airport shall introduce themselves to the Airport Authority by using the follo%%ing procedures: (1) Request a meeting with the Airport Director, (2) Submit a letter of intent to the Airport Director; (3) Submit a proposal and working drawings to the Airport Director and (4) Submit an audited financial report, or financial statements of the principals in the firm, to the Airport Director, (5) Final approval rests with the Airport Authority. braft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 2 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM Sec.8 -273. General a viation sere ice pro%iders. (a) Any General Aviation service prow ider cho wishes to engage in the business of providing General Aviation scr%ices at ILM must comply with applicable regulations and standards, local, state, and federal la«s and regulations; and the requirements and procedures established by this code. There shall be two categories of General Aviation service providers: (1) Fixed lease Operators (FBO) shall provide for: the sale of aviation petroleum products, basic aircraft engine and accessory maintenance and repair, aircraft rental, aircraft charter and taxi, tic -down, line service and ground handling. disabled aircraft recovery, hangar rental and aircraft storage, aircraft cashing. and flight planning and flight service facilities. (2) Specialized Aviation Service Operators (SASO) shall provide one (l) or more of the services listed in Sec. 8 -375 and meet requirements for that specific activity. (b) The Airport Authority reserves the right to temporarily tiwai%c any requirement provided a maximum time limit is set to comply. (c) All applicants desiring to establish and operate an aviation operation at the airport must furnish evidence satisfactory to the Airport Authority and the Airport Director that such person possesses all of the following qualifications: (1) Has never been held in default of any lease agreement, contract, license or permit relating to the operation of a business, by a court of lac or other cognizant legal authority. (2) A composite credit appraisal rating of "satisfactory" as determined by the applicants' financial institution or Dun R. Bradstreet (3) A current financial net worth showing the applicant holds unencumbered current assets in a total amount at least equaling three months' estimated maintenance and operating expenses. The applicant must also demonstrate that he has the capital required or unconditional financial backing sufficient to construct all leasehold improvements required by these standards and must unconditionally commit himself to the construction. (4) Employs a staff and full -time. on -site manager or supervisor c ith adequate experience in the operation of General Aviation operations to the reasonable satisfaction of the Authority. (d) All construction required of or desired by General Aviation sery ice providers on the airport shall be in accordance with applicable, state, local and ILM Architectural Standards required for the facility or activity involved. Construction standards include but are not limited to building. American Disabilities Act (ADA), and fire code requirements. (e) All General Aviation service providers shall be required to furnish the payment and performance bonds commensurate %%ith any construction required under the Minimum Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 3 MININIUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILNI Standards fixed in this article or under any contract or lease by and between any at iation operator and the Airport Authority. The Airport Authority may accept letters of credit or personal guarantee in lieu of performance bond requirements referenced. (f) All General Aviation service providers shall conduct their acti%ities and render their services in a safe, responsible and efficient manner and shall be solely responsible for all the acts of their agents andior employees and shall save and hold the Airport Authority. its agents, New Hanover County and its agents, harmless from any act of the aviation operator. its agents and employees. (g) All General Aviation service providers shall abide by and comply tivith all of the laves and ordinances of the state, the County, and the rules and regulations of the federal Aviation Administration. (h) All contracts and leases between all General Aviation service providers and the Airport Authority shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreements between the Airport Authority, the County and the United States of America, relative to the operation, maintenance or development of the airport, the execution of which has been or may be required as a condition precedent to previous or future expenditure of federal funds for the operation, maintenance or development of the airport property. (i) All General Aviation service providers shall provide certificates of insurance with the County, Airport Authority and their agents listed as additional insured for comprehensive General Liability, Hangar Keeper and Property Insurance. For General Liability, the minimum liability limit per single occurrence for bodily injury and property damage shall be that amount determined by the Airport Authority. Companies providing such insurance will be subject to Airport Authority approval. Sec. 8 -274. fixed Base Operators (FBO). (a) E:BOs at ILM shall be subject to minimum service standards, minimum starling standards and minimum facility requirements as follows. An FBO will be required to provide either directly or by sublease'subcontract all of the following services: b) In the case or the specific activ ities, the following minimum service standards shall apply. (1) Aircraft Maintenance and Repair a. Sufficient equipment, supplies, and spare parts to perform maintenance and repairs with personnel who are currently certified by the FAA n ith ratings appropriate to the Mork being performed and %%ho holds an airframe. poti%er plant. or aircraft inspector rating; or (2) maintain a current rAR Part 145 Certificate h. Uniformed and trained personnel in sufficient numbers to meet demand for the maintenance services. Specifically, at least one (1) A & P mechanic available during normal business hours. One (1) A & P mechanic shall be on call at all other times. Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 4 MINIhIUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM (2) Tie down. Line Service or Ground I landling. a. Adequately trained personnel and equipment. %%ith ne%er less than one (1) person on duty on the Leased Premises at all times during required hours of operation. b. Aircraft parking and tic -down facilities and equipment. including ropes. chains. wheel chocks, and any other types of restraining devices suitable to accommodate at least 15 aircraft. C. Ground support equipment for the turnaround of aircraft. including energizers, and starters, ground po�%er units, fire extinguishers and an auxiliary power unit. d. Transportation for transient passengers and pilots (i.e. access to a car for hire, shuttle or crew car). C. Equipment. parts and personnel for performing minor maintenance such as inflating aircraft tires, window and interior cleaning, and aircraft washing. (3) Disabled Aircraft Recovery a. Aircraft tow ing and other equipment as necessary for removal of disabled aircraft from the runway, taxiway or other operational areas on the airport. b. Aircraft towing and other equipment as necessary for retrieval of disabled aircraft from any landing area off the airport. C. Trained and experienced personnel as necessary to operate the equipment identified above in a timely and efficient manner (4) Retail Oil and fuel Sales a. Retail a%iation fuel sales fully trained and qualified sen ice personnel to dispense aviation fuels and lubricants on the premises during all hours of operation b. FBOs shall dispense aviation fuels and lubricants to aircraft in the customs area in accordance nith the policies and procedures set forth by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs. FBO personnel and vehicles shall have proper identification `markings, credentials and equipment prior to entering the Customs area. C. At least two (3) metered, filter- equipped fueling trucks adequate for dispensing aviation fuels. Trucks shall meet all applicable safety and other regulatory requirements. d. Construct and maintain permanent, above ground, aviation fuel storage facilities for a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) gallons of both Jet A and 100 LL aviation fuel. Maintenance shall be in accordance w ith all applicable airport, count). State, and federal laws, rules and regulations. C. FBOs shall maintain a current Spill Prevention Control and Counter measure (SPCC) plan. The plan shall be maintained and updated in Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 5 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM accordance with 40 CFR 113. A copy shall be provided to the Airport Director. (3) Hangar Rental and Aircraft Storage a. A 17130 shall provide at least one aircraft storage hangar for the permanent and itinerant storage of aircraft. The hangar shall meet the Minimum Standards for storage hangars under Minimum F130 Facility Standards set forth below. b. FBO managers shall provide a periodic revie%% of their vacant hangar space and make provisions to build additional hangars as required to meet reasonable market demands. The following items shall not be stored in FBO aircraft hangars: containers of flammable liquids, paint thinners, fuels, volatile materials. uncovered waste containers, compressed gasses and other items which may cause a Fire hazard. (6) Flight planning and Flight Service Facilities a. A flight planning facility equipped with adequate communication and other necessary flight planning materials. (c) Minimum Staffing Standards. An 17130 offering any of the services listed herein shall have at a minimum ttvo (3) employees (with ratings appropriate to the «ork to be performed) on -site during normal business hours. At all other times, the r130 shall have one (I ) person available, on call, to respond to customer inquiries and airport emergencies. In addition, minimum service, management and staling standards for the acti%ities listed above shall be provided. Multiple responsibilities may be assigned to personnel to meet staffing requirements for required activities. (d) Minimum r1310 Facility Standards 1. The leasehold shall contain the appropriate acreage to provide for the specific use area requirements established for the services of the follow ing required acti% ities: aircraft maintenance and repairs, plus the requirements set out in this section for the dispensing of aviation fuel and lubricants and hangar rental, (Specific use spaces need not be additive "here combination use can be reasonably and feasibly established.) 2. A building to provide adequate and heated space for office, public lounge, pilot briefing room and restrooms must be leased or constructed. Aircraft hangar rental space appropriate for the t)pe of aircraft to be stored. For 17130's with an FAA certificated repair station a separate hangar facility «ith minimum shop and floor space is required. 3. Ample public amenities for their customers to include a conveniently located, heated and air - conditioned lounge and separate sanitary restrooms Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 6 NIININIUNI STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM for men and % %omen, public telephone sen ice, pilot briefing room and snack and.-or beverage vending services available during required hours of operation. 4. Sufficient facilities and'or procedures for ►trashing aircraft. 5. Paved off - street parking outside of the Air Operations Area (AOA), but n ithin the Leased Premises, for a minimum number of automobiles as specified b) Ne%► Hanover County 6. Electronic securit) gate n ith closed circuit camera monitoring and continuous recording equipment to restrict unauthorized access to the ramp. (d) Other Items Required b% an 17-130 1. All equipment specificall) required for each required activity and elected additional activities must be provided with appropriate compan) identification markings. rotating beacon and radio equipment to move on the AOA. Sec. 8 -275. Specialized A0ation Service Operators (SASO). (a) A SASO can operate through a direct lease with the Airport Authorit) or through an Airport Authority approved sublease,'subcontract with an FI30 or other SASO, provided it satisfies the Minimum Standards. SASOs at ILM shall be subject to minimum service standards, minimum staffing standards and minimum facility requirements as follows. (b) Minimum Service Standards. Aviation services permitted to be conducted, if permitted b) the applicable Lease, b) a SASO may include, but shall not be limited to the services listed herein. (1) Aircraft sales. A SASO offering aircraft sales shall have one (1) person «ith a current commercial pilot's certificate "ith rating appropriate for the type of aircraft to be demonstrated as well as adequate staffing to service aircraft and accessories during %%arranty periods (new aircraft only). (2) Aircraft Maintenance and Repairs. A SASO offering maintenance and repairs shall have one (i) uniformed and trained mechanic certified by the FAA as an A &; P mechanic with ratings appropriate for work being performed With sufficient equipment, supplies and availabilit) of parts to maintain the operation. The office shall be attended during hours set b) the SASO. (3) Avionics Sales Installation and Repair. SASOs desiring to provide a radio or instrument or repair must hold a FAA repair station certificate and rating. One (1) FAA certified repairman qualified in accordance with the terms of the repair station certificate must be provided. The hours of operation shall be as set b) the SASO. (4) Instrument and Propeller Repair Services SASOs desiring to provide propeller repair service must hold a FAA repair station certificate and rating. One (1) FAA Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 7 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES AT ILM certified repairman qualified in accordance «ith the terms of the repair station certificate must be available during hours set by the SASO. (5) Flieht Instruction. A SASO offering flight instruction services shall make available for flight training currently air►wrthy aircraft, including at least one (t) aircraft suitable for instrument flight instruction. The aircraft may be owned or leased. (6) Specialized Commercial Flight Operations. Specialized commercial flight operators must ha% a one (1) person with a current commercial pilot's certificate with appropriate rating for the aircraft to be flown. (7) Aircraft Washing and Detailing_ Sufficient facilities andior procedures as per the ILM NPDES permit. (c) Minimum SASO Facility Requirements. (1) Where the SASO has a direct Lease with the Airport Authority, the ground lease and facility requirements will be determined by the authority based on the specific operation to be conducted and %rill be provided for in the lease. (2) Any SASO performing activities or services under a sublease shall have sufficient office space, hangar space, ramp area, tie -down area, public areas, parking spaces and other facilities and amenities adequate to support its commercial activity and as specified by governmental requirements. a. Prohibited SASO Services: A SASO shall be prohibited from the sale or dispensing of aircraft fuels. Sec., 8 -276. Hangars and Associated Buildings to be Constructed on the Airport. All structures constructed or installed by GA Service Providers shall comply N4ith ILM's Architectural Standards and must be constructed _with properly designed doors and shall be stressed for hurricane area winds as dictated by local, state and national building requirements. Floors and ramps shall be of concrete with properly compacted subgrade of sufficient design load strength to sustain all types of aircraft that may use the facility. Buildings shall be of metal or masonry construction or any other comparable fire-resistant material and shall be properly fireproofed in accordance with the local Fire Marshal and NFPA requirements. Sufficient hose connections, oil and water separators for %leashing of aircraft, washing ramps or other purposes must be installed. Construction of hangars shall include adequate paved, off - street parking in accordance with governmental requirements and installation of an electronic security gate for controlled vehicle access. In addition, the Airport Authority may require a new fire hydrant if the new facility is more than five hundred (500) feet from an existing fire hydrants. Draft November 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 8 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Finance PRESENTER(S): Frankie Roberts, LILAC Executive Director CONTACT(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Approval for Leading Into New Communities, Inc. (LINC) to Apply for Grant Funding from the N.C. Governor's Crime Commission with New Hanover County as the Applicant Agency BRIEF SUMMARY: Leading Into New Communities, Inc. (LINC) is requesting the Board's approval for the County to act as the applicant for a N.C. Governor's Crime Commission grant in the Criminal Justice Improvement, Gang Prevention and Intervention Category. The grant request for year one (7/1/16 to 6/30/17) is $150,000 and does not require a match. The request for year two (7/1/17 to 6/30/18) will be the same, $150,000 with no match requirement. The purpose of the grant is to begin a residential facility to house African American males, ages 16 -19, awaiting adjudication. The program will divert them from the County jail to a secure, structured residential setting with probation supervision, and an educational program to prevent further gang activity and other criminal activity by focusing on employment readiness and life skills. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Increase public safety and crime prevention RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend approval for LINC to apply for a Gang Prevention and Intervention grant with the N.C. Governor's Crime Commission with New Hanover County as the applicant agency. ATTACHMENTS: LINC Request Letter COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 4 IINC 1111111111111 � + Leading Into New Communities December 29, 2015 Ms. Teresa Hewett, Grants and Project Manager New Hanover County Finance Department 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 165 Wilmington, NC 28403 Frankie Roberts, Executive Director BOARD MEMBERS Alfred M. White, Chair, Bank of America Kim Cook, Ph.D., UNCW Sociology & Criminology Roland C. Draughn, III, Attorney at Law Elizabeth Hines, Ph.D., UNCW Geography Matthew Langley, Assisted Care, Inc. Michael Maume, Ph.D., UNCW Criminology LeeAnne Quattrucci, Attorney at Law Tracy W. Wilkinson, Attorney at Law Re: NC Governors Crime Commission Application, Criminal Justice Improvement Gang Prevention and Intervention Category Dear Teresa: On behalf of Leading Into New Communities, Inc., I would like to request that New Hanover County serve as the applicant for a NC Governors Crime Commission grant pre - application that is due on January 31, 2016. The amount to be requested is $150,000; there is not a required match. The purpose is to begin a residential facility for African American males, ages 16 -19, that will be housed in the previous fire station at the corner of Princess Place and Barclay Hills (3933 Princess Place Drive), through a lease from the City for $1.00 per year. The capacity will be for twelve residents at a time. Potential participants are 16- 19 year olds housed in the New Hanover County (NH Co) Jail, awaiting adjudication; this would divert them from prison to a secure, structured residential setting with probation supervision, and a program to prevent further gang activity and other criminal activity. The School will create a much - needed solution for the rising violent, specifically gang - related behavior, within New Hanover County. LINC, Inc. will provide an educational program, life skills, and trades /technology training in residential setting; it will be highly structured, with 24 hour supervision. I appreciate your consideration of this request. Please advise me about the timeline to complete the County's requirements, if willing to be an applicant for this funding. You may call me at 910 - 262 -1600 or Lynn Smithdeal at 910 - 622 -0033. Best reggards, +_7 p7 Frankie Roberts, Executive Director PO Box 401 • Wilmington, NC 28402 • Phone (910)332 -1132 • Fax (910)332 -1145• www.lincnc.org 501(c) 3nonprofit organization All donations are tax deductible & greatly appreciated Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Strategy & Budget PRESENTER(S): Beth Schrader, Chief Strategy and Budget Officer CONTACT(S): Beth Schrader SUBJECT: Approval of Board of Education Budget Amendments #3 and #4 BRIEF SUMMARY: 1) On December 1, 2015, the New Hanover County Board of Education adopted 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #3: a) The General Fund budget amendment appropriates $388,375 of fund balance for renovations for Roe. b) The Capital Outlay Fund budget amendment reduces the lottery budget ($28,523) to correct for carryover expenses, reallocates $825 of local funding to finalize the Roe renovation budget, reduces the Myrtle Grove - Phase I HVAC project and fund balance appropriation by ($53,000). This budget amendment also transfers $597,781 of funding from the Hoggard HS Additions & Renovations bond fund project to the Laney HS Additions & Renovations bond fund project, and reduces the Coddington HVAC Improvements bond project by ($16,088) and Eaton HVAC Improvements bond project by ($17,423) to correct for carryover expenses previously incurred and to align budget for scope of work. 2) On January 5, 2016, the New Hanover County Board of Education adopted 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #4. This budget amendment revises the list of bond projects in the Capital Outlay Fund based on an updated roof replacement schedule and increases the NHHS bond renovation project to include adding A/C to Brogden Hall. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Support programs to improve educational performance RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve New Hanover County Board of Education 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #3. ATTACHMENTS: NHCS 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #3 NHCS 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #4 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 Item: 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #3 Date: December 1, 2015 Department: Finance Background /Historical Context: The attached Budget Amendment is needed to record revenue changes and transfers as described in chart below: Fund Description State To record State Revisions #009 - #013 including VIF adjustment and Virtual Charter reductions. General Fund Balance Appropriation for Roe ($388,375), donation from Michael Harrison for Art Department Equipment ($1,225), Art Department reimbursement for July 2015 school clinicians ($3,000) and miscellaneous budget transfers. Federal Federal funded Homeless Grant, School Improvement 1003G Grant and IDEA Targeted Assistance Grant and miscellaneous transfers. Other Record Landfall Foundation Grants for EC tricycles ($7,494), Bellamy iPads Restricted ($6,868), and Gregory STEM Equipment ($7,500). Revenue Capital Outlay To correct carryover, finalize budget for Roe, and transfer bond renovation funds from Hoggard to Laney to align budget and scope of work. Enterprise To record the Actual vs Planning budgets for the Fruit & Veggie Grants for Alderman, College Park, Williams, Sunset Park, Gregory, Winter Park and Wrightsboro. Recommendation: For Approval Rationale for Recommendation: Approval is needed to record budget changes. Short and Long Term Impact: Required for planning and resource management. Supporting Documentation: • Summary by fund and purpose /function • Individual Funds shown with current and revised totals. • Capital Outlay also shown by Project, including the multi -year budget. Board Action: Recommendation Accepted Recommendation Rejected Tabled for Further Study Other Board of Commissioners - January 19 11EM'b -I -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Budget Amendment #: Be it resolved by the New Hanover County Board of Education that the following amendments be made to the Budget Resolution for the fiscal vear ending June 30, 2016: Revenue Source: Federal Sources FLocal Current Expense Fund (General) (2) Federal Grant Fund (3) Other Restricted Revenue Fund (8) Subtotal Operating Budget Capital Outlay Fund (4) Enterprise Fund (5) Private Purpose Trust Fund (6) Total Amendment Purpose /Function: $ $ - - $ Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriations $ 388,375 $ 388,375 (53,000) $ Regular Instruction $ (84,720) $ 49,216 $ 83,696 $ 14,368 $ 62,560 $ $ (33,512) $ 62,560 Special Populations $ (1,296) - $ 128,391 7,494 134,589 21,862 $ - 134,589 Alternative Programs $ (12,902) - $ 734,208 - 721,306 - $ (28,523) 721,306 School Leadership $ 19,557 $ 108,729 128,286 - $ - 128,286 Co- Curricular $ - $ - $ 392,600 - $ 21,862 $ $ (115,035) - School -Based Support $ (6,024) - $ 70,139 64,115 $ 64,115 subtotal 1 $ (104,942)1 $ 68,773 1 $ 1,125,162 1 $ 21,862 1 $ 1,110,855 1 $ $ $ $ 1,110,855 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ $ - $ 15,181 $ - $ 15,181 $ $ $ 15,181 Special Population Support and Development $ $ 21,409 21,409 $ 21,409 Alternative Program Support and Development $ $ (1,868) (1,868) $ (1,868) Technology Support $ 107,700 $ 13,734 121,434 $ 121,434 Operational Support $ 190,750 $ (59,502) 131,248 $ 131,248 Financial and Human Resources $ 7,850 $ (0) 7,850 $ 7,850 Accountability $ - $ $ - System -Wide Pupil Support $ - $ $ Policy, Leadership and Public Relations $ 2,547 $ 2,547 $ 2,547 subtotal $ $ 308,847 $ (11,047) $ $ 297,800 $ $ $ $ 297,800 Ancillary: Community Services $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ Nutrition Services $ 14,980 $ 14,992 $ 29,972 $ (51,396) (21,424) subtotal $ $ 14,980 $ 14,992 $ $ 29,972 $ $ (51,396) $ $ (21,424) Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ $ - $ - $ 1 $ $ (114,210) $ 1 1 $ (114,210) Non - programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ $ $ 59,237 $ $ 59,237 $ - $ $ 59,237 Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost $ $ - - (825) $ (825) Transfer to Other Funds $ $ $ - Scholarships $ $ $ subtotal $ $ $ 59,237 $ $ 59,237 1 $ (825) $ 1 $ $ 58,412 Total Appropriation 1 $ (104,942)1 $ 392,600 1 $ 1,188,344 1 $ 21,862 1 $ 1,497,864 1 $ (115,035) $ (51,396)1 $ 1 $ 1,331,433 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ $ $ 1,188,344 $ $ 1,188,344 $ $ (51,396) $ 1,136,948 Food Sales $ $ - - $ - Fund Balance Appropriations $ 388,375 $ 388,375 (53,000) $ 335,375 New Hanover County $ - $ - (33,512) $ (33,512) Other Revenues $ 4,225 $ 21,862 26,087 - $ 26,087 State Sources $ (104,942) - $ - (104,942) (28,523) $ (133,465) Transfer from Other Funds $ $ - - - $ - Total Revenue $ (104,942) $ 392,600 $ 1,188,344 $ 21,862 $ 1,497,864 $ (115,035) $ (51,396) $ - $ 1,331,433 Passed by majority vote of the New Hanover County Board of Chairman New Hanover County Board of E ucation of firth Carolina on the 1st Day of December, 2015. County Board of Education Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 2 State Fund Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #3 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: - Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation New Hanover County - Regular Instruction $ 79,212,874 $ (84,720) $ 79,128,154 Special Populations (104,942) 22,413,724 Transfer from Other Funds (1,296) - 22,412,428 Alternative Programs $ 139,916,926 5,427,247 $ 139,811,984 (12,902) 5,414,345 School Leadership 7,771,660 - 7,771,660 Co- Curricular - - - School -Based Support 8,246,759 (6,024) 8,240,735 subtotal $ 123,072,265 1 $ (104,942)1 $ 122,967,323 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ 264,168 - $ 264,168 Special Population Support and Development 116,371 - 116,371 Alternative Program Support and Development 310,717 - 310,717 Technology Support 586,296 - 586,296 Operational Support 14,540,311 14,540,311 Financial and Human Resources 266,301 - 266,301 Accountability - - - System -Wide Pupil Support - - - Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 687,508 687,508 subtotal $ 16,771,672 $ $ 16,771,672 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services 72,989 - 72,989 subtotal $ 72,989 $ - $ 72,989 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ - $ - $ Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost - - Transfer to Other Funds - - - Scholarships - - subtotal $ - $ $ - Total Appropriation $ 139,916,926 $ (104,942)1 $ 139,811,984 Revenue Source: Federal Sources - Food Sales - - Fund Balance Appropriation New Hanover County - Other Revenues - - - State Sources 139,916,926 (104,942) 139,811,984 Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 139,916,926 $ (104,942)1 $ 139,811,984 Explanation: To record State Revisions #009 - #013 including VIF adjustment and Virtual Charter reductions. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 3 General Fund Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #3 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000 Food Sales - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation 2,949,235 388,375 3,337,610 New Hanover County 70,610,100 Regular Instruction $ 21,679,807 $ 49,216 $ 21,729,023 Special Populations - 2,917,332 Transfer from Other Funds - - 2,917,332 Alternative Programs $ 75,758,000 1,951,733 $ 76,150,600 - 1,951,733 School Leadership 5,672,511 19,557 5,692,068 Co- Curricular 2,124,755 - 2,124,755 School -Based Support 6,957,333 - 6,957,333 subtotal $ 41,303,471 $ 68,773 $ 41,372,244 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ 1,747,474 - $ 1,747,474 Special Population Support and Development 311,575 - 311,575 Alternative Program Support and Development 295,839 - 295,839 Technology Support 3,557,893 107,700 3,665,593 Operational Support 16,972,171 190,750 17,162,921 Financial and Human Resources 4,729,150 7,850 4,737,000 Accountability 317,905 - 317,905 System -Wide Pupil Support 552,398 - 552,398 Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 1,719,590 2,547 1,722,137 subtotal $ 30,203,994 $ 308,847 $ 30,512,841 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services 172,260 14,980 187,240 subtotal $ 172,260 $ 14,980 $ 187,240 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ 2,070,000 $ - $ 2,070,000 Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost 1,345,000 - 1,345,000 Transfer to Other Funds 627,275 - 627,275 Scholarships 36,000 - 36,000 subtotal $ 4,078,275 $ - $ 4,078,275 Total Appropriation $ 75,758,000 $ 392,600 $ 76,150,600 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000 Food Sales - - Fund Balance Appropriation 2,949,235 388,375 3,337,610 New Hanover County 70,610,100 - 70,610,100 Other Revenues 2,188,665 4,225 2,192,890 State Sources - - - Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 75,758,000 $ 392,600 $ 76,150,600 Explanation: Fund Balance Appropriation for Roe ($388,375), donation from Michael Harrison for Art Department Equipment ($1,225), Art Department reimbursement for July 2015 school clinicians ($3,000) and miscellaneous budget transfers. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 4 Federal Fund Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #3 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ 13,085,393 1,188,344 $ 14,273,737 Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation - - - New Hanover County - Regular Instruction $ 748,540 $ 83,696 $ 832,236 Special Populations - 4,504,215 $ 128,391 - 4,632,606 Alternative Programs $ 13,085,393 5,474,309 $ 734,208 6,208,517 School Leadership 12,332 $ 108,729 121,061 Co- Curricular - $ - - School -Based Support 506,342 $ 70,139 576,481 subtotal $ 11,245,738 $ 1,125,162 $ 12,370,900 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ 212,308 $ 15,181 $ 227,489 Special Population Support and Development 8,215 $ 21,409 29,624 Alternative Program Support and Development 464,460 $ (1,868) 462,592 Technology Support - $ 13,734 13,734 Operational Support 392,000 $ (59,502) 332,498 Financial and Human Resources 149,580 $ (0) 149,580 Accountability - - - System -Wide Pupil Support - - - Policy, Leadership and Public Relations - - - subtotal $ 1,226,563 1 $ (11,047)1 $ 1,215,516 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services 6,500 $ 14,992 21,492 subtotal $ 6,500 $ 14,992 $ 21,492 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ 606,592 $ 59,237 $ 665,829 Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost - - - Transfer to Other Funds - - - Scholarships - - - subtotal $ 606,592 $ 59,237 $ 665,829 Total Appropriation $ 13,085,393 $ 1,188,344 $ 14,273,737 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ 13,085,393 1,188,344 $ 14,273,737 Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation - - - New Hanover County - - - Other Revenues - - - State Sources - - - Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 13,085,393 $ 1,188,344 $ 14,273,737 Explanation: Federal funded Homeless Grant, School Improvement 1003G Grant and IDEA Targeted Assistance Grant and miscellaneous transfers. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 5 Other Restricted Revenue Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #3 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ 2,703,778 $ - $ 2,703,778 Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation 1,346,707 - 1,346,707 New Hanover County - Regular Instruction $ 554,509 $ 14,368 $ 568,877 Special Populations - 793,121 Transfer from Other Funds 7,494 - 800,615 Alternative Programs $ 8,871,503 4,263,367 $ 8,893,365 - 4,263,367 School Leadership - - - Co- Curricular 679,545 679,545 School -Based Support 817,397 - 817,397 subtotal $ 7,107,939 $ 21,862 $ 7,129,801 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ - - $ - Special Population Support and Development 165,855 - 165,855 Alternative Program Support and Development 203,560 - 203,560 Technology Support - - - Operational Support 1,054,672 - 1,054,672 Financial and Human Resources 80,663 80,663 Accountability - - - System -Wide Pupil Support 491 - 491 Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 3,369 - 3,369 subtotal $ 1,508,610 $ - $ 1,508,610 Ancillary: Community Services $ 100,500 $ - $ 100,500 Nutrition Services 1,500 - 1,500 subtotal $ 102,000 $ $ 102,000 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non - programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ 144,488 $ $ 144,488 Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost 3,967 - 3,967 Transfer to Other Funds 4,500 - 4,500 Scholarships - - - subtotal $ 152,955 $ - $ 152,955 Total Appropriation $ 8,871,503 $ 21,862 $ 8,893,365 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ 2,703,778 $ - $ 2,703,778 Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation 1,346,707 - 1,346,707 New Hanover County - - Other Revenues 1,694,197 21,862 1,716,059 State Sources 3,126,821 - 3,126,821 Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 8,871,503 $ 21,862 $ 8,893,365 Explanation: Record Landfall Foundation Grants for EC tricycles ($7,494), Bellamy iPads ($6,868), and Gregory STEM Equipment ($7,500). Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 6 Enterprise Fund Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #3 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: Instructional services: Regular Instruction $ 8,580,604 Food Sales - Special Populations 2,722,300 - - Alternative Programs - - - School Leadership - - - Co- Curricular - - - School -Based Support - - - subtotal $ Total Revenue - System -wide support services: Support and Development $ - Special Population Support and Development - - - Alternative Program Support and Development - - - Technology Support - - - Operational Support - - - Financial and Human Resources - - - Accountability - - - System -Wide Pupil Support - - - Policy, Leadership and Public Relations - - - subtotal $ - Ancillary: Community Services $ - Nutrition Services 12,149,500 (51,396)1 12,098,104 subtotal $ 12,149,500 1 $ (51,396)1 $ 12,098,104 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ - $ - $ - Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost - - - Transfer to Other Funds - - - Scholarships - - - subtotal $ - $ - $ - Total Appropriation $ 12,149,500 1 $ (51,396)1 $ 12,098,104 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ 8,632,000 $ (51,396) $ 8,580,604 Food Sales 2,722,300 - 2,722,300 Fund Balance Appropriation 662,700 - 662,700 New Hanover County - - - Other Revenues 72,500 - 72,500 State Sources 9,000 - 9,000 Transfer from Other Funds 51,000 - 51,000 Total Revenue $ 12,149,500 $ (51,396) $ 12,098,104 Explanation: To record the Actual vs Planning budgets for the Fruit & Veggie Grants for Alderman, College Park, Williams, Sunset Park, Gregory, Winter Park and Wrightsboro. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 7 Capital Outlay Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #3 I Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ $ - $ - Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation 1,564,889 (53,000) 1,511,889 New Hanover County (includes Bond) 162,088,640 Regular Instruction $ 193,774 $ - $ 193,774 Special Populations (28,523) - Transfer from Other Funds 627,275 - - Alternative Programs $ 165,930,464 $ (115,035) $ 165,815,429 School Leadership - Co- Curricular - - School -Based Support - - subtotal $ 193,774 $ - $ 193,774 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ - $ - $ ' Special Population Support and Development - - Alternative Program Support and Development - - Technology Support 1,287,063 1,287,063 Operational Support 410,693 410,693 Financial and Human Resources 40,000 40,000 Accountability - - System -Wide Pupil Support - - Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 22,000 22,000 subtotal $ 1,759,756 $ - $ 1,759,756 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services - - subtotal $ - $ - $ - Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ 163,962,298 $ (114,210) $ 163,848,088 Non - programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ - $ - $ - Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost 14,636 (825) 13,811 Transfer to Other Funds - - - Scholarships - - - subtotai $ 14,636 $ (825)1 $ 13,811 Total Appropriation $ 165,930,464 $ (115,035) $ 165,815,429 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ $ - $ - Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation 1,564,889 (53,000) 1,511,889 New Hanover County (includes Bond) 162,088,640 (33,512) 162,055,128 Other Revenues - - - State Sources 1,649,661 (28,523) 1,621,137 Transfer from Other Funds 627,275 - 627,275 Total Revenue $ 165,930,464 $ (115,035) $ 165,815,429 Explanation: To correct carryover, finalize budget for Roe, and transfer bond renovation funds from Hoggard to Laney to align budget and scope of work. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 8 Capital Outlay Fund Budget by Funding Source and Project #: Funding Source/ Project Budget Project # Program Project Description (Multi-Year) Current Budget Amendment #3 Revised Budget PSBCF - Lottery Revenue: 9113.14 076 Wrightsboro Floor Repairs 95,000.00 47,310.87 47,310.87 9140.15 076 Veterans Park Cooling Tower Rplmt 472,500.00 140,854.90 (15,672.90) 125,182.00 9145.15 076 Sunset Park Soffit & Fascia Rplmt 183,000.00 42,990.00 (12,500.00) 30,490.00 9146.15 076 Sunset Park Roof Rplmt 551,000.00 521,200.00 521,200.00 9147.15 076 Codington HVAC Rplmt 223,000.00 175.21 (175.21) - 9148.15 076 Eaton HVAC Rplmt 223,000.00 175.21 (175.21) - 9158.15 076 Sidbury Road Complex 110,000.00 86,311.43 86,311.43 9162.16 076 Wrightsboro Floor Replacement 54,000.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 9163.16 076 Laney Painting 180,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00 9164.16 076 Fire Alarm Replacement 36,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00 9165.16 076 Eaton and Codington Carpet Replacement 144,000.00 144,000.00 144,000.00 9166.16 076 Bradley Creek Water Heaters 56,000.00 56,000.00 56,000.00 9167.16 076 Bellamy Painting 80,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 9168.16 076 Williams Service Ramp 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 9169.16 076 Laney Restroom Renovations 38,250.00 38,250.00 38,250.00 9170.16 076 Bellamy & Murray Traffic Improvements 12,000.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 2,502,750.00 1,484,267.62 (28,523.32) 1,455,744.30 DPI School Bus Revenue: 6550 120 School Bus Leases (DPI) 1,920,025.00 165,393.00 165,393.00 Local Funding: 8500 801 Capital Outlay Contingency n/a 14,636.29 (825.00) 13,811.29 5110.16 801 Furniture & Equipment 110,000,00 110,000.00 110,000.00 6550.16 801 Vehicles 189,500.00 189,500.00 189,500.00 6610.16 801 Finance Workstations 6,775.00 6,775.00 6,775.00 6942.16 801 Central Offioe Equipment 22,000.00 22,000.00 22,000.00 9160.16 801 Lakeside Demolition 348,500.00 348,500.00 348,500.00 9161.16 801 Roe Renovation 250,000.00 250,000.00 825.00 250,825.00 5110 814 Furniture and Equipment 109,241.41 7,898.97 7,898.97 6401.46 814 Novell to AD Migration - Phase II 157,350.00 1,743.57 1,743.57 9125 814 Myrtle Grove - Phase I HVAC 661,737.99 61,737.31 (53,000.00) 8,737.31 9140 814 Proximity Exterior Door Locks 254,638.84 71,897.74 71,897.74 9142 814 Replace PA Systems 193,626.76 150,239.53 150,239.53 6401.74 815 Repl computers and monitors 229.00 229.29 229.29 6550 815 Vehicles 203,500.00 46,327.48 46,327.48 9115 815 Playground Equip Rplmt & Access 100,000.00 76,965.72 76,965.72 9130 815 Johnson Abatement & Carpet Rplmt 100,000.00 74,589.25 74,589.25 9137 815 Mobile Classroom Replacement 753,189.04 353,573.34 353,573.34 9150 815 Hoggard Cabling Project 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 9151 815 NHHS Painting 150,000.00 126,250.00 126,250.00 9152 815 Williston Kitchen Hood Rplmt 132,000.00 74,803.25 74,803.25 9153 815 Kitchen Coler/Freezer Rplmts 50,000.00 38,104.00 38,104.00 9157 815 Sidbury Road Complex Improvements 178,100.00 96,393.25 96,393.25 4,040,388.04 2,192,163.99 (53,000.00) 2,139,163.99 County Capital Appropriation: 5110 816 Furniture and Equipment 75,875.00 75,875.00 75,875.00 6550 816 Vehicles - - - 6401 816 Computer Replacement 1,285,100.00 1,285,100.00 1,285,100.00 6580 816 Maintenance Equipment 55,800.00 55,800.00 55,800.00 6610 816 Finance Workstations 33,225.00 33,225.00 33,225.00 6942 816 Central Office Equipment - - - 9157 816 Sidbury Road Complex Improvements 1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00 9160 816 Lakeside Demolition 8 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 9 Funding Source/ Project Budget Project # Program Project Description (Multi -Year) Current Budget Amendment #3 Revised Budget 9161 816 Contingency for Roe Renovation 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2014 Bond Program: 9001.01 900 Northeast ES 17,011,380.00 16,571,392.75 16,571,392.75 9002.03 900 College Park ES Rpimt 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 9003.05 900 Blair ES Rplmt 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 17,011,381,00 9004.06 900 Laney HS Addns & Renovns 10,558,788.00 10,547,588.00 597,781.00 11,145,369.00 9005.08 900 Hoggard HS Addns & Renovns 16,424,781.00 16,423,873.91 (597,781.00) 15,826,092.91 9006.09 900 New Hanover HS Renovns 5,279,394.00 5,262,294.00 5,262,294.00 900710 900 Roland Grise MS Renovns 11,660,898.00 11,659,550.33 11,659,550.33 9008.11 900 Noble MS Renovns 7,906,664.00 7,906,664.00 7,906,664.00 9009.12 900 Trask MS Renovns 9,901,100,00 9,901,100.00 9,901,100.00 9010.13 900 Myrtle Grove MS Renovns 8,727,903.00 8,727,903.00 8,727,903.00 9011.14 900 Wrightsville Beach ES Addns & Renovns 7,332,492.00 7,332,492.00 7,332,492.00 9012.07 9o0 Technology - Network Infrastructure 5,690,014.00 5,651,810.00 5,651,810.00 9013.07 900 Technology - Security Cameras 3,402,276.00 3,402,276.00 3,402,276.00 9014.07 900 Technology - VoIP Corelnfrasir /Equip 469,279.00 469,279.00 469,279.00 9015.04 9o0 Sunset Park Roof Rplml 219,800.00 219,800.00 219,800.00 9016.04 900 Noble Roof Rpimt 302,445.00 302,445.00 302,445.00 9017.04 900 Trask Roof Rpimt 313,986.00 313,986.00 313,986.00 9018.04 900 Laney Roof Rplmt 426,030.00 426,030.00 426,030.00 9019.04 900 Johnson Roof Rpimt 990,667.00 985,394.55 985,394.55 9020.04 900 Haggard HS Roof Rplmt 783,503.00 783,503.00 783,503.00 9021.04 900 Trask Roof Rplmt 927,272.00 927,272.00 927,272.00 9022.04 900 Pine Valley Roof Rplmt 826,763.00 826,763.00 826,763.00 9023.04 900 Codington Roof Rplmt 430,642.00 430,642.00 430,642.00 9024.04 900 Eaton Roof Rplmt 436,783.00 436,783.00 436,783.00 9025.04 900 Holly Tree Roof Coating 986,040.00 986,040.00 986,040.00 9026.04 900 Freeman Roof Rplmt 479,595.00 479,595.00 479,595.00 9027.04 900 Veterans Park Roof Coating 627,888.00 627,888.00 627,888.00 9028.04 900 Noble Abmt/Carpet Rplml 304,553.00 250,546.25 250,546.25 9029.04 900 Hoggard AbmUCarpet Rplmt 681,750.00 681,750.00 681,750.00 9030,04 900 Laney AbmUCarptRplmt 516,208.00 516,208.00 516,208.00 9031.04 900 Wrightsboro Boiler Rplmt (Note 2) 9034.04 900 Codington HVAC Imprmts 260,720.00 147,687.27 (16,088.34) 131,598.93 9035.04 900 Eaton HVAC Imprmts 261,525.00 121,319.54 (17,423.47) 103,896.07 9036.04 900 Veterans Park HVAC Imprmts 367,474.00 367,474.00 367,474,00 9037.04 900 New Hanover HVAC Imprmts 360,459.00 360,459.00 360,459.00 9038.04 900 Bradley Creek HVAC Imprmts 1,611,757.00 1,593,349.50 1,593,349,50 9039.04 900 Johnson HVAC Imprmts 1,611,758.00 1,593,350.50 1,593,350.50 9040.04 900 HVAC & Controls Imprmts at Var Schools 1,509,314.00 1,509,314.00 1,509,314.00 9041.15 900 Program Management 3,106,796.00 3,053,513.92 3,053,513.92 9042.16 900 Contingency 3,268,541.00 3,268,541.00 3,268,541.00 160,000,000.00 159,088,639.52 (33,511.81) 159,055,127.71 $ 171,463,163.04 $ 165,930,464.13 $ (115,035.13) $ 165,815,429.00 Note: Changed program numbering to segregate County Funded Projects (816) from fund balance appropriations (801 -815). All future fund balance appropriations will be coded to program 801. The progam number will no longer indicate budget year for funding. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 10 APPENDIX G Item: 2015 -16 Budget Amendment #4 Date: January 5, 2016 Department: Finance Background /Historical Context: The attached Budget Amendment is needed to record revenue changes and transfers as described in chart below: Fund Description State To record State Revisions #014 - #017 including a CTE ABC Transfer ($62,455), program allocations, Summer Reading Camps carryover reversion ($12,590.89), Transportation Planning Budget vs. Actual Adjustment ($574,849), Textbook Transfers and miscellaneous budget transfers including EC Savings Plan in which higher paid positions were moved to State funding. General Record WBS Foundation donation for a Teacher Assistant ($25,185) and four part-time Tutors at Wrightsville Beach ($26,440), reimbursement for environmental cleanup at Roland -Grise ($3,560), Insurance settlement for Blair's lightning damage repairs ($1,666.29), advertising revenue from The Education App, LLC for Technology projects ($18,463.91) and miscellaneous budget transfers including the EC Savings Plan in which we moved higher aid staff to state funding. Other Record grant budget for staff development from Southern Regional Restricted Education Board ($9,692.50) and Winter Park Yoga Program grants from Revenue PPD (carryover of $2,162.47) and Assistance League of Greater Wilmington ($1,000). To record transfers to budget special education health services contract with Medicaid funds and set up reserve for Year 3 portion of Head Start budget. Capital Outlay To revise bond plan based on updated roof replacement schedule and increase in NHHS renovation project to include A/C of Bro den Hall. Recommendation: For Approval Rationale for Recommendation: Approval is needed to record budget changes. Short and Long Term Impact: Required for planning and resource management. Supporting Documentation: • Summary by fund and purpose /function • Individual Funds shown with current and revised totals. • Capital Outlay also shown by Project, including the multi -year budget. Board Action: Recommendation Accepted Recommendation Rejected Tabled for Further Study Other Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Budget Amendment #: Be it resolved by the New Hanover County Board of Education that the following amendments be made to the Budget Resolution for the fiscal near ending June 30, 2016: Revenue Source: Federal Sources State Public School Fund (1) Local Current Expense Fund (General) (2) Federal Grant Fund (3) Other Restricted Revenue Fund (8) Subtotal Operating Budget Capital Outlay Fund (4) Enterprise Fund (5) Private Purpose Trust Fund (6) Total Amendment Purpose /Function: Instructional services: Regular Instruction $ (1,568,729) $ (57,920) $ $ 12,855 $ (1,613,794) $ $ Fund Balance Appropriations $ (1,613,794) Special Populations $ 2,329,850 (1,110,227) $ (395,314) 824,309 $ New Hanover County 824,309 Alternative Programs $ (100,933) 468,444 $ (59,551) 307,960 $ Other Revenues 307,960 School Leadership $ 2,450 $ 2,450 $ State Sources 21450 Co- Curricular $ - $ - - $ Transfer from Other Funds $ School -Based Support $ (660,467) 718,977 $ 259,336 317,847 $ Total Revenue 317,847 subtotal I $ (278)1 $ 21,724 1 $ 1 $ (182,674) $ (161,228) $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ (161,228) System -wide support services: Support and Development $ (14,131) $ 43,609 $ $ $ 29,479 $ $ $ 29,479 Special Population Support and Development $ 174,000 (176,506) $ (2,506) $ (2,506) Alternative Program Support and Development $ 340 99,927 $ 5,338 105,605 $ 105,605 Technology Support $ - (13,555) $ - (13,555) $ (13,555) Operational Support $ (557,599) 38,191 $ (35,026) (554,434) $ (554,434) Financial and Human Resources $ 9,500 (550) $ 8,950 $ 8,950 Accountability $ - 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 System -Wide Pupil Support $ - 2,454 $ 2,454 $ 2,454 Policy, Leadership and Public Relations $ (2,000) 58,521 $ 56,521 $ 56,521 subtotal $ (389,890) $ 53,591 $ $ (29,688) $ (365,987) $ $ $ $ (365,987) Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ Nutrition Services $ (7,500) $ (1,000) $ (8,500) $ (8,500) subtotal $ (7,500) $ $ $ (1,000) $ (8,500) $ $ $ $ (8,500) Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ $ $ $ (94,488) $ (94,488) $ $ $ (94,488) Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost $ $ 320,705 320,705 $ 320,705 Transfer to Other Funds $ $ - - $ - Scholarships $ $ - - $ - subtotal E&ME7668) $ $ $ 226,217 $ 226,217 $ $ $ $ 226,217 Total Appropriation $ 75,315 $ $ 12,855 1 $ (309,498) $ $ $ $ (309,498) Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Food Sales $ $ $ - Fund Balance Appropriations $ $ 2,162 2,162 $ 2,162 New Hanover County $ $ - - $ - Other Revenues $ 75,315 $ 10,693 86,008 $ 86,008 State Sources $ (397,668) - $ - (397,668) $ (397,668) Transfer from Other Funds $ - $ $ Total Revenue $ (397,668)1 $ 75,315 $ $ 12,855, $ (309,498) $ $ $ - $ (309,498) Passed by majority vote of the New Hanover County Board of Education offNort Carolina on the 5th Day of January, 2016. 9&las Chairman cretary New Hanover County Board of Education New Hanover County Board of Education Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 2 State Fund Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #4 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ - $ - $ - Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation - - New Hanover County - Regular Instruction $ 79,128,154 $ (1,568,729) $ 77,559,425 Special Populations (397,668) 22,412,428 Transfer from Other Funds 2,329,850 - 24,742,278 Alternative Programs $ 139,811,984 5,414,345 $ 139,414,316 (100,933) 5,313,413 School Leadership 7,771,660 - 7,771,660 Co- Curricular - - - School -Based Support 1 8,240,735 1 (660,467)1 7,580,269 subtotal $ 122,967,323 1 $ (278) $ 122,967,044 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ 264,168 (14,131) $ 250,037 Special Population Support and Development 116,371 174,000 290,371 Alternative Program Support and Development 310,717 340 311,057 Technology Support 586,296 - 586,296 Operational Support 14,540,311 (557,599) 13,982,712 Financial and Human Resources 266,301 9,500 275,801 Accountability - - - System -Wide Pupil Support - - - Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 687,508 (2,000) 685,508 subtotal $ 16,771,672 1 $ (389,890)1 $ 16,381,783 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services 72,989 (7,500) 65,489 subtotal $ 72,989 $ (7,500) $ 65,489 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ - $ - $ - Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost - - - Transfer to Other Funds - - - Scholarships - - - subtotal $ - $ - $ - Total Appropriation $ 139,811,984 1 $ (397,668)1 $ 139,414,316 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ - $ - $ - Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation - - New Hanover County - - Other Revenues - I - I - State Sources 139,811,984 (397,668) 139,414,316 Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 139,811,984 $ (397,668) $ 139,414,316 Explanation: To record State Revisions #014 - #017 including a CTE ABC Transfer ($62,455), program allocations, Summer Reading Camps carryover reversion ($12,590.89), Transportation Planning Budget vs. Actual Adjustment ($574,849), Textbook Transfers and miscellaneous budget transfers including EC Savings Plan in which higher paid positions were moved to State funding. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 3 General Fund Cummu/ative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #4 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation 3,337,610 3,337,610 New Hanover County 70,610,100 Regular Instruction $ 21,729,023 $ (57,920) $ 21,671,103 Special Populations - 2,917,332 Transfer from Other Funds (1,110,227) - 1,807,105 Alternative Programs $ 76,150,600 1,951,733 $ 76,225,915 468,444 2,420,177 School Leadership 5,692,068 2,450 5,694,518 Co- Curricular 2,124,755 - 1 2,124,755 School -Based Support 6,957,333 718,977 7,676,311 subtotal $ 41,372,244 $ 21,724 $ 41,393,968 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ 1,747,474 43,609 $ 1,791,083 Special Population Support and Development 311,575 (176,506) 135,069 Alternative Program Support and Development 295,839 99,927 395,765 Technology Support 3,665,593 (13,555) 3,652,037 Operational Support 17,162,921 38,191 17,201,112 Financial and Human Resources 4,737,000 (550) 4,736,450 Accountability 317,905 1,500 319,405 System -Wide Pupil Support 552,398 2,454 554,852 Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 1,722,137 58,521 1,780,658 subtotal $ 30,512,841 $ 53,591 $ 30,566,432 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services 187,240 - 187,240 subtotal $ 187,240 $ - $ 187,240 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ 2,070,000 $ - $ 2,070,000 Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost 1,345,000 - 1,345,000 Transfer to Other Funds 627,275 - 627,275 Scholarships 36,000 - 36,000 subtotal $ 4,078,275 $ - $ 4,078,275 Total Appropriation LL =L6 $ 75,315 $ 76,225,915 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation 3,337,610 3,337,610 New Hanover County 70,610,100 70,610,100 Other Revenues 2,192,890 75,315 2,268,205 State Sources - - - Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 76,150,600 $ 75,315 $ 76,225,915 Explanation: Record WBS Foundation donation for a Teacher Assistant ($25,185) and four part-time Tutors at Wrightsville Beach ($26,440), reimbursement for environmental cleanup at Roland -Grise ($3,560), Insurance settlement for Blair's lightning damage repairs ($1,666.29), advertising revenue from The Education App, LLC for Technology projects ($18,463.91) and miscellaneous budget transfers including the EC Savings Plan in which we moved higher paid staff to state funding. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 4 Other Restricted Revenue Cummulative Budget Summary: urrent Budget I Amendment #4 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ 2,703,778 $ - $ 2,703,778 Food Sales - - Instructional services: Fund Balance Appropriation 1,346,707 2,162 1,348,869 New Hanover County - Regular Instruction $ 568,877 $ 12,855 $ 581,732 Special Populations - 800,615 Transfer from Other Funds (395,314) - 405,301 Alternative Programs $ 8,893,365 4,263,367 $ 8,906,220 (59,551) 4,203,816 School Leadership - - - Co- Curricular 679,545 - 679,545 School -Based Support 817,397 259,336 1,076,734 subtotal $ 7,129,801 $ (182,674) $ 6,947,127 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ - - $ - Special Population Support and Development 165,855 - 165,855 Alternative Program Support and Development 203,560 5,338 208,898 Technology Support - - - Operational Support 1,054,672 (35,026) 1,019,646 Financial and Human Resources 80,663 - 80,663 Accountability - - - System -Wide Pupil Support 491 - 491 Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 3,369 - 3,369 subtotal $ 1,508,610 1 $ (29,688)1 $ 1,478,922 Ancillary: Community Services $ 100,500 $ - $ 100,500 Nutrition Services 1,500 (1,000) 500 subtotal $ 102,000 $ (1,000) $ 101,000 Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - Non- programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ 144,488 $ (94,488) $ 50,000 Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost 3,967 320,705 324,672 Transfer to Other Funds 4,500 - 4,500 Scholarships - - - subtotal $ 152,955 $ 226,217 $ 379,172 Total Appropriation $ 8,893,365 $ 12,855 $ 8,906,220 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ 2,703,778 $ - $ 2,703,778 Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation 1,346,707 2,162 1,348,869 New Hanover County - - - Other Revenues 1,716,059 10,693 1,726,752 State Sources 3,126,821 - 3,126,821 Transfer from Other Funds - - - Total Revenue $ 8,893,365 $ 12,855 $ 8,906,220 Explanation: Record grant budget for staff development from Southern Regional Education Board ($9,692.50) and Winter Park Yoga Program grants from PPD (carryover of $2,162.47) and Assistance League of Greater Wilmington ($1,000). To record transfers to budget special education health services contract with Medicaid funds and set up reserve for Year 3 portion of Head Start budget. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 5 Capital Outlay Cummulative Budget Summary: Current Budget I Amendment #4 1 Revised Budget Purpose /Function: $ - $ - $ - Food Sales - Instructional services: - Fund Balance Appropriation 1,511,889 - 1,511,889 Regular Instruction $ 193,774 $ - $ 193,774 Special Populations - - 1,621,137 - - Alternative Programs 627,275 - 627,275 Total Revenue - School Leadership $ 165,815,429 - - Co- Curricular - - School -Based Support - - subtotal $ 193,774 $ - $ 193,774 System -wide support services: Support and Development $ - $ - $ - Special Population Support and Development - - Alternative Program Support and Development - - Technology Support 1,287,063 - 1,287,063 Operational Support 410,693 410,693 Financial and Human Resources 40,000 40,000 Accountability - - System -Wide Pupil Support - - Policy, Leadership and Public Relations 22,000 22,000 subtotal $ 1,759,756 $ $ 1,759,756 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ - Nutrition Services - - subtotal $ - $ - $ - Capital Outlay: Capital Outlay $ 163,848,088 $ - $ 163,848,088 Non - programmed charges: Payments to Other Governments $ - $ - $ - Unbudgeted & Indirect Cost 13,811 - 13,811 Transfer to Other Funds - - - Scholarships - - - subtotal $ 13,811 $ - $ 13,811 Total Appropriation $ 165,815,429 $ - $ 165,815,429 Revenue Source: Federal Sources $ - $ - $ - Food Sales - - - Fund Balance Appropriation 1,511,889 - 1,511,889 New Hanover County (includes Bond) 162,055,128 - 162,055,128 Other Revenues - - - State Sources 1,621,137 - 1,621,137 Transfer from Other Funds 627,275 - 627,275 Total Revenue $ 165,815,42:9—t$ $ 165,815,429 Explanation: To revise bond plan based on updated roof replacement schedule and increase in NHHS renovation project to include A/C of Brogden Hall. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 6 Capital Outlay Fund Budget by Funding Source and Project #: Funding Source/ Project # Program Project Description Project Budget (Multi-Year) Revised Budget Amendment #4 Revised Budget PSBCF - Lottery Revenue: 9113.14 076 Wrightsboro Floor Repairs 95,000.00 47,310.87 47,310.87 9140.15 076 Veterans Park Cooling Tower Rplmt 472,500.00 125,182.00 125,182.00 9145.15 076 Sunset Park Soffit & Fascia Rplmt 183,000.00 30,490.00 30,490.00 9146.15 076 Sunset Park Roof Rplmt 551,000.00 521,200.00 521,200.00 9147.15 076 Codington HVAC Rplmt 223,000.00 - - 9148.15 076 Eaton HVAC Rplmt 223,000.00 - - 9158.15 076 Sidbury Road Complex 110,000.00 86,311.43 86,311.43 9162.16 076 Wrightsboro Floor Replacement 54,000.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 9163.16 076 Laney Painting 180,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00 9164.16 076 Fire Alarm Replacement 36,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00 9165.16 076 Eaton and Codington Carpet Replacement 144,000.00 144,000.00 144,000.00 9166.16 076 Bradley Creek Water Heaters 56,000.00 56,000.00 56,000.00 9167.16 076 Bellamy Painting 80,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 9168.16 076 Williams Service Ramp 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 9169.16 076 Laney Restroom Renovations 38,250.00 38,250.00 38,250.00 9170.16 076 Bellamy & Murray Traffic Improvements 12,000.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 2,502,750.00 1,455,744.30 1,455,744.30 DPI School Bus Revenue: 6550 120 School Bus Leases (DPI) 1,920,025.00 165,393.00 165,393.00 Local Funding: 8500 801 Capital Outlay Contingency n/a 13,811.29 13,811.29 5110.16 801 Furniture & Equipment 110,000.00 110,000.00 110,000.00 6550.16 801 Vehicles 189,500.00 189,500.00 189,500.00 6610.16 801 Finance Workstations 6,775.00 6,775.00 6,775.00 6942.16 801 Central Office Equipment 22,000.00 22,000.00 22,000.00 9160.16 801 Lakeside Demolition 348,500.00 348,500.00 348,500.00 9161.16 801 Roe Renovation 250,825.00 250,825.00 250,825.00 5110 814 Furniture and Equipment 109,241.41 7,898.97 7,898.97 6401.46 814 Novell to AD Migration - Phase II 157,350.00 1,743.57 1,743.57 9125 814 Myrtle Grove - Phase I HVAC 608,737.99 8,737.31 8,737.31 9140 814 Proximity Exterior Door Locks 254,638.84 71,897.74 71,897.74 9142 814 Replace PA Systems 193,626.76 150,239.53 150,239.53 6401.74 815 Rapt computers and monitors 229.00 229.29 229.29 6550 815 Vehicles 203,500.00 46,327.48 46,327.48 9115 815 Playground Equip Rplml& Access 100,000.00 76,965.72 76,965.72 9130 815 Johnson Abatement & Carpet Rplmt 100,000.00 74,589.25 74,589.25 9137 815 Mobile Classroom Replacement 753,189.04 353,573.34 353,573.34 9150 815 Hoggard Cabling Project 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 9151 815 NHHS Painting 150,000.00 126,250.00 126,250.00 9152 815 Williston Kitchen Hood Rplmt 132,000.00 74,803.25 74,803.25 9153 815 Kitchen Coler /Freezer Rplmts 50,000.00 38,104.00 38,104.00 9157 815 Sidbury Road Complex Improvements 178,100.00 96,393.25 96,393.25 3,988,213.04 2,139,163.99 2,139,163.99 County Capital Appropriation: 5110 816 Furniture and Equipment 75,875.00 75,875.00 75,875.00 6550 816 Vehicles - - - 6401 816 Computer Replacement 1,285,100.00 1,285,100.00 1,285,100.00 6580 816 Maintenance Equipment 55,800.00 55,800.00 55,800.00 6610 816 Finance Workstations 33,225.00 33,225.00 33,225.00 6942 816 Central Office Equipment - - - 9157 816 Sidbury Road Complex Improvements 1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00 9160 816 Lakeside Demolition 9161 816 Contingency for Roe Renovation 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2014 Bond Program: 9001.01 900 Northeast ES 17,011,380.00 16,571,392.75 16,571,392.75 9002.03 900 College Park ES Rplmt 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 9003.05 900 Blair ES Rplmt 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 17,011,381.00 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 7 Funding Source/ Project Budget Project # Program Project Description (Multi -Year) Revised Budget Amendment #4 Revised Budget 9004.06 900 Laney HS Addns & Renovns 11,156,569.00 11,145,369.00 88,488.78 11,233,857.78 9005.08 900 Hoggard HS Addns & Renovns 15,827,000.00 15,826,092.91 88,488.77 15,914,581.68 9006.09 900 New Hanover HS Renovns 5,279,394.00 5,262,294.00 1,232,500.00 6,494,794.00 9007.10 900 Roland Grise MS Renovns 11,660,898.00 11,659,550.33 11,659,550.33 9008.11 900 Noble MS Renovns 7,906,664.00 7,906,664.00 7,906,664.00 9009.12 900 Trask MS Renovns 9,901,100.00 9,901,100.00 9,901,100.00 9010.13 900 Myrtle Grove MS Renovns 8,727,903.00 8,727,903.00 8,727,903.00 9011.14 900 Wrightsville Beach ES Addns & Renovns 7,332,492.00 7,332,492.00 7,332,492.00 9012.07 900 Technology- Network Infrastructure 5,690,014.00 5,651,810.00 5,651,810.00 9013.07 900 Technology- Security Cameras 3,402,276.00 3,402,276.00 3,402,276.00 9014.07 900 Technology - VoIP Core Infrastr /Equip 469,279.00 469,279.00 469,279.00 9015.04 900 Sunset Park Roof Rplmt 219,800.00 219,800.00 219,800.00 9016.04 900 Noble Roof Rplmt 302,445.00 302,445.00 (302,445.00) - 9017.04 900 Trask Roof Rplmt 313,986.00 313,986.00 1,494,984.00 1,808,970.00 9018.04 900 Laney Roof Rplmt 426,030.00 426,030.00 91,219.00 517,249.00 9019.04 900 Johnson Roof Rplmt 990,667.00 985,394.55 (984,394.55) 1,000.00 9020.04 900 Hoggard HS Roof Rplmt 783,503.00 783,503.00 (283,781.00) 499,722.00 9021.04 900 Trask Roof Rplmt 927,272.00 927,272.00 (927,272.00) - 9022.04 900 Pine Valley Roof Rplmt 826,763.00 826,763.00 (490,329.00) 336,434.00 9023.04 900 Codington Roof Rplmt 430,642.00 430,642.00 (430,642.00) - 9024.04 900 Eaton Roof Rplmt 436,783.00 436,783.00 (436,783.00) 9025.04 900 Holly Tree Roof Coating 986,040.00 986,040.00 (986,040.00) 9026.04 900 Freeman Roof Rplmt 479,595.00 479,595.00 (479,595.00) 9027.04 900 Veterans Park Roof Coating 627,888.00 627,888.00 598,388.00 1,226,276.00 9028.04 900 Noble AbmUCarpet Rplmt 304,553.00 250,546.25 250,546.25 9029.04 900 Hoggard AbmUCarpet Rplmt 681,750.00 681,750.00 681,750.00 9030.04 900 Laney AbmUCarpt Rplmt 516,208.00 516,208.00 516,208.00 9034.04 900 Codington HVAC Imprmts 260,720.00 131,598.93 131,598.93 9035.04 900 Eaton HVAC Imprmts 261,525.00 103,896.07 103,896.07 9036.04 900 Veterans Park HVAC Imprmts 367,474.00 367,474.00 367,474.00 9037.04 900 New Hanover HVAC Imprmts 360,459.00 360,459.00 360,459.00 9038.04 900 Bradley Creek HVAC Imprmts 1,611,757.00 1,593,349.50 1,593,349.50 9039.04 900 Johnson HVAC Imprmts 1,611,758.00 1,593,350.50 1,593,350.50 9040.04 900 HVAC & Controls Imprmts at Var Schools 1,509,314.00 1,509,314.00 1,509,314.00 9041.15 900 Program Management 3,106,796.00 3,053,513.92 3,053,513.92 9042.16 900 Contingency 3,268,541.00 3,268,541.00 3,268,541.00 9043.04 900 Carolina Beach Roof Rplmt 151,774.00 151,774.00 9044.04 900 Roland Grise Roof Rplmt 394,916.00 394,916.00 9045.04 900 Gregory Roof Rplmt 569,386.00 569,386.00 9046.04 900 NHHS Roof Rplmt 611,137.00 611,137.00 160,000,000.00 159,055,127.71 159,055,127.71 $ 171,410,988.04 $ 165,815,429.00 $ - $ 165,815,429.00 Note: Changed program numbering to segregate County Funded Projects (816) from fund balance appropriations (801 -815). All future fund balance appropriations will be coded to program 801. The progam number will no longer indicate budget year for funding. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 5 - 2 - 8 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager CONTACT(S): Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Permanent Repairs to Edgewater Club Road BRIEF SUMMARY: Representative Rick Catlin and Senator Michael Lee have requested contingency funding on behalf of NCDOT to assist in permanent repairs to Edgewater Club Road that has been prone to flooding. Since this fund request will be greater than $150,000 the Department is required to provide a resolution of support from New Hanover County. The Department is not requesting any funding from the County. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Build and maintain infrastructure RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the resolution in support of permanent repairs to Edgewater Club Road. ATTACHMENTS: NCDOT Resolution COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 6 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT PERMANENT REPAIRS TO EDGEWATER CLUB ROAD WHEREAS, in early October 2015, New Hanover County received an excessive amount of rainfall which was attributable to a low pressure system and Hurricane Joaquin; and WHEREAS, at approximately 0.36 mile south of SR 1491 (Futch Creek Road), there exists a section of Edgewater Club Road that is prone to flooding due to the elevation of the road and existing storm drain pipe; and WHEREAS, improvements are needed to allow the road to remain passable during moderate to heavy rain events; and WHEREAS, Edgewater Club Road is the only ingress and egress that serves approximately 1400 properties; and WHEREAS, these storm events isolated these properties for an extended period of time, which required the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) to construct a temporary elevated section of roadway to allow access, which cost approximately $75,000; and WHEREAS, NCDOT has identified funding that will assist in allowing the construction of a permanent repair which will include a paved elevated section of roadway with larger and additional storm drain pipes; and WHEREAS, since this project will be greater than $150,000, a resolution of support from New Hanover County is required; and WHEREAS, this project does not require any County funding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners (Board) is concerned that this section of Edgewater Club Road could flood again without the aforementioned improvements; and 2. The Board appreciates NCDOT's willingness to make the necessary improvements; and 3. The Board supports this project and NCDOT's efforts in making the necessary improvements. ADOPTED this the 19th day of January, 2016. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Beth Dawson, Chairman ATTEST: Teresa P. Elmore, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 6 - 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: Human Resources PRESENTER(S): Commissioners and Chris Coudriet, County Manager CONTACT(S): Bo Dean, Human Resources Analyst SUBJECT: Presentation of Service Awards and Introduction of New Employees BRIEF SUMMARY: Service awards will be presented to retirees and employees. New employees will be introduced and have their photo taken with the Board of Commissioners. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Effective County Management • Hire, develop and retain talented people • Recognize and reward contribution RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Present service awards and meet new employees. ATTACHMENTS: New Employees COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Present service awards and meet new employees. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Presented service awards and met new employees. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 7 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: Strategy & Budget PRESENTER(S): Leza Wainwright, CEO, Trillium; Beth Schrader, Chief Strategy & Budget Officer; Kathy Stoute, Community Justice Services Director CONTACT(S): Avril Pinder, Deputy County Manager and Beth Schrader, Chief Strategy & Budget Officer SUBJECT: Presentations: Programs to Address Substance Use Disorder and Consideration of Course of Action BRIEF SUMMARY: On October 19, 2015, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the Stepping Up Initiative. The Stepping Up initiative is a national effort, led by the National Association of Counties (NACo), to raise awareness of the factors contributing to the over - representation of people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders in county jails, and then using proven practices and strategies that work to drive those numbers down. Trillium Health Resources will provide a presentation about a potential partnership to bring Healing Transitions, an evidence -based recovery and front -end diversion program and facility, to help slow future growth in the county jail population, and delay the need for the construction of a new jail facility. The new diversion facility construction would be funded by Trillium Health Resources, and would take approximately 18 months to complete. The facility and program would be operated by Healing Transitions International. Staff recommends that New Hanover County commit to contract for 25 guaranteed beds at the new facility at an annual cost of approximately $320,000 (beginning in FY17 -18). To help meet the current demand, staff will present a proposal to partner with Coastal Horizons for 10 beds for men and LILAC for 10 beds for women. Funding for the remainder of this fiscal year ($60,000 for Coastal Horizons and $24,300 for LILAC) is available in the human services budget function. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Provide health and wellness education, programs, and services RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Hear presentations. Staff is asking for: 1) Commitment to support Trillium and its facility; 2) Agreement to partner with Coastal Horizons for six months (men); and 3) Agreement to partner with LINC for six months (ladies). ATTACHMENTS: Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 Healing Transitions Presentation Trillium Presentation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Hear presentations. Recommend approval as listed in points 1, 2 & 3 above. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 N N Z N H Mr 8� rs� _ }+ Q L Q 'F1 4 =1 iv CID ti,D cu va N i O CL CV3 tl] M I 1.fy �1 LL ffA e'r'S r-1 L` 4 Tdd� �O a a CD q C O O N U) L O .5 O _ U) N U) E O _0 U Q U) co N Q i U) O O O 2 U) U co — � Q O co co D 0 (o rr E 2 O- Z (jr) 0 - O c: 2 co co c � O E 0' co N N > 0 O C U co c = N 0) N Z E W U = i (n Z C Y u1 � LL ce) � Y C7 .4^ L G.7 m O �^ S Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 C O O N U) L O .5 O _ U) N U) E O _0 U Q U) co N Q i U) O O O 2 U) U co — � Q O co co D 0 (o rr E 2 O- Z (jr) 0 - O c: 2 co co c � O E 0' co N N > 0 O C U co c = N 0) N Z E W U = i (n Z C Y N N Z N H LO 0 N C N E co 0 _U) W U) C O O N L 4- O L U co .; O Q (0 (0 0 EL CD = �i ra � t° a E � 40 U t 0 u'i 0 � r rU dl M 10 t� 5 o V w° }' no u -1 a I— tU) 4-11 U, M" 01 W 1�, o C� � � �• erw erw ors to try to try L m r m m rn m � W U a go lfj t 3 � t QC,Cj - rn -� P, •�� :3 c° Q� ��� cli 0 Li �, CS e5 CS o � C:5 O O d� j rn a9 tr, x r., Lr, Y� F 3 rn co � � -4 _U LO co Q W lii m Lfl m lCi m Li m �, di ni rr7 n a, OL }0 0 M L' tw � i -, �iS 'l n O � U Q -� fl u5 rry 73 Ln Ai O � k� � ea A ` � cli 4=4 rri r n ri r n i F. u•l 90 till O u VD ci Y / di E ■ — 7 LL r) w Board of Commissioners - J uag o 1IN ITEM: 8 - 1 - 3=- LO 0 N C N E co 0 _U) W U) C O O N L 4- O L U co .; O Q (0 (0 0 EL 21y/ Q 0. 4-0 �/ ^L O 0 � LO W U) LO > LO r � W Qo� �coi %DLO UN O _ :3 O 4-0 c6 co Q Q r L E 2 � Z� r °o N QrC6 O ON co O �� 0 co U) ) L- O O O O Q O >,o� .. o '- �E 4-0 w o :3 :3 � a"'� O O O i O :3 0 is Q m r a- a- `~ a) 4-0 U) � �iO ' O i ago O = 0.0 O c6 U U) c: o 0 0 o O co O > > O Q Q Q c� Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 4 E OWN c 0 O U) N t H a �c c� O 1c a z O CO z a �c a z J a W W Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 5 U) J O) C E O C (0 E� U 0 W 2 L w_ F _W W M O W E i U) c6 4-0 4-0 U) co cn U %4— U •— O 4-0 co }' U O O J co O co co co 0 a--+ N O LO co i U � O co •U •� co U) — co a� co U v O co O a) — c •0 . Cn > O i ca a- 0 4) • — = co �+ OU O O 0 •o � � co U O cr) J a) a) c� 0 = o Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 6 0 v E.4 N N O U r� L�J C� (A O U N H W i E410 O cn O cu C6 C6 O co O c: 0 O O co a) � O O 0 co -0 0 O 0 Lr) O c: M Q co 60- u� O co °D co C) a) U 0 O U cn � co O O E ��E�� O�--+ M N 0 O O co � U 0-0) ■ i i co (n O a--+ 0 C6 U cn c6 O U U .. co �-j � U) cn i cn co O _0 4-0 O O U � 0 (n O 4-0 � O +� U) U co • — }, cn w A) co O � Q O -0 U c� a) Q O U N c _ � U) a) O O O ,U) cn co -0 i � � � CO O CO O a) •U U U) Q X N ca O CO O O U O i co U) 0 O c co a) .50, E U i ca •O O N cm 0- OL -0 O .0 U) },-0a) a)0 `aa U U) I U QN U 0 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 7 E,' i, W L O %I ^ U) —♦ j ^V ,, W L L El U) N Al co +15 as �n r 1 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 8 040 19 19 19 19 �n m a E W O L O %I.— V , L O co i U) 7> w U) N U) co U 42 U) W C cc U) .t 0 a� U o cc H c CO �o m o W >, -'a a CD Ea 0 m cm w U H 0 LO N E.� W U O O n� W E nV, W c O L 4-0 O rr bA N C� C� w M- O N M O N N O N 0 0 0 N 1•�1 • w 1•�1 • l�- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln O Ln O Ln O n Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 -1 - 10 cc cl) 0 n 0 am H D O IC O LL Z O z a 1c 0 Z J a W 0 w a W 1c U Z O U IC w O Z a rg, z U Z Z 1c W CO a w Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 11 U) J O) C E O C (0 E� U D 0 W 2 L w_ F 4-0 O U O Co N Z E C� L O O 4-0 rlrO C� V co O � U �J i J O — � V O O M C6 O O 4-0 M — 4-0 4-0 c: O .O U M co cm O •� O � V O � co 0 0- co O 0- O 0 V O C6 0 0— a) E a) E 0L-CIO m cm OC x 0 a) 0 V X W O 0 U) O 0 0 0- i x O U cn O V O cn a� i O cn O DC co O V co a� O O N co 4— O cm cn .E i co O U a� C6 O E C6 O cn •O cn c� C6 O O i Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 12 O O E O E _0 co O E n O O O 0 _0 M O .e Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 13 ii. Icy' l r i M W � f �a Y �1 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 16 rNMra A ��N 11 yin o J m O O N _ C1 N L ^ �.�t� h I� v I ca p , ^L L W O .0 L 1..� ^ , . (n N —0 Q L C� V - E .° c 0 .- M o +� C a� o � v L N b Q W > � }+ m Q o ,�� 0 . _ M • r%%% L \/� = � i = CA Lli l0 M = FM U Q 0 Z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 1 40+ M M M V MO .SEEN INNEEN W M .SEEN 0 OM 6d O N O M W M O N EM O �i rST, 29 L E E V) 0) M U a� 0A O CiA N t� v vi _N N .N 0 0 0 U 00 Ln N ri O 00 r- w N r-I w O N _ C1 N ri CIO OAS � O � V ca � cif O 4— r- 0 U 3 a� 0 Z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 2 c O +-j ro .r •V i ca 0 m (A O rI 1 O E a M •� C C O 'N V D Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 3 w r-I O M � � N C1 r-I _ N L -0 M Ln N M II � N 0 N _0 N - II i a Ln N 0 Ul) ^W W ro u 1 rl M � � m O �_ E O U m >% U aA O V ca of � O O = m U 3 Q 0 Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 3 •SEEN INNEEN V M LL INNEEN •SEEN M O O Ln 3 a, Z M O a) 00 00 L 1 M J •O V O V 0� Q W W LIS ,O V i 0 v V F 00 �D M M ., 00 Lrn O Lrn N Lli I*_ Ol 00 I*_ O rl N N N lD iJ� iJ� iJ� M M M M ., M M M rl rl rl rl rl rl M M M N N N Lli Lli Lli M ., M M M M M M O � � O � � 4- N � CIO N O U i a a v a O a s a �U O a o� O o� x � U i N O O O � o� a n o O .O O = Q U 3 a o z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 4 rl N M ., O � � O � � 4- N � CIO N O U i a a v a O a s a �U O a o� O o� x � U i N O O O � o� a n o O .O O = Q U 3 a o z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 4 %D Ln • `l 4l U U •_ Z w� M c I ca N -0 E (A O a� c: ago i+-0 tw �' O O O C E ,� _ Q pp = ca L 0 Q� ca O i .� U (D ca V4-0 - cn E c: 0 •� � ca c O _� LM CL 0 Q V _ Q ?� N ca O �. � 0 '� v H — � 0 .� � ._ V LM s U3 cn o Z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 5 Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 6 N � O ro O N N O ro Z O O (A \ O Q� (n p O M -0 -c: m E0 lqtft% V 0 V N Q LL Ln cv V)- O b� cn ca co 0 O M 00 LM 0 'N \ 0 i O O O CIO >% 4-0 O 40 o � o 3 v1 V o Z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 6 O W r- bn \L/ Q (3) -0 'i - i a-j N O N (0 a..; n , •- O W u E 0 -0 = c: •— 0 M Q-0 0 c: V p Q -0 +, L 04— ca ) O -0 0 M � (3) m ca -0 4— i Q L m° O .p�ip Lon N .V . -0 0 S.- c� n p 0 N O U U O (3) '— N ' p N � v � ^^ W � W a� ca c/1 o M Ea� _ 3 rl N 4- o z Board of Commissioners - January 116 ITEM: 8 - 2 - 7 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Brad Rosov, Coastal Planning and Engineering CONTACT(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director; Ken Vafier, Planning Manager; and Dylan McDonnell, Long Range Planner SUBJECT: Presentation: Water Quality Monitoring in New Hanover County - 2014 -2015 Annual Report BRIEF SUMMARY: The creeks in New Hanover County provide a wide range of recreational and economic opportunities for thousands of local citizens and visiting tourists each year. In 1993 continuing closures of shellfishing waters in the County led to the initiation of two tidal creek monitoring programs funded separately by the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. New Hanover County currently contracts with Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP &E) to monitor water quality on seven creeks within the unincorporated area of the County. The creeks monitored 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 is twofold: 1) to protect public health, and 2) to gauge the overall health of the creek and respond appropriately to declining trends in water quality. To further analyze data, County staff facilitate a quarterly meeting with a Water Quality Task Force to review County data and collaborate on data monitored throughout New Hanover County by partner agencies. The purpose of this presentation is for County staff and CP &E staff to present data from the FY 14 -15 monitoring program as well as trends from past monitoring years. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Innovate programs to protect the environment RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Hear presentation. ATTACHMENTS: Executive Summary Water Quality Monitoring Program Report 2014 -2015 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Hear presentation. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Heard presentation. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report represents the results of the New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program between July 2014 and June 2015. 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 table below, turbidity and chlorophyll -a were determined to be "good" within all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be "good" in Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Smith Creek while Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, and Lords Creek were all deemed to be "fair ". Prince Georges Creek demonstrated "poor" levels of dissolved oxygen during the study period. Enterococci was problematic within three of these watersheds- Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Prince Georges Creek. On the other hand, Futch Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords Creek were deemed "good" for enterococci. Ratings by Watershed Parameter Prince Smith Barnards Futch Lords Motts Pages Georges Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen FAIR FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD POOR GOOD Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR POOR I POOR 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 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 36 %, 23 %, 19 %, and 10% of the time within Prince Georges Creek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 1 - 1 Smith Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better within Motts Creek where samples exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard nine (9 %) of the time. Barnards Creek and Lords Creek each breached the standard only five (5 %) of the times sampled. Enterococci bacteria has been a chronic problem within several of the creeks monitored in this study. Since November 2007, samples collected within Motts Creek exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 53% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, and Smith Creek exceeded standard 36% of the time. Prince Georges Creek exceeded the standard 31% of the time while Lords Creek and Futch Creek contained the least amount of bacteria with exceedances only 8% and 3% of the time, respectively. Turbidity and chlorophyll -a were not problematic in any creeks. Since sampling began, only 20 exceedences of the chlorophyll -a standard were observed of the 1,772 samples collected. The turbidity standard was only breached five times in total; two from within Smith Creek and three within Pages Creek. Source Tracking Separate from the monthly monitoring program, a source tracking study was conducted over the past year to help determine the origins of bacterial contamination within two sites that have demonstrated chronically high levels of bacterial contamination over previous monitoring years. These sites, located within the Motts Creek and Pages Creek watersheds, were sampled during rain events on four (4) occasions. High concentrations of Enterococcus bacteria were observed over the four storms sampled and the array of storm events captured indicating a continued level of elevated concern about the microbial water quality of the waters in question. The source of these bacteria within many of these samples was determined to stem in part from human origins. Results also indicate that rising groundwater during storm events could be playing a role in the delivery of fecal contamination to this system possibly via connections among septic leachfields, or sewage /stormwater conveyance systems. In order to hone in on the source of this anthropogenic contamination, additional studies may be warranted. One such study could include additional source tracking work up- stream from the known areas of contamination. An alternative approach could use a tracer in the system of the household and follow the transport to close by receiving waters. This approach would require a volunteer household close to either Pages or Motts Creek. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 1 - 2 NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2014 -2015 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., 2015. New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program: 2014 -2015 Final Report. New Hanover County, North Carolina: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 59p. July 2015 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report r epresents t he r esults of t he N ew H anover C ounty W ater Q uality Monitoring Program between July 2014 and June 2015. 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 s ystem assigns a r ating o f " GOOD ", " FAIR", o r " POOR" to a s ampling s tation depending on t he p ercentage of s amples e xceeding t he S tate s tandard for di ssolved ox ygen, turbidity, chlorophyll -a, Enterococci, and f ecal c oliform b acteria. If t he r ecorded v alue o f 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 s tandard 1 1 -25% of t he t imes s ampled. P arameters m easured t hat ex ceed t he S tate standard more than 25% of the sampling times are given a "POOR" rating. As d isplayed in th e to ble below, turbidity and chlorophyll -a were d etermined t o be "good" within all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be "good" in Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Smith Creek while Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, and Lords Creek w ere al l d eemed t o b e "fair ". P rince Georges C reek demonstrated "poor" 1 evels o f dissolved oxygen during the study period. Enterococci was problematic within three of these watersheds- Motts C reek, P ages C reek, an d P rince G eorges C reek. On t he of her h and, Futch Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords Creek were deemed "good" for enterococci. Ratings by Watershed Parameter Prince Smith Barnards Futch Lords Motts Pages Georges Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen FAIR FAIY FAIR GOOD GOOD POOR GOOD Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Enterococci GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I POOR I POOR I POOR Long Term Trends Using data collected on a monthly basis since at least November 2007, the long term trends of select w ater q uality m onitoring p arameters w ere as sessed i n t his r eport as w ell. In general, dissolved ox ygen, t urbidity, a nd chlorophyll -a levels oscillate on a s easonal b asis. W ater quality, as it relates to these parameters, generally decreases during the warmer months when the water temperatures i ncrease. However, during the cooler m onths, when the water temperature drops, these parameters improve. Since 2007, di ssolved oxygen levels exceeded the State standard within surface samples 36 %, 23 %, 19 %, and 10% of the time within Prince Georges Creek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 2 Smith C reek, r espectively. Dissolved ox ygen 1 evels w ere b etter within M otts C reek w here samples exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard nine (9 %) of the time. B arnards Creek and Lords Creek each breached the standard only five (5 %) of the times sampled. Enterococci bacteria has been a chronic problem within several of the creeks monitored in this study. Since November 2007, samples collected within Motts Creek exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 53% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, and Smith Creek exceeded standard 36% of the time. Prince Georges Creek exceeded the standard 31% of the time while Lords Creek and Futch Creek contained the least amount of bacteria with exceedances only 8% and 3% of the time, respectively. Turbidity and chlorophyll -a were not problematic in any creeks. Since sampling began, only 20 exceedences of the chlorophyll -a standard were observed of the 1,772 s amples collected. The turbidity standard was only breached five times in total; two from within Smith Creek and three within Pages Creek. Source Tracking Separate from the monthly monitoring program, a source tracking study was conducted over the past year t o h elp d etermine t he o rigins o f b acterial co ntamination w ithin two sites t hat h ave demonstrated chronically high levels of bacterial contamination over previous monitoring years. These sites, located within the Motts Creek and Pages Creek watersheds, were sampled during rain events on four (4) occasions. High concentrations of Enterococcus bacteria were observed over the four storms sampled and the array of storm events captured indicating a continued level of elevated concern about the microbial water quality of the waters in question. The source of these bacteria within many of these samples was determined to stem in part from human origins. Results also indicate that rising groundwater during storm events could be playing a role in the delivery of fecal contamination to this system possibly via connections among septic leachfields, or s ewage /stormwater c onveyance s ystems. In or der t o hone i n o n t he s ource of this anthropogenic contamination, a dditional s tudies m ay b e w arranted. One s uch s tudy could include additional source tracking work up- stream from the known areas of contamination. An alternative approach could use a tracer in the system of the household and follow the transport to close by receiving waters. This approach would require a volunteer household close to either Pages or Motts Creek. ii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 3 NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FINAL REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................... ..............................1 2 1.1 Parameters ............................................................................................... ..............................4 3 1.2 Standards ................................................................................................. ..............................6 2.0 Methods ......................................................................................................... ..............................8 5 2.1 Physical Parameters ................................................................................ ..............................8 6 2.2 Biological Parameters ............................................................................. ..............................8 7 2.3 Source Tracking ...................................................................................... ..............................9 3.0 Results ............................................................................................................ .............................10 9 3.1 Rating System ..................................................................................................... ............................... 10 10 3.2 Barnards Creek .......................................................................................... .............................10 3.3 Futch Creek .............................................................................................. .............................12 3.4 Lords Creek .............................................................................................. .............................17 3.5 Motts Creek .............................................................................................. .............................20 3.6 Pages Creek .............................................................................................. .............................23 3.7 Prince Georges ......................................................................................... .............................27 3.8 Smith Creek ............................................................................................. .............................31 3.9 Comprehensive Rating by Watershed ...................................................... .............................36 3.10 Long Term Trends ................................................................................. .............................37 3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen ...................................................................... .............................37 3.10.2 Turbidity .................................................................................... .............................41 3.10.3 Chlorophyll -a ............................................................................. .............................44 3.10.4 Enterococci ................................................................................ .............................48 3.11 Source Tracking ..................................................................................... .............................51 4.0 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................ .............................53 5.0 Literature Cited .............................................................................................. .............................58 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 ...................... .............................11 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 at FC -4 ................................................................................ ............................... 16 iii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 4 11 12 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 NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FINAL REPORT Table of Contents (Cont'd) Enterococciat FC -6 .............................................................................. .............................16 Enterococciat FC -13 ............................................................................ .............................17 Enterococciat FC -FOY ........................................................................ .............................17 Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed ........................ .............................18 DissolvedOxygen at LC -RR ................................................................ .............................19 Enterococci Levels at LC- RR ............................................................... .............................19 Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed ....................... .............................21 Dissolved Oxygen at MOT- CBR .......................................................... .............................22 DissolvedOxygen at MOT -ND ............................................................ .............................22 Enterococci at MOT -CBR .................................................................... .............................22 Enterococciat MOT -ND ...................................................................... .............................23 Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed ....................... .............................24 Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDDS ........................................................... .............................25 DissolvedOxygen at PC -BDUS ........................................................... .............................25 DissolvedOxygen at PC -M .................................................................. .............................26 Enterococci at PC -BDDS ..................................................................... .............................26 Enterococci at PC -BDUS ..................................................................... .............................26 Enterococciat PC- M ............................................................................. .............................27 Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed ........ .............................28 DissolvedOxygen at PG- CH ................................................................ .............................29 DissolvedOxygen at PG- ML ................................................................ .............................29 DissolvedOxygen at PG -NC ................................................................ .............................30 Enterococciat PG -CH .......................................................................... .............................30 Enterococciat PG- ML .......................................................................... .............................30 Enterococciat PG -NC .......................................................................... .............................31 Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed ....................... .............................32 DissolvedOxygen at SC- 23 .................................................................. .............................33 DissolvedOxygen at SC -CD ................................................................ .............................33 DissolvedOxygen at SC -CH ................................................................ .............................34 DissolvedOxygen at SC -GR ................................................................ .............................34 DissolvedOxygen at SC- NK ................................................................ .............................34 Enterococciat SC -23 ............................................................................ .............................35 Enterococciat SC- CD ........................................................................... .............................35 Enterococciat SC- CH ........................................................................... .............................35 Enterococciat SC- GR ........................................................................... .............................36 Enterococciat SC -NK .......................................................................... .............................36 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek ....... .............................38 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek ............. .............................38 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek ............. .............................39 lv COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 5 NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FINAL REPORT Table of Contents (Cont'd) 50 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek ............. .............................39 51 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek ............. .............................40 52 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek ..........................40 53 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek ............ .............................41 54 Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek ...................... .............................41 55 Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek ........................... .............................42 56 Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek ........................... .............................42 57 Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek ........................... .............................43 58 Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek ........................... .............................43 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 ............................... .............................47 66 Long term chlorophyll -a data within Prince Georges Creek ................ .............................47 67 Long term chlorophyll -a data within Smith Creek ............................... .............................48 68 Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek ............................. .............................49 69 Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek .................................. .............................49 70 Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek .................................. .............................50 71 Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek .................................. .............................50 72 Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek .................................. .............................51 73 Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek .................. .............................51 74 Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek ................................. .............................52 75 Concentrations of molecular microbial source tracking markers in Motts Creek .............53 76 Concentrations of molecular microbial source tracking markers in Pages Creek .............54 77 Long term dissolved oxygen ratings ..................................................... .............................56 76 Long -term Enterococci ratings ............................................................. .............................57 List of Tables TAI a 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 ........................................................................... ..............................7 v COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 6 NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FINAL REPORT Table of Contents (Cont'd) 5 Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Sites ....................7 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 10 Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek ................................ .............................19 11 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek ....... .............................19 12 Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek ................................ .............................21 13 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek ....... .............................23 14 Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek ................................ .............................25 15 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek ....... .............................27 16 Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek ................ .............................29 17 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek .....................31 18 Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek ............................... .............................33 19 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek ....... .............................36 20 Ratings of parameters within each watershed ........................................... .............................37 List of Appendices Appendix No. A Photographs of Sampling Sites B Raw Data C Source Tracking Report vi COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION The creeks i n N ew H anover C ounty, N orth C arolina pr ovide a w ide r ange of recreational activities for thousands of 1 ocal citizens and vi siting tourists e ach year. Tidal c reeks ar e rich areas i n t erms o f aq uatic, terrestrial a nd avian w ildlife and c an s upport c omplex f ood w ebs (Odum 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 W ilmington a nd the County, water q uality h as b een i ncreasingly threatened d ue t o m any factors including a ging i nfrastructure, increased i mpervious s urface area and subsequent stormwater runoff Furthermore, the County's population in 2014 was estimated to be 209,635 and i s expected to grow at a rate of 1.3% over the next 5 years (NC Division of C ommerce, Labor, and Economic Data and S ite Information, 2015). To address these is sues that imp act water quality, the County, since 1993, has administered a long- standing water quality monitoring program 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 July 2014 and June 2015. The creeks included in this study are Pages and Futch Creek, which drain into the Atlantic Intracoastal W aterway (ICW) and Lords, M otts, B arnards, Smith, an d P rince G eorges C reek, which drain into the Cape F ear 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 and all raw data is found in Appendix B. 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 8 Table 1. List of Sampling Sites Creek Name Site Name Site Code Latitude Long tude 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 340 15.541 77° 56.325 Smith Creek 23rd Street SC -23 340 15.472 77° 55.178 Smith Creek Candlewood Drive SC -CD 340 17.438 77° 51.332 Smith Creek North Kerr SC -NK 340 15.744 77° 53.256 Smith Creek Gordon Road SC -GR 340 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 -4 340 18.068 77° 44.760 Futch Creek 6 FC -6 340 18.178 77° 45.038 Futch Creek 13 FC -13 340 18.214 77° 45.451 Futch Creek Foy Branch FC -FOY 340 18.405 77° 45.358 Pages Creek Mouth PC -M 340 16.209 77° 46.270 Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Down Stream PC -BDDS 340 16.685 77° 47.673 Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Up Stream PC -BDUS 340 16.623 77° 48.104 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 9 1Ci?,FE� rRAu Iq DUPON E' f ARTERET RENDER R ONSLOW O?A Y PROJECT LOCATION i 2000 200044 U 1[},tieli 24,0�7� Feet 1 Inch "LMIS 20, WO feet N r NEW FfANOVEt*i E COUNTY 4 J `L �F O 4 @ O @ O N NOTE: 1.000RQItkATES SHOWN ARE IN FEET =OTHER WATERSHEDS MOTTS CREEK BASED ON THE NORTH CAROLIKA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH Ak1ERICAN DATUM BARNIARDS CREEK _ PAGES CREEK OF 19983 (NAD 63) FUTCH CREEK FRINGE GEORGES CREEK LORDS GREET{ _ SMITH GREEK 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 213 .0200). These classifications are meant to protect the specified uses within waterbodies. These include a quatic 1 ife s urvival a nd r eproduction, s econdary r ecreation, pr imary r ecreation, shellfishing, a nd water s upply. The classifications th at a pply to th e creeks ex amined i n t his study are: 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 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 1 ower di ssolved ox ygen a nd pH t han non -swamp s treams due t o n atural conditions. However, a m aj ority of t he s ites, i ncluding Lords C reek, M otts C reek, Barnards C reek, Smith C reek, an d P rince G eorges C reek, d esignated as C S w b y t he 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 pr otection r equirements f or t he 1 ess s tringent classifications of S C a nd S B, w hich include aq uatic 1 ife, s econdary r ecreation, and primary r ecreation. T his d esignation applies to Futch Creek and Pages Creek. 1.1 Parameters Physical, chemical, and biological water quality monitoring data are currently being collected for this s tudy. 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 t wo s uites of f ecal i ndicator bacteria: Enterococci and fecal co liform bacteria. Duet o 1 imited f unding, fecal c oliform samples were only collected from sampling sites located within Futch Creek and Pages Creek. Temperature: Thermal pol lution c an r esult i n s ignificant c hanges t o t he aquatic e nvironment. M ost a quatic organisms a re a dapted t o s urvive w ithin a s pecific t emperature r ange. T hermal pol lution m ay 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 ev en b e caused b y t he r emoval o f t rees and v egetation w hich n ormally s hade t he w ater 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. Salim : 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 1 ower C ape F ear River, a sually exhibits a g radual 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 an d an imals that can 1 ive i n d ifferent z ones o f t he es tuary. F reshwater s pecies m ay b e restricted to the upper reaches of the estuary, while marine species inhabit the estuarine mouth. Some s pecies t olerate o my i ntermediate 1 evels of s alinity w hile b roadly adapted s pecies c an acclimate to any salinity ranging from freshwater to seawater. 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 11 Conductivity: Specific co nductance i s a m easure o f t he ab ility o f w ater t o co nduct an el ectrical cu rrent. 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 OxLgen: 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. A quatic life can become stressed or die in stagnant water c ontaining h igh 1 evels o f r otting, o rganic ma terial in it, especially in s ummer, w hen dissolved - oxygen levels are at a seasonal low. Chlorophyll-a: Chlorophyll -a is a green pigment found in plants. It absorbs sunlight and converts it to sugar during phot osynthesis. C hlorophyll -a concentrations a re a n i ndicator of ph ytoplankton abundance a nd bi omass i n c oastal a nd e stuarine w aters. H igh 1 evels of ten i ndicate an al gal bloom w hich c an i nduce t he de pletion of ox ygen i n t he w ater column due t o t he m icrobial degradation of pl ant cells. C hlorophyll -a concentrations are o ften higher of ter r ainfall, 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. F »tornonooi Enterococci are distinguished from fecal coliform bacteria by their ability to survive in saltwater, and i n t his r espect t hey m ore closely m imic m any p athogens t han do the of her i ndicators. Enterococci are typically more human - specific than the larger fecal streptococcus group. EPA 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-12 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 a 1., 2004) . Results i ndicated th at Enterococci might b e a mo re s table in dicator th an f ecal coliform and, consequently, a more conservative indicator under brackish water conditions. 1.2 Standards Water q uality standards have been established legislatively for a num ber of these parameters (Table 2). Many of the water q uality standards are d escribed i n the NC Administrative Code, section 15A N CAC 2H .0100. The w ater q uality s tandards for Enterococci bacteria are described by the U S EPA (US EPA, 1986) and in the NC A dministrative C ode, s ection 15A NCAC 18A .3402. The US EPA standards for Enterococci bacteria are based on incidents of gastrointestinal illn ess f ollowing c ontact w ith bathing w aters. Bacterial c ontamination is quantified by "colony forming units" or CFU. Single sample maximum allowable Enterococci density is 104 CFU /100ml, 158 CFU /100ml, 276 CFU /l00ml, a nd 501 CFU /100ml for designated b each areas, swimming areas with moderate to full body contact, lightly used full body contact s wimming areas, a nd i nfrequently us ed full bod y c ontact s wimming 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 b y the frequency of swimming activity. As defined b y RWQ, T ier I swimming a reas a re us ed da ily du ring t he s wimming s eason, T ier II s wimming areas are used three days a week during the swimming season, and Tier III swimming areas are used on average four days a month during the swimming season. S ingle sample standards for Tiers I, II, and III are 104 C FU /100ml, 276 CFU /100ml, and 500 C FU /100ml, respectively (Table 4 ). A geometric me an o f 3 5 C FU /100ml w ithin T ier I s wimming a reas ma y also b e 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, two (2) could be considered Tier II and seventeen (17) could be considered Tier III. 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-13 Table 2. North Carolina Water Quality Standards Parameter Standard for SA Waters Standard for C Sw Waters Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg /l 4.0 mg /la Turbidity 25 NTU 50 NTU pH 6.8 -8.5 6.0 -9.0 Chlorophyll -a 40.0 ug /l 40.0 ug /l Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <14 CFU /100ml; or 10% of samples <43 CFU /100ml Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <200 CFU /100ml; or single sample <400 CFU /100ml Enterococci ° Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <35 CFU /100ml Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <35 CFU /100ml 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 (') 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 Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR Recreational Water Quality Program 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 Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR Recreational Water Quality Program Table 5. Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Sites Site Name Single sample maximum Tier I, swimming areas used daily during the <104 CFU /100ml swimming season Tier III Tier II, swimming areas used three days a week <276 CFU /100ml during the swimming season Tier III Tier III, swimming areas used on average four days Adjacent to small bridge on Normandy Drive a month during the swimming season <500 CFU /100m1 Table 5. Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring 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 Normandy Drive LC -RR Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on River Road BC -CBR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road SC -CH Tier III No Adjacent to bri dge on Castle Hayne Road SC -23 Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on 23rd Street 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-14 SC -CD Tier III No Narrow, shallow. Adjacent to Candlewood Drive SC -NK Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on North Kerr SC -GR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on Gordon Road PG -ML Tier III No Small boat launch site on private property PG -CH Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on Castle Hayne 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 -BDDS Tier II Yes Public boat ramp off Bayshore 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 w ere accessed f rom 1 and, generally n ear a bridge or c ulvert crossing, or by boat. Each site was sampled onetime per month during a high ebb tide. Tides were d etermined a tilizing th e National Oceanic a nd Atmospheric A dministration's (NOAA) Tides and Currents website ( http : / /tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov /). Due to time constraints, monthly sampling events were conducted on three subsequent days each month. Lords Creek, Motts Creek, and Barnards Creek were visited on the first sampling day while Smith Creek and Prince Georges Creek were visited the second day. F utch C reek an d Pages Creek were visited on the third day. Rainfall totals for the 24 hours prior to each sampling event were obtained from observations recorded at Wilmington International Airport as reported by NOAA's National Weather Service web site ( http:// www .srh.noaa.gov /data/RAH/RTPRAH). 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 M DS di splay unit. The Y SI P robe was cal ibrated each da y prior t o us e. Physical measurements were taken from the surface at all sites (depth = 0.1m) 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 Biological Parameters Water s amples w ere obtained f or t he 1 aboratory a nalysis of bi ological ( Enterococci and Chlorophyll -a) parameters. These grab samples were collected in sterile bottles during a high ebb t ide from t he s urface at ea ch s ite (depth = 0.1m ). Water samples were p laced o n i ce 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-15 immediately following collection and were delivered in coolers to Environmental Chemists, Inc. of W ilmington, N orth Carolina for an alysis. All an alyses p erformed b y Environmental Chemists, Inc. were conducted utilizing the following standard EPA approved methods: Chlorophyll -a: SM 10200H Enterococci: EnterolertE 2.3 Source Tracking Water samples were collected at each of the four sites during or directly following six storm events. Subsamples were collected for the quantification of Enterococci bacteria and for batch analysis using well described molecular methods to determine the source of the bacteria. Samples of 100ml were filtered in triplicate through 0.45 µm polycarbonate filters and frozen at - 20 C and delivered to UNC Chapel Hill IMS within two weeks of sample collection. The filters were subjected to the following molecular analyses: 1. Fecal Bacteroides gPCR (Converse et al. 2009) 2. BacHum analyses (Kildare et al. 2007) 3. Human specific marker for Bacteroides (IV 183, Layton et al. 2013) Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (gPCR) methods were used to conduct the Bacteroides assays: Fecal Bacteroides gPCR assay (Converse et al. 2009) relies on Taqman chemistry and all the reagents are in a liquid formulation, except the OmniMix. The assay quantifies a cohort of bacteria found in high concentrations in the human gut, including Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Bacteroides distastonis, and Bacteroides fragilis. However, the method is not human specific. The assay has been tested against a range of different fecal samples types, and has been shown to be capable of quantifying over a wide range of concentrations, and to be sensitive at concentrations relevant to water quality source tracking studies. When using the gPCR approach for fecal Bacteroides, strong relationships have been observed with a wide array of human sewage collected from areas on both east and west US coastlines. The assay is highly sensitive and the target bacteria that are enumerated have been shown to be a predictor of human health in both sand and recreational waters (Wade et. al. 2011, Heaney et al. 2011) during large -scale EPA -run epidemiology studies. This is a fully quantitative gPCR -based assay that is being used in an array of studies in stormwater contaminated areas and that, with the use of other additional confirmatory methods, can be used to both identify potential hot spots of human fecal contamination (Converse et al, 2009). BacHum Human Marker: A separate gPCR assay was utilized to quantify the BacHum molecular markers reported by Kildare et al., 2007. The assay has been widely tested for specificity against a range of fecal sample types and has shown high capacity for discrimination against human and animal fecal types (Ahmed et al., 2009). • HF (human fecal) 183: Human specific marker by gPCR has been conducted previously by Bernhard and Field (2000) and updated by Seurinck et al., 2006. This assay is specific to a 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-16 region of ribosomal rDNA within the Bacteroides spp. that is found almost exclusively in human feces. The assay has been tested repeatedly in a range of different environments for cross reactivity with other types of fecal material, and various researchers have found either a 90 to 100% ability to discriminate between human and animal feces when using this assay. The assay, however, can be problematic when used alone, because the target copy concentration in fecal material contributed to receiving water environments can be quite low due to dilution and the assay has a relatively low sensitivity. 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 July 2014 and June 2015. These results are primarily 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 w atershed, a rating s ystem f or a n umber o f p arameters has b een em ployed. T his quantitative s ystem assigns a r ating o f " GOOD ", " FAIR ", o r "P OOR" to a s ampling s tation depending on t he p ercentage of s amples e xceeding t he State standard for di ssolved ox ygen, 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% o f t he t imes s ampled. P arameters m easured t hat ex ceed t he 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 o f a mix o f r esidential and commercial uses. The 1 and i s classified as a mix of transition, urban, and conservation according to the CAMA land use plan. This w atershed contains a pproximately 16.9% i mpervious s urface coverage (Hume, 2009 ). Sampling was conducted at one site (BC -CBR) within the Barnards Creek watershed (Figure 2). Dissolved oxygen within BC -CBR ranged between 1.6 mg/l and 9.8 mg/l with a m can value of 5.1 mg/l (Table 6). Samples collected during July and August 2014 and June 2015 contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard of 4.0 mg /l for C Sw waters at both the surface and near the bottom of the water column (Figure 3). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 1.0 ug /l and 7.0 ug/l with a m can v alue o f 3.0 ug /l at BC -CBR (Table 6). These values did not approach the 40ug/l standard. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100ml and 2282 CFU /100ml with a geometric mean value of 42 CFU /100ml, which is below the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU /100ml for Tier III waters (Figure 4, T able 6 ). Only one (1) of t he t welve ( 12) s amples collected dur ing t his pe riod exceeded this standard. 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-17 Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 26 NTU with am can v alue o f 9 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. Figure 2. Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed Table 6. Mean values of select parametersfirom Barnards Creep Range in parentheses. Parameter BC -CBR Turbidity (NTU) 9(1-26) Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) 5.1 (1.6 -9.8) Chlorophyll -a (ug/1) 3.0 (1.0 -7.0) Enterococci ( #CFU /100m1) 42 (5- 2282)1 ")Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-18 t 0 0 U U O U 4 i.i �i W 10000 1000 100 10 Figure J. Dissolved Oxygen at HU -UHR Enterococci Levels at BC -CSR Dc Dc b. b Dc ik t7 f7 �'? t'i �7 f7 Figure 4. Enterococci at BC -CBR ■ Entero. Table 7. Ratings ofparameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek Parameter BC -CBR Turbidity GOOD Dissolved Oxygen FAIR Chlorophyll -a GOOD Enterococci GOOD 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 w ithin the F utch C reek watershed is p redominately r esidential w ith a s mall b usiness district along Highway 17. The land within the Futch Creek watershed is classified as watershed resource pr otection or transition i n t he CAMA 1 and us e pl an. This w atershed c ontains approximately 11.0% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at four (4) sites (FC -4, FC -6, FC -13, and FC -170Y) within the Futch Creek watershed (Figure 5) on 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-19 eleven (11) o ccasions o ver t he twelve (12) m onth s tudy. No s amples w ere co llected d uring March, 2014 due to mechanical issues with the boat. Dissolved oxygen within Futch Creek ranged between 4.2 mg/1 and 8.9 mg /1 with a mean value of 6.5 mg /1 (Figures 6 -9, Table 8). Samples collected during July and September 2014 dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard of 5.0 mg /1 for SA waters at both the surface and near the bottom of the water column in FC -FOY and FC -13 (Figures 8 and 9). In addition, the standard was breached September at FC -6 (Figure 7). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 1.0 ug/1 and 14.0 ug/1 with a mean value of 4.0 ug /1 (Table 8). None of these values approached the 40ug/1 Chlorophyll -a standard. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 243 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value of 14 CFU /100m1. None o f t he samples collected w ithin F utch C reek exceeded t he NCDENR Enterococci standard of 500 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters (Figures 10 -13, Table 8). Turbidity values were generally 1 ow ranging between 0 and 51 NTU with a m can v alue o f 6 NTU (Table 8). One observation 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 - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-20 Figure 5. Water Quality Sites within the Futch Creek Watershed Table 8. Mean values of select arameters rom Futch Creek. Ran a in parentheses. Parameter FC -4 FC -6 FC -13 FC -FOY Turbidity (NTU) 5(1-19) 4(0-19) 8(0-51) 7(0-31) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.7 (5.4 -8.3) 6.7 (4.8 -8.3) 6.4 (4.2 -8.9) 6.2 (4.2 -8.3) Chlorophyll -a (ug /1) 3.0 (1.0 -6.0) 3.0 (1.0 -5.0) 5.0 (1.0 -14.0) 4.0 (1.0 -14.0) Enterococci 9 (5 -52)' 12 (5 -161)' 25 (5 -243)' 12 (5 -109)' ( #CFU /100ml) (i)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-21 FC -4 Dissolved Oxygen io s 6 O 4 A 2 0 g %\o ti Figure 6. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -4 FC -6 Dissolved Oxygen 10 9 8 7 6 5 Q 4 Q 3 2 1 0 Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -6 FC -13 Dissolved Oxygen Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -13 ■ DO-S ■ DO-B ■ D O -S ■ D O-B ■ DO -S ■ DO -B 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-22 10 s en 6 D 4 ra 2 0 �4 1 \�Cl \'*. 4 4 io s 6 O 4 A 2 0 g %\o ti Figure 6. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -4 FC -6 Dissolved Oxygen 10 9 8 7 6 5 Q 4 Q 3 2 1 0 Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -6 FC -13 Dissolved Oxygen Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -13 ■ DO-S ■ DO-B ■ D O -S ■ D O-B ■ DO -S ■ DO -B 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-22 FOY Dissolved Oxygen 10 8 6 ■ no -s 0 A 4 ■DO-B z 0 Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC -FOY Enterococci Levels at FC -4 60 50 0 0 40 w 30 ■enterer. 20 i m W 10 0 ",\0r~Sa���,5 Figure 10. Enterococci at FC -4 Enterococci Levels at FC -6 180 160 140 y 120 wU 100 ■ enterer_ 80 60 40 W 20 O �ti�1���o���a`��,n 4� `'o18`11 Figure 11. Enterococci at FC -6 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-23 Enterococci Levels at FC -13 300 250 0 a 200 w `t 150 ■Ent — u 100 m 50 0 Figure 12. Enterococci at FC -13 Enterococci Levels at FC -FOY 120 100 80 w 60 ■Entera_ 40 a 20 W 0 Figure 13. Enterococci at FC -FOY Table 9. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Futch Creek Parameter FC -4 FC -6 FC -13 FC -FOY Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD 3.4 Lords Creek The Lords C reek W atershed i s 1 ocated i n t he s outhwestern por tion of t he C ounty and encompasses approximately 3,047 acres. Zoning within the watershed is completely residential. This w atershed contains ap proximately 12.6% i mpervious s urface coverage (Hume, 2009 ). According t o t he C AMA 1 and us e pl an, t he 1 and i n t he w atershed i s classified a s a mix o f conservation, transition, watershed resource protection and a s mall natural h eritage 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 - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-24 Dissolved oxygen LC -RR ranged between 1.6 mg /1 and 11.2 mg/1 with a mean value of 6.9 mg /1 (Table 10). All surface samples 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 with the exception of data collected in August, 2014 and June, 2015 (Figure 15). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 2.0 ug/1 and 21.0 ug /1 with a mean value of 6.0 ug /1 (Table 10). No samples exceeded the State standard of 40ug/1 for Chlorophyll -a. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100m1 and 275 CFU /100m1 with a geometric mean value of 47 CFU /100m1 (Table 10) . No samples contained high 1 evels of Enterococci beyond the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters. Turbidity values were generally moderate ranging between 2 and 27 NTU with a mean value of 12 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. Figure 14. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed Table 10. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses. 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-25 Parameter LC -RR Turbidity (NTU) 12(12-27) Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) 6.9 (1.6 -11.2) Chlorophyll -a (ug/1) 6 (2.0 -21.0) Enterococci ( #CFU /100ml) 47 (5 -275)1 "'Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean LC -RR Dissolved Oxygen 12 10 a s 6 ■ no -s 4 ■ nO -s 2 D Nbt %,,�1���,��1�'1�� Figure 15. Dissolved Oxygen at LC -RR Enterococci Levels at LC -RR 400 a 300 w U S200- •U ■ E ntem v O V 100 FTa D ,\\N 411 a, 0 � <;1 Figure 16. Enterococci Levels at LC -RR Table 11. Ratings ofnarameters within samnlinQ stations within Lords Creek Parameter LC -RR Turbidity GOOD Dissolved Oxygen Chlorophyll -a GOOD Enterococci GOOD 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-26 3.5 Motts Creek Motts C reek watershed en compasses approximately 2,389 acres a nd is to cated in th e southwestern portion of the C ounty, j ust be low Sanders Road. The Creek drains portions of Carolina Beach Road at its headwaters and then drains toward River Road before entering into the C ape F ear R iver. Zoning in th e w atershed is p redominately r esidential w ith c ommercial business districts along Carolina B each Road. Land in the watershed is classified as transition, conservation or w etland r esource pr otection a ccording t o t he C AMA 1 and us e pl an. This watershed contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was co nducted at two (2 ) s ites (MOT -CBR, M OT -ND) w ithin th e Motts C reek w atershed (Figure 17). Dissolved oxygen within Motts Creek ranged between 2.3 mg /l and 12.0 mg /l with a mean value of 6.9 mg /l (Figures 18 and 19, T able 12). Two s amples collected at M OT -CBR co ntained dissolved oxygen levels below the standard (May and June 2015) (Figure 18). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug /l and 7.0 ug /l with a mean value of 3.0 ug/l (Table 12). No samples exceeded the 40ug /l standard. Enterococci ranged b etween 20 CFU /100ml a nd 19,863 CFU /100ml w ith a geometric me an value of 419 CFU /100ml (Table 12) . M OT -CBR e xceeded the N CDENR s tandard of 500 CFU /100ml for Tier III waters during six (6) of the twelve (12) times it was sampled. MOT -ND exceeded this standard four (4) of the twelve (12) sample events (Figures 20 and 21). Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 2 and 31 NTU with a m can value of 10 NTU (Table 12). N o turbidity observations exceeded the State standard of 50 N TU for C Sw waters. Table 13 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed. 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-27 NEW HANOVER COUNTY NTS PROJECT LOCATION N W+ h S INOTE 1, AERIAL PHOTOS FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY. ZW6 LEGEND - MOTTS CREEK WATERSHED 0 2,500 5,000 Feel i SAMPLE LOCATIONS 1 inch equals 5,000 fee[ Figure 17. Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed Table 12. Mean values of select Parameters from Motts Creep Range in Parentheses. Parameter MOT -CBR MOT -ND Turbidity (NTU) 10(2-30) 11(2-31) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.6 (2.3 -10.1) 7.2 (4.8 -12.0) Chlorophyll -a (ug/1) 3.0 (0.0 -7.0) 3.0 (0.0 -6.0) Enterococci ( #CFU /100m1) 399 (20- 19863)' 440 (31- 7270)' "'Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-28 MOT CBR Dissolved Oxygen 12 10 a s 5 o ■ DO -S A 4 2 a Figure 18. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT -CBR MOT-ND Dissolved Oxygen 14 12 10 a s O 5 ■ DO—S A 4 z D Q \NDc 1 %Nb`q, % \' Dtk �1� ,,1��'1� ti ti Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT -ND Enterococci Levels at MOT CBR 100000 10000 U 1000 ■ Ent — 100 m 10 u W 1 Figure 20. Enterococci at MOT -CBR 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-29 _ 10000 1000 3 100 UU C m 10 W Enterococci Levels at MOT -ND 301 Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT -ND ■ Eoc -o_ Table 13. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek Parameter MOT -CBR MOT -ND Turbidity GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOD Enterococci POOR POOR 3.6 Pages Creek Located i n nor theastern N ew H anover C ounty and e ncompassing 2,0 44 a cres, Pages C reek 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 1 and w ithin t he Pages C reek w atershed i s p redominately classified as watershed resource protection and conservation, with a small portion classified as transitional according to t he C AMA 1 and us e pl an. This w atershed co ntains ap proximately 23.2% impervious s urface c overage ( Hume, 2009 ). Sampling w as co nducted at t hree ( 3) s ites ( PC- BDDS, PC -BDUS, and PC -M) within the Motts Creek watershed (Figure 22). Dissolved oxygen within Pages Creek ranged between 4.4 mg /l and 8.8 mg /l with a mean value of 6.6 mg/ (Table 14) (Figures 23 through 25). Of the three (3) sites monitored over the twelve (12) month study, the dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the standard only twice; once in May 2015 at PC -BDDS and once in June 2015 at PC -BDUS (Figures 23 and 24). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 1.0 ug /l and 56.0 ug/l with a mean value of 11.0 ug/l (Table 14). Three (3) sample exceeded the State standard of 40 ug /l for chlorophyll -a. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100ml and 9,804 CFU /100ml with a geometric mean value of 120 CFU /100ml (Figures 26 -28, T able 14). While s amples c ollected from P C -M di d not contain high levels of Enterococci, five (5) and nine (9) samples from PC -BDDS and PC -BDUS, respectively, contained levels higher than the NCDENR standards. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-30 Turbidity v alues w ere generally good ranging between 0 an d 28 NTU with a m can v alue o f 7 NTU (Table 14) . Two (2) of the observed turbidity values exceeded the State standard of 2 5 NTU for class SA waters. Table 15 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed. S ^ NEW HANCVER COUNTY NTS PROJECT LOCATION K NOTE 1- AERIALS FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY, 2006 ix PC-E • •+ PC -e DtS'S N W k: S LEGEND PAGES CREEK WATERSHED 0 2.500 5.030 SAMPLE LOCATIONS ® Feet 1 inch equals 5.000 feet Figure 22. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-31 Table 14. Mean values of select Parameters from Pages Creep Range in parentheses. Parameter PC -BDUS PC -BDDS PC -M Turbidity (NTU) 10(2-26) 5(0-28) 6(0-21) Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) 5.9 (2.9 -8.4) 6.5 (4.3 -9.4) 7.3 (4.6 -10.0) Chlorophyll -a (ug /1) 15 (1.0 -52.0) 15 (1.0 -56.0) 3.0 (1.0 -5.0) Enterococci ( #CFU /100m1) 602 (41- 9804)' 188 (20- 2613)' 15 (5- 3968)' "'Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean PC -BDDS Dissolved Oxygen 10 8 6 O 4 A 2 0 El DIMN Figure 23. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDDS PC -BDUS Dissolved Oxygen 10 8 6 °0 4 O A 2 0 ■ DO-s Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -BDUS 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-32 14 12 10 .a 8 6 O ❑ 4 2 0 PC -M Dissolved Oxygen 14,1- 6111 Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC -M Enterococci Levels at PC -BDDS _ 10000 ° 1000 w 100 10 W 1 '44,1v���1�� Figure 26. Enterococci at PC -BDDS ■ DO-s ■ DO-B Enterococci Levels at PC -BDDS 10000 1000 U 100 . En[era. 10 m w 1 ti � ti Figure 27. Enterococci at PC -BDDS 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-33 Enterococci Levels at PGM 10000 1000 0 w 100 [) ■ Hnt— 10 v W 1 Figure 28. Enterococci at PC -M Table 15. Ratings ofparameters within sampkng stations within Pages Creek Parameter PC -BDDS PC -BDUS PC -M Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD GOOD Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOD GOOD Enterococci POOR POOR GOOD 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 H ayne, extending eastward across I -40 into th e B lue C lay R oad ar ea. Zoning w ithin t he P rince G eorges Creek watershed i s predominately residential with some business and light industrial districts within Castle Hayne. Most of t he 1 and w ithin t he P rince G eorges Creek w atershed i s cl assified as aq uifer r esource protection, conservation or transition according to the C AMA 1 and use plan. This w atershed contains approximately 10.1% impervious surface c overage ( Hume, 20 09). Sampling w as conducted at t hree ( 3) s ites (PG -CH, P G -ML, and P G -NC) w ithin t he P rince G eorges C reek watershed (Figure 29). Dissolved o xygen w ithin P rince G eorges C reek r anged b etween 0.0 mg /l a nd 9.8 mg /l w ith a mean value of 4.9 mg /l (Table 16). Surface dissolved oxygen values at PG -NC and PG -CH were below the State standard of 4.0 m g/1 for C S during seven (7) and three (3) sampling events, respectively. PG -ML was below the standard on two (2) occasions (Figures 30 through 32). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug /l and 19.0 ug/l with a mean value of 3.0 ug /l (Table 16). No samples from Prince Georges Creek exceeded the 40ug/1 standard. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100ml and 8,164 CFU /100ml with a geometric mean value of 92 CFU /100ml (Table 16) . During this study, four (4) samples from PG-CH and PG-ML, respectively, contained Enterococci levels above the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU /100ml for Tier III waters. Two (2) samples from PG -NC exceeded this value during the same time period (Figures 33 through 35). 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-34 Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 57 NTU with a m can value of 10 NTU (Table 16). One (1) sample exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters. Table 17 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed. Figure 29. Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed 28 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-35 Table 16. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range in Parentheses. Parameter PG -CH PG -ML PG -NC Turbidity (NTU) 13(1-57) 6(1-18) 11 (1 -25) Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) 5.2 (1.2 -9.8) 5.8 (2.4 -8.8) 3.9 (0.0 -8.4) Chlorophyll -a (ug/1) 1.0 (1.0 -4.0) 3.0 (1.0 -8.0) 4.0 (1.0 -19.0) Enterococci ( #CFU /100m1) 139 (10- 1725)' 146 (10- 3255)' 38(5-8164) "'Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean PG-CH Dissolved Oxygen 12 10 s a G ■ DO-s d ■ DO-B 4 A 2 fl Figure 30. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -CH PG -ML Dissolved Oxygen is s 6 A 4 n ■ DO-S Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -ML 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-36 PG-NC Dissolved Oxygen 10 s a 6 ■ n o -s 0 A 4 ■ DO-s 2 0 Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG -NC Enterococci Levels at PG -CH 10000 0 1000 100 �V v ■Estero_ O V ,°. 10 m W 1 Figure 33. Enterococci at PG -CH Enterococci Levels at PG-ML 10000 0 ° 1000 U I00 �U U O U i 10 �Uy W 1 ■Eot- Figure 34. Enterococci at PG -ML 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-37 10000 �k a ° 1000 7� w U �k 100 U U Q U L 10 U W Enterococci Levels at PG -NC Figure 35. Enterococci at PG -NC ■ Ent— Table 17. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek Parameter PG -CH PG -ML PG -NC Turbidity GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen POOR Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOL Enterococci POOR POOR 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 B ridge. The watershed dr ains 1 and within t he C ity 1 imits a nd t he uni ncorporated County, i ncluding t he W ilmington I nternational A irport. Zoning w ithin the Smith C reek 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 w atershed contains a pproximately 21.9% i mpervious surface coverage ( Hume, 2009 ). Along with increased development and impervious surfaces, water quality in Smith Creek has declined i n recent years. High b acteria 1 evels have b een reported, as well as 1 ow 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). Dissolved oxygen within the creek ranged between 3.6 mg /l and 11.5 mg /l with a mean value of 7.2 mg /l (Table 18). Dissolved oxygen levels within SC -23 and SC -CH fell below State standard of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw waters on one (1) and two (2) occasions, respectively (Figures 37 and 39)). Chlorophyll -a ranged between 0.0 ug /l and 30.0 ug /l with a mean value of 4.0 ug /l (Table 18). No samples exceeded the State Standard for chlorophyll -a. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU /100ml and 11,199 CFU /100ml with a geometric mean value of 119 CFU /100ml (Table 18). A number of samples exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500 31 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-38 CFU /100m1 for Tier III waters including five (5) from S C -GR, four (4) from SC-CD, three (3) from SC -NK, and two (2) from SC -23 (Figures 42 through 46). Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 31 NTU with a m can value of 11 NTU (Table 18) . No observations exceeded t he State standard of 50 N TU f or S W c lass C waters. Table 19 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed. Figure 36. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed 32 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-39 Table 18. Mean values of select Parameters from Smith Creep Range in parentheses. Parameter SC -23 SC -CD SC -CH SC -GR SC -NK Turbidity (NTU) 11(4-19) 10(1-25) 14(4-31) 10(2-20) 8(1-23) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.6 (3.6 -10.2) 8.0 (5.4 -9.9) 6.7 (3.6 -11.5) 8.0 (5.9 -10.7) 6.7 (4.3 -11.4) Chlorophyll -a (ug /1) 7.0 (2.0 -14.0) 2.0 (0.0 -5.0) 3.0 (1.0 -16.0) 2.0 (1.0 -6.0) 9.0 (1.0 -30.0) Enterococci 53 (5- 2481)' 272 (5- 15531)' 50 (5 -488)' 251 (10- 8164)' 142 (5- 11199)' ( #CFU /100m1) "'Lnterococci values expressed as geometnc mean 12 10 a 8 6 0 4 0) 0 12 10 J 8 6 O A 4 2 SC -23 Dissolved Oxygen Figure 37. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -23 SC -CD Dissolved Oxygen 1 1\5 -1\1� yN \4�14NN1 t Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -CD ■ D o -s ■ DO-B ■ DO -S 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-40 SC -CH Dissolved Oxygen 12 10 a 8 s ■ DO-S 0 A 4 ■ DO -B 2 0 4\11 `�i���� �y�� ���a�ti ,17 �e Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -CH SC -GR Dissolved Oxygen 12 10 a $ o� C 6 p ■ Do-s A 4 2 fl %1$��'sga�� Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -GR SC -NK Dissolved Oxygen 14 12 10 J `ea S ■ DO-S G 6 ■ DO-B 4 2 0 Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC -NK 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-41 Enterococci Levels at SC -23 10000 0 1000 W U 100 �U ■ Entero. V O V 10 d W 1 Figure 42. Enterococci at SC -23 Enterococci Levels at SC -CD 100000 a 10000 w 1000 U lflfl ■ Entera. w 0 V 0 c. lfl W 1 Figure 43. Enterococci at SC -CD Enterococci Levels at SC -CH 1000 0 100 U .V ■Entera. V °V l0 ti u W 1 Figure 44. Enterococci at SC -CH 35 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-42 Enterococci Levels at SC -GR 10000 c 0 1000 :7 L U �t 100 U U O U t: 10 CJ le W ■Ente o. 45�`�1���5 Figure 45. Enterococci at SC -GR Enterococci Levels at SC -NIA 100000 10000 a r. 1000 CJ 100 ,❑�, 10 w ■ Entero. Figure 46. Enterococci at SC -NK Table 19. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek Parameter SC -23 SC -CD SC -CH SC -GR SC -NK Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD F ATR GOOD GOOD Chlorophyll -a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Enterococci N F? POOR GOOD POOR POOR 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). As displayed in the table below, turbidity and chlorophyll -a were determined to be "good" within all watersheds throughout the study p eriod. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be "good" in Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Smith Creek while Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, and Lords Creek were all deemed to be "fair". Prince Georges Creek demonstrated "poor" levels of dissolved oxygen during the study period. Enterococci was problematic within three of these watersheds- Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-43 Prince Georges Creek. On the other hand, Futch Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords Creek were deemed "good" for enterococci. Table 20. Ratings of Parameters within each watershed Parameter Prince Smith Barnards Futch Lords Motts Pages Georges Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Turbidity GOOL GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD POOR GOOD Chlorophyll -a GOOE GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Enterococci GOOD, GOOD GOOD POOR POOR I POOR 3.10 Long Term Trends Water q uality d ata has be en c ollected w ithin New H anover C ounty since the mid 1990's. Several o f t he historical monitoring s ites c ontinue to be ut ilized f or t he Ong oing m onitoring effort. In order to as sess the long term trends in water quality, a d atabase has b een created to include the 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 tr ends from th e remaining c reeks ( Motts C reek, Lords C reek, P Snce G eorges C reek, and Barnards Creek) have been derived from data obtained between November 2007 and June 2015. For each p arameter examined, data was plotted on a 1 ine graph over time and a t rend line was created. Trend lines, also known as regression lines, can be used as a way of visually depicting the relationship b etween 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 t rend i n w ater q uality is d efined as an i ncrease o r d ecrease i n a particular c onstituent concentration overtime. 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 1 Ong t erm t rends i n di ssolved ox ygen w ithin t he s even ( 7) c reeks examined within this study. The figures illustrate a distinct seasonal pattern including higher dissolved ox ygen dur ing the c ooler winter m onths a nd 1 ower di ssolved ox ygen du ring t he 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 t o t he f act t hat s ampling w as onl y conducted s easonally be tween 2004 a nd 2006 thereby s kewing t he d ata. Since 2007, di ssolved ox ygen 1 evels e xceeded t he S tate s tandard within s urface s amples 36 %, 23 %, 19 %, and 10% o f th e time w ithin Prince G eorges C reek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Smith Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better within Motts Creek where s amples exceeded the di ssolved oxygen standard nine (9 %) of the time. B arnards Creek and Lords Creek each breached the standard only five (5 %) of the times sampled. 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-44 14 12 to 10 8 x ❑ 6 a+ 4 a 0 " 2 'a 0 Barnards Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) Figure 47. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek 14 12 t 10 m 8 x ❑ 6 4 0 c 2 0 Futch Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) 0 r�L S�q o ✓47�f�'7 9G� �,. ❑�� If;,. rol ;3 00 0 Figure 48. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek 38 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-45 14 12 are 10 adn 8 x O 6 m 4 0 c 2 0 Lords Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) o d o o v o o,� , o o ''1 r-� 10 U, a bra �� �.g °O °�O °�,� �1� °`'r, °��, °�,� °�, Q Figure 49. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek Motts Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) 14 12 10 w 8 x v 6 4 0 c 2 0 hoc a -dy °L 00 0 Figure 50. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek 39 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-46 Figure 51. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek 14 J 12 10 8 0 6 a 4 0 2 'o Prince Georges Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) ✓9, '~4 d '�G ✓d '�Gf 'mod '�4 'mod '�C. ✓d �4'/ ✓�, ✓� ✓� 00 • �0 c'0 00,9 �0 •10 0 • �0 `,0 20 20 +10 �0 � 0� ©,9 10 %0 1 11 1 1 ,� 1 ,s Figure 52. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-47 Pages Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) 14 12 10 s O 6 °} a 4 0 2 LJ' ✓��R ✓�? q�do �, pC �d yQOc ✓�L �f��i �'0r; �pa ��'���d? �4� d� �c �dyd0c .00©O.1, 006 OfJj��7j ©1?p 00900 011 adz OO 01� -0) 01 'Q��pVV 101 Figure 51. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek 14 J 12 10 8 0 6 a 4 0 2 'o Prince Georges Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) ✓9, '~4 d '�G ✓d '�Gf 'mod '�4 'mod '�C. ✓d �4'/ ✓�, ✓� ✓� 00 • �0 c'0 00,9 �0 •10 0 • �0 `,0 20 20 +10 �0 � 0� ©,9 10 %0 1 11 1 1 ,� 1 ,s Figure 52. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-47 14 12 10 8 x 0 6 4 0 c 2 0 Smith Creek Dissolved Oxygen (Surface) .�� y o @r o's V°, � y ��„ o kyo (6 0, Figure 53. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek 3.11.2 Turbidity Figures 54 -60 depict t he 1 ong t erm t rends i n turbidity within t he s even ( 7) creeks ex amined 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 thew armer months and 1 ower turbidity during the cooler months. The turbidity within Smith Creek has demonstrated a s light decrease overtime while turbidity i n Prince Georges Creek has increased slightly. Turbidity within all other creeks included within the study have maintained roughly the same level since 2007, however, these long term turbidity trends have not been verified to be statistically significant. 20 Barnards Creek 'turbidity (Surface) 1S 16 14 12 y 10 S 6 4 2 0 ,boy `" ���'�oa,^ ���'� ❑a •' �a`�'�oy •" ��� ^��� •' �a`�'�yoa •" �r�'�o.� •' �a�'�Q� •' �a�" Figure 54. Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-48 Figure 55. Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek 40 Lords Creek Turbidity (Surface) Futch Creek Turbidity (Surface) 25 .- 20 a Ir- ? 15 2D .Q 15 10 la 5 5 D OO°l Op°1 Qti0 Oti0 O� O� 01rl, Figure 55. Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek 40 Lords Creek Turbidity (Surface) 35 j 30 Z 25 v 2D .Q 15 10 5 0 �a�'' �� `�,�oy.,�a`�^�Oa.,�a`�'�a.� • ^�a� ^boy • ^���,�oa • ^�s�'�oa.,��`�'�o.�' ^���' Figure 56. Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-49 35 30 25 G 20 ^� 15 10 5 0 Motu Creek Turbidity (Surface) ti� ti ti ti ti ti� ti ti �. ti ti. ti '�. ti Figure 57. Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek 30 Pages Creek Turbidity (Surface) 25 20 15 10 5 J. 0 t t� V Figure 58. Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-50 25 20 615 10 5 a Prince Georges Creek Turbidity (Surface) Figure 59. Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek Smith Creek Turbidity (Surface) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 a Figure 60. Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek 3.11.3 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 d uring t he w armer m onths and de crease dur ing t he c ooler m onths. S ince s ampling began, only 20 exceedences of the chlorophyll -a standard were observed of the 1,772 samples collected. 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-51 l'0 10-AD 6.0 c `o #.O -'.0 U.0 ° ���., �a3^ ��. a°' �, �a,, �s., �a. 1, �oy.,�,�,y,�,�.,�a� ^�,�a•'�a�' _�s-�a'�'��- a.'�ya'1' Barnards Creek Chlorophyll -rr Figure 61. Long term chlorophyll -a data within Barnards Creek 25.0 Z 20.0 15.0 0 10.0 0 U 5.0 0.0 iFutch Creek Chtorophytt -a T ° °h � 5 °0 ��p � �°° ��'� °°g �611111 °� °�ti °�'1� °�� ° \11 �ti Figure 62. Long term chlorophyll -a data within Futch Creek 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-52 70.0 60.0 50-0 40.0 30.0 F3 20.0 10.0 0.0 Lords Creek Chlorophyll -a Figure 63. Long term chlorophyll -a data within Lords Creek 50, U -15.0 40-0 a 35.0 30.0 i 23.0 �j 20.0 15 -0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Mutts Creel{ Chlorophyll -a 'L .ti 't- 'Y .y '1. .y '+� .y�7 .to T, Figure 64. Long term chlorophyll -a data within Motts Creek 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-53 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 0 20.0 U 10.0 0.0 Pages Creek Chlorophyll -a `e'�' , • �e,�.,��P�, �i�(.,� ., Figure 65. Long term chlorophyll -a data within Pages Creek 30.0 20.0 i Z 15.0 10.0 51-0 U. (7 S��^ Sao'' �,�•. .�c't' �•^ �a'f+^ tea: ���a,• fib.. 5�,.. ���. ���., ��fi¢,. Prince Georges Creek C'Morophvil -a Figure 66. Long term chlorophyll -a data within Prince Georges Creek 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-54 Smith Creek Chlorophyll -a 120.0 a 100.0 80.0 60.0 sa c 40.0 CJ 20.0 0.0 Figure 67. 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, Smith Creek, Barnards Creek, and Prince Georges Creek have all maintained a relatively high level of bacteria over time. Pages Creek and Futch Creek contain levels o f b acteria w hich have apparently increased within r ecent years while th e le vels o f bacteria within Smith Creek and Barnards Creek have decreased slightly. Lords Creek and Futch Creek which, on average, have contained relatively lower bacteria levels compared to the other creeks included within this study. Since November 2007, samples collected within Motts Creek exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 53% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, and S mith C reek ex ceeded s tandard 36% o f th e time. Prince G eorges C reek ex ceeded t he standard 31 % of the time while Lords C reek and F utch C reek c ontained the 1 east amount of bacteria with exceedances only 8% and 3% of the time, respectively. 48 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-55 Sarnards Creek Enterococci °0 10000 w 1000 U rj 100 0 U 0 10 W 1 �e v ° °* y0 �0 v ° %° v °ti° z °,,1 z °ti, � °�� L °," � °\^' v °,, � °ti" �'0 �Ovl IS-V ��.,� 00�., '�A Figure 68. Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek Futch Creek Enterococci 10000 °0 1000 r� U 100 �U U O U O 10 W 1 II II Y' II II II 111 II II II II 111 II 1111111 II 1111 II 1111111 II 111 II II II II 111 II II II 11111111111 1 , II v °1° �°Nl °"l L°ti" �o,�., ���" 1a,�,., �a�.,�'�c�, �•, ��.y, �,•, �,.y, deb., �Q�., �, ��,y., '��e, Figure 69. Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek 49 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-56 a a 1,000 U 100 U V V O V s°. 10 W Lords Creek Enterococci 'PIZ" e 10" ze 1011, '0§' „011 111 ��1� 1a1Z Lq1� 1413 va1� � °�' vp15 a boy ,`1,�oy ., -P, %. 1,y •, a`1 boy ., a �yoy ., Pi Figure 70. Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek Motts Creek Enterococci 100000 E 10000 0 0 s D 1000 LL �V 0 100 V 0 L 10 W 1 milli 1111111111111111111111111111111 IN 111111 boy ., yore' Say,, �oPv pd .,a.�, •,k1�a e�`., $ Figure 71. Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek 50 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-57 Pages Creek Enterococci 100000 10000 0 w 1000 rj 100 U O i. 10 W 1 Y 11 III 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I tie .'� �.' e ���� zo" 101 ��%" ti��¢ 'ti0 ", �, z %l ti6,1 "�Q�s �4 %, ell Figure 72. Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek Prince Georges Creek Enterococci 100000 °c 10000 w 1000 U 0 100 U 0 a 10 W 1 Figure 73. Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek 51 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-58 Smith Creek Enterococci 100000 a 10000 ��. 1000 u c 100 10 w 1 Ldp1 'L0 �o 'L�� Figure 74. Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek 3.11 Source Tracking High concentrations of Enterococcus bacteria were obs erved ove r t he f our s torms sampled indicating a c ontinued 1 evel of e levated c oncern about the m icrobial water quality in th e s ites included w ithin t his s ource t racking s tudy (MOT -ND a nd P C- BDDS). Enterococcus concentrations ranged from 54.6 t o >24196 MPN /100 ml, with 93% of the samples exhibiting Enterococcus concentrations that exceeded EPA single sample standards for recreational waters. This c ompares w ith t he 96% obs erved e xceedance i n t he f irst s tudy, a nd de monstrates t hat patterns were roughly the same. Rainfall amounts for the storms sampled ranged from 0.5 -1.6 inches over the course of the study. These are rainfall amounts that are typical of storms in the Wilmington, N C a rea, and w ould not b e expected t o b e c ategorized as an e xtreme event. In Motts C reek, t he m can Enterococcus sp. c oncentration ove r a 11 s amples c ollected w as 848 MPN /100 ml, while at Pages Creek, it was over 5 -fold higher at 5204 MPN /100 ml. A trio of Bacteroides -based molecular markers were quantified in order to assess the potential for the presence of human fecal contamination at the four sites studied. A notable result was from the smallest of the four storms, where the 3rd sample collected (2/17/2015) at both Motts Creek (Figure 75) and Pages C reek ( Figure 76) resulted i n c ontamination f or a 11 f our m arkers measured. While this was a small storm, and only a single storm, these results indicate that the tail of the storm event is important. This also indicates that rising groundwater, and subsequent connections a mong s eptic 1 eachfields, or s ewage /stormwater conveyance s ystems could b e playing a role in the delivery of fecal contamination to this system. All three human markers were positive, and the gull fecal contamination marker was also positive. T he HF183 marker, along with the Fecal B acteroides spp. marker were also both strongly positive at the beginning (Sample 1) for the storm from 1/12/2015, a rainfall event of our 0.6 inches total rainfall. For the storm event of March 17 -18, 2015 ( see Figure 75 and 76), the HF183 marker was positive in both Sample 1 and Sample 2, occurring with a steady spring -like rainfall event of a total of 1.3 inches. The other human markers during this event were non - detectable for Pages Creek, but in Motts Creek for this single storm the BacHum results corroborated the HF 183 results. 52 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-59 It is interesting to note that several of the other samples collected over the course of this study did not de monstrate a ny i ndication of a hum an fecal contamination s ignal. T he hum an f ecal contamination s ignal i s i ndeed e phemeral and appears t o b e d riven specifically b y r ainfall patterns. M ethodological limitations prevented accurate quantification of the gull marker in a few instances, because the water sample collected and purified had to be diluted in order to gain a proper gPCR signal from the sample. This is called "gPCR inhibition ". Inhibition is typically caused b y 1 arge h igh m olecular w eight m olecules s uch as h umic an d f ulvic aci ds, w hich ar e present in high quantities in the Creeks studied here. Over t he dur ation of a 11 f our s torms, s amples obt ained f rom bot h s ites c ontained ve ry hi gh concentrations of the Fecal Bacteroides spp. concentrations with concentrations well in excess of 100,000 CE /100 ml (Figures 75 and 76). Most of the samples that demonstrated very high Fecal Bacteroides s pp. c oncentrations a lso ha d hi gh concentrations of t he BacHum m arker, ranging from 4,120 t o 15,378 g ene c opies /100 m 1 ( Figures75 a nd 76) . T here w as no s tatistical relationship between Bacteroides -based molecular markers and the Enterococcus concentrations or total rainfall, but this study includes a small sample size, upon which it is often difficult to conduct statistical analyses appropriately (p > 0.05, correlation analysis). This is a small study, and the sites were selected based upon previous historical data showing contamination. All of the sites indicate that human fecal contamination has the potential to pose a serious problem to these receiving waters. 7 I .t J E 5 0 0 r" 4 Q� 4- 3 w U 0 1 0 Mutts Creek 1�5 NA o$ �ti ti� ti� ati A� by y0 y0 yQ y� � o� ©, o � ���ry���,�o ■ BF© ■ H F183 ■ BacHum ■ Gull -2 Figure 75. Concentrations of molecular microbial source tracking markers Fecal Bacteroides spp., BacHum, HF183, and Gull -2 gene copies /100 ml for four storm events in Motts Creek, NC. Note axis is on logarithmic scale. 53 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-60 Pages Creek 7 6 J E 5 a a r' 4 a� ■ BF© 4 3 U ■ H F183 an 2 —° ■ BacHum 1 ■ Gull -2 ya' N N yo' �°5 yL` tih' h4i' �ti' yh' hai' `y0 yh � y�tia q`'��o� als'r��� �o�� ,�0N y��4h �oyh 1y���oti � ©h ayh b\ �1 til ti til tit Figure 76. Concentrations of molecular microbial source tracking markers Fecal Bacteroides spp., BacHum, HF183, and Gull -2 gene copies /100 ml for four storm events in Pages Creek, NC. Note axis is on logarithmic scale. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Water quality is an important issue in the region due to the fact that there are many economic and recreational oppo rtunities t hat a re s upported b y t he a quatic r esources in a nd a round t hese waterways. One of the greatest threats to water quality in this area is stormwater runoff created by i ncreased i mpervious s urface c overage ( Mallin e t a 1., 2000) . Duet o m any of the contaminants found i n stormwater r unoff, adverse of fects can be i mposed upon plants, f ish, 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 County's population in 2012 was estimated to be 209,635 and is expected to grow at a rate of 1.3% over the next 5 years (NC Division of Commerce, Labor, and Economic Data and Site Information, 2015). Along with this population growth came increased stormwater runoff, increase i n septic t anks, ag ing w astewater i nfrastructure, a nd of her i ssues t hat potentially impacted the water quality within the County's creeks. Since this time, New Hanover County's water quality within its tidal creeks has become altered. This has 1 ed t o a strong community desire f or greater pr otection a nd e nhancement of s urface a nd ground w ater r esources. The County i s w orking t owards pr oviding t he M arquis H ill s ubdivision w ithin t he M otts C reek watershed with sewer service which will replace a number of failing septic systems within the neighborhood. Furthermore, t he C ounty continues t o w ork t oward pr eventing further deterioration and loss of public uses in surface water through initiatives such as riparian buffer land a cquisition pr ojects a nd pr omoting 1 ow i mpact de velopment. With this in min d, it is important to monitor the water quality of these local systems to determine potential impacts to both human health and ecosystem function. 54 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-61 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 longterm trends of water quality in this study. The dissolved oxygen along with chlorophyll -a and turbidity levels increased during the warmer summer months. Furthermore, 1 onger days allow f or i ncreased photosynthetic a ctivity a flowing f or an i ncrease in ph ytoplankton bl ooms. W hile often m ore 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 t he p resence o f an algal bl oom. Throughout the c ourse of t his study, pH values were generally found to be within acceptable ranges as were turbidity values. However, t wo s ites i n P ages C reek ( PC -BDUS a nd P C -BDDS) c ontained hi gh 1 evels of chlorophyll -a above the State standard. The turbidity at these sites was relatively high, although within the State standard. Accordingly, it is possible that an algal bloom was occurring within the creek during that sampling period. This would mark the first algal bloom identified within the network of creeks included within this monitoring program since 2007. Fourteen percent (14 %) of all samples collected during the 12 month study contained dissolved oxygen 1 evels below the State standard. O f the 31 samples that fell b elow this standard, two - thirds (67 %) were observed during June, July, and August when water temperatures were the highest. The lowest dissolved oxygen, on average, was observed at PG -NC where the standard was b reached seven (7) of twelve (12) s ampling e vents. T his po rtion of the creek i s characterized by a broad shallow bank in a swamp -like setting. It is typical of swamps to contain low 1 evels of di ssolved ox ygen a nd hi gher 1 evels of pH, a s obs erved. Therefore, t he 1 ow dissolved oxygen observed in Prince Georges Creek, particularly at PG -NC, could be regarded as a natural phenomenon. Compared to last year, the DO levels within Barnards Creek and Lords Creek declined from a "Good" rating to a "Fair" rating while all other creeks remained the same. Lords Creek was the only creek that did not include a sample below this level. High 1 evels o f Enterococci bacteria p ersisted within three ( 3) of t he s even ( 7) watersheds throughout t he s tudy p eriod. Enterococci levels exceeded t he State standard i n i ndividual sampling s ites w ithin Barnards Creek, S mith C reek, P rince G eorges Creek, M otts C reek, a nd Pages Creek 8 %, 23 %, 28 %, 42 %, and 42% of the time, respectively. The sites with the most frequent high concentrations of Enterococci bacteria were located within Pages Creek at BDUS where nine (9) of the twelve (12) samples obtained at each sample exceeded the State standard. The of her s ite 1 ocated within t he B ayshore community at pa ges C reek i s a t t he ne ighborhood boat ramp (PC- BDUS). F ive (5) of the twelve (12) samples collected at this site exceeded the State standard. Collectively, these two sampling sites in the Bayshore neighborhood exceeded the standard 58% of the time. Samples collected at MOT -CBR also contained high 1 evels of Enterococci on a consistent basis as six (6) of the twelve (12) sampling events exceeded the standard. Over the past several years, two sites have continued to improve their water quality in terms of bacterial contamination: SC -CD and MOT -ND. SC -CD exceeded the standard ten (10) times during 2012 -2013 and only four (4) times the past two years. MOT -ND also exceeded the standard ten (10) times in 2012 -2013 but improved to only six (6) exceedences this during 2013- 2014 and four (4) times this past year. Samples collected from Futch Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords C reek de monstrated t he be st w ater qua lity i n t erms of ba cteria. N o s amples containing high levels of enterococcus bacteria were collected from Futch Creek and Lord Creek 55 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-62 while with only one (1) sample from Barnards Creek contained high levels of Enterococci above the State standard. In general, the water quality ratings ascribed for each creek was the same between the 2013 -2014 study period and this period were similar with only two exceptions. The dissolved oxygen rating declined from "Good" t o " Fair" a t bot h B arnards a nd Lords C reek. Aside f rom t hese two changes, all other ratings within the creeks remained unchanged. An assessment of the past seven years of water quality monitoring has revealed some long term trends regarding the ratings for dissolved oxygen and Enterococci bacteria within each creek. In general, the di ssolved oxygen within B arnards Creek, Lords Creek, and Smith Creek has b een rated "Good" over time, with few exceptions (Figure 77). Both Barnards Creek and Lords Creek demonstrated a "Fair" rating this past year, however. Futch Creek has maintained a "Fair" rating for six (6) of the eight (8) years with one year rated as "Poor" and one as "Good ". Motts Creek has shown improvement over the past three (3) years while Pages Creek seems to have improved to "Good" after several years of "Poor" dissolved oxygen. Prince Georges Creek has maintained "Poor" dissolved oxygen for this long term period with the exception of one "Fair" r ating i n 2007 -2008 (Figure 77). Figure 77. Long -term dissolved oxygen ratings The long term trends for enterococci ratings over the past seven years have shown that a number of creeks have basically maintained "Poor" ratings. These include M otts Creek, Pages Creek, Prince Georges Creek, and Smith Creek. Smith Creek, however, has improved over the past two (2) years w ith a "Fair" rating. Barnards C reek a nd Lords C reek ha ve demonstrated va rious conditions ove r t he pa st s even years w hile Futch C reek ha s m aintained a " Good" r ating consistently (Figure 78). 56 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-63 Good Poor n�crncocci Ratings within Each Creek O --er Time Figure 78. Long -term Enterococci ratings Results of the source tracking study have suggested that the impairment of water quality at the sites examined (PC -BDDS a nd M OT -ND) is c omplex, a nd 1 ikely d riven b y t he pr esence of sources of 1) human fecal contamination, 2) bird fecal contamination, and 3) potential regrowth of fecal indicator bacteria in the organic matter rich estuarine and creek systems. While human fecal contamination has been determined to be present, the signal is ephemeral, meaning that it is driven by a series of complex hydrological factors. It is difficult to pinpoint these factors with small scale study efforts such as what has been performed. Further targeted upstream sampling efforts w ould ne ed t o f ollow one of t wo main a pproaches t o be f ruitful. The f irst p otential approach would be to begin to conduct adaptive sampling for storms in 5 -10 sampling locations to hone in on upstream "hot spots ". This is a tried and true water quality sampling approach. The same sites currently being sampled would be tested, and in addition, sites upstream that represent possible areas where illicit s tormwater /sewage conduit connections mi ght exist would also b e targeted with high spatial frequency (i.e. sampling at all potential locations of source input). In Motts Creek, where a septic system to sewerage system transformation is in the process of taking place, i t w ould be in ost us eful t o c onduct t his a ssessment a fter t he i nstallation of s ewage treatment. In Pages Creek, there maybe sewage lines that are exfiltrating during wet weather. During t hose pe riods that co ntamination c an become connected w ith s tormwater out flows, causing impairment of coastal waters. A second recommendation would be to conduct a limited set of tracer studies using tracer viruses in the local septic systems. This approach would require a volunteer household close to either Pages or Motts Creek. The approach would be to use a tracer in the system of the household and follow the transport to close by receiving waters. This would be particularly applicable in areas where a mixture of septic and sewage systems exist, and where it is desired to hone in on specific sources of human fecal contamination to the estuary. 57 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-64 5.0 LITERATURE CITED Ahmed, W., A. G oonetilleke, D. Powell and T. Gardner. 2009. Evaluation of multiple s ewage- associated Bacteroides PCR markers for sewage pollution tracking. Water Research 43(19):4872- 4877. Bernhard, A.E. and K. G Field. 2000. A PCR assay to discriminate human and ruminant feces on the basis of host differences in Bacteroides - Prevotella genes encoding 16S rRNA. Applied and environmental microbiology. 66(10):4571 -4574. Converse, R .R., J F. G riffith, a nd R T. N oble ( 2009) R apid Q PCR -based assays f or f ecal Bacteroides and Enterococcus speciation a s t ools f or a ssessing f ecal c ontamination i n recreational waters. J Water Research. 43:4828 -4837. Grizzard, T .J., Randall, C .W., H elsel, DR., a nd H artigan, J .P. 1980. Analysis of non -point pollution e xport from s mall c atchments. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 52: 780 -790. Howarth, R.W. and Marino, R. 2006. N itrogen as the limiting nutrient for e utrophication 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 1 and use and fecal c oliform bacterial pollution. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 298:197 -209. Kildare, B.J., C.M. Leutenegger, B.S. McSwain, D.G Bambic, VB. Rajal and S. Wuertz. 2007. 16S rRNA -based assays for quantitative detection of universal, human -, cow- and dog- specific fecal Bacteroidales: a Bayesian approach. Water Research. 41(16):3701 -3715. Kwak, T .J. and Z edler, J.B. 1997. Food web analysis of s outhern C alifornia coastal wetlands using multiple stable isotopes. Oecologia 110: 262 -277. Mallin, M .A.; W illiams, K .E.; E sham, C .E.; a nd Lowe, P.R., 2000. E ffect o f hum an development on b acteriological water quality i n co astal 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, an d m eteorological f actors c ontrolling th e mic robial p ollution o f c oastal w aters. Hydrobiologia. 460: 185-193. 58 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-65 Mallin, M.A., 2010. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Aquatic Ecologist. Personal communication regarding findings of water samples obtained within PG -NC. NC Division of Commerce, Labor, Economic Data and Site Information. 2015. Thrive in North Carolina, C ounty D emographics R eport. http: / /accessnc. commerce. state. nc. us / docs /countyProfile/NC /37129.pdf Last isited July 8, 2015. Odum, W.E., Smith, T .J., Hoover, J .K., and M cIvor, C.C. 1984. The E cology of T idal Freshwater M arshes o f th e U nited S tates E ast Coast: A C ommunity P rofile. U.S. F ish a nd 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. Spivey, 2008. The use of PCR and T -RFLP as a means of identifying sources of fecal bacteria pollution i n the t idal c reeks of N ew H anover C ounty, N orth C arolina. M asters T hesis. University of North Carolina at Wilmington. 54pp. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates, Census 2000, 1990 Census. U.S. E nvironmental P rotection A gency. 1984 . Health of fects criteria f or f resh r ecreational 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. Wade, T. J., Sams, E., Brenner, K. P., Haugland, R., Chem, E. Beach, M., Wymer, L., Rankin, C. C., Love, D., Li, Q., Noble, R., and A .P. Dufour. 2010. Rapidly measured i ndicators of recreational w ater q uality a nd s wimming- associated i llness at m arine b eaches. J ournal o f Environmental Health Perspectives. 9:66 -80. 59 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-66 APPENDIX A Photographs of Sampling Sites Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-67 Barnards Creek at Carolina Beach Road (BC -CBR) Futch Creek 4 (FC -4) Futch Creek 6 (FC -6) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-68 Futch Creek 13 (FC -13) Futch Creek at Foy Branch (FC -FOY) Lords Creek at River Road (LC -RR) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-69 Motts Creek at Carolina Beach Road (MOTT -CBR) Motts Creek at Normandy Drive (MOT -ND) Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive Upstream (PC -BDUS) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-70 Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive (PC -BDDS) - IINPIF7- Pages Creek Mouth (PC -M) Prince Georges Creek at Castle Hayne Road (PG -CH) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-71 i Prince Georges Creek at Marathon Landing (PG -ML) Prince Georges Creek at North College Road (PG -NC) Smith Creek at Candlewood Drive (SC -CD) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-72 Smith Creek at Castle Hayne Road (SC -CH) Smith Creek at 23rd Street (SC -23) Smith Creek at North Kerr Ave. (SC -NK) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-73 � Ps 7' Jp� � r Smith Creek at Gordon Road (SC -GR) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-74 APPENDIX B Raw Data Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-75 APPENDIX B 2014 -2015 Raw Data Date Site Depth Temp. Cond. Salinity m O DO% pH Turb. Entero. Chl -a 7/10/14 BC -CBR 0.1 25.9 240 0.1 2.1 26% 8 6 108 2 7/10/14 BC -CBR 1.5 25.7 225 0.1 1.8 26% 8 6 N/A N/A 7/10/14 LC -RR 0.1 27.8 28328 16.4 4.8 68% 6.5 27 5 21 7/10/14 LC -RR 1.8 27.9 28468 16.5 4.8 68% 6.6 27 N/A N/A 7/10/14 MOT -CBR 0.1 25.7 182 0.1 5.4 70% 7.5 29 2495 7 7/10/14 MOT -ND 0.1 25.4 248 0.1 5.3 65% 7.5 31 7270 6 7/11/14 PG -CH 0.1 24.3 254 0.1 3.4 41% 7.9 42 1169 4 7/11/14 PG -CH 1.8 24.3 253 0.1 3.4 41% 7.7 57 N/A N/A 7/11/14 PG -ML 0.1 26.4 242 0.1 3.7 47% 8.4 3 420 3 7/11/14 PG -NC 0.1 23.6 148 0.1 1.9 22% 7.3 14 663 6 7/11/14 PG -NC 3.6 20.7 335 0.2 0.5 5% 7.9 11 N/A N/A 7/11/14 SC -23 0.1 27.9 1975 0.9 4.3 55% 8.2 12 373 13 7/11/14 SC -23 2.1 27.9 2018 1 4.3 55% 8.1 12 N/A N/A 7/11/14 SC -CD 0.1 24.7 150 0.1 6.5 78% 7.7 12 441 2 7/11/14 SC -CH 0.1 28.1 12447 6.7 4.3 57% 7.8 10 359 6 7/11/14 SC -CH 2.4 28.1 13034 7 4.1 54% 7.8 23 N/A N/A 7/11/14 SC -GR 0.1 24.4 129 0.1 6.2 73% 7.7 15 563 2 7/11/14 SC -NK 0.1 25.6 287 0.1 4.6 56% 7.7 10 1169 30 7/11/14 SC -NK 1.8 25.6 283 0.1 4.5 55% 7.7 11 N/A N/A 7/12/14 FC -13 0.1 28.7 56878 34.6 4.9 76% 8.2 12 10 7 7/12/14 FC -13 0.9 28.7 56350 34.6 4.9 76% 8.3 12 N/A N/A 7/12/14 FC -4 0.1 28.3 56310 34.7 6 95% 8.7 6 5 4 7/12/14 FC -4 1.5 28.1 56110 34.7 6.2 96% 8.7 5 N/A N/A 7/12/14 FC -6 0.1 28.6 56317 34.7 5.6 87% 8.6 8 5 5 7/12/14 FC -6 1.3 28.4 56296 34.7 5.7 89% 8.6 9 N/A N/A 7/12/14 FC -FOY 0.1 28.7 54706 33.5 4.7 73% 8.4 10 5 9 7/12/14 FC -FOY 1.2 28.7 55314 33.9 4.8 74% 8.4 31 N/A N/A 7/12/14 PC -BDDS 0.1 28.5 52760 32 5.3 82% 8.4 8 2613 24 7/12/14 PC -BDUS 0.1 28.1 43006 25.8 5.4 80% 8.4 13 689 30 7/12/14 PC -M 0.1 28.4 56071 34.6 6.3 86% 8.5 2 20 5 7/12/14 PC -M 1.7 28.4 56161 34.7 6.3 86% 8.6 7 N/A N/A 8/8/14 BC -CBR 0.1 24.3 177 0.1 3.8 45% 7.3 5 223 2 8/8/14 BC -CBR 2.2 24.3 175 0.1 3.6 43% 7.1 26 N/A N/A 8/8/14 LC-RR 0.1 26.8 11666 6.4 3.5 46% 6 19 163 5 8/8/14 LC-RR 1.8 26.8 11628 6.4 3.5 46% 6 19 N/A N/A 8/8/14 MOT -CBR 0.1 25.1 208 0.1 5.6 68% 6.8 12 717 4 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-76 8/8/14 1 MOT -ND 0.1 24.8 208 0.1 6.9 83% 6.8 14 1305 3 8/11/14 FC -13 0.1 26 32632 20.7 5.1 70% 7.1 10 110 14 8/11/14 FC -13 1.1 26 33216 20.4 5 70% 7.2 14 N/A N/A 8/11/14 FC -4 0.1 26.3 39459 24.6 6.4 90% 7.5 6 10 5 8/11/14 FC -4 1.5 36.3 41633 26 6.3 89% 7.5 6 N/A N/A 8/11/14 FC -6 0.1 26.1 36722 22.6 6.2 86% 7.3 8 30 5 8/11/14 FC -6 1.5 26.2 37477 23.2 5.7 81% 7.3 10 N/A N/A 8/11/14 FC -FOY 0.1 26 33337 20 5.1 71% 7.2 10 86 14 8/11/14 FC -FOY 1.5 26 34498 21.2 5 70% 7.2 11 N/A N/A 8/11/14 PC -BDDS 0.1 25.8 35091 21.7 5.5 77% 7.3 10 697 38 8/11/14 PC -BDUS 0.1 25 11899 6.9 5.4 70% 7.7 20 1259 5 8/11/14 PC -M 0.1 26.4 45860 28.7 6.6 96% 7.4 7 63 4 8/11/14 PC -M 1.8 26.5 45909 28.8 6.3 92% 7.5 8 N/A N/A 8/12/14 PG -CH 0.1 24.7 105 0.1 4.5 54% 7 10 728 3 8/12/14 PG -CH 1.7 24.5 105 0.1 4.5 54% 7 10 N/A N/A 8/12/14 PG -ML 0.1 25.5 98 0 5.2 63% 7.2 9 1063 8 8/12/14 PG -NC 0.1 24.3 94 0 3.9 46% 6.4 9 369 5 8/12/14 PG -NC 3.7 24.3 96 0 3.9 46% 6.3 16 N/A N/A 8/12/14 SC -23 0.1 25 112 0.1 4.1 51% 7.3 13 73 5 8/12/14 SC -23 2.2 25 114 0.1 4 50% 7.4 15 N/A N/A 8/12/14 SC -CD 0.1 25.5 98 0 5.4 76% 6.4 19 52 4 8/12/14 SC -CH 0.1 25.2 104 0.1 4 49% 7.4 12 63 1 8/12/14 SC -CH 2.8 25.2 103 0.1 3.9 48% 7.3 12 N/A N/A 8/12/14 SC -GR 0.1 24.1 104 0.1 6.5 77% 6.5 11 N/A 5 8/12/14 SC -NK 0.1 25.2 110 0.1 4.7 57% 6.8 11 189 5 8/12/14 SC -NK 2.8 25.2 103 0.1 4.6 55% 6.8 11 N/A N/A 9/8/14 BC -CBR 0.1 24.8 111 0.1 5.5 66% 8.8 3 2282 3 9/8/14 BC -CBR 1.9 24.9 116 0.1 5.2 64% 8.6 12 N/A N/A 9/8/14 LC -RR 0.1 28.1 32964 19.3 4.9 70% 7.6 4 62 5 9/8/14 LC -RR 1.9 28 32988 19.3 4.9 71% 7.6 5 N/A N/A 9/8/14 MOT -CBR 0.1 25 107 0.1 6.8 82% 8 15 5172 5 9/8/14 MOT -ND 0.1 24.8 128 0.1 6.1 73% 7.7 10 5475 6 9/9/14 PG -CH 0.1 24.1 147 0.1 4.1 49 7.5 6 291 4 9/9/14 PG -CH 1.9 24.1 147 0.1 4.1 48 7.5 6 N/A N/A 9/9/14 PG -ML 0.1 24.3 206 0.1 4.7 56 8 10 651 2 9/9/14 PG -NC 0.1 24 130 0.1 3.5 41 7.2 7 131 5 9/9/14 PG -NC 3.5 24 129 0.1 3.4 40 7.1 8 N/A N/A 9/9/14 SC -23 0.1 24.9 517 0.3 4.7 57 8.3 15 2481 4 9/9/14 SC -23 2.1 24.9 518 0.3 4.7 57 8.2 18 N/A N/A 9/9/14 SC -CD 0.1 23.9 114 0.1 5.9 70 7 16 957 5 9/9/14 SC -CH 0.1 27.5 12824 7 3.7 4.9 7.5 16 488 4 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-77 9/9/14 SC -CH 2.8 27.5 12930 7 3.6 48 7.4 26 N/A N/A 9/9/14 SC -GR 0.1 23.8 114 0.1 5.9 70 6.7 15 959 4 9/9/14 SC -NK 0.1 24.3 119 0.1 5.1 60 7.1 9 3255 3 9/9/14 SC -NK 2.8 24.3 118 0.1 4.9 59 7 10 N/A N/A 9/10/14 FC -13 0.1 26.1 533.1 34.3 4.2 63 7.8 4 73 6 9/10/14 FC -13 1.1 26.1 53730 34.7 4.2 63 7.9 6 N/A N/A 9/10/14 FC -4 0.1 26.7 58613 37.6 5.4 82 8.2 1 20 2 9/10/14 FC -4 2.3 26.9 59808 38.4 5.4 85 8.2 2 N/A N/A 9/10/14 FC -6 0.1 26.4 56908 36.7 4.8 73 8.1 3 10 4 9/10/14 FC -6 1.7 26.5 56997 36.8 4.8 73 8.1 3 N/A N/A 9/10/14 FC -FOY 0.1 26 53331 34.4 4.1 62% 8 5 10 1 9/10/14 FC -FOY 1.2 26.1 54250 35.1 4.2 63 8 5 N/A N/A 9/10/14 PC -BDDS 0.1 25.6 45567 29 5.2 7.4 8 3 1281 4 9/10/14 PC -BDUS 0.1 24.7 6467 3.5 7.1 86 89 9 788 1 9/10/14 PC -M 0.1 26.7 58531 37.6 5.4 84 8.1 3 20 2 9/10/14 PC -M 2.3 26.7 58058 37.2 5.3 81 9.1 5 N/A N/A 10/21/14 BC -CBR 0.1 17.5 244 0.1 6.2 65% 9.6 3 5 1 10/21/14 BC -CBR 2 16.6 210 0.1 4.7 48% 9.5 17 5 1 10/21/14 LC-RR 0.1 20.4 23494 15.8 6.9 84% 7.8 5 41 3 10/21/14 LC-RR 1.6 20.4 23501 15.8 6.9 84% 7.8 5 41 3 10/21/14 MOT -CBR 0.1 18.8 324 0.2 6 65% 8.4 5 173 2 10/21/14 MOT -ND 0.1 17.3 294 0.2 7.2 74% 8.5 6 173 0 10/22/14 PG -CH 0.1 16.6 285 0.2 4 42% 10 5 612 1 10/22/14 PG -CH 1.5 16.6 285 0.2 3.5 34% 9.8 12 612 1 10/22/14 PG -ML 0.1 17.6 287 0.2 4.6 48% 10.3 1 3076 1 10/22/14 PG -NC 0.1 15.4 153 0.1 2.6 25% 9.6 14 5 0 10/22/14 PG -NC 3.3 15.2 159 0.1 1.3 13% 9.6 14 5 0 10/22/14 SC -23 0.1 24.9 517 0.3 4.7 57% 8.3 15 41 5 10/22/14 SC -23 2.3 24.9 518 0.3 4.7 57% 8.2 18 41 5 10/22/14 SC -CD 0.1 16.6 186 0.1 9.1 93% 9.4 1 3255 0 10/22/14 SC -CH 0.1 21.1 11679 7.3 5.7 67% 8.9 4 109 1 10/22/14 SC -CH 2.5 21.1 11920 7.4 5.6 65% 8.9 12 109 1 10/22/14 SC -GR 0.1 16.7 154 0.1 8.3 85% 9.3 2 6131 6 10/22/14 SC -NK 0.1 18 397 0.2 5.4 57% 9.1 2 63 1 10/22/14 SC -NK 1.7 18 399 0.2 5.1 54% 9.1 2 63 1 10/23/14 FC -13 0.1 17.9 44367 33.8 6.5 84% 9.6 4 10 2 10/23/14 FC -13 1.1 17.9 44583 33.9 6.5 84% 9.6 11 10 2 10/23/14 FC -4 0.1 19 46862 35 7.4 98% 9.6 1 5 4 10/23/14 FC -4 1.2 19 46859 35 7.2 95% 9.6 1 5 4 10/23/14 FC -6 0.1 19.2 46912 34.8 7.6 101% 9.6 1 5 2 10/23/14 FC -6 1.2 19.1 46723 34.7 7.1 94% 9.6 1 5 2 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-78 10/23/14 FC -FOY 0.1 17.9 44543 34 7.7 99% 9.6 2 5 1 10/23/14 FC -FOY 1.2 18 45124 34.2 7.1 92% 9.6 15 5 1 10/23/14 PC -BDDS 0.1 17.8 42640 32.4 7.6 97% 9.5 3 199 3 10/23/14 PC -BDUS 0.1 18.4 34601 25.3 6.8 84% 9.8 6 96 2 10/23/14 PC -M 0.1 19 46655 34.7 7.4 98% 8.8 2 5 2 10/23/14 PC -M 1.7 19.1 46704 34.7 7 93% 8.8 2 5 2 11/24/14 BC -CBR 1.9 17 157 0.1 5.1 53% 9.2 14 N/A N/A 11/24/14 PG -CH 0.1 13.3 145 0.1 4.5 43% 9.1 11 1725 1 11/24/14 PG -CH 1.8 13.3 145 0.1 4.2 40% 9.1 11 N/A N/A 11/24/14 PG -ML 0.1 13 318 0.2 6.3 59% 9.2 5 3255 1 11/24/14 PG -NC 0.1 14.1 127 0.1 5.8 56% 9 12 8164 2 11/24/14 PG -NC 3.4 13.7 129 0.1 4.6 44% 9 15 N/A N/A 11/24/14 SC -23 0.1 13.6 3912 2.7 8.1 79% 9.8 12 1439 4 11/24/14 SC -23 1.8 13.6 4032 2.8 8.1 78% 9.8 13 N/A N/A 11/24/14 SC -CD 0.1 16.6 107 0.1 8.3 84% 8.4 25 15531 2 11/24/14 SC -CH 0.1 13.6 18310 23.4 8.2 86% 8.7 9 318 3 11/24/14 SC -CH 3.3 13.6 18503 23.7 8.2 86% 8.8 23 N/A N/A 11/24/14 SC -GR 0.1 16.4 97 0.1 8.1 83% 8.1 18 8164 2 11/24/14 SC -NK 0.1 16.3 121 0.1 6.9 70% 8.4 22 11199 2 11/24/14 SC -NK 2.6 16.3 123 0.1 6.7 68% 8.8 23 N/A N/A 11/25/14 BC -CBR 0.1 17.2 196 0.1 5.5 56% 9.2 1 120 3 11/25/14 FC -13 0.1 15.9 42038 33.4 7.7 96% 9 2 243 5 11/25/14 FC -13 1.2 15.9 42060 33.4 7.7 96% 9 8 N/A N/A 11/25/14 FC -4 0.1 15.2 43129 34.9 8.3 101% 9.1 3 52 2 11/25/14 FC -4 1.8 14.8 43522 35 8.3 101% 9.1 5 N/A N/A 11/25/14 FC -6 0.1 15.7 42224 33.8 8.3 101% 9.1 1 161 3 11/25/14 FC -6 1.8 15.6 42575 34.2 8.3 101% 9.1 2 N/A N/A 11/25/14 FC -FOY 0.1 16 41303 33.2 8.1 100% 9 2 109 3 11/25/14 FC -FOY 1.2 15.8 41827 33.3 7.9 98% 9 3 N/A N/A 11/25/14 LC -RR 0.1 15.1 29238 22.8 8.6 98% 8.7 4 73 4 11/25/14 LC-RR 1.8 15.1 29358 22.9 8.6 98% 8.7 5 N/A N/A 11/25/14 MOT -CBR 0.1 16.9 192 0.1 8.1 84% 8.8 2 629 1 11/25/14 MOT -ND 0.1 17.1 201 0.1 6.5 67% 8.2 2 388 3 11/25/14 PC -BDDS 0.1 16.4 39030 30.4 7.1 88% 8.8 2 20 2 11/25/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 17.1 30176 22.4 6.3 75% 9 8 2098 2 11/25/14 PC -M 0.1 15.2 43122 35 8 98% 8.8 7 3968 3 11/25/14 PC -M 1.8 15.1 43158 35 8 98% 8.8 9 N/A N/A 12/8/14 BC -CBR 0.1 10.8 288 0.2 9 81% 8.1 2 10 1 12/8/14 BC -CBR 1.7 10.6 201 0.1 8.1 73% 8 3 N/A N/A 12/8/14 LC-RR 0.1 11.6 21641 18 9.9 102% 8.2 2 97 2 12/8/14 LC-RR 1.9 11.8 23583 19.6 9.8 101% 8.2 3 N/A N/A Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-79 12/8/14 MOT -CBR 0.1 12.8 280 0.2 7.8 72% 8 2 63 2 12/8/14 MOT -ND 0.1 10.7 244 0.2 7.2 65% 8 4 110 1 12/9/14 PG -CH 0.1 9.9 179 0.1 7 62% 8.1 2 52 3 12/9/14 PG -CH 2 9.9 179 0.1 6.7 59% 8 7 N/A N/A 12/9/14 PG -ML 0.1 10.4 208 0.1 7.3 65% 8 2 20 0 12/9/14 PG -NC 0.1 9.4 142 0.1 7.3 63% 8.2 1 <10 1 12/9/14 PG -NC 3.3 9.4 145 0.1 3.7 28% 8.2 17 N/A N/A 12/9/14 SC -23 0.1 11.6 1885 1.3 8.4 78% 7.8 8 10 2 12/9/14 SC -23 2.3 11.7 3407 2.4 8.3 77% 7.9 6 N/A N/A 12/9/14 SC -CD 0.1 11.7 169 0.1 9.3 86% 7.9 1 109 1 12/9/14 SC -CH 0.1 12.1 13162 10.5 8.4 84% 8 6 10 2 12/9/14 SC -CH 2.9 12.3 14780 11.7 8.2 82% 7.9 22 N/A N/A 12/9/14 SC -GR 0.1 12 141 0.1 8.3 74% 8.2 2 31 1 12/9/14 SC -NK 0.1 11.2 381 0.3 7.9 72% 7.8 1 <10 2 12/9/14 SC -NK 1.8 11.2 382 0.3 7.8 71% 7.8 3 N/A N/A 12/10/14 FC -13 0.1 10.8 42337 38.5 8.2 95% 7.9 0 <10 2 12/10/14 FC -13 1.1 10.8 42418 38.6 8.1 94% 7.9 0 N/A N/A 12/10/14 FC -4 0.1 12.3 45310 40 8 96% 8 3 <10 3 12/10/14 FC -4 1.4 12.4 45357 40 7.9 95% 8.1 3 N/A N/A 12/10/14 FC -6 0.1 12 44870 39.8 8.1 97% 8 2 <10 3 12/10/14 FC -6 1.4 12 44981 39.9 8.1 97% 8 2 N/A N/A 12/10/14 FC -FOY 0.1 10.8 42773 38.9 8.3 96% 7.9 0 <10 1 12/10/14 FC -FOY 1.6 10.9 42981 39 8.2 94% 8 0 N/A N/A 12/10/14 PC -BDDS 0.1 10.8 42170 38.4 7.9 91% 7.9 0 52 1 12/10/14 PC -BDUS 0.1 12.2 37468 32.3 7.9 91% 7.9 2 41 1 12/10/14 PC -M 0.1 11.7 44029 39.3 7.9 93% 8.1 0 <10 2 12/10/14 PC -M 1.6 11.7 44126 39.4 7.8 82% 8 1 N/A N/A 1/21/15 BC -CBR 0.1 10.2 163 0.1 7.4 66% 7 2 10 4 1/21/15 BC -CBR 1.8 9.9 182 0.1 7 61% 7 5 N/A N/A 1/21/15 LC -RR 0.1 8.4 4763 3.8 10 11.50% 7.2 16 275 2 1/21/15 LC-RR 1.5 8.3 4752 3.8 10 11.50% 7.2 16 N/A N/A 1/21/15 MOT -CBR 0.1 11.1 237 0.2 9.2 84% 7.1 5 20 2 1/21/15 MOT -ND 0.1 10.2 233 0.2 9.5 85% 7.2 7 31 2 1/21/15 PG -CH 0.1 9.9 129 0.1 9.1 80% 6.6 5 10 3 1/21/15 PG -CH 1.4 9.9 129 0.1 8.7 77% 6.5 6 N/A N/A 1/21/15 PG -ML 0.1 9.8 136 0.1 8.8 77% 6.8 5 20 2 1/21/15 PG -NC 0.1 9.6 112 0.1 8.4 72% 6 3 5 3 1/21/15 PG -NC 3.2 9.5 112 0.1 7.3 64% 5.9 8 N/A N/A 1/21/15 SC -23 0.1 8.9 131 0.1 10 87% 6.8 13 134 2 1/21/15 SC -23 2.1 8.9 131 0.1 9.9 85% 6.8 12 N/A N/A 1/21/15 SC -CD 0.1 12 131 0.1 9.9 92% 6.7 7 5 2 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-80 1/21/15 SC -CH 0.1 8.2 103 0.1 11.5 98% 6.7 13 30 1 1/21/15 SC -CH 2.5 8.2 103 0.1 11 93% 6.7 20 N/A N/A 1/21/15 SC -GR 0.1 11.7 117 0.1 9.8 90% 6.6 5 30 1 1/21/15 SC -NK 0.1 10.8 144 0.1 11.3 102% 7 9 197 2 1/21/15 SC -NK 2.1 10.8 144 0.1 10.6 96% 2 10 N/A N/A 1/22/15 FC -13 0.1 10.1 40880 37.8 8.9 100% 8.2 1 5 1 1/22/15 FC -13 1.1 10.1 40978 37.9 8 91% 8.2 1 N/A N/A 1/22/15 FC -4 0.1 10 43027 39.1 6.6 73% 8.2 1 10 1 1/22/15 FC -4 1.4 10.1 43030 39.1 6.6 73% 8.3 1 N/A N/A 1/22/15 FC -6 0.1 10.1 40899 37.8 7.2 81% 8.3 0 5 1 1/22/15 FC -6 1.4 10 40946 37.9 7.2 81% 8.3 1 N/A N/A 1/22/15 FC -FOY 0.1 10.1 40210 37.1 5.9 66% 8.2 1 5 1 1/22/15 FC -FOY 1 10.1 40754 37.2 6 67% 8.2 1 N/A N/A 1/22/15 PC -BDDS 0.1 10.3 38098 34.7 5.1 56% 8.1 0 72 1 1/22/15 PC -BDUS 0.1 13.3 34076 28.3 7.4 86% 7.9 3 650 3 1/22/15 PC -M 0.1 10.4 40916 37.6 5.2 57% 8.3 0 5 1 1/22/15 PC -M 1.7 10.4 40932 37.6 5.8 63% 8.3 0 N/A N/A 2/3/15 BC -CBR 0.1 7.4 125 0.1 9.8 81% 7.1 3 20 3 2/3/15 BC -CBR 1.8 7.4 126 0.1 9.3 78% 7.1 20 N/A N/A 2/3/15 LC -RR 0.1 7.1 3953 3.3 10.8 91% 7.3 16 20 3 2/3/15 LC-RR 1.9 7.1 3973 3.3 11.2 95% 7.3 17 N/A N/A 2/3/15 MOT -CBR 0.1 8.6 175 0.1 10.1 88% 6.9 5 30 2 2/3/15 MOT -ND 0.1 7.4 158 0.1 12 100% 7.1 11 107 2 2/4/15 PG -CH 0.1 6 116 0.1 7.8 62% 6.7 6 179 1 2/4/15 PG -CH 1.6 6 116 0.1 7.7 61% 6.7 10 N/A N/A 2/4/15 PG -ML 0.1 7.4 134 0.1 7.5 63% 6.9 7 31 1 2/4/15 PG -NC 0.1 5.6 102 0.1 7 55% 6.2 6 <10 1 2/4/15 PG -NC 3.5 5.6 103 0.1 6.8 54% 6.2 6 N/A N/A 2/4/15 SC -23 0.1 8.7 168 0.1 10.2 88% 7.4 8 <10 2 2/4/15 SC -23 2.6 8.7 167 0.1 10.1 87% 7.3 8 N/A N/A 2/4/15 SC -CD 0.1 9.5 119 0.1 7.9 69% 6.7 8 31 1 2/4/15 SC -CH 0.1 7.8 87 0.1 10.6 89% 6.7 6 20 1 2/4/15 SC -CH 2.3 7.5 87 0.1 10.5 88% 6.6 7 N/A N/A 2/4/15 SC -GR 0.1 9.1 106 0.1 10.7 93% 6.8 7 10 1 2/4/15 SC -NK 0.1 8.1 124 0.1 11.4 96% 7 6 41 1 2/4/15 SC -NK 2.3 8.1 124 0.1 11 93% 7 5 N/A N/A 2/5/15 FC -13 0.1 10.2 33034 29.7 7.8 84% 8.1 2 97 3 2/5/15 FC -13 0.8 10.2 33288 30.4 7.1 77% 8.1 5 N/A N/A 2/5/15 FC -4 0.1 10.3 36765 33.4 5.8 63% 8.2 1 <10 2 2/5/15 FC -4 1.2 10.4 36894 33.5 5.8 63% 8.2 1 N/A N/A 2/5/15 FC -6 0.1 10.2 36128 33.4 6.5 72% 8.2 1 20 1 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-81 2/5/15 FC -6 1 10.2 36130 33.4 6.6 73% 8.2 0 N/A N/A 2/5/15 FC -FOY 0.1 10.2 32621 29.2 6.2 67% 8.1 2 75 2 2/5/15 FC -FOY 0.9 10.2 34932 31.6 5.8 62% 8.2 1 N/A N/A 2/5/15 PC -BDDS 0.1 10.3 33340 30.2 8.3 90% 8.1 1 504 2 2/5/15 PC -BDUS 0.1 11.5 23680 19.9 8.2 85% 7.7 7 771 2 2/5/15 PC -M 0.1 10.4 37215 33.6 7.5 83% 8.2 1 <10 2 2/5/15 PC -M 1.2 10.6 37502 33.8 7 78% 8.3 5 N/A N/A 3/18/15 BC -CBR 0.1 16 181 0.1 4.2 43% 7.3 3 20 2 3/18/15 BC -CBR 1.6 15.4 182 0.1 4 40% 7.2 4 N/A N/A 3/18/15 LC -RR 0.1 14.1 8567 6.2 7.1 72% 7.2 12 41 5 3/18/15 LC-RR 2.1 14.1 8568 6.2 6.7 67% 7.2 13 N/A N/A 3/18/15 MOT -CBR 0.1 15.3 250 0.2 7.2 73% 7 5 1989 2 3/18/15 MOT -ND 0.1 14.2 241 0.2 7.1 70% 7.2 9 369 2 3/19/15 PG -CH 0.1 13.8 182 0.1 9.8 94% 6.9 1 52 3 3/19/15 PG -CH 1.6 13.8 182 0.1 6 58% 6.9 11 N/A N/A 3/19/15 PG -ML 0.1 15.3 173 0.1 6.5 65% 7.2 3 160 2 3/19/15 PG -NC 0.1 13.4 134 0.1 3.8 36% 6.4 7 5 2 3/19/15 PG -NC 3.3 13 174 0.1 3 29% 6.5 20 N/A N/A 3/19/15 SC -23 0.1 15.8 245 0.1 6.8 69% 7.2 10 20 4 3/19/15 SC -23 1.8 15.8 246 0.1 6.9 70% 7.1 12 N/A N/A 3/19/15 SC -CD 0.1 14.3 144 0.1 8.5 83% 7 5 158 1 3/19/15 SC -CH 0.1 '15.0 775 0.5 7.4 74% 7 16 31 6 3/19/15 SC -CH 2.1 15 788 0.5 7.4 74% 6.9 17 N/A N/A 3/19/15 SC -GR 0.1 13.9 145 0.1 8.9 86% 7.2 4 108 3 3/19/15 SC -NK 0.1 15.6 193 0.1 6.3 63% 7.2 3 84 7 3/19/15 SC -NK 2.3 15.7 193 0.1 6.3 63% 7.2 5 N/A N/A 3/20/15 FC -13 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A N/A 3/20/15 FC -4 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A N/A 3/20/15 FC -6 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A N/A 3/20/15 FC -FOY 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A N/A 3/20/15 PC -BDDS 0.1 12.4 38328 33.1 7.7 88% 8 1 355 1 3/20/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 13.4 28128 22.8 5.5 61% 7.4 4 9804 2 3/20/15 PC -M 0.1 11.8 39533 34.7 8.5 97% 8.2 1 10 2 3/20/15 PC -M 2 11.8 39535 34.7 8.4 97% 8.2 21 N/A N/A 4/1/15 LC-RR 0.1 15.4 6877 4.7 8.1 84% 7.4 13 30 4 4/1/15 LC-RR 1.6 15.5 7192 4.9 8.1 84% 7.3 12 N/A N/A 4/2/15 BC -CBR 0.1 15.3 176 0.1 4.2 42% 7.4 2 10 1 4/2/15 BC -CBR 1.9 13.3 181 0.1 3.8 37% 7 23 N/A N/A 4/2/15 MOT -CBR 0.1 15.1 251 0.2 7 69% 7 4 75 5 4/2/15 MOT -ND 0.1 14.5 245 0.2 7.3 72% 7.1 7 134 4 4/2/15 PG -CH 0.1 13.1 155 0.1 6.1 59% 7.1 6 10 2 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-82 4/2/15 PG -ML 0.1 14.6 170 0.1 7.3 72% 7.4 4 20 3 4/2/15 PG -NC 0.1 13 123 0.1 4.5 41% 6.6 6 5 2 4/2/15 PG -NC 3.1 12.7 143 0.1 3.6 37% 6.5 6 N/A N/A 4/2/15 SC -23 0.1 15.2 209 0.1 7.2 72% 7.3 4 5 9 4/2/15 SC -23 1.9 15.2 211 0.1 7.2 72% 7.3 4 N/A N/A 4/2/15 SC -CD 0.1 15 148 0.1 9.1 89% 7.1 5 97 1 4/2/15 SC -CH 0.1 15.1 133 0.1 7.1 71% 7.7 5 20 1 4/2/15 SC -CH 2.3 15.1 133 0.1 7.2 72% 7.4 7 N/A N/A 4/2/15 SC -GR 0.1 13.7 131 0.1 9 86% 7 9 74 2 4/2/15 SC -NK 0.1 14.6 172 0.1 6.8 67% 7.1 3 52 5 4/2/15 SC -NK 2.2 14.6 172 0.1 6.7 66% 7.1 3 N/A N/A 4/6/15 FC -13 0.1 16.2 38640 30.2 7.1 87% 8 1 31 3 4/6/15 FC -13 0.6 16.2 39186 30.7 7 85% 8 1 N/A N/A 4/6/15 FC -4 0.1 15.9 43726 35 8 99% 8.1 2 10 2 4/6/15 FC -4 1.1 15.8 43671 35.1 7.9 98% 8.1 3 N/A N/A 4/6/15 FC -6 0.1 16 43540 34.7 7.9 98% 8.1 1 5 2 4/6/15 FC -6 1 16 43669 34.9 7.9 98% 8.1 2 N/A N/A 4/6/15 FC -FOY 0.1 16.2 41450 32.7 7.6 95% 8.1 0 10 2 4/6/15 FC -FOY 0.5 16.2 41739 32.9 7.6 95% 8.1 1 N/A N/A 4/6/15 PC -BDDS 0.1 17 37281 28.5 6.1 73% 7.7 2 502 32 4/6/15 PC -BDUS 0.1 20 31095 21.7 8.8 101% 7.8 11 231 48 4/6/15 PC -M 0.1 16 43950 35.1 8.2 102% 8.1 1 5 2 4/6/15 PC -M 1.4 15.9 43923 35.1 8.2 102% 8.1 1 N/A N/A 5/4/15 BC -CBR 0.1 16.9 184 0.1 4.5 46% 7.6 3 5 2 5/4/15 BC -CBR 1.8 16.4 193 0.1 4.1 42% 7.4 21 N/A N/A 5/4/15 LC-RR 0.1 20 16666 10.9 6.8 80% 7.2 8 20 8 5/4/15 LC-RR 1.8 19.9 16687 10.9 6.7 78% 7.2 9 N/A N/A 5/4/15 MOT -CBR 0.1 18.2 306 0.2 3.3 35% 6.9 6 146 2 5/4/15 MOT -ND 0.1 17.7 269 0.2 6.7 71% 7.2 10 246 2 515115 PG -CH 0.1 18.1 258 0.1 3.8 42% 7.2 5 20 1 515115 PG -CH 1.6 17.2 255 0.1 3.8 42% 7.1 17 N/A N/A 515115 PG -ML 0.1 19.5 158 0.1 5.2 56% 7.4 3 10 5 515115 PG -NC 0.1 16.4 158 0.1 3.8 39% 6.8 5 41 3 515115 PG -NC 3.1 14.5 421 0.3 1 10% 6.8 7 N/A N/A 515115 SC -23 0.1 20.9 960 0.5 7.1 79% 7.9 4 10 14 515115 SC -23 1.7 20.8 970 0.5 6.9 77% 7.6 5 N/A N/A 515115 SC -CD 0.1 18.4 165 0.1 8.4 89% 7.4 5 226 1 515115 SC -CH 0.1 20.8 1112 0.6 6 68% 7.3 4 5 1 515115 SC -CH 2 20.3 1277 0.7 6 68% 7.2 15 N/A N/A 515115 SC -GR 0.1 17.3 148 0.1 8.2 85% 7.4 6 231 1 515115 SC -NK 0.1 19.5 283 0.2 6.8 74% 7.4 4 10 23 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-83 515115 SC -NK 2.6 19.5 283 0.2 6.7 73% 7.3 4 N/A N/A 5/6/15 FC -13 0.1 21.4 45529 32 5.8 78% 8 4 5 5 5/6/15 FC -13 1 21.4 45716 32.1 5.7 77% 8 13 N/A N/A 5/6/15 FC -4 0.1 21.6 49186 34.7 6.4 89% 8.1 5 5 3 5/6/15 FC -4 1.2 21.6 49196 34.7 6.2 86% 8.1 6 N/A N/A 5/6/15 FC -6 0.1 21.6 49097 34.8 6 84% 8.1 4 5 2 5/6/15 FC -6 1.2 21.6 49033 34.8 6.1 85% 8.1 4 N/A N/A 5/6/15 FC -FOY 0.1 21.4 46244 32.5 5.7 78% 8 5 5 3 5/6/15 FC -FOY 1 21.6 47599 33.5 5.8 79% 8.1 8 N/A N/A 5/6/15 PC -BDDS 0.1 21.6 46071 32.3 4.4 60% 7.7 6 31 12 5/6/15 PC -BDUS 0.1 23.1 27721 17.8 5.8 75% 7.5 6 857 35 5/6/15 PC -M 0.1 21.8 49288 34.6 6.4 89% 8.1 4 5 2 5/6/15 PC -M 1.5 21.8 49298 34.7 6.2 88% 8.1 8 N/A N/A 6/15/15 BC -CBR 0.1 25.5 212 0.1 2.4 29% 7.3 18 397 7 6/15/15 BC -CBR 1.5 24.4 223 0.1 1.6 19% 7.2 24 N/A N/A 6/15/15 LC-RR 0.1 25.5 212 0.1 2.4 29% 7.3 18 63 9 6/15/15 LC-RR 1.5 24.4 223 0.1 1.6 19.00% 7.2 24 N/A N/A 6/15/15 MOT -CBR 0.1 24.5 355 0.2 2.3 28% 6.8 30 19863 7 6/15/15 MOT -ND 0.1 25.1 313 0.2 4.8 59% 7.3 23 3448 3 6/16/15 PG -CH 0.1 25.6 364 0.2 1.5 18% 7.1 17 199 1 6/16/15 PG -CH 1.5 24.7 363 0.2 1.2 15% 7.1 32 N/A N/A 6/16/15 PG -ML 0.1 28.2 199 0.1 2.4 30% 7.3 18 84 4 6/16/15 PG -NC 0.1 25.5 181 0.1 0.9 11% 6.7 25 61 19 6/16/15 PG -NC 3.1 17.8 580 0.3 0 0% 6.7 15 N/A N/A 6/16/15 SC -23 0.1 29.7 480 0.2 3.6 48% 7.5 18 20 14 6/16/15 SC -23 1.7 29.6 478 0.2 3.6 48% 7.4 19 N/A N/A 6/16/15 SC -23 1.7 29.6 478 0.2 3.6 48% 7.4 19 N/A N/A 6/16/15 SC -CD 0.1 26.1 200 0.1 7.4 91% 7.4 19 2481 2 6/16/15 SC -CH 0.1 28.4 3864 1.9 3.6 47% 7 20 31 3 6/16/15 SC -CH 2.2 28.2 4164 2.1 3.6 46% 6.9 31 N/A N/A 6/16/15 SC -GR 0.1 24.1 189 0.1 6.5 78% 7.3 20 538 1 6/16/15 SC -NK 0.1 29 287 0.1 5.1 67% 7.3 12 75 23 6/16/15 SC -NK 2.1 29 288 0.1 4.3 56% 7.2 18 N/A N/A 6/17/15 FC -13 0.1 29 57560 35.1 4.7 74% 7.9 21 31 7 6/17/15 FC -13 1.1 29 57479 35.1 4.7 74% 8 51 N/A N/A 6/17/15 FC -4 0.1 28.9 58600 36.1 5.6 88% 8.1 19 10 6 6/17/15 FC -4 1.6 28.6 58523 36.3 5.8 91% 8.2 19 N/A N/A 6/17/15 FC -6 0.1 28.8 58493 35.9 5.4 86% 8.1 18 63 5 6/17/15 FC -6 1.3 28.8 58302 35.9 5.4 86% 8.1 19 N/A N/A 6/17/15 FC -FOY 0.1 28.9 57540 35.2 4.9 78% 8 20 5 6 6/17/15 FC -FOY 1 28.9 57664 35.3 4.9 78% 8 28 N/A N/A Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-84 6/17/15 1 PC -BDDS 0.1 30.3 51989 30.6 5.1 80% 7.8 26 20 56 6/17/15 PC -BDUS 0.1 29.3 40872 24 4.8 73% 7.7 28 414 52 6/17/15 PC -M 0.1 28.3 57871 35.9 5.7 89% 8.1 18 10 5 6/17/15 PC -M 1.5 28.3 57669 35.8 5.7 89% 8.1 19 N/A N/A Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-85 APPENDIX C Source Tracking Report Final Report: Microbial Source Tracking Investigation in Wilmington, NC Dr. Rachel T. Noble, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Contact Information: UNC Chapel Hill — Dr. Rachel Noble, Professor 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557 June 22, 2015 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-86 Introduction The concept for this small -scale fecal contamination study was to continue the use of a trio of Bacteroidales based quantitative markers to confirm the presence of human fecal contamination and to quantify that contamination in a framework of other available environmental parameter and fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) data. This information is being interpreted in the context of available local knowledge to deduce possible mechanisms of fecal contamination delivery and transport dynamics. Bacteroides species are non- sporing, obligate anaerobes that are the numerically dominant bacteria in the human large intestine with up to 1011cells per gram of human feces. Previous research conducted by PI Noble has demonstrated a strong correlation between Bacteroides thetaiotamicron concentrations to respective human sewage influent amounts (Converse et al. 2009). While this is true, it has also been noted that the Fecal Bacteroides spp. gPCR assay does quantify bird and dog feces with high affinity. Therefore, it is always necessary to pair the use of the Fecal Bacteroides spp. gPCR assay with other more specific assays of human fecal contamination. To accomplish this, we used two additional Bacteroides based assays in order to determine the presence of human fecal contamination, the BacHum assay and the HF183 assay. For more methodological details see Converse et al. 2009, Kildare et al. 2007, and Layton et al. 2013). In addition, in this supplemental work, we also quantified gull or seabird contamination through the use of the Gull -2 assay which targets C. marimammalium. Study Areas Initially, there were four sampling locations that were identified by Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. as chronically contaminated during stormwater events, and as such were areas of concern. These four sites were: Motts Creek, Smith Creek, and an upstream and downstream location each in Pages Creek. During the first study, a limited amount of sampling was conducted, therefore a major goal of this supplemental effort was to hone in on specific areas and continue to collect more information about the possibility of human fecal contamination being present at two sites, Motts Creek at Normandy Drive, and Pages Creek Downstream Site at Bayshore Drive (Table 1). The aim over this project was to sample fewer locations, but attend to sample collection over the course of storms, in hopes that it would illuminate patterns of contamination. Table 1. List of.4amn1inu Sites Creek Name Site Name Site Code Latitude Longitude Motts Creek Normandy Drive MOT -ND 34° 08.373 77° 54.580 Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Down Stream PC -BDDS 340 16.685 77° 47.673 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-87 - -NEW HANOVER COUNTY r JONES DUPON +RAC OIVSLOW SA Y PR�JECT LOCATION 10,000 20,000 Feet 1 Inch "Lm1s 20,170[7 feet a J C:PE _ NOTE; LEGEN 1.COORaiNATES SHOWN ARE IN FEET OTHER WATERSHEDS _ MOTTS GREEK BASED ON THE NORTH CAROLINAS STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH. AMEWCAN DATUM B,ARNA4RDS CREEK _ PAGES CREEK OF 1983 (NA983) FLITCH CREEK PRINCE GEORGES CREEK _ LORDS CREEL{ _ SMITH CREEK Figure 1: Map depicting general study area and the locations of Motts and Pages Creeks Molts Creek Motts C reek w atershed en compasses approximately 2 389 acres an d i s l ocated i n t he southwestern por tion of t he C ounty, j ust be low S anders R oad (Figure 1) . T he C reek d rains portions of C arolina B each R oad a t i is he adwaters a nd t hen dr ains t oward R iver R oad be fore Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-88 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 1 and use pl an. This watershed contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009, Figure 2). Sampling was conducted at MOT -ND within the Motts Creek watershed (Figure 2) NEW HANOVER ° '4 + n a� 1 •' �,t COUNTY H � r k• ��w�. PROJECT LOCATIONS -: MOT -CB !1 MOT -ND MOT -RR r W Eu: S t r• NOTE LEGEND 1. AERIAL PHOTOS FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY, 2008 MOTTS CREEK WATERSHED 0 2,500 5,000 ® Feet • SAMPLE LOCATIONS 1 inch equals 5,000 feet Figure 2: Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed Pages Creek Located i n nor theastern N ew H anover C ounty a nd e ncompassing 2,0 44 a cres, P ages C reek 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 1 7. T he 1 and w ithin t he P ages C reek w atershed i s p redominately classified as watershed resource protection and conservation, with a small portion classified as transitional according t o t he C AMA 1 and us e pl an. This w atershed c ontains a pproximately 23.2 % impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted only at PC -BDDS in Pages Creek (Figure 3). Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-89 Figure 3: Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed Sampling and Storm Event Analysis Approach: Sampling was conducted by Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. over the course of four storm events at the two sites, PC -BDDS and MOT -ND, and sampling was conducted multiple times (n =3) over the duration of each of the four storm events. The storm events occurred on March 17 -18 and September 8, 2014, January 12 and February 17, 2015. Environmental data collected and rainfall data available electronically is presented in Table 1. Water samples were collected for enumeration via EnterolertTM, and additional samples were collected and filtered and processed aseptically (as guided by the Noble laboratory) by Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. for later batch analysis using well described molecular methods (see below). 100 ml sample volumes were filtered in triplicate through 0.45 µm polycarbonate filters and frozen at -20 C and delivered to UNC Chapel Hill IMS within four weeks of sample collection. The filters were subjected to the following molecular analyses: 1. Fecal Bacteroides gPCR (Converse et al. 2009) 2. BacHum analyses (Kildare et al. 2007) 3. Human specific marker for Bacteroides (HF183, Layton et al. 2013) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-90 4. Gull -2 gPCR (Sinigalliano et al. 2013) Methodology: Bacteroides spp. comprise approximately one -third of the human fecal microflora, considerably outnumbering Enterococcus and E. coli. The Bacteroides group belongs to a group of non - spore - forming, gram- negative, obligate anaerobes, so there is little concern over regrowth in the environment. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (gPCR) methods are used to conduct the Bacteroides assays: • Fecal Bacteroides gPCR assay (Converse et al. 2009) relies on Taqman chemistry and all the r eagents a re i n a l iquid f ormulation, e xcept the O mniMix. T he a ssay quantifies a cohort of bacteria found in high concentrations in the human gut, including Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Bacteroides distastonis, and Bacteroides fragilis. However, the method is not hu man s pecific. T he as say h as b een t ested ag ainst a r ange o f d ifferent f ecal samples types, and has been shown to be capable of quantifying over a wide range of concentrations, a nd t o b e s ensitive a t c oncentrations r elevant t o w ater quality s ource tracking s tudies. W hen us ing t he q PCR approach f or f ecal Bacteroides, strong relationships ha ve be en observed w ith a w ide a rray of hum an s ewage collected f rom areas on both east and west US coastlines. The assay is highly sensitive and the target bacteria that are enumerated have been shown to be a predictor of human health in both sand and recreational waters (Wade et. al. 2010, Heaney et al. 2012) during large -scale EPA -run e pidemiology studies. This is o f ully q uantitative q PCR -based a ssay t hat i s being used in an array of studies in stormwater contaminated areas and that, with the use of other additional confirmatory methods, can be used to both identify potential hot spots of human fecal contamination (Converse et al, 2009). • BacHum Human Marker: A separate gPCR as say was utilized to quantify the B acHum molecular markers reported by Kildare et al., 2007. The assay has been widely tested for specificity a gainst a r ange o f f ecal s ample t ypes an d h as s hown h igh cap acity f or discrimination against human and animal fecal types (Ahmed et al., 2009). • HF (human fecal) 183: Human specific marker by gPCR has been conducted previously by Bernhard and Field (2000) and updated by Seurinck et al., 2006. This assay is specific to a r egion of r ibosomal r DNA w ithin t he Bacteroides spp. t hat is f ound a lmost exclusively in human feces. The assay has b een tested repeatedly in a r ange of different environments f or c ross r eactivity w ith of her types of fecal m aterial, a nd various researchers have found either a 90- to 100 - percent ability to discriminate between human and animal feces when using this assay. The assay, however, can be problematic when used al one, b ecause t he t arget co py concentration i n f ecal m aterial co ntributed t o receiving w ater e nvironments c an be qui to 1 ow due t o di lution a nd t he as say h as a relatively low sensitivity. • Gull -2: T his is a n a ssay th at h as d emonstrated s pecificity to gull a nd s eabird f ecal contamination. The assay is specific to a 16S rDNA gene sequence within Catellicoccus marimammalium. While, this assay has been demonstrated to cross react with some other types of fecal contamination, reported specificities are roughly 89 -95 %. Results: Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-91 The data generated over the course of this project is presented in Table 2. High concentrations of Enterococcus spp. were observed over the four storms sampled and the array of storm events captured, indicating a continued level of elevated concern about the microbial water quality of the waters in question. Enterococcus concentrations ranged from 54.6 to >24196 MPN /100 ml, with 93% of the samples exhibiting Enterococcus concentrations that exceeded EPA single sample standards for recreational waters. This compares with the 96% observed exceedance in the first study, and demonstrates that patterns were roughly the same. Rainfall amounts for the storms sampled ranged from 0.5 -1.6 inches over the course of the study. These are rainfall amounts that are typical of storms in the Wilmington, NC area, and would not be expected to be categorized as an extreme event. In Motts Creek, the mean Enterococcus sp. concentration over all samples collected was 848 MPN /100 ml, while at Pages Creek, it was over 5 -fold higher at 5204 MPN /100 ml (Figure 4 a and b). A trio of Bacteroides -based molecular markers was quantified in order to assess the potential for the presence of human fecal contamination at the four sites studied. To interpret molecular microbial source tracking data, it is useful to cover a few terms used in the field as related to sensitivity and specificity. These Bacteroides -based markers have been selected based upon previous successfully conducted blind studies of human and animal fecal contamination quantification and discrimination, and for their coverage of a range of specificities and sensitivities. The Bacteroides -based methods chosen for this project have been recently included in a range of publications (Layton et al. 2013, Boehm et al. 2013, Stewart et al. 2013, Converse et al. 2009, Kildare et al. 2007, to name a few). These methods are well represented in the peer reviewed literature. The three assays cover a range of specificities for human fecal contamination. One way to look at specificity is to use a percentage attribution. That is, if 100 water samples containing human or animal fecal contamination were tested using each of the three assays, what is the number of samples upon which the correct discrimination between the two types of samples would have been made. For the Fecal Bacteroides spp., BacHum, and HF 183 assays, the specificities increase across the trio from 85 %, 92% and 96% respectively. Conversely, sensitivity is the chance that in a water sample containing human fecal contamination that the marker will be detectable or present. Sensitivity is the lowest for the IV 183 assay, and increases strongly from the BacHum to the Fecal Bacteroides spp. assay. This means that while HF 183 is the most specific to human fecal contamination, that there is danger in using it alone as a source tracking marker, because in some human fecal contamination, it will occur at such low concentrations that a negative result may occur simply due to the amount of sample analyzed. Alternatively, it would not be useful to base an entire source tracking study upon Fecal Bacteroides spp. quantification, because while it occurs in the highest concentrations in human fecal contamination of the three markers, it is also present in dogs and seagulls. To date, we have observed that the Gull -2 molecular marker of gull fecal contamination has excellent specificity and sensitivity, i.e. in a recent study of Wilmington -based fecal material from dogs, gulls, and humans, the assay was found to be over 90% specific to bird fecal contamination. The importance of sensitivity and sensitivity cannot be understated because of implications of false negatives during real world fecal contamination studies such as the Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-92 one conducted here. False negatives are essentially a non - detect result or low concentration result that occurs on a sample due to methodological limitations. In a human fecal contamination source tracking study, a non - detect, or negative result can lead someone to believe that human fecal contamination was not present in water tested, when it the outcome could be a result of heterogeneity of the original water sample, an inappropriate sampling and concentration approach, or poor methodological constraints. Every effort has been made with this work to generate quantitative results on water samples collected, even those that pose methodological limitations such as gPCR. While a full discussion of false negatives and their implications is beyond the scope of this document, the reader can refer to a series of well written articles resulting from the Source Identification Pilot Project (SIPP) in the Journal of Water Research in the coming months in which PI Noble was a major participant (Layton et al. 2013, Stewart et al. 2013, Boehm et al. 2013). None of the assays utilized in this study for human fecal contamination are 100 % specific to human fecal contamination. However, when combined, they become more powerful. Previous studies conducted blindly on human and animal fecal contamination (HRSD AH Environmental Report 2012), all three markers measured in this study were positive and correctly identified human fecal contamination 100% of the time when applied in a similar manner. Based upon these results, and other results of blind studies conducted in the past five years, samples for which all three assays yield positive results are confirmed to contain at least some level of human fecal contamination. If two of the assays are positive, it is likely that there is the potential for human fecal contamination to have existed in the water sample. Finally, the concentrations of the markers can be used to examine the levels of human fecal contamination in the water tested and to prioritize remediation strategies. A notable result was from the smallest of the four storms, where the 3rd sample collected (2/17/2015) at both Motts Creek (Figure 5 a) and Pages Creek (Figure 5b) resulted in contamination for all four markers measured. While this was a small storm and only a single storm, this result indicates that the tail of the storm event is important. This also indicates that rising groundwater, and subsequent connections among septic leachfields, or sewage /stormwater conveyance systems could be playing a role in the delivery of fecal contamination to this system. All three human markers were positive, and the gull fecal contamination marker was also positive. The HF 183 marker, along with the Fecal Bacteroides spp. marker were also both strongly positive at the beginning (Sample 1) for the storm from 1/12/2015, a rainfall event of our 0.6 inches total rainfall. For the storm event of March 17 -18, 2015 (see Figure 5 a and b), the IV 183 marker was positive in both Sample 1 and Sample 2, occurring with a steady spring -like rainfall event of a total of 1.3 inches. The other human markers during this event were non - detectable for Pages Creek, but in Motts Creek for this single storm the BacHum results corroborated the IV 183 results. It is interesting to note that several of the other samples collected over the course of this study did not demonstrate any indication of a human fecal contamination signal. The human fecal contamination signal is indeed ephemeral and appears to be driven Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-93 specifically by rainfall patterns. Methodological limitations prevented accurate quantification of the gull marker in a few instances, because the water sample collected and purified had to be diluted in order to gain a proper gPCR signal from the sample. This is called "gPCR inhibition ". Inhibition is typically caused by large high molecular weight molecules such as humic and fulvic acids, which are present in high quantities in the Creeks studied here. Motts and Pages Creek over the duration of all four storms had very high concentrations of the Fecal Bacteroides spp. concentrations at both sites with concentrations well in excess of 100,000 CE /100 ml (Figure 5 a and b). Most of the samples that demonstrated very high Fecal Bacteroides spp. concentrations also had high concentrations of the BacHum marker, ranging from 4,120 to 15,378 gene copies /100 ml (Figure 5 and b). There was no statistical relationship between Bacteroides -based molecular markers and the Enterococcus concentrations or total rainfall, but this study includes a small sample size, upon which it is often difficult to conduct statistical analyses appropriately (p > 0.05, correlation analysis). This is a small study, and the sites were selected based upon previous historical data showing contamination. All of the sites indicate that human fecal contamination has the potential to pose a serious problem to these receiving waters. Recommendation: At this time, it has been shown over multiple years that rainfall and storm events translate to poor water quality in Motts and Pages Creek. During this study, a limited amount of sampling was conducted during dry weather, but these samples were not analyzed using the molecular markers. In one of the dry weather samples, the Enterococcus concentration was 631 MPN per 100 ml, but in the other samples from Pages Creek, the concentration of Enterococcus was <10 MPN /100 ml. The impairment of water quality at these sites is complex and likely driven by the presence of sources of 1) human fecal contamination, 2) bird fecal contamination, and 3) potential regrowth of fecal indicator bacteria in the organic matter rich estuarine and creek systems. While human fecal contamination has been determined to be present, the signal is ephemeral, meaning that it is driven by a series of complex hydrological factors. It is difficult to pinpoint these factors with small scale study efforts. It is clear that the effort to increase sampling frequency during storm events has been useful, but further targeted upstream sampling efforts would need to follow one of two main approaches to be fruitful. 1) The first potential approach would be to begin to conduct adaptive sampling for storms in 5 -10 sampling locations to hone in on upstream "hot spots ". This is a tried and true water quality sampling approach. The same sites as currently being sampled would be tested, and in addition, sites upstream that represent possible areas where illicit stormwater /sewage conduit connections might exist would also be targeted with high spatial frequency (i.e. sampling at all potential locations of source input). In Motts Creek, where a septic system to sewerage system transformation will take place, it would be most useful to conduct this assessment after the installation of sewage treatment. In Pages Creek, there may be sewage lines that are exfiltrating during wet weather, and Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-94 during those periods, that contamination can become connected with stormwater outflows, causing impairment of coastal waters. 2) A second recommendation would be to conduct a limited set of tracer studies using tracer viruses, in the local septic systems. This approach would require a volunteer household close to either Pages or Motts Creek. The approach would be to use a tracer in the system of the household and follow the transport to closeby receiving waters. This would be particularly applicable in areas where a mixture of septic and sewage systems exist, and where it is desired to hone in on specific sources of human fecal contamination to the estuary. Molts Creek 4 J EE 3.5 v 3 v Z 2.5 a 2 L) V O 1.5 V O a� 1 C W = 0.5 0 Ntx- �C • ycj. yp y0. V, yN. - (b, yti' y� � (b. yO. yea. �Ati 34�A \,yon yA \1oN � ������� a`���oy� a����o�� a`����o� y1ti�,T bN y�,�oti�,���� tilti�tryoy � \T ptih tin\T 0 Figure 4A: Enterococcus sp. concentrations as measured via Defined Substrate Technology (EnterolertTm) reported in Most probable number /100 ml for all four sampling events for Molts Creek. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-95 Pages Creek 5 J E 4.5 0 ® 4 a 3.5 a 3 2.5 v 2 0 0 1,5 a� � 1 w 0 0.5 0 yu Oti b O� O�� �Oti ON' Otis 1Q�� O y u ® , ®y O Figure 4B: Enterococcus sp. concentrations as measured via Defined Substrate Technology (EnterolertT" ) reported in Most probable number /100 ml for all four sampling events for Pages Creek. Motts Creek 7 6 E 5 0 0 4 a� i BF© 4 3 U ■ H F183 2 —° ■ BacHum 1 ■ Gull -2 0 titi o� tiQ tip' 16 �. y . ya. moo. tiy. ti°e lb, IV y°. ��;. �". ly oy� 0, ti�ti�1�oy 1����Qyh Q�h Figure 5A: Concentrations of molecular microbial source tracking markers Fecal Bacteroides spp., BacHum, HF183, and Gull -2 gene copies /100 ml for four storm events in Motts Creek, NC. Note axis is on logarithmic scale. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-96 Pages Creek 7 6 J E 5 a 0 r" 4 a� 4 3 LU U aA 2 0 1 0 hC51 o� ti� ati� r-> ■ BFD ■ H F183 ■ BacHum ■ Gull -2 Figure 5B: Concentrations of molecular microbial source tracking markers Fecal Bacteroides spp., BacHum, HF183, and Gull -2 gene copies /100 ml for four storm events in Pages Creek, NC. Note axis is on logarithmic scale. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-97 W H W z W W WN 7► Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-98 � O U CA O C�j O U cd CA U U NM- CA CA N cd bJJ C�j N CA v r' �O CA a `� CA O U tx � C tx � O O C/) C CA O U� C�j CA C�j r CA W N N O Z N cd in r- � lZT C/1 cd U N � h 4- C�j CA O C�j O O p C�j CA C�j CA l� U — l� N bUA U Q N -� C/1 N 00 O = O CA O cd C�j O v . O U N 'T cd C�j N W 00 U CA N N CA 00 v CA p 141 CA 0 O C O N LJ O CA C�j N cd cd O cd cd ti v U ti O vU U N N �� s • U C cd cd CG 00 �4- — U� � R p� r` cd O v U N a cd U �; U O U N O N x O r-- � ' �� CA a 000 O —CJ .-. tx a) CJ O N_ CA CA CJ 6j C�j 7t CA 7t U � w C�j P-i CA C�j a tx O O v C41 N �" -0 E ..O O' O = R C�j 4 [� �`• C41 U a W c N O O S" Cj p cd N bJJ O �_ _O Q W Pi O �U � � Q O U O M � � o rxCA rx� z-� tiro O O V1 O r- O cd �� M O N C�j O O U y O s-. >, Q W N N p O 4� c) U N N s. C�j> cd W W W P- N U tx U U O N bpA �_ cd Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-98 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-99 CG W ° O C�j s. U U M N N 5S M cd 00 — Q 7 O � V O— V �. Z C Lj N x W a $no � N S C�j CJ cd CJ ¢ C�j /� ^ CA N O C�j C�j N �_ Up0 C�j O O U O O CA U CA tx O CA CG _ p cd ^ tx N O U O cd [� -� N cd cd tx _V N �" bJJ � p � •> O N '0 4 R o � CA�� Q O N O w C�j CA dj r3 •� -- U N --" zS O ° U U O C�j CA CA O>, N CA tx N Q CA 0 � .� Cj W° Q U w N° Q >C N � O UU� �U v O � 00 C�j W) tea, U C�j o vi a) c C�j CA x CA o °o C�j p CA �wp? ° CA � � C�j M ti ^ cq � ° . N R p . r N 0 0 p4 N � � CJ LJ to v ri vi N• �; z W P� 1~ C�j ti N 1~ � ti C�j C�j a� C�j a � �-= � � �= ��rx zS ti Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 9 -2-99 Ell )f}} IIIIIN ! \ ! ) : OF ae ,f) Board of Commissioners - January ]$2S8 ITEM: 9 -2 -100 / / 22 @ ! g j eQ - ! \ ! ) : OF ae ,f) Board of Commissioners - January ]$2S8 ITEM: 9 -2 -100 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner CONTACT(S): Jennifer Rigby; Ken Vafier, Planning Manager; and Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director SUBJECT: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan - Presentation and Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future as a Part of the Comprehensive Plan BRIEF SUMMARY: In January 2015, staff presented a draft Future Land Use map for New Hanover County residents to review. Since that time, staff met with many citizens and stakeholders to finalize a draft Future Land Use map that represents the goals and objectives presented in Chapter 3, Framing the Policy. After more than five versions of the map and two work sessions with the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, staff has finalized the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map will replace the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map and incorporates "Place Types" which represent development patterns that are different from the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map currently in use. The biggest change is the incorporation of Mixed Use land use classifications, the removal of the Urban Services Boundary, and the understanding that additional infrastructure will be needed to fully implement the new future land use map. Further, the use of Place Types and Exceptional Resource Areas provided on an interactive online "story map" that aid citizens and the development community in the development process. This map can be accessed on our website at www.l)lannhe.com. The Planning Board received and approved Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future of the Comprehensive Plan at its regularly scheduled meeting on November 4th. One condition was placed on the approval: A disclaimer on the 8.5" by 11" printed Future Land Use Map with Exceptional Resource Areas that states, "This map represents a smaller version of the full size 36X48 map. As such, features and symbols may be more difficult to distinguish. To clearly view the map and all its content, it's recommended you view a larger printed map or a digital version on our website at www.plannhc.com." At the December 14th Board of Commissioners meeting, Commissioners asked staff to provide clarification on the requirements associated with CAMA and the Exceptional Resources Map. Attached is an email from CAMA representatives providing clarification on the requirements. Additionally, staff and CAMA representative, Mike Christenbury met with the Planning Board to answer questions as they relate to the Exceptional Resources Map. Planning Board members elected to provide additional comments to the Board of Commissioners in the attached letter. At the Planning Board's January 7, 2016 meeting the Planning Board recommended that the Exceptional Resources Map be included in chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan and that for ease of viewing, all of the aquifer recharge areas appear on a separate Exceptional Resources Map. Planning staff supports the Planning Board's recommendation. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10 Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Implement plans for land use, economic development, infrastructure and environmental programs • Understand and act on citizen needs • Deliver value for taxpayer money RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: A motion of approval for the attached resolution to validate Chapter 4: Visualizing our Future is requested. ATTACHMENTS: Script Planning Board Additional Comments Resolution for Chapter 4 P1aceTypes and Maps Email with CAMA Clarification COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Adopt the resolution to validate Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the Planning Board letter dated January 7, 2016, which is recommended by County staff. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: A motion to accept the Planning Board's recommendation to adopt a resolution validating "Visualizing the Future" as the fourth chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and adding that separate maps for each of the six categories of Flood Zones, Potential Wetland Areas, Public Coastal Waters, Potential Significant Natural Heritage Area and Outstand Resource Waters, be included in the comprehensive plan instead of having a combined Exceptional Resource Areas Maps 1 and 2 was approved 3 to 2, Commissioners White and Watkins voting in opposition. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10 SCRIPT FOR Comprehensive Plan Resolution Plan NHC Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future Request by Planning staff to recommend Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future be validated as the 4th Chapter of the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan "Plan NHC" by resolution. 1. At the December 14th meeting a Public Meeting was held and the item was tabled for additional information. Staff will provide a brief presentation. 2. Board of Commissioner's discussion Vote on the Resolution request. 1. Motion to recommend validation; or 2. Motion to continue. Suggested motion: The Board of Commissioners validates Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future as the 4th Chapter of Plan NHC and accepts it by resolution. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10-1 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 110 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 TELEPHONE (910) 798 -7165 FAX (910) 798 -7053 January 7, 2016 Chairwoman Beth Dawson New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Dear Chairwoman Dawson and Board of New Hanover County Commissioners: The Planning Board met on January 5, 2016 for a work session to review current planning projects, Plan NHC Chapter 5: Building the Future, and to revisit Plan NHC Chapter 4, Exceptional Resources Map, at the request of the Board of Commissioners. Planning Staff arranged for Mike Christenbury, District Planner for the Division of Coastal Management, to attend the meeting and be available to answer questions regarding the CAMA requirements and how they relate to the Exceptional Resources Map shown in Chapter 4. The Planning Board had been provided with Mr. Christenbury's email dated December 17, 2015 which outlines answers to the requirement of an Exceptional Resources Map. The meeting opened with Planning Staff apologizing for the confusion regarding the CAMA requirements, outlining the content of Mr. Christenbury's email dated December 17, 2015, and stating that it was still the opinion of staff that including the Exceptional Resources Map is in the best interest of New Hanover County. Staff introduced Mr. Christenbury and opened the floor for questions. The Planning Board members asked Mr. Christenbury a number of questions that included the need for such map, how a map could be kept current, concerns regarding a false level of precision, and how other jurisdictions handled a natural systems map. Mr. Christenbury stated that the CAMA requirements require a natural systems analysis to be part of the plan and will let each jurisdiction determine if they would like for it to be in the form of a map or not. When asked about how other jurisdictions address a natural systems analysis, Mr. Christenbury stated that he was unaware of any jurisdictions that did not include a map of their natural systems in their CAMA plan. He also stated that regardless of CAMA requirements, it is good planning practice to include such maps. Mr. Christenbury also stated that most plans are out of date and should be updated within 4 -5 years. Planning Board members discussed the concerns related to the false level of precision, to which they determined a number of disclaimers had been placed on the map and links to additional resources could be made available to the public. Planning Board members also discussed the map should be used as an educational tool for the public, staff, and decision makers. Further, a question about how policies are tied to the features on the map was discussed which is outlined in the next chapter of the plan, Chapter 5. The Planning Board expressed more specific concerns about showing the Aquifer Recharge Area on the Exceptional Resources Map. Concerns were that some of the growth nodes outlined on the Future Land Use Map were within the Primary Aquifer Recharge Area as well as many areas that have already been developed. Planning Board Members were concerned this could lead to confusion within the public about how these areas were developed and should be developed. Planning Board members felt that protecting Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 2 - 1 the aquifer was important, the growth node areas are ripe for development, and special consideration in the development process is necessary. After conversations between the Planning Board members, the general consensus was that the Exceptional Resources are important features within New Hanover County and the map serves as a public educational tool. Because the aquifer recharge areas are a complex issue, the Planning Board recommends the following: 1) Keep the Exceptional Resources Map in the plan, and; 2) Remove the Primary Aquifer Recharge Area from the map and place it on a separate map which includes all of the recharge areas and provide language that illustrates the importance of the aquifer recharge areas. The Planning Board shares this letter with the Board of Commissioners as an amended recommendation for the adoption of Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future which includes the Exceptional Resources Map, but removes the primary aquifer recharge area, and adds it to a separate map and includes text that references the New Hanover County Aquifer Management Program conducted by hydrologist, Harry E. LeGrand. Sincerely, Donna Girardot, Chairwoman New Hanover County Planning Board Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 2 - 2 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION VALIDATING THE FOURTH CHAPTER OF PLAN NHC: VISUALIZING THE FUTURE WHEREAS, New Hanover County is updating the CAMA Land Use Plan and creating a Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated portion of the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has adopted Chapter 1: Public Engagement Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has adopted Chapter 2: Evaluating the Present (a report of existing conditions); and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has adopted Chapter 3: Framing the Policy; and WHEREAS, staff has worked with the community at large to develop Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners hereby validates "Visualizing the Future" as the fourth chapter within the Comprehensive Plan. ADOPTED this the 19th day of January, 2016. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Beth Dawson, Chairman ATTEST: Teresa P. Elmore, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 3 - 1 New Hanover County Future Land Use Map Final Draft Pender County 1-1 f 01. 11; A ■ dOgURY 4111 ♦ . E. � 11 • 0 e, i 1 Place Type COMMERCEZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL - URBAN MIXED USE - COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION OGrowth Nodes WATER FEATURES •� a r The Future Land Use Map is not legally binding like the New Hanover County Zoning Map. It is intended to be a general representation of the 25 year vision for New Hanover County, created by the citizens who were involved 19,20 1�ith Plan NHC, and will be used to guide future development decisions. New Hanover County Exceptional Resource Areas Map 1 of 2 \ ~ Place Type - COMMERCE ZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL - URBAN MIXED USE - COMMUNITY MIXED USE - RURAL RESIDENTIAL - CONSERVATION OGrowth Nodes WATER FEATURES N W�E s ow NpL eolcl • `01 / { V- • `Y� F NAD 1983 S[atePlane North Carolina FPS 3200 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Linear Unit: Foot US. ? GCS: North American 1983 �9 Datum: North American 1983 Scale 1 34,470 Y Data Sources Y NC Department ofEnvrronmental Quality NC Natural Heritage Program NC Flo odplam Mapping Program New Hanover County US Fish and Wildlife Service ca�Hir:ti� Z \n,Miles Board of Comrr 17 Flood Zones R1 R Potential Wetland Areas ANUERS -� Pj Z-Z--. M1 c Place Type - COMMERCE ZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL - URBAN MIXED USE - COMMUNITY MIXED USE - RURAL RESIDENTIAL - CONSERVATION OGrowth Nodes WATER FEATURES N W�E s ow NpL eolcl • `01 / { V- • `Y� F NAD 1983 S[atePlane North Carolina FPS 3200 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Linear Unit: Foot US. ? GCS: North American 1983 �9 Datum: North American 1983 Scale 1 34,470 Y Data Sources Y NC Department ofEnvrronmental Quality NC Natural Heritage Program NC Flo odplam Mapping Program New Hanover County US Fish and Wildlife Service ca�Hir:ti� Z \n,Miles Board of Comrr 17 O � _y Potential Significant Natural Heritage Areas �g Outstanding Resource Waters *P Environmental features shown are off -site or general representations and are for planning purposes only. r True delineations must be field verified by site experts. 2 g� r This map represents a smaller version of the full size 36x48 map. I/ As such, features and symbols may be more difficult to distinguish. To clearly view the map and all its content it's recommended you view a larger printed map or a digital version on our website at 19, 2016 www.plannhc.com Flood Zones R1 R Potential Wetland Areas ANUERS -� Pj Public Coastal Waters to C A _ �. Inland Waters O � _y Potential Significant Natural Heritage Areas �g Outstanding Resource Waters *P Environmental features shown are off -site or general representations and are for planning purposes only. r True delineations must be field verified by site experts. 2 g� r This map represents a smaller version of the full size 36x48 map. I/ As such, features and symbols may be more difficult to distinguish. To clearly view the map and all its content it's recommended you view a larger printed map or a digital version on our website at 19, 2016 www.plannhc.com New Hanover County Exceptional Resource Areas Map 2of2 r1 3 ♦FutuFe h��j � � ♦ • U Brunswick County 3 NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Linear Unit: Foot US. GCS: North American 1983 Datum: North American 1983 Scale: 1:34,470 Data Source: NHCAguifer Management Program Report LeGrand, 1982 This map represents a smaller version of the full size 36x48 map. As such, features and symbols may be more difficult to distinguish. To clearly view the map and all its content it's recommended you view a larger printed map or a digital version on our website at www.plannhc.com Q�NTY. r >" 2 Miles 2 ITEM: 1 2 6 1 s, 2016 For More information please see the New Hanover County Aquifer Management Program Report www.plannhc.com N W�E s 4 1 or 2 • • • • 1 � ai Aquifer Sensitivitx Areas Primary recharge area of principal aquifers (combined Castle Hayne Area 1 and Peedee aquifers - confined and artesian) Secondary recharge areas [Area 2 - for Castle Hayne or Peedee where occuring near land surface under water -table conditions Recharge area of Sandhill Area 3 aquifer- water -table conditions Area 4 Chiefly a discharge area for ground -water flow Nondescript area - a relatively poor aquifer and Area 5 not a recharge source of principle aquifers A shallow water -table sand aquifer Area 6 and underlying artesian aquifer containing fresh water over salty water Areas 1 or 2 Areas 1 or 6 City of Wilmington & Beach Towns :f �- RiT DEFINITION These areas serve as employment and production hubs, predominantly composed of light and heavy industrial uses, though office and complementary commercial uses are also allowed. Densities are dependent in part on the type of industry; some industrial uses will likely be one story with large setbacks and ample room for trucks and other large DESIRED USES ♦ Types of Uses / Projects Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Office Recreation DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ♦ Massing / Scale Recommendations F ' ;r,Fddddd�� r vehicles. Office uses can be multi -story and nearer the street, while office buildings can be two or three stories and closer to the street. Commerce Zones, unlike Employment Centers, do not allow residential uses. Commerce Zones require arterial or major collector road access connecting them to areas outside their boundaries. ♦ Mix of Uses COMMERCIAL OFFICE MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations film "AIM* EXAMPLE AREAS U.S. 421 Corridor ♦ Typical Zoning Categories Commercial Office & Institutional Industrial ♦ Urban Design Recommendations Number Use of Stories Ideal Density Office 1-7 Low -to -High Industrial 1-3 Low /Moderate MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations film "AIM* EXAMPLE AREAS U.S. 421 Corridor ♦ Typical Zoning Categories Commercial Office & Institutional Industrial ♦ Urban Design Recommendations On- campus walkways ® Arterial & col ctor ro ��������� Fixed- ut r sit Wide shoulder �s of omITEMo nuary ��, 1�a1` ' Open space 2 -4 travel lanes ITEM: OCO Bicycle parking on site ■ ■ Off - street parking Street Pattern: Grid or radial - , Block Length: 300 ft - .5 mi ■ fi Setbacks: Residential: not applicable Non - residential: Away from street Pedestrian Amenities: Sidewalks, street & shade trees, street furniture, bike racks On- campus walkways ® Arterial & col ctor ro ��������� Fixed- ut r sit Wide shoulder �s of omITEMo nuary ��, 1�a1` ' Open space 2 -4 travel lanes ITEM: OCO Bicycle parking on site ■ ■ Off - street parking DEFINITION These areas serve as employment and production hubs, with office and light industrial uses predominating. Densities are dependent in part on the type of industries located here; office uses can be multi -story and nearer the street, while light industrial uses will likely be one story with large setbacks and ample room for trucks and other large vehicles. Employment DESIRED USES ♦ Types of Uses / Projects Office Industrial Single - Family Residential Multi - Family Residential Commercial / Retail Recreational Centers can also include residential, civic, and recreational uses, but should be clearly delineated from rural and conservation areas. Commercial uses designed to serve the needs of the employment center are appropriate. Employment Centers require arterial or major collector road access connecting them to areas outside their boundaries. Mix of Uses '0AL uni Kinir OFFICE c'a EXAMPLE AREAS Airport Vicinity Dutch Square NorthChase Hermitage Road ♦ Typical Zoning Categories Commercial Office & Institutional Industrial Low & Moderate Density Residential DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ♦ Massing / Scale Recommendations ♦ Urban Design Recommendations Number Street Pattern: Use of Stories Ideal Density Grid or radial Office 1 -7 Low -to -High , Block Length: ■ 300 ft - .5 mi Industrial 1-3 Low /Moderate " fi Setbacks: Single- Family 1-3 Low V ■ - ' Residential: Near sidewalk Residential Non - residential: Far from sidewalk Multi - Family 2 -3 Moderate Residential (12-15 du/acre) Pedestrian Amenities: Sidewalks, street & shade trees, street furniture, bike racks MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations • • On- campus salkways ® Open space Arterial & col ctor ro ������������ Fixed- ut r sit �s of omITEMo nuary ��, 1�a1` ' 2 -4 travel lanes ITEM: Wide shoulder Ar,O Bicycle parking on site Multi -use paths ■ ■ Off - street parking DEFINITION This placetype provides opportunity for lower - density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Housing is typically single - family or duplexes, with setbacks on all sides. Block sizes are large, at 1/a to 1/2 mile wide. Commercial uses should be limited to office and retail spaces in carefully located areas where neighborhood character will be enhanced, while recreation and school facilities are DESIRED USES ♦ Types of Uses / Projects Single - Family Residential Low- Density Multi - Family Residential Light Commercial Civic Recreational DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ♦ Massing / Scale Recommendations encouraged throughout. Access to areas outside these residential areas is provided by arterial roadways, but still allowing for interconnection between other placetypes. However, limiting cul -de -sacs is encouraged to promote better internal circulation and minimizing high - volume traffic roads within the area. Flooding hazard avoidance should be taken into consideration when abutting coastal areas. ♦ Mix of Uses - m n m O D cpM 1% MF1,cz HOUSING Number Use of Stories Ideal Density Office 1 -2 Low Retail 1-2 Low Planned 1-3 Medium Development Low- Density 1-3 2 -6 du/acre Multi - Family EXAMPLE AREAS Middle Sound Myrtle Grove Castle Hayne Porter's Neck Wrightsboro Masonboro Loop ♦ Typical Zoning Categories Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Office & Institutional Planned Unit Development Urban Design Recommendations Street Pattern: Warped Grid & . Limited Cul -de -sacs ' Block Length: 1000 - 2500 ft Setbacks: Residential: Away from street or in line with existing development Non - residential: Away from the street Pedestrian Amenities: Single - Family I 1 -3 I 1 -6 du/acre L A Residential Sidewalks, Street Trees, Open Space, Shade MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations 4 -6 ft sidewalks (some areas) • • Arterial, collector & local roads Limited }'i d rgute transit Arlo Street lamps , and of Commissionuar 1cJ,011� On -road wide outside lane Crosswalks at schools, ® On travel laggard Y Greenways & multi -use paths busy intersections 0 On and off - street parking : Vanpool commuting DEFINITION This placetype provides access to a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. Multi- family residential uses are preferred, though higher- density single family developments will not be prohibited. Mixed uses are encouraged in the same footprint in a vertical pattern, but they can also be adjacent, or separated by lower traffic local and collector roads in a horizontal pattern. This placetype DESIRED USES ♦ Types of Uses / Projects can include big box retail that has included appropriate urban design features. These areas place an emphasis on multimodalism through the requirement of sidewalks on all non -local streets, crosswalks at all intersections, dedicated bicycle lanes or wide outside lanes, and bus access. Types of uses include office, retail, mixed use, small recreation, single - family and multi - family residential. ♦ Mix of Uses Retail HOUSING Office Mixed Use MIXED USE Single & Multi - Family Residential Small Recreational OFFICE EXAMPLE AREAS Ogden Kirkland Monkey Junction CFCC North Campus Area ♦ Typical Zoning Categories Moderate to High- Density Residential Mixed Use Office & Institutional Commercial DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ♦ Massing / Scale Recommendations ♦ Urban Design Recommendations Number Street Pattern: Use of Stories Ideal Density Arterial & local; grid or partial grid Office 3 -7 Moderate/ High LO Block Length: Retail 1-3 Low/Moderate 200 - 800 ft Setbacks: Planned Development 2 -7 Moderate ^ ■ High ■' r Varies � Pedestrian Amenities: Residential 2 -5 Moderate Sidewalks, street trees, street High furniture, shade trees, bike Commercials 2 -7 Moderate racks, lighting, crosswalks, Mixed Use High plazas, pedestrian malls MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations • • 5-12 ft Sidewalks ® Arterial, collector &local roads Limited ute transit Pedestrian malls &paths 2 -4 travel larl�9ard of Com��E r - n&v e , ans� ov re transit stops • Bicycle lanes Wide shoulders Crosswalks On- street, off - street & gara Transit hubs OCO Bike racks parking DEFINITION This placetype focuses on small - scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve multimodal travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. These areas share several qualities with higher- intensity mixed use, including a combination of retail with office and housing above, wider sidewalks and an emphasis on streetscaping. However, DESIRED USES ♦ Types of Uses / Projects Office Retail Mixed Use Multi- family Residential Single - Family Residential Recreational DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY EXAMPLE AREAS these centers are generally small, no more Castle Hayne than a few square blocks. Civic uses, particularly recreation and public gathering Sidbury Road places are encouraged here. Lower denisity Carolina Beach Road single family development may be acceptable when limitations to mixed use development exists. NorthChase Ideally, large- scale, lower density commercial La and industrial developments are prohibited. ♦ Mix of Uses ♦ Typical Zoning Categories RECREATION OFFICE MIXED USE RETAIL HOUSING Moderate Density Residential Commercial Office & Institutional Mixed Use ♦ Massing / Scale Recommendations ♦ Urban Design Recommendations Number Street Pattern: Use of Stories Ideal Density Grid or radial Office 1 - 2 Moderate BI 1 1 1 th Retail 1 -2 Mixed Use 2 -3 Multi - Family 2 -3 Residential Single - Family 1-3 Moderate street furniture, bike racks L Residential ( ±8 du/acre)* MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations • • 5-12 ft Sidewalks ® Arterial & col ctor ro ������������ Fixed- ut r sit Bicycle lane / shoulder �s of omITEM: nuary ��, 1�a1` ' Crosswalks 2 -4 travel lanes ITEM: OCO Bicycle parking ■ ■ On and off street parking oc eng . 200 - 500 ft Low /Moderate La A 11 Setbacks: Moderate IN Residential: Near sidewalk i Non - residential: At sidewalk Moderate Pedestrian Amenities: (12-15 du/acre) Sidewalks, street &shade trees, Single - Family 1-3 Moderate street furniture, bike racks L Residential ( ±8 du/acre)* MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations • • 5-12 ft Sidewalks ® Arterial & col ctor ro ������������ Fixed- ut r sit Bicycle lane / shoulder �s of omITEM: nuary ��, 1�a1` ' Crosswalks 2 -4 travel lanes ITEM: OCO Bicycle parking ■ ■ On and off street parking I so DEFINITION These are rural areas where new development occurs in a manner consistent with existing rural character while also preserving the economic viability of the land. Residential uses are the predominant, but not exclusive, use. Agricultural and rural recreational uses are intermixed with large -lot residential areas that range from 1 to 40 acres. Clustering of homes DESIRED USES ♦ Types of Uses / Projects Single - Family Residential Small -scale Agriculture & Forestry Recreational Open Space DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ♦ Massing / Scale Recommendations EXAMPLE AREAS in smaller lots can provide for conservation of Castle Hayne other land while still providing opportunities for residential and agricultural growth. Rural areas have minimal transportation infrastructure requirements; rural collector and arterial roads are sufficient. ♦ Mix of Uses RECREATION HOUSING AGRICULTURAL Number Use of Stories Ideal Density Single - Family 1-3 Very Low Residential ♦ Typical Zoning Categories Very Low Density Residential Agricultural Recreational ♦ Urban Design Recommendations Street Pattern: Organic and sparse Block Length: 0.5 - 5 miles Setbacks: Residential: Away from street Pedestrian Amenities: Recreational trails, open space, shade trees MODE CHOICES ♦ Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations • • Greenways and trails Arterial, collector, local Green y trails Greenways and trails ® & private rocpgard of Commissi nuary of mT9 1 -4 Travel lanes ITE _ 9 Low -tra fic roads Ar, O On -road wide shoulder Off - street parking r' DEFINITION EXAMPLE AREAS Conservation places cover areas of natural open family residential, though density is limited and Masonboro Island space and are intended to protect the natural environment, water quality, and wildlife habitats. They serve the public through environmental edu- cation, low- impact recreation and in their natural beauty. Protection may also extend to important cultural or archaeological resources and to areas where hazards are known to exist. Conservation areas and tools may apply to land that also falls into another zoning category, such as single- conservation requirements generally take pre- cedence. In such areas, increased density would be discouraged, and low impact development methods would be required. Such requirements place limits on development so as to ensure the protection of resources. Active efforts to acquire these areas should be pursued. Low - impact additions may include walkways, trails, fences, docks and access roadways. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10-4- 10 Managed Lands Sunny Point Blast Zone Public Land Trusts Rigby, Jennifer From: O'Keefe, Chris Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 5:16 PM To: County Commissioners Cc: Coudriet, Chris; Burgess, Tim; Pinder, Avril; Schrader, Beth; Vafier, Ken; Rigby, Jennifer, Huffman, Sharon Subject: FW: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan CAMA certification questions Attachments: CAMA rules with proposed changes.pdf Dear Commissioners: At your direction we contacted our Division of Coastal Management (DCM) officials to seek answers to questions raised at your December 14, 2015 meeting. The. answers below come from Mike Christenbury who is our district planner. The answers were copied to Mike Lopazanski, DCM policy manager. In light of the answer provided to question #2, 1 would like to apologize for the interpretation shared with the Commissioners by staff at your meeting. New Hanover County is not required to include the "Exceptional Resource Map" in the plan. Mr. Christenbury further explains that "A natural systems analysis is required to be included in the plan. While most all CAMA land use plans include a map to assist in the natural system analysis, inclusion cif a natural systems or resource area map is optional." It should be noted that although the current rules do not require us to include the map as part of the plan we are required to make a map available to the public. However, under the proposed rule changes it will no longer be a requirement to make a map available to the public. The proposed rule changes do not do away with the requirement that a natural systems analysis be part of the plan. A version of the rules with the proposed changes indicated is attached for your information. As noted in the email below, CAMA staff will be on hand to discuss this letter, the LAMA planning requirements and the proposed changes to the requirements with the Planning Board at their next meeting and at your meeting on January 19th. The Exceptional Resource Map which has been included in Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future, is provided to represent a visual component of the required natural systems analysis. Staff believes the information contained on this map will be useful to citizens of the county whether they are planning large development projects or concerned :about the future of the environment that we live in. Displaying this information together with our Future Land Use Map will help the county allocate resources effectively and efficiently. Further, during the future land use map public:, meeting process, stakeholders suggested that overlaying the future land use map with natural resource areas would be beneficial. Staff continues to recommend that the Exceptional Resources Map be included in the plan. Again, I apologize for the confusion regarding the CAMA land use planning rules shared by staff with the board. Moving forward we will strive to always provide accurate information and minimize confusion regarding potential changes to regulations that may be adopted. If you have questions about this information or if you would like to discuss the Land Use Planning rules or our draft comprehensive plan please contact me. Sincerely, Chris O'Keefe Chris O'Keefe I Planning /Inspections Director Planning & Inspections New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 1 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 1 Wilmington, NC 28403 (910) 798 -7164 p 1 (910) 798 -7053 f www.nhcqov.com From: Christenbury, Mike [ mailto :mike.christenbury@ncdenr.gov) Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:02 PM To: Rigby, Jennifer Cc: O'Keefe, Chris; Vafier, Ken; Burgess, Tim; Coudriet, Chris; Lopazanski, Mike Subject: RE: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan CAMA certification questions Hi Jennifer: I am responding to your questions (below). 1) Does the current NHC draft comprehensive plan meet the land use planning requirements of CAMA? Answer: From what has been submitted to me thus far for review /comment, it appears the plan meets the CAMA land use plan requirements. 2) Does the Future Land Use Map without the Exceptional Resource Map meet the requirements of CAMA? Answer: Yes. A natural systems analysis is required to be included in the plan. While most all CAMA land use plans include a map to assist in the natural system analysis, inclusion of a natural systems or resource area map is optional. 3) If not, what elements on the Exceptional Resource Map are necessary to meet the requirements of CAMA? Answer: See number 2 (above). 4) Please provide clarification on the time table for adopting any new rules or requirements from CAMA, what the differences are between the proposed rules and the existing rules, and if New Hanover County will be reviewed under the new rules or the previous rules. Answer: The new land use plan guidelines should be adopted and in effect sometime in the spring of 2016. The main difference between the current LUP guidelines and the new guidelines is that the new guidelines provide a little more flexibility for local governments to decide the level and detail of analysis to include in the plan. Regarding the New Hanover County plan, everything submitted thus far to DCM for review or comment meets the current LUP guidelines. The county may exclude the Exceptional Resource Areas Overlay Map if it so desires. Once the plan is adopted in its entirety by the county, the plan will then be submitted to DCM for the official review. The plan will then be reviewed using the LUP guidelines that are in effect once the plan is adopted by the county in its entirety and submitted to RCM for official review. As noted above, the parts of the draft plan that have. been submitted to DCM thus far for comment /review meets the current LUP guidelines, and will meet the new LUP guidelines as well. _ 5) Please describe the CAMA certification process. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 2 Answer: The certification process is fairly simple. Once the plan is adopted by New Hanover County and officially submitted to DCM for review, DCM staff will officially review the plan and determine if the plan meets CAMA LUP guidelines. Because the New Hanover County Planning Staff has continually kept DCM up -to -date since the beginning of the development of this plan; and has continually submitted draft sections of the plan to DCM for comment, the review process will be swift. DCM Staff will then recommend certification of the plan to the Coastal Resources Commission. Mike Lopazanski and myself will be available (if needed) at either the Jan. 7th meeting or Jan. 19th meeting. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks! -MikeC Michael Christenbury, Wilmington District Planner NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext Wilmington, NC 28405 910 - 796 -7426 .. /'Nothing Compares. r Visit www.nccoastaimanagement.net to subscribe to Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter. the CAMAgram. E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Rigby, Jennifer [mailto:irigby @nhceov.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 2:42 PM To: Christenbury, Mike <mike.christenbury @ncdenr.sov> Cc: O'Keefe, Chris <COKeefe @nhceov.com >; Vafier, Ken <kvafier @nhcgov.com >; Burgess, Tim <tbureess (ZDnhceov.com >; Coudriet, Chris <CCoudriet @nhcgov.com> Subject: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan CAMA certification questions Mike, Since you will be making a recommendation to the Coastal Resource Commission on CAMA certification to our new Comprehensive Plan, could you please provide clarification on the requirements as they relate to our Future Land Use Map and Exceptional Resource Map. (See attached) 1) Does the current NHC draft comprehensive plan meet the land use planning requirements of CAMA? 2) Does the Future Land Use Map without the Exceptional Resource Map meet the requirements of CAMA? 3) If not, what elements on the Exceptional Resource Map are necessary to meet the requirements of CAMA? 4) Please provide clarification on the timetable for adopting any new rules or requirements from CAMA, what the differences are between the proposed rules and the existing rules, and if New Hanover County will be reviewed under the new rules or the previous rules. 5) Please describe the CAMA certification process. 3 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 3 Finally, I would like to confirm that you or someone from your staff will be available to meet with our Planning Board on January 7th to provide clarification and answer questions, and also attend our Board of Commissioners meeting on January 19th to provide clarification and answer questions. Thank you. Jennifer Rigby Jennifer Rigby I Long Range Planner Planning & Inspections - Planning & Zoning I New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 (910) 798 -7237 p 1 (910) 798 -7053 f www.nhcgov.com Total Control Panel Login To: cokeefe(@,,nhc og v.com Remove this sender from my allow list From: mike.christenburyamedenngo You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 4 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 4 1 SUBCHAPTER 711 — G A MA STATE GUIDELINES FOR LAND USE PLANNING 2 3 15A NCAC 07B .0601 is proposed for amendment as follows: 4 5 15A NCAC 0711.0601 AUTHORITY 6 This Subchapter establishes the rules that local governments shall follow in developing and adopting a Eeastal -A-rea 7 . land use plan or comprehensive plan that meets the Coastal Resources 8 Commission's (CRQ planning requirements. 9 10 History Note: Authority G.S. 113A- 107(a); 113A -110; 113A -124; 11 Ef. . August 1, 2002; 12 Amended Ef. January 1. 2016 13 14 15 1 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 5 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SECTION .0700 — CA-KA LAND USE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 15A NCAC 07B .0701 is proposed for amendment as follows: 15A NCAC 07B.0701 PLANNING OPTIONS (a) Each county within the coastal area may prepare and adopt a-GAMi4 land use Ian or comprehensive plan that meets the planning requirements adopted by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC). The ERA Secretary shall prepare and adopt a ^" "wand Use Pi n land use plan that meets the CRC's planning requirements for each county that chooses not to prepare and adopt a ^"* ,a 'a U see Plan. land use plan. Municipalities may develop individual C-A-MA Land Use Plans land use plans or comprehensive plans that meet the CRC's requirements if (1) the County delegates this authority to the municipality; or (2) the GRG Secretary grants this authority upon application from a municipality that is currently enforcing its zoning ordinance, its subdivision regulations and the State Building Code within its jurisdiction. ("ie- minimun types e€-plaas -presu )the Arreas- e€Ela- irenmental- Ce dditi eter4sties -ether than these -li ted in Figum ' ..e" as _: = = =at s€ g es (e.g., r�lity ee��eeras} shall- be- eeasider- ed�en- determiningt# amd-. i ACLU GROWTH i HAZARD NIA HIGH HIGH HiGH mol c iii IL ON OCEAN R i -rev r. XD j emnvr. cUT^vR-Y—T+HW5,9H06D € A Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 6 ii F' i , and e -. :r. .-�- �Yz500:: ...... ACLU GROWTH i HAZARD NIA HIGH HIGH HiGH mol c iii IL ON OCEAN R i -rev r. XD j emnvr. cUT^vR-Y—T+HW5,9H06D € A Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 6 ii F' 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 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 3 reei Offlee of State Planning) High 0 - meduate > 20i and < 18.404 ,ate a!lie Axtni n;nanr IWIFIN el I j It I I dy-egfbft tg4ls Bening- er�xexerirs- �r�evrslex- negx►xei ikJi+�g- 6�e- w;rki►Nrs jxr�srNerfer (e) Types ef?Uns WoAbeek Ian: This is a s;'nplifie d G �A M A and Use Plan that addr-esse"e -€oll 'fig elernente (A) statement of eenimunity eeneefns, aspirations and visiefF, (B) eAsting land use nwq3,- (£) la nd suitability analysis; (D) ,eeal growth and _ de,.e,epment eli .:es addressing pie- and apoeabl ; and (, \ future land uSemW. The- Bivisi replete to inunie4pal-ties p es- ef- pelicy (21 Ger-e plan! This pl..n addresses all of the plan elements in Rule .0702 efth:s Qeet:en (Elenients-4 GAM and 71dwa lete 3ndt-.--.—.ughannei•- -T-his type- (3) Advaneed ire plan, H i efation- e€-speei€e leeal eenditiens, eleet tte _.._ _a the -_- plan F --meats in t...,. ...yeas. Ris plan also may be used te help meet the mquiFements of other- planning programs, sueh as the i�ePrniental D --t fi A .. «e, s (EPA) ) n,,ene i_i_^te«»e.. -- q - hazard •.•b er. ti_ plans, t tha Y t atff a , 0) Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 7 I in Figure Muniaipalities with Non-Geean e 2 pepalatie 3 (flQJ A County shall accept a municipality's locally adopted policies and implementation actions for inclusion in 4 the County GAMA Land Use Plan land use plan for the municipality's jurisdiction if requested to do so by any 5 municipality not preparing an individual GAMA Land Use Plan. its own land use plan. Inclusion of a 6 municipality's adopted policies and implementation actions shall occur either at the time of County-4GAMA--Lf" 7 Use Plan land use plan preparation or a subsequent County land use plan amendment. The 8 municipality's policies and implementation actions are limited to its jurisdiction and may differ from the County's 9 pelieies: policies and implementation actions. 10 (g)Lc) Municipalities may seek GR-G certification for these plans if all requirements found in 15A NCAC 07B and 11 G.S. I I3A -110 are met. 12 13 History Note: Authority G.S. 113A- 107(a); 113A -110; 113.4-124; 14 E,f'. August 1, 2002; 15 Amended Eff. January 1. 2016 16 17 18 19 20 C Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 8 I 15A NCAC 07B .0702 is proposed for amendment as follows: 2 3 15A NCAC 07B.0702 ELEMENTS OF GAMA GORE AND AD GED GORE LAND USE PL 4 LAND USE PLAN ELEMENTS 5 (a) Organization of the Plan. The-el evelepment of the GAM 6 Cam and Advaneed Gore Land Use Plans. A detailed -Table ef- Eenk%t"Ihall- be4neleded -a °a :F�,� -. &4eeal 7 gevemment does net fel e outline desefibed in this Rule, a mavix lea11 be inel Include a matrix in the land 8 use plan or comprehensive plan that shows the exact location of the following required elements. 9 (b) Community Concerns and Aspirations: Aspirations. The purpose of this element is to provide an understanding 10 of the underlying planning needs and desires of the community. 11 (1) Significant existing and emerging conditions: The plan shall inelade- a-deseFoen-e€Describe the 12 dominant growth- related conditions that influence land use, development, water quality, and other 13 environmental concerns in the planning area. 14 (2) Key issues: The Describe the land use and development topics 15 most important to the future of the planning area. At a minimum, this description shall include 16 public access, land use compatibility, infrastructure carrying capacity, natural hazard areas, water 17 quality, and may also include local areas of concern as described in Subparagraph (d)(3) Q) (Land 18 Use Plan Management Topics) of this Rule. 19 (3) A community vision: This sari- eensist - e€ a- desc-Fiptiee -e€ Describe the general physical 20 appearance and form that represents the local government's plan for the future. The eeffiffluffity 21 vision shall i e tateraents of general Include objectives to be achieved by the &Fir- -here 22 bjeetiws sed pelieies st sewhere 23 -n the EAMA 6wd Use Dlan The ebjec Ives s all- iacldde plan and identify changes that the leeal 24 gevemment - feels are may be needed to achieve the planning vision. 25 (c) Analysis of Existing and Emerging tmirig-jur-isdietiem Conditions. The purpose of this 26 element is to provide a sound factual end- analytieal base that is necessary to support the land use and development 27 policies included in the plan. The analysis shall be based upon the best available data or- mapping infonnatien &em 28 Describe the following: 29 (1) Population, Housing, and Economy. The plan s and Include discussion of 30 the following data and trends: 31 (A) Population: 32 W Permanent population growth trends using data from the two most recent 33 decennial Censuses; 34 (ii) Current permanent and seasonal population estimates; 35 (iii) Key population characteristics; 36 (iv) Age; and 37 (v) lneeme. Income; and 1 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 9 I (vi) Thirty year projections of permanent and seasonal population in five year 2 increments. 3 (B) Housing stock: Estimate current housing stock, including permanent and seasonal units, 4 tenure and types of units (single - family multifamily, and manufactured). 5 (i )Estimate of eurrent- housing steek, ineluding perfnanent and sessenal units, 6 tenure, and types of units (single family, multifamily, and fnanufae red); and 7 (ii) Bui ding pefmits issued fer single family, muitifamily, and manufaeuffed-lietnes 8 sinee last plait update. 9 (C) Local economy: Employment Describe employment by major sectors and deseriptien -e€ 10 community economic activity. 11 Hg4effn •- - i..F)-- pmjeetiens --ef 12 pennanent a-Rd seasonal pepulation. 13 (2) Natural be- and- ana�y�e 14 the systems. Describe the natural features and discuss the environmental conditions of the 15 planning jurisdiefien, and te assess their ea. hilities and limitations for develepment. This 16 malysir, shall jurisdiction to include: 17 (A) Mapping and analysis ef ne Ng=1 features. The 14 digit hydrelegiral u n 18 deli nit 19 efanallysis ofnatural features. Maps ef the following natural features shall be deve 20 with ° data provided by DGM or- other- state armies ova nalysis and plan developffient-. 21 These n-at tl3e -ptien 22 of the e6aVgevermnent. if the fnaps afe not i ..hided in the de 23 avaimWe-teA"ub•he 24 (i) Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs); 25 (ii) Soil characteristics, including limitations for septic tanks, erodibility, and other 26 factors related to development; 27 (iii) Environmental Management Commission (EMC) water quality classifications 28 (SC, SB, SA, HQW, and ORW) and related use support designations, and 29 Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) shellfish 30 growing areas and water quality conditions; 31 (iv) Flood and other natural hazard areas; 32 (v) Storm surge areas; 33 (vi) Non - coastal wetlands including forested wetlands, shrub -scrub wetlands and 34 freshwater marshes; 35 (vii) Water supply watersheds or wellhead protection areas; 36 (viii) Primary nursery ,feeswhere mapped- areas: 2 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 10 I (ix) Environmentally fragile areas, such as, but not limited to wetlands, natural 2 heritage areas, areas containing endangered species, prime wildlife habitats, or 3 maritime forests; and 4 (x) Additional natural features or conditions identified by the local government. 5 . 6 (i) Gompesite -nta e map that 7 p of natural fea rer- listed -M- Fern- (e)(-2)! AAA) of dtis $ tien of the eapabilities -and 9 m • he.,3- the- lec-ation 10 of the fellowing thme eategefies of land: 11 mitat fens -that 12 may be addressed by eommonly aeeepted -- land-- plamtiAg---and 13 development pr-aetiees, 14 00 Glass 11--1 nd- eeetainiAg-develepment hazards - and - lifnitat-ions --that 15 may be- addressed- ly-fAetheds s restrietiens en -types of lan"ses; 16 revision of pablie- services; -and 17 us or- I—A- 18 where -the impae4 of de- volepmeent -may eause serietts damage--"e 19 funetiens of natural systems. 20 (ii) a GAye A Land na r se Plan shah aese febe er list the f atums _. _en d itieAa 21 seleated by the local gevemment ftw iflelusion in earh elass. 22 (G)LB) Environmental conditions. The plan shall provide an - assessment of the fell ag 23 enviFenmef4al eendotions and &atwes and - diseass thei ties -fer 24 development: 25 (i) Water quality: 26 (1) Status and changes of surface water quality, including impaired streams 27 from the most recent N.C. Division of Water QualityBasinwideWateff 28 Quality Plans, Resources Basin Planning Branch Reports. Clean Water 29 Act 303(d) List LiEL and other comparable data; 30 (11) Current situation and trends on permanent and temporary closures of 31 shellfishing waters as determined by the Report of Sanitary Survey by 32 the Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section of the 33 N.C. Division of &— vireAA9ent-al HeaM; Marine Fisheries: 34 (I1I) Areas experiencing chronic wastewater treatment system malfunctions; 35 and 36 (IV) Areas with water quality or public health problems related to non -point 37 source pollution. 91 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 11 I (ii) Natural hazards: 2 (I) Areas subject to stenn hazwds sueh s recurrent flooding, storm surges 3 and high winds; and 4 (II) Areas experiencing significant shoreline erosion as evidenced by the 5 presence of threatened structures or public €HM6es� and facilities. 6 es- -e€- iablie - and — grwate - daxtage •resulting fire Heeds- and - wind -tha ce Ehe -last -plan+ 8 update. 9 (iii) Natural resources: 10 (I) Environmentally fragile areas (as- define in Paft 'e)(2)(` of 11 little) or areas where resource functions rr Wbe are bein impacted as a 12 result of development; and 13 (II) Fr-es. Valuable 14 natural resource areas that are being impacted or lost as a result of 15 incompatible development. These may include, but are not limited to 16 the following: beach , coastal wetlands, protected 17 open space, and agricultural land, that ffmy be fn. Ated -er lost as a- 18 result -�mpatible development. land. 19 (3) A*Wysis-ef Existin Land Use and Development. The -pttr - pose -efthe analysis of land-use-and 20 d es denti€y- petential -land -use 21 and la ad 22 tnt -lan4- ed Include a 23 mgp and descriptions of the following: 24 (A) A-map of land ineluding the fellewinri Existing land use patterns, which may include the 25 following categories: Residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public, dedicated 26 open space, vacant, agriculture, liens; and 27 endeveleped, and forestry, Land use descriptions shall include estimates of the land area 28 allocated to each land use and characteristics of each land use category. 29 (13) -The4and use analysis sh 30 Table that shows estimates of e -land area allocated teeaeh land -use; 31 (►i) -- DessFlptien of any- land us e 32 (ii;) - -Dese iptie ; 33 (iv) Deseriptien -e€ deyelepment ti;ends -u sing4ndie-aton. The development -Mende 34 35 bta un- built -leteand 4 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 12 I ee- development -da eafs 2 fellewing plan eeffifie en by the GRG and a deseriptien ef any potential 3 eenfliets with Glass 11 oF Glass M land identified in the nawral systeins analysis. 4 (G)LB) Historic, cultural, and scenic areas designated by a state or federal agency or by local 5 government. These aFeas and sites shall be leeated on either the eydstin&nd - use -map of 6 a separate map; and "/ Projee4ions ad needs The analysis shall include sheet te...... (five and ten ye F) 8 and-le eeded W aeeenmrWate-thee 9 planni d seasonal - population (population 10 pFejeetie as defined in PaFt (evlvrn Existing-and- EnmeF&g 11 of land needs may be i e sed up to 50 to allow c . 12 unantie-pated gr-ewth and to provide market flexibility. For- leeal governments 13 , th 14 al ealeulatiens. 15 (4) Analysis f Community Facilities. The purpose of the analysis of sommunity ties is 16 evaluate Evalu ate existing and planned capacity, location, and adequacy of key community 17 facilities that serve the community's existing and planned population and economic base; that 18 protect important environmental factors such as water quality; and that guide land development in 19 the coastal area. This analysis These shall include: 20 (A) Public and private water supply and wastewater systems. Re- analysis -of waW and 21 p(s --of Describe existing public and 22 private systems, including existing condition and eapaeit5q, leeation ef pipelines, 23 dorsumentatien of a capacity. Describe any documented overflows, bypasses, or other 24 problems that may degrade water quality or constitute a threat to public health; - existing 25 and planned ser-viee and future needs based on populatien OHS. if ani' 26nment- shall -se 27 state an the plan and this faaef may be eliminated ffem . health. Indicate 28 future needs based on population projections. Map existing and planned service areas. 29 (B) Transportation systems. The analysis of the tmaspertation system shall imiude -a-map 30 showing! Map the existing and planned multimodal 31 systems and port and airport facilities. Describe any highway segments deemed by the 32 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as having unacceptable service 33 levels; highway levels. Describe highway facilities on the current thoroughfare plan; -and 34 plan or facilities on the current transportation improvement all 35 also -ass. per= tm»spertatien- faeilities on gmwth 36 levels and development pattems. plan. Describe the impact of existing facilities on land 37 use patterns. W Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 13 I (C) shall in d- pern��i _t#Le�d--pr+Kate- stOFHWHter systems 2 shah'" in�GCte- 4denti :eats.. e f sting d�piablem reaj 3 identifeatien of Describe the existing public stormwater management system. Identify 4 existing g rainage problems and water quality issues related to point - source discharges of 5 stormwater Funeffi; 6 . runoff. 7 CiTD Ott F •1'a' The g .t «eJ inrilude additional farilitidcen- —ucir 8 as selid waste and health and safety in the afkalygis-. /9 (5) r it Land Su e• ur-pese� -ef the --lance 10 n the F lie.. ing a sidemfienSC 11 n e 12 e*isti availability 13 an Aatien systems. The 14 analysis -shall , a a land suitability she...ing e R t e .ndeked- land - that is writable � ,� . elemme..« The ate ..1.. Il —o� e'asse'ss land 15 €e° .....r...�.... e- feNewing�e 16 (A) Water- quality; 17 'nom 18 R Weximity to existing developed aFeas and eempatibility with existing land usW, 19 terie 20 or the Nerffi Gar-elina RUM. 21 22 tier, NI se 23 Standafds and - ether-applieables#ate r-egulatiens, and appl+eablef'edefal 1!egulatiens; and 24 , ineluding -- water, sewer-,staFm ••",.ester Rxi 26 • e-puqme of the review d 27 Use D,e is F «l, leeal gevming bedy to Foy ta- sueeess -In- implementing the - pelieies -and 28 pFegmms adepted in the plan and the effwiven ass e€ these pokie"n- achieving -the goals- of-the 29 planie= wshall ludo � •a e f the f Ile. ino 30 (A) Gensisten-, of ex :c.' °g land - use - and -devel rrentt^ Ate?;. ;end 31 Use Pl-8- pe�ie�es; 32 (BY-- Mepti eF' rningbody;; 33 (G) E eaey of suiTent "reliefes in efeating 'esifed- land - use - pattems- and - preteatingnateral 34 si�n,*.- 35 (d) Plan for- the Fut•• °. Future Land Use. This element of the plan is intended to guide the development and use of 36 land in- the planning jurisdietien in a manner that achieves its 'eies 37 affe t' b AgGs shall 1 be Used in making G A *A A m a. aeeisians. The plan fer the future iMudes the !eeal M Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 14 I nd use and evelopment polieies, and AftFe 1aPA use mW. the goals of the CAMA through 2 local government land use and development policies, including a future land use map. 3 (1) Land use and deyelopment geals dere d in the development of the 4 plan's goals- Policies. 5 (A) Community eeneer-ns -and 05piFfftiORS identified at the beginning ,.c.,. planning Fecess-, 6 and Concerns and Aspirations and Existing and Emerging Conditions shall be considered 7 in the development of local government land use plan policies as required in 7B .0702 fbl 8 and (c). 9 (B) Needs and eppei4l ties identified an the analysis ofe*isfing-and-emeFging-eand4t4ons.- 10 . 11 (A)(R) Policies inelud shall be consistent with the goals of the CAMA, 12 shall address the CRC management topics for land use plans, and comply with all state 13 and federal rules. The GAMA Land Use Plan shall demenstmte how the land use and 14 development goals, peheies and futen land use mp, as requimd in Subpaffigmph - (d)(4) 15 ef this Rule, will guide the development and use of land 'n he- pianning- jurisd-ietie1 1 16 manner that is eens' sten fit geal(s), p ring objeetive(syend 17 land use plan . 18 (D) Th e plan shall sentain a desefiptien of the #ype and e nalysis -ee feted -ten 19 det.,Fmi «e the hnpac4 of GAAAA Land Use Plan «elie:es ..« t1, e management 20 and the - land -use - plan- pelieies en -the 21 ms and preeesses-te 22 mitigate any negative impaets en applieable inanage ent tepies. 23 (C) ml 24 ' 25 exceed-th estate 26 and -Fed , 27 these -r equiFements and to what 9;aent. if the geywaingbody intends to mly o rFede-cai 28 and State laws and regulations it shall FefeFenese ese- in-the plan. Policies that exceed use 29 standards and permitting requirements found in Subchapter 7H. State Guidelines for 30 Areas of Environmental Concern, shall be identified in the plan. 31 (3U Land Use Plan Management Topics. The purposes of the CRC management topics are to insure 32 that GAMA Land Use Plans ensure that Iand use plans support the goals of the CAMA, to define 33 the CRC's expectations for the - land - use- plauningpreeese, land use policies, and to give the ERA a 34 substantive provide a basis for land use plan review and raeFfifirsation of CAMA Land Use Plans. 35 certification. atibiiity, 37 Ge «) ine t.,d three wmpenents; a management goal, statement of the GRG's «l.. 7 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 15 I e *cm ., and , u. is f the G A M A Land 7 f Plans; In addition to the management topics 2 outlined below, plans mgy also include policies to address local areas of concern. Each 3 management topic includes two components' a management goal and planning objectives. 4 (A) Public Access: 5 (i) Management Goal: Maximize public access to the beaches and the public trust 6 waters of the coastal region, 7 (ii) Planning ObjeWve -. Develep- sernprehenSive- pees- tlret- previde- beaeh--aad 8 publi6 tFus4 watef oeees s eppeA pities- €op4be-pub i" bereline within 9 tie - Planning jerisdistien- Objectives: Policies shall that address access needs 10 and opportunities, inalu a with strategies to develop public aeeess; and4den* 11 feasible funding eptiens access and provisions for all segments of the 12 community including persons with disabilities. Oceanfront communities shall 13 establish access policies for beach areas targeted for nourishment. 14 UW 15 ney and- type -of amess 16 blia s for-all 17 segments of the eammunity, bilities, -- nd--shall 18 establish -a^" ~:•"°:" f beaeb anas targeted- fa"eurishtrtent 19 (B) Land Use Compatibility: 20 (i) Management Goal: Ensure that development and use of resources or 21 preservation of land Est -at3 d seeendary eavifenmental impaets, 22 balance protection of natural resources and fragile areas with economic 23 development, avoids risks to public health, safety and welfare welfare, and is are 24 consistent with the capability of the land based - en- eensiderations- of interaetiens 25 of natar-al and . Land. 26 (ii) Planning Objeetive! Objectives: Policies that characterize future land use 27 development patterns and establish mitigation criteria and concepts to minimize 28 conflicts. 29 30 adevelep 31 (11) P ':es shall preyide direetien to assist 'eea: »eeisien-- rnakin"nd 32 eensistere fer- zonings divisieas of land, and-publie -and- private 33 projeets. 34 Land Use Plan Requi,.., ent.., 35 d density criteria, sael""eer ar$a ratio 36 and units per aere, eansistent with the4and suitability anatysis -fer eaeb 37 PT 8 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 16 1 e-may inWude; 2 but are net limited to the ien-- desiga- f 3 enaefing leeai buffi3m, impeFyieus surfaee limits, and innevative- 4 stermwata management altematives. 5 (C) Infrastructure Carrying Capacity: 6 (i) Management Goal: Ensure that public infrastructure systems are appropriately 7 sized, located and managed so the quality and productivity of AECs and other 8 fragile areas are protected or restored. 9 (ii) Planning es and f feria- A 107 inftastme4urze , iste ... with PaA (e)(3)(0) (Projeetiens d Needs) 11 ofe— Objectives: Policies that establish service criteria and ensure 12 improvements minimize impacts to AECs and other fragile areas. 13 (iii) Land Use Plan Requirements-; 14 R) ,denti fykatablish a ,rea — beunda m 15 Est 16 with existin"nd planned 17 ig€ewumfe —sueh as wastewater-, water- i astrdOtffe d 18 trenspertatien. 19 (D) Natural Hazard Areas. 20 (i) Management Goal: Conserve and maintain barrier dunes, beaches, flood plains, 21 and other coastal features for their natural storm protection functions and their 22 natural resources giving recognition to public health, safety, and welfare issues. 23 (ii) Planning Objeefive. Deyelep peliemes Objectives: Policies that establish 24 mitigation and adaptation concepts and criteria for development and 25 redevelopment, including_ public facilities, and that minimize threats to life, 26 property, and natural resources resulting from developmem leeatea in er 27 adja a erosion, high winds, storm 28 surge, flooding, or sea level rise. other natural hazards. 29 (iii) —ba . 30 (1) Develop ieeatien density, or-iter-ia F new, existing 31 development-- and -- Eedevelepmeet-- ineluding— public €arilities —and 32 inftas#uetwe so theA they Gan be#w -aveid er-wm . 33 i ned 34 . 35 (E) Water Quality: 36 (i) Management Goal: Maintain, protect and where possible enhance water quality 37 in all coastal wetlands, rivers, streams and estuaries. 0 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 17 I (ii) Planning eoastal,-�- planning 2 jufisdiotien - help ensure thz aired and 3 improved if impaired. Objectives: Policies that establish strategies and practices 4 to prevent or control nonpoint source pollution and maintain or improve water $ quality. 6 (ii;) Land Use Plan R-equiremenun- 7 0) Devise pelisies that help- prevent or eontFel- nonpoint seares diseharges g tit -net lip= the- WewiW, v-5-and term water) sueh as, 9 . pefvieus f " •.. its - d riparian real; 10 natural area buffers, 11 t -prot 12 shellfishing waters and restoring elosed er eonditienally - a used 13 shellfishing waters. 14 (F) Leeal Areas ef Ge �.... 15 (i)Management Geal: '-- t1 16 the eentex4 of land use planning. 17 (ii) Planning Objeetive: idea* and address leeal eeneems and issues, sush as 18 eultural and hister-ir. areas,, eeenemie development, downtown 19 20 (iii) Land- neemis and is ues-- far - he 21 development of goals, polieies and implemenwien - ategies-- Rtese- tr'a3` 22 ptie 23 (4)W Future land use map. Depict the policies for growth and 24 development, and the desired future patterns of land use and land development with consideration 25 given to natural system constraints and infrastructure . T' ' government - shall - inElude 26 saeh- eategeries -and Include designations with descriptions of land uses and development mare 27 required the -map - shall 28 the fellewiegi development. 29 (A) 14 digit hydr-olegieal units eneempessed by the p! 30 nd loeations planned for eenservation or open - spsee- aad - a dessriptien e€ 31 eempatible land uses - and -aeti itics 32 nd -lees ' nd- development witl3 desc�iptiegs -e the 33 following charaetefisties; 34 that are en ea in " eh area; 35 (i.) elver-a nsity and development ; and 36 (iia) inffastFaeturem required to -support planned development in eaeb area. 37 (D) areas in existing developed areas I- —in".." reservation, and e 10 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 18 I , and sewer-. 3 the i a land with »;sye 4 seal 5 g9VCiF3ii3 ent shall Ww to mitigate the mpaets. in additien, the plan shall 3REiude an estimate of the vest of-any 6 roommtmity fheilities or serviees that shall be ex4ended OF developed. The amount of land Hs -133es 7 shall be ealou+a d- areas alleeated-te- mriew 8 uses may not emeeed-prejeeted needs as delineated in D.,,.t )(3)(D) of this Rule (Pr-ojeetions of Future Land Needs)7 9 (e) Tools for Managing Development. This element of the plan pfoyiae a de . n o The pu^pr ose of this 10 element is to describe the management tools that and actions the local government seleets and the Retions to be 11 will use to implement the GAMA Land Use Plan land use plan. z: also ..`hides -a five -yea °ehed„le fer 12 impl 13 (1) Guide for land use decision - making. Describe the speei€fs role and the states of the land use plan 14 pelieies and policies, including the future land use plan map man. in local decisions regarding land 15 use and development. 16 (2) Existing development program. Describe the community's existing development management 17 program, including local ordinances, codes, lams and policies; - state - -and --find 18 regula e-plaw 19 This desuiption shall alse inelade the eammuniWs appmaeli te oeoFdinatitt these so es and -rules 20 policies. 21 (3) A d 22 teal . 23 (A) Or- di�aaees 24 c, Amendment ., ust.. ent in existing a°.,°lepment- eo des- required -for 25 Sonsistell6y with the plan; 26 ; 27 reveme graded or expanded -sen mum f i •ties 28 as-b , and othe-F 29 n rarity aailiue, 30 rights of way; and 31 (D)--- Speei€e- pxejeem te r-eaeh goals: 32 (4)W Action plaWsehedule: plan and implementation schedule. Describe the priority actions that will be 33 taken by the local government to implement policies that 34 meet the CRC's Management Topic goals and objectives. Specify the fiscal year(s) in which each 35 action is anticipated to start and finish. Describe the 36 specific steps that the local government plans to take to ....°,,.':•e the - �•�,ablie -ia-m Flitering 37 implemenWien efthe GAMA Land Use implement the policies, including the adoption and 11 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 19 I amendment of local or-dinanees that °ffi°` AEG97 ordinances, plans. and special projects. The 2 action plan shall be used to prepare the implementation status report for the GAMA Land 3 Plan. land use plan. 4 History Note: Authority G.S. 113A -102; 113A- 107(a); 113A -110, 113A -111, 113A -124; 6 E, . August 1, 2002; 7 Amended E, . January 1, 2016: April 1, 2003. 12 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SECTION .0800 — GAMA LAND USE PLAN AND AMENDMENT REVIEW AND ERE CERTIFICATION 15A NCAC 07B .0801 is proposed for adoption as follows: 15A NCAC 0711.0801 STATE REVIEW AND COMMENT ON DRAFT PLAN Procedure for Agency Review and Comment. The Division shall review all draft land use plans for consistency with the CRC's requirements for Iand use plans prior to local adoption The Division shall ro ovide notice to the CRC other State and Federal Agencies and adjacent jurisdictions (including non -CAMA areas and if applicable, out of state areas) that the plan is available for review and comment. The review period shall be 30 calendar days. After the review period ends comments shall be provided to the local government within 45 calendar days. History Note: Authority G.S. 113A -112: 113A -124. ffective date: January 1. 2016 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 21 I 15A NCAC 07B .0801 is proposed for amendment as follows: 2 3 15A NCAC 07B.080-1- 0802 PUBLIC BEARING AND LOCAL ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS 4 (a) --gu shall tier- te4)GM4haHthas followed 5 seeh e 6 epp 7 (a) Notice of Public Hearing The local government shall provide the Secretary or his designee written notice of the 8 public hearing for local adoption and a copy of the proposed land use plan or amendment no less than five business 9 days prior to publication of a public hearing notice The public hearing notice shall include, per 713 .0803(a)(2). 10 disclosure of the public's opportunity to provide written comment to the Secretary following local adoption of the 11 land use plan. 12 (b) Final Plan Content. The final deeis en en leeal pelicies and all eentents of the GAMA Land Use Plan eensistwt 13 with the C"""" ' °nos land use plan or amendment shall be made adopted by the elected body of 14 each participating local government. 15 (c) Transmittal to the GR& Division for Certifiction. The local government shall provide the Executive Secretary 16 of the CRC-#kh-�any-eepiesW or his designee the locally adopted land use plan -as-tM e Exeeutiye Seeretary 17 ftjuesv�,wd plan• a certified statement of the local government adoption action He than 45 days and no lateF 18 than '^ dW pFiOF to the -ne *t CRG meeting. if the leral goveFament fails te 9 bmit the requested eepies of e 19 { ' the 20 leeel gever 21 meeting. action and documentation that it has followed the public hearing process required in G.S. 113A -110. 22 23 History Note: Authority G.S. 113A- 107(a); 113A -110; 113A -124; 24 E, . August 1, 2002. 25 Amended Eff. January 1. 2016: January 1, 2007; February 1, 2006 26 27 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 22 I 15A NCAC 07B .0802 is proposed for amendment as follows: 2 3 15A NCAC 07B .0803.0803 PRESENTATION TO GOASTAL RESOURCES GOMMISSION FOR 4 CERTIFICATION AND USE OF THE PLAN 5 (a) Re GeM fieation. if the GRG adepts new GAMA Land Use Plan rules, plans shall be up d- within sl*years of 6 , 7 . 8 (b)(g) ncenimittee Designated by GRG to Review i eeal Secretary Certification of Land Use Plans: Plans and 9 Amendments: 10 (1) The apprepr+ate DGM. Division District Planner shall submit a written report to the eemmittee 11 d es 12 then 13 , d 14 ei4ifleatien, eenditienal eefti eeFfifiratien. Secretary on the locally 15 adopted land use plan or amendment and either recommend certification or identify how the plan 16 or amendment does not meet the procedures and conditions for certification. 17 (2) T*"eeal govemment shall submit tee- designated- by-the 18 GRG: 19 (3}J2) The public shall have an opportunity to submit written objectiens, eemmen`s, or stakownts of 20 . objections or comments on the 21 locally adopted land use plan or amendment prior to action by the Secretary. Written objections 22 shall be received by DGM no less than 15 business days prior to the nex4 seheduled GAM-A 1 23 Use Plan Feview meeting — the Division no more than 30 calendar days after local adoption of 24 the land use plan or amendment, shall be limited to the criteria for GRG certification as defined in 25 Subparagraph (e)(3) Ca)Q3) of this Rule, and shall identify the specific 26 plan elements that are opposed. A eapy of any Written objections or comments shall be sent by 27 the BGM Division to the local government submitting the GAMA Land Use Plan. ,lend use plan or 28 amendment. Written oboections shall be considered in the certification of the local land use plan or 29 amendment. 30 (4)(D The lveal ..., °«. meat ithdF w the G A M A Land Use Plan 1....... GRG CT7\ J I -n . a b... v........... may � ISn7--cti�i'� IU�JC"'�- lar�Irvrrf"'Gicc 31 eensidemtiien at any time bee m °vie . The Secretary shall certify land use plans and 32 amendments following the procedures and conditions specified in this Rule. The Secretary shall 33 certify plans and amendments which: 34 (A) are consistent with the current federally approved North Carolina Coastal Management 35 Program: 36 (B) are consistent with the Rules of the CRC: 37 (C) do not violate state or federal law: and 38 (D) contain policies that address each Management Topic. Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 23 I U If the land use plan or amendment does not meet certification requirements the Secretary shall 2 within 45 calendar d4ys inform the local govemment how th S plan or amendment does not meet 3 the procedures and conditions for certification. 4 (b) Copies of the Plan Within 90 calendar days of certification of the land use plan or an amendment the local 5 government shall provide one printed and one digital copy of the land use plan to the Division Amendments shall 6 be incorporated in all copies of the plan The dates of local adoption certification. and amendments shall be 7 published on the cover. 8 (c) Use of the Plan Once certified the land use plan shall be utilized in the review of CAMA permits in 9 accordance with G.S. 113A -111. Local governments shall have the o tion to exercise their enforcement 10 responsibility by choosing from the following: 11 (1) Local administration The local government reviews CAMA permits for consistency with the land 12 use plan. 13 (2) Joint administration The local government identifies policies. including the future land use map 14 and implementation actions that will be used by the Division for CAMA permit consistency 15 reviews. 16 (3) Division administration The Division reviews CAMA permits for consistency with the land use 17 plan policies including the future land use map and implementation actions. 18 (d) Plan updates and Amendments Local governments shall determine the scope timing and frequency of plan 19 updates and amendments. 20 (e) GRG Geftifieu _ 21 d 1 T Plan fbilewing the preeedures and eendifiens 22 speeified- in- this -Rule. 23 (.2) Provided earlier 24 shall een€y� 25 pendate -the 26 GRc faija to take ae4ion as speeified above 4he plan shall be eertified. 28 gem t 29 pfegaffi; 30 istent with e-- Rele&e€4he GR-G 31 32 (D) eentain pel-ieies that address-eaeb Management Tepie, lfn- a leeargevetament ea net-meet 33 any GAMA Land Use Plan requirement eenlained within Paragraphs (d) and (e) of 15A 34 of the analysis that w mde lek 35 explain the r-easen(s) the require. ould not be me� and the leGal governmen 36 aeb 37 deseript FeH( net i 1 d d die plan .. A hall net be eetif:ed...�, r 2 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 lien that emenstmW that pekey` statements and the Future Land Use Plan Map (FL UP) roi wwm been evsaluatedrand (d) Nen GeAifieatien; if the plan -9 net eerfified the GRG shall within 30 days infafm the leeal enemas to hew the plan might be ehanged so eerfification ean be gran*d. Until the plan is seftified, the re existing eerti€ed GAMA Land Use Plan shall remain in effeet. {e} -Eer d .e , the GRG shall within 30 days provide the losal gever-nment with coondifie (s) that shall be met fer aeffifleatien. Until the eendWen(s) is met n a- seeditionall eeffified plan, the pre exisfing ewfified GAMA Land Use PI—en shall ve-main in effeet. When the Beal-gevertifflent eamplles with all eon ens- der- a- eend+tienally-ee Ftified plan, as deteFmined by the Emeeutive Seemtafy of the GRq History Note: Authority G.S. 113A- 107(a); 113A -110; 113 -111; 113A -124; Efj.. August 1, 2002. Amended Ef. .. January 1. 2016: April 1, 2008; September 1, 2006. J Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 25 2 15A NCAC 078 .0804 is proposed for adoption as follows: 15A NCAC 0711.0804 REQUIRED PERIODIC IMPLENTATION STATUS REPORTS 4 (a,) Jurisdictions with a locally adopted and certified land use plan shall submit an Implementation Status Report 5 every two years from the date of initial certification. This report shall be based on implementation actions that meet 6 the CRC's Management Topic goals and objectives as indicated in the action plan. The Implementation Status 7 Report shall also identify: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (1,) All local, state, federal and joint actions that have been undertaken successfully to implement its certified land use plan: Q) Any actions that have been delayed and the reasons for the delays,• (3) Any unforeseen land use issues that have arisen since certification of the land use plan: and (4) Consistency of existing land use and development ordinances with current land use plan policies. History Note: AuthorLty G,5. 113A -112: 113A -124: Eff. Januaa 1. 2016 Board of Commissioners - January 19, 2016 ITEM: 10- 5 - 26