20070291 Ver 4_More Info Received_20081106

A!SLMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.
`:aw Environmental Consultants
November 4, 2008
TO: Mr. Ian McMillan
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: King's Bluff Pump Station; DWQ Project # 07-0291 V er
Bladen County, NC
Dear Mr. McMillan:
g' A I .
Thank you for your letter dated October 13'', 2008 regarding the 401 Water Quality
Certification application submitted for the King's Bluff Pump Station project located in Bladen
County, NC. As requested, we have enclosed five additional copies of the application as well as an
application fee of $240.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you for your assistance with
this project.
Sincerelyz
W
.,
- A-?
Ki-m--Williams
Wetland Scientist
Encl.
fl ,? ?' w
L
i?IOV ? 2s!?8
DENS ° YyA:i ER. s, LEh FiR?NCH
YdE?IANDS AND STDC??,.
C: Mr. Don Betz, Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
Mr. Tony Boahn, McKim & Creed
Mr. Ken Averitte, DWQ
Mr. Ronnie Smith, ACOE
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 9 P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
July 18, 2008
TO: Mr. Ronnie Smith
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: NWP 12 Application; King's Bluff Pump Station
Bladen County, NC
Dear Ronnie:
Enclosed is a NWP 12 application for your review. This application is submitted on behalf of the
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority for the installation of a 60-inch water intake pipe at the
existing King's Bluff Pump Station in Bladen County, NC. This pipe is part of a capacity upgrade at the
pump station to account for increased water demands resulting from recent population growth in coastal
North Carolina. The intake pipe will be approximately 1,100 LF in length and will extend from the Cape
Fear River to the pump station. Approximately 800 LF of piping will traverse wetlands with a 40' wide
construction corridor, resulting in approximately 0.721 acres of temporary wetland impacts. In addition,
approximately 0.222 acre of open water within the Cape Fear River will be temporarily impacted. The
applicant plans to maintain a 10' corridor. To mitigate for these impacts, the applicant will buy into the NC
EEP for 0.25 acre of riparian wetland restoration and place a portion of wetlands located on site into
preservation.
The Pre-Construction Notification form, associated maps, and site plan are enclosed for your
review. In addition, a copy of the project's draft Environmental Assessment is enclosed. This EA has
undergone initial review by state agencies. Several agencies provided comments and Emily McArthur with
McKim and Creed has responded to these comments. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank
you for your assistance with this project.
Sincerely, J
Kim Williams
Wetland Scientist
Encl.
C: Mr. Don Betz, Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (w/o EA)
Ms. Emily McArthur, McKim & Creed (w/o EA)
Mr. Ken Averitte, DWQ (w/o EA)
Mr. Ian McMillan, DWQ
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] o Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 9 P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
Office Use Only: Fonn Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. D"(- O ag k V4
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing PA I
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
® Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide 12
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ? 'Jig
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
I'f
Name: Mr. Don Betz -wrrFR.QO'zE
y?'l
Mailing Address: Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority 1ETUINDSANDs
1107 New Pointe Blvd. Suite 17
Leland, NC 28451
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: N/A
E-mail Address: N/A
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kim Williams
Company Affiliation: Land Management, Group, Inc
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Telephone Number: 910-452-0001 Fax Number: 910-452-0060
E-mail Address: kwilliamsglmg-rouj.net
Updated 11/1/2005
Pagel of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Kings Bluff Pump Station Expansion
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Bladen Nearest Town: Riegelwood
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): n/a
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The project is located at
Lock and Dam #1 in Bladen County NC. From Wilmington take US 74 W towards
Brunswick County. US 74 will merge with NC 87. Take a right and head North on NC 87
where 74/87 splits. Take a right onto Lock Number 1 Road in Bladen County. Veer left at
the end of this road. Property will be straight ahead at 246 Private Road.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.40409 N, 78.2965 W
6. Property size (acres): approx. 6.8 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Cape Fear River
River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http//h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/ma)/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site currently houses the King's Bluff Pump Station
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 8
with three (3) raw water pumps and one 48-inch pipe that extends from the pumping station
to the Cape Fear River. Land use in the vicinity is largely agricultural or undeveloped.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
ap lips cant plans to install a 60-inch parallel intake pipe originating at the pumping facility and
ending in the Cape Fear River. The intake pipe will be approximately 1,100 linear ft.
Approximately 800ft of piping will traverse on-site wetlands with a 40 ft construction
corridor, resulting in approximately 0.721 acres of temporary wetland impacts. A track hoe
and bulldozer will be used to create the installation area and then restore to existing grade.
Silt fences will be used to reduce erosion into adjacent wetlands and the Cape Fear River.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The additional pipe is part of a capacity upgrade
at King's Bluff Pumping Station to account for increased water demands resulting from
recent population growth in Coastal North Carolina.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information: Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. The 404 wetland line was delineated by Land Management Group, Inc.
in August 2006. Liz Hair of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers field approved the wetland line.
In October of 2007, the applicant received a NWP 18/33 to temporarily impact 0.075 acre of 404
wetlands to install a sediment trap and permanently impact 0.070 acre of 404 wetlands for
grading associated with the expansion of a building (Action ID# SAW-2006-41503).
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional wetland impacts are anticipated on this site.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 8
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
The applicant proposes to temporarily impact 0.721 acre of 404 wetlands and 0.222 acre of open
water for initial construction of water intake pipeline. The applicant has already temporarily
impacted 0.075 acre of wetlands and permanently impacted 0.070 acre of wetlands.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
senarately list imnacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year
Floodplain Nearest
Stream Impact
(acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)
1 Excavation/Fill (Temp) forested yes 0-900 ft 0.721

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.721
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: approx. 5.4 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must he included- To calculate acreage. multinlv length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill- excavation- dredging- flooding- drainage. bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact Name Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number applicable) e)
(if ap Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on map) ocean, etc.) (acres)
I Cape Fear River Excavation/ fill (temp) River 0.222

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.222
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 4 of 8
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.866
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.222
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 1.088
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation N/A
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The temnorarv wetland and oven water impacts are necessarv to access the Cage Fear River for water
intake purposes. After the pipe has been installed, the area will be returned to natural grade and all but a
10' wide maintenance corridor will be allowed to re-vegetate. The construction corridor has been
minimized to 40' in width to reduce initial wetland impacts. The intake pipe was designed to be
constructed on the opposite side of the walkway from the existing pipe for several reasons. First, both the
existing and the proposed intake pipes are very large and if the proposed intake pipe was placed in the
previously cleared corridor, it would have to cross the existing intake to enter the wetwell (based on the
wetwell expansion project that has already started and will be complete in November 2008). This crossing
would have to be very deep and would not enable both pipes to enter the wetwell and still maintain the
necessary slope for the water to enter the wetwell by gravity. Secondly, the Kings Bluff Expansion
Project is well underway and the wetwell expansion is directly inline with the proposed intake pipe route.
Therefore, the proposed design is the only feasible alternative.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 8
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htt-D://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/iicwetlands/stii-nizide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
To mitigate for the 10' wide maintained corridor (approximately 0.18 ac) the applicant
proposes to buy into the NCEEP for the restoration of 0.25 acre of riparian wetlands. In
addition, a section of remaining wetlands on site will be preserved. The applicant is currently
in the process of determining the location and amount of these wetlands.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): n/a
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 8
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.25
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Impact Required
Zone* r__, Multiplier AX:] :
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Updated 11/1,12005
Page 7 of 8
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
XI.
XII.
Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed project will not result in increased
impervious surface coverage A stormwater plan is not required.
Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
There will be no additional wastewater resulting from the proposed project.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project will not provide access to other tracts. The applicant proposes to preserve a section
of remaining wetlands on site
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
Applicant/Ajg_ent"s Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

-IM/J y'
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 8
-/2006 13:30 9104520060 LANDMANAGEMENT PAGE 03/03
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I/we, the undersigned, hereby authorize Land Management Group, Inc. to act as our agent in the
determination of jurisdictional wetland boundaries on the subject property, Icings Bluff Pump
Station Expansion in Bladen County, NC. By way of this form, I/we additionally authorize
access to the site by representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or the NC Division
of Coastal Management for the purpose of reviewing the flagged wetland boundary and
providing a final jurisdictional determination. Any questions regarding the jurisdictional wetland
determination should be directed to Land Management Group, Inc.
Please provide the following information:
Property Address and Parcel ID Number: 246 Private Rd.. Riegelwood, NC 28456
Current Property Owner Name: Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority
Owner Address & Phone Number: 1 1 07 New Pointe Blvd. Suite 17
Leland, North Carolina 28451
910-383-1919
Please circle Yes or No for the following -questions:
I/We are the current owners: ''des No
I/We are under contract to purchase the subject property: Yes
We are under option to purchase the subject property: Yes
I/We have no legal interest in subject property: Yes No
(i.e. speculative request - NOTE: Site access will be restricted without notice/authorization by
current owner)
Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority Don Betz
O'er's Name
gnature
(not required if under contract or under option)
July 24, 2006
Date
Print Applicant's Name
/Z -b
A?Applic?an???
Signature
Executive Director
July 24, 2006
Date
Point- _ L . ?i K??p? „?, ar. }? ?%
Zara °' /c, ._.. y • y.
_41" A
SITE 4- 4
4
-4. 06
X64 ?. r ?, t O ?? `
49t. 0&
IFAW
87
R
d
*Boundaries are approximate and are SITE
not meant to be absolute
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer. Pg 83.2003
SCALE 1" = 1 Mile
King's Bluff Pump Station
Bladen County, NC
40-06-477W
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP inc.
Environmental Consultants
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Bouiidam,.s ?iw appjoxw,,If? -jr)d ate?SJIF
riot meant to he ahsolole
Map Source: Kelly Quadrangle 7.5 minute (topographic) 1990. SCALE 1" = 1000'
King's Bluff Pump Station 1 4 LMG Figure 2
Bladen County, NC LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP mc
USGS Topgraphic Map
40-06-477W Environmental Consultants

Boundaries are approximate and are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: NRCS Soil Survey.
King's Bluff Pump Station
Bladen County, NC
40-06-477W
SITE
?11?,LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.
Environmento( Consultants
SCALE 1" = 300'
Figure 3
Soils Map
*Boundaries are approximate and are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 1998 NAPP aerial photography
SITE
SCALE 1" = 300'
King's Bluff Pump Station 1 4 LMG Figure 4
Bladen County, NC LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP idu Aerial Photograph
40-06-477W Environmental Consultants

1.3

J t?
5 c0
L
Co

CN r

a) N

/r

N
N S (x: ? / rJ (y rj

u r n

o
O
?
^ I N

o j)
a
co
Go
v o
C G
CL3 c G a) 04
i Q
i r G U)
U)
1C1 ,
CL. v
5
k: 5A G
(
I
4
=` Fx cs ?
d" a)
O t1
d G
v + 0 0
CJ O
\J 11 ui
$ -
,, 7 ?::..... :,.._..._.... ._ ?
l
1 4?
i
J i ?Y
J ? s
I'
r...
1 ? •v i
I i't
C`)
U
O
N
+ a.
v
O
O
+
O
N
+
LAJ
C_) > n._ C)
- -
o r
EL c-,
?
+ F-
..
v)fYCl Ld 1
Q j.-- <
CD t J_I -) F- LL
t.A... - C7 <
r.
- i
-
..
+ CL t.A..l
n cn
4. .AJ WUO

O L, [? lI? ±, %.J
+ L.A.- W -> CD
o s:...1
- n
n-1.1
LLJ

rx,
U (7

O

0
m

?.P
m L7,

W cC
c LIJ
n LU

w

h
0
n
] N
? ^ m
h 1
1
m
^
W
N
rte, N
1
^'
1
1(
_
1'/1
m
r av
N 0
p
V N
l am
o
O
> VU °
u
' . O 0 O o
O W
?ZO I
0 O?v
z c°u e E
1 Na s

o I
co stem
PROGRAM
July 23, 2008
Don Betz
LCFWSA
1107 New Pointe Blvd. Suite 17
Leland, NC 28451
Project: Kings Bluff Pump Station
County: Bladen
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.neeep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
tahle.
River CU Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer II
Basin Location (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impacts Cape 03030005 0 0 0 0.721 0 0 0 0
Fear
Credits Cape 03030005 0 0 0 1.442 0 0 0 0
Fear
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone].
Sincerely,
Expiration of Acceptance: January 23, 2009
1?f? ai;--w ??
William . Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Ronnie Smith, USACE-Wilmington
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ-Fayetteville
Kim Williams, agent
File
RmtDYU?... E ... PYDt2Gt, our State NHCAENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
IN

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
LOWER CAFE FEAR WAFER AND
SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH PARALLEL RAW WATER INTAKE PIPE
AND SCREEN PROJECT
Prepared for
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Authorized by
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
Prepared by
4- P
1 U,
243 North Front Street L
Wilmington NC 28401
M&C Project Number 01575-0021
Revised December 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KING'S BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH PARALLEL RAW WATER INTAKE PIPE
AND SCREEN PROJECT
Lead State Agency
Public Water Supply
Engineer Contact
McKim & Creed, PA
243 N. Front St
Wilmington NC 28401
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Owner Contact
Don Betz, Executive Director
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
Post Office Box 1673
Wilmington, NC 28402
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
donglcfwasa.or,
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
60-Inch Parallel Raw Water Intake Pipe and Screen Project
Table of Contents
SECTION 1- PURPOSE AND NEED OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................... 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 NEED AND PURPOSE OF PROJECT ............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 PROJECT SERVICE AREA SUMMARY DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 5
1.4 PROJECT SITE PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 6
SECTION 2 - ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 6
2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OF A RAW WATER INTAKE CANAL ..................................................... 7
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OF A PARALLEL RAW WATER INTAKE PIPE AND SCREEN STRUCTURE
(RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE) ............ ........................................................................................ 9
2.4 MATRIX COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 13
SECTION 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................ 14
3.1 LAND USE/IMPORTANT FARMLAND/FORMALLY CLASSIFIED LANDS ..................................................... 14
3.1.1 General Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.21mportant Farmland .................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.3Formally Classified Lands ........................................................................................................... 17
3.2 SURFACE WATERS .................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 WETLANDS ............................................................................................................................................ 20
3.3.1Affeeted Environment .................................................................................................................. 20
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Mitiga ti on .................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 23
3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 23
3.4.2Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................... 23
3.4.3 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 23
3.5.1Affeeted Environment .................................................................................................................. 23
3.5.2Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................... 24
3.5.3 Mi tiga ti on ................................................................................................................................... .25
3.6 WATER QUALITY ISSUES ........................................................................................................................ 26
3.6.1Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. .26
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE I NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF PUMP STATION PARALLEL RAW WATER INTAKE
SECTION 1- PURPOSE AND NEED OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the Lower Cape Fear Water and
Sewer Authority's (Authority) Kings Bluff Raw Water Pump Station Parallel Raw Water Intake
project to provide the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
associated agencies with information to assist in reaching a decision on whether this project will
have an impact on the environment sufficient to cause the State of North Carolina to require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. If an EIS is not
warranted, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued.
The Authority is a regional provider of raw water to the Lower Cape Fear region that is
comprised of 6 member governments that include the City of Wilmington, Brunswick County,
New Hanover County, Pender County, Columbus County, and Bladen County. The Authority
is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors appointed by each member government, of
which several are active customers of the raw water system.
The project will involve the construction of a 60-inch raw water intake pipe and screens to serve
the Authority's Kings Bluff Raw Water Pump Station. The Kings Bluff facility is located in
Bladen County immediately upstream of Lock & Dam No. 1 on the Cape Fear River. The
proposed 60" raw water intake pipe will parallel the existing 48" raw water intake pipe
currently serving the Kings Bluff facility to provide additional raw water capacity to meet
projected customer demands.
The basis of this EA is to provide an update to the 1973 Environmental Assessment (1973 EA)
prepared for the original Kings Bluff Raw Water Pump Station project. This document
evaluated both the initial construction of the Kings Bluff Pumping Station as well as long-term
projections of raw water demands that would be required at this location. The initial project
involved the construction of the Kings Bluff facility with a 48" raw water intake pipe and
screens. This facility, currently in operation today, is rated at 45 million gallons per day (MGD).
The 1973 EA projected a year 2020 raw water demand of approximately 90 MGD. As detailed
in this document, projections of raw water demand for Authority customers are approximately
80 MGD by 2020, which are generally consistent with the findings of the 1973 EA. A copy of
this document is provided in Exhibit 16.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 1
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 2007
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
As a regional provider for raw water, the Authority must be proactive in planning and
implementation of infrastructure improvements necessary to meet customer demands. The
proposed project represents such a proactive approach and is necessary for the Authority to
continue its role as a regional raw water supplier by meeting the projected demands of its
customers. The purpose of this project is to provide the Authority with additional raw water
capacity at the Kings Bluff facility for conveyance to its current and future customers.
The need for the proposed project is based upon current and future raw water demands to
serve Authority customers. As noted in Section 1.1, the Authority has 4 current customers that
include the City of Wilmington and Brunswick County as well as 2 private industries located on
US 421 in New Hanover County. The Authority will continue to provide raw water for these
customers' long-term needs (Exhibit 3 provides copies of current Water Supply Agreements
with Authority customers). Additionally, Pender County and the Authority have recently
executed an agreement for raw water supply for a new water treatment facility to be
constructed in Pender County. The new water treatment facility will have an initial capacity of
2 MGD; however, long-term projections indicate that up to 12 MGD will be required by the year
2030. A summary of projected raw water demands provided by Authority customers and
Pender County is provided in Table 1 as follows:
TABLE 1 - PROJECTED RAW WATER DEMAND

Customer Current
Demand
(MGD) 2010
Demands
(MGD) 2015
Demands
(MGD) 2020
Demands
(MGD) 2025
Demands
(MGD) 2030
Demands
(MGD)
City of Wilmington 15 17.9 27.1 29.9 33.2 36.9
Brunswick Count 24 28 34 38 42 43
Invista 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Praxair 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Pender County 0 2 5 7.2 9.2 12
Totals 43.2 52.07 70.27 79.27 88.57 96.07
As noted in Table 1, the current average daily demand for the Kings Bluff facility is
approximately 43 MGD, or 96% of the facilities 45 MGD capacity. Additionally, it is noted that
by 2010, the demand will be approximately 52 MGD and will exceed the current capacity of
Kings Bluff facility. Therefore, the need for this project is as follows:
The Authority serves a vital role in the Lower Cape Fear region as a provider
of raw water to Brunswick County's Northwest Water Plant, the City of
Wilmington's Sweeney Water Plant and two industrial customers located on
US 421 in New Hanover County. The Authority has long-term agreements
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
1.3 Project Service Area Summary Description
For the purposes of this report, the Project Service Area (PSA) has been delineated into two
areas:
General PSA - This represents the basic boundary of the service area for the Authority's
customers, which includes Brunswick County, the City of Wilmington, and 2 industries located
on US 421 in New Hanover County. Additionally, Pender County has been included in the
General PSA per the current agreement with the Authority for future raw water supply. Exhibit
2 provides a map of the General PSA.
Specific PSA - This represents the area confined to the proposed project, which entails the
construction of 60" parallel intake pipe and screens (See Exhibit 1). As will be presented in this
document, environmental impacts, mitigation, and secondary/cumulative impacts will be
addressed based on the Specific PSA and not the General PSA. The justification for this
delineation is based on the following:
• The Authority is only a provider of raw water. Customers purchase raw water from the
Authority, provide treatment, and then deliver to their customers. The Authority does
not own, operate or maintain the treatment or distribution systems. The delivery of raw
water has no impact to the General PSA. The treated water and distribution systems
owned by Authority customers are the drivers for system expansion and potential
environmental impacts.
• Expansions of treated water capacity at the customer owned water plants may require an
EA to address environmental impacts and secondary/cumulative impacts in their
respective service areas. The Authority does not retain control or governing power over
its customers or their infrastructure and due to this constraint will not be able to assess
impacts associated with such expansions or improvements.
• Specific to secondary and cumulative impacts, common mitigation measures such as
comprehensive land use/zoning plans, stormwater management, and conservation
measures are adopted and enforced by the respective governments. The Authority does
not have jurisdiction or control over the development, implementation, or enforcement of
such measures for these governments.
• As an example, the City of Wilmington's Sweeney Water Plant is currently in the
preliminary stages of a capacity expansion of the facility. As part of the expansion, the
City is preparing an EA, which addresses the appropriate quantity of raw water supply
to be purchased from the Authority. Therefore, all impacts associated with the City's
area of the General PSA will be evaluated specifically in their EA document and not by
the Authority. Similarly, if Brunswick County were to choose to expand their Northwest
Water Treatment Plant, Brunswick County would be required to prepare an EA to
address environmental impacts in the service area of this facility and not the Authority.
• Another example is the proposed Pender County 2 MGD Water Plant for which the
Authority will be the raw water provider. Pender County has applied for funding of this
-.facility through USDA Rural Development. As required by USDA, the County has
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
Each alternative is described in detail as follows:
2.1 Alternative 1- No Action
A "No Action" alternative was evaluated for feasibility. Based on Table 1 of this report, the
projected raw water demands for the Kings Bluff facility are approximately 52 MGD in 2010.
This will exceed the facility's current capacity of 45 MGD. Additionally, long-term projections
indicate that raw water demands will approach 96 MGD by 2030. Without additional raw water
intake capacity the Authority will not be able to meet the needs of its customers. Therefore, the
"No Action" alternative was deemed not feasible and is not recommended.
2.2 Alternative 2 - Construction of a Raw Water Intake Canal
Given the proximity of the Kings Bluff facility to the Cape Fear River (approximately 1,000 feet)
it is possible to excavate a permanent canal from the river bank near the base of the Kings Bluff
facility. The canal would generally parallel the existing 48" raw water intake pipe and provide
a source of additional raw water capacity. The dimensions of the canal would be approximately
45 feet (W) x 900 feet (L) x 6 feet (D) and would be constructed entirely through existing
wetlands.
A constructed intake assembly would be required at the discharge end of the canal, including a
cast-in-place structure with a mechanical screening mechanism. Approximate dimensions of the
structure would be 40' (W) x 25' (L) x 10' (D). Based on wetlands delineations of the project
site, the location of the structure would have a direct and permanent impact to existing
wetlands. New piping from this structure would be connected directly to the Kings Bluff
facility wetwell for conveyance of raw water from the canal to pumping station. Exhibit 4
provides a schematic of Alternative No. 2.
A. Regulatory Issues
Consultations with regulatory agencies yielded that the construction of a canal, because of
the permanent impacts to wetlands, forested wetlands, and potential wildlife habitat would
provide a number of obstacles with respect to permitting. In addition to the permanent
wetland impacts, the canal would require routine dredging with approximate 20-30 buffers
on each side of the canal for a maintenance corridor. Comparatively, the recommended
Alternative No. 3 requires minimal permanent impacts to wetlands and habitat and requires
no external maintenance that would have temporary impacts to the surrounding area. The
majority of impacts would be temporary in nature and experienced during construction. It is
anticipated that regulatory approvals may be difficult to obtain. Therefore, an excavated
canal was determined not to be the most advantageous alternative for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 7 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
Description Cost
Contingency $114,500
Total Construction $1,259,500
Technical & Permitting Fees $151,140
Total Opinion of Probable Cost $1,410,640
D. Alternative No. 2 Summary
Alternative No. 2 entails the construction of an excavated canal with cast-in-place concrete
intake structure to provide additional raw water to the Kings Bluff raw water pump station.
This alternative would require temporary impacts during construction as well as one acre of
permanent impacts to forested wetlands and wildlife habitat. Regulatory obstacles for
permitting of such a canal are expected to be considerable and estimated costs for this option
are higher than the recommended Alternative No. 3. Therefore, Alternative No. 2 is not
recommended.
2.3 Alternative 3 - Construction of a Parallel Raw Water Intake Pipe and Screen Structure.
(Recommended Alternative)
This alternative would involve the installation of a new raw intake pipe and screens to
provide the additional raw water capacity to the Kings Bluff facility. This alternative would
involve three wedge-wire type intake screens installed in the Cape Fear River. Raw water
would flow from the river, through the screens, and to the Kings Bluff facility through the
new intake pipe. The new intake pipe and screens would be installed parallel and adjacent to
the existing 48" raw water intake and screens that serve the facility currently (See Exhibit 5).
Alternatives evaluated for feasibility are as follows:
1. Pipe Size
2. Pipe Location Determination & Material
3. Intake Screen Requirements
Pipe Size Analysis
To determine the required pipe diameter, the capacity of the existing 48-inch was used as a
basis for comparison for the parallel intake pipe. Commercially available pipe sizes in the
range of 54" through 72" were examined in order to provide the required capacity and
maintain economic feasibility of the project. For the purposes of this report, it was assumed
that the 48-inch would provide the current 45 MGD design capacity and the parallel pipe
would supplement that capacity to provide a minimum of 100 MGD. The following table
summarizes the capacities that would be available for the respective pipe diameters.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 9 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
pipe has been in operation for over 20-years and recent inspections of this pipeline indicate it
to be in good condition and working well within the environment that it is installed.
Intake Screen Requirements
A screened intake structure will be required to remove sediment, sand, and debris from the
raw river water prior to pumping. For the purposes of this report, the intake screen structures
evaluated for each alternative were based on screens manufactured by Johnson Screens. It is
recommended that three (3) 27.5 MGD screens be provided for this project. The screen sizing,
along with the proposed 60-inch intake pipe, will provide the requisite raw water demand to
the Kings Bluff facility. An air backwash system will also be provided in order to remove the
sand and sediment that will accumulate on the screen surface. This configuration is a mirror
image of the current intake and screen facility which utilizes three (3) 15 MGD Johnson Screens
for raw water intake and a 48-inch pipe to deliver raw water to the Kings Bluff facility. An
air backwash facility currently exists for the 48-inch intake screens and would require minor
modifications for increased size and volume to clean the proposed new screens. Exhibit 5A
provides a detail of the existing and proposed intake screen structures for this project.
A recent concern with regard to Lock & Dam No. 1 has been the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) consideration of removal of the Lock & Dam. This was originally investigated due
to environmental concerns for the endangered Shortnose Sturgeon that utilize the
surrounding area as a habitat and occasionally swim upstream to spawn. The USACE
investigated alternatives associated with the removal of the dams, which was detailed in their
report titled the Wilmington Harbor, 96 Act General Re-Evaluation Report (GRR) for
relocating Turning Basin and Remaining Mitigation Features (GRR). Exhibit 6 provides
excerpts of Table 3.5.1.A of this report which notes that the use of a Rock Ramp downstream
of Lock and Dam No. 1 is the best alternative for lowering potential impacts to the
endangered Shortnose Sturgeon. Section 3.5.3.4 of the report addressed removal of the dam
to allow for fish passage; however, this alternative was found to have significant adverse
impacts on the availability of water withdrawal at Lock & Dam No. 1 and subsequently the
Kings Bluff pumping facility. Therefore, removal of the Lock & Dam was eliminated as an
alternative. Pursuant to the USACE determination that the dam will not be removed or
reconfigured to support the lowering of the water level in the Cape Fear River, the screened
intake will function as proposed and identical to the existing intake that is currently in
operation. Copies of the entire GRR report can be found on the Army Corps of Engineers
website.
In addition to the USACE report, the Authority and the City of Wilmington authorized an
independent evaluation of Lock & Dam No. 1 and the potential impacts with removal of the
dam. This report, prepared by Arcadis and provided in Exhibit 7, analyzes the different
alternatives associated with the dam removal and fish passage. Its findings detail how each
alternative would affect water users of the Authority's and the City of Wilmington's
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 11 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
Description Cost
60-Inch Class 50 Ductile Iron $660,000
Ductile Iron Fittings $125,000
Intake Screens $105,000
Air Backwash Modifications $45,000
Sub-Total Construction $935,000
Contingency $90,000
Total Construction $1,025,000
Technical & Permitting Fees $55,000
Total Opinion o Probable Cost $1,080,000
D. Alternative No. 3 Summary
Alternative No. 3 involves the construction of a 60-inch raw water intake pipe and screen
structure located upstream of Lock & Dam No. 1 on the Cape Fear River. The pipe will bey,.
installed via open cut excavation and temporary as well as permanent impacts to wetlands
are anticipated. However, permanent impacts are expected to be 0.2 acres approximately and
all other impacts may be a direct result of construction activities. Regulatory requirements
for this project area anticipated to follow normal procedures and within acceptable
timeframes for such projects. This alternative provides the needed raw water flow for the
Kings Bluff facility and a high level of redundancy for the facilities intake needs. Therefore,
Alternative No. 3 is the recommended alternative.
2.4
Matrix Comparison of Alternatives
Based on the comparative table below, constructing a parallel raw water intake and screen
configuration to provide additional raw water capacity to the King's Bluff Pump Station is
the most beneficial option:
Project Factors Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
No Action Raw Water Parallel Intake Pipe
Alternative Intake Canal & Screen
Permitting 0 1 2
Constructability 0 3 4
Feasibility 0 2 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 13 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
along with the future customer, Pender County will require through the year
2030.
6. Due to the growth in southeastern North Carolina as a whole, the populations
projected below are presented in five-year planning increments. Table 4
provides the population projection for the City of Wilmington, Brunswick
County and Pender County, as these are the main public customers of the
Authority.
TABLE 4 -POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
City of Wilmington 90,330 94,531 99,781 104,870 110,220 - -
Brunswick County 73,141 89,481 110,374 125,107 138,169 151,959 164,165
Pender County 41,082 46,471 52,512 63,014 78,768 92,946 104,100
Total 204,553 230,483 262,667 292,991 327,157 - -
*Population projections were obtained from Pender County Water Master Plan, July 2006, by
McKim & Creed, PA, and for the City of Wilmington and Brunswick County the North Carolina
State Demographics Center.
The growth projections above indicate that growth within the southeastern part of the
state is expected to occur with or without the availability of a capacity increase for the
system.
B. Environmental Consequences
1. The improvements include a raw water intake pipe and screen structure that
will be constructed parallel to the existing intake pipe and screen structure.
The project area is owned and maintained by the Authority. As a result, this
will cause no conversion of zoning districts. The total area of disturbance for
the line routing is estimated to be 1.1 acres (1,200 LF x 40').
2. There will be no impacts to homes and businesses. Pre-existing conditions for
the construction area will be re-established upon construction completion
with the exception of #3 below.
3. Permanent impacts will be associated with a 10' wide corridor that will be
maintained over the center of the new pipe. The impact is estimated at 0.2
acres.
4. Secondary and cumulative impacts include the potential for land development
and associated impacts in such areas as drainage, water quality, wildlife
habitat, and threatened & endangered species.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 15 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
3.1.2 Important Farmland
A. Affected Environment
1. Prime farmlands along the project corridor have been identified by soil type
per the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Soil types for the
project area are as follows:
a. BnB - Blanton san, 2 to 7 percent slopes
b. Cn - Conagree silt loam, frequently flooded
c. Ch - Chewacla abd Chastain soils, frequently flooded
d. DyF - Dystrochrepts, steep
e. GbA - Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
f. Ln - Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Exhibit 8 provides a map of soils types in the project area.
B. Environmental Consequences
1. The majority of improvements are the installation of a raw water intake and
screens to convey raw water from the Cape Fear River to the King's Bluff
Pump Station. Due to the nature of the project area, no conversion of farmland
is anticipated for this project.
2. In conclusion, direct impacts will be minimal or non-existent. Indirect impacts
are non-existent, as this will not affect uses permitted by right.
3. Cumulative impacts include the potential for growth and farmland conversion
in the City of Wilmington, Brunswick County and Pender County as
additional capacity becomes available.
4. Consequently, cumulative impacts will be minimized and managed by the
very governing zoning districts.
C. Mitigation
1. The Bladen County Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plans will be adhered to.
2. The project is consistent with the current use of the property and no important
farmland is anticipated to be impacted.
3.1.3 Formally Classified Lands
A. Affected Environment
1. There are no formally classified lands administered by Federal, State, or local
agencies within the project corridor that have been accorded special protection
through formal legislative designations.
B. Environmental Consequences
1. Not applicable
C. Mitigation
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 17 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
5. Surface waters in the project area are not listed on the Federal 303 (d) list for
impaired waters.
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences
The water system improvement consists of a 60-inch raw water intake pipe
that will be constructed parallel to the existing 48-inch raw water intake pipe.
Three intake screens will be constructed in the run of the river immediately
adjacent to the three existing screens currently in operation. Temporary
impacts are expected from the construction of the intake screens, which will
be installed via sub aqueous methods. It is also possible that a coffer dam
may be installed for construction of the screens to minimize impact to river
wildlife.
2. The availability of raw water for drinking water supply in the Cape Fear Basin
is of concern to the NC Division of Water Resources as well as entities that
depend on the river for such supply. The Division of Water Resources is
evaluating the withdrawal rates on the river and in the basin to ascertain long-
term impacts.
3. The majority of the floodplains will be temporarily disturbed during the
installation of the raw water main from the River to the pump station.
Stormwater runoff from construction activities will,be minimized partly due
to the sediment and erosion control measures that will be installed and partly
because of the project site is a wetlands system. Therefore, stormwater runoff
will flow from the wetlands into the Cape Fear River.
4. There will be minimal permanent displacement of floodways during
construction, as these areas will be returned to pre-existing conditions. No
direct change to existing topography will result from this project and its
installation will not create an environment prone to flooding as the facilities
will be installed below grade. The original grade and contours will be
returned to original condition upon completion.
5. The primary water body in the project area is the Cape Fear River.
6. Secondary and cumulative impacts to the project area are expected to be
negligible. Secondary and cumulative impacts for service area of Authority
customers would/will be addressed via separate and independent EA's
required for any subsequent capacity or distribution system upgrades. The
Authority does not own or control these systems, nor govern such expansions.
Direct impacts will be the temporary disturbances of the floodplain channel
during construction. A 10 foot wide cleared corridor will be maintained for
maintenance on the pipe. Indirect and cumulative impacts will be minimal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 19 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
4. The primary function of the wetlands on the project site is for flood control
from the Cape Fear River. With their proximity to the Cape Fear River any rise
in the River water level will directly affect the wetlands system.
5. Because the majority of the project will be the installation of below grade raw
water intake pipe in forested wetlands, direct impacts will be unavoidable.
Approximately 0.2 acres of forested wetlands are anticipated to be
permanently impacted. Other wetlands impacts will be temporary in nature
and associated with the installation of the raw water intake pipe. Permanent
impacts to the forested wetlands will involve a 10-foot cleared maintenance
corridor centered over the pipeline.
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
1. Temporary disturbance to wetland areas will occur with the construction of
the raw water main. The water main depth will be reasonably shallow to
support an open-cut methodology. Where practicable, avoidance of wetlands,
and mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the wetlands, will be made in
routing and placement of the water main.
2. The amount of wetlands disturbance for water main installation is estimated
at less than one acre. Approximately 1.1 acres (1200 LF x 40 LF) of disturbance
is proposed for all construction activities. The total amount of permanent
impact to forested wetlands (cleared maintenance corridor) is anticipated at
0.2 acres.
3. Wetlands permits were submitted to the USACE as a Nationwide Wetlands
Permit 12 (NWP 12) for utility line activities. The approval of such permits
will be contingent upon issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact for this
project. It will be noted on final plans that all conditions of the wetlands
permit will be adhered to during construction.
4. In conclusion, direct impacts will be temporary in nature. Indirect and
cumulative impacts will be minimal with appropriate construction techniques
that ensure wetlands hydrology is protected, and pre-existing conditions are
re-established.
3.3.3 Mitigation
As the majority of the project area is located in forested wetland, total avoidance is
impossible. However, impacts will be minimized by the following:
Temporary discharge of excavated or fill material into wetlands and waters of
the United States will be for the absolute minimum period of time necessary to
accomplish the work. Temporary discharges will be fully contained with
appropriate erosion control or containment methods or otherwise such fills
will consist of non-erodible materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 21 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
wetland for buried utility lines. Perpendicular wetland crossings that are open
cut and less than 150 feet long will not require anti-seep collars.
14. During the project design and prior to the start of construction, the delineation
of wetlands associated with stream crossings and use of directional drilling
will be used to avoid wetland impacts in addition to impacting streams.
15. Authority customers may be required to develop EA's specific to their service
areas to address wetland and secondary and cumulative impacts associated
with increased treated water capacity.
3.4
Cultural Resources
(Reference Exhibit 14)
3.4.1 Affected Environment
1. Bladen County has twelve structures on the National Register. None of these
structures is proximal to the project area.
2. The visual aesthetics of the project area is its undeveloped' character.
3. The project is not anticipated to encounter any archeological resources.
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
1. The raw water intake and screens will be located within property owned by
the Authority. No impacts are anticipated.
2. The project will be installed below grade, therefore, visual impacts are
expected to be minimal.
3. In conclusion, direct impacts will be temporary in nature while construction
occurs. Indirect and cumulative impacts will not affect on the visual aesthetics.
3.4.3 Mitigation
1. Mitigation will be accomplished by avoidance of significant historic
properties. If any archeological artifacts are discovered during construction,
all construction activity at that site will immediately cease. The NC
Department of Cultural Resources' State Historic Preservation Office will be
contacted prior to resuming construction.
3.5
Biological Resources
(Reference Exhibit 15)
3.5.1 Affected Environment
The North Carolina National Heritage Program indicated the potential presence of the
following threatened and endangered species by use of their "Quad" Maps. The
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 23 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
2. Both the habitat area and potential presence of red-cockaded woodpeckers are
not anticipated to be disturbed by installation of this project.
3. Vegetation will be removed in association with the raw water intake pipe
installation. The majority of the project will be installed in a previously cleared
corridor, leaving minimal areas of mixed hardwood areas that would require
clearing.
4. In conclusion, direct impacts will be the temporary disturbance and removal
of wetland vegetation. Indirect and cumulative impacts include a 10-foot wide
utility corridor centered over the intake pipeline.
3.5.3 Mitigation
Confine the majority of project improvements within the previously cleared
corridor.
2. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission recommended that a mollusk survey
be completed. The Authority proposes to gather all comments regarding this
project prior to determining appropriate course of action for biological
surveys. It is recognized that the Cape Fear River has a diverse aquatic
community and protection of this resource is a high priority.
3. Due to the nature of the project, the Authority is actively investigating
preservation of adjacent wetlands as a means of mitigation. Preservation will
benefit both the wetlands and the habitats that thrive on specific
environmental characteristics associated with forested wetlands.
The pipeline will be installed below grade at each wetlands crossing, and
preconstruction contours will be restored in all affected areas once
construction is completed.
5. In-stream silt curtain weighted at the bottom, and stringent bank erosion
control will be implemented when applicable. In-stream construction activities
will be during low flow conditions that permit the effective deployment of the
silt curtain.
6. Disturbed stream banks will be restored to their original contours and re-
vegetated with natural materials. Riparian vegetation will be preserved as
much as possible.
7. Disturbed areas will be reseeded within 15 days of project completion
wherever possible. Disturbed stream banks will be restored with natural
materials. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be submitted to and
approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality
Section prior to construction. Erosion and sedimentation controls will be
installed and maintained between the construction site and any nearby down-
gradient surface waters.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 25 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
service areas may be addressed by independent EA's for their respective
systems.
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
1. Not applicable
3.7.3 Mitigation
1. Not applicable
3.8 Socio-Economic/Environmental Justice Issues
The construction of the proposed raw water main will not affect the socio-economic status of
the residents in the surrounding project area. The raw water main will be installed on Authority
owned property, and aside from a maintenance corridor, existing conditions will be re-
established upon completion of construction.
3.8.1 Socio-Economic Issues
A. Affected Environment
1. Not applicable.
B. Environmental Consequences
1. Not applicable
C. Mitigation
1. Not applicable
3.8.2 Environmental Justice Issues
A. Affected Environment
1. Due to the undeveloped nature of the project site, no disproportional
environmental effects are anticipated upon the residents near the project
corridor.
B. Environmental Consequences
1. This project will have no disproportionate environmental effects to the
communities.
C. Mitigation
1. Not Applicable
3.9 Miscellaneous Issues
3.9.1 Air Quality
A. Affected Environment
1. Air quality at the Authority's Pump Station site and adjacent properties could
be impacted as construction efforts progress.
B. Environmental Consequences
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 27 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT
2. Conclusively, direct impacts will be elevated noise levels from construction
equipment on a temporary basis. Indirect and cumulative impacts will be non-
existent
C. Mitigation
1. Assure the construction equipment has appropriate and functional mufflers.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PAGE 29 NOVEMBER 2007
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
KINGS BLUFF RAW WATER PUMP STATION
60-INCH RAW WATER INTAKE AND SCREEN PROJECT

z i
i i
!
n

o z

N
H o
L ?
w
U co
¢ i W

z
z ?
0 0

Q
p
z
o

¢ x' X x' x! x

w
z Q

o
_........... ......... _..- ------- .._ .... ............ --
H
H z
u w
LLJ

z ]

u
?
....... _........ __..__ .. - -.... .. -..... ............. ..._._ ..._..._.....-.... __._._ _........ __.._.... ..........--.--._ ....._._.. ..- ..--._ _._ --

75

CL) (3)
Q)
U) 4u
¢ i ?" r Ql i Y
0-4 m +
QJ I + p v! 5, +, m <

W v Q) +
O w j?D
^- i O
+ Q
O v
O +? 4
'LS
j •. Q)
r.
O i z

U
b-D (n
(n V] O F-i O C ?-+

? i .y+

? bJJ

v

'
3

N

v
f N 't? O i ' •+
-' L i
z v i ra O+ v 4? v n 3
[-i ce v
J 3 w ° Q1

z
p
?, O

¢ W
o

o

3

p

1

p

p

; CL 0 a

LLJ
Z

Q

W 4.

i

Q) Z p a,

10
p

w

)

i ?
V
75
?

a
-
Z

J w
?' m
? (u °u . 1
W Oo goy
v E-+
• ; v c? 2?
• ?s •? m ?
i?•I
U )
i-I 'tJ
Q) jo.?
Y ;
r F- S
w tt d
? i-+-1 Q? O (? (?i O (C (f? ? {-1 Q? ?-•I j
- Q) FY
O QJ U) v] .r w s

4J cd
Q) p n U
Ql QJ v Q) S?+ cC +
O r Z w

Q p
V p

U

LS

t' s?

¢ O

u w

O T ¢i

cG

fl

SZ Q)

9 ?-+

t?

O
O
.. .
...........- --.....-- --.._.__. _...__. _._..__...._;.._.___... ....... .... . ._.-......
_.._._
..
._.._._._._...._....__
_..._..__
----...._.___..
-_..__-
>w
z
L- 00
Z o
w x
0 0 '
~

?
can
z
0
?
W
?
0
X
X i
X
X`
X
z UO
a

Q H

Q x
x x x
z
0

u ?
x
x x
? w
Q
z
0
u ,
H
? z
u
H W
?
x
x
x'
x
z ?
o a

75
O
'fl v vi
-? 75
- N d bD bD O a + € ?,
U) 0)
v n O cn QJ M ?+ -
(n Ti + +' 2 ;Z ;0
? '?" ? O cG
ors ?, cn
a (1) i 14.
-0. 0
cz u + v ¢ -,
+v 3 v v ai v >
`-- v C -M ;:5 CD 0 (t cz m
'L3
. vi v ca a v 3 r v
U) a? TJ O
-Q
x
tO 14, CZ
p n --. O O p 3 41
0
N
U)
0-4 14.
cz; I:- al
U v N u O a O b-0 3 3
3 m ZS ¢1 U cc V C3
Ur OU ? ? X ' ? • ? "ti }., .N i-r •-?-? ?i ? aJ c? ?-+ QJ w0 'C3 ? v-, • ? ? ? 4J 't?
QJ +O cd " QJ X v 41 4J O -
N
n; + G n G! o r O N
z G O +?
c :.fl - N w
W G n cz V n 'O ctS QJ
F-7 cn v v 3 cC O ¢ U) i
Q) 75 (n
r O V p' 41 v O O + O w G p? O' p :z ¢ p
cz (1) 0)
n
0
0
N
oo?
m
w

O
z
Cl)
Cl)
LLI
c?
Q
z
? a
0 3
S a
a
?- w
O ?<
?
W Z
a z
J w ?
a ?
3
W d
O<?
fy- U m
> w ?
z0 z
w - Y