Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrunswickIBTEnvironmentalAssessmentJune2013 Environmental Assessment Brunswick County Interbasin Transfer Prepared for Prepared by June 2013 One Park Drive, Suite 200 • P.O. Box 14409 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 iii Lead Agency North Carolina Division of Water Resources Ms. Toya Ogallo 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611 (919) 707-9023 Applicant Brunswick County Public Utilities Jerry Pierce, PE, Director 250 Grey Water Road NE Supply, NC 28462 P.O. Box 249 Bolivia, NC 28422 (910) 253-2657 Consultant Contact Tetra Tech J. Todd Kennedy, PH, QEP One Park Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 14409 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919) 485-8278 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 iv (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 v Contents 1 Project Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Existing Water Supply .................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Water Demand ................................................................................................................ 4 1.3.1 Recent Water Demand Synopsis ............................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Current (2011) Water Demand Analysis ................................................................... 5 1.3.3 Projected Water Demand based on Historical Demand Trends .................................. 6 1.4 Water Demand Reduction ............................................................................................. 13 1.4.1 Water Use Restrictions ........................................................................................... 13 1.4.2 Pricing Signals ....................................................................................................... 14 1.4.3 Customer Education ............................................................................................... 14 1.4.4 Water Reuse ........................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Wastewater Management .............................................................................................. 15 1.5.1 Planned Expansions and Future Trends ................................................................... 19 1.5.2 Water Demand Implications on Wastewater Management....................................... 19 1.6 Interbasin Transfer Request ........................................................................................... 23 1.7 Water Supply Alternatives to IBT ................................................................................. 25 2 Existing Environmental Characteristics: Cape Fear IBT River Basin................................... 27 2.1 Topography, Geology, and Floodplains ......................................................................... 27 2.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 28 2.2.1 Soil Series .............................................................................................................. 28 2.2.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups .......................................................................................... 32 2.3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 35 2.3.1 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. 35 2.3.2 Future Land Use ..................................................................................................... 37 2.3.3 Forest Resources .................................................................................................... 39 2.3.4 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land ...................................................................... 41 2.3.5 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas ............................. 43 2.3.6 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value ........................................................... 49 2.4 Surface and Groundwater Resources ............................................................................. 49 2.4.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies .......................................................... 49 2.4.2 Surface Water Use Classifications .......................................................................... 49 2.4.3 Existing Surface Water Quality .............................................................................. 52 2.4.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ..................................................................... 56 2.4.5 Groundwater Supplies ............................................................................................ 56 2.5 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 57 2.5.1 Wetland Function ................................................................................................... 60 2.6 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources ................................................................. 62 2.6.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas ......................................................................... 62 2.6.2 Wildlife Habitat and Resources .............................................................................. 64 2.6.3 Important Bird Areas .............................................................................................. 69 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 vi 2.6.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources ............................................................................... 72 2.6.5 Rare and Protected Species ..................................................................................... 76 2.7 Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 76 2.8 Noise Levels ................................................................................................................. 76 3 Existing Environmental Characteristics: Shallotte IBT River Basin .................................... 77 3.1 Topography, Geology, and Floodplains ......................................................................... 77 3.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 77 3.2.1 Soil Series .............................................................................................................. 77 3.2.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups .......................................................................................... 80 3.3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 80 3.3.1 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. 80 3.3.2 Future Land Use ..................................................................................................... 81 3.3.3 Forest Resources .................................................................................................... 82 3.3.4 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land ...................................................................... 82 3.3.5 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas ............................. 83 3.3.6 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value ........................................................... 84 3.4 Surface and Groundwater Resources ............................................................................. 84 3.4.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies .......................................................... 84 3.4.2 Surface Water Use Classifications .......................................................................... 85 3.4.3 Existing Surface Water Quality .............................................................................. 87 3.4.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ..................................................................... 91 3.4.5 Groundwater Supplies ............................................................................................ 91 3.5 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 91 3.5.1 Wetland Function ................................................................................................... 92 3.6 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources ................................................................. 92 3.6.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas ......................................................................... 92 3.6.2 Wildlife Habitat and Resources .............................................................................. 93 3.6.3 Important Bird Areas .............................................................................................. 96 3.6.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources ............................................................................... 96 3.6.5 Rare and Protected Species ..................................................................................... 97 3.7 Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 97 3.8 Noise Levels ................................................................................................................. 97 4 Existing Environmental Characteristics: Waccamaw IBT River Basin ................................. 99 4.1 Topography, Geology, and Floodplains ......................................................................... 99 4.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 99 4.2.1 Soil Series .............................................................................................................. 99 4.2.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups ........................................................................................ 100 4.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................... 101 4.3.1 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................ 101 4.3.2 Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 101 4.3.3 Forest Resources .................................................................................................. 102 4.3.4 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land .................................................................... 102 4.3.5 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas ........................... 103 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 vii 4.3.6 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value ......................................................... 104 4.4 Surface and Groundwater Resources ........................................................................... 104 4.4.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies ........................................................ 104 4.4.2 Surface Water Use Classifications ........................................................................ 104 4.4.3 Existing Surface Water Quality ............................................................................ 105 4.4.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ................................................................... 105 4.4.5 Groundwater Supplies .......................................................................................... 105 4.5 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 105 4.5.1 Hydrogeomorphic Characteristics ......................................................................... 106 4.5.2 Wetland Function ................................................................................................. 106 4.6 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources ............................................................... 107 4.6.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas ....................................................................... 107 4.6.2 Wildlife Habitat and Resources ............................................................................ 108 4.6.3 Important Bird Areas ............................................................................................ 109 4.6.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources ............................................................................. 109 4.6.5 Rare and Protected Species ................................................................................... 109 4.7 Air Quality.................................................................................................................. 109 4.8 Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 109 5 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................ 111 5.1 No Additional IBT Alternative .................................................................................... 111 5.2 Increase in IBT from Cape Fear - Northwest WTP Expansion ..................................... 112 5.3 Water Supply Alternatives in Receiving Basins ........................................................... 115 5.3.1 New Surface WTP ................................................................................................ 115 5.3.2 Purchase Water from Existing Utility in Receiving Basin ..................................... 117 5.3.3 Expanded or New Groundwater WTP ................................................................... 117 5.3.4 Seawater Desalination WTP ................................................................................. 122 5.4 Other Options for Reducing the IBT............................................................................ 124 5.4.1 Surface Water Storage .......................................................................................... 124 5.4.2 Water Conservation and Reuse ............................................................................. 124 5.4.3 Return of Wastewater to Source Basin .................................................................. 124 5.5 Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 127 6 Predicted Environmental Effects ....................................................................................... 131 6.1 Source Basin (Cape Fear) ............................................................................................ 131 6.1.1 Direct Impacts ...................................................................................................... 131 6.1.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 144 6.2 Receiving Basin #1 (Waccamaw) ................................................................................ 144 6.2.1 Direct Impacts ...................................................................................................... 144 6.2.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 144 6.3 Receiving Basin #2 (Shallotte) .................................................................................... 144 6.3.1 Direct Impacts ...................................................................................................... 144 6.3.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 144 7 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 147 7.1 State Regulations ........................................................................................................ 147 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 viii 7.1.1 Land Use Planning and Environmental Resource Protection Initiatives ................. 147 7.1.2 Riparian Buffers ................................................................................................... 148 7.1.3 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ...................................................................... 148 7.1.4 Stormwater Programs ........................................................................................... 148 7.2 Local Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................... 151 7.2.1 Land Use Planning and Environmental Resource Protection Initiatives ................. 151 7.2.2 Zoning ................................................................................................................. 152 7.2.3 Riparian Buffers ................................................................................................... 155 7.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ...................................................................... 155 7.2.5 Stormwater Programs ........................................................................................... 156 7.2.6 Floodplain Development Regulations ................................................................... 157 7.2.7 Water Use Restrictions ......................................................................................... 159 7.2.8 Other Water Conservation .................................................................................... 161 7.2.9 Water Reuse ......................................................................................................... 161 7.3 Mitigative Analysis ..................................................................................................... 161 8 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 165 8.1 Alternatives to IBT ..................................................................................................... 165 8.2 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................... 166 8.2.1 Direct Impacts in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin .................................................. 166 8.2.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the Shalotte IBT River Basin ..................... 167 8.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 167 8.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 167 References .............................................................................................................................. 169 Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 175 List of Appendices .................................................................................................................. 177 Appendix A Grandfathered IBT ........................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B Notice of Intent ................................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C Scoping ............................................................................................................ C-1 Appendix D 2011 Monthly Water Demand ........................................................................... D-1 Appendix E Wastewater Permit Summary ............................................................................ E-1 Appendix F IBT Tables ....................................................................................................... F-1 Appendix G Land Use Classification .................................................................................... G-1 Appendix H Protected Species .............................................................................................. H-1 Appendix I USGS Communication ...................................................................................... I-1 Appendix J Flow Duration Curves ....................................................................................... J-1 Appendix K NCDENR Review Comments ........................................................................... K-1 Appendix L FONSI and State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Comments .................. L-1 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 ix Tables Table 1. Brunswick County Transfer Capacity as of July 1, 1993 ......................................................... 3 Table 2. Population Projections for Brunswick County....................................................................... 12 Table 3. Brunswick County Water Demand Projections (MGD) ......................................................... 12 Table 4. Number of Wastewater Systems and Permitted Flow Rates by Permit Type .......................... 16 Table 5. Number of Wastewater Systems and Permitted Flow Rates by Service Type......................... 16 Table 6. Number of Wastewater Systems and Flow by IBT River Basin ............................................. 17 Table 7. Permit Summary for BCPU Wastewater Systems ................................................................. 18 Table 8. Average Daily Wastewater Flow (MGD) for BCPU-operated systems for July 2009 through June 2011 ............................................................................................................................. 19 Table 9. Projected Average Daily Wastewater Flow for Brunswick County ........................................ 22 Table 10. Brunswick County Maximum Daily Surface Water Transfer (Actual 2010; Projected 2020 – 2050) ................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 11. Soil Series of the- Cape Fear Study Area .............................................................................. 28 Table 12. HSG for Cape Fear Study Area............................................................................................. 33 Table 13. Land Use for the Cape Fear Study Area in Brunswick County .............................................. 35 Table 14. Future Land Use for Brunswick County in the Cape Fear Study Area ................................... 37 Table 15. Farmland Classification for Farmed Areas in the Cape Fear Study Area ................................ 41 Table 16. LMCOS in the Cape Fear Study Area ................................................................................... 44 Table 17. State-Owned Public Lands and Natural Areas in the Cape Fear Study Area .......................... 45 Table 18. Land Trusts in the Cape Fear Study Area .............................................................................. 46 Table 19. Waters with Impaired Use Support Rating in the Cape Fear Study Area (not including the Cape Fear River) .................................................................................................................. 52 Table 20. Impairment Ratings for the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear Study Area ............................. 54 Table 21. NC-CREWS Wetland Types in the Cape Fear Study Area .................................................... 58 Table 22. Wetland Significance Rating for Wetlands in the Cape Fear Study Area ............................... 60 Table 23. SNHAs in the Cape Fear Study Area .................................................................................... 62 Table 24. North Carolina Air Quality Standards and Average Monitoring Values for New Hanover County ................................................................................................................................. 76 Table 25. Soil Series in the Shallotte Study Area .................................................................................. 77 Table 26. HSG for Shallotte Study Area............................................................................................... 80 Table 27. Land Use for the Shallotte Study Area .................................................................................. 81 Table 28. Future Land Use in the Shallotte Study Area ........................................................................ 81 Table 29. Farmland Classification for Farmed Areas in the Shallotte IBT River Basin Study Area ....... 83 Table 30. LMCOS in the Shallotte Study Area ..................................................................................... 84 Table 31. Waters with Impaired Use Support Rating in the Shallotte Study Area .................................. 87 Table 32. NC-CREWS Wetland Types in the Shallotte Study Area ...................................................... 91 Table 33. Wetland Significance Rating for Wetlands in the Shallotte Study Area ................................. 92 Table 34. SNHAs in the Shallotte Study Area ...................................................................................... 93 Table 35. Soil Series in the Waccamaw Study Area ............................................................................. 99 Table 36. HSG for Waccamaw Study Area ........................................................................................ 100 Table 37. Land Use for the Waccamaw Study Area in Brunswick County .......................................... 101 Table 38. Future Land Use for Brunswick County in the Waccamaw Study Area ............................... 102 Table 39. Farmland Classification for Farmed Areas in the Waccamaw Study Area ........................... 103 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 x Table 40. LMCOS in the Waccamaw Study Area ............................................................................... 104 Table 41. Waters with Impaired Use Support Rating in the Waccamaw Study Area ........................... 105 Table 42. NC-CREWS Wetland Types in the Waccamaw Study Area ................................................ 106 Table 43. Overall Wetland Significance Rating for Wetlands in the Waccamaw Study Area............... 107 Table 44. SNHAs in the Waccamaw Study Area ................................................................................ 107 Table 45. 2008 PER Northwest WTP Construction Costs (24 MGD Improvements and Expansion to 36 MGD) ................................................................................................................................ 112 Table 46. Budgetary Capital Costs - Expand Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD............................. 113 Table 47. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs - Expand Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD .................. 114 Table 48. Budgetary Capital Costs for New Surface Water WTP – 12 MGD (Waccamaw River at Highway 130) .................................................................................................................... 116 Table 49. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – 12 MGD Waccamaw WTP ............................................. 117 Table 50. Budgetary Capital Cost - 211 WTP (12 MGD Expansion) .................................................. 119 Table 51. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – 211 WTP (12 MGD Expansion) ...................................... 120 Table 52. Budgetary Capital Cost - New Groundwater WTP (12 MGD) ............................................. 121 Table 53. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – New Groundwater WTP (12 MGD) ................................ 122 Table 54. Budgetary Capital Cost - Seawater Desalination WTP (12 MGD) ....................................... 123 Table 55. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – Seawater Desalination WTP (12 MGD)........................... 123 Table 56. Budgetary Capital Cost - 12 MGD Land Application in CFR Basin from West Regional WWTP (Rapid Infiltration sub-option) ............................................................................... 126 Table 57. Budgetary Capital Cost - 12 MGD Land Application in CFR Basin from West Regional WWTP (Spray Irrigation sub-option) .................................................................................. 126 Table 58. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – Land Application in Cape Fear IBT River Basin Option .. 127 Table 59. Summary Water Supply Alternatives to Additional IBT...................................................... 128 Table 60. Node Information from the Cape Fear Hydrologic Model ................................................... 133 Table 61. Brunswick County Average Daily Withdrawal (via LCFWSA) from the Cape Fear River ... 133 Table 62. Incremental Impact of Brunswick Withdrawal for 2030 Scenario on Stream Flow .............. 136 Table 63. Incremental Impact of Brunswick Withdrawal for 2050 Scenario on Stream Flow .............. 137 Table 64. Incremental Impact of Cumulative Withdrawal for July at Daily Maximum for 2050 Scenario on Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 ............................................................................. 138 Table 65. Water Quality Variables at Lock and Dam 1, June – August at Flows < 5,000 cfs ............... 139 Table 66. Correlation Matrix for Water Quality Variables .................................................................. 140 Table 67. Predictive Models for pH ................................................................................................... 140 Table 68. Predictive Models for Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................ 140 Table 69. Maximum Brunswick County and LCFWSA Withdrawals for Water Quality Analysis ....... 141 Table 70. Predicted Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Response Maximum Withdrawal at Lock and Dam #1 142 Table 71. Predicted pH (s.u.) Response to Increase in Maximum Withdrawal at Lock and Dam #1 .... 142 Table 72. Summary of Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts (Shallotte Study Area) .............. 145 Table 73. Programs to Address Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ................................................... 161 Table 74. Evaluation of Mitigative Measures ..................................................................................... 163 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 xi Figures Figure 1. Location Map for Brunswick County IBT ............................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Brunswick County - Actual Finished Water Flows for October 2007 through 2011 ................. 5 Figure 3. Brunswick County 2011 Water Sector Demands ..................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Historical Per Capita Retail Water Demand ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Historical Industrial Water Demand (2001-2011).................................................................... 9 Figure 6. Non-Revenue Water Demand Trend ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 7. Non-Revenue Water Demand as a Function of Billed Water Demand ................................... 10 Figure 8. Analysis of Historical Water Demand Peaking Factors ......................................................... 11 Figure 9. Water Demand (2000-2011) and Projections through 2050 ................................................... 13 Figure 10. Permitted NPDES and Non-Discharge Wastewater Facilities in Brunswick County .............. 17 Figure 11. Monthly Average Daily Wastewater Flows for July 2009 through June 2011 for BCPU Permitted Facilities Only ...................................................................................................... 20 Figure 12. Monthly Water Demand by Sector for 2010 (horizontal lines indicate averages for November, December, January, February and March)............................................................................. 21 Figure 13. Monthly Water Demand by Sector for 2011 (horizontal lines indicate averages for November, December, January, February and March)............................................................................. 21 Figure 14. Brunswick County IBT Projections (Max Day and Average Day) ......................................... 24 Figure 15. Overview Map of the IBT River Basins Study Area .............................................................. 27 Figure 16. Soil Series of the Cape Fear Study Area ............................................................................... 30 Figure 17. HSG for the IBT River Basins Study Area ............................................................................ 34 Figure 18. Existing Land Use for the IBT River Basins Study Area ....................................................... 36 Figure 19. Future Land Use for the IBT River Basins Study Area .......................................................... 38 Figure 20. Forest Resources for the IBT River Basins Study Area ......................................................... 40 Figure 21. Prime Farmland in the IBT River Basins Study Area ............................................................ 42 Figure 22. LMCOS in the IBT River Basins Study Area ........................................................................ 48 Figure 23. DWQ Surface Water Use Classifications for the Cape Fear Study Area ................................ 51 Figure 24. Impaired Waters of the Cape Fear Study Area ...................................................................... 55 Figure 25. Wetland Types in the IBT River Basins Study Area .............................................................. 59 Figure 26. Wetland Functional Significance for Wetlands in the IBT River Basins Study Area .............. 61 Figure 27. SNHAs in the IBT River Basins Study Area (Sites with National Level of Significance are Labeled) ............................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 28. Existing Vegetation Types in the Cape Fear Study Area ....................................................... 68 Figure 29. IBAs in the IBT River Basin Study Areas ............................................................................. 71 Figure 30. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas in the IBT River Basins Study Area................................ 73 Figure 31. Fish Nursery Areas in the IBT River Basins Study Area ....................................................... 74 Figure 32. SGAs in the IBT River Basins Study Area ............................................................................ 75 Figure 33. Soil Series in the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas ....................................................... 79 Figure 34. DWQ Surface Water Use Classifications for the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas ....... 86 Figure 35. Impaired Waters in the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas .............................................. 90 Figure 36. EVTs in the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas .............................................................. 95 Figure 37. Brunswick County NWTP Average Monthly Withdrawal (cfs) Series Used for Each Scenario .......................................................................................................................................... 134 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 xii Figure 38. Flow Duration Curve of 2003 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal (Focused on Low Flow) .......................... 135 Figure 39. Flow Duration Curve of 2030 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal (Focused on Low Flow) .......................... 135 Figure 40. Flow Duration Curve of 2050 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal (Focused on Low Flow) .......................... 136 Figure 41. Flow Duration Curve of 2050 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With Daily Maximum Values Applied for the Month of July Only (Focused on Low Flow)................................... 138 Figure 42. Class SA Waters as Designated by NCDENR ..................................................................... 149 Figure 43. Brunswick County Zoning Districts .................................................................................... 153 Figure 44. Brunswick County Overlay Districts .................................................................................. 155 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 xiii Executive Summary Brunswick County (County), through Brunswick County Public Utilities, provides water to more than 34,000 retail customers and 11 wholesale customers through its two water treatment plants (WTP). The Northwest WTP is located near the City of Northwest and supplied by water from the Cape Fear River via the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. The 211 WTP, near the Town of St. James, is supplied by groundwater wells into the Castle Hayne Aquifer. The Northwest WTP and 211 WTP have permitted capacities of 24 and 6 MGD, respectively. Wastewater within the County is handled through a variety of system types including individual onsite septic systems, clustered and centralized land application, reuse, and discharging systems. To meet future demand for water, the County is considering expansion of the Northwest WTP. The expansion is expected to trigger the need for an interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate from the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission under the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act. A portion of the surface water treated at the Northwest WTP in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin is distributed to customers in the Shallotte IBT River Basin (an isolated river basin according to Session Law 2010-155) and the Waccamaw IBT River Basin, both of which are in the Lumber Major River Basin. Under the grandfather provision of the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act, the County may transfer up to 10.5 MGD from one designated river basin to another without an IBT certificate. The County is requesting an IBT certificate from the EMC for an increase of 7.8 MGD over the grandfathered transfer, with all the increase going to the Shallotte IBT River Basin and resulting in a maximum transfer from the Cape Fear IBT River Basin of 18.3 MGD. This increase is based on water demand projections and need through approximately 2042, representing nearly a 30-year period for the IBT certificate. No increase in IBT is being requested for the Waccamaw IBT River Basin: minor growth is expected in this area and future water will be supplied by the Little River Water and Sewerage Company in South Carolina via an agreement with the County. The County has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the procedures and standards set out in G.S.§143-215.22I effective July 1, 2007, as specified in Session Law 2010-155 passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in summer 2010. The North Carolina Division of Water Resources is the lead agency in overseeing the preparation of the EA. This EA has been prepared to support the request for an IBT certificate only and does not involve any construction activities. Any potential impacts associated with construction of WTP improvements in the source basin, and transmission line upgrades in the source and receiving basin would be reviewed under environmental documents prepared under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) specifically for these projects as required by statute and regulation. An EA for the plant expansion and associated improvements as described would be prepared and be reviewed as required by SEPA only if an IBT certificate is approved. The EA includes detailed descriptions of environmental characteristics in the source and receiving basins, an analysis of alternatives considered to IBT, analyses of the potential impacts, and mitigation to reduce the potential impacts to an insignificant level. The full list of alternatives includes: 1) No Additional IBT 2) Additional IBT - Expand Northwest WTP 3) Waccamaw Surface WTP 4) Expand 211 WTP 5) New Groundwater WTP 6) Seawater Desalination Plant 7) Return of Additional Wastewater to Source Basin 8) Water Conservation and Reuse Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 xiv 9) Surface Water Storage Factors considered during alternatives analyses included the technical viability of the option, the constructability of the alternative, potential environmental impacts, technical difficulty, permitting issues, and estimates of probable costs, both construction costs and O&M. The No Additional IBT alternative (#1) was not recommended because the County has demonstrated the need for an expansion of its water treatment system, and not doing so would compromise its ability to provide reliable, high-quality potable water to its customers in the future, especially those located in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Compared to alternatives #3 through #6 in the list above, additional IBT associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP (#2, qualified below) is recommended as the preferred alternative because of a lower cost (capital, O&M), low technical difficulty, an equivalent or lower level of permitting difficulty, a low level of direct impacts (e.g., new WTP alternatives would have additional construction impacts for a new site), and an equivalent level of secondary and cumulative impacts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Return of additional wastewater to the source basin through land application (alternative #7 above) would add more than 40 percent to the cost of the preferred alternative without significant benefit to the resource. Combined with additional IBT associated with the expansion of the Northwest WTP (alternative #2), the County proposes to use a combination of alternatives #8 and #9 to limit transfer of water. Water conservation and reuse are key elements of the County’s current water management plan, and they already reduce water demand and any associated IBT of water. In addition, the County has reduced the need to transfer additional water by developing an interconnection and agreement to purchase water from the Little River Water and Sewerage Company for future potable water service in the Waccamaw River subbasin. Finally, the County is planning a study of aquifer storage and recovery at the 211 WTP to reduce withdrawal of surface water during peak demand periods. The technical viability of this option is unknown at the present time. Direct impacts associated with the Additional IBT – Expand Northwest WTP alternative include those related to withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River above and below Lock and Dam #1. An analysis using NCDWR’s existing hydrology model for the Cape Fear was conducted to determine the County’s impact on water availability and whether water demands are met for all users in the future. The results did not change NCDWR’s (2008) previous conclusion that full demand for all withdrawals at Lock and Dam #1 are met through 2050. In addition, the increase from the Brunswick withdrawal is small and, predicted flows passing over the dam at the 95th percentile flow exceedence (i.e., a relatively low flow) in 2050 would remain substantial. Similarly, the impacts of the withdrawal on water quality are predicted to be minimal and insignificant based on a statistical analysis of observed data and as demonstrated by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality’s model of the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary. Secondary and cumulative impacts for the project are those that could be derived from potential growth inducement in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The additional water supply is considered a factor in facilitating growth. Future growth in the County is expected to primarily occur as low- and medium- density residential uses. If not managed properly, additional urbanization of the service area has the potential to cause significant impacts that degrade water resources, aquatic and wildlife habitat and resources, and other environmental features due to increased stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and other consequences of land development. However, there are a robust set of government policies applicable to the service area (including a strong stormwater management program) that provide considerable and sufficient mitigation for potential secondary and cumulative impacts. In summary, the request for an IBT certificate to increase water transfer of 7.8 MGD over the grandfathered amount (10.5 MGD) from the Cape Fear IBT River Basin to the Shallotte IBT River Basin would not be expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the long-term productivity and sustainability of the source and receiving basin are not compromised. Further, there would be no significant environmental changes that are irreversible or irretrievable. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 1 1 Project Purpose and Need Brunswick County (County), through Brunswick County Public Utilities (BCPU), provides water to more than 34,000 retail customers and 11 wholesale customers. To meet future demand for water, the County is considering expansion of its Northwest Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The expansion of the Northwest WTP is expected to trigger the need for an interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate from the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) under the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act. A portion of the surface water treated at the Northwest WTP in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin, as defined by General Statute (G.S.) §143-215.22G, is distributed to customers in the Shallotte IBT River Basin (an isolated river basin according to Session Law 2010-155) and the Waccamaw IBT River Basin, both of which are in the Lumber Major River Basin (Figure 1). The County has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the procedures and standards set out in G.S.§143-215.22I effective July 1, 2007, as specified in Session Law 2010-155 passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in summer 2010. The North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) is the lead agency in overseeing the preparation of the EA. Figure 1. Location Map for Brunswick County IBT This EA is organized into eight sections: (1) Project Purpose and Need discussing the existing water and wastewater systems and programs, water demand, and the IBT request; (2 through 4) Existing Environmental Characteristics of the source and receiving basins; (5) Alternatives Analysis comparing Brunswick County Shallotte IBT River Basin Waccamaw IBT River Basin Cape Fear IBT River Basin Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA W a c c a m a w R iv e r Cape Fear River Ca p e F e a r R i v e r E s t u a r y Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Caswell Beach Northwest WTP 211 WTP Wilmington Boiling Spring Lakes Oak Island Northwest Leland Whiteville Belville Bolton Shallotte Sunset Beach Sandyfield Navassa Bald Head Island Holden Beach Calabash Ocean Isle Beach Southport East Arcadia Lake Waccamaw Carolina Shores Bolivia Varnamtown Brunswick W hit e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek NC- 1 33 NC- 9 05 NC-13 2 NC-210 I-4 0 N C-1 3 0 NC-211 NC-87 NC-904 US-117 US-17 US -4 2 1 NC-211 NC-211 US-701 US -1 7 US-117 Brunswick County Interbasin Transfer NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_meters Map Produced 05-14-2012 - P. Cada Map Extent North Carolina Virginia South Carolina 0 5 10 152.5 Miles 0 5 10 152.5 Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Treatment Plant Water Supply Intake IBT River Basin Waterline (Brunswick County) Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin Municipal Boundary Brunswick County A t l a n t i cAtl a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 2 alternatives to IBT; (6) Predicted Environmental Effects, a detailed analysis of potential effects of the IBT; (7) Mitigation Measures that address secondary and cumulative impacts; and (8) a Summary. This EA has been prepared to support the request for an IBT certificate only and does not involve any construction activities. Any potential impacts associated with construction of WTP improvements in the source basin, and transmission line upgrades in the source and receiving basin would be reviewed under environmental documents prepared under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) specifically for these projects as required by statute and regulation. An EA for the plant expansion and associated improvements as described would be prepared and be reviewed as required by SEPA only if an IBT certificate is approved. 1.1 BACKGROUND In 1993 (effective 1994), the North Carolina Legislature adopted the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act. The statute was subsequently modified in 1998, 2002, 2007, and most recently in 2010. It requires that large transfers of water across designated hydrologic basins, referred to as an IBT, be subject to environmental review and approval by the EMC. Certification by the EMC is required for (1) new transfers of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) or greater and (2) increases in existing transfers of 25 percent or more above average daily amount transferred during the year ending July 1, 1993, if the total transfer including the increase is 2.0 MGD or more. A related statute, G.S.§143-215.22G, provides a subbasin map and definitions of the river basins and major subbasins under the law. In the more recent legislation, subbasin is synonymous with IBT river basin. The term river basin here is contrasted with the more commonly known major river basins in North Carolina. The proposed expansion of the Northwest WTP plant is expected to trigger the need for an IBT certificate because a portion of the surface water treated at the Northwest WTP distributed to customers across the basin divide into the Shallotte IBT River Basin and the Waccamaw IBT River Basin, both of which are in the Lumber Major River Basin. Waters in the Lumber Major River Basin (except for the Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte rivers), including the Waccamaw River, are tributaries of the Pee Dee River, which flows to Winyah Bay in South Carolina. The Shallotte River and Lockwoods Folly River are also considered part of the Lumber Major River Basin but flow directly into the Atlantic Ocean (hence the recent classification as an isolated basin). Under the grandfather provision of the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act, the County may transfer up to 10.5 MGD from one designated river basin to another without an IBT certificate (Table 1). The County is requesting an IBT certificate from EMC for an increase over the grandfathered transfer, with all of the increase going to the Shallotte IBT River Basin (i.e., no increase in the Waccamaw IBT River Basin). This increase is based on water demand projections and need through approximately 2042, representing nearly a 30-year period for the IBT certificate. Additional detail on the IBT request is provided later in this section. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 3 Table 1. Brunswick County Transfer Capacity as of July 1, 1993 Water Transfer Elements Capacity (MGD) Surface WTP 24 Transmission/Distribution System 18 Discharge Capacity1 10.5 Transfer Capacity 2 10.5 Notes: 1 Includes max day WWTP permitted capacity, max day consumptive loses (i.e., septic tanks), and other system losses (i.e., a reasonable estimate of unaccounted losses such as leaking pipes). 2 Approval via letter from NCDWR on April 25, 2008 (Appendix A). The certification process was initiated in February 2009 by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to File a Petition to the EMC as described in G.S.§143-215.22L(c). A NOI letter described the County’s plan to petition for an IBT. A copy is provided in Appendix B. As required by the IBT provisions in effect during that time, public notice was given, and four public meetings were held within 90 days of the NOI letter. In addition, a scoping document was circulated through the State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse). Results of the public meetings and scoping are provided in Appendix C. The information obtained from these efforts was used to help define the content for this EA. Following these initial steps required by G.S.§143-215.22L, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Session Law 2010-155 in the summer of 2010. This change in the statute directed the County to proceed with the certification process using the procedures and standards set out in G.S.§143-215.22I effective July 1, 2007. The EA was provided for review to NCDWR, other agencies within the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and through the Clearinghouse. Correspondence from these reviews and NCDWR’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are provided in Appendix K and Appendix L. 1.2 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY The County has two WTPs: the Northwest WTP, near the City of Northwest and supplied by water from the Cape Fear River, and the 211 WTP, near the Town of St. James and supplied by 15 wells that draw groundwater from the Castle Hayne Aquifer (Figure 1). The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWSA) supplies raw water to the Northwest WTP from an intake on the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam 1. The Northwest WTP and 211 WTP have permitted capacities of 24 and 6 MGD, respectively. Water from the two plants is routinely mixed within the distribution system in the southeastern portion of the County. The County’s water system serves the majority of the County and does not serve customers outside the County. The southwest portion of the County uses the most water relative to the northeast and southeast. Current customers include the following wholesale entities: Bald Head Island, Leland, Caswell Beach, Holden Beach, Brunswick Regional Water and Sewer (H2GO), Northwest, Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Shallotte, Navassa, and Southport. The system also serves retail and industrial customers in the County’s jurisdiction as well as customers residing in the towns of Sunset Beach, Carolina Shores, Bolivia, Calabash, and Varnamtown. The County owns and operates the water systems in these small municipalities. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 4 Recently, the County entered into an agreement with the Little River Water and Sewerage Company in South Carolina for an emergency water connection and to supply a small amount of water to meet future demand in Carolina Shores. 1.3 WATER DEMAND 1.3.1 Recent Water Demand Synopsis Previous water demand projections prepared for the County’s recent Water Master Plan suggested that peak day demand was estimated to reach 80 percent of the water treatment capacity for the Northwest and 211 plants combined, in about 2007 (Hazen and Sawyer, 2006). Additionally, data from 2005 through 2007 suggested that the Northwest WTP was approaching capacity on peak days which typically occur mid-summer (Hazen and Sawyer, 2008). Since these earlier projections, finished water demand increased in 2008, but then declined in 2009 and 2010 before increasing to pre-2009 levels again in 2011 (Figure 2). The number of customers served increased modestly over this 4-year period (approximately 15% between 2008 and 2011), but slower than had been projected because of the economic downturn that became more pronounced in 2008. It is believed that there are several reasons that average and peak water demands have not clearly increased despite an increase in the number of customers served including: • Weather related effects (discussed below) • Increased water efficiency, conservation and reuse (see Figure 4 and discussion of per capita water demand in Section 1.3.3) • Decreased industrial demand (see Figure 5 and discussion of industrial water demand in Section 1.3.3) It is likely that weather played a significant role in observed water demand (annual average and peaks) over the 2008-2011 period. Monthly precipitation data superimposed on Figure 2 appear to show some correlation between rainfall and water use (an inverse relationship as expected in a system with seasonal increases in water use associated with landscape irrigation). However, the simplified presentation of precipitation data in Figure 2 doesn’t tell the complete story. For example, drought conditions leading up to the summer of 2008 resulted in a precipitation deficit of over 23 inches for calendar year 2007 at the National Weather Service’s Wilmington, NC monitoring station. On the other hand, measured precipitation for calendar years 2008 and 2009 tracked closely with historical averages (+3.76 inches and +2.68 inches, respectively). However, 2010, which like 2008 saw a spike in water demand, finished with a 13.65 inch annual precipitation deficit. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 5 Figure 2. Brunswick County - Actual Finished Water Flows for October 2007 through 2011 Additional historical water demand trend analyses in support of future projections are provided in Section 1.3.3. 1.3.2 Current (2011) Water Demand Analysis An analysis of water use for the most recent full calendar year (2011) was developed using data from the following sources: • Daily finished water pumping data from Brunswick County Drought Report to NCDENR (2011) • BCPU Monthly Reports for FY 2011 and FY 2012 • BCPU Monthly Total, Industrial and Wholesale Customer summary (2011) • U.S. Census Data (2010) The County meters the following water demand elements: total water pumped, retail pumped, large industrial pumped, wholesale pumped and operational (unbilled) uses pumped. Unaccounted water is calculated as the difference between total water pumped and the sum of the other metered sectors. Unaccounted water losses averaged 0.56 MGD in 2010 and 1.01 MGD in 2011, with significant monthly variability. Operational (unbilled) uses averaged 0.31 MGD and 0.33 MGD for 2010 and 2011 respectively, but also varied widely from month to month. Figure 3 provides a graphical summary of monthly water demand by sector for calendar year 2011. In 2011, total daily demand averaged 13.78 MGD (tabular data is provided in Appendix D). The peak day flow reported for 2011 was 25.80 MGD (approximately 86 percent of permitted water treatment capacity Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 6 of 30 MGD), occurring in July, resulting in a peak day peaking factor of 1.87. Monthly average daily water demand ranged from about 68 percent (January, February, December) to 160 percent (July) of the annual average. In 2011, the average daily water demand for July was approximately 2.35 times the February water demand because of a combination of seasonal outdoor water uses and seasonal population increases associated with beach communities in County’s service area. In Figure 3, the gray hatched segment at the top of each column represents the increase above the average demand associated with the peak day for that month. Additional water sector demand analyses in support of future projections are provided in Section 1.3.3. Figure 3. Brunswick County 2011 Water Sector Demands 1.3.3 Projected Water Demand based on Historical Demand Trends The sectoral breakdowns summarized in Figure 3 were used along with population data and associated projections from various sources to estimate future water demand. Water demand projections were based on the following main assumptions: • A constant per capita water demand was used to estimate future retail water demand based on population growth projections • Wholesale water demand was assumed to increase at a rate proportional to population growth projections • Industrial water demand was assumed to be constant over the planning horizon • Non-revenue water demand was assumed to increase at a rate proportional to population growth projections • Peak month and peak day peaking factors were assumed to be constant over the planning horizon Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 7 Note that per capita and wholesale water demands as well as peaking factors associated with the County water systems are most likely influenced by the seasonal nature of some of its customer base. This seasonal effect likely results in somewhat lower than typical per capita demand (because a portion of the water user base is only present during tourist seasons and times) and higher than typical peaking factors, (since, in addition to seasonal water uses such as irrigation during summer months, more water users may also be present during these times). Additional discussion on these water demand elements is provided below. 1.3.3.1 Retail Water Demand The average per capita water demand for 2011 of 71.94 gallons per day (gpd) was used to estimate future retail demands. Per capita water demand was calculated by dividing the annual average daily retail demand by the average number of customers served in 2011. The average number of customers was calculated by multiplying the average number of connections (tracked monthly by BCPU) by 2.21, which is the average number of persons per household derived from 2010 U.S. Census for the County (U.S. Census, 2010). On a per connection basis, retail water demand for the County system was 158.99 gpd/connection for calendar year 2011 (note: because calculated per capita demand is directly proportional to per connection demand, the choice of which to use has no bearing on the following water demand projections). For this projection, a constant per capita retail demand was applied throughout the planning horizon. Annual average per capita retail water use data for the period of 2006 to 2011 are presented in Figure 4. Although the figure appears to show a slight declining trend in per capita demand, the correlation is weak and it is likely that external factors account for annual variations. For example, as previously described, the drought of 2007 is likely to have resulted in a higher per capita water use for irrigation for that year which influences the apparent declining trend in demand. Nevertheless, it is possible that the assumption of a constant per capita retail demand will somewhat overestimate actual future flows for this sector since no allowances have been made for potential demand reduction measures (e.g., water conservation, reuse) that might occur over the planning period. However, it should be noted that, in general, predicting future per capita water demand has proven to be difficult, as water use efficiencies in some areas can be offset by increases in others. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 8 Figure 4. Historical Per Capita Retail Water Demand 1.3.3.2 Wholesale Water Demand Although wholesale water demand remained relatively constant (and likewise the proportion of wholesale demand relative to retail demand declined) between 2006 and 2011, a constant wholesale-to-retail demand ratio (based on year 2011 data) was used to project future wholesale water demand. In other words, it was assumed that wholesale water demand will grow at the same rate as will retail demand (i.e., both are assumed to be proportional to projected County population growth). For this assumption to hold true, increases in wholesale water demand will need to come from customer growth for existing wholesale water users, the addition of new wholesale customers to County’s water system or some combination of the two. Despite uncertainties regarding the magnitude of wholesale water demand in the future, it is important to note that the apportioning of demand between retail and wholesale customer sectors should have no impact on total water demand over the planning horizon. The assumption that total non-industrial water demand (retail + wholesale) will increase in proportion to population growth is logical. It may however be that this total non-industrial demand turns out to be apportioned differently between the retail and wholesale sectors than projected. 1.3.3.3 Industrial Water Demand Large industrial water usage was assumed to be constant over the planning period at the average 2011 demand of 2,192,911 gpd. As illustrated in Figure 5, linear regression of historical annual data shows a relatively strong declining trend in industrial water demand over the past decade, believed to be due to multiple factors, including greater water use efficiency and recycling at industrial facilities and a decreasing number of industrial facilities in the service area. Therefore, it is likely that the assumption of constant industrial water demand over the planning period is conservative (i.e., it may overestimate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Pe r C a p i t a W a t e r D e m a n d ( g p d / c a p ) Year R² = 0.306 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 9 industrial demand). However, the addition of one or two large industrial facilities is possible and could have an effect on future industrial sector water demands, so this conservatism may be warranted. Figure 5. Historical Industrial Water Demand (2001-2011) 1.3.3.4 Non-Revenue Water Demand Non-revenue water demands including unbilled (operational) uses and unaccounted water were assumed to grow in proportion to population served, using as a basis the latest data from 2011 which shows an average non-revenue demand of approximately 1.33 MGD (approximately 10 percent of the total demand for 2011). Although it is logical to assume that operational water demands would increase with an increasing population and that unaccounted water demand would increase with additional service connections, pipeline and other infrastructure that could potentially leak, non-revenue water demand for 2006 through 2011 appears to show a declining trend (Figure 6). Additionally, a plot of non-revenue demand versus total billed water demand (which is related to the number of service connections and other infrastructure) shows no clear correlation (Figure 7). Possible explanations for the decreasing trend in unbilled demand with time could include effective programs for reducing leaks and for metering and billing all water users. Conservation efforts undertaken by unbilled (operational) users could also be contributing to the decreasing trend. Nevertheless, because these apparent trends are somewhat uncertain and because the 2011 non-revenue demand of approximately 10 percent of total demand is in line with typical water system allowances, water demand projection calculations were based on the 2011 non-revenue data, assumed to grow in proportion to population served. - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Av e r a g e I n d u s t r i a l W a t e r D e m a n d ( g p d ) Year R² = 0.791 (2004 data unavailable) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 10 Figure 6. Non-Revenue Water Demand Trend Figure 7. Non-Revenue Water Demand as a Function of Billed Water Demand R² = 0.5458 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Av e r a g e D a i l y N o n - R e v e n u e W a t e r D e m a n d ( g p d ) Year R² = 0.0365 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 Av e r a g e D a i l y N o n - R e v e n u e W a t e r D e m a n d ( g p d ) Average Daily Billed Water Demand (gpd) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 11 1.3.3.5 Peaking Factors To project future peak day demands, the average annual peak day peaking factor (1.72) from the past 12 years was used. An analysis of annual average, peak month average day and peak day flows for 2000 through 2011 showed modest annual variability (standard deviation of 0.09 or 5.4%) and little correlation between peak day peaking factors and year (Figure 8). By contrast, there is a relatively strong correlation for peak month peaking factor as a function of time (R2 = 0.74, relative standard deviation of 10.8%). However, there is no reason to believe that peak month peaking factors will continue to increase and visual observation of Figure 8 appears to show the peak month peaking factor plateauing between 2006 and 2011. Figure 8. Analysis of Historical Water Demand Peaking Factors The bottom line for the purposes of projecting water demand is that maximum day peaking factors appear to be historically stable and that there is no compelling reason to believe that the peaking factor will change significantly in the future. For example, although we could speculate that improved irrigation system efficiency should decrease peak water demand at the site scale, more widespread use of irrigation systems (new development and retrofits) could offset individual irrigation unit efficiencies from a system- wide perspective. 1.3.3.6 Future Demand Projection As indicated, water demand projections are dependent in large part on projected growth in population, as retail, wholesale and non-revenue water demands were assumed to grow at the same rate as population. For example, to project non-revenue water demand in 2020, the non-revenue demand for the most recent calendar year of 2011 was multiplied by the ratio of County population projected for 2020 to the 2011 population (estimated by interpolation between the 2010 and 2020 population numbers). Table 2 provides a summary of the population projections used for this analysis. Based on the analysis and assumptions described above, Table 3 summarizes water demand projections through 2050 and Figure 9 provides a graphical representation of average and peak day demand for 2000 through 2050. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Pe a k i n g F a c t o r Year Peak Month Peak Day R² = 0.7397 R² = 0.0243 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 12 Table 2. Population Projections for Brunswick County Year Population Percent Change 2000 73,143 1 -- 2010 108,176 1 47.9% 2020 137,677 2 27.3% 2030 167,178 2 21.4% 2040 199,323 3 19.2% 2050 230,483 3 15.6% Notes: 1 Actual population numbers (U.S. Census for 2000 and 2010) 2 North Carolina State Data Center, http://linc.state.nc.us/ 3 Based on linear regression of values from 2000-2030. Table 3. Brunswick County Water Demand Projections (MGD) Year 20001 20101 20111 2020 2030 2040 2050 Retail Demand 1.903 5.088 5.370 6.653 8.078 9.631 11.137 Industrial Demand 3.934 1.993 2.193 2.193 2.193 2.193 2.193 Wholesale Demand 3.005 4.895 4.885 6.052 7.348 8.761 10.131 Non-Revenue Demand 1.039 0.865 1.334 1.652 2.006 2.392 2.766 Average Demand 9.880 12.841 13.781 16.549 19.626 22.978 26.227 Peak Month Demand2 12.680 18.192 22.009 26.479 31.401 36.764 41.963 Peak Day Demand3 17.900 21.319 25.798 28.465 33.756 39.522 45.111 Peak Day Capacity (%)4 60% 71% 86% 95% 113% 132% 150% Notes: 1 All entries for 2000, 2010 and 2011, including Peak Month and Peak Day, are from actual water demand data 2 For 2020-2060, Peak Month Demand = Average Demand x 2011 Monthly PF (1.60) 3 For 2020-2060, Peak Day Demand = Average Demand x 1.72 (average Maximum Day Peaking Factor for the combined output from the plants over the past 12 years) 4 Peak Day Capacity = Peak Day Demand / 30 MGD (existing treatment capacity) An examination of Figure 9 shows that the slight decreases in demand between 2008 and 2011 are likely temporary and that the overall trend is increasing in good agreement with projections. Demand for water is expected to accelerate as economic conditions improve and new customers are brought online. To meet this future demand, the County has proposed to expand the existing Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 13 Figure 9. Water Demand (2000-2011) and Projections through 2050 1.4 WATER DEMAND REDUCTION As indicated, the water demand projections assume a constant per capita retail usage throughout the planning period (which is also directly related to the wholesale demand estimates). However, increased water conservation and water reuse could result in lower per capita demands over time. The County has a water conservation program that includes voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions, price signals (tiered water rates and separate irrigation metering), customer education, and water reuse. 1.4.1 Water Use Restrictions The County has the authority to impose water restrictions if a public water supply shortage occurs. All water customers, including the municipalities in the Shallotte IBT River Basin, are subject to the water use restrictions. The water use restrictions are organized in stages, with Stage 1 being voluntary and Stages 2 and 3 being mandatory. The stages are defined as follows (Chapter 1-13, Article V of County ordinances, http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=19946): 1) Stage 1—Water conservation alert. A Stage 1 water shortage emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage, as so declared by state and/or local officials, or when there are three (3) consecutive days when water demand exceeds eighty (80) percent of the water production capacity. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 14 2) Stage 2—Water shortage warning. A Stage 2 water shortage emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage, as so declared by state and/or local officials, or when there are two (2) consecutive days when water demand exceeds ninety (90) percent of the water production capacity. 3) Stage 3—Water shortage danger. A Stage 3 water shortage emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage, as so declared by state and/or local officials, or when there is one (1) day when water demand exceeds one-hundred (100) percent of the water production capacity. Additional details regarding the three stages are provided in Section 7. 1.4.2 Pricing Signals The main elements of the County’s water service pricing that affect water demand are tiered rates and separate metering for outdoor (irrigation) uses. The rates for retail meters include a base charge that increases with larger service meter sizes from $11/month (for ¾-inch retail meters) to $27/month (for 4-inch retail meters). In addition to this base charge, retail water rates include three usage tiers, charged at $3.05, $3.10 and $3.15 per 1,000 gallons, as monthly usage increases. For ¾ to 1-1/2 inch service connections, the three tiers are 0–6,000 gallons, 6,001–20,000 gallons and > 20,000 gallons. For 2-inch service connections, the three tiers are 0–20,000 gallons, 20,001–100,000 gallons and > 100,000 gallons. For 3- and 4-inch service connections, the tiers are 0–50,000 gallons, 50,001–250,000 gallons and > 250,000 gallons. Industrial and wholesale water rates are based on a service charge depending on the size of the meter and a constant rate of $2.76 per 1,000 gallons (there is also a minimum usage charge). Irrigation meter rates have five tiers, ranging from $3.05 per 1,000 gallons to $4.00 per 1,000 gallons. The five residential irrigation meter tiers have usage cutoffs of 6,000, 12,000, 20,000 and 50,000 gallons. Commercial and multifamily irrigation meter cutoffs are at 20,000, 50,000, 100,000 and 200,000 gallons. The monthly base service charge is the same as that for retail meters but is waived for irrigation meters where the facility has another retail meter. Although the use of irrigation meters is not mandatory, there is a strong incentive to use them because irrigation water is not included in the user’s sewer bill, and all residential wastewater flows over 3,000 gallons per month are billed at the relatively high rate of $6.50 per 1,000 gallons (note that all commercial wastewater flows are billed at a constant rate of $6.50/1,000 gallons and that industrial wastewater flows are billed using a declining block rate structure). The County is also in the process of retrofitting meters with Automated Meter Reading, or Advanced Metering Infrastructure systems that will allow meters to be read quickly and remotely, enhancing the County’s ability to both analyze water use to improvement management and identify abnormal water usage and notify customers as appropriate. The County is about one-third of the way through retrofitting its 38,000+ retail customers’ meters. Detailed rate and fee information for water and wastewater services are at http://www.brunsco.net/Departments/LandDevelopment/Utilities/WaterSewerRates.aspx. The County’s wholesale customers are required to adopt the County’s conservation measures at a minimum. In some cases, the wholesale customer has enacted more stringent measures than the County. 1.4.3 Customer Education The County provides water conservation information to its customers through various means including their website, in water bill mailers and at public events. For example, the County has developed a water conservation brochure which is available in hard copy and on their website at Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 15 http://www.brunsco.net/Departments/LandDevelopment/Utilities/BrochuresUtilities.aspx. The County also maintains a Frequently Asked Questions list (http://www.brunsco.net/Portals/0/bcfiles/finance/fin_faqs.pdf) and produces annual water quality and wastewater performance reports, available at http://www.brunsco.net/Departments/LandDevelopment/Utilities/AnnualReports.aspx. The County also works with the Cooperative Extension Agency on water conservation and sustainable landscaping practices, and with property owners associations in a number of large subdivisions to promote water conservation. 1.4.4 Water Reuse The County has four wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that are permitted for reuse: Ocean Ridge Plantation, Sea Trail, West Brunswick Regional and Northeast Brunswick Regional. Two additional facilities recharge the surficial groundwater aquifer via spray irrigation: Shallotte and Carolina Shores. Several other small reuse systems and a number of other land application (surface or subsurface) systems are located in the County but not owned or operated by them; these systems are discussed in Section 1.5 below. The largest water reclamation plant in the County is the West Regional plant, with a permitted capacity of 6.0 MGD. This plant includes a reclaimed water line that extends to four golf courses, in addition to three dedicated land application sites. The Northeast Regional plant produces reuse quality water and is permitted for reuse, but it is not currently reusing water except within the boundaries of the plant. The County is conducting a study to assess the feasibility of residential water reuse (costs, demand and public acceptance issues) at the Saint James Plantation and Winding River developments. The County estimates that these developments might have a seasonal reclaimed water demand of up to 1.3 MGD. 1.5 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Wastewater in Brunswick County is managed using a combination of individual onsite systems and clustered and centralized land application, reuse, and discharging systems. Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the numbers of systems and permitted flows for the various permit types and service types, respectively, based on data compiled from the following sources: • BCPU • Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Surface Water Section, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Wastewater Permitting and Compliance Program • DWQ, Aquifer Protection Section, Land Application Unit • Brunswick County Health Department, Environmental Health Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 16 Table 4. Number of Wastewater Systems and Permitted Flow Rates by Permit Type Permit Type Permitting Authority # Systems Total Permitted Flow (MGD) Large Subsurface1 Brunswick Co. Env. Health 23 0.35 Surface Irrigation DWQ-Non-Discharge Unit 24 11.05 Discharging NPDES 15 10.30 TOTAL 21.70 Notes: 1 Large subsurface systems are defined as >3,000 gpd. The number and permitted flow rate associated with small subsurface systems is unknown, but discussed in more detail below. Table 5. Number of Wastewater Systems and Permitted Flow Rates by Service Type Service Type # Systems Total Permitted Flow (MGD) Commercial 10 0.04 Domestic 14 1.43 Industrial 8 > 7.04 Institutional 7 0.39 Municipal 12 12.81 TOTAL 21.70 For smaller onsite, subsurface-discharging wastewater systems (conventional and advanced septic systems), Brunswick County Environmental Health’s permit database lists about 70,000 Improvement Permits with a total permitted flow of over 17 MGD and approximately 32,000 Operation Permits; however, these numbers do not account for all of the onsite systems that have been retired and connected to public sewer. It is estimated that between 10,000 and 20,000 individual, residential onsite systems remain in Brunswick County. Assuming 15,000 onsite systems with an average permitted design flow of 360 gpd (as required for a three-bedroom house), the total permitted wastewater flow for small onsite systems in Brunswick County is estimated to be approximately 5.40 MGD. As summarized in Table 6, the majority of the wastewater treated in the County (note that this table does not include onsite systems less than 3,000 gpd, because location data was not readily available for these systems) is dispersed or discharged in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin, which includes 11 of the 14 permitted surface discharging (NPDES) systems in the County. The Shallotte IBT River Basin includes a number of large (> 3,000 gpd) subsurface wastewater systems because this area is largely unsewered and has some resort and other higher-density developed areas. It is also the location of the County’s largest plant, the West Regional WWTP. There appears to be only three significant wastewater systems in the Waccamaw IBT River Basin, and the combined permitted flow is relatively small. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 17 Table 6. Number of Wastewater Systems and Flow by IBT River Basin Subbasin # Subsurface1 # Surface2 # Discharge Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 03-07-57 (Waccamaw) 1 1 1 0.54 03-07-59 (Shallotte) 13 8 2 8.89 03-06-17 (Cape Fear) 8 9 11 12.28 TOTAL 22 18 14 21.71 Notes: 1 Includes only large subsurface, defined as > 3,000 gpd 2 Includes only surface dispersal of treated effluent, not residuals Locations of the Non-Discharge (i.e., surface irrigation) and NPDES permitted systems are shown on the map in Figure 10 (a tabular summary is provided in Appendix E). Subsurface systems permitted by Brunswick County Environmental Health are not shown on Figure 10 because spatial data for the locations of these systems are not readily available. Figure 10 clearly identifies those systems owned and operated by the County. This subset of County-operated systems is summarized in Table 7. Figure 10. Permitted NPDES and Non-Discharge Wastewater Facilities in Brunswick County Brunswick County Shallotte IBT River Basin Waccamaw IBT River Basin Cape Fear IBT River Basin Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA W a cc a m a w Riv er Cape Fear River Ca p e F e a r R i v e r E s t u a r y Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw WQ0005790 NC0007064 WQ0000193 NC0029122 NC0064700 NC0086819International Paper Sweeney Water Plant Town Creek WWTP WQ0006085 WQ0011614 W hi te M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek Big S wa m p NC0085553 NC0076830 NC0075540 NC0074942 NC0065099 NC0057533 NC0045276 NC0044873 NC0040061 NC0027065 NC0000663 WQ0013224 WQ0001861 WQ0032104 WQ0032827 WQ0023693 WQ0000798 WQ0013200 WQ0020543 (To be Offline - July, 2012) WQ0013398 WQ0031857 WQ0029114 WQ0012748 WQ0030413 Brunswick County IBT Wastewater Management Locations NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-29-2011 - P. Cada Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Water Supply Intake Lock and Dam Non-Discharging System Brunswick Public Utility Other NPDES Permittee Major (Brunswick Public Utility) Minor Minor (Brunswick Public Utililty) Major Waterways IBT River Basins Study Area Major River Basin A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 18 Table 7. Permit Summary for BCPU Wastewater Systems System Permit Type Permit Number Type Effluent Dispersal Method Permitted Flow (MGD) Town Creek Township Park WWTP NPDES unknown Institutional Discharge 0.001 Carolina Shores WWTP NPDES NC0044873 Municipal Discharge/Spray Irrigation 0.53 Ocean Ridge Plantation WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0011614 Municipal Reuse 0.100 Sea Trail WWTP Non-Discharge WQ0012748 Municipal Spray Irrigation/Reuse 0.500 Shallotte WWTP Non-Discharge WQ0000798 Municipal Spray irrigation 0.500 Northeast Brunswick Regional WRF Conjunctive NPDES NC0086819 Municipal Discharge/Reuse 1.650 West Brunswick Regional WRF Non-Discharge WQ0023693 Municipal Spray Irrigation/Infiltration/ Reuse 6.000 Class A Residuals Distribution Program Non-Discharge WQ0034468 Residuals Residuals-Land Application na Northwest WTP Residuals Disposal Program Non-Discharge WQ0018351 Residuals Residuals-Land Application na Class B Residuals Application Program Non-Discharge WQ0034513 Residuals Residuals-Land Application na Beaverdam Creek WTP NPDES NC0040061 WTP Discharge no limit Hood Creek NW WTP NPDES NC0057533 WTP Discharge no limit Average and maximum month average daily flows from July 2009 through June 2011 for County- operated wastewater treatment systems are summarized in Table 8. Actual average flows over this period were approximately 31 percent of the permitted capacity, while maximum month average flows were about 42 percent of permitted capacities for this subset of wastewater facilities. Note that this permitted wastewater treatment capacity will increase after January 7, 2012 with the County’s acquisition of the 1.032 MGD Ocean Isle Beach wastewater treatment facility. Additionally, an expansion of the Northeast Brunswick water reclamation facility (discussed in Section 1.5.1 below) is expected to be completed by July 1st, after which the County estimates that their total wastewater treatment capacity will be 10.98 MGD. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 19 Table 8. Average Daily Wastewater Flow (MGD) for County-Operated systems for July 2009 through June 2011 Facility Permitted Flow Average Month Maximum Month Northeast Brunswick 1.65 1.197 1.533 Sea Trail 0.5 0.150 0.181 Carolina Shores 0.53 0.476 0.622 West Brunswick 6 0.956 1.628 Ocean Ridge 0.1 0.039 0.055 Shallotte - 1 0.5 0.016 0.073 Shallotte - 2 0.066 0.178 Average Day 9.28 2.900 3.926 1.5.1 Planned Expansions and Future Trends In June 2011, a revised EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were issued for a proposed expansion to the Northeast Brunswick Regional Wastewater System to an ultimate capacity of 3.8 MGD over a 20-year planning period (McKim and Creed, 2008). The plan calls for a Phase 1 expansion of the plant from 1.65 to 2.475 MGD and a Phase 2 expansion per the construction of a new treatment plant to 3.8 MGD when the 2.475 MGD capacity approaches 70 percent utilization. With the existing 0.4 MGD Belville WWTP (operated by H2GO) in the area, the total treatment capacity in the northeastern service area would be 4.2 MGD. Brunswick Regional Water and Sewer (H2GO) has indicated that it plans to replace its existing 0.4-MGD facility in Belville. Located south of Navassa, the H2GO service area encompasses approximately 21 mi2 and includes portions of the towns of Leland, Belville, and unincorporated areas of the County. Three relatively large land application systems (surface/subsurface) are scheduled to be retired and connected to the County’s sewer systems before July 2012. Additional septic systems continue to be connected to centralized facilities as their service areas expand. An increasing proportion of new development is being connected to centralized sewers rather than onsite or small community systems. DWQ’s Non-Discharge Unit database shows only one outstanding non-discharge permit application, for a reuse system for the Town of Oak Island. 1.5.2 Water Demand Implications on Wastewater Management Water demand data (described in detail in Section 1.3) and existing and future wastewater management information (described in this section) were analyzed in order to determine the most likely implications of projected future water demands on wastewater management in Brunswick County. The analysis involved first estimating wastewater flows throughout the planning period (through 2050) and then comparing those flow estimates with existing wastewater system capacity. Future wastewater flows were estimated by determining an appropriate per capita daily wastewater flow rate and then multiplying the per capita flow rate by projected population. The per capita wastewater flow rate was estimated by re-analyzing the historical water demand data presented in Section 1.3. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 20 1.5.2.1 Estimates of Recent Wastewater Flow Rates A 10 percent reduction between indoor water demand and wastewater flow is typically assumed to account for consumptive water uses. However, to err on the conservative side for this analysis, average wastewater flows were assumed to be approximately equal to the sum of the average retail and wholesale water demands for the late fall and winter months (November, December, January, February and March), since unsewered, outdoor water uses would be at a minimum during these months. Although it could be argued that averaging only the cold-season months will result in artificially low wastewater flow rates by missing increased summertime flows associated with seasonal use facilities (vacation homes, resorts), the following factors suggest that this is not the case. • Infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the sewer system will be highest during the wettest months with lowest evapotranspiration rates, which also coincide with the November-March time period. I/I additions to cold-month wastewater flows offset the decrease in seasonal use facilities. • Although the Northeast Brunswick WWTP service area generally does not include classic seasonal resort areas, the EA prepared to support a plant expansion reports that wastewater flows were lower in the summer months than in the winter months (Marotti, 2011). • Seasonal average daily wastewater flows for County-operated facilities show no clear trends with respect to month, individually or in aggregate (Figure 11). Figure 11. Monthly Average Daily Wastewater Flows for July 2009 through June 2011 for BCPU Permitted Facilities Only Monthly water demand for the retail, wholesale and industrial sectors was plotted for calendar years 2010 (Figure 12) and 2011 (Figure 13). Wastewater flow rates associated with all potable water customers for 2010 and 2011 (i.e., estimated flow beyond the County’s own wastewater facilities shown in Figure 11) were estimated to be 7.70 and 6.65 MGD, respectively. However, it is important to note that not all County water customers are also sewer customers (although we do expect that most of BCPU’s sewer customers are also supplied water by BCPU). Because most of the large industrial water users have their Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 21 own wastewater management systems and because industrial water demand is not expected to increase over the planning period, industrial water demand was not used in the determination of future wastewater flows. Since they are not broken out as separate water demand sectors, commercial and institutional water uses should already be properly represented in the retail and wholesale sector demand numbers. Figure 12. Monthly Water Demand by Sector for 2010 (horizontal lines indicate averages for November, December, January, February and March) Figure 13. Monthly Water Demand by Sector for 2011 (horizontal lines indicate averages for November, December, January, February and March) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 22 1.5.2.2 Determination of Per Capita Wastewater Flow Rates To determine per capita wastewater flows, the average retail water demand for the late fall and winter months (November, December, January, February and March) was divided by the estimated population served (number of connections multiplied by 2.21 persons/household as described in Section 1.3), resulting in an average per capita wastewater flow of 59.4 gpd for 2010 and 49.7 gpd for 2011. Wholesale water demand was not used in the per capita wastewater flow calculation since BCPU does not track the number of people (or individual connections) served by each of their wholesale customers. Based on these results, an average per capita wastewater flow rate of 60 gpd/capita was used for projecting future wastewater flows. This number is consistent with the assumed per capita flow rate used by the State of North Carolina for sizing wastewater systems. 1.5.2.3 Projection of Future Wastewater Flow Rates and Treatment Needs Applying a 60 gpd per capita flow rate to the population projections in Table 2 results in the estimated countywide wastewater flow rates shown in Table 9. Table 9. Projected Average Daily Wastewater Flow for Brunswick County Year Population Wastewater Flow (gpd) 2000 73,143 4,388,580 2010 108,176 6,490,560 2020 137,677 8,260,620 2030 167,178 10,030,680 2040 199,323 11,959,380 2050 230,483 13,828,980 Based on the data provided in Appendix E, permitted wastewater capacity for publically-owned and operated municipal wastewater treatment systems in the County was determined to be approximately 12.7 MGD. With the aforementioned expansion planned for the Northeast Brunswick wastewater plant to 3.8 MGD, the currently anticipated municipal wastewater treatment capacity within the County should be approximately 14.0 MGD. Since wastewater treatment systems typically begin expansions when average flows approach 80% of design, the effective treatment capacity on a countywide basis is approximately 11.2 MGD (14.0 MGD x 80%). An additional 1.45 MGD of permitted domestic wastewater treatment capacity is currently provided by private system owners, while individual onsite systems currently provide over 5 MGD of estimated wastewater management capacity (although septic systems continue to be retired and connected to public sewer systems, so this estimated capacity is expected to decrease over time). Although a detailed analysis of wastewater treatment system location versus water service and growth areas is beyond the scope of this study, Table 6 indicates that wastewater treatment capacity is distributed relatively evenly within the County with the 6 MGD West Brunswick plant sited in the Shallotte IBT River Basin and serving the southwestern part of the County and the Northeast plant and Belville plants located in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin serving the northeastern part of the County. This suggests that treatment facilities are sited in a way that should make it feasible to serve new connections in areas of the County projected to grow throughout the planning period. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 23 Based on this comparison between wastewater flow rate projections and permitted and planned wastewater treatment capacity in Brunswick County, additional system expansions should not be required until after 2030. 1.6 INTERBASIN TRANSFER REQUEST The proposed expansion of the Northwest WTP triggers a need for an IBT certificate because a substantial portion of the additional surface water withdrawn in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin and treated at the plant would be distributed to customers in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The County is requesting an IBT certificate from the EMC for an increase of 7.8 MGD over the grandfathered transfer, resulting in a maximum transfer of 18.3 MGD on the basis of projections through approximately 2042 (Table 10; Figure 14). No increase in IBT is being requested for the Waccamaw River Basin: minor growth is expected in this area (2010 peak demand 0.45 mgd; 2050 demand of 0.57 mgd) and future water will be supplied by the Little River Water and Sewerage Company in South Carolina via an agreement with the County. Detailed IBT water balance tables are provided in Appendix F. Table 10. Brunswick County Maximum Daily Surface Water Transfer (Actual 2010; Projected 2020 – 2050) Year Total Water Demand (MGD) – Max Day Withdrawal from Surface Water Source (MGD) 1 Total Return to Source Basin (MGD) IBT – Shallotte (MGD) IBT – Waccamaw (MGD) Total IBT (MGD) 2010 21.32 16.83 8.31 7.71 0.81 8.52 2020 28.47 22.47 11.09 10.57 0.81 11.38 2030 33.76 27.76 13.70 13.25 0.81 14.06 2040 39.52 33.52 16.54 16.17 0.81 16.98 2050 45.11 39.11 19.30 19.00 0.81 19.81 IBT Request (~2042) 36 2 17.76 17.43 0.81 18.3 3 IBT Exceeding Grandfathered Amount of 10.5 MGD 7.8 3 Notes: 1 The flow amounts are surface water only for the Northwest WTP and do not include flows from the 211 WTP. 2 Based on the proposed treatment capacity of 36 MGD finished water for the Northwest WTP. Additional raw water that is withdrawn from the river for backwash, clarifier blowdowns, and process water is not included. This water is discharged back to the Cape Fear source basin via NPDES permit. 3 Values have been rounded up for the IBT request. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 24 Figure 14. Brunswick County IBT Projections (Max Day and Average Day) 0 5 10 15 20 25 MG D Maximum Day Average Day Grandfathered Amt. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 25 1.7 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES TO IBT An analysis of water supply alternatives is a requirement of the IBT evaluation and environmental document and is important for determining the most viable alternative for the County. Options for an increase in IBT associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP are weighed herein against alternatives that do not require additional IBT or combinations of alternatives that could limit the quantity of the IBT. Factors considered during alternatives analyses include the technical viability of the option, the constructability of the alternative, potential environmental impacts, technical difficulty, permitting issues, and estimates of probable costs, both construction costs and operation and maintenance (O&M). The alternatives compared herein are: 1) No Additional IBT 2) Additional IBT - Expand Northwest WTP 3) Waccamaw Surface WTP 4) Expand 211 WTP 5) New Groundwater WTP 6) Seawater Desalination Plant 7) Return of Additional Wastewater to Source Basin 8) Water Conservation and Reuse 9) Surface Water Storage The analysis of these alternatives is discussed in Section 5 after the detailed descriptions of environmental characteristics in the source and receiving basins. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 26 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 27 2 Existing Environmental Characteristics: Cape Fear IBT River Basin This section describes the existing environmental characteristics in the source basin, the Cape Fear IBT River Basin. Sections 3 and 4 cover the two receiving basins. The LCFWSA supplies water to the Northwest WTP from an intake on the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1. For this assessment, the study area is composed of a portion of the Cape Fear IBT River Basin in the vicinity of Lock and Dam #1 extending downstream to include the remainder of the basin, hereafter referred to as the Cape Fear Study Area (Figure 15). The northern terminus of the study area begins 1 mile north (as Euclidean distance) of the intake above Lock and Dam #1. The inclusion of area above the intake is meant to capture portions of the source basin that might be affected by the withdrawal without including areas farther upstream (extending another 130 miles upstream) that would reasonably be expected to have no impact. Figure 15. Overview Map of the IBT River Basins Study Area 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND FLOODPLAINS The Cape Fear Study Area is in the Inner and Outer Coastal Plain physiographic provinces, which are characterized by gently rolling hills and valleys at higher elevations and flat, poorly drained areas near the GF GF GFGF# Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA W a cc a m a w Riv er Cape Fear River Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Cape Fear River Estuary W h it e M a rs h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek Big S wa m p NC- 133 N C -90 5 NC-410 N C-132 NC-210 I- 40 N C -1 3 0 NC-211 NC-8 7 NC-904 US-117 N C- 2 1 0 US-17 US- 42 1 NC-211 NC-242 NC-211 US-701 US-1 7 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basin Study Area NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter ± Map Extent NorthCarolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend #Lock and Dam GF Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Brunswick County A t l a n t i cAtl a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Shallo tte River L o c k wo o d s F o lly R i v e r Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 28 coast (NCGS, 2004). Elevations in the Cape Fear Study Area range from sea level throughout the lower Cape Fear River to 105 feet above mean sea level in the grounds of International Paper. The maximum elevation outside the International Paper grounds reaches 77 feet above mean sea level near the town of Northwest west of the Cape Fear River and near the center of the study area. The underlying geology of the Cape Fear Study Area consists of formations from the Tertiary, Cretaceous, and Quaternary periods. These formations include the Comfort Member Formation and New Hanover Member Formation, undivided, and the Waccamaw Formation from the Tertiary period, the Peedee Formation from the Cretaceous period, and surficial deposits, undivided, from the Quaternary period. These formations are characterized by consolidated and loosely consolidated sedimentary rock composed of materials such as silt, sand, gravel, clay, limestone, and peat that were alluvial sediments brought down from the Piedmont or marine sediments deposited by the ocean. Portions of the Cape Fear Study Area are within the FEMA 100- and 500-year floodplains. These areas are mainly associated with the Cape Fear River and its tributaries. 2.2 SOILS 2.2.1 Soil Series County soil survey data for portions of Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, Pender, and Bladen counties in the Cape Fear Study Area were retrieved from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; NRCS, 2011a). All the soils in the Cape Fear Study Area formed in Coastal Plain sediment or in sediment deposited by streams. Whereas 83 soil series are in the study area, 50 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area is composed of only 10 major soil series: Baymeade, Leon, Murville, Goldsboro, Rains, Torhunta, Foreston, Kureb, Norfolk, and Dorovan soils (Table 11, Figure 16). Table 11. Soil Series of the- Cape Fear Study Area Series Name Percent of Cape Fear Study Area Baymeade 10.00% Leon 7.58% Murville 6.22% Goldsboro 4.80% Rains 4.61% Torhunta 4.04% Foreston 4.02% Kureb 3.97% Norfolk 3.80% Dorovan 3.52% All Other Soil Series 39.25% Water 8.19% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 29 The 10 major soil series in the Cape Fear Study Area are described below according to information obtained from the USDA’s NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions database (NRCS, 2011b). Baymeade The Baymeade series consists of deep, well-drained soils with moderately rapid permeability. They formed in loamy and sandy marine sediments of the lower Coastal Plain and occur on broad, gently sloping surfaces. Slopes range from 0 to 12 percent. Measured water table levels at two sites show that the water table is 45 to 60 inches below the surface in December to April and other wet periods. Most Baymeade soils are in forest of mixed hardwood and pine. Native vegetation is turkey oak, long leaf pine, dwarfed huckleberry, small myrtle, wire grass, and aster. Large areas are in residential and urban uses in New Hanover County. Leon The Leon series consists of very deep, poorly and very poorly drained, moderately to moderately slowly permeable soils on upland flats, depressions, stream terraces and tidal areas. They formed in sandy marine sediments of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Most areas of Leon soils are used for forestry, rangeland and pasture. Areas with adequate water control are used for cropland and vegetables. The natural vegetation consists of longleaf pine, slash pine, water oak, myrtle, with a thick undergrowth of saw palmetto, running oak, fetterbush and other lyonia, inkberry (gallberry), chalky bluestem, creeping bluestem and pineland threeawn (wiregrass). In depressions, the vegetation is dominated by bracken fern; smooth sumac and swamp cyrilla are common. Vegetation in the tidal marshes includes bushy sea oxeye, marsh hay cordgrass, seashore saltgrass, batis, and smooth cordgrass. The water table is at depths of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 4 months in most years. In low flats or sloughs it is at a depth of 0 to 6 inches for periods of more than 3 weeks in most years. It is between depths of 18 and 36 inches for 2 to 10 months in most years. It is below 60 inches in the dry periods of most years. Depressional areas are covered with standing water for periods of 6 months or more in most years. Murville The Murville series consists of very poorly drained soils that have rapid permeability in the A horizon and moderately rapid permeability in the Bh horizon. The soils formed from wet, sandy, marine and fluvial sediments. They are nearly level and are on flats or in slight depressions on broad interstream areas of uplands and stream terraces in the Coastal Plain. Slopes are less than 2 percent. The water table is at or near the surface most of the time except in summer months or where artificially drained. Depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 0 to 1 foot from November to May. Murville soils chiefly occur in cutover forests of pond pine, with a few scattered loblolly, longleaf pine, and red maple. Slash pine grow in the southern part of the range. Understory vegetation includes sweetbay, redbay, swamp cyrilla (red titi), zenobia, inkberry (bitter gallberry), large gallberry, greenbrier, switchcane, fetterbush lyonia, blueberry, loblollybay gordonia, southern bayberry (waxmyrtle), and a ground cover of sphagnum and club mosses, chain fern, broom sedge, and switch cane and maidencane in open areas. Where frequent burning has taken place, only the understory species are present. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 30 Figure 16. Soil Series of the Cape Fear Study Area Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Lock & Dam #1 Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Big Creek Juniper Creek NC-132 NC-210 I - 4 0 N C- 5 3 NC-211 US-117 U S- 4 2 1 NC-211 U S -1 7 Cape Fear IBT River Basin Study Area: Soil Series NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 3 6 91.5 Miles 0 3 6 91.5 Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Brunswick County Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Soil Series Baymeade Dorovan Foreston Goldsboro Kureb Leon Murville Norfolk Rains Torhunta Water Other A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n Cape Fear Study Area Cape Fear River Estuary Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 31 Goldsboro The Goldsboro series consists of moderately well-drained soils that have moderate permeability. The soils formed from marine and fluviomarine deposits and are on marine terraces and uplands in the lower to upper Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 10 percent. The depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 18 to 30 inches from December to April. Goldsboro soils primarily occur on lands used for croplands; the dominant vegetation, where cultivated, is corn, peanuts, tobacco, soybeans, small grain, cotton, and pasture. Where wooded, the dominant vegetation is loblolly pine, longleaf pine, slash pine, sweetgum, southern red oak, white oak, water oak, and red maple, yellow poplar. Understory plants include American holly, blueberry, flowering dogwood, greenbrier, persimmon, redbay, southern bayberry (waxmyrtle), inkberry (bitter gallberry), honeysuckle, poison ivy, and summersweet clethra. Rains The Rains series consists of poorly drained soils that have moderate permeability. The soils formed from marine and fluviomarine deposits and are on flats, depressions, or the Carolina bays in the lower, middle, and upper Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 0 to 12 inches from December to April. Rains soils occur in forested and cropland areas. Where cultivated, the dominant vegetation is corn, soybeans, and small grains. Where wooded, the dominant vegetation is pond pine, loblolly pine, and hardwoods. Torhunta The Torhunta series consist of very poorly drained soils with moderately rapid permeability and slow runoff in upland bays and on nearly level stream terraces in Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The soil formed in coarse to medium textured, marine or fluvial deposits. The water table is at or near the surface 2 to 6 months annually. Approximately two-thirds of Torhunta soils are in pine forest with pond and loblolly being the principal species. About one-third of the soil area has been drained and is used for growing corn, soybeans, small grain, and pasture grasses. Foreston The Foreston series consists of moderately well-drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils with slow surface runoff that formed in loamy marine sediment. These soils are on high ridges and slight rises in broad flat interstream divides of the Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Most areas of these soils have been cleared and are cropped to corn, cotton, tobacco, soybeans, and hay crops. Vegetation of forested areas includes various species of pine with mixed hardwoods. Kureb The Kureb series consists of very deep, excessively drained, gently sloping to moderately steep soils with rapid permeability and slow surface runoff on Coastal Plain uplands and on side slopes along streams and bays. They have formed in marine, aeolian, or fluvial sands. Slopes range from 3 to 10 percent and can range to 20 percent on side slopes along streams and edges of bays. Depth to seasonal high water table is more than 6 feet most of the year. Kureb soils are mainly wooded. Native vegetation is turkey oak, bluejack and a few live oak with scattered longleaf pine. The understory consists mainly of huckleberry and pineland threeawn. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 32 Norfolk The Norfolk series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils formed from marine or fluviomarine deposits on uplands or marine terraces in the lower, middle, or upper Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 10 percent. Depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 40 to 72 inches from January to March. Most Norfolk soils have been cleared and are used for general farm crops such as corn, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, and soybeans. Where these soils are still wooded, the dominant vegetation is pines and mixed hardwoods. Dorovan The Dorovan series consists of very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on densely forested flood plains, hardwood swamps, and depressions in the Atlantic Coast Flatwoods, Eastern Gulf Coast Flatwoods, and Southern Coastal Plain Major Land Resource Areas. The soil is saturated to the surface most of the time. Runoff is very slow and water is ponded on the surface in depressions. Dorovan soils formed in highly decomposed acid-organic materials. Slopes are less than 2 percent. Nearly all the soils are used for woodland and wildlife habitat. The native vegetation is blackgum, baldcypress, sweetbay, swamp tupelo, titi, greenbrier, red maple and scattered pine. The ground cover is ferns, mosses, and other hydrophytic plants. 2.2.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups Soil survey data retrieved from USDA NRCS (NRCS, 2011a) provides soil series assignments to specific hydrologic soil groups (HSGs). Soils grouped to specific HSGs have similar physical properties and runoff characteristics. Most of the groupings are based on the premise that soils in a climatic region that are similar in depth to a restrictive layer or water table, transmission rate of water, texture, structure, and degree of swelling when saturated will have similar runoff responses (NRCS, 2007). Four HSG groups have been developed: Group A (low runoff potential and high infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted), Group B (moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted), Group C (low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted), and Group D (highest runoff potential and very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted). Some soils have been assigned dual HSGs (e.g., A/D, B/D, and C/D). In such cases, the first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition (NRCS, 2007). Twenty-two percent of the Cape Fear Study Area is composed of HSG A soils, 19 percent is composed of B/D soils, and 17 percent is composed of HSG B soils (Table 12). This translates to over 50 percent of the total Cape Fear Study Area being composed of soils that have either low runoff potential with high infiltration rates (Group A) or moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted (Group B) or in drained conditions (Group B/D). These HSGs consist chiefly of deep, well- to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission (Group A) or of moderately deep to deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures (Group B). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 33 Table 12. HSG for Cape Fear Study Area HSG Percent of Study Area A 22% B/D 19% B 17% D 14% C 11% Not Classified 9% A/D 7% C/D 1% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 34 Figure 17. HSG for the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h i t e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p NC -9 0 5 NC-410 NC-210 I - 4 0 N C - 1 3 0 US-11 7 N C -2 1 0 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Hydrologic Soil Group NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Hydrologic Soil Group A A/D B B/D C C/D D Unclassified A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 35 2.3 LAND USE 2.3.1 Existing Land Use Land use and land cover are summarized from two data sources: (1) existing land use data for the County developed by the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) Department, and (2) 2006 land cover data from the National Land Cover Dataset (Fry et al., 2011). In the portion of the Cape Fear Study Area in the County (Table 13, Figure 18), land use consists of forested lands (63 percent), lands covered by water and wetlands (12 percent), lands developed for low, medium, and high-density residential purposes (totaling 11 percent), agricultural lands and open fields used for crops primarily consisting of corn, soybeans, and tobacco (4 percent), transportation (4 percent), military purposes (3 percent), lands developed for commercial, educational, institutional, and industrial purposes (2 percent), lands used for communications and utilities (1 percent), recreational uses (< 1 percent), and mining and extraction (< 1 percent). Outside the County, the Cape Fear Study Area primarily consists of water and wetlands (35 percent), forested lands (22 percent), developed areas (20 percent), and agricultural lands or open fields (12 percent) (Figure 18). The land use category assignments used for Table 13 are provided in Appendix G. Table 13. Land Use for the Cape Fear Study Area in Brunswick County Land Use Group Area (km2) Percent Forest 623.12 63.00% Water/Wetlands 114.77 11.60% Low-Density Residential 109.59 11.08% Agricultural Land/Open Field 38.08 3.85% Transportation 35.61 3.60% Military 32.15 3.25% Developed Land 16.08 1.63% Communications & Utilities 11.10 1.12% Recreation 6.75 0.68% High-Density Residential 0.72 0.07% Medium-Density Residential 0.66 0.07% Mining & Extraction 0.42 0.04% Note: km2 = square kilometers Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 36 Figure 18. Existing Land Use for the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 NC-210 I- 4 0 N C- 1 3 0 US-117 N C - 2 1 0 US - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Existing Land Use NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Land Use Forest/Forested Wetlands/Shrub OpenWwater/Emergent Wetlands Agricultural Land/Open Field Low-Density Residential Dev. Medium-Density Residential Dev. Developed* Communications & Utilities Recreation Military Mining & Extraction A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n *Developed lands include high-density residential, high intensity developed lands, transportation, commercial, educational, institutional, manufacturing, and industrial areas and were classified as developed lands for display purposes. Data sources: - Brunswick County 2009 Land Use coverage - 2006 NLCD coverage for areas outside of Brunswick County. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 37 2.3.2 Future Land Use The CAMA Core Land Use Plan (Plan) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) for the County when it was undergoing tremendous fiscal and social change (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a). The County Future Land Use developed for the Plan (supplied by the Brunswick County Planning Office) was forecast to 2025 but is thought to represent a scenario close to build-out and is summarized in Table 14 and shown in Figure 19. Some municipalities within Brunswick County were not included in the County’s Future Land Use classification. Future land use data were retrieved from several of these non-participating municipalities and were added to the summary; these additions are included in area calculations presented in Table 14 (see table note). Note that only future land use within the boundaries of the County are shown. Table 14. Future Land Use for Brunswick County in the Cape Fear Study Area Future Land Use Area (km2)1 Percent of Study Area Conservation 366.97 37.10% Low Density Residential 319.87 32.34% Industrial 87.99 8.90% Medium Density Residential 40.27 4.07% Military 37.02 3.74% Commercial and Community Commercial 47.91 4.85% Recreation 5.13 0.52% Mixed Use 4.32 0.44% Protected Lands 4.03 0.41% Office & Institutional 3.00 0.30% Government/Airport 2.16 0.22% High Density Residential 0.86 0.09% Note: 1 Some Cape Fear Study Area municipalities were not included in the Brunswick County Future Land Use classification. Data for these areas were obtained from the following and were added: Bald Head Island (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2008), Navassa (The Rhett Company, 2008), Oak Island (Town of Oak Island, 2009), and Southport (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007b). Future land use data is not currently available for Leland or Sandy Creek. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 38 Figure 19. Future Land Use for the IBT River Basins Study Area GF GF GFGF# Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Cape Fear River Estuary W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C - 1 3 3 N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 N C - 132 NC-210 I - 4 0 N C -1 3 0 NC-211 N C - 87 NC-904 US-117 N C - 2 1 0 US-17 U S -4 21 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 U S -1 7 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Future Land Use NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 06-18-2012 - C. Carter ± Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122 Kilometers Legend #Lock and Dam GF Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Future Land Use GIS Data Currently Unavailable Future Land Use Conservation Protected Lands Low-Density Residential Medium-Density Residential High-Density Residential Commercial Community Commercial Industrial Military Mixed Use Recreation Office & Institutional Government/Airport Vacant/Not Classified A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nAtl a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 39 Table 14 provides a breakdown of future land use categories for the portion of the Cape Fear Study Area in the County. The two most prevalent categories are conservation (37 percent) and low-density residential (32 percent). The conservation designation is intended to be used for the permanent protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, and areas with historical, cultural, and archeological significance (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a). Low density residential areas are designated for agricultural uses, single family residences, multifamily residences in certain cases, single- and double- wide manufactured homes, emergency shelters, parks, and places of worship (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a). The future land use projections are focused on land use rather than land cover, thus it is reasonable to expect that low density residential areas would contain natural land covers of forest, wetlands, and water. 2.3.3 Forest Resources North Carolina’s recently published Forest Resources Assessment (North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, 2010) is a statewide analysis of the past, current, and projected future conditions of North Carolina’s forest resources. Because of the numerous and diverse forest types across the state, forest groupings were used to portray forest composition for the assessment. Data used throughout the assessment was obtained from the USDA Forest Service – Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program and Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC; USFS, 2008). This data set portrays 28 forest groups across the contiguous United States and was derived from MODIS composite images from the 2002 and 2003 growing seasons in combination with nearly 100 other geospatial data layers. Forest groups from this data set cover approximately 81 percent of the total land area in the Cape Fear Study Area and are composed of five dominant forest groupings (Figure 20). The loblolly-shortleaf pine group is most prevalent, covering approximately 49 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. These are forests in which loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), or other southern yellow pines, except longleaf (P. palustris) or slash (P. elliottii) pine, singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the stocking and common associates include oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), and gum. At lower elevations, near the coast, these forests are on moist and poorly drained soils. At higher elevations, they are on drier soils and often on abandoned farmland (USFS, 2008). The next most prevalent forest group in the Cape Fear Study Area is the oak-gum-cypress group, covering approximately 12 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. Forests in this group are bottomland forests in which tupelo (Nyssa spp.), blackgum (N. sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), oaks, or southern cypress (Taxodium distichum), singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the stocking, except where pines account for 25 to 50 percent, in which case the stand would be classified as oak-pine and common associates include cottonwood (Populus sp.), willow (Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.), hackberry (Celtis sp.), and maple (Acer spp.). These forests are characterized by wet soils, and these sites are often flooded for most of the growing season (USFS, 2008). The longleaf-slash pine group covers approximately 11 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. These are forests in which longleaf or slash pine, singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the stocking and common associates include oak, hickory, and gum. Additional forest groups in the Cape Fear Study Area are the oak-pine and the oak-hickory groups, each covering approximately 5 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 40 Figure 20. Forest Resources for the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W hit e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 N C-132 NC-210 I- 4 0 N C -1 3 0 N C - 8 7 US-117 N C -2 1 0 U S-4 21 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Forest Resources NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Forest Group Non-Forested Longleaf-Slash Pine Group Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine Group Oak-Pine Group Oak-Hickory Group Oak-Gum-Cypress Group Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Group A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 41 2.3.4 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land Three categories of important farmlands are recognized in North Carolina-prime, unique, and statewide. Criteria for farmland of statewide importance were developed in 1988 by the North Carolina NRCS State Soils Staff in consultation with soil survey cooperators, resource conservationists, and key soil survey customers. Ten percent of the Cape Fear Study Area has soils that are identified as prime farmland and an additional 19 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area includes soils identified as prime farmland if they were to be drained (Table 15, Figure 21). Prime farmland soils, as defined by USDA, are soils that are best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Such soils have properties that are favorable for the economic production of sustained high yields of crops (Barnhill, 1986). Nine percent of the Cape Fear Study Area has soils that are farmlands of unique importance. Soils that have a special set of properties that are unique for producing certain high-value crops meet the requirements for unique farmland. Seventeen percent of the Cape Fear Study Area has soils that are farmlands of statewide importance. In general, soils that do not meet the requirements of prime farmlands fall into this category, and they are classified as having statewide importance according to criteria established specifically for North Carolina. Table 15. Farmland Classification for Farmed Areas in the Cape Fear Study Area Farmland Classification Percent of Cape Fear Study Area Prime farmland 10% Prime farmland if drained 19% Not prime farmland 43% Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season 2% Farmland of unique importance 9% Farmland of statewide importance 17% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 42 Figure 21. Prime Farmland in the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C -1 3 3 N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 N C- 132 NC-210 I - 4 0 N C-1 3 0 N C - 9 0 4 US-117 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Prime Farmland NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Farmland Classification All areas are prime farmland Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of unique importance Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding Not prime farmland A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 43 2.3.5 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas In 2002 the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis developed a GIS data layer covering lands managed for conservation and open space (LMCOS; NCCGIA, 2002). This data layer serves as a composite inventory that integrates digital depictions of lands from multiple sources and resolves boundary discrepancies among sources. Several partners were included in the creation of this data layer (e.g., various divisions of DENR, the Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Forest Service). LMCOS are a combination of lands that are permanently protected open space and farmland and other lands that are managed as open space as defined by North Carolina G.S.§160A-407. These lands encompass, for example, state parks, recreation areas, natural areas, nature preserves, lakes, historic sites, game lands, and coastal reserves, cultural and historic lands, preserved farmlands, submerged lands, public beach and coastal water access areas, and national forests and parks. LMCOS in the Cape Fear Study Area are owned by several entities such as the state, land trusts, the federal government, The Nature Conservancy, municipalities, and counties (Figure 22). Table 16 through Table 18 provide a list of all LMCOS in the Cape Fear Study Area. Because the LMCOS data layer was created in 2002, additional data layers depicting state-owned lands, federally owned lands, and land trusts, created in 2010, 2006, and 2008, respectively, were used to provide an account of most recent land ownerships (NCDOA, 2010; NCCGIA, 2006; The Conservation Fund, 2008). In all, approximately 140 square kilometers (km2), or 9 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area, is designated as lands for conservation or open space for public use. The sites having the largest area are the state-owned Bald Head Island Natural Area (24 km2, 1.5 percent) and Boiling Spring Lakes Preserve (16 km2, 1 percent), and the Town Creek land trust areas (19 km2, 1 percent). Bald Head Island is a state natural area; it possesses a unique diversity of intact ecosystems including dune, beach, estuarine, salt marsh, maritime forest, maritime shrub, and freshwater aquifer. The Boiling Spring Lakes Preserve is owned by the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program and managed by The Nature Conservancy. Large concentrations of Carolina bays (elliptical wetland depressions) are in the preserve area and fire-dependent natural communities, including high and low pocosins (evergreen shrub bogs), longleaf pine savannas, and flatwoods on the ridges and bay rims, form an intricate medley of habitats. The preserve houses rare flora and fauna including the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, carnivorous plants, and orchids (TNC, 2011a). Town Creek contains prime wildlife habitat and wetlands. The North Carolina Coastal Land Trust has worked with state and federal agencies, timber companies, and private individuals to protect land along Town Creek and its tributaries. Alligators are often seen in Town Creek, especially along the last few miles before reaching the Cape Fear (North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, 2011). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 44 Table 16. LMCOS in the Cape Fear Study Area Owner Type Name Owner/Management Total Area in Cape Fear Study Area (km2) Percent of Cape Fear Study Area State Bald Head Island Natural Area, Boiling Springs Lakes Preserve, and several more (See Table 17) North Carolina (Administration, Division of Parks and Recreation, Division of Coastal Management, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Marine Fisheries, Wildlife Resources Commission, UNC Wilmington), The Nature Conservancy 70.68 4.38% Land Trust Town Creek, Orton Plantation, and several more (See Table 18) North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, Smith Island Land Trust, Conservation Trust for North Carolina, and North American Land Trust 57.58 3.57% Federal Eagle Island USACE 6.16 0.38% The Nature Conservancy Green Swamp Preserve (Black Bear Sanctuary), Permanent Easement The Nature Conservancy 4.37 0.27% Municipal Carolina Beach Lake II, Exchange Club Bicentennial Park, Franklin Square Park, Greenfield Lake, Greenfield Park, Lightship Municipal Park, Municipal Boat Ramp, Riverfront Park II, Western Corridor Southside Park Municipalities of Carolina Beach, Wilmington, and Southport 0.66 0.04% County Arrowhead Park, Blair Noble Park, Kings Grant Park, Northwest Township District Park, Parkwood Recreation Area, Smithville Township District Park, Trask Park, Virginia Pearson Empie Park New Hanover and Brunswick Counties 0.54 0.03% Other -- -- 1.32 0.08% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 45 Table 17. State-Owned Public Lands and Natural Areas in the Cape Fear Study Area Site Name Area in Cape Fear Study Area (km2) Percent of Cape Fear Study Area Bald Head Island Natural Area 24.02 1.49% Boiling Springs Lakes Preserve 16.46 1.02% Zeke's Island - Estuarine Sanctuary 5.85 0.36% Roan Island 5.13 0.32% Fort Fisher 4.26 0.26% Other 4.04 0.25% Carolina Beach State Park 1.34 0.08% Marine Fisheries - Submerged Lands Section 1.23 0.08% Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 1.18 0.07% State Ports Authority - Eagle Island Spoil Area, Basin River Property, Southport Boat Harbor, Wilmington 1.05 0.07% Carolina Beach State Park 0.99 0.06% Wildlife Resources Commission Lands 0.97 0.06% Eagles Island 0.96 0.06% UNC Wilmington - Ecological Botanical Gardens 0.84 0.05% CM Bald Head Woods Coastal Reserve 0.84 0.05% Historic Brunswick Town 0.56 0.03% NCSU Horticulture Crops Research Station 0.24 0.01% NC Battleship (Site) 0.20 0.01% Bird Island 0.18 0.01% Brunswick County Conservation Easement Sites 0.17 0.01% Columbus County Conservation Easement Sites 0.14 0.01% Natural Heritage Areas (Various Islands) 0.02 < 0.01% New Hanover County Conservation Easement Sites 0.001 < 0.01% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 46 Table 18. Land Trusts in the Cape Fear Study Area Trust Site Name Area in Cape Fear Study Area (km2) Percent of Cape Fear Study Area North Carolina Coastal Land Trust Town Creek 19.25 1.19% Orton Plantation 12.42 0.77% Pleasant Oaks Plantation 9.02 0.56% Cape Fear River DuPont - Brunswick 5.67 0.35% Not Provided 5.54 0.34% Cape Fear Royal Tracts 3.21 0.20% Cape Fear River - Davis 0.55 0.03% Lords Creek Burnett 0.45 0.03% Lords Creek 0.19 0.01% Indigo Plantation Marsh Preserve 0.16 0.01% Alderman Nature Preserve 0.12 0.01% Oak Island Marshes 0.11 0.01% Telfairs Creek (Beach Walk) 0.08 < 0.01% Lords Creek Burnett - NCCLT Tract 0.02 < 0.01% Carolina Beach Lake 0.01 < 0.01% Conservation Trust for North Carolina Island Associates 0.003 < 0.01% Overstreet Easement 0.002 < 0.01% Cauthen Lacin Easement 0.002 < 0.01% Hobgood Easement 0.002 < 0.01% Klaine Easement 0.002 < 0.01% Wesson-Dimling Easement 0.001 < 0.01% Cauthen Easement 0.001 < 0.01% Himes Easement Part I 0.001 < 0.01% Hollinshed Easement 0.001 < 0.01% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 47 Trust Site Name Area in Cape Fear Study Area (km2) Percent of Cape Fear Study Area McQuiade Easement 0.001 < 0.01% Bentsen Easement 0.001 < 0.01% Quanstrom Easement 0.001 < 0.01% Cauthen III 0.001 < 0.01% Martin Property 0.001 < 0.01% Lacin Property 0.001 < 0.01% Himes Easement Part II 0.001 < 0.01% Kelly Easement 0.0002 < 0.01% Smith Island Land Trust Cape 2000 Campaign 0.01 < 0.01% North American Land Trust Not Provided 0.76 0.05% Rivers identified as National Wild and Scenic Rivers that are under federal protection are not in the Cape Fear Study Area. Public trust waters are navigable waters open for public uses such as fishing and navigation; such waters are common and widespread throughout the Cape Fear Study Area. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 48 Figure 22. LMCOS in the IBT River Basins Study Area Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA W a c c a m a w R iv e r Cape Fear River Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Cape Fear River Estuary W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek Big S w a m p N C-1 3 3 N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 NC-13 2 NC-210 I - 40 N C- 1 3 0 NC-211 NC -8 7 NC-904 US-117 N C -2 1 0 US-17 US - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 NC-211 US-701 U S-17 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Lands Managed for Conservation/Open Space NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Owner Type State* Land Trust* Federal The Nature Conservancy Municipal County Other A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n * Lands acquired by the State through land trusts are displayed under the owner type of "Land Trust" S h a ll o t te Ri v e r L o c k w o o d s F o ll y Ri v e r Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 49 2.3.6 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value The Cape Fear River is recognized as one the most significant and historically important waterways of the Carolinas. The Lower Cape Fear has served as a commercially important navigational artery for more than 300 years. Numerous shipwrecks are known and identified in the coastal section of the river (Jackson, 1996; Overton and Lawrence, 1996). The Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson site is a State Historic Site in North Carolina and is on the west bank of the lower Cape Fear River. Brunswick Town was a major pre-Revolutionary port along the river; it was destroyed by British troops in 1776 and never rebuilt. During the Civil War, Fort Anderson was constructed atop the old village site and served as part of the Cape Fear River defenses below Wilmington. Archaeology was active on the site in the 1950s and 1960s, and the site now has several exhibits open to the public (NCDCR, 2011). Fort Fisher is State Historic Site in North Carolina. This fort was constructed near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Today only a few of the fort’s mounds remain because much of the fort has been eroded by the ocean. This site also has several exhibits and is open to the public (NCDCR, 2011). The battleship USS North Carolina is also recognized as a State Historic Site. This site is across the Cape Fear River from downtown Wilmington. During World War II, USS North Carolina participated in every major naval offensive in the Pacific area of operations. The battleship was decommissioned in 1947 and dedicated as North Carolina’s memorial to its World War II veterans in 1962 (NCDCR, 2011). 2.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 2.4.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies The Cape Fear Study Area is in the Cape Fear Major River Basin. The majority of the Cape Fear Study Area is in the Lower Cape Fear subbasin, in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrological Unit 03030005, and two North Carolina DWQ subbasins (03-06-16 and 03-06-17). This portion drains the coastal plain wetlands and bay lakes and includes slow-moving tannin stained tributary streams, the large Cape Fear River estuary, and tidal creeks. A small section in the northeast portion of the Cape Fear Study Area is in the Northeast Cape Fear subbasin, in USGS Hydrological Unit 03030007, and North Carolina DWQ subbasin 03-06-23. 2.4.2 Surface Water Use Classifications All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by DWQ. All waters must at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters except in the case where natural conditions have led to additional classification (e.g., swampwaters). The other primary classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water (Water Supply Classes I through V). Classifications for major waterbodies are displayed in Figure 23 and described below. Most tributaries to and mid-stream sections of the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear Study Area are classified as C and Sw waters. Class C classification is for waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life, and agriculture. Sw classification is for swamp waters and is a supplemental classification intended to recognize those waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from adjacent streams. Directly downstream from the LCFWSA intake, the waters of the Cape Fear River and associated tributaries (Weyman Creek, Copper Smith Branch, Turkeypen Branch, Turner Branch, Beaverdam Creek, Horsepen Branch, Double Branch, and Natmore Creek) are classified as WS-IV and Sw. WS-IV Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 50 classification is for waters used as sources of water supply. In the Cape Fear Study Area, waters of Toomers Creek also are classified as WS-IV. A large portion of the Cape Fear River and the Brunswick River (from source to the Cape Fear River) are classified as SC waters. SC classification is for tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and other activities involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life propagation and survival; and wildlife. Several of the tidal creeks, outlet channels, the mouth of the Cape Fear River, and the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) are classified as SA;HQW waters. SA waters are tidal salt waters that are used for commercial shellfishing or marketing purposes. All SA waters are also HQW by supplemental classification. HQW is a supplemental classification intended to protect waters that are rated excellent on the basis of biological and physical/chemical characteristics through DWQ monitoring or special studies, primary nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and other functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission. Pretty Pond, Clear Pond, Allen Creek (Boiling Springs Lake), and a section of Toomers Creek are all class B and Sw. Class B waters are protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation. Walden Creek and associated tributaries (White Spring Creek, Nigis Creek, Nancy’s Creek, Gum Log Branch, Governors Creek, Fishing Creek), the upstream portion of Dutchman Creek, Beaverdam Creek (from the source to the mouth of Polly Gully Creek), and Polly Gully Creek (from the source to Beaverdam Creek) are SC, Sw, and HQW waters. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 51 Figure 23. DWQ Surface Water Use Classifications for the Cape Fear Study Area Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 Cape Fear River Cape Fear River Estuary Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek Cape Fear IBT River Basin: DWQ Surface Water Use Classifications NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 3 6 91.5 Miles 0 3 6 91.5 Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary DWQ Use Classifications B;Sw C;Sw SA;HQW SC SC;Sw,HQW WS-IV;Sw Other A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n L o c k w o o d s F o ll y Ri v e r Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 52 2.4.3 Existing Surface Water Quality The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List is an integrated report that includes both the Clean Water Act section 305(b) and 303(d) reports. DWQ’s 2010 integrated report assessment lists 25 waterbodies in the Cape Fear Study Area as impaired for various designated use categories (e.g., recreation, shellfish harvesting, or aquatic life; NCDWQ, 2010a. Of the 25 waterbodies listed, 19 consist of coastal waters and tidal creeks, the Brunswick River, the Northeast Cape Fear River, Burnt Mill Creek, and Hewletts Creek (Table 19, Figure 24), and the remaining 6 waterbodies are sections of the Cape Fear River (Table 20). Table 19. Waters with Impaired Use Support Rating in the Cape Fear Study Area (not including the Cape Fear River) Waterbody Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter Atlantic Ocean (Dolphin Court in Kure Beach to Spartanburg Avenue in Carolina Beach) Recreation Standard Violation Enterococcus Bald Head Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Conditionally Approved Open Beaverdam Creek (from the mouth of Polly Gully Creek to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Brunswick River Aquatic Life Standard Violation Low Dissolved Oxygen Burnt Mill Creek Aquatic Life Poor Bioclassification Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Coward Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Denis Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Dutchman Creek (from CP&L Discharge Canal to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Dutchman Creek Outlet Channel Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Dutchman Creek Shellfish Area Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Conditionally Approved Open Elizabeth River (the section of Elizabeth River exclusive of the Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 53 Waterbody Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Conditionally Approved Open Fishing Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Conditionally Approved Open Hewletts Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited ICWW Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Molasses Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Northeast Cape Fear River (from the mouth of Ness Creek to the Cape Fear River) Aquatic Life Standard Violation Copper Piney Point Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Southport Restricted Area Aquatic Life Standard Violation Arsenic, Copper, Nickel Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 54 Table 20. Impairment Ratings for the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear Study Area Location along Cape Fear River Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter From a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut to a line across the river from Walden Creek to the basin Aquatic Life Standard Violation Arsenic Copper Nickel From the raw water supply intake at Federal Paper Board Corporation (Riegelwood) to Bryant Mill Creek Aquatic Life Fair Bioclassification Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos From upstream of the mouth of Toomers Creek to a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut Aquatic Life Standard Violation Turbidity Copper Low Dissolved Oxygen Low pH Prohibited area east of the ICWW in the Cape Fear River Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Prohibited area north of Southport Restricted Area and west of the ICWW in the Cape Fear River Aquatic Life Standard Violation Arsenic Copper Nickel Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Prohibited area near Southport Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Prohibited area south of the Southport Restricted Area Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Conditionally Approved Open Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 55 Figure 24. Impaired Waters of the Cape Fear Study Area GF GF GFGF# Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 Cape Fear River Cape Fear River Estuary Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek N C - 1 3 3 N C- 132 NC-210 I-40 N C - 5 3 NC-211 N C - 8 7 US-117 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 U S -1 7 US-117 Intracoastal Waterway Atlantic Ocean Hewletts Creek Brunswick River Bald Head Creek Beaverdam Creek Burnt Mill Creek Coward Creek Denis Creek Dutchman Creek Elizabeth River Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area Fishing Creek Molasses Creek NE Cape Fear River Piney point Creek Southport Restricted Area Cape Fear River Estuary Cape Fear River: From intake at Federal Paper to Bryant Mill Creek Cape Fear IBT River Basin Study Area: Impaired Waters NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter ±0 3 6 91.5 Miles 0 3 6 91.5 Kilometers Legend #Lock and Dam GF Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary 2010 Impaired Waters A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n L o c k w o o d s F o lly R iv e r Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 56 2.4.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) A TMDL was being developed for the Cape Fear Estuary (NCDWQ, 2005). The Cape Fear Estuary has been listed since 1998 as impaired for aquatic life because of dissolved oxygen standard violations (from upstream mouth of Toomers Creek to a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snow’s Cut; NCDWQ, 2008). Sources of oxygen demand that cause the low dissolved oxygen levels include a considerable volume of blackwater and swamp drainage that contributes natural sources of oxygen- consuming materials and point and nonpoint sources from anthropogenic sources (e.g., agriculture and urban runoff). This portion of the estuary is influenced both by ocean tides and high freshwater flows from the entire upstream basin and therefore goes through many extreme changes in water column chemistry over the course of a year (NCDWQ, 2005). The University of North Carolina at Charlotte completed a final report discussing the results of the Cape Fear Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Model (Bowen et al. 2009). The model was used to investigate the effects of various organic matter and ammonia load reduction scenarios on the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the estuary. Given questions of natural versus anthropogenic sources of oxygen demand and what the dissolved oxygen criteria for the lower Cape Fear River should actually be, DWQ has placed the TMDL development on hold. North Carolina has issued a statewide fish consumption advisory for mercury; therefore, all surface waters in the state are considered impaired by mercury (NCDWQ, 2013). As a result, a statewide mercury TMDL was developed by NCDWQ and approved by EPA in October 2012. The TMDL estimated the proportions of mercury contributions to water and fish from wastewater discharges, in-state air sources, and out-of-state air sources, and calculated the reductions needed to protect North Carolina waters from mercury impairment and remove the fish consumption advisory. Using statistical analysis and the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, NCDWQ determined that a 67% reduction is needed from the 2002 baseline mercury loading. Reductions in both point and nonpoint sources are required, though the most significant source of mercury is nonpoint atmospheric deposition. The NPDES program will play a role in managing mercury from wastewater point sources, which account for 2% of the mercury load, while reductions in atmospheric deposition will require strategies involving other agencies outside of NCDWQ such as the NC Division of Air Quality. 2.4.5 Groundwater Supplies The Cape Fear Study Area is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province in the southern coastal portion of North Carolina. The aquifers underlying the Cape Fear Study Area include the surficial aquifer, the Castle Hayne aquifer, and aquifers of the Cretaceous Aquifer System including the Lower Cape Fear, Upper Cape Fear, Black Creek, and Pee Dee aquifers (NCDWR, 2011). The surficial aquifer is widely used throughout North Carolina for individual home wells. The surficial aquifer is the shallowest and most susceptible to contamination from septic tank systems and other pollution sources (NCDWR, 2011). It is the saturated portion of the upper layer of sediments. The thickness of this layer, from the surface down to the first major confining bed, is typically from 20 to 50 feet. The surficial aquifer is unconfined, meaning that its upper surface is the water table rather than a confining bed. The composition of the surficial aquifer varies across the region, but it is generally 50 to 70 percent sand, allowing high infiltration rates (Huffman, 1996). The Castle Hayne aquifer, underlying the eastern half of the Coastal Plain, is the most productive aquifer in the state. It is primarily limestone and sand. The Castle Hayne is noted for its thickness (more than 300 feet in places) and the ease of water movement within it, both of which contribute to high well yields. It lies fairly close to the surface toward the south and west, deepening rapidly toward the east. Water in the Castle Hayne aquifer ranges from hard to very hard because of its limestone composition. Iron concentrations tend to be high near recharge areas but decrease as the water moves further through the limestone (Huffman, 1996). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 57 The Cretaceous aquifer system is a grouping of several of the oldest and deepest sedimentary deposits that lie directly over the basement rock. The Cretaceous is the primary source of water for the western half of the coastal plain with the exception of the Sandhills region. To the east, the Cretaceous dips underneath the Castle Hayne. Toward the west, it rises near the surface, covered only by the surficial deposits. Water cannot move as easily in the Cretaceous as it does in the Castle Hayne, but the Cretaceous aquifer is very thick, allowing deep and productive wells. Water from the Cretaceous is generally soft and slightly alkaline, requiring no treatment for most uses (Huffman, 1996). 2.5 WETLANDS Wetlands in the Cape Fear Study Area primarily consist of managed pinelands, riverine swamp forests, pocosins, pine flats (including drained), salt/brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, and bottomland hardwood wetlands (Table 21, Figure 25). Over 40 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area is mapped as wetlands by the North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) assessment. NC- CREWS is a watershed-based wetlands functional assessment model performed by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) that uses GIS software and data to assess the level of water quality, wildlife habitat, and hydrologic functions of individual wetlands (NCDCM, 2003a). Definitions of each of the major wetland types in the Cape Fear Study Area were obtained from the NC-CREWS database and are as follows: Managed Pineland Seasonally saturated, managed pine forests (usually loblolly pine) occurring on hydric soils. This wetland category can also contain non-managed pine forests occurring on hydric soils. Generally these are areas that were not shown on National Wetlands Inventory maps. These areas may or may not be jurisdictional wetlands. Because this category is based primarily on soils data and 30-meter resolution satellite imagery, it is less accurate than the other wetland categories. The primary criteria for mapping these areas are hydric soils and a satellite imagery classification of pine forest. Bottomland Hardwood and Riverine Swamp Forest Riverine forested or occasionally scrub/shrub communities usually occurring in floodplains, that are semi- permanently to seasonally flooded. In bottomland hardwood systems, typical species include oaks (overcup, water, laurel, and swamp chestnut), sweet gum, green ash, cottonwoods, willows, river birch, and occasionally pines. In swamp forest systems, typical species include cypress, black gum, water tupelo, green ash and red maple. Pocosin Palustrine scrub/shrub communities (i.e., non-estuarine scrub/shrub) dominated by evergreen shrubs, often mixed with pond or loblolly pines. Typically occur on saturated, acid, nutrient poor, sandy or peaty soils; usually removed from large streams; and subject to periodic burning. Pine Flat Palustrine, seasonally saturated pine communities on hydric soils that can become quite dry for part of the year. Generally occur in flat or nearly flat areas that are not associated with a river or stream system. Pine flats are usually dominated by loblolly pine. This category does not include managed pine systems. Salt/Brackish Marsh Any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses), as long as this flooding does not include hurricane or tropical storm waters. Plant species include smooth cordgrass, black needlerush, glasswort, salt grass, sea lavender, salt marsh bullrush, saw grass, cattail, salt meadow cordgrass, and big cordgrass. Marshes in this category are also called Coastal Marshes. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 58 Freshwater Marsh Herbaceous areas that are flooded for extended periods during the growing season. Included are marshes within lacustrine systems, managed impoundments, some Carolina Bays, and other nontidal marshes (i.e., marshes that do not fall into the salt/brackish marsh category). Typical communities include species of sedges, millets, rushes, and grasses that are not specified in the coastal wetland regulations. Also included are giant cane, arrowhead, pickerelweed, arrow arum, smartweed, and cattail. Table 21. NC-CREWS Wetland Types in the Cape Fear Study Area Wetland Type Area (km2) Percent of Cape Fear Study Area Managed Pineland 202.28 12.54% Riverine Swamp Forest 142.25 8.82% Pocosin 55.49 3.44% Pine Flat 54.93 3.41% Drained Pine Flat 38.92 2.41% Salt/Brackish Marsh 38.85 2.41% Freshwater Marsh 34.57 2.14% Bottomland Hardwood 19.98 1.24% All Other Wetland Types1 68.25 4.23% Note: 1 Includes wetland types covering less than 1 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 59 Figure 25. Wetland Types in the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 NC-210 I -40 N C- 1 3 0 US-117 N C - 2 1 0 US - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Major Wetland Types NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Wetland Types Riverine Swamp Forest Depressional Swamp Forest Bottomland Hardwood Freshwater Marsh Salt/Brackish Marsh Pine Flat Managed Pineland Drained Pine Flat Pocosin Drained Pocosin Other A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 60 2.5.1 Wetland Function The primary objective of the NC-CREWS wetland functional assessment is to provide information about the relative ecological importance of wetlands for use in planning and the overall management of wetlands (NCDCM, 2003b). NC-CREWS evaluates three main wetland functions: water quality, wildlife habitat, and hydrology functions and provides an overall wetland rating for wetlands on the basis of each wetland’s ability and opportunity to provide the listed functions. NC-CREWS uses three relative rating scores to rate assessed wetlands: beneficial significance, substantial significance, and exceptional significance. Of the wetlands assessed in the Cape Fear Study Area, over 35 percent received a rating of exceptional functional significance (totaling 14 percent of the area), over 61 percent received a rating of substantial functional significance (totaling 25 percent of the area), and 1.5 percent received a rating of beneficial functional significance (totaling almost 1 percent of the area). Less than 2 percent of the area wetlands were unable to be evaluated (Table 22, Figure 26). A brief description of each significance level was obtained from the NC-CREWS documentation and is provided below. Table 22. Wetland Significance Rating for Wetlands in the Cape Fear Study Area Wetland Rating Area (km2) Percent of Cape Fear Study Area Percent of Wetlands Assessed Exceptional Functional Significance 229.16 14.21% 35.19% Substantial Functional Significance 403.50 25.01% 61.96% Beneficial Functional Significance 9.69 0.60% 1.49% Unable to Evaluate 8.87 0.55% 1.36% Exceptional Functional Significance A wetland is rated exceptional for its overall functional significance when it performs water quality, hydrologic and/or wildlife habitat functions at well above normal levels. Specifically, a wetland is rated exceptional when any two of the primary wetland functions (water quality, hydrology, and habitat) are rated exceptional. Salt or Brackish marshes, estuarine scrub-shrub wetlands; estuarine forested wetlands; unique natural ecosystems or special wildlife habitat areas, wetlands adjacent to primary nursery areas, and wetlands that contain threatened or endangered species are also rated exceptional. Substantial Functional Significance A wetland is rated substantial when the wetland performs the three primary wetland functions at normal or slightly above normal levels. A wetland is also rated substantial if it is a buffer to a wetland rated exceptional. Beneficial Functional Significance A wetland is rated beneficial when it performs the three primary wetland functions at below normal levels or, in some cases, not at all. Although most wetlands perform a variety of wetland functions, all wetlands do not provide all functions. A wetland is rated beneficial when any two of the primary wetland functions are rated low and none are rated high. Some jurisdictional wetlands might not perform some functions because of degradation or alteration, but might provide other functions at below normal levels. Unable to Evaluate Potential wetland areas that are not rated in the NC-CREWS model because satellite imagery indicates that they have been recently altered. Most of these areas were forested wetlands in 1988 but have been cleared according to 1994 satellite imagery. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 61 Figure 26. Wetland Functional Significance for Wetlands in the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h i t e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p NC -9 0 5 NC-410 NC-210 I- 40 N C - 1 3 0 US-11 7 N C -2 1 0 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Wetland Functional Significance NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Functional Significance Rating Exceptional Substantial Beneficial Unable to Evaluate A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 62 2.6 AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AND RESOURCES 2.6.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program (NHP) in cooperation with the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA), developed the Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) digital data to determine the areas containing ecologically significant natural communities or rare species (NCDENR, 2011b). Just over 25 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area has been identified as SNHA (Figure 27). The NHP has assigned a level of significance to SNHA on the basis of national, state, regional, or county significance. The Cape Fear Study Area has 9 sites that are SNHA and identified as areas of national significance. These sites total approximately 7 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area and include Bald Head Island, Battery Island, Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex, the Green Swamp, MOTSU Governors Creek Natural Area, Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain, Orton Pond Aquatic Habitat, Town Creek Aquatic Habitat, and Town Creek Marshes and Swamp (Table 23). Twenty-three sites were identified as areas of state significance and occupy approximately 14 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area (Table 23). Eighteen sites were identified as areas of regional significance and currently occupy approximately 4 percent of the area, and eight sites were identified as areas of county significance and occupy less than 1 percent of the area. Table 23. SNHAs in the Cape Fear Study Area Significance Site Name National (6.8% of Cape Fear Study Area) Bald Head Island, Battery Island, Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex, Green Swamp, MOTSU Governors Creek Natural Area, Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain, Orton Pond Aquatic Habitat, Town Creek Aquatic Habitat, Town Creek Marshes and Swamp State (13.7% of Cape Fear Study Area) 421 Sand Ridge, Battle Royal Bay, Bluff Island and East Beach, Boiling Spring Lakes Limesink Complex, Brunswick River/Cape Fear River Marshes, Bryant Mill (Greenbank) Bluff, Carolina Beach State Park, Hog Branch Ponds, Hood Creek Floodplain and Slopes, Lower Black River Swamp, Lower Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat, Lower Cape Fear River Bird Nesting Islands, MOTSU Buffer Zone Natural Area, MOTSU Northwest Natural Area, MOTSU Three Ponds Natural Area, Natmore Sandhills, Orton Sandhills and Limesinks, Pleasant Oaks/Goose Landing Plantations, Pretty Pond Limesink Complex, Southport Ferry Landing Forest, Upper Smith Creek Natural Area, White Spring Ponds Complex, Zekes Island Estuarine Sanctuary Regional (4.5% of Cape Fear Study Area) Alligator Branch Sandhill and Flatwoods, Blue Pond/Allen Creek, Cape Fear River Lowlands, Clarendon Plantation Limesinks, Coast Guard Loran Station Natural Area, Doctor Point Hammocks, Fort Caswell Dunes and Marshes, Fort Fisher State Recreation Area, Funston Bays, Goose Pond Limesinks, Lords Creek Natural Area, Middle Island, Neils Eddy Landing, Rabontown Limesinks, Rattlesnake Branch Sandhills, South Wilmington Sandhills, Sturgeon Creek Tidal Wetlands, Winnabow Savanna and Sandhill County (0.3% of Cape Fear Study Area) Barnards Creek, Greenfield Lake, Henrytown Savanna, Little Green Swamp, MOTSU Brunswick Forest Natural Area, Mott Creek Natural Area, Orton Powerline Loosestrife Site, Turkey Branch Sandhill Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 63 Figure 27. SNHAs in the IBT River Basins Study Area (Sites with National Level of Significance are Labeled) Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p IBT River Basins: Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary SNHA: Level of Significance National State Regional County A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n The Green Swamp Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain Town Creek Orton Pond Aquatic Habitat MOTSU Governors Creek Natural Area Bald Head Island Battery IslandLong Beach Maritime Forest Waccamaw River Aquatic Habitat Myrtle Head Savanna Crusoe Island Savanna Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 64 2.6.2 Wildlife Habitat and Resources The Cape Fear River forms the major riverine drainage outlet for eastern Brunswick County and the Cape Fear Study Area. Along the river is a mosaic of alluvial‐influenced plant communities, such as levee and terrace forests, rich mesic slope forests, floodplain hardwood swamps, and cypress swamps. The banks of the southern section of the river are composed of brackish and saltwater marshes (Boyle et al. 2007). On a larger scale, ecological systems have been identified and defined nationwide through the LANDFIRE mapping project. LANDFIRE is supported by the USDA Forest Service Office of Fire and Aviation Management, the U.S. Department of Interior Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, and The Nature Conservancy. The LANDFIRE data set provides an estimation of existing vegetation types (EVT) that represent the distribution of the terrestrial ecological systems classification developed by NatureServe for the western hemisphere. A terrestrial ecological system is defined as a group of plant community types (associations) that tend to co-occur within landscapes with similar ecological processes, substrates, or environmental gradients. EVTs are mapped in LANDFIRE using decision tree models, field reference data, Landsat imagery, digital elevation model data, and biophysical gradient data. The LANDFIRE data set used to analyze the Cape Fear Study Area was completed in 2011 and includes the analysis of images dated from 1999 to 2008 (USGS, 2010). Ten dominant EVTs occur in the Cape Fear Study Area that were not developed or agricultural lands, each covering greater than 1 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area and in all covering approximately 68 percent of the area (Figure 28). Each of the 10 dominant EVTs are described below using information provided by NatureServe (NatureServe, 2007). Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Longleaf Pine Savanna and Flatwoods. Covers 21 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This system occurs on wet mineral soil sites. Landforms include low areas in relict beach ridge systems; eolian sand deposits; and poorly drained clayey, loamy, or sandy flats. They occasionally occur on river terraces above flood levels. Soils range from clayey to sandy, with no accumulated organic surface layer. Soils are seasonally saturated, because of high water table or poor soil drainage. The unifying feature of this system is wet mineral soils associated with a high frequency of fire. Vegetation is a set of associations that are naturally woodlands or savannas dominated by longleaf pine (P. palustris) or, less frequently, by pond pine (P. serotina), slash pine (P. elliottii), or some combination. Hardwoods are present in any abundance only in examples altered by fire suppression. The ground cover is a dense combination of herbs and low shrubs. Frequent fire is the predominant natural force in this system and is crucial in determining its structure and even its identity. Communities naturally burned every few years, many averaging as often as every 3 years. Many plants have their flowering triggered by burning. Without fire, the shrubs increase and hardwoods can invade the system. Herb layer density and diversity decline after just a couple of years without fire. In this system, areas where ponds are embedded in savannas or flatwoods are particularly important for reptiles, such as the mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus) and the pigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius) both of which are state species of concern, and amphibians, such as the significantly rare Mabee’s salamander (Ambystoma mabeei), oak toad (Bufo quercicus), and ornate chorus frog (Pseudacris ornata), the state-threatened eastern tiger salamander (A. tigrinum), Carolina gopher frog (Rana capito), and the dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata) a species of special concern. The federally endangered red‐cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) also uses the sparse overstory and open midstory habitat provided by this system (NCWRC, 2011). Managed Tree Plantation-Southeast Conifer and Hardwood Plantation Group. Covers 17 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. Managed pine plantations that are densely planted. Most planted stands are loblolly pine (P. taeda), but slash (P. elliottii) and longleaf (P. palustris) pine also occur. Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Floodplain Systems. Covers 8 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This systems group comprises floodplain forests. It includes broad gradients of river size, soil nutrient Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 65 levels, and flood frequency. Flooding ranges from semipermanent in the wettest areas to intermittent and short on the higher portions of the floodplain. Vegetation generally includes forests dominated by bottomland hardwood species and other trees tolerant of flooding. Some of the most typical and characteristic tree species found in stands of this systems group include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (N. aquatic), silver maple (A. saccharinum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), cottonwood (Populus deltoids), boxelder (A. negundo), and black willow (S. nigra). Other trees could include red maple (A. rubrum var. rubrum), Drummond’s maple (A. rubrum var. drummondii), river birch (Betula nigra), water hickory (Carya aquatic), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), sweetgum (L. styraciflua), swamp tupelo (N. biflora), Ogeechee tupelo (N. ogeche), oaks (Q. laurifolia, Q. lyrata, Q. michauxii, Q. nigra, Q. pagoda, Q. phellos, Q. similis, Q. texana, Q. virginiana), black willow (S. nigra), American elm (Ulmus Americana), and cedar elm (U. crassifolia). When flooded, these systems can have a substantial aquatic faunal component, with high densities of invertebrates, and can play an important role in the life cycle of fish in the associated river. Unusually long or deep floods can stress vegetation or act as a disturbance for some species. Larger floods cause local disturbance by scouring and depositing sediment along channels and occasionally causing channel shifts. Except for primary successional communities such as bars, most forests exist naturally as multi-aged old-growth forests driven by gap-phase regeneration. Windthrow is probably the most important cause of gaps. Fire is not believed to be important because of low flammability of much of the vegetation, wetness, and abundance of natural firebreaks. Floodplain systems provide habitat for several priority species for conservation. Among them are state- threatened Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) and eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), significantly rare species such as the northern yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius) and Mabee’s salamander (A. mabeei), and species of state special concern such as the star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius), dwarf salamander (E. quadridigitata), four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), and the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) (NCWRC, 2011). Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Small Stream Riparian Systems. Covers 5 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This systems group encompasses the floodplains of small streams. Compared to larger river systems, flooding tends to be variable and of shorter duration. These landscapes usually encompass a variety of habitats resulting from natural hydrological spatial patterns (i.e., meander scars, sloughs, gravel bars, old depressions, and/or oxbows are present). Most of the communities are temporarily flooded, with the possible addition of smaller-scale seasonally flooded features such as beaver-created herbaceous wetlands and shrub-dominated features. The vegetation generally consists almost entirely of forests of wetland trees, but occasional, small shrubby or herbaceous sloughs can also be present. Examples of these systems include a number of different plant communities, each with distinctive floristic compositions. Wetter examples might be strongly dominated by bald cypress (T. distichum) and swamp tupelo (N. biflora). Except in the very wet examples, subcanopy, shrub, and herb layers are generally well developed and woody vines are also prominent. Flooding is an important ecological factor in these systems and can be the most important factor separating them from adjacent systems. Flooding brings nutrients and excludes non-flood-tolerant species. Most of these forests exist naturally as multi-aged, old-growth forests driven by gap-phase regeneration. Windthrow is probably the most important cause of gaps. Fire is probably more important than in larger river systems because distances to uplands are short and because stream channels and sloughs are smaller and less effective as firebreaks. However, most of the vegetation is not very flammable and usually will not carry fire. Herbaceous Wetlands. Covers 5 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. In the Cape Fear Study Area, this system primarily includes tidal marshes but also contains maritime grasslands and fresh water emergent wetlands. The tidal marshes are fresh and brackish tidal marshes, with dominant vegetation of cord grass (Spartina spp.), wild rice (Zizania), sawgrass (Cladium), and needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). Maritime grasslands are a dune grass community consisting of sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and beach grasses. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 66 Fresh water emergent wetlands are wetlands with emergent vegetation in fresh water seepage bogs, ponds and riverbeds. Dominant vegetation in freshwater emergent wetlands are sedges (Carex spp.), eelgrass (Vallisneria sp.), and cane (Arundinaria gigantea spp. tecta) found in unforested canebrakes. Endangered or threatened sea turtles and diamond‐backed terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) depend on habitats provided by the tidal marsh systems. Tidal marshes provide some of the most important habitats for large numbers and types of immediate coastal wildlife that are federally or state listed, or are experiencing precipitous population declines (NCWRC, 2011). Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forest. Covers 4 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This is an upland system occurring in a variety of moist but non-wetland sites that are naturally sheltered from frequent fire. Soil textures are variable in both texture and pH. The vegetation consists of forests dominated by combinations of trees that include a significant component of mesophytic deciduous hardwood species, such as American beech (Fagus grandifolia) or southern sugar maple (A. barbatum). Upland and bottomland oaks at the mid-range of moisture tolerance are usually also present, particularly white oak (Q. alba), but sometimes other oaks (Q. pagoda, Q. falcata, Q. michauxii, Q. shumardii, or Q. nigra). Loblolly pine (P. taeda) is sometimes present, but it is unclear if it is a natural component or has entered only as a result of past cutting. Understories are usually well-developed. Shrub and herb layers could be sparse or moderately dense. Within its range, dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor) could be a prominent shrub. Species richness can be fairly high in basic sites but is fairly low otherwise. Fire is naturally infrequent to absent in this system. If fire does penetrate, it is likely to be low in intensity but can have significant ecological effects. Atlantic Coastal Plain Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake. Covers 3 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This system includes wetlands of organic soils, occurring on broad flats or gentle basins. Under current conditions, the vegetation is predominantly dense shrubland and very shrubby open woodlands. A characteristic suite of primarily evergreen shrubs, greenbriars, and pond pine (P. serotina) dominates. These shrubs include inkberry (Ilex glabra), fetterbush lyonia (Lyonia lucida), piedmont staggerbush (Lyonia mariana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), large gallberry (I. coriacea), and honeycup (Zenobia pulverulenta), along with laurel greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia). Pond pine (P. serotina) is the characteristic tree, along with loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and swamp bay (Persea palustris). Herbs are scarce and largely limited to small open patches. Under pre-European settlement fire regimes, stands of canebrakes (Arundinaria gigantea ssp. tecta) would have been more common and extensive. Soil saturation, sheet flow, and peat depth create a distinct zonation, with the highest stature woody vegetation on the edges and lowest in the center. Catastrophic fires are important in this system, naturally occurring at moderate frequency. Fires generally kill all aboveground vegetation in large patches, creating a shifting mosaic. Vegetation structure and biomass recover rapidly in most of the burned areas, primarily by sprouting. Priority animal species associated with pocosin habitat are the red-cockaded woodpecker, star-nosed mole, southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi helaletes), and oak toad (NCWRC, 2011). Atlantic Coastal Plain Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland. Covers 2 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This is a system of upland longleaf pine (P. palustris)-dominated vegetation. Examples and associations share the common feature of upland (non-wetland) moisture regimes and natural exposure to frequent fire. They occur on a variety of well- to excessively drained soils and on the higher parts of upland-wetland mosaics. The vegetation is naturally dominated by longleaf pine (P. palustris). Most associations have an understory of scrub oaks. The herb layer is generally well-developed and dominated by grasses. Pineland threeawn (Aristida stricta) primarily dominates in the northern part of its range, and Beyrich threeawn (A. beyrichiana) in the southern part. Frequent, low-intensity fire is the dominant natural ecological force. Dry longleaf pine woodlands offer habitat suitable for several priority species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern tiger salamander, oak toad, ornate chorus frog, Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 67 carolina gopher frog, eastern diamondback rattlesnake (C. adamanteus), timber rattlesnake, southern hog- nosed snake (Heterodon simus), eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), eastern coral snake (Micrurus fulvis), northern pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and pigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius). All these species are listed as state species of special concern, significantly rare, threatened, or endangered; the red-cockaded woodpecker is a federally endangered species (NCWRC, 2011). Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest. Covers 1 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This system encompasses oak-dominated forests of somewhat fire-sheltered dry to dry-mesic sites generally on upper to midslopes in bluff systems, but occasionally it occurs on broader uplands or on the highest parts of non-flooded river terraces. Soils are generally acidic. Vegetation consists of forests dominated by combinations of upland oaks, particularly white oak (Q. alba), southern red oak (Q. falcata), and post oak (Q. stellate). Hickories (Carya spp.) are also prominent (including Carya alba, Carya glabra, and Carya pallida). Other woody plants can include Carolina basswood (Tilia americana var. caroliniana), southern sugar maple (A. barbatum), red buckeye (Aesculus pavia), devilwood (Osmanthus americanus var. americanus), inkberry (I. glabra), American holly (I. opaca), farkleberry (Vaccinium arboretum), Elliott’s blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii), and coastal sweetpepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Sites where this system occurs are somewhat protected from most natural fires by some combination of steeper topography, isolation from the spread of fire, and limited flammability of the vegetation. If fires were more frequent, the vegetation would likely be replaced by more fire-tolerant southern pines, especially longleaf pine (P. palustris). Priority mammals, amphibians, and reptiles of conservation concern that use habitat provided by this system are the eastern fox squirrel, four-toed salamander, and timber rattlesnake (NCWRC, 2011). Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Swamp Systems. Covers 1 percent of the Cape Fear Study Area. This systems group consists of poorly drained, organic or mineral soil flats and basins. These areas are saturated by rainfall and seasonal high water tables. Most are not associated with river floodplains, although one component system is a tidal swamp. Dominant tree species vary with geography. South of Virginia, bald cypress (T. distichum) and tupelo (Nyssa spp.) are the most characteristic trees in many of these swamps. Tidal wooded swamps from Virginia to Florida are dominated by cypress (Taxodium), tupelo (Nyssa), or ash (Fraxinus). Important wetland oaks throughout much of the range include swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda), willow oak (Q. phellos), and laurel oak (Q. laurifolia). Priority mammals and reptiles of conservation concern that use habitat provided by this system are the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), a federally threatened species, and the star-nosed mole (NCWRC, 2011). Additional EVTs found within the Cape Fear Study Area that were not on developed, mined, or agricultural lands are as follows: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest, Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest, Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest, Atlantic Coastal Plain Fall-line Sandhills Longleaf Pine Woodland, Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Tidal Marsh Systems, Atlantic Coastal Plain Streamhead Seepage Swamp-Pocosin-Baygall, Southern Coastal Plain Mesic Slope Forest, Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Maritime Grassland, and Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Pine Savanna and Flatwoods. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 68 Figure 28. Existing Vegetation Types in the Cape Fear Study Area Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Lock & Dam #1 Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Big Creek Juniper Creek NC-132 NC-210 I- 40 N C- 5 3 NC-211 US-117 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 U S -1 7 Cape Fear IBT River Basin: Existing Vegetation Type NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 3 6 91.5 Miles 0 3 6 91.5 Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Existing Vegetation Type SACP Mesic Hardwood Forest SACP Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Man. Tree Plantation-SE Conifer and Hrdwd Herbaceous Wetlands GACp Swamp Systems GACP Small Stream Riparian Systems GACP Floodplain Systems CACP Wet Longleaf Pine Sav. and Fltwd ACP Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland ACP Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake Other A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 69 2.6.3 Important Bird Areas The Important Bird Areas (IBA) program is a global effort to identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and other biodiversity. In the United States, the IBA program is administered by the National Audubon Society. IBAs are sites that provide essential habitat for one or more species of bird and include sites for breeding, wintering, and/or migrating birds (National Audubon Society, 2011). In the Cape Fear Study Area, 7 IBAs have been identified (National Audubon Society, 2011) (Figure 29). Three of these are of global significance (G) and four are of state significance (S). IBAs of global significance provide habitat for species of global conservation concern; IBAs of state significance provide habitat for species of state conservation concern. All IBAs in the Cape Fear Study Area are islands in the lower Cape Fear River. Near the mouth of the Cape Fear River are Bald Head and Smith Islands (G), Battery Island (G), and Striking Island (S). Farther upstream and south of Wilmington are Eagles Island (S), Ferry Slip Island (G), and North (S) and South (S) Pelican Islands. The following is a summary habitat and species characteristic of each IBA in the Cape Fear Study Area (National Audubon Society, 2011): Bald Head and Middle Islands on the east bank of the lower Cape Fear River have well-developed maritime forest and are among the best examples of this habitat type in North Carolina. The site also has a spectacular tidal creek and marsh system. The diversity of habitats at this site supports a great diversity of bird life throughout the year. The site supports the state’s largest population of breeding painted buntings. Thousands of shorebirds (19 species) stopover during migration and winter in the area, using the extensive tidal flats, marshes, and beach. The area supports the state’s largest wintering population of common goldeneyes (10–20 birds). Battery Island is a natural island guarding the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Wading birds gather to nest in the red cedars (Juniperus virginiana), yaupon (I. vomitoria), and other shrubs. Battery Island supports North Carolina’s largest colony of wading birds, which include approximately 10 percent of North America’s white ibises. The riverside beachfront is prime nesting habitat for American oystercatchers, and the grassy uplands support nesting willets. Striking Island is a natural marsh island in the lower Cape Fear River south of Wilmington. The site consists primarily of intertidal and high saltmarsh with small islands of upland washed oyster shell banks, shrubs and grassy areas. Striking Island is an important foraging site for wading birds from the nearby Battery Island. The site supports nesting laughing gulls, American oystercatchers, willets and clapper rails. Eagles Island is a large expanse of brackish marsh and swamp forest between the Brunswick and Cape Fear Rivers near Wilmington. The southern half of the island is brackish marsh with diked, dredged- material disposal impoundments. The impoundments support shorebirds, waterfowl, and waterbirds. The site supports great numbers and a great diversity of shorebirds during migration. The most numerous shorebirds include semipalmated sandpiper, least sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, greater yellowlegs and lesser yellowlegs. It is a breeding site for black-necked stilts. The site is a good area for winter sparrows and nesting anhingas, painted buntings and tree swallows. Large numbers of bobolink, mixed flocks of red-winged blackbirds, and grackles roost in the marsh during winter migration. Ferry Slip Island is an artificial, undiked, dredged-material island in the lower Cape Fear River south of Wilmington. The island provides excellent habitat for a variety of waterbird species, and nesting American oystercatchers and supports a large colony of royal and sandwich terns and a small colony of laughing gulls. The island also supports a significant colony of brown pelicans. North Pelican Island comprises several islands, in the lower Cape Fear River, south of Wilmington. Shrub thickets on the islands support nesting wading birds and brown pelicans and laughing gulls. Nine species of wading birds nest on the site. The upland areas of the islands are surrounded by contiguous high and Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 70 low saltmarsh. Marsh wrens nest in the marsh, along with clapper rails. Several pairs of willets and American oystercatchers also breed on the site. South Pelican Island is a dredged-sand island in the lower Cape Fear River south of Wilmington. The island has been a haven for nesting pelicans, gulls and terns for more than two decades. South Pelican Island, together with Ferry Slip Island, are the most important nesting sites for royal and sandwich terns in southeastern North Carolina. The site supports the largest colony of brown pelicans in southeastern North Carolina. In all, the lower Cape Fear River supports the state's largest group of great cormorants. Peregrine falcons are common during fall migration. Least Terns, black skimmers, willets, Wilson’s plovers and American oystercatchers nest on area beaches. Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrows, seaside sparrows and clapper rails are abundant in area marshes. Raptors, especially peregrines, merlins, kestrels and Sharp-shins are regular visitors during migration. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 71 Figure 29. IBAs in the IBT River Basin Study Areas Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Town Creek Cape Fear River W acca m aw R iv e r Cape Fear River Estuary W h it e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 N C - 1 32 NC-210 I -40 N C- 1 3 0 NC-211 NC -8 7 US-117 N C - 2 1 0 US - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Important Bird Areas NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Important Bird Area A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Waccamaw River Bottomlands Green Swamp Bird Island Eagle Island Bald Head Island Area, Smilth, Striking Ferry Slip, and Pelican IslandsBattery Island Sh a l lo t t e R iv e r L o c k w o o d s F o lly R iv e r Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 72 2.6.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources The Cape Fear River and its tributaries in the Cape Fear Study Area have low-gradient sand sandy substrata. Dominant fishes in these waters are the longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), shad (Alosa and Dorosoma spp.), carp (Cyprinus carpio), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma collapsum), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), bullheads (Ameiurus spp.), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (M. saxatilis), sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) (Marotti, 2011). The lower reach of the Cape Fear River, an important SNHA, is brackish and supports numerous rare marine fishes, including the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and freckled blennies (Hypsoblennius ionthas), marked gobies (Gobionellus stigmaticus), spinycheek sleepers (Eleotris pisonis), and opossum pipefish (Microphis brachyurus). The endangered manatee (Trichechus manatus) is an occasional visitor, especially in summer (NCDWQ, 2005). Town Creek, a nationally significant site, is a short creek that flows eastward in eastern Brunswick County and empties into the Cape Fear River. Despite its short length, it contains the only known population of the Greenfield ramshorn snail (Helisoma eucosmium), a globally rare and imperiled mollusk, and several other rare animals and plants (NCDWQ, 2005). In the Cape Fear Study Area, the Cape Fear River, Northeast Cape Fear River, Town Creek, Sturgeon Creek (and its tributary, Mill Creek), Indian Creek, Hood Creek, Liliput Creek, Mallory Creek, Little Mallory Creek, and Livignston Creek are anadramous fish spawning areas (One NC Naturally, 2011) (Figure 30). In the Cape Fear Study Area, the following areas are designated fish nursery areas: Cape Fear River, Northeast Cape Fear River, tributaries to Walden Creek (Governor’s Creek, Nancy’s Creek, White Spring Creek, and Nigis Creek), the Intercoastal Waterway, and tidal creeks such as Deep Creek, Cape Creek, Bald Head Creek, Dutchman Creek, Molasses Creek, Denis Creek, Jump and Run Creek, Gulf Gully Creek, Beaverdam Creek, and Polly Gully Creek (Figure 31). Past and present sampling indicates that these areas support a high abundance and diversity of juvenile fish species (One NC Naturally, 2011). Shellfish Growing Areas (SGAs) open for shellfish harvesting in the Cape Fear Study Area include waters on the east bank near the mouth of the Cape Fear River and Bald Head Island Area, including Bay Creek, Deep Creek, and Cape Creek (NCDEH-SSB, 2011), all other SGAs in waters of the lower Cape Fear River and select tributaries, the Northeast Cape Fear River, Town Creek, and the Intercoastal Waterway and associated tidal creeks are closed for harvesting because of the extent of contamination of waters in each SGA. Of the areas closed for harvesting, Fishing Creek and Bald Head Creek in the Bald Head Island Area and Elizabeth River in the Southport Area are closed only conditionally and could be reopened if water quality in these areas is improved (NCDEH-SSB, 2011) (Figure 32). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 73 Figure 30. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas in the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Cape Fear River Estuary W h i t e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p NC -9 0 5 NC-410 NC-13 2 NC-210 I- 40 N C - 1 3 0 NC-211 NC-87 US-11 7 N C -2 1 0 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Anadromous Fish Spawning A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n S ha l l ot t e R i ve r L o c k w o o d s F olly R i v e r W a c c a m a w Riv e r Cape Fear River Town Creek Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 74 Figure 31. Fish Nursery Areas in the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Cape Fear River Estuary W hit e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p N C - 9 0 5 NC-410 N C-132 NC-210 I- 4 0 N C -1 3 0 NC-211 N C - 8 7 US-117 N C -2 1 0 U S-4 21 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Fish Nursery Areas NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Fish Nursery Area A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Sh a l lo t t e R iv e r L o c k w o o d s F oll y R i v e r W a c c a m a w R iv e r Cape Fear River Town Creek Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 75 Figure 32. SGAs in the IBT River Basins Study Area Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw Cape Fear River Estuary W h i t e M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Big S w a m p NC -9 0 5 NC-410 NC-13 2 NC-210 I- 40 N C - 1 3 0 NC-211 NC-87 US-11 7 N C -2 1 0 U S - 4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 US-701 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Shellfish Growing Area Status NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend Lock and Dam Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Shellfish Growing Area Status (March, 2011) Open Closed A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n W a c c a m a w R iv e r Cape Fear River Sh a l lo t t e R iv e r L o c k w o o d s F oll y R i v e r Town Creek Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 76 2.6.5 Rare and Protected Species The Cape Fear Study Area boundary includes sections of five counties: Brunswick, New Hanover, Columbus, Bladen, and Pender. In these counties, several species are protected at the state or federal level. North Carolina NHP’s Biotic Database (NCNHP, 2011) lists all protected species. In the study area are 28 invertebrate animals, 1 nonvascular plant, 157 vascular plants, and 54 vertebrate animals. A complete list of state and federally protected species in counties of the study area is in Appendix H. 2.7 AIR QUALITY The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) monitors compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Two air quality monitoring sites are in New Hanover County. One site monitors sulfur dioxide levels, and the other monitors ozone levels and particulate matter. Table 24 provides the latest data from these two monitoring locations compared to the state and federal air quality standards. New Hanover County was found to exceed the newly established air quality standard (June 2010) for sulfur dioxide by 47 percent. As a result, DAQ submitted a New Hanover Nonattainment Boundary recommendation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June of 2011. The boundary is in the northwest portion of New Hanover County (NCDAQ, 2011). Both New Hanover and Brunswick counties require emissions testing (OBD) and safety inspections for all cars and light-duty trucks (NCDAQ, 2008). Table 24. North Carolina Air Quality Standards and Average Monitoring Values for New Hanover County Air Pollutant North Carolina Air Quality Standard (and Period of Average) Average Value Year Range Ozone (O3) Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration, averaged over 3 years 0.075 ppm 0.061 ppm 2008-2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 75 ppb 110 ppb 2008-20101 Particulate Matter - 2.5 microns annual standard: annual mean, averaged over 3 years 15.0 µg/m3 9.7 µg/m3 2006-20082 daily standard: 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 35 µg/m3 25 µg/m3 2006-20082 Notes: 1 For the year range of 2008–2010, New Hanover County was found to exceed the air quality standard established for sulfur dioxide by 47 percent. EPA issued the new primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide on June 2, 2010 2 The year range of 2006–2008 was the most recent range in which three consecutive years of data were available for particulate matter in New Hanover County. 2.8 NOISE LEVELS Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL-92-574) and Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (PL-95-6009), which require standards of compliance and recommend approaches to abatement for stationary noise sources such as airports, highways, and industrial facilities. In the Cape Fear Study Area, developed and undeveloped areas exhibit day-to-day normal noise conditions. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 77 3 Existing Environmental Characteristics: Shallotte IBT River Basin The Shallotte IBT River Basin is entirely within the County and will be referred to as Shallotte Study Area in this section (see Figure 15 at the beginning of Section 2). 3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND FLOODPLAINS The Shallotte Study Area is in the Inner and Outer Coastal Plain physiographic provinces, which are characterized by gently rolling hills and valleys at higher elevations and flat, poorly drained areas near the coast (NCGS, 2004). Elevations in the Shallotte Study Area range from sea level near the coast and outlets of the Shallotte and Lockwoods Folly rivers to 83 feet above mean sea level in the northern part of the Shallotte Study Area. The underlying geology of the Shallotte Study Area consists of formations from the Tertiary, Cretaceous, and Quaternary periods. These formations include the Waccamaw Formation from the Tertiary period; the Peedee Formation from the Cretaceous period; and surficial deposits, undivided, from the Quaternary period. These formations are characterized by loosely consolidated sedimentary rock composed of materials such as silt, sand, gravel, clay, limestone, and peat that were alluvial deposits or marine sediments deposited by the ocean. Portions of the Shallotte Study Area are in the FEMA 100- and 500-year floodplains. These areas are mainly associated with the Shallotte and Lockwoods Folly rivers and their tributaries, and areas associated with the Green Swamp. 3.2 SOILS 3.2.1 Soil Series County soil survey data for the County was retrieved from USDA’s NRCS (NRCS, 2011a). Although 36 soil series are in the Shallotte Study Area, 50 percent of the area is composed of only 7 major soil series: Leon, Baymeade, Murville, Torhunta, Goldsboro, Croatan, and Lynchburg soils (Table 25; Figure 33). Table 25. Soil Series in the Shallotte Study Area Series Name Percent of Shallotte Study Area Leon 11.6% Baymeade 9.8% Murville 8.6% Torhunta 6.5% Goldsboro 6.3% Croatan 6.2% Lynchburg 5.2% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 78 Series Name Percent of Shallotte Study Area All Other Soil Series 45.8% Five of the seven major soil series in the Shallotte Study Area are described in Section 2.2.1. The remaining two soils series are described below according to information obtained from the USDA’s NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions database (NRCS, 2011b). Croatan The Croatan series consists of very poorly drained, organic soils that formed in highly decomposed organic material underlain by loamy textured marine and fluvial sediment. The organic material was derived from herbaceous plants. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. Runoff is very slow to ponded, and permeability is slow to moderately rapid (it is moderate in organic layers and moderate or moderately slow in mineral layers.). Except when drained, Croatan soils are saturated for 8 to 10 months of the year. Vegetation on Croatan series consists of scattered pond pine with a dense understory of titi, gallberry, huckleberry, southern bayberry, greenbrier, sphagnum moss, redbay, sweetbay, switchcane, and giant cane. Croatan soils also support mixed hardwoods, mainly water and swamp tupelo, southern baldcypress, Atlantic white-cedar, and other hyperphytic species. Cultivated areas are used as pasture or have corn, soybeans, small grain, and vegetable crops. Lynchburg The Lynchburg series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed from marine or fluvial sediments and generally occur on marine terraces or flats. Slopes are 0 to 5 percent. Runoff is negligible, and permeability is moderate. Depth to the seasonal high water table is 6 to 18 inches from November to April. Where Lynchburg soils have not been cultivated for cropland (corn, soybeans, cotton, tobacco, truck crops, small grains) or pasture, the remainder is in forest where the dominant vegetation is oak, sweetgum, blackgum, longleaf pine, slash pine, loblolly pine, and an understory of gallberry and pineland threeawn. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 79 Figure 33. Soil Series in the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas Brunswick County Cape Fear Study Area SOUTH CAROLINA W a c cam a w R iv er N C - 90 5 NC-410 US-17 US-701 Shallotte and Waccamaw IBT River Basins: Soil Series NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 3 6 91.5 Miles 0 3 6 91.5 Kilometers Legend Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Soil Series Baymeade Croatan Dorovan Goldsboro Leon Lynchburg Muckalee Murville Torhunta Woodington Water Other A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Waccamaw Study Area Shallotte Study Area Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 80 3.2.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups Soil survey data retrieved from USDA NRCS (NRCS, 2011a) provides soil series assignments to specific HSG. Twenty-three percent of the Shallotte Study Area is composed of Group A soils, 20 percent is composed of Group B/D soils, and 19 percent is composed of Group B soils (Table 26, Figure 17). This translates to over 60 percent of the total Shallotte Study Area being composed of soils that have either low runoff potential with high-infiltration rates (Group A) or moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted (Group B) or in drained conditions (Group B/D). These soil groups consist chiefly of deep, well- to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission (Group A) or of moderately deep to deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures (Group B) (NRCS, 2011a). Table 26. HSG for Shallotte Study Area HSG Percent of Shallotte Study Area A 22.5% B/D 19.5% B 18.8% C 11.9% A/D 9.0% D 8.9% C/D 6.2% Not Classified 3.1% 3.3 LAND USE 3.3.1 Existing Land Use Land use in the Shallotte Study Area (Table 27, Figure 18) consists of forested lands (63 percent), lands developed for low-, medium-, and high-density residential purposes (totaling 17 percent), agricultural lands and open fields used for crops primarily consisting of corn, soybeans, and tobacco (7 percent), lands covered by water and wetlands (5 percent), transportation (4 percent), recreational uses (3 percent), lands developed for commercial, educational, institutional, and industrial purposes (1 percent), lands used for communications and utilities (< 1 percent), and mining and extraction (< 1 percent). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 81 Table 27. Land Use for the Shallotte Study Area Land Use Group Area (km2) Percent of Shallotte Study Area Forest 473.21 62.72% Low-Density Residential 125.45 16.63% Agricultural Land/Open Field 50.56 6.70% Water/Wetlands 35.94 4.76% Transportation 30.40 4.03% Recreation 22.57 2.99% Developed Land 8.73 1.16% Communications & Utilities 4.21 0.56% High-Density Residential 1.36 0.18% Mining & Extraction 1.32 0.17% Medium-Density Residential 0.74 0.10% 3.3.2 Future Land Use Future land uses for the Shallotte Study Area, created as a result of the Brunswick County CAMA Core Land Use Plan (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a) and additional CAMA Core Land Use Plans for municipalities that did not participate in Brunswick County’s Future Land Use classification are listed in Table 28 and displayed in Figure 19. The three most prevalent categories are low-density residential (49 percent), medium-density residential (17 percent), and conservation (12 percent). Low- and medium- density residential areas are designated for agricultural uses (low density only), single-family residences, multifamily residences in certain cases, single-wide and double-wide manufactured homes, emergency shelters, parks, and places of worship. The conservation designation is intended to be used for the permanent protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and areas with historical, cultural, and archeological significance (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a). The future land use projections are focused on land use rather than land cover, thus it is reasonable to expect that lower density residential areas would contain natural land covers of forest, wetlands, and water. Table 28. Future Land Use in the Shallotte Study Area Future Land Use Area (km2)1 Percent of Study Area Low Density Residential 367.88 48.76% Medium Density Residential 126.50 16.77% Conservation 88.98 11.79% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 82 Future Land Use Area (km2)1 Percent of Study Area Protected Lands 49.15 6.51% Commercial 36.66 4.86% Mixed Use 14.43 1.91% High Density Residential 14.09 1.87% Industrial 12.06 1.60% Recreation 10.53 1.40% Right-of-Way 3.91 0.52% Community Commercial 1.82 0.24% Government/Airport 1.38 0.18% Note: 1 Some municipalities of the Shallotte Study Area within the County were not included in the Brunswick County Future Land Use classification. Future land use data for these areas were obtained from the following municipalities and were added to the Brunswick County Future Land Use classification: Varnamtown (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2006), Calabash (Cape Fear COG, 2006), Sunset Beach (Cape Fear COG, 2010), Shallotte (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007c), and Oak Island (Town of Oak Island, 2009). Future land use data is not currently available for Bolivia, Ocean Isle Beach, or Holden Beach. 3.3.3 Forest Resources Forest groups identified by the USDA Forest Service – FIA Program and RSAC (USFS, 2008) cover approximately 74 percent of the total land area in the Shallotte Study Area and are composed of 5 dominant forest groupings (Figure 20). The loblolly-shortleaf pine group is most prevalent, covering approximately 56 percent of the Shallotte Study Area; this forest group is described in Section 0. The next most prevalent forest group in the Shallotte Study Area is the oak-pine group, covering approximately 11 percent of the Shallotte Study Area. Forests in this group can be dominated by post oak and blackjack oak in very dry settings but include various pine species in disturbed sites. This forest group includes sites that might have been longleaf pine stands at one time but without fire have regenerated into closed canopy mixed hardwood/pine stands with crowded midstory development and low understory species diversity (NCWRC, 2011). The longleaf-slash pine group covers approximately 9 percent of the Shallotte Study Area. These are forests in which longleaf or slash pine, singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the stocking and common associates include oak, hickory, and gum. Additional forest groups in the Shallotte Study Area are the oak-hickory and the oak-gum-cypress groups, covering approximately 5 and 3 percent of the Shallotte Study Area, respectively. 3.3.4 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land Nine percent of the Shallotte Study Area has soils that are identified as prime farmland and an additional 21 percent of the Shallotte Study Area includes soils identified as prime farmland if they were to be drained (Table 29, Figure 21). Prime farmland soils, as defined by the USDA, are soils that are best suited Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 83 for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Such soils have properties that are favorable for the economic production of sustained high yields of crops (Barnhill, 1986). Twelve percent of the Shallotte Study Area has soils that are farmlands of unique importance. Soils that have a special set of properties that are unique for producing certain high-value crops meet the requirements for unique farmland. Fifteen percent of the Shallotte Study Area has soils that are farmlands of statewide importance. In general, soils that do not meet the requirements of prime farmlands fall into this category, and they are classified as having statewide importance using criteria established specifically for North Carolina. Approximately 281 km2 of prime farmland, unique importance farmland, or farmland of statewide importance are in the Shallotte Study Area. According to the existing land use data for the County, approximately 74 km2 (equal to 26 percent) of this farmland is already developed as either general developed areas; transportation areas; communications/utility areas; or high-, medium-, or low density residential areas. Table 29. Farmland Classification for Farmed Areas in the Shallotte IBT River Basin Study Area Farmland Classification Area (km2) Percent of Shallotte Study Area Not prime farmland 336 43% Prime farmland if drained 160 21% Farmland of statewide importance 119 15% Farmland of unique importance 90 12% All areas are prime farmland 72 9% 3.3.5 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas LMCOS in the Shallotte Study Area are owned by several entities such as the state, land trusts, The Nature Conservancy, municipalities, and counties (Figure 22). Table 30 provides a list of all LMCOS in the Shallotte Study Area. Since the LMCOS data layer was created in 2002, additional data layers depicting state owned lands and land trusts, created in 2010 and 2008, respectively, were used to provide an account of most recent land ownerships (NCDOA, 2010; The Conservation Fund, 2008). No federally owned lands are in the Shallotte Study Area. The Green Swamp Preserve is a black bear sanctuary owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy. The Green Swamp alone makes up approximately 6 percent of the Shallotte Study Area. The Green Swamp contains some of the country’s finest examples of longleaf pine savannas. The open savannas have a diverse herb layer with many orchids and insectivorous plants. Almost 13,000 acres of the preserve, however, are composed of a dense evergreen shrub bog (pocosin) dominated by gallberry, titi, and sweetbay (TNC, 2011b). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 84 Table 30. LMCOS in the Shallotte Study Area Owner Type Name Owner/Management Total Area in Shallotte Study Area (km2) Percent of Shallotte Study Area Conservation group Green Swamp Preserve (Black Bear Sanctuary) The Nature Conservancy 48.62 6.25% State Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway, Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway-Davis Creek, ENR Estuarine Preserve, Sunset Harbor Access - Lockwood Folly, State Government Center, Boiling Springs Lakes Preserve, Shallotte National Guard Armory, Vacant (Joseph Brooks), Brunswick County Visitor Center, Brunswick County Forestry Headquarters, and Ocean Isle Beach Boating Access Area North Carolina (Administration, Environment and Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Commission, Coastal Management, Transportation, Forest Service) 12.63 1.62% Land trust Bird Island, Lockwood Folly - Hewett North Carolina Coastal Land Trust 12.42 1.60% Municipality Middleton Park and others Municipalities of Long Beach and Oak Island 0.16 < 1% County Lockwood Folly Township Park and Shallotte Township District Park Brunswick County 0.14 < 1% Other nonprofit Permanent Easement North Carolina Agricultural Foundation 0.12 < 1% Rivers identified as National Wild and Scenic Rivers that are under federal protection are not in the Shallotte Study Area. Public trust waters are navigable waters open for public uses such as fishing and navigation; these waters are common and widespread throughout the Shallotte Study Area. 3.3.6 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value No known areas of archaeological or historic significance are in the Shallotte Study Area. 3.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 3.4.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies The Shallotte Study Area is in the Lumber River Basin. It contains a small system of coastal rivers that empty into the Atlantic Ocean. The significant majority of the Shallotte Study Area is in the Long Bay Subbasin, in USGS Hydrological Unit 03040208. This subbasin is mainly in the poorly drained flatwoods ecoregion of the Coastal Plain but also has barrier islands, coastal marshes, and swampy peat lands (NCDWQ, 2010b) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 85 3.4.2 Surface Water Use Classifications All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by NCDWQ. Classifications of major waterbodies are displayed in Figure 34 and described below. The Intercoastal Waterway, mouth of the Shallotte River, mouth of Lockwoods Folly River, Saucepen Creek, and Calabash River are classified as SA and HQW waters. SA waters are tidal salt waters that are used for commercial shellfishing or marketing purposes. All SA waters are also HQW by supplemental classification. HQW is a supplemental classification intended to protect waters that are rated excellent on the basis of biological and physical/chemical characteristics through DWQ monitoring or special studies, primary nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and other functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission. Upstream sections of the mainstem of both the Shallotte River and the Lockwoods Folly River are classified as SC and HQW waters. SC classification is for tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and other activities involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life propagation and survival; and wildlife. Tributaries throughout the Shallotte Study Area and Cawcaw Swamp are generally classified as either C; SW, HQW waters or C and Sw waters. Class C is for waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life, and agriculture. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 86 Figure 34. DWQ Surface Water Use Classifications for the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area W a c c a m a w R i v e r Juniper Creek N C - 9 0 5 N C - 1 3 0 NC-211 NC-904 US-17 NC-211 U S-1 7 Shallotte and Waccamaw IBT River Basins: DWQ Surface Water Use Classifications NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 2 4 61Miles 0 2 4 61Kilometers Legend Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary DWQ Use Classifications B;Sw C;Sw C;Sw,HQW SA;HQW SA;HQW:@ SC;HQW Other A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n S h all o t te Ri v er L o c k w o o d s F o ll y Ri v e r C ala b a s h C r e e k Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 87 3.4.3 Existing Surface Water Quality DWQ’s 2010 integrated report assessment of North Carolina waterbodies lists 37 waterbodies in the Shallotte Study Area as impaired for the designated use of shellfish harvesting (Figure 35; NCDWQ, 2010a). Of the 37 waterbodies listed, 2 are also impaired for the aquatic life designated use category. Table 31 lists all impaired waterbodies in the Shallotte Study Area. New coastal stormwater rules as a result of Session Law 2008-211 went into effect on October 1, 2008 place stricter stormwater standards on the County and 19 other coastal counties. Upon implementation, these rules should reduce fecal coliform bacteria from future developments. Table 31. Waters with Impaired Use Support Rating in the Shallotte Study Area Waterbody Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter Big Gut Slough Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Closed Blane Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Bonaparte Creek (from the ICWW to the Little River) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Bull Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Calabash River (from the source to the North Carolina-South Carolina state line) Aquatic Life Standard Violation Copper, High Water Temperature, Turbidity Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Clam Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Clayton Creek (from the ICWW to the Little River) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Cooter Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Dead Backwater Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open East River Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Eastern Channel Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Fox Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 88 Waterbody Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter Gause Landing Creek (from Kilbart Slough to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Goose Creek (from Brunswick County SR 1143 to Saucepan Creek) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Hangman Branch Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited ICWW (several sections) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area (either Conditionally Approved Open, Conditionally Approved Closed, or Prohibited) Jinks Creek (from the Eastern Channel to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Jinnys Branch (from Brunswick County SR 1143 to Saucepan Creek) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Kilbart Slough Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Little River Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Lockwoods Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Lockwoods Folly River (several sections) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area (either Prohibited or Conditionally Approved Closed) Marina south of the ICWW (Holden Beach Marina) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Mill Creek (from Brunswick County SR 1112 to Lockwoods Folly River) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Montgomery Slough (from the ICWW west of Lockwoods Folly Inlet extending eastward 2.4 miles) Aquatic Life Standard Violation Low Dissolved Oxygen Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Mullet Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Salt Boiler Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 89 Waterbody Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter Sams Branch (from the proposed dam approximately 3/4 mile upstream from the Shallotte River channel to the Shallotte River 0.56 miles) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Saucepan Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited Shallotte Creek (from Bell Branch to Shallotte River) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Closed Shallotte River (several sections) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area (either Prohibited or Conditionally Approved Closed) Sols Creek (from Eastern Channel to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open Spring Creek Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Closed Still Creek (from Eastern Channel to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open The Big Narrows (from Jinks Creek to the ICWW) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Open The Mill Pond (from a point 1.0 mile below Brunswick County SR 1145 to the Shallotte River) Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Prohibited The Swash Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area-Conditionally Approved Closed Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 90 Figure 35. Impaired Waters in the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas Brunswick County Shallotte Study Area Waccamaw Study Area Cape Fear Study Area W a c c a m a w R iv e r Juniper Creek N C- 9 0 5 N C - 1 3 0 NC-211 NC-904 US-17 NC-211 US -1 7 Intracoastal Waterway Eastern Channel Montgomery Slough East River Kilbart Slough Big Gut Slough Saucepan Creek Shallotte Creek The Swash Spring Creek Mullet Creek Mill Creek The Mill Pond Sams Branch Hangman Branch Fox Creek Lockwoods Creek Little River Cooter Creek Blane Creek Bull Creek Waccamaw River Clam Creek Dead Backwater Salt Boiler Creek Sols Creek Still Creek The Big Narrows Lockwoods Folly River Shallotte River Calabash River Shallotte and Waccamaw IBT River Basins: 2010 Impaired Waters NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter ±0 2 4 61 Miles 0 2 4 61Kilometers Legend Major Waterways Detailed Hydrology Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary 2010 Impaired Waters A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n S h a l lo tte R i v e r L o c k w o o d s F o ll y Riv e r Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 91 3.4.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) The Lockwoods Folly River and the upriver portion of the estuary are prohibited for shellfish harvesting because of excessive levels of fecal coliform bacteria (NCDWQ, 2010c). In 2007 the DWQ Watershed Assessment Team completed a water quality study in the Lockwoods Folly River watershed as part of an agreement with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDWQ, 2010c). Also in 2007 a local watershed plan for the Lockwoods Folly watershed was created by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina Department of Transportation, the North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation Program, with support from Stantec. Nonpoint Source 319 Grant Program funds were subsequently approved to support third-party development of the Lockwoods Folly River Fecal Coliform TMDL. EPA approved the TMDL, and it will be implemented with the goal to reduce high fecal coliform concentrations to levels whereby the designated uses for these waterbodies will be met (NCDWQ, 2010c). North Carolina has issued a statewide fish consumption advisory for mercury; therefore, all surface waters in the state are considered to be impaired by mercury (NCDWQ, 2011). A brief discussion is provided in Section 2.4.3. 3.4.5 Groundwater Supplies The Shallotte Study Area is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province in the southern coastal portion of North Carolina. The aquifer underlying the Shallotte Study Area is the surficial aquifer composed of unconsolidated sand and gravel (NCDWR, 2011). Surficial aquifers are described in Section 2.4.5. 3.5 WETLANDS Wetlands in the Shallotte Study Area primarily consist of managed pinelands, pocosins, pine flats, riverine swamp forests, salt/brackish marsh, and depressional swamp forests (Table 32, Figure 25). Over 44 percent of the Shallotte Study Area is mapped as wetlands by NC-CREWS assessment. NC-CREWS is described in more detail in Section 2.5. Definitions of each of the major wetland types in the Shallotte Study Area were obtained from the NC-CREWS database (NCDCM, 2003a) and are as follows (the other wetland types are described in Section 2.5 and only Depressional Swamp Forests is described here): Depressional Swamp Forests Depressional Swamp Forests are very poorly drained riverine or non-riverine forested or occasionally shrub/scrub communities which are temporarily flooded. Typical species include cypress, black gum, water tupelo, green ash and red maple. Table 32. NC-CREWS Wetland Types in the Shallotte Study Area Wetland Type Area (km2) Percent of Shallotte Study Area Managed Pineland 130.39 16.76% Pocosin 69.60 8.94% Pine Flat 42.02 5.40% Riverine Swamp Forest 35.00 4.50% Salt/Brackish Marsh 26.58 3.42% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 92 Wetland Type Area (km2) Percent of Shallotte Study Area Depressional Swamp Forest 9.09 1.17% All Other Wetland Types1 31.91 4.10% Note: 1 Includes wetland types covering less than 1 percent of the Shallotte Study Area 3.5.1 Wetland Function Over 22 percent of the wetlands assessed by NC-CREWS (NCDCM, 2003b) in the Shallotte Study Area received a rating of exceptional functional significance (totaling 10 percent of the area), over 73 percent received a rating of substantial functional significance (totaling 33 percent of the area), and 1.8 percent received a rating of beneficial functional significance (totaling almost 1 percent of the area). Less than 2 percent of the Shallotte Study Area wetlands could not be evaluated (Table 33, Figure 26). A brief description of each significance level was obtained from the NC-CREWS documentation and is provided in Section 2.5.1. Table 33. Wetland Significance Rating for Wetlands in the Shallotte Study Area Wetland Rating Area (km2) Percent of Shallotte Study Area Percent of Wetlands Assessed Exceptional Functional Significance 78.53 10.09% 22.93% Substantial Functional Significance 253.04 32.52% 73.89% Beneficial Functional Significance 6.16 0.79% 1.80% Unable to Evaluate 4.70 0.60% 1.37% 3.6 AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AND RESOURCES 3.6.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas Approximately 19 percent of the Shallotte Study Area has been identified as SNHA (NCDENR, 2011a) (Figure 27). The Shallotte Study Area has three sites that are SNHA that have been identified as areas of national significance. These sites total approximately 16 percent of the Shallotte Study Area and include the Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex, the Green Swamp, and the Long Beach Maritime Forest (Table 34). Seven sites were identified as areas of state significance and occupy approximately 2 percent of the Shallotte Study Area (Table 34). Eight sites were identified as areas of regional significance and occupy approximately 1 percent of the Shallotte Study Area, and 4 sites were identified as areas of county significance and occupy less than 1 percent of the area. A description for each level of significance is provided in Section 2.6.1. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 93 Table 34. SNHAs in the Shallotte Study Area Significance Site Name National (15.9% of Shallotte Study Area) Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex, Green Swamp, and Long Beach Maritime Forest State (2.0% of Shallotte Study Area) Brantley Island, Colkins Neck Remnant, Juniper Creek Floodplain, Juniper Creek/Driving Creek Aquatic Habitat, Lockwoods Folly River Tidal Wetlands, Sunset Beach Wood Stork Ponds, Sunset Harbor/Ash Swamp Regional (1.4% of Shallotte Study Area) Big Cypress Bay and Ponds, Bird Island, Fall Swamp/Middle River Limesink Complex, Royal Oak Swamp Marl Outcrop, Sandy Branch Sand Ridge and Bay Complex, Secession Maritime Forest, Shallotte Creek Sandhills, Stanly Road Coastal Fringe Forest County (0.2% of Shallotte Study Area) Bonaparte Landing Maritime Forest, Cumbee Pond and Sandhills, Gause Savanna, Middle Swamp 3.6.2 Wildlife Habitat and Resources The Shallotte Study Area is mainly in the poorly drained flatwoods ecoregion of the Coastal Plain between the Cape Fear and Waccamaw rivers. Carolina bays and pocosins are abundant in some areas. The flatwoods region is a significant center of endemic biota, with biological diversity and rare species. Pine flatwoods, pine savannas, freshwater marshes, pond pine woodlands, pocosins, and some sandhill communities were once common. Pine plantations are now widespread with an active forest industry (Griffith and Omernik, 2008). The Shallotte Study Area’s coast is lined with barrier islands, coastal marshes, and swampy peat lands. Most of the barrier islands have been completely developed with one exception. Bird Island was purchased by North Carolina and added to the National Estuary Research Reserve (NCDWQ, 2010b). Although no more than 2 to 3 kilometers wide, barrier islands provide for a diversity of maritime vegetation communities, including tidal salt marshes, hypersaline sand flats, foredunes, backdunes and interdune swales (Boyle et al. 2007). Eleven dominant EVTs (USGS, 2010) occur in the Shallotte Study Area that were not developed lands, agricultural lands, or recently logged: • Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Longleaf Pine Savanna and Flatwoods (30 percent of the area) • Managed Tree Plantation-Southeast Conifer and Hardwood Plantation Group (15 percent of the area) • Atlantic Coastal Plain Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake (5 percent of the area) • Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Small Stream Riparian Systems (5 percent of the area) • Herbaceous Wetlands (4 percent of the area) • Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forest (3 percent of the area) • Atlantic Coastal Plain Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland (3 percent of the area) • Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Floodplain Systems (2 percent of the area) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 94 • Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest (2 percent of the area) • Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Swamp Systems (1 percent of the area) • Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest (1 percent of the area) Each dominant EVT covers greater than 1 percent of the Shallotte Study Area and in all cover approximately 71 percent of the Shallotte Study Area (Figure 36). Ten of the 11dominant EVTs for the Shallotte Study Area were described in Section 2.6.2, the remaining EVT is described below (NatureServe, 2007). Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest. Covers 1 percent of the Shallotte Study Area. This system consists of poorly drained, organic or mineral soil flats of the outer Atlantic Coastal Plain. These areas are saturated by rainfall and seasonal high water tables without influence of river or tidal flooding. Fire is generally infrequent but could be important for some associations. Vegetation consists of hardwood or mixed forests of bald cypress (T. distichum), tupelo (Nyssa spp.), bottomland oaks, red maple (A. rubrum), or other wetland trees of similar tolerance. The lower strata have affinities with pocosin or baygall systems rather than the river floodplain systems that have affinities with the canopy. The combination of hardwood/deciduous canopy dominants and nonriverine, non-seepage hydrology distinguishes this system from other Coastal Plain systems. Stands with a high cover of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) formerly occupied much of the acreage of this system. This phase is present only in high-quality examples, and it helps distinguish this system from other Coastal Plain systems. Disturbed and fire-disrupted examples (those dominated by tupelo, bottomland oaks, red maple) might be hard to distinguish from other wetland forests based purely on canopy composition. Additional EVTs in the Shallotte Study Area that were not on developed, mined, recently logged, or agricultural lands are as follows: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest, Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest, Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Tidal Marsh Systems, Southern Coastal Plain Mesic Slope Forest, Atlantic Coastal Plain Streamhead Seepage Swamp-Pocosin-Baygall, Atlantic Coastal Plain Fall-line Sandhills Longleaf Pine Woodland, Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain and Maritime Grassland, and Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Wetl Pine Savanna and Flatwoods. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 95 Figure 36. EVTs in the Shallotte and Waccamaw Study Areas Brunswick County Cape Fear Study Area SOUTH CAROLINA NC - 9 0 5 NC-410 US-701 Shallotte and Waccamaw IBT River Basins: Existing Vegetation Type NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 12-28-2011 - C. Carter 0 3 6 91.5 Miles 0 3 6 91.5 Kilometers Legend Major Waterways Primary Roads Major River Basin IBT River Basin Study Area Boundary Existing Vegetation Type SACP Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hrdwd SACP Mesic Hardwood Forest SACP Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Man. Tree Plantation-SE Conifer and Hrdwd Herbaceous Wetlands GACP Swamp Systems GACP Small Stream Riparian Systems GACP Floodplain Systems CACP Wet Longleaf Pine Sav. and Fltwd ACP Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland ACP Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake Other A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Waccamaw Study Area Shallotte Study Area Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 96 3.6.3 Important Bird Areas In the Shallotte Study Area, two IBAs have been identified – Bird Island and the Green Swamp (National Audubon Society, 2011). Both are of state significance (S) and provide habitat for species of state conservation concern (Figure 29). The following is a summary habitat and species characteristic of each IBA in the Shallotte Study Area (National Audubon Society, 2011): Bird Island (S) is on the North Carolina-South Carolina border (the southwestern end of Bird Island is in South Carolina). It is one of the few undeveloped barrier islands remaining in southern North Carolina. In addition to barrier island beach and dunes, this site includes extensive salt marsh that supports a variety of bird species throughout the year. The Twin Lakes portion of this site consists of two freshwater ponds bounded by residential development and a golf course, and adjacent salt marsh on the mainland. The lakes provide a resting area and roost for wood storks and other species of waterbirds. This is the only site in North Carolina where wood storks occur regularly. The species does not nest at this site and is not known to nest in North Carolina. The Green Swamp (S) is an area of open longleaf pine savannah interspersed with areas of dense, nearly impenetrable, shrubby pocosin. This is one of the state’s best examples of longleaf pine savannah and pocosin, and supports birds typical of both habitats. The area is known for its great diversity of plants, many of which are significantly rare, but it also harbors a great diversity of bird species throughout the year including prothonotary, pine, yellow-throated, and hooded warblers. 3.6.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources Carolina flatwoods are regions where flow is often slow and ephemeral. This low flow contributes to the coastal plain being dominated by blackwater systems that often consist of braided streams, wide floodplains and pocosin wetlands. The water is usually absent of sediment but has a dark color from tannins that are leached from organic matter. This tannic acid produces a pH that is naturally much lower than other river systems. Also these low-flow streams and wetlands can have natural dissolved oxygen levels below the 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) freshwater standard (NCDWQ, 2010b). Two major rivers within the Shallotte Study Area are the Shallotte and Lockwoods Folly rivers. A unique type of wetland known as Carolina bays are throughout much of the basin. Carolina bays are a type of isolated depressional wetland that range in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. They are on the Atlantic Coastal Plain from northern Florida to southern New Jersey, but are most highly concentrated in southeastern North Carolina and northeastern South Carolina. These depressional wetlands are distinguished from other wetlands by their elliptical shape, orientation, and an eolian sand rim that is most pronounced along the southeastern shoreline. Many of these wetlands, especially the smaller ones, are ephemeral and provide an ideal habitat for amphibians. They have a high degree of biodiversity mainly from varying amounts of soil moisture from inundated in the center to increasingly drier at the edges. Because these wetlands are often isolated from interaction with other surface waters, rare or endemic species are in and around many of them (NCDWQ, 2010b). In the Shallotte Study Area, the Shallotte River including Sharron Creek, the Lockwoods Folly River including Mill Creek and Pamlico Creek, Long Bay, The Millpond, the ICWW, and Calabash Creek are designated fish nursery areas (Figure 31). Past and present sampling indicates that these areas support a high abundance and diversity of juvenile fish species (One NC Naturally, 2011). SGAs open for shellfish harvesting in the Shallotte Study Area include waters of the inlets and downstream portions of the Shallotte and Lockwoods Folly rivers, Tubbs Inlet Area, and the Calabash Area (NCDEH-SSB, 2011); all other SGAs in the Shallotte Study Area are closed for harvesting because of the extent of contamination of waters in each SGA. Of the areas closed for harvesting, Shallotte Creek, Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 97 Saucepen Creek, Davis Creek, upstream portions of the Shallotte and Lockwoods Folly rivers, portions of the Calabash Area and ICWW west of the Shallotte River inlet, Calabash/Sunset Beach/Boneparte Creek Area, and the Ocean Isle Beach Area are closed only conditionally and could be reopened if water quality in these areas is improved (NCDEH-SSB, 2011) (Figure 32). Anadromous fish spawning areas have not been identified in the Shallotte Study Area (One NC Naturally, 2011). 3.6.5 Rare and Protected Species The Shallotte Study Area is entirely within the County. Several species are protected either on the state or federal level in the County. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program’s (NCNHP’s) Biotic Database (NCNHP, 2011) lists all protected species. In the Shallotte Study Area are 13 invertebrate animals, 1 nonvascular plant, 114 vascular plants, and 43 vertebrate animals. A complete list of state and federally protected species in the Shallotte Study Area is provided in Appendix H. 3.7 AIR QUALITY No air quality monitoring stations are in the Shallotte Study Area. The closest active monitoring stations to the Shallotte Study Area are in New Hanover County and are summarized in Section 2.7. 3.8 NOISE LEVELS Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL-92-574) and Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (PL-95-6009), which require standards of compliance and recommend approaches to abatement for stationary noise sources such as airports, highways, and industrial facilities. The Shallotte Study Area has developed and undeveloped areas that exhibit day-to-day normal noise conditions. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 98 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 99 4 Existing Environmental Characteristics: Waccamaw IBT River Basin For this assessment, the study area in receiving basin #2, the Waccamaw IBT River Basin, begins 1 mile north (as Euclidean distance) of the County line and extends into the southern portion of the IBT River Basin (referred to as the Waccamaw Study Area in this section) (Figure 15 in Section 2). The inclusion of area north of the County line is meant to capture portions of this receiving basin that might be affected by any potential impacts without including the remainder of the basin (extending another 20 to 30 miles north) that would reasonably be expected to be unimpacted. 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND FLOODPLAINS The Waccamaw Study Area is in the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic province, which is characterized by gently rolling hills and valleys at higher elevations and flat, poorly drained areas at lower elevations (NCGS, 2004). Elevations in the Waccamaw Study Area range from sea level at the Waccamaw River to 77 feet above mean sea level in areas between Scippio Swamp and Wet Ash Swamp near the southern portion of the Waccamaw Study Area and the northeast portion of the Waccamaw Study Area near the Green Swamp. The underlying geology of the Waccamaw Study Area consists of formations from the Tertiary and Cretaceous periods. These formations include the Waccamaw Formation from the Tertiary period and the Peedee Formation from the Cretaceous period. These formations are characterized by loosely consolidated sedimentary rock composed of materials such as silt, sand, clay, and limestone. Portions of the Waccamaw Study Area are in the FEMA 100- and 500-year floodplains. These areas are the majority of the Waccamaw Study Area excluding lands at higher elevations between Shingletree Swamp, Scippio Swamp, Wet Ash Swamp, Bear Branch River, and Horse Pen Swamp. 4.2 SOILS 4.2.1 Soil Series County soil survey data for the County was retrieved from the NRCS (NRCS, 2011a). Whereas 43 soil series are in the Waccamaw Study Area, 50 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area is composed of only five major soil series: Torhunta, Woodington, Muckalee, Croatan, and Dorovan soils (Table 35, Figure 33). Table 35. Soil Series in the Waccamaw Study Area Series Name Percent of Waccamaw Study Area Torhunta 16.0% Woodington 10.9% Muckalee 10.3% Croatan 10.0% Dorovan 6.1% All other soil series 46.7% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 100 Three of the five major soil series in the Waccamaw Study Area are described either in Section 2.2.1 or Section 3.2.1. The remaining two soils series are described below according to information obtained from the NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions database (NRCS, 2011b). Woodington The Woodington series consists of poorly drained soils with slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability on broad, smooth interstream divides on the Coastal Plain. They are formed in loamy textures in Coastal Plain sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. A seasonal high water table is within 10 inches of the surface in periods of high rainfall. Most areas covering Woodington soils are in forest of mixed hardwood and pine with loblolly and pond the principal pine species. Cleared areas are used for corn, soybeans, small grains, and pasture. Muckalee The Muckalee series consists of poorly drained moderately permeable soils with very slow runoff formed in loamy and sandy alluvium. These soils are on floodplains of streams in the Coastal Plain. Stream channels are generally shallow and meandering. The soils flood frequently for brief periods. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Muckalee soils are generally covered by native woodlands of bay, sweetgum, blackgum, water tupelo, red maple, water oak, loblolly pine, and willow. A few areas have been cleared, drained and used for pasture. 4.2.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups Soil survey data retrieved from USDA NRCS (NRCS, 2011a) provides soil series assignments to specific HSG. Twenty-seven percent of the Waccamaw Study Area is composed of Group B/D soils, and 24 percent is composed of Group C soils (Table 36, Figure 17). This translates to over 50 percent of the total Waccamaw Study Area being composed of soils that have either moderate infiltration rates and low runoff potential when drained (Group B) and high runoff potential with slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted (Group C) and in undrained conditions (Group D). These soil groups consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures (Group B) or soils with moderately fine textures (Group C) or, in undrained areas, claypan or clay near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material (Group D) (NRCS, 2011a). Table 36. HSG for Waccamaw Study Area HSG Percent of Waccamaw Study Area B/D 26.8% C 23.9% D 20.7% B 13.4% C/D 10.0% A/D 2.6% A 1.9% Not Classified 0.5% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 101 4.3 LAND USE 4.3.1 Existing Land Use Land use in the portion of the Waccamaw Study Area in the County (Table 37, Figure 18) consists of forested lands (84 percent), agricultural lands and open fields used for crops primarily consisting of corn, soybeans, and tobacco (9 percent), lands developed for low, medium, and high-density residential purposes (totaling 4 percent), recreational uses (< 1 percent), lands covered by water and wetlands (< 1 percent), lands used for communications and utilities (< 1 percent), lands developed for commercial, educational, institutional, and industrial purposes (< 1 percent), and lands used for mining and extraction (< 1 percent). Outside the County, the Waccamaw Study Area primarily consists of water and wetlands (52 percent), forested lands (26 percent), agricultural lands or open fields (12 percent), areas covered by scrub/shrub (8 percent), and developed areas (2 percent) (Fry et al. 2011). Table 37. Land Use for the Waccamaw Study Area in Brunswick County Land Use Group Area (km2) Percent Forest 445.96 84.34% Agricultural Land/Open Field 47.34 8.95% Low-Density Residential 20.70 3.92% Transportation 7.22 1.37% Recreation 3.01 0.57% Water/Wetlands 1.95 0.37% Communications & Utilities 1.04 0.20% Developed 0.85 0.16% Mining & Extraction 0.42 0.08% High-Density Residential 0.18 0.03% Medium-Density Residential 0.07 0.01% 4.3.2 Future Land Use Future land uses for the Waccamaw Study Area, created as a result of the Brunswick County and Town of Shallotte CAMA Core Land Use Plans (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a, Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007c), are listed in Table 38 and displayed in Figure 19. The two most prevalent categories are conservation (66 percent) and low-density residential (30 percent). The conservation designation is intended to be used for the permanent protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, and areas with historical, cultural, and archeological significance (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a). Low-density residential areas are designated for agricultural uses, single family residences, multifamily residences in certain cases, single-wide and double-wide manufactured homes, emergency shelters, parks, and places of worship (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007a). The future Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 102 land use projections are focused on land use rather than land cover, thus it is reasonable to expect that low density residential areas would contain natural land covers of forest, wetlands, and water. Table 38. Future Land Use for Brunswick County in the Waccamaw Study Area Future Land Use Area (km2)1 Percent of Study Area Conservation 350.06 66.21% Low Density Residential 157.45 29.78% Medium Density Residential 9.10 1.72% Commercial 2.55 0.48% Protected Lands 2.10 0.40% Community Commercial 1.03 0.19% Industrial 0.86 0.16% Recreation 0.65 0.12% Office & Institutional 0.17 0.03% Note: 1 Some municipalities of the Waccamaw Study Area within the County were not included in the Brunswick County Future Land Use classification. Future land use data for these areas were obtained from the following municipalities and were added to the Brunswick County Future Land Use classification: Shallotte (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., 2007c). Future land use data for Calabash is not included here; all future land use for Calabash was added to the future land use for the Shallotte Study Area since only a very small portion of Calabash is within the Waccamaw Study Area. 4.3.3 Forest Resources Forest groups identified by the USDA Forest Service – FIA Program and RSAC (USFS, 2008) cover approximately 97 percent of the total land area in the Waccamaw Study Area and are composed of 5 dominant forest groupings (Figure 20). The loblolly-shortleaf pine group is most prevalent, covering approximately 68 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area; this forest group is described in Section 0. The next most prevalent forest group in the Waccamaw Study Area is the oak-gum-cypress group, covering approximately 27 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area; this forest group is also described in Section 0 (NCWRC, 2011). The oak-pine group covers approximately 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area. These are forests in which oaks can dominate in very dry settings or in settings that might have been longleaf pine stands at one time and are now closed canopy mixed hardwood/pine stands (NCWRC, 2011). Additional forest groups in the Waccamaw Study Area are the longleaf-slash pine and the oak-hickory groups, each covering less than 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area. 4.3.4 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land Seven percent of the Waccamaw Study Area has soils that are identified as prime farmland and an additional 50 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area includes soils identified as prime farmland if they were to be drained (Table 39, Figure 21). Prime farmland soils, as defined by the USDA, are soils that are Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 103 best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Such soils have properties that are favorable for the economic production of sustained high yields of crops (Barnhill, 1986). Three percent of the Waccamaw Study Area has soils that are farmlands of unique importance. Soils that have a special set of properties that are unique for producing certain high-value crops meet the requirements for unique farmland. Nine percent of the Waccamaw Study Area has soils that are farmlands of statewide importance. In general, soils that do not meet the requirements of prime farmlands fall into this category, and they are classified as having statewide importance on the basis of criteria established specifically for North Carolina. Table 39. Farmland Classification for Farmed Areas in the Waccamaw Study Area Farmland Classification Area (km2) Percent Prime farmland if drained 313 50% Not prime farmland 197 31% Farmland of statewide importance 58 9% All areas are prime farmland 42 7% Farmland of unique importance 20 3% 4.3.5 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas LMCOS in the Waccamaw Study Area are owned by North Carolina or The Nature Conservancy (Figure 22). Table 40 lists all LMCOS in the Waccamaw Study Area. Since the LMCOS data layer was created in 2002, additional data layers depicting state-owned lands and land trusts, created in 2010 and 2008, respectively were used to provide an account of most recent land ownerships (NCDOA, 2010; The Conservation Fund, 2008). Federally owned lands were not found in the Waccamaw Study Area. Juniper Creek game land covers approximately 73km2 (12 percent) of the Waccamaw Study Area. Juniper Creek drains the Green Swamp as it flows into the Waccamaw River. Primarily surrounded by cypress- gum swamp and bottomland hardwood forest, Juniper Creek supports several smaller longleaf savanna natural areas that provide habitat for a variety of rare plants. This region also provides excellent habitat for animals, including the fox squirrel and the potential for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The game land provides an important natural corridor between the Conservancy’s Green Swamp Preserve and the Waccamaw River (TNC, 2009). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 104 Table 40. LMCOS in the Waccamaw Study Area Owner Type Name Owner/Management Total Area in Waccamaw Study Area (km2) Percent of Waccamaw Study Area State Juniper Creek (Black Bear Sanctuary), State Government Center, Columbus County Conservation Easements, Waccamaw Island Gamelands, and 904-Bridge/Pireway Access Area State of North Carolina (Wildlife Resources Commission, Administration, Environment and Natural Resources) 83.23 13.23% Conservation Group Green Swamp Preserve (Black Bear Sanctuary) and Wells Tract The Nature Conservancy 7.33 1.17% Rivers identified as National Wild and Scenic Rivers that are under federal protection are not in the Waccamaw Study Area. Public trust waters are navigable waters open for public uses such as fishing and navigation; these waters are common and widespread throughout the Waccamaw Study Area. 4.3.6 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value No known areas of archaeological or historic significance are in the Waccamaw Study Area. 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 4.4.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies The Waccamaw Study Area is in the Lumber River Basin. The significant majority of the Waccamaw Study Area is in the Waccamaw subbasin, in USGS Hydrological Unit 03040206. All the waters in the subbasin are supplementally classified as swamp waters. Swamp waters have lower pH and dissolved oxygen standards than other waterbodies (NCDWQ, 2010b) 4.4.2 Surface Water Use Classifications All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by the North Carolina DWQ. Classifications of major waters in the Waccamaw Study Area are displayed in Figure 34 and described below. Only two classifications of waters are in the Waccamaw Study Area. The Waccamaw River (from N.C. Hwy 904 to North Carolina-South Carolina state line) is classified as B and Sw waters. All other waters in the Waccamaw Study Area are classified as C and Sw waters. Class C is for waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life, and agriculture. Class B waters are protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation. Class Sw is for swamp waters and is a supplemental classification intended to recognize those waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from adjacent streams. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 105 4.4.3 Existing Surface Water Quality DWQ’s 2010 integrated report assessment of North Carolina waterbodies list one waterbody in the Waccamaw Study Area as impaired for the designated uses of fish consumption and aquatic life (NCDWQ, 2010a). All impairments are along the mainstem of the Waccamaw River (Figure 35). Table 41 lists the specific impairments of the Waccamaw River. Table 41. Waters with Impaired Use Support Rating in the Waccamaw Study Area Waterbody Description Use Category Reason For Impairment Parameter Waccamaw River From N.C. Hwy. 904 to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line Fish Consumption Standard Violation Water column Mercury From NC 130 to NC 904 Fish Consumption Standard Violation Water column Mercury From SR 1928 to NC 130 Aquatic Life Standard Violation Low pH Fish Consumption Standard Violation Water column Mercury Lake Waccamaw drains to the Waccamaw River; this lake has been designated as an outstanding resource water (ORW), and all waters draining to it are part of the ORW management strategy area. The ORW classification is a supplemental classification that is intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance (NCDWQ, 2010b). 4.4.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) North Carolina has issued a statewide fish consumption advisory for mercury; therefore, all surface waters in the state are considered to be impaired by mercury (NCDWQ, 2011). A brief discussion is in Section 2.4.3. Besides the statewide mercury TMDL, no known TMDLs are being developed for the Waccamaw Study Area. However, a TMDL for biochemical oxygen demand for the Waccamaw River and Atlantic ICWW near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, was approved by EPA in 1999; this area is downstream from the Waccamaw Study Area. 4.4.5 Groundwater Supplies The Waccamaw Study Area is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province in the southern coastal portion of North Carolina. The aquifer underlying the Waccamaw Study Area is the surficial aquifer composed of unconsolidated sand and gravel (NCDWR, 2011). Surficial aquifers are described in Section 2.4.5. 4.5 WETLANDS Wetlands in the Waccamaw Study Area primarily consist of managed pinelands, riverine swamp forests, pine flats (including drained pine flats), pocosins (including drained pocosins), and bottomland hardwoods (Table 42, Figure 25). Over 69 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area is mapped as wetlands by NC-CREWS assessment. NC-CREWS is described in more detail in Section 2.5 with definitions of each of the major wetland types in the Waccamaw Study Area. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 106 Table 42. NC-CREWS Wetland Types in the Waccamaw Study Area Wetland Type Area (km2) Percent Managed Pineland 156.70 24.91% Riverine Swamp Forest 123.25 19.59% Drained Pine Flat 61.02 9.70% Pine Flat 27.48 4.37% Pocosin 16.60 2.64% Drained Pocosin 16.06 2.55% Bottomland Hardwood 14.36 2.28% All Other Wetland Types1 20.57 3.27 Note: 1 Includes wetland types covering less than 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area. 4.5.1 Hydrogeomorphic Characteristics NC-CREWS assigned a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification to each wetland type on the basis of a series of HGM characteristics. Below is a description of each HGM classification followed by a list of the Waccamaw Study Area major wetland types that received each classification: Riverine HGM Classification These wetlands are those in which hydrology is determined or heavily influenced by proximity to a perennial stream of any size or order. Overbank flow from the stream exerts considerable influence on their hydrology. (Bottomland Hardwood and Riverine Swamp Forest) Flat/Depressional HGM Classification These wetlands are generally not in direct proximity to surface water. While they can be either isolated from or hydrologically connected to surface water, the hydrology of depressional wetlands is primarily determined by groundwater discharge, overland runoff, and precipitation. (Managed Pineland, Pocosin, and Pine Flat) 4.5.2 Wetland Function Over 32 percent of the wetlands assessed by NC-CREWS (NCDCM, 2003b) in the Waccamaw Study Area received a rating of exceptional functional significance (totaling 22 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area), over 66 percent received a rating of substantial functional significance (totaling 46 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area), and less than 1 percent received a rating of beneficial functional significance (totaling less than 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area). Approximately 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area wetlands could not be evaluated (Table 43, Figure 26). A brief description of each significance level was obtained from the NC-CREWS documentation and is provided in Section 2.5.1. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 107 Table 43. Overall Wetland Significance Rating for Wetlands in the Waccamaw Study Area Overall Wetland Rating Area (km2) Percent of Waccamaw Study Area Percent of Wetlands Assessed Exceptional Functional Significance 140.77 22.37% 32.33% Substantial Functional Significance 287.92 45.76% 66.12% Beneficial Functional Significance 2.35 0.37% 0.54% Unable to Evaluate 4.42 0.70% 1.02% 4.6 AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AND RESOURCES 4.6.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas Approximately 19 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area has been identified as SNHA (NCDENR, 2011a) (Figure 27). The Waccamaw Study Area has five sites that are SNHA that have been identified as areas of national significance, these sites total approximately 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area and include Crusoe Island Savanna, the Green Swamp, Highway 130/Waccamaw River Rare Plant Site, Myrtle Head Savanna, and the aquatic habitat provided by the Waccamaw River (Table 44). Thirteen sites were identified as areas of state significance and occupy approximately 17 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area (Table 44). Three sites were identified as areas of regional significance and occupy less than 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area, and 2 sites were identified as areas of county significance and also occupy less than 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area. A description for each level of significance is provided in Section 2.6.1. Table 44. SNHAs in the Waccamaw Study Area Significance Site Name Area (km2) Percent of Waccamaw Study Area National (1.4% of the Waccamaw Study Area) Crusoe Island Savanna, Green Swamp, Highway 130/Waccamaw River Rare Plant Site, Myrtle Head Savanna, and Waccamaw River Aquatic Habitat 9.11 1.45% State (16.6% of the Waccamaw Study Area) Big Neck Road at Millpond Bay, Camp Branch Savanna Remnant, Juniper Bay Savanna, Juniper Creek Floodplain, Juniper Creek/Driving Creek Aquatic Habitat, Lay's Lake, Regan Ridge-and-Swale Boggy Openings, Waccamaw Island Savanna and Bottomlands, Waccamaw River Cross Swamp Bottomlands, Waccamaw River Oxbow Site, Waccamaw River Reeves and Gore Lake Bottomlands, Waccamaw River Ridgea-and-Swale Boggy Openings, and Wards Lake 104.25 16.57% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 108 Significance Site Name Area (km2) Percent of Waccamaw Study Area Regional (0.8% of the Waccamaw Study Area) Hoy Savanna Remnant, Long Bays Savanna and Carolina Bays, and Scippio Swamp Ridge- and-Swale Boggy Openings 5.10 0.81% County (0.3% of the Waccamaw Study Area) Firetower Sandhill and Prospect Ridge White Cedar Forest 1.80 0.29% 4.6.2 Wildlife Habitat and Resources The Waccamaw Study Area encompasses the western section of the County that is drained by the Waccamaw River. Flowing south from Lake Waccamaw in Columbus County, the Waccamaw River is a blackwater river that has a floodplain reminiscent of larger Piedmont – Coastal Plain brownwater rivers. A mosaic of blackwater swamps and brownwater levee communities is throughout the Waccamaw Study Area (Boyle et al. 2007). The river is home to a collection of diverse and rare flora and fauna. Most notably, the American Black Bear makes its home along the Waccamaw and travels its intra-Carolina corridors. Seven dominant EVTs (USGS, 2010) were found in the Waccamaw Study Area that were not developed lands, agricultural lands, or recently logged and are as follows: • Managed Tree Plantation-Southeast Conifer and Hardwood Plantation Group (31 percent of the area) • Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Floodplain Systems (21 percent of the area) • Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Longleaf Pine Savanna and Flatwoods (19 percent of the area) • Atlantic Coastal Plain Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake (5 percent of the area) • Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Small Stream Riparian Systems (3 percent of the area) • Herbaceous Wetlands (1 percent of the area) • Atlantic Coastal Plain Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland (1 percent of the area) Each dominant EVT covers greater than 1 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area and, in all, cover approximately 81 percent of the Waccamaw Study Area (Figure 36). All seven dominant EVTs for the Waccamaw Study Area are described in Section 2.6.2 (NatureServe, 2007). Additional EVTs in the Waccamaw Study Area that were not on developed, mined, recently logged, or agricultural lands are as follows: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forest, Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Swamp Systems, Atlantic Coastal Plain Fall-line Sandhills Longleaf Pine Woodland, Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest, Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest, Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest, Atlantic Coastal Plain Stream head Seepage Swamp-Pocosin- Baygall, Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Tidal Marsh Systems, and Southern Coastal Plain Mesic Slope Forest. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 109 4.6.3 Important Bird Areas One IBA has been identified in the Waccamaw Study Area—the Waccamaw River Bottomlands (National Audubon Society, 2011) (Figure 29). This IBA is of state significance (S) and provides habitat for species of state conservation concern. The Waccamaw River Bottomlands (S) IBA includes the bottomlands associated with the Waccamaw River. This is an extensive area of bottomland hardwood forest and cypress-gum swamp forest. This site is one of the largest areas of bottomland forest in North Carolina and is critical to North Carolina birds. The site provides excellent habitat for breeding and migrating songbirds and migratory waterfowl. White ibises from Battery Island travel to the Waccamaw River swamps to forage during the nesting season (National Audubon Society, 2011). 4.6.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources The portion of the Waccamaw River that flows through the Waccamaw Study area is a slow-moving, blackwater river surrounded by vast wetlands. The Waccamaw River is the only river originating from a Carolina Bay – Lake Waccamaw. Within the Waccamaw Study Area, anadromous fish spawning areas, fish nursery areas, and SGAs have not been identified, but water quality is a concern in these waters because they flow through South Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean (One NC Naturally, 2011). 4.6.5 Rare and Protected Species The Waccamaw Study Area boundary includes sections of three counties: Brunswick, Columbus, and Bladen. Within these counties, several species are protected either on the state or federal level. The NCNHP’s Biotic Database (NCNHP, 2011) lists all protected species. In the Waccamaw Study Area are 27 invertebrate animals, 1 nonvascular plant, 137 vascular plants, and 52 vertebrate animals. A complete list of state and federally protected species in counties of the Waccamaw Study Area is in Appendix H. 4.7 AIR QUALITY No air quality monitoring stations are in the Waccamaw Study Area. The closest active monitoring stations to the Waccamaw Study Area are in New Hanover County and are summarized in Section 2.7. 4.8 NOISE LEVELS Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL-92-574) and Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (PL-95-6009), which require standards of compliance and recommend approaches to abatement for stationary noise sources such as airports, highways, and industrial facilities. In the Waccamaw Study Area are developed and undeveloped areas that exhibit normal day-to-day noise conditions. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 110 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 111 5 Alternatives Analysis An analysis of water supply alternatives is a requirement of the IBT evaluation and environmental document and is important for determining the most viable alternative for the County. Options for an increase in IBT associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP are weighed against alternatives that do not require additional IBT or combinations of alternatives that could limit the quantity of the IBT. Factors considered during alternatives analysis are the technical viability of the option, the constructability of the alternative, potential environmental impacts, technical difficulty, permitting issues, and estimates of opinions of probable costs, both construction costs and O&M. A discussion of the reasons for choosing the preferred alternative over other alternatives is provided. 5.1 NO ADDITIONAL IBT ALTERNATIVE A No Additional IBT alternative must be considered as an alternative to an IBT. This alternative is defined as one in which no amount of water over the grandfathered IBT is transferred to customers in the Shallotte IBT River Basin as a result of any changes or improvements to the County’s water treatment facilities would occur. The 1999 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) (HDR, 1999a), the 2008 PER (Hazen and Sawyer, 2008), and the Water Master Plan (Hazen and Sawyer, 2006) discuss reasons why the system is not reliable in its existing condition and how future water demands could further erode its reliability. To determine whether a No Additional IBT alternative could be considered viable, future growth projections and current permitted capacities of the County’s facilities were examined. This information, which is presented in Section 1.3 (Water Demand Projections), indicates that future growth is projected in the County, resulting in a projected increase in water demand. Nearly half of the future demand is in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Typically, municipalities begin a WTP expansion process when the maximum day demand reaches 80 percent of treatment plant capacity. The County provided finished water quantity data of water produced by its WTPs, the Northwest WTP and NC 211 WTP. A review of the 2008 through 2011 data indicates the following: • In 2008 the daily flow averaged 13.80 MGD. The peak day flow reported for 2010 was 25.55 MGD (approximately 85 percent of permitted water treatment capacity of 30 MGD) on July 5, 2008, resulting in a peak day peaking factor of 1.85. • In 2010 the daily flow averaged 12.820 MGD. The peak day flow reported for 2010 was 21.32 MGD (approximately 70 percent of permitted water treatment capacity of 30 MGD) on July 5, 2010, resulting in a peak day peaking factor of 1.66. • In 2011 the daily flow averaged 13.78 MGD. The peak day flow reported for 2011 was 25.80 MGD (approximately 86 percent of permitted water treatment capacity of 30 MGD) on July 6, 2011, resulting in a peak day peaking factor of 1.87. The data indicate that average and maximum daily flows decreased and then increased since 2008. The most recent annual flows (2011) are similar to the 2008 flows. The 2011 data also indicate that the maximum day demand exceeded 80 percent of the plant capacity in 2008 and 2011, suggesting that a water treatment system expansion process should begin. If the County’s ability to provide reliable, high-quality potable water to its customers is limited, the County will have difficulty in accommodating growth in the service area and particularly in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. On the basis of the data provided, the County has demonstrated the need for an expansion of its water treatment system and a No Additional IBT alternative is not recommended. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 112 5.2 INCREASE IN IBT FROM CAPE FEAR - NORTHWEST WTP EXPANSION The existing Northwest WTP provides the majority of the County’s potable water. The WTP is permitted to produce 24 MGD of potable water. The source of the raw water supply is the Cape Fear River. Because the County’s water service area is in the Waccamaw and Shallotte IBT river basins of the Lumber Major River Basin in addition to the Cape Fear Major River Basin, increased withdrawals from the Cape Fear River to meet demand would result in an IBT. NCDWR has concluded that full demand for all withdrawals at Lock and Dam #1 would be met through 2050 (NCDWR, 2008). Various treatment options are discussed in the Expansion of Brunswick County Northwest Water Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report (NWWTP PER) prepared by Hazen and Sawyer (2008) and the earlier Water Supply/Treatment Study (WS/TS), prepared by HDR (1999b). On the basis of raw water quality results from January 2008 to April 2011, the raw water quality appears to be similar to the raw water quality identified in the 2008 NWWTP PER, and the proposed water treatment processes identified in the 2008 NWWTP PER are still applicable. Review of raw water quality results for DWQ Ambient WQ Station #B8350000 from January 2008 to April 2011 indicates that the average raw water turbidity was approximately 16.2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), which is similar to the raw water turbidity documented in the NWWTP PER (17 NTU). Additionally, the average raw water pH from January 2008 to April 2011 was about 6.5 NTU, which is similar to the average pH of approximately 6.7 NTU that is documented in the NWWTP PER. The WTP expansion will not only include improved treatment capabilities but also increase the capacity of the plant. Construction cost estimates from the 2008 NWWTP PER have been updated to reflect 2012 construction pricing and are used for comparison to other alternatives. Per Table 1 of the 2008 NWWTP PER, the preliminary construction cost estimate for expanding the facility to a treatment capacity of 36 MGD is $34,640,000. The breakdown of this cost is shown in Table 45. Table 45. 2008 PER Northwest WTP Construction Costs (24 MGD Improvements and Expansion to 36 MGD) Description 24-MGD Improvements 36-MGD Expansion Parallel 36-inch Raw Water Transmission (on WTP site) NA $850,000.00 Chemical Facility $1,800,000.00 $3,500,000.00 Rapid Mix/Flow Meters $300,000.00 $1,400,000.00 SuperPulsator Conversion and Additional Filter Module NA $9,400,000.00 Chlorine Dioxide Contact Tank $1,500,000.00 $600,000.00 Clearwell $5,000,000.00 NA High Service Pump Station $3,800,000.00 $1,800,000.00 Yard Piping $2,300,000.00 $1,700,000.00 Sitework (Paving/Fencing) NA $250,000.00 Subtotal $14,700,000.00 $19,500,000.00 Contingency (30%) $4,410,000.00 $5,850,000.00 Total $19,110,000.00 $25,350,000.00 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 113 Description 24-MGD Improvements 36-MGD Expansion Residuals/Recycle Improvements (from Residuals Treatment Memo) $9,290,000.00 Grand Total $34,640,000.00 This preliminary cost was increased by a factor of 1.12 to account for inflation using Engineering News- Record’s (ENR’s) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for July 2008 (8293) and the March 2012 CCI (9267.57), resulting in a preliminary cost of approximately $38.8 million as reflected in Table 4-2. The existing WTP site was master planned in the 2008 NWWTP PER and is considered to have adequate room to support the expansion, so no additional land would need to be acquired. The expansion plans would allow the WTP to maintain its current operations with minimal disruption. An expansion would increase the reliability of the WTP, which is crucial because the WTP is the main potable water supply for the County. The reliability of the WTP has been discussed in the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared by HDR (1999a). The location of the surface water WTP is in the northern portion of the County’s service area; the growth is mainly occurring in the southern and southwestern areas. Thus, the expansion alternative includes an evaluation of the costs to upgrade the distribution system and high service pumping as discussed in the WS/TS and further developed in the Water System Master Plan prepared by Hazen and Sawyer (2006). The Water System Master Plan includes hydraulic modeling to determine the necessary improvements. The following improvements are included in the preliminary opinion of cost to expand the Northwest WTP: • Modification IIA-3 (Parallel 30-inch Pipeline to Bell Swamp PS) • Modification IIA-5 (Parallel 30-inch Pipeline, Bell Swamp PS to Highway 211/17 Intersection) • Modification IIB-3 (Bell Swamp Southwest Booster Pumps) Table 45 gives the preliminary opinion of construction cost for expanding the Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD. Table 46. Budgetary Capital Costs - Expand Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD Quantity Unit Unit Cost Preliminary Cost Opinion NW WTP Expansion (24 to 36 MGD) 1 EA $38,796,800.00 $38,796,800.00 Modification IIA-3 (Parallel 30-inch Pipeline to Bell Swamp PS) 20,000 LF $250.00 $5,000,000.00 Modification IIA-5 (Parallel 30-inch Pipeline, Bell Swamp PS to Hwy 211/17 Intersection) 70,000 LF $250.00 $17,500,000.00 Modification IIB-3 (Bell Swamp Southwest Booster Pumps) 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Sub Total $61,496,800.00 Mobilization/Demobilization 6% $3,689,808.00 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 114 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Preliminary Cost Opinion General Requirements 4% $2,459,872.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.5% $1,537,420.00 Contingency 20% $12,299,360.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 15% $9,224,520.00 Total $90,707,780.00 O&M costs attributed to expanding the Northwest WTP to 36 MGD are based on existing O&M costs as documented by the County and O&M costs that would be associated with the new 30-inch diameter pipelines. The County’s budget for years 2010 and 2011 for the Northwest WTP were reviewed to develop budgetary O&M costs for expanding the Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD. It is assumed that no additional personnel will be needed to operate the Northwest WTP at 36 MGD. Costs that are expected to change because of the plant expansion are listed in Table 4-3 below. Annual O&M costs for the pipelines are projected to be 1 percent of the pipeline construction costs and additional annual O&M costs for the Bell Swamp Pump Station are projected to be 2.5 percent of the pump station modification costs. Table 46 gives the breakdown of the actual budget for years 2010 and 2011, and the budgetary costs for the expanding the plant from 24 to 36 MGD. Table 47. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs - Expand Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD Description Actual 2010 O&M Costs Actual 2011 O&M Costs Additional O&M Costs Chemicals $919,600 $758,400 $459,800 Electricity $311,100 $311,400 $155,550 Equipment $41,000 $61,900 $20,500 Contract Services $425,700 $261,800 $212,850 LCFWSA $913,200 $991,700 $456,600 Additional Annual O&M Cost – NW WTP $1,305,300 % of Capital Costs Capital Costs Budgetary O&M Costs Pipelines 1.00% $22,500,000 $225,000 Pump Station (Bell Swamp) 2.50% $200,000 $5,000 Total Budgetary O&M Costs $1,535,300 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 115 On the basis of this information, the budgetary O&M costs for expanding the Northwest WTP from 24 to 36 MGD are approximately $1.54 million per year. 5.3 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES IN RECEIVING BASINS State policy gives preference to alternatives that involve water supply transfers in the receiving river basin as opposed to alternatives that would require transfer from another major river basin. In the receiving river basin, the potential sources of water include surface water impoundments, purchase of water from other suppliers in the basin, groundwater wells, and seawater desalination. Alternatives for water supply in the receiving river basins are discussed below. 5.3.1 New Surface WTP A new surface WTP would improve overall system reliability and could be closer to the future growth projected in the southwest portion of the service area. The Waccamaw River is the only potential surface water supply source in the area. The Waccamaw River is in the Waccamaw subbasin of the Lumber River Basin. Withdrawals from the Waccamaw River would require an IBT to transfer water from the Waccamaw to the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The WS/TS (HDR, 1999b) evaluates the Waccamaw River as a source and determined that there are low flows during the summer months and extremely low to potentially no flow during drought conditions. The WS/TS also provides a cursory review of expected water quality and determines that the Waccamaw River water quality is not as desirable as the Cape Fear River water quality because of high color, total and dissolved organic carbon, and possibly high levels of iron and manganese. To confirm sufficient availability of source water, the most recent 7Q10 low-flow discharge estimate for the Waccamaw River at Highway 130 (upstream of the confluence with Bear Branch) was requested from the USGS. Per North Carolina regulations, no in-stream flow study is required if the run-of-river withdrawal for the proposed project is less than 20 percent of a source’s 7Q10. Per communication with the USGS in April 2012, the most recent and provisional 7Q10 low-flow discharge estimate for monitoring station #02109500 (Waccamaw River at Freeland, NC) is 1.5 cfs (see Appendix I). Twenty percent of 1.5 cfs is 0.3 cfs, which is approximately 193,923 gpd. The Northwest WTP is proposed to be expanded from 24 MGD to 36 MGD. If the Northwest WTP is not expanded, the additional 12 MGD of finished water would need to be provided by another WTP. Up to 12.5 MGD of source water would need to be withdrawn from the Waccamaw River to produce 12 MGD of finished water (accounting for treatment losses). This volume is 60 times greater than 20 percent of the 7Q10 low-flow discharge estimate (193,923 gpd); therefore, an in-stream flow study would be required for a withdrawal on the Waccamaw River. A review of the USGS flow data for station #02109500 beginning October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011, indicates that, river flow is typically less than 20 cfs (approximately 13 MGD) in June, July, and August. Thus, an in-stream reservoir (i.e., impoundment) on the Waccamaw River, an off-stream reservoir, or an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) system would be necessary to provide the water supply for a 12-MGD WTP and to ensure supply reliability when Waccamaw River flows are low. It is anticipated that at least a 1.5-billion gallon reservoir covering up to 400 acres would be necessary to store excess flow collected in the wet season to meet average annual water supply demands of a 12-MGD WTP. Flow studies of the Waccamaw River would need to be conducted to determine if enough volume of water could be stored in the wet season to provide source water supply year-round and not affect the ecological health of the Waccamaw River. Raw water quality data from January 2008 to April 2011 were analyzed to compare the Waccamaw River with the Cape Fear River source waters and provide a basic assessment of the type and level of treatment required compared to the alternative of expanding the Northwest WTP. Review of raw water quality results for DWQ Ambient WQ Station #I8970000 from January 2008 to April 2011 indicates that the Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 116 average raw water turbidity was approximately 4.4 NTU, and all turbidity results were no greater than 12 NTU. The turbidity in the Waccamaw River is generally more variable than for the Cape Fear. Additionally, the average raw water pH from January 2008 to April 2011 was about 4.7, which is significantly lower than the average pH of the Cape Fear River from January 2008 to April 2011 (6.5) and 6.7 as documented in the 2008 NWWTP PER. A lower pH requires greater volumes of chemicals to adjust the water to a neutral or higher pH for surface water treatment. Because the Waccamaw WTP would be on an undeveloped site, construction costs are associated with developing a greenfield WTP including site work, stormwater facilities, operations and control facilities, and new potable water distribution piping to reach the existing distribution system. Also, the costs for a raw water storage reservoir are included in this option. A factor in evaluating this alternative also includes the increased permitting efforts required for a new facility and its associated storage reservoir and a new withdrawal point along the river. Last, an in-stream flow study would need to be conducted to determine the feasibility of a 12-MGD WTP using Waccamaw River water as source water because of the potential effects on the river’s habitat and aquatic biota. Budgetary cost estimates for this alternative are shown in Table 48 below. Table 48. Budgetary Capital Costs for New Surface Water WTP – 12 MGD (Waccamaw River at Highway 130) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Preliminary Cost Opinion Withdrawal Structure 1 EA $250,000.00 $250,000.00 New SWTP - Waccamaw River (12 MGD) 1 EA $60,200,000.00 $60,200,000.00 Off-Stream Reservoir (1.5 billion gallon) 1 EA $22,000,000.00 $22,000,000.00 30-inch Water Main (Hwy 130/Waccamaw River to Whiteville Rd NW/Hwy 17 Intersection) 67,000 LF $250.00 $16,750,000.00 Property Acquisition 400 AC $10,000.00 $4,000,000.00 Sub Total $103,200,000.00 Mobilization/Demobilization 6% $6,192,000.00 General Requirements 4% $4,128,000.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.5% $2,580,000.00 Contingency 20% $20,640,000.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 25% $25,800,000.00 Total $162,540,000.00 The Waccamaw River has average raw water turbidity values (4.4 NTU), which are less than those of the Cape Fear River (16.2 NTU), less coagulant would be required, resulting in lower operational costs. However, because the raw water average pH value for the Waccamaw River (4.7 NTU) is lower than that of the Cape Fear River (6.5 NTU), additional sodium hydroxide (NaOH) would need to be added to raise the pH of the Waccamaw River source water, resulting in increased operational costs. Additionally, per Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 117 the WS/TS (HDR 1999b), higher color, total and dissolved organic carbon and iron and manganese in the Waccamaw River (as compared to the Cape Fear River) would increase the cost of treating source water from the Waccamaw River. O&M costs attributed to operating a new 12-MGD WTP are based on existing O&M costs associated with the Northwest WTP and O&M costs that would be associated with the new 30-inch diameter pipeline and with the off-stream reservoir (Table 49). Additionally, new water treatment personnel would be assigned to the Waccamaw WTP. Annual O&M costs for the pipeline are projected to be 1 percent of the pipeline construction costs. Table 49. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – 12 MGD Waccamaw WTP Description Budgetary O&M Costs - 12 MGD WTP Salary Expenditures $958,200.00 Non-Salary Expenditures (chemicals, electricity, raw water intake and storage, equipment O&M) $2,266,080.00 Pipelines $167,500.00 Total $3,391,780.00 On the basis of this information, the budgetary O&M costs for a 12-MGD Waccamaw River WTP and associated raw water storage reservoir and pipelines are approximately $3.4 million per year. 5.3.2 Purchase Water from Existing Utility in Receiving Basin The County has entered into agreements, in the form of a water purchase contract and an water system interconnection infrastructure cooperative agreement, with the Little River Water and Sewerage Company, Inc. (Little River) in South Carolina for Little River to establish an emergency interconnection and to provide up to a maximum of 170,000 gallons per day of potable water to the County. This value is an upper quantity limit, and Little River does not guarantee emergency supply for the County. This quantity provides additional potable water to the County and will be used to supply the Waccamaw IBT River Basin with future supply (eliminating the need for additional IBT water), but because the maximum quantity is 170,000 gallons per day, the County would need to proceed with an alternative that will supply additional potable water to meet demand in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The emergency interconnection with the Little River Water Company has been planned for a number of years. No additional infrastructure beyond the actual connection is required since the Little River system is immediately adjacent to the Waccamaw portion of the County’s water system. 5.3.3 Expanded or New Groundwater WTP Withdrawals of raw water from a groundwater source would not require an IBT. Two groundwater source/treatment options have been evaluated. One option is to expand the County’s existing 211 WTP in the southeastern portion of the County’s service area. The second option is to construct a new groundwater WTP in the western portion of the service area, closer to where future growth is expected to occur. 5.3.3.1 Expansion of 211 WTP The existing 211 WTP is a lime-softening plant with a permitted capacity of 6 MGD. Its source water is fresh groundwater from the Castle Hayne aquifer, which occurs only in the southeastern portion of the Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 118 County. The Castle Hayne aquifer is approximately 175 feet below land surface. It is regarded as fairly permeable, but because it has limited thickness (< 60 feet), the transmissivity is fairly low according to the USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4051 (Harden et al. 2003). The low transmissivity would limit the yield of each well, requiring more wells. Increasing withdrawal from the Castle Hayne aquifer could also cause unacceptable effects on surface water quality, existing water users, and sensitive ecological systems. In many areas, the Castle Hayne aquifer is poorly confined or unconfined, and in places exposed to rapid recharge of surface water via sinkholes. The existing wellfield would need to be expanded to supply additional capacity. Because drawdown is an issue for this aquifer, future wells could require considerable setbacks from other wells so as not to increase the drawdown or reduce the yield of the well site. A review of the existing wellfield layout indicates that, in general, the existing wells are at least 1,500 linear feet away from each other. The existing wellfield includes 15 wells. If the Northwest WTP were not expanded and the 211 WTP were required to produce the additional 12 MGD of water, the 211 WTP would need to be expanded from a 6-MGD plant to an 18-MGD plant. If the new wells produced water quantity and quality similar to the existing groundwater wells, it is expected that 30 additional wells would be required. Groundwater modeling needs to be conducted to determine the potential hydraulic conditions of an expanded wellfield and the potential for migration of higher TDS water into the wellfield. Lime softening might be an option for treatment and further evaluation of the groundwater quality is necessary to confirm the required treatment process. Because of the potential variability of the groundwater quality and the potential for saltwater intrusion, a nanofiltration water treatment system is proposed, and the costs associated with a nanofiltration system are provided. As documented in the Water Supply Master Plan (Hazen & Sawyer, 2006), preliminary costs for a new 6-MGD nanofiltration WTP at the 211 WTP are approximately $14 million. This cost was increased by a factor of 1.2 to account for inflation using ENR’s CCI for July 2006 (7721) and the March 2012 CCI (9267.57) and the preliminary cost is adjusted to account for a 12-MGD WTP. A review of the County’s water mains indicates that the water distribution system piping paralleling Highway 211 from the 211 WTP west to Highway 17 ranges from 12 inches to 16 inches in diameter. The water distribution system piping would need to be upsized or a parallel pipeline would need to be installed along Highway 211 to accommodate the additional 12 MGD of potable water flow from the 211 WTP. Hydraulic modeling would be needed to confirm the recommended diameter of the pipeline. For the purposes of this IBT evaluation, a 30-inch diameter pipeline is assumed in the preliminary opinion of cost for this option. Because the 211 WTP is an existing site, permitting requirements and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be less than for an undeveloped site. The nanofiltration process produces a concentrate stream that would need to be discharged. Typically, nanofiltration processes operate at 85 to 95 percent recovery, so for a 12-MGD WTP, the concentrate stream would likely range from 0.6 to 2.1 MGD. North Carolina does not allow deep-well injection, so the most feasible option for discharge of the concentrate is to a wastewater collection system or directly to a WWTP. The preliminary opinion of cost summarized in Table 50 assumes the installation of a concentrate pump station and pipeline to discharge the concentrate at the West Brunswick Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) (approximately 72,000 LF away). The nanofiltration concentrate is proposed to be discharged at the tail end of the West Brunswick WRF so that upsizing of the WRF’s treatment processes to accommodate the concentrate flow is minimized. Further evaluation of the concentrate water quality is necessary to confirm the concentrate discharge location at the WRF. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 119 Table 50. Budgetary Capital Cost - 211 WTP (12 MGD Expansion) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Preliminary Cost Opinion Groundwater Wells (~225 ft depth) 30 EA $960,000.00 $28,800,000.00 Wellfield Piping (raw water transmission)* 75,000 LF $85.00 $6,375,000.00 12-MGD Nanofiltration Plant 1 EA $31,000,000.00 $31,000,000.00 30-inch Water Main (211 WTP to Hwy 211/17 Intersection) 65,000 LF $250.00 $16,250,000.00 Concentrate Pumping 1 EA $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Concentrate Discharge Piping 0.6-2.1 mgd 72,000 LF $150.00 $10,800,000.00 Improvements at West Brunswick Regional WRF 1 EA $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 Property Acquisition 1 EA $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Sub Total $95,825,000.00 Mobilization/Demobilization 6% $5,749,500.00 General Requirements 4% $3,833,000.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.5% $2,395,625.00 Contingency 20% $19,165,000.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 15% $14,373,750.00 * assume 2,500 LF between each well Total $141,341,875.00 O&M costs attributed to expanding the 211 WTP from 6 to 18 MGD with 12 MGD of nanofiltration treatment are based on O&M costs as documented in the Technology and Cost Document for the Final Ground Water Rule (USEPA, 2006) and increased by a factor of 1.2 to account for inflation using ENR’s CCI for July 2006 (7721) and the March 2012 CCI (9267.57). Additionally, the cost includes O&M for a concentrate discharge pipeline to the West Brunswick WRF. On the basis of this information, the budgetary O&M costs for adding 12 MGD of nanofiltration treatment at the 211 WTP are approximately $2.3 million per year (Table 51). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 120 Table 51. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – 211 WTP (12 MGD Expansion) Description Budgetary O&M Costs – 211 WTP (12 MGD Expansion) Chemicals $136,800 Electricity $468,000 Membrane and Filters Replacement $415,200 Equipment $49,200 Labor $132,000 Concentrate Discharge $936,000 Pipeline $162,500 Total $2,299,700 5.3.3.2 New Groundwater WTP A new groundwater-source WTP in the western area of the County would use the Peedee aquifer, which is a freshwater source. The Peedee aquifer is present throughout coastal Brunswick County at depths between 30 and 170 feet below sea level (Harden et al. 2003). It comprises sand and clays in the confining beds and calcareous sandstone to sandy limestone in the transmissive beds. It has lower permeability but is much thicker than the Castle Hayne aquifer. In general, the transmissivity is comparable to or greater than that of the Castle Hayne aquifer. A conceptual cost estimate is provided for an exploratory well program and a production wellfield, summarized in Table 52. On the basis of water quality data in the USGS report, Hydrogeology and Ground-water Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina (Harden et al., 2003), the required level of treatment can range from lime softening to membrane softening or nanofiltration. Because of the potential variability of the groundwater quality and the potential for saltwater intrusion, a nanofiltration water treatment system is proposed, and the costs associated with a nanofiltration system are provided. As documented in the Water Supply Master Plan (Hazen & Sawyer, 2006), preliminary costs for a new 6-MGD nanofiltration WTP at the 211 WTP are approximately $14 million. This cost was increased by a factor of 1.2 to account for inflation using ENR’s CCI for July 2006 (7721) and the March 2012 CCI (9267.57) and the preliminary cost is adjusted to account for a 12-MGD WTP. The potential for saltwater intrusion must be evaluated as part of a qualitative evaluation of potential environmental impacts. If saltwater intrusion is determined to be an issue for this aquifer, it might not be feasible to proceed with plans to increase fresh groundwater withdrawals. As with other proposed new WTPs on undeveloped sites, the construction costs and permitting activities would be higher than those associated with expanding existing facilities. Other significant cost elements are land acquisition and off-site distribution. Budgetary cost estimates are provided in Table 52. For this estimate, it was assumed that the concentrate discharge from a nanofiltration WTP would be delivered to a County WRF for disposal and that the groundwater WTP would be close to the WRF such that concentrate discharge pumping and piping costs are minimized. The West Brunswick Regional WRF is rated at 6 MGD and is the County’s largest WRF. Because of its capacity and proximity to a large water distribution main (30-inch diameter), it could be considered as a potential location for a co-located groundwater WTP. Distribution system modeling is recommended to determine how 12 MGD of finished water delivered into the 30-inch water main near the West Brunswick Regional WRF (near the Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 121 intersection of Highway 211 and Highway 17) would affect flow dynamics and distribution system water quality. Water main sizing upgrades might be necessary, but because of the proximity of this south- central location to the projected growth areas, the upgrades might be minimal and no distribution system upgrades are included in the conceptual costs of this alternative. The County has indicated that a new WRF might be constructed farther west and south of the West Brunswick Regional WRF, on property that the County purchased in the past few years. This WRF would be closer to the areas of population growth. Similar to the discussion above, a new WTP could be co- located on that property to reduce the amount of discharge piping necessary to dispose of the nanofiltration concentrate. Table 52. Budgetary Capital Cost - New Groundwater WTP (12 MGD) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Preliminary Cost Opinion Exploratory Well Program 1 EA $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 Groundwater Wells (~200 ft depth) 30 EA $890,000.00 $26,700,000.00 Wellfield Piping (raw water transmission)* 75000 LF $85.00 $6,375,000.00 12 MGD Nanofiltration Plant 1 EA $31,000,000.00 $31,000,000.00 Concentrate Pumping 1 EA $125,000.00 $125,000.00 Concentrate Discharge Piping 0.6-2.1 MGD 800 LF $150.00 $120,000.00 Improvements at West Brunswick Regional WRF 1 EA $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 Property Acquisition 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Sub Total $68,520,000.00 Mobilization/Demobilization 6% $4,111,200.00 General Requirements 4% $2,740,800.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.5% $1,713,000.00 Contingency 20% $13,704,000.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 18% $12,333,600.00 * assume 2,500 LF between each well Total $103,122,600.00 O&M costs attributed to a new 12-MGD groundwater nanofiltration WTP are based on O&M costs as documented in the Technology and Cost Document for the Final Ground Water Rule (USEPA 2006) and Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 122 increased by a factor of 1.2 to account for inflation using ENR’s CCI for July 2006 (7721) and the March 2012 CCI (9267.57). On the basis of this information, the budgetary O&M costs for a new 12-MGD nanofiltration treatment plant adjacent to a WRF are approximately $2.15 million per year (Table 53). Table 53. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – New Groundwater WTP (12 MGD) Description Budgetary O&M Costs - 12 MGD NF WTP Chemicals $136,800 Electricity $468,000 Membrane and Filters Replacement $415,200 Equipment $49,200 Labor $132,000 Concentrate Discharge $936,000 Total $2,137,200 Further consideration of this alternative would require a groundwater quality and quantity evaluation, which would be included in an exploratory well program. Additionally, confirmation that a water treatment process waste stream could be discharged to and treated by the West Brunswick Regional WRF or another WRF would be necessary. Also, the development of a new raw water source would need to be evaluated to determine if any conflict exists with the County’s contract with LCFWSA. 5.3.4 Seawater Desalination WTP The County is adjacent to the ICWW and Atlantic Ocean, which has a virtually unlimited quantity of water available for treatment. A new WTP could be in the County’s service area where the population growth is occurring. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Holden Beach area is the area of consideration because it is centrally located along the coastal area of the County. Historically, seawater desalination has proven to be cost-prohibitive compared to treating other sources of raw water. A conceptual level cost evaluation was completed for the treatment facilities, intake structures and raw water mains, distribution mains and site work associated with a new desalination facility. Costs are also included for a distribution system blending water analysis to determine if there are any projected effects on the water quality as the treated seawater mixes with the treated surface water and groundwater from the existing treatment plants. Disposal of concentrate or brine is typically a costly component for a seawater desalination plant. Because North Carolina does not allow deep injection wells, the most feasible option for concentrate management is to return the concentrate to the ICWW. Water quality modeling of the brine discharge and its effect on the ICWW would need to be performed as part of permitting the facility. Seawater desalination also requires additional environmental permitting for both withdrawal of water and concentrate disposal. It is anticipated that the conceptual costs as provided below in Table 54 preclude this alternative from further consideration. These budgetary capital costs were developed using Tetra Tech’s historical cost database. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 123 Table 54. Budgetary Capital Cost - Seawater Desalination WTP (12 MGD) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Preliminary Cost Opinion Withdrawal System 1 EA $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 Seawater Desalination WTP (12 MGD) 1 EA $190,000,000.00 $190,000,000.00 Brine Discharge 1 EA $6,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 30-inch Water Main (Holden Beach area to 30-inch tie-in along Main Steet in Shallote) 45,000 LF $250.00 $11,250,000.00 Property Acquisition 1 EA $1,800,000.00 $1,800,000.00 Sub Total $212,050,000.00 Mobilization/Demobilization 6% $12,723,000.00 General Requirements 4% $8,482,000.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.5% $5,301,250.00 Contingency 20% $42,410,000.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 25% $53,012,500.00 Total $333,978,750.00 Seawater desalination’s O&M costs are very high, primarily because of the power costs associated with operating the treatment processes, particularly operating the high-pressure feed pumps for the reverse osmosis treatment process. The budgetary costs for this water supply option are shown below and are expected to be at least $12.1 million per year (Table 55). Table 55. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – Seawater Desalination WTP (12 MGD) Description Seawater Desalination WTP (12 MGD) Seawater Desalination WTP $12,000,000.00 Pipeline $112,500.00 Total $12,112,500.00 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 124 5.4 OTHER OPTIONS FOR REDUCING THE IBT 5.4.1 Surface Water Storage Two options for storing surface water from the Cape Fear River are being evaluated. One option is a surface water off-line storage reservoir, and the other option is an ASR system. The first ASR system in North Carolina was built by Greenville Utilities Commission and began operation in 2010. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) is beginning an ASR Well Testing Program in 2012 at its elevated tank site on Westbrook Avenue in Wilmington. Results from this study will be included in a pending study by the County of whether ASR at the County’s 211 plant could result a reduction in supply from surface water withdrawal from the Cape Fear River to meet potable water demands during the dry season and during peak demand events such as the July 4th holiday. 5.4.2 Water Conservation and Reuse The County’s water conservation program is described in detail in Section 7. Further development of water conservation programs in the County is expected to reduce the per capita demand for potable water in the service area, although no specific per capita demand targets have been set. Although water conservation alone would not be sufficient to offset future water demands and alleviate the need for an IBT, per capita water demand would be evaluated annually and used to project future flows as a part of the County’s capital planning processes. Likewise, although the reuse of reclaimed wastewater in the Shallotte IBT River Basin will help to offset potable demands and minimize IBTs from the Cape Fear IBT River Basin, consumptive reuse in the Shallotte IBT River Basin would still count toward the proposed IBT. The County’s current and future planned water reuse are discussed in Section 1.4. 5.4.3 Return of Wastewater to Source Basin Treated wastewater in the Shallotte IBT River Basin can be returned to the Cape Fear IBT River Basin for discharge or land application, or as reclaimed water for a variety of residential, commercial and industrial uses. As discussed in Section 1.5, four of the County’s six existing municipal WWTPs (representing approximately 89 percent of permitted wastewater treatment capacity) produce reuse quality effluents. Several options exist for returning wastewater from the Shallotte to the Cape Fear IBT River Basins: 1) Pumping treated effluent from the West Regional plant to the Cape Fear IBT River Basin for discharge, land application, or reuse. The West Regional Plant already has a 6.0-MGD capacity (half of the proposed IBT) and is expandable to 12 MGD. 2) Pumping raw sewage from the Shallotte IBT River Basin to an expanded Northeast Regional plant (or one of the other plants that discharges in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin). 3) Building a new treatment plant or multiple decentralized plants in or closer to the Cape Fear IBT River Basin to treat wastewater from Shallotte IBT River Basin for dispersal in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin. Although each option listed above has merit, it is believed that option #1, pumping treated effluent from the West Regional plant to the Cape Fear IBT River Basin would be the least costly option because a significant portion of the treatment capacity is already installed. Conveyance costs are presumed to be the same order of magnitude for all the options listed. Because option #1 is likely to be least costly, it will be used to provide a baseline cost estimate for the return of wastewater to source basin management options. As indicated, the West Regional plant already has 6 MGD of treatment, storage, and spray irrigation capacity, and plans are to eventually upgrade to the full proposed IBT flow of 12 MGD. Accordingly, treatment costs are not included as a line item for the cost estimates in Table 56 and Table 57 (capital costs) and Table 58 (annual O&M costs). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 125 Because approval for a new, major discharge to the lower Cape Fear River is likely to be subject to significant permitting obstacles, only land application is considered in this option. On the basis of NRCS soil data for the County, it appears that the Cape Fear IBT River Basin features several areas with Baymeade and Kureb soil series, which are well-drained, sandy soils and are generally suitable for land application. However, without more detailed investigation, it is unclear whether these areas would be available for purchase by the County for effluent dispersal. Assuming that land is available, several options could be considered for land application. Two options have been considered for this option: traditional spray irrigation and rapid infiltration. The spray irrigation and rapid infiltration options would both require similar transfer pumping and piping (to convey treated effluent from the West Regional plant to the land application area) and distribution system pressurization pumping systems. Compared to rapid infiltration, traditional spray irrigation systems generally require substantial amounts of suitable land on which to apply effluent. Spray irrigation system also require relatively large storage reservoirs to hold treated effluent during wet or freezing periods. Although sizing of storage for spray irrigation systems is based on a site-specific water balance, the DWQ typically requires a minimum of 30 days of storage and, in fact, the existing spray irrigation system at the West Regional plant has 30 days of storage. Depending on soil and site characteristics, rapid infiltration systems (which are defined by DWQ for the Coastal Plain as sites receiving more than 1.75 inches of effluent per week) in the Coastal Plain are often loaded at rates of up to 5 gpd per square foot (gpd/sf) and sometimes up to 10 gpd/sf. Because of their high loading rate, rapid infiltration systems are more susceptible to subsurface constraints that limit the movement of water away from the site and toward a receptor (i.e., surface water). Although sites that are suitable for rapid infiltration typically do not require on-site effluent storage, on the basis of hydrogeologic investigations and modeling, rapid infiltration systems could require artificial drainage to ensure that the resulting groundwater mound that forms beneath the application area does not impede movement out of the infiltration area and that effluent does not surface downgradient. The County uses a combination of traditional (i.e., slow rate) spray and drip irrigation and rapid infiltration, along with irrigation at golf courses to manage reclaimed water from the West Regional plant. Costs for the County’s existing land application/reuse system, sized to manage 6.0 MGD of reclaimed water (in the Shallotte IBT River Basin), were about $21.5 million, for a unit cost of approximately $3.58/gpd land application capacity. As indicated in Table 56 and Table 57, land application in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin, not including transmission from the West Regional plant, was estimated to range between $10,631,250 for 100 percent rapid infiltration to $92,452,500 for 100 percent spray irrigation, with much of the cost difference attributable to land acquisition, site preparation and storage requirements. For comparison purposes, the unit costs of these options range from $0.89/gpd (rapid infiltration with gravity subsurface drainage) to $7.70/gpd (for slow rate spray irrigation). These budgetary capital costs were developed based on a variety of sources including RSMeans CostWorks® cost estimation tool using 2012Q1 data for Wilmington, North Carolina, EPA’s 2006 update to Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents guidance manual, the County’s previous costs for the West Regional WWTP land application system and professional experience and judgment. Note that the feasibility of both options is highly dependent on locating and acquiring suitable property of sufficient size and proximity in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 126 Table 56. Budgetary Capital Cost - 12 MGD Land Application in CFR Basin from West Regional WWTP (Rapid Infiltration sub-option) Line Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Transmission (12 miles, 30-inch diameter pipe) 63,400 LF $250.00 $15,850,000.00 Conveyance pumping station 1 EA $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 Pre-application treatment N/A Subsurface drainage 1 EA $500,000.00 $500,000.00 Spray irrigation pumping station 1 EA $700,000.00 $700,000.00 Field preparation (60-acre rapid infiltration + 50% for buffers) 1 EA $1,800,000.00 $1,800,000.00 Field distribution equipment (spray irrigation, installed) 60 acre $40,000.00 $2,400,000.00 Land acquisition 90 acre $15,000.00 $1,350,000.00 SUBTOTAL $24,600,000.00 Mobilization/demobilization 6% $1,476,000.00 General requirements 4% $984,000.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.50% $615,000.00 Contingency 20% $4,920,000.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 25% $6,150,000.00 Total $38,745,000.00 Table 57. Budgetary Capital Cost - 12 MGD Land Application in CFR Basin from West Regional WWTP (Spray Irrigation sub-option) Line Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Transmission (12 miles, 30-inch diameter pipe) 63,400 LF $250.00 $ 15,850,000.00 Conveyance pumping station 1 EA $2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Pre-application treatment N/A Storage (360 MG, 12' liquid depth + 2' freeboard) 1 EA $ 4,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 127 Line Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Spray irrigation pumping station 1 EA $ 700,000.00 $ 700,000.00 Field preparation (2,100-acre slow rate spray irrigation) 1 EA $ 12,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 Field distribution equipment (spray irrigation, installed) 2,100 acre $ 5,000.00 $ 10,500,000.00 Land acquisition 2,100 acre $ 15,000.00 $ 31,500,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 76,550,000.00 Mobilization/demobilization 6% $ 4,593,000.00 General requirements 4% $ 3,062,000.00 Bonds and Insurance 2.50% $ 1,913,750.00 Contingency 20% $ 15,310,000.00 Engineering, Permitting, Legal and Admin 25% $ 19,137,500.00 Total $ 120,566,250.00 Under this option, it is assumed that the existing land application and reuse would be discontinued, or at least greatly decreased, in the Shallotte IBT River Basin and instead shifted to the Cape Fear IBT River Basin. Because the facilities being operated would be very similar to those in operation, there would be no additional O&M demands above those associated with the West Regional WWTP and land application system. Additional O&M demands associated with the new effluent pumping station and conveyance piping are summarized in Table 58. Table 58. Budgetary Annual O&M Costs – Land Application in Cape Fear IBT River Basin Option Description Estimated Annual O&M Cost Pumping Cost1 $623,000.00 Pipeline Maintenance $159,000.00 Total $782,000.00 Note: 1 Assume 900-hp total, 85 percent pump efficiency, $0.09/kWhr 5.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES The preceding sections provide discussion of a number of alternatives including a No Additional IBT alternative. The No Additional IBT alternative is not recommended because the County has demonstrated the need for an expansion of its water treatment system; not doing so would compromise its ability to provide reliable, high-quality potable water to its customers, particularly those in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Additional alternatives to the increase in IBT associated with Northwest WTP expansion are summarized in Table 59 including costs and qualitative assessments of permitting and potential Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 128 environmental impacts. A rating of permitting difficulty reflects the general regulatory requirements, cost, and time involved in obtaining the necessary permits and approval. Technical difficulty is related to the planning, design, permitting, and construction effort to implement the project. For example, a project with low technical difficulty is expected to have the least amount of effort from conception to construction, whereas a project with high technical difficulty is expected to require considerable effort to implement. Environmental impacts can be direct, secondary, and cumulative in nature. Direct impacts are those effects caused by a project that occur at the same time and place, and result from project construction and the project itself. Secondary and cumulative impacts, particularly growth-inducing effects, on natural resources occur later in time or farther removed in distance as a result of the project’s construction and operation. Additional IBT associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP is recommended as the preferred alternative because of a lower cost (capital, O&M), low technical difficulty, an equivalent or lower level of permitting difficulty, a low level of direct impacts (e.g., new WTP alternatives would have additional construction impacts for a new site), and an equivalent level of secondary and cumulative impacts. Return of additional wastewater to the source would add a minimum of $39 million to the cost of the preferred alternative without significant benefit to the resource. Table 59. Summary Water Supply Alternatives to Additional IBT Alternative Estimated Capital Construction Costs (Budgetary) Estimated Annual O&M Costs Technical Difficulty Permitting Difficulty Direct Environmental Impacts Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Additional IBT – (Associated w/ Northwest WTP Expansion) $90.7M $1.5M Low Medium Low Medium Waccamaw Surface WTP $163M $3.4M Medium High High Medium Expand 211 WTP $141M $2.3M Medium Medium Low Medium New Groundwater WTP $103M $2.1M Medium Medium Medium Medium Seawater Desalination Plant $334M $12M High High Medium/High Medium Return of Additional Wastewater to Source Basins (includes cost to expand NW WTP) Low End: $129M ($38.7M + $90.7M) High End: $212M ($121M + $90.7M) $2.3M ($0.78M + $1.5M) Medium Medium Medium Medium Combined with expansion of the Northwest WTP and associated increase in IBT, the County proposes to use a combination of alternatives to limit transfer of water. As indicated, water conservation and reuse are Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 129 key elements of the County’s current water management plan and they reduce demand and associated IBT. It is not known how changes to these programs would result in additional demand reduction and future water transfer. In addition, the County has reduced the need to transfer additional water by developing an interconnection and agreement to purchase water from the Little River Water and Sewerage Company for potable water service in the Waccamaw River subbasin. Finally, the County is planning a study of ASR storage at the 211 plant to reduce withdrawal of surface water during peak demand periods. The technical viability of this option is unknown. The next section discusses in more detail the potential direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the preferred alternative. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 130 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 131 6 Predicted Environmental Effects The preceding Sections 2 through 4 discuss the existing environmental characteristics or features of the source and receiving basins of the County IBT. Section 6 discusses the potential environmental effects or impacts of the preferred alternative (i.e., an increase in IBT) on these environmental features. The impacts are categorized as direct, secondary, and cumulative. NCDENR’s recent guidance on State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documents and secondary/cumulative impacts (NCDENR, 2011b) defines each as follows: • Direct Impacts are those effects caused by a project that occur at the same time and place. Direct impacts result from project construction and the project itself. • Secondary Impacts, or indirect impacts, on natural resources occur later in time or farther removed in distance as a result of the project’s construction and operation. These impacts can further be divided into two categories: o Encroachment-Alteration Effects: The physical presence of the project could affect the function of natural systems through a series of secondary effects. o Growth-Inducing Effects: The presence of a project could affect the pattern or density of development. • Cumulative Impacts are those that result from the incremental effects of the original direct impact combined with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. 6.1 SOURCE BASIN (CAPE FEAR) 6.1.1 Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with the Northwest WTP alternative include those related to withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1. Direct impacts of the plant expansion such as those that could result from project construction would be reviewed as part of an EA prepared specifically for the plant expansion. The current environmental document is being prepared to support approval of an IBT certificate only and, therefore, does not involve any construction activities. An environmental document for the plant expansion would be prepared separately and be reviewed through SEPA if an IBT certificate is approved. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the potential impacts of water withdrawal. The LCFWSA supplies raw water to the Northwest WTP from an intake on the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1. This low head dam causes the river to impound slightly behind it before spilling over and continuing down the river. The County is one of several LCFWSA customers receiving a portion of the withdrawal. A FONSI for expansion of the LCFWSA’s intake to accommodate a 96-MGD withdrawal above Lock and Dam #1 was issued by NCDEH in 2009. The supporting environmental document (McKim and Creed, 2008) provided a comparison of cumulative water demand at this river location to the published 7Q10 flow and cites hydrology modeling conducted by NCDWR, which suggested sufficient water supply through 2050. The new LCFWSA intake has now been constructed and is in operation. As discussed in McKim and Creed (2008), the three new intake screens manufactured by Johnson Screens are connected to a new 60 inch intake pipeline. The configuration of the new, additional intake is “identical in form and operation” to the existing intake pipe and no known impacts to aquatic species from the previous configuration have been reported according to the EA approved by NCDEH. Further from McKim and Creed (2008), the Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 132 mesh size (slot size is approximately 0.118 inches) was designed to prevent entrainment of fish including eggs and larvae, and velocity through the intake screens will not exceed 0.5 feet per second. The Cape Fear Basin Water Supply Plan (NCDWR, 2002) also suggests that a surrogate for safe yield at Lock and Dam #1 is 20 percent of the published 7Q10. However, rather than relying upon a safe yield value such as this, DWR requested during scoping that the County run the Cape Fear Hydrologic Model to determine whether any difficulties would exist in meeting future demands. Therefore, the following analysis builds on the previous modeling analysis by DWR and focuses on the direct impact of the County withdrawal and the cumulative impact of all existing and projected withdrawals at the dam, and whether water supply needs are met in the future. 6.1.1.1 Impacts Above Lock and Dam #1 6.1.1.1.1 Hydrology Analysis—Background NCDWR (2008) undertook an investigation of surface water supplies in the Cape Fear, including increased withdrawals from behind Lock and Dam # 1, using a calibrated hydrology model through 2050 conditions. The Cape Fear Hydrologic Model1 or CFHM (HydroLogics, 2006) is an implementation of OASIS (HydroLogics, 2009), which is a generalized mass balance model designed to assess the impacts of different water allocation policies and facilities over the historic record of inflows. It works on a daily timestep and is not designed for hydraulic flood routing, but it is applicable to drought management. The inflow data set is based on unimpaired gage flows and impairments. The unimpaired gage flows are the recorded gage flows corrected for human intervention or impairments. The impairments are modifications to the natural flows from reservoir storage, consumptive withdrawals, and discharges. The existing CFHM is based on records from 46 streamflow gages, running from January 1930 to September 2004—many of which have missing data estimated. A total of 12 of the 46 gages require correction for impairment. Altogether, there are approximately 40 irrigation source nodes, 40+ municipal and industrial demand nodes, and 60+ discharge nodes in the model. The model also contains a series of operating rules. The original model data stopped in September 2004. The model has already been updated through water year 2005 (NCDWR, 2008), but not for subsequent years. DWR is leading a process to update the model, but, it was not available during preparation of this environmental document. Therefore, the existing model is being used to support the County’s IBT request. Previous analysis with a cumulative 2050 withdrawal from behind Lock and Dam #1 indicates that full demand at this model node was met (NCDWR, 2008). For this environmental document, results of this analysis are presented with data taken directly from the existing model and include updates to the County portion of the withdrawal that are based on revised demand data provided in Section 1. The model’s terminus is at Lock and Dam #1. Only one water intake is below Lock and Dam #1: International Paper. The industrial withdrawal is just downstream of the dam. Withdrawals for 2010 averaged 34.7 MGD (NCDWR, 2010); however, nearly all this water is discharged in close proximity of the withdrawal. Changes in hydrology can affect habitat for aquatic species. Given the size of the withdrawals relative to the river’s low flow regime and the tidal nature of the river below Lock and Dam #1, NCDWR deemed that a study of stream flow impacts on habitat and recreation downstream of the dam would not be needed (July 17, 2009 letter from NCDWR to Tetra Tech; contained within the scoping comments provided in 1 NCDWR has begun updating the Cape Fear Hydrologic Model; however, this process is not complete. Therefore, the current version of the model was used for the analysis contained herein. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 133 Appendix C). Cumulative withdrawals represent about 3% of mean river flow (5,063 cfs), 6% of median river flow (2,540 cfs), and 17% of 10th percentile river flow (969 cfs) based on the most recent USGS Water Data Report. The cumulative withdrawals incorporate all LCFWSA customers including Brunswick just above the Lock and Dam and are 164 cfs for the 2050 planning horizon. 6.1.1.1.2 Hydrology Analysis—Methods The following hydrologic analysis explores three general scenarios derived from the CFHM: 2003, the baseline condition for the OASIS application, and 2030 and 2050, which are future projected conditions. The 2003 baseline scenario reflects the discharges and withdrawals (represented as monthly averages) that were reported for 2003 applied to the model’s long-term simulation (1930–2005). Likewise, the 2030 and 2050 projected scenarios are the projected 2030 and 2050 withdrawals applied to the 76-year simulation. The CPFM has three model nodes to represent demands in the location immediately upstream of Lock & Dam 1. These model nodes and the downstream model junction where results are supplied are summarized in Table 60. Table 60. Node Information from the Cape Fear Hydrologic Model OASIS ID Type Comment 820 Junction Cape Fear River mainstem junction upstream of Lock & Dam 1 821 Demand node Bladen County withdrawal 823 Demand node Wilmington (CFPUA) withdrawal 825 Demand node LCFWSA withdrawal which consists of: • Brunswick County • Pender County • 2 industrial users Since the previous CFHM analysis was conducted by NCDWR in the mid-2000s through about 2008, the County has revised its 2030 and 2050 water demand. Therefore, the previous withdrawal estimates have been replaced with the revised values by adjusting data from Node 825, which represents the LCFWSA demand (excluding CFPUA, which has its own node (823) in the model, collocated with LCFWSA). Note that CFPUA is a customer of LCFWSA but the flows are divided in the model. The average withdrawals for the County are provided in Table 61. The 2003 daily withdrawal values provided by the County were processed into monthly values. Data from the County’s 2008 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) was used as a monthly template for 2030 and 2050 flows. The resulting monthly series for each of the analysis years are shown in Figure 37. Table 61. Brunswick County Average Daily Withdrawal (via LCFWSA) from the Cape Fear River Year Comment Withdrawal (cfs) Withdrawal (MGD) 2003 Withdrawal obtained from Brunswick County 11.3 7.30 2030 Previous withdrawal estimate from CFHM 24.7 15.96 2030 Revised withdrawal estimate 23.4 15.13 2050 Previous withdrawal estimate from CFHM 35.1 22.70 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 134 Year Comment Withdrawal (cfs) Withdrawal (MGD) 2050 Revised withdrawal estimate 33.6 21.73 Figure 37. Brunswick County NWTP Average Monthly Withdrawal (cfs) Series Used for Each Scenario 6.1.1.1.3 Hydrology Analysis—Results The simulated daily flow series at model junction 820 is plotted using a flow duration curve with and without additional Brunswick County withdrawal (beyond 2003). The curve shows the amount of time flows at a certain level are exceeded. For example, the lowest flow simulated would be exceeded 100 percent of the time. Results in Figure 38 (2003), Figure 39 (2030) and Figure 40 (2050) focus on low flow periods where the greatest impact would be expected to occur (full flow duration curves are provided in Appendix J). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 135 Figure 38. Flow Duration Curve of 2003 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal (Focused on Low Flow) Figure 39. Flow Duration Curve of 2030 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal (Focused on Low Flow) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 136 Figure 40. Flow Duration Curve of 2050 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal (Focused on Low Flow) Comparison of the incremental increase in the projected withdrawals with and without the additional County withdrawal is shown in Table 62 and Table 63, respectively. The percent difference from the incremental increase at some of the lowest flows is 3 to 5 percent (for flows exceeded 95% of the time). Table 62. Incremental Impact of Brunswick Withdrawal for 2030 Scenario on Stream Flow Flow Statistic Description Simulated Flow with 2030 Cumulative Withdrawals Except for Brunswick County at 2003 Withdrawal (cfs) Simulated Flow with 2030 Cumulative Withdrawals (cfs) Percent Difference Due to Increase in Brunswick County Withdrawal (2003 to 2030) 5th Percentile Flow exceeded 95% of time 549.52 535.83 -2.5% 10th Percentile Flow exceeded 90% of time 715.30 701.95 -1.9% 50th Percentile Median Flow 2,874.81 2,861.76 -0.45% Mean Average Flow 5,194.38 5,182.21 -0.23% Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 137 Table 63. Incremental Impact of Brunswick Withdrawal for 2050 Scenario on Stream Flow Flow Statistic Description Simulated Flow with 2050 Cumulative Withdrawals Except for Brunswick County at 2003 Withdrawal (cfs) Simulated Flow with 2050 Cumulative Withdrawals (cfs) Percent Difference Due to Increase in Brunswick County Withdrawal (2003 to 2050) 5th Percentile Flow exceeded 95% of time 525.30 499.10 -5.0% 10th Percentile Flow exceeded 90% of time 690.97 667.20 -3.4% 50th Percentile Median Flow 2,807.42 2,784.97 -0.80% Mean Average Flow 5,130.55 5,108.16 -0.44% An additional 2050 scenario, representing a potential maximum withdrawal, was used to further assess impacts of water withdrawal. This scenario uses the 2050 demands as described previously but assigns maximum daily flow values for the duration of the month of July rather than average monthly values. July is the month of maximum demand based on consistent historical patterns. The July daily maximum withdrawal just above model junction 820 was based on the 2011 LWSP for LCFWSA. This value is assumed to incorporate all demands at this point in the river (i.e., LCFWSA including Brunswick County, Wilmington or CFPUA, and Bladen County) and assumes a value of 106 MGD or 164 cfs, the reported surface supply in the LWSP. This withdrawal value is also equal to the LCFWSA annual demand of 88.627 MGD for 2050 multiplied by the July peaking factor from 2011 (equal to 1.192), and is only slightly greater that the unadjusted average July withdrawals (149 cfs or 96 MGD) in the base 2050 scenario. Results comparing the 2050 average scenario and maximum withdrawal scenario are shown graphically in Figure 41. Table 64 shows a minor departure between 2050 average and maximum scenarios with differences of about one percent or less. Note that while these results represent the impacts of cumulative withdrawal at Lock and Dam #1, a vast majority of the water that is withdrawn remains in the source basin. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 138 Figure 41. Flow Duration Curve of 2050 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With Daily Maximum Values Applied for the Month of July Only (Focused on Low Flow) Table 64. Incremental Impact of Cumulative Withdrawal for July at Daily Maximum for 2050 Scenario on Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 Flow Statistic Description Simulated Flow with 2050 Monthly Average Withdrawals (cfs) Simulated Flow with 2050 July Daily Maximum Withdrawals (cfs) Percent Difference (2050) 5th Percentile Flow exceeded 95% of time 499.10 493.85 -1.1% 10th Percentile Flow exceeded 90% of time 667.20 663.48 -0.6% 50th Percentile Median Flow 2,784.97 2,783.72 -0.04% Mean Average Flow 5,108.16 5,105.81 -0.05% An unimpaired scenario run was performed by NCDWR (2008) representing hypothetical conditions with all discharges, withdrawals, and impoundments in the basin removed. A comparison by NCDWR (2008) showed that under all three demand scenarios, the simulated flows for the scenarios were higher during low flow periods than the unimpaired scenario because of regulation from Jordan Lake. The preceding analysis does not change NCDWR’s (2008) conclusion that full demand for all withdrawals at Lock and Dam #1 would be met through 2050 because the revisions to Brunswick demand are minor and the maximum withdrawal scenario differs little from the average day scenario. In addition, the increase from the Brunswick County withdrawal would be small, and predicted flows passing over the Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 139 dam at the 95th percentile flow exceedence (i.e., a fairly low flow) in 2050 remain substantial at nearly 500 cfs. Accordingly, the direct impact of the County withdrawal on water supply would not be significant. 6.1.1.1.4 Water Quality Analysis—Results Water withdrawals could also degrade water quality conditions in the pool behind Lock and Dam #1. While this section of the Cape Fear River is not listed as impaired on the 303(d) list, NCDWQ requested an evaluation of dissolved oxygen, algal dynamics, and pH in this reach. Downstream of Lock and Dam #1, however, the Cape Fear River Estuary is on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for dissolved oxygen and has been the subject of recent study. The potential impacts on water quality upstream and downstream of the dam are discussed in the sections that follow. A USGS observation station (02105769) and a North Carolina Ambient Monitoring System station (B8350000) were used to investigate possible relationships of flow or water temperature with response variables of dissolved oxygen, pH, and chlorophyll a. Several statistical regressions were applied to the data by varying the independent and dependent variables. Insufficient observed data exist for chlorophyll a to construct a statistical relationship, so this parameter was removed from consideration (six total observations). The critical period of interest for the response variables is during the summer (June, July, and August) when withdrawals are typically near the annual maximum, stream flow is generally low, and water temperature is high. Data associated with flows above 5,000 cfs were removed as the relationship of dissolved oxygen to flow appears to change at high flow. On a given sample date, only the surface observations (generally 0.1 meter below the surface) were retained because vertical differences were negligible. The resulting data set included 31 days of observed data over the period from June 26, 1997, through August 12, 2010, with which to investigate relationships. The range of variables used for correlation analysis is shown in Table 65. Flow was evaluated both with and without a logarithmic transformation. A correlation matrix (Table 66) indicates that dissolved oxygen is weakly correlated (i.e., values closer to 0) to flow and temperature, whereas pH shows more correlation to flow. As dissolved oxygen has essentially zero correlation with untransformed flow, only the natural logarithm of flow was retained for further analysis. Table 65. Water Quality Variables at Lock and Dam 1, June – August at Flows < 5,000 cfs Flow (cfs) ln (Flow (cfs)) Water Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Minimum 526 6.27 24.20 5.30 5.90 1st Quartile 1,044 6.95 27.55 6.10 6.60 Median 1,270 7.15 28.30 6.40 6.80 Mean 1,535 7.22 28.32 6.49 6.84 3rd Quartile 1,780 7.48 29.15 6.95 7.00 Maximum 4,040 8.30 31.40 7.80 8.10 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 140 Table 66. Correlation Matrix for Water Quality Variables Flow (cfs) ln (Flow (cfs)) Water Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Flow (cfs) 1.00 0.96 -0.72 0.00 -0.31 ln Flow (cfs) 0.96 1.00 -0.65 -0.03 -0.43 Water Temperature (°C) -0.72 -0.65 1.00 0.05 -0.01 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0.00 -0.03 0.05 1.00 -0.27 pH -0.31 -0.43 -0.01 -0.27 1.00 A predictive model of pH can be formulated as pH = 15.676 -0.141 (Water Temperature) – 0.67 (ln(Flow)), with adjusted R2 = 0.2807 and probability value of 0.004 (Table 67). All model coefficients are significantly different from zero. Table 67. Predictive Models for pH Model Intercept Coefficients on: Adjusted R2 Probability value Water Temperature ln (Flow) Water Temperature x ln (Flow) PH-1 15.676 -0.141 -0.67 - 0.2807 0.004 Analyses of the data show that neither flow nor water temperature nor their combination provides statistically significant explanatory models of observed dissolved oxygen (Table 68). All attempts resulted in adjusted R2 values less than zero and the lowest probability value is 0.49 (typically a value of less than 0.05 is required for model significance). In addition, the 95 percent confidence interval on the coefficient on flow is not significantly different from zero. Table 68. Predictive Models for Dissolved Oxygen Model Intercept Coefficients on: Adjusted R2 Probability value Water Temperature ln (Flow) Water Temperature x ln (Flow) DO-1 5.716 0.024 0.014 - -0.0687 0.965 DO-2 6.739 -0.035 -0.0338 0.889 DO-3 5.899 0.021 -0.0319 0.790 DO-4 -39.48 1.65 6.062 -0.218 -0.0178 0.497 Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 141 The statistical models tell us that the variability in observed dissolved oxygen is primarily due to factors other than flow and temperature. Nonetheless, the coefficients obtained in a least squares fit provide a best unbiased estimate of the partial contribution of these factors to dissolved oxygen. Therefore, estimates can be made of the potential impact of additional water withdrawal using the three models that represent the effect of flow on dissolved oxygen, as well as the model for pH. The analysis focuses on July, a critical period, when the maximum monthly withdrawals typically occur and at mean water temperature of 28.3 °C. Permitted facilities associated with withdrawal at Lock and Dam #1 include the Northwest WTP (24 MGD), CFPUA’s Sweeney WTP (35 MGD), Pender County (2 MGD; expandable to 6 MGD), along with two small industrial users supplied by LCFWSA (~2.6 MGD). For 2011, the max day withdrawal for the County is taken directly from Northwest WTP records. To arrive at the cumulative withdrawal, maximum day values from CFPUA and LCFWSA were combined for a value of 51.13 MGD (41.5 plus 9.63) as provided in their respective LWSPs. The basis for the 2050 cumulative, maximum withdrawal of 106 MGD was discussed previously in Section 6.1.1.1.3. Table 69 provides a summary of these withdrawals. Table 69. Maximum Brunswick County and LCFWSA Withdrawals for Water Quality Analysis Year Brunswick County Withdrawal (MGD) Brunswick County Withdrawal (cfs) Cumulative Withdrawal (MGD) Cumulative Withdrawal (cfs) 2011 21.3 33.0 51.1 79.1 2050 38.8 1 60.5 106 164 1 Based on the proposed treatment capacity of 36 MGD finished water for the Northwest WTP plus additional raw water that is withdrawn from the river for backwash, clarifier blowdowns, and process water is not included. This water is discharged back to the Cape Fear source basin via NPDES permit. To evaluate dissolved oxygen and pH response for an extreme case, the 7Q10 is used. USGS published a previous estimate for the Cape Fear River at Lock and Dam #1 in 2001: 825 cfs or 533 MGD using data reflecting the period of regulation from Jordan Lake, 1982-1997 (Weaver and Pope, 2001). USGS was contacted for an updated 7Q10, and provided a provisional value of 500 cfs (323 mgd) using data for 1982–2009 climatic years. The decrease can be attributed to, “a combination of the recent droughts on flows in the Cape Fear River and the regulated flow conditions from Jordan Lake during this period,” according to USGS (personal communication; see Appendix I). 6.1.1.1.5 Water Quality Analysis—Results The 2011 maximum cumulative withdrawal (i.e., Brunswick plus others) at Lock and Dam #1 was 79.1 cfs, and the potential 2050 maximum cumulative withdrawal is 164 cfs, resulting in an increase in max of withdrawal of 85 cfs. The resulting predicted changes in dissolved oxygen when applied to the provisional 7Q10 flow are shown in Table 70. Two of the models predict increased dissolved oxygen as a result of the increased withdrawal, but none of the changes are significant. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 142 Table 70. Predicted Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Response Maximum Withdrawal at Lock and Dam #1 Model Predicted Dissolved Oxygen with 2011 Maximum Cumulative Withdrawal Predicted Dissolved Oxygen with 2050 Maximum Cumulative Withdrawal Change in Dissolved Oxygen Percent Change DO-1 6.4827 6.4801 -0.0026 -0.04% DO-2 6.5215 6.5280 0.0065 0.10% DO-4 6.5535 6.5743 0.0208 0.32% The regression model for pH predicts an increase in pH from 7.519 to 7.644 under these 2050 7Q10 low flow conditions equal to a 1.66 percent change (Table 71). Table 71. Predicted pH (s.u.) Response to Increase in Maximum Withdrawal at Lock and Dam #1 Model Predicted pH with 2011 Maximum Cumulative Withdrawal Predicted pH with 2050 Maximum Cumulative Withdrawal Change in pH Percent Change PH-1 7.5191 7.6438 0.1247 1.66% In sum, both the dissolved oxygen and pH changes are predicted to be minimal and insignificant, and further modeling analysis is not warranted. 6.1.1.2 New Fish Passage Structure at Lock and Dam #1 A new fish passage structure (FPS) at Lock and Dam #1 on the Cape Fear River was completed in November 2012 by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Basis of Design report provided the design, associated analyses (e.g., hydrologic and hydraulic analysis), and the biological rationale for the project (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). The rock arch rapids design is a type of rock ramp that provides fish passage over low-head dams by emulation of natural rapids and facilitation of fish hydrodynamics. The FPS alternative was chosen over others including removal of the dam in part due to the need to protect the water supply intake structures located just upstream (e.g., LCFWSA intake). The FPS is designed to increase fish passage and increase spawning opportunities for anadromous fish. Spawning migration in the Atlantic coastal region occurs primarily during periods of increased but moderate river flow and temperature such as late winter and spring (NOAA, 2013). The design of the FPS accounts for flows during this period including an assumed “spawning flow” of 5,000 cfs, a flow level near the mean flow for the river (5,063 cfs based on 1982-2012), and typical spring flows during March and April which are somewhat greater (i.e., up to about 9,000 cfs; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Maximum, cumulative withdrawals for 2050 (164 cfs; incorporates all LCFWSA customers including Brunswick) just above the FPS represent 2 to 3 percent of these flow values. Maximum withdrawal is more likely to occur in the summer given seasonal water use patterns; therefore, water withdrawals from the river during the spawning migration would represent an even smaller proportion of flow (as would considering only Brunswick’s portion). As such the impact of withdrawals on FPS function would be insignificant. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 143 6.1.1.3 Impacts Below Lock and Dam #1 The section of the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary (LCFRE) from upstream of Toomers Creek to a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut has been on North Carolina’s 303(d) list as impaired for dissolved oxygen since 1998. In 2006 the DWQ added pH as impaired for this segment, and in 2008 DWQ added copper and turbidity to the listing. Emphasis by DWQ has been on developing a better understanding of loads and processes influencing dissolved oxygen. Since the original listing for dissolved oxygen, many technical studies of the LCFRE have been conducted by DWQ, the Lower Cape Fear River Program, other agencies and academic researchers, and consultants. As a result, an extensive technical foundation of knowledge on the LCFRE has been created including information on physical, chemical, and biological features and processes. Monitoring programs have provided insight regarding ambient conditions over many years on water quality, benthos and fish. The Lower Cape Fear River Program has conducted monitoring in coordination with DWQ since 1995, and a considerable amount of data is available before that. Extensive data have been collected by the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association upstream of Lock and Dam #1 since mid-1998. Additionally, sophisticated hydrodynamic modeling tools have been developed for the entire estuary and the portion of the river up to Lock and Dam #1. An application of the three-dimensional water quality model Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) was developed for the LCFRE by the University of North Carolina-Charlotte for DWQ (Bowen et al. 2009). The model was used to investigate the effects of various organic matter and ammonia load reduction scenarios, both point and nonpoint source, on the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the estuary. The model region included the tidally affected portions of the Cape Fear (i.e., portion below Lock & Dam 1), Black, and Northeast Cape Fear rivers near Wilmington, North Carolina, and extended south to the mouth of the Cape Fear River near Southport, North Carolina. The 21 state variable EFDC water quality model included multiple dissolved and particulate organic carbon constituents, and organic and inorganic nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and three phytoplankton constituents. To adequately characterize the various organic matter decomposition rates of the riverine and wastewater inputs, both labile and refractory dissolved organic matter constituents were used. The water quality model considered inputs from the three riverine sources at the model boundaries, 20 wastewater point source inputs in the estuary, and 14 additional point sources that simulated other freshwater inputs to the estuary from tidal creeks and wetlands. Over the 3-year period (2002–2005) for which the freshwater and point source loadings were developed, approximately 10 percent of the organic matter loading and 50 percent of the ammonia loading to the estuary came from the 20 wastewater point sources that discharge directly to the estuary (Bowen et al. 2009). The calibrated model achieved an excellent fit to observed data (more than 5200 measurements at 18 estuary sites) for complex estuary models. Bowen et al. (2009) report that the mean model error was less than 0.01 mg/L, and the root mean square error was 0.92 mg/L, which corresponds to 13.8 percent of the mean value. DWQ found the calibrated model to be suitable for conducting scenario tests on the effect of changes in organic matter and ammonia loadings on the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the estuary. A number of scenarios were examined by Bowen and DWQ to test the sensitivity of dissolved oxygen to reductions in point and nonpoint source loads of oxygen-demanding pollutants. With all point sources eliminated, the 10th percentile dissolved oxygen concentration increased by approximately 0.3 mg/L, from 4.3 to 4.5 mg/L. Nonpoint source loading reductions of 30 percent, 50 percent, or 70 percent were assumed for the three river inputs (Cape Fear, Black, and Northeast Cape Fear), and from the 14 creeks and wetland inputs in the estuary. Despite these large reductions, dissolved oxygen concentrations increased by only 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 mg/L, respectively, from 4.3 to either 4.5, 4.6 or 4.7 mg/L. On the basis of the modeling results, DWQ has temporarily suspended its development of a TMDL for oxygen- demanding loads while it considers the relative impact of natural and anthropogenic sources on the water quality in the LCFRE. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 144 The studies by Bowen et al. (2009) and Hamrick et al. (2001) show that during low-flow summer conditions, hydrology and pollutant transport are dominated by tidal exchange with the ocean. The EFDC model uses a historical period of flow at its upper boundary (i.e., Lock and Dam #1) that reflects flows above 20 cms (~700 cfs). The withdrawal associated the proposed flow transfer for the County corresponds to 60 cfs (39 mgd), which represents approximately 9 percent of the lowest model flows entering the LCFRE. Because tidal flow dominates pollutant fate and transport during the lowest flow periods and transfer of flow would actually remove some pollutants from entering the LCFRE, the IBT would not be expected to have a noticeable effect on water quality in the river below Lock & Dam #1. 6.1.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The proposal involves a certificate from the EMC to transfer additional water across the basin divide. Therefore, secondary and cumulative impacts are relevant to the receiving basin only. 6.2 RECEIVING BASIN #1 (WACCAMAW) 6.2.1 Direct Impacts The proposal does not involve additional water transfer to the Waccamaw IBT River Basin. Therefore, no direct impacts would occur as a result of the IBT certificate. 6.2.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The proposal does not involve additional water transfer to the Waccamaw IBT River Basin. Therefore, no secondary and cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the IBT certificate. 6.3 RECEIVING BASIN #2 (SHALLOTTE) 6.3.1 Direct Impacts For the Northwest WTP expansion alternative, there would be no direct effects on the Shallotte IBT River Basin associated with the transfer of water. Any direct impacts associated with construction of the WTP improvements and transmission line upgrades would be reviewed under an environmental document prepared under SEPA specifically for these projects as required by statute and regulation. 6.3.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Secondary and cumulative impacts for the project are those that could be derived from potential growth inducement in the receiving river basin. The additional water supply is considered a factor in facilitating growth. If not managed properly, additional urbanization of the service area could degrade water resources, aquatic and wildlife habitat and resources, and other environmental features discussed in Sections 2 through 4 because of increased stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and other consequences of land development. A cumulative impact is derived from the combination of water supply, construction of new or expanded utilities (e.g., water and sewer), and transportation projects. Note that there is another category of secondary impacts, encroachment-alteration effects. These are minimized because they involve the physical presence of the project, and this proposal does not involve construction of physical structures. However, encroachment-alteration effects on habitat for example could result from new development in general. These types of effects are combined with growth inducement effects in general for purpose of the discussion that follows. Table 72 provides a summary of the potential secondary and cumulative impacts on environmental features of the Shallotte IBT River Basin that are described in Section 4. Many of these potential impacts Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 145 are associated with future growth projections described in the County’s future land use (Figure 19 and Table 28). Growth is expected to primarily occur as low- and medium-density residential uses, with an increase of three to four fold in area relative to existing land use (Table 27). Table 72. Summary of Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts (Shallotte Study Area) Environmental Feature Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Topography, Geology, and Floodplains Grading of sites could disturb natural topography; development of sites and associated utilities could occur in floodplains if not prohibited; natural riparian buffers could be disturbed if not prohibited. Soils Soils could be compacted during development resulting in reduced infiltration of water; soils most suitable for agricultural lands could be developed to residential, commercial, or other uses precluding continued cultivation. Land Use Changes in land use from natural, vegetated covers to developed uses; existing developed land could be converted to more intense land uses; the introduction of incompatible land uses to adjacent, existing land use could occur without proper land use planning. Forest Resources A large portion of the watershed is forested, most of which is loblolly- shortleaf pine. Some forested land would be converted to developed land uses. Significant forest lands, including commercial forest tracts, would be expected to remain. Many of these are unsuitable or not preferred for development (e.g., wetlands, in northern portions of the County). Prime or Unique Agricultural Land Approximately 36 percent of the area has been classified as important or prime farmland; however, more than a quarter is already developed. Agricultural lands could be converted into residential, commercial, or other uses precluding continued cultivation. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas There are several areas as described in Table 29, the largest of which is the Green Swamp Preserve. New development and population growth could put pressure on public, scenic, recreational lands, and state natural areas if not properly managed. Areas of archaeological or Historic Value There are no known areas of archaeological or historic significance. Surface Water Resources Increases in pollutants and degradation of water quality from stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and developed pervious areas because of new development. Increases in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff could affect stream channel geomorphology and aquatic habitat. Increases in flooding. Exacerbation of existing water quality impairments such as shellfish harvesting issues. Groundwater Resources Additional use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other substances could leach to groundwater; additional septic tanks could increase nutrient export to groundwater; reduced infiltration of water because of impervious surfaces and soil compaction. Wetlands More than 40 percent of the study area is mapped as wetland according to NC-CREWS, though not all these areas would be considered jurisdictional. Filling, draining, or increase in pollutant runoff into wetlands from land development. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 146 Environmental Feature Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources There are a number of SNHAs, important bird areas, unique wetlands (e.g., Carolina bays), fish nursery areas, shellfish growing areas, and rare and protected species as described in Section 3.6. Fragmentation, degradation, or loss of sensitive and nonsensitive aquatic and terrestrial species and their habitats from effects associated with land development. Air Quality No air quality concerns are in the Shallotte study area. Additional emissions affecting air quality could occur as a result of new industry and additional automobile use. Noise Levels Noise levels could increase because of construction projects and a general increase in population. Introduction of Toxic Substances The use of toxic substances could increase because of general increases in development and human activity. Mitigation measures aimed at offsetting potential secondary and cumulative impacts include government policies and programs. Section 7 provides a summary of local, state, and federal regulations and programs related to development for the communities that would be obtaining water through the proposed action and are in the receiving basin. An evaluation of the degree of protection provided by these regulations and programs is provided. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 147 7 Mitigation Measures While increased water supply typically stimulates increases in population and corresponding land use change and development in the Shallotte River Basin, government policies can provide mitigation for potential secondary and cumulative impacts from these changes. Regulations and programs related to development and its potential impacts are summarized below for the communities that would be obtaining water through the proposed action and are in the receiving basin. Existing state regulations are discussed first as they apply to all jurisdictions. Then, additional local regulations and programs are discussed. 7.1 STATE REGULATIONS 7.1.1 Land Use Planning and Environmental Resource Protection Initiatives The North Carolina CAMA has significant influence on land use planning and coastal resource protection in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The purpose of CAMA is to protect coastal resources, both water and land, from irreversible damage and to preserve the economic, aesthetic, and ecological benefits that these resources provide. CAMA contains two major provisions: (1) land use planning required for 20 CAMA- designated counties, and (2) designation of Areas of Environmental Concern and accompanying development requirements. Regarding the first major provision, CAMA requires that each of the 20 designated coastal counties develop a land use plan following a common format and list of considerations. The land use plans are intended to reflect the goals and objectives of the local government, including growth management, protection of productive resources (i.e., farmland, forest resources, fisheries), and preferred types of economic development, natural resource protection, and storm hazard mitigation. To obtain approval, projects that require a CAMA permit must be consistent with the local land use plan. Under the second major provision, CAMA regulates development in coastal areas designated as Areas of Environmental Concern, which generally encompass the following areas (NCDCM, 2008): • In or on navigable waters within the 20 CAMA counties (which include the County); • On a marsh or wetland; • Within 75 feet of the mean high water line along an estuarine shoreline; • Near the ocean beach; • Near an inlet; • Within 30 feet of the normal high water level of areas designated as inland fishing waters by the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission; and • Near a public water supply. The CAMA rules (15A NCAC 07H .0101) provide detailed definitions for Areas of Environmental Concern and specific guidelines for development in Areas of Environmental Concern. For example, for Areas of Environmental Concern defined in the estuarine system, only water dependent uses are permitted. Within these uses, the rules specify siting and design guidelines (e.g., location of marinas in non-wetland areas or in deep waters and avoidance of shellfish resources, submerged aquatic vegetation, or wetland habitats). For some Areas of Environmental Concern, if a proposed development does not meet the CAMA rules, the project can be approved if the public benefits outweigh the long-term impacts, Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 148 no reasonable alternate site exists, and the project mitigates for the adverse impacts through all reasonable means. 7.1.2 Riparian Buffers Vegetated buffers along waterbodies are required through the 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law (Session Law 2008-211), described in further detail in Section 7.1.4. 7.1.3 Erosion and Sedimentation Control North Carolina Department of Land Resources (DLR) administers sediment and erosion (S&E) control requirements for the state. DLR maintains a manual of S&E practices and periodically updates it. Land-disturbing activities equal to or greater than 1 acre require a sedimentation and erosion control plan, and this plan must be submitted to DLR for approval. Any land-disturbing activity is required by state law to comply with sedimentation and erosion control practices, but the requirements are not enforced unless a citizen reports the noncompliant site to DLR. DLR encourages local governments to enact S&E control ordinances to provide further protection. Local ordinances cannot be less stringent than the state requirements, but they can require more stringent standards. Some local governments require S&E plans for smaller areas of disturbance compared to the state including several local governments in the Shallotte IBT River Basin (discussed further in Section 7.2.4). 7.1.4 Stormwater Programs The state stormwater requirements that apply to the Shallotte IBT River Basin are the 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law and the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Rules. These stormwater requirements are described below. Coastal Counties Stormwater Law The 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law (Session Law 2008-211) established stringent stormwater regulations that apply to the 20 state-designated coastal counties, which include the County. The law outlines the following stormwater requirements applicable to jurisdictions in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. These requirements apply to any development that disturbs one or more acres of land, any nonresidential development that will add more than 10,000 square feet of built upon area, or any development that would otherwise require a S&E control plan. Development Near Class SA Waters Class SA waters are designated by NCDENR as tidal salt waters that are used for commercial shellfishing or marketing purposes (Figure 42). The Coastal Counties Stormwater Law prohibits new points of stormwater discharge to Class SA waters or an increase in the volume of stormwater flow through or capacity of existing conveyances that drain to Class SA waters. In addition, the law outlines the following requirements that vary by development density: • High density projects (greater than 12 percent built upon area) o Stormwater runoff from built upon areas flows into and through wetlands at a non- erosive velocity; o Control and treat the runoff from all surfaces for the greater of (1) one and one-half inches of rainfall, or (2) the difference between predevelopment and postdevelopment for the one-year, 24-hour storm. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 149 o Additional runoff not addressed with the above requirement must be routed through a vegetative filter with a minimum length of 50 feet from the mean high water level of the Class SA water. o Preserve or establish vegetative buffers with widths of 50 feet for new development and 30 feet for redevelopment, measured from waterbodies as specified in Session Law 2008- 211. • Low density projects (12 percent or less built upon area). o Vegetative conveyances must be used primarily to transport stormwater runoff. o Preserve or establish vegetative buffers with widths of 50 feet for new development and 30 feet for redevelopment, measured from waterbodies as specified in Session Law 2008- 211. Figure 42. Class SA Waters as Designated by NCDENR Other Coastal Development. Coastal development not within or near SA waters but in the Shallotte IBT River Basin is subject to the following stormwater requirements: • High density projects (greater than 24 percent built upon area) GF GF GF GF GF GF# Brunswick County Shallotte IBT River Basin Waccamaw IBT River Basin Cape Fear IBT River Basin Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA W acca maw River Cape Fear River Ca p e F e a r R i v e r E s t u a r y Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W h it e M ars h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek Big S wa m p N C -13 3 NC- 90 5 NC-410 NC-132 NC-210 I- 40 N C-1 3 0 NC-211 N C-8 7 NC-904 US-117 NC - 2 1 0 US-17 US- 4 21 NC-211 NC-242 NC-211 US-701 US-1 7 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins Study Area: Area within 1/2 mile of SA Waters NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_FeetMap Produced 06-12-2012 - C. Carter ± Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend #Lock and Dam GF Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads IBT River Basin Major River Basin Municipal Boundary (including ETJ) SA Waters 1/2 Mile Buffer of SA Waters A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Shall ot te Rive r L o c k w o o d s F o lly R i v e rSupply St. James Oak Island Southport Bald Head Island Boiling Spring Lakes Bolivia Leland Belville Navassa Northwest Varnamtown Holden Beach Shallotte Ocean Isle BeachSunset Beach Calabash Carolina Shores Wilmington Sandyfield East Arcadia Sea Breeze Carolina Beach Kure Beach Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 150 o Stormwater runoff from built upon areas flows into and through wetlands at a non- erosive velocity; o Control and treat the runoff from all surfaces for one and one-half inches of rainfall; and o Preserve or establish vegetative buffers with widths of 50 feet for new development and 30 feet for redevelopment, measured from waterbodies as specified in Session Law 2008- 211. • Low density projects (24 percent or less built upon area). o Vegetative conveyances must be used primarily to transport stormwater runoff. o Preserve or establish vegetative buffers with widths of 50 feet for new development and 30 feet for redevelopment, measured from waterbodies as specified in Session Law 2008- 211. Under both SA and non-SA requirements, minor variances for the vegetative buffer requirements could be granted. The 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law also contains specific requirements for the type of structural stormwater controls used. NPDES Phase II Stormwater Rules Local governments designated as having municipal separate stormwater systems (MS4s) are subject to the post-construction requirements established by the North Carolina NPDES Phase II stormwater rules. Per Session Law 2006-246, the Phase II rules apply to jurisdictions beyond designated MS4s, including designated municipal spheres of influence (MSI) and counties designated as tipped where 75 percent or more of the County is covered by a stormwater program and the County has a 10-year growth rate equal or greater than the average state growth rate over the same period. Oak Island is the only MS4 in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Minimum requirements for stormwater management in the Phase II jurisdictions are (Session Law 2006-246): • For all development that disturbs 1 acre or more and has greater than 24 percent built-upon area: o Control and treat runoff from the first one inch of rain. o Draw down the water quality treatment volume no faster than 48 hrs, but no slower than 120 hrs. o Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal to or less than the predevelopment discharge rate for the 1-year, 24-hour storm. o Remove an 85 percent average annual amount of Total Suspended Solids. • For all development that disturbs 1 acre or more: o Locate all built-upon areas at least 30 feet landward of all perennial and intermittent surface waters. • Low-density projects (less than or equal to 24 percent built-upon area) must use vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable to transport stormwater runoff from the project. Onsite stormwater treatment devices such as infiltration areas, bioretention areas, and level spreaders may also be used as added controls for stormwater runoff. Although the volume treatment requirements for high-density projects are more protective under the Coastal Stormwater rules, the Phase II requirements mandate peak control requirements, which provide for further protection from stormwater impacts. Jurisdictions that are Phase II communities must comply with both the State Stormwater rules as well as the Phase II requirements. Some jurisdictions could have Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 151 more stringent stormwater requirements than the minimum Phase II requirements. Additional local regulations are described in the local jurisdiction sections. 7.2 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS The majority of land in the Shallotte IBT River Basin is in the unincorporated area of the County, subject to its jurisdiction. However, a relatively large urbanized area is in the jurisdiction of 11 incorporated municipalities: the City of Boiling Spring Lakes, the Town of Bolivia, the Town of Calabash, the Town of Carolina Shores, the Town of Holden Beach, the Town of Oak Island, the Town of Ocean Isle beach, the Town of Shallotte, the Town of St. James, the Town of Sunset Beach, and the Town of Varnamtown. Depending on the municipality and particular regulation, some County regulations apply to both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Local regulations and policies, and the specific linkages between county and municipalities, are explained in the following sections. 7.2.1 Land Use Planning and Environmental Resource Protection Initiatives The County and all municipalities in the County are required to develop land use plans under CAMA (see Section 7.1.1). The County CAMA Core Land Use plan was originally completed in 2007 with most recent amendments in 2011 (Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 2007a). This plan is available online at http://www.brunswickcountync.gov/Departments/LandDevelopment/Planning/LandUsePlan.aspx. Municipalities had the option of participating in the County’s land use plan or developing their own, and the following municipalities in the Shallotte IBT River Basin participated: Boiling Spring Lakes, Bolivia, Sunset Beach, and St. James. The County’s plan analyzed existing and emerging conditions including population, housing, the economy, climate, water supply, flood hazards, and other conditions relating to human or natural systems. Existing land use and community facilities were described and catalogued in detail, and the future land use plan was designed to address projected growth in population and increased demands for services including, for example, infrastructure, water supply, and wastewater services. The plan applies smart growth principles and contains specific implementation actions relating to zoning, public access, land use compatibility, natural resources conservation, stormwater control, natural hazard areas, water quality, and cultural, historical, and scenic areas. The development of the County’s future land use map (Figure 19) was based on maintaining consistency with the County’s existing districts, paths, urban nodes, landmarks, and other features. The future land use map also considered existing public facility plans, development constraints, and existing zoning patterns. The CAMA Land Use Plans for the other jurisdictions in the Shallotte IBT River Basin are similar in scope to the Brunswick plan. CAMA Land Use Plans are certified by the state. Because of its small size and low rate of recent growth, Varnamtown was not required to develop a full CAMA Land Use Plan and instead was allowed to develop a less comprehensive work plan to fulfill the requirement. The following jurisdictions have other plans relating to comprehensive planning, visioning, or protection of environmental resources: • Brunswick County: o Brunswick Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan (formed to develop a 20 year vision for Brunswick County) - http://www.brunsco.net/Departments/LandDevelopment/Planning/BrunswickTomorrow.aspx o Brunswick County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan— http://www.brunsco.net/portals/0/parksandrec/master%20plan.pdf • Town of Oak Island: Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 152 o Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan http://www.oakislandnc.com/Packet_Many/Pres1B.pdf o Urban and Community Forestry Plan http://www.oakislandnc.com/Adobe_Files/UrbanForestry.pdf o Green Project http://www.oakislandnc.com/Adobe_Files/Green_Project.pdf • Town of Shallotte: o Downtown Shallotte Vision Plan http://shallotte.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={2C66DBB5-2D46-4C5F-9878- 5D03F16BD16E} 7.2.2 Zoning The County and all incorporated municipalities in the Shallotte IBT River Basin have zoning ordinances established. The County regulates development through its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which includes its zoning regulations. The goals of the UDO include, for example, the following (Brunswick County, 2011): • Preserving the overall quality of life for residents and visitors • Protecting the character of established residential neighborhoods • Maintaining orderly and compatible land-use and development patterns • Lessening congestion in the streets and accommodate the use of alternatives to the private automobile including public transportation, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Ensuring adequate light, air, privacy, and access to property • Encouraging environmentally responsible development practices • Promoting rehabilitation and reuse of older buildings • Maintaining a range of housing choices and options • Accommodating growth and development that complies with the preceding stated purposes The County UDO, its application, and future amendments consider recommendations from the County’s planning documents, including the Brunswick Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, CAMA Land Use Plan, thoroughfare plan, collector street plan, neighborhood plans, small area plans, community facilities plan, capital improvement program, economic development strategies, housing assistance plan, and parks and recreation master plan. The County UDO establishes 11 zoning districts (Figure 43), which include five residential districts, three commercial districts, two industrial districts, and one military installation district. Development is controlled through requirements specified for each district, which include density restrictions, minimum lot sizes, and other dimensional requirements. A majority of the County unincorporated area with the Shallotte IBT River Basin is in the residential zoning districts, which have the following density requirements (number in parentheses accounts for lot dimensions with water and wastewater): • Rural Residential (RR): 2.2 (2.9) units per acre • Low-Density Residential (R-7500): 2.9 (5.8) units per acre • Medium-Density Residential (R-6000): 4.4 (7.3) units per acre • Medium-Density Site Built Residential (SBR-6000): 4.4 (7.3) units per acre Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 153 • Multifamily Residential (MR-3200): 6.2 (13.6) units per acre The above density requirements apply to conventional development. Higher densities may be allowed under the density bonus provisions of the UDO, which provide incentives for affordable housing or public facilities. The County nonresidential zoning districts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin are • Commercial-Low Density (CLD) • Neighborhood Commercial (NC) • Commercial-Intensive (CI) • Industrial-General (IG) • Military Installation (MI) • Conservation and Protection (CP) Figure 43. Brunswick County Zoning Districts GF GF GF#Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W hite M a r s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek N C-1 33 N C-9 05 NC-410 NC-132 NC-210 I -40 N C-1 3 0 NC-211 NC- 87 NC-904 US-117 N C-2 1 0 US-17 US -4 2 1 NC-211 NC-242 NC-211 US-701 US-1 7 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins: Zoning NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 06-12-2012 - C. Carter ±0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend #Lock and Dam GF Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads IBT River Basin Major River Basin Municipality Water County Zoning CO-CI CO-CLD CO-CP CO-IG CO-MI CO-MR-3200 CO-NC CO-R-6000 CO-R-7500 CO-RR CO-SBR-6000 A t l a n t i c O c e a nAtl a n t i c O c e a n Shallotte IBT River Basin Waccamaw IBT River Basin Cape Fear IBT River Basin Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 154 Overlay districts are also established in the County UDO to support specific public policy objectives. The relevant overlay districts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin are defined as follows: • Economic Development (ED) o Provide opportunities for a broad range of agricultural industry, light and heavy manufacturing, office, institutional and research uses with no adverse impacts beyond the space occupied by the use. • Corridor Development Standards 1 and 2 (CDS-1 and CDS-2) o Ensures that lands adjacent to major transportation corridors be developed to promote appropriate land use, maintain the scenic natural beauty of the area, and support the public health and welfare. o Promotes the safe and efficient movement of traffic by encouraging development which reduces or eliminates commercial strip development, excessive driveway cuts, visual clutter and poor site layout. • Viewshed Protection (VS) o Protects and enhances the scenic character of the County’s riparian areas and waterways and ensure the preservation of views from within these scenic areas as well as views of these areas from adjacent lands. • Water Quality Protection (WQP) o Protects water quality in specific waterbodies through regulations. The overlay districts that have been mapped in the Shallotte IBT River Basin are shown in Figure 44. In addition to the overlay districts shown in the figure, the Water Quality Protection Overlay District applies to parcels greater than or equal to one acre extending 575 feet landward of the mean high water line of those waters south from a line extending from Genoes Point to Mullet Creek, to and across the Intracoastal Waterway to Sheep Island. These regulations are intended to protect the water quality of shellfish beds in the Lockwood Folly River. The following standards apply to any development on this land: • Limit the built upon impervious area to no more than 25 percent of the lot • Provide a buffer zone of at least 30 feet from any wetland or water line • Limit any structures to being at least 75 feet from the mean high water line • Comply with any additional standards imposed by state or federal regulations Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 155 Figure 44. Brunswick County Overlay Districts 7.2.3 Riparian Buffers As discussed in Section 7.1.4, the State Coastal Stormwater Law requires vegetative buffers, typically 50 feet, along waterbodies. The County Stormwater Management Manual (described in more detail in Section 7.2.5) requires, for all future development, a 30-foot riparian buffer to be maintained on all sides of intermittent and perennial streams and other waterbodies in the County’s jurisdiction. This is consistent and not more stringent than the State Coastal Stormwater Law. The municipalities that are not under the County’s stormwater regulations also require 30-foot riparian buffers and do not have more stringent regulations compared to the state requirements. 7.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control The minimum state requirements for erosion and sediment control apply to all land disturbance greater than one acre in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. These requirements are enforced by three DLR district inspectors. The County unincorporated area and the municipalities under its stormwater ordinance (Bolivia, Sunset Beach, Boiling Spring Lakes, and St. James) are also subject to the County’s erosion and sedimentation control requirements for development with less than 1 acre disturbance. Although protective of additional development area, the County’s requirements are not more stringent than the state’s requirements and involve basic controls like silt fencing and the prevention of erosion onto neighboring properties. Town ordinances for Holden Beach and Calabash also contain erosion and GF GF GF GF GF GF# Brunswick County Shallotte IBT River Basin Waccamaw IBT River Basin Cape Fear IBT River Basin Lock & Dam #1 SOUTH CAROLINA W acca maw River Cape Fear River Ca p e F e a r R i v e r E s t u a r y Lower Cape Fear WSA Intake (Northwest WTP source) Lake Waccamaw W hit e M ar s h Monie Swamp Big Creek Juniper Creek Town Creek Big S wa m p N C -1 3 3 NC- 9 05 NC-410 NC-132 NC-210 I-4 0 N C-1 3 0 NC-211 NC -87 NC-904 US-117 N C -2 1 0 US-17 US -4 21 NC-211 NC-242 NC-211 US-701 US-1 7 US-117 NC-410 IBT River Basins Study Area: Overlay Districts NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet Map Produced 06-12-2012 - C. Carter ± Map Extent North Carolina South Carolina 0 4 8 122Miles 0 4 8 122Kilometers Legend #Lock and Dam GF Water Supply Intake Major Waterways Primary Roads IBT River Basin Major River Basin Municipal Boundary (including ETJ) Overlay District CDS 1 CDS 1 & ED CDS 2 CDS 2 & ED CDS 2 & VS CDS1 & VS ED VS A t l a n t i cAtl a n t i c O c e a nO c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a nA t l a n t i c O c e a n Shall ot te Rive r L o c k wo o d s F o lly R i v e rSupply St. James Oak Island Southport Bald Head Island Boiling SpringLakes Bolivia Leland Belville Navassa Northwest Varnamtown Holden Beach Shallotte Ocean Isle BeachSunsetBeach Calabash Carolina Shores Wilmington Sandyfield East Arcadia Sea Breeze Carolina Beach Kure Beach Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 156 sediment control provisions in their ordinances to protect neighboring properties from erosion caused by land disturbance and development less than one acre. The remaining municipalities (Carolina Shores, Oak Island, Ocean Isle, Shallotte, and Varnamtown) do not have more stringent soil and erosion control compared to the state requirements. 7.2.5 Stormwater Programs As discussed in Section 7.1.4, all jurisdictions in the Shallotte IBT River Basin are subject to the State Coastal Stormwater Law. Oak Island, the only MS4 designated in the basin, is subject to additional requirements under the North Carolina NPDES Phase II Stormwater rules, as outlined in Section 7.1.4. The County is listed on the NCDENR website as a tipped county; however, the County obtained an exemption from Phase II requirements. The County maintains a stormwater ordinances and stormwater management plan and has agreements with the following Shallotte IBT River Basin municipalities to enforce stormwater management under its ordinance: Bolivia, Sunset Beach, Boiling Spring Lakes, and St. James. The remaining Shallotte IBT River Basin municipalities are responsible for enforcing stormwater regulations and have separate stormwater ordinances. The County Stormwater Ordinance outlines general requirements and provisions for inspection, monitoring, and enforcement (Chapter 1-13, Article VI of County ordinances). The ordinance refers to the County’s Stormwater Management Manual for specific stormwater control and treatment requirements. The manual requires that all developments obtaining a stormwater permit control stormwater runoff to achieve (Brunswick County, 2002) • No more than a 5 percent net increase in the peak discharge from the predevelopment conditions for the 10-year, 24-hour storm. • No net increase in the peak discharge from the predevelopment conditions for the 1-year, 24-hour storm (applies to new development only; in practice, developers may be allowed a 5 percent net increase). New nonresidential development of any size must obtain a stormwater permit and comply with the regulations in the stormwater manual (Coastal rules are limited to greater than 10,000 square feet of built upon area). The above requirements provide additional protection from stormwater impacts compared to the State Coastal Stormwater Law. The Oak Island Stormwater Ordinance closely follows the state model ordinance for Phase II stormwater requirements and is generally not more stringent than the minimum state requirements outlined in Section 7.1.4 (State Coastal Stormwater Law). However, the Oak Island administrative manual for the stormwater ordinance contains requirements for development that would otherwise be exempt from the state standards. Specifically, development that does not require a state stormwater permit must control and treat the runoff from all surfaces generated by 1.5 inches of rainfall or less from all impervious surfaces on site. The Oak Island manual outlines specific control and treatment techniques depending on site-specific conditions (Town of Oak Island, No Date). Although Oak Island is the only Phase II MS4 community in the Shallotte IBT River Basin, several other municipalities have more stringent stormwater requirements compared to the State Coastal Stormwater Law. Ocean Isle requires that all development, regardless of size, match the flow rate and timing of the predevelopment 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Control systems must be infiltration practices and must also control the runoff from all surfaces generated by the first 1.5 inches of rainfall (Article III of Oak Island Stormwater Ordinance). Similarly, Calabash requires a stormwater permit for development that is one acre or less (otherwise exempt from state standards) and an engineered plan for all commercial development and residential development that is greater than 25 percent impervious surface (Calabash Stormwater Ordinance). Holden Beach also requires stormwater control for development disturbing one Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 157 acre or less. For stormwater runoff directed toward a public street, Holden Beach requires the control the first 1.5 inches of rainfall from impervious surfaces during a 24-hour period within parcel boundaries (Holden Beach Stormwater Ordinance). The Shallotte Stormwater Ordinance and Stormwater Management Manual follows the County’s respective documents closely, although no net increase in peak discharge (as opposed to the County’s 5 percent increase) for the 10-year, 24-hour storm is allowed, and no more than a 5 percent increase in this event peak discharge is allowed only if: 1) overall impervious surface is less than fifteen percent, 2) the remaining pervious areas are used to convey and control runoff, and 3) it is demonstrated that no damage to public or private properties and to the quality of public waters would occur from this increase (Town of Shallotte, 2012). The remaining municipalities (Carolina Shores and Varnamtown) do not have a separate stormwater ordinances. These towns rely on state enforcement of the Coastal Stormwater Law. Low Impact Development (LID) is a stormwater management design technique that seeks to minimize the stormwater impacts from development by mimicking the natural, predevelopment hydrologic regime. The use of LID strategies is encouraged through a number of policies and programs throughout the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The Brunswick Stormwater Management Manual (Brunswick County, 2002) encourages developers to use these techniques and the County LID Guidance Manual (Brunswick County, 2008) provides guidance on LID practices. The Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Award Program recognizes development projects that protect, conserve, or improve natural resources; developers receiving these awards gain a number of promotional advantages for their project (Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Award Program, 2011). 7.2.6 Floodplain Development Regulations Local governments are required to develop hazard mitigations plans and regulations to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance. North Carolina maintains a model ordinance for coastal communities that represents the minimum federal and state requirements for floodplain regulations and includes options for more stringent requirements. The County and all incorporated municipalities in the Shallotte IBT River Basin have floodplain ordinances and hazard mitigation plans. Many of the floodplain ordinances are closely based on the state’s model ordinance, and those that differ include more stringent regulations. The ordinances define the base flood elevation and special flood hazard areas according to federal and state requirements (NCDEM, 2007): • Base flood—the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. • Base flood elevation (BFE)—a determination of the water surface elevations of the base flood as published in the flood insurance study. When the BFE has not been provided in a special flood hazard area, it may be obtained from engineering studies available from a federal or state or other source using FEMA approved engineering methodologies. This elevation, when combined with the freeboard, establishes the regulatory flood protection elevation. • Special flood hazard area (SFHA)—the land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of being flooded in any given year, as determined in section 18-546. The Oak Island Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is an example of a coastal community with significant waterfront, which is representative of the majority of municipalities in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The Oak Island ordinance contains a number of permit requirements, consistent with the state model ordinance, that are enacted to prevent loss of life and damage to buildings either along the Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 158 waterfront or inland but within flood hazard areas. These permit requirements include, for example, the following requirements for building in special flood hazard areas (Oak Island Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance): • All new construction and substantial improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement of the structure. • All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. • All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages. • All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system. • New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. • On-site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. The ordinance also includes general standards that apply to all construction within flood hazard areas, which include (Oak Island Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance): • New construction and substantial improvement of any residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure (including manufactured homes) shall have the reference level, including basement, elevated no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. • For location where a base flood elevation has been determined but a floodway or non- encroachment area have not been designated, no encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or other development, shall be permitted unless certification with supporting technical data by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. The ordinance contains many detailed standards for buildings that are intended to minimize damage to structures during flooding events. The ordinance also specifies more stringent standards for the Coastal High Hazard Area, which is associated with high-velocity waters from storm surges or seismic activity. Several of the Shallotte IBT River Basin Hazard Mitigation Plans are available online and are referenced below: • Boiling Spring Lakes Hazard Mitigation Plan - http://www.brunswickcountync.gov/Portals/0/bcfiles/Brunswick_County_HM_Plan_DRAFT_10 2009.pdf • Brunswick County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Includes the participating jurisdictions of Boiling Spring Lakes, Bolivia, Calabash, St. James, Shallotte, and Varnamtown) http://www.brunsco.net/Departments/LandDevelopment/Planning/HazardMitigationPlan.aspx • Holden Beach Hazard Mitigation Plan (Different from Brunswick Co.) http://hbtownhall.com/pdf/HBHMP_Final.pdf • Shallotte Hazard Mitigation Plan Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 159 • http://shallotte.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B6EA86F1-929C-4877-B572- 5C4D4440EDE4} • Sunset Beach Hazard Mitigation Plan • http://www.sunsetbeachnc.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={22DB6684-79F9-4310- 8AD6-1C165DDDD2ED} 7.2.7 Water Use Restrictions The County has the authority to impose water restrictions if a public water supply shortage occurs. All water customers, including the municipalities in the Shallotte IBT River Basin, are subject to the water use restrictions. The water use restrictions are organized in states, with Stage 1 being voluntary and Stages 2 and 3 being mandatory. The stages are defined as follows (Chapter 1-13, Article V of County ordinances): 1) Stage 1—Water conservation alert. A Stage 1 water shortage emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage, as so declared by state and/or local officials, or when there are three (3) consecutive days when water demand exceeds eighty (80) percent of the water production capacity. Water production capacity shall be defined as the maximum volume of water that meets or exceeds state and federal standards that the water treatment process can produce during a twenty-four (24) hour period. Water production capacity can vary depending on system component reliability and/or raw water conditions. During a declared Stage 1 water shortage emergency the following voluntary water conservation practices shall be encouraged: a. Inspect and repair all faulty and defective parts of faucets and toilets. b. Use shower for bathing rather than bathtub and limit shower to no more than five (5) minutes. c. Do not leave faucets running while shaving, brushing teeth, rising or preparing food. d. Limit the use of clothes washers and dishwashers and when used, operate fully loaded. Operate dishwashers after the peak demand hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. e. Limit lawn watering to that necessary for plant survival. Water lawns before the peak demand hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. f. Water shrubbery the minimum required. Water shrubbery before the peak demand hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. g. Limit vehicle washing to a minimum. h. Do not wash down outside areas such as sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. i. Install water saving showerheads and other water conservation devices. j. Use disposable and biodegradable dishes where possible. k. Install water saving devices in toilets such as early closing flappers. l. Limit hours of water cooled air conditioners. m. Do not fill swimming or wading pools. 2) Stage 2—Water shortage warning. A Stage 2 water shortage emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage, as so declared by state and/or local officials, or when there are two (2) consecutive days when water demand exceeds ninety (90) percent of the water production capacity. Water production capacity shall be defined as the maximum volume of water Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 160 that meets or exceeds state and federal standards that the water treatment process can produce during a twenty-four (24) hour period. Water production capacity can vary depending on system component reliability and/or raw water conditions. During a declared Stage 2 water shortage emergency the following activities shall be prohibited: a. Watering lawns, grass, shrubbery, trees, flower and vegetable gardens except by hand held hoses, container, or drip irrigation system. A person who regularly sells plants will be permitted to use water on their commercial stock. A golf course may water their greens. State and county licensed landscape contractors may water any plants by hand held hose or drip irrigation under a written warranty. b. Filling swimming or wading pools, either newly constructed or previously drained. Make up water for pools in operation will be allowed. c. Using water-cooled air conditioners or other equipment, in which cooling water is not recycled, unless there are health or safety concerns. d. Washing any type of mobile equipment including cars, trucks, trailers, boats or airplanes. Any persons involved in a business of washing motor vehicles may continue to operate. e. Washing outside surfaces such as streets, driveways, service station aprons, parking lots or patios. f. Washing the exterior of office buildings, homes or apartments. g. Using water for any ornamental fountain, pool, pond, etc., unless recycled. h. Serving drinking water in food establishments such as restaurants or cafeterias, unless requested to do so by a customer. i. Using water from a public or private fire hydrant for any reason other than to suppress a fire or other public emergency or as authorized by director or his authorized representative. j. Using water to control or compact dust. k. Intentionally wasting water. l. Commercial and industrial water customers shall achieve mandatory reductions in water usage through whatever means are available. A minimum reduction of twenty (20) percent shall be the target, however a greater target reduction percentage may be required depending on the severity of the water shortage emergency. Compliance with the reduction target shall be determined by the director or his authorized representative. Variances to the target reduction may be granted by director or his authorized representative to designated public health facilities. 3) Stage 3—Water shortage danger. A Stage 3 water shortage emergencies may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage, as so declared by state and/or local officials, or when there is one (1) day when water demand exceeds one-hundred (100) percent of the water production capacity. Water production capacity shall be defined as the maximum volume of water that meets or exceeds state and federal standards that the water treatment process can produce during a twenty-four (24) hour period. Water production capacity can vary depending on system component reliability and/or raw water conditions. During a declared Stage 3 water shortage emergency the following activities shall be prohibited, in addition to activities prohibited under Stage 2: a. Watering lawns, grass, shrubbery, trees, and flowers. b. Washing motor vehicles at commercial car wash establishments. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 161 c. Watering any vegetable garden except by hand held hose, container, or drip irrigation. d. Commercial and industrial water customers shall achieve mandatory reductions in water usage through whatever means are available. A minimum reduction of fifty (50) percent shall be the target, however a greater target reduction percentage may be required depending on the severity of the water emergency. Compliance with the reduction target shall be determined by the director or his authorized representative. Variances to the target reduction may be granted by the director or his authorized representative to designated public health facilities. e. In the event that the prohibition of the activities listed above is not sufficient to maintain an adequate supply of water for fire protection, all use of water for purposes other than maintenance of public health and safety shall be prohibited. Residential water use shall be limited to the amount necessary to sustain life through drinking, food preparation and personal hygiene. 7.2.8 Other Water Conservation Additional water conservation programs in place such as pricing signals and customer are discussed in Section 1.4. 7.2.9 Water Reuse A robust reuse program is in place as discussed in Section 1.4. 7.3 MITIGATIVE ANALYSIS Table 73 summarizes the programs discussed in the preceding sections according to the environmental feature categories that they address with respect to potential secondary and cumulative impacts. Additional information on the potential impacts was provided in Section 6 and in Table 72. Table 73. Programs to Address Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Environmental Features Potentially Impacted by Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Existing Programs to Mitigate Impacts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin 1. Topography, Geology, and Floodplains Floodplain development ordinances and local hazard mitigation plans 2. Soils Local and state erosion and sedimentation control programs; 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law, Phase II stormwater regulations, additional local stormwater regulations; Brunswick County Voluntary Agricultural District 3. Land Use CAMA land use plans; UDO; zoning ordinances and overlay districts; comprehensive and/or vision plans 4. Forest Resources CAMA land use plans; UDO; zoning ordinances and overlay districts; Oak Island Urban and Community Forestry Plan; Significant forest lands, including commercial forest tracts, are expected to remain. Many of these are unsuitable or not preferred for development (e.g. wetlands, located in northern portions of the County, etc.). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 162 Environmental Features Potentially Impacted by Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Existing Programs to Mitigate Impacts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin 5. Prime or Unique Agricultural Land CAMA land use plans; UDO; zoning ordinances and overlay districts; Brunswick County Voluntary Agricultural District 6. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas Impacts to these lands are not expected to occur at a significant level. 7. Areas of archaeological or Historic Value N/A 8. Surface Water Resources 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law, Phase II stormwater regulations, additional local stormwater regulations, Lockwoods Folly River Local Watershed Plan, Lockwoods Folly River TMDL, state and local stormwater manuals, Brunswick County LID Guidance Manual; water conservation and drought management programs; water reuse program; NPDES and Nondischarge permitting; State and local department of environmental health regulations regarding onsite wastewater systems; Section 401 and 404 permitting; Water Quality Protection Overlay District; riparian buffers 9. Groundwater Resources Same as #8 10. Wetlands CAMA land use plans; Section 401 and 404 permitting; Water Quality Protection Overlay District, riparian buffers 11. Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources Same as #8 and #10 above; federal programs such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973; other state conservation programs 12. Air Quality Air quality impacts are not expected to occur at a significant level. All applicable state and federal permitting requirements will apply to any new development. 13. Noise Levels Noise impacts are not expected to occur at a significant level. All applicable state and federal permitting requirements will apply to any new development. 14. Introduction of Toxic Substances Same as #8 Table 74 evaluates the protection from future development impacts provided by existing policies and regulations for each jurisdiction in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Three ratings are used. The solid circle indicates the highest level of protection provided, defined as Well Addressed by Current Regulations and Policies. The partially solid circle indicates that a jurisdiction provides a moderate amount of protection, but opportunities for enhancement are available and other jurisdictions in the basin provide more protective measures. The empty circle indicates that policy or regulations in a jurisdiction need improvement to protect from impacts of future development. None of the jurisdictions received this latter rating. All jurisdictions have policies that are at least on par with other North Carolina jurisdictions of their size, and the state land use planning and stormwater regulations have provided a robust baseline for protection measures across all jurisdictions. Therefore, these measures will mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts from the proposal to a level of insignificance. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 163 Despite this conclusion, a few opportunities for enhancement are noted in Table 74 and could be considered by the communities of the Shallotte IBT River Basin in the future. S&E control is not regulated for development less than one acre in the jurisdictions of Carolina Shores, Oak Island, Ocean Isle, Shallotte, and Varnamtown. These jurisdictions represent a small portion of the overall IBT Basin, and the impact from this gap should be small. However, such a regulation could provide additional protection on a site-specific basis and is recommended for consideration. Similarly, Carolina Shores and Varnumtown do not require stormwater regulation for development of one acre or less, which is considered a minor gap on a basinwide scale but potentially useful at the site-scale. While the state and local regulations provide a substantial level of protection from effects on future development, additional protection opportunities exist across all jurisdictions. LID and similar strategies are encouraged within the basin, but barriers to implementing these strategies might exist in ordinances or codes. Revision of ordinances to remove these barriers would allow for more feasible applications of LID to further protect water quality, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources. The County LID Manual represents a good step in this direction. Table 74. Evaluation of Mitigative Measures Jurisdiction La n d U s e P l a n n i n g a n d En v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e Pr o t e c t i o n I n i t i a t i v e s Zo n i n g Ri p a r i a n B u f f e r s Er o s i o n a n d S e d i m e n t a t i o n Co n t r o l St o r m w a t e r R e g u l a t i o n s Fl o o d p l a i n D e v e l o p m e n t Re g u l a t i o n s Wa t e r S h o r t a g e R e s p o n s e City of Boiling Spring Lakes Town of Bolivia Brunswick County Town of Calabash Town of Carolina Shores Town of Holden Beach Town of Oak Island Town of Ocean Isle Beach Town of Shallotte Town of St. James Town of Sunset Beach Town of Varnamtown Well Addressed by Current Regulations and Policies Opportunities for Enhancement  Needs Improvement Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 164 Several communities in the basin have developed plans that focus on natural resource protection, and more focused planning efforts in the basin could improve this protection. The existing environment section (Section 3) identifies several resource areas that could be addressed through a more comprehensive planning process. These considerations would include the protection of • Rare forest communities, including Longleaf-Slash Pine and hardwood-dominated communities • Soils that provide good infiltration and ground water recharge • Prime farmland • Exceptional wetland functions Development planning should consider opportunities to preserve these features in the basin, either through conservation design for individual developments or in jurisdiction-wide, open-space preservation plans. A final and important consideration for future development is the extensive shellfish water impairments in the area. The Coastal Stormwater Law will likely provide substantial protection against degradation from future development. However, communities draining directly to these waters could provide additional consideration of water quality impacts in their ordinances similar to the County water quality zoning overlay that protects the Lockwood Folly River shellfish beds. Implementation of the Lockwoods Folly River Local Watershed Plan and fecal coliform TMDL would also contribute to the restoration of these waters. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 165 8 Summary To meet future demand for water, the County is considering expansion of its Northwest WTP. The expansion of the Northwest WTP is expected to trigger the need for an IBT certificate from the EMC because a portion of the additional water would be distributed from its source in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin to customers in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The County has prepared this EA to support a request for an IBT certificate, pursuant to the procedures and standards set out in IBT statute, G.S.§143- 215.22I effective July 1, 2007 as specified in Session Law 2010-155. A summary of the alternatives considered to IBT, the potential impacts, and mitigation to reduce the potential impacts to an insignificant level is provided below. 8.1 ALTERNATIVES TO IBT An increase in IBT associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP was compared to several alternatives that do not require an IBT or combinations of alternatives that could limit the quantity of the IBT. The full list of alternatives is as follows: 1) No Additional IBT (over the grandfathered amount) 2) Additional IBT - Expand Northwest WTP 3) Waccamaw Surface WTP 4) Expand 211 WTP 5) New Groundwater WTP 6) Seawater Desalination Plant 7) Return of Additional Wastewater to Source Basin 8) Water Conservation and Reuse 9) Surface Water Storage Factors considered during alternatives analyses included the technical viability of the option, the constructability of the alternative, potential environmental impacts, technical difficulty, permitting issues, and estimates of probable costs, both construction costs and O&M. The No Additional IBT alternative (#1) was not recommended because the County has demonstrated the need for an expansion of its water treatment system, and not doing so would compromise its ability to provide reliable, high-quality potable water to its customers in the future, particularly in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Compared to alternatives #3 through #6 in the list above, additional IBT associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP (#2, qualified below) is recommended as the preferred alternative because of a lower cost (capital, O&M), an equivalent or lower level of permitting difficulty, a low level of direct impacts (e.g., new WTP alternatives would have additional construction impacts for a new site), and an equivalent level of secondary and cumulative impacts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. Return of additional wastewater to the source basin (alternative #7 above) would add more than 40 percent to the cost of the preferred alternative without significant benefit to the resource. Combined with additional IBT associated with the expansion of the Northwest WTP (alternative #2), the County proposes to use a combination of alternatives (#8 and #9) to limit transfer of water. Water conservation and reuse are key elements of the County’s current water management plan, and they already reduce water demand and any associated IBT of water. It is not known how changes to these programs would result in additional demand reduction and future water transfer. In addition, BDPU has reduced the need to transfer additional water by developing an interconnection and agreement to purchase Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 166 water from the Little River Water and Sewerage Company for future potable water service in the Waccamaw River IBT River Basin. Finally, the County is planning a study of ASR storage at the 211 WTP to reduce withdrawal of surface water during peak demand periods. The technical viability of this option is unknown. 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The potential direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the preferred alternative were analyzed in more detail for this EA. The proposal does not involve additional water transfer to the Waccamaw IBT River Basin. Therefore, no direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the IBT certificate. Further, no direct impacts on the Shallotte IBT River Basin would be associated with approval of an IBT certificate. The current environmental document has been prepared to support approval of an IBT certificate only and, therefore, does not involve any construction activities. Any direct impacts associated with construction of the WTP improvements in the source basin, and transmission line upgrades in the source and receiving basin would be reviewed under an environmental document prepared under SEPA specifically for these projects as required by statute and regulation. An EA for the plant expansion and associated improvements as described would be prepared and be reviewed as required by SEPA only if an IBT certificate is approved. Therefore, the potential direct impacts of concern for the IBT approval would be for the withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River. Potential secondary and cumulative impacts would be relevant to the Shallotte receiving basin only. 8.2.1 Direct Impacts in the Cape Fear IBT River Basin Direct impacts associated with an expansion of the Northwest WTP include those related to withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1. An analysis using NCDWR’s existing hydrology model for the Cape Fear (CFHM) was conducted to determine the County’s impact on water availability and whether water demands are met for all users in the future. The results showed that the incremental impact of the increase in the County water withdrawals from 2003 conditions to 2050 at low flows in the river is less than or equal to 5 percent. Predicted flows passing over the dam at the 95th percentile flow exeedence (i.e., a fairly low flow) in 2050 would remain substantial at nearly 500 cfs. In addition, the analysis did not change NCDWR’s (2008) previous conclusion that full demand for all withdrawals at Lock and Dam #1 are met through 2050. Accordingly, the direct impacts of the County withdrawal on water supply would not be significant. An analysis of the potential impacts of water withdrawal on water quality above and below the dam was also conducted. Above the dam, the analysis involved correlation and regression using observed data: flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. To evaluate dissolved oxygen and pH response for an extreme case, the analysis focused on July, a critical period, when the maximum monthly withdrawals typically occur and at mean water temperature of 28.3°C, used the provisional 7Q10 flow, and the 2050 max withdrawal for all users at the dam. Dissolved oxygen was predicted to change less than 1 percent as a result of the increased withdrawal. The regression model for pH predicted a small increase in pH equal to approximately 1.7 percent. Therefore, both the dissolved oxygen and pH changes are predicted to be minimal and insignificant. Below the dam, the section of the LCFRE from upstream of Toomers Creek to a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut has been on North Carolina’s 303(d) list as impaired for dissolved oxygen. Since the original listing for dissolved oxygen, many technical studies of the LCFRE have been conducted including a sophisticated hydrodynamic model (EFDC). Results of the modeling study showed that the river and estuary were relatively insensitive to reductions in point and nonpoint source loads of oxygen demanding pollutants. During low-flow summer conditions, hydrology and pollutant transport are dominated by tidal exchange with the ocean. Because of that and the transfer of flow would actually Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 167 remove some pollutants from entering the LCFRE, the IBT would not be expected to have a noticeable impact on water quality in the river below Lock & Dam #1. 8.2.2 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the Shallotte IBT River Basin Secondary and cumulative impacts for the project are those that could be derived from potential growth inducement in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. The additional water supply is considered a factor in facilitating growth. Future growth in the County is expected to primarily occur as low- and medium- density residential uses. If not managed properly, additional urbanization of the service area has the potential to cause significant impacts that degrade water resources, aquatic and wildlife habitat and resources, and other environmental features due to increased stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and other consequences of land development. A cumulative impact is derived from the combination of water supply, construction of new or expanded utilities (e.g., water and sewer), and transportation projects. 8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES While increased water supply can stimulate increases in population and corresponding land use change and development in the Shallotte IBT River Basin, government policies applicable to the service area provide considerable mitigation for potential secondary and cumulative impacts from these changes. Regulations and programs related to development and its potential impacts are summarized for this EA. In addition to other planning and environmental policies of jurisdictions in the Shallotte IBT River Basin, land use planning and stormwater regulations are some of the most robust in the state because of requirements of CAMA and the recently enhanced State Coastal Stormwater Law. 8.4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In summary, the request for an IBT certificate to increase water transfer of 7.8 MGD over the grandfathered amount (10.5 MGD) from the Cape Fear IBT River Basin to the Shallotte IBT River Basin would not be expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the long-term productivity and sustainability of the source and receiving basin are not compromised. Further, there would be no significant environmental changes that are irreversible or irretrievable. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 168 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 169 References Barnhill, W.L. 1986. Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, and Brunswick County Board of Commissioners, Raleigh, NC. Bowen, J.D., S. Negusse, J.M. Goodman, B. Duclaud, M. Robin, and J. Williams. 2009. Development and use of a three-dimensional water quality model to predict dissolved oxygen concentrations in the lower Cape Fear River Estuary, North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Boyle, M.F., R.K. Peet, T.R. Wentworth, and M.P. Schafale. 2007. Natural vegetation of the Carolinas: Classification and description of plant communities of Brunswick County, NC and vicinity. University of North Carolina, Carolina Vegetation Survey, Chapel Hill, NC. Brunswick County. 2002. Brunswick County Stormwater Management Manual. Accessed January 2012. http://www.brunswickcountync.gov/Portals/0/bcfiles/eng/Storm_Water_Manual.pdf. Brunswick County. 2008. Low Impact Development (LID) Guidance Manual. Brunswick County Stormwater.Brunswick County. 2011. Brunswick County Unified Development Ordinance. Accessed January 2012. http://www.brunsco.net/Departments/LandDevelopment/Planning/UDOUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinan ce.aspx Cape Fear COG (Cape Fear Council of Governments). 2006. Town of Calabash 2006 CAMA Core Land Use Plan. Cape Fear Council of Governments, Wilmington, NC. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Planning/Calabash/Core%20LUP.pdf Cape Fear COG (Cape Fear Council of Governments). 2010. Town of Sunset Beach 2010 CAMA Land Use Plan Update. Cape Fear Council of Governments, Wilmington, NC. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://www.sunsetbeachnc.gov/vertical/sites/%7BA2C1D077-15B6-49E5-B8FD- 53D65FA0DC5D%7D/uploads/%7B8235C28C-74F8-4CB0-ABCA-7C958C870D0E%7D.PDF Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States. PE&RS 77(9):858-864. Griffith, G.E., and J.M. Omernik. 2008. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina (EPA). The Encyclopedia of Earth. Accessed December 21, 2011. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ecoregions_of_North_Carolina_and_South_Carolina_(EPA). Hamrick, J.T. Clements, J. Doll, and J. Butcher. May 2001. 3-Dimensional EFDC Water Quality Model of the Lower Cape Fear River and Its Estuary. Prepared by Tetra Tech for the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. Harden, S.L., J.M. Fine, and T.B. Spruill. 2003. Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina. Prepared in cooperation with Brunswick County, North Carolina. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4051. Hazen and Sawyer. 2006. Brunswick County Final Water Master Plan. Hazen and Sawyer. 2008. Preliminary Engineering Report: Expansion of Brunswick County Northwest Water Treatment Plant. HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc., of the Carolinas). 1999a. Preliminary Engineering Report. Proposed Water Improvements for Water System Reliability. Brunswick County, North Carolina. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 170 HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc., of the Carolinas). 1999b. Water Supply/Treatment Study for Brunswick County, North Carolina. Final Report. Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 2006. Town of Varnamtown Workbook Land Use Plan. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Planning/varnamtown/LUP.pdf Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 2007a. Brunswick County CAMA Core Land Use Plan. Accessed December 16, 2011. http://www.brunswickcountync.gov/Departments/LandDevelopment/Planning/LandUsePlan.aspx Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 2007b. City of Southport CAMA Core Land Use Plan. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://cityofsouthport.com/index.aspx?page=66 Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 2007c. Town of Shallotte CAMA Core Land Use Plan. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://townofshallotte.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8D76D056-C0A8-42A6- 8BC5-444F48736821} Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 2008. Village of Bald Head Island CAMA Core Land Use Plan. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://www.villagebhi.org/government/development_services/planning_dept/cama_land_use_plan.ht m Huffman, R.L. 1996. Ground Water in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed December 5, 2011. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/ag450.html. HydroLogics. 2006. Modeling the Cape Fear River Basin Operations with OASIS: Addendum to the User Manual for OASIS with OCLTM. Prepared for the Cape Fear River Assembly and Its Partners, including the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. Hydrologics. 2009. User Manual for OASIS with OCL. Model Version 3.10.8, GUI Version 4.6.16. Hydrologics, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Jackson, C.V. 1996. Maritime history and survey of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina. Volume 1: Maritime history. Underwater Archaeology Unit, State Historic Preservation Office, Division of Archives and History, Wilmington, NC, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Kure Beach, NC. Accessed December 16, 2011. http://digitalstatelibnc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p249901coll22&CISOPTR= 398198&REC=1#document_description. Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Award Program. 2011. The Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Award Program: A Stewardship Development of the Lower Cape Fear. Accessed January 2012. http://www.stewardshipdev.com/pdf/brochure_2011.pdf Marotti, W. 2011. Environmental Assessment, Northeast Brunswick Regional Wastewater System, Brunswick County, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Water Quality Planning Section, Raleigh, NC. McKim and Creed. 2008. Environmental Report, Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. Kings Bluff Raw Water Pump Station; 60-inch Parallel Raw Water Intake Pipe and Screen Project. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Authorized by Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. Prepared by McKim and Creed, Wilmington, NC. Revised December 2008. National Audubon Society. 2011. Search Important Bird Areas Search. Accessed December 16, 2011. http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html. NatureServe. 2007. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA. Data current as of October 6, 2007. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 171 NCCGIA (North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis). 2002. Lands Managed for Conservation and Open Space. Raleigh, North Carolina. Accessed December 5, 2011. www.nconemap.com. NCCGIA (North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis). 2006. Federal Land Owndership., Raleigh, NC. Accessed December 5, 2011. www.nconemap.com. NCDAQ (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality). 2008. Emissions Testing and Safety Inspections for Motor Vehicles. Accessed December 5, 2011. http://daq.state.nc.us/news/pr/2000/files/iandmphasein.pdf. NCDAQ (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality). 2011. State of North Carolina’s Recommednation on Boundaries for the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Accessed December 5, 2011. http://daq.state.nc.us/planning/so2/SO2.shtml. NCDCM (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management). 2003a. Wetland Types – North Carolina Coastal Area. Accessed December 5, 2011. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Wetlands/download.htm. NCDCM (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management). 2003b.The North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NCCREWS), Raleigh, NC. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Wetlands/download.htm. NCDCM (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management). 2008. CAMA Permits: Will My Project Require a Permit? North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. Accessed January 2011. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Permits/aecs.htm. NCDCR (North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources). 2011. North Carolina Historic Sites. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Office of Archives and History. Accessed December 16, 2011. http://www.nchistoricsites.org/default.htm. NCDEH-SSB (North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section). 2011. Shellfish Growing Areas. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, Morehead City, NC. Accessed December 5, 2011. www.nconemap.com. NCDEM (North Carolina Division of Emergency Management). 2007. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: Coastal Regular Phase. Accessed January 2012. http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/Index2.cfm?a=000003,000010. NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2011a. Significant Natural Heritage Areas – August 2011. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Accessed December 5, 2011. www.ncnhp.org. NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2011b. Guidance for Preparing SEPA Documents and Addressing Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. NCDOA (North Carolina Department of Administration). 1999. Environmental Assessment Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Administration State Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse, Raleigh, NC. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 172 NCDOA (North Carolina Department of Administration). 2010. State-Owned Lands. North Carolina Department of Administration, State Property Office, Raleigh, NC. Accessed December 5, 2011. www.nconemap.com. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2005. October 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Accessed December 17, 2011. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2008. 2008 North Carolina Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 (Impaired Waters List). Accessed January 6, 2012. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=9f453bf9-2053-4329-b943- 6614bd4e709a&groupId=38364. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2010a. NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters. Category 5 – 303(d) List Approved by EPA August 31, 2010. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2010b. Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/lumber/Lumber2009.htm. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2010c. Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Coliform for the Shellfish Harvesting Areas in the Lockwoods Folly River, Lumber River Basin, Brunswick County, NC. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=78c1b25d-1611-41ea-9442- bc0d6fc1f1cc&groupId=38364. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2013. North Carolina Statewide Mercury TMDL. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Accessed March 20, 2013. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdls/mercury. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2012. Ambient Monitoring System (AMS). North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section, Raleigh, NC. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/eco/ams. NCDWR (North Carolina Division of Water Resources). 2002. Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan. Second Draft. March 2002. North Carolina Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. NCDWR (North Carolina Division of Water Resources). 2008. Cape Fear River Basin Surface Water Assessment: Modeling of Future Water Use Scenarios. North Carolina Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC. NCDWR (North Carolina Division of Water Resources). 2009. Regulation of Surface Water Transfers, Statutory Guidance, Version 1. Modified March 20, 2009. North Carolina Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/IBT_guidance_v1.pdf. NCDWR (North Carolina Division of Water Resources). 2010. North Carolina Division of Water Resources Water Withdrawal Registration Annual Water Use Report. International Paper, Riegelwood, NC. NCDWR (North Carolina Division of Water Resources). 2011. North Carolina Aquifers. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. Accessed December 5, 2011. http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Ground_Water/AquiferCharacteristics /. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 173 NCGS (North Carolina Geological Survey). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina Map. North Carolina Geological Survey Division of Land Resources, Raleigh, NC. NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2011. Biotics Database. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2011. Habitats of North Carolina’s Coast. http://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving/Habitats/Coast.aspx. Accessed December 16, 2011. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraion). 2013. Diadromous Fish Passage: A Primer on Technology, Planning, and Design for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 20, 2013. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/docs/FishPassagePrimer.pdf. North Carolina Coastal Land Trust. 2011. Protected Land: Town Creek Initiative. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://www.coastallandtrust.org/pages/waterways.html. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. 2010. Forest Resources Assessment – A statewide analysis of the past, current and projected future conditions of North Carolina’s forest resources. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed December 8, 2011. http://www.devoeng.com/memos/hydrologic_soil_groups.pdf. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2011a. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Brunswick County, New Hanover County, Columbus County, Bladen County, and Pender Count, North Carolina. Accessed November 30, 2011. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2011b. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed December 1, 2011. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. One NC Naturally. 2011. Conservation Planning Tool: Biodiversity/Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Accessed December 16, 2011. http://www.climatechange.nc.gov/pages/CPT_Assessment_Overview.html. Overton, G.C., and R.W. Lawrence. 1996. Maritime history and survey of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina. Volume 2: Submerged cultural resources survey. Underwater Archaeology Unit, State Historic Preservation Office, Division of Archives and History, Wilmington, NC, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Kure Beach, NC. Accessed December 16, 2011. http://digitalstatelibnc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p249901coll22&CISOPTR= 397709&REC=2. The Conservation Fund. 2008. Land Trust Conservation Properties. Raleigh, North Carolina. Accessed December 5, 2011. www.nconemap.com. The Rhett Company. 2008. Town of Navassa Land Use Plan. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://www.townofnavassa.org/images/Navassa_Draft_LUP_for_Agency_Review_-- _May_23,_2008.pdf Town of Oak Island. 2009. Town of Oak Island CAMA Land Use Plan Update. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Planning/Oak%20Island/lup.pdf Town of Oak Island. No Date. Administrative Manual Phase II Post-Construction Ordinance. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 174 Town of Shallotte. 2012. Town of Shallotte Unified Development Ordinance. Accessed January 2012. http://www.townofshallotte.org/vertical/Sites/%7B84A9E943-E9D6-4534-99F0- B6F654F25036%7D/uploads/Shallotte_UDO_2011-08-02.pdf TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2009. New Game Land at Juniper Creek. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/north-carolina/nature-conservancy/new-game-land-at-juniper- creek. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2011a. Boiling Spring Lakes Preserve. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/northcarolina/placesweprotect/ boiling-spring-lakes.xml. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2011b. Green Swamp Preserve. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed December 20, 2011. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/northcarolina/placesweprotect/ green-swamp-preserve.xml. U.S. Census. 2000. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Geographic Area: Brunswick County, North Carolina. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml U.S. Census. 2010. Brunswick County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37019.html U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Fish Passage at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina. 100% Design Submittal. Basis of Design. Prepared by SEPI Engineering and Construction and Tetra Tech, Inc. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Technology and Cost Document for the Final Ground Water Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2008. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program & Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC). Conterminous U.S. and Alaska Forest Type Mapping Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data. American Society of Photogrammetry. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://svinetfc4.fs.fed.us/clearinghouse/rastergateway/index.html. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2010. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD. http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions21.php. Accessed December 5, 2011. Weaver, J.C., and B.F. Pope. 2001. Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998. Water-Resources Investigation Report 01-4094. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 175 Abbreviations and Acronyms ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery BCPU Brunswick County Public Utilities BFE base flood elevation CAMA Coastal Area Management Act CCI Construction Cost Index CFHM Cape Fear Hydrologic Model CFPUA Cape Fear Public Utility Authority DAQ Division of Air Quality DCM Division of Coastal Management DLR Department of Land Resources DWQ Division of Water Quality EA Environmental Assessment EFDC Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code EMC Environmental Management Commission ENR Engineering News-Record EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act EVT existing vegetation type FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact G.S. General Statute GIS geographic information system gpd gallons per day HGM hydrogeomorphic HSG hydrologic soil group IBA Important Bird Area IBT interbasin transfer km kilometer ICWW Intracoastal Waterway LCFRE Lower Cape Fear River Estuary LCFWSA Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority LID low impact development Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 176 LMCOS lands managed for conservation and open space LWSP Local Water Supply Plan mg/L milligram per liter MGD million gallons per day MS4 municipal separate stormwater system MSI municipal spheres of influence NCCGIA North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis NC-CREWS North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program NHP Natural Heritage Program NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTU nephelometric turbidity unit O&M operation and maintenance ORW outstanding resource water PER Preliminary Engineering Report RSAC Remote Sensing Applications Center SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SFHA special flood hazard area SGA shellfish growing area SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Area TMDL total maximum daily load UDO Unified Development Ordinance USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey WRF water reclamation facility WS/TS Water Supply/Treatment Study WTP water treatment plant WWTP wastewater treatment plant Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 177 List of Appendices Appendix A Grandfathered IBT Appendix B Notice of Intent Appendix C Scoping Appendix D 2011 Monthly Water Demand Appendix E Wastewater Permit Summary Appendix F IBT Tables Appendix G Land Use Classification Appendix H Protected Species Appendix I USGS Communication Appendix J Flow Duration Curves Appendix K NCDENR Review Comments Appendix L FONSI and State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Comments Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 178 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 A-1 Appendix A Grandfathered IBT Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 A-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 B-1 Appendix B Notice of Intent Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 B-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 C-1 Appendix C Scoping Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 C-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) May 22, 2008 Brunswick County Public Utilities Department Attn. Mr. Jerry Pierce, P.E. P.O. Box 249 Bolivia, NC 28422 Re: Comments from Cape Fear River Watch regarding the Brunswick County Proposed Interbasin Transfer Dear Mr. Pierce, Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW) has reviewed the Public Notice (PN) released by the Brunswick County Public Utilities regarding the proposed interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Waccamaw River Basin and Shallotte River Basin. CFRW is an established non-profit environmental organization with a mission: To Protect and Improve the Water Quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin through Education, Advocacy and Action. With this mission in mind, CFRW will respectfully submits the following comments based on review of the PN: · Based on information provided in the PN, Brunswick County is requesting an IBT certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for a maximum transfer of 18.35 million gallons per day (MGD) from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Shallotte River Basin and a maximum transfer of 0.94 MGD to the Waccamaw River Basin based on projections through 2040. This approximately doubles the current IBT of 10 MGD to Brunswick County. Such massive transfers of water between distinct river basins dramatically impact the ecology of the river system as well as the water supply and quality, particularly during low flow periods. This IBT will fundamentally and irreversibly alter natural water flows in the Lower Cape Fear River Basin which will potentially harm endangered, threatened, and sensitive species that depend on specific water flows. Specifically, a number of anadromous fish including the shortnose sturgeon, American shad, and striped bass utilize the Cape Fear River as their spawning grounds. These fish currently face tremendous challenges reaching their spawning areas up river due to the presence of three lock and dam structures. Reducing the water level even further through this IBT will significantly reduce the potential for these important fish species to successfully reproduce due to their inability to navigate above Lock and Dam #1. And very importantly, low flow periods will be exacerbated by increased withdrawal and more and longer periods of salt water intrusion up to Lock and Dam #1 may further impact the freshwater wetlands adjacent to the CFR. · The proposed IBT will affect the Lower Cape Fear River Basin’s ability to assimilate pollutants by permanently lowering the amount of flow. Clean water is an integral part of a healthy riverine ecosystem. Water quality monitoring conducted by the University of North Carolina at Wilmington between 1996 and 2007 has shown that 13% and 14% of the parameters resulted in “poor” and “fair” classifications, respectively. Very large amounts treated sewage and other discharges occur in the lower basin. Reducing the flow in the Cape Fear River will undoubtedly degrade the state of water quality resulting in additional threats to the fish and other fauna which utilize the river. There is no proposal to reduce pollutant loadings, which are at or near the assimilative capacity of the river at this time, concomitant with the increased IBT and with future increased withdrawal by Wilmington. The assimilative capacity of the river below the intake for the proposed withdrawals would necessarily decline. · The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) monitors flow rates within the Cape Fear River. At a monitoring station located at Lock and Dam #1 in Kelly, NC, the flow varied between above 20,000 ft3/sec to approx. 600 ft3/sec in between May 1, 2008 and April 30, 2009 (Figure 1). This translates to 12.9 billion gallons per day to 387 million gallons per day. NC has experienced two severe droughts in recent years (2002 and 2007). During times of drought, these volumes decrease significantly. In October 2007, only 273 ft3/sec, or 176 MGD was measured from this monitoring station. The proposed volume of water to be transferred to the Shallotte and Waccamaw River Basins would therefore equate to nearly 11% of the entire flow of the Cape Fear River during low flow conditions. Planning must consider the possibility of recurring drought conditions. Figure 1: Flow Rates within the Cape Fear River at Lock and Dam #1 · Currently, the City of Wilmington’s withdrawal rate is approximately18 MGD for drinking water. It is projected that by the year 2030, this volume will increase to 31 MGD. Combining the volume being requested by Brunswick County and the projected volume the City of Wilmington will require, over 50 MGD will be withdrawn from the river to supply drinking water alone. This would be 28% of the CFR flow at the low water level stated above. CFRW highly recommends that the EIS should include stipulations that limit the takings of water from the Cape Fear River for IBT purposes during low flow conditions. Furthermore, CFRW strongly recommends that the EIS incorporates information regarding all existing permitted extractors of water from the Cape Fear River as well as any permitted IBTs. The cumulative impacts of these extractions should be addressed in detail and the studies should include the assimilative capacity of the river for waste discharges. · The Local Water Supply Plans issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) are currently being developed. These plans should provide for the latest forecasts of water supply and demand, which are essential in the context of recent low flow conditions during droughts and the increasing demands for surface water. · It has been demonstrated that IBTs can increase the potential for flooding in the receiving basin by bringing in more water than the basin is naturally able to accommodate. An additional 18.35 MGD released into the Shallotte River Basin will increase the threat of flooding upon the populated lands within Brunswick County. · The request for an IBT certificate from the EMC should only be evaluated following the submittal of the final EIS to ensure all environmental issues are fully addressed. The project alternatives discussed in the EIS should be evaluated primarily on their environmental impact. Cost should not be used as evaluation criteria. · CFRW encourages communities to engage in best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the need for high levels of water withdrawals or IBTs from our fragile riverine ecosystems. Along with BMPs, CFRW would encourage Brunswick County to explore “smart growth” initiatives to ensure that the projected population increases within the county are viable considering the environmental constraints. These alternatives, if implemented, may reduce the need for the environmentally damaging proposed IBT. Water conservation measures, particularly under declared drought conditions, should be prepared for implementation by all water withdrawers. Preparation for implementing such measures is not now adequate. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. CFRW appreciates the opportunity to continue to participate in the discussions and developments of this IBT. Please feel free to contact me anytime regarding these comments or any other issue pertaining to the proposed IBT. Sincerely, Doug Springer – Cape Fear Riverkeeper and Executive Director of Cape Fear Riverwatch Jane Hartley – President of Cape Fear Riverwatch and the Executive Board of Cape Fear Riverwatch Public Meeting Oral Comment Brunswick County Interbasin Transfer Public Meetings April 21, 2009 Leland Town Hall Leland NC Doug Springer Cape Fear River Watch My name is Doug Springer and I’m the Cape Fear River keeper. I’m with Cape Fear River Watch and I’m definitely probably the least knowledgeable of all of you, so you all bear with me, you’re the experts in this field…but as the river keeper I guess I just want to make a couple of more high level comments and then we will be submitting our scoping comments on this, but the basic position is that interbasin transfers should be of last resort. All other things should be considered. And right now we have such a great opportunity in cases like this where we can work together as a community to really look at this and see if we can actually look at some more creative alternatives. Four alternatives that I saw were not very creative. You know we’re looking at historical growth it was pointed out and that’s not really the case right now. We’ve actually been given a breather, but what we did see is the writing on the wall. We saw that starting to peak out just like we saw with our economy and some bad indicators there and we ignored them. Right now is a chance for us to go in and try to do some things in regards to conservation and some other practices and continue those, but also look at some other creative technical alternatives. You know do we need to look at actually coming down the river further and getting our water from there and actually looking to do some desalinization and things such as that in a cost effective way. So the bottom line is that right now there is no necessity for this. You can go back and use the numbers from ’06 and those numbers, but right now there isn’t a necessity. We’re seeing water grabs all up and down the river. We just saw Smithfield Packing grab 30 mgd for a packing plant, we know there are going to be stiffer water allocation laws coming out over the next few years so everybody’s really getting concerned about their local municipality and I understand that, you should be, you’re really trying to look after the people, your kids basically, but I think we can be very smart and maybe use this as a real workshop and say, you know right now there isn’t a necessity here. That’s really very clear, even to the layman, if you look at those numbers. And let’s really take the time to look at some alternatives and not get in a hurry about this. One of the things where I’ve seen the most litigation in NC is where we did rush the process and even with these public hearings where we say hey it’s not important, not because of travel restrictions, not to have the right people here. That’s a problem. You know, this is going to be a defining, water is going to define our future and to not have the right people here at this meeting other than the people such as ourselves sitting here and I actually have to kind of exclude myself because you are the experts, but not to have the people from Division of Water Resources here is actually a little bit of an insult to this process so I definitely think that should be a comment. So what I would say is from Cape Fear River Watch’s perspective and mine is we’re dealing with a very finite resource here – especially if you get up above Lock and Dam #1 and look at the amount of water there, versus the amount of water which you really come down below it and you have the influx of water from the Black River and the Northeast Cape Fear and we really need to start looking at how do we really utilize that. Because that’s the water that’s actually flowing out of the ocean and may be a little bit more untouched and actually right now we’ve got enough water where we’re not going to have this big impact on the ecology and our fisheries and things such as that. So the four alternatives that were put up there, I know they’re very preliminary in nature, those are alternative of the past. We need to be much more creative as we work though this process. I think that’s basically it unless you have any questions for me. Thank you. Transcribed by: Annette Pallone Tetra Tech July 17, 2009 MEMORANDUM To: J. Todd Kennedy Tetra Tech From: Toya Fields Division of Water Resources Subject: Brunswick County Public Utilities IBT – Draft EIS Scope DWR has reviewed Tetra-Tech’s 7/14 memo summarizing the July 6th scoping meeting with DWR, Tetra- tech and Brunswick county. These additional comments are provided in response to that letter and the Draft EIS Scope, provided on July 2, 2009. General Comments Both IBT and SEPA regulations require that the EA address very specific requirements. The requirements are as follows (taken from G.S. 113A-4 and 143-215.22L(d)): 1. A comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts that would occur in the source and the receiving river basins if the petition for a certificate is granted; 2. Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided; 3. A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed interbasin transfer; 4. An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer, including water supply sources that do not require an Interbasin transfer and use of water conservation measures. 5. The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and; 6. Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Although it appears from the draft outline that Brunswick County intends to address many of these requirements, it would be helpful if subsections of the EIS were specifically devoted to summarizing these factors since these will be questions that the Division and the Commission will have to answer before a decision on the certificate can be made. Furthermore, NC General Statutes require that the Petition for an IBT certificate meet additional requirements. These statutory requirements have been included below. Please keep in mind that the purpose of the EA is to serve as a support document for the IBT petition and Brunswick County should be prepared to address the following issues before any decision on the certificate can be made. PETITION REQUIREMENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW A description of any facilities used to transfer water (including the location and capacity of water intakes, pumps, pipelines, etc.) A description of all proposed consumptive and non-consumptive uses of the transferred water. WATER QUALITY A summary of the water quality for both the source and receiving waterbodies, including any waters that are 303(d) listed for being impaired. Information on aquatic habitats for rare, threatened, and endangered species in both the source and receiving waterbodies. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources Beverly Eaves Perdue Thomas A. Reeder Governor Director Dee Freeman Secretary In-stream flow data for segments of the source and receiving waterbodies that may be affected by the transfer. A demonstration that the proposed transfer, if added to all other existing and planned transfers (or registered withdrawals) in the source river basin, would not reduce the amount of available water to a degree that would impair existing uses, pursuant to NC’s antidegradation policy. This demonstration should also include: · Existing and planned consumptive uses in the source river basin; · Existing and planned nonconsumptive uses in the source river basin; · A finding that the transfer would not result in a water level inadequate to support existing uses of the reservoir (if the proposed transfer would impact a reservoir in the source basin). MITIGATION AND ANTIDEGRADATION A description of water conservation measures in use by the applicant at the time of the petition and additional conservation measures that will be implemented if the certificate is granted. A description of existing and future water transfers (or withdrawals) from the source river basin that are either registered or included in a local water supply plan (LWSP). WATER SUPPLY A LWSP. If the plan is more than two years old, the petition should include an updated version. An assessment of the applicant's future water supply needs. A summary of present and future water supply needs, as identified in LWSPs, for public water systems within the source river basin. This analysis should include agricultural, recreational, and industrial uses, as well as electric power generation. A description of existing, planned, and potential sources of water within the receiving river basin that are a practicable alternative to the proposed transfer. This should include surface water impoundments, groundwater wells, reinjection storage, and purchases. OTHER Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission for review of the proposed water transfer. · A compliance and monitoring plan · Water balance table showing how increase in water use and transfer change over time. Document Organization DWR requests that portions of the EIS relating to environmental characteristics and predicted effects (section 3 of the draft outline) be organized by subbasin. The Division would also like to request that model discussions be included as appendices to the EIS. Also, as stated in the July 14th memo, all data sources, including the LWSP should be as current as possible. IBT statutes specifically require that the LWSP submitted with the petition be less than two years old. Alternatives Analysis Although alternatives #3 and #4 will be excluded from further analysis due to the lack of viable surface water sources, the EIS should still contain sufficient justification for the exclusion of these alternatives. The following alternatives should also be considered: · NC G.S. §143-215.22L(d)(2) requires that water conservation measures be explored as an alternative to an IBT. The EIS should fully explore water efficiency, conservation, and reuse alternatives that would reduce or remove the need for an interbasin transfer. It may also be appropriate to include discussions of water conservation in the sections on needs analysis or impact mitigation. · Combinations of viable alternatives (including conservation and reuse) that would reduce the interbasin transfer request. · Return of wastewater to the source basin (to remove or reduce the need for an IBT). Direct Impacts of Water Purchase As part of the IBT process, Brunswick County Public utilities will have to assess the effect of the proposed transfer on water quality and quantity in the Cape Fear River. Specifically, the petition will need to contain the following (as described above): · A description of existing and future water transfers (or withdrawals) from the source river basin that are either registered or included in a local water supply plan (LWSP). · A summary of present and future water supply needs, as identified in LWSPs, for public water systems within the source river basin. This analysis should include agricultural, recreational, and industrial uses, as well as electric power generation. · A demonstration that the proposed transfer, if added to all other existing and planned transfers (or registered withdrawals) in the source river basin, would not reduce the amount of available water to a degree that would impair existing uses, pursuant to NC’s antidegradation policy. Safe Yield Brunswick County should not use the modeled 7Q10 statistics from the Cape Fear Basin Water Supply Plan. Those values were developed to illustrate possible changes in streamflow over time. They were not intended to replace USGS low flow statistics. Brunswick County should contact USGS for an updated 7Q10. Rather than relying upon a ‘safe yield’ value, Brunswick County should run the Cape Fear model to determine whether or not there appear to be any difficulties meeting future demands. Hydrologic Modeling Brunswick County will need to use the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model to evaluate the direct impact of water withdrawals. The model does not need to be extended downstream, however the output from the hydrologic model should be used as an input to a water quality model on the Cape Fear below Lock and Dam #1. The inflow record for the model will also need to be brought up to date. The time horizons that should be modeled include: 1. Current demand 2. Projection based on the IBT request 3. 50 yr projection The model should also include predicted operational changes in any lakes that are expected to occur during the projected timeframe (for example, the operation of Harris lake will change if Shearon Harris is expanded). Instream Flow No instream flow study will be required. Topics for further discussion Brunswick County is advised to meet with the Division of Water Quality for a discussion of the water quality analyses that will be required to evaluate the impacts of water withdrawals. At this time, DWR’s primary concerns pertaining to water quality include the effect of an increased withdrawal on the water quality and salinity in the estuary. Brunswick County is also advised to meet with USFW and WRC to discuss any concerns, particularly those pertaining to secondary and cumulative impacts in the receiving basins. 1 Kennedy, Todd From:Rynas, Stephen <stephen.rynas@ncdenr.gov> Sent:Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:09 AM To:Kennedy, Todd Subject:RE: Brunswick Co IBT - follow up from phone call I would just add that any environmental document that is prepared evaluate whether the proposed project would have any “coastal effect” as defined in 15 CFR 930.11. Even if the proposed project does not have a “coastal effect”, I would recommend that the environmental document include a written discussion to document that the issue of “coastal effect” was evaluated. From: Kennedy, Todd [mailto:Todd.Kennedy@tetratech.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:59 PM To: Rynas, Stephen Cc: Fields, Toya Subject: Brunswick Co IBT - follow up from phone call Stephen, Thanks for taking the time to discuss Brunswick County’s interbasin transfer proposal with me earlier this month. I took away the following main points from our conversation: (1) Since construction or direct development of a site was not involved in the IBT request that a CAMA permit would not be required. There are also no federal funds or federal agencies directly involved in the IBT certificate request. Note that a separate EA for expansion to the Northwest WTP would be developed following approval of the IBT. (2) We will plan to demonstrate conformance with the CAMA land use plan in the EIS per your instructions. (3) You did not have any other specific comments about secondary and cumulative impacts related to development. (4) Finally, I understand that you will be reviewing the draft EIS once it is available. Please feel free to add or correct anything that I have written here. I have attached the SEPA scoping document that we submitted to the Clearinghouse for reference. Regards, Todd J. Todd Kennedy | Project Manager Direct: 919.485.8278 x111 | Fax: 919.485.8280 todd.kennedy@tetratech.com Tetra Tech | Complex World, Clear Solutions™ P.O. Box 14409 | Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. 1 Kennedy, Todd From:John_Ellis@fws.gov Sent:Monday, September 14, 2009 11:32 AM To:Kennedy, Todd Cc:Ogallo, Toya; Howard_Hall@fws.gov Subject:RE: Brunswick Interbasin Transfer - EIS Scoping Todd, I've been out of the office almost every day since late August. I was able to discuss this with Howard Hall of this office this morning to determine if it was a project we had commented on earlier this year, which it wasn't. The Service concerns will largely be avoidance of wetlands and impacts to Federally listed threatened and endangered species. This includes not only direct impacts but indirect impacts associated with the project. Brunswick County has many unique habitat areas within it. John "Kennedy, Todd" <Todd.Kennedy@tetratech.com> "Kennedy, Todd" <Todd.Kennedy@tetratech.com> 09/14/2009 11:16 AM To "john_ellis@fws.gov" <john_ellis@fws.gov> cc "Ogallo, Toya" <toya.f.ogallo@ncdenr.gov> Subject RE: Brunswick Interbasin Transfer - EIS Scoping Dear John, Since I have not received a response to this email or my phone message, I am going to assume that USFWS does not wish to provide comments on the project at this stage. Please look for the draft EIS sometime next year. Thank you. Todd From: Kennedy, Todd Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:52 PM To: 'john_ellis@fws.gov' Subject: Brunswick Interbasin Transfer - EIS Scoping Greetings John, Brunswick County is requesting comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for an interbasin transfer request. The Division of Water Resources (the lead agency) has asked that the County contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service to see if you would like to provide any input on the 2 scope of the EIS or share any concerns. They gave me your name as a contact. A brief scoping document describing the project is attached. This was circulated through the State Clearinghouse earlier this year. For your information, I have also attached comments that we received from the Natural Heritage Program. We did not receive any comments from Wildlife Resources Commission during the SEPA review. Please let me know if you intend to provide any comments at this stage. Thanks. Regards, Todd J. Todd Kennedy Direct: 919.485.8278 x111 | Fax: 919.485.8280 todd.kennedy@tetratech.com Tetra Tech | Complex World, Clear Solutions™ P.O. Box 14409 | Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 C-34 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 D-1 Appendix D 2011 Monthly Water Demand Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 D-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 D-3 Table D-1. Calendar Year 2011 Daily Water Demand by Sector (all demand numbers in units of gallons per day) Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 2011 Total Demand1 9,358,258 8,446,097 9,910,813 12,222,516 15,664,129 20,743,581 22,008,516 17,729,194 14,054,710 12,347,548 10,348,065 9,424,806 13,780,836 Industrial Demand1 1,791,544 2,082,672 2,025,881 2,194,528 1,561,620 2,037,540 2,397,185 2,718,186 2,360,593 2,370,795 1,980,805 2,298,408 2,192,911 Wholesale Demand1 2,487,979 2,428,125 3,331,545 5,249,742 5,066,050 7,474,457 8,043,076 7,407,388 5,337,191 4,423,832 3,173,567 3,089,984 4,884,660 Retail Demand2 3,864,993 3,370,943 3,427,362 4,455,048 5,668,675 8,745,631 9,118,121 6,320,300 6,644,545 5,028,597 4,397,899 3,288,590 5,369,578 Unaccounted Water Demand1 1,084,710 843,140 932,476 349,140 3,109,720 2,460,338 1,966,263 702,674 -209,056 8,195 368,916 425,244 1,007,660 Unbilled (Operational) Water Demand1 129,032 142,857 193,548 133,333 258,065 400,000 483,871 580,645 133,333 516,129 600,000 322,581 326,027 # Connections1 33,481 33,521 33,549 33,606 33,623 33,761 33,735 33,907 33,959 33,981 34,041 34,120 33,774 Population Served3 73,993 74,081 74,143 74,269 74,307 74,612 74,554 74,934 75,049 75,098 75,231 75,405 74,640 Per Capita Demand4 52.23 45.50 46.23 59.99 76.29 117.22 122.30 84.34 88.54 66.96 58.46 43.61 71.94 Peak Day Demand1 10,937,000 10,206,000 12,140,000 15,208,000 21,425,000 24,033,000 25,798,000 21,737,000 17,220,000 14,923,000 12,690,000 11,482,000 25,798,000 Monthly PF5 68% 68% 72% 92% 114% 156% 160% 129% 105% 90% 78% 68% N/A 1 From BCPU data 2 Retail Demand = Total Demand – Industrial Demand – Wholesale Demand – Operational Demand – Unaccounted Demand 3 Population = # Connections x 2.21 people/connection 4 Per Capita Demand = Retail Demand / Population 5 Monthly PF = Monthly Peaking Factor = Monthly Average Day Demand / Annual Average Day Demand Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 D-4 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 E-1 Appendix E Wastewater Permit Summary Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 E-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 E-3 Table E-1. Brunswick County wastewater permit summary System Permit Type Permit Number Owner Public/Privatete Type Effluent Dispersal Method Permitted Flow (MGD) Subbasin Receiving Basin SILVER COAST WINERY Brunswick Co. EH 84-09712J MARY ANN & JOHN AZZATO Private Commercial Subsurface 0.004 03-07-57 Lower Waccamaw River Carolina Shores WWTP NPDES NC0044873 Brunswick County Public Municipal Discharge/Spray Irrigation 0.53 03-07-57 Lower Waccamaw River Waccamaw Elementary School NPDES NC0045276 Brunswick County Schools Public Institutional Discharge 0.0057 03-07-57 Lower Waccamaw River Betty's Waterfront Restaurant Brunswick Co. EH 92-29393A Polcaro and Pittman Private Commercial Subsurface 0.01 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers BRICKLANDING PLANTATION1 Brunswick Co. EH 93-40025A Carolina Bank LLC Private Domestic Subsurface 0.1 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers LOCKWOOD FOLLY Brunswick Co. EH 89-14990 Lockwood Folly HOA Private Domestic Subsurface 0.00975 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Main Street Grill Brunswick Co. EH 93-32539A Corey William Jones Private Commercial Subsurface 0.005 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers OCEAN AIRE CAMPGROUND Brunswick Co. EH 83-41377 Carson Durham Private Commercial Subsurface unknown 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers OCEAN PINES ACRES Brunswick Co. EH 92-28315 Adolphus Harrelson Private Domestic Subsurface 0.0032 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers OYSTER BAY COLONY1 Brunswick Co. EH 93-40049 Sea Trail Utility Private Domestic Subsurface 0.0396 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Restaurant Brunswick Co. EH 88-15668D Timothy and Willa Norton Private Commercial Subsurface 0.003 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers RIVERGATE ESTATES Brunswick Co. EH 97-47314 Rivergate Estates, Inc. Private Domestic Subsurface 0.00288 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers ROBERTO'S RESTAURANT Brunswick Co. EH 93-33074 RMG Inc Private Commercial Subsurface 0.003 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers SEA AIRE PLAZA Brunswick Co. EH 86-11542A Joe Lane Private Commercial Subsurface 0.004 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers SKEETS CAR WASH Brunswick Co. EH 98-51450 Security Savings Bank Private Commercial Subsurface 0.00525 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers WOODS @ SEA TRAIL Brunswick Co. EH 86-09712A The Woods HOA Private Domestic Subsurface 0.0048 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers KOA Campground WWTP1 Non-Discharge WQ0020543 Tommy Bradsher Private Commercial Surface irrigation 0.0011443 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Ocean Ridge Plantation WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0011614 Brunswick County Public Municipal Reuse unknown2 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Oceanic West Condominiums Non-Discharge WQ0029114 Oceanic West Development Group Private Domestic Reuse 0.00054 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Sandpiper Bay WWTP Non-Discharge WQ0013398 904 Georgetown Treatment Plant, LLC Private Domestic Reuse 0.55 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Sea Trail WWTP Non-Discharge WQ0012748 Brunswick County Public Municipal Spray Irrigation/Reuse 0.500 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Shallotte WWTP Non-Discharge WQ0000798 Brunswick County Public Municipal Spray irrigation 0.500 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers West Brunswick Regional WRF Non-Discharge WQ0023693 Brunswick County Public Municipal Spray Irrigation/Infiltration/Reuse 6.000 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Town of Ocean Isle Beach WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0006085 Town of Ocean Isle Beach Public Municipal Reuse 1.032 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Green's Oyster Company Processing Facility NPDES NC0074942 Green's Oyster Company Private Industrial Discharge 0.005 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers Lloyd's Oyster Company NPDES NC0076830 Lloyd's Oyster House Private Industrial Discharge 0.005 03-07-59 Lockwood Folly/Shallotte Rivers BRUNSWICK COUNTY SCHOOLS Brunswick Co. EH 93-40036 Brunswick County Schools Public Institutional Subsurface 0.0291 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) C B CAROON CRAB COMPANY Brunswick Co. EH 93-40023A CB Caroon Crab Company Private Commercial Subsurface 0.004 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) CASWELL DUNES HOA Brunswick Co. EH 94-03475 Caswell Dones HOA Private Domestic Subsurface 0.05 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) DUTCHMAN CREEK Brunswick Co. EH 84-22602A Dutchman Creek HOA Private Domestic Subsurface 0.0108 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) N C BAPTIST ASSEMBLY (Camp) Brunswick Co. EH 94-17102 Rich Holbrook Private Institutional Subsurface 0.037584 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) N C BAPTIST ASSEMBLY (Retreat Center) Brunswick Co. EH 88-21652 Rich Holbrook Private Institutional Subsurface 0.00712 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) PRETTY POND GIRL SCOUT CAMP Brunswick Co. EH 93-30364 Girl Scouts NC Private Institutional Subsurface 0.005471 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) W.L.B. VILLAS HOA Brunswick Co. EH 85-19804 WLB Villas HOA Private Domestic Subsurface 0.00432 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Northeast Brunswick Regional WRF Conjunctive NPDES NC0086819 Brunswick County Public Municipal Discharge/Reuse 1.650 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Bald Head Island WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0000193 Village of Bald Head Island Public Municipal Infiltration/Evaporation 0.4 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Brunswick Forest WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0032104 Funston Land and Timber LLC Private Domestic High rate infiltration 0.4 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Cape Fear Manufacturing Facility Non-Discharge WQ0018087 DAK Americas Inc Private Residuals Residuals-Land Application na 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Class A Residuals Distribution Program Non-Discharge WQ0034468 Brunswick County Public Residuals Residuals-Land Application na 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Leland Facility Non-Discharge WQ0001861 Gregory Poole Equipment Company Private Industrial Reuse 0.01 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Northwest Water Plant Residuals Disposal Program Non-Discharge WQ0018351 Brunswick County Public Residuals Residuals-Land Application na 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Oak Island Satellite Water Reclamation Facility Non-Discharge WQ0031857 Town of Oak Island Public Municipal Reuse 0.4 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Oak Island WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0005790 Town of Oak Island Public Municipal Reuse 0.4 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Peggy & Robert Waterman SFR Non-Discharge WQ0032827 Peggy & Robert Waterman Private Domestic Surface irrigation 0.000024 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) S & B Maintenance Residuals Land Application Program (D) Non-Discharge WQ0000783 S&B Maintenance Inc Private Residuals Residuals-Land Application na 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0013200 Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District Public Municipal High rate infiltration 0.5 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Southport Crossing WWTF Non-Discharge WQ0030413 Southport Crossing Holdings LLC Private Domestic High rate infiltration 0.25 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Southport Manufacturing Facility NitroGro Distribution Program Non-Discharge WQ0004500 Archer Daniels Midland Private Residuals Residuals-Land Application na 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Town of Carolina Beach Residuals Land Application Program Non-Discharge WQ0007728 Town of Carolina Beach Public Residuals Residuals-Land Application na 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Wastewater Recycling Facility Non-Discharge WQ0013224 Carolina Pole Leland Private Industrial Reuse 0.006 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Beaverdam Creek WTP NPDES NC0040061 Brunswick County Public Water Treatment Plant Discharge no limit 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Belville WWTP NPDES NC0075540 Brunswick Regional Water and Sewer H2GO Public Municipal Discharge 0.8 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Brunswick Steam Electric Plant NPDES NC0007064 Progress Energy Private Industrial Discharge no limit 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Cape Fear WWTP NPDES NC0000663 DAK Americas LLC Private Industrial Discharge 3.5 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Hood Creek NW WTP NPDES NC0057533 Brunswick County Public Water Treatment Plant Discharge no limit 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Military Ocean Terminal / Sunny Point NPDES NC0029122 US Army Public Institutional Discharge 0.3 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Southport Facility NPDES NC0065099 CPI USA North Carolina Private Industrial Discharge no limit 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Southport Manufacturing Facility WWTP NPDES NC0027065 Archer Daniels Midland Private Industrial Discharge 3.51 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Town Creek Township Park Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES unknown Brunswick County Public Institutional Discharge 0.001 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Village of Bald Head Island Utilities Dept. WTP NPDES NC0085553 Village of Bald Head Island Public Water Treatment Plant Discharge no limit 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Creekside Townhomes NPDES NC006470 Creekside Townhomes Private Domestic Discharge 0.027 03-06-17 Cape Fear River (Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River) Class B Residuals Application Program Non-Discharge WQ0034513 Brunswick County Public Residuals Residuals-Land Application na na na 1 Systems schedule to be taken out of service by July 1, 2012 2 Non-Discharge database indicates 900,000 gpd, Brunswick County records indicate 100,000 gpd Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 E-4 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-1 Appendix F IBT Tables Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-3 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2010 Brunswick Co.9.49 0.7 4.16 0.3 3.726 0.094 0.51 4.426 5.064 Bald Head 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 Leland 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 Caswell Beach 0.07 0.07 0.07 0 Holden Beach 1.08 0.38 0.7 0 1.08 BR (H2GO)2.69 2.44 0.25 2.69 0 Northwest 0.17 0.17 0.17 0 Oak Island 0.57 0.33 0.24 0.57 0 Ocean Isle Beach 1.68 0.18 1.5 0 1.68 Shallotte 0.7 0.38 0.32 0 0.7 Southport 0.15 0.15 0.15 0 Navassa 0.17 0.17 0.17 0 Total 16.83 3.91 5.1 0.3 4.396 2.614 0.51 8.306 8.524 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2020 Brunswick Co.12.67 0.93 5.55 0.30 4.97 0.40 0.51 5.91 6.76 Bald Head 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 Leland 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 Holden Beach 1.44 0.51 0.93 0.00 1.44 BR (H2GO)3.59 3.26 0.33 3.59 0.00 Northwest 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 Oak Island 0.76 0.44 0.32 0.76 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 2.24 0.24 2.00 0.00 2.24 Shallotte 0.93 0.51 0.43 0.00 0.93 Southport 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 Navassa 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 Total 22.47 5.22 6.81 0.30 5.87 3.76 0.51 11.09 11.38 WATER BALANCE TABLE - MAXIMUM DAILY VALUES CAPE FEAR RIVER WITHDRAWALS ONLY Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge WATER BALANCE TABLE - MAXIMUM DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-4 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2030 Brunswick Co.15.65 1.15 6.86 0.30 6.15 0.68 0.51 7.15 8.35 Bald Head 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 Leland 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.00 Holden Beach 1.78 0.63 1.15 0.00 1.78 BR (H2GO)4.44 4.02 0.41 4.34 0.00 Northwest 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.00 Oak Island 0.94 0.54 0.40 0.92 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 2.77 0.30 2.47 0.00 2.77 Shallotte 1.15 0.63 0.53 0.00 1.15 Southport 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.00 Navassa 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.00 Total 27.76 6.45 8.41 0.30 7.25 4.84 0.51 13.70 14.06 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2040 Brunswick Co.18.90 1.39 8.29 0.30 7.42 0.99 0.51 8.82 10.09 Bald Head 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 Leland 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 Holden Beach 2.15 0.76 1.39 0.00 2.15 BR (H2GO)5.36 4.86 0.50 5.36 0.00 Northwest 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.00 Oak Island 1.14 0.66 0.48 1.14 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 3.35 0.36 2.99 0.00 3.35 Shallotte 1.39 0.76 0.64 0.00 1.39 Southport 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 Navassa 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.00 Total 33.52 7.79 10.16 0.30 8.76 6.01 0.51 16.54 16.98 WATER BALANCE TABLE - MAXIMUM DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge WATER BALANCE TABLE - MAXIMUM DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-5 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2050 Brunswick Co.22.05 1.63 9.67 0.30 8.66 1.29 0.51 10.29 11.77 Bald Head 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 Leland 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 Holden Beach 2.51 0.88 1.63 0.00 2.51 BR (H2GO)6.25 5.67 0.58 6.25 0.00 Northwest 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 Oak Island 1.32 0.77 0.56 1.32 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 3.90 0.42 3.49 0.00 3.90 Shallotte 1.63 0.88 0.74 0.00 1.63 Southport 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 Navassa 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 Total 39.11 9.09 11.85 0.30 10.22 7.15 0.51 19.30 19.81 WATER BALANCE TABLE - MAXIMUM DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-6 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape Fear Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape Fear Shallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2010 Brunswick Co.5.99 0.71 2.26 0.1 2.01 0.507 0.4 2.717 3.27 Bald Head 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 Leland 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 Caswell Beach 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 Holden Beach 0.39 0.1 0.29 0 0.39 BR (H2GO)1.66 1.41 0.25 1.66 0 Northwest 0.11 0.11 0.11 0 Oak Island 0.16 0.14 0.02 0.16 0 Ocean Isle Beach 0.62 0.2 0.42 0 0.62 Shallotte 0.41 0.12 0.29 0 0.41 Southport 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 Navassa 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 Total 9.57 2.5 2.683 0.1 2.377 1.507 0.4 4.877 4.69 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape Fear Shallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2020 Brunswick Co.7.71 0.91 2.91 0.10 2.58 0.80 0.40 3.50 4.21 Bald Head 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Leland 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 Holden Beach 0.50 0.13 0.37 0.00 0.50 BR (H2GO)2.14 1.82 0.32 2.14 0.00 Northwest 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 Oak Island 0.21 0.18 0.03 0.21 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 0.80 0.26 0.54 0.00 0.80 Shallotte 0.53 0.15 0.37 0.00 0.53 Southport 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 Navassa 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 Total 12.32 3.22 3.45 0.10 3.06 2.09 0.40 6.28 6.04 WATER BALANCE TABLE - AVERAGE DAILY VALUES CAPE FEAR RIVER WITHDRAWALS ONLY Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge WATER BALANCE TABLE - AVERAGE DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-7 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape Fear Shallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2030 Brunswick Co.9.47 1.12 3.58 0.10 3.17 1.10 0.40 4.30 5.18 Bald Head 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Leland 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 Holden Beach 0.62 0.16 0.46 0.00 0.62 BR (H2GO)2.62 2.23 0.40 2.62 0.00 Northwest 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 Oak Island 0.25 0.22 0.03 0.25 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 0.98 0.32 0.66 0.00 0.98 Shallotte 0.65 0.19 0.46 0.00 0.65 Southport 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 Navassa 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 Total 15.13 3.95 4.24 0.10 3.76 2.68 0.40 7.71 7.42 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape Fear Shallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2040 Brunswick Co.11.57 1.37 4.37 0.10 3.88 1.45 0.40 5.25 6.32 Bald Head 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Leland 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 Holden Beach 0.75 0.19 0.56 0.00 0.75 BR (H2GO)3.21 2.72 0.48 3.21 0.00 Northwest 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 Oak Island 0.31 0.27 0.04 0.31 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 1.20 0.39 0.81 0.00 1.20 Shallotte 0.79 0.23 0.56 0.00 0.79 Southport 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 Navassa 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 Total 18.48 4.83 5.18 0.10 4.59 3.38 0.40 9.42 9.06 WATER BALANCE TABLE - AVERAGE DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge WATER BALANCE TABLE - AVERAGE DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-8 Year Water System Withdrawl Total Return to Total from Source Source Basin Interbasin Cape FearShallotte Waccamaw Cape Fear Shallotte Waccamaw Transfer River River A B C D E F G H=D+F I=C-H 2050 Brunswick Co.13.60 1.61 5.14 0.10 4.56 1.79 0.40 6.17 7.43 Bald Head 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 Leland 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 Caswell Beach 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 Holden Beach 0.89 0.23 0.66 0.00 0.89 BR (H2GO)3.77 3.20 0.57 3.77 0.00 Northwest 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 Oak Island 0.36 0.32 0.05 0.36 0.00 Ocean Isle Beach 1.41 0.45 0.95 0.00 1.41 Shallotte 0.93 0.27 0.66 0.00 0.93 Southport 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 Navassa 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 Total 21.73 5.68 6.09 0.10 5.40 4.06 0.40 11.08 10.66 WATER BALANCE TABLE - AVERAGE DAILY VALUES Consumptive Loss Wastewater Discharge Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-9 Notes for Water Balance Tables: 1. Flows represent surface water only and exclude water supplied by groundwater (i.e., 211 WTP). Actual average day and maxiumum day flows were used in the development of the 2010 water balance tables. 2. Flows for 2020 through 2050 are based on the projected increase in water use demand (discussed in Section 1 of the EA) applied to the 2010 water balance tables. Totals for withdrawal from source are equal to total demand minus demand met by the 211 WTP. 3. Consumptive losses were calculated by subtracting the population served by public sewer from the total population. The remaining population was assumed to be served by on-site septic systems. Flows were calculated by applying average water consumption per capita to the remaining population. 4. Consumptive losses and wastewater discharge flows in the Waccamaw IBT River Basin were held constant. There are no plans for an increase in wastewater discharge capacity and flows exceededing plant capacity will be pumped to the West Brunswick WRF in the Shallotte IBT River Basin. In addition, additional water supply for future growth in the Waccamaw basin will be provided by agreement with the Little River and Sewerage Water Company, Inc. in South Carolina. 5. The tables include a transfer of effluent water from the West Brunswick WRF located in the Shallotte IBT River Basin to golf courses located in St. James (Cape Fear IBT River Basin). 6. The tables include a transfer of wastewater from the Village of Calabash in the Shallotte IBT River Basin to the Carolina Shores WWTP in the Waccamaw IBT River Basin. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 F-10 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 G-1 Appendix G Land Use Classification Table F- 1. Existing Land Use Descriptions and Land Use Group Assignments Description Land Use Code Assigned Land Use Group Agricultural Land, confined animal operation 3 Agricultural Land/Open Field Agricultural Land, cultivated fields 1 Agricultural Land/Open Field Agricultural Land, ornamental horticulture 33 Agricultural Land/Open Field Pasture/Clear fields 15 Agricultural Land/Open Field Communication Towers 9 Communications & Utilities Communications & Utilities Facilities 45 Communications & Utilities Commercial hotel, motel 20 Developed Commercial office and professional 34 Developed Commercial retail 8 Developed Commercial shopping center 49 Developed Commercial wholesale 10 Developed Educational Facility, college or higher learning 7 Developed Educational Facility, day care 11 Developed Educational Facility, grade school 39 Developed Educational Facility, private school or other 14 Developed Institutional, church & related religious facility 6 Developed Institutional, government services 17 Developed Institutional, hospital & health clinic 19 Developed Institutional, membership organization 31 Developed Manufacturing, Industrial park 21 Developed Manufacturing, heavy 26 Developed Manufacturing, light 27 Developed Storage 50 Developed Wooded Area 46 Forest Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 G-2 Description Land Use Code Assigned Land Use Group Residential, multi-family 24 High-Density Residential Residential, neighborhood business 32 High-Density Residential Water 47 Hydrology Wetland, marsh 48 Hydrology Cemetery 5 Low-Density Residential Mobile Home Park 28 Low-Density Residential Residential, cleared lot 22 Low-Density Residential Residential, double-wide mobile home 12 Low-Density Residential Residential, single family site built detached 40 Low-Density Residential Residential, single-wide mobile home 41 Low-Density Residential Residential, vegetated lot 23 Low-Density Residential Residential, Duplex 13 Medium-Density Residential Residential, campers, single or grouping 4 Medium-Density Residential Residential, group quarters 18 Medium-Density Residential Military Installations 29 Military Mining & Extraction 30 Mining & Extraction Developed Outdoor Recreational, camper, RV parks 36 Recreation Developed Outdoor Recreational, golf course 16 Recreation Road Right of Way 37 Transportation Transportation, airport & landing strip 2 Transportation Transportation, rail facilities 38 Transportation Transportation, water-related facilities 42 Transportation Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-1 Appendix H Protected Species Table H-1. State and Federally Protected Species in Counties of the Cape Fear IBT River Basin Study Area Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Invertebrate Animal a dart moth Agrotis carolina SR FSC Bla, Bru, Pen Waccamaw Snail Amnicola sp. 1 SC - Col Barrel Floater Anodonta couperiana E - Bla, NH Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos arogos SR FSC Bru, NH Loammi Skipper Atrytonopsis loammi SR FSC Bru, NH Waccamaw Ambersnail Catinella waccamawensis T - Col Waccamaw Siltsnail Cincinnatia sp. 1 SC - Col Pod Lance Elliptio folliculata SC - Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Cape Fear Spike Elliptio marsupiobesa SC - Bla, NH, Pen Roanoke Slabshell Elliptio roanokensis T - Bla Waccamaw Spike Elliptio waccamawensis E FSC Bru, Col Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E FSC Bla, Pen Greenfield Rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium E FSC Bru, NH Venus Flytrap Cutworm Moth Hemipachnobia subporphyrea SR FSC Bla, Bru, Pen Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E FSC Bla, Col, Pen Waccamaw Fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati T FSC Col Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata T - Bla, Col, Pen Tidewater Mucket Leptodea ochracea T - Col Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta T - Bru Graceful Clam Shrimp Lynceus gracilicornis SC - NH Magnificent Rams-horn Planorbella magnifica E FSC Bru, NH Rare Skipper Problema bulenta SR FSC Bru, NH Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-2 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Waccamaw Crayfish Procambarus braswelli SC - Bru, Col Belle's Sanddragon Progomphus bellei SR FSC Bla Carter's Noctuid Moth Spartiniphaga carterae SR FSC Bla, Bru, Pen Townes' Clubtail Stylurus townesi SR FSC Col Savannah Lilliput Toxolasma pullus E FSC Col Cape Fear Threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T FSC Bru, Col, NH Nonvascular Plant Savanna Campylopus Campylopus carolinae SR-T FSC Bru Vascular Plant Venus Hair Fern Adiantum capillus-veneris T - Col Branched Gerardia Agalinis virgata T - Bru, NH, Pen Savanna Onion Allium sp. 1 SR-L FSC Bru, Pen Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T T Bru, NH, Pen Savanna Indigo-bush Amorpha confusa T FSC Bla, Bru, Col, NH Georgia Indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana E FSC Pen Bog Bluestem Andropogon mohrii T - Bru, Col, Pen Big Three-awn Grass Aristida condensata T - Bla, NH, Pen Chapman's Three-awn Aristida simpliciflora E - Bru, Col, Pen Savanna Indian-plantain Arnoglossum ovatum E - Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Savanna Milkweed Asclepias pedicellata SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Carolina Spleenwort Asplenium heteroresiliens E FSC Bla Sandhills Milk-vetch Astragalus michauxii SC-V FSC Bla, NH, Pen Silverling Baccharis glomeruliflora SC-H - Bru Blue Water-hyssop Bacopa caroliniana T - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Tropical Water-hyssop Bacopa innominata SC-H - NH, Pen Purple-disk Honeycomb-head Balduina atropurpurea E FSC Bla, Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-3 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Ware's Hair Sedge Bulbostylis warei SC-H - Bru Many-flower Grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus E FSC Bru, Pen Long's Bittercress Cardamine longii SC-V - Bla, NH, Pen Cherokee Sedge Carex cherokeensis E - Pen Cypress Knee Sedge Carex decomposita SC-V - Bru, NH Golden Sedge Carex lutea E E Pen Kidney Sedge Carex reniformis T - Bla, Pen Nutmeg Hickory Carya myristiciformis E - Bru, Pen A Spanglegrass Chasmanthium nitidum T - Pen Woody Goldenrod Chrysoma pauciflosculosa E - Col Leconte's Thistle Cirsium lecontei SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Georgia Calamint Clinopodium georgianum E - Bru, Pen Roughleaf Dogwood Cornus asperifolia E - Pen Swamp-lily Crinum americanum SC-H - NH Carolina Sunrose Crocanthemum carolinianum E - Bru, NH, Pen Pinebarren Sunrose Crocanthemum corymbosum T - Bru Georgia Sunrose Crocanthemum georgianum E - Bru, NH Florida Scrub Frostweed Crocanthemum nashii E - Bru, NH Toothed Flatsedge Cyperus dentatus SC-H - Bru Leconte's Flatsedge Cyperus lecontei T - Bru, NH Four-angled Flatsedge Cyperus tetragonus SC-V - Bru, NH, Pen Nerved Witch Grass Dichanthelium aciculare ssp. neuranthum SC-V - Bru, NH Blue Witch Grass Dichanthelium caerulescens E - Bru, Pen Venus Flytrap Dionaea muscipula SC-V FSC Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Sebastian-bush Ditrysinia fruticosa SC-V - Bru, Col, Pen Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-4 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Threadleaf Sundew Drosera filiformis SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Dwarf Burhead Echinodorus tenellus E - Bru Florida Spikerush Eleocharis elongata E - Bru Robbins' Spikerush Eleocharis robbinsii SC-V - Bla, Bru, NH Viviparous Spikerush Eleocharis vivipara E - NH, Pen Terrell Grass Elymus virginicus var. halophilus SC-V - Bru Green Fly Orchid Epidendrum magnoliae T - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Seven-angled Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Southern Wild-buckwheat Eriogonum tomentosum SC-H - Bla Coralbean Erythrina herbacea E - Bru, NH Limesink Dog-fennel Eupatorium leptophyllum E - Bru, NH Heartleaf Sandmat Euphorbia cordifolia T - Bla Harper's Fimbry Fimbristylis perpusilla T FSC Bru, Col Soft Milk-pea Galactia mollis T - Bru Confederate Huckleberry Gaylussacia nana E - NH Swamp Jessamine Gelsemium rankinii SC-V - Bru, Col, NH, Pen Golden Hedge-hyssop Gratiola aurea SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Littleleaf Sneezeweed Helenium brevifolium E - Bru Spring Sneezeweed Helenium vernale E - Bru, Col Florida Sunflower Helianthus floridanus T - Bla, Bru, Col Comfortroot Hibiscus aculeatus T - NH Waccamaw River Spiderlily Hymenocallis pygmaea T FSC Bru, Col Coastal Plain St. John's-wort Hypericum brachyphyllum SC-V - Bru, Col, Pen Peelbark St. John's-wort Hypericum fasciculatum E - NH Pineland St. John's-wort Hypericum suffruticosum SC-H - Bla Beach Morning-glory Ipomoea imperati T - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-5 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Thin-wall Quillwort Isoetes microvela T FSC Bru, Pen Brown Bogbutton Lachnocaulon minus T - Bru, NH, Pen Torrey's Pinweed Lechea torreyi E - Bru, Pen Long-awned Spangletop Leptochloa fascicularis var. maritima E - Bru Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E E Bla Yellow-fruited Flax Linum floridanum var. chrysocarpum T - Bru, Col, Pen Small-flowered Hemicarpha Lipocarpha micrantha SC-H - Col Pondspice Litsea aestivalis SC-V FSC Bla, Bru, NH Boykin's Lobelia Lobelia boykinii E FSC Bla Golden-crest Lophiola aurea E - Bru, Col, NH Lanceleaf Seedbox Ludwigia lanceolata E - Bru, NH Flaxleaf Seedbox Ludwigia linifolia T - Bru, Col, NH Raven's Seedbox Ludwigia ravenii T FSC Bru, Col, NH Globe-fruit Seedbox Ludwigia sphaerocarpa E - Bla, Col, NH Shrubby Seedbox Ludwigia suffruticosa T - Bla, Bru, NH Rough-leaf Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulifolia E E Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Carolina Bogmint Macbridea caroliniana E FSC Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Florida Adder's-mouth Malaxis spicata SC-V - Bru, Pen Pinebarren Smokegrass Muhlenbergia torreyana SC-V - Bru, Pen Loose Water-milfoil Myriophyllum laxum E FSC Bru Leafless Water-milfoil Myriophyllum tenellum E - Bla Bosc's Bluet Oldenlandia boscii E - Bru, Col Large-seed Pellitory Parietaria praetermissa SC-V - Bru, NH Carolina Grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana T FSC Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Large-leaved Grass-of- parnassus Parnassia grandifolia T FSC Bru, Col, Pen Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-6 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Mudbank Crown Grass Paspalum dissectum E - Bru, Col, Pen Hairy Smartweed Persicaria hirsuta E - Bru Small Butterwort Pinguicula pumila E - Pen A Silkgrass Pityopsis graminifolia var. graminifolia E - Bru, Col Pineland Plantain Plantago sparsiflora T FSC Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Yellow Fringeless Orchid Platanthera integra SC-V - Bru, Col, Pen Snowy Orchid Platanthera nivea T - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Hooker's Milkwort Polygala hookeri SC-V - Bru, Col, NH, Pen Seabeach Knotweed Polygonum glaucum E - Bru, NH Shadow-witch Ponthieva racemosa T - Bru, Pen Spiked Medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata E FSC Bla, NH Carolina Bishop-weed Ptilimnium ahlesii SR-L FSC Bru, NH Ribbed Bishop-weed Ptilimnium costatum T - Bru, NH Sandhills Pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera brevifolia SR-L FSC Bru Awned Meadow-beauty Rhexia aristosa SC-V FSC Bla, Bru Swamp Forest Beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens T FSC Bru, Col Harper's Beaksedge Rhynchospora harperi SC-V - Bru Fragrant Beaksedge Rhynchospora odorata SC-V - Bru, Pen Coastal Beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha T FSC Bru, NH Thorne's Beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei SC-V FSC Bru, Pen Tracy's Beaksedge Rhynchospora tracyi T - Bru, NH Limestone Wild-petunia Ruellia strepens E - Pen Cabbage Palm Sabal palmetto T - Bru Plymouth Gentian Sabatia kennedyana T - Bru, Col Small-flowered Buckthorn Sageretia minutiflora T - Pen Chapman's Arrowhead Sagittaria chapmanii E - Bla, Col Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-7 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Quillwort Arrowhead Sagittaria isoetiformis T - Bla, Bru, Col, NH Grassleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria weatherbiana E FSC Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Hooded Pitcher Plant Sarracenia minor E - Bru, Col, NH Chaffseed Schwalbea americana E E Bla, Pen Drooping Bulrush Scirpus lineatus T - Bru, NH, Pen Baldwin's Nutrush Scleria baldwinii T - Bru, Col, Pen Netted Nutrush Scleria reticularis T - Bru, NH Smooth-seeded Hairy Nutrush Scleria sp. 1 SR-L FSC Pen Sticky Afzelia Seymeria pectinata SC-H - Bru Tough Bumelia Sideroxylon tenax T FSC Bru, NH Leavenworth's Goldenrod Solidago leavenworthii T - Col Twisted-leaf Goldenrod Solidago tortifolia E - Bla, Bru, NH Spring-flowering Goldenrod Solidago verna SR-O FSC Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Coastal Goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa E FSC Bru, NH, Pen Eaton's Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes eatonii E - Bla, Bru, Pen Lace-lip Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes laciniata SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col, NH Giant Spiral Orchid Spiranthes longilabris E - Bla, Bru, Pen Wireleaf Dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius T FSC Bru, Col Saltmarsh Dropseed Sporobolus virginicus T - Bru Water Dawnflower Stylisma aquatica E - Bru Pickering's Dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii SC-V FSC Bla, Bru, NH, Pen Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E E Bru, Col, NH, Pen Small-leaved Meadowrue Thalictrum macrostylum SR-L FSC NH, Pen Appalachian Golden-banner Thermopsis mollis SC-V - Col Dune Bluecurls Trichostema sp. 1 SR-L FSC Bru, NH Chapman's Redtop Tridens chapmanii T - Bla, Pen Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-8 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Spike Triodia Tridens strictus SC-H - Pen Carolina Clover Trifolium carolinianum SC-H - NH Carolina Least Trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E FSC Pen Horned Bladderwort Utricularia cornuta T - Bru, Col, NH Two-flowered Bladderwort Utricularia geminiscapa SC-V - Pen Dwarf Bladderwort Utricularia olivacea T - Bru, NH, Pen Northeastern Bladderwort Utricularia resupinata E - Col Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon T - Bla, Bru Florida Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris floridana T - Bru, Col, Pen Acid-swamp Yellow-eyed- grass Xyris serotina T - Col Pineland Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris stricta E - Bru, Pen Rain Lily Zephyranthes simpsonii E FSC Bru Vertebrate Animal Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T T(S/A) Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Eastern Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii susurrans SC FSC Bru, Col, Pen Loggerhead Seaturtle Caretta caretta T T Bru, NH, Pen Atlantic Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes sp. cf. velifer SC - Bla Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T T Bru, NH, Pen Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia SC - Bru, NH, Pen Green Seaturtle Chelonia mydas T T Bru, NH, Pen Star-nosed Mole - Coastal Plain population Condylura cristata pop. 1 SC - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat - Coastal Plain subspecies Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus E - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-9 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus SC - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Thinlip Chub Cyprinella sp. 1 SC - Bla Black-throated Green Warbler - Coastal Plain population Dendroica virens waynei SR FSC Bla, Bru Leatherback Seaturtle Dermochelys coriacea E E Bru, NH Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SC - Bru, Col, NH Snowy Egret Egretta thula SC - Bru, Col, NH Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SC - Bru, NH Carolina Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T FSC Bru, Col Pinewoods Darter Etheostoma mariae SC FSC Bla Waccamaw Darter Etheostoma perlongum T FSC Col Dwarf Salamander Eurycea quadridigitata SC - Bla, Col Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus E - Bru Waccamaw Killifish Fundulus waccamensis SC FSC Col Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica T - Bru, NH American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus SC - Bru, NH, Pen Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T - Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum SC - Bla, Pen Least Killifish Heterandria formosa SC - Bru, NH Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus SC FSC Bla, Bru, NH, Pen Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis SC - Bru, NH, Pen Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SC - Bla, Bru, Col, NH Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius SC - Bru, NH Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis SC FSC NH Kemp's Ridley Seaturtle Lepidochelys kempii E E Bru Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin SC FSC, in part Bru, NH, Pen Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-10 Common Name Row Labels State Status Federal Status County Waccamaw Silverside Menidia extensa T T Col Eastern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius E - Bla, Bru, NH, Pen Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E Bru, Col Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius SC FSC Bla, Col, NH, Pen Eastern Woodrat - Coastal Plain population Neotoma floridana floridana T - Bru, NH, Pen Broadtail Madtom Noturus sp. 2 SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col, NH Eastern Painted Bunting Passerina ciris ciris SC FSC Bru, NH, Pen Bachman's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col, Pen Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E Bla, Bru, Col, NH, Pen Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC FSC Bru, NH Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus SC - Bru, NH Carolina Gopher Frog Rana capito T FSC Bla, Bru, NH, Pen Black Skimmer Rynchops niger SC - Bru, NH, Pen Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius SC - Bla, Bru, NH, Pen Common Tern Sterna hirundo SC - NH, Pen Least Tern Sternula antillarum SC - Bru, NH, Pen West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E E Bru, NH, Pen Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-11 Table H-2. State and Federally Protected Species in the Shallotte IBT River Basin Study Area Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Invertebrate Animal a dart moth Agrotis carolina SR FSC Bru Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos arogos SR FSC Bru Loammi Skipper Atrytonopsis loammi SR FSC Bru Pod Lance Elliptio folliculata SC - Bru Waccamaw Spike Elliptio waccamawensis E FSC Bru Greenfield Rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium E FSC Bru Venus Flytrap Cutworm Moth Hemipachnobia subporphyrea SR FSC Bru Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta T - Bru Magnificent Rams-horn Planorbella magnifica E FSC Bru Rare Skipper Problema bulenta SR FSC Bru Waccamaw Crayfish Procambarus braswelli SC - Bru Carter's Noctuid Moth Spartiniphaga carterae SR FSC Bru Cape Fear Threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T FSC Bru Nonvascular Plant Savanna Campylopus Campylopus carolinae SR-T FSC Bru Vascular Plant Branched Gerardia Agalinis virgata T - Bru Savanna Onion Allium sp. 1 SR-L FSC Bru Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T T Bru Savanna Indigo-bush Amorpha confusa T FSC Bru Bog Bluestem Andropogon mohrii T - Bru Chapman's Three-awn Aristida simpliciflora E - Bru Savanna Indian-plantain Arnoglossum ovatum E - Bru Savanna Milkweed Asclepias pedicellata SC-V - Bru Silverling Baccharis glomeruliflora SC-H - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-12 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Blue Water-hyssop Bacopa caroliniana T - Bru Purple-disk Honeycomb-head Balduina atropurpurea E FSC Bru Ware's Hair Sedge Bulbostylis warei SC-H - Bru Many-flower Grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus E FSC Bru Cypress Knee Sedge Carex decomposita SC-V - Bru Nutmeg Hickory Carya myristiciformis E - Bru Leconte's Thistle Cirsium lecontei SC-V - Bru Georgia Calamint Clinopodium georgianum E - Bru Carolina Sunrose Crocanthemum carolinianum E - Bru Pinebarren Sunrose Crocanthemum corymbosum T - Bru Georgia Sunrose Crocanthemum georgianum E - Bru Florida Scrub Frostweed Crocanthemum nashii E - Bru Toothed Flatsedge Cyperus dentatus SC-H - Bru Leconte's Flatsedge Cyperus lecontei T - Bru Four-angled Flatsedge Cyperus tetragonus SC-V - Bru Nerved Witch Grass Dichanthelium aciculare ssp. Neuranthum SC-V - Bru Blue Witch Grass Dichanthelium caerulescens E - Bru Venus Flytrap Dionaea muscipula SC-V FSC Bru Sebastian-bush Ditrysinia fruticosa SC-V - Bru Threadleaf Sundew Drosera filiformis SC-V - Bru Dwarf Burhead Echinodorus tenellus E - Bru Florida Spikerush Eleocharis elongata E - Bru Robbins' Spikerush Eleocharis robbinsii SC-V - Bru Terrell Grass Elymus virginicus var. halophilus SC-V - Bru Green Fly Orchid Epidendrum magnoliae T - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-13 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Seven-angled Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum SC-V - Bru Coralbean Erythrina herbacea E - Bru Limesink Dog-fennel Eupatorium leptophyllum E - Bru Harper's Fimbry Fimbristylis perpusilla T FSC Bru Soft Milk-pea Galactia mollis T - Bru Swamp Jessamine Gelsemium rankinii SC-V - Bru Golden Hedge-hyssop Gratiola aurea SC-V - Bru Littleleaf Sneezeweed Helenium brevifolium E - Bru Spring Sneezeweed Helenium vernale E - Bru Florida Sunflower Helianthus floridanus T - Bru Waccamaw River Spiderlily Hymenocallis pygmaea T FSC Bru Coastal Plain St. John's-wort Hypericum brachyphyllum SC-V - Bru Beach Morning-glory Ipomoea imperati T - Bru Thin-wall Quillwort Isoetes microvela T FSC Bru Brown Bogbutton Lachnocaulon minus T - Bru Torrey's Pinweed Lechea torreyi E - Bru Long-awned Spangletop Leptochloa fascicularis var. maritime E - Bru Yellow-fruited Flax Linum floridanum var. chrysocarpum T - Bru Pondspice Litsea aestivalis SC-V FSC Bru Golden-crest Lophiola aurea E - Bru Lanceleaf Seedbox Ludwigia lanceolata E - Bru Flaxleaf Seedbox Ludwigia linifolia T - Bru Raven's Seedbox Ludwigia ravenii T FSC Bru Shrubby Seedbox Ludwigia suffruticosa T - Bru Rough-leaf Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulifolia E E Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-14 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Carolina Bogmint Macbridea caroliniana E FSC Bru Florida Adder's-mouth Malaxis spicata SC-V - Bru Pinebarren Smokegrass Muhlenbergia torreyana SC-V - Bru Loose Water-milfoil Myriophyllum laxum E FSC Bru Bosc's Bluet Oldenlandia boscii E - Bru Large-seed Pellitory Parietaria praetermissa SC-V - Bru Carolina Grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana T FSC Bru Large-leaved Grass-of- parnassus Parnassia grandifolia T FSC Bru Mudbank Crown Grass Paspalum dissectum E - Bru Hairy Smartweed Persicaria hirsuta E - Bru A Silkgrass Pityopsis graminifolia var. graminifolia E - Bru Pineland Plantain Plantago sparsiflora T FSC Bru Yellow Fringeless Orchid Platanthera integra SC-V - Bru Snowy Orchid Platanthera nivea T - Bru Hooker's Milkwort Polygala hookeri SC-V - Bru Seabeach Knotweed Polygonum glaucum E - Bru Shadow-witch Ponthieva racemosa T - Bru Carolina Bishop-weed Ptilimnium ahlesii SR-L FSC Bru Ribbed Bishop-weed Ptilimnium costatum T - Bru Sandhills Pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera brevifolia SR-L FSC Bru Awned Meadow-beauty Rhexia aristosa SC-V FSC Bru Swamp Forest Beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens T FSC Bru Harper's Beaksedge Rhynchospora harperi SC-V - Bru Fragrant Beaksedge Rhynchospora odorata SC-V - Bru Coastal Beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha T FSC Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-15 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Thorne's Beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei SC-V FSC Bru Tracy's Beaksedge Rhynchospora tracyi T - Bru Cabbage Palm Sabal palmetto T - Bru Plymouth Gentian Sabatia kennedyana T - Bru Quillwort Arrowhead Sagittaria isoetiformis T - Bru Grassleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria weatherbiana E FSC Bru Hooded Pitcher Plant Sarracenia minor E - Bru Drooping Bulrush Scirpus lineatus T - Bru Baldwin's Nutrush Scleria baldwinii T - Bru Netted Nutrush Scleria reticularis T - Bru Sticky Afzelia Seymeria pectinata SC-H - Bru Tough Bumelia Sideroxylon tenax T FSC Bru Twisted-leaf Goldenrod Solidago tortifolia E - Bru Spring-flowering Goldenrod Solidago verna SR-O FSC Bru Coastal Goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa E FSC Bru Eaton's Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes eatonii E - Bru Lace-lip Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes laciniata SC-V - Bru Giant Spiral Orchid Spiranthes longilabris E - Bru Wireleaf Dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius T FSC Bru Saltmarsh Dropseed Sporobolus virginicus T - Bru Water Dawnflower Stylisma aquatica E - Bru Pickering's Dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii SC-V FSC Bru Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E E Bru Dune Bluecurls Trichostema sp. 1 SR-L FSC Bru Horned Bladderwort Utricularia cornuta T - Bru Dwarf Bladderwort Utricularia olivacea T - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-16 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon T - Bru Florida Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris floridana T - Bru Pineland Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris stricta E - Bru Rain Lily Zephyranthes simpsonii E FSC Bru Vertebrate Animal Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E Bru American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T T(S/A) Bru Eastern Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii susurrans SC FSC Bru Loggerhead Seaturtle Caretta caretta T T Bru Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T T Bru Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia SC - Bru Green Seaturtle Chelonia mydas T T Bru Star-nosed Mole - Coastal Plain population Condylura cristata pop. 1 SC - Bru Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat - Coastal Plain subspecies Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis SC FSC Bru Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus E - Bru Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus SC - Bru Black-throated Green Warbler - Coastal Plain population Dendroica virens waynei SR FSC Bru Leatherback Seaturtle Dermochelys coriacea E E Bru Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SC - Bru Snowy Egret Egretta thula SC - Bru Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SC - Bru Carolina Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T FSC Bru Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus E - Bru Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica T - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-17 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus SC - Bru Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T - Bru Least Killifish Heterandria formosa SC - Bru Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus SC FSC Bru Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis SC - Bru Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SC - Bru Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius SC - Bru Kemp's Ridley Seaturtle Lepidochelys kempii E E Bru Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin SC FSC, in part Bru Eastern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius E - Bru Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E Bru Eastern Woodrat - Coastal Plain population Neotoma floridana floridana T - Bru Broadtail Madtom Noturus sp. 2 SC FSC Bru Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC FSC Bru Eastern Painted Bunting Passerina ciris ciris SC FSC Bru Bachman's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis SC FSC Bru Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E Bru Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC FSC Bru Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus SC - Bru Carolina Gopher Frog Rana capito T FSC Bru Black Skimmer Rynchops niger SC - Bru Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius SC - Bru Least Tern Sternula antillarum SC - Bru West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E E Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-18 Table H-3. State and Federally Protected Species in Counties of the Waccamaw IBT River Basin Study Area Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Invertebrate Animal a dart moth Agrotis carolina SR FSC Bla, Bru Waccamaw Snail Amnicola sp. 1 SC - Col Barrel Floater Anodonta couperiana E - Bla Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos arogos SR FSC Bru Loammi Skipper Atrytonopsis loammi SR FSC Bru Waccamaw Ambersnail Catinella waccamawensis T - Col Waccamaw Siltsnail Cincinnatia sp. 1 SC - Col Pod Lance Elliptio folliculata SC - Bla, Bru, Col Cape Fear Spike Elliptio marsupiobesa SC - Bla Roanoke Slabshell Elliptio roanokensis T - Bla Waccamaw Spike Elliptio waccamawensis E FSC Bru, Col Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E FSC Bla Greenfield Rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium E FSC Bru Venus Flytrap Cutworm Moth Hemipachnobia subporphyrea SR FSC Bla, Bru Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E FSC Bla, Col Waccamaw Fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati T FSC Col Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata T - Bla, Col Tidewater Mucket Leptodea ochracea T - Col Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta T - Bru Magnificent Rams-horn Planorbella magnifica E FSC Bru Rare Skipper Problema bulenta SR FSC Bru Waccamaw Crayfish Procambarus braswelli SC - Bru, Col Belle's Sanddragon Progomphus bellei SR FSC Bla Carter's Noctuid Moth Spartiniphaga carterae SR FSC Bla, Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-19 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Townes' Clubtail Stylurus townesi SR FSC Col Savannah Lilliput Toxolasma pullus E FSC Col Cape Fear Threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T FSC Bru, Col Nonvascular Plant Savanna Campylopus Campylopus carolinae SR-T FSC Bru Vascular Plant Venus Hair Fern Adiantum capillus-veneris T - Col Branched Gerardia Agalinis virgate T - Bru Savanna Onion Allium sp. 1 SR-L FSC Bru Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T T Bru Savanna Indigo-bush Amorpha confuse T FSC Bla, Bru, Col Bog Bluestem Andropogon mohrii T - Bru, Col Big Three-awn Grass Aristida condensate T - Bla Chapman's Three-awn Aristida simpliciflora E - Bru, Col Savanna Indian-plantain Arnoglossum ovatum E - Bla, Bru, Col Savanna Milkweed Asclepias pedicellata SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Carolina Spleenwort Asplenium heteroresiliens E FSC Bla Sandhills Milk-vetch Astragalus michauxii SC-V FSC Bla Silverling Baccharis glomeruliflora SC-H - Bru Blue Water-hyssop Bacopa caroliniana T - Bla, Bru, Col Purple-disk Honeycomb-head Balduina atropurpurea E FSC Bla, Bru Ware's Hair Sedge Bulbostylis warei SC-H - Bru Many-flower Grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus E FSC Bru Long's Bittercress Cardamine longii SC-V - Bla Cypress Knee Sedge Carex decomposita SC-V - Bru Kidney Sedge Carex reniformis T - Bla Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-20 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Nutmeg Hickory Carya myristiciformis E - Bru Woody Goldenrod Chrysoma pauciflosculosa E - Col Leconte's Thistle Cirsium lecontei SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Georgia Calamint Clinopodium georgianum E - Bru Carolina Sunrose Crocanthemum carolinianum E - Bru Pinebarren Sunrose Crocanthemum corymbosum T - Bru Georgia Sunrose Crocanthemum georgianum E - Bru Florida Scrub Frostweed Crocanthemum nashii E - Bru Toothed Flatsedge Cyperus dentatus SC-H - Bru Leconte's Flatsedge Cyperus lecontei T - Bru Four-angled Flatsedge Cyperus tetragonus SC-V - Bru Nerved Witch Grass Dichanthelium aciculare ssp. neuranthum SC-V - Bru Blue Witch Grass Dichanthelium caerulescens E - Bru Venus Flytrap Dionaea muscipula SC-V FSC Bla, Bru, Col Sebastian-bush Ditrysinia fruticosa SC-V - Bru, Col Threadleaf Sundew Drosera filiformis SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Dwarf Burhead Echinodorus tenellus E - Bru Florida Spikerush Eleocharis elongate E - Bru Robbins' Spikerush Eleocharis robbinsii SC-V - Bla, Bru Terrell Grass Elymus virginicus var. halophilus SC-V - Bru Green Fly Orchid Epidendrum magnoliae T - Bla, Bru, Col Seven-angled Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Southern Wild-buckwheat Eriogonum tomentosum SC-H - Bla Coralbean Erythrina herbacea E - Bru Limesink Dog-fennel Eupatorium leptophyllum E - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-21 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Heartleaf Sandmat Euphorbia cordifolia T - Bla Harper's Fimbry Fimbristylis perpusilla T FSC Bru, Col Soft Milk-pea Galactia mollis T - Bru Swamp Jessamine Gelsemium rankinii SC-V - Bru, Col Golden Hedge-hyssop Gratiola aurea SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Littleleaf Sneezeweed Helenium brevifolium E - Bru Spring Sneezeweed Helenium vernale E - Bru, Col Florida Sunflower Helianthus floridanus T - Bla, Bru, Col Waccamaw River Spiderlily Hymenocallis pygmaea T FSC Bru, Col Coastal Plain St. John's-wort Hypericum brachyphyllum SC-V - Bru, Col Pineland St. John's-wort Hypericum suffruticosum SC-H - Bla Beach Morning-glory Ipomoea imperati T - Bru Thin-wall Quillwort Isoetes microvela T FSC Bru Brown Bogbutton Lachnocaulon minus T - Bru Torrey's Pinweed Lechea torreyi E - Bru Long-awned Spangletop Leptochloa fascicularis var. maritima E - Bru Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E E Bla Yellow-fruited Flax Linum floridanum var. chrysocarpum T - Bru, Col Small-flowered Hemicarpha Lipocarpha micrantha SC-H - Col Pondspice Litsea aestivalis SC-V FSC Bla, Bru Boykin's Lobelia Lobelia boykinii E FSC Bla Golden-crest Lophiola aurea E - Bru, Col Lanceleaf Seedbox Ludwigia lanceolata E - Bru Flaxleaf Seedbox Ludwigia linifolia T - Bru, Col Raven's Seedbox Ludwigia ravenii T FSC Bru, Col Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-22 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Globe-fruit Seedbox Ludwigia sphaerocarpa E - Bla, Col Shrubby Seedbox Ludwigia suffruticosa T - Bla, Bru Rough-leaf Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulifolia E E Bla, Bru, Col Carolina Bogmint Macbridea caroliniana E FSC Bla, Bru, Col Florida Adder's-mouth Malaxis spicata SC-V - Bru Pinebarren Smokegrass Muhlenbergia torreyana SC-V - Bru Loose Water-milfoil Myriophyllum laxum E FSC Bru Leafless Water-milfoil Myriophyllum tenellum E - Bla Bosc's Bluet Oldenlandia boscii E - Bru, Col Large-seed Pellitory Parietaria praetermissa SC-V - Bru Carolina Grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana T FSC Bla, Bru, Col Large-leaved Grass-of- parnassus Parnassia grandifolia T FSC Bru, Col Mudbank Crown Grass Paspalum dissectum E - Bru, Col Hairy Smartweed Persicaria hirsute E - Bru A Silkgrass Pityopsis graminifolia var. graminifolia E - Bru, Col Pineland Plantain Plantago sparsiflora T FSC Bla, Bru, Col Yellow Fringeless Orchid Platanthera integra SC-V - Bru, Col Snowy Orchid Platanthera nivea T - Bla, Bru, Col Hooker's Milkwort Polygala hookeri SC-V - Bru, Col Seabeach Knotweed Polygonum glaucum E - Bru Shadow-witch Ponthieva racemosa T - Bru Spiked Medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata E FSC Bla Carolina Bishop-weed Ptilimnium ahlesii SR-L FSC Bru Ribbed Bishop-weed Ptilimnium costatum T - Bru Sandhills Pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera brevifolia SR-L FSC Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-23 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Awned Meadow-beauty Rhexia aristosa SC-V FSC Bla, Bru Swamp Forest Beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens T FSC Bru, Col Harper's Beaksedge Rhynchospora harperi SC-V - Bru Fragrant Beaksedge Rhynchospora odorata SC-V - Bru Coastal Beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha T FSC Bru Thorne's Beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei SC-V FSC Bru Tracy's Beaksedge Rhynchospora tracyi T - Bru Cabbage Palm Sabal palmetto T - Bru Plymouth Gentian Sabatia kennedyana T - Bru, Col Chapman's Arrowhead Sagittaria chapmanii E - Bla, Col Quillwort Arrowhead Sagittaria isoetiformis T - Bla, Bru, Col Grassleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria weatherbiana E FSC Bla, Bru, Col Hooded Pitcher Plant Sarracenia minor E - Bru, Col Chaffseed Schwalbea americana E E Bla Drooping Bulrush Scirpus lineatus T - Bru Baldwin's Nutrush Scleria baldwinii T - Bru, Col Netted Nutrush Scleria reticularis T - Bru Sticky Afzelia Seymeria pectinata SC-H - Bru Tough Bumelia Sideroxylon tenax T FSC Bru Leavenworth's Goldenrod Solidago leavenworthii T - Col Twisted-leaf Goldenrod Solidago tortifolia E - Bla, Bru Spring-flowering Goldenrod Solidago verna SR-O FSC Bla, Bru, Col Coastal Goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa E FSC Bru Eaton's Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes eatonii E - Bla, Bru Lace-lip Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes laciniata SC-V - Bla, Bru, Col Giant Spiral Orchid Spiranthes longilabris E - Bla, Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-24 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Wireleaf Dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius T FSC Bru, Col Saltmarsh Dropseed Sporobolus virginicus T - Bru Water Dawnflower Stylisma aquatic E - Bru Pickering's Dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii SC-V FSC Bla, Bru Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E E Bru, Col Appalachian Golden-banner Thermopsis mollis SC-V - Col Dune Bluecurls Trichostema sp. 1 SR-L FSC Bru Chapman's Redtop Tridens chapmanii T - Bla Horned Bladderwort Utricularia cornuta T - Bru, Col Dwarf Bladderwort Utricularia olivacea T - Bru Northeastern Bladderwort Utricularia resupinata E - Col Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon T - Bla, Bru Florida Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris floridana T - Bru, Col Acid-swamp Yellow-eyed- grass Xyris serotina T - Col Pineland Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris stricta E - Bru Rain Lily Zephyranthes simpsonii E FSC Bru Vertebrate Animal Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E Bla, Bru, Col American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T T(S/A) Bla, Bru, Col Eastern Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii susurrans SC FSC Bru, Col Loggerhead Seaturtle Caretta caretta T T Bru Atlantic Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes sp. cf. velifer SC - Bla Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T T Bru Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia SC - Bru Green Seaturtle Chelonia mydas T T Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-25 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Star-nosed Mole - Coastal Plain population Condylura cristata pop. 1 SC - Bla, Bru, Col Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat - Coastal Plain subspecies Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus E - Bla, Bru, Col Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus SC - Bla, Bru, Col Thinlip Chub Cyprinella sp. 1 SC - Bla Black-throated Green Warbler - Coastal Plain population Dendroica virens waynei SR FSC Bla, Bru Leatherback Seaturtle Dermochelys coriacea E E Bru Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SC - Bru, Col Snowy Egret Egretta thula SC - Bru, Col Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SC - Bru Carolina Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T FSC Bru, Col Pinewoods Darter Etheostoma mariae SC FSC Bla Waccamaw Darter Etheostoma perlongum T FSC Col Dwarf Salamander Eurycea quadridigitata SC - Bla, Col Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus E - Bru Waccamaw Killifish Fundulus waccamensis SC FSC Col Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica T - Bru American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus SC - Bru Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T - Bla, Bru, Col Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum SC - Bla Least Killifish Heterandria formosa SC - Bru Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus SC FSC Bla, Bru Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis SC - Bru Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SC - Bla, Bru, Col Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius SC - Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-26 Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status County Kemp's Ridley Seaturtle Lepidochelys kempii E E Bru Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin SC FSC, in part Bru Waccamaw Silverside Menidia extensa T T Col Eastern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius E - Bla, Bru Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E Bru, Col Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius SC FSC Bla, Col Eastern Woodrat - Coastal Plain population Neotoma floridana floridana T - Bru Broadtail Madtom Noturus sp. 2 SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col Eastern Painted Bunting Passerina ciris ciris SC FSC Bru Bachman's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis SC FSC Bla, Bru, Col Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E Bla, Bru, Col Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC FSC Bru Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus SC - Bru Carolina Gopher Frog Rana capito T FSC Bla, Bru Black Skimmer Rynchops niger SC - Bru Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius SC - Bla, Bru Least Tern Sternula antillarum SC - Bru West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E E Bru Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-27 Explanation of Status Codes The following tables include definitions of status codes for rare and protected species in the Study Area. All definitions are from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP, 2011). Table H-4. State Protection Status Codes for Animal Species Code Status Definition E Endangered Any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an 'endangered species' pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987). T Threatened Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987). SC Special Concern Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987). SR Significantly Rare Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the State in small numbers and has been determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring. (This is a N.C. Natural Heritage Program designation.) Significantly Rare species include peripheral species, whereby North Carolina lies at the periphery of the species' range (such as Hermit Thrush). The designation also includes marine and estuarine fishes identified as "Vulnerable" by the N.C. State Museum of Biological Sciences (Ross et al. 1988, Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. A Reevaluation of the Marine and Estuarine Fishes). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-28 Table H-5. State Protection Status Codes for Plant Species Code Status Definition E Endangered Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy" (GS 19B 106: 202.12). Endangered species may not be removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for research, propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the species. T Threatened Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (GS 19B 106:202.12). Regulations are the same as for Endangered species. SC Special Concern Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B 106:202.12). SC-V Special Concern - Vulnerable Any species or higher taxon of plant that occurred in North Carolina at one time, but for which all known populations are currently considered to be either historical or extirpated (02 NCAC 48F .0401). SC-H Special Concern - Historical Any species or higher taxon of plant that occurred in North Carolina at one time, but for which all known populations are currently considered to be either historical or extirpated (02 NCAC 48F .0401). SR Significantly Rare Species which are rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-100 populations in the state, frequently substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). SR-L Limited The range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states (endemic or near endemic). These are species which may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 100 populations rangewide. The preponderance of their distribution is in North Carolina and their fate depends largely on conservation here. SR-T Throughout The species is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100 populations total). SR-D Disjunct The species is disjunct to NC from a main range in a different part of the country or world. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-29 Code Status Definition SR-P Peripheral The species is at the periphery of its range in North Carolina. These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. SR-O Other The range of the species is sporadic or cannot be described by the other Significantly Rare categories. Table H-6. Federal Protection Status Codes Code Status Definition E Endangered A taxon “which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Endangered Species Act, Section 3). T Threatened A taxon “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Endangered Species Act, Section 3). T(S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance “Section 4 (e) of the [Endangered Species] Act authorizes the treatment of a species (subspecies or population segment) as endangered or threatened even though it is not otherwise listed as endangered or threatened if -- (a) the species so closely resembles in appearance an endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act.” (Federal Register, November 4, 1997). [The American Alligator is listed as T (S/A) due to Similarity of Appearance with other rare crocodilians, and the southern population of the Bog Turtle is listed as T(S/A) due to Similarity of Appearance with the northern population of the Bog Turtle (which is federally listed as Threatened and which does not occur in North Carolina).] Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 H-30 Code Status Definition C Candidate Taxa for which the [Fish and Wildlife] Service has on file enough substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Proposed rules have not yet been issued because this action is precluded at present by other listing activity. Development and publication of proposed rules on these taxa are anticipated. The Service encourages State and other Federal agencies as well as other affected parties to give consideration to these taxa in environmental planning.” (Federal Register, February 28, 1996). Taxa formerly considered as ‘Category 1' are now considered as ‘Candidate’. FSC Federal Species of Concern (also known as Species at Risk") E, XN Endangered, nonessential experimental population. The Endangered Species Act permits the reintroduction of endangered animals as "nonessential experimental" populations. Such populations, considered nonessential to the survival of the species, are managed with fewer restrictions than populations listed as endangered. “Section 10 (j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, provides for the designation of introduced populations of federally listed species as nonessential experimental. This designation allows for greater flexibility in the management of these populations by local, state, and Federal agencies. Specifically, the requirement for Federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing these populations by their actions is eliminated and allowances for taking the species are broadened.” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995). Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 I-1 Appendix I USGS Communication Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 I-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) From: jcweaver@usgs.gov [mailto:jcweaver@usgs.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:30 AM To: Moore, Emilie Cc: archive_ask@usgs.gov; jcweaver@usgs.gov Subject: Re: Low Flow Request,7Q10 Values Ms. Moore, In response to your inquiry about the 7Q10 low-flow discharge estimates for two streamgages (USGS Sta's 02105769 and 02109500), a check of the low-flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center indicates the following most recent and provisional 7Q10 low-flow discharge estimates: USGS Sta. 02105769 Cape Fear River at Lock #1 near Kelly, NC (http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/02105769.2011.pdf) Drainage area: 5,255 sqmi Period of record: July 1969 to current year 7Q10 = ~ 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) Period of analysis: 1982-2009 climatic years, reflecting the period of regulation by Jordan Lake Please note that trends have been noted in the annual minimum 7-day average discharges for the period of analysis at this gage, attributed to a combination of the recent droughts on flows in the Cape Fear River and the regulated flow conditions from Jordan Lake during this period. The most recent published 7Q10 discharge for this streamgage is available in Table 7 of the USGS report available at http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wri014094/. Please note the published 7Q10 discharge (which is about 40 percent higher than the above provisional value) is based on records in the 1982-97 climatic years prior to the recent droughts that have affected streams in North Carolina. USGS Sta. 02109500 Waccamaw River at Freeland, NC (http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/02109500.2011.pdf) Drainage area: 680 sqmi Period of record: July 1939 to current year 7Q10 = 1.5 cfs Period of analysis: 1940-2010 climatic years Note: The climatic year is the standard annual period used for low-flow analyses at continuous-record gaging stations and is from April 1 through March 31, designated by the year in which the period begins. For example, the 2010 climatic year is from April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011. This information is considered preliminary and subject to revision pending further analysis as further data becomes available, and is made available through our cooperative program of water-resources investigations with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Hope this information is helpful. Thank you. Curtis Weaver ************************************************************* J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE USGS North Carolina Water Science Center 3916 Sunset Ridge Road Raleigh, NC 27607 Phone: (919) 571-4043 // Fax: (919) 571-4041 Mobile: (919) 830-6235 E-mail address -- jcweaver@usgs.gov Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/ ************************************************************* Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 J-1 Appendix J Flow Duration Curves Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 J-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 J-3 Figure J-1. Full Flow Duration Curve of 2003 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal. Figure J-2. Full Flow Duration Curve of 2030 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 J-4 Figure J-3. Full Flow Duration Curve of 2050 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 With (Black) and Without (Red) Additional Brunswick County Withdrawal. Figure J-4. Full Flow Duration Curve of 2050 Simulated Flow at Lock and Dam #1 with Average July Withdrawal (Black) and with Maximum July Withdrawal (Red) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 K-1 Appendix K NCDENR Review Comments Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 K-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) 1 Kennedy, Todd From:Kennedy, Todd Sent:Friday, March 22, 2013 4:36 PM To:'jessi.baker@ncdenr.gov' Cc:'Anne.Deaton@ncdenr.gov'; Ogallo, Toya Subject:Comments on Brunswick County IBT EA Attachments:Brunswick IBT DENR 1582_NCDMF_02-26-13.pdf Dear Jessi, We received your comments on the Environmental Assessment for Brunswick County Interbasin Transfer (December 2012). A copy of those comments is attached. In these comments you request that the following issues be addressed: (1) potential impacts of the withdrawals on the newly constructed fish passage at Lock and Dam 1, and (2) potential impacts from the water supply intake. Our responses to each of these comments are provided below. 1. Potential impacts of the IBT on the newly constructed fish passage at Lock and Dam 1 - A new fish passage structure (FPS) at Lock and Dam #1 on the Cape Fear River was completed in November 2012 by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Basis of Design report provided the design, associated analyses (e.g., hydrologic and hydraulic analysis), and the biological rationale for the project (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). The rock arch rapids design is a type of rock ramp that provides fish passage over low-head dams by emulation of natural rapids and facilitation of fish hydrodynamics. The FPS alternative was chosen over others including removal of the dam in part due to the need to protect the water supply intake structures located just upstream (e.g., LCFWSA intake). The FPS is designed to increase fish passage and increase spawning opportunities for anadromous fish. Spawning migration in the Atlantic coastal region occurs primarily during periods of increased but moderate river flow and temperature such as late winter and spring (NOAA, 2013). The design of the FPS accounts for flows during this period including an assumed “spawning flow” of 5,000 cfs, a flow level near the mean flow for the river (5,063 cfs based on gage data from 1982-2012; USGS Water Data Report), and typical spring flows during March and April which are somewhat greater (i.e., up to about 9,000 cfs; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Maximum, cumulative withdrawals for 2050 (164 cfs; incorporates all LCFWSA customers including Brunswick) just above the FPS during these periods represent 2 to 3 percent of river flows. Maximum withdrawal is more likely to occur in the summer given seasonal water use patterns; therefore, water withdrawals from the river during the spawning migration would represent an even smaller proportion of flow (as would considering only Brunswick’s portion). As such the impact of withdrawals on FPS function would be insignificant. 2. Potential impacts from the water supply intake - The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWSA) supplies raw water to Brunswick County’s Northwest WTP from its intake on the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1. The County is one of several LCFWSA customers receiving a portion of the withdrawal. A FONSI for expansion of the LCFWSA’s intake to accommodate a 96-MGD withdrawal above Lock and Dam #1 was issued by NCDEH in 2009. The new LCFWSA intake has now been constructed and is in operation. As discussed in the EA to support that project prepared by McKim and Creed for LCFWSA, the three new intake screens manufactured by Johnson Screens are connected to a new 60 inch intake pipeline. The configuration of the new, additional intake is “identical in form and operation” to the existing intake pipe and no known impacts to aquatic species from the previous configuration have been reported according to the EA approved by NCDEH. Further from the EA, the mesh size (slot size is approximately 0.1118 inches) was designed to prevent entrainment of fish including eggs and larvae, and velocity through the intake screens will not exceed 0.5 feet per second. That EA contains correspondence with Vann Stancil of WRC. 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Fish Passage at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina. 100% Design Submittal. Basis of Design. Prepared by SEPI Engineering and Construction and Tetra Tech, Inc. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraion). 2013. Diadromous Fish Passage: A Primer on Technology, Planning, and Design for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 20, 2013. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/docs/FishPassagePrimer.pdf. We will include this information in the next draft of the EA. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if these responses address your concerns. Also, I am happy and available to discuss these issues further over the phone if that would be helpful. Kind Regards, Todd J. Todd Kennedy, PH, QEP | Associate Director Direct: 919.485.2067 | Main: 919.485.8278 | Fax: 919.485.8280 todd.kennedy@tetratech.com Tetra Tech | DIV-WTR, Water Resources Group P.O. Box 14409 | 1 Park Drive, Suite 200 | Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. 1 Kennedy, Todd From:Kennedy, Todd Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:49 AM To:'hannah.headrick@ncdenr.gov' Cc:'jeff.manning@ncdenr.gov'; Ogallo, Toya Subject:Comments on Brunswick County IBT EA Attachments:Brunswick IBT DENR 1582_NCDWQ_14464_.02-14-13.pdf Dear Hannah, We received your comments on the Environmental Assessment for Brunswick County Interbasin Transfer (December 2012). A copy of those comments are attached. In these comments you request that the following issues be addressed: (1) add information to Table 20, Impairment Ratings for the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear Study Area, and (2) add information to Section 2.4.4, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regarding the mercury TMDL. Our responses to each of these comments are provided below. (1) Add information to Table 20, Impairment Ratings for the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear Study Area. This table has been revised (see highlights below) and will appear in the next draft of the EA. Location along Cape Fear River Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter From a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut to a line across the river from Walden Creek to the basin Aquatic Life Standard Violation Arsenic Copper Nickel From the raw water supply intake at Federal Paper Board Corporation (Riegelwood) to Bryant Mill Creek Aquatic Life Fair Bioclassification Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos From upstream of the mouth of Toomers Creek to a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut Aquatic Life Standard Violation Turbidity Copper Low Dissolved Oxygen Low pH Prohibited area east of the ICWW in the Cape Fear River Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Prohibited area north of Southport Restricted Area and west of the ICWW in the Cape Fear River Aquatic Life Standard Violation Arsenic Copper Nickel 2 Location along Cape Fear River Use Category Reason for Impairment Parameter Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Prohibited area near Southport Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Prohibited Prohibited area south of the Southport Restricted Area Shellfish Harvesting Loss of Use Shellfish Growing Area- Conditionally Approved Open (2) Add information to Section 2.4.4, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regarding the mercury TMDL. The second paragraph in this section will be revised in the next draft as follows: North Carolina has issued a statewide fish consumption advisory for mercury; therefore, all surface waters in the state are considered impaired by mercury (NCDWQ, 2013). As a result, a statewide mercury TMDL was developed by NCDWQ and approved by EPA in October 2012. The TMDL estimated the proportions of mercury contributions to water and fish from wastewater discharges, in-state air sources, and out-of-state air sources, and calculated the reductions needed to protect North Carolina waters from mercury impairment and remove the fish consumption advisory. Using statistical analysis and the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, NCDWQ determined that a 67% reduction is needed from the 2002 baseline mercury loading. Reductions in both point and nonpoint sources are required, though the most significant source of mercury is nonpoint atmospheric deposition. The NPDES program will play a role in managing mercury from wastewater point sources, which account for 2% of the mercury load, while reductions in atmospheric deposition will require strategies involving other agencies outside of NCDWQ such as the NC Division of Air Quality. NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2013. North Carolina Statewide Mercury TMDL. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Accessed March 20, 2013. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdls/mercury. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if these responses address your concerns. Thank you. Kind Regards, Todd J. Todd Kennedy, PH, QEP | Associate Director Direct: 919.485.2067 | Main: 919.485.8278 | Fax: 919.485.8280 todd.kennedy@tetratech.com Tetra Tech | DIV-WTR, Water Resources Group P.O. Box 14409 | 1 Park Drive, Suite 200 | Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. 1 Kennedy, Todd From:Kennedy, Todd Sent:Friday, March 22, 2013 4:34 PM To:'maria.dunn@ncwildlife.org' Cc:Ogallo, Toya Subject:Comments on Brunswick County IBT EA Attachments:Brunswick IBT DENR 1582_NCWRC_02-25-13.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Maria, We received your comments on the Environmental Assessment for Brunswick County Interbasin Transfer (December 2012). A copy of those comments is attached. In these comments you request that the following issues be addressed: (1) potential impacts of the IBT on the newly constructed fish passage at Lock and Dam 1, (2) potential impacts from the water supply intake, and (3) potential indirect impacts of the withdrawal on habitat, stream salinities downstream, and reduced river flow. Our responses to each of these comments are provided below. 1. Potential impacts of the IBT on the newly constructed fish passage at Lock and Dam 1 - A new fish passage structure (FPS) at Lock and Dam #1 on the Cape Fear River was completed in November 2012 by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Basis of Design report provided the design, associated analyses (e.g., hydrologic and hydraulic analysis), and the biological rationale for the project (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). The rock arch rapids design is a type of rock ramp that provides fish passage over low-head dams by emulation of natural rapids and facilitation of fish hydrodynamics. The FPS alternative was chosen over others including removal of the dam in part due to the need to protect the water supply intake structures located just upstream (e.g., LCFWSA intake). The FPS is designed to increase fish passage and increase spawning opportunities for anadromous fish. Spawning migration in the Atlantic coastal region occurs primarily during periods of increased but moderate river flow and temperature such as late winter and spring (NOAA, 2013). The design of the FPS accounts for flows during this period including an assumed “spawning flow” of 5,000 cfs, a flow level near the mean flow for the river (5,063 cfs based on gage data from 1982-2012; USGS Water Data Report), and typical spring flows during March and April which are somewhat greater (i.e., up to about 9,000 cfs; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Maximum, cumulative withdrawals for 2050 (164 cfs; incorporates all LCFWSA customers including Brunswick) just above the FPS during these periods represent 2 to 3 percent of river flows. Maximum withdrawal is more likely to occur in the summer given seasonal water use patterns; therefore, water withdrawals from the river during the spawning migration would represent an even smaller proportion of flow (as would considering only Brunswick’s portion). As such the impact of withdrawals on FPS function would be insignificant. 2. Potential impacts from the water supply intake - The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWSA) supplies raw water to Brunswick County’s Northwest WTP from its intake on the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1. The County is one of several LCFWSA customers receiving a portion of the withdrawal. A FONSI for expansion of the LCFWSA’s intake to accommodate a 96-MGD withdrawal above Lock and Dam #1 was issued by NCDEH in 2009. The new LCFWSA intake has now been constructed and is in operation. As discussed in the EA to support that project prepared by McKim and Creed for LCFWSA, the three new intake screens manufactured by Johnson Screens are connected to a new 60 inch intake pipeline. The configuration of the new, additional intake is “identical in form and operation” to the existing intake pipe and no known impacts to aquatic species from the previous configuration have been reported according to the EA approved by NCDEH. Further from the EA, the 2 mesh size (slot size is approximately 0.1118 inches) was designed to prevent entrainment of fish including eggs and larvae, and velocity through the intake screens will not exceed 0.5 feet per second. That EA contains correspondence with Vann Stancil of WRC. 3. Potential indirect impacts of the withdrawal on habitat, stream salinities downstream, and reduced river flow – From Section 6.1.1.1 of the Brunswick EA, “given the size of the withdrawals relative to the river’s low flow regime and the tidal nature of the river below Lock and Dam #1, NCDWR deemed that a study of stream flow impacts on habitat and recreation downstream of the dam would not be needed (July 17, 2009 letter from NCDWR to Tetra Tech; contained within the scoping comments provided in Appendix C).” Beyond the hydrologic analysis provided in the EA (see Section 6.1.1.1.3) demonstrating that impacts from the Brunswick withdrawal on river flow are small (c.f. Table 63), we provide the following additional information. When cumulative withdrawals are considered they represent about 3% of mean river flow (5,063 cfs based on gage data for 1982- 2012; USGS Water Data Report), 6% of median river flow (2,540 cfs), and 17% of 10th percentile river flow (969 cfs). The cumulative withdrawals incorporate all LCFWSA customers including Brunswick just above the Lock and Dam and are 164 cfs for the 2050 planning horizon. Note that current max withdrawals, for all users, are about half of that (c.f. Table 69 in the EA). Based on this information, the proposed Brunswick withdrawal on its own as well as the combined withdrawals at this location in the river are not expected to have significant indirect impacts on habitat, stream salinity, or river flow. References: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Fish Passage at Lock and Dam No. 1, Cape Fear River, Bladen County, North Carolina. 100% Design Submittal. Basis of Design. Prepared by SEPI Engineering and Construction and Tetra Tech, Inc. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraion). 2013. Diadromous Fish Passage: A Primer on Technology, Planning, and Design for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 20, 2013. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/docs/FishPassagePrimer.pdf. We will include this information in the next draft of the EA. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if these responses address your concerns. Also, I am happy and available to discuss these issues further over the phone if that would be helpful. Kind Regards, Todd J. Todd Kennedy, PH, QEP | Associate Director Direct: 919.485.2067 | Main: 919.485.8278 | Fax: 919.485.8280 todd.kennedy@tetratech.com Tetra Tech | DIV-WTR, Water Resources Group P.O. Box 14409 | 1 Park Drive, Suite 200 | Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 K-18 (This page was intentionally left blank.) Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 L-1 Appendix L FONSI and State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Comments Final EA – Brunswick IBT June 2013 L-2 (This page was intentionally left blank.) K;/! NCDENR North Caroli na Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources Pat McCrory Governo r Thomas A. Reeder Director FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT John E. Skvarla, Il l Secretary ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM ENT FOR THE BRUNSWICK COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTIF ICATE Pursuant to the requirements of the Surface Water Transfers Act [G.S. 143-215.221] and the State Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A), Brunswick County Public Utilities (the County) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to support the County's request for an interbasin transfer certificate. Brunswick County Public Utilities currently provides water to more than 34,000 retail customers and 11 wholesale customers through its two water treatment plants (WTP). The Northwest WTP, permitted for 24 million gallons per day (MGD), is located near the City of Northwest and receives raw water from the Cape Fear River via the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. The 211 WTP is permitted for 6 MGD and treats groundwater from the Castle Hayne Aquifer. Wastewater within the County is handled through individual onsite septic systems, clustered and centralized land application, reuse, and surface water discharging systems. This treatment, service, and disposal of water creates an interbasin transfer from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Shallotte and Waccamaw River Basins, both of which are subbasins to the Lumber River Basin. The County is requesting an interbasin transfer certificate from the Environmental Management Commission to transfer 18.3 MGD, limited on a maximum daily basis, from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Shallotte River Basin. The County currently has a grandfathered transfer capacity of 10.5 MGD. This increase is based on a 30-year water demand projection (through the year 2042). No increase in IBT is being requested for the Waccamaw IBT River Basin: minor growth is expected in this area and future water will be supplied by the Little River Water and Sewerage Company in South Carolina via an agreement with the County. A hydrologic analysis was performed using the Division of Water Resources' Cape Fear Hydrologic Model to evaluate the County's impact on flow in the Cape Fear River, and determine whether future demands will be met for public water systems in the source basin. The proposed IBT increase did not change NCDWR's (2008) previous conclusion that full demand for all withdrawals at Lock and Dam #1 are met through 2050. Similarly, the impacts of the transfer on water quality are predicted to be insignificant based on a statistical data analysis and the Division of Water Quality's water quality model of the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary. Secondary and cumulative impacts for the project are those that could be derived from growth inducement in the Shallotte IBT River Basin . Future growth in the County is expected to primarily occur as low-and medium-density residential uses. Due to the fact that Brunswick County falls under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), there are numerous state and local regulatory measures in place 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-707-9000\ FAX: 919-733-3588 Internet: www.ncwater.org An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact Brunswick County Public Utilities Request for an lnterbasin Transfer Certificate to mitigate the effects of growth including the CAMA Land Use Plan and Areas of Environmental Concern requirements, the 20 Coastal Counties Stormwater Law, and the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Rules. There are no construction activities associated with this request. Any potential impacts associated with construction of WTP improvements and transmission lines in the source or receiving basin would be reviewed under environmental documents prepared under SEPA specifically for these projects as required by state and federal regulations. An EA for the Northwest WTP plant expansion and associated improvements will be prepared as required by SEPA if an IBT certificate is approved. Based on the findings of the EA, the Division of Water Resources has concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse effect on the environment. This decision is based upon the requirements of NC GS 143-215.221, information in the attached EA, and review by governmental agencies. Therefore the EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact such that preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. This FONSI completes the environmental review record, which is available for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse. 4;;/.£ Thotfs A. Reeder Dir(ctor, Division of Water Resources Page 2 of 2