19940373 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19940421

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Colonel Robert Sperberg
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
ATI.WA
ID F= F1
August 3, 1994
Forsyth County
DEM Project # 94373
i C
PY
1. You have our approval to place fill material in waters for the purpose of streambank
stabilization at King Water Treatment Plant, as you described in your application dated
15 April and 22 July 1994. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill
is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2665. This certification allows
you to use Nationwide Permit Number 13.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to
send us a new application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John
Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Si cerely
reston Howar J . P.E.
Director
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Ms. Jenny Owens; US COE - Environmental Resources Branch
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]b'ltr
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY j
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
July 22, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Dorney:
On April 15, 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sent the
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency
Streambank Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, King,
North Carolina, to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
and requested a 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed
work. In a letter dated April 25, 1994, DEM stated that there
were no objections to the work as planned and that a 401 certi-
fication could be issued upon receipt of the completed
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
(EA/FONSI). Enclosed is the signed FONSI entitled Finding of
No Significant Impact, Yadkin River, King Water Treatment Plant,
Section 14 Emeraencv Bank Protection. Forsyth County. North
Carolina, dated July 1994. We would like to receive a
401 certification for this project by August 22, 1994.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please
contact Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Ao 4,. rg
Colmq"
District Engineer
Enclosure
V

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
E
•
SYLLABUS
This study was conducted to address the riverbank erosion
problem at the King Water Treatment Plant, near King, North
Carolina. Bank erosion along the Yadkin River now threatens the
plant's intake structure, and is expected to undermine and destroy
this structure unless action is taken to stabilize the shoreline.
The Recommended Plan of Improvement consists of riprap protection
along approximately 300 feet of riverbank.
This report was prepared under the authority of Section 14 of
the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. The potential non-Federal
sponsor for the recommended project is the City of King.
The estimated first cost of the Recommended Plan is $295,342.
With average annual benefits estimated at $37,100 and average
annual costs estimated at $30,000, the project benefit-cost ratio
is 1.2 to 1.
The environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan are expected
to be insignificant; therefore, an Environmental Assessment (EA)
has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Statement.
The District Engineer's signed Finding of No Significant Impact is
included in this report.
0
0 FEASIBILITY PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents
Item
Page No.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKEN . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PLAN FORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7
REAL ESTATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FIRST COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
BENEFIT-COST RATIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
REQUIRED COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
LOCAL COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Tables
Table No.
Page No.
1 Project Construction Costs . . . . . . . 8
2 Total-Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 Cost Sharing, Recommended Plan . . . . 10
List of Figures
Figure No.
1 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Treatment Plant Intake . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Detail, Slope Protection . . . . . . . . 6
•
i

FEASIBILITY PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents--continued
List of Plates
Plate No.
1 Existing Topography Water Plant Intake
2 Site Plan - Slope Protection Project
3 Cross Section Profiles - STA 1+50 to 3+00
4 Cross Section Profiles - STA 3+50 to 4+80
List of Appendixes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Design Considerations
Economic Analysis
Slope Protection
Correspondence
ii •
• FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to address the streambank erosion
problem at the King Raw Water Treatment Plant, near King, North
Carolina. The plant's intake structure is located along the Yadkin
River, and is threatened by riverbank erosion. As discussed in
this report, Federal implementation of streambank protection at
this location was determined to be economically justified. The
plan of improvement recommended herein consists of riprap protec-
tion along 300 feet of riverbank.
AUTHORITY
This report was prepared under authority of Section 14 of the
1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. Assistance in solving this
emergency problem was requested by the City of King, North Carolina
(see appendix D, page D-1 for correspondence). Approval from South
Atlantic Division to initiate a study was requested by letter dated
7 April 1993, and requested study funds were provided by 2nd
endorsement dated 3 May 1993.
INVESTIGATIONS
A team from technical divisions within the Wilmington District
(Planning and Engineering) visited the project site to obtain data
and develop design options to solve the streambank erosion problem
threatening the water plant intake. Surveyed cross sections and
soil information were obtained within the project area.
STUDY AREA
The City of King is located in north-central North Carolina in
Stokes County. King is about 10 miles north of Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. The King Water Treatment Plant is located on the
east bank of the Yadkin River. The plant is about 6 miles
southwest of the City of King, in northwest Forsyth County, (see
location map, following page). The plant intake is located about
2,100 feet upstream from the North Carolina Highway 67 bridge. The
main plant is located about 0.25 mile inland from the river. The
water intakes, pumps, and water tank are located riverside.
L
1
:V V'1L
. As shown on figure 1, the plant is located in a bend of the
Yadkin River. The Yadkin River drainage area at the water plant is
about 1,659 square miles. The river width at the water plant is
about 300 feet. However, at times of low flow the river bed is not
fully covered with water. Channel velocities are estimated at 6
feet per second for the 2-year flood and 8.85 feet per second for
the 100-year flood.
Site conditions reflect damage due to fluctuating river levels
and high velocities. The slopes are steep, being generally greater
than 1 to 1, and are unvegetated. The soil is sandy silt. As
shown in the photograph presented in figure 2, block failures of
the bank are in progress. Obviously, more failures are expected
without remedial action.
The King Water Treatment Plant was built about 30 years ago.
Plant employees indicated that the intake site was chosen because
of its favorable characteristics for water withdrawal such as water
flow, a rocky bottom, and water depth. The plant provides water
service to approximately 20,000 people in portions of three
counties covering an area of 125 square miles. Treatment capacity
is about 1.5 million gallons per day; average production is about
1.2 million gallons per day.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
As shown on figure 2, the riverbank immediately upstream of the
treatment plant intake is eroding. At least once a year the river
floods over the bank onto this area. As the water recedes,
portions of the bank fall into the river and cover the water intake
with sand, mud, and debris. The material causes damage and
accelerated wear to the equipment. Based on the rate of erosion
now occurring, the plant's riverside facilities will be destroyed
within approximately 3 years. A major storm event, such as the
flood which occurred at the site in November 1992, could destroy
these facilities more quickly. Should this occur, extensive repair
of the slope would be required. Water treatment services would be
lost while repairs are completed.
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION HAS TAKEN
The treatment plant staff has undertaken a reasonable mainte-
nance program to stabilize the site, including placement of rock
and other fill material. However, these efforts have not been
successful. Unless effective bank protection is provided, local
interests will eventually be required to relocate the riverside
facilities. Relocating the equipment would cost an estimated
$499,000 (see appendix B, page B-1 for discussion). Development of
a Federal plan of improvement is discussed in the following report
section on "Plan Formulation."
0 3
KING, N.C., WATER TREATMENT
Photo shows bank failure near downstream end of project area on Yadkin River.
View is south toward intake facility.
Figure 2

• PLAN FORMULATION
The most economical and effective measure identified to address
the streambank erosion problem at the King Water Treatment Plant
consists of riprap protection along the eroded bank area. Other
alternatives considered included gabions, Fabriform bank protec-
tion, and a sheetpile retaining wall. Fabriform and gabions were
eliminated from consideration since the costs of these alternatives
would be substantially greater than the cost of riprap. A
sheetpile retaining wall was determined to be impracticable, due to
the location of bedrock at the bed of the river. The 20-inch water
intake at the project site was anchored by drilling into rock from
the river bed to a depth of about 5 feet. Therefore, rock would be
encountered at an elevation much too high to provide adequate
surface friction to maintain stability of a sheetpile wall.
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
The Recommended Plan of Improvement consists of riprap pro-
tection along the east bank of the Yadkin River. Riprap protection
will be placed along 300 linear feet of streambank. The upstream
limit of the project is about 300 feet upstream from the water
treatment plant property line. The downstream limit is in line
with the north side of the water treatment intake facility. A
detail of slope protection is shown on figure 3; a site plan and
cross section profiles for existing and improved conditions are
shown on plates 1 through 4.
Project construction will include grading the existing bank to
a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical slope. Following grading, filter
fabric will be placed, and a 1-foot-thick layer of N. C. DOT #17
stone (dimensions range from approximately 1/4" to 211) will be
placed to prevent silt from being washed through the stone slope
protection. A minimum 21-inch-thick layer of riprap meeting the
requirements of NCDOT Class 2 riprap will be placed on the #17
stone layer.
NCDOT Class 2 riprap weighs a minimum of 29 pounds and a maximum
of 463 pounds. This material can withstand 13 feet per second
stream velocity, which is substantially greater than the stream
velocity of 100-year frequency flows at the project location. The
design velocity of 13.3 feet per second was obtained by accounting
for the angled flow impingement on the affected bank (see appendix
A, "Design Considerations" for detailed discussion).
The vertical distance from the top of riverbank to river bed is
about 18 feet. The toe of the bank protection will be keyed into
the existing stream bed and extended to the present top of bank.
A riprap toe will be placed along the base of the protection.
•
5
W o.
J w
W
~ p
X
W t
H
O N
w .-
0 _
0: o F-
o
Y =
Z W
Q Q Z J
co
IA- 13 1 0 \ F- X
V/ W
(L X O
r w w
O
° ZZ
O Q
I- a_
O° U
W ?
O
t Z
N Q ? c c)
O Q / Z Q Z (n
O
. x,nM WW
a m O a
cr- C:) O T C' .
p o zo a Z Z
Z (L .: °
a O ~ W
WZ I
z
as 0O O O) J Q
a
w a
Q m ?-.
o Q
v~i F ~ Z
a O i W
cr ? C) Y
Oa
O p
p
U N
>
U Z N
Z Q ..
L) N
W
a
O
J
N
d
O
J
N
w
O
w
O
I
Figure 3
•
•
6
• CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
The materials required for project construction are available
from State-approved sources within 50 miles of the project site.
Excess earth material from the graded area will be disposed of in
a State-approved landfill. In order to provide access for project
maintenance, a minimum distance of 20 feet will be maintained
beyond the after-construction top of bank. This area will be
graded and grassed. Maintenance work will consist of replacement
of riprap, and mowing and fertilizing the maintenance access area.
REAL ESTATE
Project construction will require 0.28 acre of land. Real
estate values, shown in table 2, page 9, were furnished by real
estate appraisers working for the City of Winston-Salem and the
City of King, and were based on similar lands near the King Water
Treatment Plant. Acquisition costs were based on records of recent
estimates of acquisition costs at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pro-
jects. Acquisition costs were assumed to be the same here as for
other recently estimated projects.
•
7
FIRST COSTS
Construction costs for the Recommended Plan of Improvement are
shown below in table 1. The costs are based on an interest rate of
8 percent and a project life of 25 years. Total project costs,
including real estate, are shown in table 2, following page. A
detailed cost estimate is presented in appendix C.
TABLE 1
Project Construction Costs
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
Wed 24 Nov 1993
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUvmARY PAGE
•« PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ««
-----------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
QUANTITY UOM CONTRACT E&D SIOIi CONTING TOTAL COST UNIT COS-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0 28 AC 252
1 315 148 429 2,143 7655 .1C
1 CLEARING 350 .
00 CY ,
2,243 563 265 768 3,840 10 .91
2 EXCAVATION 4000 .
00 SY 12,578 3,159 1,487 4,306 21,530 5 .3E
3 GEOTEXTILE 1500 .
00 CY 098
42 10,573 4,976 14,412 72,058 48 .04
4 NCDOT #17 STONE 2500 .
00 CY ,
043
111 27,890 13,125 38,014 190,071 76 .0--
5 NCOOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP . - ,
---------- - -------- - -------- - -------- - ----------
K1NG, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1 .00 EA 169,214 42,500 20,000 57,928 289,642 289642 .3`_
8 •
• TABLE 2
Total Project Costs
Construction Costs (from table 1) $289,642
Real Estate Costs:
Project Lands (0.28 acre): 1,200
Acquisition Costs: 4,500
Total Project First Cost $295,342
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS
Average annual costs for the Recommended Plan of Improvement are
estimated at $30,000. This cost, computed using an interest rate
of 8 percent and an amortization period of 25 years, includes
interest and amortization and $2,300 for annual operation and
maintenance.
EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS
The expected annual benefits for preserving the riverside
facilities are $37,100. These benefits were computed based on the
costs which would be incurred if the riverside facilities must be
relocated due to riverbank erosion (see page B-1, appendix B, for
discussion).
BENEFIT-COST RATIO
With average annual benefits estimated at $37,100 and average
annual costs estimated at $30,000, the benefit-cost ratio for the
Recommended Plan is 1.2 to 1.
0 9
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES
Costs for construction of the Recommended Plan of Improvement
will be shared by the Federal Government and the non-Federal
sponsor. Under current Federal policy applicable to flood damage
reduction projects, the non-Federal sponsor must contribute 25
percent of the project first costs. Cost sharing for the Selected
Plan of Improvement is shown in table 3, below. The non-Federal
costs shown in table 3 include costs for lands, easements, and
rights of way. Additional requirements of non-Federal sponsorship
are included in the District Engineerts Recommendations, page 14.
The City of King will provide its share of project costs at or
before the time of contract award. The City has indicated that
funds will be available at the time of award (see letter dated
March 30, 1994, from City of King, page D-6, appendix D).
TABLE 3
Cost Sharing, Recommended Plan of Improvement
Federal Contribution
Non-Federal Contribution
$221,507
73,835
Total $295,342
0
•
10
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan are expected
to be insignificant; therefore, an Environmental Assessment has
been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Statement. This
assessment, and the District Engineer's signed Finding of No
Significant Impact are attached to this report. Anticipated
environmental impacts are discussed below, followed by a discussion
of required environmental coordination.
IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Potential adverse environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan
include loss of streambottom and streambank habitat due to grading
and riprap placement, and increased turbidity during construction.
The streambank area will be graded for about 300 feet on the east
side of the Yadkin River. Existing vegetation will be replaced
with a riprapped surface in the area where slope protection will be
placed. Some trees will be removed for project construction.
However, due to the severely-eroded state of the riverbank (see
figure 2), vegetation is minimal and the streambank has very
limited value as wildlife habitat.
Some loss of streambottom habitat will occur as a result of rip
rap placement, however, due to the limited extent of the work,
placement of riprap in the river is not anticipated to have a
significant effect on stream bottom habitat.
Turbidity is expected to increase during construction activities
due to excavation and grading activities on the streambank.
Sediment screens will be provided to minimize this impact.
Following construction, turbidity is expected to decrease below
that experienced under existing conditions.
The project can be expected to have a favorable long-term effect
on water quality, since bank and slope failure could result in
flooding and failure of the water treatment plant and loss of fresh
water supply to a large area. However, no detailed evaluation of
this impact has been made.
Currently, no seasonal restrictions exist for the proposed work.
•
11
REQUIRED COORDINATION •
Specific coordination requirements which have been, or will be,
met are discussed below.
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) water quality certificate has been
requested from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Planning, Raleigh, N.C.
A Section 404 (b) (1) (PL 95-217) evaluation has been prepared and
is included as attachment A of the Environmental Assessment. A
Section 404 public notice was sent out for 30-day review concurrent
with the public review for the EA.
An Environmental Assessment has been circulated to all interest-
ed Federal, State, and local agencies for 30-day review and
comment.
The project has been cleared under the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
The project has also been cleared under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. No threatened or endangered species occur
in the project area. No further endangered species coordination is
required.
•
12
• PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
At the request of the King Superintendent of Public Utilities,
Corps representatives met with town officials responsible for the
water treatment plant and discussed options for a solution to their
streambank erosion problem. No public meeting has been held.
LOCAL COOPERATION
The City of King has provided a letter of intent to sponsor and
cost share in the Selected Plan of Improvement (see appendix D,
page D-6).
0 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the King Water Treatment Plant streambank
erosion protection project, described herein, be authorized for
implementation as a Federal project, with such modifications as in
the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at a
first cost to United States presently estimated at $221,507, exc-
luding interest during construction. The Recommended Plan of
Improvement consists of riprap protection along 300 feet of
riverbank. Recommendation of this plan is made provided that,
except as otherwise provided in these recommendations, the exact
amount of non-Federal contributions shall be determined by the
Chief of Engineers prior to project implementation in accordance
with the following requirements to which non-Federal interests must
agree prior to implementation. Non-Federal interests shall:
a. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including
suitable borrow and disposal areas as determined by the Chief of
Engineers to be necessary for construction and subsequent mainte-
nance and inspection of the project.
b. Accomplish without cost to the United States all relocations
and alterations of buildings, transportation facilities, storm
drains, utilities, and other structures and improvements made
necessary by the construction.
c. Provide, during the period of construction, an amount equal
to not less than 25 percent of total project costs, at least 5
percent of which will be cash. The amount to be provided shall
include the value or cost of all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
and facility and utility alterations and relocations necessary for
construction of the project, including suitable borrow and
excavated material disposal areas, as may be determined ay the
Chief of Engineers.
d. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the
construction and subsequent maintenance, except damages due to the
fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors.
e. Maintain and operate the project after completion without
cost to the United States in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Army.
f. Assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess
of the Federal cost limitation of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000).
14
g. Assume financial responsibility for cleanup of hazardous and
toxic waste, as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability-Act, which is necessitated by
the project. Such costs will not be considered part of the total
project costs, nor will the sponsor, receive credit for such costs
it incurs.
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information
available at this time and current departmental policies governing
formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program
and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national
civil works construction program nor the perspective of higher
review levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the
recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to
higher authority as proposals for authorization and implementation
funding.
In making the recommendations herein, I have considered all
significant aspects in the overall public interest, including
environmental, social, cultyTral, and eco?}?gmic effects and engineer-
ing feasibility. n / \
LAWRE E W. FSAUNDERS
??ief, Pla Division

Submitted by:
Rex A. Phillips, P.E.
ROBERT J?,_SPERBERG
Colonel, ER's
Commanding
0 15
P .,I
1 W
1
2 2
yrzl
of pY
O
}
CL Y
NQ Q
N ?7
^V `_
a- F-
OZ
~ i
C7 n-
Z CC
W
Q
W >
N
!j
co
r-I
a

•
b
w
rt
0
EIEVRpN E(EVITOV

y

Dt ?
144M
744q)
14rql
74; q)

L

ELLVAF V EIEYROV
d dd

C1t CR
144E
L40 -

Ot Usm Ot

8

$
8 8 ? ? ? 8
C7 ACYIYA313
c
--I O
D?
U1
w cn
+ m
mn
0---l
-i O
oz
-Pk -v
+ M
coo
O n
r -
m
Cf)

b
w
rt
M
W
•
b
r
w
?r
m
N

psi

,9 F
••i'
a ..
1??
6+0 0
?a of

mz

END SL PE P OTE TION
AP ROX. ST 5+00
? N
s
b?

J N

4+00 A
p

Y Ny N
= N N
s V
?yt
1
a

u
0
1?N
N
H
-a y7
(
S .• N
a
rn
3+00
.?
r
Z N N

N i a
? r

Z A
?

?

o.
z ?
? ? '0
•

U
I ? lsAy O

w
NZ
' nO BEGIN SLOPE PROTECTION ??
APPROX. STA. 2+00

n r PI"c PIPE
i 7C (pM ?N?
E
Z ?c .4

rn IZ" pl PIPE
m
1+100
Q N
' p
m=
o -
N
0+00
0
0
a
N
N
5

P

u? r u
Y

_
z .
i
..Y
N.N J
c 567.3!'?O•M?? b
•
A
I ^? ? + 63? +?? Y?' 1
b

F bN C...p o ? ??
Y
t9
m s °
a
m

tl

z
?
'OC C)
C3
m
-(:71Xnp
T°
.Z

N

=-1 Z
In z
y S m 7
~mg ppA
O r F?
(?
z Z +ml °>
-? -+ fAfl4{
•y m jai
z o
ti
A m
r? _

•
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The environmental documentation for the project consists of
two parts, described below.
Part I - Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact. This part of the environmental documentation
was prepared to accompany the Detailed Project Report for Coordi-
nation with Federal and State agencies and the interested public.
The environmental assessment was completed in April 1994.
Part II - Signed Finding of No Significant Impact. The
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by the
District Commander following the coordination process described
above. The 404 evaluation has also been signed and is included
as attachment 3 to the FONSI.
0
•
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
Part I - Environmental Assessment
and Draft Finding of No significant Impact
r 1
LJ
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY HANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-1
1.01 Project Authorization and History . . . . . . . EA-1
1.02 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-1
1.03 Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-1
2.00 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2
2.01 Gabions and Fabriform . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2
2.02 Sheetpile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2
2.03 No Action Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2
3.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2
3.01 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2
3.02 Benthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-3
3.03 Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-3
3.04 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . EA-3
3.05 Threatened and Endangered Species EA-4
3.06 Archeological/Historical Resources . . . . . . . EA-4
3.07 Eesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-5
3.08 Flood Plain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-5
3.09 Air Quality and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-5
3.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste . . . . . . . . . . . EA-5
4.00 COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-6
5.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-6
6.00 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) . . . . . . EA-7
0 i
•
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
RING WATER TREATMENT PLANT - YADKIN RIVER
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
•
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.01 Project Authorization and History. Under authority of
Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, a study was
conducted to address the streambank erosion problems along the
Yadkin River at King, North Carolina (see figure 1, "Location
Map"). Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the water
intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could
result in potential long term disruption of public water service.
Federal implementation of a streambank protection plan was
determined to be justified.
1.02 Proposed Action. The recommended plan consists of riprap
slope protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the
Yadkin River. Project construction will involve grading the
existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal to 1-vertical slope. Approxi-
mately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth will be placed
on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-
inch layer of Class 2 riprap. A site plan is shown in plates 1 and
2; a typical section is shown in figure 3.
The vertical distance fror
riverbed is about 18 feet. The
and maintenance access) will
waterward of the toe of the sl
approximately 25 feet beyond tl
will be graded and grassed.
replacing riprap as needed, anc
area a minimum of two times a
the top of the riverbank to the
project area (including riprap area
extend from approximately 8 feet
ope to a line parallel to the bank
e top of the bank. The access area
Maintenance work will consist of
mowing and fertilizing the grassed
year.
The proposed project will run from the downstream limit at
station 2+00 (near a fire hydrant) to the upstream limit at station
5+00 (300 feet) (see plate 2).
1.03 Purpose and Need. In November 1992 the City of King,
North Carolina, Water Treatment Plant raw intake station began
experiencing severe flow restriction. The natural flow of the
channel was being diverted by the erosion of the east bank, which
caused sediment and several trees to separate from a section of the
east bank and enter the Yadkin River. The sediment and trees
caused a diversion of normal flow, producing a "stilling" effect
immediately downstream of the erosion and creating a sand and
debris formation in the vicinity of the City's raw water intake.
Besides restricting flow to the raw water intake, continued erosion .
could cause damage to the raw water intake station, thereby
threatening the operation of the Water Treatment Plant. Damage to
the water intake structure could result in potential long term
disruption of public water service. Federal implementation of a
streambank protection plan was determined to be justified.
2.00 ALTERNATIVES
2.01 Gabions and Fabriform. The use of gabions and fabriform
was considered; however, these materials were determined to be more
costly than riprap protection.
2.02 Sheetpile. A sheetpile retaining wall was also consid-
ered, but was eliminated due to the location of bed rock at the bed
of the river. The 20-inch water intake was anchored by drilling
into rock from the river bed to a depth of about 5 feet. There-
fore, rock would be encountered at an elevation much too high to
provide adequate surface friction to maintain stability of a
sheetpile wall.
2.03 No Action Alternative. The no action alternative could
result in significant adverse social and economic impacts to the
local community. Continued erosion of the riverbank would cause
damage to the intake structure of the water treatment plant and
could render the water treatment plant inoperable. Therefore, the
no action alternative is not feasible.
3.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
3.01 Water Quality. The North Carolina water quality classifi-
cation assigned to the Yadkin River, from the mouth of the Ararat
River to a point 0.5 mile upstream of the mouth of Bashavia creek
is WS-IV (15A NCAC 2B .0309). WS-IV waters are protected as water
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The project is expected to have a favorable long-term effect on
water quality, since bank erosion results in increased sediment and
debris in the river, thereby increasing turbidity and restricting
flow. The placement of a riprapped surface on a sandy, severely
eroded surface should reduce turbidity below present conditions.
rI
L
EA-2
• A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) water quality certificate is
required from the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Planning, Raleigh, N.C., and has been requested.
A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation report has been prepared and is
included as attachment A. A Section 404 public notice will be sent
out for a 30-day review concurrent with the public review for the
EA.
No adverse impacts to groundwater resources are expected to
occur as a result of the proposed activity.
3.02 Benthos. Approximately 2,400 square feet of sandy stream
bottom habitat will be converted to hard substrate (riprap). The
riprap is expected to become inhabited by organisms adapted to hard
substrate.
3.03 Fisheries. No negative impacts to the nektonic community
are expected to occur. In fact, impacts to fisheries resources
would be positive as placement of riprap will decrease turbidity in
the Yadkin River by stabilizing the eroding bank. In addition, bank
stabilization will prevent trees from entering the Yadkin River,
thereby keeping flow rates at a normal level.
3.04 Terrestrial Resources. Impacts to terrestrial resources
will result from the clearing of approximately 0.28 acre of
vegetation along the east bank of the Yadkin River. Based on a
site visit by the Corps of Engineers on June 9, 1993, it was
evident that erosion along the riverbank has destroyed some of the
existing vegetation and, if allowed to continue, will destroy even
more vegetation. Therefore, the clearing of the 0.28 acre is
necessary to protect a much larger area, including adjacent
agricultural lands and the King Water Treatment Plant Water Intake
Station.
•
EA-3
3. 05 Threatened and Endangered Species. The proposed work has •
been reviewed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. The following species may occur in the project
area and must be considered:
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a resident of mature (70+ years)
pine forests of the project region. A site visit conducted by the
Corps of Engineers on June 9, 1993 revealed that the project offers
very poor habitat for the species. As no conclusive evidence of
red-cockaded woodpeckers was found, the species is believed to be
absent from the area; therefore, the proposed action will not
affect this species.
Small-anthered bittercress grows in flood plains and_ on
streambanks; however, due to the disturbed nature of the project
site, habitat for small-anthered bittercress is absent; therefore,
the project will not impact this species.
3.06 Archeological/Historical Resources. During the initial
review of the proposed project, it was determined that several
archeological sites were in the vicinity of the King Water
Treatment Plant. These sites were discovered during a survey of
the "Great Bend" area of the Yadkin River which was undertaken by
Wake Forest University. In order to determine if any proposed
activity associated with the project would impact any of these
sites, the existing water treatment facilities and the three known
archeological sites which exist within the area were located in the
field by a team of surveyors. The known site locations (fish
weirs) and existing facilities are shown on plate 2. None of the
known sites would be affected by any of the project features as
currently planned, and no further surveys are required.
Since the project is located in an area with a very high
potential to contain significant archeological resources, care will
be taken to keep all construction activity within the designated
construction limits. If plans change and a borrow or disposal area
is necessary outside of the currently known project limits,
additional cultural resource surveys would be performed. Caution
will also be exercised using the access road to the project site,
since known archeological resources exist along portions of its
length.
0
EA-4
• 3.07 Esthetic Resources. The grading of the riverbank and
placement of riprap is not expected to have a significant adverse
visual effect in the project area. The existing streambank is
severely eroded and much of the existing vegetation has already
been lost.
3.08 Flood Plain. No practicable alternative exists to
performing the work within the flood plain of the Yadkin River.
The proposed action would not affect the natural and beneficial
values of the flood plain.
3.09 Air Quality and Noise. No significant impacts will occur.
The noise level increase in the immediate vicinity of construction
will be temporary. No impacts to air quality of the area will
occur.
3.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste. During the site visit on June
9, 1993 the project area was surveyed for potential hazardous and
toxic waste (HTW). No evidence of HTW was found; therefore, it is
not expected that any hazardous and toxic waste sites will be
encountered during construction or maintenance of the project.
U
EA-5
4.00 COORDINATION
Representatives from the following agencies were contacted
regarding the proposed action:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, North Carolina
No public meeting has been held. However, Corps representatives
met with Mr. Tom New, Superintendent of Public Utilities, City of
King, N.C., on June 9, 1993 and discussed options for a solution to
the streambank erosion problem.
5.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS
This Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact is being circulated for information to the following
agencies and individuals.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Forest Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Environmental Health
National Marine Fisheries Service
State Clearinghouse
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Sierra Club
Izaac Walton League
Federal Highway Administration
National Audubon Society
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Energy
Cape Fear Community College
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
Duke University Department of Geology
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Librarian, North Carolina Environmental Resources
UNC-Wilmington Library
North Carolina State Library
Library
•
•
EA-6
• 6.00 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
The proposed action will not significantly affect the quality
of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared.
Attachment
•
EA-7
• SECTION 404(B)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No.
, dated
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary
A review of the NEPA Document indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging
practicable alternative and if in a
special aquatic site, the activity
associated with the discharge must
have direct access or proximity to,
or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic
purpose (if no, see section 2 and
information
gathered in the NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water
quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section
307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the
existence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species or
their habitat; and 3) violate
requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no,
see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water
quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant
degradation of waters of the U.S.
including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms
dependent on the aquatic ecosystem,
ecosystem diversity, productivity
and stability, and recreational,
esthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
have been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 21 See page A-6
r1
LJ
Final 3,/
YESI_I NOI_I* YESI9I NOI-I
YESI_' NOI_I* YESI3EI NOI_I
YESI_I NOI_I* YESIjI NOI_I
YESI_I NOI_I* YESjjj NOI-I
A-1
Not Signifi- Signifi- .
2. Techaical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F1 N/A cant cant*
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Subspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat. X
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web. X
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). X
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Esthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page A-6
X
X
X
•
A-2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the
biological availability of possible
contaminants in dredged or fill
material. (Check only those
appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation (_)
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other
sources
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man-induced discharge activities I_I
(8) Other sources (specify) I_I
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA/FONSI "Yadkin River - King Water Treatment Plant,
Section 14 - Emergency Bank Protection, Forsyth County, North
Carolina," dated December, 1993.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site. _
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES (XI No I_I*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page A-6
•
A-3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site
(3) Degree of turbulence
(4) Water column stratification
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction
(6) Rate of discharge
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities)
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
F- -I
L---j
IxI
191
I3I
IxI
IxI
Reference: EA/FONSI "Yadkin River - King Water Treatment Plant,
Section 14 - Emergency Bank Protection, Forsyth County, North
Carolina," dated December, 1993.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable YES IXI NO I-
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed _
discharge. List actions taken. YES IXI NO I_I*
For water quality see Section 3.01 of the EA/FONSI.
For benthos see Section 3.02 of the EA/FONSI.
For fisheries see Section 3.03 of the EA/FONSI.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page A-6.
*See page A-6
•
A-4
• 6. Factual Determinations (230.111.
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5).
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem.
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem.
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
*See page A-6
•
YES IRI NO I_I*
YES IjI NO I-I*
YES 191 NO I _I*
YES IRI NO I _I*
YES 191 NO ( _I*
YES IjI NO I -I*
YES IXI NO I-I*
YES IXI NO I-I*
191
A-5
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative I_I
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem 1_i
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem I_
8.
Date:
Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
.J/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this
stage indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this
"short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions
of the technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final
review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the
economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is
inappropriate."
2/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
•
•
A-6

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
Part II - Signed Finding of No Significant Impact

•
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
40 JULY 1994
• FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JULY 1994
1.00 INTRODUCTION
The project area includes a 300-foot section of the east bank
of the Yadkin River, which begins approximately 2,000 feet
upstream from the NC Highway 67 bridge, near the City of King,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The King Water Treatment Plant is
located on the east bank of the Yadkin River about 0.25 mile
inland from the river at this location and the plant's water
intake pipe is about 2,100 feet upstream from the NC Highway 67
bridge. Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the water
intake structure, which could result in potential long term
disruption of public water service.
Under the authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control
Act, as amended, a study entitled Draft Feasibility Report and
Environmental Assessment on Emergency Streambank Erosion Control,
King Water Treatment Plant, City of King, Forsyth County, North
Carolina, April 1994, was conducted to address the subject
streambank erosion problems.
2.00 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action consists of riprap slope protection along
a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River. Project
construction would involve grading the existing bank to a 2.5-
horizontal to 1-vertical slope. Approximately 4,000 square yards
of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded surface,
followed by a 12-inch layer of North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of
Class 2 riprap. A site plan is shown in Plates 1 and 2; a
typical section is shown in Figure 2.
The vertical distance from the top of the riverbank to the
riverbed is about 10 feet. The project area (including riprap
area and maintenance access) would extend from approximately 8
feet waterward of the toe of the slope to a line parallel to the
bank approximately 25 feet beyond the top of the bank. The
access area would be graded and grassed and maintenance work
would consist of replacing riprap as needed, and mowing and
fertilizing the grassed area a minimum of two times a year.
• The proposed project would run from the downstream limit at
station 2+00 (near the fire hydrant) to the upstream limit at
station 5+00 (300 feet)(Plate 2). The protection would .
transition from the existing slope protection on the downstream
end to natural ground on the upstream limit at the natural
drainage feature.
3.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Draft Feasibilit
Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergencv Streambank
Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, City of King,
Forsyth County, North Carolina, April 1994. The report will be
referenced throughout the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) as the Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment
(EA).
4.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION
The project was coordinated informally by telephone with
representatives of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
On April 20, 1994, the Feasibility Report and EA was mailed
to Federal and State agencies and the interested public for a 30-
day review and comment period. As a result, letters were
received from the USFWS; the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and
several agencies of the State of North Carolina, including the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Copies of letters received are included as attachment
1. Letters related to water quality certification are included
as attachment 2.
5.00 RESULTS OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION
All comments received on the Feasibility Report were
considered in making the decision to sign the FONSI. Pertinent
comments from each commenter are summarized and addressed below.
5.01 N.C. Division of Environmental Management; letter of
April 25, 1994.
All correspondence pertaining to Section 401 Water
Quality Certification is included as attachment 2.
COMMENT: The application for 401 certification has been
reviewed, there are no objections to the work as planned,
and we will be able to issue a 401 Certification when we
are notified that the EA/FONSI is complete.
RESPONSE: Noted.
•
2
5.02 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); letter of
April 29, 1994.
COMMENT: We have determined that the resources for which
we are responsible will not be impacted by the proposed
project.
RESPONSE: Noted.
5.03 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); letter of
May 13, 1994.
COMMENT: We believe that no significant wetlands areas
will be affected by the proposed project. The Service
has identified no endangered species or threatened
species, nor critical habitats that would be affected by
the proposed project.
RESPONSE: Noted.
COMMENT: The Service remains concerned that the proposed
project could lead to increased erosion and future demands
for additional hard, bank stabilization projects.
RESPONSE: Two potential causes of increased erosion are
velocity increases and increased turbulence. The slope of
the bank in the project area will be lessened, thereby,
increasing the flow area and diminishing velocity (to some
extent). In addition, the existing shoreline is very
irregular and the proposed project will straighten the
shoreline, thereby, streamlining flow and decreasing
turbulence in the vicinity of the project. For these
reasons, it is thought that the proposed project will reduce
the erosion potential at the site rather than increase
erosion potential.
COMMENT: The Corps should determine whether the operation of
dams on the Yadkin both above and below the proposed project
contribute to the present erosion problem by creating rapid
and/or extreme water fluctuations which inhibit natural
vegetative cover.
RESPONSE: Although W. Kerr Scott Dam is upstream of the
project area, and could potentially affect water levels at
the project site, only 20 percent of the project drainage
area is controlled by W. Kerr Scott (the drainage area at the
project site is 1,659 square miles and the drainage area of
W. Kerr Scott is 367 square miles). Although releases at
dams such as W. Kerr Scott, which have no power production
capabilities, would be expected to cause measurable increases
• in water levels and flow velocities from 5 to 10 miles away
3
from the dam, with impacts decreasing as the distance from
the dam increases. The project area is approximately 64
miles downstream from W. Kerr Scott dam, therefore, it is
thought that releases from W. Kerr Scott have no measurable
effect on water levels or flow velocities at the project site
and, thus, do not inhibit the growth of natural vegetation by
causing increased erosion.
Idols Dam is the closest dam downstream from the project
site. It is approximately 15 feet high and due to its size
and its distance from the project area (27 miles), it would
not have an effect on water levels or flow velocities at the
project site.
COMMENT: Based on the expected relatively minor
environmental impacts, the Service does not oppose the
project proposed by this study. However, the Service
believes the following recommendations should be incorporated
into project plans to minimize the expected adverse impacts
on fish and wildlife resources and their habitats:
1. All appropriate sediment control procedures should be
applied during construction; and
2. All construction should occur in the fall, preferably
during the months of September through November. Such
construction schedule would minimize adverse impacts on
spawning by such species as the largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and redbreasted
sunfish (Lepomis auritus).
RESPONSE: All applicable State requirements will be met and
every attempt will be made to perform the work in the fall,
as requested. Any deviation from this schedule will be
coordinated with the USFWS.
5.04 N.C. Devartment of Cultural Resources; letter dated
May 17, 1994.
COMMENT: The Environmental Assessment prepared for this
project indicates the proposed work has been evaluated
according to the provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and no impacts to known
archaeological or historical resources will occur. However,
we have not been previously consulted nor involved in this
determination.
RESPONSE: During the initial project planning stages the
Wilmington District contacted the Archaeology Branch of your
office and were informed that this project was within the
boundaries of the proposed Yadkin River Archaeological
4
• District and that further information on this proposed
District could be gathered from Dr. J. Ned Woodall of Wake
Forest University. Dr. Woodall was contacted and provided
information on sites 31Fy153, 31Fy317, and the two fish weirs
(31Fy812 and 31Fy813). It was determined that site 31FY317
was not within the project area, but that site 31Fy153 and
the fish weirs might be affected. During the engineering
survey of the project area, soundings were taken in the river
to determine the exact location of the fish weirs. The weirs
were plotted on the enclosed project map and found to be
outside of the project's area of effect, since the weirs are
completely submerged and all construction would take place on
land. Site 31Fy157 was plotted and due to a mapping error
was thought to be outside the project's area of effect. We
have determined that the site is within the area of effect,
but that the project area has been disturbed by past
construction associated with the water treatment plant.
Mr. Richard Lewis of my staff has discussed this project with
Dr. Billy Oliver of the Archaeology Branch and it has been
determined that testing of the area of the site adjacent to
the shoreline would be appropriate. This testing would be
undertaken to determine the stratigraphy of the site and to
document that extent of past disturbance. For the sake of
efficiency this testing would be accomplished by means of a
backhoe trench excavated parallel to the shoreline. This
work would be accomplished during the plans and specification
stage of the project, but prior to the commencement of
construction.
5.05 N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Intergovernmental Review, Project Comments,
dated May 12, 1994.
COMMENT: The applicant should be advised that plans and
specifications for all water system improvements must be
approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as
required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. sec.).
RESPONSE: Although the proposed bank stabilization project
should offer protection to the existing water intake pipe at
the King Water Treatment Plant, direct improvements to the
water system are not part of the proposed project.
Therefore, approval of plans and specifications by the
Division of Environmental Health should not be necessary.
COMMENT: A Dredge and Fill Permit may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
n
U
5
RESPONSE: All applicable State Permits will be obtained •
prior to project construction.
COMMENT: An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
required if one or more acres will be disturbed.
RESPONSE: Less than one acre will be disturbed; therefore, a
sedimentation and erosion control plan will not be required.
5.06 N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission; letter dated
May 6, 1994.
COMMENT: We concur with the findings of the EA and have no
further comments.
RESPONSE: Noted.
5.07 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary; letters dated May 24, 1994, and June 9,
1994.
COMMENT: See comments in section 5.03.
RESPONSE: See responses in section 5.03.
COMMENT: It appears that degradation of the streambank and
siltation of the river downstream could be better controlled
if construction took place in late summer to early fall (July
through September).
RESPONSE: As stated previously, every attempt will be made
to perform the work in the fall; any deviation from this
schedule will be coordinated with the USGS and the USFWS.
6.00 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, Section 3.05, the
proposed work has been reviewed for compliance with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and informal
coordination with the USFWS and NMFS has been completed. As
stated above, the USFWS has identified no endangered species or
threatened species, nor critical habitats that would be affected
by the proposed project. Therefore, the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, have been satisfied.
•
6
•
7.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following commitment must be fulfilled.
0
The seasonal window of late summer to early fall will be
adhered to if at all possible. Deviation from this window will
require coordination with the USFWS and USGS.
8.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no known areas of controversy or major unresolved
issues associated with the proposed action. Comments received
during the coordination of the referenced EA failed to note any
additional categories of environmental impacts.
9.00 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
The proposed action will not significantly affect the quality
of the human environment; therefore, an environmental impact
statement will not be prepared.
DATE:
i \41 i q
Robert Sperberg
Colonel,
District Engineer
Attachments
7

si g S Y O K '° E S -'
SURRY CO. _
I 't' " ° .e:

usr Ld41,
?
tit `
Uft Ma -
•
LkaL
3210
L•9i 1 ; U3L . I ;;
WATER u„ uu •"12
? t.La
PLANT ,., ? rebeeee. ' ?'1

10
r ? ?o '.?, tLL•.
• 'l1N.
?.
u um LLll ? a v
a " tlLT /?LN T ?p Lon
1.?

? 'r O I i'
a/
it
O
V u

?d•lo• 1 ?
? I _, l'
i I uu r
? e
r
re.? ' _ r.. ?
•

Q r v .'
\ h
11
PAS
1

pro
' G SCALE } , . K(S
04
l um
?•n ? Fowh ?
?
?:
.
. 1.:•.j
Gen...:?^ !2. •i'Ati?•?? ?,. it Lm COUNTY, N. C.
CITY OF KING, N.C.
WATER PLANT
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE I `
•
0
w n.
W
W
X ?
W
H
O N
W r
O 0 F-
Q
z V Z W
m Q Z
F-
0 W
W W
O
P O \
ZOZ
.--y Q
U
O D-
W
Z
cv e ?LLJC,
O a / - z aZV)
.? VN1QNm aw_cr
a m p W cr f- p O • f-
1--
O o0pZa ZZ
aa0?-0 LAC
Q ?- v W
o I
z
x0 0 ,- J Q
a: waw 3
w p cDwam '-
`? Q o C?
Ln rW- ~ Z
r- O W
z DY
O
O 0
~
O N
U Z N I
z N ..
a
v v:
N
W
CL
O
J
N
a
O
J
N
4.
O
W
O
Figure 2
•
•
aY
a6? 0 3
b5? z
Q
as g ; ,?,,.. ? W 3
?i?7aw?w.u ? [Gd
14th
5?:: ! a3e .
000
x
cr o
? «f
?' I O Z
{ 44?i V' r
r
N
ti 00 2 715 'XOHddV
NO 1^xu 3dOlS N 103e
4
I ppa?
.a x
x ??a
4. t 0'
r ?
IS dtJ
NO 11 310 dX3d IS ON3
?r
ap a, a i
0 g.9 r
4 ? 4
a ?
-a
eSd 9
I S.?
•
•
5
-
a?
? Y a a

?
} i
F«
F
?
!i ? ^.d
1
C3

d ti«.nr } a

aid

i i
'
?
00+0

© d ©
? 00+1

. ?. ? r
w

q ?' = a
C
y i. ? ?' y"S r
V
! 00+2 'd15 'XOddddtl
N0110310Hd UOlS N1038 V
?ZV1
f? ? a
e 0' r
l E z
J I J?
y'
f• Y
97 ? 1/1
?
l
1.
00+E a
?
Q¢
C7J' VI
?+
F
} E? • L i ?`a
00+v
z i
7

i a
dd
00+
NO I1 310 dX3tl lS ON3

k

a

0 +9 }

g@
a i

'c
ne
?iSd !
a5a ,

N
d
w
U
Attachment 1
NEPA Comments.

•
I
Of
CP = UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
s NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES S RVICE
"Arts ,qHabitat Conservation Division
9721 Executive Center Drive
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
April 29, 1994
Colonel George L. Cajigal
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention Ms. Jenny Owens
Dear Colonel Cajiga1:
Please reference your April 15, 1994, letter requesting comments on
the Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency'.
Streambank Erosion Control King Water Treatment Plant Kina North
Carolina.
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment and the Draft Finding
of No Significant Impact and have determined that resources for
which we are responsible will not be impacted by the proposed
project. Therefore, we have no comments.
Sincerely,
pyc4:? .
Andreas Mager, Jr.
c?7 Assistant Regional Director

cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC
NCDEHNR, Morehead City, NC
F/SE02
1-1
i sI
.? I
--To ?7:: i - It
J
TAKE?? M"
United States Department of the Interior a +ER!--
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
May 13, 1994
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
Under Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, the
Wilmington District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
proposes to implement a riprap bank stabilization plan along a 300-
foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River, near the City of
King, Forsyth County, North Carolina. This work is necessary to
prevent blockage of the raw water intake pipe of the King Water
Treatment Plant.
This report is provided in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act). The purpose of this letter is
to describe the fish and wildlife resources within the study area,
assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources,
discuss fish and wildlife resource problems and conservation
opportunities, -.ands recommend measures to conserve f ish• and wildl ife
resources. This report has been coordinated W'Ith the -North Carolina
Wildlife Resources, Commission (Stephanie Gaudreau, NCWRC, personal
communication, May 1994), and they concur with these
recommendations.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the
Draft Feasibility Report, Environmental Assessment (EA), and Draft
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project. We have
examined the topographic map and National Wetland Inventory map
(Vienna quadrangle) which show the project site.
Based on this review we conclude that the project will impact both •
the streambed and vegetation on the eastern bank of the Yadkin
River. The project will convert approximately 2,400 square feet of
sandy, stream bottom habitat to hard substrate. This will
1-2-
eliminate habitat for those benthic organisms which require
unconsolidated streambed habitat, but provide rock substrate for
other organisms. The project would require the clearing of 0.28
acres of vegetation along the bank.
Based on our project review, we believe that no significant
wetlands areas will be affected by the proposed project. Two
Federally-listed endangered species are known to occur in Forsyth
County. They are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Pico.ides borealis)
and the small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine• micranthera). The
Service has identified no endangered or threatened species, nor
critical habitats that would be affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of that
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts
of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not
considered in this review; or, (3) a new species or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We agree with the Corps' assessment that construction will result
in increased turbidity in the Yadkin River. Although this
condition may be temporary, there will be short-term, adverse
impacts on both invertebrates and vertebrate downstream from the
project area.
The Feasibility Report states that the river floods over the banks
at the proposed site at least once a year. Such flooding could
lead to erosion at both ends and landward of the proposed riprap.
If additional erosion occurs, there could be demands to enlarge the
proposed project. Thus, the Service remains concerned that the
proposed project could lead to increased erosion and future demands
for additional hard, bank stabilization projects.
The Service is also concerned that the operations of dams both up
and downstream from the project site may be contributing to the
"fluctuating river levels and high velocities" (Feasibility
Report, p. 3) which are contributing to the current erosion
problem.
While the loss of fish and wildlife habitat for this specific
project may be relatively small, the Service is concerned about the
cumulative impacts which this and similar projects may have in the
future.
Based on the concerns expressed above, the Service recommends that
the Corps consider the following long-term measure to further
minimize any adverse, environmental impacts on wetlands and
wildlife resources. The Corps should investigate ways to enhance
• the natural erosion control functions of the small floodplain at
the project site. our map review indicates that the Yadkin River
near the project site has a relatively narrow, but distinct,
floodplain. The natural functions of such floodplains are to
1-3
dissipate floodwaters and allow natural vegetation to reduce flow
velocity, control erosion, and improve water quality in other ways.
Erosion control could be achieved by restoring natural vegetation
to the floodplain and river bank. In order to facilitate the
return of natural bank vegetation, the Corps should determine
whether the operation of dams on the Yadkin both above and below
proposed project contribute to the present erosion problem by
creating rapid and/or extreme water fluctuations which inhibit
natural vegetative cover.
The Service realizes that this long-term solution will not
alleviate the immediate problem. Therefore, based on the expected
relatively minor environmental impacts, the Service does not oppose
the project proposed by this study. However, the Service believes
that the following recommendations should be incorporated into
project plans to minimize the expected adverse impacts on fish and
wildlife resources and their habitats:
1. All appropriate sediment control procedures should be
applied during construction; and
2. All construction should occur in the fall, preferably during
the months of September through November. Such a
construction schedule would minimize adverse impacts on
spawning by such species as the largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and redbreasted
sunfish (Lepomis auritus).
The service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please advise us of any action taken by the Wilmington District,
Corps of Engineers. If you should need any additional information
or clarification of our recommendations, please contact Howard
Hall, the biologist handling this project.
Sincerely,
L. K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor
•

-y
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FSP8 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
05723-'94 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO:
DEPT. OF THE ARMY
JENNY OWENS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
FROM:
MKS. CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
": C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON EMERGENCY
STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT, CITY OF
KING
SAI NO 94E00000782 PROGRAM TITLE - DRAFT FEAS. REPORT/ENV. ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT CF THE REV[-ri THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS9 PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION I
•
/-s-
State of North Cur olina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee V
A IVA
V
DEHNR
RE: 94-0782 King Water Treatment Streambank Erosion Control
DATE: May 12, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

is
/-6
P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
\N l) N:\'I UIt.
U(V[51??\ <)I: l:;NVI1.:Ui\lNl'c-N'I .=, 1_
• L.O Ll [1 Cy
Inter-Agency Project Review Resr:?nse
Project Name Type of Project
The applicant should be advise that plans and specifications for all water sys.-:n
` improvements must be approved b-.- the Division of Environmental Health prior to the a-'-' c
110 - - 7,
of a contract or the initiation of c: nstruction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .031- et, s::. .
For information, contact the Pub...- Water Supply Section, [phone].
?--? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
_-? state and federal drinking water me nitoring requirements. For more information the appl::_--
should contact the Public Water : Apply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as pr: dosed, we will recommend closure of feet of adj2.:_ ::
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfisTsanica:ion pr: g: a
m, the applicant should contact : Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) propose= o: this project may produce a mosquito breeding pro` -A-m.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant
contact the Public Health Pest 1``_:nagement Section at (919) 726-897C.
r-? The applicant should ue ad-,-ise _ that prior to the removal or demolition o` ailaoi__: ==
i-J scractures, an extensive rodent c-ntrol program ma?: be necessary in order to preven: -
migration of the rodents to ad :_-ent areas. The information. concerning roee:lt cc:-.
contact the local health departrntnz or the Public Health Pest Management. Sec::on at
733-6407.
r---? The applicant should be advise to contact the local health department regarding e'=
u requirements for septic tank ins:_llations (as requiree under 15A NCAC 1SA .1500 et.:e__;
For information concerning septa tank and other on-site 'waste disposal methods, contan.7-:!
On-Site Wastewater Section at (=19) 733-2895.
?-? The applicant should be advised :o contract the local health department regarding the
U facilities required for this projec-.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water
relocation must be submitted to -he Division of Environmental Health, Public Watei
Section, Plan Review Branch, 13:0 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 73..--
x,11
Reviewer _1ction/Branch Dat-1
•
/-7
State Of North Carollna
>Dep fitment of Enfrir6nment, Health, and Natural R lsovrota Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. pue;,, ate:
'1/-D7 -9
After review of this project H has boon determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicated MY haled to be obtained in
ordor for Mis project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Cuestionis wparding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the favors* of Ow Corm. .
All AppliGttjont. ltifOmutlbn Mind guidelines tslatiw to these plans and permits an available from the aaane
Itagional Oft e. Nonhai Process
Ttrme
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS tstalutory tonne
arrmit)
Permit to conatriael 6 operate wastewaler trsatmMI Application 0o dart before begin construction Or award of 20 ars
farllltisa. Bower system stionslons, a Bawer eonslrueli" contracts on-site inspection. Post apprieatWn
systems hell "harging into state surface, haters. se0hnicat conference Yaual AO Gert)
NPDES - Permit to discharge Into surface water 111001 Appift:atlon 100 days before begin activity On-sNe inspection. 10.120 Mrs
permit to Operate and construct wastewater tac"iss Pr••applicati0n Conference usual Additionally, obtain perms to
dtachNpine info state surface immors. construct wastewater trastment facitityipranted after NPDES Reply 0WA)
Clime. 30 Cars after receipt of pions or Issue of NPOES
permmil-whichevvf is Wer.
Water sloe Pon WI Prraapplfcatlon s•chniNl t:ontr•nce usually neesssary
30 says
(NIA)
7 oars
Well Cor+stnretwn hrnsit wr
Keirad anC psrtnfl Issued
C of 1
i
i on
t
ns
u
ea
l
p
he
a
t
0
af
i
0 S (1S darrs)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian properly bid oars
tMeOg• and Flu Peffm owner On-sill inspe:rr0n. he+pplicalron conference usual Fuling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C Department of 1190 days)
/administration and Federal Dtivov and Fill Permit.
Permit to eonetrvet A operate Alf Pollution Abatement 60 ears
fa:ilifies an610. Emission Sources as per 1SA NCAC 211 NIA (W dare)
Any open burning associated wlth subject ptopo"
must be in compliance with 1SA NCAC 2DAM.
Demoltlron of f1howatrons of structures containing
ASbellos material must be in compliance with 1SA - 67 Ctrs
NCAC 2D 0529. which repuires notification and removal WA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
1 733-08" t9C oars)
Co lee Source Permit required under 1SA NCAC MOM
rte Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be pfoperly addressed to, any fond dislurbin? a:tivlty. An erosion S sedimentaiio
control plan will be required If one or mote acres to be disturbed Plan tiled with proper Regions' Office (Land Ovatity Sect.l at least 30 20 oars
day* before be .nnin acUvlt A fee o1 $30 for the first acre and fi?o DO for ea:n adddrona' a:te or arl must accompany the tart (30 esys)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the refeirenced local Ordinance: (30 days)
On site Inspection usual Surety bond filed with EHNR Bond amount
Mining Po" M varies with type mine and numbet of acres or affected land Any was 30 ears
mined gtester than one we must be permited. The appropnale bond tW ears)
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
North Carotins Burning p•rinit on-site Inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources It permit t say
eaceeds a days (NIA)
Special Oround Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N 0. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
Counties In coastal N.C. with organic s011A than rive acres of ground creating stlivtties ate Involved Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at feast ten days before actual burn is planned'
oo 1?c dart
Oil Refining Facilities WA (NrA)
It permit required, epplicaGon W days berote begin conslruetion.
Applicant must h:re N C quat f-ed erg%neer to prepare plans. x days
Mom Safety Permt. inspect constfuc-'.a, tee'.`: • onsituction fs according to EHNR appror
(60 dAys)
ed plans. May sfsu ivquiit permit under mosqullo control program. And
• a 404 peirnil ffom Cops of Eng:nccis An inspection of site Is neces•
say to verlfy I(A:e-d C4esrGcalion. A minimum Ire of t2':V? tp mull x•
company the appf;cs'i:n. An ed!;14;^a' processing fire (asstd on a
•
Moral Ntass
Time
ftotmr C SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES of IREOUIREMENTS autuiory ume
Mmit)
Fite autety bond of RS,000 w1th EKNR rvhning 10 Sta,e Of N.C. 10 aye
McMt to *W aapioratory OR at on "a conditional that any wen opened by trill operator $"I. VW. 4NIA)
aDandorwtont• be plugger moording to EKNR tries and regiAatieea.
1 Wow"l w anowNion p6mut Application 11106 with ENNR at Mail 10" p?tor b have of Pei! nlt W ay/
Appli"tton by 61101. No tlanaare 8001"On torn.
11iIA)
state tJkea Coeatttraion Pomwl Appliation tat Owed on strYClure aloe is tha?pee Must & Wude 1Llp pelt
eest:ription s t drawltip of structure 8 prool of ownerahrp MU)
a rlpa?tan preo•r+r•

401 woof Ouatlly Csiftilicoson WA (130 days)
65 days
CAUA Pe"M lot MAJOR 6trr0opim I t;?w-m toe ft m w4omwr appirdalbn (150 aysi
22 days
CAUA Pemdt lot MINOR dtveloprfterit =50.00 tee thus, Woompany opf"I" CPS Gays)
Severat geodetic 191 ew"Wnts are located in er tea, the project area K ant monuments nerd to be moved or esesiroyta. Please noitly.
N.C 13104e11t survey, boa 27687• Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Atiandanrlent of any wells. N required, must be in actordanCe with Trite ISA, 5040 ple? 2C.M00.
Notifiealion of tM proper regional W(m Is m4wsted If -orphan- undergroung al age tanks (USTS) are discovered during any ereevaiton operation.
Compliance with 1SA NCAC 2M'1000 (Coasta! Stornwater Rules) is required.

I 45 clays
(NIA)
I
t Other t:otnthents (attach additional pages as Wessa?y, being t:erta+n to eta wn+rt+ent wthortty).
IT lS U11G6. wNi` 61'16ft- a4- 11'eu1V7y
?U TI ?l?j? O,G T1 f lS /?•?G?Gs ??/' '.<,?cr/(.?i/` ,
70rl't' 51-V5,;z

/7- so v??
!r`-Zy-yam
REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be'addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Re eonal Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
t
714 W
t
S
h
ildi
B
59 Woodlin Place ng
ui
e
ac
ov
a
u
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? i,rooiesville Regional Office
h M
Str
i
t
P
O
919 N
B
M ? Ra'eiph Regional Office
3P'>3 Barr
ite 101
i
tt O
S
n
ee
,
.
ort
a
.
ox
Mooresville, NC 28115 r
e
ve,
u
Fa'ei h, NC 27609
(7041663-1699 (919) 7332314
?Washinglon Regional Office D% ilmington Regional (ffice
1424 Catolina venue 127 Ca-d,nal Drive E.ic!nSion

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 6, 1994
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0782, Feasibility
Report and Environmental Assessment for emergency
streambank erosion control at the King Water Treatment
Plant, Forsyth County.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments regarding the Feasibility Report and
Environmental Assessment (EA) for emergency streambank erosion
control at the King Water Treatment Plant in Forsyth County.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a feasibility
study for the City of King to develop a bank stabilization plan
for a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River that
will protect the water intake structure at the King Water
Treatment Plant. The proposed project consists of grading the
existing bank to a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical slope, then
placing geotextile filter cloth on the graded surface followed by
a 12-inch layer of #17 stone then a 21-inch layer of Class 2
riprap.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission concur with the findings of the EA and have no further
comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
this project. If you have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist •
I_/0
•
..swt
U44--,
(, / N
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
0
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 17, 1994
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Robert J. Sperberg
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Re: Streambank erosion control, King Water Treatment
Plant, Forsyth County, 94-E-0000-0782
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
The Environmental Assessment prepared for this project indicates the proposed
work has been evaluated according to the provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and no impacts to known archaeological or
historical resources will occur. However, we have not been previously consulted
nor involved in this determination.
Given the location of two archaeological sites (31 FY153, 31 FY317) and two fish
weirs (31 FY812, 31 FY813) within or near the boundaries for the proposed project,
we recommend an experienced archaeologist determine the presence and potential
effects on cultural resources which may be eligible for listing in the National
`Register of Historic Places. Specifically, we recommend archaeological testing of
the 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River proposed for grading and
sloping. Testing should be directed towards determination of the nature, extent,
condition, and significance of cultural resources that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed undertaking. Upon completion of the archaeological
testing and submission of a draft report, we will gladly continue our review of this
project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 Fast Jones Strxt • Rikigh. North Cuotina 27001-2807
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions •
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
4?avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ate Clearinghouse
Richard Kimmel, Army Corps of Engineers
•
1~/Z.
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
78 Spring Street, B.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
May 24, 1994
ER-94/369
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Feasibility
Report (DFR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) of the bank
stabilization plan for the Yadkin River, near the City of King,
Forsyth County, North Carolina, to prevent blockage of the raw
water intake pipe of the King Water Treatment Plant. The Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) comments are provided in accordance with
Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
Based upon our review, we conclude that the project will impact
both the streambed and vegetation on the eastern bank of the
Yadkin River. The project will convert approximately 2,400 square
feet of sandy, stream bottom habitat to hard substrate. This will
eliminate habitat for those benthic organisms which require
unconsolidated streambed habitat, but will provide rack substrate
for other organisms. The project requires the clearing of 0.28
acres of vegetation along the bank. We believe the proposed
project will not affect any significant wetland areas.
Although the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the
small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera), two federally
listed endangered species, occur in Forsyth County, the Service
does not believe that any listed species or critical habitat would
be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the requirements
of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of that Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
• species or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by
the identified action.
1,13
The Department concurs with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) •
assessment that construction will result in increased turbidity in
the Yadkin River. Although this condition may be temporary, there
will be short-term, adverse impacts on both invertebrates and
vertebrates downstream from the project area.
While the loss of fish and wildlife habitat for this specific
project may be relatively small, we are concerned about the
cumulative impacts from this and similar projects. The Draft
Feasibility Report states that the river floods over the banks at
the proposed site at least once a year. Such flooding could lead
to erosion at both ends and landward of the proposed riprap. If
additional erosion occurs, there could be demands to enlarge the
proposed project. The Department is also concerned that the
operations of dams both up and downstream from the project site may
be contributing to the "fluctuating river levels and high
velocities" (DFR, p. 3), which aggravate the current erosion
problem. Thus, the Department remains concerned that the proposed
project could lead to increased erosion and future demands for
additional hard bank stabilization projects.
Based on the concerns expressed above, the Department recommends
that the Corps consider the following long-term measures to
further minimize any adverse, environmental impacts on wetlands and
wildlife resources. The Corps should investigate ways to enhance
the natural erosion control functions of the small floodplain at
the project site. Our map review indicates that the Yadkin River
has a relatively narrow but distinct floodplain near the project
site. The natural functions of such floodplains are to dissipate
floodwaters and allow natural vegetation to reduce flow velocity,
control erosion, and improve water quality in other ways. Erosion
control could be achieved by restoring natural vegetation to the
floodplain and river bank. In order to facilitate the return of
natural bank vegetation, the Corps should determine whether the
operation of dams on the Yadkin both above and below the proposed
project contributes to the present erosion problem by creating
rapid and/or extreme water fluctuations which inhibit natural
vegetative cover.
The Department realizes that this long-term solution will not
alleviate the immediate problem. Therefore, based on the expected
relatively minor environmental impacts, the Department does not
oppose the project proposed by this study. However, we believe
that the following recommendations should be incorporated into
project plans to minimize the anticipated adverse impacts on fish
and wildlife resources and their habitats:
1. All appropriate sediment control procedures should be
applied during construction.
2
•
I _0
•
• 4
2. All construction should occur in the fall, preferably
during the months of September through November. This
construction schedule would minimize adverse impacts on
spawning by species such as the largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Le m s macrochirus)
and redbreasted sunfish ( e om auritus).
The Department appreciates ti
project. Please advise us o
Wilmington Corps District.
information or clarification
contact Mr. Howard Hall or Ms.
and Wildlife Service, P.O.
telephone [phone].
e opportunity to comment on this
any further action taken by the
If you should need additional
of our recommendations, please
Linda "Mike" Gantt of the U.S. Fish
Box 33726, Raleigh, NC, 27636;
Sincerely/,
?T•
James H. Lee
)"Regional Environmental Officer
CC: FWS, Raleigh, NC
FWS-ES, RO
I - /S
United otates Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY •
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia $0303
June 9, 1994
ER-94/369
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg,
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
This is our second letter with comments on the Draft Feasibility
Report and Environmental Assessment for the bank stabilization plan
for the Yadkin River near King, Forsyth County, N. C. These
comments supplement those provided in our letter dated May 24,
1994.
Page 11 of the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment of this project states: "Currently, no seasonal
restrictions exist for the proposed work." The U. S. Geological
Survey operates a continuous recording stream-gaging station
approximately eight (8) miles upstream, at Yadkin River near Enon,
North Carolina (station number 02115360). Streamf low data indicate
that normal low flows generally occur during the months of July
through September but can be augmented to some extent by regulation
of the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir, more than 50 miles upstream of the
gage. It appears that degradation of the streambank and siltation
of the river downstream could be better controlled if construction
took place in late summer to early fall.
If there are questions r'egardiiig this ce,nanteiit, rli:as contact James
F. Devine, Assistant Director for Engineering Geology, U. S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 22092.
Sincerely,
ames H. Lee
;Regi
Environmental Officer
o
CC: USGS, Reston; Raleigh
OEPC, WASO
0

•
Attachment 2
Section 401
Water Quality Certification
Correspondence
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
• Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 25, 1994
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
RE: 401 Certification Review
King Water Treatment Plant
Forsyth County
DEM #94373
. Al
[D EHNR
The Division of Environmental Management staff have reviewed
your application for 401 Certification for emergency streambank
erosion control along the Yadkin River near King. DEM has no
objections to the work as planned. Please notify us when the
EF/FONSI is complete. I anticipate that we will be able to issue
a 401 Certification at that time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Jo R. Dorney
cc: Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Central Files
•
2 (
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ i(YiG post-consumer paper
•
Attachment 3
Section 404(B)(1) Evaluation
0
•
•
SECTION 404(B)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-E-94-34-0005, dated April 15, 1994
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document indicates
that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose (if
no, see
section 2 and information
gathered in the NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards
prohibited under Section 307 of the
CWA; 2) jeopardize the existence of
federally listed endangered or
threatened species or their habitat;
and 3) violate requirements of any
federally designated marine sanctuary
(if no, see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water
quality certifying agencies);
C. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant degradation
of waters of the U.S. including adverse
effects on human health, life stages of
organisms dependent on the aquatic
ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and
recreational, esthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
YESI_1 N01_1* YES1X1 NOi_
YESI_1 N01_1* YESIXI NOi_
YESI_1 N01_1* YES1il N01-
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have been
taken to minimize potential adverse impacts
of the
discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5). YES1_1 N01_1* YES1X1 N01_1
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2, See page A-6
A-1
3-1
Not Signifi- Signifi- •
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F) N/A cant cant*
a.
b.
c.
Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Subspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat. , I X
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web. , X I
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). , X
Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges. X

(2)
Wetlands. _
i X
(3) Mud flats. ; X I
(4) Vegetated shallows. , X
(5) Coral reefs. ; X
(6) Riffle and pool complexes. ; X
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Esthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page A-6
A-2
0
3 -L
• 3. Evaluation of Dredcted or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) aydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA/FONSI "Yadkin River - King Water Treatment Plant, Section 14 - Eme
Bank Protection, Forsyth County, North Carolina, 11 dated December, 1993.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposlal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES NO
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page A-6
A-3

-3-3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)). •
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1)
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1XI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X I
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . _
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities). . . . . . . . . . . .IX'
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -?
i
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA/FONSI "Yadkin River - King Water Treatment Plant, Section 14 - Emergency
Bank Protection, Forsyth County, North Carolina," dated December, 1993.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable . . . .YES NO
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed _
discharge. List actions taken. YES NO
For water quality see Section 3.01 of the EA/FONSI.
For benthos see Section 3.02 of the EA/FONSI.
For fisheries see Section 3.03 of the EA/FONSI.
Return to section 1 for final stacre of compliance review. See also
note 3 /, nacre A- 6.
*See page A-6
A-4

3-Y
• 6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
C. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5).
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem.
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem.
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. . . . . . . . . .
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
*See page A-6
A-5
is
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES IRI NO 1_1*
YES NO
YES NO

3-S
c.
8.
The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative.
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . .
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
po,,tentAal harm to the aquatic
Lawrence W. S unders
chief, Plann ng Division Col
District Enginee
Date:
Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be
in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
I/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the
proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used
in assessing pertinent portions of the technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing
the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed
project does not comply with the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of
section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation
process is inappropriate."
,J/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short-form"
evaluation process is inappropriate.
A-6
•
3-6
•
APPENDIX A
RING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDIX A
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Present Conditions. The King Water Treatment Plant facilities
are located on the Yadkin River in Forsyth County, North Carolina
approximately 2100 feet upstream from the N.C. highway 67 bridge.
The drainage area at the site is 1659 square miles. Streamflows
in the vicinity of the site are regulated by W. Kerr Scott Dam
located approximately 64 miles upstream. Regulated peak dis-
charge frequency relationships, based on a 1989 regional frequen-
cy study, were used as input to the HEC-2 water surface profiles
computer program to establish frequency flood elevata.ons and
associated channel velocities. Channel velocities in the vicini-
ty of the site range from 6 feet per second for the 2-year flood
to 10.5 feet per second for the 500-year flood. The design
velocity was based on the average 100-year channel velocity of
8.85 feet per second. The final design velocity of 13.3 feet per
second was computed by multiplying the average channel velocity
by a factor of 1.5 to account for angled flow impingement on the
north bank.
The present conditions at the project site are typical of damage
due to erosion caused by fluctuating water (river) levels and
high velocities. The slopes are steep, being greater than 1
horizontal to 1 vertical in many cases. The surveyed cross-
sections show block failures in progress and evidence of past
slope failures. The slopes are steep, unvegetated and the soil
is a sandy silt. These conditions are expected to lead to more
failures because of erosion, unless remedial actions are taken.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along the east bank of the Yadkin River. A site plan
is shown in plate 2; a typical cross-section is shown in figure
3. Project construction is to consist of grading the existing
bank slopes to 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (see cross-sections
for existing and improved conditions, plates 3 and 4). Once the
slope is graded, filter fabric, 12" of N.C.D.O.T. #17 stone, and
21" of N.C.D.O.T. class 2 riprap will be placed.
•
A-1
The gradation of the riprap is dependent upon river velocity and •
bank slope among other items. The gradation necessary at this
site is as follows:
W100 185-463 pounds
W50 93-137 pounds
W15 29- 69 pounds
This is not a common gradation, however N.C.D.O.T. Class 2 riprap
does meet this gradation and is recommended and should be avail-
able from local quarries. The thickness of this riprap should be
a minimum of 21 inches. Beneath the riprap should be a 12 inch
bedding layer and between the bedding and the soil slope a layer
of geotextile. The geotextile will act as a filter preventing
piping of the slope material. The bedding should be N.C.D.O.T.
#17 stone and acts as a cushion for the geotextile during riprap
placement.
The vertical distance from the top of river bank to river bed is
approximately 18 feet. The toe of the slope protection will be
keyed into the existing stream bed and extend to the top of bank.
A 6-foot by 3-foot riprap toe will be placed along the river
bottom. The riprap protection will extend approximately 300 feet
upstream of the fire hydrant. The protection will transition
from the existing slope protection on the downstream end and will
transition to natural ground on the upstream limit at the natural
drainage feature. In order to provide access for project mainte-
nance, a minimum of 20 feet beyond the after construction top of
bank will be maintained. These areas will be graded and grassed.
Maintenance work will consist of replacing riprap as needed and
mowing and fertilizing the grassed areas a minimum of two times a
year.
Materials. There are several state approved quarries within 50
miles of King. Quarries in Mt. Airy and around Winston-Salem,
N.C. should be able to provide the necessary gradations. No
borrow areas are required. The excavated material can be used to
smooth the slopes prior to geotextile placement. Excess material
shall be disposed of in a state approved landfill.

A-2
• APPENDIX B
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
DECEMBER 1993
Introduction. The King water treatment plant is located in
Forsyth County, North Carolina on the Yadkin River, about 4.5
miles downstream of the town of Donnaha. The main plant is
located about 0.25 mile inland from the river. The water in-
takes, pumps, switch gears, and water tank are located riverside.
Plant employees indicated that this site was specifically chosen
because of its favorable characteristics for water withdrawal
such as water flow, a rocky bottom, and water depth. The plant
provides water service to approximately 20,000 people in portions
of three counties covering an area of 125 square miles.
Damages and Benefits. The riverbank immediately upstream of the
treatment plant riverside facilities is eroding. At least once a
year the river floods over the bank onto this area. As the water
recedes, portions of the bank fall into the river and cover the
water intake with sand, mud, and debris. The material causes
damage and accelerated wear to the equipment. The treatment
plant has attempted to stabilize the bank with rock and fill
material. These efforts have not been successful. Within three
years, erosion will destroy the treatment plant riverside facili-
ties and terminate water service to 20,000 people. Relocating
the equipment is estimated to cost a minimum of $499,000. The
main problems associated with relocation are that water service
would be disrupted for a long time and the nearby sites are not
as good as the existing site. It is possible to stabilize the
eroding bank by shaping it and using the appropriate rip rap
along approximately 350 feet of the bank. The construction cost
of this improvement, including real estate and design costs, is
$295,300. The average annual cost of the project for a 25-year
period using an 8.00 percent rate is $27,700. Annual OM&R is
$2,300. The total average annual cost of the improvement is
$30,000. The erosion control project will prevent the erosion
threatening the riverside facilities and eliminate the necessity
to relocate the equipment. The present worth value of $499,000
for three years at 8.00 percent is $396,100 which, when amortized
for 25 years at the same rate, yields an expected annual value
(benefit) of $32,400 for protection of the equipment. The
expected annual benefits compared to the average annual cost
yields a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.
•
B-1
l
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection TITLE PAGE I
•
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SLOPE PROTECTION
Water Treatment Plant, King, NC
Designed By: S Haggett
Estimated By: J Danford
Prepared By: USAED Wilmingtion District
Date: 10/01/93
M C A C E S GOLD EDITION
Composer GOLD Copyright (C) 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992
by Building Systems Design, Inc.
Release 5.20J
•
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
f' _ 1
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection CONTENTS PAGE 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
SUMMARY REPORTS SUMMARY PAGE
PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ...........................................1
PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ........................................2
PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ..........................................3
DETAILED ESTIMATE DETAIL PAGE
1. CLEARING ..............................................................1
2. EXCAVATION ............................................................2
3. GEOTEXTILE ............................................................3
4. NCDOT N17 STONE .......................................................4
5. NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP ..................................................5
No Backup Reports...
* * * END TABLE OF CONTENTS * * *
•
C-2
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE 1
•
------
--------------------------------- ** PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - LEVEL
--------------------------------- 1 **
---------
-----------
--------
------------
---------
------
------
------
-------------------------------- QUANTITY UOM CONTRACT
---------------------------------- E&D
--------- SIOH
----------- CONTING
-------- TOTAL COST
------------ UNIT COST
---------
1 CLEARING 0.28 AC 1,252 315 148 429 2,143 7655.10
2 EXCAVATION 350.00 CY 2,243 563 265 768 3,840 10.97
3 GEOTEXTILE 4000.00 SY 12,578 3,159 1,487 4,306 21,530 5.38
4 NCDOT N17 STONE 1500.00 CY 42,098 10,573 4,976 14,412 72,058 48.04
5 NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP 2500.00 CY 111,043
--------- -- 27,890
------- - 13,125
-------- -- 38,014
------- 190,071
----------- 76.03
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT --
1.00 EA 169,214 42,500 20,000 57,928 289,642 289642.35

LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE 2
** PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- •
QUANTITY UOM DIRECT OVERHEAD HOME OFC PROFIT BOND MobDemob TOTAL COST UNIT COST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 CLEARING 0.28 AC 915 137 53 111 12 25 1,252 4472.24
2 EXCAVATION 350.00 CY 1,639 246 94 198 22 44 2,243 6.41
3 GEOTEXTILE 4000.00 SY 9,192 1,379 529 1,110 122 247 12,578 3.14
4 NCDOT N17 STO-E 1500.00 CY 30,765 4,615 1,769 3,715 409 825 42,098 28.07
5 NCDOT CLASS ' RIPRAP 2500.00 CY 81,150 12,173 4,666
--- -
- 9,799
-------- -- 1,078
------- -- 2,177
------- -- 111,043
--------- 44.42
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT 1.00 -
EA ---------- -
123,662 -------- --
18,549 --
-
7,111 14,932 1,643 3,318 169,214 169213.88
E&D 42,500
SUBTOTAL 211,714
SIOH 20,000
SUBTOTAL 231,714
CONTINGENCY 57,928
TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 289,642
•
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW 10: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-4
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, N C, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE 3
• ** PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 **
----

---- --

-- --------------------------------------

-------------------------------------- ----------
QUANTITY
---------- ---------------------------------
LIOM MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT
--------------------------------- ------------
MATERIAL
------------ -------
OTHER
------- ------------
TOTAL COST
------------ ---------
UNIT COST
---------
1 CLEARING 0.28 AC 34 466 449 0 0 915 3268.31
2 EXCAVATION 350.00 CY 33 390 1,250 0 0 1,639 4.68
3 GEOTEXTILE 4000.00 SY 120 1,400 160 7,632 0 9,192 2.30
4 NCDOT N17 STONE 1500.00 CY 195 1,305 1,635 27,825 0 30,765 20.51
5 NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP 2500.00 CY 350 4,225
------- --------- ---- 2,725
----- - 74,200
-------- --- 0
------ 81,150
----------- 32.46
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1.00 EA 732 7,786 6,219 109,657 0 123,662 123661.53
OVERHEAD (15%) 18,549
SUBTOTAL 142,211
HOME OFC (5%) 7,111
SUBTOTAL 149,321
PROFIT (10%) 14,932
SUBTOTAL 164,253
BOND 1,643
SUBTOTAL 165,896
MOB&DEMOB 3,318
TOTAL INCL INDIRECTS 169,214
E&D 42,500
SUBTOTAL 211,714
SIOH 20,000
SUBTOTAL 231,714
CONTINGENCY 57,928
TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 289,642
C
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER T REATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope P rotection DETAIL PAGE 1
1. CLE ARING
-------- ---------------------------- -------- --------- ----------- -------------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------
•
---------

--------
----------------------------
-------- QUANTY
--------- UOM CREW ID
----------- MANHOUR
-------------- LABOR
--------- EQUIPMNT
---------- MATERIAL
----------- OTHER T
---------- OTAL COST
---------
1. CLEARING
MIL AA Clear and Grub Lt Trees to 6" D 68.57 936.55 691.89 0.00 0.00 1828.44
(15cm) Dia, Cut and Chip 0.28 ACR COMCA 19 262 250 0 0 512
MIL AA Clear and Grub Lt Stumps to 6" D 12.00 154.56 343.60 0.00 0.00 498.16
0.28 ACR COETV 3 43 96 0 0 139
MIL AA Mach. Load Spoils, 20 Mi RT Haul 0.74 10.02 6.46 0.00 0.00 16.48
(3.2Km) Haul to Dump 16.00 CY COETF 12
-- 160
-
----- - 103
-------- - 0
-------- -- 0
------- -- 264
---------
CLEARING -------
34 -
466 449 0 0 915
•
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
(.- A
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE 2
is 2. EXCAVATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL COST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EXCAVATION
MIL AA Exc & Load,2 CY Hyd Exc,Med Matl
75 CY/Hr (57M3) 350.00 CY CODET
L MIL AA Haul, 16.5 CY (12.6M3) Trk, 6 Mi
40 MPH (60 Km/Hr), 2.1 Cycles/Hr 350.00 CY COETH
2.1 Cycles/Hr
EXCAVATION
0.03 0.45 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.43
it 158 343 0 0 501
0.06 0.66 2.59 0.00 0.00 3.25
22 232 907 0 0 1,139
------- --
33 ------- --
390 ------- --
1,250 ------- --
0 ------- ---
0 --------
1,639
1r1
u
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE 3
3. GEOTEXTILE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL COST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. GEOTEXTILE
CIV AA Geotextile Fabric, 170 Mil Thick
Non-Woven Polypropylene 4000.00 SY ULABJ
GEOTEXTILE
0.03 0.35 0.04 1.91 0.00 2.30
120 1,400 160 7,632 0 9,192
------- --
120 ------- --
1,400 ------- --
160 ------- --
7,632 ------- ---
0 --------
9,192
•
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP 10: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
r_R
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE 4
• 4. NCDOT #17 STONE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL COST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NCDOT #17 STONE
M MIL AA NCDOT # 17 STONE 0.13 0.87 1.09 18.55 0.00 20.51
1500.00 CY COETF 195 1,305
- 1,635
------- - 27,825
-------- -- 0
------- -- 30,765
---------
------- --
NCDOT #17 STONE 195 ------- -
1,305 1,635 27,825 0 30,765
0
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
r, .
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE 5
5. NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP
•
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL COST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP
B MIL AA Class II Rip Rap
Random, Dumped from Truck
NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT
0.14 1.69 1.09 29.68 0.00 32.46
2500.00 CY COETF 350 4,225 2,725 74,200 0 81,150
------- --
350 ------- --
4,225 ------- -
2,725 -------- --
74,200 ------- --
0 ---------
81,150
------- --
732 ------- --
7,786 ------- -
6,219 -------- --
109,657 ------- --
0 ---------
123,662
•
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-10
N
i" rzm=. !zmv
City of King
P.O. BOX 1132, KING, N.C. 27021 • [phone]
Walter S. Telloch
District Engineer
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Tom New
Superintendent of Public Utilities
City of King
P.O. Box 719
King, N.C. 27021
Dear Mr. Telloch:
Beginning in November 1992, the City of King, North Carolina
Water Treatment Plant raw water intake station began experiencing
a severe flow restriction to the Yadkin River intake. The
normally free access of water was being interrupted by the
diverting of the natural flow channel by several sections of
large trees which had begun a gradual separation from a length of
approximately 200 yards of the cast side of the Yadkin River
bank. (See Attached Maps). This diverting of the normal flow
was producing a "stilling" effect immediately downstream,
consequently creating a sand and debris formation upon and around
the City's raw water intake. The actual effect of this
obstruction was realized in periodic total occlusion of the
intake screen and regular flow limitation which had a pattern of
incremental decreasing of intake capacity during each multi-hour
pumping cycle.
lmergency measures were taker) to m]tiLFte this predicament on
November 24th, 1992. This action became necessary after reaching
.i crisis point due to mechanical failure at the pump station and
a situation of impending interruption of water supply for the
al,,proximate Iy six--thousand customers served by the city's
distribution system. As a result of the emergency removal of
this natural impediment to the Yadkin River channel, erosion of
the east river bank is currently occurring at an alarming rate.
If allowed to continue for an indefinite period of time this
erosion will place the entire intake structure at risk or at the
vary ]east, result jr, considerable damage Find potential long term
. disruption of public water service.
IL crr,t f fI.Irlr?c.r n??lcr.? ',f thi _ ;':rUb:
n:.t easily evaluated, but t]:c engineering estimates for tl-,e
-I]] r-.•placement or r^locall ion f c• pUm,.lni fac] ] i ty, arc in
r r; .. r)f t?'; ,•r:. 1'j n'?;y? 1 f?;/ 1. _.. :'' :.' fl': r. .,.._ , 1 _.. ._]i
A-%

overall costs and the extent of permanent revetment or dredging
can only be detcrmined after a thorough engineering evaluation by
experienced personnel such as is offered under Section 14 of the
U.S. Flood Control Act. In the interim, the City of King has
incurred significant financial outlays relatc,d to temporary
revetment, pumping equipment repair, control and regulating
instrumentation repair and upgrading, facility repair and retro-
fitting and the accompanying labor and engineering costs to
implement emergency procedures.
A further ominous point of concern is the unusually severe
rainfalls and flooding which this area of the North Carolina
Piedmont has experienced within the preceding months, which has
only served to exacerbate the situation.
The City of King respectfully submits a request at this time for
any assistance which can be provided under the, authority or
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please respond
as soon as possible. We stand ready to assist completely.
Graciously,
Tom New
Supt. of Public Utilities
enclosures
TN:ew

D -2-
. ' II, (, , ` -? 1, '1JJ _? ;197J? '..•? ?,I .,' I / .,. ( /,,.? !;' Its
?, i' r IV 1' '" \ s C 1 c 0/,. lI (`.i \f I' ?/ ,II
'q? j8N- !?? / 1 _ - NER.r •.?\'„ \:V. ?•9J 1 ?. ? I .'.. ?_J'jrJ?;•.? ,? \? l• I{,?' ?.1 .\7B,p.`
NN. %
\`\ \!? \ \, 1 R r' ) m;' 7' 11.. ? 1 I ( gip',.I, ` , I ( r ? ill?;_ ,It 19Qt ` ; ?_\. ii
?c\'fY\ 1, I U: 1 1' tl,or / „.,7? •'r. IN1JJ)'Ir,(:'/1\ .g , '?.`?1?;,) ?(1,
?... ?? AR ?? \ \ '1 ': - ?Iln pnah ?I /... 95c)1//i Il
tyV ??. t \
`? /,• itp. :,/ t',rl 1'' ij• 1.11 l1 r `,??...n; ?fl 1^ I\ 11(1,. . /'I.\%?/ .J/J
Q13
\S` / bl l 2/ " -; ,t >•,` ,) `? t ?l? \, ? ./. q ?'/? 1llll. , /, J ).K? ? / -
.. ? \ ? ° % ?/?, '? II. r,I ., / I' I ,rv?!,i `\?J It 'y'd •,, `il?', ?, ': o \1 A,
?-J ?'1 `I I ? f •i' Q/. v > r ` I , ?`. ?'? f,(S\Y' q?1 ,(P r/f :a` ?, ?? i
I' ?\ ;I ??? Pi 1 r?i'` bi ` 1 11) i L:?•- ?."?. _? ??/??,
l50
II ,I<?II \I )'? I ?.?,?1 I. •?11 I I`\ ..±//` ''` B50 ??•rT? sc
'J ?\ )' n \ <'' .\ 19 u ' Y , ?.' - - , ! 111 ' ' ,_ %? (\\ L/? `'' r (i li C
?J ` - \ o • \. % ?./ ? ? ./ ,Q ?t? I I\•- ''ll/ 11. I11? ?J JI 'J? 'rt-----/ / ? i •? ? (?(
11111/ \• %?' ?` j I• ?'/' ill .?? ?' - 1 ?? - ... J ,? f (. r?-ti ??? ? •-?
011114
j; ? ? I ;,'/'?? ' r' ?>o ', ?. i . t , t 1 ' oii ?,f ft 'til--? I \?, ?
' ' I I I r (. ? -„y , :\ fl ,?(/ 1((11. ?? ^( ? ? .
?? 11 `' ,? ?)1% tl\ , il% j-.?, ? ?'' \' ?s? \GM? 1 ?") II. /?? ,y,. ?c _? Ol \ ?\ il??•--,7-) ? C
' _ _ ?`? 1 Kew` ?>. I ?? ul/ .(?? ?- s•` r• ? (\\
40
\\C?S?'{/..'?\\ A/?^f(•_ ?i ?•\ .r 1 1 15,\ I \ '1,.. ??,?- ?.. %•.;? ??L '-?
W
' `1 - ? :?a :.? '? 'off (?? ,11.1.x' r ,1?, ?, ?'?l 11 .? "7;4? ? .\lu.- rb• ? ' 9
l '> _' : < ? i1 • (' 1 ,? % .•,^ .?,< '%' ' I I h. 11 i /';! ? r' _, I i'?i2 ??I jl ?y, 1, ''r? -"//? / ?: /?? \? . 50c
/1.9j? I ,/. / _??i 1\?11'J111\.?• ??%/? ?? I ll` I /fir / 'I/4 1,?. y'9 JII???7?i'/rtl"rl 19
./; .? .rte ? 1t ?t,\ •.r ll ??\ •?7 ????? ` y X11 ? f? /? /?....?';?'? // ', 1 \,•\V./' 41 J
1 y ,'\ •HB6`Ir ?'i'' ? j ?'l('.!I ?Jf.? 9 a??, Yid yi?`.' _/?\- f" / ? ''' ??? l '111 ?/^?\ 1
MIN
li+,° Oi'?/? I ,K ( 1' rl?? f,: c;. '\?'.,h,r ?(O. F
_.,.?? ? J"(? ?l ! ? ' Q ?rIC??>'? •, J?I I It 'mot' ,'r ? ?? 1`"i??l( ? ; J
I?? •'.\? ??(,1'.1`?I/1V ? f.. III JJI,I.\ ?` A?`/?? ?,y ?0 I !I? , ? 11;x: \ ,I,II?? 'l0. ?' `? 975x". Q ??,I? ?, jl ?" ? ?'
'1 ( ? , .?jif• ,1 f??`??i;•``, 'I( N?I •Q 'i 'l, - ? fI '? , .ACS _
/rg'i?? 3?`,J:. i ?1 /?/• ?.; >,- ? M 1 1 , r: ? .,U )t(1 Ilt ? il(I I ? ? I ?, ' t/' •?I I?:r? ??x ?I ??\~ r Jet ? ??-
?1?
??? ? ,,1), mgr ??/1 j ..I( ;? Gi '1. \ 'I , ?l (1?., .1 ??{'1?? I\?: ?I?I tl Ill.%/?i ,\/?r?/ / r1?11n •r f, ? `? n/1?•J? ? h\
?•e. ??,_ _ . 8<2 y4 I: 1`t l`r .'J_ ( ' 1 dIl \vi ?\ \:r - ))1? ?.- Q 9 ,? Ir :? !' ?`y -J '-•//? .' 7 ? to
??•? . o?•l ,}., I f(?/((„ _t..? ? ! ?i J?l''f?/1 l 1 rc? /11 r (, ? ? ?lI `: / I: ? ?
(?;?.` ,r---
. ? .w \ `} ?1, _ /Tex
G , I 1 , I?•11'`` ? ?I I'? ??1'': ail I\\ ' ,\lI :•'/rl. / l- \1 J
,
.?11 1 Il? ?'Vt, 'r, 1\?
"'`? 1. al `L?11.r ) \a /:\o\ ?\' J` 1 11+' r ?? ?; .! //i--.. ?,. T 1)(' I ??;? '?l,f
'?': 1i1 ? \, ? ? l1 ? `?? r 1? n l,? '?. 1?,, I 0 n ) ? Y'1 45 :•i. +F C,;%•? .. (?
.y J?. eft ' ? ?' 1\ i ,. t r I 1 ?iJ ? - ? m 71? y1a\' ) \ //1 /R. `•%' `
?' Cv^- o ?'.?/ ,/%??p /)_ ' \,.? •'., dl ` J'?I 4 ? ( a ?`./ . /)- f i tt,?r` ? I )'I /f1 ? 0,9? ?'1?. '' t?\??'
toy ` . ,? d 1k.? III' 1a,.•?
styli' 97J y ' ?,?1 ?t `. I 1 .??Il` l/`riL, l r p'?- , ??1 \J??ly\\',`•`?.\ ???1.
:/i`` .; 1 :,. 1
0
April 7, 1993
Planning Division
Mr. Tom New
Superintendent of Public Utilities
City of King
Post Office Box 1890
King, North Carolina 27201
Dear Mr. New:
This is in response to your recent letter concerning the severe
damages at the City of King Water Treatment Plant raw water intake
on the Yadkin River i6 Forsyth County, North Carolina. The intake
pipe and the intake structure have been damaged and further erosion
will result in additional intake structure damage and possible
long-term disruption of pu')lic water service.
We believe that the emergency nature of the problem and physical
damage to plant facilities will qualify the raw water intake station
and surrounding area contributing to the problem for consideration
under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 14, Emergency Bank
Protection Program. Brochures explaining the program are enclosed.
Funds to complete a study of the problem have been requested.
These study funds will be entirely Federal. Close contact with you,
or your designated point of contact, will result in a better plan
for addressing the erosion problem. Your experience and input will
help in arriving at the best solution. The study manager, Mr. Rex
Phillips, at [phone] will be the Wilmington District point
of contact.
When study funds are received, we will contact you immediately
and arrange a visit with you. A soils engineer, design engineer,
economist, hydraulic engineer, biologist, and study manager will
probably make the trip so that we, with you, can evaluate the
problem and try to determine the most appropriate solution onsite.
This procedure will hopefully shorten the study time once we
pinpoint specific areas where further testing or evaluation are
needed.

D'Y
0 -z-
We look forward to working with you in developing a solution
to the bank erosion problems at this site.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
0-5

City of King 0
BOX 1132, KING, N.C. 27021 • [phone]
March 30, 1994
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders, Chief
Planning Division
Department of the Army
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
The King City Council has directed me, as General Services
Director, to express their support for participation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in the Emergency Bank Protection Project
Section 14 for the City of King Water Treatment Plant.
The City of King Officials have reviewed the feasibility report
draft of this project and offer the following comments:
1) The Project Cooperation Agreement is approved
in concept.
2) The City of King understands that it must provide
cost sharing with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in the amount of 25% of the total construction and
design costs.
3) The City of King has requested cost-sharing
assistance from Mr. John Sutherland of the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources for (66 2/3%)
of the 25% local cost-share capital contribution.
It is our understanding that budgeting for State
assistance is contained within the present grant
cycle.
4) In the remote likelihood that State assistance
were not forthcoming, alternate means for funding
would be promptly pursued.
We would like to thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their
diligence and patience with assistance in this Emergency Bank
Protection Project.
Sincerely,
Gvrn /?u?
Tom New
General Service Director
C)-6'
0j/ 12/94 1b•31 Wiawz
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, corps of Enginucra
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
1 AESC W-PD-E-94-34-0005 April 15, 1994
PVfltIC-NOITI
and
NOTICE OF _VAILARXLITY
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on
Emergency 6treambank Erosion Control
King Water Treatment Plant, City of King,
Forsyth County, North Carolina
April 1994
TO WU0l1 IT MAY CONCERN i
THE WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Wilmington, North Carolina,
under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, is
proposing to implement a bank stabilization plan for a 300-foot section of the
east bank of the Yadkin River, near the city of King, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Erosion of the bank in the subject aLea threatens to damage the water intake
structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could result in potential
long-term disruption of public water service.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The recommended plan consists of riprap elope protection along a 300-foot
section of the east bank of the Yadkin River. Project construction would involve
grading the existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal to 1-vertical alope. Approximately
4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded
Aurface, followed by a 12-inch layer of North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Nu. 17 stnne and then a 21-inch layer of Class 2 riprap
(Figure 2).
'rhe vertical distance from the top of the riverbank to the riverbed is about
10 feet. The project area (including riprap area and maintenance access) would
extend from approximately 8 feet waterward of the toe of the slope to a line
parallel to the bank approximately 25 feet beyond the top of the bank. The
access area would be graded and grassed and maintenance work would consist of
replacing riprap as needed, and mowing and fertilizing the grassed area a minimum
of two times a year.
The proposed project would run from the downstream limit at station 2+00
(near the fire hydrant) to the upstream limit at station 5+00 (300 feet) ( F gore
3). The protection would transition from the existing slope protection on the
downstream and to natural ground on the upstream limit at the natural drainage
feature.
An environmental audcddment and draft finding of no significant impact have
been prepared for the project and are included in the Feasibility Report os1
Emergency Streambank Erosion Controls King Water Treatment Plant, City of X'Jnn,
For th t North Carolina, A?il__1994. A copy of this document may be
obtained by contacting MR. Jenny Owens, Envirorunental Resources Branch, at the
above address or by telephone at [phone].
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) water quality certificate is required from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
05/12/94 1 5 - 31 WI uus

of Environmental Management, water Quality Planning, Raleigh, North Carolina, and
hae been requested.
A Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation has been prepared and is
attached as Appendix A of the Feasibility Report on Emergency Streartiban Rronlon
control, Kind Water TreAtment Plant, Clty of King, Forevth County, North
Carolina, April 1994.
The proposed action is in compliance with Executive order 11988 (Flood Plain
Management), dated may 24, 1977, and ExPCUtA vw Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands), dated May 24, 1977. No practicable alternative to performing the work
within the flood plain exists. No wetlands will be affected by the proposed
action.
The work will not affect any species currently on the Federal list of
threatened or endangered species.
The proposed work has been evaluated puravant to the provisions of thN
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as .upended. No impacts to known
archaeological or historical resources will occur.
There is no other known or anticipated related dredging or discharge to be
conducted by others.
Attached is a list of Federal, State, and local agencies with whom this
activity is being coordinated.
The decision whether to perform this work will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impact, including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the
public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both
protection and utilization of important resuurces. The benefit which reasonably
may be expected to accrue from the proposal must by balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to tha
proposal will be considered including the cumulative effect thereof; among those
are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood
plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation,
water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, arid, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the proposed work
may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the
District Engineer within 30 days of the data of this notice and must clearly set
forth the intwrewt which may be affected and the manner in which the interest may
be affected by this activity- All. corresponden, should rcfrr to the title,
number, and date of this notice. For furthe612"47 ormation, please contact Ms.
.jenny Owens, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Offic Box 1890, Wilmington,
North Carolina, 28402-1890, telephone (910) 57
9
Attachments
0!1/ 12/91 1 30
` i
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecological Services
1'ost Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
(919) 856-452U
PAX (919) 8564556
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: r) Cl] n e
?Ij
AT YN:
DATE: ?; -- ) a - 9 it
NUMBER 01- PA(iI .S (INCLUDES COVER Sk1F1-:.T):
FROM: ,& Wo rcQ 404JJ
MTSSAGF, 1F APPLICABLE:

WJ{3Ut
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 8, 1994
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
US 'Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
DEM Project #94373
Forsyth County
Al MAI
1? EHNR
1LL U
On 15 April 1994, you requested a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division
of Environmental Management for your project (emergency streambank erosion control)
located near King in Forsyth County. We wrote to you on 25 April 1994 discussing concerns
that we have regarding the design of the project and placing it on hold until those concerns
are addressed. As of today, we have not received a response to our earlier letter. Unless we
receive a response from you by 21 July 1994, we will consider that you have withdrawn this
application and are not interested in pursuing the project at this time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter.
Sincerely,
,IUY
Jo n R. D(o ey
Wetlands and Techni 1 eview Group
94373.clr
cc: Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files
P,O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1Y.
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governer ID E H N F?
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretory
A, Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
April 25, 1994
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
RE: 401 Certification Review
King Water Treatment Plant
Forsyth County
DEM #94373
The Division of Environmental Management staff have reviewed
your application for 401 Certification for emergency streambank
erosion control along the Yadkin River near King. DEM has no
objections to the work as planned. Please notify us when the
EF/FONSI is complete. I anticipate that we will be able to issue
a 401 Certification at that time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,.
John R. Dorney
cc: Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
CI y3-73
April 15, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
p d
[ 1
f
Under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, has
completed the enclosed study, Feasibility Report and Environmental
Treatment Plant. King, North Carolina. This study was conducted
to address the streambank erosion problems along the Yadkin River
at King, North Carolina, and includes the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Pursuant to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between your Division and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, a draft application for a 401 Water
Quality Certificate is also enclosed for your review.
As stated in the MOA, there will be a 30-day review and comment
period for this project, at which time the Division of Environmental
Management will furnish the Wilmington District a statement regarding
the status of the request for 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
(original and 6 copies)
r?
L
b
d
r?
BCF (w/encls):
CESAW-PD-P/Phillips
-2-
CESAW-PD-E/Owens/cs/4757
CESAW-PD-E/Long
CESAW-PD-P/Philips
CESAW-PD-P/Fascher
CESAW-PD/Saunders/S/
DO NOT MAIL - RETURN
TO COSETTA
CESAW-PD File
File: 2002pnjo\wpdoc\kngdem
\kng401
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.0. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEM ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: April 15, 1994
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: George L. Cajigal
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Jenny Owens/CESAW-PD-E
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency
Streambank Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, King
North Carolina.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River.
Project construction will involve grading the existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal
to 1-vertical slope. Approximately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth
will be placed on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of
Class 2 riprap.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the
water intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could result in
potential long term disruption of public water service. The intent of the
proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the water intake
structure. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of
turbidity in the Yadkin River below present conditions and the protection of
existing shoreline vegetation.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 94, during a low-flow period
(date undetermined at this time)
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 45 days
11. DISCHARGE OF:
Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: King, NC
County: Forsyth County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: 4,000 square yards
of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded surface, followed by
a 12-inch layer of NCDOT No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of Class 2 riprap.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HOW, OR ORW?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: Flow
velocities in the Yadkin River are such that riprap seems to be the most viable
alternative. The use of gabions and fabriform and sheetpile were considered, but
these materials would not withstand the high flow velocities of the Yadkin River;
therefore, these alternatives were eliminated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
DATE:
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
Seven (7) copies of completed application
Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
Copies of previous 401 Certifications

cl
S T O K°[ S =
SORRY CO.

?j Qpy
?- o.
?
?
leo(?
l

eer
\ '7 n
'i
_
!J ?.?IeOS 0 ?
10 leu.
ely
1 I.! ,
N?J
- ? - - )evz
¢?/?? J?
" Ivp] ? 19oo1'J , 7<e9` o
? 1 eoe
)v 0'

!? i9n ,y?wAr

SfY]

WATER /
y 3 7-
en - ? Tv ? uo, 1

''ti:
PLANT
yo / _
1 e iotw<co-

-V'
>- 'fi ? ?eTO lb
^y, 11v7 L
y
? •lsr Hr..O r?3 ielr eye - 51>ee t.
67 ? 11a 19 ? I5 _,
,_- .l ? I?IV? /zv4 ., /ielo ? eTy loll
i.ry J's 1 .(, laov ?
Z 1.»tr '.3 10-4 •? ? ?Se]1 leTSl (f_ ___ _ \7
1.79 ti^-1 ] 7"1 ?Z.. .. [ - AUTQI ?[\
\_ d
67
S 11\ 1 ? _
l-
v e5
L
of IAU
aI o
IU
1a1 ?1 IAU [A \
lit
FAS
mil •? ?e.U
tot ' j IJY?! ) y `?? IAU WINST
??"N1(?11 !. \e S ` _ 3 yf I ;E J ?<; tOY.
1a0? f1 lw?w.Jr[w15v111[ L. ::;,' J F `•J
West IB 101 1,5,11 r `?i 11
Bend 71A ?' l
1[170 :.(•7 ..[ I
_
lino J1y
IAI
.1
' E>
1100
SCALE
2 -WS
J_
- p p y - I wt E
FORSYTH COUNTY, N. C.
CITY OF KING, N.C.
WATER PLANT
LOCATION MAP
b ,)L ?r /ill-/!' j'? tJ j ? /j i/_-.?\.?:\ ? u• Don"ba
?I
, lip r? '? ? ? Q II
9 2
•.. / o\ - ? o/// , ? ? 1 ( / :'_ROq ii 1 ? L 111
..fll4iCree ''; d
`1 ece ?Donnalia / \
Ncf 1'(N\ 757 ' \;?Ch r; e _G• \.
' ?' / ?' ?1?; \ d? Z '? • t- King Water Treatment Plant
L?k
cr?? vWater Intake Pipe
\( \' I. 11 i* ?? G ?\8 \ •I AI ./r r ro, 1(lb.l _ ?;: c
%Nil??,?1??
7 \ t-.? _.`e'iv? / / •,? \? f 11 j?. ?,1 I F_ 975.% _
Be V?u'y'
'Ch
.r , ? '/'J// f µ.?.,•:f ,a?` ??'/?j.`F,.II? '.1: dp' _9• `\` /%" -,`-i V 1
.?f. ll '. - @) I "w
! / ? ? ? It ?' ..: ?-.., Or / 4' ??'.. ? ,?'.? ?F. , ?l??1
//.•?C '?/ t,?;? ?^ \\ Lit •-? •?? •?O ?ir? ?? r i°? ? '??•i JAI ??• 4
•:i '(?, ti ? ? to °d .?' - _ :
MN •? USGS QUAD.
Fr-oM
GN
QUADRANGLE LOCATION VIENNA, N. C.
6•
107 MILS 0.20' 6 MILS 36080 84-TF-024
1968
11I IOTOREVISE_D 1986
SCALE 1 24 000 DMA 4956 111 NW-SERIES x,842

! \ \+ s \ _':4 jDonnah V I 95?
Q3 7-
all' ./ // I11
a MI
' •ls 'm?
'tc
-3 OA
"? _? ill It ?i, ,'' \ / •>?\ li !
?.r' o ? \ l i % .r , ? (^
Ir, 4;? ?I?I t; I\•11? e e\,.: °? \ Donna a % \
t S?! / /r l t I ??// G. \ 1 757
856
14 A
• (-King Water Treatment Plante
?(/• fi ?\? Water Intake Pipe
I/i f `
l rt `?/ ?..?\ , <' i?? ,Ir J ?} 1 l\.j\.. \J?j//; • i \? ?? \ p + 4d y / ?J? -9iC
,tom ?"' ?li? \ r, '? -.. ? ' 1 `/ _ '•/
?• `?•\ II Y? 0 ' \??, r it ?: ? I I ? a I F 975>,,j ?-
€, e •i rf 841
/ / ss- / as•- a -' \ ll ?'' ?r ?.-„r pf ? /? , / ?I ? ?,. l`?/ -a-
/
IQ iti
MN ?.C. J rOm USGS C uV_J-
`
GN
QUADRANGLE LOCATION VIENNA, N. C.
6•
107 MILS 0.20' 6 MILS 36080-84-TF-024
1968
PI IOTOREVISF_f) 1986
SCALE 1:24000 DMA 4956 111 NW-SERIES V842
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
April 15, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, has
completed the enclosed study, Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment on Emergency Streambank Erosion Control, King Water
Treatment Plant, King, North Carolina. This study was conducted
to address the streambank erosion problems along the Yadkin River
at King, North Carolina, and includes the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Pursuant to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between your Division and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, a draft application for a 401 Water
Quality Certificate is also enclosed for your review.
As stated in the MOA, there will be a 30-day review and comment
period for this project, at which time the Division of Environmental
Management will furnish the Wilmington District a statement regarding
the status of the request for 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, At [phone].
Sin
I _
-- c4i Lawr nce Saunders
Chie anning Division
Enclosures
(original and 6 copies)
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEM ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: April 15, 1994
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: George L. Cajigal
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Jenny Owens/CESAW-PD-E
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency
Streambank Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, King
North Carolina.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River.
Project construction will involve grading the existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal
to 1-vertical slope. Approximately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth
will be placed on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of
Class 2 riprap.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the
water intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could result in
potential long term disruption of public water service. The intent of the
proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the water intake
structure. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of
turbidity in the Yadkin River below present conditions and the protection of
existing shoreline vegetation.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 94, during a low-flow period
(date undetermined at this time)
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 45 days
11. DISCHARGE OF:
Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: King, NC
County: Forsyth County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: 4,000 square yards
of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded surface, followed by
a 12-inch layer of NCDOT No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of Class 2 riprap.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HOW, OR_ORW?
YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: Flow
velocities in the Yadkin River are such that riprap seems to be the most viable
alternative. The use of gabions and fabriform and sheetpile were considered, but
these materials would not withstand the high flow velocities of the Yadkin River;
therefore, these alternatives were eliminated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
. CDATE : I S
?w• Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
i
,4 ,/ . ?,.. iC\? \p :? ?? ` _ I ? II /n? , 077 ? ? ?. -•% i /
' t.. .),.,, :^y s ,\ \\ ? ` _i4 DOORahB iV Ir 95D
/ice S? `} N \ Q ?_ 1. l ?? // r ? ? `
may, ?% ?'? ?Sp ?• ?? Q 22 j , l f `' '?`?
u I 1 ` 1? w IY
.874
)1?; ? ??? \; 111 ? (.'?\71`??'•I ? J \\`\??, G' ?°° \? ????;_? J•?./ o .%? -\ /l/J / ;/ ? (. n _
o , I .11 Bc? ,' ?Donnaha ' \ ?, +-
?'o I??/'?/ ?1 ,) I riU /. ',\ ?? : -.0)11/ ''r\? 92,7
1 {e ' "?
757
Q'ij?. ii f ?„ ° , ! , it \, ' •/?„ 1 : '/
7i P% ?• t7 r ,b
-?
King Water Treatment Plant
Water Intake Pipe
,? I ? ? \I ? p ???? ( rya 19 .r- ;, ? I i?? %// ?1 ? `\, •f _ o
U 111 I r ' L' y -? „'?
t?.? ??-'• flat ???. ? •h• V+\ ?'. .?'? 1. .- -?QI,•?tf' '?'-i ?' _ ??
d. ? Q Ae1,y fi'r':- f ? '+ ?e?`\-f/;?,.. _ - /
01
Y
_ ' of ? • r. ° C- 1 ? • '??` ? / ss
N. C J
MN Flory-, uses Qum`
GN
QUADRANGLE LOCATION VIENNA, N. C.
6• 0 20'
107 MILS 6 MILS 36080 64-TF 024
1968
('110TOREVISED 1.986
SCALE 1:240W DMA 4956 111 NW-SERIES V842
i A. _. a
q L4 y 3-I 3
April 15, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Under authority of Section 14 of the
amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
completed the enclosed study, Feasibility
i! fir,
Treatment Plant, King, North Carolina. This study was conducted
to address the streambank erosion problems along the Yadkin River
at King, North Carolina, and includes the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Pursuant to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between your Division and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, a draft application for a 401 Water
Quality Certificate is also enclosed for your review.
As stated in the MOA, there will be a 30-day review and comment
period for this project, at which time the Division of Environmental
Management will furnish the Wilmington District a statement regarding
the status of the request for 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
(original and 6 copies)
r?
C
b
Cn
BCF (w/encls):
CESAW-PD-P/Phillips
1946 Flood Control Act, as
, Wilmington District, has
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEM ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: April 15, 1994
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: George L. Cajigal
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Jenny Owens/CESAW-PD-E
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency
Streambank Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, King
North Carolina.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River.
Project construction will involve grading the existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal
to 1-vertical slope. Approximately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth
will be placed on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of
Class 2 riprap.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the
water intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could result in
potential long term disruption of public water service. The intent of the
proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the water intake
structure. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of
turbidity in the Yadkin River below present conditions and the protection of
existing shoreline vegetation.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 94, during a low-flow period
(date undetermined at this time)
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 45 days
11. DISCHARGE OF:
Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: King, NC
County: Forsyth County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: 4,000 square yards
of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded surface, followed by
a 12-inch layer of NCDOT No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of Class 2 riprap.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HOW, OR ORW?
YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: Flow
velocities in the Yadkin River are such that riprap seems to be the most viable
alternative. The use of gabions and fabriform and sheetpile were considered, but
these materials would not withstand the high flow velocities of the Yadkin River;
therefore, these alternatives were eliminated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
DATE:
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
Seven (7) copies of completed application
Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
Copies of previous 401 Certifications
? ? ? ? b P. (,I ?/? .? ? ? ?' of ?// ?,? ( j \ .i_?\\..?', ?r .?
J 11 /.'
f\ 1' s r 4?Dc?onnaha ->95b / \
L._n
:75 I 9'S .<??ROA '• •r ?? ???
Cree r _
III o? i '
1`7 \ , ' `• , et ., _ , ;u G ??ponnaha \
f? 1 0 'ti I?, , l , ? i?I'. I ? - GG \ J \ ?tSlddte c?ws" ? t ,, '^\,
a ! ?•/' /i / / i 757 `Ch ,\ \ \,\ C7. 1
152
,\1 1 ?g ,? '?j ?? i ?? \•\\ `' Z (Ipna` ??i t< ]I ?l n; ra. (lam \`?
,' / ?` = 1 r? 'l \ t-Kin Water Treatment Plant.-
Water Intake Pipe \? 41
?, Ja
( ^ 1 /1' ?„?D 11
!.. .? rf .\? _ ^?(%'1„??? .wry/D'7 ?? ? ?. l'? \(;/a..i. ?J 7Tt'??E`' \'.`?[,??'°.? `? L?`?a'`? !•_
p ffl l y `'? I/ i r 975 ? .
-Ch
812 -
n
MN FrO YYL USGS QVO.?.
GN
QUADRANGLE LOCATION VIENNA, N. C.
6• 0'20' 36080-84-TF-024
107 MILS G MILS
1968
I'1101-OETEVISED 9986
SCALE 1 24000 DMA 4956 111 NW-SERIES x'842
9y3-13
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 a°
i
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
April 15, 1994
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, has
completed the enclosed study, Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment on Emergency Streambank Erosion Control, King Water
Treatment Plant, King, North Carolina. This study was conducted
to address the streambank erosion problems along the Yadkin River
at King, North Carolina, and includes the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Pursuant to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between your Division and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, a draft application for a 401 Water
Quality Certificate is also enclosed for your review.
As stated in the MOA, there will be a 30-day review and comment
period for this project, at which time the Division of Environmental
Management will furnish the Wilmington District a statement regarding
the status of the request for 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, At [phone].
Sinc e ,
Lawr nce Saunders
Ch ee ,
anning Division
Enclosures
(original and 6 copies)

April 15, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:

Under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, has
completed the enclosed study, Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment on Emergency Streambank Erosion Control, King Water
Treatment Plant, King, North Carolina. This study was conducted
to address the streambank erosion problems along the Yadkin River
at King, North Carolina, and includes the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Pursuant to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between your Division and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, a draft application for a 401 Water
Quality Certificate is also enclosed for your review.
As stated in the MOA, there will be a 30-day review and comment
period for this project, at which time the Division of Environmental
Management will furnish the Wilmington District a statement regarding
the status of the request for 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
(original and 6 copies)
r?
a
b
d
z
w
a
N•
m
BCF (w/encls):
CESAW-PD-P/Phillips
?y3?3

Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning L _. 111-i _i'. _
Division of Environmental Management -_?
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
PA. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEM ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: April 15, 1994
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: George L. Cajigal
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Jenny Owens/CESAW-PD-E
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency
Streambank Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, King
North Carolina.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River.
Project construction will involve grading the existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal
to 1-vertical slope. Approximately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth
will be placed on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of
Class 2 riprap.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the
water intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could result in
potential long term disruption of public water service. The intent of the
proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the water intake
structure. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of
turbidity in the Yadkin River below present conditions and the protection of
existing shoreline vegetation.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 94, during a low-flow period
(date undetermined at this time)
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 45 days
11. DISCHARGE OF:
Dredged Material
X Fill Material
~12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: King, NC
County: Forsyth County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: 4,000 square yards
of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded surface, followed by
a 12-inch layer of NCDOT No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of Class 2 riprap.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HOW, OR ORW?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: Flow
velocities in the Yadkin River are such that riprap seems to be the most viable
alternative. The use of gabions and fabriform and sheetpile were considered, but
these materials would not withstand the high flow velocities of the Yadkin River;
therefore, these alternatives were eliminated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
• ocamt='-An' DATE : ? S
.?tn1 Lawrence W. Saunders -IJ
Chief, Planning Division
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
i 4 %
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
April 15, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, has
completed the enclosed study, Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment on Emergency Streambank Erosion Control, King Water
Treatment Plant, King, North Carolina. This study was conducted
to address the streambank erosion problems along the Yadkin River
at King, North Carolina, and includes the Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project. Pursuant to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between your Division and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, a draft application for a 401 Water
Quality Certificate is also enclosed for your review.
As stated in the MOA, there will be a 30-day review and comment
period for this project, at which time the Division of Environmental
Management will furnish the Wilmington District a statement regarding
the status of the request for 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Ms. Jenny Owens, Environmental Resources Branch, At [phone].
Sin
I _
-- cxj Lawr nce Saunders
Chie anning Division
Enclosures
(original and 6 copies)
•
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEM ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: April 15, 1994
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: George L. Cajigal
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Jenny Owens/CESAW-PD-E
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Emergency
Streambank Erosion Control, King Water Treatment Plant, King
North Carolina.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River.
Project construction will involve grading the existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal
to 1-vertical slope. Approximately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth
will be placed on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of
class 2 riprap.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the
water intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could result in
potential long term disruption of public water service. The intent of the
proposed project is to stabilize the bank in order to protect the water intake
structure. Other benefits of the proposed project include the reduction of
turbidity in the Yadkin River below present conditions and the protection of
existing shoreline vegetation.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: FY 94, during a low-flow period
(date undetermined at this time)
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Approximately 45 days
11. DISCHARGE OF:
Dredged Material
X Fill Material
J
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: King, NC
County: Forsyth County
Drainage Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
Receiving Waters: Yadkin River
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Inland
Nature: Fresh
Direction of Flow: South
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: 4,000 square yards
of geotextile filter cloth would be placed on the graded surface, followed by
a 12-inch layer of NCDOT No. 17 stone and then a 21-inch layer of Class 2 riprap.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HOW, OR ORW?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: Flow
velocities in the Yadkin River are such that riprap seems to be the most viable
alternative. The use of gabions and fabriform and sheetpile were considered, but
these materials would not withstand the high flow velocities of the Yadkin River;
therefore, these alternatives were eliminated.
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Chi ?-? DATE : V1 5 j i-
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
d . L
itl 1jN
50 (.
r11 ?I li ` ) \ n it U e.
Al If ?1. ,;' \ `\ so q % 'ti` \ `( tt 1 /
)1 /?,o. rlr? \tJ??l ????? rB6B? .1'll i'(?/`?\\ ? ?OITI18Ild% ? ? `ra?il? S\?y9h '
( ??\ / ???\ ?1t S1? //iii/?w/i'/ ?, \ •\???? ;J l(. \ -` ? _
757-hI !: ?` f ?. C>
74
^\\. 1 ??. ?`\1 1 t \?\? rt `tom u.' \t ?-1??1\??t rte. ?- r.?,.??.'•'
°c
J
Z '1 , ?',• t• King Water Treatment Plant-
???Water Intake Pipe ? .?? ;• /II ' ? ?'? D
I o ` ? If G11 ,?
c? ,, flit _?? +. ?'? . J _ .?- •,. •"e ,;. / f???w.// ? _
l,' }) •? j' ? ?\ '??o_?'????a. ?`%? ?' ••? *? '\C7,?7 '? O ? r 1 j•. ?.? 1/ ?.: " ( i F 975x,'
?'% ?P50 • I ?.? ?? 11 ' ?? ? ? ? ••?'" e .Be? bri-
.2 . 1j
Iqr
/ s.'g
" `Fi - Iii "e_?l r •? /?,
*

¦ N. C. )
MN d
c I r•pM uSGs QUQ
GN
QUADRANGLE LOCATION VIENNA, N. C.
6• 0.20'
to7 ?nlLS
36080-84-TF-024
a MILS
7968
I'IIOTOREVISED 1.986
SCALE 1 24000 DMA 4956 III NW-SERIES V842
q 4313
DRAFT
F
FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK
EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF KING
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
South Atlantic Division
April 1994
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON EMERGENCY STREAMBANR EROSION CONTROL
RING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
RING, NORTH CAROLINA
SYLLABUS
This study was conducted to address the riverbank erosion
problem at the King Water Treatment Plant, near King, North
Carolina. Bank erosion along the Yadkin River now threatens the
plantfs intake structure, and is expected to undermine and destroy
this structure unless action is taken to stabilize the shoreline.
The Recommended Plan of Improvement consists of riprap protection
along approximately 300 feet of riverbank.
This report was prepared under the authority of Section 14 of
the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. The potential non-Federal
sponsor for the recommended project is the City of King.
The estimated first cost of the Recommended Plan is $295,342.
With average annual benefits estimated at $37,100 and average
annual costs estimated at $30,000, the project benefit-cost ratio
is 1.2 to 1.
The environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan are expected
to be insignificant; therefore, an Environmental Assessment/Draft
Finding of No Significant Impact (EA) has been prepared in lieu of
an Environmental Impact Statement.
FEASIBILITY PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents
Item Page No.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKEN . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PLAN FORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
REAL ESTATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FIRST COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
BENEFIT-COST RATIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
REQUIRED COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
LOCAL COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Tables
Table No.
Page No.
1 Project Construction Costs . . . . . . . 8
2 Total Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 Cost Sharing, Recommended Plan . . . . 10
List of Figures
Figure No.
1 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Treatment Plant Intake . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Detail, Slope Protection . . . . . . . . 6
i
FEASIBILITY PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
Table of Contents--continued
List of Plates
Plate No.
1 Existing Topography Water Plant Intake
2 Site Plan - Slope Protection Project
3 Cross Section Profiles - STA 1+50 to 3+00
4 Cross Section Profiles - STA 3+50 to 4+80
List of Appendixes
Appendix A Design Considerations
Appendix B Economic Analysis
Appendix C Slope Protection
Appendix D Correspondence
ii
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON EMERGENCY STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
KING, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to address the streambank erosion
problem at the King Raw Water Treatment Plant, near King, North
Carolina. The plant's intake structure is located along the Yadkin
River, and is threatened by riverbank erosion. As discussed in
this report, Federal implementation of streambank protection at
this location was determined to be economically justified. The
plan of improvement recommended herein consists of riprap protec-
tion along 300 feet of riverbank.
AUTHORITY
This report was prepared under authority of Section 14 of the
1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. Assistance in solving this
emergency problem was requested by the City of King, North Carolina
(see appendix D, page D-1 for correspondence). Approval from South
Atlantic Division to initiate a study was requested by letter dated
7 April 1993, and requested study funds were provided by 2nd
endorsement dated 3 May 1993.
INVESTIGATIONS
A team from technical divisions within the Wilmington District
(Planning and Engineering) visited the project site to obtain data
and develop design options to solve the streambank erosion problem
threatening the water plant intake. Surveyed cross sections and
soil information were obtained within the project area.
STUDY AREA
The City of King is located in north-central North Carolina in
Stokes County. King is about 10 miles north of Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. The King Water Treatment Plant is located on the
east bank of the Yadkin River. The plant is about 6 miles
southwest of the City of King, in northwest Forsyth County, (see
location map, following page). The plant intake is located about
2,100 feet upstream from the North Carolina Highway 67 bridge. The
main plant is located about 0.25 mile inland from the river. The
water intakes, pumps, and water tank are located riverside.
1

?I I I ? sl I ? I s ?I
o S T O K'°; E S
SURRY CO.
6e
;J
IM2 .2
.o.
MI ?- /
. nea I oil
.all
N 76'15' Ella W
e .] ^ ? / 2}EQ / S¢_N /WAY
1 ,
WATER a ] il?
PLANT ,.2 o_o
r
s- • oa..ldb ,
} O??Z ' INI I0, ti t?2s '.ll'
?l
1 ? .,y 2T 1 . ?}
1 y16's
}0 41 _ y 1
f- IAJE 67 A4T 1AO 1
I1? 1}?• liss_I - L
1lLlJ 5
I" . Lei?
1,77
a , . .5
4 .2 GTE
w?toi ?
e O ?I - 65
/
O
1 Doper I
?J
U S.woY _
Semen
I ?. rAU
1 adk
Je•10. 1 "? ..
PIo 1 IAU }A
lows
P "uZZ ? ? ?^ Jr;_
is"
rA5 '
?"^t<E171' f?5 1 y? . Y .NI WINST
1 I ? ? r ? / Ior.
lE WltVlllF
Wed vi lu,*W-.l
M"d POP. a.SO
IAA
?? 11L I\
! 120 1?
JI
SCALE
0 7 ] a wlEt
0 0.5 1 MILE
4211 ..1
,,.., ' Atwood r'
FORSYTH COUNTY, N. C.
CITY OF KING, N.C.
WATER PLANT
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE I
2
As shown on figure 1, the plant is located in a bend of the
Yadkin River. The Yadkin River drainage area at the water plant is
about 1,659 square miles. The river width at the water plant is
about 300 feet. However, at times of low flow the river bed is not
fully covered with water. Channel velocities are estimated at 6
feet per second for the 2-year flood and 8.85 feet per second for
` the 100-year flood.
Site conditions reflect damage due to fluctuating river levels
and high velocities. The slopes are steep, being generally greater
than 1 to 1, and are unvegetated. The soil is sandy silt. As
shown in the photograph presented in figure 2, block failures of
the bank are in progress. Obviously, more failures are expected
without remedial action.
The King Water Treatment Plant was built about 30 years ago.
Plant employees indicated that the intake site was chosen because
of its favorable characteristics for water withdrawal such as water
flow, a rocky bottom, and water depth. The plant provides water
service to approximately 20,000 people in portions of three
counties covering an area of 125 square miles. Treatment capacity
is about 1.5 million gallons per day; average production is about
1.2 million gallons per day.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
As shown on figure 2, the riverbank immediately upstream of the
treatment plant intake is eroding. At least once a year the river
floods over the bank onto this area. As the water recedes,
portions of the bank fall into the river and cover the water intake
with sand, mud, and debris. The material causes damage and
accelerated wear to the equipment. Based on the rate of erosion
now occurring, the plant's riverside facilities will be destroyed
within approximately 3 years. A major storm event, such as the
flood which occurred at the site in November 1992, could destroy
these facilities more quickly. Should this occur, extensive repair
of the slope would be required. Water treatment services would be
lost while repairs are completed.
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION HAS TAKEN
The treatment plant staff has attempted to stabilize the bank
with rock and fill material. However, these efforts have not been
successful. Unless effective bank protection is provided, local
interests will eventually be required to relocate the riverside
facilities. Relocating the equipment would cost an estimated
$499,000 (see appendix B, page B-1 for discussion). Development of
a Federal plan of improvement is discussed in the following report
section on "Plan Formulation."
3
KING, N.C., WATER TREATMENT
Photo shows bank failure near downstream end of project area on Yadkin River.
View is south toward intake facility.
Figure 2
4
PLAN FORMULATION
The most economical and effective measure identified to address
the streambank erosion problem at the King Water Treatment Plant
consists of riprap protection along the eroded bank area. Other
alternatives considered included gabions, Fabriform bank protec-
tion, and a sheetpile retaining wall. Fabriform and gabions were
eliminated from consideration since the costs of these alternatives
would be substantially greater than the cost of riprap. A
sheetpile retaining wall was determined to be impracticable, due to
the location of bedrock at the bed of the river. The 20-inch water
intake at the project site was anchored by drilling into rock from
the river bed to a depth of about 5 feet. Therefore, rock would be
encountered at an elevation much too high to provide adequate
surface friction to maintain stability of a sheetpile wall.
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
The Recommended Plan of Improvement consists of riprap pro-
tection along the east bank of the Yadkin River. Riprap protection
will be placed along 300 linear feet of streambank. The upstream
limit of the project is about 300 feet upstream from the water
treatment plant property line. The downstream limit is in line
with the north side of the water treatment intake facility. A
detail of slope protection is shown on figure 3; a site plan and
cross section profiles for existing and improved conditions are
shown on plates 1 through 4.
Project construction will include grading the existing bank to
a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical slope. Following grading, filter
fabric will be placed, and a 1-foot-thick layer of N.C. DOT #17
stone (dimensions range from approximately 1/4" to 211) will be
placed to prevent silt from being washed through the stone slope
protection. A minimum 21-inch-thick layer of riprap meeting the
requirements of NCDOT Class 2 riprap will be placed on the #17
stone layer.
NCDOT Class 2 riprap weighs a minimum of 29 pounds and a maximum
of 463 pounds. This material can withstand 13 feet per second
stream velocity, which is substantially greater than the stream
velocity of 100-year frequency flows at the project location. The
design velocity of 13.3 feet per second was obtained by accounting
for the angled flow impingement on the affected bank (see appendix
A, "Design Considerations" for detailed discussion).
The vertical distance from the top of riverbank to river bed is
about 18 feet. The toe of the bank protection will be keyed into
the existing stream bed and extended to the present top of bank.
A riprap toe will be placed along the base of the protection.
W a
J W
W
~ O
X
W °
F
O N
W .-
C7
4. _
H
O
a0
() Z W
Q CD J
m z _
O \ N W
a x r-
O W w
? O
O
z z
O Q
f J
° U CL
O W F-
' F- Z
a D O W
U
O p / x Q- F- • •
M wQZ(n
VIZN LLB
O Z a J Z Z
N
O O O ~
0 \ a0U0 L.LJ?
Z F-
O
W w J 3
Z Q C7 a m
O Q
N W F-
CY Z
# H a °
F. O a
O 0
p N
U >
U Z N
Z a
J
U Ln
N
W
IL
O
J
N
CL /
O
J
N
U-
O
W
O
Figure 3
6
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
The materials required for project construction are available
from State-approved sources within 50 miles of the project site.
Excess earth material from the graded area will be disposed of in
a State-approved landfill. In order to provide access for project
maintenance, a minimum distance of 20 feet will be maintained
beyond the after-construction top of bank. This area will be
graded and grassed. Maintenance work will consist of replacement
of riprap, and mowing and fertilizing the maintenance access area.
REAL ESTATE
Project construction will require 0.28 acre of land. Real
estate values, shown in table 2, page 9, were furnished by real
estate appraisers working for the City of Winston-Salem and the
City of King, and were based on similar lands near the King Water
Treatment Plant. Acquisition costs were based on records of recent
estimates of acquisition costs at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pro-
jects. Acquisition costs were assumed to be the same here as for
other recently estimated projects.
FIRST COSTS
Construction costs for the Recommended Plan of Improvement are
shown below in table 1. The costs are based on an interest rate of
8 percent and a project life of 25 years. Total project costs,
including real estate, are shown in table 2, following page. A
detailed cost estimate is presented in appendix C.
TABLE 1
Project Construction Costs
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE 1
** PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTITY UOM CONTRACT E&D SIOM CONTING TOTAL COST UNIT COST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
1 CLEARING 0.28 AC 1,252 315 148 429 2,143 7655.1E
2 EXCAVATION 350.00 CY 2,243 563 265 768 3,840 10.97
3 GEOTEXTILE 4000.00 SY 12,578 3,159 1,487 4,306 21,530 5.3E
4 NCDOT #17 STONE 1500.00 CY 42,098 10,573 4,976 14,412 72,058 48.0=
5 NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP 2500.00 CY 111,043 27,890 13,125 38,014 190,071 76.0-
----------- --------- --------- --------- -----------
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1.00 EA 169,214 42,500 20,000 57,928 289,642 289642.3`-

8
TABLE 2
Total Protect Costs
Construction Costs (from table 1) $289,642
4 Real Estate Costs:
Project Lands (0.28 acres): 1,200
Acquisition Costs: 4,500
Total Project First Cost $295,342
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS
Average annual costs for the Recommended Plan of Improvement are
estimated at $30,000. This cost, computed using an interest rate
of 8 percent and an amortization period of 25 years, includes
interest and amortization and $2,300 for annual operation and
maintenance.
EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS
The expected annual benefits for preserving the riverside
facilities are $37,100. These benefits were computed based on the
costs which would be incurred if the riverside facilities must be
relocated due to riverbank erosion (see page B-1, appendix B, for
discussion).
BENEFIT-COST RATIO
With average annual benefits estimated at $37,100 and average
annual costs estimated at $30,000, the benefit-cost ratio for the
Recommended Plan is 1.2 to 1.
9
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES
Costs for construction of the Recommended Plan of Improvement
will be shared by the Federal Government and the non-Federal
sponsor. Under current Federal policy applicable to flood damage
reduction projects, the non-Federal sponsor must contribute 25
percent of the project first costs. Cost sharing for the Selected
Plan of Improvement is shown in table 3, below. The non-Federal
costs shown in table 3 include costs for lands, easements, and
rights of way. Additional requirements of non-Federal sponsorship
are included in the District Engineer's Recommendations, page 14.
The City of King will provide its share of project costs at or
before the time of contract award. The City has indicated that
funds will be available at the time of award (see letter dated
March 30, 1994, from City of King, page D-6, appendix D).
TABLE 3
Cost Sharing, Recommended Plan of Improvement
Federal Contribution $221,507
Non-Federal Contribution 73,835
Total $295,342
10
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan are expected
to be insignificant; therefore, an Environmental Assessment/Draft
Finding of No Significant Impact (EA) has been prepared in lieu of
an Environmental Impact Statement. Anticipated environmental
impacts are discussed below, followed by a discussion of required
environmental coordination.
IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Potential adverse environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan
include loss of streambottom and streambank habitat due to grading
and riprap placement, and increased turbidity during construction.
The streambank area will be graded for about 300 feet on the east
side of the Yadkin River. Existing vegetation will be replaced
with a riprapped surface in the area where slope protection will be
placed. Some trees will be removed for project construction.
However, due to the severely-eroded state of the riverbank (see
figure 2), vegetation is minimal and the streambank has very
limited value as wildlife habitat.
Some loss of streambottom habitat will occur as a result of rip
rap placement, however, due to the limited extent of the work,
placement of riprap in the river is not anticipated to have a
significant effect on stream bottom habitat.
Turbidity is expected to increase during construction activities
due to excavation and grading activities on the streambank.
Sediment screens will be provided to minimize this impact.
Following construction, turbidity is expected to decrease below
that experienced under existing conditions.
The project can be expected to have a favorable long-term effect
on water quality, since bank and slope failure could result in
flooding and failure of the water treatment plant and loss of fresh
water supply to a large area. However, no detailed evaluation of
this impact has been made.
Currently, no seasonal restrictions exist for the proposed work.
11
REQUIRED COORDINATION
Representatives from the following agencies were contacted
regarding the proposed action: North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, North Carolina. Specific
coordination requirements which have been, or will be, met are
discussed below.
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) water quality certificate is
required from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Planning, Raleigh, N.C., and has been requested.
A Section 404 (b) (1) (PL 95-217) evaluation has been prepared and
is included as attachment A of the Environmental Assessment. A
Section 404 public notice will be sent out for 30-day review
concurrent with the public review for the EA.
An Environmental Assessment/ Draft Finding of No Significant
Impact has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact
Statement. This document will be circulated to all interested
Federal, State, and local agencies for 30-day review and comment.
The project has been cleared under the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
The project has also been cleared under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. No threatened or endangered species occur
in the project area (see Environmental Assessment for discussion).
No further endangered species coordination is required.
12
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
At the request of the King Superintendent of Public Utilities,
Corps representatives met with town officials responsible for the
water treatment plant and discussed options for a solution to their
streambank erosion problem. No public meeting has been held.

LOCAL COOPERATION
The City of King has provided a letter of intent to sponsor and
cost share in the Selected Plan of Improvement (see appendix A,
page A-6).
13
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the King Water Treatment Plant streambank
erosion protection project, described herein, be authorized for
implementation as a Federal project, with such modifications as in
the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at a
first cost to United States presently estimated at $221,507, exc-
luding interest during construction. The Recommended Plan of
Improvement consists of riprap protection along 300 feet of
riverbank. Recommendation of this plan is made provided that,
except as otherwise provided in these recommendations, the exact
amount of non-Federal contributions shall be determined by the
Chief of Engineers prior to project implementation in accordance
with the following requirements to which non-Federal interests must
agree prior to implementation. Non-Federal interests shall:
a. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including
suitable borrow and disposal areas as determined by the Chief of
Engineers to be necessary for construction and subsequent mainte-
nance and inspection of the project.
b. Accomplish without cost to the United States all relocations
and alterations of buildings, transportation facilities, storm
drains, utilities, and other structures and improvements made
necessary by the construction.
c. Provide, during the period of construction, an amount equal
to not less than 25 percent of total project costs, at least 5
percent of which will be cash. The amount to be provided shall
include the value or cost of all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
and facility and utility alterations and relocations necessary for
construction of the project, including suitable borrow and
excavated material disposal areas, as may be determined by the
Chief of Engineers.
d. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the
construction and subsequent maintenance, except damages due to the
fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors.
e. Maintain and operate the project after completion without
cost to the United States in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Army.
f. Assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess
of the Federal cost limitation of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000).
14
g. Assume financial responsibility for cleanup of hazardous and
toxic waste, as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which is necessitated by
the project. Such costs will not be considered part of the total
project costs, nor will the sponsor receive credit for such costs
it incurs.
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information
available at this time and current departmental policies governing
formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program
and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national
civil works construction program nor the perspective of higher
review levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the
recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to
higher authority as proposals for authorization and implementation
funding.
In making the recommendations herein, I have considered all
significant aspects in the overall public interest, including
environmental, social, cultural, and economic effects and engineer-
ing feasibility.
LAWRENCE W. SAUNDERS
Chief, Planning Division
GEORGE L. CAJIGAL
Colonel, EN
Commanding
Submitted by:
Rex A. Phillips, P.E.
15

v
u
co
r-4
W
M
w
J
FL O
000

C
Z0
O f-
h o
U LO
w +
V) M
U) Q
M
OU)

EIEVA7aN U

-SR

p
?a
4

NOINA773 AMP]

S

4
s0 x7r

---- NOT wor
?
11

T

0
AOSIAP3 ACYlYADI

M
W
41
id
rl
a
g ELEVAMV g 88 gg
8
-st
?o
(A X
vp"
N
T
a get
AUIVA713
ELfvff v
8

S3
lQ

l0
Wbil
41
k
awl

0
N

vjski

N
N
Y
p 1 -0 9 -4 -0 9
AUIV 13
q 1Q
i0

?
gg gg gg
AgIdA713
U)
w
J
O
00
CL M
O0
F- O
U Lo
w +
U)
U)
C) Q
F-
0 (n
U
AONA773
Ix
= W
W< 1
C K
N
2
pp
7 f ¦

<1 K y,
O
J J p J 2 1- f
O

~
?0 W /-
'W
m
N Z
?0
OX?
u' W O
7G. K
p
r

?1 0 =
i m<m
?W 2 .
1-NWS? w u
J 1- aWW<
X

? W
aaO

Z

`f ^ ;uocw
K
W
n
.4
q •
d

Y'?_? c
y
?
?.0?,ii.l9T z
jjjj???px
y
?S%'n
•? {f'?{ = ya
?
NF
??2W '
E
mCW
y
Q
S
u
N
«

0
00+0
N
N =W ? 1
00+1

(^y

ZI w F,

U
J T
"7ZZ )Ild 1? W

'
; z ix
D.
rr
+,
?
g 4 $07 Y
O
O
Y F W
7 z
' rid ?'Id
r Q
} 0
Zz

1p?+3

l ....
J
• )dld
00+Z 'd1S
NO I13310ad 'X0Hddd
3d0IS N I038 C;
•
? Z N
mss '

o,•"
N W C7 •
Z
a Z
moo ti? _
O
V? y'

N ?
N
Z

00+£ J
a

=d„ V1
N?

n
N
f
4
00+Y
N P
h
W
N
N ? N
N
t

00+5 1S 'X01 dd
NOI1 310 d 3d IS ON3

N
• ? u

^
0 0+9
•

c3
N
J ?
N.`iO i ¦
Er
N
t-?
a

; }
< LU

? C Y

Y
S
z
3

kK

? 0-

^
1 J
pp?
R ? W CL
O Z

Q

H U' S'
to
o
(J li
J°'
-C w U J O V Z
CC
-O
It
N O ?!I Sti

S.-F-J
?UN LW

f
N? •S
. ?
y <W i(
\
l
4 W
>

?p R

n sl
3 00+0
r
e as p
h
1 +I
w
'/lam
3dld I >
?
4 Z
)dI?IN; Mid Y

)did

1 O
Q M
Z
? Q
y
i
J
)a N
l 00 Z co,
NO 10 d Xouddd
3d0?S N Mg
o e
hr
rff ? ?
b
,
IF

V
r y
m ?
h n

0 00+G
N
O
No N
h ? n
?P
N o? 4
z
0 Iva
0 +
u
r
o
h
+ 1S 'X Od dd
NOIl 310 d 3d -IS ON3

N h Z W
N O

,. _ ? a n n
0 + 0+9 5
I ?N
} ?' ? z
g
J ?
S
Y
?
3 q?
1 ti O (k
_? ?s c3

Sao ?

1-4
ai
LI
co
r-I
a
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT - YADKIN RIVER
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.01 Project Authorization and History. Under authority of
Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, a study was
conducted to address the streambank erosion problems along the
Yadkin River at King, North Carolina (see figure 1, "Location
Map"). Bank erosion in this area threatens to damage the water
intake structure at the King Water Treatment Plant, which could
result in potential long term disruption of public water service.
Federal implementation of a streambank protection plan was
determined to be justified.
1.02 Proposed Action. The recommended plan consists of riprap
slope protection along a 300-foot section of the east bank of the
Yadkin River. Project construction will involve grading the
existing bank to a 2.5-horizontal to 1-vertical slope. Approxi-
mately 4,000 square yards of geotextile filter cloth will be placed
on the graded surface, followed by a 12-inch layer of N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) No. 17 stone and then a 21-
inch layer of Class 2 riprap. A site plan is shown in plates 1 and
2; a typical section is shown in figure 3.
The vertical distance from the top of the riverbank to the
riverbed is about 18 feet. The project area (including riprap area
and maintenance access) will extend from approximately 8 feet
waterward of the toe of the slope to a line parallel to the bank
approximately 25 feet beyond the top of the bank. The access area
will be graded and grassed. Maintenance work will consist of
replacing riprap as needed, and mowing and fertilizing the grassed
area a minimum of two times a year.
The proposed project will run from the downstream limit at
station 2+00 (near a fire hydrant) to the upstream limit at station
5+00 (300 feet) (see plate 2).
1.03 Purpose and Need. In November 1992 the City of King,
North Carolina, Water Treatment Plant raw intake station began
experiencing severe flow restriction. The natural flow of the
channel was being diverted by the erosion of the east bank, which
caused sediment and several trees to separate from a section of the
east bank and enter the Yadkin River. The sediment and trees
caused a diversion of normal flow, producing a "stilling" effect
immediately downstream of the erosion and creating a sand and
debris formation in the vicinity of the City's raw water intake.
Besides restricting flow to the raw water intake, continued erosion
could cause damage to the raw water intake station, thereby
threatening the operation of the Water Treatment Plant. Damage to
the water intake structure could result in potential long term
disruption of public water service. Federal implementation of a
streambank protection plan was determined to be justified.
2.00 ALTERNATIVES
2.01 Gabions and Fabriform. The use of gabions and fabriform
was considered; however, these materials were determined to be more
costly than riprap protection.
2.02 Sheetpile. A sheetpile retaining wall was also consid-
ered, but was eliminated due to the location of bed rock at the bed
of the river. The 20-inch water intake was anchored by drilling
into rock from the river bed to a depth of about 5 feet. There-
fore, rock would be encountered at an elevation much too high to
provide adequate surface friction to maintain stability of a
sheetpile wall.
2.03 No Action Alternative. The no action alternative could
result in significant adverse social and economic impacts to the
local community. Continued erosion of the riverbank would cause
damage to the intake structure of the water treatment plant and
could render the water treatment plant inoperable. Therefore, the
no action alternative is not feasible.
3.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
3.01 Water Quality. The North Carolina water quality classifi-
cation assigned to the Yadkin River, from the mouth of the Ararat
River to a point 0.5 mile upstream of the mouth of Bashavia Creek
is WS-IV (15A NCAC 2B .0309). WS-IV waters are protected as water
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The project is expected to have a favorable long-term effect on
water quality, since bank erosion results in increased sediment and
debris in the river, thereby increasing turbidity and restricting
flow. The placement of a riprapped surface on a sandy, severely
eroded surface should reduce turbidity below present conditions.
EA-2
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) water quality certificate is
required from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Planning, Raleigh, N.C., and has been requested.
A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation report has been prepared and is
included as attachment A. A Section 404 public notice will be sent
out for a 30-day review concurrent with the public review for the
EA.
No adverse impacts to groundwater resources are expected to
occur as a result of the proposed activity.
3.02 Benthos. Approximately 2,400 square feet of sandy stream
bottom habitat will be converted to hard substrate (riprap). The
riprap is expected to become inhabited by organisms adapted to hard
substrate.
3.03 Fisheries. No negative impacts to the nektonic community
are expected to occur. In fact, impacts to fisheries resources
would be positive as placement of riprap will decrease turbidity in
the Yadkin River by stabilizing the eroding bank. In addition, bank
stabilization will prevent trees from entering the Yadkin River,
thereby keeping flow rates at a normal level.
3.04 Terrestrial Resources. Impacts to terrestrial resources
will result from the clearing of approximately 0.28 acre of
vegetation along the east bank of the Yadkin River. Based on a
site visit by the Corps of Engineers on June 9, 1993, it was
evident that erosion along the riverbank has destroyed some of the
existing vegetation and, if allowed to continue, will destroy even
more vegetation. Therefore, the clearing of the 0.28 acre is
necessary to protect a much larger area, including adjacent
agricultural lands and the King Water Treatment Plant Water Intake
Station.
EA-3
3. 05 Threatened and Endangered Species. The proposed work has
been reviewed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. The following species may occur in the project
area and must be considered:
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a resident of mature (70+ years)
pine forests of the project region. A site visit conducted by the
corps of Engineers on June 9, 1993 revealed that the project offers
very poor habitat for the species. As no conclusive evidence of
red-cockaded woodpeckers was found, the species is believed to be
absent from the area; therefore, the proposed action will not
affect this species.
Small-anthered bittercress grows in flood plains and on
streambanks; however, due to the disturbed nature of the project
site, habitat for small-anthered bittercress is absent; therefore,
the project will not impact this species.
3.06 Archeological/Historical Resources. During the initial
review of the proposed project, it was determined that several
archeological sites were in the vicinity of the King Water
Treatment Plant. These sites were discovered during a survey of
the "Great Bend" area of the Yadkin River which was undertaken by
Wake Forest University. In order to determine if any proposed
activity associated with the project would impact any of these
sites, the existing water treatment facilities and the three known
archeological sites which exist within the area were located in the
field by a team of surveyors. The known site locations (fish
weirs) and existing facilities are shown on plate 2. None of the
known sites would be affected by any of the project features as
currently planned, and no further surveys are required.
Since the project is located in an area with a very high
potential to contain significant archeological resources, care will
be taken to keep all construction activity within the designated
construction limits. If plans change and a borrow or disposal area
is necessary outside of the currently known project limits,
additional cultural resource surveys would be performed. Caution
will also be exercised using the access road to the project site,
since known archeological resources exist along portions of its
length.
EA-4
3.07 Esthetic Resources. The grading of the riverbank and
placement of riprap is not expected to have a significant adverse
visual effect in the project area. The existing streambank is
severely eroded and much of the existing vegetation has already
been lost.
3.08 Flood Plain. No practicable alternative exists to
performing the work within the flood plain of the Yadkin River.
The proposed action would not affect the natural and beneficial
values of the flood plain.
3.09 Air ouality and Noise. No significant impacts will occur.
The noise level increase in the immediate vicinity of construction
will be temporary. No impacts to air quality of the area will
occur.
3.10 Hazardous and Toxic Waste. During the site visit on June
9, 1993 the project area was surveyed for potential hazardous and
toxic waste (HTW). No evidence of HTW was found; therefore, it is
not expected that any hazardous and toxic waste sites will be
encountered during construction or maintenance of the project.
EA-5
4.00 COORDINATION
Representatives from the following agencies were contacted
regarding the proposed action:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, North Carolina
No public meeting has been held. However, Corps representatives
met with Mr. Tom New, Superintendent of Public Utilities, City of
King, N.C., on June 9, 1993 and discussed options for a solution to
the streambank erosion problem.
5.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS
This Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact is being circulated for information to the following
agencies and individuals.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Forest Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Environmental Health
National Marine Fisheries Service
State Clearinghouse
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Sierra Club
Izaac Walton League
Federal Highway Administration
National Audubon Society
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Energy
Cape Fear Community College
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
Duke University Department of Geology
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Librarian, North Carolina Environmental Resources
UNC-Wilmington Library
North Carolina State Library
Library
EA-6
6.00 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
The proposed action will not significantly affect the quality
of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared.
Attachment
EA-7
ATTACHMENT A
SECTION 404(b)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION 404(B)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
YADKIN RIVER - KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14 - EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No.
, dated
1. Review of compliance (230.10(a)-(d)l Preliminary Final a/
A review of the NEPA Document indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging
practicable alternative and if in a
special aquatic site, the activity
associated with the discharge must
have direct access or proximity to,
or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic
purpose (if no, see section 2 and
information
gathered in the NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water
quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section
307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the
existence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species or
their habitat; and 3) violate
requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no,
see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water
quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant
degradation of waters of the U.S.
including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms
dependent on the aquatic ecosystem,
ecosystem diversity, productivity
and stability, and recreational,
esthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
have been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
Proceed to Section 2
*, J, Z,/ See page A-6
YESI_I NOI_I* YESI$I NOI_I
YESI_I NOI_I* YESI1I NOI_I
YESI-I NOI_I* YESI1I NOI-I
YESI_I NOI_I* YESI}S) NOI_I
A-1
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subi)arts C-F1
a.
b.
c.
Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Subspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat. _
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). X
Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges. X
(2) Wetlands. X
(3) Mud flats. X
(4) Vegetated shallows. X
(5) Coral reefs. X
(6) Riffle and pool complexes. X
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Esthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page A-6
A-2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the
biological availability of possible
contaminants in dredged or fill
material. (Check only those
appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other
sources
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man-induced discharge activities
(8) Other sources (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA/FONSI "Yadkin River - King Water Treatment Plant,
Section 14 - Emergency Bank Protection, Forsyth County, North
Carolina," dated December, 1993.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site. _ _
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES IXl NO (_I*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page A-6
A-3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site
(3) Degree of turbulence
(4) Water column stratification
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction
(6) Rate of discharge
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities)
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
191
IRI
191
171
1XI
Reference: EA/FONSI "Yadkin River - King Water Treatment Plant,
Section 14 - Emergency Bank Protection, Forsyth County, North
Carolina," dated December, 1993.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal' site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable YES IXI NO I_I*
S. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed _
discharge. List actions taken. YES 1Xl NO
For water quality see Section 3.01 of the EA/FONSI.
For benthos see Section 3.02 of the EA/FONSI.
For fisheries see Section 3.03 of the EA/FONSI.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, pace A-6.
*See page A-6
A-4

6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified it
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4; and 5).
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5).
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem.
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem.
7. Findinas.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
*See page A-6
YES 13-El NO Q*
YES III NO I_I*
YES IXI NO Q*
YES III NO I_I*
YES III NO I_i*
YES III NO I_I*
YES III NO Q*
YES 13(I NO I_I*
III
A-5
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative I_i
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem I_I
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem
8.
Date: Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
.J/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this
stage indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this
"short farm procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions
of the technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final
review of compliance.
21 Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the
economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is
inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
A-6

APPENDIX A
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDIX A
KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Present Conditions. The King Water Treatment Plant facilities
are located on the Yadkin River in Forsyth County, North Carolina
approximately 2100 feet upstream from the N.C. highway 67 bridge.
The drainage area at the site is 1659 square miles. Streamflows
in the vicinity of the site are regulated by W. Kerr Scott Dam
located approximately 64 miles upstream. Regulated peak dis-
charge frequency relationships, based on a 1989 regional frequen-
cy study, were used as input to the HEC-2 water surface profiles
computer program to establish frequency flood elevations and
associated channel velocities. Channel velocities in the vicini-
ty of the site range from 6 feet per second for the 2-year flood
to 10.5 feet per second for the 500-year flood. The design
velocity was based on the average 100-year channel velocity of
8.85 feet per second. The final design velocity of 13.3 feet per
second was computed by multiplying the average channel velocity
by a factor of 1.5 to account for angled flow impingement on the
north bank.
The present conditions at the project site are typical of damage
due to erosion caused by fluctuating water (river) levels and
high velocities. The slopes are steep, being greater than 1
horizontal to 1 vertical in many cases. The surveyed cross-
sections show block failures in progress and evidence of past
slope failures. The slopes are steep, unvegetated and the soil
is a sandy silt. These conditions are expected to lead to more
failures because of erosion, unless remedial actions are taken.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of riprap slope
protection along the east bank of the Yadkin River. A site plan
is shown in plate 2; a typical cross-section is shown in figure
3. Project construction is to consist of grading the existing
bank slopes to 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (see cross-sections
for existing and improved conditions, plates 3 and 4). Once the
slope is graded, filter fabric, 12" of N.C.D.O.T. #17 stone, and
21" of N.C.D.O.T. class 2 riprap will be placed.
A-1
The gradation of the riprap is dependent upon river velocity and
bank slope among other items. The gradation necessary at this
site is as follows:
W100 185-463 pounds
WSe 93-137 pounds
Wls 29- 69 pounds
This is not a common gradation, however N.C.D.O.T. Class 2 riprar
does meet this gradation and is recommended and should be avail-
able from local quarries. The thickness of this riprap should be
a minimum of 21 inches. Beneath the riprap should be a 12 inch
bedding layer and between the bedding and the soil slope a layer
of geotextile. The geotextile will act as a filter preventing
piping of the slope material. The bedding should be N.C.D.O.T.
#17 stone and acts as a cushion for the geotextile during riprap
placement.
The vertical distance from the top of river bank to river bed is
approximately 18 feet. The toe of the slope protection will be
keyed into the existing stream bed and extend to the top of bank.
A 6-foot by 3-foot riprap toe will be placed along the river
bottom. The riprap protection will extend approximately 300 feet
upstream of the fire hydrant. The protection will transition
from the existing slope protection on the downstream end and will
transition to natural ground on the upstream limit at the natural
drainage feature. In order to provide access for project mainte-
nance, a minimum of 20 feet beyond the after construction top of
bank will be maintained. These areas will be graded and grassed.
Maintenance work will consist of replacing riprap as needed and
mowing and fertilizing the grassed areas a minimum of two times a
year.
Materials. There are several state approved quarries within 50
miles of King. Quarries in Mt. Airy and around Winston-Salem,
N.C. should be able to provide the necessary gradations. No
borrow areas are required. The excavated material can be used to
smooth the slopes prior to geotextile placement. Excess material
shall be disposed of in a state approved landfill.
A-2
APPENDIX B
RING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECTION 14
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
DECEMBER 1993
Introduction. The King water treatment plant is located in
Forsyth County, North Carolina on the Yadkin River, about 4.5
miles downstream of the town of Donnaha. The main plant is
located about 0.25 mile inland from the river. The water in-
takes, pumps, switch gears, and water tank are located riverside.
Plant employees indicated that this site was specifically chosen
because of its favorable characteristics for water withdrawal
such as water flow, a rocky bottom, and water depth. The plant
provides water service to approximately 20,000 people in portions
of three counties covering an area of 125 square miles.
Damages and Benefits. The riverbank immediately upstream of the
treatment plant riverside facilities is eroding. At least once a
year the river floods over the bank onto this area. As the water
recedes, portions of the bank fall into the river and cover the
water intake with sand, mud, and debris. The material causes
damage and accelerated wear to the equipment. The treatment
plant has attempted to stabilize the bank with rock and fill
material. These efforts have not been successful. Within three
years, erosion will destroy the treatment plant riverside facili-
ties and terminate water service to 20,000 people. Relocating
the equipment is estimated to cost a minimum of $499,000. The
main problems associated with relocation are that water service
would be disrupted for a long time and the nearby sites are not
as good as the existing site. It is possible to stabilize the
eroding bank by shaping it and using the appropriate rip rap
along approximately 350 feet of the bank. The construction cost
of this improvement, including real estate and design costs, is
$295,300. The average annual cost of the project for a 25-year
period using an 8.00 percent rate is $27,700. Annual OM&R is
$2,300. The total average annual cost of the improvement is
$30,000. The erosion control project will prevent the erosion
threatening the riverside facilities and eliminate the necessity
to relocate the equipment. The present worth value of $499,000
for three years at 8.00 percent is $396,100 which, when amortized
for 25 years at the same rate, yields an expected annual value
(benefit) of $32,400 for protection of the equipment. The
expected annual benefits compared to the average annual cost
yields a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.
B-1
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection TITLE PAGE 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SLOPE PROTECTION
Water Treatment Plant, King, NC
Designed By: S Haggett
Estimated By: J Danford
Prepared By: USAED Wilmingtion District
Date: 10/01/93
M C A C E S GOLD EDITION
Composer GOLD Copyright (C) 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992
by Building Systems Design, Inc.
Release 5.20J
LABOR 1D: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-1
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:2
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection CONTENTS PAGE
SUMMARY REPORTS
SUMMARY PAGE
PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ...........................................1
PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ........................................2
PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 ..........................................3
DETAILED ESTIMATE
DETAIL PAGE
1. CLEARING ..............................................................1
2. EXCAVATION ............................................................2
3. GEOTEXTILE ............................................................3
4. NCDOT #17 STONE .......................................................4
5. NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP ..................................................5
No Backup Reports...
* * * END TABLE OF CONTENTS * * *
C-2
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE 1
** PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTITY UOM CONTRACT E&D SIOH CONTING TOTAL COST UNIT COST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 CLEARING 0.28 AC 1,252 315 148 429 2,143 7655.10
2 EXCAVATION 350.00 CY 2,243 563 265 768 3,840 10.97
3 GEOTEXTILE 4000.00 SY 12,578 3,159 1,487 4,306 21,530 5.38
4 NCDOT #17 STONE 1500.00 CY 42,098 10,573 4,976 14,412 72,058 48.04
5 NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP 2500.00 CY 111,043 27,890 13,125 38,014 190,071 76.03
----------- --------- --------- --------- -----------
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1.00 EA 169,214 42,500 20,000 57,928 289,642 289642.35
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-3
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE
** PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 **
---

---- --------------------------

------------------------- -----------
QUANTITY
----------- -----
UOM
----- ---------------------------------
DIRECT OVERHEAD HOME OFC
--------------------------------- ---------
PROFIT
--------- ----------
BOND
---------- ---------
MobDemob
--------- ------------
TOTAL COST
------------ -------
UNIT CC
-------
1 CLEARING 0.28 AC 915 137 53 111 12 25 1,252 4472.
2 EXCAVATION 350.00 CY 1,639 246 94 198 22 44 2,843 6.
3 GEOTEXTILE 4000.00 SY 9,192 1,379 529 1,110 122 247 12,578 3.
4 NCDOT #17 STONE 1500.00 CY 30,765 4,615 1,769 3,715 409 825 42,098 28.
5 NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP 2500.00 CY 81,150 12,173 4,666
------- --
-
- 9,799
------- - 1,078
-------- - 2,177
-------- 111,043
----------- 44.
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT 1.00 -
EA -
-- --
---------- ----
123,662 18,549 7,111 14,932 1,643 3,318 169,214 169213.
E&D 42,500
SUBTOTAL 211,714
SIOH 20,000
SUBTOTAL 231,714
CONTINGENCY 57,928
TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 289,642
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-4
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection SUMMARY PAGE 3
** PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - LEVEL 1 **
1 CLEARING
2 EXCAVATION
3 GEOTEXTILE
4 NCDOT #17 STONE
5 NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT
OVERHEAD (15%)
SUBTOTAL
HOME OFC (5%)
SUBTOTAL
PROFIT (10%)
SUBTOTAL
BOND
SUBTOTAL
MOB&DEMOB
TOTAL INCL INDIRECTS
E&D
SUBTOTAL
SIOH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS
QUANTITY UOM MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL COST UNIT COST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.28 AC 34 466 449 0 0 915 3268.31
350.00 CY 33 390 1,250 0 0 1,639 4.68
4000.00 SY 120 1,400 160 7,632 0 9,192 2.30
1500.00 CY 195 1,305 1,635 27,825 0 30,765 20.51
2500.00 CY 350 4,225 2,725 74,200 0
--- - 81,150
---------- 32.46
1.00 -
EA ------ --
732 ------- --
7,786 ------- -
6,219 -------- ----
109,657 --
0 123,662 123661.53
18,549
142,211
7,111
149,321
14,932
164,253
1,643
165,896
3,318
169,214
42,500
211,714
20,000
231,714
57,928
289,642
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-5
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER T REATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE
1. CLE ARING
------------------------------------

------------------------------------ --------

-------- ---------
QUANTY
--------- ---
UOM
--- --------
CREW ID
-------- --------------
MANHOUR
-------------- ---------
LABOR
--------- --------------------
EQUIPMNT MATERIAL
--------------------- ------------------
OTHER TOTAL CC
-----------------
1. CLEARING
MIL AA Clear and Grub Lt Trees to 6" D 68.57 936.55 891.89 0.00 0.00 1828.
(15cm) Dia, Cut and Chip 0.28 ACR COMCA 19 262 250 0 0 5
MIL AA Clear and Grub Lt Stumps to 6" D 12.00 154.56 343.60 0.00 0.00 498.
0.28 ACR COETY 3 43 96 0 0 1
MIL AA Mach. Load Spoils, 20 Mi RT Haul 0.74 10.02 6.46 0.00 0.00 16.
(3.2Km) Haul to Dump 16.00 CY COETF 12 160
- 103
-------- --- 0
------ -- 0
------- --- 2
------
CLEARING ------- ---
34 -----
-
466 449 0 0 9
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-6
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Enginee?s TIME 09: 06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE 2
2. EXCAVATION
---------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------- --------
QUANTY
-------- --------------------------
UOM CREW ID MANHOUR
-------------------------- --------
LABOR
-------- ----------
EQUIPMNT
---------- ----------
MATERIAL
----------- ---------------
OTHER TOTAL
-------------- -----
COST
-----
2. EXCAVATION
MIL AA Exc & Load,2 CY Hyd Exc,Med Matl 0.03 0.45 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.43
75 CY/Hr (57M3) 350.00 CY CODET 11 158 343 0 0 501
L MIL AA Haul, 16.5 CY (12.6M3) Trk, 6 Mi 0.06 0.66 2.59 0.00 0.00 3.25
40 MPH (60 Km/Hr), 2.1 Cycles/Hr 350.00 CY COETH 22 232 907 0 0 1,139
2.1 Cycles/Hr
------- ---
------ -
-------- -
-------- --
------- ------
-----
EXCAVATION 33 390 1,250 0 0 1,639
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-7
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection
3. GEOTEXTILE
TIME 09:01
DETAIL PAGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL (
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. GEOTEXTILE
CIV AA Geotextile Fabric, 170 Mil Thick
Non-Woven Polypropylene 4000.00 SY ULABJ
GEOTEXTILE
0.03 0.35 0.04
120 1,400 160
-
---- --
120 ------- --
1,400 ------
160
1.91 0.00 i
7,632 0 9,
--------- --------- --------
7,632 0 9,
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-8
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:06:26
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE 4
4. NCDOT #17 STONE
w
4. NCDOT #17 STONE
M MIL AA NCDOT N 17 STONE
NCDOT #17 STONE
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL COST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.13 0.87 1.09 18.55 0.00 20.51
1500.00 CY COETF 195 1,305 1,635 27,825
- 0
------- -- 30,765
---------
------- --
195 ------- --
1,305 ------- -
1,635 -------- -
27,825 0 30,765
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-9
Wed 24 Nov 1993 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:C
PROJECT KINGWP: KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLOPE PROTECTION
DETAILED ESTIMATE King, NC Water Treatment Plant, Slope Protection DETAIL PAGE
5. NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTY UOM CREW ID MANHOUR LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL OTHER TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP
B MIL AA Class II Rip Rap 0.14 1.69 1.09 29.68 0.00 3
Random, Dumped from Truck 2500.00 CY COETF 350 4,225 2,725 74,200 0 81
------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
NCDOT CLASS 2 RIPRAP 350 4,225 2,725 74,200 0 81
KING, NC, WATER TREATMENT PLANT
------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
732 7,786 6,219 109,657 0 123
LABOR ID: NAT92A EQUIP ID: NAT92A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: JCC92A UPB ID: NAT92A
C-10

City of King
P.O. BOX 1132, KING, N.C. 27021 0 (919)98 3-8265
M M. V

Walter S. Telloch
District Engineer
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
WiJrnington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Toni New
Superintendent of Public Utilities
City of King
P.O. Box 719
King, N.C. 27021
Dear Mr. Telloch:
Beginning in November 1992, the City of King, North Carolina
Water Treatment Plant raw water intake station began experiencing
a severe flow restriction to the Yadkin River Intake. The
normally free access of water was being interrupted by the
diverting of the natural flow channel by several sections of
large trees which had begun a gradual separation from a length of
approximately 200 yards of the cast side of the Yadkin River
bank. (See Attached Maps). This diverting of the normal flow
was producing a "stilling" effect immediately downstream,
consequently creating a sand and debris formation upon and around
the City's raw water intake. The actual effect of this
obstruction was realized in periodic total occlusion of the
intake screen and regular flow limitation which had a pattern of
incremental decreasing of intake capacity during each multi-hour
pumping cycle.
F-.mcrgency measures were taker; to mitit,:?te this prod-1 carner;t on
November 24th, 1992. This action became necessary after reaching
.t crisis point due to mechanical failure at the pump station arid
situation of impending interruption of water supply for the
approximately six-thousand customers served by the city's
distribution system. As a result of the emergency removal of
this natural impediment to the Yadkin River channel, erosion of
the east river bank is currently occurring at an alarming rate.
if allowed to continue for an indefinite period of time this
t:rosion will place the entire intake structure at risk or at the
vcr;' least, result in considerable damage arid potential long term
disruption of public water service.
j)Gil:1.) !1.J f111rnciaJ jmin;;^! , {+!r tJier nc,cyIec?
s r,;t easily evaluated, but t':c engineering estimates for the
`,?1 replacement or rCJCCF:t10ri C.` the pumping faCility, :trC in
?•'?: +, +, flf ?Ji?'s ?'<>Y'. i'?tj.t ?'•1l *??, .1?.. .. ., .. ,, :_i +t-?,- - -.fit..: (? ? .•? _.: '_ll.
'D-%

overall costs and the extent of permanent revetment or dredging
can only be determined after a thorough on,, i ricer i n- evaluation by
experienced personnel such as is offered under Section 14 of the
U.S. Flood Control Act. In the interim, the City of King has
incurred significant financial outlays related to temporary
revetment, pumping equipment repair, control and regulating
instrumentation repair and upgrading, facility repair and retro-
fitting and the accompanying labor and engineering costs to
implement emergency procedures.
A further orninous point of concern is the unusually severe
rainfalls and flooding which this area of the North Carolina
Piedmont has experienced within the preceding months, which has
only served to exacerbate the situation.
The City of King respectfully submits a request at this time for
any assistance which can be provided under the authority or
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please respond
as soon as possible. We stand ready to assist completely.
Graciously,
Ga'y's-
Tom New
Supt. of Public Utilities
enclosures
TN:ew
D-2
?adk
( J i
b ?' p Ft
'r 1?76Q1 ir? 1II?nI?'1''?"r"?`. - NE ,' •'" \:V ?97 1, I• .op,,
00
\ VIIO \ hr/ (CC ,' (' p'I1, i''1 CIIt?) ??Q\\, JI` (.
?\ \l ?• ?.4 1 d ' r r A? ? i '1 (Ifn% I ? 1 ?\tl ?( III 111 \ ', l j; ! \ , `1 !'
. . ? JG? \ O ?/r\'`'I ? . .; - :? r 1i , i ' I ? %(y i 'lii(! ??{?1 ? ?'aj-q/??? ?I II '' \./••l(, a ??? ?'11 1`.
-'"l `, / rr? 'I ' •,977 li`II/ l?l .G?? /b\ ..'I; ,`\:?\?/ it
r•(? • \.• \?\ t, \\ / a h 14 n,.6 ?/? r ?:r 9s` / 4f // ????yl, ?'11' II /J?1 SAi ?7 / If J/ ?' i/ \f
1??+G ?J. O ? ? ,71t r `?? 4 yi l1 . l\4,?? n?J?r r(\ ?I ?? ? "?/' I1?11???1? ???///???.J %/
4?h ?. ? I••%}l?d " .II ?? a ?.? (V I,t I(f( `?_..a fn e•/? Il/i. lll,,???1 1;, I,dl ?_ /
I' \ ii St^" / ?/i I 22. ,? ti1? \ t• ' s ( I ?) 1 f (L?' AA
i ;'50
',?`. ? i •%? lilll\\ 6`' \ ? s II ? ` ,11, • 1_•??s , l?/? ?ly?; I •) : / r / •. ? ; ` ?;??;>>I . a ? ? n G
ell
ill I •1a?`?/If?'' - ) j/; lJ yr(. \, ?'`',!/( i f
'•jil ? '?''•`? /\\` "?>,`y {y \\ K?r ?' '~? ? .?\??`?` '.. `1?•.?//fl r?j?'1\ ??``?\C' ? '1. ?« `dl \?./'..
.?,?/ / /,? ?. ? .,y? ` \1 1)14\ •ON?,/,?r'• ?' ?I75JC"? j????1f
;; II 1 ,///?1 ? . , y pro ` :?.' ? .? . t , \ 1 rAAAI ; I t \. ' 7 ?-
l, f• !" ',?( .. ,. lt<t. ?? , _J
fit; ,l 757
- / ?. ? ,-:? ?f \`4 ^\\\\ I •?? \. I `?i f 1 ? Il I??(I ' N? ? ?/afs ` ?•i r ?\ 'j G
,( !1? ...T. ?J. ?? I .,' dl f /. f/(1 r ,.)??. y ui "`PT / 'a ? b?.
1 t? __CSp ? \ :)); }? ?'\.(t7e56,? .y. 4_ -..-\ ` ?•\ -..??1?(S llr0'1T•- `?
Ii1, A ?\ j i?(r /// \t"?. \,1\;?/%r,1 h, ?? -,r/v)?I,•_S' CJ (?r" .?`,?•i.? )}1???/?
I
' t;: ?, ?y":".v??1 (?•?? '1,1.,, .? 1 ,'\ \ti? ,;',, ?. •• \,%/I 1 r ,' 1 cs.,??.t I?l'S\, ? >)IQ /•? \ Ct-??\`? 4t
,I , :iti'' l:'•-???ly t' \\\??\\:.?? :'l, r 1 ?-`r-o•. , ?I? 1 p (le,r .d'0?/'?,t 1?r __ .u/??\'?l? r 15p?Ir` 93IJ`/ ?? \??,/
??? \'((", a -:, ??''• III ?. ;, ti;r?, __II'?i•..` (I ;G\.. l?li'' 1'••/ /n-=; ,; ??? ;?/.
,. l _ ?,?- ,.f ?Q ? ,?`?\ ::'1' ??`•V 1 ? fI•' '/!i.. ? ill (l l /F '? I'• '\-' ''?/- J .
;l:r--???_/.i 0,1 }'1?,.!\\I •/li? L=?h? ?. .., ??<? i I II. Z'`?.' 1Q 1'1' ry.?lll,y r'?,}? /%!. 1114???'?r_??\,\\ 1\U%' //y41 ??
t ? tle6Nr 'Jr O "- ??? ?/. lr i , B `" T • b? y? -?i? , / ,'' \'-' ? /• 1,1? `= n \ '
o\
l . f'',r,"? ;- r rt +? t` ?j? I • ' I `' VIII` - ry?97s?,;,' Q ?? '\ ?? -'. ??
gill-1.
..r ? ``r ' 1 ,?, ?./ i. , \ q I'? ' u • yl? ? I ?/I I 1 j ' L ?? i ? ?.;? ?r < l ~ 1 i 1 ??-
1 \ \ i fo 1 1 1 f'! ?' II\/ 4 \? 1 It Al !r
?? (, ,G -.,,1!` ?' j /?3? / 1(, , Vn \ ?? ?l (I?. ?1\ ? ' II i -%,/'f?::?/ / ` ,7 , \J?'•`\ .;!/??f .? l•t
•1; ?'' 1? :f •?rll ..?.3r1, ( i'. •/' 1l? ( d(d(. 7r '41, l\ ej 6? _f v
v ??_ •tla7- // j I' ,? l ?•? r Itl, t? %\ \ I y ?ili' S/Qf?9. ?`. / ? ,-/.•?'i\1l `"., ??, ? l) ??' / ? -' ? ?? 1
'?I J ?t. ?I I ?, ? ? \\? \?1` I ?' r?• ?? ???I ill \ ?v' ?? )ti' /I C " ? 9
v ° /- '/ .?,t 1??' ? r.t Ir??, .J., 1' ?U /r •?( il!' r /l? i,f, °' I ?}I? "''?'1(?\`i`r' r '1 ?? ?r? )l: .I?l h•1 ?\?,• 'yY _?
?-) ` it I ?I ? t 1 '/ I r,•. r 1 ?.1 I I , ?) n ? ? / ? ? /?.; ' •i; ,I . -_` i ?( C?
n ( 1
?_? % . _?t'?/> ' •\ ? ?Ijl ipt Ill ?'I I • , Il •7,. ; ? 1 ! I r . I) .. , '? tl °' / ? II la \ r °-• a 1\
??j/ - ?? l 1 ll- //i I?1 ,? _ 7r) , r 1.. I?tl I'%III IJ4%?' \ ?Q,?j `?i•\L\`\\?? 1?, ,?
sQ ('? I 1 .. I . ,.--t l' l '.+• t' .) \ \t 1` a 1 1` \., Oil o\??y e'\,,
.. r `J O i}' .;' _ r? /',_ d j j /r , `?1 ?, ' I•' 0; ,• J?'j .? ?/- ? ?•_-z?, 'r` .l •1?:,'^
\? ? ao ,i `.Ct r• al /,; \ \ ') 11 ?\ (?; ?I?. 1 ? I \\ ''J 1? ? ?r r,-~ J ' ?-' 1', !/') )1?
IWA
"'` ? '%, ? ? \=Ijo`• `` N/' ? y 1 -0? .(a', \lyl?? _ IN ."i'r'fi?;? %'-^%?(/•4';??C'?.
r I I \? ) (, ? ? r ' !'. r a d t• ? I' ' \ , f .t f ?5 - °? -/ 1r '
??. ?/? %?1 ) 11, d II !I, y / . r ,, . ° \r „ 1 .. I o v a .• . Il r!\?.' O v`C?'1?. ??? ?-I
'or
1, 77'
all ' 1 ?' ??%" 4 ?\'?+ .. ;fl.- 1, (C-,t f'- ? t j ?') iI , ' ?' ? / v.--?//
r•
' di.' r L, 'C. ( I ? .//•,'(`-' ''?, ??I/gL?i,? <' ?\•? .?,i1 \: `?'?r/<pebil?.. ?\ \?..?, /p'_
_'n'i ' - -." ! (-III, r''4 /??? li v n\??l ,?1??',?/? /i/.v? /?rl=:;Ri•: ??'?? 'I4 `I ((C?lh????// ,? I' ???• ? ?? ~ ?!' ? ?•,' lth
April 7, 1993
Planning Division
Mr. Tom New
Superintendent of Public Utilities
City of King
Post Office Box 1890
King, North Carolina 27201
Dear Mr. New:
This is in response to your recent letter concerning the severe
damages at the City of King Water Treatment Plant raw water intake
on the Yadkin River i6 Forsyth County, North Carolina. The intake
pipe and the intake structure have been damaged and further erosion
will result in additional intake structure damage and possible
long-term disruption of public water service.
We believe that the emergency nature of the problem and physical
damage to plant facilities will qualify the raw water intake station
and surrounding area contributing to the problem for consideration
under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 14, Emergency Bank
Protection Program. Brochures explaining the program are enclosed.
Funds to complete a study of the problem have been requested.
These study funds will be entirely Federal. Close contact with you,
or your designated point of contact, will result in a better plan
for addressing the erosion problem. Your experience and input will
help in arriving at the best solution. The study manager, Mr. Rex
Phillips, at [phone] will be the Wilmington District point
of contact.
When study funds are received, we will contact you immediately
and arrange a visit with you. A soils engineer, design engineer,
economist, hydraulic engineer, biologist, and study manager will
probably make the trip so that we, with you, can evaluate the
problem and try to determine the most appropriate solution onsite.
This procedure will hopefully shorten the study time once we
pinpoint specific areas where further testing or evaluation are
needed.
D-y
-2-

We look forward to working with you in developing a solution
to the bank erosion problems at this site.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
0-S
City of King
P.O. BOX 1132, KING, N.C. 27021 • [phone]
March 30, 1994
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders, Chief
Planning Division
Department of the Army
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
The King City Council has directed me, as General Services
Director, to express their support for participation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in the Emergency Bank Protection Project
Section 14 for the City of King Water Treatment Plant.
The City of King officials have reviewed the feasibility report
draft of this project and offer the following comments:
1) The Project Cooperation Agreement is approved
in concept.
2) The City of King understands that it must provide
cost sharing with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in the amount of 25% of the total construction and
design costs.
3) The City of King has requested cost-sharing
assistance from Mr. John Sutherland of the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources for (66 2/3%)
of the 25% local cost-share capital contribution.
It is our understanding that budgeting for State
assistance is contained within the present grant
cycle.
4) In the remote likelihood that State assistance
were not forthcoming, alternate means for funding
would be promptly pursued.
We would like to thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their
diligence and patience with assistance in this Emergency Bank
Protection Project.
Sincerely,
??rn
Tom New
General Service Director
C)-69
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 13, 1994
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
???n
TAKE??
PRIDE INS
AMERICA?W
QD

JUN 1 1994

Under Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, the
Wilmington District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
proposes to implement a riprap bank stabilization plan along a 300-
foot section of the east bank of the Yadkin River, near the City of
King, Forsyth County, North Carolina. This work is necessary to
prevent blockage of the raw water intake pipe of the King Water
Treatment Plant.
This report is provided in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. .1531-1543) (Act). The purpose of this letter is
to describe the fish and wildlife resources within the study area,
assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources,
discuss fish and wildlife resource problems and conservation
opportunities, and recommend measures to conserve fish and wildlife
resources. This report has been coordinated with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, personal
communication, May 1994), and they concur with these
recommendations.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the
Draft Feasibility Report, Environmental Assessment (EA), and Draft
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project. We have
examined the topographic map and National Wetland Inventory map
(Vienna quadrangle) which show the project site.
Based on this review we conclude that the project will impact both
the streambed and vegetation on the eastern bank of the Yadkin
River. The project will convert approximately 2,400 square feet of
sandy, stream bottom habitat to hard substrate. This will

eliminate habitat for those benthic organisms which require
unconsolidated streambed habitat, but provide rock substrate for
other organisms. The project would require the clearing of 0.28
acres of vegetation along the bank.
Based on our project review, we believe that no significant
wetlands areas will be affected by the proposed project. Two
Federally-listed endangered species are known to occur in Forsyth
County. They are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
and the small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine- micranthera). The
Service has identified no endangered or threatened species, nor
critical habitats that would be affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of that
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts
of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not
considered in this review; or, (3) a new species or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We agree with the Corps' assessment that construction will result
in increased turbidity in the Yadkin River. Although this
condition may be temporary, there will be short-term, adverse
impacts on both invertebrates and vertebrate downstream from the
project area
The Feasibility Report states that the river floods over the banks
at the proposed site at least once a year. Such flooding could
lead to erosion at both ends and landward of the proposed riprap.
If additional erosion occurs, there could be demands to enlarge the
proposed project. Thus, the Service remains concerned that the
proposed project could lead to increased erosion and future demands
for additional hard, bank stabilization projects.
The Service is also concerned that the operations of dams both up
and downstream from the project site may be contributing to the
"fluctuating river levels and high velocities" (Feasibility
Report, p. 3) which are contributing to the current erosion
problem.
While the loss of fish and wildlife habitat for this specific
project may be relatively small, the Service is concerned about the
cumulative impacts which this and similar projects may have in the
future.
Based on the concerns expressed above, the Service recommends that
the Corps consider the following long-term measure to further
minimize any adverse, environmental impacts on wetlands and
wildlife resources. The Corps should investigate ways to enhance
the natural erosion control functions of the small floodplain at
the project site. Our map review indicates that the Yadkin River
near the project site has a relatively narrow, but distinct,
floodplain. The natural functions of such floodplains are to
dissipate floodwaters and allow natural vegetation to reduce flow
velocity, control erosion, and improve water quality in other ways.
Erosion control could be achieved by restoring natural vegetation
to the floodplain and river bank. In order to facilitate the
return of natural bank vegetation, the Corps should determine
whether the operation of dams on the Yadkin both above and below
proposed project contribute to the present erosion problem by
creating rapid and/or extreme water fluctuations which inhibit
natural vegetative cover.
The Service realizes that this long-term solution will not
alleviate the immediate problem. Therefore, based on the expected
relatively minor environmental impacts, the Service does not oppose
the project proposed by this study. However, the Service believes
that the following recommendations should be incorporated into
project plans to minimize the expected adverse impacts on fish and
wildlife resources and their habitats:
1. All appropriate sediment control procedures should be
applied during construction; and
2. All construction should occur in the fall, preferably during
the months of September through November. Such a
construction schedule would minimize adverse impacts on
spawning by such species as the largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and redbreasted
sunfish (Lepomis auritus).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please advise us of any action taken by the Wilmington District,
Corps of Engineers. If you should need any additional information
or clarification of our recommendations, please contact Howard
Hall, the biologist handling this project.
Sincerely,
Lx1 V jQ
L. K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor