NC0050105_Flow Projections_20060515

RE: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
Subject: RE: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:31:15 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Thanks Tom. PWC has just submitted an application for Rockfish Creek Renewal and I believe they
noted their request for 28 MGD. I will check with them
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
Direct Phone - 704.329.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.904.5918
Email - bill.kreutzbergerAch2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1:28 PM
To: Swanek, Ruth/RDU; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT; belinda Henson
Subject: Re: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
Ruth- Thanks for the revised flow projections for the Fayetteville PWC Rockfish Creek expansion
request from 24 MGD to 28 MGD. Based on the additional data indicating increases in the military
staffing at Fort Bragg, the NPDES Unit is in concurrence with the flow justification and alternatives
analysis provided for this SEPA project. The NPDES Unit has no further comments at this time.
After the city receives a FONSI, you will need to request a permit modification to account for an
increase in permitted flow. However, you might be able to tie this in with the normal permit renewal
process (we are currently renewing permits in the Cape Fear River Basin), provided the FONSI is
completed prior to permit development. You should direct permitting questions to Gil Vinzani, who
supervises the NPDES East Unit..
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Tom - You probably wondered what happened with this project. It has
not gone away. We have been working on some other issues for PWC and now
have come back to this issue. We have gone back and looked at the issues
you raised in your attached email and re -projected flows. The attached
spreadsheet shows the revised projections. The following addresses each
of your points:
* We have added information that we have been able to obtain
regarding additional service to Ft. Bragg. The base will be impacted by
BRAC additions and European base closures. The BRAC estimates -
according to published reports are that approximately 22,000 personnel
and family members will be relocated to Fort Bragg within a 5 year
period beginning in 2008. In addition, another 16,000 European personnel
will be relocated to 4 US bases including Bragg. This does not include
families and there is no distribution between the 4 bases - so we
assumed 2596 and made no adjustments for associated families. So that
means approximately 26,000 additional population at Ft. Bragg. The
projections in the attached table assume that 850 of these staff would
1 of 3 6/1/2006 9:30 AM

RE: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
be in the Rockfish service area. Needless to say, the military is not
very cooperative in making these types of base projections especially
with the on -going war.
* We have rechecked the industrial flows with PWC and the 2005
permitted industrial flow was 0.94 mgd and this will move to 1.06 mgd.in
2006. We have then restarted the future industrial flow based on the 201
plan information so that allocation does not begin until 2007.
* We have also readjusted our commercial flows by estimating the
2005 commercial flow based on the 201 plan information but then using
the 15 gpcd for new residents from here on out as you suggested. This is
somewhat contrary to the 201 plan and is very conservative. Fayetteville
has a high per capita commercial flow because it is a regional
commercial center serving a large area of the coastal plain and sand
hills. But this regional affect could diminish as PWC grows, hence our
compromise approach.
* We do not agree with re-baselining max monthly flow based on
actual flows in 2005 for several reasons. First - our calculated MMF is
capacity PWC is required to have to meet commitments for residential,
commercial, industrial capacity as well and I/I. 2005 was a dry year and
2004 was below normal - so I/I capacity was not used. We also have a
fair number of base personnel and their families that currently reside
in the PWC service area. Major troop deployments have occurred from Ft
Bragg since early 2003 which also affect actual flows Therefore - we
'don't believe adjustments are appropriate.
I suggest that after you have reviewed this, we have a brief call to
discuss this. Please reply or call and we can set this up. Thanks -
Ruth C. Swanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
Subject: FW: Fayetteville Flow Justification
From: <Bi11.Kreutzberger(a,CH2M.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:21:23 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
Direct Phone - 704.329.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.904.5918
Email - [e-mail]
From: Tom.Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 3:18 PM
2 of 3 6/1/2006 9:30 AM

RE: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Cc: Gil Vinzani; alex marks
Subject: Fayetteville Flow Justification
Hi -Bill- Thanks for providing feedback on the flow justification for the
SEPA EA expansion request to 28 MGD. At out meeting on September 20,
2005, you indicated that you would look into a few more items before
resubmitting. These items include:
* Fayetteville will look into future residential population/flow
projections based on BRAC plans to concentrate military personnel at
Fort Bragg. Please indicate what info these projections are based on,
if incorporated.
* I mentioned that Fayetteville might want to recheck current
permitted industrial flow for 2005, and update as appropriate.
* Fayetteville will recheck the Commercial Flow projections, which
project a commercial flow increase of 2.41 MGD over 20 years. I see
three methodologies that I consider reasonable to project new
commercial flow: 1) follow CG&L Guidance, which multiplies projected
number of new residents by 15 gpcd; in Fayetteville's case, this results
in 67,005new residents x 15 gpcd = 1.0 MGD new commercial flow; 2) use
Fayetteville's historical increase in commercial flow, which was stated
as 18,000 gal/yr, and which translates to 18,000 x 20 years = 0.36 MGD;
or 3) multiply average commercial flow for Fayetteville (36 gpcd, but
I'm not sure what this is based on) by the projected number of new
commercial jobs. If you wish to propose a different methodology, please
let me know what the basis is before you resubmit any flow projections.
* Although we did not discuss this at the last meeting, it appears
that the initial total flow used for the 20-year flow projections (Max
Monthly Average Flow = 18 MGD for Year 2005) may be excessive. Based on
recent (2002-2005) DMR submissions, I note the following actual maximum
Monthly Average flows: 2005 (13.0 MGD through July); 2004 (14.2 MGD for
September); 2003 (15.7 MGD for August); and 2002 (11.3 MGD for April).
These maximum Monthly Average flows are well below the 18 MGD that
Fayetteville proposed as a starting point, and it makes sense to me to
incorporate an actual flow for the baseline year.
If you have any questions, feel free to call or email.
Tom Belnick, Environmental Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Point Source Branch
919-733-5083,ext. 543
919-733-0719 (fax)
[e-mail]
3 of 3 6/1/2006 9:30 AM

[Fwd: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections]•
Subject: [Fwd: PWC - Rocicfish Ck flow projections]
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:55:11 -0400•
To: Belinda Henson <Belinda.Hensonncmail.net>
Hi Belinda- hope all is going well there. Just wanted to run this request by you.
Fayetteville PWC Rockfish Creek has been seeking a flow expansion from 24 MGD to 28 MGD
for several years, and is still in the SEPA process. I am the current sticking point,
as I was asking for more info for the flow justification, which they emailed me in
April. I am now comfortable with their request, which now incorporates a proposed
increase in military staffing of 22,000 personnel at Fort Bragg beginning in 2008 based
on BRAC additions, etc. Let me know if you have any concerns with their requested
flow increase. Thanks.
Tom Belnick, Environmental Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Point Source Branch
919-733-5083,ext". 543
919-733-0719 (fax)•
[e-mail]
Subject: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:24:12 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Hi Tom - You probably wondered what happened with this project. It has not gone away. We have been
working on some other issues for PWC and now have come back to this issue. We have gone back and
looked at the issues you raised in your attached email and re -projected flows. The attached spreadsheet
shows the revised projections. The following addresses each of your points:
• We have added information that we have been able to obtain regarding additional service to Ft. Bragg.
The base will be impacted by BRAC additions and European base closures. The BRAC estimates -
according to published reports are that approximately 22,000 personnel and family members will be
relocated to Fort Bragg within a 5 year period beginning in 2008. In addition, another 16,000 European
personnel will be relocated to 4 US bases including Bragg. This does not include families and there is
no distribution between the 4 bases - so we assumed 25% and made no adjustments for associated
families. So that means approximately 26,000 additional population at Ft. Bragg. The projections in the
attached table assume that 85% of these staff would be in the Rockfish service area. Needless to say,
the military is not very cooperative in making these types of base projections especially with the
on -going war.
• We have rechecked the industrial flows with PWC and the 2005 permitted industrial flow was 0.94
mgd and this will move to 1.06 mgd in 2006. We have then restarted the future industrial flow based
on the 201 plan information so that allocation does not .begin until 2007.
• We have also readjusted our commercial flows by estimating the 2005 commercial flow based on the
201 plan information but then using the 15 gpcd for new residents from here on out as you suggested.
This is somewhat contrary to the 201 plan and is very conservative. Fayetteville has a high per capita
commercial flow because it is a regional commercial center serving a large area of the coastal plain
and sand hills. But this regional affect could diminish as PWC grows, hence our compromise
approach.
• We do not agree with're-baselining max monthly flow based on actual flows in 2005 for several
reasons. First - our calculated MMF is capacity PWC is required to have to meet commitments for
residential, commercial, industrial capacity as well and I/I. 2005 was a dry year and 2004 was below
1 of 3 6/1/2006 9:15 AM

[Fwd: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections]
normal - so I/1 capacity was not used. We also have a fair number of base personnel and their families
that currently reside in the PWC service area. Major troop deployments have -occurred from Ft Bragg
since early 2003 which also affect actual flows. Therefore - we don't believe adjustments are
appropriate.
I suggest that after you have reviewed this, we have a brief call to discuss this. Please reply or call and we
can set this up. Thanks -
Ruth C. 5wanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
Subject: FW: Fayetteville Flow Justification
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:21:23 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
Direct Phone - 704.329.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.904.5918
Email - [e-mail]
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 3:18 PM
To: Kreutzberger, BiII/CLT
Cc: Gil Vinzani; alex marks
Subject: Fayetteville Flow Justification
Hi Bill- Thanks for providing feedback on the flow justification for the SEPA EA expansion request to 28
MGD. At out meeting on September 20, 2005, you indicated that you would look into a few more items
before resubmitting. These items include:
• Fayetteville will look into future residential population/flow projections based on BRAC plans to
concentrate military personnel at Fort Bragg. Please indicate what info these projections are based
on, if incorporated.
• I mentioned that Fayetteville might want to recheck current permitted industrial flow for 2005, and
update as appropriate.
• Fayetteville will recheck the Commercial Flow projections, which project a commercial flow
increase of 2.41 MGD over 20 years. I see three methodologies that I consider reasonable to
project new commercial flow: 1) follow CG&L Guidance, which multiplies projected number of
2 of 3 6/1/2006 9:15 AM

[Fwd: PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections]
new residents by 15 gpcd; in Fayetteville's case, this results in 67,005 new residents x 15 gpcd = 1.0
MGD new commercial flow; 2) use Fayetteville's historical increase in commercial flow, which was
stated as 18,000 gal/yr, and which translates to 18,000 x 20 years = 0.36 MGD; or 3) multiply
average commercial flow for Fayetteville (36 gpcd, but I'm not sure what this is based on) by the
projected number of new commercial jobs. If you wish to propose a different methodology, please
let me know what the basis is before you resubmit any flow projections.
• Although we did not discuss this at the last meeting, it appears that the initial total flow used for the
20-year flow projections (Max Monthly Average Flow = 18 MGD for Year 2005) may be
excessive. Based on recent (2002-2005) DMR submissions, I note the following actual maximum
Monthly Average flows: 2005 (13.0 MGD through July); 2004 (14.2 MGD for September); 2003
(15.7 MGD for August); and 2002 (11.3 MGD for April). These maximum Monthly Average flows
are well below the 18 MGD that Fayetteville proposed as a starting point, and it makes sense to me
to incorporate an actual flow for the baseline year.
If you have any questions, feel free to call or email.
Tom Belnick <tom.belnickPincmail.net>
Environmental Specialist III
NC Division of Water Quality
Point Source Branch
PWC - Rockfish Ck flow projections
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
FW: Fayetteville Flow Justification.eml
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
Revised RF WRF Population -flows - w-Ft Bragg.xls
Revised RF WRF
Content -Description: Population -flows - w-Ft
Bragg.xls
Content -Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Content -Encoding: base64
3 of 3 6/1/2006 9:15 AM

Year
-
PWC Service
Area
Population
Rockfish Ck
Service Area
Population
Residential
Flow (MGD)
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
Residential
and
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
PWC
Flow
(MGD)
Industrial
Flow
(MGD)
0.94
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
Future
Industrial
Reserve
(MGD)
Existing
I/1 (MGD)
I/1 for new
construct
ion (MGD)
Predicted
Max. Month
Flow
(MGD)
2005
144,556
94,981
7.60
3.42
11.02
0.05
0
4.2
1.84
18.05
2006
147,736
97,684
7.81
3.46
11.27
0.05
0.00
2007
150,986
100,447
- 107,690,
114,996
122,365
129,799`
137,299
140,447
8.04
3.50
11.54
0.05
0.04
2008
154,308
8.62
3.61
12.23
0.06
0.08
2009
157,703
9.20
3.72
12.92
0.06
0.13
2010
161,172'
9.79
3.83
13.62
0.06
0.17
4.2
1.94
21.04
2011
164,718
10.38
3.94
14.33
0.07
0.21
2012
168,342
10.98
4.05
15.04
0.07
0.25
2013
172,045
11.24
4.10
15.34
0.07
0.29
2014
175,830
143,664
11.49
4.15
15.64
0.07
0.34
2015
179,699
146,952
11.76
4.20
15.96
0.07
0.38
4.2
2.06
23.72
2016
183,652
150,313
12.03
4.25
16.27
0.07
0.42
2017
187,692
153,747
12.30
4.30
16.60
0.08
0.46
2018
191,822
157,257
12.58
4.35
16.93
0.08
0.50
2019
196,042
160,844
12.87
4.41
17.27
0.08
0.55
2020
200,355
164,510
13.16
4.46
17.62
0.08
0.59
4.2
2.19
25.74
2021
204,763
168,257
13.46
4.52
17.98
0.08
0.63
2022
209,267
172,086
13.77
4.58
18.34
0.08
0.67
2023
213,871
175,999
14.08
4.63
18.71
0.08
0.71
2024
218,576
179,998
14.40
4.69
19.09
0.09
0.76
2025
223,385
184,086
14.73
4.76
19.48
0.09
0.80
4.2
2.34
27.96
2026
228,299
188,263
15.06
4.82
19.88
0.09
0.84
2027
233,322
192,532
15.40
4.88
20.29
0.09
0.88
2028
238,455
196,895
15.75
4.95
20.70
0.09
0.92
2029
243,701
201,354
16.11
5.01
21.12
0.10
0.97
2030
249,063
205,912
16.47
5.08
21.56
0.10
1.01
4.2
2.50
30.42
Note: - 26,000 moving to Ft. Bragg
due to BRAC and Europe
base closings. Assume
population distribted in
service areas per 201 plan.

•
32
Population Projections •
-
30
28
26
250,000
24
22
200,000
' 150,000
j—
E 16
0 14
as
5.
II: 12
100,000
10
Q. -
50,000
6
6
4
,
2
0
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
2000 2005 -201
Year
Projections
.
—*— Population
--—Projecte