HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051457 Ver 1_FW Buffalo Creek7Q10WWTP.msg_20130327Strickland, Bev
From: Tarver, Fred [fred.tarver @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:52 PM
To: Reeder, Tom
Subject: FW: Buffalo Creek /7Q10 /WWTP
Attachments: WTP expansion EA com_ft2.docx
Tom,
I ve attached my comments on EA. Please review and let me know if it *s okay.
I ve attached this to the email stream below if you wish to review the history on the 7g10 issue.
Thanks. Fred
Phone: 919-707-9029
• •
From: Roddy, Jackie
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:13 AM
To: Tarver, Fred
Subject: RE: Buffalo Creek /7Q10 /WWTP
Are you still working on comments to be submitted in response to the latest draft of the EA?
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Tarver, Fred
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Headrick, Hannah; Stecker, Kathy; Mckay, James; Nowell, Jackie; Kebede, Adugna; Rodriguez, Teresa
Cc: Roddy, Jackie; Peele, Linwood
Subject: RE: Buffalo Creek /7Q10 /WWTP
Tom
The 4 mgd expansion project is certainly not 100% consumptive. Some others more knowledgeable can weigh in, but
based on the Appendix C of the EA (WTP expansion from 8 mgd to 12 mdg) Kings Mtn *s use component of AVERAGE
*Why do data centers use so much water? The move to cloud computing is concentrating enormous computing power
in mega-data centers containing hundreds of thousands of servers. In many designs, all the heat from those servers is
managed through cooling towers, where hot waste water from the data center is cooled, with the heat being removed
through evaporation. Most of the water that remains is returned to the data center cooling system, while some is
drained out of the system to remove any sediment, a process known as blowdown.*
In reference to the drop in 7Q10 from 12 to 8.2 cfs. If one assumes that 12 cfs is the minimum flow from the dam, then
the 7Q10 should remain 12 ds in perpetuity except for the potential influence of periodic cut-backs during extreme
drought conditions. | believe that this lowering is the result of HDRvvatershed/reservoir modeling, see note. HDR used
four near-by gages for the synthesized flow record. You may need to speak with HDR for clarification.
*We [HDR] had been previously modeling minimum releases out of the dam at approximately 8.9 CFS or the 7Q10 for
the synthetic inflow hydrograph.*
Email:
Phone: 919-707-9029
Fax: 919-733-3558
From: Benick,7om
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:17 IPM
To: Tarver, Fred; Headrick, Hannah; Stecker, Kathy; Mckay, ]ames; Nowell, ]acWe; Kebede, Adugna; Rodriguez, Teresa
Cc: Roddy, ]ackie
Subject: RE: Buffalo Creek/7Q10/WWTP
Fred- I don*t have a quick, easy answer as there are 3 downstream NPIDES dischargers on Buffalo Creek prior to the
NC/SC line, and for which vvedo not have anexisting model that ties them all together. This would take some effort, so
1*11 need to know the timeframe for this project.
Nevertheless, one major question first. |f the projected decrease in7[l1OstreamMow from 12dstoQ.2ds(3296
reduction) is due to a water withdrawal (my guess at this point from the email string), has there been any estimate of
how much of that water withdrawal will ultimately be returned back tothe stream via the Kings Mountain VVVVTP? Or is
this projected withdrawal expected to be a 100% consumptive loss? Thanks for any additional info you can provide.
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
From:Taner, Fred
Sent: Thursday, March O7 2O1]4:]5IPM
To: Headrick, Hannah; Be|nick, Tom; Stecker,Kathy
Cc: Roddy, ]ackie
Subject: RE: Buffalo Creek/7QlO/WWTP
AU,
My apologies but in transferring notes I flipped the 6, so the 7Q10 for the Pilot Creek WWTP NPIDES is 19 cfs not 16 cfs.
DWQ should let DWR know if a reduction in the 7Q10 from 12 to 8.2 cfs will significantly impact the assimilative capacity
of Buffalo Creek.
Sorry for the error. Again, let me know if you have any additional questions.
Email:
Phone: 919-707-9029
Fax: 919-733-3558
From: Headrick, Hannah
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:59 AM
To: Be|nick, Tom; Stecker,Kathy
Cm: Roddy,]acWe; Taner, Fred
Subject: FW: Buffalo Creek/7QlO/WWTP
Kathy and Tom *
Below is the information from Fred Tarver with DWR that I discussed with you earlier.
Attached are the flow study and EA. (I rea I ly do n*tthink it is necessary for you to review the EA, just attaching it for
you to have a full record.)
Please have comments tome regarding Fred*s concerns on Friday, March 29. |f you need longer to review, please let
me know.
Thanks.
Hannah Headrkk
SEPA Coordinator
NC Division of Water Quality Planning Section
Physical location: 512 N, Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604 [Archdale Building Office 625J]
Mailing address: l6l7 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: (919) 807-6434 — Fax: (919) 807-6497/
E-mail correspondence toondƒrom this address may besubject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be disclosed to
third porties.
From:Taner, Fred
Sent: Thursday, March 07 2013 10:52 AM
To: Headrick, Hannah
Cc: Roddy, ]acWe
Subject: RE: Buffalo Creek/7Q10/WWTIP
6-M ligil 1111
Based on the consultants (HDR) synthesized record, HDR determined that the 7Q10 at the dam was 8.2 cfs. The current
flow requirement from Moss Dam is 12 ds, which is the 7q10 value estimated in the 70*s.
There are 2 NPIDES permits belonging to 0np*s Mountain for discharge into Buffalo Creek below Moss Dam: Ellison
WTP (NCO079740), immediately below the dam, and Pilot Creek WWTP (NCO020737), just downstream of the Muddy
Fork tributary confluence.
The drainage area at the dam is6Q.1mi2 and 116mi2at Hwy 74 which is just downstream of the VVVVTP discharge. The
drainage area for Muddy Fork is 45.1 mi2.
The Dam Safety rules [154 N[A[O2K .0502(6)] only allow aflow requirement of no more than the 7Q10 in the lowest
tier release from a dam.
DVVQshou|d let DVVR know ifa reduction in the 7[l1Ofrom 12toQ.2ds (or 9.3toQ.2ds) will significantly impact the
assimilative capacity of Buffalo Creek.
|*ve included some excerpts from emai|sduring DVVR*sinstream flow study below. | can find no evidence that Jim
consulted with DVV[lduring the mode |ingeffort.
|f you need to discuss further, please let meknow.
Thanks.
Fred
Ma
From: Mead, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, February O1,2O113:2OPM
To: Goudreau, Chris ].;Tarver, Fred; Reed, Steven
Cc: Stand|, Vann F
Subject: RE: Kings Mountain IFIM study - flow regime proposals
Chris, Fred and Steve:
I*ve attached a spreadsheet with two flow regime options for Moss Lake, based
on the time series analyses todate. The tier 2 and tier 3 flows and triggers are
just a first cut/best guess and vve will need to get model output from HDRfor
the tiered approach to evaluate habitat effects. This will give them something
to evaluate from the water supply yield perspective.
Note that for the flat minimum approach I used 8.2 cfs �O the 7Q10 using
unregulated flows produced by HDR modeling. However, the existing 12 cf
minimum is supposedly based on the 7Q10 (back when the dam was
built). Before setting the bottom tier at a lower 7Q10 we will need to cons Ll
with IDWQ regarding downstream waste assimilation.
Let me know if you have any comments. | would like to send this toHDRbynext
Tuesday,2/8
Thanks
Jim
ma
From: Mead, Jim
Sent: Thursday, September O3,2OO9Q:55AM
To: B|andford, Patrick
Cc: Reed, Steven; Geiger, Ronald A.
Subject: RE: Kings Mountain Water Supply - reservoir model
Note that |will need flows for a location downstream ofthe
reservoir ata drainage area of127 square miles (our study
site). The dam isata drainage area of6Q.1 square miles. The
existing minimum release requirement for the dam is12ds.
From: B|andfon±Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, September O9,2OO93:1QPM
To: Mead, Jim
Cc: Reed, Steven;
Geiger, Ronald A.
Subject: RE: Kings Mountain Water Supply
reservoir model
Jim,
| want to seek clarification on two points before producing the
data and passing it onto you for inclusion in your model. It is
mentioned in your email that the minimum passing flow
requirement for the dam at Moss Lake is12[FS however, in
previous discussion it was relayed tous that this number isa
minimum flow requirement for the VVVVTP plant several miles
downstream of the dam. VVe had been previously modeling
minimum releases out of the dam at approximately Q.9[FSor
the 7[l1O for the synthetic inflow hydrograph. The Q.9[FSplus
yield from the additional drainage Buffalo Creek picks uponthe
way downstream should meet the 12[FS passing flow
requirement at the VVVVTP.
Email:
Phone: 919-707-9029
Fax: 919-733-3558
From: Headrick, Hannah
Sent: Thursday, March O7,2O1]7:51AM
To:Tarver, Fred
Subject: RE: Buffalo Creek
Hannah Headrkk
SEPA Coordinator
NC Division of Water Quality Planning Section
Physical location: 512 N, Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604 [Archdale Building Office 625J]
6
Mailing address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27/699 -1617/
Phone: (919) 807-6434 — Fax: (919) 807-6497/
E-mail correspondence toondƒrom this address may besubject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be disclosed to
third porties.
From:Taner, Fred
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 5:05PM
To: Headrick, Hannah
Subject: Buffalo Creek
Hold on to your Kings Mtn comments until we talk. Thanks. Fred
Fred RTarverIII
Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environment &' Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NCZ7699'1611
Email:
Phone: 919-707-9029
Fax: 919-733-3558
ALF-I�WA
roa
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder
Governor Director
March 27, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jackie Roddy, DWR- Public Water Supply Section
FROM: Fred Tarver, DWR -Water Resources Management Section
SUBJECT: City of Kings Mountain WTP Expansion
DENR Project No. 1578
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
This memorandum is in response to February 20, 2013, consultant comments
addressing DWR -WRMS remarks on the draft environmental assessment (EA) for the
expansion of the City of King's Mountain's T.J. Ellison Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
from 8 mgd (12.3 cfs) to 12 mgd (18.5 cfs). The plant's projected demand is 8.22 mgd
(12.7 cfs) in 2015 and 9.295 mgd (14.3 cfs) in 2020. In addition, the city is proposing
the construction of a water line extension from east of Muddy Fork to the city's water
distribution facility.
DWR -WRMS was requested by letter from the mayor of Kings' Mountain to participate
in a Buffalo Creek instream flow study below the Moss Reservoir Dam in anticipation of
the WTP expansion. Appendix E of the draft document contains a draft of the instream
flow report with final flow release recommendations.
Comments
The revisions and comments appear to adequately address the remarks of DWR -
WRMS on the draft EA.
2. DWR -WRMS requests that the final EA include the updated version of the Water
Supply Operational Procedures and Minimum Downstream Release Report to
reflect the editorial comments of DWR -WRMS and the Wildlife Resources
Commission.
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone :919- 707 - 9000 \ FAX :919 - 733 -3588
Internet: www.ncwater.org
An Equal Opportunity\ Affirmative Action Employer
Jackie Roddy, DIA/R-PIA/SS
Kings Mtn 'A/TP E-xp. 1E-A & Instrearn F ow Rept.
Page 2 of 2
3. DWR-WRMS requests that the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) include
the agreed-upon 3-tiered release requirements from the Moss Reservoir Dam.
The flow requirements are as follows-
. .. .. . ...... . .. . ...
rpwi
Month
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Jan
70%
60%
50%
Feb
65%
55%
45%
Mar
60%
50%
40%
Apr
65%
55%
45%
May
70%
60%
50%
Jun
70%
60%
50%
J u Il
60%
50%
40%
Aug
60%
50%
40%
Sep
60%
50%
40%
Oct
60%
50%
40%
Nov
65%
55%
45%
Dec
70%
60%
50%
•
Flow released as a percentage of ambient inflow;
•
Maximum release of 50 cfs or given percentage of inflow, whichever is less -
unless spilling;
•
Minimum release of 8.2 cfs;
•
Trigger for moving to Tier 2 - 70% usable storage remaining or less;
•
Trigger for moving to Tier 3 - 30% usable remaining storage or less;
•
Water withdrawal reduced by 10% in Tier 2;
•
Water withdrawal reduced by additional 10% (20% total) in Tier 3.