Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttA_Hearing_Officers_Report      Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville,  and Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer        HEARING OFFICERS’ REPORT          Environmental Management Commission    North Carolina   Department of Environment and Natural Resources  Division of Water Resources        November 2010  A1 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water  Resources  ‐ i ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville,  and Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer  Hearing Officers’ Report‐ November 2010  HEARING OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATIONS    The Environmental Management Commission held a Public Hearing on Greenville Utilities Commission’s  (GUC) Petition for an Interbasin Transfer Certificate (IBT) on November 5, 2009 at Pitt Community College  in Winterville, North Carolina. The public record for that hearing was scheduled to close on December 4,  2009, however the Hearing Officers agreed to grant a one‐time extension ending January 19, 2010.  37  people were in attendance for the Public Hearing on the IBT Petition.  In total, 21 provided comments,  either at the hearing (10 speakers) or during the public comment period.     Having reviewed and considered the comments received during the public review process and the  requirements set forth in the North Carolina General Statutes, the Hearing Officers and the Division of  Water Resources Director recommend that the Environmental Management Commission grant the  Petitioners a 8.3 million gallon per day transfer from the Tar River Basin to the Contentnea Creek Basin  and a 4.0 million gallon per day maximum transfer from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin with  the following conditions:    1. If the Certificate Holders discontinue their cooperative service agreements with each other, the  Division of Water Resources (“Division”) shall specify the maximum amount of water each of the  joint Certificate Holders may transfer individually.  The total of these amounts shall not exceed a  maximum of 8.3 million gallons on any calendar day from the Tar River Basin to the Contentnea  Creek Basin and shall not exceed a maximum of 4.0 million gallons on any calendar day from the  Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin.  The allocations shall be based on projections of water  use for 2030 compiled by the Division at the time it is notified of the discontinuance of the  cooperative service agreement.  The allocations shall take effect within 90 days of the Division  issuing the allocations, or at such other reasonable time as the Division specifies.  At that time,  each condition of this Certificate shall apply to each Certificate Holder individually and the  Division may require the Certificate Holders to make individual submissions of plans, reports, etc.  as necessary.     2. This Certificate does not exempt the Certificate Holders or any other entity from compliance with  any other requirements of law, including the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (“CCPCUA”)  Rules (15A NCAC 02E .0500).    3. If the Commission determines that the record on which this Certificate is based is substantially in  error or if new information becomes available that clearly demonstrates that any Finding of Fact  (including those regarding environmental, hydrologic, or water use impacts) pursuant to G.S. §  143‐215.22I(f) was not or is no longer supported or is materially incomplete, the Commission  may reopen and modify this Certificate to ensure continued compliance with G.S. ch. 143, art. 21,  part 2A.     4. No individual unit of local government may receive surface water regulated under this Certificate  unless the local government maintains, throughout its jurisdiction, requirements that are at least  as stringent as the Division of Water Quality’s Phase 2 post‐construction stormwater controls or  the post‐construction stormwater controls of the Universal Stormwater Management Program  (“USMP”), for all new development that disturbs more than one acre of land, including those  projects that disturb less than one acre of land but are part of a common plan of development or  sale that disturbs more than one acre of land.    5. Persons (including a unit of local government) subject to the CCPCUA Rules (15A NCAC 2E .0500)  are required to reduce the volume and effects of withdrawals from ground waters through the  A2 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water  Resources  ‐ ii ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville,  and Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer  Hearing Officers’ Report‐ November 2010  minimum conservation program requirements identified in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A)‐(C).  In  order to assure that conservation measures are used by the applicant to assure efficient use of  water and avoid waste (in accordance with §143‐215.22I(c)(3), no individual unit of local  government or persons subject to the CCPCUA Rules (15A NCAC 2E .0500) may transfer water  under this Certificate without first meeting the minimum conservation program requirements  identified in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A)‐(C).    6. The Certificate Holders shall implement drought management measures that become more  stringent as drought conditions increase in severity. These measures shall correspond to the  most severe level of drought existing in the Tar River Basin.  Prior to each Certificate Holder  receiving any water under this Certificate, the Certificate Holder shall submit a Water Shortage  Response Plan (“Plan”) to the Division, for the Division’s approval.  Each Certificate Holder shall  receive approval of the Plan from the Division, and shall have and maintain adequate authority  and resources to implement and enforce the Plan. In order to be approved, the Plan must meet  or exceed the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 2E .0607 and be no less stringent than the  Plan in Attachment A, which is incorporated herein.  Any subsequent modifications to the Plan  will be reviewed and approved by the Division. Adoption of the measures in Attachment A does  not imply compliance with G.S. 143‐355(l) or 15A NCAC 2E .0607.     The Certificate Holders shall not transfer any water to any other unit of local government unless  that unit of local government agrees to be bound by this condition in full.      7. The Certificate Holders shall report annually to the Division.  The report shall detail water use  over the calendar year by providing the following information:    Interbasin Transfer Calculation    GUC shall calculate daily and maximum‐day interbasin transfers taking into account GUC’s own  metered water use for each billing cycle, with separate data provided for customers in the Tar  River and Neuse River Basins.  The calculation shall also take into account GUC’s monthly average  wastewater treatment plant discharge, and the daily bulk purchases from the Towns of Farmville,  Winterville, and Greene County. GUC shall geocode (via the GUC GIS database) those water  customers located in the Neuse River Basin so that the consumptive use for the GUC customers  can be calculated. The consumptive use for Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County does not  need to be calculated so long as the entire metered water use to these communities is the  transfer to each of the respective Basins.    Ground Water Use    Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County shall submit their daily metered ground water use as  reported to DWR’s Ground Water Section for compliance with any CCPCUA permits.  The  documentation shall note the maximum‐day water use by each system.    Banked Water Summary    Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County shall also provide a banked water summary.  Each  summary shall include the total volume of banked water available at the beginning and end of  the calendar year, an accounting of any day during the year that banked water was used, and the  total volume of banked water that was used during that day.    A3 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water  Resources  ‐ iii ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville,  and Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer  Hearing Officers’ Report‐ November 2010  Compliance With Other Certificate Conditions    The Certificate Holders shall also provide a status report of compliance efforts for any other  conditions required by this Certificate.    All annual reports shall be submitted by March 31st of the following calendar year.  Following the  submission of any reports under this Certificate, the Certificate Holders shall promptly provide to  the Division any information requested by the Division that the Division concludes is needed to  complete, correct or clarify the report.  If the Certificate Holders believe that the Division’s  request does not conform to the reporting requirements, the parties shall confer promptly to  resolve any differences.    When an annual report indicates that a daily transfer equaled or exceeded eighty (80%) percent  of any transfer amount authorized by this Certificate, the Certificate Holders shall submit to the  Division, by June 1 of the year in which such annual report was required, a detailed plan that  specifies how the Certificate Holders intend to address future foreseeable water needs.  So long  as the Certificate Holders are required to have a local water supply plan, then the plan to address  future foreseeable water needs shall be an amendment to the local water supply plan required  by G.S. 143‐355(l).    When an annual report indicates that a daily transfer equaled or exceeded ninety percent (90%)  of any transfer amount authorized by this Certificate, then:    1. The Certificate Holders shall begin implementation of the plan submitted to the Division.  2. GUC shall immediately begin monthly reporting to the Division.  Monthly reports shall be  submitted within 45 days of the end of the month.    All reports submitted pursuant to this condition shall be signed by the Director of Public Utilities  or person of similar position who shall affirm that, based on information collected during and  belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the report is true, accurate and complete and that the  Certificate Holder complied with the Certificate continuously throughout the year, except as  specifically indicated in the report.          ____________________________________  Stan L. Crowe, Hearing Officer  Environmental Management Commission        ____________________________________  Kevin C. Martin, Hearing Officer  Environmental Management Commission        ___________________________________   Stephen T. Smith, Chairman  Environmental Management Commission      A4 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water  Resources  ‐ iv ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville,  and Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer  Hearing Officers’ Report‐ November 2010  TABLE OF CONTENTS    Hearing Officer’s Recommendations........................................................................................................i  Table of Contents................................................................................................................................... iv  Interbasin Transfer Certificate................................................................................................................ 1  Findings of Fact....................................................................................................................................... 2  (1) The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the transfer..................................... 2  (2) Detrimental effects on the source river basin .......................................................................... 4  (2a) The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or  consumptive water use ............................................................................................................ 6  (3) Detrimental effects on the receiving basin............................................................................... 6  (4) Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer .................................................................. 8  (5) Use of impounded storage ....................................................................................................... 9  (6) Purposes and water storage allocations in a US Army Corps of Engineers  multipurpose reservoir ............................................................................................................. 9  (7) Any other facts or circumstances necessary to carry out the law ........................................... 9    Decision................................................................................................................................................. 11    Attachment A – Minimum Criteria for Drought Management Plan .................................................... 15    Attachment B ‐ Staff Response to Comments...................................................................................... 19  Appendix 1: Explanation of IBT Management Strategy, ARCADIS  Appendix 2: Memo from DWR Concerning Compliance with CCPCUA program Requirements  Appendix 3: Summary of Water Conservation Requirements per CCPCUA Rules, ARCADIS  Appendix 4: Environmental and Economic Impacts of Water Supply Alternatives, ARCADIS  Appendix 5: Summary of Mitigation for Secondary and Cumulative Impacts  Appendix 6: Explanation of Hydrologic Analysis and Results Interpretation, ARCADIS  Appendix 7: Record of Public Comments received on IBT Petition    Attachment C‐ Notice of public hearings.........................................................................Attachment C 1  i.  Appointment of hearing officers  ii.  Copy of NC Register publication  iii.  Letter to persons identified in G.S. 143‐215.22(i)  iv.  Affidavit of Publication for The Standard Laconic  v.  Affidavit of Publication for Washington Daily News  vi.  Affidavit of Publications for The Daily Reflector  vii.  Affidavit of Publication for the News Observer    Attachment D – Regulations.............................................................................................Attachment D1  1. Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules 15A NCAC 2E .0500  2. Session Law 2006‐246 Section 9(c) Post‐Construction Practices  3. Regulation of Surface Water Transfers NCGS §143‐215.22I  4. North Carolina Administrative Code NCAC 15A NCAC 02E .0401                   INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTIFICATE    A6 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 1 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION  Certificate Authorizing the Greenville Utilities Commission, the Towns of Farmville and  Winterville, and Greene County  To Transfer Surface Water  From the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River and Contentnea Creek Basins  Under the Provisions of G.S. 143‐215.22I      In April, 2009 the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC), along with the Towns of Farmville, Winterville, and  Greene County petitioned the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for a Certificate to transfer 8.3  million gallons per day (MGD) from the Tar River Basin to the Contentnea Creek Basin and 4.0 MGD from the  Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin.  As part of the same Petition, they requested an emergency transfer  provision that would allow the transfer of up to a total of 9.3 MGD from the Tar River Basin to the  Contentnea Creek Basin and up to 4.2 MGD from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin.    A Public Hearing on the proposed transfer was held at Pitt Community College in Winterville, NC on  November 5, 2009 pursuant to G.S. 143‐215.22I. A Hearing Officer’s report was prepared in October of 2010  and mailed to members of the EMC.  The EMC considered the Petitioners’ request at its regular meeting on  November 18, 2010.     According to G.S. 143‐215.22I(g), the EMC shall issue a transfer Certificate only if the benefits of the  proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer, and the detriments have been or will  be mitigated to a reasonable degree. The EMC may grant the Petition in whole or in part, or deny it, and may  require mitigation measures to minimize detrimental effects. In making this determination, the EMC is  required to specifically consider:     1. The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the transfer  2. Detrimental effects on the source river basin  2a.  The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or consumptive water  use  3. Detrimental effects on the receiving basin  4. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer  5. Use of impounded storage  6. Purposes and water storage allocations in a US Army Corps of Engineers multipurpose reservoir  7. Any other facts or circumstances necessary to carry out the law.    In addition, the Certificate must require a drought management plan describing the actions a Certificate  Holder will take to protect the source Basin during drought conditions.    The Commission Finds:    The members of the EMC reviewed and considered the complete record, which included the Hearing Officers’  report, staff recommendations, the applicants’ Petition, the Final Environmental Assessment (EA), the public  comments relating to the proposed interbasin transfer, and all of the criteria specified above.  Based on that  record, the Commission makes the following findings of fact.    A7 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 2 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    FINDING OF FACT  Greenville Utilities Commission, Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County  Petition for an Interbasin Transfer Certificate    (1) Necessity, Reasonableness, and Benefits of the Requested Transfer Amount    In 2001, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) enacted the Central Coastal Plain  Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules. These regulations were developed to control ground water withdrawals in  the Cretaceous Aquifers in response to decreasing ground water levels and saltwater intrusion. The CCPCUA  rules require that ground water users in 15 counties reduce their consumption in three phases between 2008  and 2018.  Phase 1 requires a 25% reduction from an approved base rate by 2008, Phase II requires a 50%  reduction by 2013, and Phase III requires a 75% reduction by 2018.  The Town of Farmville, Town of  Winterville, and Greene County currently rely on the Cretaceous Aquifers for water supply and are affected  by the CCPCUA rules. In order to comply with the required reductions, these communities plan to purchase  potable water from the Greenville Utilities Commission.      The Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) operates an existing surface water treatment plant (WTP) on the  Tar River.  This plant is capable of producing a maximum of 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable  water.  In 2009, Greenville’s average daily water use was approximately 13 MGD.  GUC’s excess plant capacity  is sufficient to provide the Towns of Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County with a replacement water  supply through 2030.  Therefore, these three communities have signed purchase agreements with GUC.      The Town of Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located in the Contentnea Creek Basin‐ a sub‐ basin to the Neuse Major River Basin.  The Town of Winterville and the southwestern portion of Greene  County are located in the Neuse River Basin.  Since Greenville’s WTP is in the Tar River Basin, GUC’s sales to  these communities constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin and  Contentnea Creek Basin.    To support the sale of water to these communities, GUC has requested an interbasin transfer certificate for  the transfer of up to 8.3 MGD to the Contentnea Creek Basin and 4 MGD to the Neuse River Basin.  This  transfer request represents an estimated maximum‐day transfer capacity to each basin through 2030.  GUC  does not have the ability to meet simultaneous, system‐wide peak demands; therefore the purchasing  systems will use banked ground water as an alternate source during times that peak demands exceed GUC’s  available capacity.     DWR supports this water banking concept where it is consistent with good management of the region’s  water resources and subject to prior review and approval of specific banking proposals.  Many water systems  throughout the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) utilize water banking as a means of  meeting their required reductions.  Although all of the Petitioners are planning to bank ground water by  reducing pump rates as much as possible during the early CCPCUA phases (banking will likely not be possible  after 2015), there is no direct correlation between the amount of water that might be banked and the  amount of the IBT request.  The amount of water that might be banked by 2018 is an unforeseeable quantity.   Similarly, it would be difficult to predict exactly when and how much banked water will be used.  As a result,  it is essential that the banked water remain as a “savings account” used by each community if and when  supplemental water is required to meet peak demands.  Therefore, the total volume of the anticipated water  bank was not subtracted from the applicant’s total IBT request.    A8 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 3 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    A supplemental analysis of the amount of the request, an evaluation of the peaking factors used by the  Petitioners in support of their request, and a discussion of the Petitioners’ IBT management strategy is  presented in the Staff Response to Comments, included as Attachment B to these findings.  Based on these  analyses, the Petitioners’ IBT request for an 8.3 MGD maximum day transfer from the Tar River Basin to the  Contentnea Creek Basin and 4.0 MGD from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin is consistent with the  shortfall caused by the CCPCUA reductions.    GUC is also requesting an emergency transfer provision that would allow an additional 1 MGD transfer to the  Contentnea Basin (up to 9.3 MGD total) and an additional 0.2 MGD to the Neuse Basin (up to 4.2 total).  This  provision would only apply during emergency events where ground water is not available to the purchasing  communities (such as major mechanical/electrical failure).  GUC requests that DWR notification be required  to trigger the emergency transfer provision.    The Hearing Officers have chosen not to grant an emergency condition.  G.S. §143‐215.22L(q) specifically  outlines the procedure by which water systems may request an emergency water transfer.  Should the  Petitioners need such a transfer, that request should be submitted to the Department in accordance with the  applicable statutes.    §143‐215.22L(q) Emergency Transfers. – In the case of water supply problems caused by  drought, a pollution incident, temporary failure of a water plant, or any other temporary  condition in which the public health, safety, or welfare requires a transfer of water, the  Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources may grant approval for a temporary  transfer. Prior to approving a temporary transfer, the Secretary shall consult with those  parties listed in subdivision (3) of subsection (c) of this section that are likely to be affected by  the proposed transfer. However, the Secretary shall not be required to satisfy the public  notice requirements of this section or make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in  approving a temporary transfer under this subsection. If the Secretary approves a temporary  transfer under this subsection, the Secretary shall specify conditions to protect other water  users. A temporary transfer shall not exceed six months in duration, but the approval may be  renewed for a period of six months by the Secretary based on demonstrated need as set forth  in this subsection.     Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer of a maximum daily amount of 8.3 MGD from the Tar  River Basin to the Contentnea Creek Basin and a maximum daily amount of 4.0 MGD from the Tar River Basin  to the Neuse River Basin is necessary to provide a replacement water supply to Petitioners in the Central  Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area.  Surface water from the source basin is readily available in that the  Greenville Utilities Commission has sufficient existing water treatment plant capacity to meet these systems’  needs through 2030.    Based on the record, the Commission finds that the IBT Management Strategy will be an important factor in  the ability of the Petitioners to meet demands while maintaining compliance with the Central Coastal Plain  Capacity Use Area Rules (15A NCAC 2E .0500) and the conditions of this Certificate.  Therefore this Certificate  will include a Compliance and Monitoring Plan to ensure that the maximum daily transfer amounts are not  exceeded and the Petitioners’ IBT Management Strategy is followed in the manner set forth in the Petition.    The Commission also finds that G.S. §143‐215.22L(q) specifically outlines the procedure by which water  systems may request an emergency water transfer.  Should GUC need such a transfer, that request should be  A9 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 4 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    submitted to the Department in accordance with the applicable statutes.  Therefore an emergency transfer  provision will not be granted as a condition of this Certificate.     (2) Detrimental Effects on the Source Basin    The Greenville Utilities Commission performed a hydrologic analysis to evaluate the impact of the interbasin  transfer on the Tar River Basin. This analysis included the development of a long‐term flow record at  Greenville, the generation of flow statistics to characterize the Tar River under both existing and future water  use scenarios, and a spreadsheet‐based hydrologic accounting model.     The hydrologic accounting model simulates water withdrawals and wastewater discharges to predict their  effect on stream flow in the Tar River. The model accounts for all existing and projected withdrawals and  discharges on the Tar River, in excess of 100,000 gallons per day, from the Rocky Mount Dam to the GUC  WWTP discharge.  The USGS flow record developed for the Greenville gage was used as the base flow record.  Model simulations included the following scenarios:    1. Current flows with no IBT  2. Current flows with 2030 average day IBT  3. Current flows with 2030 maximum IBT withdrawal  4. Predicted 2030 flows with no IBT  5. Predicted 2030 flows with 2030 average day IBT  6. Predicted 2030 flows with 2030 maximum IBT withdrawal    The hydrologic analysis performed by GUC was evaluated by the Hearing Officers and DWR staff during the  comment period for the Petition.  A discussion of this analysis and its conclusions are included in the Staff  Reponses to Comments, presented in Attachment B to these Findings.  In summary, the model shows that  the effects of the interbasin transfer are negligible at average stream flows and higher, with a slightly larger  impact during low flows.  Tidal influences were not simulated in the model.      Although each of the modeling analyses performed in support of the Petition indicate a difference between  the IBT and non‐IBT scenarios, it is reasonable to categorize these differences as insignificant for the  following reasons:    1. The modeling analysis is conservative.  DWR asked the applicant to include a number of very  conservative assumptions so that a “worst case impact” could be identified.  These assumptions  include reducing GUC’s wastewater discharges on the Tar River by the amount of the IBT.  For many  of the modeling scenarios, this change removed the entire volume of GUC’s existing and projected  wastewater discharge from the Tar River.  The model also assumes a sustained maximum day  transfer (as opposed to a predicted average day transfer with peaks approaching the max‐day).    2. IBT and State Regulations require a drought management plan.  GUC is required to have a Water  Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) containing specific, identifiable triggers that would be put into effect  in the event of drought.  This plan is also required to be included in the Certificate.  Therefore GUC  (and the other Petitioners) would likely be under water restrictions during low flow events.  GUC’s  WSRP triggers are tied to the stage of water at the intake location and the location of the salt water  wedge.     A10 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 5 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    3. The model did not take into account tidal effects.  An important feature of the lower Tar River is that  it is tidally influenced.  Since salt water is heavier than freshwater, the salt water wedge creates a  dam‐like effect that pushes freshwater upstream during low flow periods.  GUC closely monitors the  salt water wedge since their WTP is not designed to treat saline water.  GUC has also noted instances  where net negative downstream flow has been recorded; however, there has been adequate water  over the raw water intake.  Due to the tidal influence, the Tar River channel is never depleted.  This  tidal buffering effect would also reduce the impact on aquatic life during critical periods.    4. The IBT request will be met with existing infrastructure.  GUC has not requested an expansion of  their WTP due to this request.  They have sufficient capacity in their existing WTP to meet Farmville,  Greene County, and Winterville’s projected demands.  The direct impact of their withdrawal was  evaluated in the environmental documents developed (and approved) for the construction of the  water treatment plant.    Due to the above‐mentioned factors, and the fact that modeling results indicate that the IBT will have  minimal impact on the existing stream flow; there are no expected impacts to the wastewater assimilation  capacity of the Tar River Basin.  Correspondingly, there are no anticipated impacts to water quality within the  source basin.     The City of Rocky Mount provided detailed comments concerning the possibility that future studies,  particularly DWR’s Tar River Basin Model or the Tar River Basin Plan, might reveal additional impacts to the  Tar River.  In response, the Hearing Officers requested that Rocky Mount and GUC jointly recommend  language for the special condition.  While the parties were not able to come to a mutual conclusion, each  entity individually recommended verbiage that was similar to reopeners previously used by the EMC in other  IBT Certificates.  The most significant difference is that Rocky Mount proposed that any decision by the  Commission to grant or deny a request to reopen the certificate should be subject to administrative and  judicial review according to Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.  However, the Hearing Officers have  determined that it would not appropriate for a condition of the Certificate to attempt to define any right a  party may or may not have in challenging the EMC’s decision.  Therefore the Hearing Officers do not  recommend that Rocky Mount’s proposed language be used in the Certificate.  Instead, the reopener  language will be consistent with language used in other IBT Certificates.     This interbasin transfer will not spur significant growth in the source basin. Farmville, Winterville, and Greene  County are not located in the Tar River Basin.  Greenville is the only city in the Tar River Basin that receives  water from GUC’s WTP.  This plant has sufficient capacity in its existing water and wastewater treatment  plants to continue providing water to the City of Greenville, and doing so would not require an IBT Certificate.   GUC’s wastewater treatment plant will not be modified as a result of this IBT.    There are no construction activities proposed in association with this project.  Therefore, no direct or indirect  impacts to aquatic or terrestrial habitats are expected to occur from the proposed interbasin transfer.   Similarly, indirect impacts to state and federally protected species are expected to be insignificant.    No direct or indirect impacts to hydroelectric power generation, navigation, or recreation are expected to  occur within the Tar River Basin will occur as a result of the proposed transfer.    Based on the record and the results of the hydrologic evaluations that were performed, the Commission finds  that the interbasin transfer is not likely to have a significant impact on the source basin.  However, due to the  A11 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 6 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Commission’s concerns that future studies may reveal additional impacts to the Tar River Basin, the Hearing  Officers have recommended that the following reopener be added to the Certificate:     “If the Commission determines that the record on which this Certificate is based is substantially in error or if  new information becomes available that clearly demonstrates that any Finding of Fact (including those  regarding environmental, hydrologic, or water use impacts) pursuant to G.S. § 143‐215.22I(f) was not or is no  longer supported or is materially incomplete, the Commission may reopen and modify this Certificate to  ensure continued compliance with G.S. ch. 143, art. 21, part 2A. “    The Commission finds that to protect the source basin during drought conditions and as authorized by G.S. §  143‐215.22I(h), a drought management plan is required. The drought management plan will describe the  actions that the Petitioners will take to protect the Tar River Basin during drought conditions.    2(a) Cumulative Effect on Source Basin of any Transfers or Consumptive Water Use Projected in Local  Water Supply Plans    Data from local water supply plans, including current and projected water use, was used to develop input  data sets for the hydrologic accounting model.  The model accounted for all existing and proposed water  withdrawals and discharges to the Tar River over 100,000 gallons per day.  Based on the results of that  model, there was no significant impact to the Tar River under the modeled scenarios.    Based on the record and as stated in (2) the Commission finds that the interbasin transfer is not likely to have  a significant impact to the source basin. However, due to the Commission’s concerns that future studies may  reveal additional impacts to the Tar River Basin, the Hearing Officers have recommended that the following  reopener be added to the Certificate:     “If the Commission determines that the record on which this Certificate is based is substantially in error or if  new information becomes available that clearly demonstrates that any Finding of Fact (including those  regarding environmental, hydrologic, or water use impacts) pursuant to G.S. § 143‐215.22I(f) was not or is no  longer supported or is materially incomplete, the Commission may reopen and modify this Certificate to  ensure continued compliance with G.S. ch. 143, art. 21, part 2A. “     (3) Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basins    Direct Impacts    Winterville’s wastewater is treated by the Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District via the Contentnea  Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This plant is permitted to discharge 2.58 MGD of wastewater to  an unnamed tributary to Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River Basin.     Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located in the Contentnea Creek Basin. Farmville operates a  3.5 MGD WWTP which discharges to this Basin. The majority of the wastewater treatment in Greene County  is handled by on‐site septic systems; however, there are three small centralized treatment systems: the Snow  Hill WWTP permitted for 0.5 MGD, the Hookerton WWTP permitted for 0.06 MGD, and the Maury Sanitary  Land District WWTP permitted for 0.225 MGD. All of these facilities discharge to the Contentnea Creek Basin.     A12 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 7 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Since none of these facilities will be requesting an expansion (or changes to existing permit limits) to  accommodate additional flows generated by the IBT, the IBT is not predicted to cause direct impacts to the  receiving basins.    There are no construction activities proposed in association with this project.  Therefore, no significant direct  impacts to aquatic or terrestrial habitats within the receiving basin are expected to occur as a result of the  proposed transfer.  No direct or indirect impacts to navigation, recreation, or flooding are predicted to occur  as a result of this proposed project based on the minimal effect on stream flows.    Indirect Impacts    Indirect impacts are expected to be insignificant and would occur with any replacement water source.   However, the following information is provided as a demonstration that any indirect impacts that might  occur will be mitigated. Included in the Staff Reponses to Comment (Attachment B) is a detailed summary of  all zoning ordinances, land use plans, and other mitigative measures that have been put in place or are under  development by the Petitioners.     Green County is rural and largely agricultural.  According to the NC State Demographics Unit, the County is  expected to grow at a modest rate of approximately 1% per year between 2010 and 2030.  The rural and  agricultural nature of the County is not predicted to change once the IBT replaces ground water as a water  supply; therefore indirect impacts to the receiving basin due to growth are expected to be insignificant.      The Town of Farmville has experienced limited growth in the last 15 years, adding 180 residents between  1990 and 2004.  The Town does not consistently record yearly census data, nor have they conducted  population projections for the near future.  It is reasonable to assume that the Town will continue to grow at  the historical growth rate of approximately 0.25% per year.  Based on these projections, indirect impacts to  the receiving basin due to growth are expected to be insignificant.      Winterville has experienced increased growth and development within the past 15 years.  The Town’s  population more than doubled between 1990 and 2006 when the population increased at an average rate of  11% per year.  Based on its close proximity to Greenville, growth in Winterville is expected to remain strong  in the near future.  Future projections estimate the Town’s growth at 4.5‐5.8% per year.      All communities in the Tar Pamlico and Neuse River Major Basins are subject to nutrient management  strategies.  Both the Tar Pamlico and Neuse Nutrient Strategies have requirements for wastewater  discharges, agriculture, buffers, and stormwater.  All of the requirements, except those involving the  development of a stormwater program, are applicable on a basin‐wide basis.  However the stormwater  program requirements only apply to those local governments of a certain size, density, or estimated impact.   Pitt County (including Winterville) and Greenville are required to develop stormwater programs under the  Tar Pamlico Nutrient Strategy.  However Farmville and Greene County fall below the thresholds for  development of a stormwater program under the Neuse Nutrient Strategy.  Similarly, these governments do  not fall under the stormwater Phase II program due to their population and rural nature.    Therefore, the Hearing Officers have determined that an appropriate mitigative measure, above what these  communities are already required to do under the Tar Pamlico and Neuse Nutrient Management Strategies,  is the implementation of Phase II post‐construction stormwater controls.  The intent of this measure is to  control any unforeseeable impacts due to growth that may occur as a result of the transfer.  As previously   A13 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 8 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    stated, Pitt County (including Winterville) and Greenville are already required to develop stormwater  programs consistent with the Tar Pamlico Nutrient Strategy.  Therefore this Certificate requirement would  primarily impact Greene County and Farmville.  The Hearing Officers have determined that implementing  post‐construction stormwater controls in these systems would serve to put in effect the most impactful  control measures while not being overly burdensome to a small, rural water system.    Based on the record, the evaluation of impacts discussed in the Staff Response to Comments (included in  Attachment B), the existing Nutrient Management Strategies in effect in the Tar River and Neuse River Basins,  and the overall modest level of growth expected in Pitt and Greene Counties, the Commission finds that the  IBT will not cause significant detrimental effects to the Contentnea or Neuse River Basins.  However the EMC  has determined that it is reasonable to require the Petitioner to mitigate any minor impacts due to growth  that might be expected.      The Certificate condition will read as follows:    “No unit of local government may receive surface water regulated under this Certificate unless the local  government maintains, for all areas that may receive surface water regulated under this Certificate,  requirements that are at least as stringent as the Division of Water Quality’s Phase 2 post‐construction  stormwater controls or the post‐construction stormwater controls of the Universal Stormwater Management  Program (USMP), for all new development that disturbs more than one acre of land, including those projects  that disturb less than one acre of land but are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs  more than one acre of land.”     (4) Alternatives to the Proposed Transfer    The Petitioner evaluated the following alternatives to the interbasin transfer:    1. Development of an independent surface water source on Contentnea Creek  2. Development of an independent ground water source  3. Purchase of finished water from the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority (NRWASA)  4. Purchase of finished water from the City of Wilson  5. Purchase of finished water from the Greenville Utilities Commission    The analysis shows that all of the alternatives, with the exception of those requiring the development of  additional ground water wells, would require an interbasin transfer certificate for at least one of the  Petitioners (either Farmville, Winterville, or Greene County).  However the ground water alternatives were  not identified as a sustainable due to the potential for the EMC to designate additional Capacity Use Areas in  the future.    The reservoir alternative has the greatest environmental and economic impact.  It is also likely that the  construction of a reservoir in Greene County would be infeasible due to technical, environmental, and  permitting complications.    The option of returning water to the source basin was evaluated in the EA.  This option was excluded as being  technically infeasible.  Wastewater service in the area is not as widespread as water service.  There is no  countywide, centralized wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Greene County.  While there are three small  WWTPs (Snow Hill WWTP, the Hookerton WWTP, and the Maury Sanitary Land District WWTP), residents in   A14 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 9 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    unincorporated areas rely primarily on septic systems. Costs for the construction of a countywide collection  and treatment system were estimated at over $150 million.  In Pitt County, wastewater is treated at the  Farmville WWTP, the Contentnea Creek WWTP, and the GUC WWTP. Wastewater from the Town of  Winterville is currently treated at the Contentnea Creek WWTP.  According to the 2008 EA, Winterville has  had discussions with GUC concerning future wastewater service, but there are no immediate plans to  proceed with this option.  If this option were pursued in the future, it would return a portion of the  transferred water to the Tar River Basin.    Of all the identified alternatives, the only viable options were identified as the purchase of finished water  from NRWASA, Wilson, or GUC.  All of these options would utilize existing water treatment plant capacity and  have comparable environmental impacts.  Also, as previously stated, all of the purchase alternatives would  require that at least one Petitioner receive an interbasin transfer Certificate.  Of these options, the purchase  from GUC was identified as being the most economically practicable.  A detailed summary of the alternatives,  including economic and environmental impacts is included in the Staff Response to Comments.    Based on the record, the Commission finds that the selected alternative of purchasing water from Greenville  Utilities Commission is the least environmentally damaging, the most cost effective, and the most technically  feasible alternative for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County.       (5) Impoundment Storage    This criteria is not applicable, as the Petitioners do not have an impoundment.    (6) Multipurpose Reservoir constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers    This criteria is not applicable, as the Petitioners do not use a reservoir.    (7) Other Considerations    Conservation is identified in the IBT statutes and the CCPCUA rules as an important component of both  programs.  NCGS §143‐215.22I(c)(3) states that any Petition for an IBT must include a description of the  conservation measures to be used by the applicant to assure efficient use of the water and avoidance of  waste.      The CCPCUA rules, 15A NCAC 2E .0504, are more specific in that they require water systems in the capacity  use area to develop a water conservation plan that includes the following elements.  The rules require that  each community develop a schedule of implementation for any requirement that has not yet been met:    1. Adoption of a water conservation‐based rate structure, such as: flat rates, increasing block rates,  seasonal rates, or quantity‐based surcharges.  2. Implementation of a water loss reduction program if unaccounted for water is greater than 15%.  3. Adoption of a water conservation ordinance for irrigation, including such measures as: time‐of day  and day‐of‐week restrictions on lawn and ornamental irrigation, automatic irrigation system shut‐off  devices or other appropriate measures.  4. Implementation of a retrofit program that makes available indoor water conservation devices to  customers (such as showerheads, toilet flappers, and faucet aerators).  A15 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 10 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    5. Implementation of a public education program (such as water bill inserts, school and civic  presentations, water treatment plant tours, public services announcements, or other appropriate  measures).  6. Evaluation of the feasibility of water reuse as a means of conservation, where applicable.    The Hearing Officers concur with the public comments that the importance of conservation is critical and a  requisite of a community requesting IBT water.  The Staff Response to Comments includes a summary of the  CCPCUA requirements and how those requirements have been met by each Petitioner.  The Division of Water  Resources has also agreed to begin requesting this information from all CCPCUA Permit holders beginning  January 2011.  Any permit holder whose conservation measures fail to meet the minimum program as  described in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A‐C) will be required to adopt measures meeting these requirements  or they will be issued an NOV.  All water use conservation measures described in the CCPCUA rules will have  to be adopted by the permit holder before their next permit renewal.  Consequently, the minimum water  conservation efforts recognized in the CCPCUA rules will be met as a condition of the permit.      The Hearing Officers have also  recommended the addition of a special condition to the IBT Certificate that  will not allow the Petitioners to transfer water until the minimum program requirements described in NCAC  2E .0502(d)(5)(A‐C) has been met.   The condition reads: “No person subject to the Central Coastal Plain  Capacity Use Area Rules 15A NCAC 2E .0500 may transfer water under this Certificate without first meeting  the minimum conservation program requirements identified in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A‐C) .“    Based on the record, the requirement outlined in NCGS §143‐215.22I(c)(3), and the requirements of 15A NCAC  2E .0500, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to require each Petitioner subject to the Capacity Use  Area Rules to meet the minimum conservation program requirements identified in 15A NCAC 2E  .0502(d)(5)(A‐C)   before transferring water.  The purpose of this requirement is to assure the efficient use of  water and avoid waste.    A16 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 11 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    DECISION    The Commission, on November 18, 2010, by duly made motions concludes that by a preponderance of the  evidence based upon the Findings of Fact stated above that, with the limitations and conditions described  herein, (1) the benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer, and (2)  the detriments of the proposed transfer will be mitigated to a reasonable degree. Therefore, and by duly  made motions, the Commission grants in part and denies in part the Petition of the Greenville Utilities  Commission, the Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, and Greene County (collectively, “Certificate  Holders”) to transfer surface water from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin and Contentnea Creek  Basin.  The permitted transfer amount shall not exceed a maximum of 8.3 million gallons on any calendar day  from the Tar River Basin to the Contentnea Creek Basin and shall not exceed a maximum of 4.0 million  gallons on any calendar day from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. These transfer amounts are  independent of each other.  This Certificate is effective immediately.    The Certificate is subject to the following conditions, imposed under the authority of G.S. § 143‐215.22I:    I. COOPERATION OF CO‐CERTIFICATE HOLDERS    If the Certificate Holders discontinue their cooperative service agreements with each other, the Division of  Water Resources (“Division”) shall specify the maximum amount of water each of the joint Certificate Holders  may transfer individually.  The total of these amounts shall not exceed a maximum of 8.3 million gallons on  any calendar day from the Tar River Basin to the Contentnea Creek Basin and shall not exceed a maximum of  4.0 million gallons on any calendar day from the Tar River Basin to the Neuse River Basin.  The allocations  shall be based on projections of water use for 2030 compiled by the Division at the time it is notified of the  discontinuance of the cooperative service agreement.  The allocations shall take effect within 90 days of the  Division issuing the allocations, or at such other reasonable time as the Division specifies.  At that time, each  condition of this Certificate shall apply to each Certificate Holder individually and the Division may require  the Certificate Holders to make individual submissions of plans, reports, etc. as necessary.     II. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS    This Certificate does not exempt the Certificate Holders or any other entity from compliance with any other  requirements of law, including the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (“CCPCUA”) Rules (15A NCAC 02E  .0500).    III. REOPENER     If the Commission determines that the record on which this Certificate is based is substantially in error or if  new information becomes available that clearly demonstrates that any Finding of Fact (including those  regarding environmental, hydrologic, or water use impacts) pursuant to G.S. § 143‐215.22I(f) was not or is no  longer supported or is materially incomplete, the Commission may reopen and modify this Certificate to  ensure continued compliance with G.S. ch. 143, art. 21, part 2A.     IV. MITIGATION    No individual unit of local government may receive surface water regulated under this Certificate unless the  local government maintains, throughout its jurisdiction, requirements that are at least as stringent as the  A17 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 12 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Division of Water Quality’s Phase 2 post‐construction stormwater controls or the post‐construction  stormwater controls of the Universal Stormwater Management Program (“USMP”), for all new development  that disturbs more than one acre of land, including those projects that disturb less than one acre of land but  are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land.    V. CONSERVATION    Persons (including a unit of local government) subject to the CCPCUA Rules (15A NCAC 2E .0500) are required  to reduce the volume and effects of withdrawals from ground waters through the minimum conservation  program requirements identified in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A)‐(C).  In order to assure that conservation  measures are used by the applicant to assure efficient use of water and avoid waste (in accordance with  §143‐215.22I(c)(3), no individual unit of local government or persons subject to the CCPCUA Rules (15A NCAC  2E .0500) may transfer water under this Certificate without first meeting the minimum conservation program  requirements identified in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A)‐(C).    VI. DROUGHT MANAGEMENT    The Certificate Holders shall implement drought management measures that become more stringent as  drought conditions increase in severity. These measures shall correspond to the most severe level of drought  existing in the Tar River Basin.  Prior to each Certificate Holder receiving any water under this Certificate, the  Certificate Holder shall submit a Water Shortage Response Plan (“Plan”) to the Division, for the Division’s  approval.  Each Certificate Holder shall receive approval of the Plan from the Division, and shall have and  maintain adequate authority and resources to implement and enforce the Plan. In order to be approved, the  Plan must meet or exceed the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 2E .0607 and be no less stringent than the  Plan in Attachment A, which is incorporated herein.  Any subsequent modifications to the Plan will be  reviewed and approved by the Division. Adoption of the measures in Attachment A does not imply  compliance with G.S. 143‐355(l) or 15A NCAC 2E .0607.     The Certificate Holders shall not transfer any water to any other unit of local government unless that unit of  local government agrees to be bound by this condition in full.      VII. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING PLAN    The Certificate Holders shall report annually to the Division.  The report shall detail water use over the  calendar year by providing the following information:    1. Interbasin Transfer Calculation    GUC shall calculate daily and maximum‐day interbasin transfers taking into account GUC’s own  metered water use for each billing cycle, with separate data provided for customers in the Tar River  and Neuse River Basins.  The calculation shall also take into account GUC’s monthly average  wastewater treatment plant discharge, and the daily bulk purchases from the Towns of Farmville,  Winterville, and Greene County. GUC shall geocode (via the GUC GIS database) those water customers  located in the Neuse River Basin so that the consumptive use for the GUC customers can be calculated.  The consumptive use for Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County does not need to be calculated so  long as the entire metered water use to these communities is the transfer to each of the respective  Basins.    A18 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 13 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    2. Ground Water Use    Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County shall submit their daily metered ground water use as  reported to DWR’s Ground Water Section for compliance with any CCPCUA permits.  The  documentation shall note the maximum‐day water use by each system.    3. Banked Water Summary    Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County shall also provide a banked water summary.  Each summary  shall include the total volume of banked water available at the beginning and end of the calendar year,  an accounting of any day during the year that banked water was used, and the total volume of banked  water that was used during that day.    4. Compliance With Other Certificate Conditions    The Certificate Holders shall also provide a status report of compliance efforts for any other conditions  required by this Certificate.    All annual reports shall be submitted by March 31st of the following calendar year.  Following the submission  of any reports under this Certificate, the Certificate Holders shall promptly provide to the Division any  information requested by the Division that the Division concludes is needed to complete, correct or clarify  the report.  If the Certificate Holders believe that the Division’s request does not conform to the reporting  requirements, the parties shall confer promptly to resolve any differences.    When an annual report indicates that a daily transfer equaled or exceeded eighty (80%) percent of any  transfer amount authorized by this Certificate, the Certificate Holders shall submit to the Division, by June 1  of the year in which such annual report was required, a detailed plan that specifies how the Certificate  Holders intend to address future foreseeable water needs.  So long as the Certificate Holders are required to  have a local water supply plan, then the plan to address future foreseeable water needs shall be an  amendment to the local water supply plan required by G.S. 143‐355(l).    When an annual report indicates that a daily transfer equaled or exceeded ninety percent (90%) of any  transfer amount authorized by this Certificate, then:    1. The Certificate Holders shall begin implementation of the plan submitted to the Division.  2. GUC shall immediately begin monthly reporting to the Division.  Monthly reports shall be submitted  within 45 days of the end of the month.    All reports submitted pursuant to this condition shall be signed by the Director of Public Utilities or person of  similar position who shall affirm that, based on information collected during and belief formed after  reasonable inquiry, the report is true, accurate and complete and that the Certificate Holder complied with  the Certificate continuously throughout the year, except as specifically indicated in the report.    A19 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 14 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    NOTICE:  The Certificate Holders may be jointly and severally responsible for compliance with certain terms,  conditions and requirements stated herein, and therefore may be jointly and severally liable for penalties  assessed to enforce such terms, conditions and requirements as provided in G.S. §143‐215.6A.              This is the _________ day of ______________________, 2010.            ______________________________________________  Stephen T. Smith, Chairman  A20 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 15 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      ‐ Attachment A ‐    MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN      Section A. The Water Shortage Response Plan (“Plan”) shall include provisions that are at least as stringent as  the following specific procedural and substantive provisions:    Stage 1 ‐ Water Conservation Alert    A Stage 1 water emergency shall be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage or when  any of the following conditions exist:     There are three consecutive days when water demand exceeds 80% of the water production  capacity.   The average of the daily Tar River level measurements taken at the Water Treatment Plant  Raw Water Pump Station is ‐1.0 feet Mean Sea Level or less.   The location of the salt water interface in the Tar River is determined to be 10 miles or less  from the Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Pump Station.    Water production capacity shall be defined as the maximum volume of water that meets state and  federal standards that the water treatment process can produce during a twenty‐four hour period.  Water production capacity can vary depending on system component reliability and raw water  conditions. The salt water interface shall be defined as the point where chloride levels in the Tar  River are measured at 250 milligrams per liter just below the surface. During a declared Stage 1  water emergency the following voluntary water conservation practices shall be encouraged:    a) Inspect and repair all faulty and defective parts of faucets and toilets.  b) Use shower for bathing rather than bathtub and limit shower to no more than 5 minutes.  c) Do not leave faucets running while shaving, brushing teeth, rinsing or preparing food.  d) Limit the use of clothes washers and dishwashers and when used, operate fully loaded.  Operate dishwashers after the peak demand hours of 6 to 10 p.m.  e) Limit lawn watering to that necessary for plant survival. Water lawns before the peak  demand hours of 6 to 10 a.m.  f) Water shrubbery the minimum required. Water shrubbery before the peak demand hours of  6 to 10 a.m.  g) Limit vehicle washing.  h) Do not wash down outside areas such as sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc.  i) Install water saving showerheads and other devices.  j) Use disposable and biodegradable dishes where possible.  k) Install water saving devices in toilets such as early closing flappers.  l) Limit hours of water‐cooled air conditioners.  m) Do not fill swimming or wading pools.    A21 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 16 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Stage 2 ‐ Water Shortage Warning    A Stage 2 water emergency shall be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage or when  any of the following conditions exist:     There are two consecutive days when water demand exceeds 90% of the water production  capacity.   The average of the daily Tar River level measurements taken at the Water Treatment Plant  Raw Water Pump Station is ‐1.5 feet Mean Sea Level or less.   The location of the salt water interface in the Tar River is determined to be 7 miles or less  from the Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Pump Station.    Water production capacity shall be defined as the maximum volume of water that meets state and  federal standards that the water treatment process can produce during a twenty‐four hour period.  Water production capacity can vary depending on system component reliability and raw water  conditions. The salt water interface shall be defined as the point where chloride levels in the Tar  River are measured at 250 milligrams per liter just below the surface. During a declared Stage 2  water emergency the following activities shall be prohibited:    a) Watering lawns, grass, shrubbery, trees, flower and vegetable gardens except by hand held  hose, container, or drip irrigation system. A person who regularly sells plants will be  permitted to use water on their commercial stock. A golf course may water their greens.  State, County and City licensed landscape contractors may water by hand held hose or drip  irrigation any plants under a written warranty.  b) Filling swimming or wading pools, either newly constructed or previously drained. Make up  water for pools in operation will be allowed.  c) Using water‐cooled air conditioners or other equipment, in which cooling water is not  recycled, unless there are health or safety concerns.  d) Washing any type of mobile equipment including cars, trucks, trailers, boats, or airplanes.  Any persons involved in a business of washing motor vehicles may continue to operate.  e) Washing outside surfaces such as streets, driveways, service station aprons, parking lots, or  patios.   f) Washing the exterior of office buildings, homes, or apartments.  g) Using water for any ornamental fountain, pool, pond, etc.  h) Serving drinking water in food establishments such as restaurants or cafeterias, unless  requested to do so by a customer.  i) Using water from a public or private fire hydrant for any reason other than to suppress a fire  or other public emergency or as authorized by the General Manager or his authorized  representative.  j) Using water to control or compact dust.  k) Intentionally wasting water.  l) Commercial and industrial water customers shall achieve mandatory reductions in water  usage through whatever means are available. A minimum reduction of 20% shall be the  target, however a greater target reduction percentage may be required depending on the  severity of the water emergency. Compliance with the reduction target shall be determined  by the General Manager or his authorized representative. Variances to the target reduction  A22 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 17 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    may be granted by the General Manager or his authorized representative to designated  public health facilities.    Stage 3 – Water Shortage Danger    A Stage 3 water emergency shall be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage or when  any of the following conditions exist:     There is one day when water demand exceeds 100% of the water production capacity.   The average of the daily Tar River level measurements taken at the Water Treatment Plant  Raw Water Pump Station is ‐2.0 feet Mean Sea Level or less.   The location of the salt water interface in the Tar River is determined to be 4 miles or less  from the Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Pump Station.    Water production capacity shall be defined as the maximum volume of water that meets state and  federal standards that the water treatment process can produce during a twenty‐four hour period.  Water production capacity can vary depending on system component reliability and raw water  conditions. The salt water interface shall be defined as the point where chloride levels in the Tar  River are measured at 250 milligrams per liter just below the surface. During a declared Stage 3  water emergency the following activities shall be prohibited, in addition to activities prohibited  under Stage 2:    a) Watering lawns, grass, shrubbery, trees, and flowers.  b) Washing motor vehicles at commercial car wash establishments.  c) Watering any vegetable garden except by hand held hose, container, or drip irrigation.  d) Commercial and industrial water customers shall achieve mandatory reductions in water  usage through whatever means are available. A minimum reduction of 50% shall be the  target, however a greater target reduction percentage may be required depending on the  severity of the water emergency. Compliance with the reduction target shall be determined  by the General Manager or his authorized representative. Variances to the target reduction  may be granted by the General Manager or his authorized representative to designated  public health facilities.   e) In the event that the prohibition of the activities listed above is not sufficient to maintain an  adequate supply of water for fire protection, all use of water for purposes other than  maintenance of public health and safety shall be prohibited. Residential water use shall be  limited to the amount necessary to sustain life through drinking, food preparation and  personal hygiene.    The Certificate Holders may require that commercial and industrial water customers prepare plans  detailing measures to be taken by them to achieve mandatory reductions in daily water usage during  Stage 2 and Stage 3 emergencies. Such plans shall be completed within sixty (60) calendar days after  receipt of notice to prepare them.    Any User who is found to have failed to comply with any of the mandatory restrictions may be fined  up to five hundred dollars ($500) per day per violation. Enforcement of the mandatory restrictions  and imposition of fines will be implemented according to the following schedule except in cases of  gross noncompliance:  A23 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 18 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010       First offense – Written warning   Second offense – Fine up to two hundred dollars ($200)   Third offense and further offenses – Fine up to five hundred dollars ($500)    Water service may be temporarily discontinued for failure to comply with the mandatory  restrictions. All applicable penalty fees may be applied in the event of such service suspensions. In  the event of continued noncompliance, removal of meter and service will be deemed proper and  service will be discontinued and tap fees and deposits will be forfeited.       Section B. The Plan shall also include the following:     The designation of a staff position or organizational unit responsible for the implementation of their   Plan;   Notification procedures that will be used to inform employees and water users about the  implementation of the plan and required water conservation response measures;   Specific measurements of available water supply, water demand and system conditions that will be used  to determine the severity of water shortage conditions and to initiate water use reduction measures and  the movement between various levels;   Procedures that will be used to regulate compliance with the provisions of the plan;   Procedures for affected parties to review and comment on the plan prior to final adoption;   Procedures to receive and review applications for variances from specific requirements of the plan and  the criteria that will be considered in the determination to issue a variance;   An evaluation method to determine the actual water savings and the effectiveness of the Plan in meeting  its stated objectives and reduction goals;    Procedures for revising and updating the Plan to improve effectiveness based on the results of the  evaluation method, and to adapt to new circumstances such as changes in the number or types of water  sources.    A24 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 19 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    ‐Attachment B‐    STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS      The Environmental Management Commission held a Public Hearing on Greenville Utilities Commission’s (GUC)  Petition for an Interbasin Transfer Certificate (IBT) on November 5, 2009. The public record for that hearing was  scheduled to close on December 4, 2009, however the Hearing Officers agreed to grant a one‐time extension  ending January 19, 2010.  This document includes a record of the comments that were submitted during that time,  as well as responses from Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff.  The Hearing Officers utilized the comments  and staff response to make the recommended changes that are addressed in this document.    37 people were in attendance for the Public Hearing on the IBT Petition.  In total, 21 provided comments, either at  the hearing (10 speakers) or during the public comment period. The following individuals submitted comments.   Each commenter was given a distinct ID number.      Table 1: Record of Public Comments Received on the IBT Petition  Commenter ID Name Affiliation Method Date  Barney Kane Self Email 12/4/2009 1 Barney Kane Self Email 1/19/2010  2 Anne Bunnell Self Email 1/14/2010  3 John and Kathy Schermerhorn Self Email 10/27/2009 Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico‐Tar Riverkeeper / SELC Email 12/2/2009  Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico‐Tar Riverkeeper / SELC Email 12/4/2009  Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico‐Tar Riverkeeper / SELC Mail 12/4/2009  Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico‐Tar Riverkeeper / SELC Email 1/19/2010  4  Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico‐Tar Riverkeeper / SELC Verbal 11/5/2009  Douglas Jackson Winterville Mail 12/3/2009 5 Terri Parker‐Eakes Winterville Email 12/4/2009  Peter F. Varney Rocky Mount Mail 12/1/2009  Glenn Dunn Rocky Mount Email 12/2/2009  Kalika Guthrie Rocky Mount Email 1/19/2010 6  Wayne Hollowell Rocky Mount Verbal 11/5/2009  7 Laura E. Williamson Self Email 1/13/2010  8 Wayne Caldwell Self Email 1/4/2010  9 Charles Schwartz Self Email 12/14/2009 10 Carolyn Reed Self Verbal/Written 11/5/2009  11 James Cooke, Jr. Self Mail 12/20/2009 12 Dave Schwartz Self Verbal/Written 11/5/2009  13 Alvin Woodlief, Jr. Oxford Mail 10/30/2009 Barry G. Parks Wilson Mail 12/8/2009 14 Barry Parks Wilson Email 12/4/2009  15 Don Davenport Greene County Mail 11/18/2009 Bennie Heath Greene County Mail 12/3/2009  Bennie Heath Greene County Verbal 11/5/2009 16  Lisa Johnson Greene County Email 12/3/2009  17 Albert V. Lewis Farmville/ Greene County Mail 12/3/2009  A25 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 20 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Robert Evans Farmville Verbal 11/5/2009  Randy Emory/ Ronald Elks GUC Email 1/15/2010 18 David Briley GUC Verbal 11/5/2009  19 Byron Bateman Self Verbal 11/5/2009  20 Art Langrish Sierra Club Verbal 11/5/2009  21 John Craft Town of La Grange Verbal 11/5/2009  DWR staff reviewed the submissions and separated each comment into distinct sub‐comments.  Those sub‐ comments were then numbered.  Those two ID numbers (the Commenter ID and the Sub‐Comment ID) were then  combined to yield a composite Comment ID #.  The following figure provides an example of how public comments  were captured.    Figure 1: Determination of Sub‐Comments    Throughout this staff response document, individual sub‐comments are referenced by their assigned Comment ID  #.  The full text of all the comments received during the comment period, including a record of how those  comments were characterized, is included for reference in Appendix 7.    The individual who submitted the following comment was assigned Commenter ID number 9. Within that submission, DWR staff was able to identify three distinct sub-comments. Those sub-comments were assigned Comment ID # 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 A26 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 21 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      TABLE OF CONTENTS    The staff response to comments has been organized into the following major topics.  Within each topic  is a list of the pertinent comments and a staff response.    I. Amount of Transfer  II. Conservation  III. Analysis of Alternatives  IV. Mitigation of Secondary and Cumulative Impacts  V. Impacts to the Tar River  VI. Direct Impacts to the Receiving Basin  VII. Construction of Temporary Dam Structure  VIII. Existing Financial Investment  IX. Impacts to Air Quality  X. Aquifer Storage and Recovery System  XI. Other Comments  XII. Recommendations to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC)    Appendix 1: Explanation of IBT Management Strategy, ARCADIS  Appendix 2: Memo from DWR Concerning Compliance with CCPCUA Program Requirements  Appendix 3: Summary of Water Conservation Requirements per CCPCUA Rules, ARCADIS  Appendix 4: Environmental and Economic Impacts of Water Supply Alternatives, ARCADIS  Appendix 5: Summary of Mitigation for Secondary and Cumulative Impacts  Appendix 6: Explanation of Hydrologic Analysis and Results Interpretation, ARCADIS  Appendix 7: Record of Public Comments received on IBT Petition    A27 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 22 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC I:    AMOUNT OF TRANSFER    Several comments expressed concern that the amount of the requested transfer is higher than should be  necessary to meet the needs of these communities.  Comments point to such factors as the amount of the transfer  request, the peaking factors used in the analysis, and the inclusion of an emergency transfer condition as being  excessive.     Subtopic A:  Necessity of Transfer Request    Comment ID #  Comment Text  14.2 In our opinion, Greenville is asking for a larger IBT than the minimum required. In fact they are  requesting an amount large enough to supply as much as 93% of the maximum daily projected  demand for a short term and 151% continuously of the average daily demand. CCPCUA rules  only require up to a 75% reduction in the average daily demand of their permitted amount.  Subtracting 75% from the Approved Base rate for Greene County, Farmville, and Snow Hill  would only require 4.45 MGD from GUC to meet the demand for an average annual day and  only 8.5 MGD for a maximum demand day, which is the day that GUC will only be transferring a  minimal amount according to Table 2‐3. We do not see the necessity for a request of 8.3 and  9.2 MGD respectively, and a total of as much as 13.4 MGD since GUC is also requesting to send  111% of the maximum daily demand to Winterville and 117% of the maximum daily demand  for an emergency thru the year 2030. Even if you assume the unprecedented growth rates for  Greene County, Farmville and Winterville are correct, this volume of transfer is unnecessary.  4.14 Along with our concerns regarding the inadequacies of the EA, we are especially concerned  about the transfer amount requested by the applicant. The stated purpose of the IBT request in  GUC's Petition is to aid the receiving communities' compliance with CCPCUA regulations, which  require a 75% reduction in water withdrawals from the cretaceous aquifers phased over a 10‐ year period. The amount of ground water water withdrawal reductions that are required by the  receiving communities are outline in Table 1. The total amount the communities need to  replace this loss of ground water supply due to CCPCUA rules is 3.771 mgd. Therefore, the  proposed IBT allows for significant growth over the time period evaluated and is incongruent  with the project’s stated objective of compliance with CCPCUA rules. The IBT certificate  proposes an interbasin transfer of 8.3 mgd for the Towns of Farmville and Greene County  Regional Water authority, as well as an additional 1.0 mgd for emergency conditions. The  second certificate request proposes 4.0 mgd to the Town of Winterville with an additional 0.2  mgd for emergency conditions. The total transfer requested from the Tar River Basin to the  Neuse River Basin is 12.3 with emergency conditions allowing up to 13.5 mgd. This amount is  well in excess of the stated purpose of the IBT to aid the communities in compliance with the  CCPCUA rules. The IBT does allow for significant growth; growth that would not be viable  without the transfer of water via this IBT.    Staff Response    An important exercise in evaluating the amount of the transfer request is to examine the amount of water lost by  the required Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rule reductions.  This is a complicated task for a  number of reasons.  First is that the allowable CCPCUA pump rate is a static volume that will not change as a  community continues to experience established growth trends.  The allowable ground water withdrawal in 2018  will be the same as the allowable withdrawal in 2050.  Therefore, in determining how much water is “lost” due to  the CCPCUA rules, a reference year must be chosen (i.e., X amount of water will be lost by Y date).  However it is  important to keep in mind that the reduction in available ground water will continue to restrict a community  beyond any chosen date.  A second complicating factor is that even during a year with a below average water use,  a water system could reasonably experience (and must meet) a maximum day demand with a high peaking factor.   So in answering the question of how much water is lost by the CCPCUA rules, it is important to consider that water  systems must maintain the ability to meet a peak demand for short periods of time throughout a year.  This is a  critical issue to consider due to the fact that interbasin transfers are regulated based on a maximum day flow.    A28 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 23 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    One way estimate the amount of water “lost” to the CCPCUA rules is to examine the amount of ground water that  will no longer be available to meet average daily system demands by the time the necessary reductions have been  made.  The following table shows the Approved Base Rate (ABR) for each system, the allowable ground water  withdrawal rate after each reduction, and the projected average daily shortfall for each community.  All of the  values are expressed in millions of gallons per day.    Table 2:  Projected Average Daily Shortfall     Farmville Greene County Winterville   Approved Base Rate* 1.572 2.96 0.496  Projected Average Daily Demand (ADD) 1.87 2.31 0.85  Allowable Ground Water Withdrawal  (after 25% CCPCUA Reduction) 1.179 2.22 0.372 2008  Projected Average Daily Shortfall 0.69 0.09 0.48  Projected Average Daily Demand (ADD) 1.97 2.51 1.1  Allowable Ground Water Withdrawal  (after 50% CCPCUA Reduction) 0.786 1.48 0.248 2013  Projected Average Daily Shortfall 1.18 1.03 0.85  Projected Average Daily Demand (ADD) 2.07 2.72 1.4  Allowable Ground Water Withdrawal  (after 75% CCPCUA Reduction) 0.393 0.74 0.124 2018  Projected Average Daily Shortfall 1.68 1.98 1.28  * 15A NCAC 2E .0504(1) defines the approved base rate as “the larger of a person’s January 1, 1997 through December 31,  1997 or August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 annual water use rate from the Cretaceous aquifer system, or an adjusted  water use rate determined through negotiation with the Division using documentation provided by the applicant.”    As shown in Table 2, by the time the CCPCUA reductions are complete in 2018, the communities will be  experiencing a combined average daily shortfall of 4.93 MGD (80% of 2030 average day demand).  However,  interbasin transfers are regulated as a maximum day flow.  These average day demand shortfalls can be translated  to a system wide maximum day demand shortfall by multiplying each system’s ADD by its selected peaking factor  and then subtracting the available ground water.  This estimation provides a 2018 max‐day shortfall of 9.5 MGD,  which is 77% of the 2030 max‐day IBT request.      Similarly, we can calculate the average and max‐day shortfalls through 2030.  Using the above methodology, we  find that the projected average daily shortfall in 2030 is expected to be 6.3 MGD.  On a max‐day, this can be  translated to 11.9 MGD.  This is consistent with GUC’s IBT request for 11.9 MGD to meet Farmville, Winterville and  Greene County’s demands through 2030, plus a small amount for GUC’s own service area in the Neuse River Basin.   As an aside, had GUC used historical maximum peaking factors to develop the IBT management strategy, the  communities would have needed to request a transfer in excess of 17 MGD.    Based on this methodology, 77% of GUC’s IBT request could be considered a total replacement of ground water  through 2018. The remaining 23% could be considered for growth and peak management during the remaining 12  years of the project horizon.        The Hearing Officers recommend that no changes be made to the Petitioner’s maximum day IBT request.  A29 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 24 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Subtopic B: Approved Base Rate (ABR)    Comment ID #  Comment Text  1.1 The Approved Base Rate (ABR) used by the NCDWR to determine historical use from the  Cretaceous aquifer in the capacity use area is flawed. The ABR applied was determined based  on historical use at a time when there were no conservation rates in place, pumping and  treatment costs were low, and energy costs for water production were also low. Thus, these  ABR’s may be presumed to be based upon water use patterns that were excessive. There was  little reason to limit use or apply conservation practices. A more realistic (much lower) ABR  should have been used. It is therefore also true that the reductions proposed from the  artificially high ABR do not reflect any serious conservation effort. Neither is there serious  hardship caused in these capacity use areas by meeting the percent reductions required in the  early years of the limitations. Reductions of twenty‐five percent could be achieved quite simply.  Reductions of fifty percent represent only a small challenge in conservation and in planned  growth. The seventy‐five percent reduction would likely require access to surface water from  the Neuse if growth is to be facilitated. Similarly if these high ABRs are used the projections of  future needs are dramatically higher than needed. Offsetting these projected "needs" with the  proposed interbasin transfer would effectively support these former wasteful, luxury, water‐ use practices. My point is that these ABRs do not reflect the true base need. Rather they reflect  luxury use patterns that do not warrant the support of the interbasin transfers proposed. To  use these erroneous ABRs as the basis for projected future water "needs" only results in  support of continued wasteful consumption. A more critical, conservation‐motivated analysis is  needed in which limits are properly considered and conservation is practiced. If such analysis  were done there would be no basis for the proposed IBT.  1.12 ... Apply conservation based water supply base requirements needs to the proposed areas.  These should be much lower than the ABRs used in this proposal.    Staff Response    While it is correct that the ABR is based on historical data and certain reductions are achievable without undue  hardship on the communities, it is important to keep in mind that the annual ground water withdrawal volume will  have to decrease while the populations of the affected communities will continue to grow. Many of the measures  being put in place (including the IBT) are not to supplement supplies during the first few phases of the reduction,  but to ensure water supply during the later phases of the CCPCUA reductions.  The following graphic illustrates the  required CCPCUA reductions for a general water system.  A30 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 25 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      Figure 2      As illustrated Figure 2, water systems that are subject to the CCPCUA rules are expected to rely upon alternate  water sources to meet historical levels of water use.  The above public comment states that “The seventy‐five  percent reduction would likely require access to surface water… if growth is to be facilitated”, however that is not  the case.  CCPCUA communities would require alternate water sources even if there were no growth.  The  reduction in ground water is not expected to be made up through conservation alone.    As described in the previous section and in Table 1, the combined average daily shortfall for Farmville, Winterville,  and Greene County is expected to be 4.93 MGD or 80% of 2018 average demand.  Regardless of whether or not  the initial ABR could have been adjusted to reflect more of a conservation‐based rate, the final result is still a  significant reduction.  The majority of this reduction must be met with alternative water sources.      The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments. A31 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 26 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Subtopic C:  Selection of Peaking Factors    Comment ID #  Comment Text  1.3 The data used and the peaking factors applied in the Arcadis GUC Interbasin Management Strategy  are probably flawed. For one thing there is no way that the Maximum Daily Demand for 1990 and  1995 for GUC could be "Not Available." The record keeping at GUC during those years was carefully  documented and recorded. It is hard to imagine why the data are not presented here. I have too  much faith in GUC to believe there was a selective motive for listing them as "NA" and yet these data  are too important for Arcadis to overlook these values. This is puzzlement. NCDWR should ask for  these values and consider them in the determining the proper peaking factors.  1.4 The peaking factors of 1.7 and 1.8 used for communities in the Capacity Use Areas (CCAs) contrast  dramatically with the 1.5 factor found valid for GUC. Common sense would support the assumption  that the peaking factor applied to Greenville should be used for the CCA communities as well. The  GUC peaking factor is based upon a larger, more valid, data base and one that likely reflects the  management of water resources that will be needed in the future. The more rural communities tend  to have larger lots and less steady industrial water consumption. Thus these high peaking factors  may be now be supported by the current use patterns. In the future use will require more  conservation and less irrigation. MDDs will need to more closely approach ADDS as these  communities grow and as water resources become more restricted. Use of these high values of 1.7  and 1.8 for peaking factors is not reasonable and endorses wasteful use.    Staff Response    As described in the Petition and Environmental Assessment (EA), ARCADIS examined a range of historical peaking  factors for each community.  Representative peaking factors were selected that are below the historic maximum  for each community, while still being representative of the system characteristics.  For Winterville, in particular,  which experiences slightly higher peaking factors than the other water systems, ARCADIS selected a factor much  lower than the historical maximum of 2.75.  For this community, in particular, the peaking factor was selected  based on the understanding that conservation (and a rigorous IBT Management Strategy) will be required to  ensure that Winterville does not exceed its maximum daily transfer.      In Appendix 1, Explanation of IBT Management Strategy (ARCADIS) it is also pointed out that it is not atypical for  smaller water systems such as Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County, to experience higher peaking factors  than larger communities, such as Greenville.  This is generally understood to be due to the fact that smaller  communities have less buffering capacity in their distribution system (i.e. larger distribution main, elevated  storage, etc.).  Therefore the higher peaking factors should not be necessarily be attributed to wasteful use or  extravagant irrigation.    The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments. A32 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 27 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Subtopic D: IBT Management Strategy    Comment ID #  Comment Text  1.7 Greenville has had a remarkably flat water consumption pattern over the past 15 years. This  may seem puzzling considering the growth in Greenville. It is likely attributed in part to several  factors, including good management at the utility, changes in water use practices at local  industries and other more minor practices. But there are limits to these benefits. It is probable,  perhaps even certain, that Greenville's demand for water will return to the steep growth curves  that were predicted by the consulting engineers in the mid 90's. If this is true Greenville will be  using its current plant capacity in the very near future. If that is the case, there will be very little  excess to commit to other basins.  4.15 All of the receiving communities have the option, and appear to be planning, to bank ground  water by reducing their required 75% reduction prior to the 201 8 deadline. Using the figures in  the EA, we have calculated that with maximum day demands minus the use of allocated ground  water withdrawal and banked water (assuming equal distribution for 20 year starting in 201 8),  the maximum transfer needs (to meet maximum day demands) is 11.3 mgd. This also assumes  that per capita demand will not change over the time period. Aggressive water conservation  activities that must accompany a transfer awarded could reduce demand upwards of 10% or  more, thereby reducing the maximum day water demands of the receiving communities. At the  moment, the Town of Winterville's per capita water use is the lowest of all the communities at  90 gpcd. Greenville's per capita use is currently at 120 gpcd.  18.1 The IBT Management Strategy was developed in 2007 as a significant component of the  Environmental Assessment (EA). The IBT Management Strategy is a balanced, managed  approach to the transfer of finished water to our neighboring communities. The Management  Strategy takes into account the use of banked water, the sale of finished water during off‐peak  periods, and the reduction of ground water supply due to the CCPCUA Rule. The IBT  Management Strategy was constructed to allow GUC and neighboring communities the  greatest flexibility in the purchase of water as well as the curtailment of service during peak  water demand or low flow in the Tar River.  14.3 At the same time GUC in Table 2‐3 stated that they have enough water plant capacity, but only  reflect a minimum withdrawal for the IBT transfer on these same days. Are we to assume that  Greenville can run easily at 100% of the plant rated capacity without any issues and that the  communities can reliably count on this minimum amount on the same day when their wells  cannot produce this increased demand?  16.4 The purchase of water from GUC, is for water currently permitted for withdrawal from the Tar  River. No additional Tar River withdrawal permits by GUC are to be requested or needed to  meet the obligations of GUC to supply water to Greene County. The contractual agreement  between GUC and Greene County is based upon a ninety percent availability factor. The  contract gives GUC the right to interrupt or curtail the supply of water to Greene County up to  ten percent of the time, or up to thirty‐six (36) days per year. This arrangement allows GUC to  curtail water to Greene County on days of peak demand during which time Greene County will  utilize their remaining 25% well capacity to meet their demand. Under this agreement GUC will  not need to increase its withdrawal permitting capacity from the Tar River not or in the future  as related to selling water to Greene county      Staff Response    Concerns about the available quantity of water that will be available for sale to these communities, as well as  concerns about how banked water will be managed, are addressed by GUC’s IBT Management Strategy.  This  strategy was included in both the EA and the Petition; however, ARCADIS has developed a supplemental technical  memorandum to further illustrate the main components.  This memorandum is included in Appendix 1, titled  “Explanation of IBT Management Strategy”.  In this analysis, ARCADIS states the following:    A33 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 28 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Every community experiences minimum, average, and maximum day water demands throughout  the year.  From year to year, the highs and lows in water demand will usually vary with season.  The perception is the maximum day demand occurs only in the hottest months of the year. This  perception is not valid every year. Water systems will experience maximum day demands at any  time during the year, including the coldest months.    To illustrate this concept,  ARCADIS developed a diurnal curve based on 5 to 10 years of historical water use trends,  and projected this curve onto the average expected annual water demand for each community.  The result is a  projected 2009 to 2030 water use trend for each water system.  The purpose of these graphs is to illustrate the  typical high, average, and low daily water demands that could typically be expected by each water system.   At no  time during the historic record do maximum day demands coincide for Greenville, Farmville, Winterville, or Greene  County.    Figure 1 in Appendix 1 illustrates what happens when the projected bulk purchase curves for each community are  “stacked” (e.g. added cumulatively) to show the total water treatment plant (WTP) demand though 2030.  During  times when the demand exceeds 22.5 MGD (the capacity of the WTP) GUC will curtail water sales and the  communities will rely upon banked water to meet peak demands.   The Purchase Agreement limits water  curtailment to a maximum of 10% of the year.  According to GUC’s analysis, curtailment is not expected to occur  before 2018.    The analysis also states:     On an average day basis, Greenville Utilities will be able to sell water to each community entirely.    Greenville Utilities will also be able to sell water to a community if that community is experiencing a  maximum day. The maximum day for each community is not expected to occur on the same day (per the  aforementioned explanation).    However, if Greenville Utilities approaches a maximum day, the Water Purchase Agreements stipulate  that Greenville Utilities reserves the right to curtail water, if it is anticipated that WTP capacity may be  exceeded.    An important component of the IBT strategy is the management of banked water.  DWR supports this water  banking concept where it is consistent with good management of the region’s water resources and subject to prior  review and approval of specific banking proposals.  Many water systems throughout the Central Coastal Plain  Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) utilize water banking as a means of meeting their required reductions.  Although it is  correct that all of the Petitioners are planning to bank ground water by reducing pump rates as much as possible  during the early CCPCUA phases (banking will likely not be possible after 2015), there is no direct correlation  between the amount of water that might be banked and the amount of the IBT request.  The amount of water that  might be banked by 2018 is an unforeseeable quantity.  Similarly, it would be difficult to predict exactly when and  how much banked water will be used.  As a result, it is essential that the banked water remain as a “savings  account” used by each community if and when supplemental water is required to meet peak demands.  Therefore,  the total volume of the anticipated water bank was not subtracted from the applicant’s total IBT request.    The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments. A34 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 29 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Subtopic E: Emergency Condition    Comment ID #  Comment Text  19.2 GUC is asking for an emergency condition, but during an emergency (drought) would be the  time the River could least afford to lose the water      The Hearing Officers have chosen not to grant an emergency condition.  G.S. §143‐215.22L(q) specifically outlines  the procedure by which water systems may request an emergency water transfer.  Should GUC need such a  transfer, that request should be submitted to the Department in accordance with the applicable statutes.      §143‐215.22L(q) Emergency Transfers. – In the case of water supply problems caused by drought,  a pollution incident, temporary failure of a water plant, or any other temporary condition in  which the public health, safety, or welfare requires a transfer of water, the Secretary of  Environment and Natural Resources may grant approval for a temporary transfer. Prior to  approving a temporary transfer, the Secretary shall consult with those parties listed in subdivision  (3) of subsection (c) of this section that are likely to be affected by the proposed transfer.  However, the Secretary shall not be required to satisfy the public notice requirements of this  section or make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in approving a temporary transfer  under this subsection. If the Secretary approves a temporary transfer under this subsection, the  Secretary shall specify conditions to protect other water users. A temporary transfer shall not  exceed six months in duration, but the approval may be renewed for a period of six months by the  Secretary based on demonstrated need as set forth in this subsection.       A35 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 30 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC II:    CONSERVATION    Many of the following comments express concern that conservation, explicitly stated as an important factor in  both the IBT statutes and the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules, was not properly addressed  by the applicant in the EA or Petition.  Some comments also state that specific conservation measures required by  the CCPCUA rules have not been implemented by the Petitioners.    Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.12 Furthermore, all communities are required by the CCPCUA rules to adopt water conservation‐ based rate structures, implement conservation ordinances for irrigation, provide a retrofit  program for homeowners as well as an educational program and provide information to the  state regarding existing conservation measures and those to be implemented (NCAC 15A 2E  0.0502(d)(5)). Phone conversations with DWR staff reveal that such information has not been  supplied by these communities. Such information is crucial for the EMC to be able to make a  decision on the reasonableness of the IBT and whether or not conditions should be placed on  the certificate if the Petition is granted. The changes in 2007 to the Regulation of Surface Water  Transfers Act clearly reveal that the State is emphasizing the efficient use of water resources.  The Petition and EA submitted by GUC provides none of this critical information.  1.13 … as a matter of principle NCDWR should require vigorous conservation rate structures and  peak demand management in any area receiving an IBT. And the sword should cut both ways.  The area supplying the water should be required to adopt the same vigorous conservation rates  and peak demand management. The reason? Both would now be sharing the same water  resources. It is thus absurd for a utility to supply water from a common resource and have  disparate standard for allocation and use of that common resource. All users should abide by  the same rules.  2.2 As the population of eastern North Carolina continues to grow a strain will be placed on all  water resources. It seems logical to promote water conservation practices now. The reductions  in the withdrawal from underground sources should first be attained by reducing water usage  rather than by transferring water across miles.  3.3 Now is the time to address water waste as a condition of water transfer. There need to be  enforceable building/plumbing permit requirements (as well as environmental considerations)  that aggressively address the use and potential waste of our water resources for new homes,  businesses, industries and their eventual upgrade improvements. These requirements should  (must) be adopted and enforced by the local and county municipalities paid for by permit fees.  Incorporating an ongoing and far reaching educational process on the importance of this  resource and ways it must be protected and conserved must also be a part of this transfer  agreement.  3.4 Additionally, a stepped fee schedule for all water users in GUC's region must be implemented to  aid in the education and reduction of wasted water resources. A five level fee structure based  on amount of water used starting with a reasonable baseline use and climbing through  excessive use needs to be implemented. The monies generated by the excessive use fees will be  accounted for and expended in areas of education, retrofitting of household and business  fixtures with water conservation fixtures. This can be done through discount programs or out‐ right give‐a‐ways. This program in turn will reduce water waste and subsequently reduce water  bills, putting at least a temporary smile on the end‐users face.  4.11 Under the old rules, an applicant must provide information regarding the facilities to be used  for the water transfer, the proposed uses of the water to be transferred, the water  conservation measures to be used by the applicant and any other information deemed  necessary by the Commission. The EA failed to provide any information (except the short  paragraph below from GUC) regarding the source or receiving communities current and  planned water conservation measures. The only information provided was related to drought  management protocols. Useful data should include information on water rate structures,  presence or plans for retrofit programs, feasibility of reclamation projects, ordinances or  incentives for use of cisterns or other rain water harvesting practices, etc. 'Additionally, GUC  A36 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 31 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  and its wholesale customers strongly encourage the use of water saving devices. GUC is a  licensed member of the national "Water Use it Wisely" campaign. The Energy Services and  Public Information Offices incorporate water conservation messages into all communications.  This includes preparation of fact sheets, television and radio advertisements, print ads, and  billboards to provide local citizens with water conservation tips."  4.25 We also urge the EMC to consider conditions that seek to increase the long‐term water use  efficiency by both the receiving and source river basin communities. The IBT Petition includes  information on drought management response measures, but fails to include information on  long‐term efficiency measures. Conditions to address efficiency could include:‐ Implementation  of regional planning to ensure the most efficient management of the shared water resources in  both the source and receiving communities. ‐ Requirements that GUC and other wastewater  facilities in the receiving basins conduct a feasibility study and action plan for water  reclamation/reuse projects.‐ Plan for and implement strong water conservation programs and  activities with the goal of reducing customer water demand, including but not limited to:o  Home fixture retrofit programs o Requiring or incentivizing water harvesting practices (i.e.  cisterns) o Separate irrigation meters and pricing of irrigation water o Aggressive public  educational campaigns  7.1 Withdrawals from underground sources should first be addressed by reducing local water usage  rather than simply meeting demand by transporting water over long distances.  9.3 Should scarce water be diverted from the Tar River so that new sub‐divisions can create  expansive lawns? At a minimum, those communities requesting water should require their  residents to use landscaping alternatives as a part of a larger conservation program. There are  lawn substitutes for grass that tolerate light foot traffic and even moderate mowing.  20.5 Need for conservation  9.2 The folks in our region want to be good neighbors. In the event that an existing neighboring  community was experiencing a lack of suitable drinking water, one would expect assistance to  be forthcoming. However, if that neighboring community was expanding and using water in a  manner not consistent with good conservation practices, then one would expect questions to  be raised.    Staff Response    As previously stated, conservation is identified in both the IBT statutes and the CCPCUA rules as an important  component of both programs.  NCGS §143‐215.22I(c)(3) states that any Petition for an IBT must include a  description of the conservation measures to be used by the applicant to assure efficient use of the water and  avoidance of waste.      The CCPCUA rules, 15A NCAC 2E .0504, are more specific in that they require water systems in the capacity use  area to develop a water conservation plan that includes the following elements.  The rules require that each  community develop a schedule of implementation for any requirement that has not yet been met:    1. Adoption of a water conservation‐based rate structure, such as: flat rates, increasing block rates, seasonal  rates, or quantity‐based surcharges.  2. Implementation of a water loss reduction program if unaccounted for water is greater than 15%.  3. Adoption of a water conservation ordinance for irrigation, including such measures as: time‐of day and  day‐of‐week restrictions on lawn and ornamental irrigation, automatic irrigation system shut‐off devices  or other appropriate measures.  4. Implementation of a retrofit program that makes available indoor water conservation devices to  customers (such as showerheads, toilet flappers, and faucet aerators).  5. Implementation of a public education program (such as water bill inserts, school and civic presentations,  water treatment plant tours, public services announcements, or other appropriate measures).  6. Evaluation of the feasibility of water reuse as a means of conservation, where applicable.  A37 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 32 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010        The Hearing Officers concur with the public comments that the importance of conservation is critical and a  requisite of  a community requesting IBT water.  Therefore they requested the Petitioners to develop, Table 1,  included in Appendix 3, which includes a summary of the CCPCUA requirements and how those requirements have  been met by each Petitioner.      Moreover, the Division of Water Resources has also agreed to begin requesting this information from all CCPCUA  Permit holders in January 2011.  Any permit holder whose conservation measures fail to meet the minimum  program as described in 15A NCAC 2E .0502(d)(5)(A‐C) will be required to adopt measures meeting these  requirements or they will be issued an NOV.  All water use conservation measures described in the CCPCUA rules  will have to be adopted by the permit holder before their next permit renewal.  This means that the minimum  water conservation efforts recognized in the CCPCUA rules will be met as a condition of the permit.  A memo from  the Division to the Hearing Officers detailing the above described efforts is included in Appendix 2.    Finally, the Hearing Officers have   included the addition of a special condition to the IBT certificate that will not  allow the Petitioners to transfer water until the minimum program requirements described in NCAC 2E  .0502(d)(5)(A‐C) has been met.  A38 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 33 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC III‐ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES  The hearing officers received a number of comments on alternatives to the proposed transfer.  Comments ranged  from general remarks on the sufficiency of the EA analysis, to specific opinions about the relative availability of  other water purchase options.     Subtopic A: Economic and Environmental Impact of Alternatives    Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.3 While the EA does identify several alternatives to the proposed IBT, the discussion is woefully  inadequate to the task set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations. The overview  assigns a dollar amount to the financial cost associated with the construction of each  alternative. However, there is no discussion, evaluation, or modeling of environmental impacts,  the source basin.  16.5 Other alternative water supplies for Greene County are significantly more expensive. Failure of  GUC to obtain an IBT certificate will result in extreme hardship for the residents of Greene  County.  17.1 After many years of investigation and negotiation for an alternative water supply, Greenville  Utilities Commission, Greene County and the Town of Farmville contracted for the transfer of  water from Greenville Utilities Commission. The most economically, technically feasible  alternative with the least impact on the citizens of Farmville and Greene County was to obtain  their water supply from Greenville utilities Commission.  12.2 Because they will make money from selling Greenville's water to the communities of  Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County, I do not find it unreasonable that they could use  part of this money to build another pipeline. This parallel pipeline to the one drawing from our  river would return the treated wastewater from these communities back to our river and to us,  so our businesses, families, ECU, and visitors can continue prospering in Greenville  9.1 One of the major concerns that a number of individuals identified was that the proposed  transfer appears to be a one‐way flow of water from our area. In follow up comments, it was  said that if the water must be given, then a return of the waste water should be made  mandatory as a part of the agreement.  5.2 The Town of Winterville has explored several options as it prepares to meet the reductions  imposed by the capacity use area rules. Winterville has no local source of surface water  available to the Town and has therefore determined that the purchase of water from GUC is  the most economical and technically feasible engineering alternative.      Staff Response    Although the Petitioner’s Environmental Assessment (EA) did include an analysis for several water supply options,  ARCADIS developed a supplemental evaluation to answer questions raised during the comment period.  This  analysis is included in Appendix 4.  The alternatives include:    1. Development of an independent surface water source on Contentnea Creek  2. Development of an independent ground water source  3. Purchase of finished water from the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority (NRWASA)  4. Purchase of finished water from the City of Wilson  5. Purchase of finished water from the Greenville Utilities Commission    A39 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 34 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    All of the above alternatives had been previously identified in either the Environmental Assessment (ARCADIS,  2008), or the Preliminary Engineering Report – Alternative Water Supply Evaluation for Greene County and  Farmville (McDavid and Associates, 2004).  Appendix 4 provides estimated capital costs and expected usage rates  for all alternatives, as well as a matrix of environmental impacts.  The metrics evaluated for the environmental  analysis include the following:     Interbasin Transfer   100‐Yr Floodplain   Wetlands   Stream Crossings   303(D) Listed Waters   Forestland   Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas   Federal Or State Owned Lands   State Or Municipal Parks   High Quality/ Outstanding Resource Waters   Hazardous Waste Facilities   Historic National Register Districts/  Structures   NPDES Sites   Non‐discharge systems   Landfills   Permitted Animal Operations   Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites   Significant Natural Heritage Areas   Schools, Libraries, or Churches   Land Managed for Conservation, Open  Space, and Recreational Lands    The analysis shows that all of the alternatives, with the exception of those requiring the development of additional  ground water wells, would require an interbasin transfer certificate for at least one of the Petitioners (either  Farmville, Winterville, or Greene County).  However the ground water alternatives were not identified as a  sustainable due to the potential for the EMC to designate additional Capacity Use Areas in the future.    The reservoir alternative has the greatest environmental and economic impact.  It is also likely that the  construction of a reservoir in Greene County would not be feasible due to technical, environmental, and permitting  complications.    The option of returning water to the source basin was evaluated in the EA.  This option was excluded as being  technically infeasible.  Wastewater service in the area is not as widespread as water service.  There is no  countywide, centralized wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Greene County.  While there are three small  WWTPs (Snow Hill WWTP, the Hookerton WWTP, and the Maury Sanitary Land District WWTP), residents in  unincorporated areas rely primarily on septic systems. Costs for the construction of a countywide collection and  treatment system were estimated at over $150 million.  In Pitt County, wastewater is treated at the Farmville  WWTP, the Contentnea Creek WWTP, and the GUC WWTP. Wastewater from the Town of Winterville is currently  treated at the Contentnea Creek WWTP.  According to the 2008 EA, Winterville has had discussions with GUC  concerning future wastewater service, but there are no immediate plans to proceed with this option.  If this option  were pursued in the future, it would return a portion of the transferred water to the Tar River Basin.    Of all the identified alternatives, the only viable options were identified as the purchase of finished water from  either NRWASA, Wilson, or GUC.  All of these options would utilize existing water treatment plant capacity and  have comparable environmental impacts.  Also, as previously stated, all of the purchase alternatives would require  that at least one Petitioner receive an interbasin transfer certificate.  Of these options, the purchase from GUC was  identified as being the most economically practicable.    The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments. A40 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 35 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Subtopic B: Feasibility of Water Purchase from Neuse Regional Water And Sewer Authority (NRWASA)    Comment ID #  Comment Text  1.2 Water is available from the Neuse for the communities in that basin. In fact if the proposed IBT  were approved water lines from the Tar would pass by lines from the Neuse providing water to  communities in what is partially a turf war for utility growth. Feigned statements of  cooperation and redundancy mask these turf wars including lawsuits over the right to serve  select communities (Bell Arthur Rural Water District vs. GUC, as an example). NC Water Supply  Branch should not facilitate these battles. Let GUC stay within its own basin and mandated  mission to provide for the needs of Greenville.  2.1 According to the map water from GUC and the Tar River is being piped to Snow Hill and water  from Kinston and the Neuse River Basin is being piped to Eastern Pines. The map itself revealed  the flaws in this plan. It doesn't take much to realize that it is inefficient to pipe water over long  distances rather than shorter ones. There is an increased chance of loss by leakage and an  increased need of additional purification for safety. This also makes economical sense.  4.5 For example, the alternative briefly mentioned in the EA for the receiving basins to purchase  water from the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority does not provide an analysis of  cost, only that the costs would be "prohibitive."  7.2 Additionally it would appear that Greenville Utilities is willing to sell surface water cheaper than  Neuse Regional WASA. This, if nothing else, is not a satisfactory reason for approving IBT.  8.1 The transfer of GUC water to Greene County does not make sense since the Neuse Regional  WASA is in the best position to supply those needs and then there is no IBT.  8.2 Farmville should likewise get it's water from NR WASA.  8.3 NR WASA was created to supply these needs but apparently politics is playing out with the  requesters familiarity with GUC and probably lower cost water.      The Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority is a cooperative partnership of water and sewer service providers  that was formed in 2000. Current members are the Town of Ayden, the Bell Arthur Water Corporation, the Deep  Run Water Corporation, the Eastern Pines Water Corporation, the Town of Grifton, the City of Kinston, the North  Lenoir Water Corporation, and the Town of Pink Hill.  These systems have collectively constructed a water  treatment plant and large distribution mains at the cost of $144 million dollars.  The Authority’s water source is  located in the Neuse River Basin while the users are located throughout the Trent River, Neuse River, Contentnea  Creek, and Tar River Basins.  This water use constitutes an interbasin transfer; however NRWASA has not yet  obtained an IBT certificate.      Many of those commenting have noted that the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority (NRWASA) may also  be in a position to provide water to the Petitioners.  Some comments also state that a purchase by Farmville and  Greene County from NRWASA would not create an interbasin transfer; however that is not the case.  NCGS §143‐ 215.22G defines the Contentnea Creek Basin as a unique sub‐basin to the Neuse Major River Basin (Figure 3).  An  interbasin transfer certificate is required for any transfer between designated basins, even if one basin is a sub‐ basin to the other.    Greene County and Farmville first evaluated the purchase of water from NRWASA in a 2004 Preliminary  Engineering Report titled, Alternative Water Supply Evaluation for Greene County and Farmville (McDavid and  Associates).  The alternative was also discussed in GUC’s Environmental Assessment, the Petition, and the  supplemental evaluation by ARCADIS that was developed during the public comment period (Appendix 4).  In each  of those reports the cost of required contractual commitments, necessary internal improvements, plus a  proportional share of the $144 million facility resulted in a usage rate 3 times higher than GUC’s.  Given this  relatively high economic cost and the fact that the environmental impacts of both options are comparable (as  discussed in the previous section), the purchase from NRWASA was not chosen as the selected alternative.  A41 ‐36‐  Figure 3. Designated Interbasin Transfer River Basins As defined in G.S. §143-215.22G BASIN NAME BASIN NAME BASIN NAME 1-1 Broad River 7-1 Little Tennessee River 15-1 Tar River 7-2 Tuskasegee River 15-2 Fishing Creek 2-1 Haw River 15-3 Pamlico River & Sound 2-2 Deep River 8-1 Savannah River 2-3 Cape Fear River 2-4 South River 9-1 Lumber River 16-1 Watauga River 2-5 Northeast Cape Fear River 9-2 Big Shoe Heel Creek 2-6 New River 9-3 Waccamaw River 17-1 White Oak River 9-4 Shallotte River 3-1 Catawba River 18-1 Yadkin River 3-2 South Fork Catawba River 10-1 Neuse River 18-2 South Yadkin River 10-2 Contentnea Creek 18-3 Uwharrie River 4-1 Chowan River 10-3 Trent River 18-4 Rocky River 4-2 Meherrin River 11-1 New River 5-1 Nolichucky River 5-2 French Broad River 12-1 Albemarle Sound 5-3 Pigeon River 13-1 Ocoee River 6-1 Hiwassee River 14-1 Roanoke River A42 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 37 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Subtopic C: Feasibility of Water Purchase from City of Wilson    Comment ID #  Comment Text  14.5 Section 5 of the IBT Petition "Alternatives to Proposed Transfer" never mentions the City of  Wilson as a viable alternative for both Greene County and Farmville. Wilson had discussions in  2003 with both, had the water available at a reasonable cost, and is in the Neuse Basin.    Staff Response    Similar to the evaluation of a water purchase from NRWASA, the alternative of purchasing water from The City of  Wilson was first evaluated in a 2004 Preliminary Engineering Report titled Alternative Water Supply Evaluation for  Greene County and Farmville (McDavid and Associates).  This alternative is further discussed in Appendix 4,  Environmental and Economic Impacts of Water Supply Alternatives (ARCADIS).      Wilson’s surface water source is in the Contentnea Creek Basin; therefore, this sale would not have required an  interbasin transfer certificate for Farmville and Greene County.  However, a certificate would have been required  for the Town of Winterville.     One important factor in evaluating a purchase from Wilson is the fact that Wilson required a one time capacity  charge based on $2.50 per gallon per day demand, estimated at $12.5 million for 5 MGD.  This capacity charge is in  addition to a usage rate comparable to existing Wilson customers (presently $4.52 per 1,000 gallons for residential  users). Due to the high relative cost of this purchase alternative, comparable environmental impacts to a purchase  from GUC, and the fact that this alternative would have also required an IBT certificate for Winterville, a purchase  from Wilson was not chosen as the selected alternative.  Further detail on this option is presented in Appendix 4.    The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments.  A43 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 38 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC IV: MITIGATION OF SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS  The IBT statutes state that an applicant must establish and the Commission must conclude by a preponderance of  the evidence that: (1) the benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments, and (2) the detriments have  been or will be mitigated to a reasonable degree.  The statutes also allow the Commission the ability to include any  special conditions to ensure that detrimental impacts will be mitigated.    The Hearing Officers received the following public comments pertaining to this factor.    Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.7 The EA wholly dismisses the need for evaluation of secondary and cumulative impacts from growth  since the IBT is designed to only replace the lost ground water resource due to the CCPCUA. The EA  states that "significant growth in these areas is not a component of this project or a reason for  developing the interbasin transfer request. " IBT Petition, pp 4‐1. DWR questioned this dismissal of  secondary and cumulative impacts associated with growth that is a direct result of the transfer of  water in their comments on the draft EA (EA Response to Comments, pp: 2/12‐2/13, February  1,2008). The comments stated: The document dismisses cumulative and secondary impacts  associated with growth by repeatedly stating that the project is primarily a water replacement project  and significant growth is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the IBT request. It  is true that they are being forced to switch to surface water and that initially the volume of surface  water matches the volume of ground water; however, over time the volume of water increases due  to growth projections that the communities would have supported with an untapped volume of  ground water. On page 4‐2 it states that "these communities will be unable to compensate for the  reduced ground water withdrawals for predicted growth to 2030': There appear to be pockets of  significant growth and, without the additional water, this growth could not be supported. The  Executive Summary states that growth is modest at 1 to 3 percent in some communities. However, :  Section 2.2 gives growth rates of from 11 to 50 percent for Winterville, Greene County had a 25  percent growth rate from '90 to '06; although the overall growth rate of the county may be 1 percent,  pockets of higher growth may occur, e.g. near the Global Transpark. The document does not provide  the percent growth for Greenville, but from the numbers provided it could be 45 percent from '05 to  ‘30. Comments to draft EA by DWR (on file with DWR) The applicant responded by saying that the  growth would occur in these communities with or without the IBT, therefore assessing the  environmental impacts is unnecessary. The communities are required to reduce their ground water  withdrawal due to the CCPCUA rules. Without a new source of water, either from the Neuse River  Basin or from GUC, the growth could not be sustained. The applicant dismisses all other alternatives  as viable options, therefore growth would not occur if the IBT were to be denied. Therefore, the  applicant must provide detailed information on the secondary and cumulative impacts associated  with this growth.  4.2 SEPA requires the agency to include a review of methods "proposed to mitigate or avoid significant  adverse environmental impacts" from the proposed transfer. 1 N.C. Admin. Code 25.0502 (3);. The EA  fails to include any meaningful discussion of mitigation measures, instead providing a review of land  use planning regulations and ordinances. Appropriate measures to mitigate, i.e., lessen, the  environmental impacts would include, for example, returning treated wastewater to the source basin,  implementing aggressive water conservation measures, or detailing measures that would be taken to  protect aquatic life in the source basins during times of drought.  4.9 Another example of the inadequacy of the secondary and cumulative impacts review concerns  threatened and endangered species. The EA states that threatened and endangered aquatic species  are present in both the receiving and source basins but does not address the impacts. The EA must  correct its review of cumulative and secondary impacts to include the impacts to these species from  growth that would be induced by the IBT.  1.10 In Greene County the development and growth is exemplified by proposals such as "Cutter Creek."  Cutter Creek is a sprawling golf course retirement community focused upon large, irrigated lots, and  private vehicular transportation to Raleigh and Greenville for employment, cultural opportunities and  health care. It exemplifies an unsustainable community dependent upon subsidies such as water  supply from the Tar River Basin.  3.2 We're not opposed to controlled growth in general but there must be aggressive controls on how  A44 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 39 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  much growth and how that associated water will be used.    Staff Response    Section 7 of GUC’s Environmental Assessment is devoted to discussing mitigation. The above comments state that  the mitigation discussion included in the EA is insufficient; however, all of the specific points mentioned in the  comments are addressed in the EA. Comments note that an acceptable discussion of mitigation should include:   1. Returning treated wastewater to the source basin   2. Implementing aggressive water conservation measures   3. Detailing measures to protect aquatic life during drought     These measures, discussed in the EA and previous sections of this staff response, are summarized as follows:    Return of Wastewater   In discussing the alternative of returning wastewater to the source basin, the EA states that the wastewater  collection system for the service area is decentralized (Section 4.4 of the EA). Although there are 3 small WWTPs in  Greene County, most of the County’s residents currently rely on septic systems. The EA estimates the cost of a  centralized collection system, WWTP and discharge line to the Tar River Basin at over $150 million. The EA also  estimates the cost to pump wastewater from the Farmville WWTP in the Contentnea Creek Basin to the Tar River  Basin at $20 million. Town of Winterville has had discussions with GUC concerning future wastewater service, but  there are no immediate plans to proceed with this option. Winterville’s wastewater is currently discharged to the  Contentnea Creek WWTP (Neuse River Basin).     Water Conservation   The CCPCUA rules require that communities implement very specific conservation measures. These measures  include adoption of a conservation‐based rate structure, adoption of a conservation ordinance for irrigation,  implementation of a retrofit program for indoor conservation devices, and the implementation of a public  education program. The rules also require water systems to evaluate the feasibility of water reuse as a means of  conservation. As previously discussed, the hearing officers have  included a special condition to the IBT certificate  that full compliance with these requirements be met before the Petitioner may move water under the IBT  certificate.    Water Use During Drought   Greenville Utilities Commission included its Water Shortage Response Plan (effective July 29, 2008) in the  Environmental Assessment. The purpose of this plan is to define a set of triggers and actions to occur during  droughts or other water shortages. The actions range from voluntary water conservation (during a Stage 1 alert) to  requiring commercial and industrial customers to reduce water use by a minimum of 50% (during a Stage 3  Emergency).     Other mitigative measures that are discussed in the EA include:    Existing land use planning and environmental resource protection initiatives    Existing zoning ordinances    Existing open space plans/initiatives   Greenways and riparian buffers   Existing greenway plans   Existing erosion and sedimentation controls    Existing stormwater controls programs and impervious surface limitations (including compliance with  Phase I and II stormwater rules and the Tar Pamlico Stormwater Rule)   Existing floodplain development regulations    Existing water shortage response plan  A45 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 40 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      In addition a, a drought management plan is required to be included as a component of the certificate.    As previously discussed in this staff report, approximately 77% of the IBT request could be considered a direct  replacement of water lost due to the CCPCUA rule through 2018.  Consequently,  it could be interpreted that the  remaining 23% is to sustain growth through 2030.  The hearing officers have determined that it would be  appropriate to require the Petitioners to adopt controls to mitigate unforseen impacts, due to this growth, before  they may begin transferring water.       All communities in the Tar Pamlico and Neuse River Major Basins are subject to nutrient management strategies.   Both the Tar Pamlico and Neuse Nutrient Strategies have requirements for wastewater discharges, agriculture,  buffers, and stormwater management.  All of the requirements, except those involving the development of a  stormwater program, are applicable on a basin‐wide basis.  However, the stormwater program requirements only  apply to those local governments of a certain size, density, or estimated impact.  Both Pitt County and Greenville  are required to develop stormwater programs under the Tar Pamlico Nutrient Strategy.  Farmville and Greene  County fall below the thresholds for development of a stormwater program under the Neuse Nutrient Strategy.   Similarly, these governments do not fall under the stormwater phase II program due to their population and rural  nature.    The Hearing Officers have determined that an appropriate mitigative measure, above what these communities are  already required to do under the Tar Pamlico and Neuse Nutrient Management strategies, is the implementation  of Phase II post‐construction stormwater controls.  The intent of this measure is to control any unforeseeable  impacts due to growth that may occur as a result of the transfer.  As previously stated, Pitt County (including  Winterville) and Greenville are already required to develop stormwater programs consistent with the Tar Pamlico  Nutrient Strategy.  This certificate requirement would primarily impact Greene County and Farmville.  The Hearing  Officers have determined that implementing post‐construction stormwater controls in these systems would serve  to put in effect the most impactful control measures while not being overly burdensome to a small, rural water  system.  The certificate condition will read as follows:    No individual unit of local government may receive surface water regulated under this Certificate unless the local  government maintains, throughout its jurisdiction, requirements that are at least as stringent as the Division of  Water Quality’s Phase 2 post‐construction stormwater controls or the post‐construction stormwater controls of  the Universal Stormwater Management Program (“USMP”), for all new development that disturbs more than one  acre of land, including those projects that disturb less than one acre of land but are part of a common plan of  development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land.      Appendix 5 to this staff response includes a memo detailing which of the above mitigative measure have already  been implemented by each of the Petitioners.      A46 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 41 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC V: IMPACTS TO THE TAR RIVER    During the public comment period, a number of comments were submitted on the scope and results of the  modeling analysis performed by the Petitioners for the EA.  Additional comments focused on the potential impact  to aquatic life.    Comment ID #  Comment Text  6.7 The flows at the Tarboro gage upon which the predicted flows at Greenville were based are not  representative of those that will occur in the future. The analysis in the EA used the flows  recorded at the USGS Tarboro River at Tarboro gage (Gage No. 02083500) from 1931 through  2007 (EA, Appendix B, page 1). The flows recorded at the gage reflect the cumulative impact of  all the withdrawals and discharges upstream of the gage as well as the regulation resulting from  the operation of the Rocky Mount's Tar River Reservoir. Although at this time it is not known  definitively, we suspect that the operation of the reservoir has the largest impact on the gage  readings. The Tar River Reservoir has been in operation since 1971. Thus, the gage record  reflects essentially natural, i.e., unregulated, flows for the period from 1931 thru 1970, and  regulated flows thereafter. This fact was acknowledged in the EA (Appendix B, page 22). The  operating protocol for the reservoir has changed several times since 1971. Rather than including  the reservoir in the hydrologic model explicitly and applying the current operating protocol  consistently over the entire record, including the period prior to 1970, the analysis used the  gage record "as is." The justification for this approach appears to be that because "Reservoirs  such as Rocky Mount's often augment low flows in rivers because they store water from higher  flow periods and release it over extended lower flow periods" (EA, Appendix B, page 22), the  lower unaltered flows in the record prior to 1970 lead to a conservative result. That is, because  there were flows in the record prior to 1970 that are lower than the current minimum flows, the  substitution of the required minimum flows for the lower, unaltered, flows would result in even  less impact than shown. However, the magnitude of flows alone does not prove this hypothesis.  The timing, frequency, and duration of low flows are equally important, and they have not been  considered. The currently‐approved water shortage response plan for the Tar River Reservoir  allows for discharges to be reduced incrementally to 60 cfs during the course of a drought. This  policy has been invoked only three times since the mid‐1990s. Thus, the statement in the EA  that "the hydrologic model reflects the impacts of the Rocky Mount operating rules and  minimum flows that have been in place over the past 36 years" (EA, Appendix B. page 22) is true  for only a very small portion of the record used for the analysis. Also, flows recorded early in the  early stages of the 2007108 event are not representative even though the current water  shortage response plan was in place because the Tar River below Tar River Reservoir gage (Gage  No. 02082506), upon which the release from the reservoir is based, was out of calibration. As a  result, for a period of approximately a month, rather than releasing 60 cfs, as intended, the  actual release was approximately twice that much. The reservoir releases, of course, are  captured by the Tarboro gage. Thus: at least for a portion of the drought of record, the flows  recorded at the Tarboro gage are higher than intended and not representative of system  operations.  18.2 The hydrologic modeling effort used empirical flow data from WSGS gauging stations that  spanned a 76 year period of record. The hydrologic analysis considered carefully the General  Statute provision that all withdrawals and transfers in the source basin not be impacted to the  degree existing uses would be impaired (at the time of the 18T Petition). To meet these  requirements, fourteen modeling scenarios were developed: six modeling scenarios addressed  the hydrologic effects upstream of GUC's raw water intake, and eight modeling scenarios  addressed the hydrologic effects of the proposed transfer downstream of the GUC Wastewater  Treatment Plant (WWTP). The scenarios included current and future (2030) water withdrawal  conditions for no IBT, the average day IBT, the maximum day IBT, and a hypothetical scenario  where twice the proposed transfer was effectively removed from the Tar River.  18.3 The City of Rocky Mount's operating rules were considered and are reflected in the hydrologic  analysis. The analysis was based on actual flows at Tarboro, which reflect approximately 40  years of conditions prior to the existence of the Rocky Mount reservoir and 36 years of data  A47 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 42 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  since reservoir operations. In addition, the analysis considered allowed modifications to the  Rocky Mount's Drought Management Plan in 1993,1999,2002, and 2007.  18.4 The results of the hydrologic analysis were presented relative to the flow duration curves  developed for the Tar River. The impact of each scenario was compared against river flows as  low as 80 percent of the 7Q10 (87.2 cfs). The worst‐case modeling (twice the proposed IBT  amount) scenario revealed a 0.8 percent impact in 2030 compared to the 2030 scenario without  an Interbasin transfer. For comparison, the maximum IBT scenario resulted in a 0.5 percent  impact in 2030 compared to the 2030 scenario without an Interbasin transfer. The EA concluded  that the hydrologic analysis calculations demonstrated that the requested IBT amount will have  a negligible impact on the Tar River.  4.27 During the comment extension period, we also had time to further review the hydrologic study  done by Entrix for GUC and to consult with a hydrologist about its validity. After further review,  we are concerned about the validity of the 7Q10 value that was used in the analysis and  whether or not this is a relevant statistic for the purposes of determining flow changes as a  consequence of the IBT over a one year period. We would have liked to see how this value was  derived.  4.28 Furthermore, it appears that the flow duration curves that GUC relied upon to determine no  significant impact do not reveal the temporal nature of what is actually occurring in the river  over the short‐term. Low‐flow values that may occur over a significant period of time (for  example 1‐2 month time period) would be masked by such a long‐term analysis. It would be  more helpful to see the minimum/maximum percent changes in flow over given periods, such as  a one year period.  6.10 Flow duration curves are, at best, an incomplete metric of impact. Flow duration curves present  the fraction of time that flows are above (or below) some value. They are prepared by sorting  the flows and computing the percentile associated with each flow. Thus the lowest flow in the  record is equal to or exceeded 100 percent of the time, the median flow is exceeded 50 percent  of the time, etc. Flow duration curves can be prepared either for the whole year, in which case  all flow data are included in the sort, or, as was done in the EA, for shorter periods, such as a  month. To prepare the flow duration curve for July, for example, if there are 50 years in the  record, there are 31‐ 50 values that go into the July flow duration curve. The problem arises  because flow duration curves do not account for the temporal variability of flows. This is true  even if the curves are prepared for a period shorter than one year. To continue the example  from above, if there are 50 values of 20 cfs in the July data, and every other value is greater  than 100 cfs, the same flow duration curve will result whether the 50 values of 20 cfs occur one  in each year or all in two years. The potential impact to the stream of the two scenarios,  however, could be very different. In order to fully assess the impact of altered streamflow  regimes, one must also examine the frequency and duration of low flow periods. Looked at  another way, based on the flow duration curves, the applicant concludes that flows will be  lower than 109 cfs (the pre‐IBT 7Q10) on average, 4.7 days per year without the IBT and 6.4  days with the maximum IBT (EA, Table 6‐3, page 6‐7). Again, this metric does not tell the whole  story because the frequency, timing, and duration of the extra 127 days (1.7 extra days per year  times 76 years) below 109 cfs are not reported. The impacts to the stream will likely be very  different if all those days occur in one or two years versus being distributed over 20 years. These  comments do not address the appropriateness of using comparisons of the 7Q10 with and  without the IBT as a basis for determining impact. The 7410 is a relevant statistic for  unregulated rivers. Where, as here, the river is regulated, the statistic is much less useful  because the same number can result from very different flow sequences. For example, as noted  above, the pre‐IBT 7Q10 was determined to be 109 cfs. That is, the lowest weekly average flow  in 10 years was 109 cfs. However, the 7Q10 would also be 109 cfs if flows of 109 cfs continued  for three months. Dams, such as Rocky mount's with fixed minimum releases have exactly this  type of effect.  6.6 The EA further explains the decision not to consider impacts on the Tar River Reservoir as  follows: The hydrologic analysis and modeling assumed that interbasin transfers at Greenville  would have no impact on operations of the Rocky Mount reservoir 70 river miles upstream. The  only way that the IBT could affect upstream operations would be if there were to be an  A48 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 43 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  approved change in Rocky Mount's permitted withdrawal and operating conditions. GUC has  not made such a request and such as (sic) operational change has not been assumed in the  hydrologic analysis and modeling." (EA Appendix C,page 10112.) However, Rocky Mount was  extremely hard hit by the drought of 2007‐08 and, as a result, is considering a modification to its  water shortage response plan. For Rocky Mount, as for many municipalities in North Carolina,  the drought of 2007108 was an unprecedented event. Whereas Rocky Mount had been able to  negotiate the drought of 2002with relative ease, the event of 2007‐08 was different. The Tar  River Reservoir, Rocky Mount's sole source of water, dropped to10 percent of usable storage.  To avert what appeared to be an impending crisis, in addition to activating the drought  management plan1, emergency connections were made to Wilson and Tarboro. At times, and  with the permission of the Division of Water Resources, releases from the reservoir were cut to  30 cfs, compared to a minimum of 60 cfs allowed in the approved water shortage response  plan. An aerial reconnaissance of the Tar River upstream of the reservoir revealed previously  unknown upstream withdrawals whose aggregate withdrawals exceeded the City's demand.  Thus the storage in the reservoir was falling as if there were two cities the size of Rocky Mount  withdrawing water. As a result of this experience, Rocky Mount intends to update its  probability‐based drought management plan. Thus, the "operational change" that was assumed  in the EA not to be a possibility is exactly the type of change that Rocky Mount is, in fact,  considering. This fact was apparently not known to GUC during preparation of the EA, possibly  because Rocky Mount was not consulted.  6.8 Further, there is no information in the EA as to the timing, frequency, or duration of low flow  occurrences prior to dam construction as compared to the timing, frequency, and duration, post  dam construction, of the periods when the releases from the dam were 80 cfs. It is highly likely  that the impacts to the aquatic environment from, for example, a 30 day period of flows of 20  cfs embedded in a four‐month period in which flows were below 80 cfs are very different from  those associated with a six‐month period of a constant flow of 80 cfs.  6.9 Finally, the period of record analyzed (October I, 1931, through September 30,2007) did not  include the lowest flow 7‐day period in the record, which occurred in October 2007.  20.3 Concerned about climate change  10.1 I have owned riverfront property on the Tar River in Greenville, N.C. for the last ten years. Over  those ten years I have witnessed extreme variation in the size and strength of the water flow in  the Tar River. Frequently in the summer months I have observed the water flow dwindle quite  dramatically. The river, which is sometimes as wide as a six lane highway, has dwindled on at  least one occasion to the size of a creek I could have hopped over. I am not claiming expertise in  these matters, but common sense tells me water should not be diverted from a river that  regularly experiences such wide variations. What has happened before will undoubtedly happen  again, and if water has been diverted when Greenville desperately needs it, then what? Will it  have to be re‐diverted back to the Tar when people in other areas have come to rely on it?  Seems better to find other. more permanent solutions for Farmville, Winterville and Greene  County  11.2 [This] region… recently experienced a reported river flow of only 50 million gallons per day  downstream to Greenville. According to my information the summer use of water from the Tar  River for Greenville alone can amount to 16 million gallons per day. The math is troubling for  the health of communities that depend on the Tar River for their water and for the ecological  health of the river system itself  12.1 I am deeply concerned that 10 years from now the above sea level portions of the Neuse, Tar,  and Roanoke Rivers will only be navigable after a good rain because our public trust waters will  be injected into pipelines and aquifers to be distributed by huge water systems  19.1 It's already hard to navigate the Tar River‐ concerned that it will get worse  20.1 Impact of the IBT may be low now but will increase in 50 years.  20.2 Salt levels in Tar are rising up to Greenville  3.1 We are not in favor of intra‐regional water transfer agreements as they are permanently  divisive. They tend to make enemies of neighbors and they, in this case, stifle the growth  A49 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 44 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  potential for eastern Beaufort County by reducing the available water supply to this region.  4.4 In addition, the EA fails to evaluate the costs in terms of lost revenues to source basin water  suppliers that may be expected to impose restrictions on water use for longer time periods as a  result of the proposed transfer of water.  6.1 As a result of the drought of 2007/08, Rocky Mount intends to review and, if necessary, update  its drought management plan. The review will be conducted following the completion of DWR's  Tar River Hydrologic Model, which is anticipated in early 2011. If revised, Rocky Mount will seek  approval of the updated plan from DWR. A revised drought management plan may result in a  low‐flow regime at Tarboro that is different from the one on which the IBT FONSI was based.  6.12 In conversation with our consultant, the GUC's consultants indicated that because some of the  modeling scenarios requested by DWR essentially "double count" demand, this provides a  safety factor that will assure no impact to Rocky Mount. While this assertion may be accurate, it  cannot be established from the analysis in the EA. The best way to insure compliance with the  statute is to use a basin‐wide hydrologic model for the analysis AND to involve others in the  basin in the decision‐making. The updated Tar River Hydrologic Model will be such a basin wide  model and will be developed in consultation with stakeholders throughout the basin. Thus, the  model will form an agreed‐upon basis upon which all parties can evaluate the impacts of the  proposed IBT. Following its completion, Rocky Mount will know whether a modification to its  water shortage response plan is, in fact, needed. In addition, Rocky Mount and other users in  the basin, including those who represent environmental interests, will be able to accurately  evaluate the impacts of the proposed IBT in the context of a basin‐wide water supply plan.  6.2 Rocky Mount is concerned that the analysis done to support the FONSI is not adequate to  determine whether there could be conflicts between its revised drought management plan and  the IBT.  6.5 IBT statute requires that the applicant examine the present and reasonably foreseeable future  detrimental effects on the source river basin. N.C.6.5. 53‐21 5.221(0(2). The City of Rocky Mount  is concerned that the GUC looked only at the potential impacts on an approximately mile reach  of the Tar River below Greenville, as acknowledged in the Environmental Assessment, and not  on the Tar River Reservoir.  18.6 The EA critically evaluated the current and future water uses in the Tar River Basin under the  current hydrologic conditions. Furthermore, the proposed IBT was developed such that GUC has  the flexibility to curtail water during peak demand and fully utilize the ground water resource (in  the form of banked water) to the extent practicable. In effect, we have already placed operating  conditions on ourselves to manage this proposed IBT in the best interest of our customers, our  neighbors, and the environment. We strongly feel that the worst‐case modeling scenario  (effectively twice the proposed Interbasin transfer) fully addresses the ultimate impact to the  Tar River as a result of this proposed transfer.  19.4 Concerned about impact on striped bass and mussels.  2.3 Humans are not the only species in these river basins. I value the wildlife in eastern North  Carolina. The opportunity to paddle these rivers and creeks are activities that I cherish.  Transferring water between basins may have unanticipated and negative impacts on native  species decreasing their abilities to survive.  7.3 And lastly ‐ adversely effecting water resources impacts more than humans. This area has a rich  diversity that has evolved precisely because of the abundance of water. Removing water from  the Tar River Basin can only serve to negatively impact surrounding flora and fauna.  11.1 The potential damage of this proposed transfer from the Tar‐ Pamlico River system includes  wetlands, habitat, the intrusion of salt water upstream, and the loss of a viable water supply  20.4 Concerned about impact to wetlands  18.5 Even though the hydrologic modeling results demonstrated negligible impact on the Tar River,  the tidal influence at our intake provides another opportunity to ameliorate the effect of low  flow. The tidal influence results in a reverse flow direction during low flow periods. This  phenomenon creates a reservoir effect that helps maintain water over our intake pipes. GUC is  in a unique position whereby we have two opportunities to withdraw water from the river  A50 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 45 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  where most other water treatment plants have only one opportunity. This tidal effect  phenomenon is part of the reason why we feel confident that we can reliably provide water to  neighboring communities who require regional solutions to solve critical water supply needs.  4.24 The first condition Rocky Mount proposed is that the certificate be revisited upon completion of  the Tar River Hydrologic Model. PTRF and SELC strongly support this recommendation and  suggest that the EMC incorporate similar language as was used in previous IBTs. In the CMU and  Cary/Apex IBT certificates, the EMC included the condition below: "The Commission notes that  future developments may prove the projections and predictions in the EIS to be incorrect and  new information may become available that shows that there are substantial environmental  impacts associated with this transfer. Therefore, to protect water quality and availability and  associate benefits, modification of the terms and conditions of the certificate may be necessary  at a later date." If the EMC moves forward with the GUC IBT, the final certificate should include  similar language triggering a reopening of the certificate based on the Tar River Hydrologic  Model.  6.11 The City of Rocky Mount requests that any IBT certificate issued to the GUC include a condition  allowing the Certificate to be reopened following completion of the Tar River Hydrologic  Modeling and Water Resource Plan if the results indicate that the approved IBT impinges upon  Rocky Mount's ability to modify its water shortage response plan. Rocky Mount is concerned  that, if approved, the demand to transfer water outside the basin could influence the decision  to approve a requested change in the release protocol for the Tar River Reservoir. To guard  against this possibility, in our comments dated December 1, 2009, Rocky Mount proposed  several conditions that might be included in the IBT certificate. Upon further reflection, Rocky  Mount now considers that a condition that would allow, upon the approval of the EMC, the  certificate to be reopened following the completion of the Tar River Hydrologic Model would be  the best option for protecting the interests of all users in the losing basin while still allowing  GUC to address their immediate needs.    Staff Response    The Greenville Utilities Commission performed a hydrologic analysis to evaluate the impact of the interbasin  transfer on the source river basin. This analysis included the development of a long‐term flow record at Greenville,  the generation of flow statistics to characterize the Tar River under both existing and future water use scenarios,  and a spreadsheet‐based hydrologic accounting model.     The hydrologic accounting model simulates water withdrawals and wastewater discharges to predict their effect  on stream flow in the Tar River. The model accounts for all existing and projected withdrawals and discharges on  the Tar River, over 100,000 gpd, from the Rocky Mount Dam to the GUC WWTP discharge.  The USGS flow record  developed for the Greenville gage was used as the base flow record. Model simulations included the following  scenarios:    1. Current flows with no IBT.  2. Current flows with 2030 average day IBT.  3. Current flows with 2030 Maximum Withdrawal IBT.  4. Predicted 2030 flows with no IBT.  5. Predicted 2030 flows with 2030 average day IBT.  6. Predicted 2030 flows with 2030 Maximum Withdrawal IBT.    The results of the model show that the effects of the interbasin transfer are negligible at average stream flows and  higher, with a slightly larger impact during low flows.  Under the minimum flow of record, the stream flow  becomes negative during both current and 2030 scenarios.  A negative stream flow means that the tidal influence  in the lower Tar River pushes freshwater upstream, creating a net upstream flow.  Tidal influences were not  simulated in the model.    A51 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 46 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      The Division of Water Resources also requested that Greenville Utilities Commission incorporate several changes  to their hydrologic accounting model in 2008 in order to evaluate an even more conservative transfer scenario.   The first change was to reduce the flow record by the amount of GUC’s historic 2002 withdrawals.  Since the flow  record would have already accounted for this withdrawal (the gage is downstream of GUC’s intake), this change  creates an even more conservative baseline where the effects of GUC’s existing withdrawals are doubled.  The  second change requested by DWR was to reduce GUC’s wastewater discharges on the Tar River by the amount of  the IBT.  For many of the modeling scenarios, this change removed the entire volume of GUC’s existing and  projected wastewater discharge from the Tar River flow.  Under these more conservative modeling scenarios, the  impact of the IBT was predicted to be below the 7Q10 at 1.8 percent of the time (6.4 days) under existing  conditions and at 2.1 percent of the time (7.7 days) in 2030.  These modeling results indicate that the IBT will have  minimal impact on the existing stream flow. Therefore, there are no expected impacts to the wastewater  assimilation capacity of the Tar River Basin.  Correspondingly, there are no anticipated impacts to water quality  within the source basin.     The results of the model, as presented in the Petitioner’s Environmental Assessment, are summarized in the  following Table.    Table 3: Summary of Flow Statistics     Greenville Gaging Station (Downstream of WTP  Intake and Upstream of WWTP Discharge) Downstream of Greenville WWTP   Current Scenarios Future 2030 Scenarios Current Scenarios Future 2030 Scenarios   No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2x Max  IBT No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2X Max  IBT  Flow Statistics (cfs)     Maximum 31,866 31,855 31,849 31,872 31,860 31,854 31,878 31,866 31,860 31,849 31,875 31,863 31,858 31,840 Minimum 24 11 4 20 7 ‐1 38 25 17 4 17 5 ‐3 ‐15  Average 2,524 2,513 2,505 2,525 2,513 2,505 2,537 2,526 2,518 2,506 2,529 2,518 2,509 2,492  Percentiles (cfs)     95th 9,033 9,023 9,014 9,035 9,025 9,016 9,046 9,036 9,027 9,014 9,038 9,028 9,018 9,001  50th 11,398 1,387 1,381 1,397 1,384 1,375 1,410 1,398 1,393 1,381 1,403 1,390 1,380 1,365  5th 229 216 210 228 215 208 242 229 222 210 231 219 211 194  Percent of Time (per year)     7Q10   (109 cfs) 1.3% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 1.0% 1.3% 1.5% 1.8% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.1%  80% of  7Q10   (87.2 cfs)  0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 0.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.6%  Average Number of Days Per Year     7Q10  (109 cfs) 4.7 5.8 6.4 5 5.9 6.5 3.7 4.6 5.4 6.4 4.7 5.7 6.3 7.7  80% of  7Q10   (87.2 cfs)  3.3 3.9 4.5 3.3 4.1 4.9 2.5 3.2 3.6 4.5 3.1 3.8 4.6 5.8    Due to the large number of comments received on the hydrologic analysis, ARCADIS developed a memo titled  Explanation of Hydrologic Analysis and Result Interpretation. This memo has been included in Appendix 6.  The  document performs two additional analyses on the results of the original hydrologic accounting model in order to  provide further clarification.    The first is the application of a statistical analysis.  ARCADIS took the flow data for each of the scenarios discussed  above and evaluated them with a statistical test to determine whether there is a “statistically significant”  A52 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 47 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    difference.  The result is that there is no statistical difference between the scenario distributions.  A full description  of the analysis is included in Appendix 6.    Second, ARCADIS performed a frequency‐duration analysis for two of the 2030 scenarios to represent stream flow  with and without the IBT.  To perform this analysis, the entire 76 year record was filtered for events where the  flow was less than 300 cfs, 109 cfs (7Q10), and 27 cfs (25% of 7Q10).   Those low flow days were then grouped into  25 low flow events where there were at least 40 days of flow less than 300 cfs occurring over a 60‐day span.   ARCADIS then put together a chart comparing the duration of those low flow events with and without the IBT.  The  results of the analysis are as follows:    A53 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 48 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      Table 4: Change in Duration of Low Flow Events    Flow Statistic Average Change in Duration  Maximum change in Duration of Event*  < 300 cfs < 5 Days  Event #17 (July 8, 1988‐October 19, 1988) changed from a  total duration of 61 days without IBT to 71 days with  maximum IBT withdrawal.  < 109 cfs (7Q10) < 5 Days  Event #4 (August 10, 1943‐December 24, 1943) changed from  containing 20 days under threshold without IBT to 35 days  under threshold with maximum IBT withdrawal.    Event # 24 (July 26, 2005‐October 21, 2005) changed from  containing 7 days under threshold without IBT to 22 days  under threshold with maximum IBT withdrawal.  < 27 cfs (25% of 7Q10) < 3 Days  Event #10 (July 2, 1968‐November 10, 1968) changed from  containing 13 days under threshold without IBT to 33 days  under threshold with maximum IBT withdrawal.  * Note that an event is defined as a period of time below 300 cfs.  Within that event, this chart summarizes the time the stream  flow might have dropped below the identified threshold.  For example, within an event that historically lasted 96 days (without  the IBT), the analysis might have predicted an additional 4 days below 300 cfs, 9 days below 109 cfs, and a change in 1 day  below 27 cfs when factoring in the max‐day IBT.    Although each of the modeling analyses that have been performed in support of the Petition indicate a difference  between the IBT and non‐IBT scenarios, it is reasonable to categorize these differences insignificant for the  following reasons:    1. The modeling analysis is conservative.  DWR asked the applicant to include a number of very conservative  assumptions so that a “worst case impact” could be identified.  These assumptions, as previously  discussed, include reducing GUC’s wastewater discharges on the Tar River by the amount of the IBT.  For  many of the modeling scenarios, this change removed the entire volume of GUC’s existing and projected  wastewater discharge from the Tar River.  The model also assumes a sustained maximum day transfer (as  opposed to a predicted average day transfer with peaks approaching the max‐day).  2. IBT and State Regulations require a drought management plan.  GUC is required to have a Water Shortage  Response Plan (WSRP) containing specific, identifiable triggers that would be put into effect in the event  of drought.  Therefore GUC (and the other Petitioners) would likely be under water restrictions during low  flow events.  GUC’s WSRP triggers are tied to the stage of water at the intake location and the location of  the salt water wedge.   3. The model did not take into account tidal effects.  An important feature of the lower Tar River is that it is  tidally influenced.  Since salt water is heavier than freshwater, the salt water wedge creates a dam‐like  effect that pushes freshwater upstream during low flow periods.  GUC closely monitors the salt water  wedge since their WTP is not designed to treat saline water.  GUC has also noted instances where net  negative downstream flow has been recorded; however, there has been adequate water over the raw  water intake.  Due to the tidal influence, the Tar River channel is never depleted.  This tidal buffering  effect would also reduce the impact on aquatic life during critical periods.  4. The IBT request will be met with existing infrastructure.  GUC has not requested an expansion of their  WTP due to this request.  They have sufficient capacity in their existing WTP to meet Farmville, Greene  County, and Winterville’s demand.  The direct impact of their withdrawal was previously evaluated in the  environmental documents developed (and approved) for the construction of the water treatment plant.    A54 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 49 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    The Hearing Officers have taken into account  the number of comments on the modeling analysis.  Based on  concerns that future studies may reveal additional impacts to the Tar River Basin, and considering the uncertainty  engendered by the duration of the certificate, the Hearing Officers  have recommended a reopener.      The City of Rocky Mount provided detailed comments concerning the possibility that future studies, particularly  DWR’s Tar River Basin Model or the Tar River Basin Plan, might reveal additional impacts to the Tar River.  In  response, the hearing officers requested that Rocky Mount and GUC jointly recommend language for the special  condition.  While the parties were not able to come to a mutual conclusion, each entity individually recommended  verbiage that was similar to reopeners previously used by the EMC in other IBT Certificates.  The most significant  difference is that Rocky Mount proposed that any decision by the Commission to grant or deny a request to  reopen the certificate should be subject to administrative and judicial review according to Chapter 150B of the  General Statutes.  However, the Hearing Officers have determined that it would not be appropriate for a condition  of the Certificate to attempt to define any right a party may or may not have in challenging the EMC’s decision.   Therefore the hearing officer’s recommend that the reopener used in previous IBT certificates also be used here.  If the Commission determines that the record on which this Certificate is based is substantially in error or if new  information becomes available, that clearly demonstrates that any Finding of Fact (including those regarding  environmental, hydrologic, or water use impacts) pursuant to G.S. § 143‐215.22I(f) was not or is no longer  supported or is materially incomplete, the Commission may reopen and modify this Certificate to ensure continued  compliance with G.S. ch. 143, art. 21, part 2A. "     A55 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 50 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC VI: DIRECT IMPACTS TO RECEIVING BASIN  The following comments express concerns about the potential of increased wastewater flows to impaired and  nutrient sensitive streams in the Contentnea Creek and Neuse River Basins.    Comment ID #  Comment Text  14.1 The City of Wilson is concerned about the transfer due to the potential of greater wastewater  flows to the Neuse Basin. Based on current Nitrogen allocations in the Neuse Basin, how will this  area grow in water use without a similar growth in the sewer flows? Will all of this flow then be  pumped back to the Tar River, or land applied, or sent to the Neuse? The City of Wilson is  concerned that potential water quality problems in the Neuse and Contentnea Creek could  further impact point sources upstream of the IBT transfer communities.  4.10 Finally, Contentnea Creek and Little Contentnea Creek are both impaired streams. All of the  communities within the receiving basin that will experience greater wastewater flow due to the  growth precipitated by this IBT discharge their wastewater into these impaired streams. The  Towns of Hookerton and Snow Hill, and the Contentnea Creek wastewater plant have all been  non‐compliant with their NPDES permits within the past year. The EA should provide a  compliance history of each of the wastewater facilities as well as the communities' ability to  handle the increase flow. The EA does state that no wastewater facility will need to increase  their permitted discharge amount, but if the facilities suffer from inflow and infiltration, or  other maintenance problems, these issues would be exacerbated by the increased growth and  flow due to the IBT and should be addressed in the IBT.    Staff Response    Winterville’s wastewater is treated by the Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District via the Contentnea Creek  WWTP. This plant is permitted to discharge 2.58 MGD of wastewater to an unnamed tributary to Contentnea  Creek in the Neuse River Basin.     Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located in the Contentnea Creek Basin. Farmville operates a 3.5  MGD WWTP which discharges to this basin. The majority of the wastewater treatment in Greene County is  handled by on‐site septic systems; however, there are three small centralized treatment systems: the Snow Hill  WWTP permitted for 0.5 MGD, the Hookerton WWTP permitted for 0.06 MGD, and the Maury Sanitary Land  District WWTP permitted for 0.225 MGD. All of these facilities discharge to the Contentnea Creek Basin.     The Contentnea Creek WWTP and the Hookerton WWTP were under Special Orders by Consent in 2007 and 2008  for BOD, TSS and fecal coliform violations. Those SOCs resulted in infrastructure repairs.  The Contentnea Creek  WWTP has completed the repairs to its collection system. The Hookerton WWTP has begun the construction of an  additional treatment unit.  Although these WWTPs have had permit limit violations within the past year, at this  time, neither is in significant non‐compliance with their respective NPDES permit limits.  Any future non‐ compliance with the NPDES permit would be handled by the Division of Water Quality in accordance with state  and federal NPDES regulations.    Since none of these facilities will be requesting an expansion (or changes to existing permit limits) to accommodate  additional flows generated by the IBT, the IBT is not expected to cause direct impacts to the receiving basins.      The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments.  A56 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 51 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC VII: CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY DAM STRUCTURE      Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.13 The EA does not adequately consider the impacts combined with the Greenville Utilities  Emergency Drought Management Planning Project on the Tar River. Additional evidence of the  lack of thoroughness in the environmental review stems from the Petitioner's lack of discussion  of their intention to construct a temporary dam across the Tar River in the vicinity of the  Greenville Utilities Water Treatment Plant. The Petition states that "it is challenging to fully  understand and quantify the flow characteristics for the Tar River at Greenville" and that  "[c]urrent USGS techniques for low‐flow analyses do not provide a means of account for tidal  effect." Petition at 3‐4. Despite these challenges, the applicant should have considered this  related project in its analysis of the probable environmental impacts from the IBT.  4.29 It has also come to our attention that the Greenville Utilities Commission has completed a draft  Environmental Assessment regarding future drought management planning with a preferred  alternative for a temporary dam structure in times of low flow. This EA should be incorporated  into the analysis of the IBT Petition and EA.    Staff Response    The Division has not reviewed or approved an EA for the development of a temporary dam structure on the Tar  River.     The Hearing Officers have chosen to add a reopener clause to the Certificate.  The reopener clause states that if  any future information should become available concerning impacts to the Tar River as a result of the IBT, the EMC  may reopen the certificate to include any additional restrictions or requirements that may be necessary to mitigate  the effects.      A57 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 52 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC VIII: EXISTING FINANCIAL INVESTMENT  Several of the comments expressed concern that Greenville and Farmville had already begun constructing the  necessary infrastructure to transfer water between basins.  These comments were submitted by local  governments, who were concerned that the significant investment not be wasted, as well as from concerned  citizens who felt the investment should not bias the EMC’s decision.    Comment ID #  Comment Text  16.1 After an extensive investigation of available alternative water supply sources, Greene County  has entered into contract with GUC to obtain alternative water supply from GUC. In a joint  arrangement with the Town of Farmville, Greene County has invested millions of dollars for the  construction of a delivery system that will deliver up to 5 MGD to Farmville and Greene County. 17.2 Greene County and Farmville have expended a large sum of money to date to implement the  delivery system of water from Greenville to Greene County and Farmville, all in an effort to  comply with the 2002 Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area law deadlines of 2008,2013 and  2018. The project is nearing completion and scheduled to be activated in June, 2010.  4.16 Finally, the decisions by the source and receiving basin communities to invest millions of dollars  of public monies for construction of infrastructure, partially completed, for the Tar River to  Neuse River proposed IBT should in no way bias the decision of the EMC.  16.3 The unfunded mandate by the State reducing our dependency on ground water by 25% in 2008,  50% in 2013 and 75% in 2018, places Greene County under an extreme hardship. Every  consideration by the Environmental Management Commission is requested to allow us to  implement the least cost alternative solution, which is the proposed GUC alternative.    Staff Response  This infrastructure does represent a significant investment for Farmville and Greene County and the transmission  lines would continue to be useful even if the EMC were to deny the IBT request.  GUC would have the option to  provide these systems with ground water or finished surface water in amounts below the IBT thresholds (GUC can  move up to 2 MGD out of the Tar Basin without receiving an IBT certificate).  In the future, the potential exists for  the purchase of water from the planned Aquifer Storage and Recovery system.  The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments.    A58 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 53 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC IX: IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY  Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.8 A similar lack of attention plagues the brief discussion of impacts to air quality. In 2009, the  federal government changed the air quality standard for ozone, and in doing so designated 24  counties and parts of 17 others as not meeting this new standard. Pitt County was  recommended as unclassifiable due to a lack of monitoring data. The EA states that DAQ  adopted new ozone standards in 1997 and that DAQ has a monitoring site in Farmville that  recorded no ozone exceedances in 2006. This is outdated information. The EA should include  the new federal ozone standard and an assessment of any state of federal data available for Pitt  County. Again, the EA dismissed the impact of growth on the potential for impacts to air  quality: "No construction activities will occur relative to the proposed project; therefore, no  direct impacts to air quality will occur. Indirect impacts to air quality within the service area  from growth will be minimal. "EA pp 5‐26. The region may be a non‐attainment area for the  new ozone standard. The proposed IBT would facilitate residential and industrial growth in the  receiving basin. Although this growth and the associated increases in vehicular traffic and use of  lawnmowers will lead to complicate the existing air quality problems, this impact is not  discussed.    Staff Response    The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Greenville Utilities Commission IBT was published in October  2008.  In November 2008, the Department of Administration issued a cleared letter with the Finding of No  Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA included an air quality impacts discussion using information publicly available in  the fall of 2007.  However, in response to the concerns raised in this comment, ARCADIS was able to provide the  following information:    The EA stated that the monitoring site in Farmville did not report any ozone exceedance days in Pitt or  Greene Counties based on the 8‐hour ambient ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The 0.08  ppm ozone standard was adopted in 1997. The monitoring site in Farmville covers a larger region,  including Greene County. In 2008, the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) revised the ozone standard to 0.075  ppm. DAQ is currently reviewing the 2008 standard for a possible revision to an ozone level between 0.060  and 0.070 ppm.     Concurrent with the revision of the ozone standard, DAQ relocated the monitoring site from the Town of  Farmville to the Pitt County Agricultural Center, approximately 14.5 miles from the original Farmville  location. This relocation was completed in early 2008. Due to the distance between the two locations, DAQ  recommended that classification of the area (attainment or non‐attainment) be deferred until three years  of continuous data from a single location became available. Therefore, Pitt and Greene Counties are  currently designated as “unclassifiable”.    The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on this comment. A59 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 54 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC X: AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR)      Comment ID #  Comment Text  1.8 To meet the commitments in the proposed IBT, GUC would need to expand their current  facilities and would be absolutely dependent upon the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)  system functioning as designed. The ASR has not been tested. It is a pioneer system in NC. It has  been a troubled project since inception, taking years longer to be in place than was planned. I  would be unwilling to approve creating a dependency on this project.  18.7 our long range water supply planning effort includes the use of an innovative technology,  aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), which will offset future maximum day water demand. The  ASR system, the first in North Carolina, will be operational this spring and we are confident that  this technology, coupled with our water conservation initiatives, will allow us to manage our  water resources even more effectively.    Staff Response    The IBT will not create a dependency on the ASR.  GUC’s water sales for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County  will be managed as described in the IBT Management Strategy.  This strategy does not include a discussion the ASR  system.  That system is being developed as part of a long‐term planning effort to provide a future water supply.   The IBT is primarily being requested to replace ground water that has been lost due to the Central Coastal Plain  Capacity Use Area rules.      The Hearing Officers recommended no changes be made based on these comments.  A60 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 55 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    TOPIC XI: OTHER COMMENTS  The following general comments have been noted by the hearing officers and are included here as part  of the public record.      Comment ID #  Comment Text  1.11 I ask that the Division of Water Resources view this from the perspective of a better management scheme. I  believe it would be much better to manage water resources conservatively within their natural basin.  1.14 … the newly developed and potential for future development of Neuse River supplies is adequate without the  potential problems associated with InterbasinTransfers,  1.5 I think it reasonable for areas with limited resources to recognize those limits and plan not to exceed the  limits available.  1.6 Stream flows and receiving streams will be impacted by the proposed IBT as will the natural characteristics of  the waters affected. These effects and impacts are not necessary and are not even needed except possibly in  the minds eye of municipal officials and self aggrandizing developers in the region.  1.9 Development in Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County promotes rural sprawl. Thus the proposed IBT  promotes rural sprawl. It would be more efficient and conservative of water resources to develop within the  Greenville Urban Area. While it may seem outside the purview of the division whose approval is needed, the  agency can surely not be blind to this problem.  5.4 As in many other communities, the Town supports the desire of the Division of Water Resources for  communities to seek a regional solution to issues such as water capacity. The town already has connection  with Greenville Utilities and bell Arthur Water Corporation. As other communities tie in with the GUC system,  these connections will provide the ability to provide water over a large portion of Pitt County and Greene  county. This further enhances the region's ability to tie into other water systems in the region that could be a  tremendous asset in the times of emergencies or water shortages.  5.5 This project is a true approach to a regional problem that will make eastern NC a stronger area of the state  with increased potential. The City of Greenville is the "hub' of eastern NC with the ability to provide services  on a regional scale. This ability is a real benefit to the region as a while as well as provide for economies o  scale when future needs have to be addressed.  6.4 Please understand that Rocky Mount is not attempting to oppose the requested IBT but does believe that  extension of the comment period and inclusion of the above conditions are necessary to ensure that Rocky  Mount's future water needs are fairly protected.  10.2 In addition, I think the environmental impact from such a drastic measure is essentially unquantifiable before  the action, and may be irreparable after. The Tar River ecosystems are so complex and finely balanced there is  just no telling what the consequences will be. Disturbing the flow of river basins, which have evolved over  millenniums, is a drastic and risky action that may end up causing more problems than it solves. I for one  don't think it's worth the risk.  11.3 I believe this issue is much more than being selfish and not wanting to be a good neighbor and assist other  areas with a limited water supply. Science suggests river systems are best managed within their own basins,  which precludes siphoning water off to other basins. We all must now learn to live in harmony with nature  and within the natural resources available to us, and that means limiting water hungry development where  the water is not available to support it.  16.2 Based upon 2009 statistics from the NC Dept. Of Commerce, Greene County is one of the forty most  distressed counties within NC, thus receiving a Tier 1 designation. Greene County has a population of 21,205  (2008 projection by Office of State Budget Management) and is solely dependent on agriculture. Greene  County has only three incorporated towns, Snow Hill (Pop 1,618)' Walstonburg (Pop. 23 1) and Hookerton  (Pop 485). The annual median household income for Greene County is $32,074 as compared to the Mean  average of $39,184 (2000 census data). Twenty percent of the people in Greene County are classified as  "Poverty". Greene County must have an economically feasible solution for water supply. The proposed  purchase of water from GUC is the most economically and technically feasible solution available.  17.3 The proposed interbasin transfer will not result in significant direct or indirect environmental impacts. Failure  by GUC to obtain an IBT Transfer Certificate will result in extreme hardship on the citizens of Greene County  and the Town of Farmville  19.3 Feels the EA is good but it doesn't address everything.  A61 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 56 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  19.5 Bell Arthur is in the Neuse basin so the transfer there (from Neuse WASA) remains in the Neuse (not an IBT by  NRWASA).  21.1 LaGrange purchases water from Farmville and thus relies on this water being made available.  21.2 Neuse WASA is transferring some water in the opposite direction to Bel Arthur (offset of impacts)  A62 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 57 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010      TOPIC XII: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EMC  The following comments are direct recommendations to the EMC on special conditions and proposed  action regarding GUC’s Petition for an interbasin transfer certificate.  The hearing officers have reviewed  these recommendations and they are provided here as a reference for the full EMC.    Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.1 Although the new requirements do not go into effect for interbasin transfers to supplement ground water  supplies in the fifteen counties designated as the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area under until January  201 1 (H.B. 820 (7)(b) (2007)), it would be shortsighted of the Environmental Management Commission not to  consider the broad policy objectives stated in the amendments in looking at the proposed transfer. Our  comments rely on the requirements set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. 143‐21 5.221 but we urge the EMC to consider  the spirit of the amendments in reviewing the GUC Petition.  4.17 Based on the previous comments, we urge the EMC to deny the request for the proposed IBT at this time. As  noted above, the EMC does not have the necessary information to grant the certificate.  4.18 Given the significant environmental impacts of the proposal, we also encourage the EMC to reconsider the  adequacy of the EA and the associated Finding of No Significant Impact.  4.19 SEPA requires the preparation of an environmental assessment, and, if warranted, an environmental impact  statement ("EIS") for any transfer of surface water that requires the filing of a Petition pursuant to the Surface  Water Transfer Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 143‐215.221; 113A‐8.1. An EIS is required if the scope and environmental  impact of a planned project is significant. N.C. Admin. Code 25.0501. The EA for the GUC IBT shows that there  will be significant impacts and that an EIS was warranted. Therefore, the EMC should deny the Petition and  require GUC to complete a full and comprehensive environmental review of this project and associated  projects.  4.20 Again, we believe the EA and Petition do not provide enough relevant information on the secondary and  cumulative impacts in both basins for the EMC to be able to make this decision. But, if the IBT is to be granted,  we recommend the following: 1. The EMC should make the IBT a temporary certificate and provide enough  time for the receiving basin communities to identify and make the necessary investments for Neuse Basin  source water. The cross‐connections currently being built to GUC could be used for emergency connections in  the future.2. The EMC should require regional land‐use planning to insure that as growth occurs is does not  exceed the available water supply.3. The EMC should reduce total IBT amount to reflect the stated objectives  of replacing cretaceous aquifer water source of approximately 4 mgd. 4. The EMC should require aggressive  water conservation measures enacted by both source and receiving basins, including but not limited to: Home  fixtures retrofit program, Ordinances for requiring (or incentivizing) cisterns or other rain water harvesting  uses, Separate irrigation meters and higher pricing for irrigation, Comprehensive educational programming  and written information 5. The EMC should require that GUC submit a plan and implement activities for  reducing per capita residential water use by 10% over a 10‐year time period. 6. The EMC should require that  GUC submit a plan and implement for reducing per capita industrial water use by 5% over a 10‐year period.7.  The EMC should require that GUC conduct a feasibility study and create an action plan for water reclamation  projects.8. The EMC should require that the receiving basin wastewater treatments plants remain in  compliance with their NPDES permits 11 of 12 months of the year or face reduction in IBT amount.  4.21 The Surface Water Transfer Law requires the EMC to issue a certificate for the proposed transfer if‐and only if  ‐ two conditions are met: the benefits of the proposed transfer must outweigh the detriments, and the  detriments must be mitigated "to a reasonable degree." N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 143‐215.22I(g). The EMC must find  that these conditions are met "by a preponderance of the evidence," ie., a legal standard requiring that the  evidence on which a decision rests be credible, and that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the facts  sought‐it to be proved is more probable than not. Given the numerous inadequacies, errors and oversights in  the EA, this standard cannot be met. The EMC should exercise its authority to deny the Petition and certificate  in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 143‐2 15.22I(h).  4.22 Based on our previous comments submitted in December, we continue to urge the EMC to deny the request  for the proposed IBT at this time. The EMC does not have the necessary information to grant the certificate.  4.23 We have also had the opportunity to review comments from and confer with the City of Rocky Mount, and  echo the concerns and problems the City raised in its comment letter. If the EMC moves forward with the  Petition, we strongly encourage the state to consider the conditions proposed by the City of Rocky Mount.  A63 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 58 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  4.24 The first condition Rocky Mount proposed is that the certificate be revisited upon completion of the Tar River  Hydrologic Model. PTRF and SELC strongly support this recommendation and suggest that the EMC  incorporate similar language as was used in previous IBTs. In the CMU and Cary/Apex IBT certificates, the EMC  included the condition below: "The Commission notes that future developments may prove the projections  and predictions in the EIS to be incorrect and new information may become available that shows that there  are substantial environmental impacts associated with this transfer. Therefore, to protect water quality and  availability and associate benefits, modification of the terms and conditions of the certificate may be  necessary at a later date." If the EMC moves forward with the GUC IBT, the final certificate should include  similar language triggering a reopening of the certificate based on the Tar River Hydrologic Model.  4.26 An additional condition, similar to that included in the Cary/Apex IBT below, should be included to ensure that  any drought management measures and other mitigation measures are properly enacted. The Cary/Apex IBT  certificate included the following: "Prior to transferring water under this certificate, the holders of this  certificate shall work with the Division of Water Resources to develop compliance and monitoring plan subject  to approval by the Division. The plan shall include methodologies and reporting schedules for reporting the  following information: maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with permit conditions, progress on  mitigation measures, drought management, and reporting. A copy of the approved plan shall be kept on file  with the Division for public inspection. The Division of Water Resources shall have the authority to make  modifications to the compliance and monitoring plan as necessary to assess compliance with the certificate. " 4.6 Furthermore, the applicant suggests that since an IBT certificate would be needed for a NRWSA transfer to  Winterville since the transfer occurs from the Neuse River to the Contentnea Creek sub‐basin, that this  automatically negates this as a viable option. The 2007 changes to the SWTA clearly demonstrate that a  transfer of water within a major river basin (i.e. Neuse to Contentnea sub‐basin) is preferred over a transfer  between major river basins.  5.1 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Town of Winterville's official support for Greenville Utilities  Commission's Petition for an interbasin Transfer Certificate. The approval of this Petition is not only important  to the Town of Winterville but to neighboring communities as well.  5.3 The Town believes that the EMC has an obligation to allow Winterville to replace its previously permitted  water supply capacity with a high quality water that is readily available and accessible.  6.11 The City of Rocky Mount requests that any IBT certificate issued to the GUC include a condition allowing the  Certificate to be reopened following completion of the Tar River Hydrologic Modeling and Water Resource  Plan if the results indicate that the approved IBT impinges upon Rocky Mount's ability to modify its water  shortage response plan. Rocky Mount is concerned that, if approved, the demand to transfer water outside  the basin could influence the decision to approve a requested change in the release protocol for the Tar River  Reservoir. To guard against this possibility, in our comments dated December 1, 2009, Rocky Mount proposed  several conditions that might be included in the IBT certificate. Upon further reflection, Rocky Mount now  considers that a condition that would allow, upon the approval of the EMC, the certificate to be reopened  following the completion of the Tar River Hydrologic Model would be the best option for protecting the  interests of all users in the losing basin while still allowing GUC to address their immediate needs.  6.3 Rocky Mount requests that the EMC consider including conditions in the IBT certificate that: 1. Acknowledge  that Rocky Mount's drought management plan will be evaluated based on the normally applicable criteria and  not its potential effect on the requested IBT. 2. Provide that if implementation of Rocky Mount's approved  drought management plan causes flows at Greenville that result in unacceptable impacts (e.g., location of the  salt front) or are insufficient to allow the permitted transfer, the systems that receive the transferred water  will resume ground water pumping until such time as conditions allow resumption of the transfer. The ground  water pumped as a result of these modified operations will be offset by additional transfers during periods of  higher flow in the Tar River over a period of no longer than one year following the resumption of transfers so  that there will be no net change in the amount of the ground water pumped over the long term.. 3. Provide  that if at such time as Greenville applies for an increased withdrawal, there is insufficient water to meet in‐ basin needs, including those of Rocky Mount, the transfer will be reduced in order to accommodate in‐basin  needs.  7.4 I strongly urge that this proposed plan be thoroughly reviewed.  8.4 I support the use of GUC water to Winterville. This proposal would have minimal impact on the environment  and would supply all parties with needed water.  13.1 The City of Oxford supports the request for an interbasin transfer by the Greenville Utility Commission.  A64 Environmental Management Commission  North Carolina Division of Water Resources  ‐ 59 ‐ Greenville Utilities Commission,  Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and  Greene County  Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate  Hearing Officers’ Report‐  November 18, 2010    Comment ID #  Comment Text  14.4 We support Rocky Mount's request to extend the comment period for 45 days to complete a revised drought  management plan. This is particularly important due to the existing modest emergency interconnection  capable of transferring 1.9 MGD installed by both communities after the drought of 2007‐2008.  15.1 Greene County is strongly in favor of the Environmental Management Commission issuing the Interbasin  Transfer Certificate to GUC without delay.  16.3 The unfunded mandate by the State reducing our dependency on ground water by 25% in 2008, 50% in 2013  and 75% in 2018, places Greene County under an extreme hardship. Every consideration by the  Environmental Management Commission is requested to allow us to implement the least cost alternative  solution, which is the proposed GUC alternative.  17.4 Request favorable consideration by the Environmental Management Commission in granting the Greenville  Utilities Commission's request for an IBT Certificate permitting the delivery of water from Greenville Utilities  Commission to Greene County and the Town of Farmville (Tar River Basin to Neuse River Basin)  18.8 We have implemented a regional water supply strategy that utilizes our unique geographical advantages. Our  conjunctive use approach to water supply planning has positioned us to be a regional water provider. Our  mission is to protect water resources and provide regional water supply solutions to our customers and to our  neighbors in critical need. We sincerely hope that our regional approach may serve as a model for neighboring  watersheds faced with similar water supply concerns.    A65 Page: 1/9 To: Copies: Toya Ogallo and Steve Reed DENR, Division of Water Resources Kevin Martin and Stan Crowe Environmental Management Commission Steve Porter, Greenville Utilities Randy Emory, Greenville Utilities Tony Cannon, Greenville Utilities Ron Elks, Greenville Utilities Richard Wyche, ARCADIS From: Mary Sadler, Hazen and Sawyer Date: ARCADIS Project No.: July 21, 2010 NC706015.0030 Subject: Explanation of IBT Management Strategy Hearing Officer’s Report Request for Additional Information Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer Certification Introduction In June 2010, the Hearing Officers requested more information on the premise behind the development of the Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Management Strategy for Greenville Utilities. The IBT Management Strategy was presented in detail in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and IBT Petition. This Technical Memorandum (TM) clarifies the significant elements of the IBT management strategy, such as average day demand versus maximum day demand, the use of banked water, the definition of average day and maximum day bulk sales, and the definition of the Approved Base Rate (ABR) relative to actual groundwater use. This TM references the water demand projections developed in the EA, and will not be repeated herein. A key element of the IBT Management Strategy is the Water Purchase Agreements with Greenville Utilities. These water purchase contracts between Greenville Utilities and each community specify that Greenville Utilities reserves the right to curtail water if the Greenville Utilities water system is approaching a maximum day demand. The magnitude of the maximum day demand will determine whether or not Greenville Utilities has enough excess capacity to sell water. The Purchase Agreements limit water curtailment to a maximum of 10 percent of the year, or 36 days per year. Definitions Approved Base Rate (ABR) – The Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules specify the use of an ABR as the reference groundwater withdrawal rate for future reductions in groundwater. The ABR is based on a system’s annual water use in calendar years 1997 or 1999. The total withdrawal for the selected year is converted into an annual average day value by dividing by 364 days. The new average annual ABR eliminates the maximum and minimum withdrawals that occurred during that year. The ABR for Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County are 0.496 million gallons per day (mgd), 1.572 mgd, and 2.96 mgd, respectively ARCADIS 801 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Raleigh North Carolina 27607 Tel 919.854.1282 Fax 919.854.5448 Appendix 1 A66 Page: 2/9 Allowable Groundwater Pumping Rate – The allowable groundwater pumping rate is the ABR decreased by 25 percent in 2008, 25 percent in 2013, and 25 percent in 2018 for a total reduction in water withdrawal of 75 percent. Maximum Day Demand – The maximum day demand flow rate, referred to as ‘maximum day’, is the largest water demand event occurring in a year rate. Maximum day demand projected out over a 20-year planning period is the capacity at which water systems are permitted (e.g. water treatment plant capacity and Interbasin transfers). Water systems must provide water to users during high demand events. The maximum day flow rate occurs once a year, but can be approached two or three times a year. Peaking Factor – The peaking factor is the ratio of the maximum day demand to the annual average day demand. Peaking factors typically vary by community, but typically range from 1.4 to over 2.0. Banked Water – Banked water is the volume of water that can be conserved by not pumping groundwater at the allowable pumping rate. If the projected demand can be met entirely or in part from another source of water, e.g. the purchase of finished water from Greenville Utilities, then that excess groundwater may be conserved, or “banked”, for future use. Banked water will primarily be used when Greenville Utilities must curtail water to each community to satisfy the system demand for Greenville Utilities. Banked water may be pumped at a higher rate than the allowable pumping rate as long as the total volume of banked water is not exceeded. Banking groundwater is specifically allowed by CCPCUA rules. All of the communities submitted a letter of intent to bank water to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) in 2003. DWR has approved banking for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County. The approval included several provisions for calculating and reporting the banked amount. Average Day Bulk Sale of Finished Water – The average day bulk sale of finished water is the projected water demand less the allowable groundwater pumping rate plus 50 percent of the allowable groundwater pumping rate. In other words, it was estimated that each community would buy 50 percent more water from Greenville Utilities on an average day to meet projected demand in order to reduce the groundwater withdrawal. This strategy allows groundwater to be stored, or banked, for future use. Maximum Day Bulk Sale of Finished Water – The maximum day bulk sale is the projected water demand multiplied by the peaking factor less the allowable groundwater pumping rate. The maximum day bulk sale effectively reduces the overall IBT amount by using groundwater to help meet demand. Interbasin Transfer – The Interbasin transfer was calculated on an average day and a maximum day basis. The General Statutes specify that the regulated IBT amount be based on a maximum day, consistent with permit requirements of water treatment systems across the state. The IBT projections factor in consumptive use for each community and the return of water to the source basin, if applicable. The average day IBT projections are based on the average day bulk sale of finished water. The maximum day IBT projections are based on the maximum day bulk sale of finished water. Appendix 1 A67 Page: 3/9 Normalizing Historic Water Demand Every community experiences minimum, average, and maximum day water demands throughout the year. From year to year, the highs and lows in water demand will usually vary with season. The perception is the maximum day demand occurs only in the hottest months of the year. This perception is not valid every year. Water systems will experience maximum day demands at any time during the year, including the coldest months. In order to illustrate this point, a historic diurnal curve was created for each community. Five to ten years of daily water production records were compiled for each community. For each day, a factor was calculated to represent the demand on that day relative to the annual average for that year. The highest calculated factor will correspond to the maximum day for that year. Likewise, the lowest calculated factor will correspond to the minimum demand day that year. The calculated factors essentially normalize the historic diurnal curve such that a demand pattern is created for each community over the period of record. Maximum and minimum days do not occur on the same day at any time during the historic record for Greenville Utilities, Farmville, Winterville, or Greene County. The normalized pattern can be used to create a diurnal demand curve for future projections. The normalized pattern should only be applied to average day projections (e.g. average day bulk sales or average day water demands) since the maximum and minimum days are produced using the normalized diurnal pattern. Greenville Utilities Sale of Finished Water Greenville Utilities will sell excess finished water to each community up to the permitted 22.5 mgd water treatment plant (WTP) capacity. Currently, the annual average for Greenville Utilities has hovered around 10 mgd for the last several years. On an average day basis, Greenville Utilities will be able to sell water to each community entirely. Greenville Utilities will also be able to sell water to a community if that community is experiencing a maximum day. The maximum day for each community is not expected to occur on the same day (per the aforementioned explanation). However, if Greenville Utilities approaches a maximum day, the Water Purchase Agreements stipulate that Greenville Utilities reserves the right to curtail water, if necessary, to all of the communities if it is anticipated that WTP capacity may be exceeded. To illustrate this concept, the diurnal pattern was applied to the average day bulk purchase for each community, including Greenville Utilities. Each community’s diurnal bulk sale curve was added consecutively to the projected demand diurnal curve for Greenville Utilities. Figure 1 provides an illustration of this concept. Greenville Utilities will be able to provide finished water to each community until 2030. Figure 1 also illustrates that if the combined community rate exceeds the 22.5 mgd WTP capacity, the use of banked water will be essential for meeting demand, as Greenville Utilities will be required to curtail water. Appendix 1 A68 Page: 4/9 Explanation of IBT Management Strategy Figures 2, 3, and 4 were created for Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville, respectively, to illustrate the IBT Management Strategy for each individual community. Each figure provides an illustration of the projected average day bulk sale and water demand applied to the diurnal pattern to create projected sale and demand curves to 2030. The allowable groundwater pumping rate and ABR are also indicated on each figure. Furthermore, the historic minimum, maximum, and selected peaking factors are also plotted with respect to the ABR. The IBT projections, with and without groundwater use, are also represented on each figure. There are several important points to note, as follows: 1. The ABR multiplied by the peaking factor is a translation of the ABR to a historic maximum day flow. The ABR is an annual volume that has been normalized to an annual average. The ABR does not take into account historic peaking factors. Each community has historically pumped a wide range of peaking factors compared to the ABR. 2. The selected peaking factor used to project maximum day bulk sales and the 2030 IBT amount represents a decline from historic use. The selected peaking factor for Farmville is 1.7, a reduction from a maximum historic peaking factor of 2.4. The selected peaking factor for Greene County is 1.75, a reduction from a historic maximum of 1.98. Winterville’s historic maximum peaking factor was as high as 2.75, with a selected peaking factor of 1.8. 3. It should be pointed out that smaller water systems tend to exhibit slightly higher peaking factors than larger utilities. Smaller systems have less buffering in the distribution system (e.g., elevated storage, large distribution mains, etc.). The selected peaking factors were chosen specifically for each system based on historic data; however, the peaking factors were also selected with the understanding that Interbasin transfers require a rigorous evaluation of water conservation in the form of reduced use, with one example being a reduction in the peaking factor used to determine maximum day. 4. One primary question that has arisen in the public comment period is how much water is being replaced by the CCPCUA rules. Prior to the CCPCUA rules, each system could have reasonably experienced, and met, a maximum day demand with a high peaking factor for short periods of time. Water systems must provide water to users during high demand events. The ABR eliminated the ability of each community to provide the maximum day flow to customers. a. For Farmville, essentially all of the transferred water will replace the groundwater removed by the CCPCUA rules. The bulk water projections applied to the diurnal pattern show that Farmville will not begin to exceed the ABR x the selected peaking factor until approximately 2023. If the historic maximum day peaking factor is used compared in lieu of the selected peaking factor, then the water transferred would be considered a total replacement. b. For Greene County, all of the transferred water will replace the groundwater removed by the CCPCUA rules. The bulk sale projections do not approach the ABR x the selected peaking factor until approximately 2028. c. For Winterville, the 1999 ABR was extremely low compared to the growth the town has experienced between 2000 and 2008. The IBT calculations for Appendix 1 A69 Page: 5/9 Winterville used a peaking factor that is below the minimum historic peaking factor and significantly lower than the historic maximum peaking factor. Even though the transferred water can not necessarily be considered a replacement due to the CCPCUA rules, the peaking factor Winterville must adhere to is significantly lower than the historic peak. Consistent with other capacity use communities, the ability to meet a maximum day demand via a peaking factor is how the Winterville system was operating for years prior to the CCPCUA rules. 5. Banked water will be used in those instances where Greenville Utilities must curtail water. 6. The IBT calculations are based on a reduction in peaking factor from historic use. Additionally, the maximum day bulk sale effectively reduces the overall IBT amount by using groundwater to help meet demand. Conclusions The IBT Management Strategy was developed to provide a sustainable water supply solution for Greene County, Farmville, and Winterville. The CCPCUA rules eliminated the ability of these communities to provide the maximum day water demand that is required of water systems. Additionally, the IBT Management Strategy uses each community’s allowable groundwater pumping capacity to help meet water demands for the maximum day demand, effectively reducing the total amount of the transfer. Appendix 1 A70 Page: 6/9 Appendix 1 A71 Page: 7/9 Appendix 1 A72 Page: 8/9 Appendix 1 A73 Page: 9/9 Appendix 1 A74 Appendix 2 A75 Page: 1/3 To Copies: Toya Ogallo and Steve Reed DENR, Division of Water Resources Kevin Martin and Stan Crowe Environmental Management Commission Steve Porter, Greenville Utilities Randy Emory, Greenville Utilities Tony Cannon, Greenville Utilities Ron Elks, Greenville Utilities Richard Wyche, ARCADIS From: Mary Sadler, Hazen and Sawyer Date: ARCADIS Project No.: July 27, 2010 NC706015.0030 Subject: Summary of Water Conservation Requirements per CCPCUA Rules Hearing Officer’s Report Request for Additional Information Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer Certification In June, the Hearing Officer’s requested more information on the status of the water conservation measures contained in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) Rules for the Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, Greene County, and Greenville Utilities. The six water conservation points specified in the CCPCUA Rules are as follows: 1. Adoption of water-conservation based rate structure (flat, increasing block, etc.). 2. Implementation of water loss reduction program if unaccounted for water is greater than 15%. 3. Adoption of a water conservation ordinance for irrigation. 4. Implementation of a retrofit program that makes available indoor water conservation devices to customers. 5. Implementation of a public education program. 6. Evaluation of the feasibility of water reuse as a means of conservation. Table 1 provides a matrix table for each community with respect to their progress on each of the six CCPCUA water conservation requirements. Documentation is provided in the referenced attachments, if applicable. Table 1 also provides an implementation schedule for any outstanding items. ARCADIS 801 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Raleigh North Carolina 27607 Tel 919.854.1282 Fax 919.854.5448 Appendix 3 A76 Page: 2/3 Table 1: Summary of Water Conservation Measures per CCPCUA Rules for Greenville Utilities, Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville Water Conservation Measure Greenville Utilities Town of Farmville Greene County Town of Winterville 1. Adoption of water- conservation based rate structure (flat, increasing block, etc.).  Greenville Utilities has a flat rate structure with an increasing monthly base rate per meter size.  See Attachment GUC1.  In 2008, the Town adopted a water rate structure that specifies a flat rate for the first 2,000 gallons, an increasing rate up to 3,000 gallons, a decline in rate up to 4,000 gallons, and an increase in rate over 5,000 gallons.  See Attachment F1.  In 2007, the County adopted a flat rate structure for residential customers.  See Attachment GC1.  The Town is considering an increasing rate structure that will have a higher cost for higher consumption rates.  Schedule for implementation expected July 2011 (start of 2011-2012 fiscal year).  See Attachment W1. 2. Implementation of water loss reduction program if unaccounted for water is greater than 15%.  Greenville Utilities performed a Water Audit in 2009. The Audit reported a total water loss of 8.7%. Therefore, a water loss reduction program is not needed.  See Attachment GUC2.  The Town’s unbilled water percentage is 7.4%. Therefore, a water loss reduction program is not needed.  See Attachment F2.  PENDING  The Town’s unbilled water percentage is 4%. Therefore, a water loss reduction program is not needed.  See Attachment W2. 3. Adoption of a water conservation ordinance for irrigation.  PENDING  PENDING  PENDING  The Town does have irrigation meters.  The Town expects that an irrigation ordinance will be in place by June 30, 2011. 4. Implementation of a retrofit program that makes available indoor water conservation devices to customers  PENDING  The County passed a resolution that applies credits towards a water bills for the installation of standard fixtures for low flow fixtures.  See Attachment F4.  The County passed a resolution that applies credits towards a water bills for the installation of standard fixtures for low flow fixtures.  See Attachment GC4.  The Town is considering elements of water conservation retrofit programs around the country.  Winterville also provides energy audits for residents upon request.  Work is underway for a more comprehensive retrofit program. The Town expects a retrofit program to be Appendix 3 A77 Page: 3/3 Table 1: Summary of Water Conservation Measures per CCPCUA Rules for Greenville Utilities, Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville Water Conservation Measure Greenville Utilities Town of Farmville Greene County Town of Winterville complete by July 2012.  See Attachment W4. 5. Implementation of a public education program.  Greenville Utilities has an extensive public education program: brochures, billboards, radio announcements, website links, etc. Greenville Utilities is also a member of the “Water, Use It Wisely” campaign.  Greenville Utilities is also extremely proactive is getting the message out during triggered Stage 1, 2, and 3 water conservation requirements during drought.  See Attachment GUC5.  The Town has given water conservation presentations since 1999.  See Attachment F5.  Conservation information is displayed on monthly billing statements. Information is also available as posters on the Water Department bulletin board.  Greene County adopted the North Carolina Plumbing Code in 1999.  See Attachment GC5.  The Town implements a public information brochure “Water Conservation Starts at Home.” This brochure is mailed to individual households twice per year and made available at the Town Hall, Police Station, Planning Office, and Library.  The Town has developed a Winterville Utility Conservation Program Proposal. It is expected that elements of this Program will be implemented by July 2012.  See Attachment W5. 6. Evaluation of the feasibility of water reuse as a means of conservation.  Greenville Utilities Commissioned a Reclaimed Water Feasibility Analysis in 1999. The analysis recommended a reuse demonstration project at two locations. The Report also provided cost estimates for implementing reuse alternatives. GUC has not implemented any reuse projects at this time.  See Attachment GUC6.  A 2005 study was completed that included a discussion of water reuse for Farmville and Greene County. The report indicated that Farmville completed a reuse project in 2003 to pump reclaimed effluent to a local golf course for irrigation.  See Attachment F6.  A 2005 study was completed that included a discussion of water reuse for Farmville and Greene County. The report identified potential reuse customer; however, the existing waste treatment facilities in Greene County would require significant upgrades to achieve reuse quality water.  See Attachment GC6.  The Town has implemented to industrial reuse projects in recent years. The first is the Winterville Machine Works Company that uses reclaimed water as well as internal recycling. The second facility, now closed, was the Fullerton plant that used reclaimed water in the industrial cooling process.  See Attachment W6. Appendix 3 A78 Appendix 3 A79 Appendix 3 A80 Appendix 3 A81 Appendix 3 A82 Appendix 3 A83 Appendix 3 A84 Appendix 3 A85 Appendix 3 A86 Appendix 3 A87 Appendix 3 A88 Appendix 3 A89 Appendix 3 A90 Appendix 3 A91 Appendix 3 A92 Appendix 3 A93 Appendix 3 A94 Appendix 3 A95 Appendix 3 A96 Appendix 3 A97 Appendix 3 A98 Appendix 3 A99 Appendix 3 A100 Appendix 3 A101 Appendix 3 A102 Appendix 3 A103 Appendix 3 A104 Appendix 3 A105 Appendix 3 A106 Appendix 3 A107 Appendix 3 A108 Appendix 3 A109 Appendix 3 A110 Appendix 3 A111 Appendix 3 A112 Appendix 3 A113 Appendix 3 A114 Appendix 3 A115 Appendix 3 A116 Appendix 3 A117 Appendix 3 A118 Appendix 3 A119 Appendix 3 A120 Appendix 3 A121 Appendix 3 A122 Appendix 3 A123 Appendix 3 A124 Appendix 3 A125 Appendix 3 A126 Appendix 3 A127 Appendix 3 A128 Appendix 3 A129 Appendix 3 A130 Appendix 3 A131 Appendix 3 A132 Appendix 3 A133 Appendix 3 A134 Appendix 3 A135 Appendix 3 A136 Appendix 3 A137 Appendix 3 A138 Appendix 3 A139 Appendix 3 A140 Appendix 3 A141 Appendix 3 A142 Appendix 3 A143 Appendix 3 A144 Appendix 3 A145 Appendix 3 A146 Appendix 3 A147 Appendix 3 A148 Appendix 3 A149 Appendix 3 A150 Appendix 3 A151 Appendix 3 A152 Appendix 3 A153 Appendix 3 A154 Appendix 3 A155 Appendix 3 A156 Appendix 3 A157 Appendix 3 A158 Appendix 3 A159 Appendix 3 A160 Appendix 3 A161 Appendix 3 A162 Appendix 3 A163 Appendix 3 A164 Appendix 3 A165 Appendix 3 A166 Appendix 3 A167 Appendix 3 A168 Appendix 3 A169 Appendix 3 A170 Appendix 3 A171 Appendix 3 A172 Appendix 3 A173 Appendix 3 A174 Appendix 3 A175 Appendix 3 A176 Appendix 3 A177 Appendix 3 A178 Appendix 3 A179 Appendix 3 A180 Appendix 3 A181 Appendix 3 A182 Appendix 3 A183 Appendix 3 A184 Appendix 3 A185 Appendix 3 A186 Appendix 3 A187 Appendix 3 A188 Appendix 3 A189 Page: 1/15 To: Copies: Toya Ogallo and Steve Reed DENR, Division of Water Resources Kevin Martin and Stan Crowe Environmental Management Commission Steve Porter, Greenville Utilities Randy Emory, Greenville Utilities Tony Cannon, Greenville Utilities Ron Elks, Greenville Utilities Richard Wyche, ARCADIS From: Mary Sadler, Hazen and Sawyer Date: ARCADIS Project No.: July 21, 2010 NC706015.0030 Subject: Environmental and Economic Impacts of Water Supply Alternatives Hearing Officer’s Report Request for Additional Information Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer Certification Introduction In June 2010, the Hearing Officers requested more information on the economic and environmental impacts of water supply alternatives to the proposed Interbasin transfer (IBT) for Greenville Utilities. This request was prompted by comments received during the public comment period. The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) provided an alternative analysis on several water supply options. This Technical Memorandum (TM) provides more detailed information on the economic and environmental impacts of water supply alternatives for Greene County, Farmville, and Winterville. Description of Water Supply Alternatives Five water supply alternatives were determined to be viable sources for Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville, as follows:  Alternative 1.A – New 4 million gallons per day (mgd) water treatment plant (WTP) on Contentnea Creek.  Alternative 1.B – New 13.5 mgd WTP and reservoir on Contentnea Creek.  Alternative 2.A – New surficial aquifer well field and five 2 mgd WTPs.  Alternative 2.B – New surficial aquifer well field and 13.5 mgd nanofiltration WTP.  Alternative 3 – Purchase of finished water from Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority (NRWASA).  Alternative 4 – Purchase of finished water from the City of Wilson.  Alternative 5 – Purchase of finished water from Greenville Utilities. ARCADIS 801 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Raleigh North Carolina 27607 Tel 919.854.1282 Fax 919.854.5448 Appendix 4 A190 Page: 2/15 Alternatives 1.A / 1.B and 2.A / 2.B reflect the differences in the water supply project(s) as described by McDavid and Associates (Preliminary Engineering Report Alternative Water Supply Evaluation for Greene County and Farmville, 2004) and ARCADIS (Final Environmental Assessment for Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer, 2008). Alternative 1.A, as described by McDavid and Associates, only considered a surface water source for a capacity equivalent to the safe yield on Contentnea Creek (e.g., 4 mgd). A reservoir for storage was not considered. Alternative 1.A is presented herein for consistency with the alternatives as presented in the 2004 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER); however, this alternative would not be sufficient to meet long-term water supply demands for any of the three communities. Alternative 1.B (ARCADIS, 2008) provides a surface water supply alternative intended to achieve long-term water supply demand with a larger water treatment plant and a reservoir. Alternatives 2.A and 2.B also reflect the differences in the surficial aquifer and treatment alternatives. Alternative 2.A, per the 2004 PER, assumes that five small water treatment plants would be located in the vicinity of Farmville and throughout Greene County. This alternative would not serve the Town of Winterville. Alternative 2.B, per the 2008 ARCADIS Environmental Assessment (EA), assumes one larger water treatment plant and well field would be centrally located to serve all three communities. Assumptions Used in Analysis Tables 2 and 3 provide a summary of the construction costs and expected water use rates for the five water supply alternatives for Greene County-Farmville and Winterville, respectively. Construction costs in 2004 and 2008 dollars, provided by McDavid and Associates and ARCADIS, respectively, were updated to 2010 dollars per Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Indices. Water use rates were updated from 2004 to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. In the event that a water use rate was not provided, a rate was estimated using the water use rates provided by McDavid and Associates. Where applicable, water use rates were increased proportionally to the estimated construction cost to reflect the increased cost of larger infrastructure. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the environmental impacts associated with the water supply alternatives for Greene County-Farmville and the Town of Winterville, respectively. The information provided in Tables 4 and 5 were obtained from an analysis of readily available Geologic Information System (GIS) data. The data review included an analysis of twenty-one potential environmental impacts, ranging from 100-year floodplain impacts, streams, wetlands, 303d impaired waters, etc. Table 6 provides a list of the GIS data reviewed for this TM. If applicable, quantification of the environmental impacts was determined, such as the number of stream crossings and the acres of expected wetland impacts. A majority of the information pertaining to the water supply alternatives discussed herein was obtained and compiled from several engineering sources. In a few instances, gaps in information were found between the different reports and various alternatives. These information gaps were filled based on best available information. Appendix 4 A191 Page: 3/15 Summary of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Water Supply Alternatives Table 1 provides a summary and comparison of the economic and environmental impacts of the water supply alternatives for Greene County-Farmville and Winterville. Tables 2 through 5 should be consulted for detailed information. The only alternatives not resulting in an Interbasin transfer are the construction of surficial wells and water treatment plants (Alternative 2.A / 2.B). However, surficial well fields and treatment may not be viable if the Division of Water Resources (DWR) were to implement a capacity use rule in this aquifer. All of the other water supply alternatives result in an Interbasin transfer for Winterville, Greene County, and Farmville individually or collectively. The reservoir alternative has the greatest economic and environmental impact. A reservoir in Greene County would be difficult to construct due to the fairly flat topography. Additionally, this alternative is not feasible due to the large array of environmental and public issues. A significant amount of private industry and public land would be affected by this alternative. Construction of a reservoir also results in a high economic impact due to capital cost and debt service. The purchase of finished water from the City of Wilson and NRWASA carry a high capital cost and/or debt service required for implementation. The environmental impacts for these two alternatives are similar. Furthermore, Winterville would be required to obtain an Interbasin transfer for the City of Wilson water supply alternative. All three communities would be required to obtain an Interbasin transfer for the NRWASA water supply alternative. The purchase of finished water from Greenville Utilities is the selected water supply alternative for several reasons. This alternative is the most economical in capital cost and debt service. With the exception of the transmission lines, this alternative uses an existing water treatment plant and intake and therefore eliminates the need for a larger infrastructure project. The environmental impact of the transmission mains is similar to the purchase of finished water from the City of Wilson and NRWASA. Appendix 4 A192 Page: 4/15 Table 1: Comparison of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Water Supply alternatives for Greene County-Farmville and Winterville Greene County-Farmville Town of Winterville Alternative 1.A – New 4 mgd WTP on Contentnea Creek  Not a sustainable engineering solution (a 4 mgd water supply capacity not sufficient for long-term demand).  This water supply alternative is not applicable to the Town of Winterville. The McDavid and Associates PER (2004) did not consider Winterville as part of this alternative.  Construction of 31 miles of transmission line and WTP.  20 acres of wetlands impacted.  45 stream crossings with one stream noted as an anadromous fish spawning area. Alternative 1.B – New 13.5 mgd WTP and Reservoir on Contentnea Creek  Order of magnitude higher in capital cost than other alternatives and would result in high water use rates to pay down the debt service.  Environmental studies and permitting required for the construction of new reservoir may require up to 10 years to complete. This option will not meet the near term need to replace the reductions in groundwater withdrawal as required by CCPCUA Rule  Construction of a reservoir is not a feasible engineering solution due to environmental impact and fairly flat topography in Greene County.  Construction of 43 miles of transmission line, a water treatment plant, and 9,500 acre reservoir.  Construction of 55 miles of transmission line, a water treatment plant, and 9,500 acre reservoir.  Significant impacts to 100-year floodplain, wetlands, streams, and important forestland.  Significant impacts to 100-year floodplain, wetlands, streams, and important forestland.  One anadromous fish spawning stream crossing.  One anadromous fish spawning stream crossing.  Significant use of resources (>15 mi2 for reservoir).  Significant use of resources (>15 mi2 for reservoir).  13 permitted animal operations within the reservoir and 21 additional operations within 2 miles of the reservoir.  13 permitted animal operations within the reservoir and 21 additional operations within 2 miles of the reservoir.  Three threatened and endangered species populations noted within one mile of the reservoir.  Three threatened and endangered species populations noted within one mile of the reservoir.  A significant natural heritage area within reservoir.  A significant natural heritage area within the reservoir.  1 school, 3 churches, & 1 library in 0.5 mile of reservoir.  1 school, 3 churches, & 1 library in 0.5 mile of reservoir.  Interbasin transfer. Alternative 2.A – New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and Five 2 mgd WTPs  Higher construction costs than other alternatives.  This water supply alternative is not applicable to the Town of Winterville. The McDavid and Associates PER (2004) did not consider Winterville as part of this alternative.  This alternative would not be viable if DWR were to implement a capacity use rule in the surficial aquifer similar to the CCPCUA Rule in the Cretaceous aquifer.  Construction of 43 miles of transmission line, five water treatment plants, and 20 wells.  23 acres of wetlands impacted.  38 stream crossings with 2 streams noted as anadromous fish spawning areas.  One threatened and endangered species population noted adjacent to a corridor. Alternative 2.B – New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and 13.5 mgd nanofiltration WTP  Significantly higher construction costs than other alternatives.  This alternative would not be viable if DWR were to implement a capacity use rule in the surficial aquifer similar to the CCPCUA Rule in the Cretaceous aquifer.  Construction of 41 miles of transmission line, a water treatment plant, and 30 wells.  Construction of 53 miles of transmission line, a water treatment plant, and 30 wells. Appendix 4 A193 Page: 5/15 Table 1: Comparison of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Water Supply alternatives for Greene County-Farmville and Winterville Greene County-Farmville Town of Winterville  26 acres of wetlands impacted.  30 acres of wetlands impacted.  51 stream crossings with 2 streams noted as anadromous fish spawning areas.  63 stream crossings with 2 streams noted as anadromous fish spawning areas.  A threatened and endangered species population noted adjacent to a corridor.  A threatened and endangered species population noted adjacent to a corridor. Alternative 3 – Purchase of Finished Water from Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority  A water use rate that is three times higher than the alternative to purchase finished water from Greenville Utilities.  NRWASA members are contractually obligated to purchase a minimum of 75 percent of a member’s 2002 water use in order to pay down the debt service on the new infrastructure. This obligation applies even if less water is required for a particular year.  Construction of 21 miles of transmission line.  Construction of 26 miles of transmission line.  Interbasin transfer.  Interbasin transfer.  13 acres of wetlands impacted.  23 acres of wetlands impacted.  22 stream crossings with one stream noted as an anadromous fish spawning area.  30 stream crossings with one stream noted as an anadromous fish spawning area.  A threatened and endangered species population noted adjacent to a corridor. Alternative 4 – Purchase of Finished Water from the City of Wilson  Purchasing finished water from the City of Wilson requires a $12.5 million surcharge and higher water use rates than the alternative to purchase finished water from Greenville Utilities.  Not an economically feasible alternative for Winterville independently. Winterville would need to tie-in to Farmville and Greene County infrastructure.  Construction of 75 miles of transmission line.  Construction of 87 miles of transmission line.  35 acres of wetlands impacted.  Interbasin transfer.  55 stream crossings with 2 streams noted as anadromous fish spawning areas.  67 stream crossings with 2 streams noted as anadromous fish spawning areas.  39 acres of wetlands impacted.  A threatened and endangered species population noted adjacent to a corridor. Alternative 5 – Purchase of Finished Water from Greenville Utilities  Most economical water supply alternative.  No surcharge rate.  Water use rates reflect the wholesale cost of water with increases tied to the Consumer Price Index and not debt service payoff.  Use of existing treatment plant and raw water intake.  Construction of 31 miles of transmission line.  Construction of a booster pump station.  Interbasin transfer.  Interbasin transfer.  21 acres of wetlands impacted.  35 stream crossings with one stream noted as an anadromous fish spawning area.  Three threatened and endangered species populations noted adjacent to corridors. Appendix 4 A194 Page: 6/15 Table 2: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Capital Cost and Water Use Rates for Greene County and Farmville Water Supply Alternative Construction Cost (2004$) Construction Cost (2008$) Construction Cost (2010$) Expected Usage Rate in 2004 (per 1000 gallons treated) Expected Usage Rate in 2010 (per 1000 gallons treated) Comments 1.A New 4.0 mgd Water Treatment Plant on Contentnea Creek $28,260,000 $33,554,000 $1.50 $1.72 1. The 2004 capital cost and rate is from McDavid and Associates PER dated December 4, 2004. 2. The 2010 usage rate was estimated based on the Consumer Price Index. 3. McDavid and Associates PER states that a 4 mgd plant capacity is not sufficient to meet long-term water supply demands. 4. The water treatment plant costs were estimated by McDavid and Associates at $3.00 per gallon, which is a low estimate for water plant construction. 1.B New 13.5 mgd Water Treatment Plant and Reservoir on Contentnea Creek $100,000,000 $100,900,000 $5.18 1. The 2008 capital cost is from ARCADIS Final EA for GUC Interbasin Transfer, dated November 2008. 2. Total water treatment plant capacity as stated in the EA includes the Town of Winterville. Plant capacity includes 2030 maximum day demand to meet long-term water supply needs. 3. The Final EA (ARCADIS, 2008) states that capital costs will most likely exceed stated estimate, depending on specific factors during design. 4. The usage rate was increased proportionally to reflect the cost of larger WTP and reservoir. 2.A New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and Five (5) 2 mgd Water Treatment Plants in Greene County and Farmville $48,163,550 $57,186,000 $1.50 $1.72 1. The 2004 capital cost and rate is from McDavid and Associates PER dated December 4, 2004. 2. The 2010 usage rate was estimated based on the Consumer Price Index. 3. The water treatment plant costs were estimated by McDavid and Associates at $2.00 per gallon, which is a low estimate for water plant construction. 2.B New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and 13.5 mgd Nanofiltration Water Treatment Plant $70,000,000 $70,600,000 $2.12 1. The 2008 capital cost is from ARCADIS Final EA for GUC Interbasin Transfer, dated November 2008. 2. The rate per 1000 gallons was estimated based on usage rates provided by McDavid and Associates and increased proportionally to reflect the cost of larger WTP. Appendix 4 A195 Page: 7/15 Table 2: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Capital Cost and Water Use Rates for Greene County and Farmville Water Supply Alternative Construction Cost (2004$) Construction Cost (2008$) Construction Cost (2010$) Expected Usage Rate in 2004 (per 1000 gallons treated) Expected Usage Rate in 2010 (per 1000 gallons treated) Comments 3. Purchase Finished Water from Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority $33,681,000 $39,990,000 $3.03 $3.34 (Expected to be greater than $4.00 in fiscal year 2011) 1. Capital cost reflects the internal improvements needed to distribute purchased water to existing elevated storage tanks. The 2004 capital cost and rate is from McDavid and Associates PER dated December 4, 2004. 2. The capital cost of the NRWASA treatment plant and large distribution mains, per the Certified Bid Tab, is $115 million. City of Kinston website states total construction cost is at $144 million. 3. The water use rate reflects the debt service required to pay for the new water treatment plant and large distribution mains. The debt service for the construction cost of the tie-in would be an additional cost to the stated usage rate. 4. NRWASA members are contractually obligated to an annual 75% minimum purchase based on 2002 water use. This obligation applies even if less water is required for a particular year. 5. The 2010 usage rate was obtained from NRWSA. 4. Purchase Finished Water from the City of Wilson $25,804,190 $30,638,000 $1.75 $2.19 ($12.5 million surcharge either a lump sum, factored into usage rate, or annual payment of approximately $500,000 per year) 1. The 2004 capital cost and rate is from McDavid and Associates PER dated December 4, 2004. 2. One time capacity charge (connection fee) of $2.50 per gallon per day demand, equating to a $12,500,000 surcharge for 5 mgd. 3. Wilson agreed to rates comparable to existing Wilson customers starting at $1.75 / 1000 gallons. The percent increase between 2005 and 2009 is 125% ($29.78 in 2009 / $23.84 in 2005) 4. The current Wilson residential rate inside the City limit is $3.37 per ccf, which equates to $4.52 / 1000 gallons. 5. The usage rate reflects the debt service required to pay for the new NRWASA water treatment plant and large distribution mains. The debt service for the construction cost of the tie-in would be an additional cost to the stated usage rate. Appendix 4 A196 Page: 8/15 Table 2: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Capital Cost and Water Use Rates for Greene County and Farmville Water Supply Alternative Construction Cost (2004$) Construction Cost (2008$) Construction Cost (2010$) Expected Usage Rate in 2004 (per 1000 gallons treated) Expected Usage Rate in 2010 (per 1000 gallons treated) Comments 5. Purchase Finished Water from the Greenville Utilities Commission $30,695,417 $1.29 $1.48 1. The 2008 capital cost is from ARCADIS Final EA for GUC Interbasin Transfer, dated November 2008. 2. The project to purchase water from GUC has been implemented in three phases: Phase 1A has been bid (connection from GUC to Pitt County master meter), Phase 1B is the tie-in to Farmville's distribution system, and Phase 1C is the tie-in to Greene County's distribution system. 3. The 2010 usage rate is based on the Water Purchase Agreements between Greenville Utilities and Farmville / Greene County. The debt service for the construction cost of the tie-in would be an additional cost to the stated usage rate or could be covered with the existing usage rate. 4. Usage rate increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index. 1 Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost indices: December 2004 = 7380, November 2008 = 8602, and April 2010 = 8677. 2 The Consumer Price Index in 2004 was 188.9. The index in 2010 is 216.741. Appendix 4 A197 Page: 9/15 Table 3: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Capital Cost and Water Use Rates for Winterville Water Supply Alternative Construction Cost (2004$) Construction Cost (2008$) Construction Cost (2010$) Expected Usage Rate in 2004 (per 1000 gallons treated) Expected Usage Rate in 2010 (per 1000 gallons treated) Comments 1.A New 4.0 mgd Water Treatment Plant on Contentnea Creek N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1. This water supply alternative is not applicable to the Town of Winterville. The McDavid and Associates PER (2004) stated that a 4 mgd plant capacity is not sufficient to meet long-term water supply demands. Additionally, the PER did not consider Winterville as part of this alternative. 1.B New 13.5 mgd Water Treatment Plant and Reservoir on Contentnea Creek $100,000,000 $100,900,000 $5.18 1. The 2008 capital cost is from ARCADIS Final EA for GUC Interbasin Transfer, dated November 2008. 2. Total water treatment plant capacity as stated in the EA includes the Town of Winterville. Plant capacity includes 2030 maximum day demand to meet long-term water supply needs. 3. The Final EA (ARCADIS, 2008) states that capital costs will most likely exceed stated estimate, depending on specific factors during design. 4. The usage rate cost was increased proportionally to reflect the cost of larger WTP and reservoir. 2.A New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and Five (5) 2 mgd Water Treatment Plants in Greene County and Farmville N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1. This water supply alternative is not applicable to the Town of Winterville. The McDavid and Associates PER (2004) did not consider Winterville as part of this alternative. 2.B New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and 13.5 mgd Nanofiltration Water Treatment Plant $70,000,000 $70,600,000 $2.12 1. The 2008 capital cost is from ARCADIS Final EA for GUC Interbasin Transfer, dated November 2008. 2. The rate per 1000 gallons was estimated based on usage rates provided by McDavid and Associates and increased proportionally to reflect the cost of a larger WTP. Appendix 4 A198 Page: 10/15 Table 3: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Capital Cost and Water Use Rates for Winterville Water Supply Alternative Construction Cost (2004$) Construction Cost (2008$) Construction Cost (2010$) Expected Usage Rate in 2004 (per 1000 gallons treated) Expected Usage Rate in 2010 (per 1000 gallons treated) Comments 3. Purchase Finished Water from Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority $6,246,000 $3.03 $3.34 (Expected to be greater than $4.00 in fiscal year 2011) 1. Capital costs of a tie-in with Greene County’s water distribution system were not stated in the Water Supply Master Plan (Wooten Company, 2001). Therefore, the capital cost for this alternative was estimated as part of this Hearing Officer’s request for information. 2. The capital cost of the NRWASA treatment plant and large distribution mains, per the Certified Bid Tab, is $115 million. City of Kinston website states total construction cost is at $144 million. 3. The usage rate reflects the debt service required to pay for the new NRWASA water treatment plant and large distribution mains. The debt service for the construction cost of the tie-in would be an additional cost to the stated usage rate. 4. NRWASA members are contractually obligated to an annual 75% minimum purchase based on 2002 water use. This obligation applies even if less water is required for a particular year. 5. The 2010 usage rate was obtained from NRWASA. 4. Purchase Finished Water from the City of Wilson $2,883,000 $1.75 $2.19 ($12.5 million surcharge either a lump sum, factored into usage rate, or annual payment of approximately $500,000 per year) 1. This alternative was not evaluated in the Water Supply Master Plan (Wooten, 2001). However, the alternative would be feasible if a tie-in were made to Greene County’s distribution system. The capital cost for this alternative was estimated as part of this Hearing Officer’s request for information. 2. One time capacity charge (connection fee) of $2.50 per gallon per day demand, equating to a $12,500,000 surcharge for 5 mgd. 3. Wilson agreed to rates comparable to existing Wilson customers starting at $1.75 / 1000 gallons. The percent increase between 2005 and 2009 is 125% ($29.78 in 2009 / $23.84 in 2005). 4. The current Wilson residential rate inside the City limit is $3.37 per ccf, which equates to $4.52 / 1000 gallons. Appendix 4 A199 Page: 11/15 Table 3: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Capital Cost and Water Use Rates for Winterville Water Supply Alternative Construction Cost (2004$) Construction Cost (2008$) Construction Cost (2010$) Expected Usage Rate in 2004 (per 1000 gallons treated) Expected Usage Rate in 2010 (per 1000 gallons treated) Comments 5. The usage rate reflects the debt service required to pay for the new NRWASA water treatment plant and large distribution mains. The debt service for the construction cost of the tie-in would be an additional cost to the stated usage rate. 5. Purchase Finished Water from the Greenville Utilities Commission $200,000 (2001$) $276,000 $1.29 $1.48 1. The 2001 capital cost is from the Water Supply Master Plan (Wooten, 2001). 2. The usage rate reflects the debt service required to pay for the new NRWASA water treatment plant and large distribution mains. The debt service for the construction cost of the tie-in would be an additional cost to the stated usage rate or could be covered with the existing Winterville usage rate. 3. The 2010 usage rate is based on the Water Purchase Agreements between Greenville Utilities and Farmville / Greene County. 4. Usage rate increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index. 1 Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost indices: May 2001= 6288, December 2004 = 7380, November 2008 = 8602, and April 2010 = 8677. 2 The Consumer Price Index in 2004 was 188.9. The index in 2010 is 216.741. Appendix 4 A200 Page: 12/15 Table 4 Summary of Water Supply Alternative Environmental Impacts for Farmville and Greene County Water Supply Alternative In t e r b a s i n T r a n s f e r 10 0 - Y e a r Fl o o d p l a i n I m p a c t s (a c r e s ) We t l a n d s ( a c r e s ) St r e a m s C r o s s e d (D W Q C l a s s i f i e d ) St r e a m s C r o s s e d (D W Q U n c l a s s i f i e d ) Im p o r t a n t Fo r e s t l a n d ( a c r e s ) 30 3 ( d ) L i s t e d Im p a i r e d W a t e r s An a d r o m o u s F i s h Sp a w n i n g A r e a s Fe d e r a l o r S t a t e Ow n e d L a n d s St a t e o r M u n i c i p a l Pa r k s Hi g h Q u a l i t y / Ou t s t a n d i n g Re s o u r c e W a t e r s Ha z a r d o u s W a s t e Fa c i l i t i e s Hi s t o r i c N a t i o n a l Re g i s t e r D i s t r i c t s / St r u c t u r e s NP D E S S i t e s No n - d i s c h a r g e Sy s t e m s La n d f i l l s Pe r m i t t e d A n i m a l Op e r a t i o n s Na t u r a l H e r i t a g e Oc c u r r e n c e S i t e s (T & E s ) Si g n i f i c a n t N a t u r a l He r i t a g e A r e a s Sc h o o l s , L i b r a r y ’ s , or C h u r c h e s La n d M a n a g e d f o r Co n s e r v a t i o n a n d Op e n S p a c e a n d Re c r e a t i o n a l L a n d s Source of Impacts 1.A New 4.0 mgd WTP on Contentnea Creek No 17 20 (20 sites) 8 37 17 Yes 1 stream Yes 1 stream No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor No No No No No No No No No 1. Construct 31 miles of transmission line. 2. Construct a WTP. 1.B New 13.5 mgd WTP and Reservoir on Contentnea Creek No 3,745 (100-year floodplain) 4,398 (floodway) 4,450 (>200 sites) 13 58 1,982 Yes 1 stream Yes 1 stream No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor Yes 3 structures and 1 district within 2 miles of reservoir Yes 1 site within reservoir and 1 site 0.7 mile upstream of reservoir No Yes 1.9 miles from reservoir Yes 34 within 2 miles of reservoir Yes 3 within 1 mile of reservoir Yes 1 site Yes 1 school, 3 churches, 1 library within 0.5 mile of reservoir Yes 81 acres of land man- aged for conser- vation 1. Construct 43 miles of transmission line 2. Construct a WTP. 3. Construct a 9,518-acre reservoir. 2.A New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and Five (5) 2 mgd WTPs in Greene County and Farmville No 21 23 (21 sites) 8 30 11 Yes 1 stream Yes 2 streams No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor Yes 1 structure and 1 district adjacent to corridor No Yes 1 site No No Yes 1 within or adjacent to corridor No No No 1. Construct 35 miles of transmission line. 2. Install 20 wells 3. Construct five WTPs. 2.B New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and 13.5 mgd Nanofiltration WTP No 21 26 (29 sites) 9 42 11 Yes 1 stream Yes 2 streams No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor Yes 1 structure and 1 district adjacent to corridor No Yes 1 site No No Yes 1 within or adjacent to corridor No No No 1. Construct 41 miles of transmission line. 2. Install 30 wells. 3. Construct a WTP. 3. Purchase Finished Water from Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority Yes 15 13 (14 sites) 8 14 3 No Yes 1 stream Yes 1 site No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor No No No No No No No No No 1. Construct 21 miles of transmission line. 4. Purchase Finished Water from the City of Wilson No 35 35 (46 sites) 19 36 13 Yes 1 stream Yes 2 streams No No No No 4 NR and 3 state listed districts and 4 NR structures No No No No No No No No 1. Construct 75 miles of transmission line. 5. Purchase Finished Water from the Greenville Utilities Commission Yes 20 21 (21 sites) 8 27 18 Yes 2 streams Yes 1 stream No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor No No No No No Yes 3 within or adjacent to corridor No No No 1. Construct 31 miles of transmission line. Appendix 4 A201 Page: 13/15 Table 5: Summary of Water Supply Alternative Environmental Impacts for Winterville Water Supply Alternative In t e r b a s i n T r a n s f e r 10 0 - Y e a r Fl o o d p l a i n I m p a c t s (a c r e s ) We t l a n d s ( a c r e s ) St r e a m s C r o s s e d (D W Q C l a s s i f i e d ) St r e a m s C r o s s e d (D W Q U n c l a s s i f i e d ) Im p o r t a n t Fo r e s t l a n d ( a c r e s ) 30 3 ( d ) L i s t e d Im p a i r e d W a t e r s An a d r o m o u s F i s h Sp a w n i n g A r e a s Fe d e r a l o r S t a t e Ow n e d L a n d s St a t e o r M u n i c i p a l Pa r k s Hi g h Q u a l i t y / Ou t s t a n d i n g Re s o u r c e W a t e r s Ha z a r d o u s W a s t e Fa c i l i t i e s Hi s t o r i c N a t i o n a l Re g i s t e r D i s t r i c t s / St r u c t u r e s NP D E S S i t e s No n - d i s c h a r g e Sy s t e m s La n d f i l l s Pe r m i t t e d A n i m a l Op e r a t i o n s Na t u r a l H e r i t a g e Oc c u r r e n c e S i t e s (T & E s ) Si g n i f i c a n t N a t u r a l He r i t a g e A r e a s Sc h o o l s , L i b r a r i e s , or C h u r c h e s La n d M a n a g e d f o r Co n s e r v a t i o n a n d Op e n S p a c e a n d Re c r e a t i o n a l L a n d s Source of Impacts 1.A New 4.0 mgd WTP on Contentnea Creek N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.B New 13.5 mgd WTP and Reservoir on Contentnea Creek Yes 3,751 (100-year floodplain) 4,398 (floodway) 4,454 (>200 sites) 15 68 1,984 Yes 3 streams Yes 1 stream No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor Yes 4 structures and 2 districts within 2 miles of reservoir or adjacent to corridor Yes 1 site within reservoir and 1 site 0.7 mile upstream of reservoir No Yes 1.9 miles from reservoir Yes 34 within 2 miles of reservoir Yes 4 within 1 mile of reservoir Yes 1 site Yes 1 school, 3 churches, 1 library within 0.5 mile of reservoir Yes 81 acres of land man- aged for conser- vation 1. Construct 55 miles of transmission line. 2. Construct a WTP. 3. Construct a 9,518-acre reservoir. 2.A New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and Five (5) 2 mgd WTPs in Greene County and Farmville N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.B New Surficial Aquifer Well Field and 13.5 mgd Nanofiltration WTP No 23 30 (27 sites) 11 52 13 Yes 1 stream Yes 2 streams No No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor Yes 1 structure and 1 district adjacent to corridor No Yes 1 site No No Yes 1 within or adjacent to corridor No No No 1. Construct 53 miles of transmission line. 2. Install 30 wells. 3. Construct a WTP. 3. Purchase Finished Water from Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority Yes 19 23 (16 sites) 10 20 3 Yes 1 stream Yes 1 stream Yes 2 sites No No Yes 1 within 600 feet of corridor No No No No No Yes 1 within or adjacent to corridor No No No 1. Construct 26 miles of transmission line. 4. Purchase Finished Water from the City of Wilson Yes 42 39 (51 sites) 21 46 15 Yes 3 streams Yes 2 streams No No No No 5 NR and 3 state listed districts and 4 NR structures No No No No Yes 1 within or adjacent to corridor No No No 1. Construct 87 miles of transmission line. 5. Purchase Finished Water from the Greenville Utilities Commission Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 1. Construct a booster pump station. Appendix 4 A202 Page: 14/15 Table 6: Summary of GIS Data Used in Analysis Environmental Concern Data Reviewed 100-year Floodplain GIS data published on 16July2008 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) titled National Flood Hazard Layer and distributed by FEMA. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Review of the draft 1020 303(d) list, as provided in the NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 5-303(d) List – EPA Submittal 20100329 and draft GIS data published on 3Feb2010 and distributed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Sites GIS data published on 13Mar2007 by the NC DENR DWQ, Water Quality Section titled Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Sites and distributed by the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA). Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas GIS data published on 1Dec1998 by the NCDENR Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) titled afsa and distributed by NCCGIA. Benthic Monitoring Sites GIS data published on 29Apr2003 by the NCDENR DWQ, Environmental Sciences Branch titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.benthic and distributed by NCCGIA. Federally Owned Land (including federally owned game lands) GIS data published on 29Mar2006 by the NCCGIA titled Federal Land Ownership and distributed by NCCGIA. Fish Community Monitoring Sites GIS data published on 31Mar2004 by the NC DENR, DWQ titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.dshcmntysts and distributed by NCCGIA. Fish Nursery Areas GIS data published by the NC DENR Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), Information and Technology Section on 3Dec2008 titled Protected Areas Fishery Nursery Areas 2005 and distributed by the DMF, Information and Technology Section. Game Lands GIS data published on 1June2009 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) titled WRC Gamelands and distributed by the NC WRC and NCCGIA. Hazardous Substance Disposal Site GIS data published on 1Dec1998 by the NC DENR Division of Waste Management titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.hsds and distributed by NCCGIA. Hazardous Waste Facilities GIS data published by the NC DENR Division of Waste Management on 1Dec1998 titled Hazardous Waste Facilities and distributed by NCCGIA. High Quality Outstanding Resource Waters (HQW/ORW) GIS data published by the NC DENR DWQ on 7Jun2007 titled High Quality Water and Outstanding Resource Water Management Zones, Division of Water Quality and distributed by NCCGIA. Historic National Register Districts GIS data published by State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on 21Aug2002 titled Historic Natl. Register Districts. Historic National Register Structures GIS data published by SHPO on 21Aug2002 titled Historic Natl. Register Structures. Wetlands GIS data published by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) on 18May1999 titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.nwi_poly and distributed by NCCGIA. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Sites GIS data published by the NC DENR DWQ, Planning Branch on 30Mar2006 titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.npdes and distributed by NCCGIA. NPDES Non-Discharge Systems GIS data published by the NC DENR DWQ, Planning Branch on 10Jul2006 titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.ndsys and distributed by NCCGIA. Appendix 4 A203 Page: 15/15 Table 6: Summary of GIS Data Used in Analysis Environmental Concern Data Reviewed Proposed Critical Habitat GIS data published by an unknown author on 10Jul2006 titled pcha. Permitted Animal Operations Animal Operation Sites: GIS data published by the NC DENR DWQ, Non-Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Section on 4Dec2003 titled onemap_test.SDEADMIN.aop and distributed by NCCGIA. State Parks GIS data published by the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Department on Jul2009 titled ncprk0709 and distributed by NCCGIA. Streams DWQ classified and unclassified: GIS data published by the NC DENR DWQ on 30Nov2007 titled dwq_classifications_20071130 and distributed by the NC DENR DWQ. Water Supply Watersheds GIS data published by the NC DENR DWQ on 1Jul2007 titled Water Supply Watersheds and distributed by NCCGIA. Important Forestland GIS data published by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR) in Jan2009 titled forimp0109_fullstate. Landfills GIS data published by the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Landfill Methane Outreach Program on 4Nov2004 titled onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.lndfls and distributed by NCCGIA. Lands Managed for Conservation and Open Space GIS data published by the NCCGIA on 28Feb2002 titled onemap_SDEADMIN.lmcos and distributed by NCCGIA. Recreational Lands and Open Space GIS data compiled by the NCDENR that contains various layers from varying sources published on 13Feb2008 titled RecLands_OpenSpace_Shapefiles and distributed by NCCGIA. State Owned Lands GIS data published by the North Carolina Department of Administration, State Property Office on 6May2008 titled State-Owned Lands and distributed by NCCGIA. Wild and Scenic Rivers GIS data published by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the US FWS, and the United States Forest Service) on 13May2008 titled Wild and Scenic Rivers and distributed by NCCGIA. Appendix 4 A204 Page: 1/4 To Copies: Toya Ogallo and Steve Reed DENR, Division of Water Resources Kevin Martin and Stan Crowe Environmental Management Commission Steve Porter, Greenville Utilities Randy Emory, Greenville Utilities Tony Cannon, Greenville Utilities Ron Elks, Greenville Utilities Richard Wyche, ARCADIS Don Davenport, Greene County Richard Hicks, Town of Farmville Van Lewis, McDavid and Associates Terri Parker-Eakes, Town of Winterville From: Mary Sadler, Hazen and Sawyer Date: ARCADIS Project No.: July 20, 2010 NC706015.0030 Subject: Summary of Mitigation for Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Hearing Officer’s Report Request for Additional Information Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer Certification In June, the Hearing Officers requested more information on mitigative measures for Greene County and the Towns of Farmville and Winterville. The Hearing Officers want to verify that mitigation is consistent between communities so that any secondary and cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed Interbasin transfer (IBT), albeit minor, are mitigated to a reasonable degree. This Technical Memorandum (TM) provides a mitigation summary and an update to the Final Environmental Assessment (EA). In particular, the Hearing Officers are focused on consistent stormwater measures between communities. Table 1 provides a summary of mitigation for Pitt County, City of Greenville, Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County. The City of Greenville, Pitt County, and the Town of Winterville currently comply with the NPDES Phase II stormwater rules in addition to requiring 50-foot riparian buffers on perennial and intermittent streams. The Town of Farmville and Greene County have not adopted any stormwater requirements. The Town of Farmville does have a 50-foot riparian buffer requirement on perennial streams and an impervious surface requirement in their Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Greene County is very rural and currently does not have a zoning ordinance. All of the communities have similar erosion and sedimentation control programs. In a June 25, 2010 email update to the Division of Water Resources (DWR), the mitigation issue was put into perspective for Greene County, in particular. Greene County is ranked 82/100 in population and 86/100 in income. The County is rural and primarily agricultural based. A quick analysis was performed on impervious surface using land classification data. High intensity and low intensity land classes were assumed to be 100 percent impervious. This assumption yielded an impervious surface of 0.37 percent of the total land area in Greene County. Using the published growth rate for Greene County, the resulting total impervious surface coverage in 2030 would equal to 0.47 percent, assuming that the rate of ARCADIS 801 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Raleigh North Carolina 27607 Tel 919.854.1282 Fax 919.854.5448 Appendix 5 A205 Page: 2/4 impervious surface per capita would remain constant until 2030. A question was posed to the Hearing Officers: Is a tenth of a percentage point difference in impervious surface enough of a growth impact to be considered significant enough for the implementation of stormwater rules? In a recent discussion with DWR staff, the Hearing Officers will not approve an IBT Certificate without stormwater measures for mitigation. A special condition would be included in the IBT Certificate to address the stormwater issues. In lieu of a specific schedule for stormwater ordinance adoption, the Hearing Officers will write the condition such that water may be transferred once a stormwater program is approved by DWR. However, the Hearing Officers have asked that all parties provide verbal assurance of a reasonable schedule. Appendix 5 A206 Page: 3/4 Table 1: Summary of Mitigation for City of Greenville, Pitt County, Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville Mitigation Measure City of Greenville Pitt County Town of Farmville Greene County Town of Winterville 1. Land Use Planning  2004 Update to 1992 Horizons Comprehensive Plan.  2002 Land Use Plan Update.  2008 Revision to Land Use Plan.  No comprehensive land use planning due to many small towns and unincorporated areas.  1997 Land Development Plan.  Board adopted Pitt County Greenway Plan in 2005. 2. Zoning  Thirty-two zoning districts.  Includes overlay districts (water supply watershed, historic district, and conservation district).  Open space requirements in the conservation overlay district.  County zoning ordinance applies to areas outside corporate or municipal ETJs.  Eight zoning districts.  Water Supply Watershed Protection Overlay.  Zoning Ordinance.  Nineteen zoning districts.  No zoning due to many small towns and unincorporated areas.  Zoning Ordinance adopted 2000 and amended May 2010.  Seventeen zoning districts. 3. Riparian Buffers  Tar Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rule requiring a 50-foot riparian buffer on perennial and intermittent streams.  2006 Riparian Buffer Protection Ordinance to enforce Tar Pamlico and Neuse Rules for a 50-foot riparian buffer on perennial and intermittent streams.  Zoning Ordinance requires a 50-foot vegetative buffer along all perennial waters.  Subdivision Regulations require vegetated buffer strips of 15 feet along all watercourses and wetlands.  50-foot riparian buffer on perennial and intermittent streams. Ordinance is administered by Pitt County under an interlocal agreement executed October 2008. 4. Erosion and Sedimentation Control  Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.  Measures provide protection from the 25 year storm.  Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.  Requirements similar to City of Greenville.  Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance.  Requirements similar to City of Greenville and Pitt County.  Subdivision Regulations enforce state requirements for erosion and sedimentation control.  Pitt County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance enforced. 5. Stormwater Programs  2002 Stormwater Program that complies with NPDES Phase II and Tar Pamlico Stormwater Rules.  Tar Pamlico rules include Neuse watershed areas in the ETJ.  Measures enforced via ordinance.  2004 Stormwater Ordinance for Nutrient Control effective to comply with Tar Pamlico rules.  Identical program to City of Greenville.  Compliance not currently required under Phase II or Neuse Rules.  Zoning Ordinance establishes 60 percent impervious surface for the neighborhood business district and 65 percent impervious  None (due to rural nature of County).  1988 Stormwater Management Plan ordinance amended 2001.  Complies with NPDES Phase II Stormwater rules. Appendix 5 A207 Page: 4/4 Table 1: Summary of Mitigation for City of Greenville, Pitt County, Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville Mitigation Measure City of Greenville Pitt County Town of Farmville Greene County Town of Winterville surface for R-12 through R-8. A limit of 75 percent impervious surface has been established for high density residential and business districts. 6. Floodplain Regulations  Identified flood hazard areas via FEMA requirements.  Identified flood hazard areas via FEMA requirements.  Identified flood hazard areas via FEMA requirements.  Identified flood hazard areas via FEMA requirements.  Identified flood hazard areas via FEMA requirements. Appendix 5 A208 Page: 1/8 To Copies: Toya Ogallo and Steve Reed DENR, Division of Water Resources Kevin Martin and Stan Crowe Environmental Management Commission Steve Porter, Greenville Utilities Randy Emory, Greenville Utilities Tony Cannon, Greenville Utilities Ron Elks, Greenville Utilities Richard Wyche, ARCADIS From: Mary Sadler, Hazen and Sawyer Date: ARCADIS Project No.: July 19, 2010 NC706015.0030 Subject: Explanation of Hydrologic Analysis and Results Interpretation Hearing Officer’s Report Request for Additional Information Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer Certification Summary of Hydrologic Modeling in Support of IBT Effort A hydrologic model was developed for the lower Tar River to predict river flow under current and future water use scenarios (ENTRIX 2007). The model was designed to evaluate the effect of Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) proposed Interbasin transfer (IBT) withdrawals on current and future flow at Greenville. The model was based on available United States Geological Survey (USGS) flow records from the Tar River at Tarboro (Gage No. 02083500) and the Tar River at Greenville (Gage No. 02084000). The flow record at Tarboro provided a long-term record (1931 to 2007) of hydrologic conditions in the river. This gage represents the majority of the entire drainage area of the basin and therefore was considered the best available data set for predicting downstream flow at Greenville. Comparatively, the Greenville gage represents a short period of record (1997 to 2007). The relationship between the flow record at the Greenville and Tarboro gages was estimated using hydrologic and statistical methods. This relationship was used to generate a long-term flow record at Greenville. Tidal influences were not simulated in the model. Days may occur when the tidal influence creates a net downstream flow of zero or a net upstream flow (“negative” flow). Model Development The hydrologic model is a mass balance type model that quantified the relative difference in output flow associated with and without the proposed IBT at current and future withdrawals and discharges. The hydrologic mass balance was represented with two modeling locations: the Greenville gage downstream of GUC’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP) intake and a point downstream of GUC’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge. These two locations represented a 7.7-mile portion of the Tar River that would be the most influenced by the proposed IBT. ARCADIS 801 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Raleigh North Carolina 27607 Tel 919.854.1282 Fax 919.854.5448 Appendix 6 A209 Page: 2/8 The hydrologic model accounts for all documented withdrawals and discharges in the Tar River downstream of the Rocky Mount Reservoir. The amount of withdrawal and discharge was calculated on a monthly basis and for two time periods: 2002 and 2030. The 2002 withdrawals were developed using 2002 Local Water Supply Plans (LWSP), GUC withdrawal and discharge data, and registered agricultural withdrawal data from the Division of Water Resources (DWR). The projected 2030 withdrawals and discharges were added to the model incrementally and were converted from an annual average to a monthly average using composite adjustment factors based on historic variability. Hydrologic Scenarios Eight different modeling scenarios were developed to reflect a range of existing and proposed conditions at the upstream and downstream locations in the mass balance. The names of the modeled scenarios have been altered slightly to provide additional clarification to the original published report, as follows:  Scenario A – Withdrawal and discharge in 2002, no IBT.  Scenario B – Withdrawal and discharge in 2002, average day IBT.  Scenario C – Withdrawal and discharge in 2002, maximum day IBT  Scenario D – Withdrawal and discharge in 2002, 2x maximum day IBT.  Scenario E – Withdrawal and discharge in 2030, no IBT.  Scenario F – Withdrawal and discharge in 2030, average IBT.  Scenario G – Withdrawal and discharge in 2030, maximum day IBT  Scenario H – Withdrawal and discharge in 2030, 2x maximum day IBT. Statistical Analysis To clarify the results presented in the original report, an analysis was performed to determine if there was a statistical difference between the distribution of the upstream data set and the downstream data set for each scenario. In order to prevent dampening of low flow events due to the large data set, only flow events defined as less than 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) were used. The non-parametric Kolmogorov- Smirnov test was used to compare the low flow data set for each scenario at a confidence interval of 95 percent. This non-parametric test was used to compare the cumulative frequency distribution of the low flow data sets to determine statistically significant differences. Table 1 provides a partial summary of the results as reported in the original report in addition to the results of the Kolmogoroy-Smirnov test. For the evaluated scenarios, there are no significant statistical differences between the distributions in the upstream and downstream low flow data sets. A frequency-duration analysis was performed on flow less than 300 cfs for the two opposing withdrawal scenarios: 2030 withdrawal and discharge – no IBT (Scenario E) and 2030 withdrawal and discharge – maximum day IBT (Scenario G). The entire 76 year record was filtered for all days where the flow was less than 300 cfs, 109 cfs (7Q10), and 27 cfs (25 percent of 7Q10). The low flow days were then grouped into 25 low flow events where there were at least 40 days of flow less than 300 cfs that occurred over a 60 day span. A summary of these 25 low flow events is provided in Table 2. Table 2 includes the total Appendix 6 A210 Page: 3/8 number of days in each event per scenario as well as the difference in the number of low flow days (e.g. difference in duration) for each event. Conclusions from this analysis are as follows: 1. The average difference in duration between Scenarios E and G at flow less than 300 cfs was less than 5 days. 2. A maximum of 10 days difference in duration occurred only once at flow less than 300 cfs. 3. A maximum of 15 days difference in duration occurred twice at flow less than 109 cfs. 4. A maximum of 20 days difference in duration occurred once at flow less than 27 cfs. 5. Out of 25 total low flow events, the proposed IBT resulted in only six occurrences where the number of very low flow days would be longer in duration as a result of the proposed IBT. Summary The impact of the proposed IBT on the hydrology of the Tar River will be insignificant. First, there are no statistically significant differences between the distributions of the upstream and downstream low flow data sets between scenarios that were developed for the hydrologic mass balance. Second, the frequency- duration analysis for the two opposing withdrawal scenarios indicates less than a three week difference in duration, occurring once, on a very low flow event over the 76-year period of record. The additional three week duration, a rare occurrence, should not be considered a significant impact. During low flow periods, Greenville Utilities would be withdrawing less water than the maximum day due to their water conservation ordinance and initiatives. This three week interval would therefore be shorter in duration. Another important consideration is that the GUC raw water intake is tidally influenced, which will also help to ameliorate the proposed IBT. The salt water wedge moves fresh water inland (e.g. upstream) as the tidal wedge pushes into the estuary. Salt water is heavier than fresh water, so the salt water wedge will move upstream with the highest concentration of salinity at the bottom of the river. This moving wall of salt water creates a dam-like effect that pushes fresh water upstream. This phenomenon is particularly acute during low flow periods. GUC closely monitors the salt water wedge, as their WTP is not designed to treat saline water. Furthermore, GUC’s water conservation tiers are linked to the stage of water at the intake and the location of the salt water wedge. These conservation tiers are thus directly linked to manifestation of low flow in the river. The Tar River channel is never depleted due to tidal influence. Withdrawal in a tidally influenced stream does not equate to withdrawal in a fresh water stream. In a fresh water stream, a withdrawal is a permanent subtraction of flow from the system. In a tidally influenced stream, flow is moving back and forth continuously under the influence of the tides. This tidal buffering effect reduces the aquatic impact during low flow periods. Finally, Greenville Utilities is not requesting an increase in permitted withdrawal as part of the proposed IBT. Rather, Greenville is selling excess water capacity to communities with reduced water supply as a result of the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules. Appendix 6 A211 Page: 4/8 Response to Public Comments 1. Are the flows at the Tarboro gage, which were used to predict the flow at Greenville, representative of flows that will occur in the future? The use of the flow record at the Tarboro gage to predict flows at Greenville provided the best available representation of flow. The Rocky Mount Reservoir operating rules were considered in the hydrologic analysis and model. The hydrologic analysis was based on actual flow at the Tarboro gage, reflecting 40 years of data prior to the reservoir and 36 years of reservoir operation data. Reservoirs often augment low flow in rivers due to storage in higher flow periods and release in extended lower flow periods. Flow duration curves for the pre-reservoir period of record and post-reservoir period of record were evaluated to determine if this effect was present in the Tar River. Specific trends were not observed; therefore, the difference in pre- and post-reservoir low flow was considered negligible. Furthermore, the hydrologic model reflects the Rocky Mount reservoir operating rules and minimum flow during the entire 36 year period of record. 2. The impact of the reservoir due to minimum flow is less than unaltered conditions. The magnitude of flow does not prove this hypothesis. The timing, frequency, and duration of low flows have not been considered. A frequency-duration analysis was performed on flow less than 300 cfs for the 2030 withdrawal and no IBT scenario and the 2030 withdrawal and maximum day IBT scenario. The entire 76 year record was filtered for all days where the flow was less than 300 cfs, 109 cfs, and 27 cfs. These low flow days were then grouped into 25 low flow events where there were at least 40 days of flow less than 300 cfs during a 60 day span. Out of 25 total low flow events, the proposed IBT resulted in only six occurrences where the number of very low flow days would be longer in duration as a result of the proposed IBT. At flow less than 27 cfs, a maximum of 20 days difference in duration occurred only once during the 76 year period of record. In summary, the frequency-duration results indicate that there is less than a three week difference in duration during a very low flow event as a result of the proposed IBT. The additional three week duration, a rare occurrence, will not impose a significant impact as a result of the proposed IBT. 3. Concern with the validity of the 7Q10 value as a relevant statistic for comparing flow changes. Several flow statistics were generated for each modeled scenario to provide a comparison between the upstream and downstream locations. The 7Q10 flow statistic was used as one of the “yardsticks” to compare results. The 7Q10 value of 109 cfs was confirmed by the USGS in 2007. However, an important point to note is that the historical flow record in the Tar River near Greenville (low, medium, or high) was not being analyzed or debated in this hydrologic modeling effort. Rather, the change in the flow record as a result of a modeled scenario was being evaluated, e.g. the difference in the flow between upstream and downstream for the period of record. Appendix 6 A212 Page: 5/8 Table 1: Summary of Statistical Significance Between Upstream and Downstream Data Sets for Scenarios A, B, D, E, F, and H Scenario A – Withdrawal and Discharge in 2002, No IBT Scenario B – Withdrawal and Discharge in 2002, Average Day IBT Scenario D – Withdrawal and Discharge in 2002, Maximum Day IBT 1 Scenario E – Withdrawal and Discharge in 2030, No IBT Scenario F – Withdrawal and Discharge in 2030, Average Day IBT Scenario H – Withdrawal and Discharge in 2030, Maximum Day IBT 1 Percent of Time Per Year Flow is Below Benchmark Flow Benchmark Up 2 Down 3 Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down 109 cfs (7Q10) 1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 1.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 2.1% 87 cfs (80% of 7Q10) 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 1.6% 54 cfs (50% of 7Q10) 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 27 cfs (25% of 7Q10) 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% Significant Difference in the Distribution of Upstream and Downstream Flow below 300 cfs at α = 0.05? 4 No No No No No No 1 This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount (as in the 'Max IBT' scenario) and also decreases the Greenville WWTP discharge (not adjusted for the other IBT scenarios) by the Max IBT amount (effectively removing 2x the Max IBT amount from the Tar River flow). If the calculated discharge was below zero, the discharge was entered as zero (0). 2 The location at the point “upstream” in the hydrologic mass balance: the Greenville gage downstream of GUC’s water supply intake. 3 The location at the point “downstream” in the hydrologic mass balance: a point downstream of Greenville WWTP discharge. 4 Based on two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test comparing the distribution of flow events below 300 cfs for the period of time modeled at a level of significance of 95%. Appendix 6 A213 Page: 6/8 Table 2: Summary of Frequency-Duration Analysis for the No IBT Scenario ‘E’ and the Maximum Day IBT Scenario ‘G’ During Low Flow Events Event Start Date / End Date Scenario Days Less Than 300 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 300 cfs (days) Days Less Than 109 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 109 cfs (days) Days Less Than 27 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 27 cfs (days) 1 July 14, 1932 Scenario E 1 87 1 41 13 2 10 October 17, 1932 Scenario G 2 88 54 12 2 June 22, 1933 Scenario E 152 8 48 11 10 12 February 1, 1934 Scenario G 160 59 22 3 September 15, 1941 Scenario E 64 4 11 1 0 0 December 4, 1941 Scenario G 68 12 0 4 August 10, 1943 Scenario E 109 5 20 15 0 0 December 24, 1943 Scenario G 114 35 0 5 September 1, 1951 Scenario E 60 2 2 3 0 0 November 2, 1951 Scenario G 62 5 0 6 August 28, 1953 Scenario E 55 3 0 2 0 0 November 8, 1953 Scenario G 58 2 0 7 July 7, 1954 Scenario E 101 7 38 4 0 6 November 21, 1954 Scenario G 108 42 6 8 July 11, 1963 Scenario E 83 4 8 8 0 0 November 6, 1963 Scenario G 87 16 0 9 September 3, 1966 Scenario E 50 6 0 1 0 0 November 27, 1966 Scenario G 56 1 0 10 July 2, 1968 Scenario E 82 1 47 3 13 20 November 10, 1968 Scenario G 83 50 33 11 August 29, 1970 Scenario E 67 2 38 4 0 7 December 14, 1970 Scenario G 69 42 7 Appendix 6 A214 Page: 7/8 Table 2: Summary of Frequency-Duration Analysis for the No IBT Scenario ‘E’ and the Maximum Day IBT Scenario ‘G’ During Low Flow Events Event Start Date / End Date Scenario Days Less Than 300 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 300 cfs (days) Days Less Than 109 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 109 cfs (days) Days Less Than 27 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 27 cfs (days) 12 July 7, 1977 Scenario E 57 3 0 0 0 0 October 14, 1977 Scenario G 60 0 0 13 August 7, 1980 Scenario E 95 5 0 2 0 0 November 20, 1980 Scenario G 100 2 0 14 June 28, 1981 Scenario E 122 7 11 4 0 0 December 14, 1981 Scenario G 129 15 0 15 July 30, 1983 Scenario E 71 6 0 0 0 0 November 11, 1983 Scenario G 77 0 0 16 June 11, 1986 Scenario E 46 3 0 2 0 0 August 6, 1986 Scenario G 49 2 0 17 July 8, 1988 Scenario E 61 10 0 0 0 0 October 19, 1988 Scenario G 71 0 0 18 August 1, 1993 Scenario E 116 2 19 12 0 0 November 29, 1993 Scenario G 118 31 0 19 September 10, 1994 Scenario E 56 3 3 2 0 0 November 19, 1994 Scenario G 59 5 0 20 August 6, 1998 Scenario E 64 5 0 0 0 0 November 16, 1998 Scenario G 69 0 0 21 June 5, 1999 Scenario E 51 4 0 1 0 0 August 26, 1999 Scenario G 55 1 0 22 August 21, 2001 Scenario E 46 6 0 0 0 0 October 25, 2001 Scenario G 52 0 0 Appendix 6 A215 Page: 8/8 Table 2: Summary of Frequency-Duration Analysis for the No IBT Scenario ‘E’ and the Maximum Day IBT Scenario ‘G’ During Low Flow Events Event Start Date / End Date Scenario Days Less Than 300 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 300 cfs (days) Days Less Than 109 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 109 cfs (days) Days Less Than 27 cfs during Event Difference in Duration at < 27 cfs (days) 23 April 21, 2002 Scenario E 92 4 34 9 0 0 July 28, 2002 Scenario G 96 43 0 24 July 26, 2005 Scenario E 77 4 7 15 0 0 October 21, 2005 Scenario G 81 22 0 25 May 20, 2007 Scenario E 88 1 32 6 0 12 August 31, 2007 Scenario G 89 38 12 1 Withdrawal and discharge in 2030, no IBT, location downstream of GUC WWTP discharge. 2 Withdrawal and discharge in 2030, maximum day IBT, location downstream of GUC WWTP discharge. Appendix 6 A216                 Appendix 7  Record of Public Comments Received on Greenville  Utilities Commission, Town of Farmville, Town of  Winterville and Greene County’s Petition for an  Interbasin Transfer Certificate    A217 Page 1 of 1 Ogallo, Toya From: Barney Kane [microbemanager@gmaiI.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19,2010 4:37 PM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: Comment on GUC IBT Permit Attachments: Revised and resubmitted comments of BEK re the GUC 1BT.doc Dear Ms. Ogallo, I am attaching my revised comments in opposition to the Permit Request by the Greenville Utilities Commission for an Interbasin Transfer. I thank you for considering my comments. Bernard E. Kane, Jr. Prof. Emeritus Retired & former member and chair of Greenville Utilities Commission -- Barney "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to plan in and pray in, where Nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike." - John Muir Appendix 7 1 A218 01/19/2010 Statement of Bernard E. Kane, 1706 Canterbury Road, Greenville, NC 27858 Phone 252-355-6789. January 19,2010 I am opposed to the GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSION INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTlFlCNATlON REQUEST. It is my belief that the interbasin transfer (IBT) requested is not warranted. It is, in fact, counter to the best interest of all parties concerned. I also believe the requested transfer is contrary to contemporary sustainable growth management practices. I believe the needs presented are exaggerated and that there are better alternatives 1 am generally opposed to interbasin transfers. Historically most such transfers have resulted in great economic trauma for some populations while selectively offering transitory benefits to others. More often than not lBTs have resulted in unintended and unforeseen environmental disasters. It is my belief, based upon thirty-five years of teaching water supply and wastewater treatment at East Carolina University, that interbasin transfers should only be approved for where extraordinary and overwhelming justification is provided such as saving human lives. My major and minor points: m Point # 1 The Approved Base Rate (ABR) used by the NCDWR to determine historical use from the Cretaceous aquifer in the capacity use area is flawed. The ABR applied was determined based on historical use at a time when there were no conservation rates in place, pumping and treatment costs were low, and energy costs for water production were also low. Thus, these ABR's may be presumed to be based upon water use patterns that were excessive. There was little reason to limit use or apply conservation practices. A more realistic (much lower) ABR should have been used It is therefore also true that the reductions proposed from the artificially high ABR do not reflect any serious conservation effort. Neither is there serious hardship caused in these capacity use areas by meeting the per cent reductions required in the early years of the limitations. Reductions of twenty-five percent could be achieved quite simply. Reductions of fifty percent represent only a small challenge in conservation and in planned growth. The seventy-five percent reduction would likely require access to surface water fiom the Neuse if growth is to be facilitated. There is no need to transfer water fiom the Tar kver. Appendix 7 2 A219 Similarly if these high ABRs are used the projections of future needs are dramatically higher than needed. Offsetting these projected "needs" with the proposed interbasin transfer would effectively support these former wasteful, luxury, water-use practices. My point is that these ABRs do not reflect the true base need. Rather they reflect luxury use patterns that do not warrant the support of the interbasin transfers proposed. To use these erroneous ABRs as the basis for projected future water "needs" only results in support of continued wasteful consumption. A more critical, conservation-motivated analysis is needed in which limits are properly considered and conservation is practiced. If such analysis were done there would be no basis for the proposed IBT. Point #2 Water is available from the Neuse for the communities in that basin. In fact if the proposed IBT were approved water lines from the Tar would pass by lines from the Neuse providing water to communities in what is partially a turf war for utility growth. Feigned statements of cooperation and redundancy mask these turf wars including lawsuits over the right to serve select communities (Bell Arthur Rural Water District vs. GUC, as an example). NC Water Supply Branch should not facilitate these battles. Let GUC stay within its own basin and mandated mission to provide for the needs of Greenville. Point #3 The data used and the peaking factors applied in the ArcadisIGUC Interbasin Management Strategy are probably flawed. For one thing there is no way that the Maximum Daily Demand for 1990 and 1995 for GUC could be "Not Available." The record keeping at GUC during those years was carefully documented and recorded. It is hard to imagine why the data are not presented here. I have too much faith in GUC to believe there was a selective motive for listing them as "NA" and yet these data are too important for Arcadis to overlook these values. This is puzzlement. NCDWR should ask for these values and consider them in the determining the proper peaking factors. Point #4 The peaking factors of 1.7 and 1.8 used for communities in the Capacity Use Areas (CCAs) contrast dramatically with the 1.5 factor found valid for GUC. Common sense would support the assumption that the peaking factor applied to Greenville should be used for the CCA communities as well. The GUC peaking factor is based upon a larger, more valid, data base and one that likely reflects the management of water resources that will be needed in the future. The more rural communities tend to have larger lots and less steady industrial water consumption. Appendix 7 3 A220 Thus these hlgh peaking factors may be now be supported by the current use patterns. In the future use will require more conservation and less irrigation. MDDs will need to more closely approach ADDS as these communities grow and as water resources become more restricted. Use of these high values of 1.7 and 1.8 for peaking factors is not reasonable and endorses wasteful use. Point #5 I can see no valid purpose or reason for GUC to supply water to communities facing limited water supplies. dn the surface such a statement might seem selfish. In fact it is likely both reasonable and helpful. It is only in a shortsighted rationale that an interbasin transfer might be viewed favorably. There are many reasons why GUC should not supply the water. Some reasons are environmental, some are economic, some are energy related, and some are moral. The following sub-points explain my position. Point #5a. I think it reasonable for areas with limited resources to recognize those limits and plan not to exceed the limits available. The alternative is an arrogant belief that there is some duty to push resources hither and yon across landscapes and basins with pumps and machines thereby disrupting natural systems and causing ripples of unknown but possibly disastrous consequences. Point #5b. Stream flows and receiving streams will be impacted by the proposed IBT as wiH the natural characteristics of the waters affected. These effects and impacts are not necessary and are not even needed except possibly in the minds eye of municipal officials and self- aggrandizing developers in the region. Point #5c. Greenville has had a remarkably flat water consumption pattern over the past 15 years. This may seem puzzling considering the growth in Greenville. It is likely attributed in part to several factors, including good management at the utility, changes in water use practices at local industries and other more minor practices. But there are limits to these benefits. It is probable, perhaps even certain, that Greenville's demand for water will return to the steep growth curves that were predicted by the consulting engineers in the mid 90's. If this is true Greenville will be using its current plant capacity in the very near future. If that is the case, there will be very little excess to commit to other basins. To meet the commitments in the proposed IBT, GUC would need to expand their current facilities and would be absolutely dependent upon the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) system functioning as designed. The ASR has not been tested. It is a pioneer system in NC. It has been a troubled project since inception, taking years longer to be in place than was planned. I would be unwilling to approve creating a dependency on this project. Appendix 7 4 A221 Point #5d. Development in Farmville, Winterville, and Greene Counties promotes rural sprawl. Thus the proposed IBT promotes rural sprawl. It would be more efficient and conservative of water resources to develop within the Greenville Urban Area. While it may seem outside the purview of the division whose approval is needed, the agency can surely not be blind to this problem. As an example of this problematic growth consider this. There is no effective transportation system from these rural areas to major employment centers, to centers for heath care and to centers of recreational and cultural opportunity other than private vehicle. If these areas grow, in ten or twenty years there will be serious problems in transportation alone. There will be extremely limited reserves of fuel in 2030 according to the US Energy Information Agency. Point #5e. Development in Greene County especially highlights points 5e. In Greene County the development and growth is exemplified by proposals such as "Cutter Creek." Cutter Creek is a sprawling golf course retirement community focused upon large, irrigated lots, and private vehicular transportation to Raleigh and Greenville for employment, cultural opportunities and health care. It exemplifies an unsustainable community dependent upon subsidies such as water supply from the Tar River Basin. Point #5f. The water in the Tar River does not belong to GUC. We must ask for an answer as to what can be the reason the managers and board have for proposing to extract it, process it and distribute it elsewhere? Who authorizes thls particular usurpation of the natural order? It does not serve the tax-payer or the rate-payer of Greenville. I suspect these good public servants do honestly believe they are extending a Good Samaritan helping hand. But I question whether they have thought it through properly. I ask that the Division of Water Resources view this from the perspective of a better management scheme. I believe it would be much better to manage water resources conservatively within their natural basin. Point 6. There are better alternatives. First, apply conservation based water supply base requirements needs to the proposed areas. These should be much lower than the ABRs used in this proposal. Second, as a matter of principle NCDWR should require vigorous conservation rate structures and peak demand management in any area receiving an IBT. And the sword should cut both ways. The area supplying the water should be required to adopt the same vigorous conservation rates and peak demand management. The reason? Both would now be sharing the same water resources. It is thus absurd for a utility Appendix 7 5 A222 to supply water from a common resource and have disparate standard for allocation and use of that common resource. All users should abide by the same rules. Finally, the newly developed and potential for future development of Neuse River supplies is adequate without the potential problems associated with Interbasin Transfers, I thank you for considering these comments. Bernard E. Kane Jr Appendix 7 6 A223 Page 1 of 1 Ogallo, Toya From: Reeder, Tom Sent: Monday, December 07,2009 10:27 AM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: FW: Comment GUC IBT Request Attachments: NCDWR IBT Comment BEK IBT.doc fY i 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: Barney Kane [mailto:microbemanager@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 04,2009 4:43 PM To: Reeder, Tom Cc: toyo.ogallo@ncdener.gov; toya.ogaIlo@ncdenr.gov; toyo.f.ogallo@ncdenr.gov Subject: Comment GUC IBT Request Dear Mr. Reeder Please consider the my attached comments in opposition to the Greenvill Utilities Commissioins proposed Interbasin Basin Transfer from thr Tar River to the Nuese and Contentnea Creek Sub- basins. Thank you, Bernard E. Kane Jr. I have tried to send this to toya.f.ogal10 without success. Appendix 7 7 A224 Statement of Bernard E. Kane, 1706 Canterbury Road, Greenville, NC 27858 Phone 252-355-6789. I am opposed to the GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSION INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTlFlCNATlON REQUEST. It is my belief that the interbasin transfer (IBT) requested is not warranted. It is, in fact, counter to the best interest of all parties concerned. I also believe the requested transfer is contrary to contemporary sustainable growth management practices. I believe the needs presented are exaggerated and that there are better alternatives 1 am generally opposed to interbasin transfers. Historically most such transfers have resulted in great economic trauma for some populations while selectively offering transitory benefits to others. More often than not lBTs have resulted in unintended and unforeseen environmental disasters. It is my belief, based upon thirty-five years of teaching water supply and wastewater treatment at East Carolina University, that interbasin transfers should only be approved for where extraordinary and overwhelming justification is provided such as saving human lives. My major and minor points: Point # 1 The Approved Base Rate (ABR) used by the NCDWR to determine historical use from the Creteaceous aquifer in the capacity use area is- flawed. The ABR was determined based on historical use in a time when there were no conservation rates in place, pumping and treatment costs were low, and energy costs for water production were also low. Thus these ABR7s may be presumed to be based upon water use patterns that were excessive because there was little reason to limit use. A more realistic (lower) ABR should have been used It is therefore true that the reductions proposed from the artificiafly high ABR do not reflect a serious conservation effort nor any hardship in these capacity use areas that might seem apparent by the per cent reductions required. Similarly, projections of future needs to be offset by the proposed interbasin transfer result in proposed supplies which support these former wasteful or luxury water usage practices. My point is that these ABRs do not reflect the true base need. Rather they reflect luxury use patterns that do not warrant the support of the interbasin transfers proposed. To use these erroneous ABRs as the basis for projected future water "needs" only results in support of continued wasteful consumption. A more critical, conservation motivated analysis is needed in which limits are properly considered and conservation is practiced. Appendix 7 8 A225 Point #2 The data used and the peaking factors applied in the ArcadisIGUC Interbasin Management Strategy are probably flawed. For one thing there is no way that the Maximum Daily Demand for 1990 and 1995 for GUC could be "Not Available." The record keeping at GUC during those years was carefully documented and recorded. It is hard to imagine why the data are not presented here. I have too much faith in GUC to believe there was a selective motive for listing them as "NA and yet these data are too important for Arcadis to overlook these values. This is a puzzlement. NCDWR should ask for these values and consider them in the determining the proper peaking factors. The peaking factors of 1.7 and 1.8 used for communities in the Capacity Use Areas (CCAs) contrast dramatically with the 1.5 factor found valid for GUC. I suspect that the peaking factor applied to Greenville should be used for the CCA communities as well. The GUC peaking factor is based upon a larger, more valid, data base and one that likely reflects the management of water resources that will be needed in the future. The more rural communities tend to have larger lots and less steady industrial water consumption. Thus these high peaking factors may be supported by the current use patterns. But hture use will require more conservation and less irrigation. MDDs will need to more closely approach ADDS as these communities grow and as water resources become more restricted. Use of these high values for peaking factors in this GUC management strategy is to endorse wasteful use. Point #3 I can see no valid purpose or reason for GUC to supply water to communities facing limited water supplies. In fact there are many reasons why GUC should not supply the water. Some reasons are environmental, some are economic and some are energy related and some are moral. Point #3a. I think it reasonable for areas with limited resources to recognize those limits and plan not to exceed the limits available. The alternative is an arrogant belief that there is some duty to push resources hither and yon across landscapes and basins with pumps and machines thereby disrupting natural systems and causing ripples of unknown but possibly disastrous consequences. Point #3b. Streamflows and receiving streams will be impacted by the proposed IBT as will the natural characteristics of the waters affected. These effects and impacts are not necessary and are not even needed except possibly in the minds eye of municipal officials and self- aggrandizing developers. Point #3c. Appendix 7 9 A226 Development in Fmville, Winterville, and Greene Counties promotes rural sprawl. Thus the proposed IBT promotes rural sprawl. It would be more efficient and conservative of water resources to develop within the Greenville Urban Area. It is particularly important to note there is no effective transportation system from these rural areas to major employment centers other than private vehicle (which will have limited access to dwindling reserves of fuel in 2030 according to the US Energy Information Agency). Point #3d. Development in Greene County especially highlights points 3a though 3c. In Greene County the development and growth is exemplified by proposals such as "Cutter Creek." Cutter Creek is a sprawling golf course retirement community focused upon large, irrigated lots, and private vehicular transportation to Raleigh and Greenville for employment, cultural opportunities and health care. It exemplifies an unsustainable community dependent upon subsidies such as water supply from the Tar River Basin. Point #3e. The water in the Tar River does not belong to GUC. We must ask for an answer as to what can be the reason the managers and board have for proposing to extract it, process it and distribute it elsewhere? Who authorizes this particular usurpation of the natural order? It does not serve the tax-payer or the rate-payer of Greenville. I suspect these good public servants do honestly believe they are extending a good Samaritan helping hand. But I question whether they have thought it through properly. I ask that the Division of Water Resources view this from the perspective of a better management scheme. I believe it would be much better to manage water resources conservatively within their natural basin. Point 4 There are better alternatives. First, apply conservation based water supply base requirements needs to the proposed areas. These should be much lower than the ABRs used in this proposal. Second, as a matter of principle NCDWR should require vigorous conservation rate structures and peak demand management in any area receiving an IBT. And the sword should cut both ways. The area supplying the water should be required to adopt the same vigorous conservation rates and peak demand management. The reason? Both are now sharing the same water resources. I thank you for considering these comments. Bernard E. Kane Jr. Appendix 7 10 A227 Ogallo, Toya From: Sent: To: Subject: Anne Bunnell [anne-bunnell@yahoo.com] Thursday, January 14,2010 12:48 PM Ogallo, Toya Re: IBT You're welcome. Anne ----- Original Message ---- From: "Ogallo, Toya" <toya.f.ogallo@ncdenr.gov> To: Anne Bunnell <anne-bunnell@yahoo.com> Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 10:36:52 AM Subject: RE: IBT Thank your for your comments! Toya Please note that my email address has changed to toya.f.ogallo@ncdenr.gov Toya F. Ogallo Environmental Engineer River Basin Management Section Division of Water Resources Phone: (919) 715-0389 Fax : (919) 733-3558 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. ----- Original Message----- From: Anne Bunnell [mailto:anne~bunnell@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:43 PM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: IBT Dear Sir or Madam, I was present at the Greenville City Council meeting last night when GUC presented its IBT plan. Although I understand that having a regional water system may in the future to be beneficial to the human population there are some issues that I think need to be addressed. 1) According to the map water from GUC and the Tar River is being piped to Snow Hill and water from Kinston and the Neuse River Basin is being piped to Eastern Pines. The map itself revealed the flaws in this plan. It doesn't take much to realize that it is inefficient to pipe water over long distances rather than shorter ones. There is an increased chance of loss by leakage and an increased need of additional purification for safety. This also makes economical sense. 2) As the population of eastern North Carolina continues to grow a strain will be placed on all water resources. It seems logical to promote water conservation practices now. The reductions in the withdraw1 from underground sources should first be attained by reducing water usuage rather than by transfering water across miles. Appendix 7 11 A228 3) Humans are not the only species in these river basins. I value the wildlife in eastern North Carolina. The opportunity to paddle these rivers and creeks are activities that I cherish. Transfering water between basins may have unanticpated and negative impacts on native species decreasing their abilities to survive. Again, it seems that water conservation efforts should be the first priority, rather than IBTs. Thank you for reading my comments. Sincerely yours, Anne E. Bunnell Greenville, NC Appendix 7 12 A229 Page 1 of 2 Ogallo, Toya From: John and Kathy Schermerhorn [schermsfarm@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 27,2009 3:25 PM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: Tar to Neuse water transfer From: John and Kathy Scherrnerhorn <schermsfarrn@earthlink.net> Date: October 27, 2009 2:58:54 PM EDT To: Tova.F.OaallOQncdenr.aov Cc: riverkee~erQ~trf.orq, John Chrystal ~imchrvstal@vahoo.com~ Subject: Tar to Neuse water transfer What an interesting issue you are collecting information and opinions on. We are not in favor of intra-regional water transfer agreements as they are permanently divisive. They tend to make enemies of neighbors and they, in this case, stifle the growth potential for eastern Beaufort County by reducing the available water supply to this region. As close as eastern Beaufort Co. is to Greenville, what better place to develop without having to give up water rights. At times, water transfers are necessary for the true and actual benefit of all - which has yet to be determined as I understand this Water Transfer Agreement process. That being said, available water allows for community growth. We're not opposed to controlled growth in general but there must be aggressive controls on how much growth and how that associated water will be used. Waste of this life- giving resource must be a major controlling factor in the issuance of this agreement. Now is the time to address water waste as a condition of water transfer. There need to be enforceable building/plumbing permit requirements (as well as environmental considerations) that aggressively address the use and potential waste of our water resources for new homes, businesses, industries and their eventual upgrade improvements. These requirements should (must) be adopted and enforced by the local and county municipalities paid for by permit fees. Incorporating an ongoing and far reaching educational process on the importance of this resource and ways it must be protected and conserved must also be a part of this transfer agreement. There are many proven and currently practiced ways of using less water and with the imaginative minds and talent we have in this region this should not be a daunting task to undertake. We truly don't need to reinvent the "wheel" but only take what already exists and refine it to work more efficiently for the benefit of all. We would like to suggest that these ideas be pursued and adopted by the Greenville Utilities Commission prior to the allowance of this water transfer agreement. Additionally, a stepped fee schedule for all water users in GUC's region must be implemented to aid in the education and reduction of wasted water resources. A five level fee structure based on amount of water used starting with a reasonable baseline use and climbing through excessive use needs to be implemented. The monies generated by the excessive use fees will be accounted for and expended in areas of education, retrofitting of household and business fixtures with water conservation fixtures. This can be done through discount programs or Appendix 7 13 A230 Page 2 of 2 out-right give-a-ways. This program in turn will reduce water waste and subsequently reduce water bills, putting at least a temporary smile on the end-users face. Although not everyone will take kindly to these suggestions, the honest truth is that they will be implemented out of panicked necessity in the not too distant future as this valued and necessary resource becomes more scarce, valuable and consequently more costly. By starting this water saving program now, a model can be developed for other water districts to follow and improve on, creating needed jobs and allowing conservative water transfer agreements to be less necessary and when truly needed, positive rather than divisive. The next issue for consideration is to reduce and or eliminate pollutants from up stream users as they affect our water and it's potential use to we downstream users. Lots to do!! John and Kathy Schermerhorn Beaufort County schermsfarmQearthlink.net Appendix 7 14 A231 DEC ? 2UO9 Pamlico-Tar River Foundation Southern Environmentd,&q~~clr~~(rs P.O. Box 1854, Washington, NC 27889 200 W. Franklin Street, Ste. 330, Chapel Hill, NC 27G6 252-946-7211 919-967-1450 December 4,2009 Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 16 1 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699- 16 1 1 Dear Ms. Ogallo, The Parnlico-Tar River Foundation (PTRF) and Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) submit the following comments on the Greenville Utilities Commission's (GUC) petition for an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate. GUC has requested the IBT certificate to transfer water from the Tar River Basin to the Contentnea Creek and Neuse River basins. The receiving communities include the Towns of Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County Regional Water system, which provides water service to the communities of Snow Hill, Hookerton, Walstonburg and six other water corporations. PTRF founded in 198 1, is a grassroots environmental organization representing 1900 members and a licensed member of Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. Our mission is to enhance and protect the Pamlico-Tar River watershed through education, advocacy, and research. SELC is a non-profit legal advocacy group dedicated to protecting the environment of the South. SELC works with more than 100 partner groups in six southeastern states. SELC has been actively involved in a variety of efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Pamlico- Tar River watershed. I. Background In 2007, the General Assembly recognized the need to consider more carefully the impacts of water transfers on the source basin and amended the state interbasin transfer law to reflect that need. N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 143-21 5.221;. N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 143-21 5.22L(t) states It is the public policy of the State to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within North Carolina. It is the public policy of this State that the reasonably foreseeable future water needs of a public water system with its service area located primarily in the receiving river basin are subordinate to the reasonably foreseeable future water needs of a public water system with its service area located primarily in the source river basin. Further, it is the public policy of the State that the cumulative impact of transfers from a source river basin shall not result in a violation of the antidegradation policy set out in 40 Code of Federal Appendix 7 15 A232 Regulations 5 13 1.12 and the statewide antidegradation policy adopted pursuant thereto. Although the new requirements do not go into effect for interbasin transfers to supplement ground water supplies in the fifteen counties designated as the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area under until January 201 1 (H.B. 820 (7)(b) (2007)), it would be shortsighted of the Environmental Management Commission not to consider the broad policy objectives stated in the amendments in looking at the proposed transfer. Our comments rely on the requirements set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-21 5.221 but we urge the EMC to consider the spirit of the amendments in reviewing the GUC petition. The receiving communities and the source (GUC) are all regulated under the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area ("CCPCUA)" rules, initiated in 2002. The rules require the communities to reduce ground water withdrawals from the cretaceous aquifers by 75% from a state approved base rate by 201 8. At the present, the receiving communities rely on this groundwater as their sole source of water supply. The CCPCUA rules also require regulated communities to implement and provide information on a number of water conservation measures. The Division of Water Resources ("DWR) has developed a cretaceous water bank guidance document that allows communities who choose to reduce groundwater withdrawal faster than mandated by the rules. This banked water would then be available for use in later years. 11. Specific Concerns Regarding North Carolina Environmental Policy Act Compliance The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") requires the preparation of an environmental assessment ("EA") or environmental impact statement ("EIS") for any transfer of surface water that requires the filing of a petition pursuant to the Surface Water Transfer Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-21 5.221; 1 13A-8.1. 1 N.C. Admin. Code 25.0502 requires an EA to include maps and discussion of the following: (1) need for the proposed activity, (2) reasonable alternatives to the recommended course of action, (3) methods proposed to mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts, and . (4) environmental effects of the proposed activity and alternatives. The FONSJEA for the Greenville Utilities Commission IBT has not met these requirements. A. The EA provides no meaningful consideration of mitigation measures. SEPA requires the agency to include a review of methods "proposed to mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts" from the proposed transfer. 1 N.C. Admin. Code 25.0502 (3);. The EA fails to include any meaningful discussion of mitigation measures, instead providing a review of land use planning regulations and ordinances. Appropriate measures to Appendix 7 16 A233 mitigate, i.e., lessen, the environmental impacts would include, for example, returning treated wastewater to the source basin, implementing aggressive water conservation measures, or detailing measures that would be taken to protect aquatic life in the source basins during times of drought. B. The EA provides no assessment of the anticipated environmental impacts of alternatives to the IBT. Both SEPA and the Surface Water Transfer Act (SWTA) require an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed transfer. The EA must include "reasonable alternatives to the recommended course of action." 1 N.C.A.C. 5 25.0502(2). The SWTA requires the EMC to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer, including estimated costs and environmental impacts. While the EA does identify several alternatives to the proposed IBT, the discussion is woefully inadequate to the task set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations. The overview assigns a dollar amount to the financial cost associated with the construction of each alternative. However, there is no discussion, evaluation, or modeling of environmental impacts, the source basin. In addition, the EA fails to evaluate the costs in terms of lost revenues to source basin water suppliers that may be expected to impose restrictions on water use for longer time periods as a result of the proposed transfer of water. For example, the alternative briefly mentioned in the EA for the receiving basins to purchase water from the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority does not provide an analysis of cost, only that the costs would be "prohibitive." Furthermore, the applicant suggests that since an IBT certificate would be needed for a NRWSA transfer to Winterville since the transfer occurs from the Neuse River to the Contentnea Creek sub-basin, that this automatically negates this as a viable option. The 2007 changes to the SWTA clearly demonstrate that a transfer of water within a major river basin (i.e. Neuse to Contentnea sub-basin) is preferred over a transfer between major river basins. A more complete discussion of alternatives, including a thorough review of the comparative environmental impacts, is required. C. The EA ignores the cumulative and secondary impacts from growth in the receiving basin. The EA wholly dismisses the need for evaluation of secondary and cumulative impacts from growth since the IBT is designed to only replace the lost groundwater resource due to the CCPCUA. The EA states that "significant growth in these areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the interbasin transfer request. " IBT Petition, pp 4-1. DWR questioned this dismissal of secondary and cumulative impacts associated with growth that is a direct result of the transfer of water in their comments on the draft EA (EA Response to Comments, pp: 2/12-2/13, February 1,2008). The comments stated: The document dismisses cumulative and secondary impacts associated with growth by repeatedly stating that the project is primarily a water replacement project and significant growth is not a component of this project or a reason for Appendix 7 17 A234 developing the IBT request. It is true that they are being forced to switch to surface water and that initially the volume ofsurface water matches the volume of ground water; however, over time the volume of water increases due to growth projections that the communities would have supported with an untapped volume of ground water. On page 4-2 it states that "these communities will be unable to compensate for the reduced groundwater withdrawals for predicted growth to 2030': There appear to be pockets of signzficant growth and, without the additional water, this growth could not be supported. The Executive Summary states that growth is modest at 1 to 3 percent in some communities. However, : Section 2.2 gives growth rates offrorn I1 to 50 percent for Winterville, Greene County had a 25 percent growth rate from '90 to '06; although the overall growth rate of the county may be I percent, pockets ofhigher growth may occur, e.g. near the Global Transpark. The document does not provide the percent growth for Greenville, but from the numbers provided it could be 45 percent fiom '05 tot30. Comments to draft EA by DWR (on file with DWR) The applicant responded by saying that the growth would occur in these communities with or without the IBT, therefore assessing the environmental impacts is unnecessary. The communities are required to reduce their groundwater withdrawal due to the CCPCUA rules. Without a new source of water, either from the Neuse River Basin or from GUC, the growth could not be sustained. The applicant dismisses all other alternatives as viable options, therefore growth would not occur if the IBT were to be denied. Therefore, the applicant must provide detailed information on the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with this growth. A similar lack of attention plagues the brief discussion of impacts to air quality. In 2009, the federal government changed the air quality standard for ozone, and in doing so designated 24 counties and parts of 17 others as not meeting this new standard. Pitt County was recommended as unclassifiable due to a lack of monitoring data. The EA states that DAQ adopted new ozone standards in 1997 and that DAQ has a monitoring site in Farmville that recorded no ozone exceedances in 2006. This is outdated information. The EA should include the new federal ozone standard and an assessment of any state of federal data available for Pitt County. Again, the EA dismissed the impact of growth on the potential for impacts to air quality: "No construction activities will occur relative to the proposedproject; therefore, no direct impacts to air quality will occur. Indirect impacts to air quality within the service areafiom growth will be minimal. " EA pp 5-26. The region may be a non-attainment area for the new ozone standard. The proposed IBT would facilitate residential and industrial growth in the receiving basin. Although this growth and the associated increases in vehicular traffic and use of lawnmowers will lead to complicate the existing air quality problems, this impact is not discussed. Another example of the inadequacy of the secondary and cumulative impacts review concerns threatened and endangered species. The EA states that threatened and endangered Appendix 7 18 A235 aquatic species are present in both the receiving and source basins but does not address the impacts. The EA must correct its review of cumulative and secondary impacts to include the impacts to these species from growth that would be induced by the IBT. Finally, Contentnea Creek and Little Contentnea Creek are both impaired streams. All of the communities within the receiving basin that will experience greater wastewater flow due to the growth precipitated by this IBT discharge their wastewater into these impaired streams. The Towns of Hookerton and Snow Hill, and the Contentnea Creek wastewater plant have all been non compliant with their NPDES permits within the past year. The EA should provide a compliance history of each of the wastewater facilities as well as the communities' ability to handle the increase flow. The EA does state that no wastewater facility will need to increase their permitted discharge amount, but if the facilities suffer from inflow and infiltration, or other maintenance problems, these issues would be exacerbated by the increased growth and flow due to the IBT md should be addressed in the IBT. D. The EA fails to provide information on water conservation measures implemented or planned by source and receiving communities. As noted above, the proposed IBT is not subject to the 2007 session law changes to the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act. Therefore, the proposed IBT was required to conduct an EA and not an EIS. Under the old rules, an applicant must provide information regarding the facilities to be used for the water transfer, the proposed uses of the water to be transferred, the water conservation measures to be used by the applicant and any other information deemed necessary by the Commission. The EA failed to provide any information (except the short paragraph below from GUC) regarding the source or receiving communities current and planned water conservation measures. The only information provided was related to drought management protocols. Useful data should include information on water rate structures, presence or plans for retrofit programs, feasibility of reclamation projects, ordinances or incentives for use of cisterns or other rain water harvesting practices, etc. 'Ydditionally, GUC and its wholesale customers strongly encourage the use of water saving devices. GUC is a licensed member of the national "Water Use it Wisely" campaign. The Energy Services and Public Information Ofices incorporate water conservation messages into all communications. This includes preparation of fact sheets, television and radio adverfisements, print ads, and billboards to provide local citizens with water conservation tips." Furthermore, all communities are required by the CCPCUA rules to adopt water conservation-based rate structures, implement conservation ordinances for irrigation, provide a retrofit program for homeowners as well as an educational program and provide information to the state regarding existing conservation measures and those to be implemented (NCAC 15A 2E 0.0502(d)(5)). Phone conversations with DWR staff reveal that such information has not been supplied by these communities. Such information is crucial for the EMC to be able to make a decision on the reasonableness of the IBT and whether or not conditions should be placed on the certificate if the Petition is granted. The changes in 2007 to the Regulation of Surface Water Appendix 7 19 A236 Transfers Act clearly reveal that the State is emphasizing the efficient use of water resources. The petition and EA submitted by GUC provides none of this critical information. E. The EA does not adequately consider the impacts combined with the Greenville Utilities Emergency Drought Management Planning Project on the Tar River. Additional evidence of the lack of thoroughness in the environmental review stems from the petitioner's lack of discussion of their intention to construct a temporary dam across the Tar River in the vicinity of the Greenville Utilities Water Treatment Plant. The Petition states that "it is challenging to fully understand and quantify the flow characteristics for the Tar River at Greenville" and that "[c]urrent USGS techniques for low-flow analyses do not provide a means of account for tidal effect." Petition at 3-4. Despite these challenges, the applicant should have considered this related project in its analysis of the probable environmental impacts from the IBT. 111. Specific Concerns Regarding the IBT Petition A. Transfer Amount Along with our concerns regarding the inadequacies of the EA, we are especially concerned about the transfer amount requested by the applicant. The stated purpose of the IBT request in GUC's petition is to aid the receiving communities' compliance with CCPCUA regulations, which require a 75% reduction in water withdrawals from the cretaceous aquifers phased over a 1 0-year period. The amount of groundwater water withdrawal reductions that are required by the receiving communities are outline in Table 1. The total amount the communities need to replace this loss of groundwater supply due to CCPCUA rules is 3.771 mgd. Therefore, the proposed IBT allows for significant growth over the time period evaluated and is incongruent with the project's stated objective of compliance with CCPCUA rules. Loss of Groundwater Source C'ommunity Greene County Table 1. CCPCUA groundwater withdrawal requirements. * Approved Base Rate **Amount allowable for withdrawal after compliance with 75% reduction (CCPCUA). Winterville Total The IBT certificate proposes an interbasin transfer of 8.3 mgd for the Towns of Farmville and Greene County Regional Water authority, as well as an additional 1.0 mgd for emergency conditions. The second certificate request proposes 4.0 mgd to the Town of Winterville with an additional 0.2 mgd for emergency conditions. The total transfer requested from the Tar River ABR" (mgd) Farmville 1.572 0.393 1.179 2.96 Allowable withdrawal by 2018 0.496 tmgd) 0.74 (mgd)" 2.22 0.121 J 0.372 3.771 Appendix 7 20 A237 basin to the Neuse River basin is 12.3 with emergency conditions allowing up to 13.5 mgd. This amount is well in excess of the stated purpose of the IBT to aid the communities in compliance with the CCPCUA rules. The IBT does allow for significant growth; growth that would not be viable without the transfer of water via this IBT. All of the receiving communities have the option, and appear to be planning, to bank groundwater by reducing their required 75% reduction prior to the 201 8 deadline. Using the figures in the EA, we have calculated that with maximum day demands minus the use of allocated groundwater withdrawal and banked water (assuming equal distribution for 20 years starting in 201 8), the maximum transfer needs (to meet maximum day demands) is 11.3 mgd. This also assumes that per capita demand will not change over the time period. Aggressive water conservation activities that must accompany a transfer awarded could reduce demand upwards of 10% or more, thereby reducing the maximum day water demands of the receiving communities. At the moment, the Town of Winterville's per capita water use is the lowest of all the communities at 90 gpcd. Greenville's per capita use is currently at 120 gpcd.l Greene Countv 1 Amount 1 11.30 1 Maximum Demand - groundwater withdrawal (mgd) 4.51 Banked water Total (MG) 2700 Daily banked Allocated Maximum water Demand availah!e until 2037 (mgd) Farmville Winterville B. Infrastructure Investments Banked Water Available per year until 2037 (MG) 135 0.39 Finally, the decisions by the source and receiving basin communities to invest millions of dollars of public monies for construction of infrastructure, partially completed, for the Tar River to Neuse River proposed IBT should in no way bias the decision of the EMC. The commission may only grant the IBT if the commission determines that the benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments and that any detriments are mitigated to a reasonable degree. As noted throughout the comments, it is clear that the EA and Petition do not provide enough information for the EMC to make this decision. Max IBT 1434 449 IV. Recommendations 0.74 Based on the previous comments, we urge the EMC to deny the request for the proposed IBT at this time. As noted above, the EMC does not have the necessary information to grant the certificate. Given the significant environmental impacts of the proposal, we also encourage the EMC to reconsider the adequacy of the EA and the associated Finding of No Significant Impact. 71.7 22.45 Interbasin Transfer Petition: From Tar River to Contentnea and Neuse River Subbasins. April 2009. pp 2-5. 113 5.64 0.196 0.06 0.393 0.123 0.589 0.183 3.96 3.6 3.37 3.42 Appendix 7 21 A238 SEPA requires the preparation of an environmental assessment, and, if warranted, an environmental impact statement ("EIS") for any transfer of surface water that requires the filing of a petition pursuant to the Surface Water Transfer Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 5 143-215.221; tj 113A- 8.1. An EIS is required if the scope and environmental impact of a planned project is significant. 1 N.C. Admin. Code 25.0501. The EA for the GUC IBT shows that there will be significant impacts and that an EIS was warranted. Therefore, the EMC should deny the petition and require GUC to complete a full and comprehensive environmental review of this project and associated projects. At a minimum, GUC and the receiving basin communities should be instructed to provide the following information: 1) Include information on GUC's drought management planning that has selected a temporary dam proposal as the preferred alternative for raw water inlet protection during low flow conditions. 2) Current and planned water conservation measures by both source and receiving basin communities. 3) Demonstrate compliance with CCPCUA rules regarding required water conservation activities. 4) Submit an improved alternatives analysis that provides cost estimates for all alternatives as well as the potential environmental impacts. The EMC should require GUC and the receiving communities to take a hard look at the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority alternative. The 2007 law change to the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act gives preference to transfers of waters within a major river basin. 5) Include an analysis of secondary and cumulative environmental impacts due to the growth that will be possible due to the IBT. 6) Provide more information on the secqndary and cumulative impacts of the proposed IBT to aquatic resources, including impaired streams and endangered and threatened species in both the source and receiving basins. 7) Detail the compliance history of the receiving basins wastewater treatment plants and demonstrate ability to maintain compliance with higher wastewater flows. The EMC has the authority to grant the petition in whole or part and may grant a certificate with conditions attached. "The conditions may include mitigation measures proposed to minimize detrimental effects of the proposed transfer and measures to protect the availability of water in the source river basin during a drought or other emergency." Again, we believe the EA and petition do not provide enough relevant information on the secondary and cuinulative impacts in both basins for the EMC to be able to make this decision. But, if the IBT is to be granted, we recommend the following: 1. The EMC should make the IBT a temporary certificate and provide enough time for the receiving basin communities to identify and make the necessary investments for Neuse Basin source water. The cross-connections currently being built to GUC could be used for emergency connections in the future. 2. The EMC should require regional land-use planning to insure that as growth occurs is does not exceed the available water supply. 3. The EMC should reduce total IBT amount to reflect the stated objectives of replacing cretaceous aquifer water source of approximately 4 mgd. Appendix 7 22 A239 4. The EMC should require aggressive water conservation measures enacted by both source and receiving basins, including but not limited to: Home fixtures retrofit program, Ordinances for requiring (or incentivizing) cisterns or other rain water harvesting uses, Separate irrigation meters and higher pricing for irrigation, Comprehensive educational programming and written information 5. The EMC should require that GUC submit a plan and implement activities for reducing per capita residential water use by 10% over a 1 0-year time period. 6. The EMC should require that GUC submit a plan and implement for reducing per capita industrial water use by 5% over a 10-year period. 7. The EMC should require that GUC conduct a feasibility study and create an action plan for water,reclamation projects. 8. The EMC should require that the receiving basin wastewater treatments plants remain in compliance with their NPDES permits 11 of 12 months of the year or face reduction in IBT amount. V. Conclusion The Surface Water Transfer Law requires the EMC to issue a certificate for the proposed transfer if- and only if - two conditions are met: the benefits of the proposed transfer must outweigh the detriments, and the detriments must be mitigated "to a reasonable degree." N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 143-215.22I(g). The EMC must find that these conditions are met "by a preponderance of the evidence," id., a legal standard requiring that the evidence on which a decision rests be credible, and that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact sougl-it to be proved is more probable than not. Given the numerous inadequacies, errors and oversights in the EA, this standard cannot be met. The EMC should exercise its authority to deny the petition and certificate in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 143-2 15.22I(h). We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico-Tar RIVERKEEPER@ Pamlico-Tar River Foundation IS/ Kay Bond Kay Bond Staff Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center Appendix 7 23 A240 Ogallo, Toya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Heather [riverkeeper@ptrf.org] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4;22 PM Ogallo, Toya 'Kay Bond' GUC IBT comments Attachments: PTRF-SELC supplemental GUC IBT comments.pdf; GUC IBT Final Comments-PTRF-SELC.pdf PTRF-SELC GUC IBT Final pplemental GUC IBlomments-mRF-SE. Toys, Please find the attached comments that supplement a letter sent on December 4, 2009. We have also included that letter for reference. Thank you, Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper Pamlico-Tar River Foundation Phone: (252) 946-7211 Cell: (252) 402-5644 Fax: (252) 946-9492 www.ptrf.org Waterkeeper Alliance Member Appendix 7 24 A241 Pamlico-Tar River Foundation Southern Environmental Law Center P.O. Box 1854, Washington, NC 27889 200 W. Franklin Street, Ste. 330, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 252-946-7211 919-967-1450 January 19,20 10 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 16 1 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1 61 1 Dear Ms. Ogallo, The Pamlico-Tar River Foundation (PTRF) and Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) submit the following comments on the Greenville Utilities Commission's (GUC) petition for an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate. These comments are intended to supplement comments provided in a letter dated December 4,2009. Our more detailed review of the IBT Petition and supporting documents in the intervening weeks has strengthened our initial concerns. Based on our previous comments submitted in December, we continue to urge the EMC to deny the request for the proposed IBT at this time. The EMC does not have the necessary information to grant the certificate. However, if the IBT certificate is to be granted we recommend including several conditions that will mitigate the negative impacts from the proposed transfer. We have also had the opportunity to review comments from and confer with the City of Rocky Mount, and echo the concerns and problems the City raised in its comment letter. If the EMC moves forward with the petition, we strongly encourage the state to consider the conditions proposed by the City of Rocky Mount. The City of Rocky Mount has proposed several conditions for Greenville Utilities Commission's (GUC) petition for an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. fj 143-215.221, the Environmental Management Commission can impose conditions on an IBT certificate and has done so in several other cases, including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities IBT fi-om 2002 and the Cary/Apex IBT from 2001. The first condition Rocky Mount proposed is that the certificate be revisited upon completion of the Tar River Hydrologic Model. PTRF and SELC strongly support this recommendation and suggest that the EMC incorporate similar language as was used in previous IBTs. In the CMU and CaryIApex IBT certificates, the EMC included the condition below: "The Commission notes that future developments may prove the projections and predictions in the EIS to be incorrect and new information may become available that shows that there are substantial environmental impacts associated with this transfer. Therefore, to protect water quality and availability and associated benefits, modification of the terms and conditions of the certificate may be necessary at a later date." Appendix 7 25 A242 If the EMC moves forward with the GUC IBT, the final certificate should include similar language triggering a reopening of the certificate based on the Tar River Hydrologic Model. We also urge the EMC to consider conditions that seek to increase the long-term water use efficiency by both the receiving and source river basin communities. The IBT petition includes information on drought management response measures, but fails to include information on long-term efficiency measures. Conditions to address efficiency could include: - Implementation of regional planning to ensure the most efficient management of the shared water resources in both the source and receiving communities. - Requirements that GUC and other wastewater facilities in the receiving basins conduct a feasibility study and action plan for water reclamation 1 reuse projects. - Plan for and implement strong water conservation programs and activities with the goal of reducing customer water demand, including but not limited to: o Home fixture retrofit programs o Requiring or incentivizing water harvesting practices (i.e. cisterns) o Separate irrigation meters and pricing of irrigation water o Aggressive public educational campaigns An additional condition, similar to that included in the CaryIApex IBT below, should be included to ensure that any drought management measures and other mitigation measures are properly enacted. The CaryIApex IBT certificate included the following: "Prior to transferring water under this certificate, the holders of this certificate shall work with the Division of Water Resources to develop compliance and monitoringplan subject to approval by the Division. The plan shall include methodologies and reporting schedules for reporting the following information: maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with permit conditions, progress on mitigation measures, drought management, and reporting. A copy of the approvedplan shall be kept on file with the Division for public inspection. The Division of Water Resources shall have the authority to make modiJcations to the compliance and monitoring plan as necessary to assess compliance with the certificate. " During the comment extension period, we also had time to further review the hydrologic study done by Entrix for GUC and to consult with a hydrologist about its validity. After further review, we are concerned about the validity of the 7410 value that was used in the analysis and whether or not this is a relevant statistic for the purposes of determining flow changes as a consequence of the IBT over a one year period. We would have liked to see how this value was derived. Furthermore, it appears that the flow duration curves that GUC relied upon to determine no significant impact do not reveal the temporal nature of what is actually occurring in the river over the short-term. Low-flow values that may occur over a significant period of time (for example 1-2 month time period) would be masked by such a long-term analysis. It would be more helpful to see the minimum/maximum percent changes in flow over given periods, such as a one year period. In short, with out a summary of all the raw statistics used in the modeling it is Appendix 7 26 A243 difficult to independently verify the report's conclusions and the validity of the methodology used. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico-Tar RIVERKEEPER@' Pamlico-Tar River Foundation IS/ Kay Bond Kay Bond Staff Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center Appendix 7 27 A244 Page 1 of 1 Ogallo, Toya - From: Heather [riverkeeper@ptrf.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 02,2009 5:20 PM To : scrowe@suddenlink.net; kmartinncemc@hotmail.com Cc: Ogallo, Toya Subject: GUC IBT comment period Attachments: 12-2-09 GUC IBT extension request letter.pdf Please see the attached letter. It was communicated to me that any request for extension of the written comment period would have to be made to the hearing officers. Thank you for your consideration of this request, Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper Pamlico-Tar River Foundation Phone: (252) 946-721 1 Cell: (252) 402-5644 Fax: (252) 946-9492 ~~~.~trf.orq Waterkeeper Alliance Member Appendix 7 28 A245 PAMLICO-TAR RIVER FOUNDATION PO Box 1854, Washington, NC 27889 252-946-7211 December 2,2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Kevin Martin Stan Crowe Hearing Officers Environmental Management Commission Re: Proposed IBT for Greenville Utilities Dear Mr. Martin and Mr. Crowe, We understand that the City of Rocky Mount may ask for an extension of the comment period to pursue further communication with Greenville Utilities to address the concerns of the City. We support this extension as it will also be difficult for us to provide the best possible comments on this proposed IBT by this Friday. We need additional time for analysis of several concerns listed below. We would greatly appreciate receiving a two-week extension of time, i.e., until Friday, December 18,2009 to submit our comments. Among the concerns we want to address and need additional time to explore are the hydrologic model, the wastewater capacities of the receiving basin communities, and the Aquifer Storage and Recovery program and how it may impact the transfer amounts. It has also come to our attention that the Greenville Utilities Commission has completed a draft Environmental Assessment regarding future drought management planning with a preferred alternative for a temporary dam structure in times of low flow. This EA should be incorporated into the analysis of the IBT EA and petition. Furthermore, we would like the additional time to continue the dialogue with community members that may be impacted by this IBT. Finally, we have concerns with some of the conclusions stated in the EA. For example, the conclusion that the proposed IBT will have no impact on threatened, rare and endangered species in the either the receiving or source river basin because of the lack of construction lacks supporting evidence and does not address potential impacts from increased development (and its attendant construction). Moreover, there is no mention at all of potential impacts from increased flow or changes in water quality; nor is there mention of impacts to species of concern in the source basins from decreased flow or changes in water quality. In addition, the EA fails to provide adequate information on mitigative measures related to current year-round water conservation measures and planning. The IBT petition similarly excludes this critical information. Thank you for your consideration of these preliminary comments and our request for additional time to submit more complete comments. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico-Tar RIVERKEEPER Pamlico-Tar River Foundation Appendix 7 29 A246 2571 Railroad Street PO Box 1459 Winterville, NC 28590 December 3, 2009 Toya F. Ogallo, NCDWR 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Dear Ms. Ogallo: Phone: (252) 756-2221 Fax: (252) 321-8455 www.wintervillenc.com The purpose of this letter if to inform you of the Town of Winterville's official support for Greenville Utilities Commission's Petition for an lnterbasin Transfer Certificate. The approval of this petition is not only important to the Town of Winterville, but to neighboring communities as well. Like many of the jurisdictions in eastern North Carolina, the Town of Winterville is subject to the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area restrictions. Winterville currently relies on a combination of groundwater and water purchased from Greenville Utilities for water supply. The Capacity Use Area restrictions require that the Town reduce its dependency upon groundwater. In 2008, the Town reduced its use of groundwater by 25% and entered into a water purchase agreement with Greenville Utilities. The Town will be required to reduce groundwater use by another 25% in 201 3 and another 25% by 2018. The Town of Winterville has explored several options as it prepares to meet the reductions imposed by the Capacity Use Area rules. Winterville has no local source of surface water available to the Town and has therefore determined that the purchase of water from Greenville Utilities Commission is the most economical and technically feasible engineering alternative. The reduction in water supply per the CCPCUA rules places an extreme hardship on the Town of Winterville. The Town believes that the EMC has an obligation to allow Winterville to replace its previously permitted water supply capacity with a high quality water that is readily available and accessible. The proposed lnterbasin Transfer will allow Winterville to replace the water supply capacity that has been reduced as a result of the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules. While understanding why the rules were necessary, the Town of Winterville has few options and believes the IBT proposal submitted by Greenville Utilities Commission will provide both communities with high quality water that is readily available and accessible, and will still allow GUC to meet its future water needs. As in many other communities, the Town supports the desire of the Division of Water Resources for communities to seek a regional solution to issues such as water capacity. The Town already has connections with Greenville Utilities and Bell Arthur Water Corporation. As other communities tie in with the Greenville Utilities system, these connections will provide the ability to provide water over a large portion of Pitt County and Greene County. This further enhances the region's ability to tie into other water systems in the region that could be a tremendous asset in the times of emergencies or water shortages. This project is a true approach to a regional Appendix 7 30 A247 Page 2 GUC IBT Support Letter problem that will make eastern North Carolina a stronger area of the state with increased potential. The City of GreenviUe is the "hub" of eastern North Carolina with the ability to provide services on a regional scale. This ability is a real benefit to the region as a whde, as well as provide for economies of scale when future needs have to be addressed. The Town of Winterville fully and enthusiasticafly supports the request by Greenville Utilities Commission for the lnterbasin Transfer Petition. We hope that the Environmental Management Commission will support this request for the benefit of eastern North Carolina, Greenville Utilities Commission, and the Town of Winterville. Sincerely, Douglas Jackson Mayor Cc: Ron Elks, General Manager, Greenville, Utilities Commission Randy Emory, Director of Water Resources, Greenville Utilities Commission Bill Whisnant, Town Manager Terri Parker-Eakes, Assistant Town Manager Appendix 7 31 A248 December 1,2009 Ms. Toya F. Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 1 6 1 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699- 1 6 1 1 Re: Greenville Utilities Commission IBT Petition Dear Ms. Ogallo: I am submitting these comments regarding the above-referenced IBT petition on behalf of the City of Rocky Mount to express ow concern regarding the uncertainty as to the impact the requested IBT might have on Rocky Mount's management of the Tar River Reservoir. As a result of the drought of 2007/08, Rocky Mount intends to review and, if necessary, update its drought management plan. The review will be conducted following the completion of DWR's Tar River Hydrologic Model, which is anticipated in early 201 1. If revised, Rocky Mount will seek approval of the updated plan from DWR. A revised drought management plan may result in a low-flow regime at Tarboro that is different from the one on which the IBT FONSI was based. Rocky Mount is concerned that the analysis done to support the FONSI is not adequate to determine whether there could be conflicts between its revised drought management plan and the IBT. Rocky Mount is attempting to work with the GUC and its consultant to further analyze the potential interaction between the requested IBT and Rocky Mount's possible future need to reduce its releases and whether the flows are adequate to accommodate bcth. This analysis has not been completed. Rocky Mount understands that the comment period closes on December 4, 2009 and requests that the record be held open for forty-five (45) additional days so that this analysis can be completed and a further comment can be submitted based on the results. Rocky Mount recognizes the possibility that even after hrther analysis the effect of the IBT on its ability to reduce its releases from the Tar River Reservoir at times low flow may be uncertain. It is our understanding that further study of instream flows at Greenville are to be conducted in the near future. In view of this uncertainty and theneed for additional information, and in order not to unnecessarily delay consideration of the GUC IBT request, Rocky Mount requests that the EMC consider including condrtions in the IBT certificate that: 33 1 South Franklin Street Post Office Box 1180 Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802- 1180 Telephone (252) 972- 1325 Fax (252) 972- 1 173 Website: www. rockymountnc.gov Appendix 7 32 A249 1. Acknowledge that Rocky Mount's drought management plan will be evaluated based on the normally applicable criteria and not its potential effect on the requested IBT. 2. Provide that if implementation of Rocky Mount's approved drought management plan causes flows at Greenville that result in unacceptable impacts (e.g., location of the salt front) or are insufficient to allow the permitted transfer, the systems that receive the transferred water will resume groundwater pumping until such time as conditions allow resumption of the transfer. The groundwater pumped as a result of these modified operations will be offset by additional transfers during periods of higher flow in the Tar River over a period of no longer than one year following the resumption of transfers so that there will be no net change in the amount of the groundwater pumped over the long term.. 3. Provide that if at such time as Greenville applies for an increased withdrawal, there is insufficient water to meet in-basin needs, including those of Rocky Mount, the transfer will be reduced in order to accommodate in-basin needs. We realize that the above proposed conditions will require rewording, but trust that the intended meaning is clear. Please understand that Rocky Mount is not attempting to oppose the requested IBT but does believe that extension of the comment period and inclusion of the above conditions are necessary to ensure that Rocky Mount's future water needs are fairly protected. Please let me know as soon as is feasible whether the comment period will be extended. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter F. Varney Assistant. City manager cc: Stephen W. Raper, City Manager Wayne Hollowell, Director of Water Resources Appendix 7 33 A250 - - MOUNT NORTH CIROLINA January 19.201 0 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 161 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699- 16 1 1 Re: City of Rocky Mount Comments Regardoing the Greenvillc Iitiiitier C:smmicsic".n'cs IC'C1! !C") IRT Reqtxest Dear Ms. Ogallo: Please accept these comments concerning the above-referenced matter. If you or any other person with the Division of Water Resources would like to discuss these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. My telephone number is (252) 972-1 330 and my email address is peter.varney(~roclcymountnc.~ov. COMMENTS GREENVILLE WTERBASIN TRANSFER ("IBT") APPLICATION 1. The City of Rocky Mount is concerned that the Environmcnta! Assessment ("EA") does not examine potential impacts on the Tar River Reservoir. -- The IBT statute requires that the applicant examine the present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects on the source river basin. N.C.6.5. 53-21 5.221(0(2). The City of Rocky Mount is concerned that the GUC looked only at the potential impacts on an approximately eight-mile reach of the Tar River below Greenville, as acknowledged in the Environmental Assessment ("EA"), and not on the Tar River Resertuir. "The model was used to evaluate resulting flow in the river at two locations. The first location was the USGS gage at Greenville, which is downstream of GUC's water treatment plant intake and water treatment plant discharge, but is upstream of GUC's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge.. .. . .This 7.7-mile portion of the Tar River is the reach that will have the lowest flows as a result of all upstream withdrawals, and therefore, may be considered the reach of the Tar River most affected by the proposed IBT. The second location where flows were evaluated is the Tar River downstream of the GUC WWTP discharge ..." (EA, Appendix B, page 1) 33 1 South Franklin Street Post Office Box 1180 Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802-1180'" Telephone (252) 972-1 325 Fax (252) 972- 1173 Website: www.rockymo~~iztizc.gov Appendix 7 34 A251 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources January 1 9'20 10 Page 2 2. Rocky Mount's future consideration of operational changes for the Tar hver Reservoir should be taken into account. The EA further explains the decision not to consider impacts on the Tar River Reservoir as follows: The hydrologic analysis and modeling assumed that interbasin transfers at Greenville would have no impact on operations of the Rocky Mount reservoir 70 river miles upstream. The only way th~t ?hc !RT cou!d affect upstream operations would be if there were to be an approved change in Rocky Mount's permitted withdrawal and operating conditions. GUC has not made such a request and such as (sic) operational change has not been assumed in the hydrologic analysis and modeling." (EA Appendix C, page 10112.) However, Rocky Mount was extremely hard hit by the drought of 2007108 and, as a result, is considering a modification to its water shortage response plan. For Rocky Mount, as for many municipalities in North Carolina, the drought of 2007108 was an unprecedented event. Whereas Rocky Mount had been able to negotiate the drought of 2002 with relative ease, the event of 2007108 was different. The Tar River Reservoir, Rocky Mount's sole source of water, dropped to1 0 percent of usable storage. To avert what appeared to be an impending crisis, in addition to activating the drought management plan1, emergency connections were made to Wilson and Tarboro. At times, and with the permission of the Division of Water Resources, releases from the reservoir were cut to 30 cfs, compared to a minimum of 60 cfs allowed in the approved water shortage response plan. An aerial reconnaissance of the Tar River upstream of the reservoir revealed previously unknown upstream withdrawals whose aggregate withdrawals exceeded the City's demand. Thus the storage in the reservoir was falling as if there were two cities the size of Rocky Momt withdrawing water. As a result of this experience, Rocky Mount intends to update its probability-based drought management plan. Thus, the "operational change" that was assumed in the EA not to be a possibility is exactly the type of change that Rocky Mount is, in fact, considering. This fact was apparently not known to GUC during preparation of the EA, possibly because Rocky Mount was not consulted. '1n addition to demand restrictions, the plan includes pumping from several abandoned quarries to supplement flows in the Tar River. 10 cfs were pumped continuously from July 30 through mid-November, during which time the quarries were pumped down 60 feet. Appendix 7 35 A252 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources January 19,2010 Page 3 Rocky Mount plans to conduct the review of its water shortage response plan after DWR's Tar River Hydrologic Model is completed. This model will not only have hydrology that includes the 2007-08 drought, but it will also include the impacts of the other withdrawals in the basin that had not previously been accounted for. (A comprehensive review of demands, including agricultural demands, throughout the basin will be a part of the development of this model. It is likely that even more previously unknown demands will be identified.) The Tar River Hydrologic Model is expected to be completed in the summer of 201 1. 7 . The impacts of the pro~osd IBT En the notentialto alter t!!e oper~tion of Rocky Moue Tar River Reservoir cannot be determined from the EA A. The flows at the Tarboro gage upon which the predicted flows at Greenville were based are not representative of those that will occur in the future. The analysis in the EA used the flows recorded at the USGS Tarboro River at Tarboro gage (Gage No. 02083500) from 193 1 through 2007 (EA, Appendix B, page 1). The flows recorded at the gage reflect the cumulative impact of all the withdrawals and discharges upstream of the gage as well as the regulation resulting from the operation of the Rocky Mount's Tar River Reservoir. Although at this time it is not known definitively, we suspect that the operation of the reservoir has the largest impact on the gage readings. The Tar River Reservoir has been in operation since 197 1. Thus, the gage record reflects essentially natural, i.e., unregulated, flows for the period from 193 1 thru 1970, and regulated flows thereafter. This fact was acknowledged in the EA (Appendix B, page 22). The operating protocol for the reservoir has changed several times since 1971. Rather than including the reservoir in the hydrologic model explicitly and applying the current operating protocol consistently over the entire record, including the period prior to 1970, the analysis used the gage record "as is." The justification for this approach appears to be that because "Reservoirs such as Rocky Mount's often augment low flows in rivers because thev store water from higher flow periods and release it over extended lower flow periods" (EA, Appendix B, page 22), the lower unaltered flows in the record prior to 1970 lead to a conservative result. That is, because there were flows in the record prior to 1970 that are lower than the current minimum flows, the substitution of the required minimum flows for the lower, unaltered, flows would result in even less impact than shown. However, the magnitude of flows alone does not prove this hypothesis. The timing, frequency, and duration of low flows are equally important, and they have not been considered. The currently-approved water shortage response plan for the Tar River Reservoir allows for discharges to be reduced incrementally to 60 cfs during the course of a drought. This policy has been invoked only three times since the mid-1990s. Thus, the statement in the EA that "the hydrologic model reflects the impacts of the Rocky Mount operating rules Appendix 7 36 A253 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources January 19,20 10 Page 4 and minimum flows that have been in place over the past 36 years" (EA, Appendix B, page 22) is true for only a very small portion of the record used for the analysis. Also, flows recorded early in the early stages of the 2007108 event are not representative even though the current water shortage response plan was in place because the Tar River below Tar River Reservoir gage (Gage No. 02082506), upon which the release from the reservoir is based, was out of calibration. As a result, for a period of approximately a month, rather than releasing 60 cfs, as intended, the actual release was approximately twice that much. The reservoir releases, of course, are captured by the Tarboro gage. Thus: at leas: fir a portior? of the dreught: of record, the flews recorded at tkc Tarboro gage are higher than intended and not representative of system operations. Further, there is no information in the EA as to the timing, frequency, or duration of low- flow occurrences prior to dam construction as compared to the timing, frequency, and duration, post dam construction, of the periods when the releases from the dam were 80 cfs. It is highly likely that the impacts to the aquatic environment from, for example, a 30 day period of flows of 20 cfs embedded in a four-month period in which flows were below 80 cfs are very different from those associated with a six-month period of a constant flow of 80 cfs. Finally, the period of record analyzed (October I, 193 1, through September 30,2007) did not include the lowest flow 7-day period in the record, which occurred in October 2007. B. Flow duration curves are, at best, an incomplete metric of impact. Flow duration curves present the fraction of time that flows are above (or below) some value. They are prepared by sorting the flows and computing the percentile associated with each flow. Thus the lowest flow in the record is equal to or exceeded 100 percent of the time, the median flow is exceeded 50 percent of the time, etc. Flow duration curves can be prepared either for the whole year, in which case all flow data are included in the sort, or, as ws done irr the E.,4, for shorter pzriods, such as a month. To prepre the ficw duration curve for July, for example, if there are 50 years in the record, there are 3 1 * 50 values that go into the July flow duration curve. The problem arises because flow duration curves do not account for the temporal variability of flows. This is true even if the curves are prepared for a period shorter than one year. To continue the example from above, if there are 50 values of 20 cfs in the July data, and every other value is greater than 100 cfs, the same flow duration curve will result whether the 50 values of 20 cfs occur one in each year or all in two years. The potential impact to the stream of the two scenarios, however, could be very different. In order to fully assess the impact of altered streamflow regimes, one must also examine the frequency and duration of low flow periods. Appendix 7 37 A254 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources January 19,201 0 Page 5 Looked at another way, based on the flow duration curves, the applicant concludes that flows will be lower than 109 cfs (the pre-IBT 7~10~), on average, 4.7 days per year without the IBT and 6.4 days with the maximum IBT (EA, Table 6-3, page 6-7). Again, this metric does not tell the whole story because the frequency, timing, and duration of the extra 127 days (1.7 extra days per year times 76 years) below 109 cfs are not reported. The impacts to the stream will likely be very different if all those days occur in one or two years versus being distributed over 20 years. llese comments do not address the appropriateness of using comparisons of the 74 10 with and without the IBT as a basis for determining impact. The 7410 is a relevant statistic for unregulated rivers. Where, as here, the river is regulated, the statistic is much less useful because the same number can result from very different flow sequences. For example, as noted above, the pre-IBT 741 0 was determined to be 109 cfs. That is, the lowest weekly average flow in 10 years was 109 cfs. However, the 7Q10 would also be 109 cfs if flows of 109 cfs continued for three months. Dams, such as Rocky Mount's, with fixed minimum releases have exactly this type of effect. 4. The City of Rocky Mount requests that any IBT certificate issued to the GUC include a condition allowing the Certificate to be reopened following completion of the Tar River Hydrologic Modeling and Water Resource Plan if the results indicate that the approved IBT impinges upon Rocky Mount's ability to modifv its water shortage response plan. Rocky Mount is concerned that, if approved, the demand to transfer water outside the basin could influence the decision to approve a requested change in the release protocol for the Tar River Reservoir. To guard against this possibility, in our comments dated December 1,2009, Rocky Mount proposed several conditions that might be included in the IBT certificate. Upon further reflection, Rocky Mount now considers that a condition that would allow, upon the approval of the EMC, the certificate to be reopened following the completion of the Tar River Hydrologic Model would be the best option for protecting the interests of a!l users in the losing basin while still allowing GUC to address their immediate needs. In conversation with our consultant, the GUC's consultants indicated that because some of the modeling scenarios requested by DWR essentially "double count3" demand, this provides a safety factor that will assure no impact to Rocky Mount. While this assertion may be accurate, it cannot be established from the analysis in the EA. The best way to insure compliance with the statute is to use a basin-wide hydrologic model for the analysis AND to involve others in the 2~he 7410 is a statistic that represents the lowest 7-day average flow that occurs once in 10 years. 3 In fact, the demands were not double counted in all scenarios because withdrawals were capped at Greenville's currently-permitted treatment capacity (EA, Table 6-1, page 6-4), which is less than twice the demands. Appendix 7 38 A255 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources January 19,201 0 Page 6 basin in the decision-making. The updated Tar kver Hydrologic Model will be such a basin- wide model and will be developed in consultation with stakeholders throughout the basin. Thus, the model will form an agreed-upon basis upon which all parties can evaluate the impacts of the proposed IBT. Following its completion, Rocky Mount will know whether a modification to its water shortage response plan is, in fact, needed. In addition, Rocky Mount and other users in the basin, including those who represent environmental interests, will be able to accurately evaluate the impacts of the proposed IBT in the context of a basin-wide water supply plan. Rocky Mount d.oes not oppose or want to delay issumce oJcan IBT Certificate pending completion of DWR's Tar River Hydrologic Model. However, In the interest of good water resources management, both for those in the basin as well as those outside, the Certificate should contain the requested provision that allows users in the basin to request that the EMC reopen the Certificate, if warranted, once the Tar River Hydrologic Model is complete. Sincerely, Peter F. Varney V Assistant City Manager cc: Stephen W. Raper, City Manager Wayne Hollowell, Director of Water Resources Randall Emory, Director of Water Resources, Greenville Utilities Commission Appendix 7 39 A256 Page 1 of 1 Ogallo, Toya From: Laura E. Williamson [laura.williamson@embarqmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13,2010 5:31 PM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: IBT discussion As a resident of Greenville, Pitt County I am writing to express my concern re: the proposed IBT, as presented by GUC. The population of Eastern North Carolina is likely to grow. Withdrawals from underground sources should first be addressed by reducing local water usage rather than simply meeting demand by transporting water over long distances. The latter increases the vulnerability of the water system to leakage and contamination. While the short-term economics may support the validity of building such an infrastructure, long-term development of the area and sustainable use of water resources would be better served by increasing our collective efficiency in water usage. Additionally it would appear that Greenville I Utilities is willing to sell surface water cheaper than Neuse Regional WASA. This, if nothing else, is not a satisfactory reason for approving IBT. And lastly - removing adversely effecting water resources impacts more than humans. This area has a rich diversity that has evolved precisely because of the abundance of water. Removing water from the Tar River Basin can only serve to negatively impact surrounding flora and fauna. I strongly urge that this proposed plan be thoroughly reviewed. Regards - Laura Laura E. WILLIAMSON Energy and Climate Change Policy Analyst 3402 Wyneston Road Greenville - NC 27858 laura.williamson@embarqmail.com Appendix 7 40 A257 Page 1 of 1 Ogallo, Toya From: Wayne Caldwell [ewaynecl @embarqmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 04,2010 12:24 PM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: GUC Interbasin Transfer Request The transfer of GUC water to Greene County does not make sense since the Neuse Regional WASA is in the best position to supply those needs and then there is no IBT. Farmville should likewise get it's water from NR WASA. NR WASA was created to supply these needs but apparently politics is playing out with the requesters familiarity with GUC and probably lower cost water. I support the use of GUC water to Winterville. This proposal would have minimal impact on the environment and would supply all parties with needed water. Wayne Caldwell Appendix 7 41 A258 Response to interbasin transfer Page 1 of 1 Ogallo, Toya - From: Charles Schwartz [schwartzcf@embarqmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14,2009 12:51 PM To: Ogallo, Toya Subject: Response to interbasin transfer Dear Ms. Ogallo, Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the proposed draft petition for an interbasin transfer certificate. I attended a recent public hearing on this matter at Pitt Community College in Greenville. After listening to the pros and cons of those who spoke, I was convinced that the citizens of Greenville should be deeply troubled about what is being proposed. One of the major concerns that a number of individuals identified was that the proposed transfer appears to be a one-way flow of water from our area. In follow up comments, it was said that if the water must be given, then a return of the waste water should be made mandatory as a part of the agreement. The folks in our region want to be good neighbors. In the event that an existing neighboring community was experiencing a lack of suitable drinking water, one would expect assistance to be forthcoming. However, if that neighboring community was expanding and using water in a manner not consistent with good conservation practices, then one would expect questions to be raised. One can observe that new subdivisions are being built around Greenville. Some of these feature verdant lawns which undoubtedly are sustained and enhanced by frequent watering and fertilizers. Should scarce water be diverted from the Tar River so that new sub-divisions can create expansive lawns? At a minimum, those communities requesting water should require their residents to use landscaping alternatives as a part of a larger conservation program. There are lawn substitutes for grass that tolerate light foot traffic and even moderate mowing. Sincerely, Charles Schwartz Appendix 7 42 A259 Carolyn Reed 1 10 Kenilworth Drive Greenville, N.C. 27858 (252) 353-5781 johncaro2@?mbarclmail.com ~reenae Utilities Commission - Request for an Interbasin Transfer Certif~cate Thursday, November 5,2009 Goess Student Center, Pitt Community College Winterville, NC TO: The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) I have owned riverfront property on the Tar River in Greenville, N.C. for the last ten years. Over those ten years I have witnessed extreme variation in the size and strength of the water flow in the Tar River. Frequently in the summer months I have observed the water flow dwindle quite dramatically. The river, which is sometimes as wide as a six lane highway, has dwindled on at least one occasion to the size of a creek I could have hopped over. I am not claiming expertise in these matters, but common sense tells me water should not be diverted fiom a river that regularly experiences such wide variations. What has happened before will undoubtedly happen again, and if water has been diverted when Greenville desperately needs it, then what? Will it have to be re-diverted back to the Tar, when people in other areas have come to rely on it? Seems better to find other, more permanent solutions for Farmville, Winterville and Greene County. In addition, I think the environmental impact fiom such a drastic measure is essentially unquantifiable before the action, and may be irreparable after. The Tar River ecosystems are so complex and finely balanced there is just no telling what the consequences will be. Disturbing the flow of river basins, which have evolved over millenniums, is a drastic and risky action that may end up causing more problems than it solves. I for one don't think it's worth the risk. Thank you, Carolyn Reed Appendix 7 43 A260 James C. Cooke, Jr. 201 Beth Street Greenville, NC 27858 December 20,2009 Toya F. Ogallo Division of Water Resources, DENR 161 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699- 1 6 1 1 Dear Toya: I am writing to register my comments against the proposed transfer by the Greenville Utilities Commission of millions of gallons of Tar River water to the Neuse River basin. We have entered a period of great climate change and uncertainty in which droughts are likely to reduce river flow in the future as we recently experienced in 2007. Already water is being transferred from the Roanoke River basin into the Tar River basin, and for water now to be transferred from the Tar to the Neuse with no return for replenishment defies environmental logic. Whenever human engineering attempts to tinker with nature there are often unanticipated and unintended negative consequences. The potential damage of this proposed transfer from the Tar- Pamlico River system includes wetlands, habitat, the intrusion of salt water upstream, and the loss of a viable water supply to a region that recently experienced a reported river flow of only 50 million gallons per day downstream to Greenville. According to my information the summer use of water from the Tar River for Greenville alone can amount to 16 million gallons per day. The math is troubling for the health of communities that depend on the Tar River for their water and for the ecological health of the river system itself. I believe this issue is much more than being selfish and not wanting to be a good neighbor and assist other areas with a limited water supply. Science suggests river systems are best managed within their own basins, which precludes siphoning water off to other basins. We all must now learn to live in harmony with nature and within the natural resources available to us, and that means limiting water hungry development where the water is not available to support it. Thank you very much for your kind attention to my comments. Sincerely, w James C. Cooke, Jr. Appendix 7 44 A261 My name is Dave Schwartz and I live and work in Greenville. I also volunteer with setma1 non-proSlt groups in Eastern North Carolina promdhq i~s~loe tourism on our wonderPul rivers and creeks in tk &we, Tar, and Roanoke River Basins. The Greenville Utilities Commission has requested from the State of North Carolina to drain 13.5 million gallons of water a day from our Tar River calling it, "interbasin water transfer:" Interbasin water transfer sounds thoughtful, harmless, and scientific. It is not. Interbasin water transfer takes water out of a river without returning it. Interbasin water transfer is a euphemism for "draining from a river." I am deeply concerned that 10 years from now the above sea level portions of the Neuse, Tar, and Roanoke Rivers will only be navigable after a good rain because our public trust waters will be injected into pipelines and aquifers to be distributed by huge water systems. The GUC draining request will remove the water from the Tar River without returning a drop. Because they will make money from selling Greenville's water to the communities of Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County, I do not find it unreasonable that they could use part of this money to build another pipeline. This parallel pipeline to the one drawing from our river would return the treated wastewater from these communities back to our river and to us, so our businesses, families, ECU, and visitors can continue prospering in Greenville. I feel sure the residents of Greenville would be generous to loan out this valuable resource as Ions as it is returned. Appendix 7 45 A262 OfflCE Of MAYOR October 30, 2009 Mrs. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Quality DENR 161 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699- 16 1 1 Dear Mrs. Ogdlo: The City of Oxford supports the request for an interbasin transfer by the Greenville Utility Commission. yours 'iriJly, w PO Box ~07 - 300 WiKimsbmo Street - Oxford NC 27565 v: (919) 603-1100 - y: (gig) 603-1107 www. oxfmdnc. urg Appendix 7 46 A263 December 4,2009 Ms. Toya F. Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611 Re: Greenville Utilities Commission IBT Petition Dear Ms. Ogallo: I am submitting these comments regarding the above-referenced IBT Petition on behalf of the City of Wilson to express our concern regarding the uncertainty as to the impact the requested IBT might have on future wastewater flows to the Neuse River, and growth in the lower basin downstream of Wilson's wastewater discharge point and into an already impaired stream, and the potential impact to the City of Rocky Mount, because of our mutual finish water interconnection. 1) The City of Wilson is concerned about the transfer due to the potential of greater wastewater flows to the Neuse Basin. Based on current Nitrogen allocations in the Neuse Basin, how will this area grow in water use without a similar growth in the sewer flows? Will all of this flow then be pumped back to the Tar River, or land applied, or sent to the Neuse? The City of Wilson is concerned that potential water quality problems in the Neuse and Contentnea Creek could further impact point sources upstream of the IBT transfer communities. 2) In our opinion, Greenville is asking for a larger IBT than the minimum required. In fact they are requesting an amount large enough to supply as much as 93% of the maximum daily projected demand for a short term and 151% continuously of the average daily demand. CCPCUA rules only require up to a 75% reduction in the average daily demand of their permitted amount. Subtracting 75% from the Approved Base rate for Greene County, Farmville, and Snow Hill would only require 4.45 MGD from GUC to meet the demand for an average annual day and only 8.5 MGD for a maximum demand day, which is the day that GUC will only be transferring a minimal amount according to Table 2-3. We do not see the necessity for a request of 8.3 and 9.2 MGD respectively, and a total of as much as 13.4 MGD since GUC is also requesting to send 111% of the maximum daily demand to Wintewille and 117% of the maximum daily demand for an emergency thru the year 2030. Even if you assume the unprecedented growth rates for Greene County, Farmville and Winterville are correct, this volume of transfer is unnecessary. Appendix 7 47 A264 At the same time GUC in Table 2-3 stated that they have enough water plant capacity, but only reflect a minimum withdrawal for the IBT transfer on these same days. Are we to assume that Greenville can run easily at 100% of the plant rated capacity without any issues and that the communities can reliably count on this minimum amount on the same day when their wells cannot produce this increased demand? 3) We support Rocky Mount's request to extend the comment period for 45 days to complete a revised drought management plan. This is particularly important due to the existing modest emergency interconnection capable of transferring 1.9 MGD installed by both communities after the drought of 2007-2008. 4) Section 5 of the IBT Petition "Alternatives to Proposed Transfer" never mentions the City of Wilson as a viable alternative for both Greene County and Farmville. Wilson had discussions in 2003 with both, had the water available at a reasonable cost, and is in the Neuse Basin. We realize that work for the IBT are well under way and funding for the potential IBT is already available. However, we hope that the Division will take into account all considerations and will fairly protect all the interests of everyone within the Tar / Pamlico and the Neuse Basins and will at least allow Rocky Mount's study to be completed before proceeding with authorization. We also hope that IBT amounts will be reduced if the Division reviews the report and thinks that the amounts of transfer are unnecessary. Please let us know as soon as possible whether the comment period will be extended. Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Barry G. Parks Assistant Director of Public Services / Water Resources cc: Grant Goings, City Manager Charles Pittman Ill, Deputy City Manager Jim Cauley, City Attorney Appendix 7 48 A265 Commissioners Bennie Heath - Chairman Jack Edmondson - Vice Chairman Denny Garner Jerry Jones James T. Shackleford, Jr. County Manager Don Davenport Finance Officer Shawna Wooten A PlaceTo Grc>w.The Way To Live. November 18,2009 Ms. Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-161 1 RE: Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) - Request for an Interbasin Transfer Certificate Dear Ms. Ogallo: Greene County is one of several public water suppliers that the State of North Carolina included in a capacity use area due to the amount of water that was being drawn from the groundwater aquifers. The State required water suppliers to reduce their reliance on this groundwater source. This determination by the State led Greene County and the Town of Farmville to work out an agreement to purchase potable water from GUC. The sale, use, and disposal of GUC water to Greene County and Farmvllle creates an interbasin transfer. Greene County is strongly in favor of the Environmental Management Commission issuing the Interbasin Transfer Certificate to GUC without delay. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Don Davenport, County Manager xc: Greene County Board of Commissioners 229 Kingold Blvd.. Suite D Snow Hill. NC 28580 (252) 747-3446 FAX (25- 'IVRTBR- www. m-greene. nc. 7ne mison of Gmne County Government is to sene and improve the lives of a// dtriens by providing llighquality, &-effdve se~cces in an open, profesy'01~1 and ethical environment Appendix 7 49 A266 C Commissioners Bennie Heath - Chairman Jack Edmondson - Vice Chairman Denny Gamer Jerry Jones James T. Shadeford, Jr. A PlaccTo Grc>w.The Way To Live. -- December 3,2009 Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 161 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1 61 1 Toya.F.Ogallo@ncdenr.gov Subject: Comment - Letter of Support GUC Request For IBT Certificate Tar River Basin to Neuse River Basin Dear Ms. Ogallo: Greene County submits this letter of support for Greenville Utilities Commission's (hereinafter referred to as GUC) Petition for an lnterbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate. In the past, Greene County's sole source of water supply has been groundwater obtained from the Cretaceous aquifer. Greene County is under a state mandate (Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Restrictions implemented August 1,2002) to reduce our dependency upon groundwater by 25% in 2008,50% in 2013, and 75% in 201 8. After an extensive investigation of available alternative water supply sources, Greene County has entered into contract with GUC to obtain alternative water supply fiom GUC. In a joint arrangement with the Town of Farmville, Greene County has invested millions of dollars for the construction of a delivery system that will deliver up to 5 MGD to Farmville and Greene County. This water supply is needed to replace the state mandated reductions placed upon our groundwater supply. Specifically, Greene County request approval of the GUCbs requested IBT Certificate for the following reasons: 1. The IBT would allow Greene County to replace the water supply capacity being lost by the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area requirements. 2. Based upon 2009 statistics hm the NC Dept. Of Commerce, Greene County is one of the forty most distressed counties within NC, thus receiving a Tier 1 designation. Greene County has a population of 21,205 (2008 projection by Office of State Budget Management) and is solely dependent on agriculture. Greene County has only three incorporated towns, Snow Hill (Pop 1,618)' Walstonburg (Pop. 23 1) and Hookerton (Pop 485). The annual median household income for Greene County is $32,074 as compared to the Me average of $39,184 (2000 census data). Twenty percent of the people in Greene County are classified as "Poverty". Greene County must have an economically feasible solution for water supply. The proposed purchase of water from GUC is the most economically and technically feasiblesolution available. 229 Kingold Blvd., Suite D Snow Hill, rW: 28580 (252) 747-3446 FAX (252) 747-3884 www.~.g~e.nc. us The miaion of Gene County Government is lo sm and improve the lives ofall dIlrem &pm&ing highqwliW, cast-ewve m.cer in an qm, profesdonal and ethbl mb4vtwnent Appendix 7 50 A267 .- 6 Commissioners Bennie Heath - Chairman Jack Edmondson - Vice Chairman Denny Garner Jeny Jones James T. Shackleford, Jr. County Manager Don Davenport Finance Ofiicer Shawna Wooten A PlaceTo Grow-The Way To Live. 3. The unhnded mandate by the State reducing our dependency on groundwater by 25% in 2008, 50% in 2013 and 75% in 2018, places Greene County under an extreme hardship. Every consideration by the Environmental Management Commission is requested to allow us to implement the least cost alternative solution, which is the proposed GUC alternative. 4. The purchase of water from GUC, is for water currently permitted for withdrawal fiom the Tar River. No additional Tar River withdrawal permits by GUC are to be requested or needed to meet the obligations of GUC to supply water to Gmne County. The contractual agreement between GUC and Greene County is baed upon a ninety percent (90Y0) avaiMility factor. The contract gives GUC the right to intmpt or curtail the supply of water to Greene County up to ten percent (1 0%) of the time, or up to thirty-six (36) days per year. This arrangement allows GUC to curtail water to Greene County on days of peak demand during which time Gwene County will utilize their remaining 25% well capstcity to meet their demand. Udcr this agreement GUC will not need to increase its withdrawal permitting capacity from the Tar River now or in the future as related to selling water to Greene County. 5. Other alternative water supplies for Greene County are significantly more expensive. Failure of GUC to obtain an IBT certificate will result in extreme financial hardship for the residents of Greene County. Greene County strongly supports the issuance of an IBT Certificate to GUC in accordance with their petition. We encourage the Environmental Management Commission to support GUC's request and to approve the granting of the D3T Certificate. Bennie Heath Chairman Greene County Board of Commissioners 229 Kingold Blvd., Suite D Snow Hill, NC 28580 (252) 747-3446 FAX (252) 747-3884 www. co.greene.nc. us ?he m~iision of Gene Ciwnty Eovemment is to serve and improve the lives of all cit~zens by prowdng h@h-qualitVI cost-ef7kfive semtes in an openI pm~onal and ehwl environment Appendix 7 51 A268 Enpinem Planners Land Survqim ORPORATEOFFICE I - -0- ~DmORO 0mcE L (252) 753-2139 Fax (252) 113-7220 (919) 736-7630. Fax (919) 735-7351 E-mail: mai@mcdrvid-inc.com E-mail: rnaigold@mcdsvid-inc.com 3714 N. Main Strcn- P.O. Draw 49 109 E. \Valnut Street P.O. Box 1776 FumviPt, NC 27828 &lckboro, NC 27533 December 3,2009 Toya Ogallo Division of Water Resources DENR 16 1 1 Mail Service Center Lalcigh, NC 27699- 16 1 1 r I Cubject: Letter of Support GUC Request For IBT Certificate -1 & ar River Basin to Neuse River Bas 1 Dear Ms. Ogalfo: On behalfof the Town of Farrnvi!lc and Grctne County, I write this letter in support for the Greenvilk Utilities Commission'r Petition for an LBT CeM~cate. Afier many years of investigation and negotiation for an alternative water supply, Greenville Utijities Commission, Greene County and the Town of Farmville contracted for the transfer ofwater from Greenville Utilities Commission. The most economically, technically feasible alternative with the lest impact on the citizens of Farmville and Greene County was to obtain their water supply from Greenville Utilities Commission. In order to comply with the state Central Capacity Plain Capacity Use regulations timetable, both Greene County and Farrnville were required to begin the construction of the alternative water supply delivery system immediately. Greene County and Famville have expended a large sum of money to date to implement the delivery system of water from Greenville to Greene County and Farmville, all in an effort to coinply with the 2002 Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area law deadlines of 2008,2013 and 2018. -Tho project is nearing completion and ~ched~lcd to be activated in Jrrne, 2010. % The proposed interbasin transfer will not result in significant direct or indirect environmental impacts. Failure by GUC to obtain an IBT Transfer Certificate will result in extreme hardship on the citizens ol! -a Greenc County and the Town of Farmville. Request favorable consideration by the Environmental Management Commission in granting the Greenville Utilities Commission's request for an IBT Certificate permitting the delivery of water from Greenville Utilities Commission to Greene County and the Town of Farmville (Tar River basin to Neuse 1 River ~asine P -- . . *.. Please advise this office of tbe Environmental Management Commission's meeting date, time and &&da related to addressing of this issue. - DtOSAVLOP I Fm-GC Ph IA - GUC IBT Support ~0InbnkIItJ From Enginsa-006.wpd Appendix 7 52 A269 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. - Sincaely. McDavid Associates, Inc. Albert V. Lewis, Jr. Fmville Dffce cc: Don Davenport County ~akger ~~ecnth6 : Richard N. Hicks Town Manager Town of Fanville DmSAVUl9 2 Fm-CC Ph I A - GUC ll3T Sueporr Cmmcntl f mm Englnt~rUbb.wpd Appendix 7 53 A270 Oaallo. Tova From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ' Randy Emory [EMORYRD@guc.com] Friday, January 15, 201 0 4: 13 PM Ogallo, Toya Tony Cannon; Ron Elks; Randy Emory; Barrett Lasater; Steve Porter; Mary Sadler GUC IBT Request Comments Attachments: Toya Ogallo - lnterbasin Transfer Request letter.pdf =pJ *'* Toya Ogallo - Interbasin Trans ... Toya, please find attached Greenville Utilities comment submittal on our IBT request. Please acknowledge that you have received this message. Thanks. Randall Emory, P.E. Director of Water Resources Greenville Utilities Commission Greenville, N.C. (252) 551-1554 emoryr@guc.com Appendix 7 54 A271 Greenville Utilities January 15,201 0 Ms. Toya Ogallo Water Resources Engineer, lnterbasin Transfers Division of Water Resources Department of Environment and Natural Resources 161 1 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-161 1 RE: lnterbasin Transfer Request Greenville Utilities Commission Dear Ms. Ogallo: The Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) is submitting this letter in support of our lnterbasin Transfer (IBT) request. The lnterbasin Transfer will allow us to provide long-term regional solutions to the water supply challenges our communities face in eastern North Carolina. Our long-range planning has positioned us to have the capability to provide water service to the neighboring communities of Farmville, Winterville and Greene County, as well as other systems. Our neighbors have been severely impacted by the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) Rule, which requires them to reduce their groundwater withdrawal by 75 percent in 2018. The CCPCUA Rule impacts fifteen counties in eastern North Carolina, including Pitt County. 'The IBT Management Strategy was developed in 2007 as a significant component of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The IBT Management Strategy is a balanced, managed approach to the transfer of finished water to our neighboring communities. The Management Strategy takes into account the use of banked water, the sale of finished water during off-peak periods, and the reduction of groundwater supply due to the CCPCUA Rule. The IBT Management Strategy was constructed to allow GUC and neighboring communities the greatest flexibility in the purchase of water as well as the curtailment of service during peak water demand or low flow in the Tar River. l't I\,\ 1\47 - The second significant component of the EA was the development of the hydrologic (irk,\ I~S.III,., s( ' analysis of flow conditions in the Tar River. The hydrologic modeling effort used ! empirical flow data from WSGS gauging stations that spanned a 76 year period of 1: record. The hydrologic analysis considered carefully the General Statute provision ,,:I\,.:,,. ., :Ill Appendix 7 55 A272 Ms. Toya Ogallo January 15,2010 Page 2 that all withdrawals and transfers in the source basin not be impacted to the degree existing uses would be impaired (at the time of the 18T petition). To meet these requirements, fourteen modeling scenarios were developed: six modeling scenarios addressed the hydrologic effects upstream of GUC's raw water intake, and eight modeling scenarios addressed the hydrologic effects of the proposed transfer downstream of the GUC Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The scenarios included current and future (2030) water withdrawal conditions for no IBT, the average day IBT, the maximum day IBT, and a hypothetical scenario where twice the proposed transfer was effectively removed from the Tar River. The City of Rocky Mount's operating rules were considered and are reflected in the hydrologic analysis. The analysis was based on actual flows at Tarboro, which reflect approximately 40 years of conditions prior to the existence of the Rocky Mount reservoir and 36 years of data since reservoir operations. In addition, the analysis considered allowed modifications to the Rocky Mount's Drought Management Plan in 1993,1999,2002, and 2007. The results of the hydrologic analysis were presented relative to the flow duration curves developed for the Tar River. The impact of each scenario was compared against river flows as low as 80 percent of the 7Q10 (87.2 cfs). The worst-case modeling (twice the proposed IBT amount) scenario revealed a 0.8 percent impact in 2030 compared to the 2030 scenario without an lnterbasin transfer. For comparison, the maximum IBT scenario resulted in a 0.5 percent impact in 2030 compared to the 2030 scenario without an lnterbasin transfer. The EA concluded that the hydrologic analysis calculations demonstrated that the requested IBT amount will have a negligible impact on the Tar River. Even though the hydrologic modeling results demonstrated negligible impact on the Tar River, the tidal influence at our intake provides another opportunity to ameliorate the effect of low flow. The tidal influence results in a reverse flow direction during low flow periods. This phenomenon creates a reservoir effect that helps maintain water over our intake pipes. GUC is in a unique position whereby we have two opportunities to withdraw water from the river where most other water treatment plants have only one opportunity. This tidal effect phenomenon is part of the reason why we feel confident that we can reliably provide water to neighboring communities who require regional solutions to solve critical water supply needs. Appendix 7 56 A273 Ms. Toya Ogallo January 15,2010 Page 3 The EA critically evaluated the current and future water uses in the Tar River basin under the current hydrologic conditions. Furthermore, the proposed IBT was developed such that GUC has the flexibility to curtail water during peak demand and fully utilize the groundwater resource (in the form of banked water) to the extent practicable. In effect, we have already placed operating conditions on ourselves to manage this proposed IBT in the best interest of our customers, our neighbors, and the environment. We strongly feel that the worst-case modeling scenario (effectively twice the proposed lnterbasin transfer) fully addresses the ultimate impact to the Tar River as a result of this proposed transfer. GUC is not requesting an increase in total water withdrawal or an increase in water treatment plant capacity as a result of the proposed transfer. Rather, our long- range water supply planning effort includes the use of an innovative technology, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), which will offset future maximum day water demand. The ASR system, the first in North Carolina, will be operational this spring and we are confident that this technology, coupled with our water conservation initiatives, will allow us to manage our water resources even more effectively. We have implemented a regional water supply strategy that utilizes our unique geographical advantages. Our conjunctive use approach to water supply planning has positioned us to be a regional water provider. Our mission is to protect water resources and provide regional water supply solutions to our customers and to our neighbors in critical need. We sincerely hope that our regional approach may serve as a model for neighboring watersheds faced with similar water supply concerns. Sincerely, Ronald D. Elks General ManagerKEO cc: Randall Emory, P.E., GUC Director of Water Resources Barrett Lasater, GUC WR Plants Manager Steve Porter, P.E. GUC WR Systems Engineer Mary Sadler, P.E. Hazen and Sawyer Appendix 7 57 A274 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings A275 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 1 A276 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 2 A277 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 3 A278 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 4 A279 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 5 A280 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 6 A281 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 7 A282 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 8 A283 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 9 A284 Attachment C Notice of Public Hearings Atttachment C- Page 10 A285   Attachment D    (1) Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules 15A NCAC 2E .0500  Attachment D- Page 1 A286 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 1 TITLE 15A - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT1 AND NATURAL RESOURCES23 CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT45 SUBCHAPTER 2E - WATER USE REGISTRATION AND ALLOCATION67 SECTION .0100 - AUTHORITY89 .0102 PURPOSE1011 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.12; 143-215.14;12 Eff. February 1, 1976;13 Repealed Eff. August 1, 2002.1415 .0103 SCOPE1617 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14;18 Eff. February 1, 1976;19 Repealed Eff. August 1, 2002.2021 .0106 DEFINITIONS22 As used herein, unless the context otherwise requires:23 (1) "Director" means the Director of the Division of Water Resources.24 (2) "Division" means the Division of Water Resources.2526 History Note: Authority G.S. 87-87; 143-215.14; 143-215.21;27 Eff. March 1, 1985;28 Amended Eff. August 1, 2002.2930 .0107 DELEGATION31 (a) The Director is delegated the authority to grant, modify, revoke or deny permits under G.S. 143-215.15 and G.S.32 143-215.16.33 (b) The Director may delegate any permitting function given by the rules of this Subchapter.34 (c) The Director is delegated the authority to assess civil penalties and request the Attorney General to institute civil35 actions under G.S. 143-215.17.36 (d) The Director is delegated the authority to process applications and collect fees for registration of water37 withdrawals and transfers under G.S. 143-215.22H and G.S. 143- 215.3(a)(1b).38 (e) The Director may delegate any water withdrawal or transfer registration processing functions given by the rules39 of this Subchapter.4041 History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff. October 14, 1991 for a period of 180 Days to Expire on April42 11, 1992;43 Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.3(a)(4);44 Eff. March 1, 1985;45 Amended Eff. August 1, 2002; September 1, 1994; April 1, 1992.4647 SECTION .0200 - CAPACITY USE AREA NO. 14849 .0201 DECLARATION AND DELINEATION OF50 CAPACITY USE AREA NO. 15152 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.13;53 Eff. February 1, 1976;54 Repealed Eff. August 1, 2002.5556 .0202 PERSONS WITHDRAWING GROUNDWATER57 IN CAPACITY USE AREAS5859 Attachment D- Page 2 A287 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 2 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14; 143-215.15;1 Eff. February 1, 1976;2 Amended Eff. March 1, 1985;3 Repealed Eff. August 1, 2002.45 .0205 ACTIVITIES67 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14; 143-215.20;8 Eff. February 1, 1976;9 Repealed Eff. August 1, 2002.1011 SECTION .0500 - CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN CAPACITY USE AREA1213 .0501 DECLARATION AND DELINEATION OF CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN CAPACITY USE AREA14 The area encompassed by the following 15 North Carolina counties and adjoining creeks, streams, and rivers is15 hereby declared and delineated as the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area: Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Duplin,16 Edgecombe, Greene, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Onslow, Pamlico, Pitt, Washington, Wayne and Wilson. The17 Environmental Management Commission finds that the use of ground water requires coordination and limited18 regulation in this delineated area for protection of the public interest. The intent of this Section is to protect the long19 term productivity of aquifers within the designated area and to allow the use of ground water for beneficial uses at rates20 which do not exceed the recharge rate of the aquifers within the designated area.2122 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.13;23 Eff. August 1, 2002.2425 .0502 WITHDRAWAL PERMITS26 (a) Existing ground water withdrawal permits issued in Capacity Use Area No. 1 (15A NCAC 2E .0200) within the27 Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area are reissued under Section .0500 of this Subchapter and are valid until the28 expiration date specified in each permit. Water use permits are no longer required for withdrawals in Hyde and Tyrrell29 Counties as of the effective date of this Rule. Permits are not required for surface water use under Section .0500 of this30 Subchapter in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area as delineated in Rule .0501 of this Section.31 (b) No person shall withdraw ground water after the effective date of this Rule in excess of 100,000 gallons per day32 by a well, group of wells operated as a system, or sump for any purpose unless such person shall first obtain a water use33 permit from the Director. Existing withdrawals of ground water as of the effective date of this Rule and proposed34 withdrawals previously approved for funding appropriated pursuant to the “Clean Water and Natural Gas Critical Needs35 Bond Act of 1998” or other local, state or federally funded projects as of the effective date of this Rule shall be allowed36 to proceed with construction or to continue to operate under interim status until a permit has been issued or denied by37 the Director, provided that persons withdrawing in excess of 100,000 gallons per day by a well, group of wells operated38 as a system, or sump comply with the following requirements:39 (1) Persons conducting withdrawals in the Capacity Use Area that require a permit shall submit a permit40 application to the Division of Water Resources within 180 days of the effective date of this Rule.41 (2) Persons who have submitted applications shall provide any additional information requested by the Division42 of Water Resources for processing of the permit application within 30 days of the receipt of that request.43 (3) Persons conducting withdrawals in the Capacity Use Area that require a permit shall submit water level and44 water use data on a form supplied by the Division four times a year, within 30 days of the end of March, June,45 September, and December until a permit has been issued or denied by the Division of Water Resources.46 (c) Ground water withdrawals shall be governed by the following standards:47 (1) Adverse impacts of ground water withdrawals shall be avoided or minimized. Adverse impacts include, but48 are not limited to:49 (A) dewatering of aquifers;50 (B) encroachment of salt water;51 (C) land subsidence or sinkhole development;52 (D) declines in aquifer water levels that indicate that aggregate water use exceeds the aquifer replenishment53 rate.54 (2) Adverse impacts on other water users from ground water withdrawals shall be corrected or minimized55 through efficient use of water and development of sustainable water sources.56 (3) In determining the importance and necessity of a proposed withdrawal the efficiency of water use and57 implementation of conservation measures shall be considered.58 Attachment D- Page 3 A288 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 3 (d) An application for a water use permit must be submitted on a form approved by the Director to the North1 Carolina Division of Water Resources. The application shall describe the purpose or purposes for which water shall be2 used, shall set forth the method and location of withdrawals, shall justify the quantities needed, and shall document3 water conservation measures to be used by the applicant to ensure efficient use of water and avoidance of waste.4 Withdrawal permit applications shall include the following information:5 (1) Location by latitude and longitude of all wells to be used for withdrawal of water.6 (2) Specifications for design and construction of existing and proposed production and monitoring wells7 including:8 (A) Well diameter;9 (B) Total depth of the well;10 (C) Depths of all open hole or screened intervals that will yield water to the well;11 (D) Depth of pump intake(s);12 (E) Size, capacity and type of pump;13 (F) Depth to top of gravel pack;14 (G) Depth measurements shall be within accuracy limits of plus or minus 0.10 feet and referenced to a15 known land surface elevation.16 Exceptions may be made where specific items of information are not critical, as determined by the Director,17 to manage the ground water resource.18 (3) Withdrawal permit applications for use of ground water from the Cretaceous aquifer system shall include19 plans to reduce water use from these aquifers as specified in Rule .0503 of this Section. Withdrawal rates20 from the Cretaceous aquifer system that exceed the approved base rate may be permitted during Phase I of21 Rule .0503 of this Section if the applicant can demonstrate to the Director’s satisfaction a need for the greater22 amount. Cretaceous aquifer system wells shall be identified using the specifications in Rule .0502(d)(1) and23 .0502(d)(2) of this Section and the hydrogeological framework.24 (4) Withdrawal permit applications for dewatering of mines, pits or quarries shall include a dewatering or25 depressurization plan that includes:26 (A) the current withdrawal rate or estimates of the proposed withdrawal rate;27 (B) the location, design and specifications of any sumps, drains or other withdrawal sources including28 wells and trenches;29 (C) the lateral extent and depth of the zone(s) to be dewatered or depressurized;30 (D) a monitoring plan that provides data to delineate the nature and extent of dewatering or31 depressurization;32 (E) certification of all engineering plans and hydrogeological analyses prepared to meet these requirements33 consistent with professional licensing board statutes and rules governing such activities.34 Exceptions may be made where specific items of information are not critical, as determined by the Director,35 to manage the ground water resource.36 (5) Conservation Measures. The applicant shall provide information on existing conservation measures and37 conservation measures to be implemented during the permit period as follows:38 (A) Public water supply systems shall develop and implement a feasible water conservation plan39 incorporating, at a minimum, the following components. Each component shall be described,40 including a timetable for implementing each component that does not already exist.41 (i) Adoption of a water conservation-based rate structure, such as: flat rates, increasing block rates,42 seasonal rates, or quantity-based surcharges.43 (ii) Implementation of a water loss reduction program if unaccounted for water is greater than 1544 percent of the total amount produced, as documented annually using a detailed water audit.45 Water loss reduction programs shall consist of annual water audits, in-field leak detection, and46 leak repair.47 (iii) Adoption of a water conservation ordinance for irrigation, including such measures as: time-of-48 day and day-of-week restrictions on lawn and ornamental irrigation, automatic irrigation system49 shut-off devices or other appropriate measures.50 (iv) Implementation of a retrofit program that makes available indoor water conservation devices to51 customers (such as showerheads, toilet flappers, and faucet aerators).52 (v) Implementation of a public education program (such as water bill inserts, school and civic53 presentations, water treatment plant tours, public services announcements, or other appropriate54 measures).55 (vi) Evaluation of the feasibility of water reuse as a means of conservation, where applicable.56 (B) Users of water for commercial purposes, other than irrigation of crops and forestry stock, shall develop57 and implement a water conservation plan as follows:58 Attachment D- Page 4 A289 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 4 (i) an audit of water use by type of activity (for example, process make-up water, non-contact1 cooling water) including existing and potential conservation and reuse measures for each type2 of water use;3 (ii) an implementation schedule for feasible measures identified in the above item for conservation4 and reuse of water at the facility.5 (C) Users of water for irrigation of crops and forestry stock shall provide the following information:6 (i) total acreage with irrigation available;7 (ii) types of crops that may be irrigated;8 (iii) method of irrigation (for example, wells that supply water to canals, ditches or central pivot9 systems or any other irrigation method using ground water);10 (iv) a statement that the applicant uses conservation practice standards for irrigation as defined by11 the Natural Resources Conservation Service.12 (6) If an applicant intends to operate an aquifer storage and recovery program (ASR), the applicant shall provide13 information on the storage zone, including the depth interval of the storage zone, lateral extent of the14 projected storage area, construction details of wells used for injection and withdrawal of water, and15 performance of the ASR program.16 (e) The Director shall issue, modify, revoke, or deny each permit as set forth in G.S. 143-215.15. Permittees may17 apply for permit modifications. Any application submitted by a permittee shall be subject to the public notice and18 comment requirements of G.S. 143-215.15(d).19 (f) Permit duration shall be set by the Director as described in G.S. 143-215.16(a). Permit transferability is20 established in G.S. 143-215.16(b).21 (g) Persons holding a permit shall submit signed water usage and water level reports to the Director not later than 3022 days after the end of each permit reporting period as specified in the permit. Monitoring report requirements may23 include:24 (1) Amounts of daily withdrawal from each well.25 (2) Pumping and static water levels for each supply well as measured with a steel or electric tape, or an26 alternative method as specified in the permit, at time intervals specified in the permit.27 (3) Static water levels in observation wells at time intervals specified in the permit.28 (4) Annual sampling by applicants located in the salt water encroachment zone and chloride concentration29 analysis by a State certified laboratory.30 (5) Any other information the Director determines to be pertinent and necessary to the evaluation of the effects of31 withdrawals.32 (h) Water use permit holders shall not add new wells without prior approval from the Director.33 (i) The Director may require permit holders to construct observation wells to observe water level and water quality34 conditions before and after water withdrawals begin if there is a demonstrated need for aquifer monitoring to assess the35 impact of the withdrawal on the aquifer.36 (j) For all water uses other than dewatering of mines, pits or quarries, withdrawals shall be permitted only from wells37 that are constructed such that the pump intake or intakes are at a shallower depth than the top of the uppermost confined38 aquifer that yields water to the well. Confined aquifer tops are established in the hydrogeological framework. Where39 wells in existence as of the effective date of this Rule are not in compliance with the requirements of this provision, the40 permit shall include a compliance schedule for retrofitting or replacement of non-compliant wells. Withdrawals from41 unconfined aquifers shall not lower the water table by an amount large enough to decrease the effective thickness of the42 unconfined aquifer by more than 50 percent.43 (k) For withdrawals to dewater mines, pits or quarries, the permit shall delimit the extent of the area and depths of44 the aquifer(s) to be dewatered or depressurized. Maximum withdrawal rates and the permissible extent of dewatering or45 depressurization shall be determined by the Director using data provided by the applicant, data related to permits under46 G.S. 74-47, and other publicly available information. Withdrawal rates that do not cause adverse impacts, as defined in47 Rule .0502(c) of this Section, shall be approved.48 (l) Withdrawals of water that cause changes in water quality such that the available uses of the resource are adversely49 affected shall not be permitted. For example, withdrawals shall not be permitted that result in migration of ground50 water that contains more than 250 milligrams per liter chloride into pumping wells that contain chloride at51 concentrations below 250 milligrams per liter.52 (m) General permits may be developed by the Division and issued by the Director for categories of withdrawal that53 involve the same or substantially similar operations, have similar withdrawal characteristics, require the same54 limitations or operating conditions, and require similar monitoring.55 (n) Permitted water users may withdraw and sell or transfer water to other users provided that their permitted56 withdrawal limits are not exceeded.57 (o) A permitted water user may sell or transfer to other users a portion of his permitted withdrawal. To carry out58 such a transfer, the original permittee must request a permit modification to reduce his permitted withdrawal and the59 Attachment D- Page 5 A290 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 5 proposed recipient of the transfer must apply for a new or amended withdrawal permit under Section .0500 of this1 Subchapter.2 (p) Where an applicant or a permit holder can demonstrate that compliance with water withdrawal limits established3 under Section .0500 of this Subchapter is not possible because of construction schedules, requirements of other laws, or4 other reasons beyond the control of the applicant or permit holder, and where the applicant or permit holder has made5 good faith efforts to conserve water and to plan the development of other water sources, the Director may issue a6 temporary permit with an alternative schedule to attain compliance with provisions of Section .0500 of this Subchapter,7 as authorized in G.S. 143-215.15(c)(ii).89 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14; 143-215.15; 143-215.16;10 Eff. August 1, 2002.1112 .0503 PRESCRIBED WATER USE REDUCTIONS IN CRETACEOUS AQUIFER ZONES13 Cretaceous aquifer water use shall be reduced in prescribed areas over a 16 year period, starting from approved base14 rates on the effective date of this Rule. The Cretaceous aquifer system zones and the three phases of water use15 reductions are listed as follows:16 (1) Cretaceous aquifer system zones are regions established in the fresh water portion of the Cretaceous aquifer17 system that delimit zones of salt water encroachment, dewatering and declining water levels. These zones are18 designated on the paper and digital map entitled "Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Cretaceous19 Aquifer Zones" (CCPCUA) on file in the Office of the Secretary of State one week prior to the effective date20 of these Rules.21 (2) The reductions specified in Rule .0503 of this Section do not apply to intermittent users.22 (3) If a permittee implements an aquifer storage and recovery program (ASR), reduction requirements shall be23 based on the total net withdrawals. The reductions specified in Rule .0503 of this Section do not apply if the24 volume of water injected into the aquifer is greater than the withdrawal volume. If the withdrawal volume is25 greater than the injected volume, reductions specified in Rule .0503 of this Section apply to the difference26 between the withdrawal volume and the injected volume.27 (4) The reductions specified in Rule .0503 of this Section shall not reduce permitted water use rates below28 100,001 gallons per day.29 (5) Phase definitions:30 (a) Phase I: The six year period extending into the future from the effective date of this Rule.31 (b) Phase II: The five year period extending into the future from six years after the effective date of this32 Rule to 11 years after the effective date of this Rule.33 (c) Phase III: The five year period extending into the future from 11 years after the effective date of this34 Rule to 16 years after the effective date of this Rule.35 (6) Phase reductions:36 (a) Phase I:37 (i) At the end of the Phase I, permittees who are located in the dewatering zone shall reduce annual38 water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 25% from their approved base rate.39 (ii) At the end of the Phase I, permittees who are located in the salt water encroachment zone shall40 reduce annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 25% from their approved base rate.41 (iii) At the end of the Phase I, permittees who are located in the declining water level zone shall42 reduce annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 10% from their approved base rate.43 (b) Phase II:44 (i) At the end of the Phase II, permittees who are located in the dewatering zone shall reduce annual45 water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 50% from their approved base rate.46 (ii) At the end of the Phase II, permittees who are located in the salt water encroachment zone shall47 reduce annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 50% from their approved base rate.48 (iii) At the end of the Phase II, permittees who are located in the declining water level zone shall49 reduce annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 20% from their approved base rate.50 (c) Phase III:51 (i) At the end of the Phase III, permittees who are located in the dewatering zone shall reduce52 annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 75% from their approved base rate.53 (ii) At the end of the Phase III, permittees who are located in the salt water encroachment zone shall54 reduce annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 75% from their approved base rate.55 (iii) At the end of the Phase III, permittees who are located in the declining water level zone shall56 reduce annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 30% from their approved base rate.57 Attachment D- Page 6 A291 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 6 (7) The CCPCUA Cretaceous Aquifer Zones map shall be updated, if necessary, in the sixth, eleventh, and1 sixteenth years following the effective date of this Rule to account for aquifer water level responses to phased2 withdrawal reductions. The map update shall be based on the following conditions:3 (a) Rate of decline in water levels in the aquifers;4 (b) Rate of increase in water levels in the aquifers;5 (c) Stabilization of water levels in the aquifers;6 (d) Chloride concentrations in the aquifers.7 This aquifer information shall be analyzed on a regional scale and used to develop updated assessments of aquifer8 conditions in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area. The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) may9 adjust the aquifer zones and the water use reduction percentages for each zone based on the assessment of conditions.10 The EMC shall adopt the updated map and reduction percentage changes after public hearing.11 (8) The reductions specified in Rule .0503 of this Section do not apply to wells exclusively screened or open to12 the Peedee aquifer.13 (9) An applicant may submit documentation supporting the exemption of a well located in the Declining Water14 Level Zone from the withdrawal reductions specified in Rule .0503 of this Section. This documentation must15 include a record of monthly static water levels from that well over at least a three-year period, ending with the16 month when the request for exemption is submitted. The Director may exempt a well from reductions if the17 water level history shows no pattern of decline during this three-year period. A well previously exempted18 from the withdrawal reductions shall become subject to the reductions if water levels begin to show a pattern19 of decline.2021 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.15;22 Eff. August 1, 2002.2324 .0504 REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY AND INSPECTION25 (a) The Division may enter and inspect property in order to evaluate wells, pumps, metering equipment or other26 withdrawal or measurement devices and records of water withdrawals and water levels, if:27 (1) Persons conduct an activity that the Division believes requires the use of water at quantities that subject the28 person to regulation under these Rules;29 (2) A permittee or applicant has not provided data or information on use of water and wells and other water30 withdrawal facilities as required by these Rules; or31 (3) Water levels and chloride concentrations at the person’s facility, or at nearby facilities or monitoring stations,32 indicate that aquifers may be damaged by overpumping or salt water encroachment, or other adverse affects33 that may be attributed to withdrawal by the person.34 (b) All information submitted to fulfill the requirements of these Rules, or to obtain a permit under these Rules, or35 obtained by inspection under these Rules, shall be treated as Confidential Business Information, if requested by the36 applicant, and found to be such by the Division. Reports defined in Rule .0502(g) of this Section are not considered37 Confidential Business Information.3839 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.19;40 Eff. August 1, 2002.4142 .0505 ACCEPTABLE WITHDRAWAL METHODS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT43 (a) As of the effective date of this Rule, any person who is not subject to Rule .0502 of this Section and withdraws44 more than 10,000 gallons per day from surface or ground water in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area, shall45 register such withdrawals on a form supplied by the Division and comply with the following provisions:46 (1) Construct new wells such that the pump intake or intakes are above the top of the uppermost confined aquifer47 that yields water to the well. Confined aquifer tops are established in the hydrogeological framework.48 (2) Report surface and ground water use to the Division of Water Resources on an annual basis on a form49 supplied by the Division.50 (3) Withdraw water in a manner that does not damage the aquifer or cause salt water encroachment or other51 adverse impacts.52 (b) These requirements do not apply to withdrawals to supply an individual domestic dwelling.53 (c) Agricultural water users may either register water use with the Division of Water Resources as provided in this54 Rule or provide the information to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.5556 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14; 143-355(k);57 Eff. August 1, 2002.5859 Attachment D- Page 7 A292 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 7 .0506 CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN CAPACITY USE AREA STATUS REPORT1 Within two years of the effective date of this Rule, and at five year intervals thereafter, the Division of Water Resources2 shall publish a status report on the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area. The report shall include the following:3 (1) Compilations of water use data,4 (2) Evaluations of surface and ground water resources,5 (3) Updated information about the hydrogeologic framework in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area,6 (4) A summary of alternative water sources and water management techniques that may be feasible by7 generalized geographic location, and8 (5) A status report on actions by water users to develop new water sources and to increase water use efficiency.910 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14;11 Eff. August 1, 2002.1213 .0507 DEFINITIONS14 The following is a list of definitions for terms found in Section .0500 of this Subchapter.15 (1) Approved base rate: The larger of a person’s January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 or August 1, 199916 through July 31, 2000 annual water use rate from the Cretaceous aquifer system, or an adjusted water use rate17 determined through negotiation with the Division using documentation provided by the applicant of:18 (a) water use reductions made since January 1, 1992,19 (b) use of wells for which funding has been approved or for which plans have been approved by the20 Division of Environmental Health by the effective date of this Rule,21 (c) the portion of a plant nursery operation using low volume micro-irrigation, or22 (d) other relevant information.23 (2) Aquifer: Water-bearing earth materials that are capable of yielding water in usable quantities to a well or24 spring.25 (3) Aquifer storage and recovery program (ASR): Controlled injection of water into an aquifer with the intent to26 store water in the aquifer for subsequent withdrawal and use.27 (4) Confining unit: A geologic formation that does not yield economically practical quantities of water to wells28 or springs. Confining units separate aquifers and slow the movement of ground water.29 (5) Cretaceous aquifer system: A system of aquifers in the North Carolina coastal plain that is comprised of30 water-bearing earth materials deposited during the Cretaceous period of geologic time. The extent of the31 Cretaceous Aquifer System is defined in the hydrogeological framework and includes the Peedee, Black32 Creek, Upper Cape Fear and Lower Cape Fear aquifers.33 (6) Dewatering: Dewatering occurs when aquifer water levels are depressed below the top of a confined aquifer34 or water table declines adversely affect the resource.35 (7) Flat rates: Unit price remains the same regardless of usage within customer class.36 (8) Fresh water: Water containing chloride concentrations equal to or less than 250 milligrams per liter.37 (9) Gravel pack: Sand or gravel sized material inside the well bore and outside the well screen and casing.38 (10) Ground water: Water in pore spaces or void spaces of subsurface sediments or consolidated rock.39 (11) Hydrogeological framework: A three-dimensional representation of aquifers and confining units that is stored40 in Division data bases and may be adjusted by applicant supplied information.41 (12) Increasing block rates: Unit price increases with additional usage.42 (13) Intermittent users: Persons who withdraw ground water less than 60 days per calendar year; or who withdraw43 less than 15 million gallons of ground water in a calendar year; or aquaculture operations licensed under the44 authority of G.S. 106-761 using water for the initial filling of ponds or refilling of ponds no more frequently45 than every five years.46 (14) Observation well: A non-pumping well screened in a particular aquifer where water levels can be measured47 and water samples can be obtained.48 (15) Pumping water level: The depth to ground water in a pumping well as measured from a known land surface49 elevation. Measurements shall be made four hours after pumping begins. Measurements shall be within50 accuracy limits of plus or minus 0.10 feet.51 (16) Quantity based surcharges: Surcharges billed with usage over a certain determined quantity.52 (17) Salt water: Water containing chloride concentrations in excess of 250 milligrams per liter.53 (18) Salt water encroachment: The lateral or vertical migration of salt water toward areas occupied by fresh water.54 This may occur in aquifers due to natural or man-made causes.55 (19) Seasonal rates: Unit prices change according to the season.56 (20) Static water level: The depth to ground water in a non-pumping well as measured from a known land surface57 elevation. Measurements shall be made after pumping has ceased for 12 hours. Measurements shall be58 within accuracy limits of plus or minus 0.10 feet.59 Attachment D- Page 8 A293 APPROVED RULES North Carolina Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules Environmental Management Commission May 17, 2001 8 (21) Unaccounted for water: The difference between the total water entering the system (produced and purchased)1 and the total metered or otherwise accounted for water usage.2 (22) Water table: The water level in an unconfined aquifer.34 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.14;5 Eff. August 1, 2002.6 Attachment D- Page 9 A294 Attachment D    (2) Session Law 2006‐246 Section 9(c) Post‐Construction Practices   Attachment D- Page 10 A295 Senate Bill 1566* Session Law 2006-246 Page 13 propose using any existing State or local program that relates to the minimum measures to meet, either in whole or in part, the requirements of the minimum measures. SECTION 8. Exclusions from Post-Construction Practices. – The post-construction practices required by Section 9 of this act shall not apply to any of the following: (1) Development in an area where the requirements of Section 9 of this act are applicable that is conducted pursuant to one of the following authorizations, provided that the authorization was obtained prior to the effective date of the post-construction stormwater control requirements in the area and the authorization is valid, unexpired, unrevoked, and not otherwise terminated: a. A building permit pursuant to G.S. 153A-357 or G.S. 160A-417. b. A site-specific development plan as defined by G.S. 153A-344.1(b)(5) and G.S. 160A-385.1(b)(5). c. A phased development plan approved pursuant to G.S. 153A-344.1 for a project located in the unincorporated area of a county that is subject to the requirements of Section 9 of this act, if the Commission is responsible for implementation of the requirements of Section 9 of this act, that shows: 1. For the initial or first phase of development, the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels, including at a minimum, the boundaries of the project and a subdivision plan that has been approved pursuant to G.S. 153A-330 through G.S. 153A-335. 2. For any subsequent phase of development, sufficient detail so that implementation of the requirements of Section 9 of this act to that phase of development would require a material change in that phase of the plan. d. A vested right to the development under G.S. 153A-344(b), 153A-344.1, 160A-385(b), or 160A-385.1 issued by a local government that implements Section 9 of this act. e. A vested right to the development pursuant to common law. (2) Redevelopment. SECTION 9. Post-Construction Practices. – (a) For post-construction requirements, a program will be deemed compliant for the areas where it is implementing any of the following programs: (1) Water Supply Watershed I (WS-I) – 15A NCAC 2B.0212. (2) Water Supply Watershed II (WS-II) – 15A NCAC 2B.0214. (3) Water Supply Watershed III (WS-III) – 15A NCAC 2B.0215. (4) Water Supply Watershed IV (WS-IV) – 15A NCAC 2B.0216. (5) Freshwater High Quality Waters (HQW) – 15A NCAC 2H.1006. (6) Freshwater Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) – 15A NCAC 2H.1007. Attachment D- Page 11 A296 Page 14 Session Law 2006-246 Senate Bill 1566* (7) The Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Management Strategy – 15A NCAC 2B.0235. (8) The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Sensitive (NSW) Management Strategy – 15A NCAC 2B.0258. (9) The Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Nutrient Management Strategy – 15A NCAC 2B.0251. (b) In order to fulfill the post-construction minimum measure program requirement, a permittee, delegated program, or regulated entity may use the Department's model ordinance, design its own post-construction practices based on the Department's guidance on scientific and engineering standards for best management practices (BMPs), incorporate the post-construction model practices described in this act, or develop its own comprehensive watershed plan that is determined by the Department to meet the post-construction stormwater management measure required by 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.34(b)(5) (1 July 2003 Edition). (c) Permittees, delegated programs, and regulated entities must require stormwater controls for a project that disturbs one acre or more of land, including a project that disturbs less than one acre of land that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. The stormwater controls shall be appropriate to the project's level of density as follows: (1) Post-construction model practices for low-density projects. – A project that is located within one-half mile of and draining to Shellfish Resource Waters is a low-density project if it contains no more than twelve percent (12%) built-upon area. A project that is not located within one-half mile of Shellfish Resource Waters is a low-density project if it contains no more than twenty-four percent (24%) built-upon area or no more than two dwelling units per acre. Low-density projects must use vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable to transport stormwater runoff from the project. On-site stormwater treatment devices such as infiltration areas, bioretention areas, and level spreaders may also be used as added controls for stormwater runoff. A project with an overall density at or below the low-density thresholds, but containing areas with a density greater than the overall project density, may be considered low density as long as the project meets or exceeds the post-construction model practices for low-density projects and locates the higher density in upland areas and away from surface waters and drainageways to the maximum extent practicable. (2) Post-construction model practices for high-density projects. – A project that is located within one-half mile of and draining to Shellfish Resource Waters is a high-density project if it contains more than twelve percent (12%) built-upon area. A project that is not located within one-half mile of Shellfish Resource Waters is a high-density project if it contains more than twenty-four percent (24%) built-upon area or more than two dwelling units per acre. High-density projects Attachment D- Page 12 A297 Senate Bill 1566* Session Law 2006-246 Page 15 must use structural stormwater management systems that will control and treat runoff from the first one inch of rain unless the project is in a county that is subject to the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974, in which case the project must use structural stormwater management systems that will control and treat runoff from the first one and one-half inches of rain. In addition, projects that are located within one-half mile and draining to Shellfish Resource Waters must control and treat the difference in the stormwater runoff from the predevelopment and post-development conditions for the one-year, 24- hour storm. The structural stormwater management system must also meet the following design standards: a. Draw down the treatment volume no faster than 48 hours, but no slower than 120 hours. b. Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal to or less than the predevelopment discharge rate for the one-year, 24-hour storm. c. Remove an eighty-five percent (85%) average annual amount of Total Suspended Solids. d. Meet the General Engineering Design Criteria set out in 15A NCAC 02H .1008(c). e. Wet detention ponds designed in accordance with the requirements of subsection (h) of this section may be used for projects draining to Class SA waters. (d) Permittees, delegated programs, and regulated entities must require built-upon areas to be located at least 30 feet landward of all perennial and intermittent surface waters. For purposes of this section, a surface water shall be present if the feature is shown on either the most recent version of the soil survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture or the most recent version of the 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). Relief from this requirement may be allowed when surface waters are not present in accordance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 02B .0233(3)(a). In addition, an exception to this requirement may be pursued in accordance with subsection (a) of Section 11 of this act. (e) Permittees, delegated programs, and regulated entities must implement or require a fecal coliform reduction program that controls, to the maximum extent practicable, the sources of fecal coliform. At a minimum, the program shall include the development and implementation of an oversight program to ensure proper operation and maintenance of on-site wastewater treatment systems for domestic wastewater. For municipalities, this program may be coordinated with local county health departments. (f) Permittees, delegated programs, and regulated entities must impose or require recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants that ensure development activities will maintain the project consistent with approved plans. (g) Permittees, delegated programs, and regulated entities must implement or require an operation and maintenance plan that ensures the adequate long-term operation of the structural BMPs required by the program. The operation and Attachment D- Page 13 A298 Attachment D    (3) Regulation of Surface Water Transfers §142‐215.22I    Attachment D- Page 14 A299 as required by this subsection. (e) Any person who is required to register a water transfer or withdrawal under this section and fails to do so shall pay, in addition to the registration fee required under G.S. 143- 215.3(a)(1a) and G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1b), a late registration fee of five dollars ($5.00) per day for each day the registration is late up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A person who is required to update a registration under this section and fails to do so shall pay a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per day for each day the updated information is late up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A late registration fee shall not be charged to a farmer who submits a registration that pertains to farming operations. (1991, c. 712, s. 1; 1993, c. 344, s. 1; c. 553, s. 81; 1998-168, s. 3.) '''' 143-215.22I. Regulation of surface water transfers. (a) No person, without first securing a certificate from the Commission, may: (1) Initiate a transfer of 2,000,000 gallons of water or more per day from one river basin to another. (2) Increase the amount of an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another by twenty-five percent (25%) or more above the average daily amount transferred during the year ending July 1, 1993, if the total transfer including the increase is 2,000,000 gallons or more per day. (3) Increase an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another above the amount approved by the Commission in a certificate issued under G.S. 162A-7 prior to July 1, 1993. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a certificate shall not be required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the full capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing or under construction on July 1, 1993. (c) An applicant for a certificate shall petition the Commission for the certificate. The petition shall be in writing and shall include the following: (1) A description of the facilities to be used to transfer the water, including the location and capacity of water intakes, pumps, pipelines, and other facilities. (2) A description of the proposed uses of the water to be transferred. (3) The water conservation measures to be used by the applicant to assure efficient use of the water and avoidance of waste. (4) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission for review of the proposed water transfer. (d) Upon receipt of the petition, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed transfer after giving at least 30 days' written notice of the hearing as follows: (1) By publishing notice in the North Carolina Register. (2) By publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the river basin downstream from the point of withdrawal. (3) By giving notice by first-class mail to each of the following: a. A person who has registered under this Part a water withdrawal or transfer from the same river basin where the water for the proposed transfer would be withdrawn. b. A person who secured a certificate under this Part for a water transfer from the same river basin where the water for the proposed transfer would be withdrawn. c. A person holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit exceeding 100,000 gallons per day for a discharge located downstream from the proposed withdrawal point of the proposed transfer. d. The board of county commissioners of each county that is located entirely or partially within the river basin that is the source of the proposed transfer. Attachment D- Page 15 A300 e. The governing body of any public water supply system that withdraws water downstream from the withdrawal point of the proposed transfer. (e) The notice of the public hearing shall include a nontechnical description of the applicant's request and a conspicuous statement in bold type as to the effects of the water transfer on the source and receiving river basins. The notice shall further indicate the procedure to be followed by anyone wishing to submit comments on the proposed water transfer. (f) In determining whether a certificate may be issued for the transfer, the Commission shall specifically consider each of the following items and state in writing its findings of fact with regard to each item: (1) The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the amount of surface water proposed to be transferred and its proposed uses. (2) The present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects on the source river basin, including present and future effects on public, industrial, and agricultural water supply needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, and recreation. Local water supply plans that affect the source major river basin shall be used to evaluate the projected future municipal water needs in the source major river basin. (2a) The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or consumptive water use that, at the time the Commission considers the application for a certificate is occurring, is authorized under this section, or is projected in any local water supply plan that has been submitted to the Department in accordance with G.S. 143-355(l). (3) The detrimental effects on the receiving river basin, including effects on water quality, wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat, navigation, recreation, and flooding. (4) Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer, including their probable costs, and environmental impacts. (5) If applicable to the proposed project, the applicant's present and proposed use of impoundment storage capacity to store water during high-flow periods for use during low-flow periods and the applicant's right of withdrawal under G.S. 143-215.44 through G.S. 143-215.50. (6) If the water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose reservoir constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the purposes and water storage allocations established for the reservoir at the time the reservoir was authorized by the Congress of the United States. (7) Any other facts and circumstances that are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Part. (f1) An environmental assessment as defined by G.S. 113A- 9(1) shall be prepared for any petition for a certificate under this section. The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. The applicant who petitions the Commission for a certificate under this section shall pay the cost of special studies necessary to comply with Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. (g) A certificate shall be granted for a water transfer if the applicant establishes and the Commission concludes by a preponderance of the evidence based upon the findings of fact made under subsection (f) of this section that: (i) the benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer, and (ii) the detriments have been or will be mitigated to a reasonable degree. The conditions necessary to ensure that the detriments are and continue to be mitigated to a reasonable degree shall be attached to the certificate in accordance with subsection (h) of this section. (h) The Commission may grant the certificate in whole or in part, or deny the certificate. The Commission may also grant a certificate with any conditions attached that the Commission believes are Attachment D- Page 16 A301 necessary to achieve the purposes of this Part. The conditions may include mitigation measures proposed to minimize any detrimental effects of the proposed transfer and measures to protect the availability of water in the source river basin during a drought or other emergency. The certificate shall include a drought management plan that specifies how the transfer shall be managed to protect the source river basin during drought conditions. The certificate shall indicate the maximum amount of water that may be transferred. No person shall transfer an amount of water that exceeds the amount in the certificate. (i) In cases where an applicant requests approval to increase a transfer that existed on July 1, 1993, the Commission shall have authority to approve or disapprove only the amount of the increase. If the Commission approves the increase, however, the certificate shall be issued for the amount of the existing transfer plus the requested increase. Certificates for transfers approved by the Commission under G.S. 162A-7 shall remain in effect as approved by the Commission and shall have the same effect as a certificate issued under this Part. (j) In the case of water supply problems caused by drought, a pollution incident, temporary failure of a water plant, or any other temporary condition in which the public health requires a transfer of water, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources may grant approval for a temporary transfer. Prior to approving a temporary transfer, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall consult with those parties listed in G.S. 143-215.22I(d)(3) that are likely to be affected by the proposed transfer. However, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall not be required to satisfy the public notice requirements of this section or make written findings of fact and conclusions in approving a temporary transfer under this subsection. If the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources approves a temporary transfer under this subsection, the Secretary shall specify conditions to protect other water users. A temporary transfer shall not exceed six months in duration, but the approval may be renewed for a period of six months by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources based on demonstrated need as set forth in this subsection. (k) The substantive restrictions and conditions upon surface water transfers authorized in this section may be imposed pursuant to any federal law that permits the State to certify, restrict, or condition any new or continuing transfers or related activities licensed, relicensed, or otherwise authorized by the federal government. (l) When any transfer for which a certificate was issued under this section equals eighty percent (80%) of the maximum amount authorized in the certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Department a detailed plan that specifies how the applicant intends to address future foreseeable water needs. If the applicant is required to have a local water supply plan, then this plan shall be an amendment to the local water supply plan required by G.S. 143-355(l). When the transfer equals ninety percent (90%) of the maximum amount authorized in the certificate, the applicant shall begin implementation of the plan submitted to the Department. (m) It is the public policy of the State to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within North Carolina. Further, it is the public policy of the State that the cumulative impact of transfers from a source river basin shall not result in a violation of the antidegradation policy set out in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ' 131.12 (l July 1997 Edition) and the statewide antidegradation policy adopted pursuant thereto. (1993, c. 348, s. 1; 1997-443, ss. 11A.119(a), 15.48(c); 1997-524, s. 1; 1998-168, s. 4.) Attachment D- Page 17 A302 Attachment D    (4) North Carolina Administrative Code NCAC 15A NCAC 02E .0401      Attachment D- Page 18 A303 SECTION .0400 - REGULATION OF SURFACE WATER TRANSFERS 15A NCAC 02E .0401 APPLICABILITY (a) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3), the amount of a transfer shall be determined by the amount of water moved from the source basin to the receiving basin, less the amount of the water returned to the source basin. (b) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3)(a) and 143-215.22G(3)(b), and notwithstanding the definition of basin in G.S. 143- 215.22G(1), the following are not transfers: (1) The discharge point is situated upstream of the withdrawal point such that the water discharged will naturally flow past the withdrawal point. (2) The discharge point is situated downstream of the withdrawal point such that water flowing past the withdrawal point will naturally flow past the discharge point. (c) The withdrawal of surface water from one river basin by one person and the purchase of all or any part of this water by another party, resulting in a discharge to another river basin, shall be considered a transfer. The person owning the pipe or other conveyance that carries the water across the basin boundary shall be responsible for obtaining a certificate from the Commission. Another person involved in the transfer may assume responsibility for obtaining the certificate, subject to approval by the Division of Water Resources. (d) Under G.S. 143-215.22I(b), a certificate is not required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the full capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing or under construction on July 1, 1993. The full capacity of a facility to transfer water shall be determined as the capacity of the combined system of withdrawal, treatment, transmission, and discharge of water, limited by the element of this system with the least capacity as existing or under construction on July 1, 1993. History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.22G; 143-215.22I; 143B-282(a)(2); Eff. September 1, 1994. Attachment D- Page 19 A304