AttB-GUC_Petition_for_EMC

Interbasin Transfer Petition:
From Tar River to Contentnea
and Neuse River Subbasins
Greenville Utilities Commission
April 2009
Environmental Management Commission Meeting May 2009
B1
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 i

Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, and Greene County plan to purchase bulk finished water
from the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) to comply with the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
(CCPCUA) rules and continue to meet customer needs. GUC relies on the Tar River for its water supply,
and the Town of Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located within the Neuse River
Contentnea Creek subbasin. Farmville and Greene County discharge wastewater into the Contentnea
Creek subbasin via centralized treatment or on-site septic systems. Therefore, sales of finished water to the
Town of Farmville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to
the Neuse River Contentnea Creek subbasin. The Town of Winterville water and wastewater systems and
the southwestern portion of Greene County are located within the Neuse River subbasin. Therefore, sales
of finished water to the Town of Winterville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from
the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin.
GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea
Creek subbasin to support the Town of Farmville and Greene County’s compliance with CCPCUA rules.
GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate in the amount of 8.3 mgd to meet Farmville and Greene County’s
maximum day demands through 2030. As part of the same Certificate, GUC requests the ability to transfer
9.3 mgd under emergency conditions to the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
GUC is also requesting an IBT Certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse
River subbasin to support the Town of Winterville’s compliance with CCPCUA rules, and to support water
use in the portion of the GUC service area within the Neuse River Basin. GUC is requesting an IBT
Certificate for 4.0 mgd to meet Winterville’s maximum day demands through 2030. Additionally, GUC
requests the ability to transfer 4.2 mgd under emergency conditions to the Neuse River subbasin.
The proposed IBT is the preferred alternative that was identified through the development and analysis of
many alternatives. The GUC water treatment plant (WTP) has sufficient plant capacity to provide water to
the City of Greenville, Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County until 2030. In 2030, the total maximum
day water demand with minimum bulk purchase is projected to be 22.2 mgd and will not exceed the current
WTP capacity of 22.5 mgd. No construction will occur as part of the proposed project.
A hydrologic analysis (ENTRIX, revised 2008) was performed for the Tar River to assess the hydrologic
impact of the interbasin transfer of water from the Tar to the Neuse and Contentnea Creek subbasins. The
model accounted for existing and expected future withdrawals from, and discharges to, the Tar River
(greater than 100,000 gpd). Withdrawals and discharges were simulated over time to predict the effects on
flow in the Tar River at Greenville. Model simulations included the current conditions in the Tar River, the
2030 average day IBT scenario, and the 2030 maximum withdrawal IBT scenario. The results of the
hydrologic modeling indicate that the proposed interbasin transfer from the Tar River to the Neuse and
Contentnea Creek subbasins will have minimal impact on stream flow at Greenville. The differences in the
flow data below the 7Q10 are not significantly different between the no IBT, average, and maximum
B2
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 ii

Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
withdrawal IBT scenarios for the current stream flow and the 2030 stream flow conditions. However, the
existing periods of low flow, regardless of the significance of the resulting withdrawal scenario, may be
ameliorated by the tidal influence. The tidal influence at Greenville is one factor that provides downstream
aquatic habitat protection during low flow at Greenville. The influence of tides will naturally offset the low
flow condition at the Greenville gage.
The proposed interbasin transfer will not result in significant indirect impacts. Significant growth in
Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the
interbasin transfer request. Growth in the area is modest, at a rate of 1 to 3 percent for the larger
communities (GUC, Greene County, and Farmville) and at slightly higher rates for smaller communities
(Winterville).
This IBT petition provides supporting documentation as required by North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.22I; more detailed documentation of the environmental impacts of the requested action are
contained in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin
Transfer (ARCADIS, 2008) which was submitted to the State Clearinghouse October 2008. A Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in November 2008.

B3
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 iii
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents

Executive Summary i
1. Introduction 1-1 
1.1 Project Description 1-1 
1.2 Requested Action 1-1 
1.3 CCPCUA Regulations 1-2 
1.4 Existing Water and Wastewater Facilities 1-3 
1.5 Existing Conditions 1-7 
2. Necessity, Reasonableness, and Beneficial Effects of Transfer 2-1 
2.1 Growth Trends 2-1 
2.2 Water Demand Projections 2-4 
2.3 Need for Additional Water Supply 2-4 
2.4 Reasonableness of IBT Request 2-6 
2.5 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Contentnea Creek Subbasin 2-11 
2.6 IBT Management Strategy 2-14 
3. Effects on the Source Basin 3-1 
3.1 Water Supply Needs 3-1 
3.2 Wastewater Assimilation 3-6 
3.3 Water Quality 3-6 
3.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 3-6 
3.5 Hydroelectric Power Generation 3-6 
3.6 Navigation 3-6 
3.7 Recreation 3-6 
3.8 Cumulative Effect on Source Basin of any Transfers or Consumptive Water Use Projected in Local
Water Supply Plans 3-7 
4. Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basins 4-1 
4.1 Water Quality 4-1 
4.2 Wastewater Assimilation 4-1 
B4
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 iv
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents

4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 4-1 
4.4 Navigation 4-2 
4.5 Recreation 4-2 
4.6 Flooding 4-2 
5. Alternatives to Proposed Transfer 5-1 
5.1 No-Action Alternative 5-1 
5.2 Independent Water Supply 5-2 
5.3 Participate in Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority 5-3 
5.4 Return of Water to Source Basin 5-3 
5.5 Purchase Water from GUC – Selected Alternative 5-5 
6. Impoundment Storage 6-1 
7. Multipurpose Reservoir Constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 7-1 
8. Water Shortage Response and Conservation 8-1 
9. Compliance and Monitoring Plan 9-1 
9.1 Quarterly Reports 9-1 
9.2 Annual Reports 9-2 
9.3 Status Reports 9-2 
9.4 Water Shortage Response and Conservation 9-2 

Figures
Figure 1-1: Interbasin Transfer Line, as Determined by the Environmental Management Commission 1-5 
Figure 1-2: Service Areas for the Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, Greene County, and Greenville
Utilities Commission 1-6 

B5
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 v
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents

Tables
Table 1-1: Bioclassification and Use Support Ratings for Streams within the Project Area 1-9 
Table 1-2: Protected Species Listed for Pitt and Greene Counties 1-16 
Table 2-1: Historical and Projected Population and Growth Rates 2-3 
Table 2-2: Historical and Projected Water Demands 2-5 
Table 2-3: Maximum Day GUC Demands with Minimum Bulk Purchases 2-6 
Table 2-4: Water Balance Table for Maximum Day Condition from the Tar River to the Neuse River
Subbasin (Town of Winterville and Greene County) 2-9 
Table 2-5: Water Balance Table for Emergency Condition from the Tar River to the Neuse River
Subbasin (Town of Winterville and Greene County) 2-10 
Table 2-6: Water Balance Table for Maximum Day Condition from the Tar River to the Contentnea Creek
Subbasin (Greene County and Town of Farmville) 2-12 
Table 2-7: Water Balance Table for Emergency Condition from the Tar River to the Contentnea Creek
Subbasin (Greene County and Town of Farmville) 2-13 
Table 3-1: Explanation of Modeling Scenarios Used in the Tar River Water Balance 3-2 
Table 3-2: Summary of Flow Statistics (Flow in cfs and Percentiles) for Greenville Gaging Station and
Downstream of Greenville WWTP (ENTRIX, 2008) 3-5 
Table 3-3: Summary of Flow Statistics (Annual Percent of Time and Average Number of Days) for
Greenville Gaging Station and Downstream of Greenville WWTP (ENTRIX, 2008) 3-5 
Table 5-1: Comparison of Allowable Pumping Rates with Average Day Demands 5-1 
Table 5-2: Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Greene and Pitt Counties 5-4 
Table 8-1: Greenville Utilities Commission Water Shortage Response Triggers 8-1 
Table 9-1: Interbasin Transfer Calculation Table from the Tar River to the Neuse River and Contentnea
Subbasins 9-3 

Appendices
A Finding of No Significant Impact (November 2008)
B Interbasin Transfer Management Strategy for Greenville Utilities Commission (ARCADIS, 2008)
C Greenville Utilities Commission Local Water Supply Plan
B6
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 vi
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents

List of Acronyms
7Q10 7-day duration, 10-year frequency low stream flow
ABR Approved base rate
BMP Best management practice
CAS Cretaceous aquifer system
CCPCUA Central coastal plain capacity use area
cfs Cubic feet per second
CMSD Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District
DEH N.C. Department of Environmental Health
DENR N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ N.C. Division of Water Quality
DWR N.C. Division of Water Resources
E Endangered
EA Environmental Assessment
EMC N.C. Environmental Management Commission
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ETJ Extraterritorial jurisdiction
FSC Federal species of concern
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GMA Groundwater Management Association, Inc.
gpd Gallons per day
GUC Greenville Utilities Commission
HQW High quality water
IBT Interbasin transfer
LWSP Local water supply plan
MG Million gallons
mgd Million gallons per day
mgy Million gallons per year
NCAC N.C. Administrative Code
NHP N.C. Natural Heritage Program
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRWASA Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority
B7
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 vii
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents

List of Acronyms
NSW Nutrient sensitive waters
ORW Outstanding resource water
ppm Parts per million
RCW Red Cockaded Woodpecker
SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Area
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
T Threatened
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WRC N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
WS Water supply
WTP Water treatment plant
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

B8
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

1. Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, and Greene County plan to purchase bulk finished water
from the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) to comply with the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
(CCPCUA) rules and continue to meet customer needs. GUC relies on the Tar River for its water supply,
and the Town of Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located within the Neuse River
Contentnea Creek subbasin. Farmville and Greene County discharge wastewater into the Contentnea
Creek subbasin via centralized treatment or on-site septic systems. Therefore, sales of finished water to the
Town of Farmville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to
the Neuse River Contentnea Creek subbasin. The Town of Winterville water and wastewater systems and
the southwestern portion of Greene County are located within the Neuse River subbasin. Therefore, sales
of finished water to the Town of Winterville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from
the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin.
The interbasin transfer (IBT) line, as determined by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (EMC), is illustrated in Figure 1-1. The IBT line between the Tar River and Contentnea Creek
and Neuse subbasins is located in Pitt County. The line extends through Pitt County around the perimeter
of the western side of the GUC service area and around the eastern edge of the Town of Winterville. This
IBT line crosses the southern end of the GUC service area. The IBT line between the Contentnea Creek
subbasin and Neuse River subbasin is located approximately four miles west of Winterville and extends
south on the western edge of the Towns of Ayden and Grifton to the Pitt County line.
The project encompasses the service areas for GUC, the Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, and
Greene County, as provided in Figure 1-2. The service areas are entirely located in Pitt and Greene
Counties. The Tar River runs on the northern edge of the City of Greenville. Upstream of the Tar River from
the City of Greenville is the Town of Tarboro and the City of Rocky Mount. Downstream of the Tar River
from Greenville is Beaufort County and the estuary. Contentnea Creek runs through the eastern edge of
the Town of Farmville.
1.2 Requested Action
GUC is requesting an IBT certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea
Creek subbasin to support the Town of Farmville and Greene County’s compliance with CCPCUA rules.
GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate in the amount of 8.3 million gallons per day (mgd) to meet Farmville
and Greene County’s maximum day demands through 2030. As part of the same Certificate, GUC requests
the ability to transfer 9.3 mgd under emergency conditions to the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
GUC is also requesting an IBT Certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse
River subbasin to support the Town of Winterville’s compliance with CCPCUA rules, and to support water
B9
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

use in the portion of the GUC service area within the Neuse River Basin. GUC is requesting an IBT
Certificate for 4.0 mgd to meet Winterville’s maximum day demands through 2030. Additionally, GUC
requests the ability to transfer 4.2 mgd under emergency conditions to the Neuse River subbasin.
The proposed IBT is the preferred alternative that was identified through the development and analysis of
many alternatives. The GUC water treatment plant (WTP) has sufficient plant capacity to provide water to
the City of Greenville, Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County until 2030. In 2030, the total maximum
day water demand with minimum bulk purchase is projected to be 22.2 mgd and will not exceed the current
WTP capacity of 22.5 mgd. No construction will occur as part of the proposed project.
The IBT petition provides supporting documentation as required by North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.22I; more detailed documentation of the environmental impacts of the requested action are
contained in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin
Transfer (ARCADIS, 2008) which was submitted to the State Clearinghouse October 2008. The Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is provided in Appendix A.
1.3 CCPCUA Regulations
The EMC enacted the CCPCUA rules on August 1, 2002. The CCPCUA rules were developed as a control
measure for groundwater use in the Cretaceous aquifer in response to decreasing groundwater level and
saltwater intrusion. The rules will be implemented over a ten-year period. The goal of the rules is to allow
the Cretaceous aquifer to recharge and provide sustainable groundwater supply yields.
The CCPCUA rules require groundwater users located in the impacted areas to reduce withdrawals in
three phases between 2008 and 2018. The required reduction amounts are based on the location of the
water use, either in a dewatering zone or in a saltwater intrusion zone. The rules specify a percentage
reduction in groundwater use from the Cretaceous aquifer from an approved base rate (ABR). The ABR for
each groundwater user was determined by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) based
on historical annual water use from the Cretaceous aquifer system. GUC, Greene County, the Town of
Farmville, and the Town of Winterville are located in the “dewatering zone.” The reductions required by the
CCPCUA rules for water users in the dewatering zone are as follows:
• Phase I (2008) – Permittees in the dewatering zone will be required to reduce
annual water use by 25 percent from their ABR.
• Phase II (2013) – Permittees in the dewatering zone will be required to reduce
annual water use by 50 percent from their ABR.
• Phase III (2018) – Permittees in the dewatering zone will be required to reduce
annual water use by 75 percent from their ABR.
B10
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-3
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

The Town of Farmville (Pitt County), the Town of Winterville (Pitt County), and Greene County currently rely
on the Cretaceous aquifer for their sole water supply, and therefore are significantly affected by the
CCPCUA rules.
1.4 Existing Water and Wastewater Facilities
1.4.1 Greenville Utilities Commission
GUC is located in Pitt County, and the majority of the GUC customer base resides in the Tar River
subbasin. GUC relies on the Tar River for its water supply. The GUC WTP has a permitted capacity of
22.5 mgd. The WTP treats raw water withdrawn from the Tar River and pumped to a 63-million gallon
pre-settling impoundment. The WTP utilizes conventional coagulation/sedimentation process, intermediate
ozonation (for disinfection), and high-rate, dual-media filters. In 2002, the GUC converted from free chlorine
to chloramines for disinfection. The WTP includes an alum residuals lagoon. The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit (NC0082139) is unlimited in flow and discharges
to the Tar River.
GUC also operates eight groundwater wells, which are all subject to CCPCUA regulations. GUC has used
the wells on an emergency only basis since December 2002 when the disinfectant at the WTP was
switched from free chlorine to chloramines. These wells were only operated for sixteen days during 2006,
as reported by DWR CCPCUA permit data.
Wastewater for the GUC service area is treated at the GUC wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). This
facility is permitted for a NPDES discharge of 17.5 mgd (NC0023931) to the Tar River. The average flow
rate through the WWTP was 10.3 mgd for the period from June 2006 through June 2007.
1.4.2 The Town of Farmville
The Town of Farmville operates eleven groundwater wells that withdraw water from the Cretaceous aquifer.
All eleven wells are subject to the CCPCUA rules. Wastewater for the Town of Farmville is treated at the
Farmville WWTP. This facility is permitted for a NPDES discharge of 3.5 mgd (NC0029572) to the Little
Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River basin. The average flow rate through the WWTP was 1.96 mgd for
the period from June 2006 through June 2007.
1.4.3 The Town of Winterville
The Town of Winterville operates three groundwater wells that are all subject to CCPCUA rules.
Wastewater for the Town of Winterville is treated by the Contentnea Metropolitan Sewer District in Grifton.
This facility is permitted for an NPDES discharge of 2.85 mgd to Contentnea Creek (NC0032077) in the
Neuse River basin. The average daily wastewater flow rate for the Town was reported to be approximately
0.58 mgd in the 2002 LWSP. The average flow rate through the WWTP was 1.87 mgd for the period from
B11
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-4
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

June 2006 through June 2007. Winterville currently purchases finished water from GUC (under the
grandfathered IBT amount).
1.4.4 Greene County
Greene County is currently served by ten different water systems. Greene County is acting as the lead
agency on behalf of these water systems for the purposes of entering into bulk sales agreements with
GUC. The water systems in Greene County are as follows:
• Greene County Regional Water System • Maury Sanitary District
• Town of Snow Hill • Ormondsville Water Corporation
• Town of Hookerton • Arba Water Corporation
• Town of Walstonburg • Lizzie Water Corporation
• South Greene Water Corporation • Jason-Shine Water Corporation

The Town of Snow Hill has four groundwater wells that are used on a regular basis, and one for emergency
use. Snow Hill operates its own WWTP, which is permitted for an NPDES discharge of 0.5 mgd to
Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River basin (NC0020842). The Town provides utilities to the South Greene
Water Corporation.
The Greene County Regional Water System operates ten groundwater wells. The Town of Walstonburg
purchases water from the Greene County Regional Water System. Wastewater for the Town of
Walstonburg is treated by the Farmville WWTP. The average daily wastewater flow rate for the Town is
approximately 35,000 gpd.
Septic systems comprise the majority of wastewater treatment in Greene County. The Town of Hookerton
WWTP and the Maury Sanitary Land District WWTP operate 0.06 mgd and 0.225 mgd treatment facilities,
respectively. Both of these facilities discharge to Contentnea Creek.
B12
GreenvilleFarmville
Winterville
EdgecombeCounty
Pitt County
Greene County
TAR RIVERBASIN
NEUSERIVERBASIN
CONTENTNEACREEKBASIN
Swift Creek
Fishing Creek
Deep Creek
T a rRiv e r
T a rRiv e r
Conetoe
Creek
GrindleCreek
To w nCreek
L
ittl
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a
C
r
e
e
k
Tar River
ContentneaCreek
SwiftCreekNahunta
S w a m p
TrantersCreek
Ayden
SnowHill
TarboroRocky Mount
Bethel
NashCounty
S t o n yCreek
Tar
River
0 7 143.5 Miles
FIGURE 1-1: INTERBASIN TRANSFER LINE,AS DETERMINED BY THEENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
1 inch equals 7 miles
GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSIONPITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND
Interbasin Boundary
Sub-basin Boundary
County Boundary
Major Rivers
B13
GreenvilleFarmville
Winterville
Pitt County
Greene County
TAR RIVERBASIN
NEUSERIVERBASIN
CONTENTNEACREEKBASIN
AydenSnowHill
Bethel
Hookerton
Walstonburg
Sandy Run
Tyson Marsh
Fort Run
N ah unta S w a m p
Mussel Run
P
ole
c
a
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
Mill Run
R ain b o w Creek
Cow Branch
Beaman Run
Thompsom Swamp
J a c k s F o r k
B
u
tt
o
n
B
r
a
n
c
h
Water Branch
S o w ell R u nFalling Creek
S h e p h er d R u n
Panther Swamp Creek
Lewis Branch
Watery Branch
Middle Swamp
Spring Branch
L a n g B r a n c h
Bear Creek
Wheat Swamp Creek
M ill R u n
T ys o n M ars h
Middle Swamp
Grindle Creek
Swift Creek
Fork Swamp
TAR RIVER
H
u
ntin
g

R
u
n
Clayroot Swamp
Parker Creek
I
n
d
i
a
n
Well

S
w
a
m
p
J u ni p e r B r a n c h
Mill Branch
Cannon Swamp
Pinelog Branch
Black S
w
a
m
p
Conetoe Creek
Hardee Creek
Briery Swamp (Shephard Millpond)
Langs Mill Run
Great Branch
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
s

Mill R
u
n
Lawrence Run
K itte n C re e k
H a r r is Mil l R u n
Gum Swamp
Pea Branc h
O
ld
w
o
m
a
n
B
r
a
n
c
h
Ward Run
Otter Creek
B ates Branch
Suggs Branch
Poley Branch
Cabin Branch
Moyes Run
Island Swamp
Chicod Creek
Horsepen Swamp
Nobel Canal
Barber Creek
Grinnel Slough
Cross Swamp
P
hillip
p
i B
r
a
n
c
hBell Branch
Tranters Creek
Lewis Canal
Bear Creek
Simmon Branch
Little Contentnea Creek
Creeping Swamp
Tranters Creek
TAR RIVER
Swift Creek
TAR RIVER
TAR RIVER
Conetoe Creek
TAR RIVER
TAR RIVER
Swift Creek
TAR RIVER
Mill Branch
FIGURE 1-2: SERVICE AREA MAP
1 inch equals 3.5 miles
GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSIONPITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LEGENDCounty BoundaryInterbasin BoundarySub-basin BoundaryStreamsWater System Service AreasArba Water Corp.Jason-Shine Water Corp.Lizzie Water Corp.Maury Sanitation DistrictOrmondsville Water Corp.South Greene Water Corp.Town of FarmvilleTown of HookertonTown of Snow HillTown of WalstonburgTown of WintervilleGreene Co. Regional Water SystemGreenville Utilities
0 3.5 71.75
Miles
12345678910111213
1
2
2
3
4 5
6
6
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
13
13
12
12
6
B14
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-7
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

1.5 Existing Conditions
1.5.1 Water Resources
1.5.1.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water Supplies
The service areas are located within the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River basins. The northern and
northeastern portions of Pitt County are located within the Tar-Pamlico basin. The southern and western
portions of Pitt County and all of Greene County are located within the Neuse River basin.
The Tar-Pamlico basin service area is located in USGS Hydrological Unit 03020103 and three North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) subbasins (03-03-03, 03-03-05, and 03-03-06). The central and
northern portions of Pitt County, located in the Tar-Pamlico basin, are within USGS Hydrological Unit
03020103 and DWQ subbasins 03-03-03 and 03-03-05.
The southern and western portion of Pitt County and all of Greene County is located in the Neuse River
basin. The southern portion of Pitt County and the westernmost portion of Greene County are located in
USGS Hydrological Unit 03020202 and DWQ subbasins 03-04-05, 03-04-08, and 03-04-09. The western
portion of Pitt County and all but the westernmost portion of Greene County are located within USGS
Hydrological Unit 03020203 and DWQ subbasins 03-04-07.
GUC’s surface water intake is located on the Tar River in the northern portion of Greenville in the central
portion of Pitt County. The area designated as a water supply watershed (in association with the surface
water intake) is located north of the intake and encompasses a portion of the northern portion of Pitt County
and the northern portion of the service area.
1.5.1.2 Surface Water Use Classifications
The Tar River traverses Pitt County and the service area from northwest to southeast. The northern portion
of Pitt County is designated as a water supply watershed due to GUC’s water supply intake. The Tar River
north of Greenville is designated as Class WS-IV NSW. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification
is a supplemental classification that has been assigned to waters that need additional nutrient management
due to these waters being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. From the
water supply intake to a point 1.2 miles downstream of the confluence with Broad Run, the Tar River is
designated as Class C NSW. From a point 1.2 miles downstream of the confluence with Broad Run to
Tranters Creek, which forms the eastern boundary of Pitt County, the Tar River is designated as Class B
NSW. Within Pitt County, Tranters Creek and its tributaries are designated by DWQ as Class C Sw NSW.
The Sw classification denotes Swamp Waters.
Within Pitt County downstream of the raw water intake site, tributaries to the Tar River are designated by
DWQ as Class C NSW. Tributaries to the Tar River upstream of the raw water intake site within the water
B15
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-8
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

supply watershed area are designated by DWQ as Class WS-IV NSW. A portion of the Tar River that
extends from the raw water intake site upstream for 0.5 miles is designated by DWQ as Class WS-IV NSW
CA. The classification CA denotes Critical Areas, which are areas that extend one half mile upstream from
normal pool elevation of reservoirs or water intakes.
Within the portions of Pitt County located within the Neuse River basin, streams are designated by DWQ as
Class C Sw NSW. The southern and northern portion of the boundary between Pitt and Greene Counties is
formed by Little Contentnea Creek. Middle Swamp forms the boundary between Pitt and Greene Counties in
the central portion of the county boundary. Contentnea Creek traverses the central portion of Greene
County. Streams within Greene County are designated by DWQ as Class C Sw NSW.
Streams within the water supply watershed area are classified as WS-IV NSW. The streams within the
service area that are located within the Tar-Pamlico basin are designated by DWQ as Class C NSW.
Streams within the service area that are located within the Neuse basin are classified as Class C Sw NSW.
No streams designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) Waters or High Quality Waters (HQW)
are present within the project area.
1.5.1.3 Existing Surface Water Quality
DWQ monitoring sites for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are located throughout the
project area. Table 1-1 provides bioclassifications and use support ratings for streams within the project
area per the 2004 Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan and the 2008 Draft Neuse River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Water quality issues associated with the subbasins within the service area are reported by DWQ to include
non-point source discharges, elevated levels of mercury, channelization, agriculture, and concentrated
animal feeding operations. According to the North Carolina 303(d) Draft Impaired Waters List dated
January 10, 2008, several streams within the Neuse River basin and the Tar-Pamlico River basin in Pitt
and Greene Counties are listed as impaired. These streams are as follows:
• Conetoe Creek – from Crisp Creek to Pitt County SR 1404
• Tar River – from Greenville raw water supply intake to a point 1.2 miles
downstream of the mouth of Broad Run
• Chicod Creek – from source to Tar River
• Creeping Swamp – from source to Clayroot Swamp
• Contentnea Creek – from 0.7 mile upstream of Toisnot Swamp to Nahunta Swamp
• Little Contentnea Creek – from source to Contentnea Creek
• Swift Creek – from source to Clayroot Swamp
B16
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-9
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

• Clayroot Swamp – from source to SR 1925
• Hominy Swamp – from source to Contentnea Creek

Table 1-1: Bioclassification and Use Support Ratings for Streams within the Project Area
Waterbody Data Type
DWQ
Subbasin Bioclassification
Use
Support
Rating
Conetoe Creek Special Benthic Community
Study 03-03-03 Poor Impaired
Grindle Creek Benthic Community Survey 03-03-05 Good-Fair Supporting Fish Community Survey 03-03-05 Not Rated
Hardee Creek Benthic Community Survey 03-03-05 Natural Supporting Fish Community Survey 03-03-05 Not Rated
Tar River Benthic Community Survey 03-03-05 Not Rated Not Rated
Chicod Creek
Benthic Community Survey 03-03-05 Severe Stress
Impaired Fish Community Survey 03-03-05 Not Rated
Flat Swamp Benthic Community Survey 03-03-06 Moderate Stress Supporting
Tranters Creek Benthic Community Survey 03-03-06 Moderate Stress Supporting
Contentnea Creek (from
0.7 mile upstream of
Toisnot Swamp to
Nahunta Swamp)
Benthic Community Survey 03-04-07 Fair Impaired
Contentnea Creek (from
Nahunta Swamp to
Neuse River)
Benthic Community Survey 03-04-07 Not Rated ---
Nahunta Swamp Benthic Community Study 03-04-07 Good-Fair Supporting
Little Contentnea Creek Benthic Community Survey 03-04-07 Fair Impaired
Clayroot Swamp (from
source to SR 1925) Benthic Community Survey 03-04-09 Fair Impaired
Clayroot Swamp (from SR
1925 to Swift Creek) Benthic Community Survey 03-04-09 Good-Fair Supporting
Creeping Swamp Benthic Community Survey 03-04-09 Moderate Supporting

B17
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-10
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

1.5.1.4 Groundwater
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province in the central eastern portion of
North Carolina. The aquifers underlying the area consist of a post-Miocene age surficial aquifer and a
series of Cretaceous-aged aquifers that include the Lower Cape Fear, the Upper Cape Fear, the Black
Creek, and the Pee Dee aquifers, collectively referred to as the Cretaceous Aquifer System (CAS). The
surficial aquifer is the shallowest aquifer and is widely used for individual residential wells throughout the
state.
The aforementioned aquifers are used by numerous municipalities, private water supply sources, and
individual businesses and residences for drinking water. According to a Pitt County Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan prepared by Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. (GMA), the primary
source of water supply for ten public water systems in Pitt County is groundwater. GMA concluded that
98 percent of the groundwater withdrawal in Pitt County for public water supply systems is from the Black
Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers.
A hydrologic study was performed by GMA utilizing the data from more than 100 wells located within Pitt
County. The safe yield of each aquifer was compared to current withdrawals from the aquifers. It was
determined that over-development of the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers has occurred. GMA
also reported that water quality problems associated with elevated levels of fluoride and chloride are
present within the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers in the eastern portion of the county.
Additionally, GMA reports that the Lower Cape Fear aquifer below Pitt County contains elevated salt
concentrations that must be treated prior to public consumption. Based on GMA’s study, future
development of the Pee Dee and Castle Hayne aquifers within Pitt County was found to a viable option.
However, GMA determined that groundwater resources within Pitt County are limited and that they will not
meet the County’s future water supply needs.
1.5.2 Land Use
Land use within the service area consists of single and multi-family residential, commercial, and
undeveloped open space of varying uses including farmland, pastureland, and forested areas.
Land use within the northern portion of the Pitt County service area consists of low-density single and multi-
family residential, commercial/industrial, and undeveloped open space. This area has seen considerable
growth in the past decade (Northwest Planning Area Land Use Plan for Pitt County, North Carolina, The
Wooten Company, 2001). However, the residential, industrial, and commercial development only
comprises a small fraction of this northern portion. A majority of the land use within this area consists of
wooded, undeveloped land including land used for forestry purposes, and agricultural land. Public water
and soils suitable for septic systems makes the northern portion of the service area attractive for low to
medium-density residential growth. (DWQ prefers regional wastewater treatment systems in lieu of
B18
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-11
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

individual package plants). Residential growth in the northern portion of the service area mainly consists of
manufactured housing in subdivisions and parks. Some industrial and commercial land use is also present.
Land use within the City of Greenville and its incorporated areas consist mainly of residential, commercial,
and industrial development with some undeveloped areas present. East Carolina University is also located
within the City of Greenville. The City of Greenville also has several parks and open spaces. A majority of
the areas abutting the City of Greenville and the incorporated areas within the southern portion of the
service area consist of wooded, undeveloped land, land used for forestry purposes, and land used for
agricultural purposes.
Land use in Greene County is approximately 50 percent cultivated farmland and 50 percent wooded area.
The largest jurisdiction in Greene County is Snow Hill, which is located in the south central area of the
County along Contentnea Creek.
1.5.2.1 Forest Resources
Natural forested communities are scattered throughout the undeveloped and developed portions of the
service area. The forested areas include mixed upland hardwoods, bottomland forest/hardwood swamps,
needleleaf deciduous, southern yellow pine, and oak/gum/cypress forests. Approximately 32 percent of the
service area consists of undeveloped, wooded land.
1.5.2.2 Prime and Unique Farmlands
Within North Carolina, three categories of important farmlands are recognized. These consist of prime
farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide importance. Approximately 38 percent of the service
area consists of cultivated land. Within the service area, fifteen mapped soils are listed by the U.S. Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime farmland and six of the mapped soils are listed as prime
farmland if drained. One of the soils mapped within the service area is listed by the NRCS as prime
farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season.
Six of the soils mapped within the service area are listed by the NRCS as farmland of statewide
importance. None of the soils mapped within the service area are listed by the NRCS as unique farmland
soils. Developed land no longer qualifies as prime or unique farmland, regardless of soil type.
1.5.2.3 Public, Scenic, and Recreational Areas
No state or federal parks are located within the service area, although two areas that are owned by the
federal government are located within Pitt County. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) does not list any game lands within the service area.
Nine public municipal and county parks are located within the service area. Eight of the public municipal
parks are located within Pitt County and one is located within Greene County.
B19
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-12
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

1.5.2.4 Significant Natural Areas
Natural Heritage Protection (NHP) designates significant natural areas if those areas contain rare or
protected species, high quality examples of relatively undisturbed natural communities, or unusual
geological features. They may be on public or private land and their designation as a natural area by NHP
does not confer protection. No significant natural heritage areas (SNHAs) are listed by NHP within Greene
County. Several sites are listed as significant natural areas within Pitt County. The following sites are listed
as nationally significant natural areas that contain examples of natural communities, rare plant or animal
populations, or geologic features that have the highest quality or are the best of their kind in the nation: Tar
River Basin Megasite, Lower Tar River/Swift Creek Macrosite, Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat, and
Bethel/Grindle Hardwood Flats. Two sites, the Neuse River Floodplain and Bluffs and Voice of America
Site B, are listed as being statewide significant natural areas that contain similar ecological resources,
which are among the highest quality occurrences in North Carolina. Eight sites are listed as regionally
significant natural areas that contain natural elements that may be represented elsewhere in the state by
better quality examples.
1.5.3 Wildlife Habitat and Resources
The service area contains a variety of different vegetative communities based on topography, soils,
hydrology, and disturbance. Terrestrial communities within the service area vary from undeveloped wooded
areas to cultivated farm fields to disturbed lands. The numerous natural communities and disturbed habitats
have been grouped into the following categories: (1) bottomland hardwood forest, (2) upland hardwood
forest, (3) pine forest, and (4) disturbed land. The bottomland hardwood forest category is found
predominantly on stream floodplains and may include some mesic low-slope woodland. The upland
hardwood forest category includes mesic mixed hardwood forest and dry-mesic oak/hickory forest. Forests
with greater than 50 percent of the canopy dominated by pines in either uplands or floodplains were
designated as pine forest. Disturbed lands include lawns, agricultural fields, un-vegetated land, and
infrequently mowed utility rights-of-way. These communities provide suitable habitat for numerous species
of terrestrial species and vascular plants.
1.5.3.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The bottomland hardwood community occurs in the upper portion of the floodplain, generally flat areas that
are saturated for part of the year. The canopy of the bottomland hardwood community is dominated by red
maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and oaks (Quercus
spp.). The understory layer includes American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple, red bay (Persea palustris), and
sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana). The well-developed and sometimes dense shrub layer includes
blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), and giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The vine layer can be dense and typically includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). Usually, the
herbaceous layer of bottomland hardwood communities is poorly developed.
B20
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-13
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

Wildlife commonly found within bottomland hardwood communities includes several reptiles including the
ground skink (Scincella lateralis), scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea), corn snake (Elaphe guttata), and
southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus). These snakes forage on small mammals, birds, frogs, lizards,
and toads. Birds include Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor),
pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), and brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla). These birds generally feed on
seeds and insects. Small mammals such as the nocturnal fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) and the larger, more
visible southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) may also be present. Larger mammals such as the
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) are common within bottomland hardwood communities.
1.5.3.2 Upland Hardwood Forest
The canopy of the upland hardwood community is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white oak (Q. alba), red oak (Q. rubra), and sweetgum. The
understory of the Upland Hardwood community includes flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American
holly, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, red bay, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and
eastern hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). The shrub layer varies from sparse to dense and includes giant
cane, blueberry, sweet pepperbush, and American witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). The herb layer is
likely to contain Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), sedges
(Carex spp.), and slender spikegrass (Chasmanthium laxum).
The upland hardwood vegetative community is often found adjacent to bottomland hardwood and riverine
swamp forest communities; therefore, they have similar wildlife and may also include the following species.
The spotted (Ambystoma maculatum), slimy (Plethodon glutinosus), and many-lined (Stereochilus
marginatus) salamanders may be found within the service area. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus)
and worm snake (Carphophis amoenus) are found in hardwood forests. These reptiles feed on mainly
arthropods and earthworms, respectively. The multi-layered structure characteristic of mature mixed
hardwood communities supports high densities and diversities of neotropical migratory birds such as wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypic
swainsonii), worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis). Small mammals such
as the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) are found in the
hardwood forests of the service area.
1.5.3.3 Pine Forest
Pine forests are mesic sites, located either on flat or rolling Coastal Plain sediments, that are neither
excessively drained nor with a significant seasonal high water table. Pine forests commonly occur on broad
flats along interstream divides. This community often consists of large contiguous tracts of land that are
leased for hunting. Many of these tracts of land are owned by timber companies and routinely logged and
replanted.
B21
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-14
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

The pine forest community is underlain by loamy or fine-textured soils, sometimes on sands, and is
characterized as having a closed to open canopy mainly consisting of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) or
loblolly pine. The understory is commonly sparse and contains species such as Southern red oak, water
oak, post oak, mockernut hickory and sweet gum. The shrub layer will have varying densities and is similar
to wet pine flatwoods. The herbaceous layer is generally dominated by pineland three-awn grass (Aristida
stricta), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), old switch panic grass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem
(Andropogon scoparium), and roundhead bushclover (Lespedeza capitata).
Several reptiles are found in pine forest habitats including the ground skink (Scincella lateralis), scarlet
snake (Cemophora coccinea), corn snake (Elaphe guttata), and southern hognose snake (Heterodon
simus). These snakes forage on small mammals, birds, frogs, lizards, and toads. The red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a federally endangered species, is found in pine forest communities. Other
birds include Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), pine warbler
(Dendoica pinus), and brown-headed nuthatches (Sitta pusilla). These birds generally feed on seeds and
insects. Small mammals such as the nocturnal fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) and the larger, more visible
southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) may also be found within the service area.
1.5.3.4 Disturbed Land
Three main types of disturbed land are found in the service area: cutover, farm field, and maintained areas.
Cutover areas are generally dominated by immature loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple, and tulip poplar
with blueberry, American holly, and flowering dogwood being present within the shrub layer. The vine layer
of the cutover area is dominated by common greenbrier. Vegetation within the maintained areas includes
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), foxtail grass (Sertaria italica), bead grass (Paspalum sp.), as well as other forbs
commonly found in maintained/disturbed areas.
Disturbed lands such as those within the service area are typically drier than wooded land and do not
support a wide variety of amphibian species. The reptiles are limited to snakes, lizards and skinks such as
those inhabiting the pine-dominated woodlands. Other reptiles found may include the southern cricket frog
(Acris gryilus), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), and eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporous undulatus). Common birds of pasture, fallow fields, and hedgerows include eastern
bluebirds (Sialia sialis), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Northern bobwhite quail, American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), towhee (Pipilio erythrophthalmus), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Typical
mammals include the eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail, raccoon (Procyon lotor),
opossum, least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and white-tailed deer.
B22
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-15
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

1.5.4 Aquatic Habitat and Resources
Aquatic habitats are present within the project area. These aquatic habitats range from small headwater
streams and wetlands to large third and fourth order streams and floodplain communities. The diversity of
aquatic habitat available supports a variety of aquatic fauna within the service area.
The most important physical factors that affect freshwater organisms are temperature, light, water current,
and substrate (Voshell, 2002). As stream order increases, these factors change and have an effect on the
type of organisms present within each aquatic community. Benthic species typically found dominating the
smaller headwater and second order streams include various shredders such as mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), craneflies (Nematocera), and case maker caddisflies
(Trichoptera). Shredders are most abundant in first and second order streams because these streams
usually have an abundance of coarse particulate organic material entering the stream, which provides a
food source for these organisms. Filter feeders and collector-gatherers are most abundant in higher order
streams due to the abundance of fine particular organic matter and may include species such as common
net spinner caddisflies (Trichoptera), true flies (Diptera), and water boatmen (Heteroptera). Predator
species in streams of all orders within the service area include damselflies (Zygoptera), dragonflies
(Anisoptera), hellgrammites (Megaloptera), and water striders (Heteroptera). Bivalves are most abundant in
medium to large rivers and prefer a stable substrate consisting of gravel or a combination of gravel and
sand. Crayfish (Decapoda) habitat is also present within the service area.
In general, streams in the project area provide suitable habitat for fish such as bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), dusky shiner
(Notropis cummingsae), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), warmouth (L. gulosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Many benthic
macroinvertebrates are expected to inhabit the streams. Benthic invertebrates common in swamp streams
are the caddisflies (Nyctiophlax moestus) and (Pycnopsyche sp.) and the mayflies (Stenonema modestum),
(Leptophlebia sp.), (Caenis sp.), and (Eurylophella doris) (DENR, 2004).
The streams within the project area support anadramous fish such as hickory shad (Alosa mediocris),
American shad (A. sapidissima), alewife (A. psuedoharengus), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Within the Tar-Pamlico River basin, the Tar River
and several of its tributaries are listed as anadromous fish spawning areas. The tributaries to the Tar River
within Pitt and Greene Counties that are listed as supporting anadromous fish include portions of Otter
Creek, Kitten Creek, Conetoe Creek, Tyson Creek (King Creek), Meeting House Branch, Hardee Creek,
Chicod Creek, Grindle Creek, and Tranters Creek. Within the Neuse River basin, Contentnea Creek and
several of its tributaries are listed as anadromous fish spawning areas. The tributaries to Contentnea Creek
within Pitt and Greene Counties listed as supporting anadromous fish include portions of Rainbow Creek,
Wheat Swamp Creek, Beaverdam Run, Panther Swamp Creek, Polecat Branch, and Little Contentnea
Creek.
B23
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-16
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

1.5.5 Rare and Protected Aquatic Species or Habitats
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in the process of decline due to either natural
forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. As of January 2008,
the USFWS identified three species as federally Endangered (E) and ten species as Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) potentially occurring in Pitt and Greene Counties. The NHP list of May 2008 included the
aforementioned species and identified an additional 14 species receiving protection under state laws. The
full list of protected species listed for Pitt and Greene Counties are provided in the Final Environmental
Assessment (ARCADIS 2008). Table 1-2 provides a list of the protected aquatic species for the purposes of
this Petition.
Table 1-2: Protected Species Listed for Pitt and Greene Counties
Scientific Name Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status County
Vertebrates
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E - P
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T - P
Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke bass SR FSC P
Anguilla rostrata American eel - FSC G, P
Lampetra aepyptera Least brook lamprey T - P
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner - FSC G, P
Necturus lewisi Neuse River waterdog SC - G, P
Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom SC (PT) FSC G, P
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E E P
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater T - P
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke slabshell T - P
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spinymussel E E P
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe E FSC P
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel E FSC P
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E FSC P
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket T - P
Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel T - P
Orconectes carolinensis North Carolina spiny crayfish SC - G, P
Strophitus undulatus Creeper T - P
B24
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-17
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction

Table 1-2: Protected Species Listed for Pitt and Greene Counties
Scientific Name Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status County
P = Pitt County
G = Greene County
Key to Federal Status:
E – Endangered. A taxon “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
T – Threatened. A taxon “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
FSC – Federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this time.
BGPA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The bald eagle was de-listed from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife and the primary
law protecting the bald eagle became the BGPA.
Key to State Status:
E – Endangered: “Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State’s flora is determined to be in
jeopardy” (GS 19B 106:202.12).
T – Threatened: “Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range” (GS 19B 106:202.12).
SC – Special Concern. Any species of plant in North Carolina which required monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations adopted
under the provisions of the Plant Protection and conservation Act (GS 19B 106:202.12).
SR – Significantly Rare (only an NHP designation): Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges. P – Proposed. A species that has been formally proposed for listing as endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process. -T – Throughout. These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total).

B25
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

2. Necessity, Reasonableness, and Beneficial Effects of Transfer
2.1 Growth Trends
2.1.1 Greene County
Since 1990, Greene County’s population has grown by over 5,000 individuals to 20,466 residents, which is
approximately a 25 percent increase according to 2006 statistics. Though largely agricultural, Greene
County has a growing industrial community, which will continue to expand as the Global Transpark, a local
business park, begins to take shape. According to the North Carolina State Demographics Unit, an annual
growth rate of approximately 1 percent is expected to occur in Greene County between 2010 and 2030, a
slightly lower growth rate than experienced before 2006. Assuming that the estimated growth rate is
accurate, the County’s population is projected to exceed 27,000 residents by the year 2030.
2.1.2 Town of Farmville
The Town of Farmville has experienced limited growth in the last fifteen years, with 180 additional residents
added between 1990 and 2004. Farmville does not consistently record yearly census data, nor have they
conducted population projections. The available population estimates are from the Local Water Supply
Plan. Based on the observed historical growth percentage (0.28 percent annually between 1990 and 2004),
the Town of Farmville may expect to support a population of approximately 5,000 residents by the year
2030.
2.1.3 Town of Winterville
The Town of Winterville, located south of Greenville, has experienced increased growth and development
in the past fifteen years. Winterville’s population more than doubled between 1990 and 2006, and grew by
as much as 21.25 percent between 2000 and 2001 with the addition of 940 people. Between 2000 and
2006, Winterville’s population increased at an average annual rate of 11 percent but it reached
17.1 percent between 2004 and 2005. The Town completed a water system master plan in Spring 2008.
Population projections for Winterville were provided by the Town’s master planning consultant. Growth in
Winterville is expected to remain consistent over the next several years due to Winterville’s close proximity
to the City of Greenville. At an annual growth rate between 4.5 percent and 5.8 percent, Winterville’s
population in 2025 is expected to reach approximately 21,700 residents.
2.1.4 City of Greenville
Greenville is the largest municipality in Pitt County, making up 48 percent of the total population in
July 2005, according to the North Carolina State Demographics Unit. East Carolina University, Pitt
Memorial Hospital, and other businesses have attracted many residents to the area, bringing Greenville’s
population to 68,852 in 2005. The North Carolina State Demographics Unit has predicted that Pitt County
B26
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

will grow to 153,411 by 2010, and 192,493 by the year 2030. Assuming that Greenville continues to make
up almost half of the County’s population, the City will host approximately 100,000 residents by 2030.
GUC provides utility services to customers in the City of Greenville and some of the surrounding areas.
According to 2005 census data from North Carolina State Demographics and projected values from the
GUC Water System Master Plan, approximately 10 percent of the customers served by GUC live outside
the City limits. GUC’s service population has grown by an average annual rate of 1.91 percent between
2000 and 2005. Assuming an average annual growth rate of approximately 1.8 percent, population for the
GUC service area is predicted to increase by approximately 25,000 persons between 2005 and 2020. By
2030, GUC may serve more than 110,000 customers.
Historical growth trends and growth projections for Greene County, the Towns of Farmville and Winterville,
and the City of Greenville are provided in Table 2-1.
B27
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-3
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

Table 2-1: Historical and Projected Population and Growth Rates
Year
Greenville Utilities
Commission Farmville Greene County Winterville
Population 1
Annual
Growth
Rate, % Population
Annual
Growth
Rate, % Population 4
Annual
Growth
Rate, % Population
Annual
Growth
Rate, %
1990 NA NA 4,446 2 NA 15,384 NA 3,053 5 NA
2000 69,507 NA 4,302 2 - 0.33 18,974 2.10 3,979 5 2.65
2001 NA NA NA NA 19,050 0.40 4,921 5 21.25
2002 NA NA 4,325 3 0.27 19,488 2.27 5,101 5 3.59
2003 NA NA NA NA 19,860 1.89 5,402 5 5.73
2004 NA NA 4,626 2 3.36 19,998 0.69 5,850 5 7.97
2005 76,478 1.91 6 NA NA 20,167 0.84 6,942 5 17.11
2006 79,025 3.28 NA NA 20,466 1.47 8,500 7 10.34
2010 85,067 1.84 NA NA 21,567 1.31 NA NA
2015 NA NA NA NA 22,976 1.27 13,800 7 5.8
2020 101,932 1.81 NA NA 24,485 1.27 NA NA
2025 NA NA NA NA 25,883 1.11 21,700 7 4.5
2030 NA NA NA NA 27,378 1.12 NA NA
1. From Greenville Utilities Commission Water System Master Plan (Black and Veatch, not yet published). 2. From Town of Farmville. 3. From 2002 Town of Farmville Local Water Supply Plan. 4. From N.C. Demographics Unit. 5. From N.C. Division of Water Resources. 6. Average Annual Historical Growth Rate (2000 – 2005). 7. Town of Winterville Water and Wastewater System Master Plan (Black & Veatch, not yet published).

NA = Data Not Available

B28
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-4
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

2.2 Water Demand Projections
Historical water use data and water demand projections were collected for GUC, Greene County, the Town
of Farmville, and the Town of Winterville and summarized in Table 2-2. Water demand projections provided
by Greene County, the Town of Farmville, and the Town of Winterville were based on average day
demands (ADD). Maximum day demand (MDD) projections were developed using historical MDD and ADD
peaking factors.
The projected water demands for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County were used in combination with
the Approved Base Rate (ABR) of each municipality to determine estimated bulk purchases from GUC
needed in 2008 and beyond in order for these water systems to comply with the CCPCUA rules. This
Estimated Minimum Purchase is equal to the required reduction in well pumping to meet CCPCUA rules
and is stated in the bulk sales contracts between GUC and its wholesale customers: Farmville, Greene
County, and Winterville.
2.3 Need for Additional Water Supply
In order to comply with CCPCUA rules for the Cretaceous aquifer and continue to meet customer
demands, the Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County plan to purchase bulk finished
water from GUC. GUC relies on the Tar River for its water supply, and the Town of Farmville and the
majority of Greene County are located within the Neuse River Contentnea Creek subbasin. Farmville and
Greene County discharge wastewater into the Contentnea Creek subbasin via centralized treatment or on-
site septic systems. Therefore, sales of finished water to the Town of Farmville and Greene County will
constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River Contentnea Creek
subbasin. The Town of Winterville water and wastewater systems and the southwestern portion of Greene
County are located within the Neuse River subbasin. Therefore, sales of finished water to the Town of
Winterville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the
Neuse River subbasin.
GUC has signed bulk sales agreements with Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville (wholesale
customers). The bulk sales agreements stipulate an Estimated Minimum Purchase, which is equal to the
required reduction in well pumping to meet CCPCUA rules. Table 2-3 provides a summary of maximum
day demands for GUC, the Estimated Minimum Purchases from each wholesale customer, and the
resulting maximum day water demand for all four systems. In 2030, the total maximum day water demand
is projected to be 22.2 mgd, not to exceed the current WTP capacity of 22.5 mgd. Therefore, a plant
capacity expansion for GUC is not requested as part of this project. The bulk sales contracts also stipulate
that GUC may limit distribution to Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County when GUC experiences peak
demands. GUC’s wholesale customers will rely on well pumping to meet demands during peak periods,
and GUC will provide sufficient water during the remainder of the year to allow its customers to meet
CCPCUA rules.
B29
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-5
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

Table 2-2: Historical and Projected Water Demands
Year
Greenville Utilities
Commission 7 Farmville 8 Greene County 9 Winterville 10
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
1990 8.94 1 NA 2.17 3 3.20 3 NA NA NA NA
1995 9.67 1 NA 1.60 3 2.38 3 NA NA NA NA
2000 10.06 1 14.17 1 1.57 3 2.43 3 1.12 5 1.83 5 0.463 5 0.667 5
2005 10.03 1 14.71 1 1.66 3 2.74 3 1.19 5 2.22 5 0.706 5 1.32 5
2006 10.19 1 15.28 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2007 10.34 2 15.51 NA NA NA NA 0.80 6 1.44
2008 10.50 2 15.75 1.87 4 3.18 2.31 4 4.04 0.85 1.53
2009 10.65 2 15.98 1.89 4 3.22 2.35 4 4.11 0.90 1.62
2010 10.81 2 16.21 1.91 4 3.25 2.39 4 4.18 0.95 1.71
2015 11.19 2 16.78 2.01 4 3.41 2.60 4 4.54 1.20 2.16
2020 11.57 2 17.35 2.11 4 3.59 2.80 4 4.90 1.55 2.79
2025 11.95 2 17.92 2.22 4 3.77 3.01 4 5.27 1.93 3.47
2030 12.33 2 18.49 2.33 4 3.96 3.22 4 5.64 2.00 3.60
1 Historical data from Greenville Utilities Commission. 2 ADD demands based on a linear projection of historical demands (1990 – 2005). 3 Town of Farmville Water production data. 4 Water Supply Agreement with Greenville Utilities Commission. 5 Data from Division of Water Resources. 6 Data from the Town of Winterville. 7Per capita water use (residential, commercial, and institutional) for GUC is approximately 120 gpcd. 8 Per capita water use for Farmville (residential) is estimated between 90 and 120 gpcd. Farmville has a large industrial
percentage of water use (39%). The large industrial water use in addition to the scarcity of population data has
resulted in inaccurate per capita use values. 9 Per capita water use (residential, commercial, and institutional) for Greene County is approximately 115 gpcd. 10 Per capita water use (residential, commercial, and institutional) for Winterville is approximately 90 gpcd.

NA = Data Not Available

B30
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-6
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

Table 2-3: Maximum Day GUC Demands with Minimum Bulk Purchases
Year
GUC Demands
(mgd) 1
Estimated Minimum Purchase (mgd) Total
(mgd) Winterville Greene County Farmville
2008 15.83 0.12 0.74 0.39 17.09
2013 16.71 0.25 1.48 0.79 19.22
2018 17.28 0.37 2.22 1.18 21.05
2020 17.51 0.37 2.22 1.18 21.27
2025 18.08 0.37 2.22 1.18 21.84
2030 18.65 0.37 2.22 1.18 22.41
2035 19.22 0.37 2.22 1.18 22.98
2040 19.79 0.37 2.22 1.18 23.55
1 Demands include minimum bulk sales to Stokes and Bethel.

2.4 Reasonableness of IBT Request
To support the Town of Farmville and Greene County’s compliance with CCPCUA rules, GUC is requesting
an IBT Certificate for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin. GUC is
requesting an IBT Certificate for 8.3 mgd to meet Farmville and Greene County’s maximum day demands
through 2030. As part of the same Certificate, GUC requests the ability to transfer 9.3 mgd under
emergency conditions to the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
GUC is also requesting an IBT Certificate for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River
subbasin to support the Town of Winterville’s compliance with CCPCUA rules, and to support water use in
the portion of the GUC service area within the Neuse River Basin. GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate for
4.0 mgd to meet Winterville’s maximum day demands 2030. As part of the same Certificate, GUC requests
the ability to transfer 4.2 mgd under emergency conditions to the Neuse River subbasin.
Detailed explanations of the IBT calculations are provided in Attachment B (IBT Management Strategy).
The following sections provide a summary of these calculations.
2.4.1 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Neuse River Subbasin
IBT calculations for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin (Basin ID 15-1) to the Neuse River subbasin
(Basin ID 10-1) are shown in the water balance Tables 2-4 and 2-5. Transfers to the Neuse River subbasin
are a result of bulk sales to the Town of Winterville and the southwestern portion of Greene County as well
as water use by GUC customers located in the Neuse River subbasin. IBT calculations are based on the
following:
B31
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-7
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

• Peak day demands for GUC are calculated based on a MDD:ADD peaking factor
of 1.50, based on historical demand trends.
• Peak day demands for the Town of Winterville are calculated based on a
MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.80, based on historical demand trends.
• Peak day demands for Greene County are calculated based on a MDD:ADD
peaking factor of 1.75, based on historical demand trends.
• Consumptive water use for GUC is 20 percent based on historical operating
records.
• Consumptive water use for Winterville and Greene County is assumed to be
30 percent.
• Process water use at the GUC WTP is 8 percent of raw water withdrawal based on
operating records.
• The service area for the Town of Winterville is entirely within the Neuse River
subbasin.
• The portion of Greene County in the Neuse River subbasin is estimated at
5 percent.
• The portion of GUC’s service area in the Neuse River subbasin is estimated at
8 percent based on current water distribution system maps and the number of
service connections located in the Neuse River subbasin.
• All wastewater produced in the GUC service area is returned to the Tar River
Basin, with the exception of a limited number of septic tanks in the Neuse River
Basin.
• All wastewater produced in the Winterville service area is discharged into the
Neuse River subbasin.
• All wastewater produced in Greene County is disposed of by on-site septic
systems.
In Table 2-4, the maximum day bulk sales projected for the Town of Winterville and portion of Greene
County are used to determine the maximum day IBT amounts. The maximum day bulk sale represents the
total peak day demands for the Winterville and Greene County service area less the average annual
allowable well pumping rate.
In Table 2-5, the emergency bulk sales projected for the Town of Winterville and portion of Greene County
are used to determine the emergency condition for the IBT. The emergency condition represents the total
peak day demand for the Winterville and Greene County service area. This strategy will allow GUC to
provide water to Winterville and Greene County in the event a catastrophic event was to occur, e.g. aquifer
B32
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-8
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

contamination, drought, or major mechanical or electrical failure. GUC requests that the IBT certificate be
written such that notification would be required to DWR to trigger the emergency request.

.

B33
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-9
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

Table 2-4: Water Balance Table for Maximum Day Condition from the Tar River to the Neuse River Subbasin (Town of Winterville and Greene County)
Year GU
C

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

Wi
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e

W
a
t
e
r

De
m
a
n
d

Gr
e
e
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

Wa
t
e
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l

f
r
o
m

T
a
r

Ri
v
e
r

Consumptive Use Wastewater
Discharge
WTP Dis-
charge
To
t
a
l

R
e
t
u
r
n

t
o

T
a
r

Ri
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

In
t
e
r
-
b
a
s
i
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

GUC Winterville Greene County
%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

2005 14.71 1.32 0.11 17.43 92 2.71 0.24 0 0.0 0.40 0 0.0 0.11 11.8 0.9 1.3 15.8 1.7
2010 16.22 1.34 0.10 19.07 92 2.98 0.26 0 0.0 0.40 0 0.0 0.10 13.0 0.9 1.4 17.4 1.7
2015 16.79 1.91 0.16 20.36 92 3.09 0.27 0 0.0 0.57 0 0.0 0.16 13.4 1.3 1.5 18.0 2.3
2020 17.36 2.67 0.21 21.85 92 3.19 0.28 0 0.0 0.80 0 0.0 0.21 13.9 1.9 1.6 18.7 3.2
2025 17.93 3.34 0.23 23.21 92 3.30 0.29 0 0.0 1.00 0 0.0 0.23 14.3 2.3 1.7 19.3 3.9
2030 18.50 3.48 0.25 24.00 92 3.40 0.30 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.25 14.8 2.4 1.8 20.0 4.0
2035 19.07 3.48 0.26 24.63 92 3.51 0.31 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.26 15.3 2.4 1.8 20.6 4.0
2040 19.64 3.48 0.28 25.27 92 3.61 0.31 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.28 15.7 2.4 1.8 21.2 4.1

B34
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-10
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer

Table 2-5: Water Balance Table for Emergency Condition from the Tar River to the Neuse River Subbasin (Town of Winterville and Greene County)
Year GU
C

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

Wi
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e

W
a
t
e
r

De
m
a
n
d

Gr
e
e
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

Wa
t
e
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l

f
r
o
m

T
a
r

Ri
v
e
r

Consumptive Use Wastewater
Discharge
WTP Dis-
charge
To
t
a
l

R
e
t
u
r
n

t
o

T
a
r

Ri
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

In
t
e
r
-
b
a
s
i
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

GUC Winterville Greene County
%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ne
u
s
e

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

2005 14.71 1.32 0.11 17.43 92 2.71 0.24 0 0.0 0.40 0 0.0 0.11 11.8 0.9 1.3 15.8 1.7
2010 16.22 1.71 0.21 19.58 92 2.98 0.26 0 0.0 0.51 0 0.0 0.21 13.0 1.2 1.4 17.4 2.2
2015 16.79 2.16 0.23 20.71 92 3.09 0.27 0 0.0 0.65 0 0.0 0.23 13.4 1.5 1.5 18.1 2.7
2020 17.36 2.79 0.25 22.02 92 3.19 0.28 0 0.0 0.84 0 0.0 0.25 13.9 2.0 1.6 18.7 3.3
2025 17.93 3.47 0.26 23.39 92 3.30 0.29 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.26 14.3 2.4 1.7 19.4 4.0
2030 18.50 3.60 0.28 24.17 92 3.40 0.30 0 0.0 1.08 0 0.0 0.28 14.8 2.5 1.8 20.0 4.2
2035 19.07 3.60 0.30 24.80 92 3.51 0.31 0 0.0 1.08 0 0.0 0.30 15.3 2.5 1.8 20.6 4.2
2040 19.64 3.60 0.32 25.44 92 3.61 0.31 0 0.0 1.08 0 0.0 0.32 15.7 2.5 1.9 21.2 4.2

B35
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-11
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer
2.5 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Contentnea Creek Subbasin
IBT calculations for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin (Basin ID 15-1) to the Contentnea Creek
subbasin (Basin ID 10-2) are shown in water balance Tables 2-6 and 2-7. Transfers to the Contentnea
Creek subbasin are a result of bulk sales to the Town of Farmville and Greene County.
• Peak day demands for the Town of Farmville are calculated based on a MDD:ADD
peaking factor of 1.70, based on historical demand trends.
• Peak day demands for Greene County are calculated based on a MDD:ADD
peaking factor of 1.75, based on historical demand trends.
• Consumptive water use for Farmville and Greene County is assumed to be
30 percent.
• Process water use at the GUC WTP is 8 percent of raw water withdrawal based on
operating records.
• The service area for the Town of Farmville is entirely within the Contentnea Creek
subbasin.
• The portion of Greene County in the Contentnea Creek subbasin is estimated at
95 percent.
• No wastewater produced in the Town of Farmville and Greene County service
areas is returned to the Tar River subbasin.
In Table 2-6, the maximum day IBT amount was determined using the maximum day bulk sales projected
for Greene County and the Town of Farmville. The maximum day bulk sales represents the total peak day
demands for Greene County and Farmville less the average annual allowable well pumping rate.
In Table 2-7, the emergency bulk sales projected for Greene County and Farmville are used to determine
the emergency condition for the IBT. The emergency condition represents the total peak day demand. This
strategy will allow GUC to provide water to Greene County and Farmville in the event a catastrophic event
was to occur, e.g. aquifer contamination, drought, or major mechanical or electrical failure. GUC requests
that the IBT certificate be written such that notification would be required to DWR to trigger the emergency
request.

B36
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-12
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer
Table 2-6: Water Balance Table for Maximum Day Condition from the Tar River to the Contentnea Creek Subbasin
(Greene County and Town of Farmville)
Year Fa
r
m
v
i
l
l
e

W
a
t
e
r

De
m
a
n
d

Gr
e
e
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

W
a
t
e
r

De
m
a
n
d

To
t
a
l

B
u
l
k

S
a
l
e
s

t
o

Co
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a

B
a
s
i
n

Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l

f
r
o
m

T
a
r

Ba
s
i
n

(
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

bu
l
k

s
a
l
e
s

o
n
l
y
)

Consumptive Use
Wastewater
Discharge
WTP
Discharge
To
t
a
l

R
e
t
u
r
n

t
o

T
a
r

Ri
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

In
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

Co
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a

Cr
e
e
k

B
a
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

Co
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a

Cr
e
e
k

B
a
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

2005 1.66 2.08 3.74 4.04 0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.6 0.3 0.3 3.7
2010 2.07 1.87 3.93 4.25 0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.3 3.9
2015 2.63 2.91 5.54 5.99 0 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.9 0.4 0.4 5.5
2020 3.19 3.95 7.15 7.72 0 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.0 0.6 0.6 7.1
2025 3.38 4.30 7.68 8.29 0 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.4 0.6 0.6 7.7
2030 3.57 4.65 8.22 8.88 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.8 0.7 0.7 8.3
2035 3.77 5.00 8.77 9.47 0 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.1 0.7 0.7 8.8
2040 3.98 5.35 9.33 10.08 0 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.7 9.3

B37
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-13
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer
Table 2-7: Water Balance Table for Emergency Condition from the Tar River to the Contentnea Creek Subbasin
(Greene County and Town of Farmville)
Year Fa
r
m
v
i
l
l
e

W
a
t
e
r

De
m
a
n
d

Gr
e
e
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

Wa
t
e
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

To
t
a
l

B
u
l
k

S
a
l
e
s

t
o

Co
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a

B
a
s
i
n

Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l

f
r
o
m

T
a
r

Ba
s
i
n

(
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

wi
t
h

b
u
l
k

s
a
l
e
s

o
n
l
y
)

Consumptive Use
Wastewater
Discharge
WTP Dis-
charge
To
t
a
l

R
e
t
u
r
n

t
o

T
a
r

Ri
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

In
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

%
T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Co
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a

Cr
e
e
k

B
a
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

Co
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a

Cr
e
e
k

B
a
s
i
n

Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r

Ba
s
i
n

2005 1.66 3.64 5.30 5.73 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.4 5.3
2010 3.25 3.98 7.22 7.80 0 0.0 2.2 0.0 5.1 0.6 0.6 7.2
2015 3.41 4.32 7.73 8.35 0 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.4 0.6 0.6 7.7
2020 3.59 4.66 8.24 8.90 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.8 0.7 0.7 8.2
2025 3.77 5.01 8.78 9.48 0 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.1 0.7 0.7 8.8
2030 3.96 5.35 9.32 10.06 0 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.7 9.3
2035 4.17 5.70 9.87 10.66 0 0.0 3.0 0.0 6.9 0.8 0.8 9.9
2040 4.38 6.05 10.43 11.27 0 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.3 0.8 0.8 10.4

B38
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-14
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Necessity, Reasonableness, and
Beneficial Effects of Transfer
2.6 IBT Management Strategy
Greene County, the Town of Farmville, and the Town of Winterville have each entered into Water Purchase
Agreements with GUC in response to the CCPCUA rules. Key provisions that are similar for each contract
are as follows:
• Contract terms are valid for 40 years, beginning August 1, 2008.
• The minimum daily amount that GUC is committed to provide is equal to water
supply reductions required by CCPCUA rules for each customer.
• Interruption or curtailment of water supply will occur no more than 10 percent of the
time (36 days per year). GUC will provide at least a 24-hour notice prior to
interruption or curtailment of water service.
GUC currently has system interconnections with the Town of Winterville. GUC has constructed a 24-inch
transmission main to the end of its water system for the purposes of interconnecting to the Farmville and
Greene County water systems. A Final Environmental Assessment for ten miles of finished water line and a
booster pump station to support the IBT (2006, McDavid and Associates) has been approved with a FONSI
for Greene County and Farmville.
The intent of the IBT Certificate to have an emergency condition as well as a maximum day demand
condition is to allow flexibility for GUC to meet the needs of its wholesale customers during an emergency
even if it occurs during a peak demand period. GUC also intends to help its wholesale customers meet
peak demands if supply is available.
When GUC experiences peak demands, GUC may limit distribution to the wholesale customers as
necessary. However, GUC will supply the wholesale customers with the Estimated Minimum Purchase.
Wholesale customers will rely on well pumping to meet their customer’s demands during those periods, and
GUC will provide sufficient water during the remainder of the year to allow its customers to meet CCPCUA
rules. In the event that GUC experiences a mechanical failure, pipeline break, an unusually high demand or
other situation in its water system, the Water Purchase Agreements include a provision that allows GUC to
curtail or interrupt service.
GUC and its wholesale customers will be required to balance requirements of two regulations: CCPCUA
rules and requirements of the IBT Certificate. CCPCUA rules limit the amount of well pumping from the
Cretaceous aquifer system over an annual period (i.e. total annual volume). The IBT Certificate will limit the
transfer amount on a maximum day basis. The IBT management strategy was developed to meet the
requirements of two sets of rules with different criteria.

B39
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

3. Effects on the Source Basin
This section summarizes the findings of the EA regarding the present and reasonably foreseeable future
detrimental effects on the source river basin concerning:
• Water Supply Needs
• Wastewater Assimilation
• Water Quality
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat
• Hydroelectric Power Generation
• Navigation
• Recreation
3.1 Water Supply Needs
A hydrologic analysis was performed to assess the impact of the proposed interbasin transfer of water from
the Tar to the Neuse and Contentnea Creek subbasins on flows in the Tar River (ENTRIX 2008). The
hydrologic analysis included:
• Development of a long-term flow record at Greenville from existing USGS flow
records.
• Generation of flow duration and other flow statistics to characterize the Tar River
discharge at Greenville under existing conditions and 2030 future water use
scenarios.
• A hydrologic accounting model using the long-term flow record, projected water
usage, and wastewater discharge for multiple municipalities within the lower Tar
River basin to determine future flow conditions with and without the GUC IBT.
ENTRIX (2008) developed a spreadsheet-based hydrologic model to account for all existing and projected
future withdrawals from, and discharges to, the Tar River (greater than 100,000 gpd). Withdrawals and
discharges were simulated over time to predict the effects on flow in the Tar River at Greenville. The model
accounted for all withdrawals and discharges from the Rocky Mount dam downstream to the GUC WWTP
discharge. The flow record developed for the Greenville gage was used as the base flow record for the
simulations. 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.
B40
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

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.
In March 2008, DWR requested that additional conservatism be built into the hydrologic analysis for the
proposed IBT via two specific changes to the model input data. The first change requested by DWR was to
subtract the 2002 GUC water withdrawals from the Tar River at the Greenville flow record for current
conditions and 2030 conditions. This exercise double counts GUC water withdrawals for a number of years.
The second change was to set up the model with the GUC wastewater discharge reduced by the amount of
the maximum IBT. The results of these scenarios will be particularly conservative because the total volume
of the GUC wastewater discharge will be removed from the Tar River in the 2002 scenario and for most
months in the 2030 scenario. In reality, GUC would continue to treat and discharge wastewater effluent
from its service area to the Tar River. Table 3-1 provides an explanation of the modeling scenarios.
Table 3-1: Explanation of Modeling Scenarios Used in the Tar River Water Balance
GUC Water
Demand
(mgd)
Neuse River
Subbasin IBT
(mgd)
Contentnea
Subbasin IBT
(mgd)
Total
Water Use
(mgd) 2
WTP
Capacity
(mgd) 3 Comment
Current Conditions 1
No IBT 10.91 0 0 10.91 23.76 modeling scenario
Average Day IBT 12.83 2.0 3.9 18.73 23.76 modeling scenario
Maximum
Withdrawal IBT
18.65 3.9 9.6 32.15 23.76 modeling scenario

2030 Conditions 1
No IBT 12.83 0 0 12.83 23.76 modeling scenario
Average Day IBT 12.83 2.0 3.9 18.73 23.76 modeling scenario
Max Day IBT 18.65 3.8 8.5 30.95 23.76 4
Maximum
Withdrawal IBT 18.65 3.9 9.6 32.15 23.76 modeling scenario
1 The daily water withdrawal data used for each model scenario have been underlined. The model runs evaluated the influence of 2030
average day IBT and 2030 maximum withdrawal IBT on both current flow and projected 2030 flow.
2 The total withdrawal indicated in this column represents a yearly average. Total withdrawals were modeled by month using a composite
monthly factor. The composite monthly factor was determined using six years of daily water withdrawal data from GUC.
3 The water treatment plant capacity of 22 mgd plus 8 percent process water.
4 The maximum day IBT scenario was not modeled in the water balance. In the 2030 condition, both the maximum day IBT and maximum
withdrawal IBT scenarios exceed the water treatment plant capacity. Therefore, the water treatment plant capacity (plus process water)
was used as the worst-case (maximum withdrawal) condition. There are three reasons to support this assumption: 1) the maximum day
for the Neuse River subbasin, the Contentnea subbasin, and GUC are not expected to occur on the same day, 2) GUC’s water purchase
agreement contracts stipulate that GUC reserves the right to curtail water to Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County given the
appropriate notice, and 3) Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County expect to use their banked water during periods of high water
demand.
B41
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-3
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

ENTRIX tabulated and graphed the model results for each scenario in order to quantify and demonstrate
the influence of the proposed IBT withdrawal on current and future flow conditions. The model results
summarize the following statistics:
• Minimum, maximum, mean, the 95th, 50th, and 5th percentiles for flow.
• Flow that is equaled or exceeded for a specific percent of time (0 percent through
100 percent).
• Low flow details (25 to 16,000 cubic feet per second [cfs]): percent of time and
average number of days flow is below a specific range.
• Percent of time on an annual basis that daily flows go below the 7Q10 flow and
below 80 percent of the 7Q10 flow for the period of record.
• Average number of days per year that daily flows go below the 7Q10 flow and
below 80 percent of the 7Q10 flow.
For ease of reference, the summary of the statistical results from the hydrologic analysis (ENTRIX, 2008)
are presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. The lowest Tar River flow conditions are observed at the Greenville
gage, the location downstream of the GUC water intake but upstream of the WWTP discharge. The effects
of the proposed IBT appear to be negligible for both locations at average flow levels and higher. However,
the effect of the proposed IBT appears to be slightly greater at the minimum-recorded flow of record where
the stream flow becomes negative under the maximum IBT scenarios for 2030 conditions.
Tables 3-2 and 3-3 summarize the percent of time and the number of days (annually) that flows would be
below the summer 7Q10 and below 80 percent of the 7Q10. At the Greenville gaging station, flows would
be expected to drop below the 7Q10 1.3 percent of the time (4.7 days) each year for current conditions and
1.4 percent of the time (5.0 days) for 2030 conditions. With an average IBT withdrawal, flows are predicted
to be below the 7Q10 1.6 percent of the time (5.8 and 5.9 days, respectively) for current and 2030
conditions. This percentage increases to 1.8 percent of the time (6.5 days) for the maximum expect IBT
withdrawal.
At the location downstream of the WWTP, flows are predicted to drop below the 7Q10 1.0 percent of the
time (3.7 days) for current conditions and are predicted to drop below 1.3 percent of the time (4.7 days) for
2030 conditions. For the average IBT withdrawal, flow would be expected to drop below the 7Q10
1.3 percent of the time (4.6 days) for the current conditions and 1.6 percent of the time (5.7 days) for 2030
conditions. The percentages increase to 1.5 percent and 1.7 percent of the time (5.4 and 6.3 days,
respectively) for the current maximum IBT and 2030 maximum IBT, respectively. At the downstream
location under the most conservative scenario where wastewater withdrawals are reduced by the amount
of the IBT, the current flows are predicted to be below the 7Q10 1.8 percent of the time (6.4 days) and
2.1 percent of the time (7.7 days) in 2030.
B42
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-4
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

The results of the hydrologic modeling indicate that the proposed interbasin transfer from the Tar River to
the Neuse and Contentnea Creek subbasins will have minimal impact on the existing stream flow at
Greenville. The similarity in percentages and total number of days predicted below the 7Q10 between the
No IBT, Average, Maximum, and two times the Maximum IBT scenarios indicate that the projected IBT
quantities appear to have very little impact on flows in the Tar River at Greenville.
The estimated effects on Tar River flows associated with GUC’s proposed IBT are based on projected
flows estimated from the best available USGS hydrologic data for the lower Tar River. The flow data from
the USGS gage at Tarboro were used to develop the long-term flow record for the Tar River at Greenville.
Since the synthesized long-term flow record developed for Greenville (based on a 77 year flow record) was
based on regression analyses, the predicted flows are more accurate on a weekly, monthly, or annual
basis than individual days. The model is likely to accurately predict flow conditions over time and the
distribution of flows over time. The estimated flow provided throughout the hydrologic analysis (ENTRIX
2008) should be interpreted as net freshwater flows delivered by the Tar River to the tidally-influenced
section of the lower Tar River near Greenville.
It is challenging to fully understand and quantify the flow characteristics for the Tar River at Greenville.
Current USGS techniques for low-flow analyses do not provide a means of accounting for tidal effect. The
lower Tar River is influenced by tides to a point just upstream of the USGS gage at Greenville. The amount
of tidal influence is variable and depends on weather, tidal phase, and river flow. The presence of tides in
the Tar River at Greenville is more pronounced during low-flow periods. Monitoring conducted by GUC in
2002 and 2007 has demonstrated that the salt wedge moves further upstream during low flow conditions
than during high flow conditions.
Under the model conditions where withdrawals and interbasin transfers have a small effect on net
downstream river flow, tidal influences may be greater than the net amount of flow being delivered from
upstream. The tidal influence from critically low periods may substantially ameliorate the impacts of IBT
withdrawals. The tidal influence at Greenville was cited by GMA (2003) as one factor that provides
downstream aquatic habitat protection during low flow at Greenville.

B43
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-5
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

Table 3-2: Summary of Flow Statistics (Flow in cfs and Percentiles) for Greenville Gaging Station and Downstream of Greenville
WWTP (ENTRIX, 2008)
Flow
Statistics
(cfs) 1
Greenville Gaging Station 2 Downstream of Greenville WWTP 3
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
2xMax
IBT * No IBT
Avg
IBT
Max
IBT
2xMax
IBT *
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
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 (Mean) 1,398 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
1 Based on long-term flow record of the Tar River at Tarboro extrapolated downstream. 2 Flow at Greenville, NC, downstream of GUC water supply intake and upstream of Greenville wastewater discharge. 3 Flow at Greenville, NC, downstream of Greenville wastewater discharge
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount and 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
amount was entered as zero.

Table 3-3: Summary of Flow Statistics (Annual Percent of Time and Average Number of Days) for Greenville Gaging
Station and Downstream of Greenville WWTP (ENTRIX, 2008)
Flow
Statistics
(cfs) 1
Greenville Gaging Station 2 Downstream of Greenville WWTP 3
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
2xMax
IBT *
No
IBT
Avg
IBT
Max
IBT
2xMax
IBT *
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%
7Q10 x 80%
(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 5.0 5.9 6.5 3.7 4.6 5.4 6.4 4.7 5.7 6.3 7.7
7Q10 x 80%
(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
1 Based on long-term flow record of the Tar River at Tarboro extrapolated downstream. 2 Flow at Greenville, NC, downstream of GUC water supply intake and upstream of Greenville wastewater discharge. 3 Flow at Greenville, NC, downstream of Greenville wastewater discharge
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount and 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 amount was entered as zero.

B44
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-6
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

3.2 Wastewater Assimilation
The results of the hydrologic modeling indicate that the proposed 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 subbasin.
3.3 Water Quality
Impacts to water quality within the source basin as a result of the proposed project are not anticipated. The
NPDES permit for the GUC WWTP is not being modified as a result of the proposed IBT. Additionally, the
results of the hydrologic modeling indicate that the proposed interbasin transfer from the Tar River to the
Neuse and Contentnea Creek subbasins will have minimal impact on the existing stream flow at Greenville.
It follows that water quality will not be significantly impacted.
3.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Construction activities are not proposed in association with this project, and significant growth in these
areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the interbasin transfer request.
Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to aquatic or terrestrial habitats within the source basin will occur
from the proposed interbasin transfer. Indirect impacts to state and federally protected species are
expected to be insignificant.
3.5 Hydroelectric Power Generation
No direct or indirect impacts to hydroelectric power generation within the Tar River subbasin will occur as a
result of the proposed IBT.
3.6 Navigation
No direct or indirect impacts to navigation within the source basin will occur as a result of the proposed IBT.
3.7 Recreation
The proposed IBT will not have any direct or indirect impacts on recreation within the Tar River subbasin.
The project will have minimal impact on the existing stream flow.

B45
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-7
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Effects on the Source Basin

3.8 Cumulative Effect on Source Basin of any Transfers or Consumptive Water Use Projected in Local Water
Supply Plans
Cumulative impacts are impacts that result from the proposed project when added to other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future activities. Cumulative impacts related to growth are expected to be
essentially the same as those identified as secondary impacts. This proposed interbasin transfer project will
not induce growth as this project is not being pursued for the management of growth. Rather, this project is
requested to allow existing communities with groundwater systems to continue to serve their existing
customers and future customers until 2030. Growth in the area is modest, at a rate of 1 to 3 percent for the
larger communities (GUC, Greene County, and Farmville) and at slightly higher rates for smaller
communities (Winterville). The issuance of an IBT certificate will not directly affect growth rate, final land
use patterns, or development densities in the service area, as these have been determined by separate
planning and political processes.

B46
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Detrimental Effects on the Receiving
Basins

4. Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basins
This section summarizes the findings of the EA regarding the present and reasonably foreseeable future
detrimental effects on the receiving river basins concerning:
• Water Quality
• Wastewater Assimilation
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat
• Navigation
• Recreation
• Flooding
4.1 Water Quality
The proposed IBT will not result in an increase in permitted wastewater flows being discharged into the
receiving basins. No increase in WWTP capacity will be requested as a result of the proposed IBT. Primary
impacts due to flows from these WWTPs have been addressed through NPDES permitting.
There may be indirect impacts to water quality as a result of growth in the receiving basins. However, this
interbasin transfer project is primarily a replacement water supply project to allow the Town of Farmville,
Greene County, and the Town of Winterville to comply with the CCPCUA rules. Significant growth in these
areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the interbasin transfer request.
4.2 Wastewater Assimilation
No wastewater treatment facilities within the Contentnea Creek or Neuse River subbasins will be
constructed or expanded as a result of the proposed IBT. Existing WWTPs in the receiving basins have
already been permitted. Therefore, no direct impacts to wastewater assimilation will occur.
4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Construction activities are not proposed in association with this project, and significant growth in these
areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the interbasin transfer request.
Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to aquatic or terrestrial habitats within the source basin will occur
from the proposed interbasin transfer. Indirect impacts to state and federally protected species are
expected to be insignificant.
B47
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Detrimental Effects on the Receiving
Basins

4.4 Navigation
No direct or indirect impacts to navigation within the receiving basins will occur as a result of the proposed
IBT since stream flows are not expected to change. No expansions to existing WWTPs are proposed.
4.5 Recreation
No direct or indirect impacts to recreation within the receiving basins will occur as a result of the proposed
IBT since streamflows are not expected to change. No expansions to existing WWTPs are proposed.
Increased WWTP discharges as a result of the IBT will be within existing permit limits.
4.6 Flooding
Direct impacts to flooding as a result of increased stream flow are not expected to be significant. Increased
WWTP discharges will be within permitted NPDES amounts. Impacts due to growth and development will
not occur as a result of the proposed project.
B48
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Alternatives to Proposed Transfer

5. Alternatives to Proposed Transfer
5.1 No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, GUC would not sell finished water to the Town of Farmville, Town of
Winterville, or Greene County. These communities would continue to rely on their existing groundwater
systems to meet the needs of their service areas. The Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene
County are all required to comply with the CCPCUA rules. These communities must reduce their annual
water use from the Cretaceous aquifer 25 percent by 2008, 50 percent by 2013, and 75 percent by 2018.
Average day demands will exceed the allowable groundwater well pumping rate in 2008 for Farmville,
Winterville, and Greene County. The ADD for the Town of Farmville is 1.87 mgd for 2008 and is projected
to be 2.33 mgd in 2030. The ADD in 2008 is greater than the 2008 allowable pumping rate of 1.13 mgd.
The ADD for the Town of Winterville is 0.85 mgd in 2008 and is projected to be 2.0 mgd in 2030. The 2008
ADD is greater than the 2008 allowable pumping rate, indicating that there will be a capacity deficit within
the service area for the first 25 percent reduction. In Greene County, the 2008 ADD is 2.31 mgd and is
projected to increase to 3.2 mgd in 2030. The allowable withdrawal will reduce to 2.14 mgd in 2008 and to
0.715 mgd by 2030. Thus, in 2008 the Greene County ADD will be greater than the allowable withdrawal
for the first 25 percent reduction. Table 5-1 summarizes the allowable pumping rates and average day
demands for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County. Maximum day demand projections are not
provided in Table 5-1 since the average day demands exceed the capacity of these groundwater systems.
Table 5-1: Comparison of Allowable Pumping Rates with Average Day Demands
Farmville Winterville Greene County
Year
Allowable
pumping
rate (mgd)
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
Allowable
pumping
rate (mgd)
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
Allowable
pumping
rate (mgd)
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
2008 1.13 1.87 0.37 0.85 2.14 2.31
2015 0.76 2.01 0.25 1.2 1.43 2.60
2020 0.38 2.11 0.12 1.55 0.71 2.80
2030 0.38 2.33 0.12 2.00 0.71 3.22

The no-action alternative is not a viable option for Farmville, Winterville, or Greene County. The average
day water demands will exceed the allowable withdrawal rates set by the CCPCUA rules for all three
service areas in 2008. Without provisions for an additional water supply, the Town of Farmville, Town of
Winterville, and Greene County will not be able to meet the needs of their existing service areas.
Additionally, these communities will be unable to compensate for the reduced groundwater withdrawals for
predicted growth to 2030.
B49
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Alternatives to Proposed Transfer

5.2 Independent Water Supply
As an alternative to purchasing finished water from another utility, the Town of Farmville, the Town of
Winterville, and Greene County could pursue the construction of an independent water supply and water
treatment facility. A groundwater source from a different aquifer or surface water source are the two
independent water supply alternatives. A 13.5 mgd water treatment facility would be required to meet the
maximum day demand until 2030 (3.96 mgd for Farmville, 5.64 mgd for Greene County, and 3.6 mgd for
Winterville).
Alternate aquifers to the Cretaceous aquifer are the principal aquifers Castle Hayne, Pee Dee, and
Yorktown. The Castle Hayne aquifer is one of the most productive aquifers in North Carolina. The typical
well yield from the Castle Hayne ranges from 200 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). The Castle Hayne is a
relatively shallow aquifer and would require a water treatment plant, most likely nanofiltration, to treat to
drinking water standards. The Pee Dee aquifer is less shallow than the Castle Hayne, and well yields are
typically around 200 gpm. A nanofiltration plant would also be required to treat to drinking water standards.
The Yorktown aquifer is the most surficial aquifer of the three and has typical well yields of 90 gpm. A WTP
and new well field were estimated to cost approximately $70 million. However, capacity use rules are
already in place for the Cretaceous aquifer, and DENR is currently investigating the possibility of capacity
use regulations for other aquifers. Thus, a new groundwater source may not be a viable long-term water
supply alternative.
The Tar River is a surface water supply source being used by Rocky Mount, Tarboro, and GUC. However,
a Tar River water supply source for Greene County, Farmville and Winterville will require an interbasin
transfer and possibly an instream flow study for a new withdrawal. The second potential water supply
source in Greene County is Contentnea Creek. The 7Q10 at Contentnea Creek at U.S. 258 at Snow Hill
(USGS gaging station 02091241) is 11 cfs. It is most likely that this water supply source would only be able
to supply these communities with a maximum day demand until 2015. The construction of major water
supply infrastructure to serve less than a ten-year period is not economical and does not adhere to sound
engineering or management practices. A new reservoir on Contentnea Creek would increase the feasibility
of this water supply alternative to meet maximum day demands until 2030 instead of 2015. However, the
challenges associated with permitting, design, and construction of a new reservoir will significantly impact
the near-term need for water due to the CCPCUA rules. In addition, the construction of the infrastructure to
support a new water supply reservoir and WTP was estimated to cost over $100 million.
An independent water supply alternative has been removed from consideration for several reasons. The
construction of infrastructure to support a surface water supply will be cost prohibitive to these small
communities. Furthermore, the first reduction in the current groundwater withdrawal will occur in 2008,
leaving these communities in a water supply deficit in 2008 for the current average day demand.
B50
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-3
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Alternatives to Proposed Transfer

5.3 Participate in Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority
The Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County have all considered membership in the
Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority (NRWASA). The NRWASA was formed in 2000 in order to
develop regional solutions for water and wastewater. Current members include the Town of Ayden, Bell
Arthur Water Corporation, Deep Run Water Corporation, Eastern Pines Water Corporation, Town of
Grifton, City of Kinston, North Lenoir Water Corporation, and the Town of Pink Hill.
A regional water supply study was commissioned in 2000. The study recommended that a new 15 mgd
WTP with a withdrawal from the Neuse River be constructed by the NRWASA. The project is currently
under construction with a planned completion date in late 2008. The plant will be located in Lenoir County
west of the City of Kinston. Bids were taken for the construction of the WTP and water transmission mains.
The current construction cost is over $115 million.
Raw water will be withdrawn from the Neuse River for the proposed NRWASA WTP. Therefore, an IBT
Certificate would be required for the Town of Farmville and Greene County in the Contentnea Creek
subbasin. This water supply alternative will not eliminate the need for an interbasin transfer. Additionally,
the high cost of this capital improvements project was also cost prohibitive to these small communities.
Therefore, this alternative was removed from consideration in the analysis.
5.4 Return of Water to Source Basin
Wastewater service in the area is not as widespread as water service. In Greene County, wastewater is
treated at the Snow Hill WWTP, the Hookerton WWTP, and the Maury Sanitary Land District WWTP. 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.
County residents within the unincorporated areas rely primarily on septic systems.
Table 5-2 provides a summary of the Greene and Pitt County WWTPs. A 2030 flow was projected for each
community based on a linear extrapolation of discharge monitoring report (DMR) data from January 2002
until June 2007 or community population projections. The total wastewater plant capacity in Greene County
is 0.785 mgd, of which 47 percent of this capacity is currently used. The total wastewater capacity in Pitt
County is 6.35 mgd (not including GUC), of which 60 percent is currently used.

B51
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-4
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Alternatives to Proposed Transfer

Table 5-2: Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Greene and Pitt Counties

Snow Hill
WWTP
Hookerton
WWTP
Maury Sanitary
Land District
WWTP
Farmville
WWTP
Contentnea
Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0020842 NC0025712 NC0061492 NC0029572 NC0032077
Receiving
Stream
Contentnea
Creek
Contentnea
Creek
Contentnea
Creek
Little
Contentnea
Creek
Unnamed
Tributary to
Contentnea
Creek
River Basin Neuse Neuse Neuse Neuse Neuse
County Greene Greene Greene Pitt Pitt
Permitted Flow 0.5 mgd 0.06 mgd 0.225 mgd 3.5 mgd 2.85 mgd
12-month
Average Flow 0.195 mgd 0.027 mgd 0.144 mgd 1.96 mgd 1.87 mgd
Plant Capacity
in Use 39% 45% 64% 56% 65%
Projected 2030
Flow 0.45 mgd 1 0.10 mgd 1 0.14 mgd 2 ~ 2.5 mgd 2 < 4 mgd 1
Comments
Currently under
an SOC for
effluent BOD,
TSS, and fecal
coliform

Currently under
an SOC for
BOD and fecal
coliform
1 Flow projections based on growth rate per Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data. 2 Flow projections based on linear extrapolation of DMR data.

Most of Greene County’s population is on septic systems. Centralized wastewater treatment in Greene
County is not present except for a few small wastewater treatment plants. A countywide sewer system
would be required to send wastewater from Greene County back to the Tar River basin. If it is assumed
that wastewater demand is 70 percent of the total water demand (less consumptive use), the current
wastewater demand in Greene County is approximately 0.87 mgd. The closest existing WWTP that could
treat this volume of wastewater is the GUC WWTP, which is located well over 20 miles from Snow Hill, a
central location within the County. However, a centralized collection system would be required prior to
pumping to the GUC facility. The second option is the construction of a new WWTP and collection system
that would serve the entire county. However, effluent from a new wastewater treatment facility would also
need to be pumped over 20 miles back to the Tar River basin. The construction of a countywide collection
and/or treatment system, over $150 million, will be cost prohibitive to these small communities.
B52
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-5
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Alternatives to Proposed Transfer

The Town of Farmville has a 3.5 mgd WWTP discharging to Little Contentnea Creek in the Contentnea
Creek subbasin. The plant is operating between 50 and 60 percent of total capacity, and is not expected to
require an expansion for the next 15 years. In order to transfer effluent back to the Tar River basin, the
discharge would need to be moved approximately 8 miles to the Tar River. This infrastructure project has
been estimated to cost $20 million. This alternative will also be cost prohibitive for the Town of Farmville.
Wastewater from the Town of Winterville is currently treated at the Contentnea Creek WWTP. The
Contentnea Creek WWTP discharges to an unnamed tributary to Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River
basin. The Town of Winterville has had discussions with GUC concerning future wastewater service, but
there are currently no immediate plans to proceed with this option due to the high capital costs.
5.5 Purchase Water from GUC – Selected Alternative
The selected alternative consists of the Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County
purchasing finished water from GUC. GUC primarily serves the City of Greenville in the Tar River basin
with the Tar River as the water supply source. The Town of Farmville and Greene County are located
within the Contentnea Creek subbasin. Sale of finished water from GUC to the Town of Farmville and
Greene County will constitute an IBT from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin. The
Town of Winterville is located within the Neuse River subbasin. Sale of finished water from GUC to the
Town of Winterville will constitute an IBT from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin.
Purchasing water from GUC will allow the Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County to
meet the water demands of their service areas while still complying with CCPCUA rules. By the year 2008,
the average day demand for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County will exceed the allowable
groundwater well pumping rates. The year 2008 is the first 25 percent reduction in the ABR for each
community.
The GUC WTP has sufficient plant capacity to provide water to the City of Greenville, Farmville, Winterville,
and Greene County until 2030. In 2030, the total maximum day water demand with minimum bulk purchase
is projected to be 22.2 mgd and will not exceed the current WTP capacity of 22.5 mgd. The signed bulk
sales agreements with each community stipulate that GUC may limit distribution to Winterville, Farmville,
and Greene County when GUC experiences peak demands. Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County will
then rely on their groundwater systems and any banked water to meet peak demand for short periods.
The GUC water distribution system is also the closest in proximity to these communities. According to the
Administrative Code, GUC is allowed to transfer up to 2 mgd without an IBT certificate. The proposed
construction for the interconnection between GUC and the Town of Farmville and Greene County will occur
in three phases. Phase 1A is 10 miles of waterline from the Frog Level area to Lang’s Crossroads in Pitt
County. Phase 1A also includes two new elevated storage tanks and two booster pump stations. This
project has been recently bid for $17,195,417.00. Phase 1B of the project is the Town of Farmville’s water
distribution system tie in at Lang’s Crossroads. This project has not yet been bid; however, the engineer’s
B53
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-6
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Alternatives to Proposed Transfer

estimate for this phase is $4.9 million. Phase 1C of the project is Greene County’s water distribution system
tie in at Lang’s Crossroads. Approximately 12 miles of 16-inch pipe will tie in the Phase 1A project at Lang’s
Crossroad to Greene County’s water distribution system in Murray via an existing elevated water storage
tank. This project has not been bid; however, the engineer’s estimate for this phase is $8.6 million. The
total cost of the proposed IBT project is $30.7 million. The construction cost for this alternative is at least
one-quarter or less than the infrastructure cost for the other water supply alternatives.

The selected alternative is the most cost effective and environmentally sound alternative to providing water
to Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County. These three communities have been restricted on the use of
their current groundwater source due to the CCPCUA rules. Other than the no-action alternative, any other
water supply alternative will require the construction of a new water treatment plant and possibly a reservoir
to meet the long-term water supply needs of these communities. Existing water treatment capacity will be
used to serve these communities, thereby limiting the environmental impact of construction and the
economic impact of funding a large-scale infrastructure project.
B54
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impoundment Storage

6. Impoundment Storage
This criterion is not applicable to the proposed IBT.
B55
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Multipurpose Reservori Constructed
by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers

7. Multipurpose Reservoir Constructed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers
The water to be withdrawn or transferred will not be stored in a multipurpose reservoir constructed by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed IBT.
B56
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 8-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Shortage Response
and Conservation

8. Water Shortage Response and Conservation
GUC has implemented a Water Emergency Management Plan in their Utilities Ordinance. The Water
Emergency Management Plan was revised to include triggers for implementation of the Stage 1, 2, and 3
conservation measures, effective July 29, 2008. In lieu of river flow, the implementation triggers are based
on river level at the raw water intake or the salt wedge location from the raw water intake. Due to the tidal
influence, river flow is not an appropriate trigger, since there have been many instances of net negative
flow recorded but adequate water over the intake screens (indicating tidally influenced flow). Table 8-1
provides the implementation triggers for water restrictions.
Table 8-1: Greenville Utilities Commission Water Shortage
Response Triggers
Stage
River Level at
WTP Intake 1
Salt Wedge Location
from WTP Intake
1 – 1.0 feet MSL Or 10 miles
2 – 1.5 feet MSL Or 7 miles
3 – 2.0 feet MSL Or 4 miles
1 The top elevation of the raw water intake screens are at – 2.5 feet mean
sea level (MSL) and the mid-point of the screens are at elevation – 3.4 feet
MSL. Therefore, when the river level is 1.5 feet above the top of the intake
screen, Stage 1 restrictions are applied.

GUC Water Purchase Agreements with Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County stipulate that these
systems implement the same water shortage response measures that GUC enacts. All of these
communities have adopted GUC’s water shortage response measures.
The stages of water conservation are described as follows:
1. Stage 1 – Water Conservation Alert: A Stage 1 water emergency may be declared
in the event of an immediate water shortage or when there are three consecutive
days when water demand exceeds 80 percent of water production capacity. During
a declared Stage 1 water emergency, the following voluntary water conservation
practices are 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.
B57
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 8-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Shortage Response
and Conservation

e. Limiting lawn watering to that necessary for plant survival. Water lawns
before the peak demand hours of 6 to 10 p.m.
f. Limit vehicle washing.
g. Do not wash down outside areas such as sidewalks, driveways, patios,
etc.
h. Installing water-saving showerheads and other devices.
i. Use disposable and biodegradable dishes where possible.
j. Install water-saving devices in toilets such as early closing flappers.
k. Limit hours of water-cooled air conditioners.
l. Do not fill swimming or wading pools.
2. Stage 2 – Water Shortage Warning: A Stage 2 water emergency may be declared
in the event of an immediate water shortage or when there are two consecutive
days when water demand exceeds 90 percent of the water production capacity.
During a declared Stage 2 water emergency, the following activities are prohibited:
a. Watering lawns, grass, shrubbery, trees, flowers, 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
Town 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 and 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.
B58
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 8-3
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Shortage Response
and Conservation

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 Town
Manager or his authorized representative.
j. Using water to control or compact dust.
k. Intentionally wasting water.
l. Commercial and industrial water customers must achieve mandatory
reductions in water usage through whatever means are available. A
minimum reduction of 20 percent shall be the target; however, a greater
target reduction percentage may be required depending on the severity of
the water emergency. Compliance with the reduction target shall be
determined by the General Manager or his authorized representative.
Variances to the target reduction may be granted by the Town Manager or
his authorized representative to designated public health facilities.
3. Stage 3 – Water Shortage Danger: A Stage 3 water emergency may be declared in
the event of an immediate water shortage or when there is one day when water
demand exceeds 100 percent of the water production capacity. During a declared
Stage 3 water emergency the following activities are 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 must achieve mandatory
reductions in water usage through whatever means are available. A
minimum reduction of 50 percent shall be the target; however, a greater
target reduction percentage may be required depending on the severity of
the water emergency. Compliance with the reduction target shall be
determined by the 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 is
prohibited. Residential water use is limited to the amount necessary to
sustain life through drinking, food preparation, and personal hygiene.
B59
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 8-4
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Shortage Response
and Conservation

The General Manager or authorized representative can 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 60 calendar
days after receipt of notice to prepare them.
Public or private water systems purchasing water from GUC were required to adopt and enforce this entire
article as a condition of water service. These systems are required to enforce the water use restriction for
the level of emergency.
Additionally, 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 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.

B60
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 9-1
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Compliance and Monitoring Plan

9. Compliance and Monitoring Plan
The proposed compliance and monitoring plan for the requested interbasin transfer certificate includes the
following four elements, which are described in the sections below:
1. Quarterly Reports
2. Annual Reports
3. Status Reports
4. Water Shortage Response and Conservation

The details of monitoring and compliance will be specified in a Compliance and Monitoring Plan approved
by DWR.
9.1 Quarterly Reports
At the end of each quarter, GUC will calculate the daily IBT amounts for that quarter and provide this
information to DWR in a quarterly report. The quarterly reports will be submitted to DWR 45 days after the
end of the quarter to allow for the staggered billing cycle to be included in the report.
The IBT calculations will be similar to those shown in the Water Balance Tables 2-4 through 2-7. GUC will
maintain records of the following:
• Monthly metered water use by GUC during a billing cycle, with Tar and Neuse
Subbasin customers delineated.
• Daily water purchased (metered) by the Town of Farmville.
• Daily water purchased (metered) by the Town of Winterville.
• Daily water purchased (metered) by Greene County.
• Monthly average day wastewater effluent discharge from the GUC WWTP.
GUC will geocode (via the GUC GIS database) those water customers located in the Neuse River subbasin
so that the consumptive use for the GUC customers can be calculated. The consumptive use for
Winterville, Farmville, and Greene County is not calculated. The entire metered water use to these
communities is the transfer to each of the respective subbasins.
Table 9-1 provides a sample calculation for the IBT certificate. The IBT calculation would be determined on
a monthly basis, but would be reported quarterly.
B61
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 9-2
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Compliance and Monitoring Plan

9.2 Annual Reports
At the end of each calendar year, the quarterly IBT reports will be summarized in an annual report to DWR.
The annual report will document the maximum day IBT amount for that year. The annual report will also
document compliance with conditions, if any, that the EMC includes in the certificate.
Once an annual report indicates that a daily maximum IBT has exceeded 80 percent of the IBT specified on
the certificate, GUC will begin monthly monitoring to DWR during the next calendar year. At the end of
45 days after each month, GUC will report IBT calculations and document the maximum IBT that occurred
that month. GUC will also continue to submit annual reports and document compliance with any conditions
the EMC includes in the IBT certificate.
9.3 Status Reports
At the end of each calendar year, if requested by DWR, GUC will provide status reports on specific
measures or other activities discussed in the IBT petition. DWR will identify the specific measures/activities
to be addressed.
9.4 Water Shortage Response and Conservation
At the end of each calendar year, if requested by DWR, GUC will provide a summary of any water shortage
response and conservation measures discussed in the IBT petition. DWR will identify the specific
measures/activities to be addressed.
B62
Table 9-1: Interbasin Transfer Calculation Table from the Tar River to the Neuse River and Contentnea Subbasins
Tar Neuse Neuse Contentnea Contentnea Neuse Neuse Contentnea
% Tar River Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River Basin % Tar River Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River Basin % Tar River Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River Basin
1/1/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.71 1.11 0.50 0.03 1.25 1.59 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.59
1/2/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.58 1.21 0.60 0.03 1.13 1.81 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.7 1.81
1/3/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.62 0.95 0.80 0.04 1.18 1.75 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.8 1.75
1/4/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.88 1.08 0.40 0.02 1.42 1.48 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.0 1.48
1/5/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.89 1.12 0.30 0.02 1.43 1.42 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.0 1.42
1/6/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.72 1.40 0.50 0.03 1.27 1.90 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.90
1/7/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.76 1.33 0.30 0.02 1.30 1.63 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.63
1/8/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.61 1.08 0.20 0.01 1.14 1.28 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.7 1.28
1/9/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.66 1.30 0.50 0.03 1.21 1.80 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.8 1.80
1/10/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.59 1.41 0.50 0.03 1.14 1.91 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.7 1.91
1/11/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.72 1.11 0.60 0.03 1.27 1.71 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.71
1/12/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.71 1.12 0.70 0.04 1.27 1.82 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.82
1/13/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.70 1.21 0.55 0.03 1.25 1.76 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.8 1.76
1/14/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.80 2.07 0.65 0.03 1.35 2.72 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.0 2.72
1/15/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.79 1.06 0.45 0.02 1.33 1.51 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.51
1/16/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 1.25 1.05 0.20 0.01 1.78 1.25 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.4 1.25
1/17/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 1.19 1.50 0.35 0.02 1.73 1.85 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.3 1.85
1/18/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.95 1.40 0.20 0.01 1.48 1.60 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.1 1.60
1/19/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.76 1.30 0.50 0.03 1.31 1.80 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.80
1/20/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.76 1.22 0.65 0.03 1.32 1.87 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.87
1/21/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.72 1.12 0.75 0.04 1.28 1.87 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.87
1/22/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.66 1.21 0.80 0.04 1.22 2.01 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.8 2.01
1/23/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.69 1.10 0.50 0.03 1.24 1.60 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.8 1.60
1/24/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.74 1.21 0.55 0.03 1.29 1.76 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.76
1/25/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.78 1.06 0.65 0.03 1.33 1.71 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.71
1/26/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.82 1.32 0.45 0.02 1.36 1.77 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.0 1.77
1/27/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.87 1.25 0.40 0.02 1.41 1.65 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.0 1.65
1/28/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 1.00 1.20 0.30 0.02 1.54 1.50 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.1 1.50
1/29/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.94 1.21 0.25 0.01 1.47 1.46 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 1.1 1.46
1/30/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.76 1.26 0.50 0.03 1.31 1.76 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.9 1.76
1/31/2010 7.17 6.65 0.52 0.70 1.18 0.55 0.03 1.25 1.73 93% 1.55 0.12 0% 0.00 Note 9 0% 0.00 Note 10 5.5 0.8 1.73
1 Data from GUC Utility Billing System, monthly average divided by the number of days in the billing cycle.
2 Data from GUC Utility Billing System, Tar and Neuse Subbasins Geocoded by Subbasin. Monthly average divided by the number of days in the billing cycle.
3 Data from GUC Metering System for Winterville, collected and reported on a daily basis.
4 Data from GUC Metering System for Farmville/Greene County, collected and reported on a daily basis.
5 Data from Farmville/Greene County Metering System, collected and reported to GUC on a daily basis.
6 Data calculated as 5% of metered water use for the Neuse Subbasin in Greene County.
7 GUC metered water use in Neuse River Subbasin + Winterville metered water use + Greene County water use in Neuse Subbasin.
8 Farmville metered water use + Greene County metered water use - Greene County water use in Neuse Subbasin.
9 Consumptive use in Winterville is not calculated. The entire metered water use to Winterville is the Interbasin Transfer.
10 Consumptive use in Greene County and Farmville is not calculated. The entire metered water use to Farmville and Greene County is the Interbasin Transfer.
11 Data reported as the monthly average WWTP discharge.
12 Interbasin Transfer = Winterville metered water use + Greene County water use in Neuse River Subbasin + GUC consumptive use in Neuse River Subbasin.
13 Interbasin Transfer = Water use for Farmville and Greene County in the Contentnea Subbasin.
14 The total Interbasin Transfer is the sum of the Neuse River Subbasin and the Contentnea Subbasins, both located in the Neuse River Watershed.
Interbasin
Transfer to
Contentnea
Subbasin 13
Interbasin
Transfer to
Neuse River
Subbasin 12
Wastewater
Discharge in Tar
River Basin 11
GUC Metered Water
Use for Customers
in Tar River Basin 2
Farmville Metered
Water Use (Total
Bulk Sales) 4
Date GUC Winterville
Consumptive Use
Greene County / Farmville
GUC Metered
Water Use for
Customers in
Neuse River Basin
2
Total GUC
Metered
Water Use 1
Water Use in
Contentnea
Subbasin (Farmville
and Greene County) 8
Greene
County
Water Use in
Neuse 6
Winterville
Metered Water
Use 3
Water Use in Neuse
River Subbasin (GUC,
Winterville, Greene
County) 7
Greene County
Metered Water
Use (Total Bulk
Sales) 5
B63
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendix A

Finding of No Significant Impact
(November 2008)

B64
B65
B66
B67
B68
B69
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSION
INTERBASIN TRANSFER
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A), an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to allow the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC)to apply for two
interbasin transfer (IBT)Certificates to provide finished water to the Town of Farmville (Pitt County), the Town of Winterville (Pitt County), and Greene County.The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) enacted the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules on August 1, 2002. The CCPCUA rules require groundwater users to reduce withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifer in
three phases between 2008 and 2018.Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County currently rely on the Cretaceous aquifer for their sole water supply, and therefore are significantly affected by the CCPCUA rules.
These communities plan to purchase bulk finished water from GUC to comply with CCPCUA rules and continue to meet customer needs. However, the purchase of bulk finished water from GUC to the Town of
Farmville and Greene County constitutes an IBT from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin. Sale of finished water to the Town of Winterville constitutes an IBT from the Tar River subbasin to
the Neuse River subbasin.
GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin to support the Town of Farmville and Greene County’s compliance with CCPCUA rules.
GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate in the amount of 8.3 mgd to meet Farmville and Greene County’s maximum day demands through 2030. As part of the same Certificate, GUC requests the ability to transfer
9.3 mgd under emergency conditions to the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
GUC is also requesting an IBT Certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin to support the Town of Winterville’s compliance with CCPCUA rules, and to support water
use in the portion of the GUC service area within the Neuse River Basin. GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate for 4.0 mgd to meet Winterville’s maximum day demands through 2030. Additionally, GUC
requests the ability to transfer 4.2 mgd under emergency conditions to the Neuse River subbasin.
A hydrologic analysis was performed for the Tar River to assess the hydrologic impact of the interbasin transfer of water from the Tar to the Neuse and Contentnea Creek subbasins. Results indicate that the
proposed interbasin transfer from the Tar River to the Neuse and Contentnea Creek subbasins will have minimal impact on stream flow at Greenville. The differences in the flow data below the 7Q10 are not
significantly different between the no IBT, average, and maximum withdrawal IBT scenarios for the current stream flow and the 2030 stream flow conditions. However, the existing periods of low flow, regardless of
the significance of the resulting withdrawal scenario, may be ameliorated by the tidal influence.
No construction is proposed in conjunction with this interbasin transfer. Therefore, direct impacts to soils, topography, wetlands, protected species, or land use as a result of this proposed project are expected to be
insignificant. Additionally, the proposed interbasin transfer will not result in significant indirect impacts. Significant growth in Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville is not a component of this project or a
reason for developing the interbasin transfer request.
Based on the findings of the EA, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) has concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the environment. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of the requested IBT Certificates. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared for this project. This FONSI completes the environmental review
record. The FONSI and EA will be available for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse.
B70
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendix B

Interbasin Transfer Management
Strategy for Greenville Utilities
Commission (ARCADIS 2008)

B71
1
MEMO
To:Greenville Utilities CommissionSteve PorterBarrettLasaterRandy Emory
Copies:Richard WycheMary Sadler
From:
David S. Briley
Hunter Carson
Date:ARCADIS Project No.:
January 15, 2008
Revised per DWR Comment September 2008
NC706015.0010
Subject:
Interbasin Transfer Management Strategy
Greenville Utilities Commission
1.Background
1.1 Central Capacity Use Regulations
In 2001, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) enacted the Central Coastal
Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules. These regulations were developed as a control measure for
groundwater use in the Cretaceous aquifers in response to decreasing groundwater levels and saltwater
intrusion. The rules will be implemented over a ten year period with a goal to allow the Cretaceous
aquifers to recharge and provide sustainable groundwater supply yields. The CCPCUA Cretaceous aquifer
zones are illustrated in Figure 1.
The CCPCUA rules will require groundwater users located in the impacted areas to reduce their
consumption in three phases between 2008 and 2018. The required reduction amounts are based on the
location of the water use; in the dewatering zone or in the saltwater intrusion zone. The rules specify a
percentage reduction in groundwater use from the Cretaceous aquifers from an approved base rate
(ABR). The ABR for each groundwater user was determined by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (DWR) based on historical annual water use from the Cretaceous aquifer system. GUC,
Greene County, the Town of Farmville, and the Town of Winterville are located in the “dewatering zone.”
The reductions required by the CCPCUA rules for water users in the “dewatering zone” are as follows:
·Phase I (2008)–Permittees in the dewatering zone will be required to reduce
annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 25 percent from their ABR.
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina,
Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
B72
2
·Phase II (2013)–Permittees in the dewatering zone will be required to reduce
annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 50 percent from their ABR.
·Phase III (2018)–Permittees in the dewatering zone will be required to reduce
annual water use from Cretaceous aquifers by 75 percent from their ABR.
At the end of each phase, the CCPCUA will be monitored to determine aquifer water level responses to
the phased withdrawal reductions.
1.2 Purpose of IBT
The Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County rely on the Cretaceous aquifers for water
supply and are affected by the CCPCUA rules. To comply with CCPCUA reductions and meet customer
demands, the Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, and Greene County plan to purchase bulk finished
water from GUC. However, GUC relies on the Tar River for its water supply,and the Town of Farmville
and the majority of Greene County are located within the Contentnea Creek subbasin. Farmville and
Greene County discharge wastewater into the Contentnea Creek subbasin via centralized treatment or
on-site septic systems. Therefore, sales of finished water to the Town of Farmville and Greene County
constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin (Figure 2).
The Town of Winterville water system and the southwestern portion of Greene County are located within
the Neuse River subbasin. Therefore, sales of finished water to the Town of Winterville and Greene
County constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin
(Figure 2).
To support the Town of Farmville and Greene County’s compliance with CCPCUA rules, GUC is
requesting an IBT Certificate for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek
subbasin. GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate for the maximum day amount of 8.3 million gallons per day
(mgd)to meet customer needs through 2030.GUC also requests an emergency condition IBT of 9.3 mgd.
GUC is also requesting an IBT Certificate for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River
subbasin to support the Town of Winterville’s compliance with CCPCUA rules,and to support water use in
the portion of the GUC service area within the Neuse River Basin. GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate in
the amount of 4.0 mgd to meet Winterville’s needs and meet GUC customer demands through 2030.GUC
also requests an emergency condition IBT of 4.2 mgd.
B73
3
Figure 1:CCPCUA Cretaceous Aquifer
B74
Greenville
TA R RIVER
BASINCONTENTNEACREEK
BASIN
NEUSE RIVER
BASIN
NEUSE RIVER
BASIN
Pitt County
Greene County Ayden
Grifton
Winterville
Bethel
Farmville
Snow Hill
Legend
Major Basin Boundary
Sub-basin Boundary
County Boundary
GUC Service Area
¯
0 4 8 12 162Miles
INTERBASIN TRANSFER (IBT) CERTIFICATION SCHEMATIC
Greenville Utilities Commission
9 March 2007 FIGURE 2
B75
5
2.Growth and Development
2.1 Population Projections
2.1.1 Greene County
Since 1990, Greene County’s population has grown by over 5,000 individuals to 20,466 residents, which is
almost a 25 percent increase according to 2006 statistics. Though largely agricultural, the County has a
growing industrial community, which will continue to expand as the Global Transpark, a local business
park,begins to take shape. According to the North Carolina State Demographics Unit, an annual growth
rate of approximately 1 percent is expected in Greene County between 2010 and 2030. This is slightly
lower than growth experienced during and in years before 2006. Assuming the estimated growth rate is
accurate, the County’s population is projected to exceed 27,000 residents by the year 2030 (Table 1).
2.1.2 Town of Farmville
The Town of Farmville has experienced limited growth in the last 15 years:180 additional residents
between 1990 and 2004. The Town does not consistently record yearly census data, nor have they
conducted population projections for the near future. The population estimates available are from the
Town of Farmville and from the Local Water Supply Plan, published by DWR (Table 1). Based on the
observed historical growth percentage (0.28 percent annually between 1990 and 2004), the Town may
expect to support a population of approximately 5,000 residents by the year 2030.
2.1.3 Town of Winterville
The Town of Winterville, located to the south of Greenville, has experienced increased growth and
development in the past 15 years. The Town’s population has more than doubled between 1990 and
2006, and grew by as much as 21.25 percent between 2000 and 2001. Between 2000 and 2006,
Winterville’s population increased at an average annual rate of 11 percent but it reached 17.1 percent
between 2004 and 2005 (Table 1). The Town has commissioned a water system master plan but it has not
yet been published. Population projections for Winterville were provided by the Town’s master planning
consultant. Based on its close proximity to the City of Greenville, growth in Winterville is expected to
remain strong in the near future. At an annual growth rate between 4.5 percent and 5.8 percent,
Winterville’s population in 2025 is expected to reach approximately 21,700 residents (Table 1).
2.1.4 Greenville Utilities Commission
Greenville is the largest municipality in Pitt County, making up 48 percent of the total population in
July 2005, according to the N.C.State Demographics Unit. East Carolina University, Pitt Memorial
Hospital, and other businesses have attracted many residents to the area, bringing Greenville’s population
to 68,852 in 2005. The N.C. State Demographics Unit has predicted that Pitt County will grow to 153,411
B76
6
by 2010, and 192,493 by the year 2030. Assuming that Greenville continues to make up almost half of the
County’s population, the City will host approximately 100,000 residents by 2030.
GUC provides utility services to customers in the City of Greenville and some of the surrounding areas.
According to 2005 census data from the N.C. State Demographics and projected values from the 2001
GUC Water System Master Plan, approximately 10 percent of the customers served by GUC live outside
the City limits. GUC’s service population has grown by an average annual rate of 1.91 percent between
2000 and 2005. Assuming an average annual growth rate of approximately 1.8 percent, population for the
GUC service area is predicted to increase by approximately 25,000 persons between 2005 and 2020
(Table 1). By 2030, GUC may serve more than 110,000 customers.
Table 1:Historical and Projected Populations and Growth Rates
Year
Greenville Utilities
Commission Farmville Greene County Winterville
Population1
Annual
Growth
Rate, %Population
Annual
Growth
Rate, %Population4
Annual
Growth
Rate, %Population
Annual
Growth
Rate, %
1990 NA NA 4,446 2 NA 15,384 NA 3,053 5 NA
2000 69,507 NA 4,302 2 -0.33 18,974 2.10 3,979 5 2.65
2001 NA NA NA NA 19,050 0.40 4,921 5 21.25
2002 NA NA 4,325 3 0.27 19,488 2.27 5,101 5 3.59
2003 NA NA NA NA 19,860 1.89 5,402 5 5.73
2004 NA NA 4,626 2 3.36 19,998 0.69 5,850 5 7.97
2005 76,478 1.91 6 NA NA 20,167 0.84 6,942 5 17.11
2006 79,025 3.28 NA NA 20,466 1.47 8,500 7 10.34
2010 85,067 1.84 NA NA 21,567 1.31 NA NA
2015 NA NA NA NA 22,976 1.27 13,800 7 5.8
2020 101,932 1.81 NA NA 24,485 1.27 NA NA
2025 NA NA NA NA 25,883 1.11 21,700 7 4.5
2030 NA NA NA NA 27,378 1.12 NA NA
1. From Greenville Utilities Commission Water System Master Plan (Black and Veatch, not yet published).2. From Town of Farmville.3. From 2002 Town of Farmville Local Water Supply Plan.4. From N.C. Demographics Unit.5. From N.C. Division of Water Resources.6. Average Annual Historical Growth Rate (2000 –2005).7. Town of Winterville Water and Wastewater System Master Plan (Black & Veatch, not yet published).
NA = Data Not Available
B77
7
2.2 Water Demand Projections
Historical water use data and water demand projections were collected for GUC, Greene County, the
Town of Farmville, and the Town of Winterville. These sources have been identified in Table 2. Water
demand projections provided by Greene County, the Town of Farmville, and the Town of Winterville were
based on average day demands (ADD). Maximum day demand (MDD) projections were developed using
historical MDD and ADD peaking factors (Table 3). Water demand projections for each water system are
presented in Section 2.2.1 through 2.2.4.
Projected water demands were used in combination with the ABR of each municipality to determine
estimated bulk purchases from GUC needed in 2008 and beyond in order for these water systems to
comply with the CCPCUA rules.
Greene County, Farmville, and Winterville have each expressed interest in the concept of “water banking”
or “banking”. The concept of banking is based on a water system pumping less groundwater than allowed
by the CCPCUA rules and off-sets reductions using a supplemental surface water supplier such as GUC.
Banking reduces groundwater withdrawals faster than the CCPCUA rules mandate, but allows the water
systems to use this banked water at a later time. This approach meets the average reduction requirement
over the first two reduction phases, and still maintains a high level of protection for the Cretaceous aquifer
system.
DWR has approved the concept of banking, but required that a letter of intent be submitted by each water
system interested in pursuing a “Cretaceous water bank account”.Farmville, Winterville and Greene
County have all been approved for banking. The letter of approval for Farmville and Greene County is
attached to this memorandum.Along with the state’s approval, a set of guidelines were introduced to
clarify the banking system. Guidelines that were included in the approval letter received by Farmville and
Greene County dated July 6, 2004,included the following provisions:
·Present day through July 31, 2008 –The bank may be credited with the positive
volume of water calculated by subtracting the actual annual use from the ABR.
·August 1, 2008 through July 31, 2013 –The bank may be credited with the
positive volume of water calculated by subtracting the actual annual use from
the ABR less Phase I reduction.
·August 1, 2013 through July 31, 2018 –The bank may be credited with the
positive volume of water calculated by subtracting the actual annual use from
the ABR less Phase II reduction.
Graphs depicting how the banking concept may be utilized by Farmville, Greene County, and Winterville
are included in the following sections.
B78
8
Table 2: Water Demand Projections
Year
Greenville Utilities
Commission Farmville Greene County Winterville
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day
Demand
(mgd)
1990 8.94 1 NA 2.17 3 3.20 3 NA NA NA NA
1995 9.67 1 NA 1.60 3 2.38 3 NA NA NA NA
2000 10.06 1 14.17 1 1.57 3 2.43 3 1.12 5 1.83 5 0.463 5 0.667 5
2005 10.03 1 14.71 1 1.66 3 2.74 3 1.19 5 2.22 5 0.706 5 1.32 5
2006 10.19 15.28 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2007 10.34 15.51 NA NA NA NA 0.80 6 1.44
2008 10.50 15.75 1.87 4 3.18 2.31 4 4.04 0.85 1.53
2009 10.65 15.98 1.89 4 3.22 2.35 4 4.11 0.90 1.62
2010 10.81 2 16.21 1.91 4 3.25 2.39 4 4.18 0.95 1.71
2015 11.19 2 16.78 2.01 4 3.41 2.60 4 4.54 1.20 2.16
2020 11.57 2 17.35 2.11 4 3.59 2.80 4 4.90 1.55 2.79
2025 11.95 2 17.92 2.22 4 3.77 3.01 4 5.27 1.93 3.47
2030 12.33 2 18.49 2.33 4 3.96 3.22 4 5.64 2.00 3.60
1 Historical data from Greenville Utilities Commission.2 ADD demands based on a linear projection of historical demands (1990 –2005).3 Town of Farmville Water production data.4 Water Supply Agreement with Greenville Utilities Commission.5 Data from Division of Water Resources.6 Data from the Town of Winterville.
NA = Data Not Available

B79
9
Table 3: Historical Peaking Factors
Year
Greenville Utilities Commission Farmville Greene County Winterville
ADD 1 MDD 1
Peaking
Factor
(MDD:ADD)ADD 2 MDD 2
Peaking
Factor
(MDD:ADD)ADD 3 MDD 3
Peaking
Factor
(MDD:ADD)ADD 3 MDD 3
Peaking
Factor
(MDD:ADD)
1999 10.65 16.24 1.52 1.48 2.58 1.74 1.15 1.97 1.71 0.54 1.04 1.93
2000 10.06 14.17 1.41 1.57 2.43 1.55 1.12 1.83 1.63 0.46 0.67 1.44
2001 10.27 13.55 1.32 1.6 2.55 1.59 NA NA NA 0.48 0.75 1.58
2002 10.47 15.56 1.49 1.76 3.36 1.91 1.17 2.12 1.81 0.53 0.97 1.83
2003 9.21 12.83 1.39 1.71 2.74 1.60 1.89 2.68 1.42 0.53 1.20 2.25
2004 9.92 16.31 1.64 1.66 2.66 1.60 1.22 2.42 1.98 0.60 0.91 1.51
2005 10.03 14.71 1.47 1.66 2.74 1.65 1.19 2.22 1.87 0.71 1.32 1.87
MDD:ADD ratio 1.46 MDD:ADD ratio 1.72 MDD:ADD ratio 1.74 MDD:ADD ratio 1.77
Peaking Ratio Used 1.50 Peaking Ratio Used 1.70 Peaking Ratio Used 1.75 Peaking Ratio Used 1.80
1 From Greenville Utilities Commission2FromTown of Farmville Water Production Data; 3 From N.C.Division of Water Resources;
NA = Data Not Available
ADD = Average Daily Demand
MDD = Maximum Daily Demand
B80
10
2.2.1 Greene County
Greene County is served by ten water systems. Greene County is serving as the lead agency on behalf of
these water systems for the purposes of entering into bulk sales agreements with GUC. The water
systems in Greene County are:
·Greene County Regional Water System ·Maury Sanitary District
·Town of Snow Hill ·Ormondsville Water Corporation
·Town of Hookerton ·Arba Water Corporation
·Town of Walstonburg ·Lizzie Water Corporation
·South Greene Water Corporation ·Jason-Shine Water Corporation
In 2005, Greene County had an average day demand of 1.19 mgd and a maximum day demand of
2.22 mgd (Table 2). By the year 2030, the County’s water demands are projected to increase to 3.22 mgd
on an average daily basis and to 5.64 mgd during peak day demands. Peak day demands were projected
using a historical peaking factor of 1.75 (Table 3).
The ABR approved for Greene County is 1,079.8 million gallons per year (MGY), which translates to an
average annual pumping rate of 2.96 mgd. Greene County will be required to reduce annual withdrawals
as required by the CCPCUA rules (Table 4).
Table 4: Annual Withdrawal Rates Required by CCPCUA Rules
for Greene County
Year Total Annual
Withdrawal (MGY)
Average Annual
Withdrawal (mgd)
ABR 1079.8 2.96
2008 810 2.22
2013 540 1.48
2018 270 0.74
The County intends to bank water by pumping 50 percent of its allowed pumping rate during Phase 1
(2008 through 2013),and 75 percent of its allowed pumping rate during Phase II (2013 through 2018).
Proposed banking amounts are included in Table 5 and a graphical interpretation is shown in Figure 3.
Water banking will serve as a buffer for the County’s water supply during peak demand periods or drought
conditions, and will provide flexibility in its well pumping. Between 2008 and 2018, the County will bank
approximately 2,700 MG, or 7.4 mgd of pumping capacity, and intends to distribute the capacity equally
over the following 20 years (2018 through 2037).
B81
11
Table 5: Water Demand Projections and Summary of Greene County Water Operations
Year
Projected
System
Demand
(mgd)1
Allowable
Well Pumping
Rate
(mgd)2
Supplemental Water
Water to be
Banked
(mgd)5,6
Average Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)3
Maximum Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)
Estimated
Minimum
Purchase (mgd)4
2008 2.31 2.22 1.20 1.82 0.74 1.11
2009 2.35 2.22 1.24 1.89 0.74 1.11
2010 2.39 2.22 1.28 1.96 0.74 1.11
2011 2.43 2.22 1.32 2.04 0.74 1.11
2012 2.47 2.22 1.36 2.11 0.74 1.11
2013 2.51 1.48 1.77 2.92 1.48 0.37
2014 2.56 1.48 1.82 2.99 1.48 0.37
2015 2.60 1.48 1.86 3.06 1.48 0.37
2016 2.64 1.48 1.90 3.13 1.48 0.37
2017 2.68 1.48 1.94 3.21 1.48 0.37
2018 2.72 0.74 2.35 4.02 2.22 0.37
2020 2.80 0.74 2.43 4.16 2.22 -0.37
2025 3.01 0.74 2.64 4.53 2.22 -0.37
2030 3.22 0.74 2.85 4.90 2.22 -0.37
2035 3.43 0.74 3.06 5.26 2.22 -0.37
2040 3.64 0.74 3.27 5.63 2.22 NA
2045 3.85 0.74 3.48 6.00 2.22 NA
2048 3.98 0.74 3.61 6.22 2.22 NA
1 Projected system demands provided by McDavid Associates, Inc.2 The allowable well pumping rate is based on an approved ABR of 1,079,800,000 gallons or 2,960,000gpd.3 Average day bulk sales include water to be “banked.”4 Estimated minimum purchase amounts are contractual limits and are equal to the amount of reduction required by
CCPCUA rules from the ABR. In the event of curtailment, average daily volume may be adjusted.5 Distribution of banked water is proposed for 2018 –2037.6 Negative banking denotes usage of banked water.
B82
12
Figure 3: Greene County Banked Water
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048
MillionGallonsperDay(MGD)
Years
Ground Water Pumped Yearly Water Banked Cumulative Banked Water
50% reduction from A BR25% reduction fromABR 75% reduction from ABR
Pumping 50% of allotted withdrawal
Pumping 75% of allotted withdraw al
Pumping 100% of allotted withdraw aland using banked water
B83
13
2.2.2 Town of Farmville
The Town of Farmville’s average day water demand is expected to increase by 25 percent between 2008
and 2030. According to the Water Purchase Agreement with GUC, average daily demands in 2030 will be
approximately 2.33 mgd. Based on a peaking factor of 1.70, maximum day demands are projected to be
3.96 mgd in 2030 (Table 3).
The ABR approved for Farmville is 574 MGY, which translates to an average annual pumping rate of
1.572 mgd. Farmville will be required to reduce annual withdrawals as shown in Table 6.
Table 6:Annual Withdrawal Rates Required by CCPCUA
Rules for Farmville
Year Total Annual
Withdrawal (MGY)
Average Annual
Withdrawal (mgd)
ABR 574 1.572
2008 431 1.179
2013 287 0.786
2018 144 0.393
The Town of Farmville also intends to bank water throughout Phases I and II of the CCPCUA rule,
pumping only half of what is permitted during Phase I, and 75 percent of their allotted withdrawal during
Phase II.Farmville will bank a total of 1,434 MG between 2008 and 2018. Proposed banking amounts are
included in Table 7 and a graphical interpretation is shown in Figure 4. It is unclear at this time whether
Farmville intends to utilize its banked water over an extended period similar to Greene County, or maintain
its “banked” status for periods of high demand.
B84
14
Table 7: Water Demand Projections and Summary of Farmville Water Operations
Year
Projected
System
Demand
(mgd)1
Allowable Well
Pumping Rate
(mgd)2
Supplemental Water 3
Water to be
Banked
(mgd)5, 7
Average Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)4
Maximum Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)
Estimated
Minimum
Purchase (mgd)6
2008 1.87 1.18 1.28 2.00 0.39 0.59
2009 1.89 1.18 1.30 2.04 0.39 0.59
2010 1.91 1.18 1.32 2.07 0.39 0.59
2011 1.93 1.18 1.34 2.10 0.39 0.59
2012 1.95 1.18 1.36 2.13 0.39 0.59
2013 1.97 0.78 1.38 2.57 0.79 0.20
2014 1.99 0.78 1.40 2.60 0.79 0.20
2015 2.01 0.78 1.42 2.63 0.79 0.20
2016 2.03 0.78 1.44 2.67 0.79 0.20
2017 2.05 0.78 1.46 2.70 0.79 0.20
2018 2.07 0.39 1.48 3.12 1.18 -0.20
2020 2.11 0.39 1.52 3.19 1.18 -0.20
2025 2.22 0.39 1.63 3.38 1.18 -0.20
2030 2.33 0.39 1.74 3.57 1.18 -0.20
2035 2.45 0.39 1.86 3.77 1.18 -0.20
2040 2.58 0.39 1.99 3.98 1.18 NA
2045 2.71 0.39 2.12 4.21 1.18 NA
2048 2.79 0.39 2.20 4.35 1.18 NA
1 Projected system demands based on 2002 actual usage and a 1% annual growth rate.2 Pumped water volumes based on an ABR of 1,572,000 gpd.3 Supplemental water volumes rounded to nearest thousand gallons.4 Average day bulk sales include water to be “banked”.5 Distribution of banked water is proposed for 2018 –2037.6 Estimated Minimum Purchase amount is equal to required reduction in well pumping to meet CCPCUA rules.7 Negative banking denotes usage of banked water.
B85
15
Figure 4:Town of Farmville Banked Water
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048
MillionGallonsperDay(MGD)
Years
Ground Water Pumped Yearly Water Banked Cumulative Banked Water
25% reduction from ABR 50% reduction fromABR 75% reduction from ABR
Pumping 100% of allotted withdrawal and using banked water
Pumping 50% of allotted withdrawal
Pumping 75% of allotted withdrawal
B86
16
2.2.3 Town of Winterville
As Winterville’s population increases rapidly, its water demand will grow concurrently. Current water usage
is approximately 0.80 mgd. By 2026, it is expected to increase by 135 percent to a build-out capacity of
2.0 mgd for areas not served by Bell Arthur or Eastern Pines Water Corporations. The MDD was projected
using a peaking factor of 1.80, and was calculated to approach 3.6 mgd by 2026 (Table 2).
The ABR approved for Winterville is 181 MGY, which translates to an average annual pumping rate of
0.496 mgd. Winterville will be required to reduce annual withdrawals as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Annual Withdrawal Rates Required by CCPCUA
Rules for Winterville
Year Total Annual
Withdrawal (MGY)
Average Annual
Withdrawal (mgd)
ABR 181 0.496
2008 136 0.372
2013 91 0.249
2018 45 0.123
Similar to Greene County and the Town of Farmville, Winterville intends to bank water in the same manner
throughout Phases I and II of the CCPCUA rule.Winterville submitted a letter of intent to DWR to bank
water on August 12, 2008. Winterville has an approved ABR of 0.496 mgd and plans to pump
approximately 0.185 mgd, thereby banking up to 449 MG of capacity prior to 2018 (Table 9). Winterville
has not expressed how it intends to utilize its banked water. However, Figure 5 depicts a banking strategy
where the banked water is used equally over a 20-year period, similar to Greene County and Farmville.
2.2.4 Greenville Utilities Commission
Between 1990 and 2005, GUC water demand increased 1.1 mgd according to historical water use data
(Table 2). Based on the GUC Water System Master Plan (Black & Veatch, 2001), the service area will
expand to over 100,000 customers by 2020. The projected ADD in 2020 will be approximately 11.6 mgd
(Table 2). Peak-day demands were estimated to reach 17.4 mgd in 2020 and 18.5 mgd in 2030.
B87
17
Table 9: Water Demand Projections and Summary of Winterville’s Water Operations
Year
Projected
System
Demand
(mgd)1
Allowable Well
Pumping Rate
(mgd)2
Supplemental Water 3
Water to be
Banked
(mgd)5, 7
Average Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)4
Maximum Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)
Estimated
Minimum
Purchase (mgd)6
2008 0.85 0.37 0.66 1.16 0.12 0.185
2009 0.90 0.37 0.71 1.25 0.12 0.185
2010 0.95 0.37 0.76 1.34 0.12 0.185
2011 1.00 0.37 0.81 1.43 0.12 0.185
2012 1.05 0.37 0.86 1.52 0.12 0.185
2013 1.10 0.25 0.91 1.73 0.25 0.062
2014 1.15 0.25 0.96 1.82 0.25 0.062
2015 1.20 0.25 1.01 1.91 0.25 0.062
2016 1.25 0.25 1.06 2.00 0.25 0.062
2017 1.33 0.25 1.14 2.14 0.25 0.062
2018 1.40 0.12 1.21 2.40 0.37 -0.062
2020 1.55 0.12 1.36 2.67 0.37 -0.062
2025 1.93 0.12 1.74 3.34 0.37 -0.062
2030 2.00 0.12 1.81 3.48 0.37 -0.062
2035 2.00 0.12 1.81 3.48 0.37 -0.062
2040 2.00 0.12 1.88 3.48 0.37 NA
2045 2.00 0.12 1.88 3.48 0.37 NA
2048 2.00 0.12 1.88 3.48 0.37 NA
1 Projected system demand was linearly interpolated by ARCADIS. The Town of Winterville provided projection values for
2016 and 2026.2 Pumped water volumes based on an ABR of 180,709,104 gallons.3 Supplemental water volumes rounded to nearest thousand gallons.4 Average day bulk sales include a percentage for banked water.5 Distribution of banked water is proposed for 2018 –2037.6 Estimated Minimum Purchase amount is equal to required reduction in well pumping to meet CCPCUA rules.7 Negative banking denotes usage of banked water.
B88
18
Figure 5: Town of Winterville Banked Water
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048
Years
Mi
l
l
i
o
n

G
a
l
l
o
n
s

p
e
r

D
a
y

(
M
G
D
)
Ground Water Pumped Yearly Water Banked Cumulative Banked Water
25% reduction
from ABR
50% reduction
from ABR 75% reduction from ABR
Pumping 50% of allotted
withdrawal
Pumping 75% of
allotted
withdrawal
Pumping 100% of allotted withdrawal and using
banked water
B89
19
3.Water Treatment Plant Capacity
GUC’s water treatment plant (WTP) has a permitted capacity of 22.5 mgd. The WTP treats raw water
withdrawn from the Tar River and pumped to a 63-million gallon pre-settling impoundment. The WTP
utilizes conventional coagulation/sedimentation process, intermediate ozonation (for disinfection), and
high-rate,dual-media filters. In 2002, the WTP converted from free chlorine to chloramines for disinfection.
Bulk sales contracts between GUC and its wholesale customers (Farmville, Greene County, and
Winterville)stipulate an Estimated Minimum Purchase,which is equal to the required reduction in well
pumping to meet CCPCUA rules. Based on the peak demands for the GUC service area and the
Estimated Minimum Purchase that GUC is obligated to provide to Farmville, Greene County, and
Winterville, the WTP has the capacity to meet the projected needs through 2030 (Table 10).The
Estimated Minimum Purchase amount was used since GUC may limit distribution to the wholesale
customers when GUC experiences peak demands. Wholesale customers will rely on well pumping to meet
demands during those periods, and GUC will provide sufficient water during the remainder of the year to
allow its customers meet CCPCUA rules.
Table 11 shows the average annual demands for GUC as well as the projected annual average bulk sales
amounts for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County. This also demonstrates that GUC’s existing WTP
has sufficient capacity to meet its retail customer’s demands as well as the wholesale customers.
B90
20
Table 10: Maximum Day GUC Demands with Minimum Bulk Purchases
Year
GUC
Demands
(mgd)1
Estimated Minimum Purchase (mgd)Total
(mgd)Winterville Greene County Farmville
2008 15.83 0.12 0.74 0.39 17.09
2013 16.71 0.25 1.48 0.79 19.22
2018 17.28 0.37 2.22 1.18 21.05
2020 17.51 0.37 2.22 1.18 21.27
2025 18.08 0.37 2.22 1.18 21.84
2030 18.65 0.37 2.22 1.18 22.41
2035 19.22 0.37 2.22 1.18 22.98
2040 19.79 0.37 2.22 1.18 23.55
1 Demands include minimum bulk sales to Stokes and Bethel.
Table 11: Average Day GUC Demands with Average Day Bulk Purchases
Year
GUC Demands
(mgd)1
Estimated Average Day Bulk Sales (mgd)Total
(mgd)Winterville Greene County Farmville
2008 10.91 0.66 1.14 1.28 13.99
2013 11.37 0.91 1.69 1.38 15.36
2018 11.80 1.21 2.23 1.48 16.72
2020 11.98 1.36 2.31 1.52 17.17
2025 12.40 1.74 2.51 1.63 18.28
2030 12.83 1.81 2.71 1.74 19.10
2035 13.27 1.81 2.91 1.86 19.85
2040 13.70 1.88 3.11 1.99 20.67
1 Demands include annual average bulk sales to Stokes and Bethel.
B91
21
4.IBT Calculations
4.1 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Neuse River Subbasin
IBT calculations for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin (Basin ID 15-1) to the Neuse River subbasin
(Basin ID 10-1) are shown in the Water Balance Tables (Tables 12,13, and 14). Transfers to the Neuse
River subbasin are a result of bulk sales to the Town of Winterville and Greene County as well as water
use by GUC customers located in the Neuse River Subbasin. IBT calculations are based on the following:
·Peak day demands for GUC are calculated based on a MDD:ADD peaking factor
of 1.50, based on historical demand trends.
·Peak day demands for the Town of Winterville are calculated based on a
MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.80, based on historical demand trends.
·Consumptive water use for GUC is 20 percent based on historical operating
records.
·Consumptive water use for Winterville and Greene County is assumed to be
30 percent.
·Process water use at the GUC WTP is 8 percent of raw water withdrawal based
on operating records.
·The service area for the Town of Winterville is entirely within the Neuse River
subbasin.
·The portion of Greene County in the Neuse River subbasin is estimated at 5
percent.
·The portion of GUC’s service area in the Neuse River subbasin is estimated at
8 percent based on current water distribution system maps and the number of
service connections located in the Neuse River Subbasin.
·All wastewater produced in the GUC service area is returned to the Tar River
Basin, with the exception of a limited number of septic tanks in the Neuse River
Basin.
·All wastewater produced in the Winterville service area is discharged into the
Neuse River subbasin.
·All wastewater produced in Greene County is disposed of by on-site septic
systems.
In Table 12, water demands for the Town of Winterville are based on Average Day Bulk Sales as shown in
Table 9. This demonstrates the average day IBT amounts that are expected on an annual basis. These
demands account for bulk purchases from GUC required for Winterville to meet customer demands, to
comply with CCPCUA regulations, and to allow for “banking” of groundwater.
B92
22
In Table 13,the Maximum Day Bulk Sales projected for the Town of Winterville are used to determine
maximum day IBT amounts.The Maximum Day Bulk Sales represents the total peak day demands for the
Winterville service area less the average annual allowable well pumping rate.
In Table 14, the Emergency Bulk Sales projected for the Town of Winterville are used to determine the
emergency condition for the IBT. The emergency condition represents the total peak day demand for the
Winterville service area. This strategy will allow GUC to provide water to Winterville in the event a
catastrophic event was to occur, e.g. aquifer contamination, drought, or major mechanical or electrical
failure. GUC requests that the IBT certificate be written such that notification would be required to DWR to
trigger the emergency request.
B93
23
Table 12:Water Balance Table –Tar River to Neuse River (Average Day)
Year
GUC
Water
Demand
Winterville
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Greene
County
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Withdrawal from
Tar River
Consumptive Use Wastewater Discharge WTP
Discharge
Total
Return to
Tar River
Basin
Interbasin
Transfer
GUC Winterville Greene County
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River Basin
Tar River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
2005 10.03 0.71 0.06 11.66 92 1.85 0.16 0 0.0 0.21 0 0.0 0.06 8.0 0.5 0.9 10.7 0.9
2010 10.81 0.76 0.06 12.57 92 1.99 0.17 0 0.0 0.23 0 0.0 0.06 8.6 0.5 0.9 11.6 1.0
2015 11.19 1.01 0.09 13.28 92 2.06 0.18 0 0.0 0.30 0 0.0 0.09 9.0 0.7 1.0 12.0 1.3
2020 11.57 1.36 0.12 14.10 92 2.13 0.19 0 0.0 0.41 0 0.0 0.12 9.3 1.0 1.0 12.4 1.7
2025 11.95 1.74 0.13 14.93 92 2.20 0.19 0 0.0 0.52 0 0.0 0.13 9.6 1.2 1.1 12.9 2.1
2030 12.33 1.81 0.14 15.43 92 2.27 0.20 0 0.0 0.54 0 0.0 0.14 9.9 1.3 1.1 13.3 2.2
2035 12.71 1.81 0.15 15.85 92 2.34 0.20 0 0.0 0.54 0 0.0 0.15 10.2 1.3 1.2 13.7 2.2
2040 13.09 1.88 0.16 16.34 92 2.41 0.21 0 0.0 0.56 0 0.0 0.16 10.5 1.3 1.2 14.1 2.3
B94
24
Table 13: Water Balance Table –Tar River to Neuse River (Maximum Day)
Year
GUC
Water
Demand
Winterville
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Greene
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Withdrawal from
Tar River
Consumptive Use Wastewater Discharge WTP
Discharge
Total
Return to
Tar River
Basin
Interbasin
Transfer
GUC Winterville Greene County
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River Basin
Tar River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
2005 14.71 1.32 0.11 17.43 92 2.71 0.24 0 0.0 0.40 0 0.0 0.11 11.8 0.9 1.3 15.8 1.7
2010 16.22 1.34 0.10 19.07 92 2.98 0.26 0 0.0 0.40 0 0.0 0.10 13.0 0.9 1.4 17.4 1.7
2015 16.79 1.91 0.16 20.36 92 3.09 0.27 0 0.0 0.57 0 0.0 0.16 13.4 1.3 1.5 18.0 2.3
2020 17.36 2.67 0.21 21.85 92 3.19 0.28 0 0.0 0.80 0 0.0 0.21 13.9 1.9 1.6 18.7 3.2
2025 17.93 3.34 0.23 23.21 92 3.30 0.29 0 0.0 1.00 0 0.0 0.23 14.3 2.3 1.7 19.3 3.9
2030 18.50 3.48 0.25 24.00 92 3.40 0.30 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.25 14.8 2.4 1.8 20.0 4.0
2035 19.07 3.48 0.26 24.63 92 3.51 0.31 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.26 15.3 2.4 1.8 20.6 4.0
2040 19.64 3.48 0.28 25.27 92 3.61 0.31 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.28 15.7 2.4 1.8 21.2 4.1
B95
25
Table 14: Water Balance Table –Tar River to Neuse River (Emergency Condition)
Year
GUC
Water
Demand
Winterville
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Greene
County
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Withdrawal from
Tar River
Consumptive Use Wastewater Discharge WTP
Discharge
Total
Return to
Tar River
Basin
Interbasin
Transfer
GUC Winterville Greene County
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River Basin
Tar River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
% Tar
River
Tar
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
2005 14.71 1.32 0.11 17.43 92 2.71 0.24 0 0.0 0.40 0 0.0 0.11 11.8 0.9 1.3 15.8 1.7
2010 16.22 1.71 0.21 19.58 92 2.98 0.26 0 0.0 0.51 0 0.0 0.21 13.0 1.2 1.4 17.4 2.2
2015 16.79 2.16 0.23 20.71 92 3.09 0.27 0 0.0 0.65 0 0.0 0.23 13.4 1.5 1.5 18.1 2.7
2020 17.36 2.79 0.25 22.02 92 3.19 0.28 0 0.0 0.84 0 0.0 0.25 13.9 2.0 1.6 18.7 3.3
2025 17.93 3.47 0.26 23.39 92 3.30 0.29 0 0.0 1.04 0 0.0 0.26 14.3 2.4 1.7 19.4 4.0
2030 18.50 3.60 0.28 24.17 92 3.40 0.30 0 0.0 1.08 0 0.0 0.28 14.8 2.5 1.8 20.0 4.2
2035 19.07 3.60 0.30 24.80 92 3.51 0.31 0 0.0 1.08 0 0.0 0.30 15.3 2.5 1.8 20.6 4.2
2040 19.64 3.60 0.32 25.44 92 3.61 0.31 0 0.0 1.08 0 0.0 0.32 15.7 2.5 1.9 21.2 4.2
B96
26
4.2 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Contentnea Creek Subbasin
IBT calculations for the transfer from the Tar River subbasin (Basin ID 15-1) to the Contentnea Creek
subbasin (Basin ID 10-2) are shown in the Water Balance Tables (Tables 15, 16, and 17).Transfers to the
Contentnea Creek subbasin are a result of bulk sales to the Town of Farmville and Greene County.
·Peak day demands for the Town of Farmville are calculated based on a
MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.70, based on historical demand trends.
·Peak day demands for Greene County are calculated based on a MDD:ADD
peaking factor of 1.75, based on historical demand trends.
·Consumptive water use for Farmville and Greene County is assumed to be
30 percent.
·Process water use at the GUC WTP is 8 percent of raw water withdrawal based
on operating records.
·The service area for the Town of Farmville is entirely within the Contentnea
Creek subbasin.
·The portion of Greene County in the Contentnea Creek subbasin is estimated at
95 percent.
·No wastewater produced in the Town of Farmville and Greene County service
areas is returned to the Tar River subbasin.
In Table 15, water demands for the Town of Farmville and Greene County are based on Average Day Bulk
Sales as shown in Tables 5 and 7, respectively. This demonstrates the average day IBT amounts that are
expected on an annual basis. These demands account for bulk purchases from GUC required for
Farmville and Greene County to meet customer their demands, to comply with CCPCUA rules, and to
allow for “banking” of groundwater.
In Table 16, the maximum day IBT amount was determined using the maximum day bulk sales projected
for Greene County and the Town of Farmville. The maximum day bulk sales represent the total peak day
demands for Greene County and Farmville less the average annual allowable well pumping rate.
In Table 17, the emergency bulk sales projected for Greene County and Farmville are used to determine
the emergency condition for the IBT. The emergency condition represents the total peak day demand.
This strategy will allow GUC to provide water to Greene County and Farmville in the event a catastrophic
event was to occur, e.g. aquifer contamination, drought, or major mechanical or electrical failure. GUC
requests that the IBT certificate be written such that notification would be required to DWR to trigger the
emergency request.
B97
27
Table 15: Water Balance Table –Tar River to Contentnea Creek (Average Day)
Year
Farmville
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Greene
County
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Total Bulk
Sales to
Contentnea
Basin
Withdrawal
from Tar
Basin
(associated
with bulk
sales only)
Consumptive Use Wastewater
Discharge
WTP
Discharge Total
Return
to Tar
River
Basin
Interbasin
Transfer
%
Tar
River
Tar
River
Basin
Content-
nea
Creek
Basin
Tar
River
Basin
Content-
nea
Creek
Basin
Tar River
Basin
2005 1.66 1.19 2.85 3.08 0 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.2 2.9
2010 1.32 1.22 2.54 2.74 0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 2.5
2015 1.42 1.76 3.18 3.43 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.3 3.2
2020 1.52 2.31 3.83 4.14 0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.3 3.8
2025 1.63 2.51 4.14 4.47 0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.3 4.1
2030 1.74 2.71 4.45 4.81 0 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.1 0.4 0.4 4.5
2035 1.86 2.91 4.77 5.15 0 0.0 1.4 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.4 4.8
2040 1.99 3.11 5.10 5.51 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.6 0.4 0.4 5.1
B98
28
Table 16: Water Balance Table –Tar River to Contentnea Creek (Maximum Day)
Year
Farmville
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Greene
County
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Total Bulk
Sales to
Contentnea
Basin
Withdrawal
from Tar
Basin
(associated
with bulk
sales only)
Consumptive Use Wastewater
Discharge
WTP
Discharge Total
Return
to Tar
River
Basin
Interbasin
Transfer
% Tar
River
Tar
River
Basin
Content-
nea
Creek
Basin
Tar
River
Basin
Content-
nea
Creek
Basin
Tar River
Basin
2005 1.66 2.08 3.74 4.04 0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.6 0.3 0.3 3.7
2010 2.07 1.87 3.93 4.25 0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.3 3.9
2015 2.63 2.91 5.54 5.99 0 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.9 0.4 0.4 5.5
2020 3.19 3.95 7.15 7.72 0 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.0 0.6 0.6 7.1
2025 3.38 4.30 7.68 8.29 0 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.4 0.6 0.6 7.7
2030 3.57 4.65 8.22 8.88 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.8 0.7 0.7 8.3
2035 3.77 5.00 8.77 9.47 0 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.1 0.7 0.7 8.8
2040 3.98 5.35 9.33 10.08 0 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.7 9.3
B99
29
Table 17: Water Balance Table –Tar River to Contentnea Creek (Emergency Condition)
Year
Farmville
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Greene
County
Estimated
Bulk
Purchase
Total Bulk
Sales to
Contentnea
Basin
Withdrawal
from Tar
Basin
(associated
with bulk
sales only)
Consumptive Use Wastewater
Discharge
WTP
Discharge Total
Return
to Tar
River
Basin
Interbasin
Transfer
% Tar
River
Tar
River
Basi
n
Content-
nea
Creek
Basin
Tar
River
Basin
Content-
nea
Creek
Basin
Tar River
Basin
2005 1.66 3.64 5.30 5.73 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.4 5.3
2010 3.25 3.98 7.22 7.80 0 0.0 2.2 0.0 5.1 0.6 0.6 7.2
2015 3.41 4.32 7.73 8.35 0 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.4 0.6 0.6 7.7
2020 3.59 4.66 8.24 8.90 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.8 0.7 0.7 8.2
2025 3.77 5.01 8.78 9.48 0 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.1 0.7 0.7 8.8
2030 3.96 5.35 9.32 10.06 0 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.7 9.3
2035 4.17 5.70 9.87 10.66 0 0.0 3.0 0.0 6.9 0.8 0.8 9.9
2040 4.38 6.05 10.43 11.27 0 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.3 0.8 0.8 10.4
B100
30
5.IBT Management Strategy
Greene County, the Town of Farmville,and the Town of Winterville have each entered into Water
Purchase Agreements with GUC in response to the CCPCUA rules. Key provisions that are similar to each
contract are as follows:
·Contract terms are valid for 40 years, beginning August 1, 2008.
·The minimum daily amount that GUC is committed to provide is equal to water
supply reductions required by CCPCUA rules for each customer.
·Interruption or curtailment of water supply will occur no more than 10 percent of
the time (36 days per year). GUC will provide at least a 24-hour notice prior to
interruption or curtailment of water service.
GUC currently has system interconnections with the Town of Winterville. GUC has constructed a 24-inch
transmission main to the end of its water system for the purposes of interconnecting to the Farmville and
Greene County water systems.Greene County and the Town of Farmville are currently constructing a
booster pumping station and 10 miles of 24-inch transmission mains to complete the system
interconnection with GUC.
The projected average daily bulk purchases for Greene County, the Town of Farmville and the Town of
Winterville are shown in Tables 5, 7, and 9. These tables illustrate the typical amount of water that GUC
will sell to these water systems on an annual average daily basis. These estimated purchase amounts
include “banking” from 2008 through 2018.
GUC will sell additional potable water to help its customers meet their peak demands if water supply is
available.The maximum day IBT calculations are based on GUC selling water to meet wholesale
customers’ peak day demands less the allowable well pumping rate (Tables 13 and 16).
The emergency condition represents the total peak day demand for each of the wholesale customers. This
strategy will allow GUC to provide water to Greene County,Farmville, and Winterville in the event a
catastrophic event was to occur, e.g. aquifer contamination, drought, or major mechanical or electrical
failure. The intent is for the IBT Certificate to allow this flexibility for GUC to meet the needs of its
wholesale customers during an emergency even if it occurs during a peak demand period. GUC also
intends to help its wholesale customers meet peak demands if supply is available.
When GUC experiences peak demands, GUC may limit distribution to the wholesale customers as
necessary. However, GUC will supply the wholesale customers with the Estimated Minimum Purchase.
Wholesale customers will rely on well pumping to meet their customer’s demands during those periods
and GUC will provide sufficient water during the remainder of the year to allow its customers to meet
CCPCUA rules. In the event that GUC experiences a mechanical failure, pipeline break, unusually high
demand or other situation in its water system, the Water Purchase Agreements include a provision that
allows GUC to curtail or interrupt service.
B101
31
GUC and its wholesale customers will be required to balance requirements of two regulations:CCPCUA
rules and requirements of the IBT Certificate. CCPCUA rules limit the amount of well pumping from the
Cretaceous aquifer system over an annual period (e.g. total annual volume). The IBT Certificate will limit
the transfer amount on a maximum day basis. This IBT management strategy was developed to meet
the requirements of two sets of rules with different criteria. GUC and its wholesale customers will develop
more detailed standard operating procedures to guide bulk sales and purchases to ensure compliance
with both rules and to ensure that the needs of each water system are met.
B102
32
6.ATTACHMENTS
B103
B104
B105
B106
B107
B108
B109
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Greenville Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendix C

Greenville Utilities Commission Local
Water Supply Plan

B110
Local Water Supply Planning -North Carolina Division ofWater Resources Page 10f5
Greenville Utilities Commission 2008
1. System Information
Contact Information
Water System Name' Greenville Utilities Commission PWSID 04-74-010
Mailing Address PO Box 1847
Greenville, NC 27835 Ownership Municipality
Contact Person: Ricky Langley Title Water Treatment Plant Superintenden
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Secondary Contact Barrett Lasater Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address PO Box 1847
Greenville, NC 27835 Fax: [phone]
Distribution System
Lme Type Size Range (Inches) Estimated % of lines
Asbestos Cement 6-16 18.00 %
Cast Iron 6-12 13.00 %
Ductile Iron 6-36 4.00 %
Other 6-16 2.00 %
Polyvinyl Chloride 2-24 63.00 %
What are the estimated total miles of distribution system lines? 604 Miles
How many feet of distribution lines were replaced during 2008? 1,340 Feet
How many feet of new water mains were added during 2008? 69,913 Feet
How many meters were replaced in 2008? 448
How old are the oldest meters in this system? 17 Year(s)
How many meters for outdoor water use, such as irrigation, are not billed for sewer services? 1,320
What is this system's finished water storage capacity? 8.500 Million Gallons
Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of the system since last update? No
Programs
Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants? Yes, 2 Years or More
Does this system have a valve exercise program? Yes, 2 Years or More
Does this system have a cross-connection program? Yes
Does this system have a program to replace meters? Yes
Does this system have a plumbing retrofit program? No
Does this system have an active water conservation public education program? Yes
Does this system have a leak detection program? Yes
Leak detection is initiated whenever system annual average unaccounted for losses exceed AVVVVA standard for comparable systems or whenever
there is a known or suspected Significant leaf. The system IS diVided into 10 geographically defined zones and systematically visually inspected
Priority crossings at waterways are also inspected Leak detection equipment (Metrotech HL 400) IS utilized by tramed personnel to pinpoint leaf.s not
readily detectable by Visual observation or where the location of the leaf. cannot otherwise be adequately determined Significant leaks are repaired
Immediately following detection and all minor leaf.s are repaired as soon as practicable following their detection.
Water Conservation
What type of rate structure is used? Uniform
How much reclaimed water does this system use? 0.000 MGD For how many connections? 0
Does this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water in an emergency? Yes
2. Water Use Information

http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/report.php 3/31/2009
B111
Local Water Supply Planning -North Carolina Division of Water Resources Page 2 of5
Service Area
Sub-Basin(s) % of Service Population County(s) % of Service Popu lation
Tar River (15-1) 81 % Pill 100%
Neuse River (10-1) 19 %
What was the year-round population served in 2008? 87,167
System Map upload ~l)CW,~Je,[Se[\I~e8rei!~QQ9 L'l
Has this system's acquired another system since last report? No
Water Use by Type
Metered Metered Non-Metered Non-MeteredType of Use Connections Average Use (MGD) Connections Estimated Use (MGD)
Residential 30,014 5.839 a 0.000
Commercial 3,397 2.777 a 0000
Industrial 24 0.904 a 0000
Institutional a 0.000 a 0.000
How much water was used for system processes (backwash, line cleaning flushing etc.)? 2.792 MGD
Wholesale custorners are not illc1uded In Water use bf type
Water Sales
Purchaser PWSID
Average
Daily
Sold
(MGD)
Days
Used MGD
Contract
Expiration Recurring
Required to
comply with
water
use restrictions?
Pipe Size
(s)
(Inches)
Use
Type
Bell Arthur WC 04-74­
045 0.000 a 0.000 Yes Yes 6 Emergency
Eastern Pines WC 04-74­
015 0.000 a 0.000 Yes Yes 6 Emergency
Homestead Community
Water
04-74­
109 0.006 366 0.000 Yes Yes 4 Regular
Winterville 04-74­
040 0.192 366 0.000 2008 Yes Yes 10 Regular
3. Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
Average Daily Max Day Average Daily Max Day Average Daily Max Day
Use (MGD) Use (MGD) Use (MGD) Use (MGD) Use (MGD) Use (MGD)
Jan 11.942 14.676 May 12.750 16620 Sep 13.752 17.893
Feb 12.148 14.574 Jun 16.285 18972 Oct 13.137 17.100
Mar 12146 17.699 Jul 14.961 20.152 Nov 11.944 14.860
Apr 12653 17.435 Aug 14.807 17.120 Dec 11.198 13.996
Greenville Utilities Commission's 2008 Konthly Withdrawals & Purchases
,,22 ~ ~20
~ i 18
•
...
Ava Dail!:!
Max Da!:l
g16
~ 14­"
~ 12 -i:
f~ I'\ar FV Ila!:I J\6I Jul AuC 8ep Oct Nov ~c
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/report.php 3/31/2009
B112
Local Water Supply Planning -North Carolina Division of Water Resources Page 3 of 5
Ground Water Sources
Average Daily Withdrawal 12-HourName or
Number
MGD
(MGD)
Days Used
Max Day Withdrawal
(MGD) Supply
(MGD)
CUA
Reduction
Year
Offline
Use
Type
BWW 0021 8 0.045 0.158 CUA25 Regular
ESW 0.013 4 0.038 0.198 CUA25 Regular
EW2 0.008 5 0.025 0.143 CUA25 Regular
EW4 0.017 4 0.035 0.143 CUA25 Regular
IBW 0.052 18 0.115 0.219 CUA25 Regular
NGW 0.013 4 0034 0.184 CUA25 Regular
NSW 0.022 10 0046 0.219 CUA25 Regular
WSW 0008 4 0022 0.133 CUA25 Regular
Ground Water Sources (continued)
Screen Depth (Feet)
Name or Number Well Depth (Feet) Well Diameter (Inches) Pump Intake Depth (Feet) Metered?Casing Depth
(Feet) Top Bottom
BWW 435 435 251 430 12 282 Yes
ESW 489 489 209 486 6 192 Yes
EW2 452 452 210 452 12 246 Yes
EW4 458 458 192 458 14 249 Yes
IBW 429 429 250 424 12 277 Yes
NGW 404 404 258 391 6 214 Yes
NSW 454 454 178 454 14 245 Yes
WSW 421 421 166 417 6 193 Yes
Are ground water levels monitored? Yes, Monthly
Does this system have a wellhead protection program? Yes
Surface Water Sources
Available Raw Average Daily Withdrawal Usable On-Stream Maximum Day Water Supply Stream Reservoir Raw Water Supply Withdrawal (MGD) Storage (MG) MGD Days Used MGD Qualifier
Tar River 13.143 366 20.152 22.500 F 63.000
Surface Water Sources (continued)
Drainage Area Year UseStream Reservoir Metered? Sub-Basin County(sq mil Offline Type
Tar River 2,620 Yes Tar River (15-1) Pitt Regular
What is this system's off-stream raw water supply storage capacity? 63 Million gallons
Are suriace water sources monitored? Yes, Daily
Are you required to maintain minimum fiows downstream of its intake or dam? No
Does this system have the ability to transfer surface water between river basins? Yes
Does this system rely on the transfer of suriace water between fiver basins for any of its existing water supply? No
Does thiS system anticipate transferring suriace water between fiver basins? Yes
We do not have the abHy to transfer raw water from one baSin to another however currently 19%. of the population served by GUC is in the Neuse
River BaSin A tl'ansfer is made through those homes that have SeptiC tanks As a result of requi·ed cuttacKs in ground water wlttldrawal associated
with the CCPCUA. sonletlrne ill 2009 we will begin seiling water to Greene County and the Town of Farmville which are located Ir the Contentnea
Cree~. Sub-Baslll and the Town of W,rterville which is located in the Neuse River Sub-baSin A GUC consulting engineering f"m IS currently In the
process of completing the required documentation for an IBT certification for both the Neuse and the Contentnea River Sub·Baslns Submission of IBT
worKsheets will be forthcOrTl!flg
Water Purchases From Other Systems
Average ReqUired toContract Pipe Size Daily Days comply with UsePurchaser PWSID (s)Purchased Used water TypeMGD Expiration Recurring (Inches)(MGD) use restrictions?
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/report.php 3/31/2009
B113
Local Water Supply Planning -North Carolina Division of Water Resources Page 4 of5
Bell ArthurWC 04-74­
045 0.000 o 0.000 Yes No 6 Emergency
Eastern Pines
WC
04-74­
015 0.000 o 0.000 Yes No 6 Emergency
Winterville 04-74­
040 0.000 o 0.000 Yes Yes 10 Emergency
Water Treatment Plants
Permitted Capacity Plant Name Is Raw Water Metered? Is Finished Water Ouput Metered? Source(MGD)
Greenville Utilities Commissio 22.500 Yes Yes Tar River
Did average daily water production exceed 80% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2008? No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented?
Did average daily water production exceed 90% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2008? No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented?
Are peak day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capacity in the next 10 years? No
4. Wastewater Information
Monthly Discharges
Average Dally Average Daily Average Daily

Discharge (MGD) Discharge (MGD) Discharge (MGD)

Jan 9.210 May 9.200 Sep 9.100
Feb 9.160 Jun 9.150 Oct 9060
Mar 9.210 Jul 9.110 Nov 9.070
Apr 9250 Aug 9070 Dec 9.020
Greenville Utilities Commission~s 2008 Monthly Discharges
,.... 10 ~ L*·~~.o.:~l,~"", 1~
i
~
~
.§ ....-
z:
F~b Mar Apr ~ Jun Jul Aui Sep OCt NOli Dec
How many sewer connections does this system have? 26,917
How many water service connections with septic systems does this system have? 6,520
Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities in the next 10 years? No
Wastewater Permits
Average Annual Permitted Capacity Design Capacity Maximum Day Discharge Permit Number Daily Discharge ReceiVing Stream Receiving Basin (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)(MGD)
NC0023931 17.500 17.500 9.020 14.090 Tar River Tar River (15-1)
NC0082139 1.000 0.500 0673 0.720 TAR RIVER Tar River (15-1)
Wastewater Interconnections
Average Daily Amount Contract Water System PWSID Type Maximum (MGD) MGD Days Used
Bethel 04-74-030 Receiving 0.230 366 0.300
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/report.php 3/3112009
B114
Local Water Supply Planning -North Carolina Division of Water Resources Page 5 of 5
Grimesland 04-74-055 Receiving 0.025 366 0.053
5. Planning

Projections
Year-Round PopUlation
Seasonal Population
2008
87,167
0
2010
90,000
0
2020
108,000
0
2030
129,000
0
2040
154,000
0
2050
184,000
0
Residential 5.839 6.118 6.549 6.979 7.437 7.437
Commercial 2.777 2.908 3.112 3.317 3.535 3.535
Industrial 0.904 0.951 1.018 1.085 1.156 1.156
Institutional 0.000 0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
System Process 2.792 2.930 3.135 3341 3.561 3.794
Unaccounted-for 0.672 0.704 0.754 0.804 0.856 0.869
Future Water Sales
Contract Purchaser PWSID Pipe Size(s) (Inches) Use Type MGD Year Begin Year End
Greene County 04-40-106 0.715 2008 2048 24 Regular
Stokes Regional Water Corporation 04-74-060 0048 2008 2048 10 Regular
Town of Bethel 04-74-045 0.040 2008 2048 12 Regular
Town of Farmville 04-74-020 0.378 2008 2048 24 Regular
Future Supply Sources
Source Name PWSID Source Type Additional Supply Year Online Year Offline Type
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well System 04-74-010 Ground 1.500 2010 RegUlar
Demand vis Percent of Supply
2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Surface Water Supply 22.500 22.500 22.500 22.500 22.500 22.500
Ground Water Supply 1.397 1.048 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
Purchases 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Future Supplies 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500
Total Available Supply (MGD) 23.897 25.048 24.349 24.349 24.349 24.349
Service Area Demand 12.984 13611 14.568 15.526 16.545 16.791
Sales 0.199 0.198 0.198 0.198 0.198 0.198
Future Sales 1.181 1.181 1.181 1.181 0.000
Total Demand (MGD) 13.183 14.990 15.947 16.905 17.924 16.989
Demand as Percent of Supply 55% 60% 65% 69% 74% 70%
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning? Yes, Regional water supply planning with adjacent systems has come about due to
the CCPCUA and the necessity for these systems to find alternate water scources. GUC has become a regional water supply for these systems as a result of this
planning.
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning? GUC Water System Master Plan, Water SupplylDemand Reports provided by Other
Systems, GUC Evaluation of Needed Capacity and Treatment Methodology for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion.
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources, any water system deficiencies or needed improvements (storage, treatment,
etc.) or your ability to meet present and future water needs Include both quantity and quality considerations, as well as financial, technical, managerial,
permitting, and compliance issues: We are currently in the design phase of a raw water intake project This project will add a redundant set of intake screens to
our exisiting raw water pump station. The screens will be located apprOXimately 4.5 feet lower than the existing screens which will provide addtional water over
the screens during drought conditions. The project is not increasing the pump stations capacity. Permitting and obtaining SRF funding are the two major hurdles
for this project
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Planireport.php 3/3112009
B115