AttC- GUC_EA_FONSI_for_EMC

Environmental Assessment
For Greenville Utilities
Commission Interbasin
Transfer
Greenville Utilities Commission
October 2008
F I N A L
C1
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.
C2
C3
C4
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 i
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) enacted the Central Coastal Plain
Capacity Use Area (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 rule 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 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. 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 interbasin transfer (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.
This project consists of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) to allow
GUC to apply for two IBT Certificates to provide finished water to Farmville, Greene County, and
Winterville.These communities are located in different watershed subbasins as defined by the EMC. The
EMC regulates transfers of water from one watershed to another via the interbasin transfer regulations.
Pursuant to SEPA, any project requiring an IBT Certificate also requires an EA to be completed and a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to be granted before the EMC will issue an IBT Certificate. In
general, an IBT certificate is required for a new transfer greater than 2 million gallons per day (mgd) or an
increase in an existing transfer greater than 25 percent, if the total including the increase is greater than
2 mgd.
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.
C5
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 ii
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Executive Summary
No construction is proposed in conjunction with this interbasin transfer. A Final Environmental Assessment
for ten miles of finished water line and a booster pump station to support the IBT for Greene County and
the Town of Farmville (2006, McDavid and Associates) has been approved with a FONSI. The Town of
Winterville is already connected to the GUC water distribution system for emergency interconnections.
Therefore, direct impacts to soils, topography, wetlands, protected species,or land use as a result of this
proposed project are expected to be insignificant.
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
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).
C6
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 iii
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
1.Proposed Project Description 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Proposed Project Scope 1-2
1.3 Project Description 1-3
2.Need for the Project 2-1
2.1 Summary of Need 2-1
2.2 Growth Trends 2-1
2.3 Water Demand Projections 2-4
2.4 Existing Facilities 2-11
3.Interbasin Transfer Request 3-1
3.1 Explanation of Bulk Sales Agreements 3-1
3.2 Interbasin Transfer Request 3-2
3.3 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Neuse River Subbasin 3-2
3.4 Transfer from Tar River Basin to Contentnea Creek Subbasin 3-6
3.5 IBT Management Strategy 3-9
4.Alternatives Analysis 4-1
4.1 No-Action Alternative 4-1
4.2 Independent Water Supply 4-2
4.3 Participate in Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority 4-3
4.4 Return of Water to Source Basin 4-3
4.5 Purchase Water from GUC –Selected Alternative 4-5
5.Existing Environment 5-1
5.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 5-1
5.2 Existing Land Use 5-3
5.3 Water Resources 5-6
C7
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 iv
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
5.4 Wetlands 5-12
5.5 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources 5-12
5.6 Rare and Protected Species or Habitats 5-16
5.7 Air Quality 5-26
5.8 Noise Levels 5-26
6.Predicted Environmental Impacts 6-1
6.1 Topography and Soil Impacts 6-1
6.2 Land Use Impacts 6-1
6.3 Water Resources Impacts 6-2
6.4 Wetlands Impacts 6-8
6.5 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources Impacts 6-8
6.6 Rare and Protected Species or Habitats Impacts 6-8
6.7 Air Quality Impacts 6-10
6.8 Noise Level Impacts 6-10
6.9 Introduction of Toxic Substances Impacts 6-10
7.Mitigative Measures 7-1
7.1 City of Greenville 7-1
7.2 Pitt County 7-14
7.3 Town of Farmville 7-27
7.4 Town of Winterville 7-31
7.5 Greene County 7-32
8.State and Federal Permits Required 8-1
9.Literature Cited 9-1
10.Qualifications of Preparers 10-1
C8
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 v
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure 1-1: Interbasin Transfer Line, as Determined by the Environmental Management Commission 1-4
Figure 1-2: Service Areas for the Town of Farmville, Town of Winterville, Greene County, and Greenville Utilities Commission 1-5
Figure 5-1: Existing Land Use in the Service Areas 5-5
Figure 5-2: Surface Waters in Pitt, Greene, and Edgecombe Counties 5-11
Figure 7-1: Future Land Use Map for the City of Greenville 7-5
Figure 7-2: Zoning in the City of Greenville 7-6
Figure 7-3: Future Land Use Map for Pitt County 7-17
Figure 7-4: Future Land Use Map for the Northwest Planning Area of Pitt County 7-18
Figure 7-5: Watershed Protection in Pitt County 7-19
Figure 7-6: Zoning in Pitt County 7-22
Tables
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: Water Demand Projections and Summary of Greene County Water Operations 2-8
Table 2-4: Water Demand Projections and Summary of Farmville Water Operations 2-9
Table 2-5: Water Demand Projections and Summary of Winterville’s Water Operations 2-10
Table 3-1: Maximum Day GUC Demands with Minimum Bulk Purchases 3-1
Table 3-2: Water Balance Table for Maximum Day Condition from the Tar River to the Neuse River Subbasin (Town of Winterville and Greene County)3-4
Table 3-3: Water Balance Table for Emergency Condition from the Tar River to the Neuse River Subbasin (Town of Winterville and Greene County)3-5
Table 3-4: Water Balance Table for Maximum Day Condition from the Tar River to the Contentnea Creek Subbasin (Greene County and Town of Farmville)3-7
Table 3-5: Water Balance Table for Emergency Condition from the Tar River to the Contentnea Creek Subbasin (Greene County and Town of Farmville)3-8
Table 4-1: Comparison of Allowable Pumping Rates with Average Day Demands 4-1
Table 4-2: Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Greene and Pitt Counties 4-4
Table 5-1: Bioclassification and Use Support Ratings for Streams within the Service Area 5-8
C9
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 vi
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
Table 5-2: Protected Species Listed for Pitt and Greene Counties 5-17
Table 6-1: Explanation of Modeling Scenarios Used in the Tar River Water Balance 6-4
Table 6-2: Summary of Flow Statistics (Flow in cfs and Percentiles) for Greenville Gaging Station and Downstream of Greenville WWTP (ENTRIX, 2008)6-7
Table 6-3: Summary of Flow Statistics (Annual Percent of Time and Average Number of Days) for Greenville Gaging Station and Downstream of Greenville WWTP (ENTRIX, 2008)6-7
Table 6-4: Summary of Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species 6-9
Table 7-1: Density Limits in City of Greenville Zoning Ordinance 7-4
Table 7-2: Greenville Utilities Commission Water Shortage Response Triggers 7-11
Table 7-3: Density Limits in Pitt County Zoning Ordinance 7-21
Table 7-4: Density Limits in Town of Farmville Zoning Ordinance 7-28
Appendices
A Interbasin Transfer Management Strategy for Greenville Utilities Commission (ARCADIS, 2008)
B Analysis of Greenville Utility Commission's Proposed Interbasin Transfer Withdrawals on Tar River Flows at Greenville, North Carolina (ENTRIX, October 2007)
C Response to Division of Water Resources Completeness Review Comments
D Response to DENR Comments
C10
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 vii
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
7Q10 7-day duration, 10-year frequency low stream flow
ABR Approved base rate
AWWA American Water Works Association
BMP Best management practice
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
CAMA Coastal Area Management Act
CAS Cretaceous aquifer system
CCPCUA Central coastal plain capacity use area
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs Cubic feet per second
CMSD Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District
CO Carbon monoxide
DAQ N.C. Division of Air Quality
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
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMC N.C. Environmental Management Commission
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ETJ Extraterritorial jurisdiction
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FSC Federal species of concern
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GMA Groundwater Management Association, Inc.
gpd Gallons per day
gpcd Gallons per capita per day
gpm Gallons per minute
GUC Greenville Utilities Commission
HQW High quality water
C11
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 viii
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
IBT Interbasin transfer
LWSP Local water supply plan
MG Million gallons
mgd Million gallons per day
mgy Million gallons per year
MSL Mean sea level
NAAQS National ambient air quality standards
NCAC N.C. Administrative Code
NHP N.C. Natural Heritage Program
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (previously
known as the Soil Conservation Service)
NRWASA Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority
NSW Nutrient sensitive waters
NWI National Wetland Inventory
O3 Ozone
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ORW Outstanding resource water
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act
Pb Lead
PM-10 Particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less
ppm Parts per million
RCW Red Cockaded Woodpecker
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Area
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SOx Sulfur oxides
T Threatened
TAZ Traffic analysis zone
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TSP Total suspended particulates
TSS Total suspended solids
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
C12
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 ix
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWC Urban Water Coalition
VOC Volatile organic compound
WQC N.C. Water Quality Committee
WRC N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
WS Water supply
WTP Water treatment plant
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
C13
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Proposed Project Description
1.Proposed Project Description
1.1 Introduction
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) enacted the Central Coastal Plain
Capacity Use Area (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. Greenville Utilities Commission (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.
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. The Town of Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located in the Contentnea
Creek subbasin. The Town of Farmville operates a 3.5 million gallon per day (mgd)wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) discharging to Little Contentnea Creek. In Greene County, wastewater is handled by on-site
septic systems or small, centralized treatment systems discharging to Contentnea Creek. The Town of
Winterville and the southwestern portion of Greene County are located in the Neuse River subbasin.
Wastewater for Winterville is treated by the Contentnea Metropolitan Sewerage District (CMSD) via the
Contentnea Creek WWTP. This plant discharges wastewater to an unnamed tributary to Contentnea
Creek.
GUC, located in Pitt County,relies on the Tar River for its water supply. The majority of the GUC customer
base resides in the Tar River subbasin. GUC operates the GUC WWTP discharging to the Tar River.
C14
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Proposed Project Description
The Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, and Greene County 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 interbasin
transfer (IBT) from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin. Sale of finished water to the
Town of Winterville and portion of Greene County constitutes an IBT from the Tar River subbasin to the
Neuse River subbasin.
The interbasin transfer line, as determined by the 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 islocated 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.
1.2 Proposed Project Scope
This project consists of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) to allow
GUC to apply for two IBT Certificates to provide finished water to Farmville, Greene County, and
Winterville. These communities are located in different watershed subbasins as defined by the EMC. The
EMC regulates transfers of water from one watershed to another via the interbasin transfer regulations.
Pursuant to SEPA, any project requiring an IBT Certificate also requires an EA to be completed and a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to be granted before the EMC will issue an IBT Certificate. In
general, an IBT Certificate is required for a new transfer greater than 2 mgd or an increase in an existing
transfer greater than 25 percent, if the total including the increase is greater than 2 mgd.
The CCPCUA rules require a 75 percent reduction in groundwater withdrawal phased over the next ten
years. Groundwater withdrawal from the Cretaceous aquifer is the sole water supply source for Farmville,
Greene County, and Winterville. Therefore, significant growth in these communities 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).
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
C15
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 1-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Proposed Project Description
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.
This EA will include evaluations of the environmental issues related to the two IBT requests. This EA will
document the need for the project, provide an analysis of the project alternatives, and describe the existing
environment, predicted environmental impacts, and mitigative measures.
1.3 Project Description
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 Town 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.
C16
GreenvilleFarmville
Winterville
EdgecombeCounty
Pitt County
Greene County
TAR RIVERBASIN
NEUSERIVERBASIN
CONTENTNEACREEKBASIN
Swift
C
r
e
e
k
Fishing C
r
e
e
k
De
e
p

C
r
e
e
k
TarRiver
TarRiver
Con
e
t
o
e

Cree
k
Grind
l
e
Creek
TownCreek
L
i
t
t
l
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a
C
r
e
e
k
Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r
Content
n
e
a
Creek
Swif
tCree
kNahunta
Swamp
Tran
t
e
r
s
Cree
k
Ayden
SnowHill
TarboroRocky Mount
Bethel
NashCounty
StonyCreek
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
C17
GreenvilleFarmville
Winterville
Pitt County
Greene County
TAR RIVERBASIN
NEUSERIVERBASIN
CONTENTNEACREEKBASIN
AydenSnowHill
Bethel
Hookerton
Walstonburg
San
d
y

R
u
n
Tyso
n

M
a
r
s
h
Fort Ru
n
Nahunta

S
w
a
m
p
Muss
e
l

R
u
n
P
o
l
e
c
a
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
Mill R
u
n
Rainbow

C
r
e
e
k
Co
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
Beaman
R
u
n
Thompsom Swamp
Jacks For
k
B
u
t
t
o
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
Wa
t
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sowell Run
Fallin
g

C
r
e
e
k
Shepherd

R
u
n
Pan
t
h
e
r

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
Lewis Bran
c
h
Watery

B
r
a
n
c
h
Middle Swamp
Spring Branch
Lang Branch
Be
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Wh
e
a
t

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
Mill Run
Tyson M
a
r
s
h
Mid
d
l
e

S
w
a
m
p
Grindle Creek
Swif
t

C
r
e
e
k
Fo
r
k

S
w
a
m
p
TAR RIVER
H
u
n
t
i
n
g

R
u
n
Clayro
o
t

S
w
a
m
p
Parke
r

C
r
e
e
k
I
n
d
i
a
n

W
e
l
l

S
w
a
m
p
Juniper Bran
c
h
Mi
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h
Cannon Swamp
Pine
l
o
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
Bl
a
c
k

S
w
a
m
p
Co
n
e
t
o
e

C
r
e
e
k
Harde
e

C
r
e
e
k
Brie
r
y

S
w
a
m
p

(
S
h
e
p
h
a
r
d

M
i
l
l
p
o
n
d
)
Lan
g
s

M
i
l
l

R
u
n
Gre
a
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
u
n
Lawr
e
n
c
e

R
u
n
Kitten Cre
e
k
Harris Mill Run
Gum Swamp
Pea Branch
O
l
d
w
o
m
a
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
Ward
R
u
n
Otter Cr
e
e
k
Bates B
r
a
n
c
h
Suggs

B
r
a
n
c
h
Pol
e
y

B
r
a
n
c
h
Cabin Branch
Moyes Run
Isla
n
d

S
w
a
m
p
Chicod
C
r
e
e
k
Hors
e
p
e
n

S
w
a
m
p
Nobel Canal
Ba
r
b
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Grinn
e
l

S
l
o
u
g
h
Cr
o
s
s

S
w
a
m
p
P
h
i
l
l
i
p
p
i

B
r
a
n
c
h
Bell Br
a
n
c
h
Tranter
s

C
r
e
e
k
Lewis Canal
Bear Creek
Simmon Branch
Little Content
n
e
a

C
r
e
e
k
Cre
e
p
i
n
g

S
w
a
m
p
Tr
a
n
t
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
TAR RIVER
Sw
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
TAR RIVER
TAR RIVER
Conetoe Creek
TAR
R
I
V
E
R
TA
R

R
I
V
E
R
Sw
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
TAR
R
I
V
E
R
Mill B
r
a
n
c
h
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
C18
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
2.Need for the Project
The following sections address growth trends, historical water demands, and existing water facilities.
Section 2.1 summarizes the overall need for the project; Section 2.2 evaluates growth trends; Section 2.3
provides an explanation of historical water demands; and Section 2.4 discusses existing water and
wastewater facilities.
2.1 Summary of Need
This project consists of an EA to allow the GUC to obtain an IBT Certificate for the transfer of 8.3 mgd
maximum day demand and 9.3 mgd emergency demand 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 also requesting an IBT Certificate for the transfer of 4.0 mgd maximum day demand and 4.2 mgd
emergency demand from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin to support the Town of
Winterville’s compliance with CCPCUA rules. The CCPCUA rules require Farmville, Greene County, and
Winterville to reduce groundwater withdrawals by 75 percent phased over the next ten years. Groundwater
withdrawal from the Cretaceous aquifer is the sole water supply for these communities.
2.2 Growth Trends
2.2.1 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.
2.2.2 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.
C19
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
2.2.3 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.
2.2.4 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
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.
C20
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
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
C21
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
2.3 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. Water demand projections for each water system are presented in Section 2.3.1 through
2.3.4.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.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.
In addition, 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 by offsetting 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 the banked water in the future. This approach meets the
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,Greene County
have been approved for banking. The letters of approval for Farmville and Greene County are provided as
an attachment to the IBT Management Strategy (Appendix A).Along with DWR’s approval, a set of
guidelines were introduced to clarify the banking system. Guidelines received by Farmville and Greene
County in a letter 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.
A graphical representation of how banked water may be utilized is included in the IBT Management
Strategy, Appendix A.
C22
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-5
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
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
C23
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-6
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
2.3.1 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
In 2005, Greene County had an average day demand of 1.19 mgd and a maximum day demand of
2.22 mgd. 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.
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 by
75 percent in 2018, which equates to an average annual pumping rate of 0.74 mgd.
The County intends to bank water by pumping 50 percent of its allowed pumping rate during Phase 1 (2008
to 2013), and 75 percent of its allowed pumping rate during Phase II (2013 to 2018). 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 the well operation. Between 2008 and 2018, the County will bank approximately
2,700 million gallons (MG), or 7.4 mgd of pumping capacity, and intends to distribute the capacity equally
over the following 20 years (2018 to 2037). Greene County will purchase supplemental water from GUC to
compensate for the reduced groundwater withdrawals.
Table 2-3 provides a summary of projected water system demands for Greene County, the allowable
pumping rate, the projected purchase from GUC, and the amount of water that will be banked for future
use. The amount of the Estimated Minimum Purchase equals the required reduction in well pumping to
meet CCPCUA rules.
2.3.2 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
C24
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-7
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
approximately 2.33 mgd. Based on a peaking factor 1.70, maximum day demands are projected to be
3.96 mgd in 2030.
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 to 0.393 mgd in 2018. 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. 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. Table 2-4 provides a summary of projected water system demands for
Farmville, the allowable pumping rate, the projected purchase from GUC, and the amount of water that will
be banked for future use.
2.3.3 Town of Winterville
The Town of Winterville’s current water usage is approximately 0.80 mgd. By 2026, it is expected to
increase to a build-out capacity of 2.0 mgd for areas not served by Bell Arthur or Eastern Pines Water
Corporation. A peaking factor of 1.80 was used to calculate a maximum day demand of 3.6 mgd by 2026.
The ABR approved for Winterville is 181 mgy, which translates to an average annual pumping rate of
0.496 mgd. 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 rules. Winterville plans to pump approximately
0.185 mgd, thereby banking up to 449 MG of capacity prior to 2018. Winterville submitted a letter of intent
to bank water to DWR on August 12, 2008, but has not expressed how the banked water will be utilized.
Therefore, a water banking strategy similar to Greene County and the Town of Farmville was developed for
this analysis. Table 2-5 provides a summary of projected water system demands for Winterville, the
allowable pumping rate, the projected purchase from GUC, and an estimate of the amount of water that will
be banked for future use.
2.3.4 Greenville Utilities Commission
Between 1990 and 2005, GUC’s water demand increased 1.1 mgd according to historical water use data.
Based on the GUC Water System Master Plan, the service area will expand to over 100,000 customers by
2020. The projected ADD in 2020 will be approximately 11.6 mgd. Peak-day demands were estimated to
reach 17.4 mgd in 2020 and 18.5 mgd in 2030.
C25
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-8
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
Table 2-3: 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 2,960,000 gpd.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.
C26
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-9
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
Table 2-4: 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.
C27
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-10
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
Table 2-5: 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
Average Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)4
Maximum Day
Bulk Sales
(mgd)
Estimated
Minimum
Purchase (mgd)6
Water to
be Banked
(mgd)5, 7
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.
C28
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-11
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
2.4 Existing Facilities
2.4.1 Greenville Utilities Commission
The GUC 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 GUC converted from free chlorine to chloramines for disinfection.The
WTP includes an alum residuals lagoon. The 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 water treatment
plant (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.
This emergency use policy was implemented in response to advice from the Washington Regional Office of
the N.C.Division of Environmental Health Public Water Supply Section who were concerned that mixing
surface and well water with different disinfectants would lead to water quality problems in the distribution
system. GUC is currently involved in a capital project that will convert all the groundwater wells to add
ammonia feed in addition to the existing chlorine disinfectant systems. When this project is completed in
February 2009, GUC plans to request that the wells be allowed to operate on an as-needed basis. In the
long-term, the wells will be operated primarily in conjunction with the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
wells to meet peak demands, or periodically during WTP maintenance shut downs or when WTP raw water
quality is poor. Utilizing the wells on an intermittent basis in response to short-term situations will allow
GUC to meet the annualized groundwater withdrawal reduction requirements of the CCPCUA regulations.
Wastewater for the GUC service area is treated at the GUC 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.
2.4.2 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.
C29
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 2-12
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Need for the Project
2.4.3 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
June 2006 through June 2007.
Winterville currently purchases finished water from GUC (under the grandfathered IBT amount).
2.4.4 Greene County
Within Greene County, 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.
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. A
detailed evaluation of wastewater treatment in Greene County (Snow Hill WWTP, Hookerton WWTP, and
the Maury Sanitary Land District WWTP) is provided in Section 4.4.
Septic systems comprise the majority of wastewater treatment in Greene County.
C30
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
3.Interbasin Transfer Request
3.1 Explanation of Bulk Sales Agreements
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 3-1 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.
Table 3-1: 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.
C31
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
3.2 Interbasin Transfer 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 Appendix A (IBT Management Strategy).
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 provide a summary of these calculations.
3.3 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 3-2 and 3-3.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:
·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.
C32
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
·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 3-2, 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 3-3, 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
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.
C33
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
Table 3-2: 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
C34
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-5
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
Table 3-3: 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
C35
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-6
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
3.4 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 3-4 and 3-5.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 3-4, 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 3-5, 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.
C36
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-7
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
Table 3-4: 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
C37
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-8
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
Table 3-5: 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
C38
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 3-9
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Interbasin Transfer Request
3.5 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 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.
C39
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives Analysis
4.Alternatives Analysis
4.1 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 to 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 4-1 summarizes the allowable pumping rates and average day
demands for Farmville, Winterville, and Greene County. Maximum day demand projections are not
provided in Table 4-1 since the average day demands exceed the capacity of these groundwater systems.
Table 4-1: 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.
C40
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives Analysis
4.2 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 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 cubic feet per second (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.
C41
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives Analysis
4.3 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.
4.4 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 4-2 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.
C42
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives Analysis
Table 4-2: 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.
C43
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-5
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives Analysis
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.
4.5 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 (refer to Table 4-1). 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 (refer to Table 3-1).
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. (For the discussion of banked water, refer to Section 2.3 –Water Demand
Projections).
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
C44
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 4-6
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives Analysis
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
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.
C45
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
5.Existing Environment
The proposed project encompasses the service areas for GUC, the Town of Farmville, the Town of
Winterville, and Greene County. Farmville, Winterville, and Greenville are located in Pitt County. Pitt and
Greene Counties are located in the central eastern portion of North Carolina. The GUC service area is
located within the central and northern portions of Pitt County. The Town of Farmville and the Town of
Winterville are located west and south of the City of Greenville, respectively. Information on the existing
environment within the service area is described in the following sections.
5.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils
5.1.1 Topography and Floodplains
Greene and Pitt Counties are situated in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in the eastern portion of
the state. The geography of the region is the typical flat and rolling terrain of the central portion of the
Coastal Plain Province.
Pitt County is depicted on the Elm City, Conetoe, Pamlico Point, Robersonville East, Falkland, Greenville
Northwest, Greenville Northeast, Leggetts Crossroads, Walstonburg, Farmville, Greenville Southwest,
Greenville Southeast, Grimesland, Washington, Hookerton, Ayden, Garderville, Wilmar, Grifton, Fort
Barnwell,and Vanceboro,North Carolina U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps.
Elevations within Pitt County range from approximately six foot above mean sea level (MSL) in the
southeastern and central eastern portions of the county to approximately 112 feet above MSL in the
northwestern portion of the county.
Greene County is depicted on the Fountain, Stantonsburg, Walstonburg, Farmville, Jason, Snow Hill,
Hookerton, Ayden, La Grange, Maysville, and Kinston, North Carolina USGS topographic quadrangle
maps. Elevations within Greene County range from approximately six feet above MSL in the eastern
portion of the county to approximately 120 feet above MSL in the western portion of the county. Elevations
within the service area range from approximately six to 100 feet above MSL.
The North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System was used to view the flood hazard areas within
Pitt and Greene Counties. Portions of both Pitt and Greene Counties, including portions of the service area,
are located within the 100-year floodplain. These areas are mainly associated with streams.
5.1.2 Geology and Soils
The geology underlying the project region consists of formations from the Tertiary and Cretaceous periods.
These formations include the Yorktown Formation and Duplin Formation, undivided, from the Tertiary
period and the Pee Dee Formation, Cape Fear Formation, and Black Creek Formation from the Cretaceous
period. The project region is underlain by thick layers of consolidated and unconsolidated sedimentary
C46
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
formations that consist of alluvial sediments brought down from the Piedmont and marine sediments
deposited when ocean and estuarine waters covered the region. Materials in these formations include
sand, gravel, clay, and limestone.
The process of soil development depends upon both biotic and abiotic influences. These influences include
past geologic activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal
activity, time, climate, and topographic position. A soil association is defined as a landscape that has a
distinctive proportional pattern of soils consisting of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil. The
soils within an association may vary in slope, depth, stoniness, drainage, and other characteristics. The soil
associations found within the service area are described based on information obtained from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)(1977 and 1980). Thirteen soil associations are located within the
service area (USDA 1977 and USDA 1980).
Seven soil associates are present within Pitt County. These are the Nolfolk-Exum-Goldsboro, Roanoke-
Lakeland-Altavista, Lynchburg-Rains-Goldsboro, Lenoir-Bladen-Craven, Coxville-Exum, Bibb-Portsmouth,
and Bladen-Byars associations. Soils of the Norfolk-Exum-Goldsboro association occur in broad divides
and on smooth side slopes in upland areas and are moderately well drained and well-drained soils with a
subsoil of dominantly friable sandy clay loam. Soils of the Roanoke-Lakeland-Altavista association occur in
broad flats, in slight depressions, and on rounded divides on stream terraces and uplands and are poorly
drained to excessively drained soils that have a subsoil of dominantly friable sandy clay loam or very firm
clay, or that are underlain by loose sand. Soils of the Lynchburg-Rains-Goldsboro association occur on
broad, smooth flats and divides and in slight depressions in uplands and are moderately well drained to
poorly drained soils with a subsoil of dominantly friable sandy clay loam. Soils of the Lenoir-Bladen-Craven
association occur on broad flats, on smooth divides, and in slight depression in uplands and are moderately
well drained to poorly drained with a subsoil of very firm sandy clay to clay. Soils of the Coxville-Exum
association occur on broad flats and divides, on smooth side slopes, and in slight depressions in uplands
and are poorly drained and moderately well drained soils with a subsoil of dominantly firm sandy clay or
friable clay loam. Soils of the Bibb-Portsmouth association occur on broad, smooth flats and in draws and
depressions on floodplains and stream terraces and are poorly drained and very poorly drained soils
underlain by very friable fine sandy loam or friable sandy loam and sandy clay loam. Soils of the Bladen-
Byars association occur on smooth flats and in slight depression on uplands and are poorly drained and
very poorly drained soils with a subsoil of firm and very firm sandy clay to clay.
Six soil associations are present within Greene County. These are the Norfolk-Goldsboro,Wagram-
Stallings-Autryville, Rains-Lynchburg, Bibb-Johnston-Kinston, Johns-Kenansville-Lumbee, and Aycock-
Exum associations. Soils of the Norfolk-Goldsboro association occur in nearly level to gently sloping upland
areas and are well drained and are moderately well drained soils that contain a loamy subsoil. Soils of the
Wagram-Stallings-Autryville association occur in nearly level and gently sloping upland areas and are well
drained and somewhat poorly drained soils with a loamy subsoil. Soils of the Rains-Lynchburg association
occur in nearly level upland areas and are poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils with a loamy
subsoil. Soils of the Bibb-Johnston-Kinston association occur in nearly level floodplains and are poorly
C47
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
drained and very poorly drained loamy soils. Soils of the Johns-Kenansville-Lumbee association occur in
nearly level and gently sloping areas associated with stream terraces and are well drained to poorly drained
soils with a loamy subsoil. The Aycock-Exum association occurs in nearly level and gently sloping upland
areas and are well drained and moderately well drained soils with a loamy subsoil.
5.2 Existing 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
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.
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.
C48
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
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.
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.
5.2.4 Archaeological and Historical Resources
Archaeological and historical resources are located within the service area.However, due to the size of the
service area, detailed information relative to the archaeological and historical resources in Pitt and Greene
Counties are not discussed in this EA as no construction is required for this project.
C49
GreenvilleFarmville
Winterville
Pitt County
Greene County
TAR RIVERBASIN
NEUSERIVERBASIN
CONTENTNEACREEKBASIN
Ayden
SnowHill
Bethel
Con
e
t
o
e

Cree
k
Grind
l
e
Creek
L
i
t
t
l
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
n
e
a
C
r
e
e
k
Ta
r

R
i
v
e
r
Contentn
e
a
Creek
SwiftCree
kNahunta
Swamp
Tran
t
e
r
s
Cree
k
0 7 143.5 Miles
FIGURE 5-1: EXISTING LAND USE IN THE SERVICE AREAS
1 inch equals 7 miles
GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSIONPITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Legend
Interbasin Boundary
Sub-basin BoundaryMajor Rivers
County BoundaryLand UseDeveloped
Wooded/Undeveloped
Cultivated
Water Bodies/Streams
C50
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-6
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
5.3 Water Resources
5.3.1 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 islocated 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.
5.3.2 Surface Water Use Classifications
The DWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their existing or proposed uses. The primary
classification system distinguishes the following three basic usage categories: waters used for public water
supply and food processing (Classes WS-I through WS-V), water supply (WS) waters used for frequent
swimming or bathing (Class B), and waters used for neither of these purposes (Class C). Class C waters
are protected for fishing, boating, aquatic life, and other uses.
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
C51
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-7
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
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
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 service area.
5.3.3 Existing Surface Water Quality
The DWQ monitors water quality using physical, chemical, and biological sampling and rates each stream
segment or lake with respect to its designated usage classification as follows: supporting, support
threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting (DENR 2008 and DENR 2004). Biological monitoring,
including benthic macroinvertebrate (benthos) and fish samples, is particularly useful in tracking water
quality trends because these organisms reflect long-term interactions among many water quality and
habitat parameters, including factors not detected by infrequent physical and chemical sampling.
DWQ monitoring sites for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are located throughout the
service area. Table 5-1 provides bioclassifications and use support ratings for streams within the service
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:
C52
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-8
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
·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
·Clayroot Swamp –from source to SR 1925
·Hominy Swamp –from source to Contentnea Creek
Point-source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated through the NPDES program
and are required to register for a permit. Three facilities are listed as major NPDES dischargers and three
facilities are listed as minor NPDES dischargers in Pitt County. In Greene County, three facilities are listed
as minor dischargers.
Table 5-1: Bioclassification and Use Support Ratings for Streams within the Service 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 SupportingFish Community Survey 03-03-05 Not Rated
Hardee Creek Benthic Community Survey 03-03-05 Natural SupportingFish 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 ImpairedFish 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
C53
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-9
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Table 5-1: Bioclassification and Use Support Ratings for Streams within the Service Area
Waterbody Data Type
DWQ
Subbasin Bioclassification
Use
Support
Rating
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
5.3.4 Groundwater Supplies
The service 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.
C54
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-10
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
However, GMA determined that groundwater resources within Pitt County are limited and that they will not
meet the County’s future water supply needs.
On August 1, 2002, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) enacted the
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules. The CCPCUA rules will 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
aquifers from the ABR.
C55
PITT COUNTY
NASH COUNTY
BEAUFORT COUNTY
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
BEAUFORT COUNTY
GREENE COUNTY
Swift Cre
e
k
Con
e
t
o
e

C
r
e
e
k
Grindle Creek
Fo
r
k

S
w
a
m
p
C
o
k
e
y

S
w
a
m
p
Sandy

R
u
n
Dee
p

C
r
e
e
k
Midd
l
e

S
w
a
m
p
Ma
p
l
e

S
w
a
m
p
Bal
l
a
h
a
c
k

C
a
n
a
l
Cherry Run
TA
R

R
I
V
E
R
Corn Cre
e
k
Sand
y

C
r
e
e
k
Cow Swamp
Crisp
C
r
e
e
k
Mit
c
h
e
l
l

S
w
a
m
p

C
a
n
a
l
Tys
o
n

M
a
r
s
h
Park
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Ba
c
k

S
w
a
m
p
Nahunta
S
w
a
m
p
Cla
y
r
o
o
t

S
w
a
m
p
Lang
s

M
i
l
l

R
u
n
Juniper Bra
n
c
h
Mill Run
Harve
y

C
r
e
e
k
Moore Swam
p
Rainbow

C
r
e
e
k
Mill

B
r
a
n
c
h
Pinel
o
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
Goo
s
e

B
r
a
n
c
h
Grape Branch
Aggie

R
u
n
Black
S
w
a
m
p
Beav
e
r
d
a
m

C
r
e
e
k
Ho
r
s
e
p
e
n

S
w
a
m
p
Pi
g
b
a
s
k
e
t

C
r
e
e
k
Littl
e

S
w
a
m
p
Pant
e
g
o

C
r
e
e
k
Gr
e
a
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
Jerrys Creek
Mo
c
c
a
s
i
n

C
r
e
e
k
Durh
a
m

C
r
e
e
k
Thompsom Swamp
Beaman Run
Kitten Cree
k
Henry B
r
a
n
c
h
Beaverd
a
m

S
w
a
m
p
Harris Mill Run
Sc
o
t
t

C
r
e
e
k
Gum Swam
p
Shop Gut
Buck Swam
p
Mitch
e
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h
T
o
o
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Sou
t
h

C
r
e
e
k
Whiteoak

S
w
a
m
p
Th
e

C
a
n
a
l
C
o
k
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Sheppard Run
Morris Run
Cre
e
p
i
n
g

S
w
a
m
p
Miry Branch
Jack Creek
Bro
a
d

C
r
e
e
k

C
a
n
a
l
Indian Run
Bay Branch
K
e
y

B
r
a
n
c
h
Mi
l
l

S
w
a
m
p
Sheph
e
r
d

R
u
n
Baldwin Swamp
Gay Branch
Mill Gut
Sugg
s

B
r
a
n
c
h
Fi
s
h
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k
Pung
o

R
i
v
e
r
Bi
g

G
u
t
Pungo Swamp
TAR

R
I
V
E
R
TAR
R
I
V
E
R
Gum S
w
a
m
p
0 10 205Miles
FIGURE 5-2: SURFACE WATERS
1 inch equals 10 miles
GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSIONPITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Legend
Sub-basin Boundary
Interbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Streams
C56
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-12
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
5.4 Wetlands
Wetlands, as defined by federal regulations [40 CFR 230.3(t)] and the EMC rules [15A NCAC 2B
.0202(71)], are “…areas that are inundated or saturated by an accumulation of surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.”The boundary between wetlands and
deepwater habitat is defined as the maximum depth where rooted emergent vegetation may be found.
Rooted emergent vegetation is generally present at depths less than six feet below mean low water during
the growing season. Riparian wetlands are those areas that border streams and other water bodies.
Wetlands are located throughout the service area and are mainly present in floodplain areas adjacent to
streams and creeks. According to mapping provided by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), a majority
of the wetlands within the service area consist of riverine, palustrine forest and palustrine scrub shrub
wetlands, with numerous other types of wetlands being present in minor quantities.
5.5 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources
5.5.1 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.
5.5.1.1 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
C57
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-13
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). Usually, the
herbaceous layer of bottomland hardwood communities is poorly developed.
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.
5.5.1.2 Upland Hardwood Forest
The canopy of the upland hardwood community is dominated by tulip popular (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.
5.5.1.3 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
C58
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-14
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
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.
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 dorest 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.
5.5.1.4 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.
C59
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-15
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
5.5.2 Aquatic Habitat and Resources
Aquatic habitats are present within the service area. These aquatic habitats range from small headwater
streams and wetlands to large third and forth 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 service 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 service 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.
C60
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-16
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
5.5.3 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.
5.6 Rare and Protected 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
protected species listed for Pitt and Greene Counties are provided in Table 5-2.
C61
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-17
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Table 5-2: 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
Ammodramus henslowii susurrans Eastern Henslow’s sparrow SR FSC P
Anguilla rostrata American eel -FSC G, P
Condylura cristata pop. 1 Star-nosed mole SC - P
Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake SC - P
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T BBPA P
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SC FSC P
Lampetra aepyptera Least brook lamprey T - P
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike SC -G, 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
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E E G, P
Sistrurus miliarius Pigmy rattlesnake SC - 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
Vascular Plants
Sagittaria weatherbiana Grassleaf arrowhead SR-T FSC P
C62
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-18
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Table 5-2: 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).
5.6.1 Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
The shortnose sturgeon, a member of the family Acipenseridae, is a small species of sturgeon and seldom
exceeds 3.25 feet in length. They have an elongated, flattened body and a subterminal mouth with barbells,
which are suited to their bottom-feeding and generally benthic existence. Current threats to habitat are from
discharges, dredging, or disposal of materials into rivers, or related development activities involving
estuarine, riverine, and other mudflats. The shortnose sturgeon is found sporadically in most river systems
along the east coast from Canada to Florida (NMFS 1998). The sturgeons are anadromous fish, but the
adults seldom travel from their natal river and associated estuary. Thus, each river’s population is
genetically distinct. The primary habitat of the shortnose sturgeon is preferably deep pools with soft
substrates and vegetated bottoms. The shortnose sturgeon spawn in fast moving freshwater, riverine
reaches with gravel bottoms. No populations of the shortnose sturgeon are known to be present within Pitt
County.The shortnose sturgeon is not listed for Greene County.
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
The American alligator is 6 to 17 feet long. It has a broad,rounded snout, which distinguishes it from the
American crocodile (Crocodylus aeutus), a federally endangered species. Coloration of the alligator is
generally black, having light markings of yellowish crossbands on the young that may persist into
adulthood. These alligators are residents of the great river swamps, lakes, bayous, marshes, and other
water bodies of Florida and the Gulf and Lower Atlantic Coastal Plains. Nests consist of mounds of
C63
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-19
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
vegetative debris in which the eggs are buried between spring and early autumn; incubation is 65 days. At
hatching, most young are between 8 and 9 inches long. No populations of the American alligator are known
to be present within Pitt County.The American alligator is not listed for Greene County
The American alligator is listed as “threatened due to similar appearance” to provide protection to the
American crocodile, a species which it closely resembles. The American crocodile is a tropical species and
is not found in saltwater habitats this far north of Florida. The American alligator is not protected under
Section 7 of the ESA.
Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons)
The Roanoke bass, a member of the Centrarchidae family, is 5.7 to 16.9 inches long. It has a short, robust
body that is dark olive brown in color. Dark spots that tend to form rows occur along the sides of the body
and they have five or six anal fin spines. The Roanoke bass has an unscaled or partially scaled cheek and
many iridescent gold to white spots on the head and upper body (Rohde et. al. 1994).
The Roanoke bass is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River drainage basins in North Carolina. It is typically
found in cool and warm creeks and small to medium rivers that have moderate to low gradient and a rock
and gravel bottom. The Roanoke bass is rarely found in lakes and impoundments. The male Roanoke bass
makes a saucer-shaped nest in sand or gravel in May and June. The female lays 3,000 to 11,000 eggs in
the nest, which is then guarded by the male until the fry leave. The Roanoke bass reaches maturity at two
years old. The Roanoke bass diet consists of fish and aquatic invertebrates including crayfish and insects.
The Roanoke bass has been documented in the Tar River in the northwestern part of the City of Greenville
in Pitt County.The Roanoke bass is not listed for Greene County.
Eastern Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii susurrans)
The eastern Henslow’s sparrow is approximately five inches long with a large flat head and short spiky tail.
The bird’s coloration consists of a greenish-buff head, dark tail, and wings with chestnut markings,
streaking on chest and flanks, and a white belly. The preferred habitat of this species consists of large
areas of grasslands, weedy moist meadows, shrubby fields, and overgrown pastures. The eastern
Henslow’s sparrow has been documented at two locations within the eastern part of Pitt County and at one
location west of the City of Greenville.The eastern Henslow’s sparrow is not listed for Greene County.
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
The American eel has an elongated, snakelike body with a small, pointed head. The American eel has no
pelvic fins, but has one long dorsal fin that extends more than half of the body. The dorsal fin is continuous
with the caudal and anal fin. Coloration varies with age and ranges from yellow to olive-brown during the
adult form that lives in freshwater. The adult males are dark brown and gray dorsally, with a silver to white
ventral side. Adults reach lengths up to five feet (Page & Burr 1991). The American eel is a catadromous
species that spawn in the Atlantic Ocean and ascends stream and rivers in North and South America. The
C64
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-20
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
American eel is found in the Atlantic Ocean, Great Lakes, Mississippi River, the Gulf Basin, and south to
South America. American eel lives in freshwater as adults, usually in larger rivers or lakes, primarily
swimming near the bottom in search of food. This eel hunts mainly at night and resides in crevices or other
shelter to avoid light during the day, and often buries in substrate consisting of mud, sand, or gravel
(Landau 1992). No populations of the American eel are known to be present within Pitt and Greene
Counties.
Star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata) –population 1
The star-nosed mole is a small, blackish-brown mole that is readily identified by the 22 fleshy appendages
that surround its nostrils. This mole eats mainly aquatic invertebrates, but it also eats earthworms, small
fish, and crustaceans. Its preferred habitat is wet soils in forested floodplains and swamps, wet meadows,
and other open woods near water. The star-nosed mole is common in the mountains of North Carolina and
widespread but rare in the Coastal Plain. No populations of the star-nosed mole are known to be present
within Pitt County.The star-nosed mole is not listed for Greene County.
Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)
The timber rattlesnake measures 36 to 72 inches at maturity. Dorsal ground color of individuals in
southeastern Virginia and most of the Carolinas is typically brown, gray, or pinkish with a reddish or brown
middorsal stripe. The rattlesnake’s favorite habitats include rocky hillsides, fields along forests, river valleys
and swamps, low pinewoods, and pocosins. Stump holes and surface cover are common hiding places.
The timber rattlesnake may be active day or night. No populations of the timber rattlesnake are known to be
present within Pitt County. The timber rattlesnake is not listed for Greene County.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The mature bald eagle (usually more than 4 years of age) may be identified by its large white head and
short white tail. The body plumage is dark brown to chocolate-brown in color. Bald eagles may easily be
distinguished from other birds by their flat wing soar. They are primarily associated with large bodies of
water where food is plentiful. Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (usually within 0.5 miles)
with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area with an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance may cause nest abandonment. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in
December and January. Fish are the major food source, although forage items include coots, herons,
wounded ducks, and carrion. The bald eagle has been documented at three locations within Pitt County,
including one location in the northeastern part of the County, one location in the southeastern part of the
County, and one location northwest of the City of Greenville. The bald eagle is not listed for Greene County
As of July 6, 1999, this species is currently under consideration by the USFWS for a proposed de-listing of
their threatened status. However, this raptor will still be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and populations will continue to be monitored for at least
another five years under provisions of the ESA.
C65
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-21
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus)
The southern hognose snake grows to a length of 13 to 22 inches. Dark blotches with pale interspaces
characterize the brown, tan, or gray dorsal ground color of this snake. The dorsal scales are keeled and the
snout is upturned. These snakes are found across the eastern and southeastern portions of North Carolina
and the coastal plain of South Carolina. Within these regions, the snake inhabits xeric communities with
coarse sands or porous loamy soils including sandhills and pine and wiregrass flatwoods. The southern
hognose snake has been documented at one location within the Greenville City limits in Pitt County. The
southern hognose snake is not listed for Greene County.
Least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera)
The adult least brook lamprey has a 7-inch long, eel-shaped body with a deeply notched dorsal fin. Adults
are dark tan above and lighter below prior to spawning. During spawning, adults become blue-black in
color. The lamprey occurs in clear, small to medium-size streams in the Neuse and Tar River basins with a
sand/gravel substratum for spawning. The larvae require quiet backwater areas with a mud/silt substratum.
The least brook lamprey has been documented in Kitten Creek in the northwestern part of Pitt County. The
least brook lamprey is not listed for Greene County.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
The loggerhead shrike is a 7-inch-long bird with a heavy hooked beak, black mask, and flat head. These
birds of prey catch small rodents, insects, and other birds and often impale their catch on thorns or barbed
wire. The loggerhead shrike is found across the state. Heavily vegetated hedgerows are utilized as nesting
habitat, and foraging is conducted in nearby open fields. No populations of the loggerhead shrike are known
to be present within Pitt and Greene Counties.
Pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus)
The pinewoods shiner is a small (to 3.5 inches) fish, with a slim elongate body. It is blue-gray in color with a
whitish belly. This fish is found only in creeks to small rivers of the Tar and Neuse River drainages of North
Carolina. It inhabits the mid-water area of sandy to rocky runs and pools. Populations of the fish are known
to in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins in Pitt and Greene Counties. The pinewoods shiner has been
documented in Tyson Creek (King Creek), Moyes Run, and Conetoe Creek, within Pitt County. The
pinewoods shiner has also been documented in Nahunta Swamp and Tyson Marsh in Greene County.
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi)
The Neuse River waterdog is a large, aquatic salamander with external gills. It is dull, rusty brown in color
with dark brown to blue-black spots. It is found only in larger streams and rivers of the Neuse River basin of
North Carolina. This stream dweller requires relatively high oxygen levels and water quality, and is
generally found among large accumulations of submerged leaves in eddies or backwaters of streams. The
Neuse River waterdog has been documented at eight locations throughout Pitt County and at one location
in eastern Greene County.
C66
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-22
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus)
The Carolina madtom is a 2 to 5-inch long tan-colored catfish. They have a wide black stripe on the side
and four black saddles across their back. This madtom occurs in the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont of
the Neuse River drainage. They prefer shallow, low gradient, riffles and runs over fine to coarse sand,
gravel, and detritus of small to medium rivers. The Carolina madtom has been documented in Little
Contentnea Creek, along the border between Pitt and Greene Counties.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a medium-sized bird with entirely black and white plumage,
except for small red streaks on the nape of the male. The back of the RCW is striped, and the bird has a
large white cheek patch surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. This woodpecker's diet is composed
mainly of insects, including ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, and corn earworms, if available.
The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
The RCW is found in the southeastern United States. It is unique among woodpeckers because it nests
exclusively in living pine trees. The RCW uses open, old-growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. Slash, pond, or loblolly pines will also be utilized if longleaf is
not available. The preferred forested stand contains at least 50 percent pine and lacks a thick understory.
These birds usually excavate nests in pines greater than 60 years old and contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. Living pines infected with red-heart disease (Formes pini) are often selected for
cavity excavation because the inner heartwood is usually weakened. Cavities are located from 12 to
100 feet above ground level and below live branches. These trees may be identified by candles, large
encrustations of running sap that surrounds the tree. Clusters consist of one to many of these candle trees.
The foraging range of the RCW may extend 500 acres and must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
The RCW has been documented at one location in northeastern Pitt County and one location in
southeastern Pitt County.No populations of the RCW are known to be present within Greene County.
Pigmy rattlesnake (Sisturus miliarius)
The pigmy rattlesnake measures 15 to 26 inches in length. These rattlesnakes are characterized by large
scales on top of their heads and a conspicuous pit between the eye and nostril. The snake has dorsal color
ranging from gray to red with prominent dark brown or black splotches. Some individuals exhibit a red stripe
along the middle of the back. The tip of the tail is white or yellow and generally brighter in juveniles than in
the adults. These snakes are found from Hyde County, North Carolina, south throughout most of South
Carolina. The habitat is composed of pine flatwoods and sandy, open woodlands with pines, wiregrass, and
scrub oaks, and is frequently near cypress ponds and other bodies of water. Activity occurs during both day
and night, but the snakes are often found under logs and other surface cover. The pigmy rattlesnake has
been documented at one location in southeastern Pitt County.The pigmy rattlesnake is not listed for
Greene County.
C67
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-23
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)
The West Indian manatee is a Sirenian, which are sometimes called sea cows. They are large mammals
that spend their entire lives in water. These manatees are about 10 feet long and can weight as much as
1,000 pounds. Their forelimbs are modified to form flippers, their hindlimbs are reduced to nothing more
than a vestigial pelvis, and their tail is enlarged and flattened horizontally to form a fluke or paddle. Their
nostrils are located on top of their snouts and are opened by valves when they surface to breathe about
every 3 to 4 minutes. The lips are large and mobile, and they are covered with stiff bristles. Manatees are
herbivores whose main food sources are submerged, emergent, and floating aquatic plants, but they will
occasionally eat small fish. They can consume as much as 10 percent of their body weight in wet
vegetation each day. Manatees spend their time eating, resting, and traveling. Between October and April,
or months when the water temperature falls below 70°F, they may be found in warm coastal waters or near
warm water outfalls around southern Florida. During summer months, they may migrate as far north as
coastal Virginia in search of an adequate food supply (USFWS 1993). The West Indian manatee has been
documented at one location in the Tar River within the City of Greenville and one location in the Tar River
in the easternmost portion of Pitt County.The West Indian manatee is not listed for Greene County.
5.6.2 Invertebrates
Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata)
The triangle floater is a medium sized freshwater mussel that reaches approximately 3 inches at maturity.
The triangle floater has a subtriangular to ovate shell that is thicker at the anterior end than at the posterior.
A distinct posterior ridge is present and strong ridges run parallel with the growth lines. The exterior of the
triangle floater shell is smooth and shiny, and is yellowish greenish with broad green or blackish rays that
become black with age. The triangle floater is found only on very stable substrates, including silt, in small
rivers and headwater streams with moderate flow. No populations of the triangle floater are known to be
present within Pitt County.The triangle floater is not listed for Greene County.
Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis)
The Roanoke slabshell is a large freshwater mussel with branched papillae that reaches 6 inches at
maturity. The Roanoke slabshell is characterized by the presence of small folds centrally located on the
shell’s periostracum of most individuals, certain of the incurrent papillae being subdivided into smaller
papillae, and irregularly developed branchial septa. The Roanoke slabshell is rather sessile with only
limited movement in the substrate. Passive downstream movement may occur when mussels are displaced
from the substrate during floods. The Roanoke slabshell is usually found in near-shore trough habitats in
sand/gravel substrates. No populations of the Roanoke slabshell are known to be present within Pitt
County.The Roanoke slabshell is not listed for Greene County.
C68
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-24
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana)
The Tar River spinymussel is a small mussel, up to 2.8 inches, with a subrhomboidal shell. It is one of only
three freshwater mussels in the world with spines. The juveniles have up to 12 spines and an outer shell of
orange-brown with greenish rays; adults tend to lose spines as they mature and their shells are darker with
inconspicuous rays. The interior nacre is yellow to pinkish anteriorly and bluish white to iridescent
posteriorly. This mussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River drainages of the lower Piedmont and upper
Coastal Plain of North Carolina. It lives in silt free, unconsolidated gravel or coarse sand usually in shallow
water of fast flowing medium sized streams, but will utilize deep water with appropriate substrates. Two
populations are known to exist in two tributaries of the Tar River. No populations of the Tar River
spinymussel are known to be present within Pitt County.The Tar River spinymussel is not listed for Greene
County.
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
The Atlantic pigtoe is a freshwater mussel and the adults are essentially sessile. Some passive movement
downstream may occur. The Atlantic pigtoe inhabits relatively fast waters with high quality riverine/large
creek habitat. The Atlantic pigtoe is typically found in headwater or rural watersheds in sand or gravel
substrates below riffles. The Atlantic pigtoe has been documented in the Tar River, northwest of the City of
Greenville in Pitt County.The Atlantic pigtoe is not listed for Greene County.
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
The yellow lampmussel is a medium-sized freshwater mussel with a rounded inflated shell, yellowing and
smooth periostracum with rays that are restricted to the posterior slope, if present. The shell of the yellow
lampmussel is heavy with well-developed dentition. The adults of the yellow lampmussel are essentially
sessile, although some passive movement downstream may occur. The yellow lampmussel is typically
found in large streams and rivers in areas underlain by sand and gravel and in areas with good current. The
yellow lampmussel has been documented in the Tar River in eastern Pitt County.The yellow lampmussel is
not listed for Greene County.
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
The green floater is a freshwater mussel that inhabits quiet, meandering parts of hydrologically stable small
rivers and smaller streams and is most often found in slow water or pools and eddies where the substrate is
gravelly or sandy and the currents are slow. The green floater is 2 to 2.5 inches in length, is subovate, ovate,
triangle-ovate, or trapezoid in shape. The triangle floater has a thin, fragile shell with a small, rounded
posterior ridge and has a beak that projects only slightly above the hinge line that may be double looped.
The green floater has numerous dark green rays of varying width, a periostracum that is dull yellow to
brownish-green, and dull bluish-white nacre. No populations of the green floater are known to be present
within Pitt County.The green floater is not listed for Greene County.
C69
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-25
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
Tidewater mucket (Leptodea ochracea)
The Tidewater mucket is a freshwater mussel that inhabits ponds, canals, and slow-moving sections of
rivers, including artificial impoundments. The Tidewater mucket is usually found in water bodies close to,
but not necessarily connected to the ocean. The Tidewater mucket is found in a variety of substrates that
include silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and occasionally clay. No populations of the tidewater mucket are known
to be present within Pitt County.The Tidewater mucket is not listed for Greene County.
Eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta)
The eastern pondmussel is a freshwater mussel that inhabits protected areas of coastal lakes, slackwater
areas of rivers, and canals. The eastern pondmussel is found in a wide range of substrates. No additional
information pertaining to the eastern pondmussel is available for inclusion in this report. The eastern
pondmussel has been documented within Pitt County in Mitchell Swamp Canal and Chicod Creek.The
eastern pondmussel is not listed for Greene County.
North Carolina spiny crayfish (Orconectes carolinensis)
The North Carolina spiny crayfish is a relatively small, cylindrical crayfish. Its carapace ranges from tan to
forest green with a dark, often mottled saddle, and orange, crimson, and black highlights. It has strong
cervical, branchiostegal, and marginal spines with occasionally hepatic spines or tubercles. These crayfish
are endemic to the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins in North Carolina. They occupy the entire Tar-
Pamlico watershed, but are absent from some parts of the Neuse watershed. The preferred habitat
consists of small to large streams usually under cover and rock substrates. They reproduce in a wide range
of spring and fall months. The North Carolina spiny crayfish has been documented in Little Contentnea
Creek between Pitt and Greene Counties and at three locations in the Tar River east of the City of
Greenville.
Creeper (Strophitus undulatus)
The creeper is freshwater mussel that can reach approximately 4 inches in length in North Carolina. The
shell of the creeper is elliptical and moderately compressed. The shell is thin when the creeper is young
and thickens and becomes somewhat inflated as the creeper matures. The periostracum is generally
smooth and shiny. The creeper ranges in color from yellowish to dark brown. Green rays may extend over
the entire surface of the shell. The creeper has been found throughout its range from headwater streams to
large rivers and lakes to a depth of 13 feet. No populations of the creeper are known to be present within
Pitt County.The creeper is not listed for Greene County.
5.6.3 Vascular Plants
Grassleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria weatherbiana)
Grassleaf arrowhead is an aquatic plant with arrowhead lanceolate shaped leaves from 8 to 12 inches in
length and up to one inch in width narrowing at the base. The leaves have five to seven longitudinal veins,
C70
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 5-26
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Existing Environment
with the interior veins coalescing with the central rib and ending at the pointed tip of the leaf. The cross
venation of the leaves is pronounced. No populations of the grassleaf arrowhead are known to be present
within Pitt County.The grassleaf arrowhead is not listed for Greene County.
5.7 Air Quality
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) monitors compliance with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The principal air quality pollutants emitted are particulates (TSP and PM-10), sulfur
oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead
(Pb). The major emission sources are fuel combustion for transportation and heating, power generation,
industrial processes, waste incineration, forest fires, open burning of yard waste and construction debris,
and non-industrial solvent use (EPA 1990). Ground-level ozone (O3) is created by the photochemical
reaction of hydrocarbons (including VOCs) and NOx with ultraviolet sunlight.
DAQ and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)have established ambient air quality standards
for each pollutant based on hourly, daily, quarterly, or annual averages, depending on the pollutant's
physical properties, chemical dynamics, human physiological responses, and monitoring technology (DAQ
1998). Primary air quality standards are those established for protection of public health. For some
pollutants, secondary standards are established to protect against adverse effects on soil, water, crops,
vegetation, animals, materials, climate, visibility, and personal comfort. Pitt and Greene Counties are
designated as an attainment area for all six criteria pollutants.
A new 8-hour ambient ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) was adopted by the DAQ in 1997.
DAQ has a monitoring site in Farmville and reported that there were no ozone exeedence days in 2006.
5.8 Noise Levels
Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL-92-574) and Quiet Communities Act of 1978
(PL-95-6009), which require standards of compliance and recommend approaches to abatement for
stationary noise sources such as airports, highways, and industrial facilities. The service area consists of
developed and undeveloped areas that exhibit day-to-day normal noise conditions. Current noise levels
within the service area have not been quantified.
C71
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
6.Predicted Environmental Impacts
Construction activities are not proposed in association with this EA. Construction activities associated with
this project have been addressed in a previously approved EA (2006, McDavid and Associates).
6.1 Topography and Soil Impacts
No direct impacts to topography and soils will result from the interbasin transfer. The construction of the
waterline and booster pump station to facilitate the interbasin transfer was approved in 2006 via a Final
Environmental Assessment (McDavid and Associates). No other construction activities relative to the IBT
are proposed at this time.
6.2 Land Use Impacts
No direct impacts to land use will occur from the proposed interbasin transfer. The most significant indirect
impact of any growth in the service area may be land use changes within the currently open/vacant urban
areas. The impacts of land use changes may include the direct loss of the resource from conversion to
urban uses. As land uses change and populations increase, public lands such as parks may experience
periods of overuse, especially during summer months. Potential impacts may occur from allowing
incompatible land uses adjacent to recreational and natural areas and overusing parks and open spaces.
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.
6.2.1 Forest Resources Impacts
The proposed project will not directly impact forested areas. Indirect and cumulative forestry resource
impacts from growth in the service area are expected to be minimal.
6.2.2 Prime or Unique Farmland Impacts
Prime or unique farmlands are present with the service area. However, no construction or land disturbing
activities will occur relative to the proposed project;therefore,direct impacts to prime or unique farmlands
will not occur. Indirect impacts to prime or unique farmlands from the proposed project are anticipated to be
insignificant.
C72
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
6.2.3 Public, Scenic, and Recreational Areas Impacts
Direct impacts to public, scenic, or recreational areas will not occur because of the interbasin transfer.
Significant growth in these areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the
interbasin transfer request.
6.2.4 Archaeological or Historical Resources Impacts
Construction activities are not proposed in association with this proposed project, therefore direct impacts
to archaeological or historical resources are not expected. Indirect impacts to archaeological or historical
sites will be insignificant.
6.3 Water Resources Impacts
6.3.1 Groundwater Impacts
This interbasin transfer project will not negatively affect groundwater quality or quantity. The purpose of this
interbasin transfer project is in direct response to the CCPCUA rules that require groundwater users to
reduce groundwater withdrawals over the next ten years. 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. Greene County, Farmville, and Winterville are directly affected by the CCPCUA rules
and are required to take their first reduction in 2008.
6.3.2 Surface Water Impacts
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
C73
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
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
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 6-1 provides an explanation of the modeling scenarios.
C74
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
Table 6-1: 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 the Greenville Utilities
Commission.
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.
C75
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-5
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
ENTRIX tabulated and graphed the model results for each scenario in order to quantify and demonstrate
the influent of the proposed IBT withdrawal on current and future flow conditions. The Technical
Memorandum (TM) –Analysis of Greenville Utility Commission’s Proposed Interbasin Transfer Withdrawals
on Tar River Flows at Greenville, North Carolina (ENTRIX, 2008) is located in Appendix B. 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 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 TM (ENTRIX,2008) are presented in
Tables 6-2 and 6-3.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 6-2 and 6-3 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
C76
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-6
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
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.
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 develop for Greenville (based on a 77 year flow record) was
based on regression analyses, the predicted flow 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 flow estimated provided throughout the ENTIRX TM (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.
C77
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-7
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
Table 6-2: 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)1,1398 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 6-3: 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.
C78
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-8
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
6.3.3 Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to water quality 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 (Section 6.3.2) 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.
6.4 Wetlands Impacts
No direct impacts to wetlands will occur from the proposed project. Wetlands and vegetated riparian areas
are valuable since they preserve biological diversity, protect wildlife, provide natural open spaces, protect
water quality, stabilize stream banks, control erosion, and prevent flooding damage. Significant growth in
these areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing this interbasin transfer request.
Any impacts that may be associated with development could include filling or draining of wetlands for
construction of roads, private or public building sites, or utilities.
6.5 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources Impacts
No direct impacts to aquatic or terrestrial habitats will occur from the proposed interbasin transfer.
Significant growth in these areas is not a component of this project or a reason for developing the
interbasin transfer request.
6.6 Rare and Protected Species or Habitats Impacts
Table 6-4 summarizes the impacts to threatened and endangered species that may potentially occur from
the proposed project. Construction activities are not proposed in association with this project; therefore, no
direct impacts will occur to rare or protected species. Potential habitat for state and federally protected
species is present in Pitt and Greene Counties. Indirect impacts to state and federally protected species are
expected to be insignificant.
C79
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-9
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
Table 6-4: Summary of Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species
Scientific Name Common Name Ha
b
i
t
a
t

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

in

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
Re
c
o
r
d
e
d

N
H
P

Ob
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

Se
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
No

D
i
r
e
c
t

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Ar
e

E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
No

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

Im
p
a
c
t
s

A
r
e

Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
Di
r
e
c
t

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Ma
y

b
e

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Ma
y

B
e

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
Vertebrates
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon X X X
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator X X X
Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke bass X X X X
Ammodramus henslowii
susurrans
Eastern Henslow’s
sparrow
X X X X
Anguilla rostrata American eel X X X
Condylura cristata pop. 1 Star-nosed mole X X X
Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake X X X
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle X X X X
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake X X X X
Lampetra aepyptera Least brook lamprey X X X X
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike X X X
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner X X X X
Necturus lewisi Neuse River waterdog X X X X
Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom X X X X
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded
woodpecker
X X X X
Sistrurus miliarius Pigmy rattlesnake X X X X
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee X X X X
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater X X X
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke slabshell X X X
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spinymussel X X X
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe X X X X
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel X X X X
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater X X X
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket X X X
Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel X X X X
Orconectes carolinensis North Carolina spiny
crayfish
X X X X
C80
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 6-10
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Predicted Environmental Impacts
Table 6-4: Summary of Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species
Scientific Name Common Name Ha
b
i
t
a
t

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

in

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
Re
c
o
r
d
e
d

N
H
P

Ob
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

Se
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
No

D
i
r
e
c
t

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Ar
e

E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
No

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

Im
p
a
c
t
s

A
r
e

Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
Di
r
e
c
t

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Ma
y

b
e

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Ma
y

B
e

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
Strophitus undulatus Creeper X X X
Vascular Plants
Sagittaria weatherbiana Grassleaf arrowhead X X X
6.7 Air Quality Impacts
No construction activities will occur relative to the proposed project; therefore, no direct impacts to air
quality will occur. Indirect impacts to air quality within the service area from growth will be minimal.
6.8 Noise Level Impacts
No construction activities will occur relative to the proposed project; therefore, the noise level with respect
to the existing condition will not change.
6.9 Introduction of Toxic Substances Impacts
No construction activities will occur relative to the proposed project; therefore, the introduction of toxic
substances will not occur.
C81
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.Mitigative Measures
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 following programs are summarized for the communities who have expressed interest in obtaining
water from GUC. These programs are discussed in this EA for overall completeness and to support the
growth projections presented in Section 2.
7.1 City of Greenville
7.1.1 Land Use Planning and Environmental Resource Protection Initiatives
The City of Greenville adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1981, but has had mechanisms in place for
regulating land development since 1947. On February 12, 2004, the City adopted an update to the 1992
Horizons Plan, the City’s comprehensive plan. The Horizons Plan creates a set of goals, objectives,
policies, and actions to guide local planning, development, and redevelopment efforts. The Plan provides a
policy guide that will be used by local officials when making decisions on matters related to the
development of the City.
The Horizons Plan defines twelve land use categories, including conservation, very low density residential,
low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, office/institutional/multi-family,
office/institutional/medical, medical transition, medical core, mixed use/office/institutional, commercial, and
industrial. Each land use category has associated zoning districts in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which
specifies allowable land uses.
The Horizons Plan implementation actions are broken into eight topics, which reflect policy statements on
the land use issues that will affect Greenville during the planning period. Implementation strategies relative
to land use planning and growth include:
·Provide a land use form that optimizes resources by allocating land for its most
suitable use, avoiding conflicting land uses, preserving the City’s character, and
providing open spaces, vistas, and agricultural areas.
·Manage the physical development of Greenville to protect its resources and
simultaneously promote responsible industrial and retail growth.
·Consider adopting performance standards to encourage development at a rate that
parallels the availability of infrastructure and services.
C82
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
·Conservation/open space land uses should be provided in areas where there is the
potential for flooding or the need for buffering for incompatible land uses.
·Incorporate the principle of “smart growth” into the City’s land use regulatory
scheme.
·Preserve open space, agricultural areas, historically significant structures,
landmarks, and other features that reflect the City’s heritage.
The City of Greenville is dedicated to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the quality of the City’s natural
resources. The Horizons Plan emphasizes the City’s commitment to stormwater control, water quality
protection, wetlands preservation, floodplain management, air quality, and waste management. Specific
natural environment implementation strategies found in the Plan include:
·Adopt regulations to provide for conservation of open space and encourage
recreational, agricultural, or other low-intensity uses within the floodplain.
·Discourage improvements of any kind in undisturbed areas within the 100-year
floodplain. These areas should be designated for open space corridors,
greenways, and other low-intensity uses.
·Make wetlands acquisition a priority in future expansions of Greenville’s parks and
recreation areas.
·Revise stormwater regulations so that stormwater runoff controls are required for
projects draining to flood prone areas.
·Preserve threatened and endangered species habitats through preservation of
significant wetlands and other sensitive areas.
7.1.2 Zoning
The Greenville Zoning Ordinance provides regulations for the development of the City and ETJ in a manner
that will promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. The Zoning Ordinance divides the
City into 32 separate zoning districts, including overlay districts, in order to regulate the location and
intensity of land usage,regulate areas for open space, and provide for improved environmental protection.
There are eleven residential zones or overlays; seven medical zones, two of which are residential; eleven
commercial or industrial zones; a water supply watershed overlay; a historic district overlay; and a
conservation district overlay. In order to control development, minimum lot sizes have been established for
each zoning district. Table 7-1 summarizes the requirements for residential lot areas.
Regulations concerning overlay districts are applicable in addition to any other district regulations. The City
has established the water supply watershed overlay to protect and manage surface water supply
watersheds. This district has been further divided into water supply watershed – critical (WS-C) and water
supply watershed –protected (WS-P). All new development within the overlay requiring a sediment and
erosion control plan must comply with the zoning regulations. Within the WS-C overlay, single-family
C83
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
residential lots must not be less than 0.5 acres or 20,000 square feet. All other development must not
exceed 24 percent built-upon area. Within the WS-P overlay, single-family lots must not be less than
0.5 acres or 20,000 square feet, or 15,000 square feet for projects without curb and gutter street
construction. All other development must not exceed 24 percent built-upon area or 36 percent built-upon
area for projects without curb and gutter street construction. Vegetative buffer areas and stormwater BMPs
are required within this zone to protect water quality, and certain land uses are prohibited.
The conservation district overlay was established to provide for permanent open space and desirable
buffers between proposed uses and incompatible adjacent land uses, environmentally sensitive areas, or
hazardous areas. No buildings, structures, parking, or other impervious surfaces may be constructed within
the conservation overlay areas.
7.1.3 Open Space Plans/Initiatives, Greenways, and Riparian Buffers
The City of Greenville’s Recreation and Parks Department owns and maintains over 960 acres of parkland
among 25 parks and recreational facilities. This includes River Park North, a 324-acre park that includes a
nature center, camping facilities, and boating. The City desires to ensure that all residents have access to
open space and recreation activities close to where they live. Specific open space goals found in the
Horizons Plan include:
·Provide park and open space opportunities in all neighborhoods.
·Promote, preserve, and protect Greenville’s natural environment.
·Continue the construction of greenway projects in the City.
·Continue to acquire more open space for the enjoyment of citizens.
The Greenville Zoning Ordinance also provides open space requirements. The ordinance establishes the
conservation overlay district, which prohibits the construction of any building, parking, or impervious area
within the conservation area. The ordinance also requires that at least 30 percent of the net area of multi-
family developments be reserved for open space,and no more than 50 percent of this area can be
designated for recreational use. All Planned Unit Developments are required to have at least 25 percent of
the gross area reserved as common open space.
Greenville adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2000, which recommended the development of
two new community parks, five neighborhood parks, and fifteen mini-parks. This plan was used in the
preparation of the City’s Greenway Master Plan.
C84
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
Table 7-1: Density Limits in City of Greenville Zoning Ordinance
Zoning
District Description Minimum Lot Size
RA-20 Low density, single-family residential and agricultural
Single-family, without public water: 20,000 ft2
Single-family, with public water: 10,000 ft2
Two-family, without public water: 25,000 ft2
Two-family, with public water: 15,000 ft2
R-15S Low density, single-family residential 15,000 ft2
R-9S Medium density, single-family residential 9,000 ft2
R-9 Medium density, single or two-family residential
Single family: 9,000 ft2
Two-family: 13,500 ft2
Other uses: 9,000 ft2
R-6S Medium density, single-family residential 6,000 ft2
R-6 High density, single or multi-family
residential
Single family: 6,000 ft2
Two-family: 6,000 ft2
Multi-family: 2,300 ft2 for 1 bedroom,
2,900 ft2 for 2+ bedroomOther uses: 6,000 ft2
R-6A Medium density, single or multi-family residential
Single family: 6,000 ft2
Two-family: 9,000 ft2
Multi-family: 4,500 ft2 for 1 bedroom,5,500 ft2 for 2+ bedroomOther uses: 6,000 ft2
R-6N High density single-family and limited two or multi-family residential
Single family: 6,000 ft2
Two-family: 9,000 ft2
Multi-family: 2,300 ft2 for 1 bedroom,2,900 ft2 for 2+ bedroom
Other uses: 6,000 ft2
R-6MH High density single-family (including mobile homes), two-family, and multi-family
Single family: 6,000 ft2
Two-family: 6,000 ft2
Mobile home: 6,000 ft2
Multi-family: 2,300 ft2 for 1 bedroom,2,900 ft2 for 2+ bedroom
MR High density, single or multi-family medical
residential
Single family: 6,000 ft2
Two-family: 6,000 ft2
Multi-family: 2,300 ft2 for 1 bedroom,2,900 ft2 for 2+ bedroomOther uses: 6,000 ft2
MRS Low density, single-family medical residential and agricultural Single-family, without public water: 20,000 ft2
Single-family, with public water: 10,000 ft2
OR High density, two and multi-family residential and office
Two-family: 7,500 ft2
Multi-family: 2,300 ft2 for 1 bedroom,2,900 ft2 for 2+ bedroom
Other uses: 7,500 ft2
CDF High density, residential and commercial mix
Single family: 6,000 ft2
Two-family: 6,000 ft2
Multi-family: 2,300 ft2 for 1 bedroom,2,900 ft2 for 2+ bedroomOther uses: none
C85
Figure 7-1: Future Land Use Map for the City of
Greenville
C86
Figure 7-2: Zoning in the City of Greenville
C87
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-7
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.1.4 Greenway Plan
Greenville adopted a new Greenway Master Plan on March 14, 2004, which was an update to a greenway
plan completed in 1991. This plan reflects the City’s commitment to creating a system of trails that can be
used for natural area protection, alternative transportation, and recreational opportunities. The new plan
includes the majority of the original greenway routes proposed in the 1991 plan. New options are proposed
to replace routes that are no longer feasible, to facilitate access to the primary routes, and to create loops.
There are 42 individual corridors that make up Greenville’s proposed greenway system for a total of
approximately 102 miles. Two segments had been completed at the time the plan was adopted, and
construction of additional corridors is planned to extend beyond the next 16 years. The Greenway Master
Plan details opportunities, constraints, and costs associated with each corridor.
7.1.4.1 Riparian Buffers
The Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Protection Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0259) requires 50 foot riparian buffers be
maintained on all sides of intermittent and perennial streams, ponds, lakes, and estuarine waters in the
basin. This Rule is incorporated into the City of Greenville’s Stormwater Management and Control
Ordinance. The City will disapprove any new development activity proposed within this buffer, unless
approved by DWQ.
7.1.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Sediment is the leading cause of stream degradation in North Carolina (DENR,1999). Prevention of soil
loss protects aquatic life habitat and maintains stream water quality. The City first enacted a Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Ordinance in 1989, which establishes a performance-oriented program
requiring protection of adjoining natural resources and properties from the effects of accelerated erosion,
both during and after construction.
The City of Greenville Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance regulates certain land-disturbing
activities to control accelerated erosion and sedimentation in order to prevent the pollution of water and
damage to lakes, watercourses, and other public and private property. No erosion and sediment control
plan is required for land disturbances less than one acre; however, a land-disturbing permit is required for
any activity disturbing more than 5,000 square feet. Several management measures have been adopted as
part of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, including:
·Avoid increases in surface runoff volume and velocity by including measures to
promote infiltration to compensate for increased runoff from areas rendered
impervious.
C88
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-8
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
·Avoid increases in stormwater discharge velocities by using vegetated or
roughened swales and waterways in lieu of closed drains and high velocity paved
sections.
·Provide energy dissipaters at outlets of storm drainage facilities or reduce flow
velocities to the point of discharge. These may range from simple rip rapped
sections to complex structures.
·Protect watercourses subject to accelerated erosion by improving cross sections
and/or providing erosion-resistant lining.
The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance includes a table of maximum permissible velocities
of stormwater discharges for 13 different soil materials and types. The ordinance requires that construction
be conducted such as to minimize the area to be exposed at any one time and to stabilize soils as rapidly
as possible. For HQW zones, uncovered areas must be limited to less than 20 acres at a time. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices must be designed to provide protection from the
runoff of the twenty-five year storm. The ordinance requires sediment basins to have a settling efficiency of
at least 70 percent for the 40 micron soil particle and requires that all land-disturbing activities be provided
with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion within fifteen working days.
7.1.6 Stormwater Programs and Impervious Surface Limitation
The draft Phase II NPDES stormwater rules were finalized in December 1999. This regulation builds upon
the existing Phase I program by requiring that smaller communities be permitted. These communities had
to apply by March 2003. The Phase II rules require that small municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) develop and implement a stormwater program with the following measures: (1)public education
and outreach on stormwater impacts; (2)public involvement and participation; (3)illicit discharge detection
and elimination; (4)construction site stormwater runoff control; (5)post-construction stormwater
management for new development and redevelopment; and (6)pollution prevention and good
housekeeping for municipal operations.
On April 1, 2001, the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0258) became effective. The Rule
established requirements for local programs based on the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Water Strategy’s
goal of reducing nitrogen loading by 30 percent from 1991 levels and holding phosphorus loading at 1991
levels. The City of Greenville and Pitt County were required to comply with this rule and to develop and
submit a local stormwater program to DWQ.
The Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule is applicable to the portion of Greenville’s City limits located within the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The City also enforces this Rule within areas of the ETJ within the basin, to the
extent authorized by the State. Areas of the City and the ETJ within the Neuse River Basin must also
comply with these requirements, and must meet requirements for controlling phosphorus releases.
C89
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-9
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
The City developed a Stormwater Management Program that operates as a Stormwater Utility in 2002 in
order to meet the requirements of the Phase II NPDES and the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater rules. The overall
objective of this program is to improve the water quality of stormwater runoff that enters the natural waters
located in and around the City. The City prepared a Stormwater Management Program Document, which
details the requirements of the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule. Local stormwater management programs are
required to address new development review and approval, illegal discharges, retrofit locations, and public
education. New development is required to meet an average nitrogen loading limit of 4.0 pounds per acre
per year and a phosphorus load of 0.4 pounds per acre per year. Property owners exceeding these limits
may partially offset these loads by treating existing developed areas that drain to the same stream. There
must be no net increase in peak flow leaving the developed site from the predevelopment condition for the
1-year, 24-hour storm.
Under the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule, the City is also required to establish a program to prevent,
identify, and remove illegal discharges into the stormwater collection system and to identify sites and
opportunities for retrofitting existing development to reduce total nitrogen and phosphorus loads. Finally,
the City must develop a locally administered environmental education program for the public and
developers in order to address nitrogen and phosphorus loading issues and peak stormwater flow issues.
The Program Document describes necessary calculations and methods for meeting these requirements.
The City also prepared a Stormwater Management and Control Ordinance. The ordinance restates the
requirements of the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule and provides a means for enforcing these requirements
and prohibiting illicit discharges and connections.
In order to limit impervious surfaces for new development, maximum lot coverage regulations are provided
in the Greenville Zoning Ordinance for most zones. Typically, the maximum lot coverage for all residential
uses is 40 percent.
7.1.7 Floodplain Development Regulations
The legislature of the State of North Carolina has in Part 6, Article 21 of Chapter 143; Parts 3, 5 and 8 of
Article 19 of Chapter 106A; and Article 8 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes,
delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry. Flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation that
may result in loss of life, property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental
services, extraordinary public expenditures of flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These flood losses are caused by
the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains causing increases in flood heights and velocities, and by
the occupancy in flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or hazardous to other lands that are
inadequately elevated, flood proofed, or otherwise protected from flood damages.
C90
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-10
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
All development that takes place within the floodplain must meet the provisions of the City of Greenville
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. The City has defined special flood hazard areas as those identified
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or produced under the Cooperating Technical
State agreement between the State and FEMA. Also included are lands immediately adjacent to streams or
watercourses where locally approved engineering flood studies have identified the limits of the 1 percent
flood. In the ordinance, the regulatory flood protection elevation is defined for areas where base flood
elevations have been determined as the base flood elevation plus one foot for all structures and other
development except manufactured homes, two-family attached dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and
single-family dwellings located on lots which have a net area less than 20,000 square feet. For
manufactured homes, the regulatory flood elevation is the base flood elevation plus two feet, provided that
no portion below the lowest floor is lower than the base flood elevation. For two-family attached, multi-
family, or single-family dwellings on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet, the regulatory flood elevation is
the base flood elevation plus 1 foot, or the 500-year floodplain elevation, whichever is greater. For areas
where the base flood elevation has not been determined, the regulatory flood elevation is at least 2 feet
above the highest adjacent grade. Specific provisions for flood hazard reduction provided by the ordinance
include:
·All new construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the reference level, including basement, elevated no lower than the
regulatory flood protection elevation.
·Non-residential construction shall have the reference level, including basement,
elevated no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. Such structures
may be flood proofed in lieu of elevation.
·Manufactured homes shall be elevated so that the reference level is no lower than
the regulatory flood protection elevation and be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements,or
new development shall be permitted in any floodway or non-encroachment area
unless hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard
engineering practice demonstrates that the proposed encroachment would not
result in any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted within 20 feet from top of bank or five times
the width of stream for areas where no base flood elevation has been provided,
unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in the flood levels during
the occurrence of the base flood.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements or
new development shall be permitted along rivers and streams where based flood
elevation is provided but neither floodway nor non-encroachment areas are
C91
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-11
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
identified unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development will not increase the water
surface elevation the base flood by more than 1 foot.
7.1.8 Water Shortage Response
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 7-2
provides the implementation triggers for water restrictions.
Table 7-2: 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 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.
C92
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-12
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
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.
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.
C93
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-13
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
f.Washing the exterior of office buildings, homes, or apartments.
g.Using water for any ornamental fountain, pool, pond, etc.
h.Serving drinking water in food establishments, such as restaurants or
cafeterias, unless requested to do so by a customer.
i.Using water from a public or private fire hydrant for any reason other than
to suppress a fire or other public emergency or as authorized by the 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.
C94
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-14
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
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.
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.
7.2 Pitt County
Pitt County is discussed in this EA to supplement the areas that Farmville or Winterville may serve that are
outside the respective ETJs.
7.2.1 Land Use Planning and Environmental Resource Protection Initiatives
7.2.1.1 Land Use Plan
Pitt County finalized an update of its Land Use Plan in early 2002 in anticipation of continued population
growth. The original Land Use Plan was adopted in 1990 and a draft update was prepared in 1994. The
overall purpose of the Land Use Plan is to, “Protect the public health, safety, and welfare by promoting
reasonable, orderly, and efficient growth. Ensure that development includes a variety of land uses, is
sensitive to environmental and social concerns, and maintains the County’s character and assets.”
Pitt County adopted the Land Use Plan on April 15, 2002. The plan identifies County goals related to
growth and development, land use, transportation, appearance, community services, the natural
environment, and plan implementation. Growth within the County has caused concerns over land use and
the protection of County resources. Specific objectives and implementation strategies established in order
to regulate land use and development include:
C95
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-15
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
·Encourage future development in areas nearest existing municipal corporate limits
and other currently developed areas to yield a more compact development pattern
and to reduce suburban sprawl.
·Encourage development in areas where the necessary infrastructure –roads,
water, sewer, and schools are available, planned, or can most cost efficiently be
provided and extended to serve development.
·Develop an effective, jurisdiction-wide land use regulatory program as the best
means to implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan update and as a means to maintain control over growth and development in
rural areas that are not ready for urbanization.
·Preserve large tracts of prime agricultural land to ensure that farming remains a
viable part of the local economy.
·Discourage suburban sprawl by adopting policies that encourage development of
mixed land uses, as appropriate, to provide easy access, reduce travel time, and
improve convenience among uses near established urban areas.
Additionally, the Land Use Plan identifies six land use classifications within the County. The purpose of the
land use classifications is to illustrate a general land development pattern that adheres to and seeks to
achieve land use plan goals and objectives.
Approximately 25 percent of the County has been designated Agricultural/Open/Natural Resource. Most of
the land in this area is within the 100-year floodplain, and development is minimal. Land use within this
classification includes agriculture, forestry, recreational uses, open space, resource conservation,critical
natural areas, and very low density residential.
7.2.1.2 Northwest Planning Area Land Use Plan
The Northwest Planning Area Land Use Plan was developed in 1999 to 2000 and was officially adopted by
the County on January 8, 2001. The Northwest Planning Area covers approximately 39,000 acres of land in
the northwest portion of the County that has experienced rapid residential growth in recent years and was
heavily impacted by flooding associated with Hurricane Floyd in 1999. The overall goals of the Northwest
Planning Area process were to provide for more orderly growth and development of the area, identify areas
suitable for residential and non-residential development, protect investments in public infrastructure, and
focus development near the City of Greenville to reduce urban sprawl and minimize conflict with farming
operations and other non-urban land uses. Many of the objectives and implementation strategies of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan are found in the Northwest Planning Area Land Use Plan but focus
specifically on development in this area. A separate Land Use Map was developed for this Plan.
C96
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-16
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.2.1.3 Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance
Pitt County has adopted a Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance in order to protect the quality of
surface water supplies from nonpoint source pollution and minimize stormwater runoff by regulating
development densities and the amount of built-upon area within the critical and protected areas of affected
watersheds. Critical areas are those areas adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk
associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed. This includes the
land 0.5 miles upstream of the intake located directly in the stream or river or the ridgeline of the watershed,
whichever comes first. Protected areas include the land area 10 miles upstream of and draining to a river
intake, excluding the critical areas.
Under the Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance, developments within the critical area and
developments constructed with a curb and gutter street system within the protected area must meet the
following development restrictions:
·Subdivision lots and manufactured home park space must have a minimum of
21,780 square feet of land area.
·Multifamily residential developments must have either a built-upon area of
24 percent or less or a minimum of 21,780 square feet of land area for each
dwelling unit.
·Non-residential developments may not exceed 24 percent built-upon area.
Developments constructed without a curb and gutter street system within the protected area must meet the
following development restrictions:
·Subdivision lots and manufactured home park space must have a minimum of
14,520 square feet of land area.
·Multifamily residential developments must have either a built-upon area of
36 percent or less or a minimum of 14,520 square feet of land area for each
dwelling unit.
·Non-residential developments may not exceed 36 percent built-upon area.
C97
Figure 7-3: Future Land Use Map for Pitt County
C98
Figure 7-4: Future Land Use Map for the Northwest Planning
Area of Pitt County
C99
Figure 7-5: Watershed Protection in Pitt County
C100
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-20
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.2.2 Zoning
Zoning requirements and procedures for land within Pitt County are set forth in the Pitt County Zoning
Ordinance. This ordinance applies to areas within the County that are located outside the corporate or
municipal ETJs of any municipality. The County has been divided into eight zoning districts in the
ordinance, and there are an additional four overlay districts. The purpose of these divisions is to provide for
the orderly growth and development of the County, minimize land use conflicts, and protect the natural
environment and other valuable resources. Density limits and minimum lot sizes have been established for
each zoning district and are summarized in Table 7-3.
Five districts have been established for residential uses. The remaining districts are general commercial,
light industrial, and general industrial. The rural agricultural district was established to preserve and
encourage the continued use of land for agricultural, forestry, and open space purposes; to encourage
small-scale and low intensity commercial uses that primarily provide goods and services to residents of the
surrounding rural area; to encourage those industries which are agricultural-related; to encourage the
concentration of more intensive urban land uses in and around identified growth area; and to discourage
any use which would create premature or extraordinary public infrastructure and service demands.
The Water Supply Watershed Overlay was created to protect surface water quality from nonpoint source
pollution and minimize stormwater runoff by regulating development densities within the critical and
protected areas of affected watersheds. All new development within the overlay requiring a sediment and
erosion control plan must comply with the zoning regulations. Two separate overlay districts have been
created, the Critical Area Overlay District (WCA) and the Protected Area Overlay District (WPA). Within the
WCA district, subdivision lots and manufactured home park spaces must have a minimum area of
21,780 square feet or the minimum required for the zoning district in which it is located. Multi-family
residential developments must have a built-upon area of 24 percent or less or a minimum lot size of
21,780 square feet for each dwelling unit. Non-residential development must not exceed 24 percent built-
upon area. Within the WPA district for development with a curb and gutter street system, the same
requirements apply. Within the WPA district for development without a curb and gutter street system,
subdivision lots and manufactured home park spaces must have a minimum area of 14,520 square feet or
the minimum required for the zoning district in which it is located. Multi-family residential developments
must have a built-upon area of 36 percent or less or a minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet for each
dwelling unit. Non-residential development must not exceed 36 percent built-upon area. Vegetative buffer
areas are required within this zone to protect water quality, and certain land uses are prohibited.
C101
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-21
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
Table 7-3: Density Limits in Pitt County Zoning Ordinance
Zoning District Description Minimum Lot Size
RA
Low density residential,
commercial, and agricultural-related industrial 30,000 ft2
RR Low density, single-family residential without access to water
and sewer infrastructure
Single-family: 25,000 ft2
Two-family: 37,500 ft2
Multi-family: 25,000 ft2 for 1st unit, 12,500 ft2 for
additional units
R40 Low density, single-family residential without access to water and sewer infrastructure 40,000 ft2
SR Low density, single-family residential with access to public
water and sewer infrastructure
Single-family: 12,500 ft2
Two-family: 18,750 ft2
Multi-family: 12,500 ft2 for 1st, 6,250 ft2for 2nd, 4,135 ft2each additional
MFR Moderate density, single and multi-family residential
Single-family: 10,000 ft2
Two-family: 22,500 ft2 with septic systems,15,000 ft2 with public water and sewer
Multi-family: 10,000 ft2 for 1st, 5,000 ft2for 2nd, 2,856 ft2each additional
GC Moderate density, multi-family residential and commercial use
Two-family: 22,500 ft2 with septic systems,
15,000 ft2 with public water and sewerMulti-family: 10,000 ft2 for 1st, 5,000 ft2for 2nd,
2,856 ft2each additional
C102
Figure 7-6: Zoning in Pitt County
C103
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-23
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.2.3 Open Space Plans/Initiatives, Greenways, and Riparian Buffers
7.2.3.1 Greenway Plan
The Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use Plan includes a goal for the establishment of greenways in the
County. As a result, the County Planning Department and the East Carolina University Planning Program
drafted the County’s first Greenway Plan. The Pitt County Greenway Plan 2025 was adopted February 20,
2006.
The Greenway Plan lists many goals and objectives for the County’s greenway system, including:
·Maintain and enhance the character and identity of Pitt County by the protection of
natural areas, open space, and other features that represent the County’s heritage,
which will improve the long-term sustainability of the County.
·Protect wetlands and floodplain environments from further degradation.
·Preserve and enhance wildlife habitat.
·Encourage protection of agriculture, open space, and green space.
The Greenway Plan recommends the consideration of approximately 215 miles of greenway network,
located primarily along some of the major, critical streams and rivers in the County. The proposed
greenways consist of approximately 155 miles within the unincorporated areas of the county, 45 miles
within the ETJs of municipalities, and 15 miles within limits of County municipalities. Approximately
55 percent would be designated as recreation, 42 percent would be designated for conservation corridors,
and 3 percent would consist of sidewalk connectors in urban areas.
7.2.3.2 Riparian Buffers
The Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Protection Rule requires a 50-foot riparian buffer on all sides of
intermittent and perennial streams, ponds, lakes, and estuarine waters in the basin. The same
requirements apply to the Neuse River Basin, which is also located in Pitt County. On September 14, 2006,
the County adopted the Pitt County Riparian Buffer Protection Ordinance, which became effective January
1, 2007. The North Carolina Water Quality Committee (WQC) and the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) voted to grant authority of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Buffers to Pitt County.
The Riparian Buffer Protection Ordinance was created for the following objectives:
·Protect and preserve the existing riparian buffers within Pitt County to maintain
nutrient controlling function.
·Preserve water quality for the citizens of Pitt County.
·Establish policies through which the local government body may fulfill these
objectives.
C104
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-24
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
This ordinance establishes a 50-foot wide riparian buffer adjacent to all surface waters within the County
and divides the riparian buffer into two zones. Zone 1 includes the first 30 feet from the edge of the water
body and must remain essentially undisturbed vegetation. Zone 2 extends 30 feet beyond Zone 1 and may
include managed vegetation. The ordinance also defines land use types that are exempt, allowable,
allowable with mitigation, or prohibited within the buffer zones. Exempt uses are allowed if every
reasonable effort is made to preserve buffer functions. Allowable uses are allowed within the riparian buffer
if there are no practical alternatives, and require written authorization from the County prior to initiation.
Uses allowable with mitigation are allowed if there are no practical alternatives and an appropriate
mitigation strategy has been approved. Prohibited uses are not allowed without a variance.
7.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Pitt County operates a state-delegated Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program that meets or exceeds
State erosion control requirements. The County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
provides for a sediment control officer who is responsible for periodically inspecting sites for enforcement of
the ordinance. In 2001, Pitt County’s Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program won the Local Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program Award for Outstanding Local Programs, sponsored by the NC
Sedimentation Control Commission. This award identifies the County’s program as being exemplary in the
State. In 2004, Pitt County implemented the Environmental Excellence Award Program, recognizing
developers who excel in the installation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) while
conducting land disturbing activities.
Requirements found in the Pitt County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance are essentially
identical to those of the City of Greenville.
7.2.5 Stormwater Programs and Impervious Surface Limitation
In response to the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule, Pitt County formed the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Advisory
Committee to develop a local stormwater program, provide guidance for implementation, make
recommendations, and educate the public on the impacts of the program. On October 12, 2004, the Pitt
County Stormwater Ordinance for Nutrient Control became effective. Pitt County also prepared a Program
Document for the Pitt County Stormwater Program for Nutrient Control. Both documents were revised May
15, 2006.
The Program Document is almost identical to the Program Document prepared by the City of Greenville,
and details the requirements of the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule. The Stormwater Ordinance restates the
requirements of the Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule and details how they must be achieved in the County.
C105
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-25
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.2.6 Floodplain Development Regulations
All development that takes place within the floodplain must meet the provisions of the Pitt County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance, which was adopted February 21, 2005. The County has defined special
flood hazard areas as those identified by FEMA or produced under the Cooperating Technical State
agreement between the State and FEMA. In the ordinance, the regulatory flood protection elevation is
defined for areas where base flood elevations have been defined as the base flood elevation plus 2 feet.
For areas where the base flood elevation is not defined, this elevation is at least 2 feet above the highest
adjacent grade. Specific provisions for flood hazard reduction provided by the ordinance include:
·All new construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the reference level, including basement, elevated no lower than the
regulatory flood protection elevation.
·Non-residential construction shall have the reference level, including basement,
elevated no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. Structures in the
A, AO, AE, and A1-30 zones may be flood proofed in lieu of elevation.
·Manufactured homes shall be elevated so that the reference level is no lower than
the regulatory flood protection elevation and be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted within 20 feet from top of bank or five times
the width of stream for areas where no base flood elevation has been provided,
unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in the flood levels during
the occurrence of the base flood.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements or
new development shall be permitted along rivers and streams where based flood
elevation is provided but neither floodway nor non-encroachment areas are
identified unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development will not increase the water
surface elevation the base flood by more than one foot.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted in any floodway or non-encroachment area
unless hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard
engineering practice demonstrates that the proposed encroachment would not
result in any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood.
C106
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-26
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.2.7 Water Shortage Response
The Towns of Farmville and Winterville have implemented GUC’s water shortage response measures.
These measures apply to all customers served. Refer to Section 7.1.7 for a detailed explanation.
C107
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-27
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.3 Town of Farmville
7.3.1 Land Use Planning
The Town of Farmville is adopted a Revised Land Use Plan on June 3, 2008.The primary purpose of the
plan is to prepare for future development, based on the values and needs of Town residents. In preparation
of the Plan, the Town of Farmville conducted public meetings and solicited public opinion using community
surveys. Based on the information gathered, the Board of Commissioners developed a vision statement for
the Town of Farmville, which reads,
“Farmville is a good place to raise a family, and/or lead an active retirement life, where
citizens have a strong sense of community, are civically involved, and wish to preserve a
unique educational environment. Farmville’s residents have a mix of cultural and
recreational activities for all ages to provide a good quality of life in a community that is
clean, neat and aesthetically pleasing. We will grow at a targeted rate of 2 percent per year,
while maintaining a community that is residential focused with complete and quality basic
services being provided (both public and private), with future economic development
focusing on quality industrial and business development. Farmville is a safe community
where citizens have confidence and pride in the quality and service of the local
government.”
The Board of Commissioners and Town Planning Department also developed specific objectives and
implementation strategies related to future land use, economic development, recreation, housing, and
infrastructure. Specific objectives that will regulate land use and development include:
·In-fill existing areas with residential development.
o Examine zoning and subdivision ordinances.
o Revise zoning standards for multi-family residences in the R-5 and R-8
zones.
·Maintain historic character of town.
o Continue to educate landowners about the unique historic character of
Farmville.
o Strengthen zoning to include historic district appearance codes.
7.3.2 Zoning
The Town of Farmville Zoning Ordinance establishes 19 zoning districts, including one overlay district,
which is different from those of the City of Greenville or Pitt County.The Zoning Ordinance establishes
minimum lot size requirements for different land classifications, in order to stabilize established and
planned development. Table 7-4 summarizes minimum lot sizes for residential zoning jurisdictions.
C108
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-28
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
Table 7-4: Density Limits in Town of Farmville Zoning Ordinance
Zoning District Description Minimum Lot Size
RA-20 Residential-agricultural, rural or near-rural 20,000 ft2
R-15 Low density, single-family residential neighborhoods 15,000 ft2
R-12 Medium-density, single-family residential neighborhoods 12,000 ft2
R-8 Medium to high-density, single-family and multi-family residential
neighborhoods
Single-family: 8,000 ft2
Multi-family: 8 units/acre
R-5 High-density, single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods
Single-family: 5,000 ft2
Two-family: 7,500 ft2
Multi-family: 12 units/acre
R-MH
(Manufactured Homes)High-density, manufactured homes 5,000 ft2
R-MF High density, multi-family residential See footnote 1
1 Maximum of 12 one-bedroom units or 17 two-bedroom units per acre.
7.3.3 Open Space Plans/Initiatives, Greenways, and Riparian Buffers
The Town of Farmville has established a Recreation Department responsible for creating a long-range plan
for acquisition and development of recreation areas and facilities. The mission of this department is to
provide recreational opportunities, encourage an appreciation for the natural environment, and ensure
responsible stewardship of Town resources, parks, and natural areas.
There are two parks within the Farmville town limits. The Oliver Murphrey Park and Walking Trail was built
in place of homes lost in the 1999 floods from Hurricane Floyd. The May Museum and Park is dedicated to
preserving and interpreting the area history of Farmville.
7.3.3.1 Greenway Plan
The Pitt County Greenway Plan 2025 was adopted by the Farmville Board of Commissioners on January 3,
2006. Approximately 12 miles of greenway are proposed for the Town, including 1.62 miles within the Town
limits and 10.38 miles within the Town ETJ.
C109
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-29
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.3.3.2 Riparian Buffers
The Town Zoning Ordinance requires 50-foot vegetative buffers along all perennial waters. No new
development is allowed in the buffer, except for water dependent structures and public projects where no
practical alternative exists.
7.3.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The Town of Farmville enforces its own Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. This ordinance
contains the same requirements discussed previously for the Pitt County Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance.
7.3.5 Stormwater Programs and Impervious Surface Limitation
The Town of Farmville has not been required to comply with the Phase II NPDES Stormwater rules or the
Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule at this time. The Town of Farmville Zoning Ordinance establishes impervious
surface limitations for most zones. An impervious surface limitation of 60 percent has been established for
the neighborhood business district. A limit of 65 percent has been established for zones R-12 and R-8. A
limit of 75 percent has been established for zones R-5, R-MH, R-MF, and the Highway Business, Rural
Business, Industrial, Light Industrial, and Office and Institutional Districts. No limit has been established for
Zones RA-20, R-15, R-12 or the Central or General Business Districts.
7.3.6 Floodplain Development Regulations
All development that takes place within the floodplain must meet the provisions of the Town of Farmville
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. The Town has defined special flood hazard areas as those identified
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or produced under the Cooperating Technical
State agreement between the State and FEMA. In the ordinance, the regulatory flood protection elevation
is defined for areas where base flood elevations have been defined as the base flood elevation plus four
feet. For areas where the base flood elevation is not defined, this elevation is two feet above the highest
adjacent grade. Specific provisions for flood hazard reduction provided by the ordinance include:
·All new construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the reference level, including basement, elevated no lower than the
regulatory flood protection elevation.
·Non-residential construction shall have the reference level, including basement,
elevated no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. Structures in the
A, AO, AE, and A1-30 zones may be flood proofed in lieu of elevation.
·Manufactured homes shall be elevated so that the reference level is no lower than
the regulatory flood protection elevation and be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation.
C110
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-30
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
·New construction or substantial improvements of elevated buildings that include
fully enclosed areas that are below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall
not be designed to be used for human habitation, but shall be designed to be used
only for parking of vehicles, building access, or limited storage of maintenance
equipment. Such areas must also meet specific design criteria.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted within 20 feet from top of bank or 5 times the
width of stream for areas where no base flood elevation has been provided, unless
certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates that the proposed
encroachment would not result in any increase in the flood levels during the
occurrence of the base flood.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements or
new development shall be permitted along rivers and streams where based flood
elevation is provided but neither floodway nor non-encroachment areas are
identified unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development will not increase the water
surface elevation the base flood by more than one foot.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted in any floodway or non-encroachment area
unless hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard
engineering practice demonstrates that the proposed encroachment would not
result in any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood.
7.3.7 Water Shortage Response
The Town of Farmville has implemented GUC’s water shortage response measures. These measures
apply to all customers served. Refer to Section 7.1.7 for a detailed explanation.
Additionally, the Town 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.
C111
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-31
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.4 Town of Winterville
7.4.1 Open Space Plans/Initiatives, Greenways, and Riparian Buffers
7.4.1.1 Greenway Plan
The Pitt County Greenway Plan 2025 was recommended for adoption by the Winterville Board of Aldermen
on December 12, 2005. Approximately 14.7 miles of greenway are proposed for the Town, including 7.17
miles within the Town limits and 7.53 miles within the Town ETJ.
7.4.1.2 Riparian Buffers
The Neuse River NSW Management Strategy Buffer Rules require that existing riparian buffer areas be
protected and maintained on both sides of surface waters, including both intermittent and perennial streams
(15A NCAC 2B.0233). The following represent a few of the Neuse Buffer Rule requirements:
·A 50-foot buffer must be maintained on each side of surface waters.
·All flow entering the buffer must be diffuse flow.
·Non-electric utility crossings in the buffer must be perpendicular to stream flow
(unless it is shown “no practical alternative” is available and an appropriate
mitigation strategy is provided).
·Underground electric utility crossings may be other than perpendicular only if
specified Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used, including all woody
vegetation is removed by hand, diffuse flow is maintained at all times, and
vegetation removal is minimized (root systems must be left intact).
·Harvesting of dead or infected trees or application of pesticides necessary to
prevent or control extensive tree pest and disease infestation is allowed. The
Division of Forest Resources must approve the practice for a specific site.
The Town will disapprove any new development activity proposed within this buffer, unless approved by
DWQ.
7.4.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The Pitt County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance is enforced within the Town of
Winterville.
C112
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-32
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.4.3 Stormwater Programs and Impervious Surface Limitation
The Town of Winterville has not been required to comply with the Phase II NPDES Stormwater rules or the
Neuse Stormwater Rules at this time.
7.4.4 Floodplain Development Regulations
The Town of Winterville receives assistance with the enforcement of floodplain regulations from Pitt
County. The Pitt County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance applies within the Town limits.
7.4.5 Water Shortage Response
The Town of Winterville has implemented GUC’s water shortage response measures. These measures
apply to all customers served. Refer to Section 7.1.7 for a detailed explanation.
7.5 Greene County
Greene County is a very rural county with many small towns and unincorporated areas. Therefore, the
County has not enacted zoning regulations for the unincorporated areas or invested in comprehensive land
use planning.
7.5.1 Riparian Buffers
Greene County enforces state regulations for riparian buffers. The Greene County Subdivision Regulations
require vegetated buffer strips of at least 15 feet along all watercourses, bodies of water, or wetlands.
7.5.2 Erosion and Sediment Control
Greene County enforces state requirements for erosion and sediment control. The Greene County
Subdivision Regulations require a sedimentation and erosion control plan for any land disturbing activity
where more than one acre is to be uncovered. Persons engaged in land disturbing activities must take all
reasonable measures to prevent damage from such activities.
7.5.3 Stormwater Programs and Impervious Surface Limitation
Greene County has not been required to comply with the Phase II NPDES Stormwater rules or the Neuse
Stormwater Rules at this time.
C113
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 7-33
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Mitigative Measures
7.5.4 Floodplain Development Regulations
Greene County has defined special flood hazard areas as those identified by FEMA in its Flood Insurance
Study. In the ordinance, base flood is defined as the flood having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year. Specific provisions for flood hazard reduction provided by the ordinance
include:
·All new construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated no lower than the base flood
elevation.
·Non-residential construction shall have the lowest floor, including basement,
elevated no lower than the base flood elevation. Structures in the A zones may be
flood proofed in lieu of elevation.
·Manufactured homes shall be elevated so that the lowest floor is no lower than the
base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored
foundation.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted within the setback established by the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA) or 20 feet from top of bank for areas where no
base flood elevation has been provided, unless certification by a registered
professional engineer demonstrates that such encroachment would not result in
any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood.
·No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or
new development shall be permitted in any floodway unless hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice
demonstrates that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in
the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood.
7.5.5 Water Shortage Response
The communities in Greene County purchasing water from GUC have implemented GUC’s water shortage
response measures. These measures apply to all customers served. Refer to Section 7.1.7 for a detailed
explanation.
C114
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 8-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
State and Federal Permits Required
8.State and Federal Permits Required
·State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment review and concurrence with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is required.
·Interbasin Transfer Certificate from the Environmental Management Commission.
C115
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 9-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Literature Cited
9.Literature Cited
Black and Veatch. Not yet published. Greenville Utilities System Water System Master Plan.
Black and Veatch. Not yet published. Town of Winterville Water and Wastewater System Master Plan.
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. 2002. Pitt County Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan.
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. July 25, 2003. Letter to Greenville Utilities Commission –
Hydrological analysis of Tar River low flow conditions.
Greenville, City of, Public Works Department. September 2004. City of Greenville Stormwater Management
Program.
Greenville, City of, and Greenways Incorporated. Adopted March 11, 2004. Greenway Master Plan, City of
Greenville, North Carolina.
Greenville, City of.Adopted February 12, 2004. Horizons, Greenville’s Community Plan.
Greenville, City of. September 9, 2004. Stormwater Management and Control Ordinance.
Greenville, City of. 2003. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Greenville, City of.Zoning Ordinance for Greenville, North Carolina.
Greenville, City of. 1998. The City of Greenville Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
Landau, M. 1992. Introduction to Aquaculture. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Levesque and Hammett. 1997. Comparison of two Methods for Estimating Discharge and Nutrient Loads
from Tidally Affected Reaches of the Mykka and Peace Rivers, West-Central Florida.
McDavid and Associates. 2006. Final Environmental Assessment for Water Transmission Mains and
Booster Pump Station for Pitt and Greene Counties.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum). Washington, DC.
C116
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 9-2
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Literature Cited
Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2007. Element Occurrence List for Greene and Pitt Counties, North
Carolina. North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina. World Wide
Web www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html. Accessed September 21, 2007.
NatureServe. 2003. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the
United State –North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia subset. Natural Heritage Central
Databases. Arlington, VA.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2008. Draft Neuse River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2007. List of Active Permits –
Updated 9/27/07. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/PublicNotices.html. Accessed October 4, 2007.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2008. North Carolina 303(d)
List -Draft. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2006. Neuse River Basinwide
Assessment. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2004. Tar-Pamlico River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2003. Tar River Basin -
Basinwide Assessment Report. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality.
1999. Water Quality Progress in North Carolina: 1996-119 305(b) Report. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1998. Ambient Air Quality
Report. Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1991. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Reprinted 1996.
Page, L. and B. Burr. 1991. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Pitt County. Revised May 15, 2006. Pitt County Stormwater Ordinance for Nutrient Control.
C117
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 9-3
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Literature Cited
Pitt County. Revised May 15, 2006. Program Document for the Pitt County Stormwater Program for
Nutrient Control.
Pitt County. Revised October 1, 2006. Pitt County, North Carolina Subdivision Ordinance.
Pitt County. Effective February 21, 2006. Pitt County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Pitt County. Adopted September 14, 2006. Pitt County Riparian Buffer Protection Ordinance.
Pitt County. Adopted February 21, 2006. Pitt County Zoning Ordinance.
Pitt County Planning Department and East Carolina University Planning Program. Adopted February 20,
2006. Pitt County Greenway Plan 2025.
Pitt County and The Wooten Company. Adopted April 15, 2002. Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
Pitt County and The Wooten Company. Adopted January 8, 2001. Pitt County Northwest Planning Area
Land Use Plan.
Pitt County. Adopted December 18, 2000. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
Pitt County. 1993. Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
The Wooten Company.2001. Northwest Planning Area Land Use Plan for Pitt County, North Carolina.
The Wooten Company.2002. Pitt County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, North Carolina.
Town of Farmville. 2006. Town of Farmville Land Use Plan 2006 Update.Adopted June 3, 2008.
Town of Farmville. 2007. Town of Farmville Code of Ordinances. http://www.farmville-
nc.com/government_ordinances.htm.
C118
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 9-4
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Literature Cited
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Important
Farmlands of North Carolina. World Wide Web:
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/soilsurvey/primefarmland.html. Accessed 5 September
2007.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980. Soil Survey of Greene County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Important
Farmlands of North Carolina. World Wide Web:
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/soilsurvey/primefarmland.html. Accessed 5 September
2007.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Greene and Pitt Counties: Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. United States Department of Interior. World
Wide Web: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/. Accessed July 29, 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern
United States (The Red Book). USFWS, Region 4.
Voshell Jr., J. Reese. 2002. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America. The
McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA.
Waters, B., J. Crews-Klein, and J. Renner.April 2003. Water Supply Alternatives in the North Carolina
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area. Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resource
Conference, University of Georgia.
C119
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010 10-1
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Qualifications of Preparers
10.Qualifications of Preparers
Mary Sadler, PE, MS Env.,of ARCADIS is the technical advisor for the Environmental Assessment portion
of this project. She specializes in municipal wastewater treatment processes and modeling, planning and
design of wastewater treatment facilities, and environmental permitting. She has been an active participant
in over fifiteen Environmental Assessment projects in North Carolina, including the Expanded EA type. Her
environmental documents cover a range of projects and issues: new water and wastewater treatment
plants, water and wastewater capacity expansions, new NPDES discharges, and impacts to state and
federally listed species. A significant environmental permitting achievement includes the Dempsey E.
Benton Environmental Assessment and associated Biological Opinion for direct impacts to the federally
endangered dwarf wedgemussel.
Linda Diebolt,M.Bio.,of ARCADIS is a senior biologist responsible for assisting in the generation of the
natural resources sections of the Environmental Assessment. She has over 20 years of experience, and
has performed and managed biological assessments, wetland delineations (tidal and non-tidal), permit
applications, mitigation site searches, mitigation design and specifications, and preparation of
environmental documents. Ms. Diebolt has prepared or assisted in the preparation of more than twenty-five
Environmental Assessments throughout the United States.
David S. Briley, PE, of ARCADIS is the project engineer for the Environmental Assessment portion of this
project. He specializes in municipal water supply and water treatment processes, planning and design of
water treatment facilities, and environmental permitting, including interbasin transfers. He has been an
active participant in three Environmental Assessment projects in North Carolina.
Miranda Spencer, PE, of ARCADIS is a project engineer responsible for the mitigative measures portion of
this project. She has 2 years of experience in water and wastewater system permitting and design. She has
been an active participant in five Environmental Assessment projects in North Carolina.
Hunter Carson, EI, of ARCADIS is a staff engineer responsible for the Interbasin Transfer Management
Strategy portion of this project.
C120
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Appendix A
Interbasin Transfer Management Strategy for
Greenville Utilities Commission, ARCADIS 2008
C121
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]
C122
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.
C123
3
Figure 1:CCPCUA Cretaceous Aquifer
C124
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
C125
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
C126
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
C127
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.
C128
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

C129
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
C130
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).
C131
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.
C132
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
C133
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.
C134
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.
C135
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
C136
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.
C137
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.
C138
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
C139
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.
C140
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.
C141
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.
C142
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.
C143
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
C144
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
C145
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
C146
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.
C147
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
C148
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
C149
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
C150
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.
C151
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.
C152
32
6.ATTACHMENTS
C153
C154
C155
C156
C157
C158
C159
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Appendix B
Analysis of Greenville Utility Commission's Proposed
Interbasin Transfer Withdrawals on Tar River Flows at
Greenville, North Carolina (ENTRIX, revised April 2008)
C160

Analysis of Greenville Utility Commission’s
Proposed Interbasin Transfer Withdrawals on
Tar River Flows
at Greenville, North Carolina

Prepared by

October 2007
Revised January 2008 and April 2008

C161

ii

Table of Contents

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
Greenville Model Nodes.................................................................................................................................2
Development of a Long-Term Flow Record for the Tar River at Greenville...............................4
Tidal Filtering..................................................................................................................................................4
Statistical Relationship between Tar River Flows at Tarboro and Greenville – Regression Analysis...........5
Synthesized Historical Tar River Flow at Greenville Gage............................................................................7
Develop Flow Accounting Model for Lower Tar River...............................................................12
Water Withdrawals.......................................................................................................................................12
Water Returns and Wastewater Discharges................................................................................................13
Current (2002) and Projected 2030 Municipal and Registered Withdrawals...............................................14
Current (2002) and Projected 2030 Municipal Discharges..........................................................................16
Analysis of Proposed IBT Scenarios and Resulting Tar River Flows at Greenville................18
Modeled Scenarios ......................................................................................................................................19
Influence of Rocky River Reservoir on Projected Tar River Flows at Greenville....................21
Results and Discussion................................................................................................................23
Tidal Influence..............................................................................................................................................24
References.............................................................................................................................31
List of Tables
Table 1. Annual and Monthly Average Tar River Flows at Greenville..................................................................11
Table 2. Annual and Monthly Average Tar River Flows downstream of GUC WWTP Discharge ......................11
Table 3. 2002 Average Daily Withdrawals in MGD ..............................................................................................14
Table 4. 2002 Average Daily Withdrawals in cfs..................................................................................................14
Table 5. Projected 2030 Average Daily Withdrawals in MGD No IBT..................................................................15
Table 6. 2030 Average Daily Withdrawals in cfs No IBT......................................................................................15
Table 7. 2002 Average Daily Discharge in MGD No IBT .....................................................................................16
Table 8. 2002 Average Daily Discharge in cfs No IBT .........................................................................................16
Table 9. 2030 Average Daily Discharge in MGD No IBT .....................................................................................17
Table 10. 2030 Average Daily Discharge in cfs No IBT .......................................................................................17
Table 11. Description of hydrologic modeling locations and scenarios used in the evaluation of the effects of
Greenville Utilities Commission proposed interbasin transfers............................................................................19
Table 12. Explanation of Modeling Scenarios Used in the Tar River Water Balance..........................................20
Table 13. 2030 Monthly Water Withdrawals associated with each Proposed Interbasin Transfer Scenario in
Million Gallons per Day (MGD).............................................................................................................................21
Table 14. Summary of Statistics for Flow - Based on Generated Flow Record (All Data)..................................26
Table 15. Percent of Time (Annually) and Average Number of Days (Annually) Daily Flow is Below 7Q10......27
Table 16. Flow Level that is Met or Exceeded a Given Percent of Time (per Year)...........................................28
Table 17. Percent of Time (per Year) Flow is At or Above the Given Flow Levels.............................................29
Table 18. Average Number of Days (per Year) Flow is Below the Given Flow Levels.......................................30
List of Figures
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the Tar River in the vicinity of Greenville, NC showing the relative locations
and approximate distances between withdrawal and discharge locations, USGS gage location, and
hydrologic model output points. .............................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the lower Tar River showing the withdrawals and discharges of water
accounted for in the hydrologic analysis of Greenville Utility Commission's (GUC) proposed interbasin
transfer....................................................................................................................................................................3
C162

iii
Figure 3. Downstream vs. Upstream Discharge, Identifying Data Associated with Hurricane Floyd
(September 15 - October 2,
1999)……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 4. Flow vs. Flow, Identifying Outliers Excluded from Further
Analysis………………………………………..6
Figure 5. Results of Modeling for the Flow vs. Flow
Relationship……………………………………………………..8
Figure 6. Results of Modeling for the Flow vs. Flow Relationship (Low-Flow Region
Detail)………………………8
Figure 7. Average Annual Flow at Tar River Gage (1932-2006)............................................................................9
Figure 8. Average Monthly Flow at Tar River Gage based on Modeled Data
(October 1931 – September 2007).......................................................................................................................10
Figure 9. Flow Duration Curves Based on Average Annual Flow at Greenville Gage. Comparison of
Generated Flow Record Prior to (1932-1968) and After (1972-2006) Operation of the Rocky Mount Reservoir 22
C163

1
Introduction

A hydrologic model was developed for the lower Tar River to predict river flows under current and
future water usage scenarios. The model was designed to evaluate the effect of Greenville Utility
Commission’s (GUC) proposed interbasin transfer (IBT) withdrawals on current and future flows at
Greenville. The model was based on available United States Geological Survey (USGS) flow
records from the Tar River at Tarboro (Gage No. 02083500) and the Tar River at Greenville (Gage
No. 02084000) (USGS, NWIS). The flow record at the Tar River at Tarboro gage provides not only
a long-term record (1931 to 2007) of hydrologic conditions in the river, representing the majority of
the entire drainage area of the basin, but also the best available basis for predicting downstream
flows at Greenville, where only a short period of record is available (1997 to 2007). The drainage
area of the Tar River gage at Tarboro is 2,186 square miles. The drainage area of the Tar River at
Greenville is 2,660 square miles.

The relationship between available flow records for the Tar River at Greenville and the Tar River at
Tarboro was estimated using hydrologic and statistical methods. This relationship was used to
generate a long-term flow record at Greenville, which was then used in a spreadsheet model to
estimate future flows at Greenville with and without the proposed interbasin transfers (IBT). The
model quantifies the relative differences in flow associated with current and projected water usage
and discharges. Tidal influences are not simulated in this model. Days may occur when the tidal
influence creates a net downstream flow of zero or a net upstream flow (“negative” flow).

The model was used to evaluate resulting flow in the river at two locations. The first location was
the USGS gage at Greenville, which is downstream of GUC’s water treatment plant intake and
water treatment plant discharge, but is upstream of GUC’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
discharge (Figure 1). This 7.7-mile portion of the Tar River is the reach that will have the lowest
flows as a result of all upstream withdrawals, and therefore, may be considered the reach of the Tar
River most affected by the proposed IBT. The second location where flows were evaluated is the
Tar River downstream of the GUC WWTP discharge (Figure 1). This reach downstream of the
Greenville WWTP will also be affected by the proposed IBT, but less so because the flows in that
reach include the discharge from the WWTP. The flow in this reach goes to the Pamlico River and
Pamlico Sound. Both reaches are tidally influenced, especially at low flows, and the effects
analysis presented herein must be interpreted in light of the fact that daily tidal fluctuations at
Greenville can be much greater than the net downstream flow of the Tar River arriving at
Greenville. Figure 2 provides a schematic representation of the lower Tar River and the modeled
withdrawals, discharges, and output locations.

C164

2
Greenville Model Nodes

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the Tar River in the vicinity of Greenville, NC showing
the relative locations and approximate distances between withdrawal and discharge
locations, USGS gage location, and hydrologic model output points
Tar River at Greenville
Gage
Tar River downstream of Greenville
WWTP Discharge
GUC WTP Intake
GUC WTP Discharge
GUC WWTP Discharge
7.7 River Miles
0.3 River Miles
2.7River Miles
4.7 River Miles
C165

3
Flow to Pamlico Estuary
Hydrologic Model Output Nodes for IBT
Analysis
Tar River at USGS Gage at
Greenville
Tar River below GUC
Discharge
Rocky Mount WTP
Rocky Mount WWTP
Tarboro and Princeville WTP
Tarboro and Princeville WWTP
Pinetops WWTP
Registered Withdrawals (agricultural)
Macclesfield WWTP
Greenville and Bethel WTP
Greenville and Bethel WWTP
Water Withdrawals and Discharges to and from
the Tar River
Diagram is Not to Scale
Legend

Water Withdrawal
Water Return
Water Treatment Plant
Withdrawal
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Discharge
WTP
WWTP
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the lower Tar River showing the withdrawals
and discharges of water accounted for in the hydrologic analysis of Greenville
Utility Commission's (GUC)proposed interbasin transfer
C166

4
The following scenarios were evaluated in the model at both locations:

1. Current flows with No IBT
2. Current flows with 2030 Average Day IBT
3. Current flows with 2030 Maximum Withdrawal IBT
4. Predicted 2030 flows with No IBT
5. Predicted 2030 flows with 2030 Average Day IBT
6. Predicted 2030 flows with 2030 Maximum Withdrawal IBT

Flow statistics for the Tar River were generated for each scenario at both river locations. In order to
evaluate the seasonal flow fluctuations, the statistics were based on daily average flow by month. A
range of flow statistics and comparisons were developed for each scenario in order to quantify and
demonstrate the effect of the proposed IBT withdrawals on current and future conditions at both Tar
River locations. The impact of projected growth and different IBT scenarios were evaluated by
examining changes in these statistics. Finally, a discussion of the importance of the influence of
tidal fluctuations on the Tar River at Greenville are provided to help the reader understand the
potentially ameliorating effect of tides at Greenville on the influence on river flow estimated for
GUC’s proposed IBT.

Development of a Long-Term Flow Record for the Tar River at Greenville

Tar River flows recorded at the Tarboro gage were used to predict Tar River flows downstream at
Greenville. Hydrologic and statistical analyses were performed to develop a predictive relationship
between the two locations. First, a tidal filter was applied to the Greenville USGS gage data to
reduce the influence of tidal fluctuations on the estimates of daily average flow. In order to
improve the strength of the relationship between Greenville and Tarboro gage flows, statistical
analyses were performed to determine the best way to fit the Tarboro-Greenville flow relationship
and to reduce the effects of data outliers. Finally, once the statistical fit between flows at Tarboro
and Greenville was best adjusted to the data, that model was used to generate a long-term flow
record for the Tar River gage at Greenville.
Tidal Filtering

Tidal filtering was applied to the available data for the Greenville gage (collected at 15-minute
intervals), which were available from USGS from April 1997 to September 2007. The tidal filtering
was performed using the “Godin filter” approach, as described by Gabriel Godin in his book The
Analysis of Tides (Godin 1972). The filtering was performed first using Microsoft Excel®
spreadsheets to apply a 23-25-27 Godin filter (these numbers refer to the number of days in each
“bin” of the running filter), which was the approach recommended by Godin for the tidal influence
in the shallow water of near-coastal rivers.

The results of this filtering did show decreased tidal influence; however, the correlation between the
discharge measurements at Tarboro (upstream) and Greenville (downstream) was not significantly
improved (relative to results without the filtering). To improve the data correlation, a Godin filter
was again applied to the real-time data using the USGS “Gr” software, which was obtained from the
USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) website at
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/program/sfbay/gr/ (USGS, CA). The filtered data did appear to exhibit less
C167

5
tidal influence, but the correlation between the Tarboro and Greenville gages was not improved. As
a result, the filtered data were not used in the final data correlation for development of the extended
period of record for the hydrologic model for the Greenville gage. Instead, the recorded daily
average discharge data downloaded from the USGS NWIS website for the Tarboro and Greenville
gages for the period of April 1997 to the end of September 2007 were used to model the
relationship between these two stations (details provided in the next section). That modeled
relationship was then used to develop an extended period of record for the Greenville gage, from
October 1931 through September 2007 (76 years of data).

Statistical Relationship between Tar River Flows at Tarboro and Greenville –
Regression Analysis

The relationship between river flow at Tarboro and Greenville for the overlapping period of USGS
flow records (April 1997 through September 2007) was examined using graphical and statistical
tools and using a number of possible transformations. A strong linear correlation was observed
between the downstream and upstream flows, and the correlation was strengthened by comparing
the downstream flow with the upstream flow measurement of the previous day (one-day lag). The
correlation in some cases was slightly improved with the logarithm transformation. However, the
improvement was not significant; therefore, the transformation was not used in the final regression
model.

A limited number of outliers were removed from the data set. Figure 3 presents a plot of the
upstream (Tarboro) discharge versus the downstream (Greenville) discharge, identifying the data
associated with Hurricane Floyd (September 15 through October 2, 1999). This severe storm event
created flow rates which were much higher than any other measurements obtained during the entire
period of record for either of the two gage stations. These measurements were considered to be
outliers for the purposes of creating a normal-condition flow relationship and were excluded from
the analysis, because the focus is on low-flow conditions when the proposed IBT amount could
have the largest impact on instream flow levels.

Figure 4 presents a plot of the remaining discharge data showing a number of high outliers and a
few low outliers. In the figure, the high outliers are identified as those associated with a
downstream flow/upstream flow ratio of 1.9 (the 97.5th percentile for that ratio) or higher. The low
outliers were selected as those with negative values (upstream flow) at the Greenville gage. It was
hypothesized that the high outliers might be caused by unusually large local rainfall events that
considerably increased the downstream flow over that predicted from the upstream flow. Rainfall
data were available for the Greenville gage only from October 17, 2003 to September 30,
(approximately three years). Comparison of the precipitation data to the discharge data indicated
that the high and low outliers were associated with high rainfall events where the
C168

6
Figure 3. Downstream vs. Upstream Discharge, Identifying Data Associated with Hurricane
Floyd (September 15 - October 2, 1999)
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Tarboro Discharge, Daily Average (cfs)
Gr
e
e
n
v
i
l
l
e

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,

D
a
i
l
y

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

(
c
f
s
)
Data Floyd

Figure 4. Flow vs. Flow, Identifying Outliers Excluded from Further Analysis
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Tarboro Discharge (cfs)
Gr
e
e
n
v
i
l
l
e

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
c
f
s
)
Data 97.5th Percentile of Ratio (1.9)Outliers
C169

7
precipitation data were available. Based on these observations, these high and low outliers likely
were not contributing to a best fit of the underlying dominant flow relationship between the
upstream and downstream gages, and those measurements were excluded from further analysis in
the flow model.

Examination of plots of downstream (Greenville) flow versus upstream (Tarboro) flow indicated
that separate linear regression analyses should be performed for different flow ranges because the
slopes of the regression lines were different for different flow ranges. The data were separated into
five separate flow ranges, and separate linear regression analyses were applied to each range.
Figure 5 presents a Tarboro flow versus Greenville flow plot for the remaining data illustrating the
“best fit” linear regression lines. The linear relationships obtained for the five flow ranges were as
follows (all flows are in cubic feet per second [cfs]):

• Greenville Flow (cfs) = (1.116 × Tarboro Flow (cfs)); Tarboro Flow (cfs) < 118 cfs;
R² = 0.93 (254 data points)
• Greenville Flow (cfs) = (-31.778) + (1.383 × Tarboro Flow (cfs)); Tarboro Flow
(cfs) >119 and < 398 cfs; R² = 0.80 (444 data points)
• Greenville Flow (cfs) = (88.454) + (1.080 × Tarboro Flow (cfs)); Tarboro Flow
(cfs) = 398 to 2,833 cfs; R² = 0.55 (638 data points)
• Greenville Flow (cfs) = (-259.794) + (1.203 × Tarboro Flow (cfs)); Tarboro Flow
(cfs) = 2,834 to 12,572 cfs; R² = 0.83 (377 data points)
• Greenville Flow (cfs) = (5767.346) + (0.723 × Tarboro Flow (cfs)); Tarboro Flow
(cfs) > 12,572 cfs; R² = 0.51 (40 data points)

Figure 6 presents the same Tarboro flow versus Greenville flow plot but focuses on the lower flow
region to provide greater detail of that data and the results of the modeling.

The resulting flow model was used to construct an extended Greenville data set for the time period
from October 1931 to September 2007 based on discharge data for the Tarboro gage for that period
of record. Thus, the flow model for the Greenville gage is based on this extended period of record,
from October 1931 to September 2007.
Synthesized Historical Tar River Flow at Greenville Gage

Figure 7 presents the average annual flow at the Greenville gage for each full year of synthesized
data (1932-2006). Figure 8 and Table 1 present the monthly average flows for the synthesized data.
Table 1 presents the monthly average flows in tabular format for the results presented in Figure 8
(current conditions with no IBT) and for seven other IBT scenarios analyzed as part of this study.
Table 2 presents the monthly averages calculated for the same eight scenarios but at the location
downstream of the GUC WWTP. The flow data associated with Hurricane Floyd in the month of
September 1999 were removed from the data set for the IBT- impact analyses, but Figure 8 shows
the average September flows with and without Hurricane Floyd data.
C170

8
Figure 5. Results of Modeling for the Flow vs. Flow Relationship
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Tarboro Flow (cfs)
Gr
e
e
n
v
i
l
l
e

F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Data Y0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
Figure 6. Results of Modeling for the Flow vs. Flow Relationship (Low-Flow Region Detail)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Tarboro Flow (cfs)
Gr
e
e
n
v
i
l
l
e

F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Data Y0 Y1 Y2
C171

9
Long-Term Flow Record for the Tar River at Greenville

Figure 7. Average Annual Flow at Tar River Gage (1932-2006)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,0001932193519381941194419471950195319561959196219651968197119741977198019831986198919921995199820012004Year
Av
e
r
a
g
e

A
n
n
u
a
l

F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)

C172

10
Figure 8. Average Monthly Flow at Tar River Gage based on Modeled Data
(October 1931 – September 2007)

C173

11

Table 1. Annual and Monthly Average Tar River Flows at Greenville1,2,3
Current Future (2030)
All flows in cfs No IBT Avg IBT
Max.
Withdrawal
IBT* No IBT Avg IBT
Max.
Withdrawal
IBT

All Data 2,524 2,513 2,505 2,525 2,513 2,505
January 3,776 3,766 3,756 3,777 3,768 3,758
February 4,649 4,638 4,628 4,651 4,641 4,630
March 4,840 4,831 4,820 4,844 4,834 4,823
April 3,589 3,579 3,571 3,592 3,582 3,575
May 2,058 2,047 2,042 2,063 2,053 2,047
June 1,596 1,583 1,578 1,598 1,585 1,579
July 1,481 1,468 1,461 1,486 1,473 1,466
August 1,641 1,630 1,624 1,647 1,635 1,629
September 1,536 1,523 1,516 1,534 1,521 1,515
October 1,320 1,307 1,299 1,315 1,302 1,295
November 1,578 1,565 1,556 1,570 1,558 1,549
December 2,345 2,334 2,323 2,342 2,327 2,317
1 Based on long-term flow record of Tar River at Tarboro (1931-2007; USGS Gage No.02083500; Tar River at Tarboro, NC;
drainage area 2,183 mi2) extrapolated downstream per methods described in ENTRIX 2007.
2 Flow at Greenville, North Carolina, downstream of Greenville Utilities Commission water supply intake, but upstream of
Greenville wastewater discharge (location of USGS Gage No. 02084000; drainage area 2,660 mi2)
3 These results are based on the modeled period of record from 1931 to 2007
* Max. Withdrawal IBT = Maximum Withdrawal IBT

Table 2. Annual and Monthly Average Tar River Flows downstream of GUC WWTP Discharge1,2,3
Current 2030
All flows in cfs No IBT Avg IBT Max. IBT No IBT Avg IBT
Max.
IBT

All Data 2,537 2,526 2,518 2,529 2,518 2,509
January 3,789 3,779 3,769 3,780 3,770 3,761
February 4,662 4,652 4,642 4,656 4,645 4,635
March 4,854 4,844 4,833 4,850 4,840 4,829
April 3,603 3,593 3,585 3,596 3,587 3,579
May 2,069 2,059 2,054 2,068 2,057 2,052
June 1,607 1,594 1,589 1,604 1,591 1,586
July 1,492 1,480 1,472 1,488 1,476 1,468
August 1,653 1,641 1,635 1,650 1,638 1,633
September 1,549 1,536 1,529 1,539 1,527 1,520
October 1,333 1,321 1,313 1,313 1,300 1,292
November 1,593 1,581 1,572 1,578 1,566 1,557
December 2,360 2,348 2,338 2,345 2,330 2,320
1 Based on long-term flow record of Tar River at Tarboro (1931-2007; USGS Gage No.02083500; Tar River at Tarboro, NC;
drainage area 2,183 mi2) extrapolated downstream per methods described in ENTRIX 2007
2 Flow at Greenville, North Carolina, downstream of Greenville Utilities Commission water supply intake, but upstream of
Greenville wastewater discharge (location of USGS Gage No. 02084000; drainage area 2,660 mi2)
3 These results are based on the modeled period of record from 1931 to 2007
C174

12
Develop Flow Accounting Model for Lower Tar River

ENTRIX developed a spreadsheet-based flow model for the lower Tar River that accounts for all
documented current and expected future withdrawals from and discharges to the Tar River at
selected nodes downstream of the Rocky Mount Reservoir. Withdrawals and discharges for the
following communities were included:

• City of Rocky Mount
• Town of Tarboro
• Town of Princeville
• Town of Pinetops
• Town of Macclesfield
• Town of Bethel
• City of Greenville

Figure 2 provides a schematic representation of the lower Tar River and the modeled withdrawals,
discharges, and output locations.

These withdrawals and discharges were included to predict the effects on flows in the Tar River at
the Greenville Gaging station and in the Tar River downstream of the GUC WWTP discharge.
Current water usage and discharges are reflected in the long-term flow record at Greenville
described above. Average daily flows by month are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Tables 3 through
10 summarize the current and 2030 estimated total withdrawals and discharges associated with
municipalities and registered users without any IBT quantities. The withdrawal and discharge
numbers are provided in millions of gallons per day (MGD) and cfs. The monthly 2030 projected
flows were created by adding to the current flow record the monthly incremental change in water
withdrawals and wastewater discharges from 2002 to 2030. The annual 2030 water withdrawal and
wastewater discharge projections were converted to monthly averages using monthly adjustment
factors based on the past variability associated with water withdrawals and discharges for each
municipality.
Water Withdrawals

Water usage for current and 2030 conditions was obtained for each municipality from their 2002
Local Water Supply Management Plans posted on the Division of Water Resources (DWR) website
(DWR 2007a). GUC water use projections were obtained from ARCADIS. In addition, a list of
registered non-municipal water users was obtained from Wayne Howard with DWR on September
12, 2007 (DWR 2007b). The amount of water consumed by registered water users was estimated
and added to the model. Any organization that utilizes more than 100,000 gallons of surface water
per day is required to register their water usage with the DWR. The DWR website was then
reviewed for each registered water user to determine the estimated amount of water used in 2002.
The water use data available on the DWR web site included average daily water withdrawals and
pump capacity, but the number of days water was obtained was almost never reported.
Conversations with Pitt County Soil and Water Conservation District and Natural Resources
Conservation staff in September 2007 indicated that the DWR registered water withdrawals
database is the only source of agricultural water usage data for the basin.
C175

13

Only registered non-municipal water users that appeared to be agricultural operations were included
in the water withdrawal totals. All other registered water users were hydropower or mining/quarry
organizations. The hydro power organization and many of the quarries reported a water discharge
rate that matched their water withdrawal rate. Other quarries reported that their water sources were
“ponds” and “stormwater”. Since the Tar River or a Tar River tributary was not the source for the
water withdrawals, these water withdrawals were not included in the water withdrawal totals.

In order to estimate the amount of water used each year by the registered agricultural operations the
following assumptions were made:
• No flow returns to the Tar River or its tributaries (consumptive use).
• 2030 usage will be the same as 2002 usage. (No net increase in water withdrawals
associated with these registered users is expected for 2030.)
• Based on a conversation with Pitt County Soil and Water Conservation District and Natural
Resource Conservation Service staff, it was determined that these agricultural withdrawals
are most likely to be utilized in May, June, July, and August. Withdrawals are not expected
to occur every day within this irrigation period.
• Conservative water usage estimates were included in the model based on daily water
withdrawals over the entire May through August period. (Daily average withdrawal
multiplied by the number of days in the month.)
Current municipal water withdrawals for the Towns of Macclesfield, Bethel, and Pinetops were
assumed to be zero because their water source is currently groundwater. It was assumed that these
communities will still be obtaining their water from groundwater in 2030. The GUC provides
wastewater treatment services and part of the water needs for the Town of Bethel (since 2003). The
Town of Princeville obtains its drinking water and wastewater treatment from the Town of Tarboro.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize all municipal and registered water withdrawals for 2002 (representing
current use), and Tables 5 and 6 document 2030 withdrawals without any IBT quantities.
Water Returns and Wastewater Discharges

Wastewater discharges for 2030 were developed by ARCADIS based on current discharge
monitoring report (DMR) data submitted to the Division of Water Quality in accordance with
existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. ARCADIS obtained
past and current discharge monitoring reports for Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Macclesfield, Pinetops,
and GUC. These data were used to develop wastewater projections and monthly adjustment factors
for each community’s WWTP. Tables 7 and 8 summarize all municipal discharges for 2002
(representing current use), and Tables 9 and 10 document 2030 discharges without any IBT
quantities.

C176

14
Current (2002) and Projected 2030 Municipal and Registered Withdrawals

Table 3. 2002 Average Daily Withdrawals in MGD
Month
Rocky
Mount
2002
Tarboro
and
Princeville
2002
Registered
Agricultural
Withdrawals
Pinetops
2002
Macclesfield
2002
Bethel
2002
Greenville
and Bethel
2002
No IBT
January 11.42 2.10 0.00 Ground- Ground- Ground- 11.28
February 11.07 2.05 0.00 water water water and 10.43
March 10.99 2.12 0.00 water from 10.51
April 12.13 2.30 0.00 GUC 12.69
May 14.50 2.66 4.69 13.68
June 16.67 2.92 4.69 11.77
July 12.93 2.54 4.69 10.47
August 12.76 2.57 4.69 12.36
September 12.48 2.30 0.00 11.17
October 14.22 2.33 0.00 10.55
November 11.24 2.23 0.00 9.99
December 10.46 2.37 0.00 9.47
Water withdrawal data from 2002 Local Water Supply Plans. Greenville data from ARCADIS. Registered agricultural
withdrawal data from DWR.

Table 4. 2002 Average Daily Withdrawals in cfs
Month
Rocky
Mount
2002
Tarboro
and
Princeville
2002
Registered
Agricultural
Withdrawals
Pinetops
2002
Macclesfield
2002
Bethel
2002
Greenville
and Bethel
2002
No IBT
January 17.68 3.25 0.00 Ground- Ground- Ground- 17.44
February 17.13 3.18 0.00 water
water water and 16.14
March 17.00 3.27 0.00 water from 16.27
April 18.77 3.56 0.00 GUC 19.64
May 22.43 4.12 7.26 21.17
June 25.79 4.51 7.26
18.21
July 20.01 3.93 7.26 16.20
August 19.75 3.98 7.26 19.12
September 19.31 3.56 0.00 17.28
October 22.01 3.60 0.00
16.32
November 17.39 3.45 0.00 15.45
December 16.19 3.67 0.00 14.66
Water withdrawal data from 2002 Local Water Supply Plans. Greenville data from ARCADIS. Registered agricultural
withdrawal data from DWR.

C177

15
Table 5. Projected 2030 Average Daily Withdrawals in MGD No IBT
Month
Rocky
Mount
2030
Tarboro
and
Princeville
2030
Registered
Agricultural
Withdrawals
Pinetops
2030
Macclesfield
2030
Greenville and
Bethel 2030
No IBT
January 18.30 2.79 0.00 Assume Assume 12.14
February 17.74 2.73 0.00 still using still using 11.87
March 17.60 2.81 0.00 groundwater groundwater 11.56
April 19.43 3.06 0.00 12.93
May 23.23 3.54 4.69 14.12
June 26.71 3.88 4.69 14.01
July 20.72 3.38 4.69 12.98
August 20.45 3.42 4.69 13.81
September 20.00 3.06 0.00 13.33
October 22.79 3.10 0.00 12.97
November 18.01 2.96 0.00 12.42
December 16.76 3.15 0.00 11.82
Water withdrawal data from 2002 Local Water Supply Plans. Greenville data from ARCADIS. Registered
agricultural withdrawal data from DWR.

Table 6. 2030 Average Daily Withdrawals in cfs No IBT
Month
Rocky
Mount
2030
Tarboro
and
Princeville
2030
Registered
Agricultural
Withdrawals
Pinetops
2030
Macclesfield
2030
Greenville and
Bethel 2030
No IBT
January 28.32 4.32 0.00 Assume Assume 18.78
February 27.45 4.23 0.00 still using still using 18.37
March 27.23 4.35 0.00 groundwater groundwater 17.89
April 30.07 4.74 0.00 20.00
May 35.94 5.47 7.26 21.84
June 41.33 6.00 7.26 21.68
July 32.05 5.22 7.26 20.08
August 31.64 5.29 7.26 21.36
September 30.95 4.74 0.00 20.63
October 35.26 4.79 0.00 20.06
November 27.87 4.58 0.00 19.22
December 25.94 4.88 0.00 18.29
Water withdrawal data from 2002 Local Water Supply Plans. Greenville data from ARCADIS. Registered
agricultural withdrawal data from DWR.
C178

16
Current (2002) and Projected 2030 Municipal Discharges

Table 7. 2002 Average Daily Discharge in MGD No IBT
Month
Rocky
Mount
2002
Tarboro
2002
Macclesfield
2002
Pinetops
2002
Greenville
and Bethel
WWTP 2002
No IBT
Greenville
WTP 2002
No IBT
January 12.37 2.139 0.066 0.223 8.50 0.691
February 11.97 2.173 0.067 0.231 8.59 0.648
March 11.70 2.060 0.074 0.227 8.48 0.648
April 11.98 2.069 0.060 0.237 8.99 0.648
May 8.85 1.779 0.042 0.177 7.60 0.648
June 8.05 1.766 0.038 0.142 6.99 0.648
July 8.24 1.788 0.042 0.127 7.20 0.648
August 9.11 1.842 0.054 0.139 7.33 0.648
September 12.93 2.267 0.051 0.218 8.23 0.648
October 13.38 2.363 0.049 0.240 8.84 0.708
November 11.43* 2.041* 0.079 0.285* 10.13 0.648
December 14.56* 2.851* 0.076 0.380* 9.62 0.648
*2003 DMR data since 2002 November and December data was much higher than usual
Discharge projection data is from ARCADIS and is based on NPDES discharge monitoring reports

Table 8. 2002 Average Daily Discharge in cfs No IBT
Month
Rocky
Mount
2002
Tarboro
2002
Macclesfield
2002
Pinetops
2002
Greenville
and Bethel
WWTP 2002
No IBT
Greenville
WTP 2002
No IBT
January 19.14 3.310 0.103 0.345 13.15 1.069
February 18.52 3.362 0.103 0.357 13.29 1.003
March 18.10 3.187 0.114 0.351 13.12 1.003
April 18.54 3.201 0.093 0.367 13.91 1.003
May 13.69 2.753 0.065 0.274 11.76 1.003
June 12.46 2.732 0.058 0.220 10.81 1.003
July 12.75 2.766 0.065 0.196 11.14 1.003
August 14.10 2.850 0.083 0.215 11.34 1.003
September 20.01 3.508 0.079 0.337 12.73 1.003
October 20.70 3.656 0.076 0.371 13.68 1.095
November 17.68* 3.158* 0.123 0.441* 15.67 1.003
December 22.53* 4.411* 0.118 0.588* 14.88 1.003
*2003 DMR data since 2002 November and December data was much higher than usual
Discharge projection data is from ARCADIS and is based on NPDES discharge monitoring reports

C179

17

Table 9. 2030 Average Daily Discharge in MGD No IBT
Month
Rocky
Mount 2030
Tarboro
2030
Macclesfield
2030
Pinetops
2030
Greenville
WWTP 2030
No IBT
Greenville
WTP 2030
No IBT
January 19.45 3.752 0.160 0.423 10.86 0.691
February 19.90 3.628 0.183 0.439 12.09 0.648
March 20.51 3.735 0.174 0.429 12.04 0.648
April 20.10 3.754 0.162 0.398 11.89 0.872
May 19.88 3.823 0.150 0.400 10.82 0.648
June 20.37 4.087 0.135 0.356 10.39 0.648
July 18.81 3.571 0.145 0.346 10.30 0.648
August 18.54 3.461 0.160 0.340 11.63 0.648
September 20.16 3.759 0.156 0.405 11.96 0.735
October 16.93 3.474 0.147 0.330 11.26 0.841
November 18.80 3.912 0.161 0.403 10.82 0.819
December 19.36 3.944 0.175 0.421 10.84 0.648
Discharge projection data is from ARCADIS and is based on NPDES discharge monitoring reports.

Table 10. 2030 Average Daily Discharge in cfs No IBT
Month
Rocky
Mount 2030
Tarboro
2030
Macclesfield
2030
Pinetops
2030
Greenville
WWTP 2030
No IBT
Greenville
WTP 2030
No IBT
January 30.10 5.805 0.247 0.655 16.80 1.069
February 30.79 5.614 0.284 0.679 18.70 1.003
March 31.74 5.779 0.269 0.660 18.62 1.003
April 31.10 5.808 0.250 0.616 18.40 1.349
May 30.77 5.914 0.233 0.620 16.75 1.003
June 31.52 6.324 0.209 0.550 16.08 1.003
July 29.10 5.525 0.224 0.535 15.93 1.003
August 28.69 5.354 0.248 0.527 17.99 1.003
September 31.19 5.815 0.242 0.626 18.51 1.137
October 26.20 5.374 0.228 0.510 17.43 1.301
November 29.10 6.052 0.249 0.623 16.74 1.267
December 29.96 6.102 0.271 0.652 16.77 1.003
Discharge projection data is from ARCADIS and is based on NPDES discharge monitoring reports.

C180

18
Analysis of Proposed IBT Scenarios and Resulting Tar River Flows at
Greenville
The long-term flow record developed for the Tar River at Greenville was used as the base model
upon which all simulations were built and represents the current withdrawal and discharge
conditions at the location of the gaging station. Simulations were analyzed for six different
scenarios described including current and 2030 conditions with and without the proposed IBT. The
difference between current and proposed 2030 municipal, industrial, and agricultural withdrawals
and discharges was incorporated into the current flow record to generate predicted monthly flows
for the 2030 simulations. In order to produce the analyses required by the IBT statute (DWR and
USGS Communication September 2007), the model evaluated the influence of the proposed IBT
withdrawals on current and future 2030 flow conditions.

In March 2008, the DWR requested that additional conservatism be built into the hydrologic
analysis for the proposed IBT by making two specific changes to the model input data. The first
change requested by the DWR was to subtract the 2002 GUC water withdrawals from the Tar River
at Greenville flow record established for current conditions and 2030 conditions. This 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 wastewater from within the Tar portion of its
service area even under the maximum IBT scenarios. Table 11 describes the model simulations that
were conducted. Tables 12 and 13 document the GUC withdrawals associated with proposed
average IBT and maximum withdrawal IBT used in both the current and 2030 modeled IBT
scenarios.

C181

19
Modeled Scenarios

Table 11. Description of hydrologic modeling locations and scenarios used in the
evaluation of the effects of Greenville Utilities Commission proposed interbasin
transfers.
Locations Description
Greenville at USGS Gage

Tar River at Greenville Gage, located approximately 3.0
miles downstream of Greenville Utilities Commission’s
(GUC) raw water supply withdrawal intake, but upstream of
the GUC WWTP discharge
Greenville Downstream of
WWTP Discharge

Tar River Downstream of GUC WWTP Discharge, located
approximately 4.7 miles downstream of Greenville USGS
Gage
Scenarios
Current

Flows for the 76-year period of record representing
conditions that would be expected to occur in the Tar River
accounting for current municipal, industrial and agricultural
withdrawals and flow returns in the basin downstream of the
Rocky Mount reservoir
Current Flows Average (Avg.)
IBT

Flows for the 76-year period of record representing
conditions that would be expected to occur in the Tar River
accounting for current municipal, industrial and agricultural
withdrawals and flow returns in the basin, plus
GUC’s proposed average daily interbasin transfer (IBT)
Current Flows Maximum
Withdrawal (Max.) IBT

Flows for the 76-year period of record representing
conditions that would be expected to occur in the Tar River
accounting for current municipal, industrial and agricultural
withdrawals and flow returns in the basin, plus GUC’s
proposed daily maximum withdrawal (Max.) IBT
2030 Flows No IBT

Flows for the 76-year period of record representing
conditions expected to occur in the Tar River in the future
accounting for projected 2030 levels of municipal, industrial
and agricultural withdrawals and flow returns in the basin
downstream of the Rocky Mount reservoir
2030 Flows Average (Avg.)
IBT

Flows for 76-year period of record representing conditions
expected to occur in the Tar River in the future accounting
for projected 2030 levels of municipal, industrial and
agricultural withdrawals and flow returns in the basin, plus
GUC’s proposed average daily GUC IBT
2030 Flows Maximum
Withdrawal (Max.) IBT

Flows for 76-year period of record representing conditions
expected to occur in the Tar River in the future accounting
for projected 2030 levels of municipal, industrial and
agricultural withdrawals and flow returns in the basin, plus
GUC’s proposed average daily maximum withdrawal IBT
C182

20

Table 12. 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
flows 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 the 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.

C183

21
Table 13. 2030 Monthly Water Withdrawals associated with each Proposed Interbasin Transfer
Scenario in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Average Day IBT Maximum Withdrawal IBT
Month
Greenville With 2030 bulk sales Greenville 2030*
January 17.56 23.76
February 17.17 23.76
March 16.73 23.76
April 18.70 23.76
May 20.42 23.76
June 20.27 23.76
July 18.77 23.76
August 19.97 23.76
September 19.29 23.76
October 18.76 23.76
November 17.97 23.76
December 17.10 23.76
*Maximum Water Treatment Plant Capacity plus Process Water
Influence of Rocky River Reservoir on Projected Tar River Flows at
Greenville

The permit to begin constructing or filling the Rocky Mount Reservoir was issued in May 1969 and
the Dam became operational in 1971. According to Jim Mead with DWR, the Rocky Mount
Reservoir has always had a minimum release requirement of 80 cfs. Lower flow releases have been
allowed under specific drought conditions. The following Rocky Mount reservoir operating
conditions were made permanent in 2002:

• Stage I (when the City of Wilson is purchasing water from the City of Rocky Mount)
conditions involve a reduction in the minimum release from 80 to 75 cfs.
• Stage II conditions (when the reservoir elevation is at or below 120 ft) allow a
reduction from 75 to 70 cfs.
• Stage III conditions (the reservoir operations model indicates for two consecutive
weeks that the reservoir elevation will decrease to 115 ft or lower) allow a reduction
from 70 to 60 cfs. Different water conservation measures are associated with each
Stage and become more restrictive as the stage increases. Stage III requires Rocky
Mount to impose mandatory water conservation measures.
• In addition to the minimum flow release requirements the reservoir level must be
managed so that it does not fluctuate by more than 1 vertical foot between April 15
and May 15 of each year. This management measure was put in place to protect
favorable fish spawning conditions.
• Winter reservoir drawdowns are allowed under current management conditions. The
normal and low flow releases from the Rocky Mount reservoir are reflected in the
historical gage data.

In 1993 permission was given to allow the minimum release to go to 65 cfs and in 1995 the
minimum release requirement returned to 80 cfs. In 1999 Rocky Mount Reservoir was allowed to
cut back releases to 60 cfs; and a 2002 letter from the Division of Land Resources reaffirmed the
operating Stages (reservoir management Stages I through III) approved in 1999. Due to drought
C184

22
conditions later in 2002, Rocky Mount was allowed to adopt a minimum release of 50 cfs at the
reservoir, but had to maintain 60 cfs at the WWTP discharge location downstream of Rocky Mount
Mills dam. The Rocky Mount WWTP discharge requirements are based on a minimum river flow
of 60 cfs. In 2007 Rocky Mount was allowed to reduce reservoir releases so that river flows at the
WWTP discharge point were as low as 40 cfs. Later in the fall of 2007 Tar River flows at the
Rocky Mount WWTP discharge went down to 20 cfs.

The Rocky Mount operating rules were considered in the hydrologic analysis and modeling. The
years examined by the hydrologic modeling included 1931-2007. The hydrologic analysis was
based on actual flows at Tarboro, which reflect about 40 years of conditions prior to the existence of
the Rocky Mount reservoir and 36 years of data since the reservoir began operating. The
hydrologic model reflects the impacts of the Rocky Mount operating rules and minimum flows that
have been in place over the past 36 years.

Reservoirs such as Rocky Mount’s often augment low flows in rivers because they store water from
higher flow periods and release it over extended lower flow periods. Flow duration curves for the
pre-reservoir period of record and post-reservoir period of record were developed and evaluated to
determine if this effect was present in the Tar River at Greenville flow record (Figure 9). In this
case, this trend is not observed. It appears from Figure 9 that the opposite is true, however the
difference in pre-reservoir low flows and post-reservoir low flows should be considered negligible.
This small difference may be attributed to climatic or other natural differences between the two time
periods and may be within the error of the regression model used to estimate much of the period of
record for the Greenville gage. The hydrologic analysis and modeling results should be considered
adequate to account for the minor effects of the reservoir on the flow regime of the river.

Figure 9. Flow Duration Curves Based on Average Annual Flow at Greenville Gage. Comparison of
Generated Flow Record Prior to (1932-1968) and After (1972-2006) Operation of the Rocky Mount
Reservoir
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Before After

C185

23
Results and Discussion
Model results have been tabulated and graphed for each scenario in order to quantify and
demonstrate the influence of the proposed IBT withdrawals on current and future flow conditions at
both Tar River locations. The impact of projected growth and different IBT scenarios can be
evaluated by examining changes in the model output data. Monthly flow duration curves were
developed for each model location for both current and future scenarios and are included at the end
of this document. In addition, the following tables were generated for each modeled location and
IBT scenario:

• Minimum, maximum, mean, the 95th, 50th (median), and 5th percentiles for flow
• Flow that is equaled or exceeded for a specific percent of time (0% through 100%)
• Low Flow Details (25 to 16,000 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%
of the 7Q10 flow for the period of record (7Q10 value confirmed with USGS via email, J.
Curtis Weaver Oct 12, 2007)
• Average number of days per year that daily flows go below the 7Q10 flow and below 80%
of the 7Q10 flow

Flow statistics are summarized in Table 14 for both locations. As expected, 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 above. They only become significant at the
minimum recorded flows of record where under maximum IBT scenarios for 2030 conditions the
stream flow becomes negative. For this tidally influenced system, negative flows represent
movement of water upstream caused by tailwater conditions.

Table 15 summarizes the percent of time and number of days (annually) that flows would be below
the summer 7Q10 and below 80 percent of the 7Q10 (87.2 cfs). For the Greenville Gaging Station
location, flows would be expected to drop below the 7Q10 1.3% of the time each year (0.9% of the
time flows would drop below 80% of 7Q10) for current conditions and 1.4% of the time (0.9% of
time for 80% of 7Q10) for 2030 conditions. With an average IBT withdrawal, flows are predicted
to drop below the 7Q10 1.6% of the time (1.1% of the time flows would drop below 80% of 7Q10)
for current and 2030 conditions. This percentage increases to 1.8% for the maximum expected IBT
withdrawal. At the location downstream of the WWTP, flows would drop below the 7Q10 1.0% of
the time currently (0.7% of the time flows would drop below 80% of 7Q10) and are predicted to
drop below 1.3% of the time for 2030 conditions. (0.8% of the time for 80% of 7Q10). Considering
the average IBT withdrawal, flows would be expected to drop below the 7Q10 1.3% of the time for
the current conditions (0.9% of time flows would drop below 80% of 7Q10) and 1.6% for 2030
conditions (1.1% of the time below 80% of 7Q10). These percentages increase to 1.5% (current)
and 1.7% (2030) of the time below the 7Q10 for the maximum IBT (1.0% for current conditions
and 1.3% in 2030 below 80% of the 7Q10). At the downstream location under the most
conservative scenario where wastewater withdrawals are reduced by the amount of the IBT, current
flows would be below the 7Q10 1.8% of the time (1.2% below 80% of 7Q10) and 2.1% of the time
in 2030 (1.6% below 80% of 7Q10). The similarity in percentages between “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.
C186

24

At the gage location, under current conditions the total number of days per year (on average) that
flows would go below the 7Q10 are: 4.7 days with no IBT, 5.8 days with average IBT, and 6.4 days
with maximum withdrawal IBT. In 2030 the total number of days per year (on average) that flows
would go below the 7Q10 are: 5.0 days with no IBT, 5.9 days with average IBT, and 6.5 days with
maximum withdrawal IBT (Table 15). At the downstream location in 2002: the total number of
days per year (on average) that flows would go below the 7Q10 are: 3.7 days with no IBT, 4.6 days
with average IBT, 5.4 days with maximum withdrawal IBT, and 6.4 days with reduced wastewater
returns. In 2030 the total number of days per year (on average) that flows would go below the
7Q10 are: 4.7 days with no IBT, 5.7 days with average IBT, 6.3 days with maximum withdrawal
IBT, and 7.7 days with reduced wastewater returns (Table 15).

Table 16 shows the flow that is met or exceeded a given percent of each year and Table 17 shows
the percentage of each year that flow would be above a given level. Table 18 presents the average
number of days that flows would be below given flows in the low flow range (25 to 16,000 cfs) at
the Greenville gage and at the location downstream of the GUC WWTP. As shown in these tables,
there are only minor changes in flows regimes predicted between current conditions and average
and maximum IBT conditions at both locations.

Table 18 shows that on average under 2030 conditions at the Greenville gage 0.2 days per year
flows are below 25 cfs with no IBT and 1.2 days per year are below 25 cfs with maximum
withdrawal IBT. Downstream of the GUC WWTP in 2030 with no IBT 0.2 days per year flows fall
below 25 cfs and 1.1 days with the maximum withdrawal IBT, and 1.9 days with the wastewater
flows reduced (two times the maximum IBT).

These minor differences in in-stream flows related to the IBT scenarios are also illustrated on the
flow duration curves at the end of this document. Flow duration curves identify the percent of the
time a specific flow is exceeded for each IBT scenario (highest flows are exceeded 0% of the time
and lowest flows 100% of the time). The figures were created on a monthly basis, so that differing
flow conditions can be evaluated for different months of the year. Low flow conditions are also
presented separately to provide more detail of the critical flow periods. The lowest flows on the Tar
River have historically occurred during the months of September and October.
Tidal Influence
The estimated effects on Tar River flows associated with GUC’s proposed IBT are based on
projected flows estimated from the best available hydrologic data from the USGS 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. The Tarboro gage receives flow from 82% of the total Tar
River drainage area. Since the synthesized long-term flow record developed for Greenville (based
on 77 years of flow records) was based on regression analyses, the predicted flows are more
accurate on a weekly, monthly or annual basis than for individual days. The projected flows are
likely to accurately predict flow conditions over time and the distribution of flows over time.
Therefore the estimates of weekly, monthly, and annual flows are much more likely than daily
flows to be in close agreement with the actual Tar River at Greenville flows that have occurred or
may occur. The flow estimates provided throughout this report should be interpreted as net
freshwater flows delivered by the Tar River to the tidally-influenced section of the lower Tar River
near Greenville.

C187

25
It is challenging to fully understand and quantify the low-flow characteristics for the Tar River at
Greenville, or for that matter for any tidally influenced section of river. Current USGS techniques
for low-flow analyses do not provide a means for accounting for the effects of tides. J. Curtis
Weaver with the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center noted in regards to the 7Q10 flow at
Greenville:

“Based on recently collected data, it has become more challenging to understand
and quantify the low-flow characteristics for the Tar River at Greenville…. This
is due to recognition of astronomical and wind tides affecting the flows…. The
techniques used for determining low-flow estimates do not account for the
complex flow dynamics that can occur because of tides.” (October 12, 2007
email)

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
(USGS 2007; GMA 2003). 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.
Wind also appears to play an important role along with downstream flow volume in determining the
location of the salt wedge.

Under some of the conditions where we have estimated that 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 during 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
flows in the vicinity of Greenville. Tidal influence is greatest during lower flow conditions (GMA
2003). The potential effects of GUC’s proposed IBT should be interpreted in this context.
C188

26

Table 14. Summary of Statistics for Flow - Based on Generated Flow Record (All Data)1
Location - Greenville Gage Station² Location - Downstream of Greenville WWTP³
Statistics Current Scenarios Future (2030) Scenarios Current Scenarios Future (2030) Scenarios
for Flow No Avg Max No Avg Max No Avg Max 2xMax No Avg Max 2xMax
(cfs) IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT * IBT IBT IBT 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 (Median) 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

cfs = Cubic feet per second.
GUC = Greenville Utilities
Commission. WWTP = Waste water treatment plant.

¹ Based on long-term flow record of the Tar River at Tarboro (USGS Gage 02083500; 1931-2007; drainage area of 2,183 mi²) extrapolated downstream as described in the text.
² Flow at Greenville NC, downstream of GUC water supply intake and upstream of Greenville wastewater discharge (USGS Gage 02084000; drainage area of 2,660 mi²).
³ Flow at Greenville NC, downstream of Greenville wastewater discharge.
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount (as in the 'Max IBT' scenario) and also decreases the Greenville WWTP discharge (not adjusted for the
other IBT scenarios) by the Max IBT amount (effectively removing 2x the Max IBT amount from the Tar River flow). If the calculated discharge was below zero, the discharge was
entered as zero (0).

C189

27

Table 15. Percent of Time (Annually) and Average Number of Days (Annually) Daily Flow is Below 7Q101
Location - Greenville Gage Station² Location - Downstream of Greenville WWTP³
Stream Current Scenarios
Future (2030)
Scenarios Current Scenarios Future (2030) Scenarios
Flow No Avg Max No Avg Max No Avg Max 2xMax No Avg Max 2xMax
(cfs) IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT * IBT IBT IBT IBT *
Percent of Time (per Year)
7Q10 Flow:
109 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 × 80%:
87.2 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 Flow:
109 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 × 80%:
87.2 3.3 3.9 4.5 3.3 4.1 4.9 2.5 3.2 3.6 4.5 3.1 3.9 4.6 5.8

cfs = Cubic feet per second.
GUC = Greenville Utilities
Commission. WWTP = Waste water treatment plant.

¹ Based on long-term flow record of the Tar River at Tarboro (USGS Gage 02083500; 1931-2007; drainage area of 2,183 mi²) extrapolated downstream as described in the text.
² Flow at Greenville NC, downstream of GUC water supply intake and upstream of Greenville wastewater discharge (USGS Gage 02084000; drainage area of 2,660 mi²).
³ Flow at Greenville NC, downstream of Greenville wastewater discharge.
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount (as in the 'Max IBT' scenario) and also decreases the Greenville WWTP discharge (not adjusted for the
other IBT scenarios) by the Max IBT amount (effectively removing 2x the Max IBT amount from the Tar River flow). If the calculated discharge was below zero, the discharge was
entered as zero (0).

C190

28
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount (as in the 'Max IBT' scenario) and also decreases the Greenville WWTP discharge (not adjusted for the other
IBT scenarios) by the Max IBT amount (effectively removing 2x the Max IBT amount from the Tar River flow). If the calculated discharge was below zero, the discharge was entered as
zero (0).

Table 16. Flow Level that is Met or Exceeded a Given Percent of Time (per Year)1
Stream Flow (cfs)
Percent Location - Greenville Gage Station² Location - Downstream of Greenville WWTP³
of Time Current Scenarios Future (2030) Scenarios Current Scenarios Future (2030) Scenarios
Flow is Met No Avg Max No Avg Max No Avg Max 2xMax No Avg Max 2xMax
or Exceeded IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT * IBT IBT IBT IBT *
0% (max flow) 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
5% 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
10% 6,448 6,438 6,428 6,450 6,440 6,430 6,462 6,451 6,441 6,428 6,455 6,445 6,436 6,417
15% 4,776 4,766 4,756 4,779 4,769 4,759 4,789 4,780 4,769 4,756 4,785 4,774 4,765 4,744
20% 3,670 3,660 3,650 3,671 3,661 3,652 3,683 3,674 3,663 3,650 3,675 3,663 3,656 3,637
25% 2,942 2,932 2,925 2,939 2,928 2,918 2,956 2,944 2,937 2,925 2,943 2,932 2,923 2,908
30% 2,483 2,472 2,461 2,484 2,474 2,464 2,498 2,486 2,475 2,472 2,490 2,480 2,470 2,451
35% 2,134 2,123 2,115 2,136 2,126 2,117 2,147 2,136 2,128 2,115 2,139 2,129 2,122 2,102
40% 1,851 1,839 1,834 1,850 1,838 1,829 1,862 1,851 1,845 1,834 1,855 1,844 1,834 1,818
45% 1,606 1,595 1,586 1,607 1,597 1,589 1,620 1,609 1,600 1,586 1,612 1,601 1,593 1,576
50% 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
55% 1,205 1,194 1,186 1,207 1,197 1,189 1,218 1,207 1,199 1,186 1,211 1,200 1,193 1,176
60% 1,031 1,020 1,014 1,032 1,020 1,013 1,044 1,033 1,026 1,014 1,036 1,024 1,016 1,000
65% 882 871 862 883 871 863 897 885 876 863 887 875 868 851
70% 748 736 730 749 736 729 760 748 741 731 752 740 733 717
75% 636 624 618 638 624 617 649 637 630 618 642 629 622 605
80% 538 526 519 540 527 520 551 539 532 520 544 531 524 507
85% 429 417 411 430 417 410 442 429 422 411 433 421 413 397
90% 332 320 311 329 317 309 345 332 325 313 333 321 313 297
95% 229 216 210 228 215 208 242 229 222 210 231 219 211 194
100% (min flow) 24 11 4 20 7 -1 38 25 17 4 17 5 -3 -15
¹ Based on long-term flow record of the Tar River at Tarboro (USGS Gage 02083500; 1931-2007; drainage area of 2,183 mi²) extrapolated downstream as described in the text.
² Flow at Greenville NC, downstream of GUC water supply intake and upstream of Greenville wastewater discharge (USGS Gage 02084000; drainage area of 2,660 mi²).
³ Flow at Greenville NC, downstream of Greenville wastewater discharge.
C191

29
Table 17. Percent of Time (per Year) Flow is At or Above the Given Flow Levels
Location - Greenville Gage Station Location - Downstream of Greenville WWTP
Current Scenarios 2030 Scenarios Current Scenarios 2030) Scenarios
No Avg Max No Avg Max No Avg Max 2xMax No Avg Max 2xMax
Stream
Flow
(cfs) IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT * IBT IBT IBT IBT *
25 100.0% 99.8% 99.7% 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.7% 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 99.5%
50 99.7% 99.5% 99.4% 99.6% 99.4% 99.4% 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 99.4% 99.6% 99.5% 99.4% 99.2%
75 99.3% 99.1% 99.0% 99.3% 99.1% 99.0% 99.5% 99.3% 99.2% 99.0% 99.3% 99.1% 99.0% 98.7%
§ 87.2 99.1% 98.9% 98.8% 99.1% 98.9% 98.7% 99.3% 99.1% 99.0% 98.8% 99.2% 98.9% 98.7% 98.4%
100 98.9% 98.6% 98.4% 98.9% 98.6% 98.4% 99.1% 98.9% 98.8% 98.4% 98.9% 98.6% 98.5% 98.1%
§ 109 98.7% 98.4% 98.2% 98.6% 98.4% 98.2% 99.0% 98.7% 98.5% 98.2% 98.7% 98.4% 98.3% 97.9%
150 97.7% 97.3% 97.2% 97.7% 97.3% 97.1% 98.0% 97.7% 97.5% 97.2% 97.8% 97.5% 97.2% 96.7%
200 96.1% 95.6% 95.4% 96.1% 95.6% 95.3% 96.5% 96.1% 95.8% 95.4% 96.2% 95.8% 95.4% 94.8%
400 86.4% 85.7% 85.4% 86.3% 85.7% 85.4% 87.0% 86.3% 85.9% 85.4% 86.5% 85.9% 85.6% 84.8%
600 76.8% 76.2% 75.8% 76.8% 76.2% 75.9% 77.4% 76.8% 76.5% 75.9% 77.1% 76.4% 76.0% 75.2%
800 67.9% 67.5% 67.2% 67.9% 67.5% 67.3% 68.5% 67.9% 67.7% 67.2% 68.2% 67.7% 67.5% 66.9%
1,000 61.0% 60.6% 60.3% 61.0% 60.6% 60.3% 61.3% 61.0% 60.8% 60.4% 61.0% 60.8% 60.5% 60.0%
1,200 55.1% 54.9% 54.5% 55.1% 54.8% 54.7% 55.4% 55.1% 54.9% 54.6% 55.2% 55.0% 54.8% 54.2%
1,400 50.0% 49.7% 49.6% 50.0% 49.7% 49.5% 50.3% 50.0% 49.8% 49.6% 50.0% 49.8% 49.6% 49.2%
1,600 45.2% 44.9% 44.7% 45.2% 44.9% 44.7% 45.3% 45.2% 45.0% 44.7% 45.3% 45.0% 44.8% 44.5%
1,800 40.9% 40.7% 40.7% 41.0% 40.8% 40.6% 41.3% 41.0% 40.8% 40.7% 41.1% 40.8% 40.7% 40.3%
2,000 37.3% 37.1% 36.9% 37.3% 37.1% 36.9% 37.5% 37.3% 37.2% 36.9% 37.4% 37.2% 37.1% 36.7%
2,500 29.8% 29.7% 29.6% 29.8% 29.6% 29.6% 30.0% 29.8% 29.7% 29.6% 29.8% 29.7% 29.6% 29.5%
3,000 24.5% 24.5% 24.5% 24.5% 24.5% 24.4% 24.7% 24.6% 24.5% 24.5% 24.6% 24.5% 24.5% 24.4%
3,500 21.1% 21.0% 21.0% 21.2% 21.0% 21.0% 21.2% 21.2% 21.0% 21.0% 21.2% 21.1% 21.0% 20.9%
5,000 14.2% 14.2% 14.1% 14.2% 14.2% 14.1% 14.3% 14.2% 14.2% 14.1% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.1%
6,000 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1%
8,000 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.5%
9,000 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
10,000 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%
12,000 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
14,000 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
16,000 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount (as in the 'Max IBT' scenario) and also decreases the Greenville WWTP discharge (not adjusted for
the other IBT scenarios) by the Max IBT amount (effectively removing 2x the Max IBT amount from the Tar River flow). If the calculated discharge was below zero, the discharge was entered as zero (0). § 109 cfs is the 7Q10 flow level (summer), and 87.2 cfs is 80% of the 7Q10
C192

30

Table 18. Average Number of Days (per Year) Flow is Below the Given Flow Levels
Location - Greenville Gage Station Location - Downstream of Greenville WWTP
Current Scenarios 2030 Scenarios Current Scenarios 2030 Scenarios
No Avg Max No Avg Max No Avg Max 2xMax No Avg Max 2xMax
Stream
Flow
(cfs) IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT IBT * IBT IBT IBT IBT *
25 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.9
50 1.2 1.9 2.3 1.4 2.1 2.3 0.7 1.2 1.6 2.3 1.4 1.9 2.2 3.0
75 2.5 3.3 3.6 2.5 3.3 3.7 1.9 2.5 2.9 3.6 2.5 3.1 3.6 4.9
87.2 3.3 3.9 4.5 3.3 4.1 4.9 2.5 3.2 3.6 4.5 3.1 3.9 4.6 5.8
100 3.9 5.1 5.7 4.1 5.3 5.7 3.3 3.9 4.5 5.7 3.9 5.0 5.6 6.9
109 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
150 8.2 9.7 10.3 8.4 9.7 10.5 7.1 8.2 9.0 10.3 8.1 9.2 10.2 12.2
200 14.1 15.9 16.8 14.1 16.0 17.2 12.7 14.1 15.2 16.8 13.8 15.5 16.6 19.2
400 49.8 52.1 53.3 50.1 52.2 53.3 47.4 49.9 51.3 53.2 49.2 51.6 52.7 55.4
600 84.6 87.0 88.2 84.6 87.0 88.2 82.6 84.7 86.0 88.1 83.8 86.3 87.6 90.5
800 117.4 118.6 119.9 117.2 118.7 119.4 115.2 117.1 117.9 119.8 116.2 118.1 118.9 121.0
1,000 142.6 143.9 144.9 142.6 143.8 144.9 141.3 142.5 143.2 144.6 142.3 143.4 144.2 146.1
1,200 163.9 164.7 166.0 164.0 164.9 165.6 162.9 163.8 164.5 165.9 163.6 164.3 165.0 167.4
1,400 182.8 183.8 184.1 182.8 183.8 184.4 181.6 182.7 183.4 184.0 182.5 183.5 184.1 185.5
1,600 200.1 201.2 202.1 200.1 201.4 201.9 199.6 200.1 201.0 202.0 200.0 200.7 201.5 202.8
1,800 215.7 216.4 216.6 215.5 216.3 216.8 214.3 215.6 216.1 216.5 215.3 216.2 216.7 217.9
2,000 229.0 229.6 230.6 229.1 229.8 230.5 228.3 229.0 229.4 230.5 228.8 229.4 229.8 231.2
2,500 256.4 256.9 257.1 256.4 257.0 257.2 255.8 256.3 256.9 257.0 256.2 256.9 257.0 257.4
3,000 275.7 275.9 275.9 275.7 275.8 276.0 275.0 275.5 275.7 275.9 275.5 275.7 275.9 276.2
3,500 288.0 288.4 288.6 287.9 288.4 288.6 287.7 288.0 288.4 288.6 287.8 288.4 288.5 288.9
5,000 313.3 313.5 313.6 313.3 313.5 313.6 313.0 313.3 313.5 313.6 313.3 313.5 313.6 313.7
6,000 324.3 324.4 324.4 324.3 324.4 324.5 324.2 324.3 324.4 324.4 324.3 324.4 324.4 324.6
8,000 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.3 341.4
9,000 346.8 346.9 346.9 346.8 346.9 346.9 346.8 346.8 346.8 346.9 346.8 346.9 346.9 347.0
10,000 351.2 351.3 351.3 351.2 351.3 351.3 351.2 351.2 351.3 351.3 351.2 351.2 351.3 351.4
12,000 356.5 356.5 356.5 356.5 356.5 356.5 356.2 356.5 356.5 356.5 356.4 356.5 356.5 356.5
14,000 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5 359.5
16,000 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 361.9 362.0
* This scenario increases the Greenville withdrawal by the Max IBT amount (as in the 'Max IBT' scenario) and also decreases the Greenville WWTP discharge (not adjusted for
the other IBT scenarios) by the Max IBT amount (effectively removing 2x the Max IBT amount from the Tar River flow). If the calculated discharge was below zero, the discharge
was entered as zero (0).
C193

31
References

DWR, 2007a. Local Water Supply Management Plans on DWR’s Website
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/

DWR, 2007b. North Carolina Division of Water Resources Water Withdrawal Information.
Registered withdrawal data for the Tar River obtained from Wayne Howard on September 12,
2007.

GMA, 2003. Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. Hydrological analysis report for Greenville
Utilities Commission, July 25, 2003.

Godin, Gabriel, 1972. The Analysis of Tides. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. 264
pp.

USGS, CA. USGS “Gr” software (Godin Filter) for tidal filtering.
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/program/sfbay/gr/

USGS NWIS website. United States Geological Survey National Water Information System
website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis
C194

32
Flow Duration Curves
Figures Presenting Flow Duration Based on Average Number of Days
- Low Flow Detail, by Month

C195
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
January
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1,050
1,150
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-1
C196
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
February
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
350
550
750
950
1,150
1,350
1,550
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-2
C197
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
March
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-3
C198
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
Low-Flow Detail
April
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-4
C199
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
May
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-5
C200
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
June
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-6
C201
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
July
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-7
C202
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
August
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
35,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-8
C203
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
September
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-9
C204
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
October
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-10
C205
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
November
Low-Flow Detail
150
2,150
4,150
6,150
8,150
10,150
12,150
14,150
16,150
18,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-11
C206
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Current Scenarios
December
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-12
C207
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
January
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1,050
1,150
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-13
C208
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
February
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
350
550
750
950
1,150
1,350
1,550
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-14
C209
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
March
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
90%95%100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-15
C210
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
Low-Flow Detail
April
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-16
C211
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
May
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
90%95%100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-17
C212
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
June
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
90%95%100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-18
C213
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
July
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
60
110
160
210
260
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-19
C214
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
August
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
35,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-20
C215
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
September
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
90%95%100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-21
C216
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
October
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-22
C217
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
November
Low-Flow Detail
150
2,150
4,150
6,150
8,150
10,150
12,150
14,150
16,150
18,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-23
C218
Flow Duration Curves
Greenville Gage Station - Future Scenarios
December
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.
FDC-24
C219
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
January
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1,050
1,150
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-25
C220
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
February
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
350
550
750
950
1,150
1,350
1,550
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-26
C221
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
March
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-27
C222
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
Low-Flow Detail
April
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-28
C223
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
May
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-29
C224
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
June
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-30
C225
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
July
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-31
C226
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
August
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
35,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-32
C227
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
September
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-33
C228
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
October
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-34
C229
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
November
Low-Flow Detail
150
2,150
4,150
6,150
8,150
10,150
12,150
14,150
16,150
18,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-35
C230
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Current Scenarios
December
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-36
C231
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
January
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1,050
1,150
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-37
C232
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
February
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
150
350
550
750
950
1,150
1,350
1,550
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-38
C233
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
March
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
650
750
850
950
1,050
1,150
1,250
1,350
1,450
1,550
1,650
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-39
C234
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
Low-Flow Detail
April
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-40
C235
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
May
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-41
C236
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
June
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-42
C237
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
July
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-43
C238
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
August
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
30,150
35,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-44
C239
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
September
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-45
C240
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
October
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-46
C241
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
November
Low-Flow Detail
150
2,150
4,150
6,150
8,150
10,150
12,150
14,150
16,150
18,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-47
C242
Flow Duration Curves
Below Greenville WWTP - Future Scenarios
December
Low-Flow Detail
150
5,150
10,150
15,150
20,150
25,150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
90% 95% 100%
Percent of Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
No IBT Avg IBT Max IBT 2xMax IBT
cfs - Cubic feet per second.WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant.
FDC-48
C243
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Appendix C
Response to Division of Water Resources Completeness
Review Comments
C244
C245
C246
C247
C248
C249
C250
C251
C252
C253
C254
C255
C256
GreenvilleFarmville
Winterville
Pitt County
Greene County
TAR RIVERBASIN
NEUSERIVERBASIN
CONTENTNEACREEKBASIN
AydenSnowHill
Bethel
Hookerton
Walstonburg
San
d
y

R
u
n
Tyso
n

M
a
r
s
h
Fort Ru
n
Nahunta

S
w
a
m
p
Muss
e
l

R
u
n
P
o
l
e
c
a
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
Mill R
u
n
Rainbow

C
r
e
e
k
Co
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
Beaman
R
u
n
Thompsom Swamp
Jacks For
k
B
u
t
t
o
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
Wa
t
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sowell Run
Fallin
g

C
r
e
e
k
Shepherd

R
u
n
Pan
t
h
e
r

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
Lewis Bran
c
h
Watery

B
r
a
n
c
h
Middle Swamp
Spring Branch
Lang Branch
Be
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Wh
e
a
t

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
Mill Run
Tyson M
a
r
s
h
Mid
d
l
e

S
w
a
m
p
Grindle Creek
Swif
t

C
r
e
e
k
Fo
r
k

S
w
a
m
p
TAR RIVER
H
u
n
t
i
n
g

R
u
n
Clayro
o
t

S
w
a
m
p
Parke
r

C
r
e
e
k
I
n
d
i
a
n

W
e
l
l

S
w
a
m
p
Juniper Bran
c
h
Mi
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h
Cannon Swamp
Pine
l
o
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
Bl
a
c
k

S
w
a
m
p
Co
n
e
t
o
e

C
r
e
e
k
Harde
e

C
r
e
e
k
Brie
r
y

S
w
a
m
p

(
S
h
e
p
h
a
r
d

M
i
l
l
p
o
n
d
)
Lan
g
s

M
i
l
l

R
u
n
Gre
a
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
u
n
Lawr
e
n
c
e

R
u
n
Kitten Cre
e
k
Harris Mill Run
Gum Swamp
Pea Branch
O
l
d
w
o
m
a
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
Ward
R
u
n
Otter Cr
e
e
k
Bates B
r
a
n
c
h
Suggs

B
r
a
n
c
h
Pol
e
y

B
r
a
n
c
h
Cabin Branch
Moyes Run
Isla
n
d

S
w
a
m
p
Chicod
C
r
e
e
k
Hors
e
p
e
n

S
w
a
m
p
Nobel Canal
Ba
r
b
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Grinn
e
l

S
l
o
u
g
h
Cr
o
s
s

S
w
a
m
p
P
h
i
l
l
i
p
p
i

B
r
a
n
c
h
Bell Br
a
n
c
h
Tranter
s

C
r
e
e
k
Lewis Canal
Bear Creek
Simmon Branch
Little Content
n
e
a

C
r
e
e
k
Cre
e
p
i
n
g

S
w
a
m
p
Tr
a
n
t
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
TAR RIVER
Sw
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
TAR RIVER
TAR RIVER
Conetoe Creek
TAR
R
I
V
E
R
TA
R

R
I
V
E
R
Sw
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
TAR
R
I
V
E
R
Mill B
r
a
n
c
h
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
C257
ARCADIS Project No. NC706015.0010
Final Environmental
Assessment –Greenville
Utilities Commission
Interbasin Transfer
Appendix D
Response to DENR Comments
C258
C259
C260
C261
C262
C263
C264
C265
1
Spencer, Miranda
From:Hannah Stallings [[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:44 PM
To:Sadler, Mary
Cc:Phil Fragapane
Subject:Re: Greenville Utility Commission IBT EA - Response to DWQ Comments
Mary -
Thank you very much for your responses.
DWQ appreciates the time and care taken to respond to and address all of our concerns. DWQ
will not object to a FNSI being issued for the project as explained to us.
The only recommendation that I would have has to do with comment 20/section 6.3.2 -I would
suggest that the last sentence be changed to "It follows that water quality will not be
significantly negatively impacted."
Thanks.
Hannah Stallings
Sadler, Mary wrote:
> Hi Hannah and Phil,
> Attached is our letter responding to DWQ’s review comments. Please
> call if you have any questions. Per Melba’s cover letter, we will need
> something in writing from you before we can proceed to Clearinghouse.
> Thanks!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property
> of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including
> without limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary
> information contained in this e-mail message, and any files
> transmitted with it, is intended for the use of the recipient(s) named
> above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error and
> that any review, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any files
> transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
> original message and any files transmitted. The unauthorized use of
> this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is prohibited and
> disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates.
--
Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
DWQ -Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
phone [phone]
fax [phone]
C266
C267
C268
C269
C270
C271
C272
C273
C274
C275
C276
C277
C278
C279
Airport
Simpson Jurisdiction
Winterville Jurisdiction
Map Legend
Industrial
Commercial
Mixed Use / Office / Institutional
Medical Core
Medical Transition
Office / Institutional / Medical
Office / Institutional / Multi-Family
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Conservation / Open Space
Land Parcels
Greenville ETJ
Adjoining Municipal Jurisdictions
Southwest Bypass Options
Railroad Tracks 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,0005,000 Feet
Scale: 1" = 2,500'
C280
IU
I
I
IU
RA20
RA20
RA20
I
I
PUD
I
RA20
MR
R6
IU
IU
I
IU
RA20
I
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
R9S
R6
RA20
I
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
CH
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
IU
CG
I
MI
IU
R9S
RA20
R9S
RA20
PIU
R6
IU
R9
RA20
R6
R9S
OR
RA20
MI
IU
R6
IU
RA20
RA20
OR
RA20
RA20
RA20
I
OR
R6
RA20
RA20
IU
IU
R6A
PIU
RA20
RA20
RA20
IU
MO
MI
I
RA20
R9
I
OR
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
RA20
R6
OR
PIU
RA20
R9S
RA20
OR
RA20
MS
PUD
MRS
RA20
R9
MRS
CG
CG
IU
MI
R6MH
MR
RA20
RA20
R6MH
R9S
OR
RA20
RA20
RA20
IU
RA20
RA20
OR
R6
CH
IUIU
PIU
R6
R9S
RA20
I
R6A
MRS
RA20
MO
IU
R9S
RA20
R6
MO
CH
R6A
IU
OR
RA20
OR
R9S
CG
RA20
R9
RA20
R6
R9
CG
MR
R6
R6
RA20
RA20
CH
RA20
CG
IU
CG
R6
RA20
IU
R9S
R6
R6A
RA20
RA20
CH
CH
IU
RA20
MO
CH
RA20
RA20
R9S
R6
R6
R9S
OR
O
I
RA20
R6
R6
MR
CG
RA20
CH R6
R6
R9S
R6A
R9S
RA20
R6
CH
R9
R6S
RA20
R9
R6A-RU
CG
R6
RA20
IU
R6S
R6
RA20
OR
R6A
R6
RA20
RA20
R6
RA20
RA20
I
CH
O
R6
R9
R9S
R6
R6
R6
R9S
RA20
OR
R6MH
R6
R6
MO
R6
RA20
RA20
RA20
R6S
CG
RA20
MS
OR
RA20
I
OR
R9
RA20
CH
OR
R6S
MR
R15S
R6
R6
IU
OR
R6
CH
IU
R9
R9
RA20
RA20
CH
IU
R6
R9
RA20
R6
R15S
OR
R6
OR
CH
RA20
IU
R6A
R15S
CH
RA20
R6
R6
CG
OR
OR
MRS
CH
MO
R6
RA20
RA20
I
O
R15S
R6
R15S
RA20
R9S
CH
OR
R6
R9S
R6A
R6A
MR
MR
IU
OR
RA20
IU
OR
CG
IU
MR
R15S
CH
PUD
CH
OR
RA20
R6
CG
RA20
OR
MO
R6S
R6A
R6
OR
CG
R9S
R6S
R6
R6
R9
R6S
OR
R6S
MCH
R9
OR
MO
O
CG
R9S
I
O
R6
CG
R15S
R6S
R6
CG
R6
R6
R6A
MO MO
OR
R15S
R6
CH
RA20
RA20
CG
RA20
I
CH
MO
I
OR
R15S
O
CH
R6S
R6
O
R6A
RA20
R6A
OR
CH
CG
CH
O
RA20
CH
CH
IU
R9
RA20
CH
R9S
R15S
R6
OR
R6S
R9
R6
RA20
CG
IU
CH
CH
MO
CG
R6
R15S
CH
R6
R9
MS
CH
R6
R6A
R6
R15S
MS
CH
OR
MRS
RA20
R6
CH
R9S
MO
R6A
R6A
R6
MCH
R15S
CG
CH
CG
R9
CN
R9
O
R9
R6S
RA20
OR
R9
R6
IU
OR
R9
OR
CH
MS
CH
CH
R9
R6
R6
IU
OR
CH
IU
CH
R9
R6
R15S
R6A
RA20
R6A
R6
R15S
CH
CH
R6
R6
R6
R6S
R9
CG
R15SR6
R6
OR
RA20
RA20
MS
R9
OR
R6
R9S
O
I
R9
RA20
R9
R6S
CH
OR
ORR6
IU
CG
R6MH
IU
CG
R6
OR
R15S
CG
CH
R9
OR
R9
R9S
R6
R6
R9
IU
R6
R9
R6
MO
RA20
OR
OR
OR
IU
R9
CDF
OR
R9
R6
CG
R6A
R9
R6MH
R6S
R15S
MCG
RA20
R9S
RA20
CH
RA20
IU
IU
CG
R9S
R9S
MRS
R6
R6
R9S
IU
O
R15S
R15S
R9S
CH
R15S
IU
CH
RA20
R9S
R15S
OR
RA20
OR
R6
R6
R9
R9
MR
R6
MO
R15S
RA20
R9
RA20
R9S
RA20
R9S
R6
R6
CG
MS
R9
R9S
RA20
RA20
MO
I
CG
RA20
OR
O
R6
O
CG
OR
RA20
OR
RA20
CH
CH
R6
OR
RA20
OR
R9
R6
MR
R15S
R9
CH
O
R9
R6A
R15S
R6
R9S
R6
CH
R9S
O
R15S
R9
OR
R6
R15S
R9S
RA20
R6
RA20
R9S
RA20
R9
MR
R9
R9
RA20
R9S
CG
R9S
R9
R6MH
CH
R6MH
CH
R9S
MCH
R9
R6
R6
R15S
R6
CH
R6
IU
R9S
R6
MS
RA20
R9
R15S
RA20
R9
R9
CH
R6A
CH
R6
RA20
R6
R9
CH
R6
RA20
CG
RA20
R9S
CG
MR
CG
CH
R9S
R9
R9
R15S
R6
R15S
OR
R6A
R9
RA20
R6S
R6
R15S
R9
R6
IU
R9
R9
R6
R9
R6
RA20
R9S
OR
R9S
R6
R6
R9
CG
R15S
RA20
OR
R9S
OR
R9
R9
RA20
CH
IU
RA20 R6
OR
R6
OR
OR
R9
OR
R15S
R9S
CDF
CG
R6
R6
IU
R6S
R9
R9
R6
R9
CH
R6A
R6
R9
CH
RA20
RA20
R15S
R9S
MS
R9
R15S
RA20
R9
OR
R15S
O
R6
MR
R9
CG
IU
OR
R6MH
RA20
R15S
CH
R15S
CN
R6A
R15S
RA20
R6
RA20
R9
R6S
CH
R9S
IU
R6
R9S
R9S
CG
CH
R9S
CGOR
R6
RA20
R15S
CG
R15S
CH
CG
R15S
MO
PUD
R6
R9CDF
OR
R9
CH
R9S
CH
R9
R15S
MO
RA20
CG
R6
CH
R9
MO
RA20
OR
RA20
RA20
CH
IU
OR
R9S
R9
O
R15S
R9S
R9S
R6 R6
R6
CH
R9S
R6
R9
RA20
R9
CG
MR
RA20
CH
R9
R9
R9S
R9
R6N
R6
R9
R9
MCH
CH
R9
RA20
CH
RA20
R15S
CH
R6
R6
OR
RA20
CH
R6
IU
R6
OR
O
RA20
R6S
MS
R9
R9
RA20
R6
R15S
CH
OR
R15S
CN
O
R6
R6
R9
RA20
R6
R15S
R6S
R15S
R6S
R9S
R9S
R6
OR
OR
R6
R9
CG
CG
ORCDF
RA20
R9
R9S
R15S
R15S
R9
RA20
R6A-CA
R9
CH
IU
MS
CH
R6R15S
CN
R9
RA20
R6
R9
R9S
CG
R9
R9S
O
CG
R6
IU
R6
R9S
R15S
R6
MS
R6
RA20
IU
OR
R15S
R6
R15S
R6
R6S
R6
CDF
R15S
R15S
R6
CG
R6
R15S
R6
OR
RA20
R9
R6 R15S
RA20
R9
IU
R6
R9
R9S
R9S
R15S
IU
R6
R6S
CH
R9
RA20
OR
R6
R6
CDF
MO
R15S
RA20
CG
RA20
RA20
R9
R6
R6
CH
MO
OR
R6A
R9S
R15S
R15S
OR
CH
RA20
OR
R9
OR
O
CD
R9
R6
OR
R6
MCH
R6
R9
R9S
R15S
CN
R15S
R15S
MCG
R6
R9S
OR
R15S
R15S
R6
CH
R6
O
R15S
OR
R9
CN
R6
RA20
R9
R9
IU
R6
R9
R6
CG
R6
MRS
R9
R15S
R15S
R6
R6
OR
R6
CN
R9
RA20
CH
R6MH
R15S
CD
CDF
R6
R9S
CG
R6
R9S
R6
CG
OR
R6
RA20
CH
R6
R6
R15S
CDF
R6
CG
R15S
R6
R6
IU
R9S
O
R9S
R6
OR
CG
IU
R6
R6
CG
IU
RA20
O
CH
R6
OR
R6
R6
R6
IU
R9S
R6
R9
RA20
R6
R9
R6
R6
R9
RA20
R6
R15S
R6
R15S
R9
R6
R9S
R9
RA20
R6
O
R6
R15S
RA20
R9S
R9S
R6
R6
CG
R6N
R9
OR
CDF
R9
CDF
R9S
R15S
R6
R6
RA20
R6
CH
R6S
CH
R9
RA20
CG
R15S
CH
R15S
R6
R6
CDF
IU
R6
RA20
R6
RA20
R6
MRS
R6
OR
R6
OR
R9
IU
IU
CN
R6
R15S
R9
R6
R9
OR
CG
R6
R6
R6
R6S
RA20
IU
CG
RA20
O
R6
R6
R9S
R9S
R9
IU
R15S
R9
R6
R15S
R9S
CH
R6
R6S
CDF
R6
R15S
OR
R6
R6S
OR
R6
O
R9
R6
R6
R15S
R6
R15S
R6N
OR
IU
R15S
CG
R6
CH
R9S
CH
CH
CN
R6
R6
RA20
R15S
CG
R15S
R6
R6
IU
IU
OR
CH
R9
R15S
R9
RA20
R6A
R9S
CH
R15S
CH
R9
CG
CH
R6
R15S
R9
RA20
R6S
CH
R15S
CDF
R6
CH
RA20
MO
CH
OR
R6
OR
R6
R6N
CDF
IU
R6
R6
R6
CG
R6
R6
RA20
O
R6
CG
CDF
RA20
IU
R9S
O
R6
R9
R15S
RA20
R6
R9
OR
R6
OR
CH
R6
RA20
IU
R6
R6
R6
R6
R6
R9S
R6
R6S
R9
CD
RA20
R6
OR
R6
R9
R6
RA20
R9
CH
R6
RA20
IU
R6
R6
CDF
R9
R6
RA20
R6N
R6
R9S
R6
CDF
R6N
R6
R15S
R6
R6
R15S
R6
CH
R6
CN
R6
R9S
R6R6
R6
R6
R6
CH
CG
OR
R6
R6N
CDF
R6
CG
R6
RA20
R6
R15S
RA20
R6
R6
R6
R6
CH
R6
RA20
R9
R9
R6
CDF
R6
R6
CG
R9
R9S
R6
R9
OR
R15S
R6
CG
R6
R6
MO
OR
MR R9
CD
R6 R9
R9S
R6A
R6
CH
MR
CH
R6
CH
R6S
R6S
R9
R6
CD
R15S
CDF
R6
R6
CDF
CH
R9
R6
CH
CG
CH
CD
R6
R9S
R9
CH
O
IU
CD
R15S
R9
R6
O
CG
CD
R9S
CDF
OR
R9
R6S
CDF
CD
CDF
CH
R15S
R6
CDF
R6
OR
OR
R6
OR
R6
R6
RA20
OR
R6
CD
R6
CDF
CH
R15S
OR
CDF
CD
CDF
R6
CDF
R6
MS
R9S
OR
R6
RA20
PUD
R9
OR
R6
CG
CH
R6N
CD
R15S
R9S
R9
RA20
R9S
CD
R6A
R9S
R6A
R6
OR
CG
R6
CDF
R6
R9
CN
RA20
R6
IU
OR
RA20
OR
CDF
R6S
R6
CDF
CH
R6
R15S
R9
O
RA20
CG
R6MH
R6
RA20
RA20
R9
OR
R6
R6
R6
RA20
R6
RA20
O
R6
RA20
R9
OR
R6
RA20
R6S
R6
OR
OR
OR
O
R6
RA20
R9
R15S
CDF
R9
R6N
CN
R6
RA20
CG
CDF
RA20
OR
CDF
CDF
CG
R6
CH
R6
R6
RA20
R6
IU
CDF
R6
RA20
OR
MO
IU
CG
R6
R15S
R15S
R9S-CA
R6
RA20
CDF
R6N
R6
RA20
O
RA20
CDF
RA20
R6
R6
R6
IU
CG
R6
CDF
R6
O
R6
OR
CDF
CDF
R6
R6S
R6S
R6
RA20
RA20
R6N
CDF
R15S
CDF
CDF
R6N
CDFIU
CDF
OR
R6
R6
R6
R6
R6
CDF
CDF
R6
CG
CDF
CG
R6
CG
RA20
R6S
R6S
R6
CDF
CH
R6S
CDF
O
OR
R15S
R6N
RA20
RA20
RA20
R6
CD
R6
OR
OR
CDF
RA20
OR
R6S
CH
R9
RA20
R6
CDF
OR
CDF
MO
OR
IU
R6
MR
CDF
R6
R6
R6
R6
R9
R6
CG
CDF
R6
CDF
R6
RA20
R6N
R6
CDF
R6N
MCH
CD
R6S
CDF
CDF
CDF
R6
R6
CH
MCH
CN
R15S
R6N
CDF
R6S
R6
R9
R6N
CH
CH
R6
R6N
PUD
R15S
CDF
R9
R9
R6S
OR
R6N
R15S
MRS
I
R6
R6
R6
R6
CDF
R9
R6N
R6
RA20
CDF
RA20
RA20
R9S
CDF
CDF
R6
CN
R6S
OR
R6
CDF
CH
R6
CDF
OR
CDF
CH
O
OR
CH
R9
R6
R6
CD
R6S
CDF
R6MH
R6S
R6
R6S
R6
R6
CH
OR
MS
R6N
RA20
OR
R9
R9S
OR
RA20
IU
R6N
R6
RA20 CH
RA20
R6
IU R6S
RA20
OR
RA20
R6
R6
O
IU
R6
CDF
R6S
CD
CH
R6
RA20
OR
CG
R6
R6
R6
CDF
CG
R9
R6
R6
RA20
RA20
CN
R9S
CDF
R6
R6
R6S
IU
R6
R9S
R6
R15S
R6N
R9S
IU
CH
R9S
R6
R6N
R6S
RA20
RA20
R6S
R6
IU
R6
O
CH
CDF
IU
O
R6S
R6
RA20
MO
RA20
CD
CH
O
R6N
CDF
CG
CDF
R6
CH
R6N
MO
RA20
CH
R9
R6
RA20
CG CH
CG
OR
R15S
CN
RA20
R9S
CH
RA20
R6
RA20
CN
OR
R6
CG
IU
CH
CDF
R6A
RA20
R6
CDF
OR
CN
CG
CG
RA20
R6
CG
RA20
CG
CN
IU
CDF
RA20
CG
OR
R6MH
CG
OR
CDF
R6
R6
CD
R15S
CH
CN
R6
R6
CH
R6S
CG
MR
R6
R6N
OR
CG
RA20
CN
MR
CDF
CH
R6
CN
RA20
R15S
CDF
OR
RA20
R6N
OR
R6
CDF
R6
RA20
CN
R6N
R6S
R9
R6
RA20
OR
CN
OR
CDF
MRS
MR
R9
R6
CDF
OR
RA20
RA20
R6
CG
RA20
OR
MCH
CD
R15S
R6MH
CH
R6 CH
RA20
OR
IU
CDF
CN
RA20
R6
R6N
R9
RA20
CH
RA20
OR
CDF
CDF
R9
RA20
CDF
CG
R6
CDF
CN
CDF
R6
R9
R6
R15S
CDF
CG
R9S
R15S
RA20
O
RA20
OR
CD
CDF
CDF
R6
CN
CH
MO
CDF
RA20
CDF
CDF
OR
OR
CN
R6
R6S
CN
R15S
OR
R6S
OR
CN
CDF
R6N
R9S
MCH
R6
CN
CG
O
OR
CDF
O
CDF
R9
OR
RA20
R9
CDF
R9
R6
R6MH
CDF
OR
RA20
R9
CN
MCH
RA20
R6
CD
CDF
CDF
CH
R6
R9S
CD
O
R9
CDF
R9
CDF
CN
IU
R6MH
CDF
CDF
IU
R6A
MR
RA20
IU
CDF
RA20
CN
RA20
CDF
RA20
CDF
CDF
RA20
R6
CDF
RA20
OR
RA20
OR
R6S
CDF
RA20
R9S
RA20
R6
CH
RA20
RA20
IU
R6
CDF
CG
OR
RA20
CDF
R6A
OR
CDF
CD
OR
RA20
CDF
MCH
OR
CDF
R15S
CH
R6A
R6N
CN
R9
RA20
CN
CH
CDF
OR
R6A-CA
R6
R6
CG
CDF
R6
CDF
PIU
RA20
R6S
R6
R15S
R6A
R9S
R6
RA20
R6
R6S
R6A
R6S
R6S
R6S
OR
R6
Map Legend
Commercial
Industrial
Office & Institutional
Residential
Residential / Agricultural
Land Parcels
0 8,700 17,400 26,100 34,8004,350 Feet
Scale: 1" = 2,000'
C281

C282

C283