HomeMy WebLinkAboutKLRWS_EA_20150116
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment for an Interbasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin
Prepared for Kerr Lake Regional Water System
January 2015
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 – Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
This page has been intentionally left blank.
I
Contents
Section Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii
Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2.1 Kerr Lake ................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Water Treatment Plant Expansion ............................................................................ 1-3
1.2.3 KLRWS Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.4 Kerr Lake Allocation .................................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Projection Description ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.1 Project Area and Study Area Descriptions ................................................................ 1-4
1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.3 Guiding Legislation .................................................................................................... 1-5
Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose and Need Statement ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Historical Water Demands ..................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Water Demand Projections ................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Proposed Interbasin Transfer ................................................................................................ 2-6
Project Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Alternative 2 – Increase IBT to Meet Needs of Customers .................................................... 3-2
3.3 Alternative 3 – Avoid Additional IBT by Finding Alternative Surface Water Sources ............ 3-3
3.4 Alternative 4 – Avoid Additional IBT by Finding Alternative Groundwater Sources ............. 3-7
3.5 Alternative 5 – Minimize IBT by Discharging to Roanoke River Basin ................................... 3-7
3.6 Alternative 6 – Use Coastal Water as a Source ...................................................................... 3-8
3.7 Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 3-9
Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area ............................................................... 4-1
4.1 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) ............................................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Surface Waters .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 4-14
4.1.3 Hydropower ............................................................................................................ 4-15
4.2 Topography .......................................................................................................................... 4-18
4.2.1 Topography ............................................................................................................. 4-18
4.2.2 Floodplains .............................................................................................................. 4-19
4.3 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 4-20
4.4 Land Use and Land Cover ..................................................................................................... 4-23
4.5 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 4-25
4.6 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands ..................................................................................... 4-27
4.7 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas ....... 4-27
4.7.1 Public Lands ............................................................................................................ 4-27
4.7.2 Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas................................................................ 4-30
4.8 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value ............................................................................ 4-31
4.8.1 Areas of Archaeological Value ................................................................................ 4-31
4.8.2 Areas of Historic Value ............................................................................................ 4-31
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
II
4.9 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 4-32
4.10 Noise Level ........................................................................................................................... 4-33
4.11 Forest Resources .................................................................................................................. 4-33
4.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats ...................................................................................... 4-34
4.12.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species .............................. 4-34
4.12.2 Aquatic Natural Areas ............................................................................................. 4-37
4.12.3 Common Aquatic Species and Habitats .................................................................. 4-38
4.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation ........................................................................................... 4-39
4.13.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species............................................ 4-39
4.13.2 Natural Vegetation & Common Wildlife ................................................................. 4-42
Environmental Consequences/Predicted Environmental Effects of the Project ........................... 5-1
5.1 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) ............................................................ 5-2
5.1.1 Water Resources: Surface Water .............................................................................. 5-2
5.1.2 Water Resources: Groundwater.............................................................................. 5-19
5.1.3 Water Resources: Hydropower ............................................................................... 5-20
5.2 Topography and Floodplains ................................................................................................ 5-26
5.2.1 Topography and Floodplains: Source Basin – Roanoke River ................................. 5-26
5.2.2 Topography and Floodplains: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ......... 5-26
5.2.3 Topography and Floodplains: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ............................... 5-27
5.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 5-27
5.3.1 Soils: Source Basin – Roanoke River ........................................................................ 5-27
5.3.2 Soils: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ................................................ 5-27
5.3.3 Soils: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ..................................................................... 5-28
5.4 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 5-28
5.4.1 Land Use: Source Basin – Roanoke River ................................................................ 5-28
5.4.2 Land Use: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ........................................ 5-28
5.4.3 Land Use: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek .............................................................. 5-29
5.5 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 5-29
5.5.1 Wetlands: Source Basin – Roanoke River ................................................................ 5-29
5.5.2 Wetlands: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ....................................... 5-30
5.5.3 Wetlands: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ............................................................. 5-30
5.6 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands ................................................................................... 5-30
5.6.1 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Source Basin – Roanoke River .................... 5-30
5.6.2 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River 5-
31
5.6.3 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek.................. 5-32
5.7 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas ........ 5-32
5.7.1 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas:
Source Basin – Roanoke River ................................................................................. 5-32
5.7.2 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas:
Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ......................................................... 5-33
5.7.3 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas:
Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ............................................................................... 5-33
5.8 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value ............................................................................ 5-34
5.8.1 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value: Source Basin – Roanoke River ............. 5-34
5.8.2 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse
River ......................................................................................................................... 5-34
5.8.3 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ........... 5-34
5.9 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 5-35
5.9.1 Air Quality: Source Basin – Roanoke River .............................................................. 5-35
CONTENTS CONTINUED
III
5.9.2 Air Quality: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ..................................... 5-35
5.9.3 Air Quality: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ........................................................... 5-35
5.10 Noise Level ........................................................................................................................... 5-36
5.10.1 Noise Level: Source Basin – Roanoke River ............................................................ 5-36
5.10.2 Noise Level: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River .................................... 5-36
5.10.3 Noise Level: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek .......................................................... 5-36
5.11 Forest Resources .................................................................................................................. 5-36
5.11.1 Forest Resources: Source Basin – Roanoke River ................................................... 5-36
5.11.2 Forest Resources: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ........................... 5-37
5.11.3 Forest Resources: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ................................................ 5-37
5.12 Shellfish or Fish and their Habitat ........................................................................................ 5-38
5.12.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River ................................................................................. 5-38
5.12.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River ........................................................ 5-38
5.12.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek .............................................................................. 5-39
5.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation .......................................................................................... 5-40
5.13.1 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation: Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered
Species .................................................................................................................... 5-40
5.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances ......................................................................................... 5-41
5.14.1 Introduction of Toxic Substances: Source Basin – Roanoke River .......................... 5-41
5.14.2 Introduction of Toxic Substances: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River .. 5-42
5.14.3 Introduction of Toxic Substances: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek ....................... 5-42
Programs to Minimize Environmental Impacts ............................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs ................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................ 6-4
6.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ........................................................................... 6-4
6.1.3 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................ 6-4
6.1.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows ......................................................................................... 6-5
6.1.5 NPDES Regulations .................................................................................................... 6-5
6.1.6 Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 ...................................................... 6-6
6.1.7 Isolated Wetland Protection ..................................................................................... 6-6
6.1.8 Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................................................................ 6-6
6.1.9 Clean Air Act.............................................................................................................. 6-6
6.1.10 Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 .................................................... 6-7
6.1.11 Archaeological Protection ......................................................................................... 6-7
6.1.12 Farmland Protection Policy Act ................................................................................ 6-8
6.1.13 Erosion and Sedimentation Control .......................................................................... 6-8
6.1.14 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund ............................................. 6-8
6.1.15 State Revolving Fund ................................................................................................ 6-9
6.1.16 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program .................................................. 6-9
6.1.17 Tar-Pamlico NSW Program ....................................................................................... 6-9
6.1.18 Neuse NSW Program .............................................................................................. 6-10
6.1.19 Regulations for Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Extensions ................................. 6-11
6.1.20 Groundwater Protection ......................................................................................... 6-11
6.1.21 Water Supply Watershed Protection Program ....................................................... 6-11
6.1.22 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ....................................................... 6-12
6.1.23 Miscellaneous Land Conservation Incentive Programs .......................................... 6-12
6.2 Local Regulations and Programs .......................................................................................... 6-12
6.2.1 Coordinated Programs ............................................................................................ 6-12
6.2.2 Warren County........................................................................................................ 6-13
6.2.3 Vance County .......................................................................................................... 6-14
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
IV
6.2.4 Granville County ...................................................................................................... 6-15
6.2.5 Franklin County ....................................................................................................... 6-17
6.2.6 Summary of Local Government Programs .............................................................. 6-19
References ................................................................................................................................ 7-1
Appendixes
A Notice of Intent and Scoping Document
B Background Documents
C Existing Conditions
D OASIS Modeling Technical Memorandum
Tables
1-1 KLRWS Distribution System Infrastructure
1-2 Kerr Lake Pertinent Reallocation Data
2-1 KLRWS Past Average Daily Water Demands
2-2 Past and Projected Annual County Population Totals
2-3 Past and Projected Total Average Daily Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd)
2-4 Past and Projected Total Maximum Month Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd)
2-5 IBT Summary for KLRWS – 2013, 2045, and 2060
3-1 Pumping Rate and Withdrawal Scenarios
3-2 Summary of Alternatives
4-1 Roanoke River Basin Major Hydrologic Units
4-2 North Carolina Water Supply Classifications for the Roanoke River Basin
4-3 2012 Impairments in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River and Major
Tributaries
4-4 Impairments in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
4-5 303(d) Listed Waters in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River, Dan River,
and Smith River
4-6 303(d) Listed Streams in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
4-7 WWTP Dischargers within the Roanoke River Basin
4-8 Tar-Pamlico River Major Hydrologic Units
4-9 Water Supply Classifications for the Tar River Basin
4-10 Summary of 303(d) Listed Waters in the Tar River Basin
4-11 303(d) listed Streams in the Tar River Basin
4-12 WWTP Dischargers within the Tar River Basin Portion of the Service Area
4-13 303(d) Listed Streams in the Fishing Creek Subbasin
4-14 WWTP Dischargers within the Fishing Creek Subbasin Portion of the Service Area
4-15 Upper Neuse River Major Eastern Tributaries
4-16 Water Supply Classifications for the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin
4-17 303(d) Listed Streams in the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin
4-18 WWTP Dischargers within the Neuse River Basin Portion of the Service Area
4-19 Hydroelectric Production Dams on the Main Channel of the Roanoke River
4-20 Roanoke and Gaston Power Station Operational Modes
4-21 Flood Control Operations for Roanoke Rapids Dam Based on J.H. Kerr Reservoir Levels
4-22 Fish Spawning Season Flow Operations at Roanoke Rapids Dam
4-23 Vance County Predominant Soil Types
4-24 Granville County Predominant Soil Types
4-25 Franklin County Predominant Soil Types
4-26 Warren County Predominant Soil Types
CONTENTS CONTINUED
V
4-27 Land Cover within the Service Area
4-28 Wetland Types and Acreage in the Service Area
4-29 Virginia State Parks in the Roanoke River Basin
4-30 North Carolina Scenic and Recreational Areas in the Roanoke River Basin
4-31 Scenic and Recreational Areas in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
4-32 Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Service Area
4-33 Archaeological Sites within the Service Area
4-34 Wake County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Air Quality Index Summaries from 2005 to 2011
4-35 Forest Resources within the Service Area
4-36 Federally Listed Aquatic Species within the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
4-37 Federally Listed Aquatic Species within the Service Area
4-38 Aquatic Natural Areas within the Upper Tar River Subbasin
4-39 Aquatic Natural Areas within the Fishing Creek Subbasin
4-40 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species within the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
4-41 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species within the Service Area
5-1 Lake Level Difference for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during 2002 and 2007
Droughts
5-2 Reservoir release differences for the entire simulation period and during the 2002 and 2007
droughts
5-3 Comparison of Lake Levels for the 2010 and 2045 Baseline Scenarios
5-4 Comparison of Reservoir Releases for the 2010 and 2045 Baseline Scenarios
5-5 Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Phase III Nutrient Caps
5-6 Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Nitrogen Offset Credits
5-7 Power Generation Differences for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during the
2002 and 2007 Droughts
5-8 Power Generation Differences for 2010 Baseline and 2045 Baseline Scenarios for the Entire
Simulation Period during the 2002 and 2007 Droughts
6-1 Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs and Regulations and the Environmental Resources
They Protect
6-2 Summary of Local Government Programs
Figures
1-1 Study Area
1-2 Water Sales
2-1 Projected Average Daily Demands for KLRWS and Partners
2-2 Projected Maximum Month Demands and IBT for KLRWS
2-3 Total Demands and Sales per Basin from KLRWS
3-1 Percent of Period of Record USGS Tar River Gage Data Exceeding Critical Flow Values
4-1 Water Supply Resources
5-1 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period
5-2 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – during 2002 drought
5-3 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – 2002 drought close-up.
5-4 Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period
5-5 Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake for entire simulation period – lowest 5
percent of duration curve
5-6 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – during severe 2002 drought
5-7 Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston for entire simulation period – lowest 5
percent of duration curve
5-8 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – during severe 2002
drought
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
VI
5‐9 Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir for entire simulation period
– lowest 5 percent of duration curve
5‐10 Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period
5‐11 Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – during 2002 drought
5‐12 Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake for entire simulation period
5‐13 Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake for entire simulation period – lowest
5 percent of the duration curve
5‐14 Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – during severe 2002 drought
5‐15 Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston for entire simulation period –
lowest 5 percent of the duration curve
5‐16 Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – during severe 2002‐2003
drought
5‐17 Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir for entire
simulation period – lowest 5 percent of the duration curve
5‐18 Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period
5‐19 Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – during 2000s
5‐20 Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – entire simulation period
5‐21 Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – during 2000s
5‐22 Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – entire simulation
period
5‐23 Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – during 2000s
Exhibits
1 Summary of Interbasin Transfers, Year 2013
2 Summary of Interbasin Transfers, Year 2045
3 Summary of Interbasin Transfers, Year 2060
VII
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADD Average Daily Demand
ADDs Average Daily Demands
ADFs Average daily flows
AF Acre-feet
AQI Air Quality Index
ATC Authorization to Construction
CA Critical Area
CAA Clean Air Act
CCPCUA Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
cfs Cubic feet per second
CO carbon monoxide
CWA Clean Water Act
CWMTF Clean Water Management Trust Fund
DEMLR Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
DO Dissolved oxygen
EA Environmental Assessment
EE&T Environmental Engineering & Technology, Inc.
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMC Environmental Management Commission
EO Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESC Earth Satellite Corporation
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FSC federal species of concern
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic information system
gpm Gallons per minute
HQW High Quality Waters
HUBZone Historically Underutilized Business Zone
IBT Interbasin Transfer
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
VIII
KLRWS Kerr Lake Regional Water System
Kerr Lake John H. Kerr Reservoir
LWSP Local Water Supply Plan
MCLP Mecklenburg Co-Generation Limited Partnership
MDD Maximum Daily Demand
mgd Million gallons per day
MMAD Maximum month average day
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
msl Mean Sea Level
MW megawatts
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
NCCGIA North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
NCDAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality
NCDLR North Carolina Division of Land Resources
NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NCEPA North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
NCFMP North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
NCGS North Carolina General Statute
NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCSHPO North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHPHA Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSW Nutrient sensitive waters
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters
PA Protected Area
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
IX
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PFL Prime Farmlands
RPW Relatively permanent water
RRBHM Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model
SCI Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SGWSA South Granville Water and Sewer Authority
NHPNA Significant Natural Heritage Area
SRF State Revolving Fund
SSOs Sanitary Sewer Overflows
TESI Total Environmental Solutions, Inc.
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UDO Unified Development Ordinance
ug/L Micrograms per liter
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VAC Virginia Administrative Code
VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
VADEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
WS Water Supply
WSRP Water Shortage Response Plan
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SECTION 1
1-1
Project Description
1.1 Introduction
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) currently provides water directly or indirectly to municipal
and county systems in four counties and three river basins in northeastern North Carolina. The water supply
for the system is John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake) on the Roanoke River (Figure 1-1), and the water is used
in the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse River basins. The owners of the KLRWS and primary bulk customers
served by the system are the City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, known as the
“Partners.” Ownership responsibility is 60 percent, 20 percent, and 20 percent, respectively. They also
currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and
Granville Counties. These include Stovall, Warrenton, Norlina, Vance County, Kittrell, and Franklin County.
Future sales will occur from Oxford to South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWSA) for use by
Creedmoor and its customer, Wilton. Franklin County now owns the Youngsville water system and also sells
water to Bunn and Lake Royale. Franklin County also obtains a small amount of additional supply from
Louisburg (Figure 1-2).
The system currently produces on average 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water. Maximum
month production was 7.8 mgd in 2013 and maximum day production approached 10 mgd. In 2013, the
KLRWS maximum month interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Roanoke River basin was approximately 4.6 mgd,
which is below the current maximum day grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd. Recent updates to North Carolina
G.S. 143-215.22L now allows IBT compliance to be measured as the daily average of a calendar month.
Of the water produced, some stays in the Roanoke River basin through (1) consumptive use, (2) discharge
and treatment through septic systems, and (3) treatment at the City of Henderson’s wastewater treatment
plant and effluent discharge into Nutbush Creek, a tributary of Kerr Lake.
Using Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) data and an understanding that a portion of water is returned to the
Roanoke River basin, projected maximum month IBT was calculated for the planning years of 2045 and 2060
and broken into transfer amounts to the Tar River basin, the Fishing Creek subbasin, and the Neuse River
basin. In 2045, the projected withdrawal from Kerr Lake is 17.4 mgd and the projected maximum month
average day IBT is 14.2 mgd including:
10.7 mgd to the Tar River basin
1.7 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin
1.8 mgd to the Neuse River basin
Predictions to 2060 include an average day withdrawal of 15.9 mgd, which is less than the Partners’ 20 mgd
annual average day storage allocation in Kerr Lake. This correlates to a maximum month average day
withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. After factoring in the wastewater return and consumptive use in the Roanoke River
basin, average day and maximum month average day IBT out of the basin are 12.7 and 16.4 mgd,
respectively. The break down by receiving basin for the maximum month average day IBT is:
12.8 mgd to the Tar River basin
1.9 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin
1.7 mgd to the Neuse River basin
KLRWS is working to increase its permitted IBT in a timely manner to ensure continued water service to the
Partners, their expanding service areas, and the local utilities that have contracts with the Partners. The
following steps have been undertaken by the Partners to plan for future demands:
SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1-2
Completed design and an environment assessment (EA) for Kerr Lake Regional water treatment plant
(WTP) expansion (2003) and received extension on the Authorization to Construction (ATC) through
March 2015
Cooperated with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on a Reallocation Report after requesting a
conversion from a water use agreement to a water supply storage agreement in Kerr Lake in order to
increase withdrawals (2005) and began compensating USACE for lost hydropower potential
Submitted a Notice of Intent to North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (NC EMC) for
increased IBT (2009)
Summarized available water demand projections based on 2007 Local Water Supply Plans developed by
the primary and secondary bulk customers of the Partners (2008)
Prepared a Scoping Document to comply with recent IBT regulations (2009)
Conducted public notification efforts and held a series of public meetings within the source basin and
receiving basins of the proposed IBT to gather input from citizens in North Carolina and Virginia,
community organizations, and public agencies to comply with recently adopted IBT regulations (2009)
Submitted preliminary draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) and received comments (late 2011 and early 2012)
Received the updated Roanoke River basin hydrologic model and basin-wide future demand projections
based on 2012 Local Water Supply Plans (LWSP) (2014)
Updated water demand projections to reflect recent statute which measures IBT as the daily average of
a maximum calendar month, based on 2013 LWSPs developed by the primary and secondary bulk
customers of the Partners (2014)
Updated environmental document and converted to an EA to reflect recent statutory changes from
Session Law 2014-120 (2014)
The Notice of Intent and other scoping materials are provided in Appendix A. The letter documenting
NCDWR’s 10 mgd grandfathered IBT amount and the full USACE report are included in Appendix B.
1.2 Project Background
1.2.1 Kerr Lake
The water source, Kerr Lake, was formed in 1952 by construction of the John H. Kerr dam, an impoundment
of the Roanoke River in Mecklenburg County, Virginia. This reservoir is also known as Buggs Island Lake in
Virginia. It is part of a series of reservoirs on the river. The USACE-owned reservoir encompasses
approximately 50,000 acres of surface area and 850 miles of shoreline. The reservoir was originally
conceived for the purposes of generating hydropower (primary objective), reducing flood damage,
improving navigation, and promoting recreational (such as fishing) opportunities. The Water Supply Act of
1958 expanded the function of the reservoir to include providing water supply.
Several entities hold existing water supply agreements to use John H. Kerr Reservoir as a water source:
Town of Clarksville, Virginia
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Virginia Department of Corrections, Virginia
Mecklenburg Co-Generation Limited Partnership (MCLP), Virginia
Burlington Industries, Virginia (facility closed in 2005)
KLRWS - City of Henderson, North Carolina
SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1-3
1.2.2 Water Treatment Plant Expansion
The KLRWS infrastructure includes the Kerr Lake Regional WTP, which is a conventional surface water
treatment facility, distribution mains, storage tanks, and water meters. The raw water intake is located on
the Anderson Creek arm of Kerr Lake. Raw water is drawn from the lake intake and sent to the nearby WTP
pumping station wet well. From there, it is pumped via a raw water transmission line to the WTP’s rapid mix
basin.
The Partners completed an EA for expansion of their water plant in 2003 (EE&T, 2003). This EA received a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and plan approvals were obtained for a water plant expansion. The
EA is a comprehensive document that includes data and information that can be referenced in this
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to support an IBT certificate. The expiration dates of the FONSI and
the ATC have been extended, as conditions have remained relatively unchanged, and as of the date of this
document are valid through March 2015. These documents are included in Appendix B.
The 2003 EA concluded that the plant expansion to 20 mgd is necessary, noting that the plant experienced
water demands of up to 80 percent of the current maximum daily demand (MDD) (10 mgd) on multiple
occasions. The capacity of the 20-mgd facility will serve the KLRWS well beyond the 2045 planning period
used herein. The existing ordinances and regulations in place were deemed adequate to counter any
secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) that could occur as the result of the facility expansion. The SCI
identified for the WTP expansion would be similar to those associated with an increase in IBT, since the WTP
would provide more treatment capacity than could be used within its service area in the Roanoke River
basin. SCI will be a focus of the EA related to the IBT certificate request.
1.2.3 KLRWS Infrastructure
From the WTP, infrastructure first conveys finished water to each of the Partners. Finished water is then
conveyed to bulk customers, as depicted in Figure 1-2. Table 1-1 presents details of each of these
connections, including age of infrastructure. Given the sizes and ages of the existing infrastructure, it is not
anticipated that additional conveyance capacity will be needed or that lines will need to be replaced during
the planning period.
TABLE 1-1
KLRWS Distribution System Infrastructure
Connection Pipe Size (inches) Installation Year c Pipe Age (years) d
KLRWS to City of Henderson 24a, 36 1974a 40
KLRWS to City of Oxford 20b, 24a, 30, 36 1974a, 2003b 40, 11
KLRWS to Warren County 20, 24a, 26 1974a 40
a 24” Pipe installed in 1974
b 20” Pipe installed in 2003
d If not noted, installation year not known
c Pipe age calculated in 2014
1.2.4 Kerr Lake Allocation
The 2005 EA and its FONSI support expanding the existing facility to 20 mgd. In addition to the WTP EA,
KLRWS also requested that the USACE evaluate an increase in the allocation of water supply storage in Kerr
Lake. The 2005 reallocation report issued by USACE (Appendix B) approves a request by the City of
Henderson for a reallocation of 10,292 acre-feet (AF) from the usable conservation pool storage at Kerr Lake
for water supply storage. This volume corresponds to an average annual daily withdrawal of 20 mgd and is
approximately 1 percent of the total conservation pool storage (980,054 AF). As a result, the total water
supply storage allocation for all Kerr Lake water supply agreements increased to 21,115 AF. Reallocation
finalizes the conversion of an original average annual 20-mgd “water use” agreement to a ”storage
SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1-4
agreement” which could meet average day of a calendar month demands of approximately 25 mgd using
the current demand factor of 1.26. This demand factor was conservatively calculated as the maximum ratio
between WTP average annual and maximum month water use data for the period of fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2013 (KLRWS maintains data by fiscal year). This reallocation also reduces the amount of
water storage available for hydropower generation. The allocations summarized in Table 1-2 highlight the
three primary functions of Kerr Lake: hydropower, flood control, and water supply.
TABLE 1-2
Kerr Lake Pertinent Reallocation Data
Drainage Area (square miles) 7,800
Storagea (AF) Total Usable Pool (Elevation 268-320 ft msl) 2,262,421
Flood Control Pool (Elevation 300-320 ft msl) 1,282,367
Conservation Pool (Elevation 268-300 ft msl 980,054
Hydropower 958,939
Water Supply 21,115
a Storage remaining after 100 years of sedimentation from July 1953
Source: 2005 USACE Reallocation Report
This allocation supports the needs of the KLRWS to withdraw water to meet its projected needs through a
typical water supply planning period of 30 years. As documented in the alternatives analysis presented in
the Reallocation Report, meeting future water demands of the KLRWS is most reliably met with the supply
available in Kerr Lake. However an increase in IBT is still required to provide KLRWS with the flexibility it
needs to distribute water to its customers, which lie in multiple river basins as defined in the IBT statute
(North Carolina General Statute [NCGS] 143.215.22L).
1.3 Projection Description
1.3.1 Project Area and Study Area Descriptions
The project area includes portions of the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse River basins in Vance, Granville,
Warren, and Franklin Counties, which make up the service areas of the Partners and their customers. The
study area is larger, including the Roanoke River basin upstream of the KLRWS intake and the downstream
reaches of the Roanoke River for the purposes of analyzing impacts of the water withdrawal on surface
waters. Finally, the study area also includes reaches of the Tar River and Fishing Creek downstream of the
service area, to account for the potential for impacts to these waterways related to growth and increased
wastewater discharge in the service area. The service area and study area are shown in Figure 1-1.
The Roanoke River begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern Virginia and flows in a generally
southeastern direction for 400 miles, entering North Carolina at Lake Gaston. The Anderson Creek arm of
Kerr Lake is in North Carolina, as are upstream tributaries including the Dan River. Lake Gaston flows directly
into Roanoke Rapids Lake, and on through the coastal plain before emptying into Albemarle Sound in
eastern North Carolina. Thirty-six percent of the basin is within North Carolina, with the remaining 64
percent located in Virginia.
The Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins are the second and third largest wholly contained river basins,
respectively, in North Carolina. The Neuse River originates in Person and Orange Counties and flows
southeasterly until it becomes a tidal estuary near New Bern, which flows into Pamlico Sound. The Tar River
originates in Person, Granville, and Vance Counties, and flows southeasterly until it becomes a tidal estuary,
near Washington where its name changes to the Pamlico River, and then flows into Pamlico Sound. The Tar-
SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1-5
Pamlico River basin includes the Fishing Creek subbasin, which includes portions of Vance and Warren
Counties, and is considered a separate subbasin under the IBT statute ( NCGS 143-215.22L).
A portion of the water transferred becomes collected wastewater, which is then discharged through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharges into those watersheds. This
is the main reason that the study area includes downstream portions of these waterways. Another reason is
the potential for water quality and quantity impacts related to growth in the project area, facilitated in part
by the availability of an adequate water supply.
1.3.2 Project Description
The KLRWS has prepared water demand projections to plan for its future supply needs. In doing so, the
Partners are in the process of requesting an increase in their current IBT of 6 mgd to meet 2045 demand
projections. These 2045 average day of a calendar month demand projections show need for 10.7 mgd to be
transferred to the Tar River basin, 1.7 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin, and 1.8 mgd to the Neuse River
basin.
This EA builds on the previous efforts to work toward securing a future water supply for the Partners and
their customers. The purpose and need for this IBT are presented. Alternatives to increasing the existing IBT
are evaluated, as well as impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin, the Roanoke River basin, and
the three receiving basins: the Tar River basin, the Fishing Creek subbasin, and the Neuse River basin. These
impacts include direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts. In addition, mitigative measures, including local
ordinances and planning efforts, are presented.
1.3.3 Guiding Legislation
In 2014, Senate Bill 734 was ratified as Session Law 2014-120 and includes a rewrite of G.S. 143-215.22L(w),
“Requirements for Coastal Counties and Reservoirs Constructed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.” This section of the law allows for an expedited IBT process for Kerr Lake given the USACE
approved the withdrawal or transfer on or before July 1, 2014. This process does not require an EIS unless it
would otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes, includes that upon
NCDENR’s determination that the environmental document is adequate to meet the intent of the statute
that NCDENR shall publish notice of the petition and hold one public hearing, and simplifies the written
notice process for the public hearing. After a 30-day public comment period following the public hearing, the
NC EMC shall make a final determination whether to grant the IBT certificate.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Figure 1-1Study AreaInterbasin Transfer from Roanoke River BasinKerr Lake Regional Water System2502512.5 Miles
Legend
County Border
Interstate Highway
Major Road
Water Body
Study Area
River Basins
Major Hydrography
Fishing Creek (15-2)
Pamlico & Sound (15-3)
Contentnea (10-2)
Neuse (10-1)
Tar (15-1)
Roanoke (14-1)
Roanoke Rapids Lake
KerrLake Lake GastonMayoReservoirVirginia
North Carolina
Warren County
Smith MountainLake
HendersonOxford
Rocky Mount
Roanoke Rapids
Roanoke
Greenville
Raleigh
Lake Hyco
Belews Lake
Philpott Lake
40
40
95
77
85
64
264
81
85
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Raleigh
Durham
Butner
Red Oak
Rocky Mount
Chapel Hill
Tarboro
Cary
Dortches
Roxboro
Morrisville
Carrboro
Wake Forest
Roanoke Rapids
Hillsborough
Zebulon
Nashville
Gaston
Weldon
Rolesville
Enfield
Stovall
Stem
Princeville
Norlina
Momeyer
Franklinton
Littleton
Spring Hope
Leggett
Bunn
Castalia
Garysburg
Warrenton
Elm City
Macon
Middleburg
Halifax
Sharpsburg
Seaboard
Whitakers
Kittrell
Conetoe
Centerville
Knightdale PinetopsWilson
NASH
HALIFAX
WAKE
PERSON
DURHAM
EDGECOMBE
ORANGE
NORTHAMPTON
CHATHAM WILSON
PITTJOHNSTON
HALIFAX MECKLENBURG BRUNSWICK GREENSVILLE
5 0 52.5 Miles
Roanoke Rapids Lake
Figure 1-2Water SalesInterbasin Transfer from Roanoke River BasinKerr Lake Regional Water System
LakeGaston
KerrLakeMayoReservoir
Lake Hyco
Louisburg
HendersonOxford
Youngsville
Creedmoor
LakeRoyale
FallsLake
WARREN
VANCE
GRANVILLE
FRANKLIN
40
85
95
Legend Interstate Highway
Water Body
KLRWS Partners
Water Customers
River Basins
Major Road
County Border
Municipalities
Major Hydrography
WWTP Discharge
Fishing Creek (15-2)
Contentnea (10-2)
Neuse (10-1)
Tar (15-1)
Roanoke (14-1)
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SECTION 2
2-1
Purpose and Need
2.1 Purpose and Need Statement
KLRWS is actively planning to meet its Partners’ and the Partners’ customers’ needs for a safe, reliable water
supply into the future. Using a typical 30-year water supply planning period to 2045, KLRWS shows a
projected average day demand of 13.8 mgd and average day of a maximum month demand (MMD) of 17.4
mgd. This demand is based on population projections, service area expansion plans, planned connections to
the water supply, and Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) developed by the customers of this regional water
supplier. The Partners provide a cost-effective solution to water supply needs for their customers and are
securing water agreements to continue serving as a regional supplier into the future.
The Partners desire to provide a solution to their increased water supply needs that is fiscally responsible to
their customers and is environmentally responsible. They also want to continue building upon the
partnerships they have created through the KLRWS. Alternatives to increasing their IBT have previously been
considered, but the Partners reached the conclusion that the most reliable and cost-effective future water
source remains Kerr Lake and worked with the USACE to secure water supply in Kerr Lake.
To meet future water demands, the Partners intend to increase their withdrawal from Kerr Lake in the
Roanoke River basin by expanding their WTP (addressed in previous environmental documents as noted in
Appendix B). Portions of the Partners’ service areas and service areas of their bulk customers are outside the
Roanoke River basin, which will increase IBT of water to the Tar River, Fishing Creek, and Neuse River basins.
The Partners believe that this approach meets their goals of being fiscally and environmentally responsible
and building on their existing partnerships for the following reasons:
The proposed project would continue to build on existing work completed by the KLRWS to obtain an
allocation of water supply storage in Kerr Lake and to expand its WTP to 20 mgd. The WTP construction
is pending the outcome of this request to increase IBT.
Existing infrastructure connecting the WTP and the Partners’ distribution systems is sufficient to meet
future water demands. The City of Henderson has a 24-inch and 36-inch line from the WTP, the Town of
Oxford has 20-inch, 24-inch, 30-inch and 36-inch lines, and Warren County has 20-inch, 24-inch, and 26-
inch lines. Since essentially no new water main infrastructure would be required, the Partners would not
need to make capital investments beyond the expansion of the WTP. Therefore, there would be no
direct environmental impacts from construction or operation of new transmission lines, pumping
facilities, or other infrastructure. Any smaller water line constructed as part of a service area expansion
would be handled and permitted by the individual water customers, although any construction that may
occur would most likely be within road rights-of-way.
To meet the demands within these service areas, the Partners are asking for an increase in IBT to meet their
future water needs. In the case of the KLRWS, IBT water use is measured as the maximum daily average of a
calendar month (the maximum average day IBT as compared to all months in a calendar year), referred to as
the maximum month average day demand or MMD. These 2045 transfers, represented in MMD, include:
10.7 mgd to the Tar River basin
1.7 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin
1.8 mgd to the Neuse River basin
In total, the KLRWS is requesting an IBT certificate to transfer on an MMD basis 14.2 mgd out of the
Roanoke River basin. All of these transfers are accounted for based on where the water is consumed or
discharged. For example, water must flow through the Tar River basin to reach customers in the Neuse River
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-2
basin but is accounted for as a transfer from the Roanoke River basin to the Neuse River basin. This section
further details the need of this request, describing development of water demands for the Partners and
their customers, available water supply storage, and how these relate to watershed boundaries.
2.2 Historical Water Demands
KLRWS’s previous average daily demands (ADDs) for 5-year intervals beginning in 1992 are listed in Table 2-
1. The most recent complete year of data, 2013, is also shown. This slow but steady increase in demand
shows an increasing trend over time, even as industrial demands have generally decreased. A slight drop in
the 2010 and 2013 ADD since the 2007 ADD is reflective of the drought and the economic downturn that
occurred during this timeframe. The 2013 average day water use reflects the wet weather pattern in 2013.
However the maximum day water use in 2010 was 10.3 mgd, higher than the maximum day value of 8.52
mgd in 2007. The economic downtown has impacted water use. Demands are expected to return to the
previous increasing trend as the economy recovers and service area expansions occur.
TABLE 2-1
KLRWS Past Average Daily Water Demands
Year 1992 1997 2002 2007 2010 2013
Amount (mgd) 4.99 5.07 5.89 6.54 6.02 5.96
Source: Data provided by KLRWS, updated 2014
2.3 Water Demand Projections
When the KLRWS first began preparing for a WTP expansion in 2004, water demand projections were
prepared. These water demand projections supported expansion of the WTP to 20 mgd and the request for
a reallocation of water supply storage in Kerr Lake, which was approved by USACE in the 2005 Reallocation
Report.
The Partners recognize that an IBT certificate is also required if this expansion in water treatment
capabilities is constructed because service areas and water sales occur outside the Roanoke River basin.
According to projection data, population growth will occur at a slow rate in Vance and Warren Counties,
while more rapid growth is occurring in Granville County (where Oxford is located) and Franklin County,
which is in relatively close proximity to the Research Triangle area.
In addition to serving future population and commercial growth, the Partners and their customer systems
are extending water service areas and obtaining new customers who are currently served by private wells.
This is occurring in Vance and Warren Counties. Residents in Vance County have complained about the
quality of their well water caused by a high mineral content, which creates taste and odor issues. Residents
have also complained that their water has stained bathroom fixtures, appliances, and light-colored clothing.
In addition, their wells have not been reliable during recent droughts. Some residents have had to drill new
wells to address quantity issues that have resulted from the drought. Connection to the KLRWS will address
these local needs. In addition, Franklin County has recently purchased Youngsville’s water system making it
no longer an independent public water system.
In addition to population increases and the need to extend water service to customers currently being
served by private wells, commercial and industrial water demands are also projected to increase. The local
governments will be providing service to Triangle North Business Parks. Granville County is also attracting
technology-based businesses such as pharmaceutical companies, which may use larger amounts of water.
Using information included in the 2013 Local Water Supply Plans, updated demand projections were
developed for each of the Partners and the communities to which they provide water. These demand
projections help to more accurately quantify the IBT needed as both service area expansions and population
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-3
growth are driving future water demands. The population projections through 2030 are shown in Table 2-2.
While Franklin County has additional sources of water besides KLRWS, the entire county’s population
projections are shown for trend analysis purposes.
Average day water demand projections through 2060 are shown in Table 2-3. The trends for these
projections are depicted in Figure 2-1.
TABLE 2-2
Past and Projected Annual County Population Totals
County 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
Franklin 47,260 53,880 60,813 62,697 63,433 66,009 68,611 71,211
Granville 48,498 53,090 57,577 57,910 59,310 61,336 63,361 65,388
Vance 42,954 43,192 45,358 45,056 45,583 45,692 45,802 45,913
Warren 19,972 20,072 20,939 20,453 20,456 20,088 19,855 19,705
Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, 2013
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-4
TABLE 2-3
Past and Projected Total Average Daily Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd)
Partner Entity Served 2013 2020 2030 2040 2045 2050 2060
City of Henderson 1.37 2.96 3.19 3.49 3.54 3.59 3.70
Franklin County 1.95 2.08 3.04 3.65 4.05 4.45 5.15
Bunn 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.40
Lake Royale 0.17 0.37 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Kittrell 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Vance County 0.00 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24
City of Henderson TOTAL 3.66 5.86 7.19 8.16 8.63 9.10 9.97
City of Oxford 1.28 1.35 1.44 1.53 1.58 1.63 1.74
Stovall 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Granville County 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.10 1.20 1.50
SGWSA (for Creedmoor) 0.00 0.42 0.57 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.85
Wilton 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
City of Oxford TOTAL 1.29 2.11 2.64 3.17 3.49 3.72 4.13
Warren County 0.67 0.89 1.01 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.36
Norlina 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Warrenton 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32
Littleton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warren County TOTAL 1.01 1.34 1.46 1.58 1.65 1.71 1.82
KLRWS TOTAL 5.97 9.30 11.29 12.92 13.77 14.52 15.93
Source: Data provided by KLRWS, updated in 2014
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-5
FIGURE 2-1
Projected Average Daily Demands for KLRWS and Partners
For KLRWS, the current relationship between average day demands and maximum month demands
produces a demand factor of 1.26. This demand factor was conservatively calculated as the
maximum ratio between WTP average annual and maximum month water use data for the period of
fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013 (KLRWS maintains data by fiscal year). Irrigation water
demands are a very low percentage of overall water demands. Much of the residential development
in the existing service areas is older, so irrigation systems are not as common as in more recently
developed areas. Customers will be added as water service is extended to current well water users in
Vance, Granville, and Warren Counties. While recent and future residential development is more
likely to include irrigation, it is not predicted that the demand factor will increase over time. Also,
conservation efforts would aid in minimizing the likelihood of a rise in the demand factor over time.
Therefore, this 1.26 demand factor was used to predict future maximum month demands to 2060.
Summarized maximum month demands are presented in Table 2-4 and Figure 2-2.
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-6
2.4 Proposed Interbasin Transfer
The Regulation of Surface Water Transfer Act (G.S. 143-215.L) was initially adopted in 1993 and
required the issuance of a transfer certificate for new transfers of 2.0 mgd or greater. Additionally, a
transfer certificate is required for an increase in an existing transfer ≥ 25 percent. Facilities that were
in existence prior to 1993 are said to have a “grandfathered” IBT based on 25 percent of their
average daily flow (ADF) in 1993, their maximum system capacity in 1993, or 2 mgd, whichever is
greatest. Although these criteria or their application have been modified by modification to the
General Statute. Existing and future IBTs needs are best estimated by completing a water balance
table for a particular water system. A water balance table takes into account water use, consumptive
loss, and wastewater discharge in the overall calculation to determine total required IBT.
Consumptive loss and wastewater discharge may occur in either the source or receiving basin. If
consumptive loss and wastewater discharge predominantly return to the source basin, then the total
required IBT is lower. However, if consumptive loss and wastewater discharge predominantly occur
in the receiving basin, then the total required IBT is higher.
Basin boundaries are shown in Figure 1-1. Based on basin boundaries and wastewater discharge
locations, the demand and IBT projections are summarized in Table 2-5. Figure 2-2 illustrates current
and projected demands by river basin and Figure 2-3 shows the relative distribution and use of the
water.
TABLE 2-4
Past and Projected Total Maximum Month Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd)
Partner
(Total Including
Sales) 2013 2020 2030 2040 2045 2050 2060
City of Henderson 4.62 7.38 9.06 10.28 10.87 11.47 12.57
City of Oxford 1.63 2.65 3.32 4.00 4.40 4.68 5.20
Warren County 1.27 1.69 1.84 2.00 2.07 2.15 2.30
KLRWS TOTAL 4.62 7.38 9.06 10.28 10.87 11.47 12.57
Source: Data provided by KLRWS, updated in 2014
Values were calculated using data in Table 2-3 with a demand factor of 1.26
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-7
FIGURE 2-2
Projected Maximum Month Demands and IBT for KLRWS
FIGURE 2-3
Total Demands and Sales per Basin from KLRWS
37%
49%
11%
3%
2013 Demands & Sales per Basin
from KLRWS
Roanoke Tar Fishing Creek Neuse
20%
61%
10%
10%
2045 Projected Demands & Sales
per Basin from KLRWS
Roanoke Tar Fishing Creek Neuse
SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-
TABLE 2-5
IBT Summary for KLRWS – 2013, 2045, and 2060
2013 (mgd) 2045 (mgd) 2060 (mgd)
Water Usage Subbasin ADD MMD ADD MMD ADD MMD
Withdrawal Roanoke 6.0 7.7 13.8 17.4 15.9 20.1
Consumptive Loss Roanoke -0.1 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.9
Tar 0.7 1.8 4.3 6.8 5.2 6.9
Fishing Creek (subbasin to Tar) 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9
Neuse 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.7
Wastewater Discharge Roanoke 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.1
Total Return To Roanoke 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.0
IBT Tar 2.8 3.6 8.1 10.7 9.8 12.8
IBT Fishing Creek 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.9
IBT to Neuse 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.7
Notes:
1. MMD values were determined using a 1.26 demand factor building from on 2013 water production data.
2. Water from Franklinton and Louisburg was subtracted from Franklin County totals since it is non-KLRWS water.
3. Consumptive use allocation is based on percent of system in each basin and number of septic connections within each system.
4. Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation, and other consumptive uses.
5. Average day consumptive loss in 2013 in the Roanoke River basin is negative and is skewed by a few wet weather events.
EXHIBIT 1 LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS
KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ADD AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND
SUMMARY OF INTERBASIN TRANSFERS KERR LAKE PARTNERS Con.CONSUMPTIVE USE
YEAR 2013 Max Month - August WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFERKLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
GRANVILLE COUNTY ADD KLRWS MMAD MMAD MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAY
ROANOKE 2.70 Tar IBT 3.64 WW WASTEWATER
RIVER ADD Stovall MMAD 0.74 Fishing Cr IBT 0.82
BASIN 0.01 Demands 0.03 0.19 Neuse IBT 0.190.01 Sum Below 0.03 5.97 Withdrawal 7.36-0.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Roanoke 3.23 Sales 7.05 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MMAD0.02 WW 0.02 to Roanoke 0.24 Process Loss 0.31 from Roanoke 0.74 Fishing Cr IBT 0.82 to Fishing Crk
to Roanoke ROANOKE 0.58 Service Area 0.58
RIVER 0.94 Total 1.01
TAR BASIN 0.17 Con. Use 0.17 to Roanoke
RIVER ADD OXFORD MMAD ADD HENDERSON MMAD 0.28 Con. Use 0.28 to Fishing Crk
BASIN 1.28 Tar IBT 1.40 1.43 Tar IBT 2.24 0.14 WW 0.13 to Fishing Crk
ADD Granville Co.MMAD 0.00 Neuse IBT 0.00 0.19 Neuse IBT 0.19 4.950.00 Demands 0.00 1.28 Service Area 1.40 1.37 Service Area 2.55 0.15 Sale 0.13 to Norlina0.00 0.00 1.29 Total 1.42 5.72 3.66 Total 4.62 0.19 Sale 0.30 to Warrenton0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Roanoke 0.06 Con. Use 0.31 to Tar -0.27 Con. Use 0.03 to Roanoke ADD Norlina MMAD0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Tar 1.22 WW 1.09 to Tar -0.62 Con. Use 0.06 to Tar 0.15 Demands 0.130.00 Con Loss 0.00 to Neuse 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Creedmoor 2.26 WW 2.16 to Roanoke 0.15 Sum Below 0.130.00 WW 0.00 to Tar 0.01 Sale 0.03 to Stovall 0.03 Con. Use 0.02 to Roanoke
NEUSE 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Granville Co.0.06 Sale 0.07 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.03 Con. Use 0.02 to Fishing Crk
RIVER 2.24 Sale 2.30 to Franklin Co.0.09 WW 0.09 to Fishing Crk
BASIN 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Vance Co.
TAR ADD Vance Co MMAD
ADD Creedmoor MMAD RIVER 0.00 Demands 0.00 ADD Warrenton MMAD
0.00 Demands 0.00 BASIN 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.19 Demands 0.30 FISHING CREEK
0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Roanoke 0.19 Sum Below 0.30 (SUBBASIN TO TAR)
0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Tar ADD Kittrell MMAD 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Tar -0.03 Con. Use 0.12 to Fishing Crk
0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar 0.06 Demands 0.07 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.23 WW 0.18 to Fishing Crk
FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.06 Sum Below 0.06
0.06 Con. Use 0.06 to Tar TAR
NEUSE 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Tar RIVER WARREN COUNTY
RIVER ADD Franklin Co.MMAD BASIN
BASIN 1.95 Service Area 2.00
2.24 Total 2.30 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS
1.05 Con. Use 1.06 to Tar ADD Bunn MMAD ADD MMAD0.19 Con. Use 0.19 to Neuse 0.12 Demands 0.14 Withdrawal ROANOKE 5.97 7.670.71 WW 0.75 to Tar 0.12 Sum Below 0.14 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE -0.07 0.230.00 Con. Use 0.14 to Tar TAR 0.72 1.790.12 Sale 0.14 to Bunn 0.11 WW 0.00 to Tar FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.27 0.420.17 Sale 0.17 to Lake Royale NEUSE 0.19 0.19
Wastewater Discharge ROANOKE 2.26 2.47
TAR 2.04 1.84ADDLake Royale MMAD FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.46 0.400.17 Demands 0.17 NEUSE 0.00 0.00Louisburg0.17 Sum Below 0.17 Total Return to ROANOKE 2.19 2.69Contract0.17 Con. Use 0.17 to Tar IBT TAR 2.76 3.630.67 From Tar 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 0.74 0.82
IBT NEUSE 0.19 0.19
Total IBT 3.68 4.63check 5.87 7.33NOTES:1 Values were determined using the 2013 LWSPs.2 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin, as noted in LWSPs.3 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses.4 Future sales customers and new water systems not fully online in 2013 are shown as zero.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 2 LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS
KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ADD AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND
SUMMARY OF INTERBASIN TRANSFERS KERR LAKE PARTNERS Con.CONSUMPTIVE USE
YEAR 2045 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER
ADD KLRWS MMAD KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
GRANVILLE COUNTY 8.16 Tar IBT 10.70 MMAD MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAY
ROANOKE 1.39 Fishing Cr IBT 1.68 WW WASTEWATER
RIVER ADD Stovall MMAD 1.19 Neuse IBT 1.77
BASIN 0.01 Demands 0.02 10.74 Total IBT 14.16
0.01 Sum Below 0.02 - Demand Factor 1.260.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Roanoke 13.77 Withdrawal 17.40 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MMAD0.01 WW 0.01 to Roanoke 13.77 Check 17.35 1.39 Fishing Cr IBT 1.68
0.18 Process Water 0.23 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.19 Service Area 1.50
RIVER 1.65 Total 2.07
TAR BASIN 0.23 Con. Use 0.34 to Roanoke
RIVER 0.37 Con. Use 0.55 to Fishing Crk
BASIN ADD OXFORD MMAD ADD HENDERSON MMAD 0.59 WW 0.60 to Fishing Crk
ADD Granville Co.MMAD 2.68 Tar IBT 3.38 5.48 Tar IBT 7.331.10 Demands 1.39 0.80 Neuse IBT 1.01 0.39 Neuse IBT 0.76 0.15 Sale 0.18 to Norlina1.10 Sum Below 1.39 1.58 Service Area 1.99 3.54 Service Area 4.46 0.32 Sale 0.39 to Warrenton3.49 Total 4.40 to Tar & Neuse 8.63 Total 10.92 ADD Norlina MMAD0.55 Con. Use 0.69 to Tar 0.07 Con. Use 1.00 to Tar 0.38 Con. Use 0.66 to Roanoke 0.15 Demands 0.180.55 WW 0.69 to Tar 1.51 WW 1.00 to Tar 0.89 Con. Use 1.55 to Tar 0.15 Sum Below 0.180.80 Sale 1.01 to SGWSA 2.26 WW 2.02 to Roanoke 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Roanoke
NEUSE 0.01 Sale 0.02 to Stovall 0.06 Sale 0.07 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Fishing Crk
RIVER 1.10 Sale 1.39 to Granville Co.4.80 Sale 6.32 to Franklin Co.0.07 WW 0.07 to Fishing Crk
BASIN 0.23 Sale 0.30 to Vance Co.
TAR ADD Vance Co MMAD
ADD SGWSA MMAD RIVER 0.23 Demands 0.30 ADD Warrenton MMAD
0.78 Service Area 0.98 BASIN 0.23 Sum Below 0.30 0.32 Demands 0.39 FISHING CREEK
0.80 Total 1.01 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Roanoke 0.32 Sum Below 0.39 (SUBBASIN TO TAR)
0.04 Con. Use 0.49 to Neuse ADD Kittrell MMAD 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Tar 0.16 Con. Use 0.23 to Fishing Crk0.74 WW 0.49 to Neuse 0.06 Demands 0.07 0.00 WW 0.00 0.16 WW 0.16 to Fishing Crk0.02 Sale 0.03 to Wilton 0.06 Sum Below 0.07
FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.06 Con. Use 0.07 to Tar TAR WARREN COUNTY
ADD Wilton MMAD 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar RIVER
0.02 Demands 0.03 ADD Franklin Co.MMAD BASIN
0.02 Sum Below 0.03 NEUSE 4.05 Service Area 5.10
0.02 Con. Use 0.03 to Neuse RIVER 4.80 Total 6.32 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS
0.00 WW 0.00 to Neuse BASIN 2.19 Con. Use 2.76 to Tar ADD Bunn MMAD ADD MMAD
0.39 Con. Use 0.76 to Neuse 0.32 Demands 0.40 Withdrawal ROANOKE 13.77 17.401.47 WW 1.85 to Tar 0.32 Sum Below 0.40 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.77 1.210.32 Sale 0.40 to Bunn 0.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Tar TAR 4.26 6.760.43 Sale 0.55 to Lake Royale 0.31 WW 0.39 to Tar FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.56 0.84
NEUSE 0.45 1.28
Wastewater Discharge ROANOKE 2.26 2.02
TAR 3.85 3.94ADDLake Royale MMAD FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.83 0.840.43 Demands 0.55 NEUSE 0.74 0.49Louisburg0.43 Sum Below 0.55 Total Return to ROANOKE 3.03 3.23Contract0.43 Con. Use 0.54 to Tar IBT TAR 8.10 10.700.67 From Tar 0.01 WW 0.01 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 1.39 1.68
IBT NEUSE 1.19 1.77
Total IBT 10.68 14.16check 14.16NOTES:1 MMAD values were determined using a 1.260 Demand Factor, based on 2007-2013 water production data.2 Water from Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non-KLRWS water.3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin, as noted in LWSPs.4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 3 LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS
KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ADD AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND
SUMMARY OF INTERBASIN TRANSFERS KERR LAKE PARTNERS Con.CONSUMPTIVE USE
YEAR 2060 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFERKLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
GRANVILLE COUNTY ADD KLRWS MMAD MMAD MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAY
ROANOKE 9.84 Tar IBT 12.84 WW WASTEWATER
RIVER ADD Stovall MMAD 1.74 Fishing Cr IBT 1.85
BASIN 0.01 Demands 0.02 1.37 Neuse IBT 1.720.01 Total 0.02 Demand Factor 1.260.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Roanoke 15.93 Withdrawal 20.07 from Roanoke0.01 WW 0.01 to Roanoke 15.93 Check 20.07 ADD WARREN CO MMAD to Fishing Crk
0.19 Process Water 0.23 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.74 Fishing Cr IBT 1.85
RIVER 1.36 Service Area 1.72
TAR BASIN 1.82 Total 2.30
RIVER ADD OXFORD MMAD 0.26 Con. Use 0.39 to Roanoke
BASIN 3.24 Tar IBT 4.08 ADD HENDERSON MMAD 0.42 Con. Use 0.63 to Fishing Crk
ADD Granville Co.MMAD 0.87 Neuse IBT 1.10 6.60 Tar IBT 8.76 0.68 WW 0.69 to Fishing Crk1.50 Demands 1.89 1.74 Service Area 2.19 0.49 Neuse IBT 0.621.50 Total 1.89 4.13 Total 5.20 3.70 Service Area 4.66 0.15 Sale 0.18 to Norlina0.08 Con. Use 0.10 to Tar 9.97 Total 12.57 0.32 Sale 0.40 to Warrenton ADD Norlina MMAD0.75 Con Loss 0.94 to Tar 1.66 WW 2.09 to Tar 0.40 Con. Use 0.69 to Roanoke 0.15 Demands 0.180.75 WW 0.94 to Tar 0.87 Sale 1.10 to SGWSA 0.93 Con. Use 1.62 to Tar 0.15 Total 0.180.01 Sale 0.02 to Stovall 2.36 WW 2.11 to Roanoke 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Roanoke
NEUSE 1.50 Sale 1.89 to Granville Co.0.06 Sale 0.07 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Fishing Crk
RIVER 5.98 Sale 7.53 to Franklin Co.0.07 WW 0.07 to Fishing Crk
BASIN 0.24 Sale 0.30 to Vance Co.
TAR ADD Vance Co MMAD
ADD SGWSA MMAD RIVER 0.24 Demands 0.30 ADD Warrenton MMAD
0.85 Service Area 1.08 BASIN 0.24 Total 0.30 0.32 Demands 0.40 FISHING CREEK
0.87 Total 1.10 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Roanoke 0.32 Total 0.40 (SUBBASIN TO TAR)
0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Neuse ADD Kittrell MMAD 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Tar 0.19 Con. Use 0.24 to Fishing Crk
0.81 WW 1.02 to Neuse 0.06 Demands 0.07 0.00 WW 0.00 to Roanoke 0.13 WW 0.16 to Fishing Crk0.02 Sales 0.03 to Neuse 0.06 Total 0.07
FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.06 Con. Use 0.07 to Tar TAR WARREN COUNTY
ADD Wilton MMAD 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar RIVER
0.02 Demands 0.03 ADD Franklin Co.MMAD BASIN
0.02 Total 0.03 NEUSE 5.15 Service Area 6.48
0.02 Con. Use 0.03 to Neuse RIVER 5.98 Total 7.53 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS
0.00 WW 0.00 to Neuse BASIN 2.78 Con. Use 3.51 to Tar ADD Bunn MMAD ADD MMAD
0.49 Con. Use 0.62 to Neuse 0.40 Demands 0.51 Withdrawal ROANOKE 15.93 20.07
1.87 WW 2.36 to Tar 0.40 Total 0.51 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.56 0.910.40 Sale 0.51 to Bunn 0.01 Con. Use 0.02 to Tar TAR 5.16 6.950.43 Sale 0.55 to Lake Royale 0.39 WW 0.49 to Tar FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.65 0.93
NEUSE 0.55 0.70
WW Discharge ROANOKE 2.36 2.11
TAR 4.68 5.90ADDLake Royale MMAD FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.88 0.930.43 Demands 0.55 NEUSE 0.81 1.02Louisburg0.43 Total 0.55 Total Return to ROANOKE 2.93 3.02Contract0.43 Con. Use 0.54 to Tar IBT TAR 9.84 12.840.67 From Tar 0.01 WW 0.01 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 1.53 1.85
IBT NEUSE 1.37 1.72
Total IBT 12.73 16.42check16.42NOTES:1 MMAD values were determined using a 1.260 Demand Factor, based on 2007-2013 water production data.2 Water from Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non-KLRWS water.3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin, as noted in LWSPs.4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SECTION 3
3-1
Project Alternatives
The general categories of alternatives to IBT include managing water demand, identifying water supplies in
the receiving basins, and returning water to the source basin. Demand management tools include water
conservation programs, especially during times of drought, and water reuse programs. These concepts have
been considered with each of the alternatives for water sources presented below. The Partners desire to
minimize environmental impacts while meeting their water supply needs; in addition, selecting alternatives
that have lower environmental impacts meets the requirements of federal and state environmental
legislation. While water conservation programs can reduce the IBT, they likely cannot eliminate the need for
an IBT. KLRWS supplies little irrigation water, as evidenced by their relatively low peak day to average day
ratio (peaking factor) of 1.3 (compared with many systems that have peaking factors of 1.5 and above).
Most water is used for indoor purposes and, while conservation helps reduce demand, these reductions are
typically modest. In addition, growth would still occur and water use will increase. New water service will
also be extended to existing residents currently on well water, such as with the Vance County Water System.
Conservation and reuse would extend the life of the water supply but would not eliminate the need for an
IBT. The projected transfers would increase at a slower rate than under current conservation and reuse
policies.
This section evaluates the no action alternative, the proposed project including IBT, new water supply
sources, and returning wastewater to the Roanoke River basin. These alternatives were selected to meet the
requirements of the IBT rules (NCGS 143-215.22L) and to address comments received during the scoping
process. These alternatives are evaluated in this section for their ability to meet the KLRWS demands, as
described in Section 1, through the planning window of 2045, their need for additional infrastructure,
environmental considerations, and planning level costs.
Alternatives described in this section were screened, based on the following criteria, to determine whether
they should be evaluated in greater detail in Section 5:
Ability to meet 2045 water supply needs – alternatives which do not meet these water supply needs
were eliminated from further consideration, as they do not meet the project purpose and need.
Environmental considerations – alternatives which were likely to have a significant impact on
environmental resources in comparison with other alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration. Water resources impacts are of particular focus and could include impacts to water
supply in the Roanoke River basin, impacts to aquatic resources in the source and receiving basins, and
impacts to hydropower generation in the Roanoke River basin.
Cost considerations – the no action alternative and IBT alternatives have essentially no costs since little
or no new infrastructure is proposed. The proposed WTP expansion will be constructed regardless of the
selected alternative, although sizing may be revisited if the no action alternative were to move forward.
Costs for the WTP expansion are accounted for in the Partners’ rate model and budget. Costs are
therefore compared among the other alternatives. Alternatives that have costs significantly higher than
other alternatives to the proposed project would be eliminated. These alternatives would not meet the
KLRWS purpose of being fiscally responsible to their customers. Existing infrastructure would remain for
all alternatives; thus operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to maintain existing infrastructure would
be identical under all alternatives.
3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
No action. Under this alternative, KLRWS would continue to provide water to customers in Warren, Vance,
Franklin, and Granville Counties. However, no increase in IBT would be requested; KLRWS would not exceed
the grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd to the Tar and Fishing Creek River basins, however a request would be
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-2
made to update the certificate to reflect the average day of a calendar month compliance measure that was
incorporated in statute through Session Law 2013-388. This alternative would preclude KLRWS from
providing additional reliable water service at reasonable cost to its Partners and the public water systems
that have contracts with the Partners. This alternative is deficient because it would limit the ability of KLRWS
to meet future peak day demands and would provide KLRWS with no resilience to drought. In addition,
planned connections to users who currently have individual wells would not occur. Some homeowners have
had to construct new wells to obtain water during recent droughts. These wells are not monitored
continuously and may be more prone to drought or contamination than a regional supply. Also, some
residents have noted that their groundwater wells produce water with odors and discoloration that stains
appliances, bath fixtures, and light-colored clothing. This alternative would not meet the project purpose
and need; instead, water demands could only be met until approximately 2015.
USACE has allocated the storage equivalent of 20 mgd of average day demand (ADD) to KLRWS. USACE has
not approved an IBT, as that is outside its authority; the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) is responsible for approving IBTs. The USACE allocation of storage would continue under
this alternative.
This alternative would result in essentially no new infrastructure or connections. Thus, direct environmental
impacts and impacts to hydropower and lake levels from this alternative would be insignificant. However,
new wells would be constructed to meet the needs of residents, as the need for water would remain. As
indicated above, this alternative would not meet the project purpose and need.
3.2 Alternative 2 – Increase IBT to Meet Needs of Customers
This alternative would result in an increased IBT to the Tar, Fishing Creek, and Neuse River basins. This
alternative would continue to build on the regional partnerships that have formed in the area for providing
water service and both current and future customers are included, as requested during the scoping process.
This alternative would also build upon existing approvals: USACE has approved an increased water supply
storage allocation for KLRWS to an ADD of 20 mgd, and an EA has been completed to expand the WTP to 20
mgd.
Under this alternative, KLRWS would continue to be a regional provider of water and would serve its
customers in Granville, Franklin, Vance, and Warren Counties. This would involve expanding the WTP to 20
mgd initially and meeting all contracted and future demands of the system within the planning period. To
distribute water to the expanded system, the KLRWS would need an increase in its authorized IBT on a
maximum month basis from the Roanoke River basin (Kerr Lake) to the Tar River of 10.7 mgd, of 1.7 mgd to
the Fishing Creek basin and 1.8 mgd to the Neuse River basin.
Essentially no new infrastructure would be built as part of this alternative. Major transmission mains are in
place. Smaller distribution lines could be built within a given public water system’s service area to meet their
needs, but the proposed project is not dependent on them. These smaller lines would be subject to a
separate permitting process led by the public water system, and their impact would be evaluated in a
separate environmental document if they exceeded minimum thresholds defined in the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) regulations. Since this alternative would not
include construction, environmental impacts to most resources would be minimal. There is potential for
impacts to water resources as a result of moving water from one basin to another basin. These impacts
could include water supply, lake level, and hydropower impacts in the Roanoke River basin, which are
considered in Section 5. USACE previously evaluated the impacts of the storage reallocation (2005);
regardless of where the water is used, the cost of that reallocation on hydropower would be approximately
$3,455,000 (2005 dollars). The KLRWS is currently compensating the USACE annually for the lost
hydropower.
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-3
3.3 Alternative 3 – Avoid Additional IBT by Finding Alternative Surface Water Sources
Under this alternative, the IBT would not be increased from current authorized levels and alternative water
sources in the Tar River basin would be found. A potential new intake location was identified near the Town
of Louisburg’s water supply intake on the Tar River. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station (station
number 02081747) is located at US Highway 401, and the period of record extends from October 1973 to
August 2010, which provides data for analyses. In addition, the Town of Louisburg is in the central part of
Franklin County, where a large portion of the projected water demand will occur. Since Franklin County
includes the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins, the analysis was completed on the 2045 maximum month
IBT of 12.4 mgd for both basins (1.8 mgd would be transferred to the Neuse River).The equivalent ADD is 9.3
mgd. It is assumed that the IBT to the Fishing Creek basin would be served as part of the grandfathered IBT
amount and is not included in this alternative.
Water supply planning is typically completed on an ADD basis, so the remaining authorized IBT amount
available for use in the Tar and Neuse River basins is 6.3 mgd. Given the ADD within these basins is 9.3 mgd
ADD, an additional supply of 3.0 mgd would be necessary to meet 2045 demands. . There would be some
loss of water between withdrawal and the completion of the treatment process; the industry standard is a
ratio of 1.1, which results in a raw water demand of 3.3 mgd on an ADD basis.
This alternative has been divided into three sub-alternatives:
Alternative 3a – Avoid IBT by using a surface water withdrawal from the Tar River basin
Alternative 3b – Avoid IBT by constructing a new water supply reservoir on the Tar River
Alternative 3c – Avoid IBT by using a surface water withdrawal and offline storage in the Tar River
basin
Each of these sub-alternatives is described in further detail below.
Alternative 3a: Avoid Additional IBT by using a surface water withdrawal from the Tar River Basin
This alternative would eliminate the need for an increased IBT between the Roanoke and Tar River basins. A
new WTP or additional infrastructure and an expansion of an existing WTP would be necessary.
One potential water source is Lake Devin, which historically had been the City of Oxford’s water source. Lake
Devin lies on Hatchers Run at a point which drains 1.55 square miles. The City historically pumped water
from the Tar River to Lake Devin to meet its water supply needs. After discontinuing use, the clearwell at the
offline WTP was used for wastewater storage, and mercury remains in the Simplex gases at the plant. Thus it
is not feasible to re-establish the WTP. Oxford did investigate building a package WTP with a raw water
withdrawal from Lake Devin, but the study indicated that it would be more cost-effective to continue with
the KLRWS to meet its water supply needs (USACE, 2005). USGS has estimated that the 20-year safe yield
from Lake Devin is approximately 2 mgd (Yonts, personal communication, 2010). This water supply source
would not result in adequate water to meet the long-term needs. Thus it does not meet the project purpose
and need and has been eliminated from further consideration.
Another potential water source is the main stem of the Tar River. The Town of Louisburg could expand its
water supply intake to meet the needs of KLRWS’s Franklin County customers or a parallel intake could be
constructed. In 1995, the NCDWR completed an instream flow study in the Tar River to evaluate the impacts
of the Town of Louisburg increasing its withdrawal from the Tar River to 3 mgd. Based on the analysis,
agencies requested that an instream flow between 9.0 and 11.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) be maintained at
the stream gage on the Tar River at US Highway 401 for habitat purposes (NCDWR, 2004). A review of USGS
data from January 1, 2000 through December 29, 2009 indicates that flows occasionally fall below those
target levels during summer months. The following ADFs were observed (USGS, 2009a):
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-4
August 2008--6.3 cfs
October 2007--2.7 cfs
September 2007-- 2.2 cfs
August 2007--6.0 cfs
October 2005--6.5 cfs
September 2005--6.0 cfs
August 2002--2.1 cfs
June 2002--5.9 cfs
During each of these periods, flows below the target flows existed for several days. Given the low flows at
the gage, it appears the Tar River is not a viable source to meet long-term water supply needs as a run-of-
the-river source.
In addition, the Town of Louisburg’s water supply plan indicates that the Tar River at this location has a 20-
year safe yield of 3 mgd. When the 2 mgd safe yield of Lake Devin is added into consideration, the total 5-
mgd safe yield of these two sources meets the 2045 ADD of 3.3 mgd estimated above. However
infrastructure would be required to resume use of Lake Devin.
To further evaluate the potential use of the Tar River, a spreadsheet model was developed to evaluate how
often the projected flow needs would be met by that source. It was assumed that 11.5 cfs (7.4 mgd) should
be maintained at the USGS flow gage based on NCDWR’s 1995 instream flow study. As illustrated in Figure
3-1, for 2 percent of the estimated period of record, no withdrawals would be allowed in efforts to meet the
recommended instream passing flow of 11.5 cfs. Thus, using the Tar River as a water supply source would
not meet the project purpose and need and has been eliminated from further consideration. Given this
would not meet the necessary safe yield, adding storage was considered as discussed in alternatives 3b and
3c.
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-5
FIGURE 3-1
Percent of Period of Record USGS Tar River Gage Data Exceeding Critical Flow Values
Alternative 3b – Avoid IBT by constructing a new water supply reservoir on the Tar River. A new reservoir
could be built in the upper reaches of the Tar River in Granville County. Building a new reservoir typically has
greater environmental impact than other alternatives. A new reservoir would modify the flow regime in the
river, would impact many acres of wetlands, and would modify instream habitat. Within the reservoir
footprint, and potentially downstream, the flow regime would be altered directly, potentially causing a
change in species composition of the aquatic community. This has the potential to significantly impact
aquatic species such as the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel and dwarf wedgemussel. More
information related to environmental conditions in the Tar River is included in Section 4. Because of the
environmental impacts associated with building a new reservoir and the potential for a limited safe yield,
this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
An impoundment and associated pumping and conveyance infrastructure could be constructed in Franklin
County on the Tar River to meet County demands. A new supply of approximately 3.3 mgd on an ADD basis
would be needed to serve the Tar and Neuse River basins. In order to meet future needs and comply with
the instream flow requirement of 11.5 cfs in the Tar River at Louisburg, approximately 980 acre-feet of
storage would be required. Assuming an average depth of 6 feet, a depth similar to the average depth of
Lake Devin in Oxford and Tar River Reservoir in Rocky Mount, results in a reservoir that is approximately 160
acres which would likely result in significant impacts to aquatic habitat and federally listed species. This
alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 3c: Avoid IBT by using a water withdrawal with offline storage in the Tar River Basin. An offline
reservoir which uses the Tar River as a water supply source could be used. During low flow conditions as
illustrated under Alternative 3a, water could not be withdrawn based on the instream flow targets
established by the NC DWR based on the 1995 instream flow study. The use of offline storage was
considered to determine if the Tar River plus offline storage would meet the 2045 water supply needs of
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Ri
v
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
m
g
d
)
Percent Exceedance
98%
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-6
KLRWS. The benefits of offline storage include the ability to withdraw flows at greater rates when water
levels are high and to rely on the storage volume to manage peak demands and extended periods of low
river flow. Two scenarios were evaluated: (1) yearlong withdrawal with offline storage and (2) seasonal
withdrawal with offline storage. Both scenarios were included, as resource agencies may wish to avoid a
summer withdrawal in order to protect baseflows and endangered mussel populations in the Tar River
watershed. Table 3-1 shows the storage volume and pumping rates needed to meet demands under both
seasonal and yearlong withdrawal scenarios.
TABLE 3-1
Pumping Rate and Withdrawal Scenarios
Withdrawal Scenario Max Storage Scenarios (MG)
2,000 2,500 3,000 3,250 3,500
Max Pumping
Rate (mgd)
1 Seasonal Withdrawal NF a NF a 34.0 31.5 29.0
2 Yearlong Withdrawal 13.5 13.5 13.0 13.0 13.0
a NF indicates that the scenario is not feasible for meeting 2045 KLRWS projected demands in the Tar and Neuse River basins
MG = million gallons
As seen in Table 3-1, a seasonal withdrawal would require more storage capacity and higher pumping rates
than a yearlong withdrawal. Both yearlong and seasonal withdrawal scenario volumes are driven by the
need to meet demand during extremely low flow periods such as the 2002 drought. Also, it can be assumed
based on the results in Table 3-1 that the cost of an increased pumping rate would likely be justified by
savings in storage size. Using the seasonal withdrawal scenario, therefore, 3.0 billion gallons of storage with
a 34 mgd pumping rate could be necessary to avoid an additional IBT in 2045 in the Tar and Neuse River
basins. The scenario assumes an intake downstream of Louisburg, no withdrawal from April to September,
and storage that is initially full while still meeting minimal passing flow recommendations in the Tar River.
The results in Table 3-1 represent theoretical scenarios; however, cost and availability of sites to build the
storage remain significant limitations. Offline storage options include damming a tributary to the Tar River,
using aboveground storage tanks, or filling abandoned quarries. Damming tributaries to the Tar River would
require approximately 2,600 acre-feet of usable water supply storage covering approximately 4200 acres
assuming an average depth of 6 feet. This depth is similar to the average depth of Lake Devin in Oxford and
Tar River Reservoir in Rocky Mount. The total storage requirement could be accomplished cumulatively in
more than one tributary drainage area.
A dead storage allowance, or unusable supply storage volume due to sedimentation, is not included in these
calculations. If 15 percent dead storage was included, or what is included for the Tar River Reservoir, 2,990
acre-feet of useable water supply storage would be required. In addition, a WTP would be required to treat
water from these impoundments. Damming tributaries would likely have impacts on aquatic habitat in the
tributaries, and a smaller impact on aquatic habitat in the Tar River. This alternative will be evaluated in
greater detail in this EA.
Aboveground tanks would be costly. The cost to develop storage ranges from $0.50 to $1.00 per gallon
depending on the cost of land. Even if the resource agencies were to allow yearlong withdrawals, the cost of
aboveground storage would be significant. Other alternatives have costs which are two orders of magnitude
lower (see Alternative 5); thus this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
A quarry could be a feasible option. There are four quarries registered with the NCDENR Land Resources
Division, three of which are used to mine sand, and as such would not likely have sufficient storage capacity.
Sand quarries tend to be smaller, and do not have the required geology to promote water storage. Bedrock
geology would be needed to store the water; stored water would seep through the sand. Thus, these three
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-7
quarries are not feasible. A crushed stone quarry was originally issued a permit in 2005, and would likely still
be in use in 2045. However, even if it were not being used in 2045, it would be in use when water demands
would require an increase in the grandfathered IBT. Finally, quarries are privately owned, and their
availability for future use is not guaranteed. There are no known quarries which provide a feasible storage
option, and this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
3.4 Alternative 4 – Avoid Additional IBT by Finding Alternative Groundwater Sources
Under this alternative, a groundwater source would be used to supply water to meet future needs in the Tar
and Neuse River basins. The current grandfathered IBT would be used to meet needs in the Fishing Creek
watershed. As evaluated with Alternative 3, this would be the equivalent of approximately 3.0 mgd on an
ADD basis. This alternative would avoid any additional IBT. There would also be no additional impact on
hydropower. There would be some environmental impacts around any proposed well field, and there could
be impacts to groundwater resources in the area. USACE evaluated this alternative when reviewing the
request for additional allocation from Kerr Lake to the KLRWS. USACE (2005) found that well yields in the
region are low; the maximum yield is 100 gallons per minute (gpm), which is the equivalent of 0.144 mgd,
and the best producing well that the Town of Bunn operated had a capacity of 40 gpm. Based on the
maximum yield of 100 gpm, KLRWS would need to install 21 wells to meet the 2045 ADD and 24 wells to
meet the MDD; this assumes that the grandfathered 10-mgd IBT would continue. Since well yields would
likely not be at the maximum levels, more wells would likely be required to meet 2045 demands. The USACE
report also indicates that Warren County wells showed yields similar to those in Bunn. The USACE concluded
that expected well yields would not produce an adequate supply of water to meet future needs.
The USACE report is supported by reports by other agencies. Huffman (1996) reports that average well
yields in the Piedmont Province are 18 to 21 gpm. USGS also reports that well yields in crystalline rocks in
North Carolina, which are present throughout the study area, are 18 gpm (Trapp and Horn et al., 1997).
In addition to problems with well yield, Vance County has indicated that many of its residents have
complained about odor and discoloration issues with their private wells. This impacts the taste and stains
bath fixtures, appliances, and light-colored clothing. While the individual homeowner or KLRWS could
provide groundwater treatment to address this issue, the supply is likely inadequate to meet the project
purpose and need, may not provide adequate water quality for customers, and was eliminated from further
consideration.
3.5 Alternative 5 – Minimize IBT by Discharging to Roanoke River Basin
This alternative could be accomplished by either (1) returning raw wastewater to the Roanoke River basin
for treatment at the City of Henderson’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and discharge to the Nutbush
Creek arm of Kerr Lake, or (2) returning treated effluent to the Roanoke River basin. Returning treated
effluent has the following advantages:
- Uses existing wastewater treatment infrastructure in the Tar, Fishing Creek and Neuse River
basins
- Provides opportunities for reuse of the treated effluent as it is being conveyed back to the
Roanoke River basin
- Poses less risk, as treated effluent would be transferred, which would have fewer potential
environmental impacts from spills than a spill of untreated wastewater
Given the advantages of returning treated effluent to the source basin, this alternative is reviewed further in
this section, and the return of untreated wastewater was eliminated from further consideration.
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-8
Minimize IBT by discharging treated effluent to the source basin, the Roanoke River Basin. This alternative
would require the construction of new wastewater effluent force mains and pump stations to convey
treated wastewater from one or more of the WWTPs in the service area that discharge to the Tar River,
Neuse River (once sales begin to SGWSA) or Fishing Creek basins. The City of Henderson currently discharges
back to the Roanoke River basin. As shown in Figure 3-1, the City of Oxford discharges to Fishing Creek
within the Tar River basin, the Town of Bunn discharges to Crooked Creek in the Tar River basin, Franklin
County discharges to Cedar Creek in the Tar River basin, and the Lake Royale Subdivision discharges to
Cypress Creek in the Tar River basin. Warrenton discharges to Fishing Creek. SGWSA discharges into Knapp
of Reed Creek in the Neuse River basin. Consumptive use in these basins would still occur, so the need for
additional IBT could be reduced but not avoided.
Preliminary pipeline routes were identified for returning the Town of Oxford’s, Franklin County’s, and the
Town of Warrenton’s wastewater to the Roanoke River basin. It was assumed that the Town of Oxford and
Franklin County would discharge to the Nutbush Creek arm of Kerr Lake, near the City of Henderson’s
discharge point. It was also assumed that the Town of Warrenton would discharge to a tributary to Lake
Gaston. Pumping would be required to transfer wastewater back over the basin boundaries. Costs of this
infrastructure and associated operational and maintenance costs would be significant.
This alternative could also include opportunities for reuse. If treated wastewater were pumped back to the
Roanoke River basin (source basin), opportunities would be available along the transmission line routes for
reuse of the treated effluent. This could also reduce potable demand for water.
There would be direct environmental impacts associated with this alternative because new infrastructure
would be built to convey the treated effluent back to the Roanoke River basin. This could impact water
resources and hydropower within the Roanoke River basin, but these impacts would be less than the
proposed IBT because some reclaimed water would be returned to the basin so that the overall loss of water
from the basin would be reduced.
This alternative would not eliminate IBT due to the large amounts of consumptive use in the receiving
basins. There are also water users who discharge wastewater (through onsite wastewater systems) that is
not treated at a centralized WWTP or returned directly to surface water. In 2045, the estimated
consumptive use in the Tar River basin would be 6.8 mgd, 0.7 mgd in the Neuse River basin, and 0.8 in the
Fishing Creek basin out of a total IBT request of approximately 14.2 mgd. Thus, approximately 8.3 mgd could
be returned to the Roanoke River under this alternative, but there would remain an IBT of approximately 3.9
mgd. This alternative would minimize the IBT and likely keep it under the grandfathered IBT amount. It
would meet water demands, require construction of new transmission lines back to the Roanoke River
basin, and continue to promote the partnerships created by the local governments. While this project meets
the purpose and need, significant infrastructure costs would be necessary and direct environmental impacts
would occur with construction.
3.6 Alternative 6 – Use Coastal Water as a Source
In this alternative, either coastal surface water or groundwater would be used as a source. As described
under Alternative 3, 7.4 mgd would need to be provided on a maximum month average day (MMAD) basis
beyond the grandfathered IBT. This alternative has been divided into two subalternatives:
Alternative 6a – Avoid an increase in IBT by using coastal water as source water through desalination
technology.
Alternative 6b – Avoid an increase in IBT by using groundwater from the coastal area.
Estuarine water would need to come from the Pamlico Sound to avoid an IBT and meet the purpose of this
alternative. Using estuary water would require desalination which is evaluated further in this section.
Groundwater could also be supplied from the coast; groundwater is not regulated as an IBT and is therefore
considered an alternative avoiding IBT. Each of these alternatives is evaluated below.
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-9
Alternative 6a: Avoid IBT by Using Coastal Water as Source Water through Desalination Technology. Using
Albemarle Sound water to supply areas in the Tar River, Fishing Creek, and Neuse River basins would still be
an IBT of water; thus, using Pamlico Sound water was also evaluated. The sounds have varying salinity levels,
depending on location, freshwater inflow, and tidal influence. Water would need to undergo a desalination
treatment process before it could be used as a drinking water source. In general, it is better to site the plant
near the water source, which would not allow use of the current treatment facility. One reason for this is
that the wastewater from the treatment process needs to be discharged, and there would be problems in
permitting a brackish discharge near Kerr Lake. Technologists who have worked on desalination plants
indicated that approximately 60 percent of the water that would be withdrawn could be used, and
approximately 40 percent would need to be discharged as wastewater (Elarde, 2010). In addition, there
would need to be a pretreatment facility prior to the WTP. A rule of thumb is that these pretreatment
facilities would be approximately twice the size of the WTP. Water would also need to be pumped up to the
WTP, requiring a significant amount of energy. Pumping saline water long distance would also pose O&M
issues for conveyance and pumping infrastructure, since saline waters are highly corrosive.
This additional infrastructure would result in significant increased cost to ratepayers. In addition to high
costs, using coastal estuary water would have significant direct environmental impacts. Transmission
infrastructure would need to be built from the coast to the KLRWS service area, resulting in land use,
wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial resource, and many other impacts because of the distance from the service
area. In addition, energy-intensive pumping of the water back would result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions than the proposed project. A new WTP would also be required, along with desalination
technology. This alternative would not impact water supply or hydropower use in the Roanoke River basin,
but it would require a new wastewater discharge to the estuary. Using coastal estuary water does not meet
the purpose and need and has potential significant direct environmental impacts. It was therefore
eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 6b: Avoid IBT by Using Groundwater from the Coastal Area. To address public comments
indicating that alternative coastal water sources should be evaluated, using water from the PCS Phosphate
Mine in Aurora, North Carolina was also evaluated. PCS Phosphate uses multiple wells to relieve artesian
pressure on the mining floor. Thus, they produce a large quantity of groundwater that could be used as a
drinking water supply. Eagle Water Company has contracted with PCS Phosphate for 58 mgd of water that it
could sell. Their website includes potential pipeline routes to the Triangle Area, so it is feasible that lines
could be constructed to the KLRWS service area.
The transmission infrastructure would result in impacts to land use, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial
resource, and many other impacts because of the distance of the required pipeline route. This alternative
would result in higher GHG emissions associated with pumping the water. There would be no impacts on
water supply or hydropower in the Roanoke River basin.
Costs related to this alternative include transmission mains, pump stations, and costs associated with
obtaining access to the water from the mine.
These costs are an order of magnitude higher than the costs to pump wastewater back to the Roanoke River
basin. Thus, they do not meet the KLRWS goal to provide cost-effective water to its users. In addition, the
water supply source may not be viable once mining is discontinued. The KLRWS would not have control over
the mining operation or schedule for operation. Thus this alternative does not meet the purpose and need
and has been eliminated from further consideration.
3.7 Summary of Alternatives
Table 3-2 summarizes each of the project alternatives. Note that the planned WTP expansion is necessary
regardless of the selected alternative and therefore is not accounted for in the assessment of new
infrastructure requirements.
SECTION 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3-10
Based on the analyses above, Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative. The rationale for this
selection instead of other technically feasible but more costly options can be summarized as follows:
- Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative – While this alternative does not meet the project purpose
and need, it is a requirement of the North Carolina SEPA to review this alternative in the EIS.
- Alternative 2 – Increase IBT – This option meets the stated purpose and need and is evaluated in
this EA.
- Alternative 3c – Minimize IBT by finding an alternative water supply source with offline storage
in the Tar-Pamlico River basin. This alternative meets the purpose and need, but would result in
higher wetland and stream impacts compared to the proposed project; this alternative could
impact federally listed species in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
- Alternative 5 – Minimize IBT by discharging treated wastewater back to the Roanoke River basin.
This alternative would meet the stated purpose and need and would provide opportunities for
reclaimed water. This alternative would require more piping infrastructure than the proposed
project, and thus may have greater wetland and stream impacts.
The other alternatives do not meet the screening criteria established at the beginning of this section. They
either did not meet 2045 water supply needs, had much higher environmental impacts than other
alternatives, had costs that were significantly higher than other alternatives to the proposed project, or
some combination of the above.
3-11
TABLE 3-2
Summary of Alternatives
Alternative
Meets
Purpose
and Need?
Increase
Allocation from
Kerr Lake?
Requires New
Infrastructure
? Potential Environmental Impacts
Anticipated Cost
Relative to the Preferred
Option (Alternative 2)
1. No Action No No No No direct environmental impacts; growth would still occur Lower
2. Increase IBT to Meet Needs of
KLRWS
Yes No No Potential impacts to water resources in Roanoke River basin
(water supply, lake levels, hydropower)
N/A
3a. Avoid additional IBT by using
a surface water withdrawal from
the Tar River basin
No No Yes Flow regime and aquatic impacts (habitat and species) on Tar
River
Not evaluated since
adequate water would
not be provided under
this alternative
3b. Avoid additional IBT by
constructing a new water supply
reservoir on the Tar River
No No Yes Significant environmental impacts likely in Tar basin from habitat
alteration and flow regime alternation associated with new
impoundment; aquatic wildlife impacts ; reduced potential for
impacts in Roanoke River basin compared to proposed project
Higher
3c. Avoid additional IBT by using
a water withdrawal with offline
storage in the Tar River basin
Yes No Yes Flow regime impacts on Tar River: potential land use and wetland
impacts from offline storage; reduced potential for impacts in
Roanoke River basin compared to proposed project
Much Higher
4. Avoid additional IBT by using
groundwater
No No Yes New wellfields; potential impacts to slowly renewable
groundwater; reduced impacts to water supply, hydropower, and
lake level in Roanoke River basin compared to proposed project
Higher
5. Minimize IBT by discharging
wastewater to Roanoke River
basin
Yes No Yes Increased environmental impacts compared to proposed project
due to linear infrastructure required; ); increased GHG emissions
from pumping; reduced potential for impacts in Roanoke River
basin compared to proposed project
Higher, including
significant operations
and maintenance costs
6a. Avoid additional IBT by using
Pamlico Sound as source
No No Yes Higher level of environmental impacts due to linear
infrastructure; environmental issues with disposing brackish
water (from WTP); increased GHG emissions from pumping;
fewer impacts in Roanoke River basin compared to proposed
project
Much higher
6b. Avoid additional IBT by using
groundwater from coastal area
No No Yes Higher level of environmental impacts; increased GHG emissions
from pumping; fewer impacts in Roanoke River basin compared
to proposed project
Much higher
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SECTION 4
4-1
Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area
This section provides information on the current environmental characteristics of the project area.
The section is organized by topic:
4.1 – Water Resources
4.2 – Topography
4.3 – Soils
4.4 - Land Use and Land Cover
4.5 – Wetlands
4.6 – Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands
4.7 – Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
4.8 – Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value
4.9 – Air Quality
4.10 – Noise Level
4.11 - Forest Resources
4.12 – Shellfish or Fish and their Habitats
4.13 – Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
Quantitative evaluations for existing conditions were performed using ESRI ArcGIS software, NC One
Map data, and other references as noted. The study area includes the counties of Vance, Warren,
Granville, and Franklin; the county boundaries were used to quantify the existing conditions. The
environment within the Roanoke River basin upstream of the intake was also considered where
appropriate. Additionally, a 1-mile buffer along the Roanoke and Tar Rivers and along Fishing Creek
was included in the study area for resources which are water-dependent (water resources,
wetlands, floodplains [topography], recreational areas, and shellfish and fish) since the proposed IBT
could impact these resources over a larger area. Existing conditions are presented by topic as
outlined above, with the aquatic resources also presented at the river basin level, by source or
receiving basin. In general, water resources-related information is organized from upstream to
downstream, beginning in Virginia.
4.1 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
4.1.1 Surface Waters
Surface water quality standards consist of the designated use of water along with the numeric and
narrative criteria that have been set to protect that use. North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS 143-
214.1) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) serves as the basis for water quality standards and other
water quality programs. The overall goal of the CWA is to have all applicable waters fishable and
swimmable.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-2
4.1.1.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River Basin
General Overview and Water Quantity
The Roanoke River basin begins in Virginia and continues through North Carolina to Albemarle
Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin encompasses 6, 393
square miles (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality [VADEQ], 2014). The downstream North
Carolina portion consists of 3,493 square miles and 2,213 miles of streams and rivers (NCEE, 2013).
The Roanoke River basin includes seven major hydrologic units, which in turn include several
tributaries. Table 4-1 lists the seven major hydrologic units and related major tributaries.
TABLE 4-1
Roanoke River Basin Major Hydrologic Units
Subbasin Name USGS 8-Digit
Hydrologic Unit State Major Tributaries
Upper Roanoke 03010101 VA Black Creek, Goose Creek, Smith Mountain Lake,
Leesville Lake, Little Otter Creek
Banister 03010105 VA Cherrystone Creek, Banister River, Terrible Creek
Upper Dan 03010103 VA/NC Horse Pasture Creek, Leatherwood Creek,
Marrowbone Creek, Town Fork Creek, Snow Creek,
Wolf Island Creek, Big Beaver Island Creek, Belews
Lake, Mayo River, Smith River
Lower Dan 03010104 VA/NC Lawless Creek, Birch Creek, Dan River, County Line
Creek, Hyco Reservoir, Hogans Creek, Country Line
Creek, Hyco Creek, Marlowe Creek, Hyco River, Mayo
Reservoir
Middle Roanoke 03010102 VA/NC Roanoke Creek, Difficult Creek, Kerr Lake, Grassy
Creek, Island Creek, Nutbrush Creek
Roanoke Rapids 03010106 VA/NC Allen Creek, Lake Gaston, Smith Creek, Sixpound
Creek, Deep Creek, Roanoke Rapids Lake
Lower Roanoke 03010107 NC Cashie River, Roquist Creek, Conoho Creek, Hardison
Mill Creek, Quankey Creek, Conconnara Swamp,
Connaritsa Swamp, Kehukee Swamp
Source: VADEQ, 2014; North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR, 2011)
The Virginia State Water Control Board classifies all applicable waters to support aquatic life,
recreation, and fish and shellfish harvesting in accordance with the CWA. The criteria established to
protect these uses also protect industrial water supply, irrigation, and navigation uses. Additional or
more stringent criteria may be established to protect other uses such as public water supply.
Virginia’s water quality standards are found in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 25-260. The
Smith Mountain project (includes Smith Mountain and Leesville Lakes) is approved for public water
supply; Smith Mountain Lake is currently used as a public water supply in the Roanoke River Basin (9
VAC 25-260-450).
The State Water Control Board further classifies its waters as follows:
I. Open Ocean
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-3
II. Estuarine Waters (tidal water-coastal zone to fall line)
III. Nontidal waters (coastal and piedmont zones)
IV. Mountainous zone waters
V. Stockable Trout Waters
VI. Natural Trout Waters
VII. Swamp Waters
These classifications are assigned different criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and temperature.
For lakes in Classes III, IV, V, and VI, the DO standard applies only to the epilimnion of the water
body; if the waters are not stratified, the DO standard applies throughout the water column.
The State of Virginia has also established nutrient criteria for man-made lakes and reservoirs (9 VAC
25-260-187). Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville Lake, Kerr Lake, and Lake Gaston have all been
assigned a chlorophyll a criterion of 25 ug/L and a total phosphorus criterion of 30 ug/L (Kerr Lake
and Lake Gaston have waters in both Virginia and North Carolina). The total phosphorus criterion
applies only if the lake received algicide treatment during the monitoring period (April 1 through
October 31).
Downstream, NCDWR classifies all waters according to their uses. At a minimum, all waters are
classified to support aquatic life and for secondary recreation (Class C). Other uses may be added
such as drinking water supply (WS), primary recreation (B), and other supplemental uses. The WS
classification is further broken out by the amount of development in the watershed as follows:
Class WS-I: Waters protected as water supplies that are in natural and uninhabited drainage
basins, and by definition also classed as High Quality Waters (HQW)
Class WS-II: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in predominantly
undeveloped drainage basins, and by definition also classed as HQW
Class WS-III: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in low to moderately
developed drainage basins
Class WS-IV: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately to highly
developed drainage basins
Class WS-V: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally upstream of and draining to
Class WS-IV waters
NCDWR also identifies the extent of protected (PA) and critical areas (CA) for water supply
watersheds in which development directly affects a water supply intake.
The North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin contains water supply areas under the
classifications of WS-II, WS-III, and WS-IV. Table 4-2 identifies the water supply areas by
classification and user.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-4
TABLE 4-2
North Carolina Water Supply Classifications for the Roanoke River Basin
Stream Name Classification User
Unnamed Tributary to Dan River WS-II Camp Sertoma
Country Line Creek WS-II Town of Yanceyville
South Hyco Creek WS-II City of Roxboro
Storys Creek WS-II City of Roxboro
Anderson Creek WS-III KLRWS
Fullers Creek WS-III Town of Yanceyville
Belews Creek WS-IV Town of Kernersville
Dan River WS-IV Town of Madison and City of Eden
Mayo River WS-IV Town of Stoneville
Roanoke River WS-IV Roanoke Rapids
Smith River WS-IV City of Eden
Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA), 2014; NCDWR, 2013a
The KLRWS source water is the Anderson Creek arm of Kerr Reservoir, which is located at the
Virginia/North Carolina state line (Figure 1-1). The tributaries flowing directly into Kerr Reservoir
cover portions of Vance, Warren, and Granville Counties in North Carolina and Mecklenburg,
Charlotte, and Halifax Counties in Virginia. USACE owns and operates the reservoir for the purposes
of recreation, flood control, hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, and water supply,
controlling the release regime at the dam. It is a 2,785-ft long concrete gravity dam with a maximum
height of 134 ft. USACE attempts to maintain the water level of Kerr Reservoir at approximately 295
feet above mean sea level (msl). At this elevation, the reservoir has a surface area of about 48,900
acres (76.4 square miles). Since 1974, when the USACE changed their management rules to maintain
a level about 4.5 ft higher than the previous target of 291 ft, the reservoir’s elevation has only
dropped to the low of 291 ft above msl twice, both during the 2002 drought (USACE, 2014a).
Water Quality
303(d) Lists
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that states develop a list of waters not meeting water quality
standards or having impaired uses. Both Virginia and North Carolina must prioritize these water
bodies and prepare a management strategy or total maximum daily load (TMDL).
Table 4-3 identifies the percentage of impaired water size by water body type in the Roanoke River
and its major tributaries, summarized by impairment type, in Virginia; the 2012 list is shown. Further
details on the major impaired streams listed are shown in Table 4-5, however there are many other
tributaries that are impaired for the reasons listed in Table 4-3.
Table 4-4 shows the miles and acreages of impaired waters from the North Carolina 2012 list,
summarized by impairment type, within the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin. All
waters in North Carolina are in Category 5 on the 2012 303(d) List for mercury due to statewide fish
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-5
consumption advisories for several fish species. Further details on all of the listed waters in North
Carolina’s portion of the Roanoke River basin are shown in Table 4-6.
TABLE 4-3
2012 Impairments in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River and Major
Tributaries
Impairment Type Rivers (% of impaired water size) Lakes (% of impaired water size)
Bacteria 87
Benthics 18
Mercury in Fish Tissue 12 71
PCBs in Fish Tissue 12 93
Temperature 6
DO 3 54
DDD/DDE <1
DDT in Fish Tissue <1
Source: VADEQ, 2014
TABLE 4-4
Impairments in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
Impairment Type Stream (miles) Waterbody (acres)
Aquatic Weeds 4,185
Cadmium 18.3
Chlorophyll a 901.5
Copper 13.2
Dioxin 31.6
Ecological/Biological Integrity - Benthos 495.6
Ecological/Biological Integrity – Fish Community 344.4
Fecal Coliform (recreation) 212.0
High pH 4,185
High Water Temperature 6,371.4
Low DO 28.5
Turbidity 58.0 90.7
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life 53.7 25,027.2
Water Quality Standards Water Supply 14.2
Zinc 4.5
Source: NCDWR, 2013
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-6
TABLE 4-5
303(d) Listed Waters in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River, Dan River, and
Smith River
Cause
Group Code Waterbody Impairment Cause Miles/Acres
L03R-01-TEMP Roanoke River Temperature 13.08 Miles
L04R-01-HG Roanoke River Mercury in Fish Tissue 10.20 Miles
L42R-01-TEMP Dan River Temperature 15.10 Miles
L50R-01-TEMP Smith River Temperature 9.182 Miles
L60R-01-HG Dan River, Banister River and Hyco River Mercury in Fish Tissue 61.66 Miles/1,655.60 Acres
L60R-01-PCB Dan River, Banister River and Hyco River PCB in Fish Tissue 61.66 Miles/1,655.60 Acres
Source: VADEQ, 2014
TABLE 4-6
303(d) Listed Streams in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
Assessment
Unit Number
Stream or Waterbody Parameter of Interest Miles/Acres
23-8-(1)a Nutbush Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 1.7 Miles
23-8-(1)b Nutbush Creek
Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos, &
Ecological/Biological Integrity Fish Community 1.6 Miles
22-(1)b Dan River Turbidity 11.6 Miles
22-27-(1.5)
Belews Creek
(Kernersville Lake) Chlorophyll a 46.1 Acres
22-(38.5) Dan River Turbidity 0.6 Miles
22-40-(1) Smith River Copper 2.8 Miles
22-40-(2.5) Smith River Copper 0.5 Miles
22-(39)a Dan River Turbidity 13.8 Miles
22-40-(3) Smith River Copper 1.8 Miles
22-39(b) Dan River Turbidity 9.6 Miles
22-56-(3.5)a
County Line Creek
(Farmers Lake) Chlorophyll a, Turbidity 90.7 Acres
22-58-4-(1.4)
South Hyco Creek
(Lake Roxboro) Chlorophyll a 493.6 Acres
22-58-12-6a Marlowe Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.6 Miles
22-58-12-6b Marlowe Creek Copper, Zinc, Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 4.5 Miles
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-7
TABLE 4-6
303(d) Listed Streams in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
Assessment
Unit Number
Stream or Waterbody Parameter of Interest Miles/Acres
23-10-2
Newmans Creek
(Little Deep Creek) Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.1 Miles
23-10a Smith Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.1 Miles
23-10c Smith Creek Turbidity 3.0 Miles
23-30b Quankey Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 3.4 Miles
23-(26)b3 Roanoke River Low DO 17.8 Miles
26 Albemarle Sound Dioxin 6.5 Miles
Source: NCDWR, 2013.
There are three TMDLs for the Roanoke River. Most recently, the Decision Rationale for the PCB
TMDL was published in 2010 after PCBs were included in the 1998 303(d) list (USEPA, 2010). One
notable difference is the new impairment cause of PCB in the water column. The benthic TMDL for
aquatic life use impairments and the bacteria TMDL for primary contact use impairment both went
into effect in 2006 (USEPA, 2006a; USEPA, 2006b). When the bacteria impairment was initially listed
in 1996, Virginia was using fecal coliform as the indicator. Since 2003, E. coli and enterococci have
been adopted as the indicators. Other TMDLs exist for major tributaries within the Virginia portion
of the Roanoke River basin; the documents can be found on the USEPA’s website.
Lower Roanoke River water quality is influenced by the amount and timing of water releases from
upstream dams. Seasonal flooding is an important habitat component for much of the flora and
fauna living in the river floodplains. Low DO levels have been recorded in this reach in late spring,
summer, and early fall. It is likely that this water quality concern is related to upstream release
regimes which are timed to provide more water during spring spawning seasons and decreased
releases in the summer months. Lower water releases can cause adjacent backwater wetlands to
drain into the river, lowering DO levels. DO levels can fall below the standard of 5 mg/L (North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC], 2005a).
In 2000, DO samples taken from Lake Gaston were at or below the standard, which was due to deep
releases from Kerr Reservoir (North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC, 2006).
Modifications were made to the turbines at Kerr Reservoir to improve downstream DO levels;
improvements in DO levels at Gaston Lake were seen in the 2004 samplings (NCDWR, 2006). The DO
concentrations were greater than the minimum state water quality standard in 2009 (NCDWR,
2010a).
Wastewater Dischargers
Treated wastewater effluent is discharged into the Roanoke River upstream of Kerr Lake, including
the City of Henderson’s discharge, into Nutbush Creek (Table 4-7). Nutbush Creek is on the 2012
303(d) list of impaired waters based on benthic and fish community data (Table 4-6). Of the KLRWS
Partners and their customers, the only return of treated wastewater to its source basin is by the City
of Henderson. Given the water flow patterns and the location of the KLRWS’s intake on a cove of
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-8
Kerr Lake, it is unlikely that any of the upstream NPDES discharges would impact the quality of
KLRWS’s water supply. Considering this lack of potential for water quality to be affected, other
discharges are omitted from this discussion.
TABLE 4-7
WWTP Dischargers within the Roanoke River Basin
WWTP Permit Holder Monthly Average Flow Limit (mgd) Receiving Stream
City of Henderson – NC0020559 6.0 Nutbush Creek
Source: NCDWR, 2014
4.1.1.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
General Review
The Tar River originates in Person, Granville, and Vance Counties of North Carolina and flows
southeasterly until it becomes a tidal estuary near Washington, where its name changes to the
Pamlico River (lower 40 miles of river), and then flows into Pamlico Sound. The watershed totals
5,440 square miles and lies entirely within North Carolina. The Tar River basin includes five major
hydrologic units (Table 4-8), with the Fishing Creek unit being considered separate from the other
units when evaluating IBTs (for example, under North Carolina law it is an IBT to transfer water from
the Tar River to Fishing Creek). The Fishing Creek watershed is described in similar detail in the
following section.
TABLE 4-8
Tar-Pamlico River Major Hydrologic Units
Subbasin Name USGS 8-Digit
Hydrologic Unit Major Tributaries
Tar River Headwater 03020101 Tar River, Fishing Creek a, North Fork Tar River, Stoney Creek,
Whiteoak Swamp, Swift Creek, Sandy Creek
Fishing Creek 03020102 Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, Reedy Creek, Rocky
Swamp, Beech Swamp, Deep Creek
Tar River 03020103 Tar River, Cokey Swamp, Little Cokey Swamp, Otter Creek, Town
Creek, Conetoe Creek, Grindle Creek, Chicod Creek, Cow Creek,
Tranters Creek
Pamlico River 03020104 Pamlico River, Pungo River, Whitehurst Creek, South Creek, Kennedy
Creek
Pamlico Sound 03020105 Pamlico Sound, Lake Mattamuskeet
a Fishing Creek in HU 03020101 is a different stream from Fishing Creek in 03020102.
Source: NCDWR, 2010b
The Tar River basin contains water supply areas under the classifications of WS-II and WS-IV. Table
4-9 and Figure 4-1 show the water supply areas by classification and location. All waters in this
watershed have a supplemental classification as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). This is assigned to
waters that either experience or are subject to microscopic and macroscopic vegetation growth due
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-9
to the presence of excess nutrients (NCDWR, 2004); the Tar River basin is classified as NSW to
protect the estuary from excessive nutrient loading. Waters at Pamlico Sound, including
Swanquarter Bay Refuge, Juniper Bay and many of its tributaries, and parts of the sound itself, are
classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
TABLE 4-9
Water Supply Classifications for the Tar River Basin
Stream Name Classification User
Cedar Creek WS-II NSW City of Louisburg
Fishing Creek (Enfield) WS-IV NSW Town of Enfield
Hatchers Run WS-II NSW Town of Oxford (not in use)
Sally Kearney Creek WS-II NSW City of Louisburg
Tar River WS-IV NSW City of Greenville
Tar River WS-IV NSW City of Louisburg
Tar River WS-IV NSW Town of Oxford (not in use)
Tar River and Tar River Reservoir WS-IV NSW City of Rocky Mount
Tar River WS-IV NSW Town of Tarboro
Source: NCCGIA, 2014; NCDWR, 2013a
Note: Fishing Creek subbasin is not included in this table (see Section 4.1.1.3).
Drought conditions in the early 1950s prompted the Town of Oxford to construct Lake Devin, which
served as a more reliable water supply for the town than the Tar River headwaters. In 1974-1975,
the Town of Oxford partnered with the City of Henderson and Warren County to form a regional
system, KLRWS, which acquires its water supply from Kerr Lake. Currently, Lake Devin is not in use
as a water supply. The river is also impounded at Rocky Mount for water supply. Other water
withdrawals include agricultural users, although not all are of sufficient size to be registered water
withdrawals.
Water Quality
Overall, water quality in the Tar River basin is good; modest water quality improvements have been
observed during the most recent monitoring efforts by NCDWR. The upper Tar River basin is utilized
heavily for agricultural purposes, such as swine, dairy, and poultry production. These agricultural
activities include withdrawals and discharges that contribute to excess nutrients, erosion, and
sedimentation among waterways in the Tar River basin (NCDWR, 2010b; NCWRC, 2005a).
Reductions in nutrients including phosphorus and nitrogen in surface waters are a priority of
NCDWR.
One area of continued concern related to water quality is the lower reach of Fishing Creek (Granville
County), where elevated amounts of turbidity, copper, zinc, and fecal coliform bacteria were again
recorded during the most recent NCDWR sampling events. To improve water quality in this tributary
to the Tar River, restoration and watershed protection efforts are occurring (NCDWR, 2010b).
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-10
DO concentrations declined measurably throughout the Tar River basin over the 2005-2007
monitoring period. This decline is due largely to the 2007 drought, which resulted in extremely low
flows and consequently low DO concentrations (NCDWR, 2010b).
303(d) List
Table 4-10 indicates the miles and acreage of impaired waters located in the Tar River basin, with
the exception of the Fishing Creek subbasin presented in Table 4-13, summarized by impairment
type. All waters in North Carolina are in Category 5 of the 2012 303(d) List for mercury due to
statewide fish consumption for several fish species. Further details on impaired stream miles listed
are presented in Table 4-11.
TABLE 4-10
Summary of 303(d) Listed Waters in the Tar River Basin
Impairment Type Stream (miles)
Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 47.9
Low DO 41.7
Turbidity 33.0
Source: NCDWR, 2013b
TABLE 4-11
303(d) Listed Streams in the Tar River Basin
Assessment
Unit Number
Stream Parameter of Interest Stream Miles
28-5a North Fork Tar River Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.9
28-11c Fishing Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 0.9
28-11d Fishing Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 1.0
28-11e Fishing Creek Turbidity 6.1
28-11-2 Foundry Branch Low DO 5.5
28-(15.5) Tar River Turbidity 14.8
28-29-(2)b Cedar Creek Turbidity 12.1
29-30a Crooked Creek Low DO 15.1
28-30b Crooked Creek Low DO 5.4
28-68b Stony Creek (Boddies Millpond) Low DO, Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.9
28-(36)b Tar River Low DO 3.4
28-(64.5) Tar River Low DO 6.4
28-78-1(8)b1 Sandy Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.3
28-83ut8 UT to Town Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 2.6
28-81 Hendricks Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 3.9
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-11
TABLE 4-11
303(d) Listed Streams in the Tar River Basin
Assessment
Unit Number
Stream Parameter of Interest Stream Miles
28-5a North Fork Tar River Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.9
28-11c Fishing Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 0.9
28-87-(0.5)d Conetoe Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.7
28-87-1.2 Ballahack Canal Turbidity, Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 8.4
28-96 Greens Mill Run Ecological/Biological Integrity - Benthos 7.3
Source: NCDWR, 2013b
UT = unnamed tributary
Wastewater Dischargers
Municipal treated wastewater effluent dischargers into the Tar River basin within the service area
are listed in Table 4-12. As the headwaters of the Tar River are mainly within the service area, no
NPDES permitted discharges are upstream of the service area. Additionally, Tar River tributaries of
Fishing Creek (Granville County) and Sandy Creek are also on the 2012 303(d) list of impaired waters
based on benthic data (NCDWR, 2013).
The local governments and industries with NPDES permits for WWTPs within the Tar-Pamlico River
basin are members of the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association, which is discussed in Section 5.1.
TABLE 4-12
WWTP Dischargers within the Tar River Basin Portion of the Service Area
WWTP Permit Holder Monthly Average Flow Limit (mgd) Receiving Stream
Town of Bunn – NC0042269 0.3 Crooked Creek
Franklin County – NC0069311 3.0 Cedar Creek
Lake Royale – NC0042510 0.08 Cypress Creek
City of Oxford – NC0025054 3.5 Fishing Creek (Granville County)
Source: NCDWR, 2014
4.1.1.3 Receiving Basin - Fishing Creek
General Overview
The Fishing Creek subbasin, which is part of the Tar River basin and includes portions of Vance and
Warren Counties, is considered a separate subbasin from the Tar River basin under IBT statute. The
Fishing Creek subbasin includes two water supply areas classified WS-IV NSW, which are located
near the Town of Enfield and the Town of Tarboro; neither of the towns is currently using these
supply areas (Figure 4-1).
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-12
Water Quality
303(d) List
As shown in Table 4-13, the 2012 list includes the mainstem of Fishing Creek due to low DO levels
and an unnamed tributary to Beech Swamp for mercury and zinc. All waters in North Carolina are in
Category 5 of the 303(d) List for mercury due to statewide fish consumption for several fish species.
The Fishing Creek watershed contains diverse aquatic species, and its biological ratings have
generally been assessed as good and excellent. The NCWRC has recognized it as a priority area for
habitat protection, but there are no waters currently classified as HQW or ORW (NCDWR, 2010b).
The majority of the Fishing Creek subbasin lands consist of forest and wetlands; small municipalities
are also present (NCDWR, 2010b).
TABLE 4-13
303(d) Listed Streams in the Fishing Creek Subbasin
Assessment
Unit Number
Stream Parameter of Interest Stream Miles
28-79-(1) Fishing Creek Low DO 36.7
28-79-30ut1 UT to Beech Swamp Water Column Mercury, Zinc 2.2
Source: NCDWR, 2013b
Wastewater Dischargers
The Town of Warrenton discharges its treated wastewater effluent to Fishing Creek. This small
facility, as noted in Table 4-14, has a monthly average flow limit of 2.0 mgd.. This WWTP is a
member of the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association, which is further discussed in Section 5.1.
TABLE 4-14
WWTP Dischargers within the Fishing Creek Subbasin Portion of the Service Area
WWTP Permit Holder Monthly Average Flow Limit (mgd) Receiving Stream
Town of Warrenton – NC0020834 2.0 Fishing Creek
Source: NCDWR, 2014
4.1.1.4 Receiving Basin – Neuse River
General Overview
The Neuse River is formed by the confluence of the Flat and Eno Rivers, originating in Orange,
Person, and Granville Counties, North Carolina. The Neuse River flows southeasterly across North
Carolina to New Bern, where it flows into the Pamlico Sound. For this project, the receiving basin in
the Neuse River basin is limited to the watersheds of the eastern tributaries draining to Falls Lake,
within NCDWR’s Neuse River basin 03-04-01 and USGS’s Upper Falls Lake Watershed 0302020104.
These eastern tributaries, as noted in Table 4-15, originate in Granville, Franklin, Vance, and Wake
Counties. As of January 15, 2011, these waters and watersheds are subject to the Falls Water Supply
Nutrient Strategy which is outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0275-.0282 and 15A NCAC 02B .0235 and
.0315. The Neuse River receiving basin, as defined herein, is described in similar detail in the
following section.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-13
TABLE 4-15
Upper Neuse River Major Eastern Tributaries
Subbasin Name USGS 12-Digit
Hydrologic Unit Major Eastern Tributaries
Upper Falls Lake
Watershed
03020201
030202010401 Knap of Reeds Creek, Dickens Creek, Camp Creek
030202010402 Knap of Reeds Creek, Picture Creek
030202010501 Ledge Creek, Little Ledge Creek Holman Creek
030202010503 Robertson Creek, Cedar Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Reedy Branch,
Smith Creek, Little Beaverdam Creek
030202010601 Buckhorn Creek, West Prong, Mill Creek
030202010603 Lowery Creek, Mud Branch, Horse Creek
030202010701 Richland Creek
030202010702 Smith Creek
030202011501 Headwaters Little River
Source: NCDWR, 2009a
The service area portion of the Neuse River basin contains water supply areas under the
classification of WS-II and WS-IV. Table 4-16 and Figure 4-1 identify the water supply areas by
classification and location. All waters in the lower Neuse River basin are assigned a supplemental
classification of NSW, for waters that either experience or are subject to microscopic and
macroscopic vegetation growth due to the presence of excess nutrients (NCDWR, 2009a).
TABLE 4-16
Water Supply Classifications for the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin
Stream Name Classification User
Knap of Reeds Creek (Lake Butner) WS-II NSW Town of Butner
Ledge Creek (Lake Rogers) WS-II NSW City of Creedmoor
Falls Lake WS-IV NSW Durham, Granville, & Wake Counties
Source: NCCGIA, 2014; NCDWR, 2013a
Water Quality
303(d) List
Table 4-17 indicates the miles of impaired waters located in the eastern tributaries to Falls Lake.
Within this scope, only Knap of Reeds Creek and Smith Creek are listed for impairment. All waters in
North Carolina are in Category 5 of the 2012 303(d) List for mercury due to statewide fish
consumption for several fish species.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-14
TABLE 4-17
303(d) Listed Streams in the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin
Assessment
Unit Number
Stream Parameter of Interest Stream Miles
27-4-(6) Knap of Reeds Creek Zinc 5.6
27-4-(8) Knap of Reeds Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 0.6
27-23-(2) Smith Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Fish Community 5.8
Source: NCDWR, 2013b
The tributaries within the WS-II watersheds, including Knap of Reeds Creek, Ledge Creek, and
Holman Creek, are listed as HQW. Lake Butner, Lake Rogers (Ledge Creek), and Falls Lake are listed
as CA.
Wastewater Dischargers
Municipal treated wastewater effluent dischargers into the eastern tributaries to Falls Lake are
listed in Table 4-18. The South Granville Water & Sewer Authority discharges the Town of Butner’s
treated wastewater effluent to Knap of Reeds Creek, which is on the 2012 303(d) list for benthic
impairment (NCDWR, 2013b).
TABLE 4-18
WWTP Dischargers within the Neuse River Basin Portion of the Service Area
WWTP Permit Holder Monthly Average Flow Limit (mgd) Receiving Stream
South Granville Water & Sewer
Authority WWTP – NC0026824 5.5 Knap of Reeds Creek
Source: NCDWR, 2014
4.1.2 Groundwater
Groundwater occurs in a zone of saturation below the water table. Its major source is precipitation
that infiltrates the recharge zone on the land surface and moves down through the vadose zone.
Groundwater travels slowly through small openings in or between sand grains of subsurface
materials. It then moves through fractured rock, sand, or limestone. Groundwater in sufficient
quantities and at sufficient recharge rates can be a suitable water supply.
4.1.2.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Within the source basin, many residents in rural areas use groundwater wells for their water supply.
This is also true of more rural areas within the service area; however, as the water system is
expanded over time individuals are connecting to the more reliable public supply. Wellhead
Protection Programs are in place in both Virginia and North Carolina.
The service area is located in the physiographic region described as the Piedmont region, and in the
Carolina Slate Belt and Triassic Basins eco-regions. These eco-regions have fragmented rock
formations that have limited water storage capacity (NCDWR, 2010). Wells drilled in valleys typically
have higher yields than those drilled from ridges or upland areas. Within the Carolina Slate Belt, well
yields typically range from 15 to 16 gpm while the Triassic Basin wells yield lower amounts, between
11 and 12 gpm (North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, 1996). Various sources describe
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-15
similar well yields for the four-county service area (USACE, 2005; U.S. Department of Agriculture
[USDA], 2004; USDA, 1980). Deeper wells (beyond 250 feet deep) may yield up to 100 gpm in rare
cases (USDA, 2004).
While individuals and some community systems in the region use groundwater, it is not an
appropriate source for centralized use by the Partners because of insufficient yield and the costs
associated with combining surface and groundwater resources.
4.1.2.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
In Vance County, groundwater wells typically yield 14 gpm. Wells drilled deep into bedrock do not
have a history of running dry during droughts (USDA, 1980). According to the Vance County Water
District (2009), during county public informational sessions held in 2005 and 2006, residents
expressed concerns that their wells produced undesirable water quality. County residents
complained of discoloration, odor, and high mineralization. Residents reported high incidence of
yellowing of light clothing and staining of appliances, sinks, toilets, and bathtubs. Still, the
groundwater is safe for drinking (USDA, 2004). This area is mainly within the Tar River basin.
The Soil Survey for Franklin County describes underground rock formations (aquifers) which store
water, similar to formations in the other counties in the receiving basin and service area (USDA,
2004). Private wells produce typical yields near 15 gpm, while the best producing deeper well that
the Town of Bunn operated had a capacity of 40 gpm.
Downstream within the study area, the Tar-Pamlico and Roanoke Rivers flow into the Coastal Plain.
The primary aquifers in the Coastal Plain regions include: the surficial aquifer, Yorktown aquifer,
Castle Hayne aquifer, and cretaceous aquifer. Many of these aquifers are heavily relied on for
residential and commercial use. Due to this heavy reliance resulting in lower aquifer levels and
increased susceptibility to contamination, a region in North Carolina has been designated as the
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA). As a result of this designation, large groundwater
users within these aquifers are regulated by EMC. Additionally, the EMC has set specific goals for the
CCPCUA to reduce the overall use of many threatened aquifers and promote the use of available
surface waters and/or less impacted aquifers (NCDWR, 2009b).
4.1.2.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
The Soil Survey for Warren County describes groundwater conditions and yields similar to those of
other portions of the service area (USDA, 2009). The USACE report also indicates that Warren
County wells showed yields similar to those in Bunn (2005).
4.1.2.4 Receiving Basin – Neuse River
The Soil Survey for Granville County describes plentiful supplies of groundwater at well depths
around 100 feet (USDA, 1997).
4.1.3 Hydropower
4.1.3.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
The Roanoke River basin has many dams and reservoirs. The Virginia portion of the basin includes
two major reservoirs, both of which are used to produce electricity using the main channel of the
Roanoke River. Eleven major reservoirs are located in North Carolina or along the state line and
three of these are used to generate power and regulate flows on the main channel of the Roanoke
River (NCWRC, 2005a) (Table 4-19).
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-16
TABLE 4-19
Hydroelectric Production Dams on the Main Channel of the Roanoke River
Dam Name Owner and Operator
Smith Mountain Dam American Electric Power
Leesville Dam American Electric Power
J.H. Kerr Dam U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Gaston Dam Dominion North Carolina Power
Roanoke Rapids Dam Dominion North Carolina Power
The Smith Mountain Project includes both Smith Mountain Dam and Leesville Dam. The project is
designed such that water can be pumped back from Leesville Lake to Smith Mountain Lake during
periods when power is not generated at Smith Mountain Dam. The project obtained a new license
effective April 1, 2010 (FERC, 2011). Smith Mountain Dam includes five generators capable of
producing 586 megawatts (MW), and Leesville Dam includes two generators capable of producing
50 MW (Hydropower Reform Coalition, 2014). The revised license includes a condition for the
project to release water from Leesville Lake to meet target flows, which vary by month at the
Brookneal gage. The condition also specifies minimum hourly flow releases: 375 cfs from November
1 to February 29 and 400 cfs from March 1 to October 31 (USFERC, 2011).
USACE operates the J.H. Kerr powerhouse, which includes seven generators capable of producing
227 MW. Additionally, two generators are used for in-house power. The average yearly production
from the J.H. Kerr powerhouse is 426,749 MW (USACE, 2014b). The Water Control Plan (USACE,
1995) provides operation instructions for the generation of power in relation to the other objectives
of the reservoir, including flood control.
Dominion North Carolina Power manages hydropower generation at Lake Gaston and Roanoke
Rapids Lake. The Gaston hydro station houses four generators, each with a capacity of 56-MW
production. The total capacity of the entire station is 224-MW generation. The Roanoke Rapids
power station is 8 miles downstream of the Gaston hydro station and houses four generators, which
can produce a total capacity of 104 MW (Dominion, 2010).
The North Carolina Dam Safety Law is administered by the Division of Land Resources and ensures
that minimum stream flows below dams are maintained. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) licenses all hydroelectric dams. Individual dams may have conditional operation plans, which
state mandatory minimum flow releases. These required conditional operation plans ensure
adequate water quality and quantity the length of the waterway. Several entities collaborate to
ensure that these conditional operation plans are in place for each dam. The NCDWR, in
collaboration with the NCWRC, recommends the release of flows to meet minimum in-stream flow
requirements. Roanoke Rapids and Gaston power stations operate collaboratively with J.H. Kerr
Reservoir. USACE provides weekly declarations indicating the volume to be released by the three
dams. As part of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Dam FERC license, Dominion is required to
maintain specific lake levels and certain flows downstream from Roanoke Rapids Dam. Roanoke
Rapids Dam always operates on a minimum flow regime (Table 4-20), while Gaston dam operates in
an on/off mode.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-17
TABLE 4-20
Roanoke and Gaston Power Station Operational Modes
Normal Yearly Operations Minimum Flow (cfs)
December 1 - January 15, Kerr declaration < 6,000 cfs 2,000
December 1 - January 15, Kerr declaration > 6,000 cfs 2,500
January 16 - February 29, Kerr declaration < 6,000 cfs 2,500
January 16 - February 29, Kerr declaration > 6,000 cfs 3,000
June 16 - June 30 2,800
July 1 - September 15 2,000
September 16 - November 15 1,500
November 16- November 30 2,000
Source: Dominion, 2010
Additionally, Roanoke Rapids Dam has specific flow regimes regarding flood control, fish spawning
season, and times of drought. Flood control releases are under the direction of USACE and are
primarily dictated by J.H. Kerr Reservoir levels. Table 4-21 shows the flood control releases
associated with J.H. Kerr Reservoir (Dominion, 2010).
TABLE 4-21
Flood Control Operations for Roanoke Rapids Dam Based on J.H. Kerr Reservoir Levels
J.H. Kerr Reservoir Level (feet above msl) Release (cfs)
300 - 312 Up to 20,000
312 - 315 25,000
315 - 320 35,000
320 - 321 Greater of 85% of inflow or 35,000
>321 Greater of 100% of inflow or 35,000
Source: Dominion, 2010
During the fish spawning season, March 1 to June 15, a continuous sustained flow with little
variation is desired. For this reason, a specific flow regime for this season is used at the Roanoke
Rapids Dam. Table 4-22 indicates the fish spawning season flow regime (Dominion, 2010).
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-18
TABLE 4-22
Fish Spawning Season Flow Operations at Roanoke Rapids Dam
Yearly Period Target Flow (cfs) Lower Limit (cfs) Upper Limit (cfs)
March 1 - 31 Average of J.H. Kerr Reservoir
weekly declaration 3,500 -
April 1 - 15 8,500 6,600 13,700
April 16 – 30 7,800 5,800 11,000
May 1 - 5 6,500 4,700 9,500
May 16 - 31 5,900 4,400 9,500
June 1 - 15 5,300 4,000 9,500
Source: Dominion, 2010
During times of drought (as determined by consultation with USACE and NCDWR), the FERC license
held by Dominion for the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston power stations states that minimum flows are
2,000 cfs for December – October and 1,500 cfs for September – November (Dominion, 2010).
4.1.3.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
The Tar River is not used for hydropower generation.
4.1.3.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Fishing Creek is not used for hydropower generation.
4.1.3.4 Receiving Basin – Neuse River
The Neuse River is not currently used for hydropower generation. The remaining hydropower dam
on the Neuse River, Milburnie Dam (located 15 miles below Falls Lake Dam), is currently being
considered for removal (USACE, 2013).
4.2 Topography
This discussion addresses general topography of the source and receiving basins and how
topography in turn influences floodplains along waterways.
4.2.1 Topography
4.2.1.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
The source basin, the Roanoke River basin, begins in the rocky landscape of Virginia. It flows through
Virginia to the North Carolina state line and continues to the North Carolina coast. In Virginia, the
Roanoke River basin passes through the Valley and Ridge Province, which is noted for steep slopes
and valleys (VADEQ, 2014).
In North Carolina, Vance, Warren, Granville, and Franklin Counties are located in the Piedmont
Plateau of the state. The Piedmont Plateau has characteristic rolling hills of red clay, which range
from 30 feet above msl in the east near the fall line to 600 feet above msl. Crystalline or
sedimentary rocks underlie the Piedmont Plateau (USDA, 2004). The fall line separates the Piedmont
Plateau from the Coastal Plain region just to the east of the service area. It extends across the
Roanoke River just downstream of the Roanoke Rapids Lake Dam. The topography then declines to
the outer Coastal Plain, which is swampy and flat.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-19
4.2.1.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
The portion of the service area in the Tar River basin is also part of the Piedmont Plateau. The fall
line continues across the Tar River near Rocky Mount (USDA, 2004). Downstream of the fall line, the
elevations range from sea level to 30 feet above msl. Here, the outer Coastal Plain is swampy and
flat and is home to many of North Carolina’s natural lakes.
4.2.1.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
The Fishing Creek watershed lies within the Piedmont Plateau and has topography similar to the
other portions of the service area. This watershed is above the fall line, joining the Tar River
upstream of Rocky Mount.
4.2.1.4 Receiving Basin – Neuse River
The portion of the service area in the Neuse River basin lies above the fall line within the Piedmont
Plateau and has topography similar to the other portions of the service area.
4.2.2 Floodplains
Floodplains are characterized by the flat surface adjacent to the river channel, and are periodically
inundated by floodwater. Sediments deposited by lateral migration of meanders in a stream and by
periodic overflow of the stream banks form a floodplain. The magnitude and frequency of flooding
are inversely related and are functions of the intensity and distribution of precipitation; the rate of
infiltration of water into the soil and rock; and topography. River flooding is the most universally
experienced natural hazard. Factors that control damage caused by flooding include land use on the
floodplain, magnitude and frequency of the flooding, the season, and the amount of sediment
deposited.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program enabling property owners to
purchase flood insurance. NFIP participation helps to discourage unwise development and to
prevent floodplain destruction by requiring permits which ensure that construction materials are
adequate to withstand flooding.
The Virginia Flood Damage Reduction Act was passed by the General Assembly in 1989, and the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) enforces the act. The act requires VDCR
to develop a flood protection plan for Virginia, which includes an inventory of flood-prone areas.
The purpose of the regulations is to protect human lives and prevent property damage from flood
events by preserving the ability of floodplains to carry the 100-year flood. The act provides a basis
for compliance with the NFIP. VDCR has created model ordinances for local governments to regulate
how development may occur within floodplains.
North Carolina, in a partnership with FEMA, is a Cooperating Technical State and has the primary
responsibility for creation and maintenance of its floodplain mapping. Ongoing maintenance of the
floodplain maps is necessary for two main reasons: (1) development impacts hydrology and the
extent of floodplains and (2) new data may be available following a large storm event. An effort to
update mapping in the eastern portion of North Carolina was initiated following Hurricanes Floyd
and Dennis. In addition, Vance, Warren, Granville, and Franklin Counties in North Carolina
participate in the NFIP and discourage construction in floodplains.
4.2.2.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Floodplains in the upper reaches of the Roanoke River basin are narrower where slopes are steeper.
Flood storage is provided by the series of reservoirs. One of Kerr Lake’s many functions is to provide
flood storage capacity for the Roanoke River basin. Flood storage is balanced with downstream flow
requirements to minimize potential damage from large flooding events.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-20
Floodplains along the lower Roanoke River downstream of the service area (but included in the
study area) are up to 5 miles wide and are protected in many areas. These floodplains function to
provide water quality benefits, wooded habitats for wildlife, and recreational opportunities. Further
detail concerning these protected areas is presented in Section 4.7.
4.2.2.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
Reservoirs with flood storage capacity are not in place on the Tar River as they are on the Roanoke
River. With the previously mentioned focus on creating updated floodplain maps in eastern North
Carolina, updated Vance and Granville County maps were approved in 2007 (North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program [NCFMP], 2009). These maps include portions of both the Tar and
Roanoke River basins. Franklin County mapping of the Tar-Pamlico River watershed was completed
earlier and was approved in 2004 and 2007 (NCFMP, 2009).
4.2.2.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Warren County was included in recent floodplain mapping updates. Including both the Roanoke and
Fishing Creek (Tar River) basins, Warren County’s updated maps were approved in 2007 and 2009
(NCFMP, 2009).
4.2.2.4 Receiving Basin – Neuse River
The floodplain mapping of the smaller portion of Franklin County in the Neuse River watershed was
approved in 2006 (NCFMP, 2009). Granville County’s floodplain maps are effective as of 2007 and
are currently undergoing maintenance (NCFMP, 2009).
4.3 Soils
Soils data are presented in detail for the service area only, as no development or disturbance would
occur outside the service area as a result of this project. Thus, impacts to soils outside the service
area would not occur. Information regarding soils in the source basin outside of the service area is
available in local soil surveys. Soil type changes significantly from the basins’ headwaters to the
coastal plain. In this section, information is not presented by source and receiving basins but instead
at a county level since development patterns would not necessarily be influenced by basin
boundaries.
Soil surveys were completed by the USDA NRCS for Franklin, Granville, Vance, and Warren Counties
and the digitized data is available through the Web Soil Survey. Tables 4-23 through 4-26 detail the
predominant soils (soils accounting for the approximately top 50 percent of soils) in the service area,
calculated using digital data available from the Web Soil Survey (USDA, 2014). Additional
information regarding the predominant type’s soil associations is also provided. Soil associations,
depicted as map units on the soil surveys’ general soil map, show “broad areas that have a
distinctive pattern of soils, relief, and drainage” (USDA, 1980).
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-21
TABLE 4-23
Vance County Predominant Soil Types
Soil Name Percentage Description
Appling Sandy Loam (Ap) 22.7% well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Cecil Sandy Loam (Ce) 19.4% well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Wedowee Sandy Loam (We) 16.5% well drained, moderate permeability, poorly suited for
agricultural development, suitable for pasture & hay lands,
woodlands, suitable for urban development
Other 41.4% -
TOTAL 100%
Source: USDA, 2009; USDA, 1980
The soil associations for these types are Appling, Cecil, and Wedowee-Louisburg-Pacolet. Appling is
an upland soil, making up the majority of Vance County. Cecil soils typically occur on broad ridges
and upland slopes. Wedowee soils, of the Wedowee-Louisburg-Pacolet association, are located
along the slopes of creeks and streams. (USDA, 1980).
TABLE 4-24
Granville County Predominant Soil Types
Soil Name Percentage Description
Georgeville Silt Loam (Ge) 16.8% very well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for
agricultural development, suitable for urban development
Creedmoor Coarse Sandy Loam (Cr) 11.7% moderately to poorly drained, very slow permeability, well suited
for agricultural development, poorly suited for urban
development
Chewacla & Wehadkee (Ch) 7.1% poorly drained, moderate permeability, poorly suited for
agricultural development, not suited for urban development
Vance Sandy Loam (Va) 6.8% well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Cecil Sandy Loam (Ce) 6.5% well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Lignum Silt Loam (Lm) 6.2% moderately to poorly drained, very slow permeability, well suited
for agricultural development, poorly suited for urban
development
Other 44.9% -
TOTAL 100%
Source: USDA, 2009; USDA, 1997
The Georgeville silt loam is the dominant part of the Iredell-Enon-Georgeville association, which is
located on the broad ridges and hillsides in northern Granville County. The upland Creedmoor soils
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-22
are the dominant part of the Creedmoor soil association that occurs in the southwest portion of the
county. Commonly along floodplains, Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are considered minor soils that
are affiliated with several associations, including Creedmoor and Cecil. Vance Sandy Loam is part of
the Vance-Helena association, found on knolls and ridges in central Granville County. Cecil soils are
located in the upland central and southeastern parts of the county. The Nason-Herndon-Lignum
association includes the Lignum silt loam. This association is located along ridges, hillslopes, and at
the headwaters of streams. (USDA, 1997).
TABLE 4-25
Franklin County Predominant Soil Types
Soil Name Percentage Description
Wedowee Sandy Loam (We) 27.0% well drained, moderate permeability, suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Wake Sandy Loam (Wa) 8.4% well to excessively drained, moderate to rapid permeability, suited for
agricultural development, poorly suited for urban development
Wake-Wateree-Wedowee
(Wb) complex
8.3% well to excessively drained, moderate to rapid permeability, suited for
agricultural development, poorly suited for urban development
Chewacla and Wehadkee
soils (Ch)
7.5% poorly drained, moderate permeability, poorly suited for agricultural
development, not suited for urban development
Other 48.8% -
TOTAL 100%
Source: USDA, 2009; USDA, 2004
The predominant soil types in Table 4-25 occur within multiple soil associations: Wedowee-Helena,
Wake-Wedowee-Wateree, and Chewacla-Wedhakee-Altavista, among others. The Wedowee and
Wake soils occur throughout Franklin County, located on side slopes, ridges, and knolls. Chewacla
and Wehadkee soils are typically along floodplains and low terraces of large streams and creeks.
(USDA, 2004).
TABLE 4-26
Warren County Predominant Soil Types
Soil Name Percentage Description
Pacolet Sandy Loam (Ph) 22.3% well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Cecil Sandy Loam (Ce) 19.1% well drained, moderate permeability, well suited for agricultural
development, suitable for urban development
Wedowee Sandy Loam (Ww) 8.2% well drained, moderate permeability, poorly suited for agricultural
development, suitable for pasture & hay lands, woodlands, suitable for
urban development
Other 50.4% -
TOTAL 100%
Source: USDA, 2009
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-23
The Warren County soil survey is currently not available online. Therefore, the soil association
information is not provided at this time.
In addition to soil types throughout the service area, predominant soil types along rivers, streams,
and creeks were assessed. The predominant soil types along rivers, streams, and creeks in the
service area are as follows:
Vance County – Wedowee Sandy Loam
Granville County - Chewacla & Wehadkee
Franklin County - Chewacla & Wehadkee
Warren County – Cecil Sandy Loam
4.4 Land Use and Land Cover
Land use patterns affect upland and wetland ecological communities and wildlife populations. Land
uses are important when assessing water quality and quantity. As development occurs, a higher
percentage of water enters rivers and streams through surface water runoff, and less water
infiltrates the soil to replenish groundwater supplies. Surface water runoff transports sediment and
other pollutants. For these reasons, land use is discussed in this document.
Land use within the source basin varies from the more rural farming communities to the urban
development patterns associated with major cities.
Land use in the Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin is predominantly forested, followed by
agricultural uses, such croplands and pastures. The basin contains approximately 10 percent urban
areas (VADEQ, 2014).
Land use within the service area is primarily agricultural and forested land. Larger communities
within the service area include Oxford, Henderson, and Warrenton. There is very little industrial land
use at this time, although business parks are set aside in each of the counties within the service
area. Table 4-27 indicates the land cover types in the service area.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-24
TABLE 4-27
Land Cover within the Service Area
Vance County Warren County Granville County Franklin County
Land Cover Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres) Percent Acres Percent
High Intensity 1,716.3 1.0% 96.9 <0.1% 1,956.4 0.6% 1,734.5 0.6%
Low Intensity 3,119.8 1.8% 162.0 <0.1% 2,734.6 0.8% 890.4 0.3%
Cultivated 22,007.3 12.7% 20,201.8 7.1% 30,214.1 8.8% 47,206.1 14.9%
Managed Herbaceous Cover 9,964.7 5.8% 15,096.5 5.3% 33,943.7 9.9% 21,820.3 6.9%
Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover, Upland 106.4 <0.1% 190.9 <0.1% 551.6 0.2% 6.8 <0.1%
Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover, Wetland 0.00 0.0% 7.6 <0.1% 10.6 <0.1% 6.2 <0.1%
Evergreen Shrubland 26,706.7 15.5% 47,964.0 16.9% 37,032.7 10.8% 56,802.5 17.9%
Deciduous Shrubland 1,695.1 1.0% 5,798.4 2.0% 3,502.9 1.0% 4,513.4 1.4%
Mixed Shrubland 1,348.6 0.8% 3,354.1 1.2% 2,715.1 0.8% 1,822.7 0.6%
Mixed Upland Hardwoods 27,102.8 15.7% 31,956.7 11.3% 93,541.9 27.3% 30,820.8 9.7%
Bottomland Forest/Hardwood Swamps 18,576.4 10.8% 33,849.4 11.9% 35,796.8 10.4% 42,634.9 13.5%
Southern Yellow Pine 35,612.6 20.6% 90,223.3 31.8% 72,095.1 21.0% 82,380.6 26.0%
Other Needleleaf Evergreen Forest 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 11.4 <0.1% 0.00 0.0%
Broadleaf Evergreen Forest 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 18.3 <0.1% 0.00 0.0%
Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers 12,837.2 7.4% 24,782.7 8.7% 25,662.7 7.5% 22,829.7 7.2%
Oak/Gum/Cypress 23.5 <0.1% 0.00 0.0% 258.9 0.1% 4.0 <0.1%
Water Bodies 11,701.0 6.8% 10,082.1 3.6% 2,973.3 0.9% 3,208.5 1.0%
Unconsolidated Sediment 206.7 0.1% 0.00 0.0% 217.3 0.1% 5.0 <0.1%
TOTAL 172,725 100% 283,766 100% 343,237 100% 316,686 100%
Source: Earth Satellite Corporation (ESC), 1997
a Franklin County population has increased since these data were developed. There is likely less forested and agricultural land and more developed land in the county than
shown in this table.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-25
The data in Table 4-27 represent 1996 land cover. Although these data are not current, the information
remains a fairly accurate representation of land cover in the service area for Vance, Warren, and Granville
Counties. This is due in part to the predominantly rural and agricultural land uses throughout these counties
and the lack of recent development. However, the 1996 land use data for Franklin County are less accurate
because of increased population growth in the county, due primarily to its proximity to Raleigh and Research
Triangle Park, a rapidly growing area.
According to Franklin County’s zoning map, more than 50 percent of the land use is agricultural mixed with
low density residential, particularly in the northeast portion of the county. A large portion of area near the
center and southern parts of Franklin County is zoned as rural business district. This zoning designation
includes small parcels (less than 1 acre) utilized by rural businesses. The southeast portion of the county has
experienced increased growth, due to its proximity to Raleigh. As indicated on the zoning map, this portion
of Franklin County has a large percentage of commercial and medium/high intensity residential
developments (Franklin County, 2007). Additionally, the county’s subdivision map reveals that the majority
of subdivisions are located in the southeast portion of the county (Franklin County, 2008).
Table 4-27 clearly shows that Vance, Warren, and Granville Counties have predominantly forested and
agricultural land. These land uses have been common for these rural counties for many decades; however,
increasing populations and growth from the Raleigh-Durham region has spurred growth and development in
these counties With the increasing development from the Raleigh-Durham region, Vance County has seen
increases in residential development in the south near Franklin County (Warren County, 2002).
Vance, Warren, Granville, and Franklin Counties have collaboratively initiated rural economic development
through the creation of Triangle North, formerly called the Kerr-Tar Hub. The Triangle North economic
development is divided into four parks, all suited to spur business and growth via a multitude of incentives,
such as state tax credits and a federally designated Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone). The
following describes each development park:
Triangle North Granville – This 527-acre life sciences and technology park in Granville County is located
along Interstate 85, including exits 206 through 209. The Vance-Granville Community College is adjacent
to the development park.
Triangle North Franklin – This 252-acre high-technology park in Franklin County is located adjacent to
the Triangle North Executive Airport.
Triangle North Vance – This 422-acre business and manufacturing park in Vance County is located along
Interstate 85 at exit 209, across from Vance-Granville Community College.
Triangle North Warren – This 1,000-acre development park geared for logistics, distribution, and
manufacturing is located in Warren County off of Highway 1/158 in Manson, NC, which is 3 miles from
Interstate 85.
The Roanoke River basin continues southeast of the service area to the coastal areas of North Carolina. Land
use in this portion of the Roanoke River basin consists of mainly forested areas with some areas of
agricultural use (NCDWR, 2011). The study area includes the downstream reaches of the Roanoke River. The
Roanoke River floodplain is wide and largely undeveloped; this floodplain includes the largest intact and
least disturbed bottomland hardwood forest in the mid-Atlantic region (The Nature Conservancy, 2010).
4.5 Wetlands
The term “wetland” refers to landscape features such as swamps, marshes, bogs, marsh-like ponds, and
depressions that sometimes hold water. The common feature and operational definition of a wetland is land
inundated by water or saturated to a depth of a few centimeters for at least a few days of the year. The
major components used to determine the presence or absence of wetlands are hydrology, vegetation type,
and soil type. Hydrology is often the most difficult to define because some wetlands are only wet for a very
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-26
short period each year. However, the presence of water, even for a short period on a regular basis, gives rise
to characteristics seen in wetlands.
To assess the potential for wetlands in the study area, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data were used. NWI is the best available source of data for estimation
of wetlands. Wetlands within the study area were not delineated.
The Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin within the study area, upstream of the service area, includes
common wetland types: lacustrine and limnetic (lakes); palustrine forested; and palustrine wetlands with
unconsolidated bottoms (USFWS, 2009; Cowardin, et. al., 1979). Most wetlands are adjacent to water
bodies.
Table 4-28 lists and describes the wetland types located in the service area. The most common wetland
types include those classified as lacustrine, limnetic (associated with ponds or lakes) and palustrine,
forested. These forested wetlands are riparian and mostly located along the tributaries and backwater areas
of Kerr Lake, the Tar River, and Fishing Creek. In addition to typical wetland functions, forested riparian
wetlands provide shade and stability to soils.
Downstream of the service area along the Roanoke and Tar Rivers included in the study area, the most
common wetland types are palustrine, forested and estuarine and subtidal nearer the coast (USFWS, 2009).
These bottomland hardwood forests are ecologically unique, given their size and habitats, and are discussed
in more detail in Section 4.13.
TABLE 4-28
Wetland Types and Acreage in the Service Area
Wetland Type Acres 1 Description
L1 65,208 Lacustrine and limnetic
L2 46 Lacustrine and littoral
PAB 13 Palustrine and aquatic bed
PEM/FO 31 Palustrine and emergent/forested
PEM/SS 8 Palustrine and emergent/scrub-shrub
PEM 1,633 Palustrine and emergent
PFO/EM 30 Palustrine and forested/emergent
PFO/SS 53 Palustrine and forested/scrub-shrub
PFO 37,889 Palustrine and forested
PSS/EM 32 Palustrine and scrub-shrub/emergent
PSS/FO 5 Palustrine and scrub-shrub/forested
PSS 3,112 Palustrine and scrub-shrub
PUB/SS 3 Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, and scrub-shrub
PUB 6,680 Palustrine and unconsolidated bottom
PUS 1 Palustrine and unconsolidated shore
R2 945 Riverine and lower perennial
Sources: USFWS, 2009; Cowardin et al., 1979
1 Wetland areas are approximate and not field-verified
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-27
4.6 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
North Carolina Executive Order 96 charges all state agencies to minimize the loss of prime agricultural and
forested lands as defined in the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. The USDA NRCS has classified lands
into three categories based on suitability for agricultural uses. These classifications incorporate soil type,
slope, and water capacity. Prime Farmlands (PFL) are those soils with slopes between 0 and 8 percent in
capability classes I and II, and some in capability class III. Unique Farmlands are recognized for having a
certain set of parameters necessary to produce certain high-value crops. The third category, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, includes those soils that do not quite qualify as PFL. Factors include steepness of
slope, susceptibility to erosion, and permeability (USDA, 1998).
Prime farmlands are described for Vance, Granville, and Franklin Counties in their soil survey reports. Only
digital soil mapping data are available for Warren County at this time; therefore, soil types designated prime
farmlands are assumed to be similar to those found in Vance County. Agricultural soils within the project
service area have been historically used for tobacco production. As tobacco’s value as a high cash crop has
decreased, some prime farmlands in the project area have been converted to developed uses. Other key
crops include corn and soybeans. However, agriculture remains a main land use and economic driver in the
study area.
In Vance County, prime farmlands of Appling, Cecil, and Durham soils have been historically used for
tobacco production. These soils are well-drained sandy loams and loamy sands. Over 38 percent of land here
are designated prime farmland (USDA, 1980).
In Granville County, approximately 52 percent of the soils are classified as prime farmlands. The
predominant prime farmlands are Georgeville silt loam and Creedmoor sandy loam soils (USDA, 1997).
In Franklin County, approximately 47 percent of the soils meet the criteria of prime farmland. The general
soil map units that include these prime farmlands are Wedowee-Helena, Cecil-Pacolet, and Appling-Vance-
Helena. These soils have loamy surface layers and clayey subsoils. The Wedowee-Helena map unit comprises
35 percent of the county’s soils (USDA, 2004).
4.7 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas
This section addresses the federal and state-owned lands, parks, and other scenic and recreational areas
that are within the study area and service area. This identification was based on information provided by the
VDCR and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas (NHPHA) database (North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program [NCNHP], 2014). This information was analyzed to identify areas of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems and special wildlife habitats. Recreation opportunities within the source basin are plentiful along
the Roanoke River in both states. These opportunities are available along both the free flowing reaches of
the Roanoke River and its reservoirs. However, this discussion is limited to the major areas.
4.7.1 Public Lands
4.7.1.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
The reservoirs upstream of Kerr Lake support important recreational fisheries for small and largemouth
bass, walleye, crappie, and catfish. Smith Mountain Lake is known for its striped bass fishery, which is
stocked annually, and supports a fisheries-related niche in the local economy with guide businesses,
marinas, and related businesses. Lake Philpott supports a stocked walleye fishery in Virginia, attracting much
public interest. Surrounding public land uses include boat ramps, campgrounds, and other natural areas.
The VDCR designates the state’s natural area preserves. There are two natural area preserves in the
Roanoke River basin: Poor Mountain and Grassy Hill. Poor Mountain provides ample hiking throughout its
pine-oak woodland community. Grassy Hill provides 6 miles of hiking trails and is known for bird watching.
There are three wildlife management areas in the Roanoke River basin: Dick Cross, Fairy Stone Farms, and
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-28
White Oak Mountain. Dick Cross and White Oak Mountain provide hunting of small game, waterfowl, and
some deer and turkey. Fairy Stone Farms provides excellent hunting for deer, turkey, squirrel, and raccoon.
All three wildlife management areas provide access to fishing. Additionally, there are five state parks located
in the Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin (Table 4-29).
TABLE 4-29
Virginia State Parks in the Roanoke River Basin
Name County Recreational Use
Occoneechee Mecklenburg 18 miles of trails (hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding), fishing and
boating, camping sites (cabin, tent or RV)
Staunton River Halifax Nature trails, campgrounds, Olympic size pool and
70 foot waterslide
Staunton River Battlefield Halifax Hiking, biking, self-guided historical and nature trails
Fairy Stone Patrick 9 miles of trails (hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding),
public swimming (beach area), camping (cabin, tent, or RV)
Smith Mountain Lake Pittsylvania 13 hiking trails (0.5 – 3 miles) public swimming (500-foot beach area),
Fishing and boating, camping (cabin, tent, or RV)
Source: Virginia Department of Cultural Resources, 2014
Kerr Lake straddles the state line between Virginia and North Carolina and includes many access points
within both states and numerous recreational opportunities. These opportunities range from camping and
hunting on the bordering USACE-owned and -managed 70,000 acres to fishing and boating on Kerr Lake.
State fishing licenses are valid throughout Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston, even though these reservoirs have
waters in both states. USACE manages access on the reservoir and an estimated 4 million people visit every
year; a map depicting the locations and types of opportunities is included in Appendix C. Boat ramps and
their elevations are presented in Appendix C. The boat ramp with the highest minimum elevation for access
is Satterwhite Point Marina at 294.0 feet above msl.
USACE estimates that more than 1 million hours of fishing occur on the reservoir every year; more
information regarding sport fishing is presented in Section 4.12 (USACE, 2010). Fishing tournaments include
competitions for bass and catfish and events specifically for children, with some annual events registering
over 100 boats in 2010. These events, as well as outfitters and others providing guide services, are
important to the local economy.
In addition to Kerr Lake, the Roanoke River basin in North Carolina include numerous adjacent public lands,
scenic areas, recreational areas, and NHPNAs. Table 4-30 lists areas in the North Carolina portion of the
Roanoke River basin designated for recreational activities.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-29
TABLE 4-30
North Carolina Scenic and Recreational Areas in the Roanoke River Basin
Name County
Location within the Study Area
(Upstream, Within, or Downstream
of Service Area)
Recreational Use
Hanging Rock State Park Stokes Upstream
18 miles of hiking trails, rock climbing
by permit, family camping sites, fishing
and swimming
Mayo River State Park Rockingham Upstream 2 miles of hiking trails, picnic areas, and
fishing
Kerr Lake State Recreational
Area
Vance and
Warren Service Area Several natural paths, family camping
sites, boating, fishing and swimming
Chestnut Street Park Vance Service Area Small park located in the City of
Henderson
Morning Star Wildlife Refuge Martin Downstream 18 short educational trails
Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge Bertie Downstream
1-mile hiking trail for wildlife
observation, fishing and hunting by
permit
Downstream of Kerr Lake, the Roanoke River also affords many opportunities for outdoor, aquatic
recreation. In addition to reservoir boating, fishing, and swimming, the free flowing sections of channel are
accessible to the public in many areas. Fishing opportunities in Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake are
similar to those in Kerr Lake, although these reservoirs are smaller.
For example, the 5 river mile reach of the Roanoke River, including channel braids, from the NC 48 Gaston
Landing bridge to the Weldon boat ramp, offers paddlers excellent opportunities to experience whitewater.
The level of difficulty depends on water levels, with more whitewater at low river flows. Dominion publishes
release schedules (subject to change) in an effort to attract and educate paddlers, with most opportunities
in the summer and fall, as included in Dominion’s FERC license. Spring releases are managed more for fish
spawning and migration than for recreational uses.
On the Lower Roanoke, the Roanoke River Partners manage a “200-mile wilderness eco-adventure” of
paddling and land trails on the Roanoke and Cashie Rivers and their backwaters, including 15 camping
platforms (Roanoke River Partners, 2011).
4.7.1.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
The Tar-Pamlico River basin contains 3,977 acres of lakes, 2,566 miles of streams and rivers, 663,593 acres
of estuaries, and 17 miles of coastline along Pamlico Sound, which include numerous public lands. Table 4-
31 lists areas in the Tar-Pamlico River basin designated for recreational activities.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-30
TABLE 4-31
Scenic and Recreational Areas in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Name County
Service Area
(within)
Downstream
Recreational Use
Fox Pond Park Vance Service Area 2.5 miles of trails for hiking and biking Padding
is permitted
Joy LaRue Joyner Park Franklin Service Area Hiking trails along the Tar River
Medoc Mountain State Park Halifax Downstream 11 miles of hiking trails, 2.5-mile paddling trail
along Fishing Creek
Tar River Paddle Trail Nash
Edgecombe
Downstream 10 canoe access points with over 20 miles of
paddling along the Tar River and Stony Creek
Indian Lake Park Edgecombe Downstream Three hiking and biking trails
Princeville Heritage Trail Edgecombe Downstream 3 miles of paved hiking and biking trails
Tar River Trail Edgecombe Downstream 3 miles of paved trails connecting five city parks
Riverfront Park Edgecombe Downstream Paddling access to Tar River
North Carolina Estuarium Beaufort Downstream 0.75-mile boardwalk along the Pamlico River
Tar River Park North Pitt Downstream 2.5 miles of hiking nature trails
Green Mile Run Greenway Pitt Downstream 1.3 miles of paved hiking and biking trail
connecting to 2.9 miles of the South Tar
Greenway
Stewart Parkway Beaufort Downstream 0.75 mile of paved trail and wetland boardwalk
on the Washington waterfront
Goose Creek State Park Beaufort Downstream 7 miles of hiking trails and
4 miles of paddle trails
Washington Waterfront Beaufort Downstream Access to Runyon Creek at the
NC Estuarium
Mattamuskeet National
Wildlife Refuge
Hyde Downstream Nature trail at park headquarters, plus hiking
and biking along the refuge roads
Lake Mattamuskeet Hyde Downstream 10.4 miles of paddling trails
Swanquarter National
Wildlife Refuge
Hyde Downstream 2 miles of refuge road
Pungo River Hyde Downstream 11-mile paddling trail
4.7.2 Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas
The service area, consisting of Vance, Warren, Granville, and Franklin Counties, contains 17,360 acres of
NHPAs. Table 4-32 indicates the NHPNA acreage for each of the four counties. Section 4-12 describes the
aquatic NHPNAs.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-31
TABLE 4-32
Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Service Area
County Number of Areas Total Acreage
Vance 11 2,030
Warren 14 3,336
Granville 45 8,928
Franklin 28 3,066
Total 101 17,360
Source: NCNHP, 2014
4.8 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value
NEPA and SEPA require a review of archaeological and historic resources, and these are described in this
section. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the formal repository of information pertaining to
historic structures and districts. Places considered for listing include historic structures and districts,
cemeteries, and archaeological sites. Since the proposed project would not cause any growth outside the
service area, no impacts to archaeological and historic resources in Virginia would occur. Thus, this section
focuses on resources in the North Carolina portion of the study area.
4.8.1 Areas of Archaeological Value
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) recognizes and aids in the documentation of
archaeological sites throughout the state. Vance, Warren, Granville, and Franklin Counties have numerous
archaeological sites on record with the NCSHPO (Table 4-33) (NCSHPO, 1999). Many of these include
archaeological work conducted at abandoned historic cemeteries and home sites. Other sites have been
investigated for more insight into the Native American populations present in the area prior to colonization.
TABLE 4-33
Archaeological Sites within the Service Area
County Number of Archaeological Sites
Vance 250+
Granville 270+
Warren 185
Franklin 100+
Source: NCSHPO, 1999.
4.8.2 Areas of Historic Value
Vance, Warren, Granville and Franklin Counties have a rich architectural and historic inventory. Properties
included on the NRHP are listed in Appendix C. The following paragraphs describe the historic landmarks
found in both the urban and rural portions of the service area.
The 137 historic landmarks located throughout the service area include private homes, plantations, farms,
mills, educational institutions, municipal buildings, churches, museums, businesses and historic districts
(NRHP, 2014). Historic landmarks are deemed of historic significance and categorized by four areas:
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-32
architecture, person of historical relevance, event, and informational potential. The majority of historic
landmarks are private homes of architectural significance.
Vance County has 21 historic landmarks, which include 20 buildings and one historic district. The historic
landmarks display a range of diversity, including private homes, plantations, and municipal buildings. The
majority of the historic landmarks are located in the City of Henderson, which is the largest municipality in
the county and includes the Henderson Central Business District. St. James Episcopal Church and Rectory,
located in Kittrell, is a historically recognized religious structure from the 1850s (NRHP, 2014).
Restoration of some Vance County sites has occurred using grants and technical assistance from the
NCSHPO, including the LaGrange and Ashburn Hall bed and breakfast inns, the former Maria Parham
Hospital, the former First National Bank, and the Henderson Fire Station, which dates back to the early
1900s (NCSHPO, 1999).
Granville County has 45 historic landmarks, which include 11 buildings and 34 historic districts. The high
number of historic districts includes predominantly farms and plantations consisting of multiple buildings
and large tracts of land. Many of the historic farms and plantations are located in more rural areas of
Granville County. By the 1860s, many expert farmers resided in Granville County producing large yields of
tobacco crops. Additionally, using large numbers of slaves to work the farms and plantations required
outbuildings (slave quarters) on the properties. The Marcus Royster Plantation, the largest remaining in the
area, is situated on 3,070 acres. Other examples include the Red Hill Plantation (restored), Puckett Family
Farm, Rose Hill, and Sycamore Valley. The City of Oxford is home to the Oxford Historic District, which
includes municipal buildings such as the county court house (NRHP, 2014).
Warren County has 25 historic landmarks, which include 21 buildings, one historic district, two sites, and one
structure. Many of the historic buildings in Warren County are private homes, churches, and municipal
buildings that are noted for their architectural significance. The designation of the large Warrenton Historic
District has encouraged economic development there. Additionally, the Hebron Methodist Church in
Warrenton flourished during the 1800s, and today is a historic landmark (NRHP, 2014). Many restoration
efforts have occurred, with Cherry Hill preserved as a cultural center. A walking tour guide was also
developed for Warrenton to encourage heritage tourism (NCSHPO, 1999).
Franklin County has 46 historic landmarks, which include 40 buildings, 5 historic districts, and one site. The
majority of historic landmarks are situated in the Town of Louisburg, which is the county seat, or the Town
of Franklinton. Three of the historic districts are located within the Town of Louisburg: Louisburg Historic
District, Dean Farm, and Cascine. The Louisburg Historic District includes the Williamson House, Main
Building, and Louisburg College. The Williamson House was home to John H. Williamson, a slave who
became a legislator and publisher after emancipation. The Town of Franklinton is home to the Franklin
Depot, a historically recognized train depot dating back to the late 1800s. Some of the architecturally
denoted homes in the rural areas of Franklin County date back to the 1750s. These include Locust Grove
(Foster House) and the Monreath Building.
4.9 Air Quality
Air quality data are presented in detail for the service area only and data are not divided by basin, as these
topography factors do not significantly influence air movement or quality in this area. Information regarding
quality in the source basin outside of the service area can be obtained via the USEPA and individual state
departments of air quality. Air quality may change significantly from the basin’s headwaters to the coastal
plain based on various land uses, weather patterns, and proximity to urban areas.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its associated amendments established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: carbon
monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. The NAAQS established
primary standards set at concentrations that protect human health, and secondary standards set to protect
the public welfare, particularly vegetation, livestock, building materials, and other elements of the
environment.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-33
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) classifies Granville, Vance, and Warren Counties as its
Northeastern Piedmont Area, while Franklin County is part of the Raleigh metropolitan area. In Granville
County (Butner), a seasonal ozone monitor is in place (NCDAQ, 2013a). Ozone is not directly emitted, but is
formed when sunlight reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx and is a component of smog.
This area is in attainment for ozone (USEPA, 2014).This more rural area is only monitored for ozone; it does
not contain any facilities that emit lead above the level now required for monitoring under the 2008 lower
lead limits set forth by the EPA.
A seasonal ozone monitor is also in place in Franklin County (Franklinton) as part of the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill metropolitan area monitoring program (NCDAQ, 2013a). The area is in attainment for ozone
(USEPA, 2014). Lead monitoring is currently not conducted in this area and the Raleigh area does not have a
large facility that emits lead.
As part of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area, Franklin County has available Air Quality Index
(AQI) data. EPA uses the AQI to report ambient air quality conditions, and the AQI includes the following
range: good (green), moderate (yellow), unhealthy for sensitive groups (orange), unhealthy (red), to
hazardous (purple). Table 4-34 indicates that, in the recent past, Wake County and surrounding areas have
typically experienced good or moderate air quality during more than 90 percent of the year.
TABLE 4-34
Wake County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Air Quality Index Summaries from 2005 to 2011
Air Quality Index
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Days Annual % Days Annual % Days Annual % Days Annual % Days Annual %
Good (Green) 207 56.7 229 62.6 289 79.2 242 66.3 257 70.4
Moderate (Yellow) 137 37.5 125 34.1 76 20.8 118 32.3 102 27.9
Unhealthy for Sensitive
Groups (Orange)
21 5.8 11 3.0 0 -- 5 1.4 6 1.6
Unhealthy (Red) 0 -- 1 0.3 0 -- 0 -- 0 --
Hazardous (Purple) 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 --
Total 365 100 366 100 365 100 365 100 365 100
Source: USEPA, 2008; NCDAQ, 2009; NCDAQ, 2012a; NCDAQ, 2012b; NCDAQ, 2013a
4.10 Noise Level
Within the service area, noises are associated with development along the I-85, US 1, and US 401 corridors;
rural agricultural activities; and residential activities. Noise levels are highest along traffic corridors, with
lower noise levels in residential areas. Construction activities, which occur with development, are
temporary. Land use within the service area is primarily agricultural and forested land, and noise is also
associated with agricultural activities. Typical residential noise sources include lawn mowers, leaf blowers,
and barking dogs. This noise is generally concentrated during daylight hours.
4.11 Forest Resources
Forest and agricultural resources encompass a majority of the service area among the counties of Vance,
Warren, Granville, and Franklin. Table 4-35 shows the acres of related forest types in the service area.
Additionally, the primary land use along the river is forested and includes some NHPNAs. While available
data are more than a decade old, this information still shows the relative relationships between herbaceous
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-34
(mainly managed agriculture) and forested cover, and shows the prevalence of bottomland hardwood
forest.
The most common forest type in the service area is Southern yellow pine. This forest type includes longleaf,
shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine trees. Southern yellow pine forests are often managed for logging
activities. These pine forests are resistant to fire. Upland hardwood forests in the area are likely to include a
diversity of canopy (mainly oaks, sycamore, maples, beech, and poplar) and understory species (dogwood,
holly, and viburnum). Many hardwood forests also may include pines, especially if some disturbance has
occurred. Herbaceous vegetation on the forest floor includes various herbs, wildflowers, ferns. Vines
including smilax species, poison ivy, and creeper also stretch from the forest floor into the canopy (Schafale
and Weakley, 1990).
TABLE 4-35
Forest Resources within the Service Area
Forest Type Vance County
(Acres)
Warren County
(Acres)
Granville County
(Acres)
Franklin County
(Acres) a
Managed Herbaceous Cover 9,965 15,097 33,944 21,820
Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover - Upland 107 1971 552 7
Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover - Wetland 0 8 11 6
Evergreen Shrubland 26,707 47,964 37,033 56,802
Deciduous Shrubland 1,696 5,798 3,503 4,513
Mixed Shrubland 1,349 3,354 2,715 1,823
Mixed Upland Hardwoods 27,103 31,957 93,542 30,821
Bottomland Forest/Hardwood Swamp 18,576 33,849 35,797 42,635
Southern Yellow Pine 35,613 90,222 72,095 82,381
Other Needleleaf Evergreen Forest 0 11 0
Broadleaf Evergreen Forest 0 0.00 18 0
Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers 12,8370 24,783 25,663 22,830
Oak/Gum/Cypress 24 0 259 4
Source: ESC, 1997
a Franklin County population has grown since these data were developed; thus forested acres may be overestimated.
4.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
Specific regulations exist at the state and federal levels to protect endangered and threatened species and
their habitats from impacts due to public or private projects and land-disturbing activities. The primary law
that protects sensitive wildlife species is the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (North Carolina General Statutes [NCGS] 113-331-350) and Virginia
Endangered Species Act (VA ST §§ 29.1-563 – 570) also protect listed species.
4.12.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species
Source Basin – Roanoke (Virginia Portion)
Table 4-36 contains a list of aquatic federally listed species known to occur within the Roanoke River basin,
the source basin. These species were listed and described by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-35
(USFWS, 2014a) and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VDCR, 2014). Six aquatic species are federally
listed and of these, three are listed as a federal species of concern (FSC). Species found in North Carolina’s
portion of the Roanoke River basin are also presented in the following section so that all species within the
service area are presented holistically.
TABLE 4-36
Federally Listed Aquatic Species within the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
Common
Name
Scientific
Name Federal Status Subbasin(s) a
Vertebrates
Orangefin Madtom Noturus gilberti FSC Upper Roanoke, Middle Roanoke, Upper Dan
Roanoke Logperch Percina rex E Upper Roanoke, Upper Dan
Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii T Upper Dan
Invertebrates
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC Lower Dan
James Spinymussel Pleurobema collina E Upper Dan
Virginia Stonefly Acroneuria kosztarabi FSC Upper Roanoke
Source: VDCR, 2014
a Subbasin defined according to the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation Natural Heritage Database
E = Listed Endangered
T = Listed Threatened
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
Roanoke Logperch
Of the aquatic vertebrate species listed, only the Roanoke logperch is endemic to Virginia. One record is
present in North Carolina, just inside the state line (Virginia Polytechnic University, 2010). This fish is found
in only a few watersheds and therefore is inherently lower in population numbers and more likely to suffer
from impacts such as habitat loss and water quality degradation. Large impoundments in the Roanoke River
basin have contributed significantly to the decline of this species. Preferring clear water, this insectivore flips
over gravel with its snout to locate food and lays eggs in gravel runs (USFWS, 2003). During its typical
reproduction window from March 15 to June 30, construction is not permitted in the river and tributaries
where the small fish resides. A recovery plan was prepared and approved by USFWS in 1992; however,
critical habitat has not been established.
Southern Bog Turtle
The Southern bog turtle population, ranging from Virginia to Georgia, receives protections which ban
collection and interstate trading of the turtles. However, there are no restrictions on land management
activities associated with Southern bog turtle habitats (USFWS, 2).
James Spinymussel
The James spinymussel inhabits the Upper Dan basin, which straddles Virginia and North Carolina. The
primary cause of the species decline was habitat loss or modification. Therefore, the James spinymussel
would likely suffer from impacts associated with habitat loss and water quality degradation (USFWS, 2014b;
NCWRC, 2014).
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-36
4.12.1.1 Receiving Basins – Tar River, Fishing Creek, and Neuse River
Table 4-37 contains a list of aquatic federally listed species known to occur within the service area including
in the Roanoke River basin, as described by USFWS and the NCNHP. Thirteen aquatic species are federally
listed and of these, 11 are listed as FSC.
TABLE 4-37
Federally Listed Aquatic Species within the Service Area
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status
Watershed (Roanoke,
Tar, Neuse) County a County
Status a
Vertebrates
American Eel Anguilla rostrata FSC All a Franklin, Granville,
Vance, Warren Current
Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis
lepidinion FSC Neuse, Tar b Granville, Vance Current
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus FSC Tar, Neuse c Franklin, Granville, Vance Current
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus volucellus FSC Neuse, Tar b Franklin, Vance, Warren Current
Pinewoods Shiner Lythrurus matutinus FSC Neuse, Tar c Franklin, Granville,
Vance, Warren Obscure
Roanoke Bass Ambloplites cavifrons FSC All c Franklin, Granville,
Warren Current
Invertebrates
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC All c Franklin, Granville,
Warren Current
Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC Roanoke c Granville Current
Chowanoke Crayfish Orconectes virginiensis FSC Roanoke a Granville Current
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Tar c Franklin, Granville,
Vance, Warren Current
Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC Tar c Granville Current
Mountain River Cruiser Macromia margarita FSC All Franklin, Granville Current
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Tar, Neuse c Franklin, Warren Current
Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC Tar c Franklin, Granville, Vance Current
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC Tar c Franklin, Granville,
Vance, Warren Current
a USFWS, 2014a
b NCNHP, 2014
c NCWRC, 2014
E = Endangered
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
Of the aquatic fish species listed, two are endemic to North Carolina: the Carolina madtom and the
pinewoods shiner. These fish are found in only a few watersheds and therefore are inherently lower in
population numbers and more likely to suffer from impacts such as habitat loss and water quality
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-37
degradation. Others have wider distribution ranges along the east coast, with the American eel being a
catadromous species, also occupying oceanic waters for a portion of its life cycle.
Two federally listed endangered aquatic invertebrate species have known populations within the service
area and in the Tar River portion of the study area, the dwarf wedgemussel and the Tar River spinymussel.
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Dwarf wedgemussel populations are located in the Tar River basin in all counties (Franklin, Granville, Vance,
and Warren) (NCWRC, 2009). This species is also found in the Neuse River basin, but its populations have
dwindled there due to habitat loss. The dwarf wedgemussel's shell rarely exceeds 1.5 inches in length. It is
also the only North American freshwater mussel that has two lateral teeth on the right valve, but only one
on the left. The dwarf wedgemussel inhabits creek and river areas with slow to moderate currents, which
must be nearly silt-free and have well established wooded buffers (NCWRC, 2014). The dwarf wedgemussel
does not have a designated critical habitat (USFWS, 2008).
Tar River Spinymusssel
Known Tar River spinymussel populations are located in the Tar River watershed in Franklin, Nash, and
Edgecombe Counties and to a lesser extent in the Neuse River basin. The Tar River spinymussel’s shell rarely
exceeds 2.5 inches in length; this species has one or two rows of distinctive spines on each valve. It prefers
fast-flowing stream habitats with unconsolidated bottoms of coarse sand and gravel and well established
wooded buffers. The water must be nearly silt-free and well-oxygenated (NCWRC, 2009). No critical habitat
rules have been published for the Tar River spinymussel. However, the species’ Recovery Action Plan is
currently undergoing a 5-year review (initiated in 2009) (USFWS, 2011).
4.12.2 Aquatic Natural Areas
A full list of NHPNAs within the source and receiving basins is included in Appendix C.
4.12.2.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Two aquatic NHPNAs are present within the portion of the Roanoke River basin in the service area, Aarons
Creek and Little Grassy Creek. Both are located in the northern portion of Granville County and flow north
towards the Roanoke River. Within the Roanoke River basin in North Carolina, 10 NHPNAs are present.
4.12.2.2 Receiving Basin – Tar River
The majority of the listed freshwater mussel species known to occur within the service area and study area
are in the Tar River basin (Table 4-38) and as a result, the NHP has designated a significant amount of
aquatic natural areas in the basin. Its smaller watersheds and the main stem of the Tar River are home to a
diversity of mussel species. As such, these areas have been designated as aquatic NHPNAs.
TABLE 4-38
Aquatic Natural Areas within the Upper Tar River Subbasin
Aquatic Habitat Name County
Cedar Creek Franklin
Crooked Creek (Franklin) Franklin
Cub Creek Granville
Fox Creek Granville
Middle Tar River Franklin, Granville, Vance
North Fork (Tar River) Granville
Ruin Creek/Tabbs Creek Vance
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-38
TABLE 4-38
Aquatic Natural Areas within the Upper Tar River Subbasin
Aquatic Habitat Name County
Shelton Creek Granville
Swift Creek (Vance/Warren/Franklin/Nash/Edgecombe) Franklin, Vance, Warren
Upper Tar River Granville
Source: NCNHP, 2014
4.12.2.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Most of the creeks that comprise the Fishing Creek subbasin are designated as aquatic NHPNAs for their
freshwater mussel habitat. Table 4-39 lists the aquatic NHPNA habitats.
TABLE 4-39
Aquatic Natural Areas within the Fishing Creek Subbasin
Aquatic Habitat Name County
Fishing Creek Franklin, Warren
Little Fishing Creek Warren
Reedy Creek Warren
Little Shocco Creek Franklin, Warren
Shocco Creek Franklin, Warren
Source: NCNHP, 2014
4.12.2.4 Receiving Basin – Neuse River
The eastern tributaries to Falls Lake are not designated as NHPNAs.
4.12.3 Common Aquatic Species and Habitats
A diversity of fishes and freshwater mussels, in addition to the federally listed species described in the
previous section, are present in the watersheds of the Roanoke and Tar River basins.
4.12.3.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
The run of river from Leesville Dam to Kerr Lake offers diverse fishing opportunities, as do water bodies on
the Roanoke River. The upstream area between Leesville Dam and Brookneal has excellent habitat for
smallmouth bass and walleye. Channel catfish and flathead catfish also inhabit this portion of the river
(VDGIF, 2010).
The lower section of the Roanoke River (downstream of Brookneal to Kerr Lake) has a lower gradient.
Smallmouth, largemouth, and spotted bass are found here but in lower numbers than in the upper portion
of the river. Catfish are also abundant. In spring, there is a thriving striped bass fishery.
Kerr Lake is managed for fisheries cooperatively by the VDGIF and the NCWRC. A diverse sport fishery adds
to the recreational value of Kerr Lake. These fishes can be supported only by an overall healthy native fish
community structure. Striped bass and other bass species are the main sport fish species, while crappie and
catfish are also of recreational interest. Striped bass reproduce naturally in the reservoir, supported by
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-39
annual stocking of over 350,000 fish (Virginia Outdoors, 2010). Of the catfish species native to the reservoir,
the blue catfish grows the largest.
In the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin, the Wildlife Action Plan lists 36 priority aquatic
species: 23 fishes, 12 mussels, and 1 crayfish (NCWRC, 2005a). The Roanoke River supports important fish
communities, including striped bass, river herring, and hickory shad. These species have provided
opportunities for highly popular sport fisheries to flourish in the Roanoke River basin, resulting in economic
value being placed on particular fish species and aquatic habitat. Downstream of the Roanoke River
impoundments in the Coastal Plain, the river is heavily used by anadromous fishes and the American eel
(NCWRC, 2005a). Anadromous fish spawning season is protected via specific flow regimes required at the
Roanoke Rapids dam. See Section 4.1.3 and Table 4-40 for specific details on fish spawning flow regimes.
4.12.3.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Fishing Creek
Common species are similar in the Tar River and Fishing Creek basins of the service area. Information
regarding this area is typically discussed in the context of the greater Tar-Pamlico River basin, as is done in
this section. The 2005 Wildlife Action Plan (NCWRC, 2005a) lists 40 priority aquatic species in the Tar-
Pamlico River basin: 21 fish, 17 mussels, and 2 crayfish. Many of these species are found above the fall line
(majority of study area), while some are more likely to be found below the fall line in the Coastal Plain. The
Tar River basin provides extensive fisheries habitats, which support important economic activities
throughout the basin. The Tar River is home to various anadromous fish species, such as striped bass,
American shad, and river herring.
Habitat loss and water quality degradation are the primary causes of the decline in freshwater mussel
populations in these watersheds. Clearing for agriculture and other uses has increased siltation in their
habitats. In addition, pollution sources such as septic systems, poultry and swine facilities, industries, and
other domestic sources have altered water quality and habitat conditions. These species evolved in clean,
flowing water and have more limited survival rates in the water conditions found today. Management
strategies to protect freshwater mussel populations include protection and establishment of vegetated
stream buffers and preservation and restoration of high water quality and aquatic habitats (NCNHP, 2009b).
4.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
This section identifies the federally listed species of concern, threatened, and endangered terrestrial species
and habitats within or near the study area. A summary of terrestrial species and habitat types common to
the study area is also provided.
4.13.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
4.13.1.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Table 4-40 contains a list of federally listed terrestrial species known to occur within the Roanoke River basin
in Virginia, as described by the Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VDCR, 2014).
TABLE 4-40
Federally Listed Terrestrial Species within the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Subbasin(s) a
Vertebrates
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA All
Peaks of Otter Salamander Plethodon hubrichti FSC Upper Roanoke
Invertebrates
A Cave Springtail Pseudosinella bona FSC Upper Roanoke
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-40
TABLE 4-40
Federally Listed Terrestrial Species within the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Subbasin(s) a
Spirit Supercoil Paravitrea hera FSC Upper Roanoke
Ellett Valley Cave Beetle Pseudanophthalmus pusio FSC Upper Roanoke
Ellett Valley Pseudotremia
Millipede Pseudotremia cavernarum FSC Upper Roanoke
Plants
Keever's Bristle-moss Orthotrichum keeverae FSC Upper Roanoke
Addison's Leatherflower Clematis addisonii FSC Upper Roanoke
Canby's Mountain-lover Paxistima canbyi FSC Upper Roanoke
Piedmont Fameflower Phemeranthus piedmontanus FSC Upper Roanoke
Roan Mountain Sedge Carex roanensis FSC Upper Dan
Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides T Upper Roanoke
Small-anthered Bittercress Cardamine micranthera E Upper Dan
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata E Upper Roanoke, Middle Roanoke
Sword-leaved Phlox Phlox buckleyi FSC Upper Roanoke
Tall Barbara’s-buttons Marshallia legrandii FSC Middle Roanoke
Torrey's Mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei FSC Upper Roanoke, Middle Roanoke
Virginia Quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC Banister
Winter Quillwort Isoetes hyemalis FSC Middle Roanoke
Yadkin hedge-nettle Stachys matthewsii FSC Middle Roanoke
Source: VDCR, 2014
a Subbasin defined according to the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation Natural Heritage Database
E = Listed Endangered
T = Listed Threatened
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
In the Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin, 20 terrestrial species are federally listed and of these, 16
are listed as FSC. Two species, the smooth coneflower and small-anthered bittercress, are federally listed as
endangered, while one, the small whorled pogonia, is federally listed as threatened. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is now protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 2007. These
four species are further described below.
Smooth Coneflower
Smooth coneflower is a federally listed endangered vascular plant. This herb grows to 5 feet in height. The
flowering portion of the herb is typically light pink to purple in coloration. Flowering occurs from late May
through July. The plant requires open space with abundant sunlight and little competition. Additionally,
periodic disturbances from wild fires or other events reduce shade and competition from other plants.
Today, this species is most likely to be found along roadways or utility ROWs since these areas are
frequently disturbed (mowed) for maintenance reasons.
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-41
Small-anthered Bittercress
Small-anthered bittercress is a small perennial herb, which is listed as endangered. This species is native to
small streamside seeps, sandbars, and stream banks of the Dan River basin. The existing populations are
very small, containing less than six plants. Additionally, many are close to pastures and fields, increasing
their vulnerability to erosion and pesticides.
Small Whorled Pogonia
Small whorled pogonia is federally listed as threatened and is a member of the orchid family. The plant
produces a smooth, hollow stem from 2 to 14 inches tall and the top of plant has a five- to six-leaf circular
arrangement. The plant produces one or two flowers and the leaves are milk-green to grayish-green, while
the flower is yellowish-green in color. This plant is most vulnerable to habitat destruction, due mostly to
residential and commercial development.
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle has been delisted because of recent recovery of the species and is now protected by the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 2007 (USFWS, 2014a). The bald eagle is a large raptor and is recognized
by the characteristic white head of an adult. Nests are often constructed near water and can measure up to
6 feet in diameter. Nests are reused by the same pair year after year. Bald eagles primarily feed on fish, but
can consume other small animals including frogs, smaller birds, and turtles. The recovery of this species is
largely due to the banning of harmful pesticides, including dichlorodipenyltrichloroethane (DDT).
4.13.1.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River, Fishing Creek, and Neuse River
Table 4-41 presents a list of terrestrial federally listed species known to occur within the service area
(USFWS, 2014a; NCNHP, 2014). Because many of these terrestrial species (such as the bald eagle) are highly
mobile, data are presented at the county level.
TABLE 4-41
Federally Listed Terrestrial Species within the Service Area
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status County County Status
Vertebrates
Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC Warren Current
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA Vance, Granville, Warren Current
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis P Granville Current
Plants
Butner's Barbara's-buttons Marshallia legrandii FSC Granville Current
Buttercup Phacelia Phacelia covillei FSC Franklin, Vance Current
Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil Acmispon helleri FSC Granville Current
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum E Granville Current
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii E Franklin Current
Oak Barrens Barbara’s buttons Mashallia legrandii FSC Granville Current
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata E Granville Current
Tall Larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC Granville Current
Prairie Birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri FSC Granville/Warren Current/Historic
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-42
TABLE 4-41
Federally Listed Terrestrial Species within the Service Area
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status County County Status
Source: USFWS, 2014a; NCNHP, 2014
E = Endangered
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
P = Proposed
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Twelve terrestrial species are federally listed in the service area and of these, seven are listed as FSC. Three
species, the smooth coneflower, Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii), and harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum),
are federally listed as endangered, while one, the bald eagle, is now protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act of 2007. These four species are further described below. One species has been listed as
proposed, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
Smooth Coneflower
This species is discussed earlier in this Section.
Michaux’s Sumac
Michaux’s sumac is an upland terrestrial vascular plant that is federally endangered. This shrub grows to
between 1 and 3 feet tall and flowers between June and July. Most plants are unisexual, and reproductive
capacity is low. This may partly explain the plant’s rarity. Typical habitat includes sandy or rocky open woods
with basic soils. Repeated disturbance is necessary to provide open areas for this plant to be successful.
Remaining populations are found along maintained roadway ROWs and areas managed with frequent fires.
Threats to remaining populations include habitat loss due to development and fire suppression.
Harperella
Harperella is a federally endangered vascular plant that grows to a height of 6 to 36 inches beginning in late
June or July and continuing until frost. The leaves are reduced to hollow, quill-like structures. The small,
white flowers occur in heads, or umbels, that are similar to those of Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota). This
plant is relatively prolific and large numbers may occur within each population, especially along rivers.
Harperella is noted along the Tar River in Granville County.
4.13.2 Natural Vegetation & Common Wildlife
4.13.2.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
The Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin is within the Piedmont Plateau and supports diverse plants
and wildlife. Natural vegetation along waterways includes mesophytic forests, commonly found on ravines
and river slopes. Additionally, forests of silver maple, sycamore, American elm, boxelder, and other flood-
tolerant trees are present in areas along larger rivers in the Roanoke River basin. Common aquatic species
found within the flowing water of the Roanoke River include grass-leaf mud-plantain, American eel-grass,
pondweeds, waterweeds, and water nymphs. The horn-leaf riverweed is often rooted on shallowly
submerged boulders and rock outcrops. Shoreline eddies and pools support mats of floating duckweeds,
duckmeats, and Carolina mosquito-fern. As the basin extends into North Carolina, natural communities
associated with mountains are present, including Canada hemlock forest, rich cove forest, low elevation
rocky summit, spray cliff, and Carolina hemlock bluff.
North Carolina’s portion of the Roanoke River basin has healthy populations of white-tailed deer, black bear,
and wild turkey. Wild turkey, a game species, has increased in population following efforts by the NCWRC.
Populations are present in all counties of the basin, totaling more than 150,000 birds. Populations in Vance,
SECTION 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
4-43
Granville, and Warren Counties are well established, while fewer birds are present in Franklin County. This is
likely due to Franklin County being more developed and having a higher human population density than
counties to its north (NCWRC, 2005a; NCWRC, 2005b).
The Roanoke River downstream of its impoundments and within the Coastal Plain is bordered by extensive,
diverse floodplain forests: the largest intact bottomland hardwood swamp forest east of the Mississippi
(Roanoke River Partners, 2011). Much of these bottomland hardwood and cypress forests are protected by
The Nature Conservancy and as federal and state lands. Additionally, the Coastal Plain includes high quality
wetland communities such as Coastal Plain bottomland hardwoods, cypress-gum swamps, and habitat types
such as peat forests and pocosins, backwater swamps, and alluvial flats. Common wildlife in the Lower
Roanoke riparian areas includes black bear, white-tailed deer, river otter, beaver, bald eagle, osprey, and
great blue heron, as well as turtles and snakes (Roanoke River Partners, 2011).
This page has been intentionally left blank.
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Raleigh
Durham
Butner
Red Oak
Rocky Mount
Chapel Hill
Cary
Tarboro
Henderson
Dortches
Roxboro
Morrisville
Carrboro
Oxford
Wake Forest
Roanoke Rapids
Hillsborough
Zebulon
Nashville
Gaston
Louisburg
Weldon
Rolesville
Enfield
Stovall
Knightdale
Stem
Princeville
Norlina
Momeyer
Franklinton
Littleton
Pinetops
Spring Hope
Leggett
Bunn
Wilson
Castalia
Garysburg
Warrenton
Youngsville
Elm City
Macon
Middleburg
Halifax
Sharpsburg
Middlesex
Whitakers
Kittrell
Centerville
Wendell
Tar Riv e r
Fishin
g Creek
San
dy Creek
S
wift CreekEno R iver
Ut
Shocco Creek
Reedy Creek
Cedar Creek
M
ar
s
h S
w
a
m
p
T
a
b
b
s
Creek
ROA N O K E R I V ER
Deep Creek
Crabtree Creek
Bee
ch S
wam
p
Town C reek
Little River
Northe a st C r e e k
South Flat River
Rocky Swamp
South Fork Little River
Flat Riv
er
H y c o Ri v e r
Stony Creek (Boddies Millpond)
Moccasin Cre
e
k (
B
u
n
n
L
a
ke)
Big Peachtree Cree
k
G r a s s y C r e e k (G r a s s C r e e k)
T o i s not Swamp (Silver Lake-Lake Wilson)
Flat River (
L
a
k
e
Mic
hie)
R O A N O K E R I VER (Roanoke Rapids Lake)
N e u s e R iv e r (F a ll s L a k e b el o w n o r m a l pool elevation)
Deep C
r
e
e
k
D e e p Creek
Ceda
r
C
r
e
e
k
To w n Creek
R
ocky
S
w
a
m
p
NASH
WAKE
HALIFAX
WARRENPERSON
FRANKLIN
GRANVILLE
VANCE
DURHAM
EDGECOMBE
ORANGE
NORTHAMPTON
WILSONCHATHAM
JOHNSTON PITT
CASWELL
HALIFAX MECKLENBURG BRUNSWICK GREENSVILLE
§¨¦85
§¨¦95
§¨¦40
¯5 0 52.5 Miles
MayoReservoir
FallsLake
§¨¦40
Figure 4-1Interbasin Transfer from Roanoke River BasinWater Supply ResourcesKerr Lake Regional Water System
§¨¦40
§¨¦40
Kerr Lake Regional WTP
KerrLake Lake Gaston
Roanoke Rapids Lake
Neuse
Fishing Creek
Tar-Pamlico
Legend
Interstate Highway
Municipality
Water Body
WastewaterTreatment Plant
#*WaterTreatment Plant
Water Supply Watershed Class
Critical Area
WS-II NSW
WS-III
WS-III NSW
WS-IV
WS-IV NSW
Major Hydrology
Major Road
#*
River Basins
County Border
Roanoke
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SECTION 5
5-1
Environmental Consequences/Predicted Environmental Effects of the Project
This section describes the environmental consequences and/or predicted environmental effects of
the proposed water transfer from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar River, Neuse River, and Fishing
Creek basins. The direct and secondary and cumulative effects of the water transfer are described
within the context of the projected time frame for the transfer – through 2045. This section
describes the impacts as follows:
Source Basin, which describes the predicted environmental direct and SCI on the Roanoke River
basin portion of the study area. These potential impacts focus on issues related the water
withdrawal. No additional infrastructure would be constructed as part of this project. Impacts
related to potential development (SCI) within the portions of the service area in Granville,
Vance, and Warren Counties within the Roanoke River basin are discussed in the Receiving Basin
section.
Receiving Basins, which describe the predicted environmental direct and SCI impacts in the Tar
River, Neuse River, and Fishing Creek basins and within the service area of the Partners. No
additional infrastructure would be constructed as part of this project. The Neuse River basin is
included in discussions with the Tar River basin, in that these areas within Franklin and Granville
Counties would experience similar growth patterns. The portions of the study area within the
Tar River and Fishing Creek downstream of the service area are also discussed due to increases
in wastewater discharges in the basins and the potential for population growth in these
watersheds.
For both Source and Receiving Basins, the direct and SCI consequences, if any, are described for
each area studied. “Cumulative Effects” are defined in 15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(2) as “resulting from
the incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other activities.” “Indirect
Effects” or secondary, are “caused by and result from the proposed activity although they are later
in time or further removed in distance, but they are still reasonably foreseeable” (15A NCAC 1C
.0101(d)(4)).
The data were gathered through literature reviews, internet searches, geographic information
system (GIS) queries, phone conversations, letters, and meetings with various resource agencies.
The direct impacts discussion focuses mainly on the potential for impacts to water resources in the
Roanoke River basin portion of the study area using a hydrological model. The SCI discussion
provided in the following section reflects a general analysis of the potential for urbanization to
impact specific resources in the receiving basin and service area, given current trends and literature
records. Federal, state, and local programs that provide mitigation to offset SCI are discussed in
Section 6.
Previous related projects, the USACE 2005 water storage allocation and the EA and associated FONSI
for the KLRWS water treatment plant expansion, found that no significant SCI would result from the
availability of additional water supply (Appendix B). The recommendations state “The reallocation of
storage discussed in this report is economically justified and will not significantly impact the
authorized purposes of Kerr Lake. The reallocation will not require any structural or operational
change” (USACE, 2005).
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-2
5.1 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
This section describes potential impacts to surface water and groundwater in the source and
receiving basins.
5.1.1 Water Resources: Surface Water
Of the water withdrawn from Kerr Lake, a portion would be returned via treated wastewater
discharge and a portion would be consumptively used in the Roanoke River basin, thus not
representing a transfer. Projections for the balance of water movements are discussed in Section 2.
The water transferred from the Roanoke River basin that then enters the receiving basins, the Tar-
Pamlico River basin (Fishing Creek and Tar River basins) and the Neuse River basins, would be both
consumptively used and discharged to streams as treated wastewater effluent.
5.1.1.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
The projected average day withdrawal from Kerr Lake in 2045, approximately 16 mgd, is less than
the allocated 20 mgd of water supply storage allocated to the Partners by the USACE. As part of the
2005 study in support of the water supply storage allocation, the USACE determined that this was
the most reliable alternative for future water supply and that no significant impacts to the other
USACE uses for Kerr Lake would occur.
Direct Impacts
Overview
Direct impacts to the Roanoke River basin from the increase in water transfer from the basin were
evaluated by using the updated NCDWR Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (RRBHM). Details of
the application of this model and the results of analyses of a wide range of scenarios are included in
Appendix D.
A hydrological model for a river basin can be used to assess changes in hydrological indicators for
current and future conditions based on a time series of hydrological inputs to the basin. Key
indicators that the model can estimate are river flows at various points within the river basin,
reservoir water levels, and changes in hydroelectric power generation. These indicators can be used
to evaluate and/or describe various potential environmental and economic impacts related to key
issues identified during scoping for the EIS, as summarized in Appendix A. These potential impacts
can be summarized as follows:
Reduced water for downstream fisheries and recreation
Inability of communities to obtain future water supply for growth
Reduced lake property values from altered aesthetics or access related to lower water levels
Impacts to recreation and tourism due to lower water levels
Precedent setting, such that other communities could transfer water from the basin
All except the last of these potential impacts can be evaluated based on the results generated using
the updated RRBHM. The last issue is a policy question for the EMC and NCDWR.
The updated RRBHM was used to evaluate changes in indicators for the following alternatives:
2010 Baseline –IBT is about 4.6 mgd
2045 Baseline – includes grandfathered IBT amount (10 mgd)
2045 IBT – IBT increases to 14.2 mgd
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-3
2060 Baseline - includes grandfathered IBT amount (10 mgd)
2060 IBT – IBT increases to 17.3 mgd
Each of these is discussed within the context of direct impact to water quantity and water quality in
the following subsections.
Water Quantity
As noted above, river flows at various points within the river basin, reservoir water levels, and
changes in hydroelectric power generation were selected as indicators to evaluate the impact of
transfer using the updated RRBHM. This subsection will addresses changes based on the indicators
of lake levels and stream flows, while hydropower effects are discussed in Section 5.1.3.
Proposed 2045 IBT
The proposed IBT is based on water demand and wastewater flow projections to 2045 as described
in Section 2. The IBT from the Roanoke River basin in 2045 would be 14.2 mgd MDD and the average
IBT would be 10.7 mgd (all receiving basins).
Lake Level
Lake levels were evaluated for each of the reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin for the period of
record and specifically during periods of extreme drought. In evaluating this alternative, lake levels
for three different bases of comparison were used:
Lake levels during the modeling simulation period, 1930 through 2011, based on estimated
water demands and returns during 2010 - referred to as the 2010 Baseline,
Lake levels with all water demands in the basin projected to 2045 and with the KLRWS IBT
capped at the grandfathered amount (10 mgd) - referred to as the 2045 Baseline
Lake levels with all water demands in the basin projected to 2045 and with the KLRWS IBT at
14.2 mgd MDD - referred to as the 2045 IBT.
The detailed modeling analysis presented in Appendix D indicates that lake level estimates are fairly
insensitive to changes in demand due to the large inflows from the watershed and volume of the
reservoir. Changes to elevation are relatively insensitive even during drought periods but show the
largest change due to overall increase in demand in comparing the 2010 to 2045 Baseline results.
Five sets of graphs are shown for Kerr Lake in Figures 5-1 to 5-5:
Lake level during the model simulation period from 1930 through 2011
Lake level during the most severe drought period during 2001-2002
Close-up of lake level during extreme drought in 2002
Lake level duration for the model simulation period from 1930 through 2011
Lake level duration focused on the lowest 5 percent of the duration curve
Table 5-1 summarizes the average changes in elevation during the simulation period and during the
two extreme drought periods in the 2000s for three reservoirs in the Roanoke system: Kerr Lake,
Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. None of the reservoirs showed a discernible difference
in elevation between the 2045 baseline and IBT 2045 scenarios during the 2002 and 2007 droughts.
Kerr Lake was the only reservoir that showed any differences, albeit slight, during the exceptional
drought periods. The model runs simulate the operation of the reservoirs based on the guide curves
specified for each reservoir. This operational mode tends to maintain the reservoir level by
regulating releases. For this reason, average lake elevation is usually the same for the different
scenarios. In the case of the 2002 drought, Kerr Lake did show a slight difference in elevation of 0.2
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-4
feet. Because of the drought, the elevation falls below the guide curve, and the discharge is
maintained at the same elevation for the IBT and non-IBT. This results in a slightly lower elevation in
the IBT scenario.
TABLE 5-1
Lake Level Difference for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during 2002 and 2007
Droughts
Scenario
Comparison Results (feet)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston Roanoke
Rapids
2045 Baseline
versus
2045 IBT
Average Baseline Elevation 299.8 200.0 132.0
Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 284.8 200.0 132.0
Average Difference with IBT during 2002 Drought -0.2 0.0 0.0
Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 284.6 200.0 132.0
Average Difference with IBT during 2007 Drought -0.1 0.0 0.0
Figures 5-1 to 5-5 illustrate the results for Kerr Lake for the Proposed 2045 IBT based on the updated
RRBHM simulations. These simulations show little discernible differences between any of the three
simulations depicted based on increased basin demands between 2010 and 2045 or the added
influence of the IBT even during the 2002 drought (Figure 5-2) or in the lower end of the duration
curve (Figure 5-5).
FIGURE 5-1
Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-5
FIGURE 5-2
Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – during 2002 drought.
FIGURE 5-3
Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – 2002 drought close-up.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-6
FIGURE 5-4
Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period.
FIGURE 5-5
Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake for entire simulation period – lowest 5 percent of
duration curve
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-7
Moving downstream, due to the lack of major differences between the Proposed 2045 IBT, the 2045
Baseline and the 2010 baseline results, only two graphs are shown for Lake Gaston (Figures 5-6 to 5-
7) and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir (Figures 5-8 to 5-9) including:
Lake level during the most severe drought period during 2002 drought
Lake level duration focused on the lowest 5 percent of the duration curve
These graphs show no discernible difference between the 2010 and 2045 Baseline conditions or the
Proposed 2045 IBT, which is similar to the results summarized in Table 5-1.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-8
FIGURE 5-6
Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – during severe 2002 drought
FIGURE 5-7
Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston for entire simulation period – lowest 5 percent
of duration curve
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-9
FIGURE 5-8
Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – during severe 2002 drought
FIGURE 5-9
Lake level duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir for entire simulation period –
lowest 5 percent of duration curve
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-10
Reservoir Release
Reservoir releases were also evaluated for each of the mainstem reservoirs in the Roanoke River
basin for the period of record and during the period of extreme drought. As with lake level, there
were no projected changes in releases for reservoirs upstream of Kerr Lake. Detailed results for
these reservoirs are shown in Appendix D. Table 5-2 summarizes differences in water releases for
three reservoirs in the system: Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. Figures 5-10
through 5-13 show release results for Kerr Lake, while Figure 5-14 and 5-15 show results for Lake
Gaston and Figures 5-16 and 5-17 show results for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir.
TABLE 5-2
Reservoir release differences for the entire simulation period and during the 2002 and 2007 droughts
Scenario
Comparison Results (cfs)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids
2045 Baseline
versus
2045 IBT
Average Baseline Discharge 7,443.5 7,888.8 7,491.5
Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 3,077.3 3,247.8 2,921.0
Average Difference during 2002 Drought 5.0 4.9 5.2
Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 2,691.2 2,989.8 2,681.7
Average Difference during 2007 Drought -8.1 -8.1 -8.1
2002 Drought – 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002
2007 Drought – 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008
These modeling results indicate that most of the changes resulting from the IBT are predicted to
occur as outflow from Kerr Lake. The average difference in release from Kerr Lake is approximately
5.0 mgd, which is less than the average IBT. Since the model is balancing water, this is likely due to
very small changes in lake elevation predicted as a result of the IBT (less than 0.05 foot, which is
rounded to 0.0 in Table 5-1). The reductions in release are predicted to be identical in Lake Gaston
and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir to those occurring from Kerr Lake, indicating that the changes as a
result of the IBT are occurring in outflow or storage in Kerr Lake. The actual changes in the flows as a
result of the IBT are quite small, representing 0.07 percent on average and up to 0.30 percent during
the 2007 drought. Predicted changes to inflows during the critical spring spawning periods on the
Roanoke River are discussed in Section 5.12.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-11
FIGURE 5-10
Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period
FIGURE 5-11
Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – during 2002 drought
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-12
FIGURE 5-12
Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake for entire simulation period
FIGURE 5-13
Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake for entire simulation period – lowest 5
percent of the duration curve
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-13
FIGURE 5-14
Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – during severe 2002 drought
FIGURE 5-15
Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston for entire simulation period – lowest 5
percent of the duration curve
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-14
FIGURE 5-16
Reservoir releases for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – during severe 2002-2003
drought
FIGURE 5-17
Reservoir releases duration for Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir for entire simulation
period – lowest 5 percent of the duration curve
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-15
TABLE 5-3
Comparison of Lake Levels for the 2010 and 2045 Baseline Scenarios
Scenario
Comparison Results (feet)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids
2010
Baseline
Average Baseline Elevation 299.2 200.0 132.0
Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 285.5 200.0 132.0
Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 294.9 200.0 132.0
2045
Baseline
Average Baseline Elevation 299.2 200.0 132.0
Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 284.8 200.0 132.0
Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 294.8 200.0 132.0
2002 Drought - 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002
2007 Drought - 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008
TABLE 5-4
Comparison of Reservoir Releases for the 2010 and 2045 Baseline Scenarios
Scenario
Comparison Results (cfs)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids
2010
Baseline
Average Baseline Discharge 7,463.1 7,931.1 7,532.8
Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 3,056.4 3,203.4 2,878.0
Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 2,719.0 3,038.4 2,731.4
2045
Baseline
Average Baseline Discharge 7,443.5 7,888.8 7,491.5
Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 3,077.3 3,247.8 2,921.0
Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 2,691.2 2,989.8 2,681.7
2002 Drought - 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002
2007 Drought - 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008
Water Quality
The City of Henderson discharges to Nutbush Creek, which is a 303(d)-listed stream for biological
impairment. The City’s current NPDES permit includes a provision to allow expansion of the
discharge to 6.0 mgd. The facility has not had a violation or penalty since 2001 and thus has a long
track record of compliance. Nutbush Creek is not a large stream; the instream waste concentration
(IWC) for the discharge is 97 percent, so continued compliance when expansion to 6.0 mgd occurs is
important to the continued protection of water quality in Nutbush Creek and Kerr Lake (NCDENR,
2009). The drainage area (3.8 square miles) to flow (6.0 mgd or 69 cfs) ratio is 0.41. Increased
impacts to Nutbush Creek are not expected with the increased wastewater discharge. The NPDES
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-16
permit has already been approved to 6.0 mgd; the limits in the permit are designed to preserve
instream water quality.
Some water customers in the Roanoke River basin do not have sewer service; instead, they have on-
site (septic) systems for treatment. Septic systems are permittable if soil and hydrogeological
conditions are suitable. If functioning properly, these systems provide adequate treatment of
wastewater. The number of septic systems is likely to increase in the Roanoke River basin portion of
the service area given its more rural landscape.
In summary, water quality in the Roanoke River basin would likely not be impacted by the proposed
IBT.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The predicted direct impacts to lake levels, all less than 0.5 feet, are not expected to secondarily
impact other features of the reservoirs, such as boat ramps, docks, or water intake structures.
Water levels are not predicted to decrease by such an amount that the water intake structures
would be impacted, and the guide curves in place aid in the balancing of water levels among the
reservoirs. These existing structures are not likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
The total amount of water leaving the Roanoke River basin is considered as part of the cumulative
impacts analysis for the proposed project. In addition to this IBT request, the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia has an intake in Lake Gaston and has permission to transfer a maximum of 60 mgd. Current
transfers average much less, 25.7 mgd in 2010 (Virginia Power, 2011). The City of Virginia Beach also
paid the USACE for its storage of 10,200 acre-feet in Kerr Lake and as part of its easement
agreement for its intake in Lake Gaston reimburses Virginia Power for the lost energy production
capability due to the transfer of water. This lost hydropower generation is not considered in the
cumulative impacts for hydropower because Virginia Power is compensated.
Virginia Beach’s transfer (also referred to as the Lake Gaston Project) does not impact Lake Gaston
levels because lake levels are controlled by both FERC licensing and Virginia Power. However, lake
releases are impacted by the Lake Gaston Project. Downstream flows are reduced by approximately
1 percent; during drought this impact could approach 3 to 4 percent. Also during droughts,
downstream flow must be maintained to protect instream habitats and when necessary augmented
flows from the storage purchased in Kerr Lake are used. This amounts to an impact, specifically a
decrease in Kerr Lake water levels of 2 to 4 inches (City of Virginia Beach, 2009). This impact, when
considered with the 0.1 feet of impact during times of drought for the IBT, is similar with no
discernable increase in impact. Cumulatively, these impacts are not significantly different from that
previously approved for the Lake Gaston Project and the City of Virginia Beach. Cumulatively with
this proposed IBT, downstream flows in the Roanoke River would not be impacted beyond the 1
percent anticipated for the City of Virginia Beach withdrawal (City of Virginia Beach, 2009). Aquatic
habitat impacts related to this decrease in downstream flows are discussed in later sections.
Other water quality SCI to the Roanoke River basin, particularly to Kerr Lake, could result from the
proposed project. The watershed of Nutbush Creek, the receiving stream for the City of Henderson’s
wastewater discharge, includes a portion of the City of Henderson. This stream is on the 303(d) list
for biological impairment and urban stormwater impacts are a factor. According to NCDENR, these
continued impacts would likely keep the creek on the 303(d) list even with the WWTP operating well
into the future (NCDENR, 2006). Degradation of the habitat conditions in the channel has already
occurred; this project would not significantly impact the ability of Nutbush Creek to meet standard
Class C waters metrics. Impacts would not be significantly different from those of the No Action
Alternative.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-17
5.1.1.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
Water Quantity
There would be no anticipated impacts to public water supply in the Tar River. Other municipalities
do use the Tar River for water supply; however, because the initial withdrawal is from another river
basin, the available water supply in the Tar River would not be reduced by the IBT.
Water Quality
Primary impacts to water quality from the IBT would originate from operation of existing WWTPs.
The increased transfer of water to the Tar River and Fishing Creek basins would translate into an
increase in wastewater discharges at the Oxford, Warrenton, Bunn, and Franking County WWTPs.
The Tar-Pamlico River basin has a nutrient management strategy in place; Phase III is currently
underway. Phosphorus and nitrogen reduction goals are the focus, with trading and other
mechanisms set up to cost-effectively reduce nutrient loading. The four WWTPs associated with this
project, listed above, are owned by members of the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association (Association) and
have nutrient monitoring without limits as part of their permits; instead, there is an overall nutrient
loading cap for the Association (Tables 5-5 and 5-6).
TABLE 5-5
Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Phase III Nutrient Caps
Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus
(lb/year) (kg/year) (lb/year) (kg/year)
891,272 404,274 161,070 73,060
Phase III agreed to on April 14, 2005
TABLE 5-6
Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Nitrogen Offset Credits
Timeframe
Nitrogen Credits
(lb) (kg)
Phase I 10,138 4,608
Phase II 30,276 13,762
Phase III 10,564 4,802
Phase III agreed to on April 14, 2005
The Association has a cap for total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading, which has not been
exceeded since the inception of the program even though flows have increased, as shown in annual
reports documenting monthly mass loadings of nutrients. The Association has accomplished this
performance by instituting biological nutrient removal (BNR) at individual facilities and monitoring
water quality at over 35 stations throughout the basin, including upstream and downstream of
these WWTPs. In addition, nitrogen offset credits have been banked and can be used against future
nutrient exceedances. The loading cap and other efforts by the Association would minimize any
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-18
potential impacts to downstream water quality as a result of this project. The Pamlico Sound would
not likely see additional nutrient impacts due to the increased wastewater discharge that could
result from this project. Impacts would likely not be significantly different from those of the No
Action Alternative.
These NPDES permits were issued to protect instream water quality while allowing for flexibility
with adaptive management strategies. The permitting process for each of these facilities has
complied with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) requirements. NCDWR’s anti-
degradation policy requires that only the alternative that causes the least amount of environmental
damage can be permitted under the NPDES program. Direct impacts related to flooding and
streambank erosion due to an increase in stream flow (from effluent) could be minor. The City of
Oxford’s WWTP already has a permitted IWC of 99 percent at 3.5 mgd and a ratio of watershed size
to wastewater concentration of 0.16. Again, the permitted NPDES flows would accommodate the
proposed IBT flow amounts without creating additional significant impacts.
Some water customers in the receiving basins do not have sewer service; instead, they have septic
systems for treatment. Septic systems must be permitted and, if functioning properly, provide
adequate treatment of wastewater.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Urban development of the receiving basins could adversely affect water quality. Potentially
significant indirect or secondary impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat in areas adjacent to
and downstream of these areas could occur with full urbanization. Urbanization is most likely in
Franklin County, with lower densities of development occurring in Granville and Vance Counties.
Short-term declines in water quality from installation of sewer and water lines, as well as public
facility construction projects, and long-term declines in water quality from land use changes could
have significant impacts on water quality and subsequent impacts on aquatic habitat, wetlands, and
sensitive aquatic and amphibian species in the service area and downstream within the study area.
While no new construction is associated with this proposed IBT project, other projects could include
additional infrastructure. Connections between the Partners and their customers are currently in
place and of adequate capacity to accommodate projected sales to 2045.
Changes in land use can have a major effect on both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff.
Land use changes associated with urbanization, for example, if not properly planned and managed,
can dramatically alter the natural hydrology of an area. Impervious surfaces increase the volume
and rate of stormwater runoff. These changes lead to more frequent and severe flooding and also to
degradation of water quality from the various stormwater pollutants that wash off impervious areas
during rain events (for example, sediments, nutrients, pathogen-indicators). As imperviousness
increases, the more impacted surface waters become from pollution and flooding. The cumulative
effects of stormwater runoff are evident in the frequent correlation between the location of a
stream and its water quality, where urban streams overall have poorer water quality than rural
streams.
5.1.1.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
As no construction is associated with this IBT and little to no increase in wastewater discharge to
Fishing Creek is expected, direct impacts to the Fishing Creek basin are not likely to occur. The IWC
of wastewater in Fishing Creek downstream of the Warrenton WWTP would be 76 percent if the
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-19
facility were operating at full capacity. At this permit level, the ratio of drainage area to wastewater
flow is 0.44.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The population projections for Warren County, including the Fishing Creek watershed, presented in
Section 2 show almost flat growth; therefore, no development-related SCI would likely occur in this
basin. Some industrial growth could occur, however it is not expected to be significant enough to
influence population growth projections.
5.1.2 Water Resources: Groundwater
This section identifies potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity.
5.1.2.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of surface water
would not affect groundwater resources. According to Basic Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology
with Reference to Conditions in North Carolina (USGS, 1980), groundwater recharge occurs by
precipitation in all inter-stream areas (except along streams and their adjoining floodplains).
Streams and floodplains are, under most conditions, discharge areas for groundwater; therefore, no
direct impacts to groundwater resources would occur in the source basin due to the project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
As described in the Direct Impacts section above, any change in lake elevations (which would occur
only as a result of operational decisions made during extreme droughts) due to the IBT would not
affect groundwater resources; therefore, no detrimental SCI on groundwater resources would be
expected as a result of the project. If some customers have individual wells and opt for public
supply, this could have locally beneficial impacts on groundwater.
5.1.2.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
As the Vance County Water System brings residents online, the use of groundwater for residential
water supply will decrease in this portion of the Tar River basin. This is a beneficial direct impact to
the Tar River basin, as fewer impacts to groundwater will occur over time. As residents will have an
option to connect to the water system and some new development will likely be connected, these
benefits cannot be quantified at this time.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Development of most urban areas has followed major roads. These roads facilitate the installation
of water supply systems from municipal sources. In the project area, growth patterns are likely to be
low- to medium-density residential except in Warren County, where growth is expected to remain
predominantly low-density residential. In Franklin County, the growth is expected to be more dense;
however, this is influenced as much by its proximity to the City of Raleigh and its amenities and
economic climate as by the availability of an additional water supply. This is expected to be the case
during continued development of the receiving basin study area. The increased roads, houses, and
other infrastructure would increase imperviousness in the receiving basin study area. A potentially
adverse impact to groundwater availability is the reduced infiltration capacity due to the increased
amount of impervious area; this would be a cumulative impact of full build-out of the project area—
thus secondarily affecting the recharge capacity of groundwater storage.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-20
Land use activities and growth in the receiving basin could impact groundwater quality by
introducing toxic contaminants into or onto the soil, where they could seep into the aquifer. Such
pollution can contaminate drinking water wells for communities and individual homes, making them
unsuitable for potable water use. Potential sources of groundwater contamination include solid
waste disposal sites, storage or use of hazardous substances, poorly designed or maintained septic
systems, accidental spills, and leaking underground storage tanks. These potential SCI resulting from
land use activities would likely not be significantly different from those of the No Action Alternative.
A beneficial cumulative impact of the project would be the connection of some existing well users to
the water system. These customers would either abandon their drinking water wells or reduce
usage and maintain the wells for irrigation uses only. This would have a beneficial cumulative impact
on groundwater resources in the area by reducing groundwater withdrawals. The formation of the
Vance County Water System is one example of this, expanding the customer base of KLRWS without
new development.
5.1.2.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
No groundwater impacts would likely occur in the Fishing Creek portion of the service area, as
population growth is expected to remain relatively flat.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI would likely occur in the Fishing Creek portion of the service area, as growth is not expected
to impact natural resources there.
5.1.3 Water Resources: Hydropower
5.1.3.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
Hydropower, a renewable energy resource, is generated in the Roanoke River basin including from
Kerr Lake. The evaluation of potential impacts to hydropower using the updated RRBHM was similar
to the evaluation of impacts to water quantity. Since no changes to lake levels or releases in
reservoirs upstream of Kerr Lake would occur, hydropower issues were evaluated only for Kerr Lake,
Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir.
The 2005 USACE water storage allocation study also considered hydropower impacts from the
withdrawal of the annual average 20 mgd allocation. While the USACE determined that there would
be a small reduction in power capability from Kerr Lake as a result of the withdrawal, the USACE
could quantify that amount and the Partners are now compensating the USACE on an annual basis
(USACE, 2005). Similar findings using the updated OASIS model are presented here.
Proposed 2045 IBT
Releases from the three upstream reservoirs are the same between scenarios. For this reason,
power generation is also equal. Table 5-7 summarizes the differences in total annual power
generation for the three lower reservoirs.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-21
TABLE 5-7
Power Generation Differences for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during the 2002 and
2007 Droughts
Scenario
Comparison Results (MWh)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston
Roanoke
Rapids
2045 Baseline
versus
2045 IBT
Average Baseline Power 471,074 342,548 348,778
Average Power during 2002 Drought 185,668 161,193 159,085
Average Difference during 2002 Drought with IBT -680 -346 -372
Average Power during 2007 Drought 342,152 249,559 253,131
Average Difference during 2007 Drought with IBT -378 -156 -168
Notes:
2002 Exceptional Drought Period – 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002
2007 Exceptional Drought Period – 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008
The power results are consistent with the results for releases. Small average generation differences
are observed based upon the very slight reduction in annual flow during the droughts.
Figure 5-18 through 5-23 illustrate power generation results for the entire simulation period and for
the drought periods in the 2000s for Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. The
predicted minor reductions in power are consistent with the predicted changes in reservoir releases.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-22
FIGURE 5-18
Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – entire simulation period
FIGURE 5-19
Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – during 2000s
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-23
FIGURE 5-20
Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – entire simulation period
FIGURE 5-21
Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Lake Gaston – during 2000s
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-24
FIGURE 5-22
Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – entire simulation period
FIGURE 5-23
Power generation for the Proposed 2045 IBT for Roanoke Rapids Reservoir – during 2000s
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-25
TABLE 5-8
Power Generation Differences for 2010 Baseline and 2045 Baseline Scenarios for the Entire Simulation
Period during the 2002 and 2007 Droughts
Scenario
Comparison Results (MWh)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids
2010
Baseline
Average Baseline Power 472,679 344,587 350,834
Average Power during 2002 Drought 188,442 162,646 160,706
Average Power during 2007 Drought 343,534 251,336 255,069
2045
Baseline
Average Baseline Power 471,074 342,548 348,778
Average Power during 2002 Drought 185,668 161,193 159,085
Average Power during 2007 Drought 342,152 249,559 253,131
2002 Drought - 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002
2007 Drought - 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The total amount of water leaving the Roanoke River basin is considered as part of the cumulative
impacts analysis. In addition to this IBT request, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia has an intake in
Lake Gaston and has permission to transfer a maximum of 60 mgd. The City of Virginia Beach also
paid the USACE for its storage of 10,200 acre-feet in Kerr Lake and as part of its easement
agreement for its intake in Lake Gaston reimburses Virginia Power for the lost energy production
capability due to the transfer of water. This lost hydropower generation is not considered in the
cumulative impacts for hydropower because Virginia Power is compensated.
5.1.3.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
Hydropower generation does not occur along the Tar River; therefore, no direct impacts to
hydropower in this basin would occur.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Hydropower generation does not occur within this receiving basin; therefore, no SCI to hydropower
in this basin would occur.
5.1.3.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
Hydropower generation does not occur along Fishing Creek; therefore, no direct impacts to
hydropower in this basin would occur.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Hydropower generation does not occur within this receiving basin; therefore, no SCI to hydropower
in this basin would occur.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-26
5.2 Topography and Floodplains
5.2.1 Topography and Floodplains: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to topography or floodplains in the source basin as a result of this
project. Construction is not associated with the proposed project. The capacity of Kerr Lake for flood
storage would not be impacted or altered by this IBT. Kerr Lake is drawn down in the winter and
spring according to its guide curve to meet one of its functions (flood storage). This project and its
water withdrawal would not impact the ability of Kerr Lake to meet this function or impact the
release regime from Roanoke Rapids Lake and its ability to meet minimum instream flow
requirements.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI within the portions of the service area in the Roanoke River basin are discussed in Section 5.2.2.
There are no projected water storage changes to the reservoirs upstream of the withdrawal;
therefore, flood storage capabilities of these reservoirs would not be impacted by this project, nor
would floodplains along the Roanoke River and its tributaries.
In Kerr Lake and downstream, water storage and water release regimes would not be significantly
impacted and therefore no impacts to floodplains downstream on the Roanoke River would occur.
Floodplains in the lower Roanoke River are ecologically significant and would not be affected by this
project. Downstream minimum flows would still be met with the implementation of this project. No
significant SCI to topography and floodplains would be likely to occur.
5.2.2 Topography and Floodplains: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to topography or floodplains in the Tar River basin as a result of
this project. Construction is not associated with the proposed project. While wastewater flows could
increase, which would increase stream base flows, these changes would be minor during larger flow
events where floodplains would be in use. These wastewater flows would be covered under current
permitting, so no additional impacts would likely occur.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI to topography and floodplains in this receiving basin would likely not be significantly different
from those of the No Action Alternative. Cumulative impacts from the multiple wastewater
discharge flows that could increase would be minor during larger stream flow events where
floodplains are in use.
Current land use trends within the service area (which includes source and receiving basins) are
likely to continue into the future. Growth patterns are likely to be low- to medium-density
residential except in Warren County, where growth is expected to remain predominantly low-
density residential. In Franklin County, the growth is expected to be more dense; however this is
influenced as much by its proximity to the City of Raleigh and its amenities and economic climate as
by the availability of an additional water supply. Continued growth and development could require
grading and clearing activities, though current ordinances and regulations would protect floodplains
to some extent. If development within the floodplain were permitted, the function of the floodplain
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-27
would be reduced. Floodplains, if left undisturbed, provide numerous functions, including wildlife
habitat, surface water filtration, infiltration, and wildlife movement corridors.
5.2.3 Topography and Floodplains: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to topography or floodplains in the Fishing Creek basin as a result
of this project, as no construction would occur.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI are expected in the Fishing Creek subbasin, as population growth would remain relatively
flat. With little residential growth and associated commercial growth predicted, development would
not be significantly different than under the No Action Alternative, with no significant SCI expected.
5.3 Soils
5.3.1 Soils: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to soils in the source basin as a result of this project. Construction
is not associated with the proposed project. Water levels in the reservoirs would not be affected, so
additional soils along the banks would not be exposed, as occurs during drawdown periods and
droughts.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
As described in the Direct Impacts section above, any change in lake elevations (which would occur
only as a result of operational decisions made during extreme droughts) due to the IBT would not
affect soils resources. Therefore, no significant adverse SCI to soils resources would likely occur as a
result of the project.
5.3.2 Soils: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to soils in this receiving basin as a result of this project.
Construction is not associated with the proposed project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Current land use trends within the service area are likely to continue. With the availability of
additional water supply, growth patterns are likely to be low- to medium-density residential.
Continued growth and development could require grading and clearing activities, which could
disturb local soils. Cumulative impacts of soil loss and erosion would be limited by the
implementation and enforcement of sediment and erosion control permits for disturbances greater
than the minimums when permits are required.
This growth could increase runoff, increasing the volume and rate of stormwater entering stream
channels. In these stream channels, increased stresses and altered hydrology could occur, creating
the potential for more erosion and loss of soils into stream channels unless adequate development
restrictions and ordinances are in place. Some stream channel impacts could occur, including in
channels where cumulative impacts from increased base flow occur as a result of wastewater
discharge increases; however, these wastewater discharge increases would be within currently
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-28
permitted limits. Overall, these activities would not likely differ significantly from those of the No
Action Alternative.
5.3.3 Soils: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to soils in this receiving basin as a result of this project.
Construction is not associated with the proposed project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI are expected in the Fishing Creek watershed, as population growth would remain relatively
flat. With little residential growth and associated commercial growth predicted, development would
not be significantly different from that under No Action Alternative, with no significant SCI expected.
5.4 Land Use
5.4.1 Land Use: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to land use in the Roanoke River basin associated with this IBT
project. Construction is not a part of this project; the existing water intake structure in Kerr Lake
would be used.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Within the source basin, SCI would not likely occur upstream or downstream of the withdrawal
location in Kerr Lake. The increased water withdrawal would not significantly impact water levels in
Kerr Lake; therefore, land uses around Kerr Lake and downstream along Lake Gaston, Roanoke
Rapids Lake, and the Roanoke River would not likely be impacted by this project. In turn, land values
would not likely be influenced by this increased water withdrawal and IBT. Access to Kerr Lake
would not be impacted.
5.4.2 Land Use: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to land use in this receiving basin associated with this IBT project.
No construction would occur as part of this project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Impacts of land use changes would result from residential, commercial, and industrial growth,
converting more rural land to urban and suburban uses. Industrial growth is projected to occur in
and around the Triangle North business park locations. Residential growth patterns are likely to be
low- to medium-density residential except in Warren County, where growth is expected to be
minimal and remain predominantly low-density residential, as documented in their 2012 LWSP. In
Franklin County, the growth is expected to be more dense; however, this is influenced as much by
its proximity to the City of Raleigh and its amenities and economic climate as by the availability of an
additional water supply. The southern half of the county would see denser growth, while the portion
north of Louisburg would likely maintain low density agricultural/rural residential land uses (Figure
5-49). Some subdivision is likely to occur in the northern portion of the county, as indicated by
spatial trends evident in the County’s subdivision mapping presented as Figure 5-50.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-29
Typical impacts of land use changes could also include degradation of resources through the
introduction of incompatible urban land uses adjacent to the resources. For example, the loss of
viable farm income can occur when subdivisions are built adjacent to farmland. In addition, because
the value of the farmland rises as urbanization of the area occurs, farmers can be forced out of
business due to increased property taxes.
In summary, land use changes (especially in Franklin County) would likely occur with the No Action
Alternative as well, so these changes would not likely differ from those of the No Action Alternative.
5.4.3 Land Use: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to land use in this receiving basin associated with the IBT project.
No construction would occur as part of this project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In the Warren County portion of the service area, which consists of portions of the Roanoke River
and Fishing Creek basins, minimal growth is expected. Therefore, the IBT would not result in land
use changes significantly different from those of the No Action Alternative. The availability of
additional water supply would not significantly alter the rate or pattern of development from what
is currently occurring.
5.5 Wetlands
Wetlands are primarily located within the riparian zones or floodplains of streams and lakes.
Wetlands are protected by Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. According to the CWA, wetlands must
be avoided if practical; otherwise, impacts must be minimized and mitigated.
5.5.1 Wetlands: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts upstream of Kerr Lake are not likely to occur; the water withdrawal associated with
the IBT would not likely cause changes in reservoir release regimes or in run-of-river levels, which
could impact adjacent wetlands.
Downstream of Kerr Lake and at the water withdrawal location, direct impacts to wetlands could
result from removal of the water from the system. However, the minimum flow releases from
Roanoke Rapids Lake would not likely be significantly altered by the increased water withdrawal.
Because of the minimum flow releases, adequate flow would remain available downstream, so
impacts to adjacent wetlands would not likely occur with this project. With no significant changes to
basin hydrology or water quality, the IBT project would not have a significant direct impact on
wetlands within the service area or downstream in the study area.
Also, no construction is proposed in the Roanoke River basin, so no direct impacts to wetlands
would occur as a result of the IBT.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI associated with the portion of the Roanoke River basin in the service area are discussed in
Section 5.5.2. Except for those impacts, no SCI related to wetlands would likely occur in the source
basin.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-30
5.5.2 Wetlands: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
No construction would occur as part of this project; therefore, no direct impacts to wetlands would
occur. With no significant changes to basin hydrology or water quality, the IBT project is not likely to
have impacts on wetlands within the service area or downstream within the study area along the
Tar River.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Growth that is partially facilitated by the availability of additional water supply, regardless of source,
could impact wetlands in the service area if it were to proceed unchecked. Impacts could be direct,
in terms of filling or draining of wetlands for construction of roads, building sites, or utilities. Urban
development could also have significant indirect impacts on wetlands, in terms of increased levels of
silt and sediment from grading activities and the increased amount of nonpoint source pollutants
entering the wetlands over the long term from upland development activities and urban land uses.
However, most wetlands occur along waterways and major waterways are protected as part of
Franklin County’s conservation districts (Figure 5-49).
Typical urban stormwater pollutants include sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), bacteria
(fecal coliform as indicators), and potential toxicants (metals, oil and grease, hydrocarbons, and
pesticides). It is widely accepted that, in general, increased amounts of stormwater runoff from
increased impervious surfaces in developed areas can cause erosion and collapse of stream banks,
leading to loss of riparian canopy trees and degraded stream habitat.
The acreage of wetlands impacted by growth could increase as the level and intensity of land use
changes increase in the basin.
5.5.3 Wetlands: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
No construction would occur as part of this project; therefore, no direct impacts to wetlands would
occur. With no significant changes to basin hydrology or water quality, the IBT project is not likely to
have direct impact on wetlands within the service area.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In Warren County, which contains portions of the Roanoke River and Fishing Creek basins, little land
use change would likely be associated with the IBT. Without development pressures for land use
changes, the potential for SCI to wetlands in this basin is low and would not be significantly different
from the potential under the No Action Alternative.
5.6 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands
5.6.1 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There would be no source basin direct impacts to PFL and Farmland of Statewide Importance
because no construction is associated with this project. Agricultural irrigation needs would not be
impacted by the withdrawal.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-31
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Within the source basin, SCI to PFL would be unlikely to occur. Upstream of the water withdrawal
location, no SCI would be likely since reservoir release regimes would not likely change and run-of-
river flows would not likely be impacted. Downstream of the water withdrawal, some cumulative
impacts to water levels could occur. Irrigation demands are included in the modeling analysis
presented in Section 5.1 and would not likely be impacted by any cumulative changes in water
levels; the availability of water would not be discernibly different from that of existing conditions
with existing water withdrawals. Water demands downstream of the withdrawal area, including
those for public water supply, industry, and agricultural irrigation, would all increase in the future.
These, cumulatively, could impact water levels in the Roanoke River. The results from the modeling
presented in Section 5.1 show that all water needs in 2045 can be met without perceptible impacts
to water resources.
5.6.2 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
There would be no direct impacts to PFL and Farmland of Statewide Importance in this receiving
basin because no construction is associated with the project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Mapping of PFL within the service area was not conducted, since the exact location of future
development is impossible to predict. SCI to prime and unique agricultural lands would likely occur
from the associated development within the service area. Acreage would likely be lost to
development, mainly to residential uses. These SCI would likely occur primarily in the southern end
of the service area, especially in Franklin County. Franklin County’s future land use map (Figure 5-49)
shows a plan for the northern portion of the county to remain in agricultural/rural residential land
uses. Very little SCI are expected in the Fishing Creek subbasin in Warren County because population
growth is minimal, as documented in their 2012 LWSP; in this area, impacts would likely be minor.
While the number of water customers could grow, this would likely occur by offering water service
to existing well users.
Development in the service area (primarily Franklin County) would occur and result in loss of PFL,
even without increased water supply availability from Kerr Lake. Impacts related to growth are not
dependent on a specific water source, only that an adequate water supply is available. It is possible
that Franklin County could secure another water source if it were not a customer of KLRWS. The
population growth predictions in Franklin County, as included in their 2012 LWSP, are dependent on
an adequate water supply and availability of other resources. Franklin County’s future land use
planning focusing growth in towns and priority growth areas is included in its Comprehensive
Development Plan (updated 2007) and is summarized in Section 6. While this project could provide
that adequate water supply, it is possible that another water supply could be secured and these
potential SCI could occur anyway, making these impacts not significantly different from those of the
No Action Alternative.
Without the project, conversion of agricultural lands would likely continue in areas currently
experiencing development pressures, such as Franklin County. Wells and septic systems could be
used, or another water source. While the pattern of growth could be different and the density could
be lower, farmland would likely be converted. These impacts of land use changes could also include
degradation of a land use type through the introduction of adjacent incompatible urban land uses.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-32
For example, the loss of viable farm income can occur when subdivisions are built adjacent to
farmland. Because the value of the farmland rises as urbanization of the area occurs, farmers can be
forced out of business due to increased property taxes. In addition, the use of farm equipment on
local public roads becomes more dangerous with increased traffic. In some cases, the new
residential growth could cause associated farming businesses to relocate.
5.6.3 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
There would be no receiving basin direct impacts to PFL and Farmland of Statewide Importance
because no construction is associated with this project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In Warren County, which contains portions of the Roanoke River and Fishing Creek basins, little land
use change would likely be associated with the IBT. Without development pressures for land use
changes, the potential for SCI to PFL and Farmland of Statewide Importance in this basin would be
minor and would not be significantly different from conditions under the No Action Alternative.
5.7 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas
Public lands could become more valued by the community as open spaces are converted to other
land uses.
5.7.1 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
Public lands and NHPNAs are along the Roanoke River both upstream and downstream of Kerr Lake
and the water withdrawal location. Direct impacts would not likely occur; the water withdrawal
associated with the IBT would not be expected to cause changes in reservoir release regimes or in
run-of-river levels, and no construction is associated with this project. Public access to facilities such
as docks is not likely to be influenced by the increase in IBT. These findings are supported by the
2005 USACE water storage allocation report which found that “these small changes in pool elevation
would not have a perceptible impact on reservoir recreation” (USACE, 2005).
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI related to public lands and NHPNAs would occur upstream of Kerr Lake within the Roanoke
River basin.
The water levels in Kerr Lake fluctuate by season and are managed to provide adequate
downstream releases of water. Implementation of the guide curve leads to water level differences
throughout the year which are not seen in the two downstream flow-through reservoirs. This Kerr
Lake pattern would not likely be impacted by the increased water withdrawal. The guide curve
would remain in place and followed, even in drought or other extreme situations. The timing of the
guide curve trigger points could be slightly affected by water withdrawal (see Section 5.1.1 and
Appendix D with associated plates); however, reservoir management activities would overcome any
potential impacts. Recreational uses, NHPNAs, and public lands along Kerr Lake and downstream
would not likely be impacted by the increased water withdrawal. Activities such as use of the
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-33
Roanoke River paddle trail, boat launching in the North Carolina reservoirs, and river uses
downstream of Roanoke Rapids Lake would not likely be impacted by reduced access or use
limitations.
Downstream of Kerr Lake, the Roanoke River is susceptible to cumulative impacts from the
combined water withdrawals of the Partners and the City of Virginia Beach. Public Lands are along
the river, protecting floodplains and bottomland hardwood forests. Cumulative water resources
impacts are presented in Section 5.1.1, showing that no further cumulative impacts beyond those
associated with the City of Virginia Beach transfer would likely occur with the proposed project.
These reductions in downstream flow releases would not likely impact these lands.
5.7.2 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts to public lands within the receiving basin would not likely occur as construction is not
associated with this project. Adequate infrastructure is in place to transfer water from the Partners
to their wholesale customers.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Adverse SCI to public lands, NHPNAs, and recreational lands within the receiving basin portion of the
service area and downstream along the Tar River and Fishing Creek in the study area are not likely to
occur. Many NHPNAs are present within these areas, primarily associated with aquatic resources
along the Tar River and Fishing Creek (Figure 4-2). Growth and development within the service area
could instead increase the value of these public areas and their scenic value and natural resources.
The communities within the service area have parks and recreation departments to continue
maintaining and/or creating public spaces.
Within the Tar River basin, impacts to factors that comprise the intrinsic value of these NHPNAs
could be impacted, such as forested wildlife corridors, water quality, and air quality. The growth that
would be partially facilitated by this project and the availability of additional water supply could
generate SCI. Increased wastewater discharges are addressed in the facilities’ current permits and
through the Tar River nutrient management strategies, so no additional impacts to NHPNAs would
result via changes in water quality. This growth would likely occur with or without the availability of
additional water supply. Therefore, any potential SCI (although not likely to occur) would not be
significant when compared to those of the No Action Alternative.
5.7.3 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts within the Fishing Creek subbasin would likely not occur.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Within Warren County and the Fishing Creek subbasin, the increase in population during the
planning period is projected to be minimal, as documented in Warren County’s 2012 LWSP. Fishing
Creek has been considered for designation as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), and while that
designation has not yet been approved, the watershed does exhibit good water quality, aquatic
habitat, and recreational opportunities. With little growth and development pressure in the
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-34
watershed, the potential for SCI would likely not be significantly different from those of the No
Action Alternative.
5.8 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value
5.8.1 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
The IBT would not have any direct impacts on archeological or historic resources in the source basin.
No construction is associated with this project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI to areas of archaeological or historic value within the source basin and adjacent to the Roanoke
River basin waterways would likely not occur, as no significant changes to water levels or discharge
would likely occur with this project. SCI within the portion of the Roanoke River basin in the service
area are discussed below.
5.8.2 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Assessing historic properties in the service area is beyond the scope of this document, but much
work detailing historic properties has been conducted in the area.
Direct Impacts
The IBT would not have any direct impacts on archeological or historic resources in this receiving
basin. Adequate infrastructure to convey water to the Partners and their wholesale customers is
currently in place and no construction is associated with this project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI to areas of archaeological or historic value within this receiving basin would be limited. Those
places already listed would be protected in accordance with current regulations. Historic downtown
areas in Henderson and Oxford would not likely be impacted. Large development activities would
require investigation of the potential for historic value, according to current regulations. Historic
areas could be impacted directly by future projects creating cumulative impacts, but secondary
impacts would be unlikely. Impacts to historic resources would be assessed individually during
project planning, likely at the county level, if properties are not listed on a NRHP. The greatest
potential for SCI is in the Tar River and Neuse River basins in Franklin County, where most of the
growth is predicted to occur.
5.8.3 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
The IBT would not have any direct impacts on archeological or historic resources in this receiving
basin. Adequate infrastructure to convey water to the Partners and their wholesale customers is
currently in place and no construction is associated with this project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI to areas of archaeological or historic value within this receiving basin would be limited. Those
places already listed would be protected in accordance with current regulations. The historic district
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-35
in Warrenton and other structures in Warren County would likely not be impacted, as growth in
Warren County is expected to be minimal according to their 2012 LWSP.
5.9 Air Quality
5.9.1 Air Quality: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water would not
affect air quality. Therefore, no direct air quality impacts would occur in the source basin.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI to air quality would occur in the Roanoke River basin. The potential for SCI in the service area
portion of the Roanoke River basin is discussed below.
5.9.2 Air Quality: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water would not
affect air quality. Therefore, no direct air quality impacts would occur in the receiving basins.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts of a growing population could impact air quality in the service area. These
impacts would be more likely to occur in the southern portion of the service area in the Tar River
basin. As more vehicles travel within the service area, levels of emitted air pollution could increase.
Even without the proposed IBT, the population within the service area is likely to increase and
contribute to higher levels of air pollution. While industrial emissions could also increase in the
service area, the primary source of air pollution is likely to remain vehicles. Without improved
roadways, it is likely that traffic problems would increase, exacerbating existing air quality problems.
Smog, ozone, and carbon monoxide are pollutants of concern within the service area and are
monitored.
While air quality impacts could occur, long-term cumulative effects of development in the service
area are unlikely to have a significantly different impact on air quality than the No Action
Alternative. The major pollutant of concern in the region as a whole is ozone. This would continue to
be managed by the current vehicle testing program, thereby limiting impacts. Any additional
commercial or industrial sources would comply with air quality regulations.
5.9.3 Air Quality: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water would not
affect air quality. Therefore, no direct air quality impacts would occur in this receiving basin.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In the Fishing Creek subbasin in Warren County, minimal population growth is expected, limiting the
potential for air quality impacts in the watershed. However, air movement patterns are not bound
by river basin boundaries and pollutants that could increase to the west of this basin as part of the
project have the potential to travel eastward into the basin. While minor air quality impacts could
occur, long-term cumulative effects of development in the service area would not likely have a
significant impact on air quality.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-36
5.10 Noise Level
5.10.1 Noise Level: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and therefore no increase in noise levels from the
IBT. The increased withdrawal and discharge of water would not affect noise levels in the source
basin; therefore, no increased direct noise impacts would occur in the source basin.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The IBT would not facilitate growth or recreational use in the source basin, so no secondary or
cumulative noise impacts would result from the proposed project. Any potential for SCI in the
service area portion of the Roanoke River basin are discussed in the following section.
5.10.2 Noise Level: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts or changes to noise levels in this receiving basin would not likely occur, as no
construction is associated with this project. The Partners currently have adequate infrastructure in
place to transfer water to their wholesale customers.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The predicted growth within the service area will produce higher amounts of noise from greater
density of land uses, more people living in the service area, more businesses and industries
operating in the area, and an increase in the number of vehicles using local roads and highways. This
growth is expected to occur primarily in the southern portion of the service area in the Tar River
basin. The continued growth and development of the service area is likely to significantly impact the
community noise levels through the introduction of additional traffic and industry. Overall, the
background outdoor noise level in the service area could be raised with increased development over
time. This is most likely to be significant in the southern reaches of the service area.
5.10.3 Noise Level: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts or changes to noise levels in this receiving basin are not likely to occur, as no
construction is associated with this project. The Partners currently have adequate infrastructure in
place to transfer water to their wholesale customers.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In the Fishing Creek subbasin in Warren County, population growth is predicted to be minimal
according to its 2012 LWSP, so any increase in noise levels would be minor.
5.11 Forest Resources
5.11.1 Forest Resources: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, so no direct impact to forest resources would
occur.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-37
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Any change in lake elevations due to the IBT would not affect forest resources upstream or
downstream of the water withdrawal location. Water release regimes or run-of-river levels
upstream would not be affected. Short-duration changes in the Kerr Lake levels driven by the timing
of the guide curve (described in Section 5.1 and Appendix D) would not be significant enough to
impact forest resources along Kerr Lake or downstream reaches of the Roanoke River and its
reservoirs. Bottomland hardwood forests downstream of the Roanoke Rapids Lake dam are
important ecologically; these communities are not likely to be significantly impacted by the
cumulative impacts of the City of Virginia Beach and KLRWS IBTs. Minimum instream flow
requirements would be maintained, providing adequate water to these downstream forested
communities.
The potential for impacts to forest resources in the service area portion of the Roanoke River basin
is discussed in the following section.
5.11.2 Forest Resources: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, so no direct impacts on forest resources in this
receiving basin would occur.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to forest resources are expected as growth continues in the service area with or
without the proposed project. Development activities are predicted to occur mainly in the southern
portion of the service area in the Tar River basin and in Franklin County.
Cumulative forest impacts related to growth are not dependent on a specific water source, only that
an adequate water supply is available. For example, it is possible that Franklin County could secure
another water source if it were not a customer of KLRWS. The population growth predictions in
Franklin County, as included in their 2012 LWSP, are dependent on an adequate water supply and
the availability of other resources. While this project could provide that adequate water supply, it is
possible that another water supply could be secured and these potential SCI could occur with or
without the proposed project. Impacts to forest resources would likely occur with or without this
proposed IBT. Therefore, the impacts would not be significant when compared to the No Action
Alternative.
Forested land within portions of the service area will be converted to other uses. Even without the
proposed IBT, forested land would likely be converted to low-density residential land that is serviced
by wells and septic systems or to medium-density residential with the availability of an alternate
water source. Forested communities would likely remain, primarily along stream channels where
stream buffer rules are in place. Overall, forested wildlife habitat would be reduced within the
service area and could become more fragmented.
5.11.3 Forest Resources: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, so no direct impacts to forest resources in this
receiving basin would occur.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-38
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI to forest resources in the Fishing Creek subbasin in Warren County are unlikely, since predictions
are for very slow growth in that portion of the service area.
5.12 Shellfish or Fish and their Habitat
5.12.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
Several federally listed aquatic species are known to occur in the source basin in Virginia and North
Carolina, as outlined in Section 4.12. Fishing, especially for striped bass and shad, is also an
important recreational and commercial activity in the Roanoke River basin. In addition, one NHPNA
is present in the source basin.
Direct Impacts
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including freshwater
mussels and fisheries in the source basin, could be directly affected by water quality and quantity
changes from transfers of water from the basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow
between reservoirs change dramatically. The proposed project would not likely have any direct
effects on these species or their habitats in Kerr Lake, as no construction would occur and there are
no known aquatic protected species near the water withdrawal location. In addition, no discernable
water quality or quantity impacts result from the proposed transfer of water, as discussed
throughout Section 5. With no construction and no discernable changes predicted, the upstream
NHPNA in Granville County and the downstream Roanoke River Management Area for striped bass
are not expected to be directly impacted by the proposed project. The NCWRC will continue to
manage this fishery and its open seasons.
The proposed project is not likely to impact protected species or native communities in the Roanoke
River basin.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI to shellfish or fish would likely occur upstream of Kerr Lake, the water withdrawal location.
Reservoir release regimes and run-of-the-river levels would not be impacted by the water
withdrawal. No water quality changes would be expected. Species such as the striped bass are
unlikely to be impacted by this withdrawal because the release regime from Kerr Lake would not be
altered by the IBT. The NCWRC will continue to manage this fishery and its open seasons. Water
quantities needed to protect aquatic habitats would remain available. With no significant changes to
lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in the source basin, the proposed project
would not have any significant SCI on fish, aquatic, wildlife, or sensitive species, or the NHPNA
within the source basin.
5.12.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Several listed freshwater mussel and fish species are federally listed in the Tar and Neuse River
basins. The aquatic communities, especially in the Tar River basin, exhibit many rare species, as
discussed in Section 4.12. In turn, many lengths of stream have been designated as NHPNAs in the
Tar River basin.
Direct Impacts
The IBT itself would not have any direct impacts on fisheries or sensitive species and their habitats,
including NHPNAs, in the service area and these basins, because no construction is associated with
the IBT.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-39
The proposed project is the preferred alternative because it would avoid adding a water supply
source in the Tar River basin, which would remove water from the river, would likely impact aquatic
habitats, and potentially have greater environmental impacts than the IBT (see Section 3).
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Growth within the service area is expected more in the Tar and Neuse River basins than in the
Roanoke River basin or Fishing Creek basin. Land management activities influence water quality.
Further development and growth within the service area could have minor impacts on fish and
wildlife resources through the continued:
Loss, fragmentation, or degradation of sensitive and non-sensitive aquatic species and their
habitats through conversion of land and wetland areas and filling or piping of streams and
creeks for residential, business, or public facility uses
Degradation of water quality and adverse impacts on aquatic resources, fisheries, and wetlands
through increasing erosion and sedimentation from construction activities; changed hydrology
from increased impervious surfaces; and increased stormwater runoff containing high levels of
nonpoint source pollutants
Loss of species diversity through the combined cumulative impacts listed above
Federally listed aquatic species such as the Tar River spineymussel and many state-listed species are
present in the Tar and Neuse River basins. Both the water quality and sensitive species aquatic
habitat in the Tar River basin could be minimally impacted. To a lesser extent, some impacts could
occur in the Neuse River basin. Moderate impacts are likely to occur in Franklin County (both basins)
without adequate protection measures. Franklin County and other southern portions of the service
area are likely, according to their 2012 LWSPs, to have moderate population growth, which in turn
could generate moderate SCI to resources without adequate protection measures in place.
These species have some level of protection from the Tar-Pamlico nutrient reduction strategy, Falls
Lake strategy, stream buffers, and other water quality and habitat preservation measures in place in
the basin. The existing WWTPs within the service area could have increased flows associated with
this growth; however, the nutrient reduction strategies and NPDES permits in place are sufficient to
mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species and their habitats. Mitigation measures intended to
reduce the potential for impacts to listed species and natural resources as a result of the IBT and its
facilitation of population growth within the service area and downstream within the study area are
discussed in Section 6. While some moderate SCI to aquatic habitat, and potentially to listed species,
may occur these SCI are not expected to differ significantly from the other water supply alternatives
considered.
5.12.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
The proposed project IBT itself would not have any direct impacts on aquatic communities and their
habitats, including aquatic communities and NHPNAs, in the service area, since no construction is
planned with the IBT.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In Warren County, population growth rates are predicted to remain low, so only minor impacts from
development are expected. This would preserve the habitat resources in Fishing Creek and its
tributaries in the basin. Impacts would be minimal and likely not significant in the Fishing Creek
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-40
basin and Warren County. Fishing Creek is home to a sustainable, diverse aquatic community and
would likely not be impacted by this project. Growth patterns are similar under the No Action
Alternative and the 2012 LWSP, which predicts an almost flat growth rate for the planning period of
this IBT.
5.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
5.13.1 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation: Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
Several federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial species are known to occur or have
occurred in the source and receiving basins, as outlined in Section 4.13. In addition, many terrestrial
NHPNAs are present.
5.13.1.1 Source Basin – Roanoke River
In the Roanoke River basin, habitat diversity ranges from the mountainous headwaters to
bottomland hardwood forests as the river reaches the Albemarle Sound as discussed in Section 4.13.
Direct Impacts
Listed species and their habitats would not be directly impacted by implementation of the proposed
project. With no construction associated with the proposed project and no discernable projected
impacts to water resources as a result of the increased withdrawal, no direct source basin impacts
to wildlife and natural vegetation would likely occur in the source basin.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
No SCI to wildlife, including protected species, or natural communities would likely occur upstream
of Kerr Lake, the water withdrawal location. With no significant changes to lake elevation, lake and
basin hydrology, or water quality in the source basin, the proposed project would not have any
measurable SCI on wildlife, avian species, or natural communities within the source basin.
5.13.1.2 Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
The headwaters of the Tar River basin fall within the service area. The portion of the Neuse River
basin in Granville and Franklin Counties mainly drains to Falls Lake; some headwater tributaries
drain to the run of river downstream of Falls Lake.
Direct Impacts
Listed terrestrial and avian species and their habitats would not be directly impacted by
implementation of the proposed project. With no construction associated with the proposed
project, no direct source basin impacts to wildlife and natural vegetation would likely occur in these
receiving basins.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Growth within the service area is expected more in the Tar and Neuse River basins than in the
Roanoke River basin or Fishing Creek basin. Further development and growth within the service area
could have minor impacts on wildlife resources mainly through the continued loss, fragmentation,
or degradation of terrestrial habitats through conversion of land and wetland areas for residential,
business, or public facility uses. These conversions of native vegetation to maintained lands or
impervious surfaces reduce the amount and connectivity of available habitats. These potential
impacts to wildlife, including protected species, and natural areas are not expected to be significant.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-41
5.13.1.3 Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
Listed species and their habitats would not be directly impacted by implementation of the proposed
project. With no construction associated with the proposed project, no direct impacts to wildlife and
natural vegetation would likely occur in these receiving basins.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
In Warren County, population growth rates are predicted to remain low, so only minor changes to
the landscape are expected. These changes are not expected to create SCI. This would preserve the
habitat resources in this basin. Growth patterns are similar under the No Action Alternative and the
2012 LWSP, which predicts an almost flat growth rate for the planning period of this IBT.
5.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances
5.14.1 Introduction of Toxic Substances: Source Basin – Roanoke River
Direct Impacts
The proposed project involves the transfer of water from Kerr Lake to other river basins. Water
would be treated at the existing WTP location, and then finished water would be transferred
through existing infrastructure to KLRWS’s customers. The additional capacity and treatment
operations at the WTP were addressed under a separate environmental document (EE&T, 2003). No
increase in direct impacts associated with toxic substances would likely occur with the proposed
project.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Toxic substances and their cleanup are regulated primarily by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). The main goals of these laws and their associated regulations are to eliminate or
reduce toxic waste, clean up waste that has been leaked, spilled, or improperly disposed of, and
protect people from harmful wastes.
As urbanization continues in the service area, the potential for releases of toxic substances from
residential and commercial sources could increase. As previously discussed, much of the growth is
likely to occur in the southern reaches of the service area and mainly outside Warren County. These
substances, if improperly disposed of, could have adverse impacts on the environment by entering
the surface water and groundwater system through landfill leachate or entering the sewer system
and reaching a WWTP. Improper disposal could impact groundwater and surface water quality and
could impact human health through drinking water supplies, fish consumption, and other means.
As the amounts of traffic and urban uses in the study area increase, stormwater runoff will contain
increasing the levels of water pollutants, some of them toxic. Typical urban stormwater pollutants
include sediment and silt, nitrogen and phosphorus from lawn fertilizers, oils and greases, rubber
deposits, toxic chemicals, pesticides and herbicides, and road salts. Unless contained and treated
before entering surface waters, this urban stormwater could impact water quality and sensitive
species living within the study area.
The long-term impact of new toxic discharges to the surface water and groundwater from urban
stormwater, landfill leachate, and accidental and/or intentional releases of household and industrial
chemicals in the service area could lead to declines in water quality in the service area and
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
5-42
downstream without proper protective measures. This could contribute to the potential loss of
wildlife, especially sensitive species, and their habitats.
5.14.2 Introduction of Toxic Substances: Receiving Basins – Tar River and Neuse River
Direct Impacts
No increase in direct impacts associated with toxic substances would likely occur with the proposed
project, as no construction is associated with the IBT.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI within the Tar River and Neuse River basins are expected to be minor, regardless of the
alternative selected.
5.14.3 Introduction of Toxic Substances: Receiving Basin – Fishing Creek
Direct Impacts
No increase in direct impacts associated with toxic substances would likely occur with the proposed
project, as no construction is associated with the IBT.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
SCI are not expected in Warren County and therefore any SCI related to the introduction of toxic
substances are not expected.
SECTION 6
6-1
Programs to Minimize Environmental Impacts
The KLRWS Partners’ proposed IBT will not have the potential to cause significant direct impacts to the
environment, as discussed in Section 5. The IBT, however, may have the potential to significantly impact the
environment through secondary and cumulative impacts as a result of facilitating growth in the Tar River
receiving basin, as discussed in Section 5. The Fishing Creek receiving basin is not expected to experience
any secondary and cumulative impacts as a result of this project.
The third receiving basin, the Neuse River basin, is expected to have future growth pressures similar to those
of the Tar River receiving basin in Granville and Franklin Counties. The transfer to the Neuse River basin is
included in the potential for SCI in Granville and Franklin Counties.
In order to evaluate the significance of the impacts discussed in Section 5, CH2M HILL has reviewed existing
regulations and programs at the federal, state, and local levels to determine if these existing programs may
mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization of the project area. A discussion of federal, state, and local
programs is provided.
With the existing regulatory and non-regulatory environmental protection programs in effect at the local,
state, and federal levels, the impacts of the proposed IBT would be minimal when compared to those of the
no action alternative.
6.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs
The following is a brief description of existing regulations and programs at the federal and state levels in the
receiving basin. The discussion emphasizes the extent to which existing programs may adequately mitigate
the anticipated impacts of urbanization in the project area. Table 6-1 presents an overview of the
regulations and programs and the intent of each to minimize or avoid environmental impacts.
This analysis does not attempt to measure the performance of these regulations and programs to improve
specific environmental conditions in the field. Such an “efficiency” analysis of each of these regulations and
programs could determine the exact level of benefit received from each. However, an “efficiency” analysis is
beyond the scope of this discussion.
Therefore, the following discussion addresses relevant regulations and programs from an environmental
management and land use policy analysis perspective. The discussion provides a general overview of the
existing regulatory and non-regulatory mitigation framework that protects natural resources from the
effects of urbanization. The evaluation is used to identify opportunities for local governments in the study
area to enhance environmental protection.
6-2
TABLE 6-1
Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs and Regulations and the Environmental Resources they Protect
Program or Regulation
Local
Government
Program
Required Wetlands Land Use
Fish and
Wildlife
Sensitive
Species
Water
Quality
and/or
Quantity
Air
Quality Groundwater Noise Toxics
Endangered Species Act (ESA) X X X X X
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act X X
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) X X X X X
CWA Section 401 X X X X X
CWA Section 404 X X X X X
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Regulations X X X X X X X
NPDES Regulations X X X X X X
Protection of Wetlands X X X X X
Isolated Wetland Protection X X X X X
Safe Drinking Water Act X X X X X
Clean Air Act (CAA) X
Floodplain Management X X X
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) X X X X X X
Archaeological Protection X
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act X
National Historic Preservation Act X
Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment X
Farmland Protection Policy Act X
Erosion and Sedimentation Control X X X X X X
CWMTF
State Revolving Fund (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) X X X X
Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Program X X X X X
Neuse NSW Program X X X X X
Regulations for Water Main and Sanitary Sewer
Extensions X X X X X X x
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-3
TABLE 6-1
Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs and Regulations and the Environmental Resources they Protect
Program or Regulation
Local
Government
Program
Required Wetlands Land Use
Fish and
Wildlife
Sensitive
Species
Water
Quality
and/or
Quantity
Air
Quality Groundwater Noise Toxics
Groundwater Protection X X X
WSW Protection Program X X X X X X
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program X X X X X
Land Conservation Incentives (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
X = Demonstrates clear environmental benefits
(X) = Shows potential for environmental benefits (policy only, program not mandatory, or regulation not yet adopted)
6-4
6.1.1 Endangered Species Act
The 1973 ESA conserves ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and
plants depend, through federal action and state programs (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884). The ESA:
Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened
Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species
Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water
conservation funds
Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states that establish and
maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants
Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the ESA or regulations
Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for
any violation of the ESA of any regulation issued thereunder
Requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat
6.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act states that whenever the waters or channel of a body of water are
modified by a department or agency of the US, the department must first consult the USFWS, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the lead state wildlife agency. The purpose of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act is to prevent or minimize impacts to wildlife resources and habitat due to water or land
alterations. When modifications occur, provisions must be made for the conservation, maintenance, and
management of wildlife resources and habitat in accordance with a plan developed with the wildlife
protection agencies noted above.
6.1.3 Clean Water Act
In 1972, the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) was enacted to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s water.” The CWA includes a number of sections that are relevant to this
study.
Section 303(d) of the CWA established a program to identify waters that do not support their designated
uses and develop plans to address the impairments of these waters.
Section 401 of the CWA requires certification that a project does not violate the water quality standards
as administered by each state.
Section 404 of the CWA established a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into
waters of the US, including wetlands.
Additionally, the CWA provides the regulatory authority for managing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and
NPDES stormwater programs.
6.1.3.1 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify waters that do not support their classified uses. These
waters must be prioritized, and a TMDL must subsequently be developed. TMDLs are calculations that
determine the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can assimilate and still meet water quality
standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. As part of the TMDL development
process, the sources of the pollutant must be identified and the allowable amount of pollutant must be
allocated among the various sources within the watershed. TMDLs were discussed further in Section 4.1.1.1.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-5
6.1.3.2 Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act
Two main regulatory programs currently regulate impacts to jurisdictional waters, including streams and
wetlands in the study area, both of which originate from CWA: Section 404, regulation of dredge and fill activities
(which is administered by the [USACE]), and Section 401, certification that a project does not violate the state’s
water quality standards (which is administered by NCDWR. All private and public construction activities over a
specific acreage or stream length that affect jurisdictional waters are required to obtain certifications and permits
from NCDWR (Section 401 Water Quality Certification) and USACE (Section 404 Permits).
The state’s 401 Water Quality Certification Program and the federal 404 Wetlands Protection Program
protect jurisdictional waters by requiring avoidance and mitigation for wetlands and streams across the
states. However, it is possible for permits to be issued under both the state and federal programs that allow
small impacts to jurisdictional waters.
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit that conducts
any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a
certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the
interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters. The jurisdiction is
determined at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, and the discharge is required to
comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards.
In 2006, the Supreme Court addressed the jurisdictional scope of Section 404 of the CWA specifically in
terms of the scope of “the waters of the U.S.” statement, in Rapanos v. U.S. and in Carabell v. U.S. The
rulings of each case provide analytical standards for the determination of jurisdiction of water bodies that
are not traditional navigable waters (TNW) or wetlands adjacent to TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to non-TNWs
are subject to jurisdiction of the CWA if (1) the water body is a relatively permanent water (RPW), for
example, flows year-round or at least 3 months of the year, or is a wetland that directly abuts an RPW; or (2)
a water body, including adjacent wetlands, has a significant nexus, based on the biological, physical, or
chemical integrity, with TNWs.
6.1.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows
The USEPA prohibits discharges to waters of the United States from municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) unless authorized by an NPDES permit. In April 2000, USEPA released the Compliance and
Enforcement Strategy Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (USEPA, 2000).
In summary, each USEPA region is responsible for developing an enforcement response plan which includes
an inventory of SSO violations. Municipalities typically obtain guidance from NCDENR and USEPA for their
systems.
State regulations (15A NCAC 2B.05.06) require municipalities and other wastewater treatment operators to
report wastewater spills from discharges of raw sewage from broken sewer lines and malfunctioning pump
stations within 24 hours. State policies include strict fines and other enforcement programs to protect
surface water quality from wastewater spills.
The North Carolina Clean Water Bill of 1999 provides for the development of permits for collection systems.
These permits include requirements for inspections, sewer maintenance, and other operational items.
6.1.5 NPDES Regulations
NPDES stormwater discharges are controlled by the federal NPDES regulations and enforced by NCDWR. The
program regulates all major discharges of stormwater to surface waters. NPDES permits are designed to
require the development and implementation of stormwater management measures. These measures
reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater runoff from certain municipal storm sewer systems and
industrial activities.
The NPDES stormwater permitting system is being implemented in two phases. Phase I was implemented in
1991 and applied to six MS4s in North Carolina with populations exceeding 100,000 at that time. No local
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-6
governments in the receiving basin portion of the project area are subject to Phase I NPDES stormwater
requirements. Phase II rules, which were finalized on October 29, 1999 and published in the Federal Register
on December 8, 1999, apply to smaller communities. Franklin County and Henderson are Phase II
stormwater communities. As such, they must develop a post-construction stormwater program. The City of
Oxford’s program complies with rules specific to the Tar River basin, which are similar to those required of
Phase II communities. More information regarding their programs is included in Section 6.2.
NPDES wastewater discharges are also enforced by NCDWR under authority of the USEPA and target point
source pollution into waterways. A NPDES permit is required for discharges into waterways to ensure that
water quality criteria are met and sustained. No local government would need to obtain an increase in the
capacity of its NPDES permit because of this proposed IBT; planned growth has already been accounted for
in the NPDES permits. These current NPDES permits include limits which are appropriate for protecting
water quality criteria. No discharges from facilities with NPDES permits would cause impacts to water quality
as a result of this proposed IBT. These permits are summarized in Section 4.
6.1.6 Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990
Executive Order (EO) 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) was issued to avoid long- and short-term adverse
impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Every federal agency must minimize
the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands, as well as work to preserve and enhance the natural and
beneficial values of wetlands. Federal projects must avoid wetland impacts to the extent possible and,
where avoidance is not possible, minimize impacts to wetlands.
6.1.7 Isolated Wetland Protection
Isolated wetlands are those that have no visible connection to surface waters, and are therefore not
regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. NCDWR has jurisdiction over isolated wetlands within the state’s
boundaries. According to NCDWR, any activity that results in the loss of wetland function, including filling,
excavating, draining, and flooding, shall be considered a wetland impact. Impacts to isolated wetlands are
subject to the requirements of NCDWR permitting and mitigative measures.
6.1.8 Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) provides protection of public health by regulating the nation’s drinking
water supply. The SDWA authorizes the USEPA to set national health standards for drinking water to protect
against natural and man-made contaminants that may be found in public drinking water. The USEPA is
charged with the responsibility of assessing and protecting drinking water sources, as well as ensuring the
appropriate treatment of water by qualified operators. The USEPA is also responsible for ensuring the
integrity of water delivery systems and informing the public of the quality of their drinking water supply.
6.1.9 Clean Air Act
The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is intended to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.”
Section 118 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7418) requires that each federal agency with jurisdiction over any property
or facility engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants comply with “all federal,
state, interstate, and local requirements” with regard to the control and abatement of air pollution.
NCDAQ has implemented an aggressive Air Awareness Education Program that encompasses daily reports
on the ozone forecasts by meteorologists reported using media such as the internet, television, newspapers,
and radio. The public has become very informed of ozone issues and steps they can take to reduce ozone
emissions, which include combining errands into one trip, maintaining vehicles and lawn equipment, and
using lawn equipment in the evening.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-7
The Clean Smokestacks Act of 2002 required coal-fired power plants to achieve a 77 percent reduction in
NOx emissions by 2009. NOx is the main cause of ozone, one of North Carolina’s biggest air quality
problems, and it contributes to haze and acid rain. Under the Clean Smokestack Act, utility companies must
achieve these emissions goals through actual reductions and not by buying or trading emissions credits from
utilities in other states, as allowed under federal regulations. The utilities also cannot sell credits for their
emissions reductions (NCDAQ, 2009b).
In 2013, North Carolina had its lowest ozone levels since air monitoring began in the early 1970s. The declining
ozone levels coincided with lower emissions from the state’s power plants. The state’s coal-fired power plants
have reduced their NOx emissions, a primary industrial contributor to ozone pollution, by more than 80
percent since the General Assembly enacted the Clean Smokestacks Act in 2002 (NCDAQ, 2013b).
6.1.10 Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988
EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) addresses the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains. Federal agencies must take action to reduce the risk of flood loss
and flood impacts on human safety, health, and welfare. Agencies are also charged with the responsibility to
restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of a floodplain. Federally supported projects that
directly impact floodplains need to consider alternatives which avoid the floodplain.
6.1.10.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP, managed by FEMA, was created in the 1960s in response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded
disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. Floodplain
management under the NFIP is an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood
damage. It includes, but is not limited, to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and
floodplain management regulations; and it generally covers zoning, subdivision, or building requirements
and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. One aspect of the program is that it aids in the protection of
stream riparian areas and wetlands, and serves to protect water quality by restricting development in the
floodplain. Information on the Partners’ flood protection programs is presented in Section 6.2.
6.1.11 Archaeological Protection
Archaeological resources are protected on private and public lands through the North Carolina
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains
Protection Act, the North Carolina Archaeological Record Program, the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), and various federal laws. These laws are only applicable to projects that are state or federally
approved, permitted, or funded, or exist on state or federal lands. Although this often exempts many private
development projects, the USACE does require archaeological reviews for any project that needs a Section
404 permit.
6.1.11.1 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 provides protection of historical American sites,
buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, as well as protecting all historical and
archaeological data that could potentially be lost due to:
Flooding
Building of access roads
Erection of laborer communities
Relocation of highways and railroads
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-8
Alteration of terrain caused by the construction of dams (by the US government and private
corporations)
Any alteration of terrain as a result of any federal construction project or any federally licensed project
If any federal agency finds that a federally supported project may cause irreparable loss or destruction of
scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archaeological data, the agency must notify the Department of the
Interior so it may undertake recovery, protection, and preservation of the data.
6.1.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the central act that establishes historic preservation law.
The NHPA sets the policy for the US government to promote conditions in which historic properties can be
preserved in harmony with modern society. The NHPA authorizes the Department of the Interior to
establish, maintain, and expand the NRHP. The NHPA establishes responsibility to the NCSHPO to develop a
statewide plan for preservation, surveying historic properties, nominating properties to the NRHP, providing
technical assistance to federal, state, and local agencies, and undertaking the review of federal activities
that affect historic properties.
6.1.11.3 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, Executive Order 11593
EO 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment) requires the federal government to
provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the
nation. Federal agencies, in cooperation with state historic preservation agencies, are to locate, inventory,
and nominate sites, buildings, districts, and objects as candidates for the NHRP. All sites listed within the
NRHP shall be maintained to professional standards set by the Secretary of the Interior. Federal agencies
that are directly or indirectly involved with the alteration or destruction of property listed on the NHRP will
take timely steps to make a record of all data present in that property. That record is kept in the Library of
Congress.
6.1.12 Farmland Protection Policy Act
The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act is to minimize the extent to which federal programs
contribute to unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act, enforced by the USDA, assures that federal programs will be administered in such a
manner that they are not incompatible with state and local governments, as well as private programs with
policies to protect farmland.
6.1.13 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR) administers programs to
control erosion and sedimentation caused by land-disturbing activities on one or more acres of land. Control
measures must be planned, designed, and constructed to protect from the calculated peak rate of runoff
from a 10-year storm. Enforcement of the program is at the state level, but may be delegated to local
governments with certified erosion control programs. The City of Henderson has its own erosion and
sediment control program (see Section 6.2.3); the North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR)
administers the program for the other local governments.
6.1.14 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) was created by the 1996 Legislature to help finance
projects that specifically address water pollution problems. Its purpose was modified through the passage of
the 2013-2014 North Carolina budget. It is a non-regulatory program that focuses its efforts on upgrading
surface waters in distress, eliminating pollution, protecting and conserving unpolluted surface waters, and
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-9
establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental, educational, recreational
benefits as well as acquiring lands of cultural and historic significance.
CWMTF monies could be used for wetland and/or riparian corridor identification and preservation (through
acquisition and easement techniques), to allow comprehensive protection of wetlands and riparian buffers
in the project area, and to protect water quality and sensitive aquatic species.
6.1.15 State Revolving Fund
In previous years, the CWMTF had been used to fund wastewater improvements and conventional
stormwater projects as well as the acquisition of lands. As part of Session Law 2013-360, the funding of
wastewater improvements and conventional stormwater projects is now handled through the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) and is administered by the Division of Water Infrastructure and the State Water
Infrastructure Authority.
6.1.16 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
The EEP was established as a non-regulatory program within NCDENR to:
Provide a systematic approach for meeting NCDOT’s compensatory mitigation requirements.
Maximize the ecological benefit of compensatory mitigation projects.
Reduce delays in the construction of transportation improvement projects associated with
compensatory mitigation requirements.
The EEP also provides a compensatory mitigation option for permit applicants other than the NCDOT,
administers the Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers in the
Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, and Catawba River basins, and provides a repository for nutrient offset payments in the
Neuse River basin.
6.1.17 Tar-Pamlico NSW Program
The EMC designated the Tar-Pamlico River basin as NSW in 1989 because of algal blooms in the estuary
which were linked to excessive nutrient loading. Subsequent to the NSW designation, NCDWR developed a
strategy to reduce nutrient loading within the basin. This strategy has been modified over time and is
currently in its third phase. In the first phase, point sources were targeted, but nutrient loading was largely
from agricultural sources within the basin. Thus, a group of NPDES facilities formed an Association and
worked with NCDWR to develop a nutrient trading program in which the NPDES facilities were collectively
assigned nitrogen limits and made payments to the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The point
source facilities also provided funds to develop a water quality model of the estuary.
In the second phase of the NSW program, the water quality model was used to establish loading targets for
nitrogen and phosphorus, which were then allocated between point and nonpoint sources. The trading
agreement was updated with the revised nutrient loading target. Nonpoint source reductions were originally
voluntary.
In July 1998, the EMC determined that mandatory nonpoint source rules were needed. The following rules
were developed:
Riparian buffer protection rule – The rule requires that a 50-foot buffer be maintained along
waterbodies. The inner 30 feet must be relatively undisturbed, and the outer 20 feet must be vegetated.
Mitigation requirements for impacts to protected buffers are outlined, as well as a process for local
governments to follow to obtain delegation of their buffer program.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-10
Nutrient management rule – The rule requires people who apply fertilizer to land (exception is
residential landowners who apply fertilizer to their own property) to receive state-sponsored training or
develop a nutrient management plan.
Stormwater rule – The rule requires the larger local governments to develop a stormwater program.
Agriculture rules – These rules establish a nutrient reduction goal for agriculture in the basin. Local
advisory committees develop nutrient reduction strategies and submit annual reports to a Basin
Oversight Committee.
The third phase of the program continues the point source nutrient trading program until 2015. Franklin
Water and Sewer Authority, Oxford, and Louisburg are members of the Phase III agreement with NCDWR.
6.1.18 Neuse NSW Program
The Falls Lake watershed was classified as NSW in 1983; the original NSW strategy included nutrient limits
for point sources within the watershed. The entire Neuse River basin was classified as NSW in 1988. As a
result of the NSW classification, a nutrient management strategy was initially developed to manage
phosphorus from point source dischargers and nitrogen and phosphorus from nonpoint sources. At that
time, most of the nutrient problems were occurring in the lower freshwater portion of the river, and
phosphorous was considered the controlling nutrient.
Increasing algal blooms and fish kills in the estuarine portion of the Neuse River, attributed to nitrogen over-
enrichment, led to a revision of the NSW strategy to address nitrogen inputs to the estuary. The Neuse River
NSW Strategy Rules became effective August 1, 1998. New development and redevelopment that drains in
whole or in part to NSW must implement stormwater BMPs that reduce nutrient loading. NCDENR has
specified basinwide stormwater requirements for the Neuse River basin as described in 15A NCAC 02B
.0235.
The Neuse River NSW rules require that existing riparian buffer areas be protected and maintained on both
sides of intermittent and perennial surface waters. A 50-foot buffer consisting of 30 feet of undisturbed
forest and 20 feet of grassed/vegetated area must be maintained. The rule does not require restoration of
buffers that no longer exist. Perennial and intermittent stream determinations are to be based on soil survey
maps prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or the most recent version of USGS
topographic maps (7.5 minute quadrangle).
While this revised strategy places more stringent nutrient removal requirements on point source
dischargers, it also addresses other sources of nutrients, including urban stormwater, agricultural sources,
and nutrient application management. In addition, the strategy includes special provisions to protect stream
buffers to prevent further degradation of the watershed’s ecological integrity.
Additional rules to protect the Falls Lake watershed were adopted by the EMC in November 2010 and
became effective in January 2011. Both the Neuse River and Falls Lake NSW rules include the following:
Riparian buffer protection rule – The rule requires that a 50-foot buffer be maintained along
waterbodies. The inner 30 feet must be relatively undisturbed, and the outer 20 feet must be vegetated.
Mitigation requirements for impacts to protected buffers are outlined, as well as a process for local
governments to follow to obtain delegation of their buffer program.
Nutrient management rule – The rule requires people who apply fertilizer to land (exception is
residential landowners who apply fertilizer to their own property) to receive state-sponsored training or
develop a nutrient management plan.
Stormwater rule – The rule requires the larger local governments to develop a stormwater program to
reduce nutrient loading from new development. The Falls Lake rules also include requirements for
reductions from existing development.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-11
Agriculture rules – These rules establish a nutrient reduction goal for agriculture in the basin. Local
advisory committees develop nutrient reduction strategies and submit annual reports to a Basin
Oversight Committee.
6.1.19 Regulations for Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Extensions
State regulations (15A NCAC 01C .0100 – .0500) establish procedures for the extension of water mains,
sanitary sewer, and other utility infrastructure expansions and new facilities that must conform to the SEPA.
The regulations require the development of environmental documents for water and wastewater treatment
plant development and expansions. In addition, unless site-specific adverse environmental consequences
are identified: water main extensions must comply if they are greater than 5 miles in length, and sewer
mains if they are greater than 3 miles in length.
6.1.20 Groundwater Protection
Several regulations and programs exist at the state and local levels that protect groundwater from urban
growth:
Wellhead Protection Program
Regulation of potential contamination sources
Management of groundwater contamination incidents
Ambient groundwater monitoring
Regulation of well construction
These regulations and programs may afford some protection to groundwater wells from the most common
forms of groundwater pollution: point sources such as chemical manufacturing facilities, underground
storage tanks, and accidental spills. However, more diffuse and evasive groundwater pollutants from
agricultural uses (livestock facilities and chemical application on crops) and urban land uses (over-
application of fertilizers and improper use of toxic household chemicals) may not be well managed under
these regulations and programs.
6.1.21 Water Supply Watershed Protection Program
The EMC and NCDWR have administered the WSW Protection Program since 1986. Initially, the program
was administered voluntarily by counties and municipalities pursuing protective measures for their WSWs.
The measures included limitations on the number and type of wastewater discharges that were allowed in
the WSWs.
In 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly ratified the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, codified
as General Statutes 143-214.5 and 143-214.6. The WSW Protection Act mandated the EMC to adopt
minimum statewide water supply protection standards by January 1, 1991, and to reclassify all existing
surface WSWs to the appropriate classification by January 1, 1992. The goals of the WSW Protection
Program include:
Protection of surface drinking water supplies in North Carolina from nonpoint source and point source
pollution from urban runoff and wastewater discharges.
Provision of a cooperative program of watershed management and protection that is administered by
local governments consistent with minimum statewide standards.
The NCDWR Water Quality Program manages the WSW program through oversight of local planning
ordinances and monitoring of land use activities. Local WSW programs must be approved by the EMC. The
WSW program requires local governments to adopt a number of land use controls and limitations based on
watershed classifications. Specifically, this program:
Limits impervious surfaces around water supplies unless stormwater controls are used.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-12
Requires protection of riparian buffers (100-foot buffers in all development that exceeds the low-density
option, or 30-foot buffers otherwise along perennial waters).
Limits some land uses.
Limits dischargers (NPDES permits in certain situations).
Allows the use of clustering and density-averaging to meet overall development density limits.
Watersheds in the WSW Protection Program have a classification of WS-I through WS-V, where WS-I has the
most restrictive controls.
6.1.22 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
The USDA and NCDENR manage the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program which is available in the
Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins of the Study Area. This program uses financial incentives to encourage
farmers to voluntarily remove sensitive land from agricultural use or implement BMPs.
6.1.23 Miscellaneous Land Conservation Incentive Programs
Other, voluntary strategies exist at federal and state levels that provide incentives to protect natural lands,
wetlands, agricultural lands, sensitive species habitat, and forest lands from development. These non-
regulatory approaches include providing tax credits for donating lands to specific organizations (usually land
trusts) and providing funding for various grants and trust funds to purchase or protect undeveloped lands.
6.2 Local Regulations and Programs
6.2.1 Coordinated Programs
6.2.1.1 Water Shortage Response Plans
KLRWS has developed a Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) that was agreed to by the City of Henderson,
the City of Oxford, and Warren County in 2011 (Ordinance Book 8, Ordinance 11-04, Chapter 15B). The
purpose of the plan is to declare official phases of water supply shortage and voluntary and mandatory
conservation measures for those phases. Enforcement measures are also included. The plan applies to the
three bulk customers (Henderson, Oxford, and Warren County); each of which would notify their employees
and customers (including wholesale) of the water shortage phase and corresponding conservation
measures.
The KLRWS WSRP defines three classes of water use and provides examples of each:
1. Essential water use
2. Socially or economically important uses of water
3. Non-essential uses of water
The WSRP includes four phases of water conservation depending on the water level in Kerr Lake:
Voluntary Conservation – when the water level in Kerr Lake approaches 294 feet, voluntary conservation
is implemented. The Director of KLRWS must monitor the lake level and water use demand on a daily
basis. All customers will be notified to voluntarily conserve water; the goal for water reduction is 5
percent.
Mandatory Conservation – when the water level in Kerr Lake approaches 289 feet, mandatory
conservation conditions exist. A ban shall be placed on all Class 3 uses throughout the shortage period,
while voluntary conservation is in place for Class 1 and 2 water uses. The goal for water reduction is 10
percent.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-13
Water Shortage Emergency – when the water level in Kerr Lake has dropped to 284 feet or below and/or
a serious shortage exists due to other reasons, mandatory measures are put in place such as a ban on all
Class 2 and 3 water uses. Voluntary conservation would apply to Class 1. The goal for water reduction is
40 percent.
Declaration of Rationing – when the water level in Kerr Lake has dropped to 280 feet, mandatory
measures are put in place for all customers. The goal for water reduction is 50 percent or more.
The City of Oxford and Warren County further defined their conservation measures in their WSRP. The City
of Oxford’s plan, completed in 2007, is similar to KLRWS’s plan. For rationing, Oxford limits its residential
customers to 4,000 gallons per month, and non-residential users must reduce water use by 50 percent.
Health care facilities must reduce water without endangering the health of its patients or residents (Oxford,
2007).
Warren County’s WSRP, completed in 2010, indicates they will follow the KLRWS plan water shortage
declarations and follow their triggers (Warren County, 2010). Norlina’s WSRP, completed in 2011, mirrors
Warren County’s Plan (Norlina, 2011).
Franklin County and its bulk water customers in Bunn and Lake Royale have also developed WSRPs. Franklin
County’s WSRP, completed in 2010, is similar to KLRWS’s, but includes mandatory year-round outdoor water
use restrictions for Franklin County and its customers in Youngsville, Bunn and Lake Royale. These
restrictions include allowing watering two days a week for odd and even addresses (no outdoor watering is
allowed on Monday, Thursday, and Friday). Vehicle washing and pressure washing may occur only on
Saturday and Sunday (Franklin County, 2010). The Bunn and Lake Royale plans, completed in 2010 and 2008,
respectively, indicate that they follow Franklin County’s requirements (Bunn, 2010) (Total Environmental
Solutions, Inc. [TESI], 2008).
Stovall’s WSRP was completed in 2010 and aligns with the KLRWS’s, and indicates that, as a bulk customer of
Oxford, they will follow the City of Oxford’s water shortage declarations and follow their triggers (Stovall,
2010).
6.2.1.2 Study of Unaccounted for Water
The KLRWS is planning a study of its unaccounted for water to incorporate reductions in its future capital
planning. This measure will increase the system’s efficiency and stewardship of its water supply.
6.2.2 Warren County
An increase in available water supply through IBT would likely not lead to significant SCI since little growth
will occur within Warren County. However, measures that protect the existing environment are discussed
here.
6.2.2.1 Planning Approaches
Warren County adopted a 20-year Comprehensive Development Plan in 2002. The Plan indicates that one of
the reasons for its development is to deter future negative impacts rather than react to such impacts after
they have occurred. Tools to deter these impacts include: natural resources protection ordinances (including
floodplain protection, erosion and sediment control, and developing a county-wide greenway system),
zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and proactive programs such as pursuing grant funds to preserve
areas around water supplies and restore wetlands (Warren County, 2002). To date, the County has adopted
a zoning map which shows Special Flood Hazard Areas. A portion of Warren County lies within the Tar River
basin; as such, the state’s riparian buffer rules described in Section 6.1.2 apply.
The Comprehensive Development Plan also encourages managed, quality growth in the County. There is
potential for development in Warren County, but the main source of growth is identified as outgrowth from
development in the Raleigh and Durham areas. It is noted that attracting financial investment is a challenge
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-14
and business and industrial growth is deficient, however, planning is needed to prepare for infrastructure
needs and funding should the need arise (Warren County, 2002).
6.2.2.2 Rate Structures
Warren County, Warrenton, and Norlina all have flat or fixed rate structures, meaning that the price per
gallon of water is fixed regardless of how much water is used.
6.2.3 Vance County
Riparian Buffers
Section 205 of the County’s Watershed Protection Ordinance requires a 30-foot vegetated buffer along all
perennial streams. All buffers must be shown as conservation areas on subdivision plats, development plans,
and individual plot plans. Section 306.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that natural vegetation within
30 feet of an existing drainage, natural creek, river, natural spring, or pond shall be left intact. In addition,
any roadway crossing a riparian buffer must do so at 90 degree angle. The portion of the county in the Tar
River basin would also need to meet the state’s riparian buffer rules described in Section 6.1.2.
The City of Henderson adopted a Stormwater Management Ordinance for the portion of the City which lies
within the Tar River basin in 2004. Section 16-37.3 of the ordinance protects riparian buffers in accordance
with the state requirements.
6.2.3.1 Floodplain Protection
Vance County has a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which exceeds FEMA requirements. If any
development occurs within the floodplain, the structure must be raised 3 feet above the base flood
elevation. The ordinance also directs the Floodplain Administrator to advise the applicant on whether any
other state or federal regulations apply to their development, including: wetlands requirements,
endangered species consultations, and riparian buffer rule in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
6.2.3.2 Erosion and Sediment Control
The City of Henderson administers its own erosion and sediment control program, which meets or exceeds
the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. Any disturbance other
than a single-family residence of 0.5 acre or more must develop a plan in accordance with the City’s
ordinance (City Ordinance Chapter 23A) and NCDENR’s Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual. Single-family residences must file a plan for any disturbance of 1 acre or more. All development,
regardless of the disturbance area, must limit erosion in accordance with the statute and ordinance.
6.2.3.3 Stormwater
Vance County limits the built-upon area within its water supply watersheds at the low density levels allowed
by NCDWR in its regulations (built-upon areas range from 12 percent within the CA to 36 percent in WS-IV
watersheds in the Tar River basin if no curb and gutter are used). Their Watershed Protection Ordinance
allows 10 percent of a watershed area to have up to 70 percent imperviousness, but stormwater must be
directed away from streams to the maximum extent practicable.
The City of Henderson developed a stormwater program to comply with the Tar-Pamlico NSW program. The
ordinance requires that peak flow mimic pre-development peak flow runoff for the 1-year, 24-hour storm
event. Owners of new development must also treat total nitrogen to 4 lb/ac-yr and total phosphorus to
0.4 lb/ac-yr. Developers may offset part of their nutrient load offsite in accordance with NCDWR regulations,
but must provide legal assurance of the dedicated use of the offsite area for stormwater management in
perpetuity. Assurance of regular operation and maintenance of offsite and onsite treatment systems must
also be provided. Currently, in the Roanoke River basin, no stormwater quantity or quality requirements are
in place, but the City is modifying its stormwater ordinance to apply throughout the City, which will meet its
Phase II requirements.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-15
6.2.3.4 Planning Approaches
Vance County adopted a Land Use Plan in 1996 which was amended in 2010. The Introduction of the Plan
indicates that its focus is to “establish a sustainable rural community by balancing economic development
and environmental protection”. The Plan identified a need for water throughout the county prompting a
three-phase project to expand the service area, currently nearing completion. Grants have been used
towards project costs receiving 25% of funding in grants in Phase 1A, 42% grants in Phase 2A, and 33%
grants in Phase 2B (Vance County, 2014).
As a result of recommendations in the Land Use Plan, the County has developed proposed zoning maps and
ordinances for the County, as well as for some of the smaller communities, including Kittrell. Zones include
areas for open space protection, floodplains, and watershed overlay districts. The County also adopted a
Subdivision Ordinance in 2004 and a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance as recommended in the Land Use
Plan.
The Land Use Plan also provides guidance for future growth. The introduction states “Growth is permitted in
accordance with the ability of the County to supply public services, to build and maintain roads and schools,
to retain the rural character and to protect historic sites and cultural resources.” Throughout the document,
growth is encouraged with planning and balance. For example, upgrading infrastructure to sustain new
growth but limiting high density growth to areas where these services are already available (Vance County,
2010).
The City of Henderson also has a zoning ordinance and zoning map which dictate how land can develop if
the owner chooses to develop those lands. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Development Plan mentions that
incentive-based programs whether tax-based, zoning-based, providing technical and financial assistance,
and streamlining the process for permitting, would encourage private development or redevelopment.
These could support economic development including area business parks, downtown revitalization, and
availability of affordable housing (City of Henderson, 2010).
6.2.3.5 Rate Structures
The City of Henderson has a flat or fixed rate structure.
6.2.4 Granville County
6.2.4.1 Riparian Buffers
The portions of Granville County that lie in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins must comply with the
state’s riparian buffer requirements as described in Section 6.1.2.
Article 300 of the City of Oxford’s Stormwater Management Ordinance protects riparian buffers. The
ordinance mirrors the requirements of NCDWR’s Tar-Pamlico NSW riparian buffer rules in that it requires a
two-zone 50-foot buffer along all intermittent and perennial streams, as shown on either the most recent
soil survey or the applicable USGS 1:24,000 topographic map. In addition, the City requires that all riparian
buffers be recorded on site plans, subdivision plans, and plats.
The City of Creedmoor’s Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 155) requires 50-foot wide riparian
buffers as required by NCDWR’s Neuse riparian buffer rules. The City requires that riparian buffers be noted
on maps submitted for Stormwater Plan approval and must be noted on the final recorded map.
6.2.4.2 Floodplain Protection
Chapter 32 of Granville County’s Code of Ordinances includes a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which
exceeds FEMA requirements. If any development occurs within the floodplain, the structure must be raised
2 feet above the base flood elevation. The ordinance also directs the Floodplain Administrator to advise the
applicant on whether any other state or federal regulations apply to their development including: wetlands
requirements, endangered species consultations, and riparian buffer requirements. Floodplain boundaries
must be shown on final plat plans.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-16
Article 1100 of the City of Oxford’s Zoning Ordinance addresses Flood Damage Protection. The ordinance
largely meets FEMA requirements, but requires that any structures in the floodplain be raised 2 feet above
the base flood elevation.
Chapter 152 of the City of Creedmoor’s Code of Ordinances address Flood Damage Prevention and complies
with FEMA requirements.
6.2.4.3 Erosion and Sediment Control
The NCDLR implements erosion and sediment control requirements for development in Granville County,
the City of Oxford, and the City of Creedmoor. The City of Oxford requires state approval of the erosion and
sediment control plan prior to issuing stormwater permits.
6.2.4.4 Stormwater
Granville County as well as the City of Creedmoor have independent stormwater utilities, however, to
reduce costs, they share some services with the Towns of Butner and Stem (Granville County, 2014).
Granville County limits the amount of built-upon area within its water supply watersheds, which include the
following:
WS-II – Lake Rogers/Ledge Creek, Lake Butner/Knapp of Reeds Creek, Lake Devin/Hatchers Run (CA and
general watershed)
WS-III – Lake Michie/Flat River
WS-IV – Historic Oxford water supply intake location/Tar River, Falls Lake/Neuse River (CA and general
watershed)
The built-upon area limits are 6 percent in WS-II CA (2-acre lots), 12 percent in WS-II (1-acre lots), and 24
percent (1/2-acre lots) in WS-III and WS-IV. In WS-IV, 36 percent built-upon area (14,000-square-foot lots) is
allowed if there is no curb and gutter. Clustering with smaller lots is allowed, but overall density
requirements must be met. Watershed boundaries must be shown on final plat plans.
The City of Oxford’s Stormwater Management Ordinance requires that drainage systems be designed to
encourage natural infiltration. The ordinance requires that peak flow runoff mimic pre-development peak
flow runoff for the 1-year, 24-hour storm event. New development must also treat total nitrogen to 4 lb/ac-
yr and total phosphorus to 0.4 lb/ac-yr. New development may offset part of their nutrient load offsite in
accordance with NCDWR regulations, but must provide legal assurance of the dedicated use of the offsite
area for stormwater management in perpetuity. Assurance of regular operation and maintenance of offsite
and onsite treatment must also be provided. Stormwater structures which serve more than one residence
must be maintained through a homeowners association, and any buyers of those residences must make
payments for stormwater maintenance. If the development property is sold, the deed must include
notification about stormwater requirements and the purchaser’s obligation to maintain and inspect the
stormwater treatment mechanisms.
The City of Oxford also has land within the Lake Devin Watershed, a WS-II classified watershed. Within the
CA of the watershed, development is limited to 6 percent built-upon area, and lots must be at least 2 acres.
Within the balance of the watershed, development is limited to 12 percent built-upon area, and lots must be
at least 2 acres.
The City of Creedmoor limits the amount of built-upon area in water supply watersheds in accordance with
state regulations. Their Code of Ordinances specifies that all WS-IV GW watershed districts require between
64 percent to 76 percent open space or pervious area; in any designated WS-II CA, the City requires between
88 and 94 percent open space or pervious area.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-17
Both Granville County, the portion in the Neuse River basin, and the City of Creedmoor are subject to the
Falls Lake Nutrient Sensitive Water Management Strategy (Falls Lake Rules). These aim to reduce nutrient
discharges to the lake from various sources including stormwater runoff, WWTPs, and agriculture.
6.2.4.5 Planning Approaches
The City of Oxford approved a Comprehensive Plan in 2009. One of the goals is to plan for future growth
while protecting the City’s environmental resources and providing quality public services at a reasonable
cost. Included in this plan is a future Land Development Plan that will guide the timing, location, and
intensity of future land development. Future development is also addressed in article 1400 of the City of
Oxford Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Developments, stating that planned unit developments are
encouraged as they facilitate planning for large areas and management of the infrastructure and services
that will be required and impact the rate of growth (City of Oxford, 2003).” The City also proposes
Conservation Lands that could include floodplains, riparian buffer areas, and severe soils as part of the plan
(Oxford, 2009).
In 2012, the City of Creedmoor adopted City 2030, a land use and comprehensive master plan as an updated
plan incorporating changing trends, environmental mandates, and the City’s vision (Creedmoor, 2012).
The Granville County Code of Ordinances, Land Development Code establishes use regulations and
standards for the land uses in each zoning district. The ordinances includes regulations such as making water
and sewer extensions to promote community growth (section 44-151) and providing adequate school
facilities for growth needs (section 37-4). This is applicable to a variety of uses including supporting growth
of business parks in the area. Section 32-991 defines the duties of the planning board to prepare “plans for
physical, social and economic growth, as will promote the public health, safety, convenience or general
welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the development of the county.” Further, section 32-1231
implements the County’s Comprehensive Plan which includes “managing and regulating the growth of the
county, concentrating development in areas where adequate sewage and water facilities, roads, and schools
now exist or can be provided.”
Granville County has plans for other development initiatives as well including a Greenway Master Plan for
conservation and recreation purposes, but also to promote physical activity for the health of the residents.
The Plan proposes trails throughout the County as well as recommendations for planning, oversight,
connectivity, acquisition, various types of trails, safety, and funding (LiveWell Granville, 2006).
6.2.4.6 Rate Structures
Oxford and Stovall both have a flat or fixed rate for water.
6.2.5 Franklin County
6.2.5.1 Riparian Buffers
Franklin County lies within the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basin, both of which require 50-foot riparian
buffers as specified by state regulations described in Section 6.1.2. In addition, Section 7.3 of the County’s
stormwater ordinance requires new development to protect streams and riparian habitats using 50-foot
riparian buffers as outlined in the state’s regulations.
6.2.5.2 Floodplain Protection
Franklin County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is found in Article 19 of its Unified Development
Ordinance. The ordinance complies with FEMA regulations, requiring structures to be above the 100-year
floodplain. In areas where a base flood elevation has not been established, structures must be elevated or
floodproofed to 3 feet above the highest adjacent grade. The ordinance also directs the Floodplain
Administrator to advise the applicant on whether any other state or federal regulations apply to their
development, including: wetlands requirements, endangered species consultations, and riparian buffer
requirements. Floodplain boundaries must be shown on final plat plans.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-18
6.2.5.3 Erosion and Sediment Control
All new development must demonstrate compliance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act.
6.2.5.4 Stormwater Management
Franklin County contains WS-II watersheds and their CAs (Cedar Creek, Sam Kearney Creek, and Smith
Creek) and a WS-IV watershed (Tar River) and its CAs. Within the WS-II CA, built-upon area is limited to
6 percent, and residential lots must be at least 2 acres, unless a cluster development has been approved.
Within the remainder of the WS-II watershed, lots must be at least 1 acre (unless cluster development is
approved) and built-upon area is limited to 12 percent. Non-residential development may have a built-upon
area of 70 percent in up to 10 percent of the watershed. In the WS-IV C, residential lots must be at least
0.5 acre and built-upon area cannot exceed 24 percent. These values apply within the remaining WS-IV area
as well, but if no curb and gutter is provided, built-upon area can be 36 percent, and lot sizes can be reduced
to 15,000 square feet. New and expanding non-residential development may have a built-upon area of
70 percent in up to 10 percent of the watershed.
Franklin County adopted a Tar-Pamlico River basin Stormwater Ordinance for Nutrient Control in 2004
(Article 20 A of the Unified Development Ordinance [UDO]). This ordinance requires that peak flow for new
development not exceed pre-development flow for the 1-year, 24-hour storm. In addition, new
development must meet total nitrogen loads of 4 lb/ac-yr and total phosphorus loads of 0.4 lb/ac-yr. Higher
thresholds can be achieved (10 lb/ac-yr for new commercial or industrial development and 6 lb/ac-yr for
new residential development) with payment for offsite controls. Legal assurance of the dedicated use of the
offsite area for stormwater management in perpetuity must be provided. Assurance of regular operation
and maintenance of offsite and onsite treatment must also be provided.
6.2.5.5 Planning Approaches
The County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan was funded by a Federal Emergency Management Hazard
Mitigation Grant and was completed in June 2000. The County Commissioners appointed a citizen’s advisory
committee, which included Franklin County citizens, to oversee preparation of the plan. It is to serve as a
guide for review of development proposals and represents the land use and development formal policies of
the county. The County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Map include a Conservation District
along its streams (Franklin County, 2000).
The Plan discusses existing land use and incentives to guide growth. Needs for continued growth in respect
to each of the six land use categories are listed below:
Residential – varying lot size to provide a greater variety of housing as well as accommodate a range
of affordable housing
Industrial – continued development of infrastructure, such as water and sewer services, to support
additional industrial growth, particularly the growth that is planned in business parks
Commercial – additional commercial development in a non-strip commercial fashion while
limiting/regulating strip commercial development
Office and Institutional – consisting mainly of school sites, the largest concentrations are located in
municipal areas, such as southwest of Louisburg in the Youngsville area
Public and Transportation – conduct transportation planning to provide most cost effective use of
tax dollars to ensure adequate carrying capacity for future development
Agriculture and Open Space – consider land acquisition for public uses and ensure land dedication
requirements in the subdivision ordinance are sufficient to preserve open space.
SECTION 6 PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6-19
6.2.5.6 Rate Structures and Other Water Conservation
Franklin County and Lake Royale both have flat or fixed rate structures. Bunn and Youngsville both have
increasing block structures, meaning that the more water a customer uses, the higher the rate. Increasing
block rate structures promote water conservation.
Franklin County’s Water Shortage Response Ordinance also allows the County Manager to declare
mandatory water conservation when the Town of Louisburg or the Town of Franklinton (its other water
sources) are experiencing water shortages, in addition to allowing the declaration when Kerr Lake is low, as
described in the section above on WSRPs.
Franklin County has developed a Leak Adjustment Policy to encourage customers to make prompt and
permanent repairs when leaks occur on their property. Franklin County will adjust water bills on receipt of
information documenting the repair. Repairs must be made within one month after the leak is detected for
indoor, easily accessible and noticeable fixtures. No adjustments will be made if the information is received
more than 90 days after the billing date of the bill to be adjusted unless there are extraordinary
circumstances.
6.2.6 Summary of Local Government Programs
Table 6-2 summarizes the local government programs in the service area.
TABLE 6-2
Summary of Local Government Programs
Local
Government Buffersa Floodplainb ESC Stormwaterc Planning
Conservation Rate
Structure
Warren County (X) (X) X No
Warrenton (X) (X) No
Norlina (X) No
Vance County (X) X WS X N/A
Henderson X X X X X No
Kittrell (X) No
Granville County (X) X WS N/A
Oxford X X X X No
Creedmoor (X) (X) WS X Yes
Stovall No
Franklin County X X X X No
Bunn (X) Yes
Lake Royale d (X) X N/A
Youngsville (X) (X) Yes
a X = Local government has riparian buffer ordinance | (X) = State regulations protect riparian buffers
b X = Local government has floodplain ordinance | (X) = Community is NFIP
c X = Local government has stormwater ordinance | WS = Local government limits built-upon area in water
supply watersheds
d Lake Royale is a private development and as such does not have ordinances, but rather has a set of Rules and Regulations which
include riparian buffer protection rules.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
SECTION 7
References
City of Creedmoor (Creedmoor). 2014. Fee and Rate Schedule 2014-2015.
City of Creedmoor (Creedmoor). 2012. City Plan 2030 City of Creedmoor, NC.
City of Henderson. 2012. Local Water Supply Plan. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
Accessed via Internet - www.ncwater.org
City of Henderson. 2010. The 2030 Comprehensive Development Plan. Adopted May 10, 2010.
City of Oxford. 2012. Local Water Supply Plan. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
Accessed via Internet - www.ncwater.org
City of Oxford (Oxford). 2009. Oxford Comprehensive Plan.
City of Oxford (Oxford). 2007. City of Oxford Water Shortage Response Policy.
City of Oxford. 2003. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted October 14, 2003.
City of Virginia Beach. 2011. Lake Gaston Pump Report.
http://www.vbgov.com/vgn.aspx?vgnextoid=36c2ede97c04c010VgnVCM1000006310640aRCRD&vgnextcha
nnel=2b46fd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640aRCRD&vgnextparchannel=28b1fd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100
000870b640aRCRD. Accessed 2011.
City of Virginia Beach. 2009. Lake Gaston Water Supply Project.
http://www.vbgov.com/vgn.aspx?vgnextchannel=2b46fd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640aRCRD&vgnex
tparchannel=28b1fd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640aRCRD. Accessed March 2009.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 103 pp. Accessed via National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) June 2010.
Dominion. 2010. Operational Modes for Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Power Stations.
http://www.dom.com/about/stations/hydro/operational-modes.jsp Accessed February 2010.
Earth Satellite Corporation (ESC). 1997. Comprehensive Land Cover Mapping for the State of North Carolina:
Final Report. Rockville, Maryland. http://www.nconemap.com/Accessed February, 2010.
Earth Tech, 2008. Calculations – Interbasin Transfer for City of Henderson and Kerr Lake Regional Water
System.
Elarde, Joe, CH2M HILL. 2010. Personal communication with Ruth Swanek on January 20, 2010.
Environmental Engineering & Technology, Inc. (EE&T). 2003. City of Henderson, North Carolina Kerr Lake
Regional Water System Expansion Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Kerr Lake Regional Water
System. June 2003.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011. Order Modifying and Approving Water Management
Plan Under Article 404.
Franklin County. 2010. Water Shortage Response Plan Franklin County, North Carolina.
Franklin County. 2000. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. http://www.franklincountync.us/services/planning-
and-inspections/comprehensive-landuse-plan Accessed September 2014.
Franklin County. 2008. Comprehensive Development Maps. Louisburg, North Carolina.
http://www.franklincountync.us/services/planning-and-inspections/current-planning-2/informational-maps
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
Granville County. 2014. Planning Division.
http://www.granvillenc.govoffice2.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7bF5F27448-4545-4B52-8A74-
41BC7671815D%7d&DE=%7b90053B28-2C4C-4115-801A-828975F1F20A%7d Accessed September 2014.
Harrison, Robin T., Roger N. Clark, and George H. Stankey. 1980. Predicting Impacts of Noise on
Recreationists. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Huffman, R.L. 1996. Ground Water in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina. North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.
Hydropower Reform Coalition. 2014. Smith Mountain : P–2210.
http://www.hydroreform.org/projects/smith-mountain-p-2210. Accessed August 2014.
LiveWell Granville. 2006. Granville County Greenway Master Plan.
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2014. Historic Buildings, Sites and District Data.
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/welcome.html Accessed August 2014.
Town of Norlina (Norlina). 2011. Water Shortage Response Plan Town of Norlina, North Carolina.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA). 2014. North Carolina One Map
Data. Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.nconemap.com. Accessed August 2014.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 1996. Ground Water in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Provinces of North Carolina. Department of Water Quality & Waste Management.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 2013a. Ambient Monitoring Section. 2011 Ambient Air
Quality Report.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 2013b. North Carolina's ozone levels lowest on record in
2013 http://daq.state.nc.us/news/pr/2013/ozone_12132013.shtml. Accessed January, 2014.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 2012a. Ambient Monitoring Section. 2010 Ambient Air
Quality Report.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 2012b. Ambient Monitoring Section. 2009 Ambient Air
Quality Report.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 2009a. North Carolina’s Air Quality Monitoring.
http://daq.state.nc.us/monitor/. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina. Accessed October 1, 2009.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 2009b. North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act.
http://daq.state.nc.us/news/leg/cleanstacks.shtml. Accessed January, 2014.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2014. List of active individual permits. NPDES
Wastewater Permitting & Compliance Program. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes. Accessed
August 2014.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013a. Water Supply Watersheds. Raleigh, North
Carolina. http://www.nconemap.com/Accessed November 2013.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013b. North Carolina Integrated Report. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Roanoke River Basin Plan. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2010a. Lake & Reservoir Assessments Roanoke River
Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2010b. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2009a. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2009b. Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
(CCPCUA). Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Status Report. North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR). August. http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_ Registration/Capacity_Use/Central_Coastal_Plain
/index.php?menu=Miscellaneous. Accessed January 2010.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2008a. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List 2008 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2008b. Tar-Pamlico River Basin Ambient Monitoring
Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2007. Local Water Supply Plan Update Interbasin
Transfer Worksheets. Accessed via internet on July 16, 2009.
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2006. Report to the Environment Review Commission
on the Status of Water Quality in Water Supply Reservoirs Sampled by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2004. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2003. Basinwide Assessment Report for the Tar-
Pamlico River basin. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP). 2009. North Carolina Floodplain Effective FIRM
Indexes. http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/firm_indexes.htm Accessed October 2009 and February 2011.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2014. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO) and
Natural Heritage Program Natural Area (NHPNA) Databases. July 2014.
North Carolina Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs (NCEE). 2013. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Roanoke River Basin.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. 2013. Population Estimates and Projections.
http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates.shtm
Accessed October 2014.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. 1999. Department of Cultural Resources & Office of
Archives and History County Fact Sheets for Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties.
http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/default.htm. Accessed October 2009.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 2014. North Carolina Atlas of Freshwater Mussels and
Endangered Fish. http://www.ncwildlife.org/Wildlife_Species_Con/WSC_Mussel_Learn_More.htm.
Accessed October 2014.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 2005a. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/WAP_complete.pdf. Accessed August 2014.
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 2005b. 2005 Wild Turkey Range Map.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Wildlife_Species_Con/documents/turkey_dist_map05.pdf. Accessed October
2009.
Roanoke River Partners. 2011. www.roanokeriverpartners.org. Accessed February 2011.
Schafale and Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Town of Stovall (Stovall). 2010. Water Shortage Response Plan Town of Stovall, North Carolina.
Total Environmental Solutions, Inc. (TESI). 2008. Water Shortage Response Plan for Lake Royale Community
Public Water System.
The Nature Conservancy. 2010.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northcarolina/preserves/art5631.html.
Accessed July 2, 2010.
Town of Bunn (Bunn). 2010. Water Shortage Response Plan Town of Bunn, North Carolina.
Trapp, Henry Jr. and Marilee A. Horn. 1997. Hydrologic Atlas. United States Geological Survey.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014a. Kerr Reservoir Monthly Elevation, Flow and
Generation Statistics Since 1953. http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/kerrmsr.txt. Accessed August 2014.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014b. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Hydropower.
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Locations/DistrictLakesandDams/JohnHKerr/Hydropower.aspx Accessed
August 2014.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014b. John H. Kerr, Recreation, Ramps.
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Locations/DistrictLakesandDams/JohnHKerr/Recreation/Ramps.aspx
Accessed October 2014.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Milburnie Dam Stream Restoration Bank, Wake
County, NC (Regulatory). www.saw.usace.army.mil. Accessed August 2013.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Parks and Recreation.
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/jhkerr/parks.htm. Accessed December 2010.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Reallocation Report – John H. Kerr Reservoir Water
Supply Storage Reallocation Request for the City of Henderson, North Carolina. Wilmington District.
United States. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. Water Control Plan for John H. Kerr Dam and
Reservoir (updated). Prepared by the Wilmington District, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Geographic Database.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed August 2014.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Data for
Franklin, Vance, Granville, and Warren Counties, North Carolina.
http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/Accessed November 2014.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. Soil Survey of Franklin County, North Carolina. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. Important Farmlands of North Carolina. Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Raleigh, North Carolina.
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Soil Survey of Granville County, North Carolina. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980. Soil Survey of Vance County, North Carolina. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Green Book of Nonattainment Areas for
Criteria Pollutants. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk. Accessed August 2014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Decision Rationale, Total Maximum Daily
Loads, Polychlorinated Biphenyl Impairment, Roanoke River Watershed, Virginia. Philadelphia, PA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. AirData : Access to Air Pollution Data.
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006a. Decision Rationale for the Roanoke River
Benthic TMDL, Botetourt, Floyd, Montgomery, Roanoke, and Salem Counties, Virginia. Philadelphia, PA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006b. Decision Rationale for the Roanoke River,
Wilson Creek and Ore Branch Bacteriological TMDLs. Philadelphia, PA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Compliance and Enforcement Strategy
Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows. April 27, 2000.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of
Concern by County for Franklin, Granville, Vance, and Warren Counties, North Carolina. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html. Accessed August 2014.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014b. Species Profile, James spinymussel.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=F025. Accessed September 2014.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Species Profile, Tar River spinymussel.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=F015. Accessed February 2011.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Accessed January
2009. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Information on Threatened and Endangered Species,
Dwarf wedgemussel. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listedspecies/dwarf_wedgemussel.html. Accessed February 2011.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Roanoke Logperch fact sheet. Prepared by Virginia
Field Office.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2009a. USGS Surface-Water Daily Data for the Nation.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv. Accessed December 30, 2009.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2009b. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database.
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=568. Accessed October 2009.
Vance County. 2014. Planning and Development Department. Vance County Water District Overview and
Update. Prepared by Jordan McMillen, Deputy County Manager.
Vance County. 2010. Vance County Land Use Plan.
Vance County Water District. 2009. Information on the Advantages of a Central Water System.
www.vancecounty.com/waterproject2009%5Cwatersystemadvantages2009.pdf Accessed January, 2010.
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (VDCR). 2014. Virginia Natural Heritage Program
Database. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ dbsearchtool.shtml. for Upper Roanoke, Middle
Roanoke, Upper Dan, Lower Dan, Banister, and Roanoke Rapids Watersheds, Virginia. Accessed July 2014.
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
Virginia Department of Cultural Resources (VADCR). 2014. Virginia State Parks.
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/state-parks/. Accessed October 2014.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2014. Virginia Water Quality Assessment
305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report.
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessments/
2012305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx. Accessed August 2014.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2010. Virginia Wildlife Information.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/. Accessed February, 2010.
Virginia Outdoors. 2010. Buggs Island/Kerr Lake. http://www.virginia-outdoors.com/buggsisland.html
Virginia Polytechnic University. 2010. The Virtual Aquarium.
http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/families/roanokelog.html. Accessed December 2010.
Warren County. 2012. Local Water Supply Plan. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
Accessed via Internet - www.ncwater.org
Warren County. 2010. Water Shortage Response Plan Warren County, North Carolina.
Warren County. 2002. Comprehensive Development Plan – Land Use Plan. Kerr-Tar Regional Council of
Government Planning. Warren County, NC.
Yonts, Woody, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2010. Personal communication with
Ruth Swanek on March 12 and March 15, 2010.