The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKLRWS_EA_Appendices_20150116 Appendix A Notice of Intent and Scoping Document This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix A.1 – Notice of Intent This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix A.2 – Notice of Intent Exhibits This page has been intentionally left blank. HALIFAX NASH WARREN GRANVILLE FRANKLIN VANCE DURHAM PERSON NORTHAMPTON WAKE EDGECOMBE Durham Butner Red Oak Rocky Mount Dortches Henderson Oxford Roanoke Rapids Wake Forest Creedmoor Nashville Gaston Weldon Louisburg Raleigh Enfield Stovall Stem Norlina Momeyer Franklinton Littleton Bunn Castalia Warrenton Youngsville Macon Middleburg Halifax Spring Hope Whitakers Kittrell Centerville Tar River Fishing CreekS a n d y C re e k S w ift C r e e k S h o c c o C r e e k Reedy Creek Cedar Creek M ars h S w a m p T a b b s C r e e k D eep C re ek Rock y S w amp Flat Riv er Big Peachtree Creek Beech Swamp Tar River Cedar Creek Rocky Swamp Exhibit 1Interbasin Transfer from Roanoke River Basin Kerr Lake Regional Water System 5 0 52.5 Miles K e r r L a k e Roanoke River Basin Tar River Basin Roanoke River Basin Fishing Creek Subbasin Tar River Basin Neuse River Basin Virginia 85 Lake Royal River Basin Legend Major Road Major Hydrology Municipalities County Border Water Body Interstate Highway KLRWS Partners Water Customers EXHIBIT 2 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 YEAR 2007 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY MDD MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND ROANOKE ADD KLRWS MDD WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MDD ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 3.84 IBT 5.00 BASIN 0.035 check OK 0.05 0.00 check OK 0.00 6.54 Totals 8.52 0.035 0.05 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 Peaking Factor 1.302 0.035 Con. Loss 0.05 to Roanoke 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 6.54 Sum Below 8.52 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MDD 0.000 W.W. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 6.42 SALE 8.36 0.85 IBT 1.10 ADD Kerr-Tar MDD 0.12 WW PROCESS 0.15 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.04 check OK 1.36 0.00 check OK 0.00 RIVER 1.04 Sum Below 1.36 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 TAR BASIN 0.17 Con. Loss 0.22 to Roanoke 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.28 Con. Loss 0.36 to Fishing Crk 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Fishing Crk BASIN ADD OXFORD MDD ADD HENDERSON MDD 0.14 W.W. 0.18 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MDD 1.25 IBT 1.62 1.75 IBT 2.28 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Kerr-Tar 0.00 check OK 0.00 1.28 check OK 1.67 4.102 check OK 5.34 0.00 check OK 0.00 0.15 Sale 0.20 to Norlina 0.00 0.00 1.28 Sum Below 1.67 4.102 Sum Below 5.34 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.30 Sale 0.39 to Warrenton 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.03 to Tar -0.083 Con. Loss -0.11 to Roanoke 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar ADD Norlina MDD 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 1.22 W.W. 1.59 to Tar -0.036 Con. Loss -0.05 to Tar 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 0.154 check OK 0.20 0.00 Con Loss 0.00 to Neuse 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Creedmoor 2.436 W.W. 3.17 to Roanoke 0.154 Sum Below 0.20 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 0.04 Sale 0.05 to Stovall 0.000 Sale 0.00 to Kerr-Tar 0.023 Con. Loss 0.03 to Roanoke NEUSE 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Granville Co.0.074 Sale 0.10 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.023 Con. Loss 0.03 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Kerr Tar Hub 1.711 Sale 2.23 to Franklin Co.0.108 WW. 0.14 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.000 Sale 0.00 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MDD ADD Creedmoor MDD RIVER 0.00 check OK 0.00 ADD Warrenton MDD 0.00 check OK 0.00 BASIN 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.300 check OK 0.39 FISHING CREEK 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Roanoke 0.300 Sum Below 0.39 (SUB-BASIN TO TAR) 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar ADD Kittrell MDD 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 0.032 Con. Loss 0.04 to Fishing Crk 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 0.074 check OK 0.10 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.268 WW 0.35 to Fishing Crk FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.074 Sum Below 0.10 0.074 Con. Loss 0.10 to Tar TAR NEUSE 0.000 WW. 0.00 to Tar RIVER WARREN COUNTY RIVER ADD Franklin Co.MDD BASIN BASIN 1.711 check OK 2.23 1.711 Sum Below 2.23 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 0.921 Con. Loss 1.20 to Tar ADD Bunn MDD ADD MDD ADD Youngsville MDD 0.163 Con. Loss 0.21 to Neuse 0.120 check OK 0.16 Withdrawal ROANOKE 6.54 8.52 0.058 check OK 0.08 0.294 W.W. 0.38 to Tar 0.120 Sum Below 0.16 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.15 0.19 0.058 Sum Below 0.08 0.058 Sale 0.08 to Youngsville 0.021 Con. Loss 0.03 to Tar TAR 1.16 1.51 0.000 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 0.120 Sale 0.16 to Bunn 0.099 WW. 0.13 to Tar FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.333 0.43 0.034 Con. Loss 0.04 to Neuse 0.155 Sale 0.20 to Lake Royale NEUSE 0.20 0.26 0.024 W.W. 0.03 to Tar 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Kerr-Tar Waterwater Discharge ROANOKE 2.55 3.33 TAR 1.64 2.14 ADD Lake Royal MDD FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.515 0.67 0.155 check OK 0.202 NEUSE 00 Franklinton Louisburg 0.155 Sum Below 0.202 Total Return to ROANOKE 2.70 3.52 Contract Contract 0.153 Con. Loss 0.199 to Tar IBT TAR 2.80 3.64 0.258 From Tar 0.229 From Tar 0.002 WW. 0.002 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 0.85 1.10 TOTAL IBT TO TAR 3.65 4.75 IBT NEUSE 0.20 0.26 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD check 6.54 8.52 0.000 check OK 0.00 NOTES: 0.000 Sum Below 0.00 1 MDD values were determined using a 1.305 Peak Day Value, based on 2007 water production data. 0.000 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 2 Water from Franklinton and Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non KLRWS water. 0.000 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin and # of septic connections within each system. 4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 5 Water from Creedmoor and South Granville subtracted from Creedmoor's totals since non KLRWS water. 2007 IBT SUMMARY EXHIBIT 2 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 YEAR 2040 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER DATA FROM PREVIOUS IBT STUDY 2035 KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY MDD MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND ROANOKE ADD KLRWS MDD WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MDD ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 20.13 IBT 26.21 BASIN 0.050 check OK 0.07 0.16 check OK 0.20 24.66 Totals 32.12 0.050 0.07 0.16 Sum Below 0.21 Peaking Factor 1.30 0.050 Con. Loss 0.07 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.03 to Tar 24.66 Sum Below 32.12 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MDD 0.000 W.W. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.13 W.W. 0.17 to Tar 24.22 SALE 31.53 1.25 IBT 1.63 ADD Kerr-Tar MDD 0.45 WW PROCESS 0.58 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.501 check OK 1.95 0.16 check OK 0.20 RIVER 1.500 Sum Below 1.95 0.16 Sum Below 0.21 TAR BASIN 0.220 Con. Loss 0.29 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.03 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.370 Con. Loss 0.48 to Fishing Crk 0.13 W.W. 0.17 to Fishing Crk BASIN ADD OXFORD MDD ADD HENDERSON MDD 0.184 W.W. 0.24 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MDD 8.51 IBT 11.08 10.37 IBT 13.50 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 0.157 Sale 0.20 to Kerr-Tar 5.03 check OK 6.55 8.74 check OK 11.38 13.976 check OK 18.20 0.12 check OK 0.16 0.182 Sale 0.24 to Norlina 5.03 6.55 8.74 Sum Below 11.38 13.976 Sum Below 18.20 0.12 Sum Below 0.16 0.387 Sale 0.50 to Warrenton 0.18 Con. Loss 0.23 to Roanoke 0.05 Con. Loss 0.06 to Tar -0.116 Con. Loss -0.15 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.02 to Tar ADD Norlina MDD 0.66 Con. Loss 0.86 to Tar 2.50 W.W. 3.26 to Tar -0.050 Con. Loss -0.07 to Tar 0.11 W.W. 0.14 to Tar 0.182 check OK 0.24 0.36 Con Loss 0.47 to Neuse 0.95 Sale 1.24 to Creedmoor 3.409 W.W. 4.44 to Roanoke 0.182 Sum Below 0.24 3.83 W.W. 4.99 to Tar 0.05 Sale 0.07 to Stovall 0.124 Sale 0.16 to Kerr-Tar 0.027 Con. Loss 0.04 to Roanoke NEUSE 5.03 Sale 6.55 to Granville Co.0.082 Sale 0.11 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.027 Con. Loss 0.04 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.16 Sale 0.20 to Kerr Tar Hub 9.793 Sale 12.75 to Franklin Co.0.128 WW. 0.17 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.734 Sale 0.96 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MDD ADD Creedmoor MDD RIVER 0.73 check OK 0.96 ADD Warrenton MDD 0.95 check OK 1.24 BASIN 0.73 0.96 0.387 check OK 0.50 FISHING CREEK 0.95 Sum Below 1.24 0.32 Con. Loss 0.41 to Roanoke 0.387 Sum Below 0.50 (SUB-BASIN TO TAR) 0.03 Con. Loss 0.04 to Tar ADD Kittrell MDD 0.42 Con. Loss 0.54 to Tar 0.041 Con. Loss 0.05 to Fishing Crk 0.92 W.W. 1.20 to Tar 0.082 check OK 0.11 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.346 WW 0.45 to Fishing Crk FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.082 Sum Below 0.11 0.082 Con. Loss 0.11 to Tar TAR WARREN COUNTY NEUSE 0.000 WW. 0.00 to Tar RIVER RIVER ADD Franklin Co.MDD BASIN 0.259 BASIN 9.793 check OK 12.75 9.793 Sum Below 12.75 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 6.253 Con. Loss 8.14 to Tar ADD Bunn MDD ADD MDD ADD Youngsville MDD 1.103 Con. Loss 1.44 to Neuse 0.168 check OK 0.22 Withdrawal ROANOKE 24.66 32.12 0.259 check OK 0.34 1.475 W.W. 1.92 to Tar 0.168 Sum Below 0.22 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.68 0.88 0.259 Sum Below 0.34 0.259 Sale 0.34 to Youngsville 0.030 Con. Loss 0.04 to Tar TAR 7.82 10.18 0.000 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 0.168 Sale 0.22 to Bunn 0.139 WW. 0.18 to Tar FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.462 0.60 0.153 Con. Loss 0.20 to Neuse 0.267 Sale 0.35 to Lake Royale NEUSE 1.62 2.10 0.106 W.W. 0.14 to Tar 0.267 Sale 0.35 to Kerr-Tar Waterwater Discharge ROANOKE 3.86 5.02 TAR 9.44 12.29 ADD Lake Royal MDD FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.791 1.03 0.267 check OK 0.348 NEUSE 00 Franklinton Louisburg 0.267 Sum Below 0.348 Total Return to ROANOKE 4.53 5.90 Contract Contract 0.264 Con. Loss 0.343 to Tar IBT TAR 17.26 22.48 0.258 From Tar 0.229 From Tar 0.003 WW. 0.004 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 1.25 1.63 TOTAL IBT TO TAR 18.51 24.11 IBT NEUSE 1.62 2.10 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD check 24.66 32.12 0.267 check OK 0.35 NOTES: 0.267 Sum Below 0.35 1 MDD values were determined using a 1.305 Peak Day Value, based on 2007 water production data. 0.040 Con. Loss 0.05 to Tar 2 Water from Franklinton and Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non KLRWS water. 0.227 W.W. 0.30 to Tar 3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin and # of septic connections within each system. 4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 5 Water from Creedmoor and South Granville subtracted from Creedmoor's totals since non KLRWS water. 2040 IBT SUMMARY EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 TAR RIVER BASIN IBT SUMMARY 3.64 11.52 17.26 22.48 10 10 10 10 1.10 1.35 1.48 1.63 4.75 12.87 18.74 24.11 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 YEARS MA X D A Y I B T ( m g d ) PROJECTED MAX IBT TO TAR EX. IBT LIMIT PROJECTED MAX IBT TO FISHING CREEK TOTAL PROJECTED MAX IBT TO TAR RIVER BASIN EXHIBIT 5 NEUSE RIVER BASIN IBT SUMMARY 0.26 2.10 1.80 1.20 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 YEARS MA X D A Y I B T ( m g d ) PROJECTED MAX IBT EX. IBT LIMIT This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix A.3 – Scoping Document This page has been intentionally left blank. 1 Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Request from the Roanoke River Basin Scoping Document Interbasin Transfer Certificate and Environmental Impact Statement February 2009 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) (Figure 1). The owners of the KLRWS and primary bulk customers served by the system are City of Henderson, City of Oxford, and Warren County, known as the “Partners.” They also currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties which are shown on Figure 2. These include Stovall, Warrenton, Norlina, Vance County, Kittrell, and Franklin County with future sales to Creedmoor, Granville County, and the Triangle North business parks. Franklin County then also sells water to Bunn, Lake Royal, and Youngsville, and obtains additional supply from Franklinton and Louisburg (Figure 2). The system currently produces on average 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water. Maximum day production approaches 8.5 mgd. The KLRWS currently has a maximum day interbasin transfer (IBT) of approximately 5 mgd, a grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd, and a projected IBT of approximately 24 mgd by 2040 to the Tar River Basin. In addition, a small amount of water is also transferred to the Neuse River Basin. While this transfer is currently below 0.3 mgd, it is projected to grow to over 2.0 mgd by 2040. While the KLRWS will not approach the grandfathered IBT during the next 5 to 8 years, it is important to complete this process in a timely manner to ensure continued water service to KLRWS Partners and the local governments with contracts with the partners. Planning for future demands, KLRWS has undertaken the following steps: • Completed design and an environment assessment (EA) for water treatment plant (WTP) expansion • Cooperated with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on a Reallocation Report after requesting a reallocation of water supply storage in order to increase withdrawals (2005) • Submitted a Notice of Intent to North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (NC EMC) for increased IBT • Summarized available water demand projects based on 2007 Local Water Supply Plans developed by the primary and secondary bulk customers of the KLRWS • Prepared this Scoping Document to comply with recent IBT regulations S a n d y C r e e k Fishing Creek Shocco C r e e k Tab b s C r e e k 85 39 39 158 158 BYP1 BYP1 City of Henderson Kerr Lake Regional WTP City of Henderson WRF Roano k e R i v e r B a s i n Fishin g C r e e k S u b b a s i n Kerr Lake Sa n d y C r e e k 158 BUS1 Gr a n v i l l e C o u n t y Va n c e C o u n t y W a r r e n C o u n t y Va n c e C o u n t y Nu t b u s h C r e e k 2 0 21 Miles Figure 1 Interbasin Transfer from Roanoke River Basin Henderson Quadrangle Kerr Lake Regional Water System Source: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map Legend Interstate Highway Major Road Major Hydrography County Border River Basin Water Body Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Water Treatment Plant (WTP)Henderson BYP158 BUS 158 F i s h i n g C r e e k S u b b a s i n T a r R i v e r B a s i n Durham Red Oak Rocky Mount Dortches Butner Henderson Raleigh Oxford Wake Forest Roanoke Rapids Creedmoor Nashville Tarboro Gaston Weldon Louisburg Enfield Stovall Stem Norlina Momeyer Franklinton Littleton Rolesville Spring Hope Leggett Bunn Castalia Garysburg Warrenton Youngsville Macon Middleburg Halifax Whitakers Kittrell Centerville Roxboro NASH HALIFAX WARREN FRANKLIN VANCE DURHAM WAKE PERSON EDGECOMBE NORTHAMPTON ORANGE Ta r R i v e r Fishing Creek S a n d y C r e e k S w i f t C r e e k Shocco Cree k Reed y C r e e k Ce d a r C r e e k M a r s h S w a m p T a b b s C r e e k De e p C r e e k Little River Ro c k y S w a m p Eno River F l a t R i v e r Beec h S w a m p Bi g P e a c h t r e e C r e e k Ceda r C r e e k T a r R i v e r Ro c k y S w a m p 85 95 40 0 Figure 2 Interbasin Transfer from Roanoke River Basin Water Sales Kerr Lake Regional Water System 5 0 52.5 Miles Roanoke RapidsLake Legend Interstate Highway Major Road Major Hydrology County Border Municipalities Water Body River Basin KLRWS Partners Water Customers Lake Royale Virginia KerrLake Lake GastonMayoReservoir Roan o k e R i v e r B a s i n Tar R i v e r B a s i n Roanoke River Basin Fishing Creek Subbasin FallsLake Ta r R i v e r B a s i n N e u s e R i v e r B a s i n GRANVILLE INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 4 The KLRWS Partners completed an EA for an expansion of its 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. This EA is a comprehensive document that can become the basis of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support an IBT certificate. Since an approved EA is typically considered valid by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) for 5 years, this document can be a comprehensive reference for use in an updated EIS to support the IBT certificate process. The 2007 Local Water Supply Updates for the partner communities will also serve as key information to be incorporated into the IBT planning process. Current Situation and Project Need Kerr Lake Regional Water System Background The KLRWS includes the Kerr Lake Regional Water Plant, 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 the 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 36-inch raw water transmission line to the WTP’s rapid mix basin. The water source, John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake), was formed in 1952 by construction of the John H. Kerr dam, an impoundment of the Roanoke River in Mecklenburg County, Virginia, for hydroelectric power and flood control. The lake encompasses approximately 50,000 acres of surface area and 850 miles of shoreline. The reservoir is owned by USACE. The lake is also of recreational importance for residents of both North Carolina and Virginia. 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 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 EA stipulated that specifications will be written to require mitigation practices that meet or exceed the existing state and federal statues. The SCI identified for the water treatment plant expansion would be the similar to those facilitated by 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 EIS related to the IBT certificate request. The EA proposes expanding the existing facility to 20 mgd. In addition to the WTP EA, the KLRWS also requested that the USACE evaluate an increase in allocation of water supply storage in Kerr Lake. The 2005 reallocation report issued by the USACE 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. This brings the total water supply storage allocation to 21,115 AF. This volume corresponds to an average annual withdrawal of 20 mgd. This reallocation would finalize conversion of an original 20 mgd ‘water use’ agreement to a ‘storage agreement’ and could meet peak water demands approaching 26 mgd using the current peaking factor of 1.3. INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 5 TABLE 1 Kerr Lake Pertinent Reallocation Data Drainage Area (square miles) 7,800 Storage * (AF) Total Usable Pool (Elevation 268-320) 2,262,421 Flood Control Pool (Elevation 300-320) 1,282,367 Conservation Pool (Elevation 268-300) 980,054 Hydropower 969,231 Water Supply 10,823 * Storage remaining after 100 years of sedimentation from July 1953 Source: 2005 USACE Reallocation Report To reach the conclusion that additional water supply storage should be allocated to KLRWS, several alternatives to increasing storage allocation in Kerr Lake were evaluated by the USACE. These included using other sources for water supply. The alternatives considered and resulting findings are summarized in Table 2. According to the report, new reallocation from conservation storage was the only alternative deemed viable other than “no action.” The USACE approved the increased allocation of storage in Kerr Lake for KLRWS. Through the IBT certificate and EIS process, alternatives to the use of Kerr Lake for water supply will also be analyzed. Other considerations will include avoiding an IBT by other means, such as returning wastewater to its source basin. TABLE 2 Alternative Water Sources Considered by USACE Alternative Viability 1. Groundwater/Bulk Finished Water Purchase Rejected: inadequate supply 2. Alternative Surface Water Rejected: inadequate supply 3. Conservation Rejected: not viable for long term 4. No Action Potentially viable 5. New Reallocation from Conservation Storage (Kerr) Potentially viable Source: 2005 USACE Reallocation Report Study Area The service area is split between the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse River basins, as shown in Figure 1. The Roanoke River basin is both a source and receiving basin, while the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River basins are only receiving basins. The upper northern portion of the service area, including the Kerr Lake, is located in the Roanoke River Basin. 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 through Kerr Lake. From the lake it flows into Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake, and on through the coastal plain INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 6 before emptying into the Albemarle Sound in eastern North Carolina. Only 36 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 third and fourth largest river basins, respectively, in North Carolina. Both basins are wholly contained within the state. The Neuse River originates in Person and Orange Counties and flows southeasterly until it turns into a tidal estuary near New Bern, which flows into the Pamlico Sound. Similarly, the Tar River originates in Person, Granville, and Vance Counties, and flows southeasterly until it turns into a tidal estuary, near Washington where it changes name to the Pamlico River, and then flows into Pamlico Sound. The Tar-Pamlico River Basin includes the Fishing Creek Subbasin, which includes portions of Vance and Warren Counties, and is considered a separate subbasin under IBT rules. Municipal wastewater dischargers into the study area are listed in Table 3. Some municipal wastewater is returned to the Roanoke River Basin by the City of Henderson. Nutbush Creek, the receiving stream for the City’s discharge, is on the 2006 303(d) list of impaired waters. Other discharges are to the Tar River Basin. Fishing Creek and Sandy Creek are also on the 2006 303(d) list of impaired waters (NCDWQ, 2006). TABLE 3 Municipal Wastewater Discharges within Service Area WWTP Discharge Location Receiving Basin City of Henderson Nutbush Creek (Kerr Lake) Roanoke River Town of Oxford Fishing Creek Upper Tar River Town of Warrenton Fishing Creek Fishing Creek Town of Louisburg Tar River Tar River Upper Tar River Water Demand Projections As the KLRWS first began preparing for a WTP expansion, water demand projections were prepared in 2004. These water demand projections supported the development of a design to expand the WTP and the request for a 20-mgd allocation of storage in Kerr Lake, which was approved by USACE in the 2005 Reallocation Report. KLRWS previous average daily demands for 5-year intervals beginning in 1992 are listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 KLRWS Past Average Daily Water Demands Year 1992 1997 2002 2007 Amount (mgd) 4.99 5.07 5.89 6.54 The KLRWS 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 INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 7 outside the Roanoke River Basin. In 2008, updated population projection data were reviewed when water demand projections were updated (Earth Tech, 2008). Population growth will occur at a slow rate in Vance County and Warren County, 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 growth, the KLRWS Partners are extending water service areas by constructing additional water infrastructure. Using population data and 2007 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 predict IBT. The population projections through 2040 are shown in Table 5 and the demand and IBT projections are summarized in Table 6. Detailed projections are presented in Exhibits 1 and 2. TABLE 5 Past and Projected Annual County Population Totals County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Franklin 47,260 53,880 60,120 66,669 73,444 80,262 86,924 93,585 100,247 Granville 48,498 53,090 57,933 62,024 66,143 70,141 74,335 78,529 82,724 Vance 42,954 43,192 43,730 44,223 44,684 45,196 45,679 46,162 46,645 Warren 19,972 20,072 19,830 19,797 19,747 19,662 19,556 19,449 19,343 Source: Earth Tech, 2008 8 TABLE 6 IBT Summary for KLRWS – 2007, 2020, 2030, and 2040 2007 (mgd) 2020 (mgd) 2030 (mgd) 2040 (mgd) Water Usage Subbasin ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD Withdrawal Roanoke 6.54 8.52 14.49 18.87 19.94 25.97 24.66 32.12 Consumptive Loss Roanoke 0.15 0.19 0.56 0.73 0.71 0.92 0.68 0.88 Tar 1.16 1.51 4.23 5.51 6.26 8.16 7.82 10.18 Fishing Creek (subbasin to Tar) 0.333 .043 0.404 0.53 0.432 0.56 0.462 0.60 Neuse 0.20 0.26 0.92 1.20 1.38 1.80 1.62 2.10 Wastewater Discharge Roanoke 2.55 3.33 3.14 4.09 3.46 4.51 3.86 5.02 Tar 1.64 2.14 4.62 6.01 6.99 9.10 9.44 12.29 Fishing Creek (subbasin to Tar) 0.515 0.67 0.629 0.82 0.708 0.92 0.791 1.03 Neuse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Return To Roanoke 2.70 3.52 3.70 4.81 4.17 5.43 4.53 5.90 IBT Tar 2.80 3.64 8.85 11.52 13.25 17.26 17.26 22.48 IBT Fishing Creek 0.85 1.10 1.03 1.35 1.14 1.48 1.25 1.63 Total IBT to Tar 3.65 4.75 9.88 12.87 14.39 18.74 18.51 24.11 IBT Neuse 0.20 0.26 0.92 1.20 1.38 1.80 1.62 2.10 Notes: 1. MDD values were determined using a 1.305 Peak Day Value, based on 2007 water production data. 2. Water from Franklinton and Louisburg was subtracted from Franklin County totals since it is non-KLRWS water. 3. Consumptive use dispersement 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. Water from Creedmoor and South Granville was subtracted from Creedmoor's totals since it is non-KLRWS water. 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 YEAR 2007 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY MDD MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND ROANOKE ADD KLRWS MDD WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MDD ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 3.84 IBT 5.00 BASIN 0.035 check OK 0.05 0.00 check OK 0.00 6.54 Totals 8.52 0.035 0.05 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 Peaking Factor 1.302 0.035 Con. Loss 0.05 to Roanoke 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 6.54 Sum Below 8.52 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MDD 0.000 W.W. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 6.42 SALE 8.36 0.85 IBT 1.10 ADD Kerr-Tar MDD 0.12 WW PROCESS 0.15 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.04 check OK 1.36 0.00 check OK 0.00 RIVER 1.04 Sum Below 1.36 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 TAR BASIN 0.17 Con. Loss 0.22 to Roanoke 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.28 Con. Loss 0.36 to Fishing Crk 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Fishing Crk BASIN ADD OXFORD MDD ADD HENDERSON MDD 0.14 W.W. 0.18 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MDD 1.25 IBT 1.62 1.75 IBT 2.28 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Kerr-Tar 0.00 check OK 0.00 1.28 check OK 1.67 4.102 check OK 5.34 0.00 check OK 0.00 0.15 Sale 0.20 to Norlina 0.00 0.00 1.28 Sum Below 1.67 4.102 Sum Below 5.34 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.30 Sale 0.39 to Warrenton 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.03 to Tar -0.083 Con. Loss -0.11 to Roanoke 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar ADD Norlina MDD 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 1.22 W.W. 1.59 to Tar -0.036 Con. Loss -0.05 to Tar 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 0.154 check OK 0.20 0.00 Con Loss 0.00 to Neuse 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Creedmoor 2.436 W.W. 3.17 to Roanoke 0.154 Sum Below 0.20 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 0.04 Sale 0.05 to Stovall 0.000 Sale 0.00 to Kerr-Tar 0.023 Con. Loss 0.03 to Roanoke NEUSE 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Granville Co.0.074 Sale 0.10 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.023 Con. Loss 0.03 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Kerr Tar Hub 1.711 Sale 2.23 to Franklin Co.0.108 WW. 0.14 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.000 Sale 0.00 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MDD ADD Creedmoor MDD RIVER 0.00 check OK 0.00 ADD Warrenton MDD 0.00 check OK 0.00 BASIN 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.300 check OK 0.39 FISHING CREEK 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Roanoke 0.300 Sum Below 0.39 (SUB-BASIN TO TAR) 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar ADD Kittrell MDD 0.00 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 0.032 Con. Loss 0.04 to Fishing Crk 0.00 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 0.074 check OK 0.10 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.268 WW 0.35 to Fishing Crk FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.074 Sum Below 0.10 0.074 Con. Loss 0.10 to Tar TAR NEUSE 0.000 WW. 0.00 to Tar RIVER WARREN COUNTY RIVER ADD Franklin Co.MDD BASIN BASIN 1.711 check OK 2.23 1.711 Sum Below 2.23 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 0.921 Con. Loss 1.20 to Tar ADD Bunn MDD ADD MDD ADD Youngsville MDD 0.163 Con. Loss 0.21 to Neuse 0.120 check OK 0.16 Withdrawal ROANOKE 6.54 8.52 0.058 check OK 0.08 0.294 W.W. 0.38 to Tar 0.120 Sum Below 0.16 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.15 0.19 0.058 Sum Below 0.08 0.058 Sale 0.08 to Youngsville 0.021 Con. Loss 0.03 to Tar TAR 1.16 1.51 0.000 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 0.120 Sale 0.16 to Bunn 0.099 WW. 0.13 to Tar FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.333 0.43 0.034 Con. Loss 0.04 to Neuse 0.155 Sale 0.20 to Lake Royale NEUSE 0.20 0.26 0.024 W.W. 0.03 to Tar 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Kerr-Tar Waterwater Discharge ROANOKE 2.55 3.33 TAR 1.64 2.14 ADD Lake Royal MDD FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.515 0.67 0.155 check OK 0.202 NEUSE 00 Franklinton Louisburg 0.155 Sum Below 0.202 Total Return to ROANOKE 2.70 3.52 Contract Contract 0.153 Con. Loss 0.199 to Tar IBT TAR 2.80 3.64 0.258 From Tar 0.229 From Tar 0.002 WW. 0.002 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 0.85 1.10 TOTAL IBT TO TAR 3.65 4.75 IBT NEUSE 0.20 0.26 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD check 6.54 8.52 0.000 check OK 0.00 NOTES: 0.000 Sum Below 0.00 1 MDD values were determined using a 1.305 Peak Day Value, based on 2007 water production data. 0.000 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 2 Water from Franklinton and Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non KLRWS water. 0.000 W.W. 0.00 to Tar 3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin and # of septic connections within each system. 4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 5 Water from Creedmoor and South Granville subtracted from Creedmoor's totals since non KLRWS water. 2007 IBT SUMMARY EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 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 YEAR 2040 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER DATA FROM PREVIOUS IBT STUDY 2035 KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY MDD MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND ROANOKE ADD KLRWS MDD WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MDD ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 20.13 IBT 26.21 BASIN 0.050 check OK 0.07 0.16 check OK 0.20 24.66 Totals 32.12 0.050 0.07 0.16 Sum Below 0.21 Peaking Factor 1.30 0.050 Con. Loss 0.07 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.03 to Tar 24.66 Sum Below 32.12 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MDD 0.000 W.W. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.13 W.W. 0.17 to Tar 24.22 SALE 31.53 1.25 IBT 1.63 ADD Kerr-Tar MDD 0.45 WW PROCESS 0.58 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.501 check OK 1.95 0.16 check OK 0.20 RIVER 1.500 Sum Below 1.95 0.16 Sum Below 0.21 TAR BASIN 0.220 Con. Loss 0.29 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.03 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.370 Con. Loss 0.48 to Fishing Crk 0.13 W.W. 0.17 to Fishing Crk BASIN ADD OXFORD MDD ADD HENDERSON MDD 0.184 W.W. 0.24 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MDD 8.51 IBT 11.08 10.37 IBT 13.50 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD 0.157 Sale 0.20 to Kerr-Tar 5.03 check OK 6.55 8.74 check OK 11.38 13.976 check OK 18.20 0.12 check OK 0.16 0.182 Sale 0.24 to Norlina 5.03 6.55 8.74 Sum Below 11.38 13.976 Sum Below 18.20 0.12 Sum Below 0.16 0.387 Sale 0.50 to Warrenton 0.18 Con. Loss 0.23 to Roanoke 0.05 Con. Loss 0.06 to Tar -0.116 Con. Loss -0.15 to Roanoke 0.02 Con. Loss 0.02 to Tar ADD Norlina MDD 0.66 Con. Loss 0.86 to Tar 2.50 W.W. 3.26 to Tar -0.050 Con. Loss -0.07 to Tar 0.11 W.W. 0.14 to Tar 0.182 check OK 0.24 0.36 Con Loss 0.47 to Neuse 0.95 Sale 1.24 to Creedmoor 3.409 W.W. 4.44 to Roanoke 0.182 Sum Below 0.24 3.83 W.W. 4.99 to Tar 0.05 Sale 0.07 to Stovall 0.124 Sale 0.16 to Kerr-Tar 0.027 Con. Loss 0.04 to Roanoke NEUSE 5.03 Sale 6.55 to Granville Co.0.082 Sale 0.11 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.027 Con. Loss 0.04 to Fishing Crk RIVER 0.16 Sale 0.20 to Kerr Tar Hub 9.793 Sale 12.75 to Franklin Co.0.128 WW. 0.17 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.734 Sale 0.96 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MDD ADD Creedmoor MDD RIVER 0.73 check OK 0.96 ADD Warrenton MDD 0.95 check OK 1.24 BASIN 0.73 0.96 0.387 check OK 0.50 FISHING CREEK 0.95 Sum Below 1.24 0.32 Con. Loss 0.41 to Roanoke 0.387 Sum Below 0.50 (SUB-BASIN TO TAR) 0.03 Con. Loss 0.04 to Tar ADD Kittrell MDD 0.42 Con. Loss 0.54 to Tar 0.041 Con. Loss 0.05 to Fishing Crk 0.92 W.W. 1.20 to Tar 0.082 check OK 0.11 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.346 WW 0.45 to Fishing Crk FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.082 Sum Below 0.11 0.082 Con. Loss 0.11 to Tar TAR WARREN COUNTY NEUSE 0.000 WW. 0.00 to Tar RIVER RIVER ADD Franklin Co.MDD BASIN 0.259 BASIN 9.793 check OK 12.75 9.793 Sum Below 12.75 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 6.253 Con. Loss 8.14 to Tar ADD Bunn MDD ADD MDD ADD Youngsville MDD 1.103 Con. Loss 1.44 to Neuse 0.168 check OK 0.22 Withdrawal ROANOKE 24.66 32.12 0.259 check OK 0.34 1.475 W.W. 1.92 to Tar 0.168 Sum Below 0.22 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.68 0.88 0.259 Sum Below 0.34 0.259 Sale 0.34 to Youngsville 0.030 Con. Loss 0.04 to Tar TAR 7.82 10.18 0.000 Con. Loss 0.00 to Tar 0.168 Sale 0.22 to Bunn 0.139 WW. 0.18 to Tar FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.462 0.60 0.153 Con. Loss 0.20 to Neuse 0.267 Sale 0.35 to Lake Royale NEUSE 1.62 2.10 0.106 W.W. 0.14 to Tar 0.267 Sale 0.35 to Kerr-Tar Waterwater Discharge ROANOKE 3.86 5.02 TAR 9.44 12.29 ADD Lake Royal MDD FISHING CREEK (sub-basin to Tar)0.791 1.03 0.267 check OK 0.348 NEUSE 00 Franklinton Louisburg 0.267 Sum Below 0.348 Total Return to ROANOKE 4.53 5.90 Contract Contract 0.264 Con. Loss 0.343 to Tar IBT TAR 17.26 22.48 0.258 From Tar 0.229 From Tar 0.003 WW. 0.004 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 1.25 1.63 TOTAL IBT TO TAR 18.51 24.11 IBT NEUSE 1.62 2.10 ADD Kerr-Tar HUB MDD check 24.66 32.12 0.267 check OK 0.35 NOTES: 0.267 Sum Below 0.35 1 MDD values were determined using a 1.305 Peak Day Value, based on 2007 water production data. 0.040 Con. Loss 0.05 to Tar 2 Water from Franklinton and Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non KLRWS water. 0.227 W.W. 0.30 to Tar 3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin and # of septic connections within each system. 4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 5 Water from Creedmoor and South Granville subtracted from Creedmoor's totals since non KLRWS water. 2040 IBT SUMMARY EXHIBIT 2 9 The projected Fishing Creek and Tar River maximum daily IBT amounts, which together represent the total IBT to the Tar River Basin, are shown in Figure 3A. The combined Tar River Basin maximum daily IBT amount is projected to exceed the 10 mgd grandfathered IBT limit by 2015. The projected Neuse River maximum daily IBT amount is not expected to exceed 2 mgd until 2036, near the end of the projection period (Figure 3B). FIGURE 3A Tar River Basin IBT Summary 3.64 11.52 17.26 22.48 10 10 10 10 1.10 1.35 1.48 1.63 4.75 12.87 18.74 24.11 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 YEARS MA X D A Y I B T ( m g d ) PROJECTED MAX IBT TO TAR EX. IBT LIMIT PROJECTED MAX IBT TO FISHING CREEK TOTAL PROJECTED MAX IBT TO TAR RIVER BASIN FIGURE 3B Neuse River Basin IBT Summary 0.26 2.10 1.80 1.20 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 YEARS MA X D A Y I B T ( m g d ) PROJECTED MAX IBT EX. IBT LIMIT INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 10 Proposed Project Alternatives The following proposed project alternatives will be evaluated: 1. No action. This alternative would preclude the KLRWS from providing additional reliable water service to its Partners and the local governments with contracts with the Partners. This alternative is deficient because it limits the ability of the KLRWS to meet future peak day demands and provides no operating redundancy or flexibility to the regional KLRWS. KLRWS water production and distribution would be capped by the grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd from the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr Lake) to the Tar and Fishing Creek River Basins. 2. Increase in IBT facilitated by Expansion of the Kerr Lake Regional Water Plant Service Area and Customer Base to further serve as a regional provider of water. 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 transfer from the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr Lake) to the Tar-Pamlico and Fishing Creek River Basins from the grandfathered amount of 10 mgd to approximately 24 mgd, of which 1.6 mgd is a requested transfer to the Fishing Creek subbasin. An IBT would also be necessary in the amount of 2.4 mgd from the Roanoke River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. 3. Avoid IBT by using a water source in the Tar River Basin, which 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 the existing WTP would also be necessary. Water service for customers in the Neuse River Basin originating from the Roanoke and Tar River Basins would be considered in more detail in the future since it is not projected to be exceeded until after 2030, or the transfer could be managed not to exceed the 2 mgd threshold. 4. Avoid IBT by discharging wastewater 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 service area’s wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that discharge to the Tar River or Fishing Creek Basins. City of Henderson currently discharges back to the Roanoke River Basin. Public Meetings In addition to the scoping document being submitted to the Division of Water Resources (DWR), a public notice and five meetings are required within 90 days of the start of the process. These meetings are followed by a minimum 30-day public comment period. Upon receipt of scoping comment letters from the agencies and the public comments, a summary of comments will be prepared for consideration during the process. This process was updated with the recent 2007 legislation. In addition to scoping with NCDENR, federal and other commenting agencies, and the public meetings, discussions will be held with DWR on the required analysis of direct impacts to watershed hydrology, reservoir operations, and water quality from the proposed transfer. It is anticipated that hydrology and operations impacts will be analyzed with the INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 11 existing OASIS model developed for DWR for the Roanoke system and the Roanoke River Basin Reservoir Operations model. Discussions will be held with DWR, U.S. Geological Survey, and USACE to determine the application of these modeling tools in the IBT evaluation process. Environmental Impact Statement Tasks Preparation of a draft EIS will incorporate information from the 2003 EE&T EA, updated demand projections, and analysis of impacts to Kerr Lake, as well as focus on major comments from the agencies and the public. Secondary and cumulative impacts in the receiving basins will be a focus of the draft EIS. References or excerpts from the previously approved EA will be utilized as much as possible. It is anticipated that the following items will require particular focus in preparing the draft EIS. The following tasks will be performed in order to evaluate the preferred alternative: 1. Prepare IBT projections using updated water use and wastewater flows.. 2. Perform literature searches to evaluate the existing conditions and possible environmental impacts directly related to the proposed project. 3. Identify source basin impacts using the OASIS model provided by DWR. 4. Review and prepare detailed discussion of receiving basin impacts including impacts due to growth in general, local ordinances, and plans that address growth including stormwater programs, potential impacts on endangered species, as well as impacts of nutrients associated with wastewater discharges and growth in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, and Roanoke River Basins. 5. Identify flora, fish. and wildlife resources within the study area, with an emphasis on sensitive species. Identify possible impacts directly related to the proposed project. Federally-listed wildlife species will also be a focus (Table 7 and Figure 4). 6. Conduct a geographical information system (GIS) analysis using existing GIS data layers to provide a visual characterization of the existing land cover, land use, and rare or significant natural areas/habitats within the study area. The GIS information will be used as an aid in determining the extent of possible impacts directly related to the proposed project on wetlands, forests, significant natural areas, and public lands. 7. Conduct a GIS and literature search to identify the presence and significance of historical, cultural, and archaeological resources known to exist within the study area and provide an overview of possible impacts directly related to the proposed project on these resources. 8. Summarize mitigative measures and local ordinances as well as other local or regional efforts that will facilitate mitigation of possible direct and secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 12 TABLE 7 Federally Listed Species within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status County County Status Vertebrates American eel Anguilla rostrata FSC Vance, Franklin, Granville, Warren Current Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC Warren Current Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA Vance, Granville, Warren Current Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion FSC Granville Current Carolina madtom Noturus furiosus FSC Vance, Franklin, Granville Current Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus FSC Vance, Franklin, Granville, Warren Obscure Roanoke bass Ambloplites cavifrons FSC Franklin, Warren, Granville Current Invertebrates Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC Franklin, Granville, Warren Current Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC Granville Current Chowanoke crayfish Orconectes virginiensis FSC Granville Obscure Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Vance, Franklin, Granville, Warren Current Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC Granville Current Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Franklin, Warren Current Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC Vance, Franklin, Granville Current Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC Vance, Franklin, Granville, Warren Current Plants Butner's barbara's- buttons Marshallia sp. FSC Granville Current Buttercup phacelia Phacelia covillei FSC Vance Current Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum E Granville Current Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Franklin Current Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E Granville Current Smooth-seeded hairy nutrush Scleria sp. 1 FSC Granville Historic Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC Granville Current Torrey's Mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei FSC Granville Historic Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri FSC Granville/Warren Current/Historic Source: USFWS, 2008 E = Endangered FSC = Federal Species of Concern BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Red OakDurham Butner Henderson Oxford Creedmoor Louisburg Stovall Stem Norlina Franklinton Littleton Castalia Warrenton Macon Middleburg Kittrell Centerville Rocky Mount Youngsville WARREN GRANVILLE VANCE FRANKLIN NASH HALIFAX PERSON DURHAM WAKE NORTHAMPTON Tar River Fishing Creek S a n d y C r e e k Sh o c c o C r e e k R e e d y C r e e k Ta b b s C r e e k Cedar Creek Swi f t C r e e k De e p C r e e k Lit t l e R i v e r F l a t R i v e r Ro c k y S w a m p Ced a r C r e e k 85 95 Figure 4 Interbasin Transfer from Roanoke River Basin Sensitive & Endangered Species Kerr Lake Regional Water System 4 0 42 Miles SNHA Other SNHA Primary SNHA Secondary Animal Assemblage Invertebrate Animal Natural Community Nonvascular Plant Vascular Plant Vertebrate Animal Significant Natural Heritage Areas Natural Heritage Element Ocurrences Roanoke River Basin Fishing Creek Subbasin Roanoke River Basin Tar River Basin Fi s h i n g C r e e k S u b b a s i n Ta r R i v e r B a s i n Tar R i v e r B a s i n Ne u s e R i v e r B a s i n Legend Interstate Highway Major Road Major Hydrography County Border Municipality Water Body River Basin Virginia KerrLake Lake Gaston MayoReservoir Wastewater Treatment Plant Water Treatment Plant INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 14 Proposed Environmental Impact Statement Outline 1. Project Description 2. Project Purpose and Need 3. Project Alternatives 4. Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area 4.1 Topography 4.2 Soils 4.3 Land Use 4.4 Wetlands 4.5 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 4.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas 4.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value 4.8 Air Quality 4.9 Noise Level 4.10 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) 4.11 Forest Resources 4.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats 4.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation 5. Predicted Environmental Effects of Project (Direct and Secondary and Cumulative Impacts) 5.1 Topography 5.2 Soils 5.3 Land Use 5.4 Wetlands 5.5 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 5.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas 5.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value 5.8 Air Quality 5.9 Noise Level 5.10 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) 5.11 Forest Resources 5.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats 5.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation 5.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances 6. Programs to Minimize Environmental Impacts 7. References 8. List of necessary permits 9. List of Preparers Appendices • Notice of Intent and Scoping Document • Agency and Public Involvement • Background Information (2005 USACE Reallocation Report; Others) • Local Ordinances and Programs INTERBASIN TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN –SCOPING DOCUMENT 15 References 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. North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA). 2009. North Carolina One Map Data. Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.nconemap.com. Accessed January 2009. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. Approved May 17, 2007. 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species for Franklin, Granville, Vance, and Warren Counties, North Carolina. http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html. Updated January 2008 and accessed September 2008. This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix A.4 – Scoping Document Receipt This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix B Background Documents This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix B.1 – Grandfathered IBT Letter This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix B.2 – USACE 2005 Reallocation Report – John H. Kerr Reservoir Water Supply Storage Request for the City of Henderson, North Carolina This page has been intentionally left blank. REALLOCATION REPORT JOHN H. KERR RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY STORAGE REALLOCATION REQUEST FOR THE CITY OF HENDERSON, NORTH CAROLINA May 2005 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District PREFACE The Hydro-power Analysis Center prepared Power Benefits Foregone in May 2004. Mr. Terry Brown, P.E. and Mr. Allen Piner, Wilmington District performed the yield analysis and period of record modeling. Ms. Jenny Owens, Wilmington District, submitted the Record of Environmental Evaluation. Mr. Russell Davidson, P.E. and Mr. Kamau Sadiki, Northwestern Division, Corps of Engineers developed power values. Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) provided their current rates for computing the revenue foregone, as well as criteria for the loss of marketable capacity due to the withdrawal. Mr. Duane Bailey, Savannah District, performed a Quality Assurance Review of the document. Primary contacts at the Wilmington District are Mr. Greg Williams and Mr. Allen Piner. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................4 1.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................4 1.2 Authority for Reallocation....................................................................................4 2.0 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................7 2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................7 2.2 Project Description................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Impacts of Sedimentation .........................................................................8 2.3 Current Water Supply Agreements.......................................................................9 2.4 Projected Need for Existing Water Users.............................................................9 3.0 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES.................................11 3.1 Water Requirements for The City of Henderson................................................11 3.2 Alternative Sources.............................................................................................11 3.2.1 Southerland Pond....................................................................................11 3.2.2 Groundwater ...........................................................................................11 3.2.3 Lake Gaston ............................................................................................12 3.2.4 Town of Oxford ......................................................................................12 3.3 Summary of Alternatives....................................................................................12 3.4 Storage Requirements for Kerr Reservoir Withdrawal.......................................13 3.5 Impact on Reservoir Operation...........................................................................14 3.6 Impact of New Storage Reallocation on Other Project Purposes .......................14 3.6.1 Hydropower ............................................................................................14 3.6.2 Flood Control..........................................................................................14 3.6.3 Recreation ...............................................................................................14 3.6.4 Water Supply ..........................................................................................14 3.6.5 Streamflow Regulation and Water Quality.............................................14 3.6.6 Fish and Wildlife.....................................................................................14 4.0 DERIVATION OF USER COSTS.................................................................................15 4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................15 4.2 Power Benefits Foregone....................................................................................15 4.2.1 Energy Benefits Foregone.......................................................................15 4.2.2 Capacity Benefits Foregone....................................................................16 4.3 Revenues Foregone.............................................................................................16 4.3.1 Energy Revenues Foregone ....................................................................17 4.3.2 Capacity Revenues Foregone..................................................................17 4.4 Updated Cost of Storage.....................................................................................17 4.5 Summary of Storage Values ...............................................................................19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Section Page 4.6 O&M and RRR Expense.....................................................................................20 4.6.1 Operation and Maintenance Expense......................................................20 4.6.2 Major Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation......................................20 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................22 5.1 Financial Feasibility............................................................................................22 5.2 Cost Account Adjustments .................................................................................22 5.3 Environmental Considerations............................................................................23 5.4 Structural Changes..............................................................................................23 5.5 Test for Low Income Community Discount.......................................................24 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................25 6.1 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................25 6.2 Recommendations...............................................................................................25 Appendix A: POWER BENEFITS FOREGONE Appendix B: CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS Appendix C: KERR WATER CONTROL PLAN Appendix D: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Appendix E: ECONOMIC DATA Appendix F: CURRENT WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT Appendix G: PUBLIC LAWS Appendix H: DRAFT WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT ii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Kerr ~ Pertinent Data……………………………………………………………………6 2 Kerr ~ Usable Storage Volume Determination.................................................................8 3 KLRWS Average Daily Withdrawals MGD ..................................................................10 4 KLRWS Average Daily IBT...........................................................................................11 5 Summary of Alternative Sources of Water.....................................................................13 6 Reservoir Yield...............................................................................................................13 7 Annual Energy Benefits Foregone..................................................................................16 8 Annual Capacity Benefits Foregone...............................................................................16 9 Energy Revenue Foregone..............................................................................................17 10 Capacity Revenue Foregone ...........................................................................................17 11 ENR and CWCCIS Cost Update Indices........................................................................18 12 Updated Cost of Storage.................................................................................................18 13 Benefits Foregone...........................................................................................................19 14 Revenues Foregone.........................................................................................................19 15 Summary of Costs...........................................................................................................19 16 John H Kerr Joint-Use Operation and Maintenance Cost...............................................20 17 Apportioned Joint-Use O&M Cost.................................................................................20 18 Joint-Use Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation Cost................................................21 19 Apportioned Joint-Use Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation Cost...........................21 20 Credit to Marketing Agency ...........................................................................................23 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 Roanoke River Watershed ................................................................................................4 2 City of Henderson Water Supply Intake...........................................................................5 iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This reallocation report was prepared to provide information in support of a request by the City of Henderson, North Carolina (sponsor) for a reallocation of 10,292 acre-feet (AF) from the usable conservation pool storage at the John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr) for water supply. A map of the area and vicinity is shown in Figure 1. This reallocation will finalize conversion of an original 20 million gallon per day (MGD) ‘water use’ agreement to a ‘storage agreement’. Average annual use for the previous 27 years of operation is approximately 5 MGD with current use at approximately 6 MGD and a projected annual withdrawal of up to 20 MGD for water supply. This water will be used to provide municipal and industrial water supply for the City of Henderson, North Carolina, which operates the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS). Figure 1 Roanoke River Watershed The sponsor began operation and withdrawals from Kerr in 1978. The site is located adjacent to Kerr Reservoir about 7 miles from Henderson, North Carolina, and approximately 20 miles from Kerr Dam (Figure 2). 1.2 Authority for Reallocation Corps Policy as outlined in paragraph 3-8b(5) of the Planning Guidance Notebook (PGN) is: 4 “Reallocation or addition of storage that would seriously affect other authorized purposes or that would involve major structural or operational changes requires Congressional approval. Provided these criteria are not violated, 15 percent of the total storage capacity allocated to all authorized project purposes or 50,000 acre feet, whichever, is less, may be allocated from storage authorized for other purposes. Or, this amount may be added to the project to serve as storage for municipal and industrial water supply at the discretion of the Commander, USACE.” Figure 2 City of Henderson Water Supply Intake All criteria for the Commander’s discretionary approval are met as summarized below: • The 10,292 AF proposed reallocation does not significantly affect other authorized purposes and does not involve major structural or operational changes in the project. • 15% of the total storage would be 339,363 AF so the 50,000 AF maximum discretionary amount applies. The cumulative amount of reallocation with this reallocation is 21,115 AF, well within the Commander’s authority. 5 Approval levels for the reallocation report and agreement follow: • Draft storage agreement—ASA(CW) o Since any agreement with reallocation over 1000 AF requires ASA(CW) approval. • Draft reallocation report—HQUSACE—However, report must be submitted to ASA(CW) with draft agreement prior to approval. o Since cumulative amount reallocated of 21,115 AF exceeds the lesser of 4,000 AF or 226,242 AF (10% of available storage of 2,262,421 AF) o Since 10,292 AF requested exceeds 1000 AF threshold for HQUSACE approval • Final Agreement. –HQUSACE o Since proposed 10,292 AF reallocation amount exceeds the 1000 AF threshold for HQUSACE approval. Implementation of these criteria for reallocation of storage at Kerr has resulted in three reallocations to municipal and industrial water supply totaling 10,823 AF as shown in Table 1. Therefore, reallocation is a valid potential source for meeting Henderson's need. Table 1 Kerr ~ Pertinent Data Drainage Area (square miles) 7800 Elevations (feet, NGVD) Top of Dam 332 Base of Dam 188 Spillway crest 288 Top of Conservation Pool 300 Top of Flood Control Pool 320 Storage (AF)* Total Usable Pool (Elev 268-320) 2,262,421 Flood Control Pool (Elev 300-320) 1,282,367 Conservation Pool (Elev 268-300) 980,054 Hydropower 969,231 Water Supply 10,823 * Storage remaining after 100 years of sedimentation from July 1953 6 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Introduction Kerr storage could normally either be reallocated from the existing conservation storage or it could be reallocated from the flood control storage space. At Kerr the entire flood control storage space is required to satisfy current criteria established for this purpose. In four separate flood events between 1975 and 1996 over ninety per-cent of the controlled flood storage at Kerr was utilized. The April 1987 event pushed the reservoir level to less than six inches away from the point at which releases downstream match eighty-five per-cent of the computed inflow (a volume in excess of 100,000 cfs) while the September 1996 flood event generated the greatest computed inflow on record for this location (second only to the August 1940 event which was used to justify project construction). As a result, all other reallocations of storage at Kerr for water supply have been made from the conservation/power pool. Therefore, this analysis will only concentrate on the volume of conservation/power pool storage that must be reallocated to satisfy water supply requirements. To meet the requirements of Section 4-32d of ER 1105-2- 100, the value must be computed in four ways: (1) power benefits forgone, (2) power revenues foregone, (3) replacement cost of power, and (4) updated cost of storage. The highest of the four costs determines the cost to be paid for the storage. The Hydropower Analysis Center (HAC), Portland, Oregon determined the first three methods in a report titled ‘Power Benefits Foregone’ dated May 2004, attached in its entirety as Appendix A. Results of this effort are summarized in section 4-2 through 4-3 of this report. Water Management, Wilmington District determined the fourth item, ‘updated cost of storage’ with results summarized in section 4-4. 2.2 Project Description Kerr Dam is located on the Roanoke River, about 180 river miles above the Albemarle Sound, 20 miles downstream of Clarksville, Virginia 18 miles upstream of the Virginia – North Carolina state line and 80 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia. The dam is located in Mecklenburg County, Virginia and the reservoir lies within Mecklenburg, Charlotte and Halifax Counties in Virginia and Granville, Vance and Warren Counties in North Carolina. The project was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 534, 78th Congress, 2nd session, December 22, 1944) for reduction of flood damage in the lower Roanoke River, generation of hydroelectric power, mosquito control, pollution abatement and conservation of fish and wildlife, low water control navigation, and for recreation. Initially, all of the conservation storage at Kerr was allocated to hydropower with operational consideration for other purposes as secondary. Operation for navigation never really materialized and was removed from consideration at Kerr once the Roanoke Rapids project was constructed downstream. Reallocation of storage at Kerr for water supply was made possible with passage of Public Law 85-500 also known as the Water Supply Act of 1958. The in-service date for the control of floods is considered to be May 1952. Commercial power generation was initiated in November 1952, and full plant capability was attained in December 1953. The reservoir has 2,262,421 AF of usable storage, which is regulated for power production, flood control, stream flow regulation, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife management. The power plant has seven generating units capable of delivering power to customers, with a total installed capacity of 204,000 kilowatts (kw). Kerr Dam is a concrete gravity dam with a gated spillway, flanked by earth dikes, a powerhouse and 7 switchyard. The top elevation of Kerr Dam is 332 feet, msl and it has an overall length of 22,035 feet. The maximum height above the streambed is 144 feet. The spillway has a crest elevation of 288 feet, msl and a total length of 1,092 feet. It is crested with 22 tainter gates, each 42 feet wide by 32 high. The powerhouse has six vertical shaft Francis turbines rated at 32,000 kw each, one unit at 12,000 kw and two station service units (internal use only) rated at 1,000 kw each for a total plant capacity of 206,000 kw (204,000 kw available on-line). Kerr Reservoir at elevation 300 feet, msl covers an area of 48,900 acres, has a shoreline length of 800 miles and extends into Mecklenburg, Charlotte and Halifax counties in Virginia and Granville, Vance and Warren counties in North Carolina. 2.2.1 Impacts of Sedimentation Available usable storage at Kerr was determined by adjusting the most current computation of storage capacity for sedimentation impacts as directed by Public Law 88-140, attached as Appendix G. These computations were derived by use of the most recent sedimentation survey data found in a report titled 'REPORT OF SEDIMENTATION RESURVEY’ November 1997 located in the Wilmington District office. Sedimentation rates computed for each operational zone or pool over the 21-year period of operation from 1976 to 1997 were projected for the remaining 56 years to determine the usable storage. The 21-year period of operation from 1976 to 1997 was used to most closely represent current conditions. This time period very closely reflects current and expected future conditions by use of the same basic operation and guide curve at Kerr and effectively similar impacts from the operation of Smith Mountain-Leesville combination project, which began filling in 1962, and Philpott project. A breakdown of elevation-storage volume data at Kerr as impacted by sedimentation is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Kerr ~ Usable Storage Volume Determination Storage* Rate of Total* Projected** Projected*** Storage Elevation Change Sedimentation Volume Sediment Total Volume Pool Range 1976-1997 1976-1997 1997 1997-2053 2053 Feet msl AF AF/YR AF AF AF Flood Control 300 to 320 -271 -13 1,281,644 -723 1,282,367 Conservation 268 to 300 12,835 611 1,014,281 34,227 980,054 Total 268 to 320 12,564 598 2,295,925 33,504 2,262,421 * From 'REPORT OF SEDIMENTATION RESURVEY’ November 1997 ** Estimated by projection of sedimentation rate observed from1976 to 1997 *** Storage remaining after 100 years of sedimentation from July 1953 the date the project became operational and does not include dead storage and/or storage set aside for hydropower head. 8 2.3 Current Water Supply Agreements The City of Clarksville, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Department of Corrections, Mecklenburg Co-Generation facility, and Burlington Industries, Virginia, and the City of Henderson, North Carolina, are all existing users of water from Kerr for municipal and industrial water supply. The City of Clarksville and Burlington Industries in Virginia are grandfathered water users at Kerr. Because these entities were users of the affected waters prior to construction of the Kerr project, Clarksville and Burlington are entitled to water at no cost in accordance with pre-project agreements. Currently the City of Clarksville, Virginia, withdraws an average of 0.3 MGD. Burlington Industries at Clarksville, Virginia recently closed and the facilities will be sold, leaving its future impacts questionable. Burlington withdrew an average of 2.2 MGD from Kerr for water supply prior to closing. The City of Henderson, North Carolina entered into a water use contract on February 12, 1974 and began actual water withdrawals from its current facility in March 1978. This regional water system currently withdraws an annual average of 6 MGD with a monthly range of 5.2 to 6.6 MGD from Kerr. The City currently has a request to purchase storage from Kerr to provide a future projected need of 20 MGD. The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, purchased 10,200 AF of storage at Kerr to supplement its withdrawal of up to 60 mgd on January 13, 1984. Withdrawals are made from a pump station on Lake Gaston downstream of Kerr Dam. Required releases from storage at Kerr to supplement this demand are rare. The Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) entered into a contract to utilize an estimated 23 acre-feet of the conservation storage in Kerr for water supply effective April 7, 1989. The specified withdrawal rate is not to exceed 60,000 gallons per day. Water for the Mecklenburg Correctional Center is currently supplied by a regional system, thus delaying construction of a water supply pipeline to Kerr reservoir for an indefinite period of time. A water supply storage contract with the Mecklenburg Cogeneration Limited Partnership (MCLP) for withdrawals of water from Kerr was signed on June 5, 1991. MCLP constructed a pulverized coal-fired cogeneration plant to supply electric power to Dominion Resources and steam to Burlington Industries, and uses water from Kerr Reservoir for make-up water. MCLP has the right to utilize an estimated 600 acre-feet of conservation storage in John H. Kerr between elevation 268 and 300 feet, m.s.l. During the drought of 2002 MCLP exceeded its 600 acre-feet allocation and will need to increase its storage in the near future. Also, MCLP was recently purchased by Dominion Resources and will need to process a name change. 2.4 Projected Need for Existing Water Users With the exception of MCLP, no user has expressed any plans to increase its existing allocations. KLRWS is a public water system currently owned by three partners, the sponsor, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, each representing 60%, 20%, and 20% of the overall system ownership respectively. KLRWS provides potable water to the sponsor, Warren County 9 (including all municipalities in Warren County), Franklin County, the City of Oxford, and portions of Vance and Granville Counties. The KLRWS consists of a conventional surface water treatment plant, distribution mains, storage tanks, and water meters. Environmental Engineering & Technology, Inc. (EE&T, Inc.) consulting engineers for the sponsor developed average daily water demand projections over the next thirty years in October 2004. These data are summarized in Table 3 and provided in Appendix B. Counties adjacent to Kerr in North Carolina, which represent the primary service area for KLRWS, are projected to have the greatest cumulative growth rate. Projected water demand based on these data more than justifies the requested 20.0 MGD allocation. Table 3 KLRWS Average Daily Withdrawals MGD Year 1992 1997 2002 2010 2020 2030 2035 Withdrawal 4.99 5.07 5.89 10.19 15.88 20.97 24.19 Source: EE&T, Inc. October 6, 2004 10 3.0 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES 3.1 Water Requirements for The City of Henderson The sponsor will require a gross withdrawal of 20 MGD from Kerr to provide drinking water for its regional water distribution network. The 20 MGD allocation will be sufficient to handle its current and future demands. While most of the water use will be consumptive, a small portion of the water will be returned to Kerr, with the remaining portion treated and released to the Tar River and Neuse River basins. EE&T, Inc. consulting engineers for the sponsor recorded inter basin transfers of water distributions in 2002 and made projected distributions for 2035. These data were provided in a 2004 Inter Basin Transfer Study prepared by EE&T, Inc. and summarized in Table 4. The storage reallocation and impacts to power generation were based on the 20 MGD gross withdrawal. Table 4 KLRWS Average Daily IBT Year Tar Basin MGD Roanoke Basin MGD Neuse Basin MGD 2002 3.35 2.37 0.07 2035 15.35 5.01 0.81 3.2 Alternative Sources Consulting engineers and internal planners for the sponsor have examined several alternative ground water and surface water sources to identify prospective new sources of water supply. 3.2.1 Southerland Pond Some of this effort simply involved updating similar studies from the mid-sixties. The principle source of water at that time was Southerland Pond on Sandy Creek, six miles east of the city. The A-E firm retained by the city to do this initial analysis performed a thorough study and concluded that the only source capable of meeting the City’s forecast water supply demands was Kerr, thus eliminating all other inadequate ground and surface water alternatives. This analysis led to the construction and development of the KLRWS facility adjacent to Kerr Reservoir. An updated review of Southerland Pond as a potential supplemental source of water supply revealed that this pond has since silted in, reducing the safe yield to nearly zero. The original raw water pipeline at Southerland Pond has been abandoned and the original water plant has been demolished. There is no capacity available from this old raw water source. 3.2.2 Groundwater Generally, deep rock wells in the KLRWS service area produce less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm). The Town of Bunn in Franklin County, now receiving water from the KLRWS, had previously relied on wells. The best well in Bunn had a capacity of around 40 gpm. The Town had drilled over 21 wells over a period of 20 years with very little success (Ref: Peirson and Whitman Engineers, consulting Engineers for the Town of Bunn since 1967). The old wells in Warrenton, Norlina, Soul City and other areas of Warren County were similar in capacity to those in Franklin County. The soil and geologic structure in Franklin, Warren, Vance 11 and Granville Counties is such that high yield wells are not possible. Therefore, it would not be cost effective to utilize large well fields as the water supply source. 3.2.3 Lake Gaston Lake Gaston is down gradient from Kerr and would require new construction of at least 14 miles of raw water pipeline, a new raw water intake and pumping facilities. Based on the cost to upgrade the existing KLRWS facility to 20 MGD capacity it is estimated that the raw water intake and pumping facilities would cost approximately $21 million. Additional costs would be expected for real estate, permits and pipeline construction. Also, since Lake Gaston is operated as a privately owned run-of-river hydropower facility with no storage for water supply, the sponsor would need to purchase storage from Kerr to ensure dependable water supply during a repeat of the critical drought. 3.2.4 Town of Oxford The alternative of re-establishing the old Town of Oxford water plant located in Granville County within the KLRWS service area, was investigated in 1995-1996. At that time, the plant had been off-line for over 15 years. The clearwell was used in 1998 for wastewater storage and there remains mercury in the Simplex gases at the plant. Therefore, re- establishment of the old plant is no longer feasible. Oxford also investigated the feasibility of increasing water storage in Oxford and building a package water plant with raw water withdrawal from Lake Devin. The study indicated that it was more cost effective to build a second finished water line from KLRWS plant to Oxford, which has been done. Funding for the new finished water line was provided by Oxford, Granville County and Vance County. Warren County also built a second finished water line into Warren County in 2002. The KLRWS facility and corresponding extensive distribution network which began operation in 1978 represents a capital investment for the sponsor and its taxpayers of approximately $21 million. In addition to serving the sponsor it also serves as a public water system for Warren County, portions of Vance, Granville and Franklin Counties. The sponsor has operated as the majority partner in the KLRWS for the past 27 years with considerable capital investment in planning, facilities, and distribution networks with other regional partners, all based on a continued 20 MGD water supply withdrawal capability. This fact, plus the fact that the “no action” alternative would result in a directive to not only cease and desist any and all future water withdrawals but to also remove all equipment and structures, makes this a most undesirable choice for the sponsor. However, the government always reserves the right to exercise the ‘no action’ alternative for any reallocation of storage at any time. While the “conservation” alternative could potentially provide some minor relief in the short term it is not a viable option for a future long-range solution. This becomes clearly evident considering that the most recent drought of record lasted for a period of 16 months. 3.3 Summary of Alternatives Table 5 provides a summary of the various alternatives that were considered. While rejecting the first three alternatives for various reasons, this leaves us with two potentially viable ones, a new reallocation of conservation storage from Kerr and the “no action”. 12 Table 5 Summary of Alternative Sources of Water ALTERNATIVE VIABILITY 1. Groundwater/Bulk Finished Water Purchase Rejected: inadequate supply 2. Alternative Surface Water Rejected: inadequate supply 3. Conservation Rejected: not viable for long term 4. No Action Potentially viable 5.New Reallocation from Conservation Storage (Kerr) Potentially viable 3.4 Storage Requirements for Kerr Withdrawal The volume of storage required for the sponsor was based on a withdrawal rate of 20 MGD. Inflow during the historical critical low flow period at the project was used as the basis to determine the required storage. The critical low flow period at the project was June 2001 through October 2002. This critical low flow period exceeded the previous critical low flow period of June through October 1968 by a whole year. The storage-yield analysis was determined by adjusting the computed inflows during the critical low flow period to a base case condition by adding the actual Henderson water supply withdrawals back in. The volume of storage to be reallocated was determined as the volume of withdrawal minus the volume of inflow during the critical period. The percentage of storage reallocated was adjusted by trial until the storage allocated and the volume of water used during the critical period balanced. The storage reallocation determined to yield a flow of 20 MGD is 10,292 AF as shown in Table 6. The sponsor has requested and demonstrated a future need for a total withdrawal of 20 MGD from Kerr to match the volume currently allowed in its water use agreement. Storage volumes provided to the Hydropower Analysis Center to determine impacts on hydropower were made without consideration of sedimentation impacts and were rounded up to the next whole 100 AF. While this procedure gave a slightly greater impact to hydropower by use of a larger volume of storage (10,700 AF verses 10,292 AF) than what was actually required, it did not adversely impact the cost to the sponsor as the cost of storage is greater than the cost of hydropower by a factor of 2.2 (refer to Table 15). Because of this magnitude, it is not deemed necessary to recompute impacts to hydropower and the values determined in Appendix A are accepted as computed. Table 6 Reservoir Yield Conservation Pool Storage (AF) 980,054 Storage Reallocated (AF) 10,292 Storage Reallocated (per cent) 1.05 Withdrawal Rate (MGD) 20 Withdrawal Rate (cfs) 31 Critical Period (days) 478 Withdrawal Volume Critical Period (AF) 29,339 Inflow Volume Critical Period (AF) 1,814,030 Per cent of Inflow allocated to water supply 1.05 Volume of Inflow used for water supply (AF) 19,047 Volume of storage utilized during critical period (AF) 10,292 13 3.5 Impact on Reservoir Operation The overall impact on operation at Kerr will not change with conversion from a ‘water use’ agreement to a ‘water storage’ agreement for 20 MGD. Operation of the reservoir with a 20 MGD water withdrawal during the critical low flow period would result in an elevation at Kerr of 0.26 feet lower than what would be expected without any withdrawal. 3.6 Impact of New Storage Reallocation on Other Project Purposes 3.6.1 Hydropower. The main impact of the proposed withdrawal for water supply will be a reduction in power output from Kerr. These impacts are addressed in detail in Appendix A. 3.6.2 Flood Control. Reallocation from the conservation pool will have no impact on flood control. 3.6.3 Recreation. With conversion of an existing 20 MGD ‘water use’ to a 20 MGD ‘water storage’ agreement there will be no change in the water control plan to meet water supply requirements and/or downstream minimum flow requirements. The increase in elevation draw down due to 20 MGD water supply will be 0.26 feet lower than if there were no water supply withdrawals during the recent drought of record. Normal reservoir operations and recreation activities (fishing, boating, swimming, etc.) will not be adversely impacted by this change. 3.6.4 Water Supply. The proposed reallocation would have no impact on other water supply users since the reallocation would come from the conservation storage allocated to hydropower. Reallocation of 10,292 AF of storage to satisfy this request would leave 28,885 AF of storage remaining for reallocation at Kerr under the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers. 3.6.5 Streamflow Regulation and Water Quality. The proposed action to convert an existing 20 MGD ‘water use’ to a 20 MGD ‘water storage’ agreement will not change the impacts on the total volume of water released from Kerr Dam. The maximum water supply withdrawal of 31 cfs (at the 20 MGD rate) is quite small compared to average annual releases of almost 8,000 cfs from Kerr Dam. No adjustment in reservoir operation will be required to accommodate the withdrawal and the supporting storage reallocation. The volume of Kerr Reservoir is too large compared to the volume withdrawn on any given day for the proposed withdrawal to have a noticeable effect. Because the proposed reallocation as made from the conservation pool would merely be a reallocation of the storage presently in the reservoir, no adverse impacts are expected to the surface or ground water quality and quantity. 3.6.6 Fish & Wildlife. As this action only involves conversion from water use to water storage with no change in the total withdrawal the impact on fish and wildlife and other environment- related impacts will not change. Refer to Appendix D for a further statement on environmental impacts associated with this reallocation. 14 4.0 DERIVATION OF USER COSTS 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the derivation of user costs for a storage reallocation from the conservation storage at Kerr. According to Section 4-32d of ER 1105-2-100, the cost to be paid by the water supply storage user is established as the highest of Benefits foregone as a result of the storage reallocation, or Revenues foregone as a result of the storage reallocation, or Cost of replacing the outputs that were provided by that increment of storage before reallocation, or Updated cost of storage In the case of Kerr, the output that must be replaced would be the updated cost of storage. Since the power benefits foregone are specified by economic evaluation criteria to be the cost of replacement power, the benefits foregone and cost of replacement are identical. Thus, a separate calculation of cost of replacement power is not required. Reallocation from both conservation storage and flood control storage must be considered. The choice as to which reallocation will be permitted must be based on the alternative having the least impact on existing project purposes (i.e., the least benefits foregone). At Kerr the entire flood control storage space is required to satisfy current criteria established for this purpose. In four separate flood events between 1975 and 1996 over ninety per-cent of the controlled flood storage was utilized. The April 1987 event pushed the reservoir level to less than six inches away from the point at which releases downstream match eighty-five per-cent of the computed inflow (a volume in excess of 100,000 cfs) while the September 1996 flood event generated the greatest computed inflow on record for this location (second only to the August 1940 event which was used to justify project construction). Therefore, this analysis will only concentrate on the volume of conservation/power pool storage that must be reallocated to satisfy water supply requirements. The actual cost to the sponsor will be based on the value of reallocated conservation pool storage. This equates to determining the greatest impact to hydropower since the entire conservation pool storage at Kerr was authorized for hydropower production. 4.2 Power Benefits Foregone Power benefits foregone represent the impact the withdrawal will have on the National Economic Development (NED) power benefits of the Roanoke River reservoir system. Power benefits are divided into energy and capacity benefits. The following sections summarize these benefits. Detailed information on how they were developed can be found in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of Appendix A. 4.2.1 Energy Benefits Foregone. A hydro project’s National Economic Development (NED) energy benefit is computed as the product of the project’s average annual energy production and a unit energy value. That energy value is intended to measure the cost of producing the same 15 energy by the regional power system if the hydro project were replaced by the most likely thermal alternative. Energy values are currently developed by the Corps' Northwestern Division office using PROSYM, an hourly power system production cost model. The applicable regional power system is modeled with and without an increment of hydro generation. The difference in system cost between the two simulations represents the value of hydro energy lost. Dividing that cost by the energy output of that increment of hydro will give the average unit value of the hydro energy, and this is commonly called the “energy value.” The average value of hydroelectric energy in the VACAR power system over the life of the water supply contract is estimated to be about $33.51/MW-hour (see Section 3.6.8 and Table 3-3 of Appendix A). Using the $33.51/MWh energy value and the losses in average annual energy production for each case, as described in Chapter 5 of Appendix A, average annual energy benefits foregone were computed for each case. Table 7 Annual Energy Benefits Foregone LOST ENERGY ENERGY VALUE BENEFITS FOREGONE 1981 MWh $33.51/MWh $66,383 4.2.2 Capacity Benefits Foregone. A hydro project’s NED capacity benefit is computed as the product of the project’s dependable capacity and a unit capacity value. The capacity value is intended to measure the cost of constructing the increment of equivalent thermal generating capacity that would replace the hydro capacity in the power system. Using the $84.26/kW-year capacity value and the losses in dependable capacity for each case (see Appendix A, Section 5 and Table 5-1), average annual capacity benefits foregone were computed for each case, as follows: Table 8 Annual Capacity Benefits Foregone LOST DEPEND. CAPACITY CAPACITY VALUE BENEFITS FOREGONE 327 kW $84.26/kW-year $27,553 4.3 Revenues Foregone. Revenues foregone represent the income reduction suffered by the regional Federal Power Marketing Agency (Southeastern Power Administration) as a result of lost power sales. These lost sales are due to the reduced power output caused by the water supply withdrawal and storage reallocation. The revenues foregone are to be based on the current rates of the Federal power-marketing agency, which in the case of the Roanoke River projects is the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA). The rates that were in effect for 2004 are as follows: Energy value: 8.25 mills/kWh Capacity value: $23.52/kW-year The energy value would be applied to the average annual energy loss calculated as described in Section 3.4 of Appendix A. The capacity value, however, would be applied to the loss in marketable capacity rather than the loss in dependable capacity (see Section 4.5 of Appendix A). Further details concerning marketable capacity and revenues foregone may be found in Section 6 of Appendix A. 16 4.3.1 Energy Revenues Foregone. The average annual energy revenues foregone for each of the alternatives would be as follows: Table 9 Energy Revenue Foregone LOST ENERGY SEPA ENERGY RATE REVENUES FOREGONE 1981 MWh $8.25/MWh $ 16,343 4.3.2 Capacity Revenues Foregone The average annual capacity revenues foregone for each of the alternatives would be as follows: Table 10 Capacity Revenue Foregone LOST MARKETABLE CAPACITY SEPA CAPACITY CHARGE REVENUES FOREGONE 325 kW $23.52/kW-year $ 7,644 4.4 Updated Cost of Storage Water supply storage reallocation at Corps of Engineers’ reservoir projects is outlined in chapter 4 of IWR Report 96-PS-4 (Revised). This reference discusses in detail the authority, guidance, opportunities and procedures required to accomplish this process. The cost of authorized municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply storage in a new or existing project is to include two components: (a) the direct costs (costs attributed specifically to that purpose, such as the cost of a water supply intake), and (b) the allocated joint costs (an allocated portion of the costs of facilities that are shared by all project purposes). In the case of Kerr, there are no direct costs assigned to water supply. Therefore, the sponsor's share of the project cost will be the product of the project's total joint use cost and the ratio of the sponsor's storage space to the total storage space. Section 4-32d(2d) of ER 1105-2-100 stipulates that these joint costs must be updated to current FY 2005 price levels. The updated cost of reallocated storage in this study was estimated by updating the cost of the joint use features from the midpoint of construction to the fiscal year in which the reallocation of storage is approved. This method eliminates consideration of interest during construction and costs associated with specific project purposes such as hydropower. The updated cost of storage is then multiplied by the reallocated storage as a percent of the total available storage to determine the current value of the reallocated storage. From paragraph 5 of the ‘Cost Allocation Study’ dated February 1956, construction was initiated in February 1946 and by definition on page D-12 of IWR Report 96-PS_4 (Revised), June 1952 is the date construction was complete. Therefore, 1949 was used as the midpoint of construction for baseline cost projections. The Engineering News Record (ENR) and Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) were used to determine the FY2005 estimated construction cost values as directed in Table 4-4 on page 4-10 of IWR Report 96-PS-4 (Revised). 17 TABLE 11 ENR and CWCCIS Cost Update Indices ENR Construction Cost Index Year ENR Index Ratio 1949 477 1967 1074 2.2516 CWCCIS Update Index Feature 1967 FY2005 Index Ratio Relocations 100 600.64 6.0064 Reservoirs 100 633.16 6.3316 Dams 100 578.92 5.7892 Roads, Railroads & Bridges 100 600.64 6.0064 Bldgs, Grounds, and Utilities 100 582.41 5.8241 Permanent Operating Equip 100 582.41 5.8241 Storage Requirements Total Flood Control Storage 1,282,367 Ac-Ft Total Conservation Storage 980,054 Ac-Ft Total Usable Storage 2,262,421 Ac-Ft Reallocated Storage Required 10,292 Ac-Ft Total Usable Storage 2,262,421 Ac-Ft Ratio of Reallocated to Total 0.00454911 TABLE 12 Updated Cost of Storage 18 Description As-Built Joint- Use Costs ENR Index Ratio CWCCIS Index Ratio Land Update Factor FY 2005 Jo Use Cost ($) ($) Lands and Damages 10,401,000 13.338 1/ 138,728 Relocations 14,810,000 2.2516 6.0064 200,290 Reservoirs 5,140,000 2.2516 6.3316 73,277 Dams 24,601,000 2.2516 5.7892 320,673 Roads, Railroads & Bridges 1,043,000 2.2516 6.0064 14,105 Buildings, Grounds, and Utilities 570,000 2.2516 5.8241 7,474 Permanent Operating Equipment 380,000 2.2516 5.8241 4,983 Total Cost 56,945,000 759,532 Footnote: 1/ Derivation of Factor: As-built Joint-Use Cost (-) Lands and Damages = $ 46,544,00 FY '05 Cost (-) Lands and Damages = $620,804,1 Ratio 620,804,145/46,544,000 = 13.338 The calculation for the updated cost of storage from John H. Kerr Reservoir for 10,292 acre-feet of sto (out of a total usable storage of 2,262,421 acre-feet) is as follows: $759,532,683 x 10,292 acre-feet = $3,455,197 2,262,421 acre-feet Table 12 shows computations used to determine the current cost of storage required for a 20 MGD water supply withdrawal. A reallocation of 10,292 AF from the conservation pool would cost $3,455,197. 4.5 Summary of Storage Values Table 13 summarizes the annual benefits foregone. Also shown are net present values based on a 5-1/8 percent discount rate and the 50-year remaining life of the Kerr project (2004-2053). The net present value is $1,559,000 for 20 MGD. Table 13 Benefits Foregone Capacity Benefits Foregone Energy Benefits Foregone $27,385 $66,383 Average Annual Benefits Foregone Present Value of Benefits Foregone $93,768 $1,559,000 Table 14 indicates annual and net present value of revenues foregone for both storage options. Revenues foregone are substantially lower than benefits foregone. Table 14 Revenues Foregone Capacity Revenues Foregone Energy Revenues Foregone $7,644 16,343 Average Annual Revenues Foregone Present Value of Revenues Foregone $23,987 $398,800 To summarize, the net present values of the four costs for each alternative are as follows: Table 15 Summary of Costs Updated Cost of Storage $3,455,197 Revenues Foregone $398,800 Benefits Foregone $1,559,000 Replacement Cost $1,559,000 As noted earlier, the price to be charged to the sponsor for the reallocated storage would be the highest of the four values cited above. Therefore, updated cost of storage would control. The cost payable for reallocation of the conservation pool storage is $3,455,197 for 20 MGD. 19 4.6 O&M and RRR Expense These expenses are described here and utilized in Exhibit B of the draft water supply agreement provided as Appendix H. 4.6.1 Operation and Maintenance Expense Annual operation and maintenance expenses charged to the sponsor are estimated by multiplying the proportion of reallocated storage to total useable storage by the total joint-use operation and maintenance (O&M) expense. The following equation summarizes the calculation: (Required Storage AF/Total Storage AF)*$Annual Joint-Use O&M = $Cost The $2,722,255 total joint use O&M expense is an average from fiscal year 1994-2004 as indicated in Table 16. Table 17 indicates the estimated annual cost for 20 MGD as $12,384. Future years should increase slightly with inflation. TABLE 16 John H Kerr Joint-Use Operation and Maintenance Cost Year ($) 1994 2,491,478 1995 2,537,131 1996 2,831,041 1997 3,014,254 1998 2,914,601 1999 2,359,534 2000 2,465,247 2001 2,208,906 2002 2,843,171 2003 3,389,934 2004 2,889,508 Total 29,944,805 Average 2,722,255 TABLE 17 Apportioned Joint-Use O&M Cost Reallocated Storage Required (AF) 10,292 Total Usable Storage (AF) 2,262,421 Ratio of Reallocated Storage to Total 0.00454911 Estimated Annual O&M Cost ($) 2,722,255 Estimated O&M cost ($/yr) 12,384 4.6.2 Major Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation Major repair, replacement and rehabilitation (RRR) costs charged to the sponsor are determined by multiplying the proportion of reallocated storage to total useable storage by the total joint-use RRR expense. This is similar to the method used to compute annual O&M costs. The $950,906 total joint use RR&R expense 20 is an average from fiscal year 1995-2004 as indicated in Table 18. Table 19 indicates the estimated annual cost for 20 MGD as $4,326. TABLE 18 Joint-Use Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation Cost Year ($) 1995 - 320,112 1996 31,365 1997 31,810 1998 3,517,824 1999 - 400,924 2000 402,461 2001 - 27,050 2002 629,125 2003 5,648,107 2004 - 3,545 Total 9,509,061 Average 950,906 TABLE 19 Apportioned Joint-Use Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation Cost Reallocated Storage Required (AF) 10,292 Total Usable Storage (AF) 2,262,421 Ratio of Reallocated to Total 0.00454911 Estimated Annual RR&R Cost ($) 950,906 Estimated RR&R cost ($/yr) 4,326 Given the uncertain nature of major RR&R costs plus the fact that they are payable only when incurred, it is suggested that the sponsor place the resultant amount in an annual reserve or sinking fund for future contingency. 21 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Financial Feasibility As a test of financial feasibility, the annual cost of storage should be compared to the cost of the most likely, least costly alternative that the applicant would undertake in the absence of utilizing the Federal project. This should be an alternative that would provide water of equivalent quality and quantity. The following decision process was analyzed. As wells and local surface water options are inadequate, the most likely alternative to the Federal project is the purchase of water from another entity. No other industrial or municipal system within a reasonable distance is known to possess a surplus supply of water adequate to meet the sponsor’s needs. A possible alternative would be to obtain water from another lake or reservoir source. This would require the construction of a pipeline at a minimum and possible relocation of the water treatment facility adjacent to the water source. The closest water source other than Kerr is Lake Gaston, which is a private hydropower lake owned by Dominion Resources. This option would require construction of at least a 14-mile pipeline depending on the location and construction of a new intake structure and pump facility. Based on the sponsor’s cost to upgrade its existing facility to 20 MGD the cost of a new facility would be approximately $21 million, not counting the cost for a pipeline, pumping plant, real estate, and necessary access and environmental permits. Since Lake Gaston has no storage to supply a dependable yield for water supply and since this lake is downstream of Kerr, the sponsor would need to purchase storage at Kerr, the same result we are addressing here. This exercise has taken on a circuitous nature without an adequate alternative. The reallocation of storage has a significant advantage over the alternative purchase of water from private sources. The annual water purchase with an initial five-year interest rate at 5-1/8 percent (the lowest rate offered to date by guidelines for reallocated storage) represents a major cost savings over potential alternatives. Construction of a pipeline to allow purchase of water from private sources would be very expensive, and likely to result in much greater environmental impact that the proposed reallocation of storage. The existing raw water facility is already in place and operational. 5.2 Cost Account Adjustments According to Section 4-33d(3) of ER 1105-2-100, When there is a loss of revenue of existing purposes, or additional operation and/or maintenance expense to existing purposes are incurred because of the new water supply addition, such charges shall be shown as a direct charge against the water supply function. This will effect the appropriate cost reductions in the existing project purposes and all revenues from the new addition will be credited to the new purpose. If hydropower revenues are being reduced as a result of the reallocation, the power- marketing agency will be credited for the amount of revenues to the Treasury foregone as a result of the reallocation. In instances where existing contracts between the power marketing agency and their customer would result in a cost to the Federal Government to acquire replacement power to fulfill the obligations of contracts, an additional credit to 22 the power marketing agency can be made for such costs incurred during the remaining period of the contracts. In the case of the proposed sponsor reallocation, there would be a loss of revenue due to the reduction in the power-generating capabilities of Kerr. During the early years of the reallocation (2005-2018), there would also be the possibility of the marketing agency (SEPA) having to purchase replacement power. The estimated credit to the power-marketing agency for each of the four cases is as follows. The back-up calculations and further details on credit to the power marketing agency can be found in Chapter 7 of Appendix A. Table 20 Credit to Marketing Agency Withdrawal Alternative 5 MGD 20 MGD Energy credit $11,896 $47,511 Capacity credit $5,066 $20,088 Annual credit to PMA $16,962 $67,599 5.3 Environmental Considerations The environmental impact of the withdrawal and discharge will not be significant. As all facilities are already constructed and in operation there is no additional risk to the environment. No archeological/cultural or threatened and endangered species will be impacted. Operation of the water intake facility will not change as a result of converting from a water use agreement to a water storage agreement. The discharge from the wastewater pipeline is designed to meet all applicable water quality criteria for a NPDES permit. These factors minimize and limit environmental impact and are addressed in a Record of Environmental Evaluation provided in Appendix D. 5.4 Structural Changes No structural modifications will need to be made to Corps of Engineers facilities to accommodate either the storage reallocation or the water supply withdrawal. 23 5.5 Test for Low Income Community Discount Public Law (PL) 101-640 specifically defines a “low income community” as a community with a population less than 20,000 that is located in a county with a per capita income less than the per capita income of two-thirds of the counties in the United States. The maximum amount of water supply storage space, that may be provided to a community under this authority, may not exceed an amount of water supply storage space sufficient to yield 2,000,000 gallons of water per day. The sponsor currently exceeds the requirement for maximum daily water supply use of 2 MGD thus rendering it ineligible for this discount. 24 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Summary of Findings There are no viable alternatives available to the sponsor as a source of water verses their proposed conversion of the water use agreement to a water storage agreement at Kerr. Reallocation of storage at Kerr from the conservation pool will satisfy the sponsor’s need. In order to support the sponsor's firm withdrawal of 20 MGD, a reallocation of 10,292 AF of storage will be required from the conservation pool. There would be a reduction in the power capability of Kerr as a result of the withdrawal. The net present values of the four cost parameters specified by Section 4-32d of ER 1105-2-100 are as follows: Updated Cost of Storage $3,455,197 Revenues Foregone $398,800 Benefits Foregone $1,559,000 Replacement Cost $1,559,000 Updated cost of storage is the highest cost, and this would establish the cost to be paid by the sponsor for the storage allocation. There would be slightly greater pool fluctuations at Kerr during periods of low flow. However, these small changes in pool elevation would not have a perceptible impact on reservoir recreation. Likewise, it is not anticipated that the reallocation would have any significant impact water quality, or fish and wildlife. 6.2 Recommendations The reallocation of storage discussed in this report is economically justified and will not significantly impact the authorized purposes of Kerr. The reallocation will not require any structural or operational change. Therefore, pursuant to the authority provided in the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, it is recommended that the reallocation of 10,292 acre-feet of conservation storage be approved. Approval is subject to the execution of a water storage contract between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and The City of Henderson, North Carolina and is subject to the successful fulfillment of all requirements of said contract. 25 26 Appendix B.3 – Extension of Authorization to Construct Letter This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix B.4 – Agency Comment Matrix This page has been intentionally left blank. Agency Comment Response Matrix DENR Internal # 1614 Division Point of Contact Role/Office Comment Response to comment NC Wildlife Resources Commission Vann Stancil Research Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Maintaining appropriate flows in the Roanoke River is important for anadromous fish such as Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus , striped bass, Morone saxatilis, American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and hickory shad, A. mediocris, as well as resident aquatic species. Anadromous fish depend on high flows during the spring to ascend rivers to spawn and eggs and larval are affected by flow regimes as they travel downstream during early development. Comment noted. NC Wildlife Resources Commission Vann Stancil Research Coordinator, Habitat Conservation While we do not anticipate significant impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources as a result of the preferred alternative for this project, the NCWRC recommends that as much water as practically possible be returned to the Roanoke River basin. Directing future infrastructure expansion to support the transport of wastewater to the Roanoke River basin will help decrease the proportion of water transferred to other basins. This will remain important as future water demands are forecasted beyond the current 30 and 45 year planning periods and plans derived to further expand water supplies. The NCWRC encourages the KLRWS to continue to pursue water conservation measures such as leak detection and water reuse. Comment noted. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner Sections 4.7 and 4.12 refer to NCNHP data from 2014 for natural areas, but Section 4.12 references NCNHP data from 2009 for Federally listed aquatic species. The NCNHP database is dynamic, and data are distributed quarterly. To ensure the most current data for rare species that occur within the study area are considered, including the Federal and State protection statuses for these species, the most recent version of the data (2014) should be used. For example, the rare aquatic species list in Section 4.12 does not include Neuse River Waterdog; this species is a Federal Species of Concern (At Risk Species) and a State Special Concern species. The most current NCNHP may be accessed via the NCNHP Data Services webpage at www.ncnhp.org. The most recent 2014 data was used during compilation of the EA. This has been reviewed and addressed in Section 4.12. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner Section 4.7 (page 4‐30) states that "Figure 4‐4 shows the locations of NHPNAs within the service area, "however this figure does not appear to be included in the EA; there are also several other references to Figure 4‐4 in the EA. Likewise, Section 4.12.1.1 (page 4‐34) states that occurrences of Federally listed aquatic species are shown in Figure 4‐5, and Section 5.7.2 (page 5‐33) states that natural areas along the Tar River and Fishing Creek are shown in Figure 4‐2, but these figures do not appear to be included in the EA either Comment has been addressed regarding figure references through the EA. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner Natural areas identified by the NCNHP are referred to as "NHPNAs" in Section 4.7 and as "SNHAs" in Sections 5.7 and 5.12; these natural areas should be referred to Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas, or NHPNAs,consistently throughoutthedocument. Comment has been addressed in Sections 5.7 and 5.12. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner Section 4.12 (page 4‐34) refers to specific regulations that exist at the state and federal levels to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats, but the EA appears to only address Federally listed species, and does not address State listed species. Comment has been addressed in Section 4.12. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner In Table 4‐41, Marshallia sp. should be listed as Marshallia legrandii. Comment has been addressed in Section 5.13.1. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner Section 5.13.1 states that "several federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial species are known to occur… in the source and receiving basins, " and that many terrestrial natural areas are present, but this section does not specifically address secondary and cumulative impacts to these species or to terrestrial naturalareas Comment has been addressed in Section 5.13.1. NC Natural Heritage Program Allison Weakley Conservation Planner Section 4.12.2 and Appendix C list Natural Heritage Program natural areas within the study area, but the EA does not provide information on the site rating or significance of the natural areas. A reference to the source, including the date the list was generated, is also not included in Tables C‐2 and C‐3 in Appendix C. Comment has been addressed in Section 4.12.2 and in Appendix C. NC Division of Parks and Recreation Justin Williamson Environmental Review Coordinator DPR would like it to be made aware that we currently manage several recreational features throughout Kerr Lake State Park that are dependent upon optimal water levels. These include 28 boat docks, 18 boat ramps, 2 fishing piers, several campsites and swim beaches. The Division of Parks and Recreation request that all efforts be taken to protect the natural resource and recreational opportunities that Kerr Lake State Park currently offers. Comment noted. Completed January 12, 2015 Environmental Assessment ‐ Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Request from the Roanoke River Basin Page 1 of 2 Agency Comment Response Matrix DENR Internal # 1614 Division Point of Contact Role/Office Comment Response to comment Completed January 12, 2015 Environmental Assessment ‐ Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Request from the Roanoke River Basin NC Department of Public Safety‐Risk Management Section Dan Brubaker NFIP Engineer No comments.N/A NCDENR Raleigh Regional Office DDM Division of Air Quality No comments.N/A NCDENR Raleigh Regional Office DS & RB Division of Water Resources ‐ WQROS (Aquifer & Surface) No comments.N/A NCDENR Raleigh Regional Office WAH Division of Water Resources ‐ Public Water Supply Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alternation of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction, expansion, or alternation of a public water system must be approved by the Division or Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction as per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq. Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699‐1634. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (191) 707‐9100. Comment noted. This process will be followed for the planned Water Treatment Plant expansion. NCDENR Raleigh Regional Office WAH Division of Water Resources ‐ Public Water Supply If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699‐1634. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (191) 707‐9100 Comment noted. NCDENR Raleigh Regional Office JLH Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (Land Quality & Stormwater Programs) No comments.N/A NCDENR Raleigh Regional Office MRP Division of Waste Management ‐ Underground Storage Tanks Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation. Comment noted. Page 2 of 2 Appendix B.5 – Agency Comments This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix C Existing Conditions This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix C.1 – Environmental Justice Assessment This page has been intentionally left blank. APPENDIXC_ENVJUSTICE_DRAFTTOKLRWS.DOC C-1 APPENDIX C Environmental Justice Assessment Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (1994) requires the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) to determine the impact of the proposed interbasin transfer on minority and low-income populations. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental justice is defined as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Environmental justice efforts focus on improving the environment in communities, specifically minority and low-income communities, and addressing disproportionate adverse environmental impacts that may exist in those communities.” In accordance with NCDENR guidance for preparing Engineering reports, the Environmental Justice Assessment requires the following:  Minority populations – Document and identify the existence of all minority populations in the service area. According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Environmental Justice Guidance Section under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (CEQ, 1977).  Low-income populations – Document and identify the existence of all low-income populations in the service area. “Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports…” (CEQ, 1977).  If minority and/or low-income populations exist, an explanation must be provided if there are disparities in the provision and location of infrastructure between the general population and the minority and/or low-income populations.  Existing public facilities and infrastructure – Document if the minority and/or low- income populations have suffered historically from environmental management/public facilities such as sites for wastewater treatment, sludge disposal, land treatment, landfills, recycling centers, incinerators, hazardous/nuclear disposal, and prisons.  If the minority and/or low-income populations are impacted disproportionately and adversely, the applicant may need to reevaluate alternatives and develop mitigative measures to minimize adverse impacts. C-2 APPENDIXC_ENVJUSTICE_DRAFTTOKLRWS.DOC Project Definition The proposed project includes the provision of additional water supply via an increase in interbasin transfer (IBT) to the three partners of the KLRWS and its wholesale customers. Additional infrastructure is not included in this project; instead, existing connections will be used to convey water. Each partner (City of Henderson, City of Oxford and Warren County) and its wholesale customers are independently responsible for their service areas and wastewater treatment. Those receiving water are shown in Figure E-1. Customers are contained within Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties within North Carolina. John H. Kerr reservoir, the water source, straddles the state line, with waters in both Virginia and North Carolina. Methodology Data from the US Census Bureau (year 2010) and North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis were used to characterize the population in the vicinity of the proposed project. Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to identify census data for Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties. As the exact future service area boundaries are not known, given that each entity is responsible for their service areas, data were analyzed at the county level. Growth projections included in the EIS (Section 2) show that the majority of growth is expected within Vance, Granville, and Franklin Counties and little change in population is expected in Warren County. Minority Populations Using NEPA guidance, populations considered minority include Hispanic, Black, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Other, and people of two or more races. Minority population data is available on the census block level. For each of the 31 census blocks within or intersecting the four counties involved with the project, the sum of the population considered minority was tabulated and is shown in Table E-1. All counties have higher percentages of minority populations than the North Carolina average of 34 percent, considered the baseline for the purposes of this analysis. Warren County minority residents comprise almost double the state average, at 62 percent. Franklin County was close to the state average of minority population while the other two counties were moderately higher than the state average. TABLE E-1 Minority Percentages at the County Level County Percentage of Population Considered Minority, 2009 Baseline: North Carolina 34.0% Franklin County 35.8% Granville County 42.6% Vance County 58.0% ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE C-3 APPENDIXC_ENVJUSTICE_DRAFTTOKLRWS.DOC TABLE E-1 Minority Percentages at the County Level County Percentage of Population Considered Minority, 2009 Warren County 62.4% Source: US Census Bureau QuickFacts, 2010 Low-Income Populations The US Census Bureau’s income information is most recently available for the year 2008, and as with the minority population summary data were compiled at the county level and compared to the North Carolina median household income. The percentage of population below the poverty level, also know as low-income population, is shown in Table E-2. Both Granville and Franklin Counties have similar low income populations to the state median of $46,574 (2008 dollars). Vance and Warren Counties have significantly higher percentages of low income households than the state median. Data available from the North Carolina Department of Commerce are comparable (2011a). Vance and Warren Counties are also designated as Tier 1 counties by the North Carolina Department of Commerce, meaning they are among the most economically distressed counties in the state; Granville and Franklin Counties are designated as Tier 2 out of three tiers (2011b). TABLE E-2 Low-Income Percentages at the County Level County Median Household Income, 2008 Persons Below Poverty Level, Percent, 2008 Baseline: North Carolina $46,574 14.6% Franklin County $46,189 14.1% Granville County $48,468 13.7% Vance County $34,093 25.7% Warren County $33,632 24.4% Source: US Census Bureau QuickFacts, 2010 Existing Public Facilities and Infrastructure The Environmental Justice Assessment requires that any historical suffering by minority and/or low-income populations due to nearby environmental management/public facilities be documented. The guidance specifically requests information about wastewater treatment, sludge disposal, land treatment, landfills, recycling centers, incinerators, hazardous/nuclear disposal, and prisons being sited near minority and/or low-income populations. C-4 APPENDIXC_ENVJUSTICE_DRAFTTOKLRWS.DOC Warren County is the site of a hazardous waste landfill that generated much discussion of environmental justice issues in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The community of Warren County organized to voice their opposition to the landfill via protests and legal battles. The landfill began operation in 1982, receiving PCB-contaminated soil. Ultimately, the landfill continued operation and the local mainly minority population’s fight against the landfill is an example of the environmental justice movement. North Carolina and federal agencies funded clean-up of contamination at the site in the early 2000s (NCDENR, 2011). Impacts of Proposed Interbasin Transfer on Minority and Low Income Populations The purpose of this Environmental Justice Assessment is to determine the impact of the proposed IBT on minority and low-income populations within Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties in North Carolina. As described above, Warren County has almost twice the percentage of minority population than the state as a whole, and Vance County and Granville County were moderately higher than the state average. Vance and Warren Counties’ population below the poverty line was higher than the state average. Thus, Granville, Vance, and Warren County must be evaluated to determine if minority or low income populations would be impacted disproportionately by the proposed IBT. Overall, communities within Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties will not bear adverse or disproportionate impacts due to the availability of future water supply. No construction of infrastructure is associated with the proposed IBT. Instead, this proposed project would ensure any future economic opportunities would not likely be limited by the availability of adequate water supply. For example, while the availability of adequate future water supply is not a primary driver of growth in Warren County, water supply assurances are important for this county’s ability to attract future employment opportunities via industry and development. While the Warren County community has undergone what can be considered a disproportionate burden on a low income and minority community with the construction and operation of the hazardous waste landfill, this public water supply project does not impose a burden on the community or specifically exclude a minority population and instead ensures that a reliable public water supply is available to Warren County and others. Water supply would not be a limiting factor in the area’s economy and ability to attract new industries or residents. Each of these counties benefits from the availability of water supply resulting from the proposed project, with one not receiving more proportional benefit than another (based on demand projections and KLRWS partnership agreements). Therefore, it is unlikely that one of these counties, and in turn their minority and low income populations, would bear adverse or disproportionate impacts as a result of the proposed IBT. Summary In summary, the proposed project does not disproportionately negatively affect minorities or low income populations within Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties. Instead, the proposed project provides a reliable water source to meet future needs. Also, as there are no discernable projected impacts to water levels in Kerr Lake as discussed in the ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE C-5 APPENDIXC_ENVJUSTICE_DRAFTTOKLRWS.DOC EIS, the proposed project does not adversely impact other communities around Kerr Lake or downstream. References Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1977. Environmental Justice Guidance Section under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. North Carolina Department of Commerce. 2011a. Economic Development Intelligence System County Profiles for Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties. https://edis.commerce.state.nc.us/EDIS/demographics.html. Accessed March 2011. North Carolina Department of Commerce. 2011b. 2011 County Tier Designations. http://www.nccommerce.com/en/BusinessServices/SupportYourBusiness/Incentives/Co untyTierDesignations/CountyTierDesignations2011.htm. Accessed March 2011. North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. 2011. Warren County PCB Landfill Fact Sheet. Division of Waste Management. Raleigh, North Carolina. http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/WarrenCo_Fact_Sheet.htm. Accessed March 2011. United States Census Bureau. 2010. State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed March 2011. This page has been intentionally left blank. Appendix C.2 – Existing Conditions Data This page has been intentionally left blank. TABLE C-1 John H. Kerr Reservoir Boat Ramp Information RAMP OPERATED BY TOP ELEVATION BOTTOM ELEVATION Bluestone USACE 305.52' 289.0' Buffalo USACE 303.72' L‐290.0'; R‐285.0' Eagle Point USACE 306.72 L‐292.0'; R‐291.7' Eastland Creek USACE 309.15' L‐290.2'; R‐286.2' Grassy Creek USACE 306.56' L‐291.6'; R‐289.3' Island Creek USACE 315.74' 288.4' Ivy Hill USACE 307.69' 284.8' Longwood USACE 308.6' L‐290.1'; R‐286.2' North Bend C USACE 309.51' L‐291.7'; R‐285.8' North Bend A USACE 314.69' 290.9' North Bend Main USACE 311.73' 285.0' Palmer Point USACE 304.94' 293.3' Rudds Creek Campground USACE 307.13' 293.0' (single) Rudds Creek Day Use USACE 306.34' 285.0' (double) Staunton View USACE 306.7' 291.2' Henderson Point KLSRA 304.79' 289.5' (double) Henderson Point‐Shelter 1 NCWRC 306.47' 290.0' Henderson Point‐Shelter 2 KLSRA 306.8' 291.79' Henderson Point‐Shelter 3 KLSRA 306.67' 292.87' Kimball Point KLSRA 304.28' 285.77' Nutbush #1 (at picnic shelter) KLSRA 302.83' 292.41' Nutbush #2 (4 lanes)KLSRA 310.0' L‐291.0'; R‐288.0' Nutbush #3 (South side of bridge) KLSRA 302.7' 290.0' Satterwhite Point (J.C. Cooper) KLSRA 303.38' 292.35' Clarksville Marina Town of Clarksville 305.38' 289.9' Satterwhite Point Marina NCDNR 307.03' 294.0' Steele Creek‐Townsville (new) NCDNR 310.0' Steele Creek‐Townsville (old) NCDNR 305.31' 290.5' Bullocksville KLSRA 305.92' 291.75' County Line NCWRC 306.71' L‐294.5'; R‐285.0' Flemingtown Road NCWRC 305.21' 292.9' Hibernia KLSRA 305.82' L‐290.48'; R‐293.2' Hibernia NCWRC 305.43' 290.6' Occoneechee (Old #1)VADCR 304.88' 291.6' Occoneechee #1 (HWY 58)VADCR 308.25' 289.0' Occoneechee #2 Park Office) VADCR 308.3' 289.0' Staunton River State Park VADCR 310.0' 291.0' Clover VDGIF 313.0' 292.0' Hyco River VDGIF 313.0' 291.0' Source: USACE, 2014b TABLE C-2 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres County 75 CATTAIL CREEK WOODS 43.3 Vance 960 CROOKED RUN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 461.1 Vance 184 INDIAN CREEK HARDWOOD FOREST 50.2 Vance 1858 MIDDLE TAR RIVER AQUATIC HABITAT 33.6 Vance 1813 RUIN CREEK SLOPES 727.8 Vance 1563 RUIN CREEK/TABBS CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 76.4 Vance 129 SWIFT CREEK (VANCE/WARREN/FRANKLIN/NASH/ EDGECOMBE) AQUATIC HABITAT 0.3 Vance 376 TABBS CREEK RICH SLOPES 273.0 Vance 1763 TAR RIVER CAMASSIA SLOPES 150.2 Vance 968 TAR RIVER/WILTON SLOPES 41.3 Vance 460 TUNGSTEN HARDWOOD FORESTS 166.0 Vance 777 FISHING CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 142.0 Warren 2287 FISHING CREEK/ARCOLA HARDWOOD FOREST 406.1 Warren 1000 LITTLE FISHING CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 34.7 Warren 611 LITTLE FISHING CREEK/ODELL HARDWOOD FOREST 446.6 Warren 2124 LITTLE SHOCCO CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 18.4 Warren 2579 LITTLE SHOCCO CREEK HARDWOOD FOREST 100.9 Warren 733 LOWER SHOCCO CREEK BLUFFS AND FLOODPLAIN 275.9 Warren 2895 MAPLE BRANCH FLOODPLAIN FOREST 243.5 Warren 2290 REEDY CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 72.3 Warren 1019 REEDY CREEK HARDWOOD FORESTS 329.3 Warren 474 SHOCCO CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 84.4 Warren 2289 SHOCCO CREEK/CENTERVILLE FLOODPLAIN FOREST 431.1 Warren 2372 SHOCCO CREEK/LICKSKILLET HARDWOOD FOREST 740.9 Warren 129 SWIFT CREEK (VANCE/WARREN/FRANKLIN/NASH/ EDGECOMBE) AQUATIC HABITAT 9.8 Warren 1428 AARONS CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 31.1 Granville 2032 BEAVER POND CREEK UPLAND FORESTS 94.2 Granville 312 BEAVERDAM LAKE SWAMPS AND ARKOSE OUTCROPS 899.2 Granville 949 CAMP BUTNER NATURAL AREA 334.5 Granville 1535 COUNTY LINE FLATROCKS 2.5 Granville 64 CUB CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 21.0 Granville 848 DIABASE SILL NEAR CLAY 540.0 Granville 2363 FALLS LAKE SHORELINE AND TRIBUTARIES 33.0 Granville 2156 FOX CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 27.1 Granville 2013 GOSHEN GABBRO FOREST 1893.2 Granville 1771 HESTER DIABASE AREA 19.8 Granville 344 KNAP OF REEDS CREEK BEAVER PONDS AND SWAMP 48.9 Granville 1658 KNAP OF REEDS CREEK DIABASE FOREST AND GLADES 162.6 Granville 1170 KNAP OF REEDS CREEK DIABASE LEVEE AND SLOPES 136.1 Granville 1657 KNAP OF REEDS CREEK RAVINE 44.4 Granville 786 LAKE ROGERS DIABASE AREA 13.1 Granville 3180 LEDGE CREEK/HOLMAN CREEK SLOPES 114.4 Granville 2466 LICK BRANCH SLOPES 34.1 Granville 2650 LITTLE GRASSY CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 10.1 Granville 899 LONG MOUNTAIN/CROOKED FORK FOREST 95.3 Granville 1858 MIDDLE TAR RIVER AQUATIC HABITAT 6.4 Granville 1231 MURDOCH CENTER DIABASE SILL 19.9 Granville 2148 NORTH FORK (TAR RIVER) AQUATIC HABITAT 17.9 Granville 814 NORTHSIDE DIABASE AREA 1.9 Granville 83 PICTURE CREEK DIABASE BARRENS 407.4 Granville 911 PYROPHYLLITE RIDGE MONADNOCKS 105.5 Granville 1563 RUIN CREEK/TABBS CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 0.9 Granville 702 SATTERWHITE MONADNOCK 171.8 Granville 2578 SHELTON CREEK ALLUVIAL FOREST 27.6 Granville Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Project Area TABLE C-2 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres County Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Project Area 2062 SHELTON CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 47.7 Granville 3014 SMITH CREEK ALLUVIAL FOREST AND SLOPES 480.8 Granville 792 SOUTH BUTNER CEDAR GLADES 6.9 Granville 215 SOUTH BUTNER DIABASE SWAMP AND FOREST 141.5 Granville 1426 SPEWMARROW CREEK FORESTS (ALONG SR 1445)172.0 Granville 1544 SPEWMARROW CREEK HARDPAN FOREST AT SR 1443 54.6 Granville 222 STOVALL HARDPAN FOREST 68.9 Granville 188 TALLYHO MONADNOCK 58.1 Granville 2239 TAR RIVER FERN SLOPES 81.0 Granville 3179 TAR RIVER/BELLTOWN ROAD SLOPES 27.9 Granville 2140 TAR RIVER/TRIASSIC BASIN FLOODPLAIN 489.0 Granville 968 TAR RIVER/WILTON SLOPES 1476.9 Granville 797 TOWNSVILLE ROAD XERIC FOREST 104.5 Granville 460 TUNGSTEN HARDWOOD FORESTS 124.3 Granville 1929 UPPER TAR RIVER AQUATIC HABITAT 248.1 Granville 462 US 15 HARDPAN FOREST 32.7 Granville 378 BIG PEACHTREE CREEK FLATROCK 6.5 Franklin 1626 BOG FLATROCK 19.7 Franklin 1909 BUNN FLATROCK 13.5 Franklin 895 CEDAR CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 81.2 Franklin 42 CEDAR ROCK CHURCH FLATROCK 6.0 Franklin 1535 COUNTY LINE FLATROCKS 25.0 Franklin 1990 CROOKED CREEK (FRANKLIN) AQUATIC HABITAT 131.0 Franklin 2577 CYPRESS CREEK NATURAL AREA 59.8 Franklin 777 FISHING CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 2.8 Franklin 298 LAUREL MILL NATURAL AREA 30.2 Franklin 1807 LITTLE RIVER (FRANKLIN/WAKE/JOHNSTON/ WAYNE) AQUATIC HABITAT 14.0 Franklin 2124 LITTLE SHOCCO CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 10.5 Franklin 2579 LITTLE SHOCCO CREEK HARDWOOD FOREST 205.8 Franklin 733 LOWER SHOCCO CREEK BLUFFS AND FLOODPLAIN 885.0 Franklin 1858 MIDDLE TAR RIVER AQUATIC HABITAT 430.4 Franklin 234 MOCCASIN CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 5.9 Franklin 2086 NORRIS CREEK RARE PLANT SITE 23.0 Franklin 57 NORTH BIG PEACHTREE CREEK FLATROCK 0.6 Franklin 2049 OVERTON ROCK 3.8 Franklin 1991 RED BUD CREEK SLOPES 149.0 Franklin 474 SHOCCO CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT 32.3 Franklin 2289 SHOCCO CREEK/CENTERVILLE FLOODPLAIN FOREST 449.3 Franklin 538 SIMS BRIDGE ROAD LEVEE FOREST 5.3 Franklin 129 SWIFT CREEK (VANCE/WARREN/FRANKLIN/NASH/ EDGECOMBE) AQUATIC HABITAT 200.5 Franklin 1763 TAR RIVER CAMASSIA SLOPES 1.0 Franklin 2216 TAR RIVER/LYNCH CREEK FLOODPLAIN 114.2 Franklin 666 WEST BIG PEACHTREE CREEK FLATROCK 10.4 Franklin Source: NCNHP, 2014 Note: Further details regarding each natural area including its NCNHP site rating and geospatial databases are available at www.nchnhp.org/web/nhp/natural-areas TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin 7 Swift Creek Swamp Forest 949.1 Tar-Pamlico 10 Ocracoke Inlet Bird Nesting Islands 101.5 Tar-Pamlico 22 Hill Forest Chestnut Oak/Shortleaf Pine Forest 206.5 Neuse 27 Shepard Hill Road Forests and Beaver Ponds 188.2 Roanoke 38 Flat River Slopes below Lake Michie 642.1 Neuse 42 Cedar Rock Church Flatrock 6.0 Tar-Pamlico 47 Mush Island 1677.1 Roanoke 51 Upper Alligator River Pocosin 2109.9 Tar-Pamlico 57 North Big Peachtree Creek Flatrock 0.6 Tar-Pamlico 59 Tillery Longleaf Pine Forest 31.5 Tar-Pamlico 60 William B. Umstead State Park 5578.8 Neuse 61 Mill Creek Cypress Forest 143.9 Neuse 62 Camp Atkinson Hardwood Forest (does not qualify)39.0 Neuse 63 Eldridge Road Sandhill and Pocosins 42.6 Neuse 64 Cub Creek Aquatic Habitat 21.9 Tar-Pamlico 68 Larkspur Ridge/Roanoke Big Oak Woods 163.8 Roanoke 75 Cattail Creek Woods 43.3 Tar-Pamlico 76 Tar River/Spring Hope Slopes 67.0 Tar-Pamlico 78 Cape Hatteras Point 360.3 Tar-Pamlico 83 Picture Creek Diabase Barrens 407.4 Neuse 86 Reedy Branch Floodplain 14.7 Neuse 92 Fort Barnwell Bluffs 24.5 Neuse 109 Deep Gully 72.0 Neuse 120 Jessups Mill/Georges Mill Corridor (Dan River)1079.2 Roanoke 122 Hodges Mill Creek Granitic Flatrocks 11.7 Neuse 124 Cliffs of the Neuse State Park 912.7 Neuse 129 Swift Creek (Vance/Warren/Franklin/Nash/Edgecombe) Aquatic Habitat 545.4 Tar-Pamlico 148 Alligator River Swamp Forest 251.8 Tar-Pamlico 184 Indian Creek Hardwood Forest 71.7 Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico 188 Tallyho Monadnock 36.6 Neuse 191 Hills Ferry/Palmyra Slopes 819.6 Roanoke 197 Alligator River/Swan Creek Lake Swamp Forest 6363.7 Tar-Pamlico 215 South Butner Diabase Swamp and Forest 141.5 Neuse 222 Stovall Hardpan Forest 68.9 Roanoke 223 Cub Creek Tributary Rare Plant Site 5.3 Tar-Pamlico 229 Dan River Hemlock Bluffs 173.7 Roanoke 230 Dan River Cliffs 140.1 Roanoke 234 Moccasin Creek Aquatic Habitat 70.0 Neuse 254 Middle Creek Amphibolite Slope (does not qualify)36.8 Neuse 255 Country Line Creek Aquatic Habitat 148.6 Roanoke 279 Upper Barton Creek Bluffs and Ravine 73.0 Neuse 287 Voice of America Site A 2801.1 Tar-Pamlico 288 Phlox Woods 20.7 Roanoke 293 Union Point Pocosin 1747.2 Neuse 298 Laurel Mill Natural Area 30.2 Tar-Pamlico 299 Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottom 88.0 Neuse 304 Paupers Island/Goodwin Creek Natural Area 136.9 Neuse 309 Little River Galax Bluffs 16.1 Neuse 311 Richardson Bridge Bottomlands 1347.9 Neuse 312 Beaverdam Lake Swamps and Arkose Outcrops 899.2 Neuse 320 Southwest Rolesville Granitic Outcrops 18.8 Neuse 323 Aarons Corner Rare Plant Site 23.8 Roanoke 344 Knap of Reeds Creek Beaver Ponds and Swamp 66.7 Neuse 348 Benson Goldenrod Site 2.1 Neuse 349 Bentonville Battlefield Natural Area 127.1 Neuse 357 Cabin Branch Creek Bottomland-Swamp 241.7 Neuse Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 367 Middle Creek (Wake/Johnston) Aquatic Habitat 217.0 Neuse 369 Mill Creek Aquatic Habitat 127.3 Neuse 370 Lake Mirl Granitic Flatrocks 4.5 Neuse 376 Tabbs Creek Rich Slopes 280.0 Tar-Pamlico 378 Big Peachtree Creek Flatrock 6.5 Tar-Pamlico 384 Flower Hill/Moccasin Creek Bluffs 73.4 Neuse 388 Little Creek Bittercress Site 88.9 Roanoke 394 Ocracoke Island Central Section 1583.5 Tar-Pamlico 397 Walnut Creek Sandhills 302.0 Neuse 403 Hofmann Forest Cypress Natural Area 27.5 Neuse 407 Dan River Aquatic Habitat 1240.3 Roanoke 410 Bay City Low Pocosin 1323.1 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 413 Little Road Longleaf Pine Savannas 403.6 Neuse 415 Mayo River Aquatic Habitat 207.1 Roanoke 428 Roanoke River Delta Islands 11140.9 Roanoke 432 Nobles Millpond 190.0 Neuse 434 Dover Bay Pocosin 2442.3 Neuse 441 Pamlico Point Marshes and Impoundments 6621.0 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 455 Middle Eno River Bluffs and Slopes 2123.8 Neuse 459 Cedar Mountain 141.3 Roanoke 460 Tungsten Hardwood Forests 290.3 Roanoke 462 US 15 Hardpan Forest 32.7 Roanoke 470 Goose Creek State Park and Vicinity 2053.2 Tar-Pamlico 472 New Dump Island Bird Nesting Colony 10.7 Tar-Pamlico 474 Shocco Creek Aquatic Habitat 116.6 Tar-Pamlico 477 Hofmann Forest White Oak Pocosin 4357.7 Neuse 479 Tar River/Blue Banks Farm Slopes 139.8 Tar-Pamlico 481 Indian Island 40.9 Tar-Pamlico 482 Crabtree Creek/Ebenezer Church Road Slopes 79.1 Neuse 483 Harvester Road Tall Pocosin 8021.2 Tar-Pamlico 485 Caswell Upland Hardwood Forest 3132.3 Roanoke 494 Jacobs Creek Slopes 14.5 Roanoke 504 Cane Creek Slopes 16.7 Roanoke 505 Sweetwater Creek/Trent River Natural Area 496.7 Neuse 523 Broadneck Swamp/Company Swamp 7746.6 Roanoke 531 Devil's Gut 2113.7 Roanoke 533 East Belews Creek Watershed 277.7 Roanoke 538 Sims Bridge Road Levee Forest 5.3 Tar-Pamlico 541 Sauratown Mountain 1004.6 Roanoke 544 Southwest Prong Flatwoods 303.5 Neuse 548 Dare County Pocosin 5649.1 Tar-Pamlico 551 Conoho Neck Swamp 8918.5 Roanoke 552 Couch Mountain 39.1 Neuse 558 Tar River Floodplain 8752.2 Tar-Pamlico 566 Mine Road Upland Hardwood Forest (does not qualify)4.6 Roanoke 568 Cedar Island/North Bay Barrier Strand 1635.4 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 584 Pungo River Preserve 374.4 Tar-Pamlico 609 Conaby Swamp Natural Area 95.2 Roanoke 610 Burdens Millpond (does not qualify)171.5 Roanoke 611 Little Fishing Creek/Odell Hardwood Forest 447.1 Tar-Pamlico 616 Robertsons Pond and Buffalo Creek Floodplain 837.6 Neuse 626 Buckhorn Reservoir 2623.6 Neuse 631 Henrico Granite Flatrock 2.1 Roanoke 636 South Minnesott Sand Ridge 155.2 Neuse 638 Mill Creek Hardwood Forests (does not qualify)23.6 Roanoke 640 Old Still Creek Natural Area 56.3 Neuse TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 652 Long Branch Sandhills 86.5 Neuse 660 Black Creek Sandhill and Bluff 43.7 Neuse 662 Lake Ellis Simon 1814.4 Neuse 666 West Big Peachtree Creek Flatrock 10.4 Tar-Pamlico 671 Pocosin Wilderness 145.6 Neuse 675 Chocowinity Creek Natural Area 631.9 Tar-Pamlico 692 Ray Road Rich Forests 114.1 Roanoke 702 Satterwhite Monadnock 171.8 Roanoke 703 Lower Roanoke River Aquatic Habitat 2005.1 Roanoke 714 Hebron Road Remnant Glade 90.1 Neuse 722 Abington Wetland Area 46.8 Roanoke 732 Conoconnara Swamp Forest 82.4 Roanoke 733 Lower Shocco Creek Bluffs and Floodplain 1227.0 Tar-Pamlico 740 Conine Island 5276.7 Roanoke 743 Mayodan Bluffs 48.0 Roanoke 747 Indian Woods/Broadneck Swamp 302.1 Roanoke 754 Grubbs Road Lake 68.6 Roanoke 764 Conaby Creek/Swan Bay Swamp 3594.0 Roanoke 777 Fishing Creek Aquatic Habitat 822.4 Tar-Pamlico 781 Swift Creek (Wake/Johnston) Aquatic Habitat 242.5 Neuse 782 Fowlers Mill Creek Granitic Flatrocks 12.9 Neuse 784 Old US 64 Granitic Flatrock 1.9 Neuse 786 Lake Rogers Diabase Area 13.1 Neuse 787 Jackson Swamp Remnants 20.7 Tar-Pamlico 792 South Butner Cedar Glades 6.9 Neuse 794 Stancils Chapel Pine Flatwoods 140.6 Neuse 797 Townsville Road Xeric Forest 104.5 Roanoke 807 Eno River Blue Wild Indigo Slope 7.2 Neuse 814 Northside Diabase Area 1.9 Neuse 835 Turtle Pond and (Cape Hatteras) Lighthouse Pond 35.5 Tar-Pamlico 844 Buxton Woods 4036.3 Tar-Pamlico 848 Diabase Sill Near Clay 540.0 Tar-Pamlico 850 Light Ground Pocosin Central Section 2662.9 Neuse 852 Scranton Hardwood Forest 5712.2 Tar-Pamlico 863 Stony Creek Spring 27.1 Neuse 865 Swanquarter Bay Wetlands 19502.2 Tar-Pamlico 866 Pennys Bend/Eno River Bluffs 323.7 Neuse 869 Rock House Creek Slopes 200.6 Roanoke 890 Van Swamp 3667.4 Tar-Pamlico 891 Buzzard Point Floodplain Forests 6157.0 Roanoke 893 Big Swash 1812.8 Roanoke 894 Flat River Bend Forest 17.4 Neuse 895 Cedar Creek Aquatic Habitat 81.2 Tar-Pamlico 899 Long Mountain/Crooked Fork Forest 490.6 Roanoke 907 Live Oak Bay 1795.4 Neuse 910 Temple Rock 5.9 Neuse 911 Pyrophyllite Ridge Monadnocks 105.5 Tar-Pamlico 917 Duck Creek/Upper Broad Creek Natural Area 5363.1 Neuse 926 Roanoke River/NC 11 Floodplain Forests 1324.6 Roanoke 931 Fitzgerald Woodland 88.4 Roanoke 934 Denny Store Gabbro Forest 254.3 Tar-Pamlico 949 Camp Butner Natural Area 334.5 Neuse 959 Bull Neck Swamp and Bluffs 353.2 Roanoke 960 Crooked Run Wildlife Management Area 461.1 Roanoke 961 Mill Creek Outcrops 47.4 Neuse 966 Pollocks Ferry Natural Area 2302.3 Roanoke TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 968 Tar River/Wilton Slopes 1518.2 Tar-Pamlico 974 Hills Creek/Camp Hardee Woods 206.6 Tar-Pamlico 975 St. Clair Creek Natural Area 449.1 Tar-Pamlico 977 Cool Springs Sand Ridge and Swamp 1491.9 Neuse 980 Eno River Aquatic Habitat 266.3 Neuse 988 Fishing Creek/Enfield Bottomland 3141.9 Tar-Pamlico 1000 Little Fishing Creek Aquatic Habitat 182.7 Tar-Pamlico 1001 Cherry Point Piney Island 12160.5 Neuse 1002 Camp Butner Game Land 2043.3 Neuse 1004 Upper Neuse River Floodplain 1676.5 Neuse 1014 Rose Bay Marshes 3067.4 Tar-Pamlico 1019 Reedy Creek Hardwood Forests 329.3 Tar-Pamlico 1023 Hemlock Bluffs State Natural Area 122.0 Neuse 1027 Catfish Lake/Catfish Lake South Wilderness 3526.4 Neuse 1043 Hill Forest Dial Creek Hardwood Forest 1247.5 Neuse 1046 Griers Church Road Ultramafic Forest 988.3 Roanoke 1049 Voice of America Site B 2710.8 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1060 Moccasin Swamp 1175.0 Neuse 1078 South Fork Little River Marsh 17.9 Neuse 1111 Ocracoke Island Eastern End 1513.1 Tar-Pamlico 1118 Coniott Ridge 141.5 Roanoke 1127 The Rocks 19.9 Neuse 1130 Roanoke River Fall Zone Aquatic Habitat 484.6 Roanoke 1137 Stantonsburg Oxbow 46.5 Neuse 1144 Middle Roanoke River Aquatic Habitat 332.1 Roanoke 1150 Flat River Aquatic Habitat 265.0 Neuse 1155 Broad Creek Marshes and Forests 882.4 Tar-Pamlico 1160 Core Banks and Portsmouth Island 14067.9 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1162 Masontown Pocosin 1105.8 Neuse 1164 Bonds Branch Rare Plant Site 113.3 Roanoke 1170 Knap of Reeds Creek Diabase Levee and Slopes 136.1 Neuse 1173 Jamesville Island/Warren Neck 12290.5 Roanoke 1190 Mount Tirzah Slopes 483.9 Neuse 1191 Turkey Creek Aquatic Habitat 56.9 Neuse 1192 Lum Hall Forests 65.7 Roanoke 1203 Lackey Store/Snow Creek Forests 198.0 Roanoke 1210 Contentnea Creek Aquatic Habitat 104.5 Neuse 1214 Camp Tuscarora Sandhills 221.1 Neuse 1218 Wading Place Creek and Swamps 356.3 Roanoke 1221 Fishing Creek Floodplain Forest 2819.7 Tar-Pamlico 1231 Murdoch Center Diabase Sill 19.9 Neuse 1236 Hatteras Island Middle Section 1648.0 Tar-Pamlico 1242 Lick Creek Bottomland Forest 1684.7 Neuse 1244 Benefit Church Forests 172.6 Roanoke 1255 Blue Pond Salamander Site 2.6 Neuse 1266 Harris Mill Run Slopes 229.2 Tar-Pamlico 1284 Camassia Slopes/Gumberry Swamp 1156.7 Roanoke 1305 Richland Creek Hardwood Forest 73.6 Neuse 1310 Poplar Point Slopes 79.3 Roanoke 1319 Cascade Creek/Indian Creek (Hanging Rock) Aquatic Habitat 20.4 Roanoke 1323 Suffolk Scarp Bogs 1034.4 Tar-Pamlico 1324 Stony Creek Aquatic Habitat 105.9 Tar-Pamlico 1325 Sweetwater Creek Swamp 1002.9 Roanoke 1348 Gull Rock Game Land 22908.3 Tar-Pamlico 1354 Marks Creek Floodplain 740.2 Neuse 1373 Little River (Orange/Durham) Aquatic Habitat 148.9 Neuse TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 1376 Selma Pine Flatwoods 112.9 Neuse 1388 Sea Gate Woods 73.7 Neuse 1393 Green Branch Sandhills 209.0 Neuse 1395 Neuse River (Clayton) Forests 1671.6 Neuse 1401 Beech Branch/Tar River Meander Loop 193.9 Tar-Pamlico 1404 Reedy Branch 17.8 Neuse 1415 Pettigrew State Park 338.6 Tar-Pamlico 1417 Cypress Swamp/Sandy Run Floodplain Forest 7565.2 Roanoke 1420 Turkey Creek Natural Area 39.1 Neuse 1426 Spewmarrow Creek Forests (Along SR 1445)172.0 Roanoke 1428 Aarons Creek Aquatic Habitat 31.2 Roanoke 1438 Dan River Shores Rich Slope 117.5 Roanoke 1452 Springers Point 136.2 Tar-Pamlico 1456 Island Creek Natural Area 284.0 Neuse 1457 Cokey Swamp 1489.2 Tar-Pamlico 1460 Chicod Creek Swamp and Slopes 260.7 Tar-Pamlico 1465 Roundhouse Road Forest 74.6 Roanoke 1475 Hobucken Marshes 2298.7 Neuse 1476 Little River Gorge 1398.1 Neuse 1478 Nevil Creek Natural Area 786.4 Tar-Pamlico 1485 Sheep Rock Slopes 277.9 Roanoke 1487 West Belews Creek Swamps and Forests 164.6 Roanoke 1490 Northwest Pocosin 10767.3 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1492 Cherry Point Tucker Creek Natural Area 1233.5 Neuse 1493 Catfish Lake Impoundment Bay Rims 624.7 Neuse 1500 Mitchells Mill State Natural Area 213.8 Neuse 1501 North Minnesott Sand Ridge 1028.7 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1503 Camp Lasater Forest (does not qualify)243.9 Roanoke 1507 Pleasantville Basic Forest 137.0 Roanoke 1510 Lilleys Swamp 70.6 Roanoke 1511 Rascoe Millpond 430.2 Roanoke 1518 Roquist Creek Swamp 105.7 Roanoke 1524 Catsburg Natural Area 124.9 Neuse 1527 Frogsboro Flats 463.5 Roanoke 1531 Walnut Creek Sumac Site 5.1 Neuse 1534 Conoho Creek Slopes and Floodplain 1604.4 Roanoke 1535 County Line Flatrocks 27.5 Tar-Pamlico 1536 Western Gum Swamp Remnants 1264.3 Tar-Pamlico 1544 Spewmarrow Creek Hardpan Forest at SR 1443 54.6 Roanoke 1554 Holts Lake/Black Creek Swamp 588.0 Neuse 1562 East Dismal Swamp 17.0 Roanoke 1563 Ruin Creek/Tabbs Creek Aquatic Habitat 77.3 Tar-Pamlico 1568 Flat Shoals Monadnock 809.6 Roanoke 1572 Cashie River Swamp 4680.6 Roanoke 1578 Trent River/Brice Creek Marshes 244.7 Neuse 1583 Gibbs Point Marsh 1461.4 Tar-Pamlico 1584 Cedar Grove Rare Plant Site 25.2 Roanoke 1596 Flint Mill Hole Natural Area 590.3 Roanoke 1605 Roanoke Earthworks and Fall Line Islands 1202.2 Roanoke 1608 Lake Johnson Nature Park 131.7 Neuse 1609 Pantego Wetlands 1832.4 Tar-Pamlico 1613 Core Sound (Wainwright) Bird Nesting Islands 17.7 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1618 Hannah Creek Swamp 1223.9 Neuse 1626 Bog Flatrock 19.7 Tar-Pamlico 1633 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 49414.0 Tar-Pamlico 1645 Wendell Lake 152.7 Neuse TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 1657 Knap of Reeds Creek Ravine 44.4 Neuse 1658 Knap of Reeds Creek Diabase Forest and Glades 162.6 Neuse 1666 Big Beaver Island Creek Slopes 26.1 Roanoke 1672 Middle Creek Floodplain Knolls 149.1 Neuse 1673 Hannah Creek Sandhill 56.8 Neuse 1685 Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain 358.0 Neuse 1687 Haw Creek Meanders 1316.3 Tar-Pamlico 1688 Hatteras Inlet Bird Nesting Islands 55.8 Tar-Pamlico 1689 Hatteras Sand Flats 481.3 Tar-Pamlico 1694 Steele Creek Hardwood Forest (does not qualify)71.4 Roanoke 1701 Eno River/Cates Ford Slopes and Uplands 1549.8 Neuse 1705 Mudham Road Beaver Ponds 106.7 Neuse 1706 Oyster Creek Pine Hammocks 2035.8 Tar-Pamlico 1709 Little Peters Creek Bluffs 96.3 Roanoke 1712 Georges Mill Bittercress Site 86.4 Roanoke 1720 Leaksville Loam Forests 138.3 Roanoke 1732 Sally Simmons Limestone Ledge 22.5 Neuse 1737 Yates Millpond 162.0 Neuse 1738 Occoneechee Neck Floodplain Forest 1707.9 Roanoke 1740 Rocky Branch Conglomerate Exposure 60.1 Roanoke 1743 Providence Church Road Forest (does not qualify)85.3 Roanoke 1757 Sophie Island Natural Area 962.5 Tar-Pamlico 1759 Conine Terrace Forest 170.7 Roanoke 1763 Tar River Camassia Slopes 151.1 Tar-Pamlico 1771 Hester Diabase Area 19.8 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1776 Riverdale Goldenrod Roadsides 12.3 Neuse 1778 Pantego Swamp and Pocosins 5259.5 Tar-Pamlico 1779 Long Shoal River Marshes and Pocosins 10750.9 Tar-Pamlico 1784 New Light Creek Slopes (does not qualify)50.4 Neuse 1785 Little Beaverdam Creek Slopes 95.8 Neuse 1787 Upper Pungo River Wetlands 2910.1 Tar-Pamlico 1789 Flanner Beach Natural Area 269.1 Neuse 1802 Bethel/Grindle Hardwood Flats 253.4 Tar-Pamlico 1805 Adam Mountain 41.3 Neuse 1807 Little River (Franklin/Wake/Johnston/ Wayne) Aquatic Habitat 526.8 Neuse 1812 Cedar Island Flatwoods and Bays 3094.1 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1813 Ruin Creek Slopes 727.8 Tar-Pamlico 1816 Neuse River Floodplain and Bluffs 11937.7 Neuse 1818 Light Ground Pocosin Southeast Section 56.3 Neuse 1826 Pungo Lake Natural Areas 5041.6 Tar-Pamlico 1831 Cates Creek Hardwood Forest 80.3 Neuse 1832 Gum Swamp Bottomland Hardwood Forest 34.6 Neuse 1837 Back Landing Bay 912.5 Tar-Pamlico 1841 Swift Creek Magnolia Slopes (does not qualify)19.0 Neuse 1858 Middle Tar River Aquatic Habitat 763.4 Tar-Pamlico 1860 Hyco Lake Ultramafic Ravines 100.5 Roanoke 1867 South Prong Natural Area 542.9 Neuse 1870 Cedar Island Marshes 10464.6 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1871 Eastern Gum Swamp 2126.6 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1874 Bear Slide Bluff 12.0 Roanoke 1878 Old Weaver Trail Slopes 317.9 Neuse 1886 Atlantic Natural Area 8263.3 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1888 Trent River Aquatic Habitat 503.9 Neuse 1903 Roper Island 1941.9 Tar-Pamlico 1906 Alligator River Refuge/Southeast Marshes 6959.5 Tar-Pamlico 1909 Bunn Flatrock 13.5 Tar-Pamlico TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 1910 Voice of America Site C 650.4 Tar-Pamlico, Neuse 1914 Eno River Diabase Sill 44.5 Neuse 1926 Wild Cat Hollow 26.1 Neuse 1928 Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat 2082.4 Tar-Pamlico 1929 Upper Tar River Aquatic Habitat 257.9 Tar-Pamlico 1930 Moccasin Creek Wetlands 59.6 Neuse 1931 Howell Woods 3027.7 Neuse 1936 Cherry Point Oak Grove Swamps 143.3 Neuse 1949 Swift Creek Bluffs 48.5 Neuse 1953 Great Bend of the Neuse Natural Area 81.1 Neuse 1958 Shell Landing 2.0 Neuse 1960 Rocky Swamp Aquatic Habitat 63.1 Tar-Pamlico 1964 Belews Creek Bog and Marshes 54.7 Roanoke 1966 Great Lake/Pond Pine Wilderness Natural Area 33.8 Neuse 1973 Occoneechee Mountain 166.4 Neuse 1979 Fort Branch Bluffs 133.0 Roanoke 1981 Hancock Creek Forest 116.4 Neuse 1986 Lake Raleigh Hardwood Forest 89.0 Neuse 1990 Crooked Creek (Franklin) Aquatic Habitat 131.0 Tar-Pamlico 1991 Red Bud Creek Slopes 149.2 Tar-Pamlico 1995 Camp Betty Hastings Forests 524.0 Roanoke 1996 Medoc Mountain State Park 1741.8 Tar-Pamlico 1997 Flat River Slopes above Lake Michie 2504.3 Neuse 1998 Selma Heath Bluffs 18.3 Neuse 2001 Mayo River Anglin Mill Bluffs 123.6 Roanoke 2008 Looking Glass Run Swamp and Bluffs 244.9 Roanoke 2013 Goshen Gabbro Forest 1927.2 Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico 2032 Beaver Pond Creek Upland Forests 94.3 Roanoke 2036 Gull Island 53.8 Tar-Pamlico 2040 Cowbone Oxbows/Sage Pond Natural Area 2041.8 Neuse 2049 Overton Rock 3.8 Tar-Pamlico 2050 Hanging Rock State Park and Vicinity 2402.2 Roanoke 2056 Ocracoke Island Western End (Sand Flats)1246.4 Tar-Pamlico 2062 Shelton Creek Aquatic Habitat 47.7 Tar-Pamlico 2065 Otter Creek Natural Area 123.3 Tar-Pamlico 2069 Bennett Place Forest 41.8 Neuse 2071 Billfinger Road Flatwoods 73.6 Neuse 2078 Jones Island 4523.5 Neuse 2079 Wide Mouth Creek Conglomerate Exposure 24.1 Roanoke 2083 New Lake Fork Pocosin and New Lake 15364.5 Tar-Pamlico 2086 Norris Creek Rare Plant Site 23.0 Tar-Pamlico 2097 Brogden Bottomlands 1186.4 Neuse 2100 Lower Tar River Marshes and Swamp 5455.0 Tar-Pamlico 2109 Goose Creek Marshes and Forests 2455.0 Tar-Pamlico 2110 Gate 9 Pond 41.4 Neuse 2115 Roquist Pocosin 5846.2 Roanoke 2121 Upper Alligator River Marshes and Forests 14831.8 Tar-Pamlico 2122 Little Lake/Long Lake/Sheep Ridge Wilderness 9597.2 Neuse 2124 Little Shocco Creek Aquatic Habitat 28.9 Tar-Pamlico 2127 Long Point and Wysocking Bay Marshes 4043.5 Tar-Pamlico 2130 Moores Springs North Bluff 652.9 Roanoke 2140 Tar River/Triassic Basin Floodplain 489.0 Tar-Pamlico 2146 Havelock Station Flatwoods and Powerline Corridor 1284.8 Neuse 2148 North Fork (Tar River) Aquatic Habitat 17.9 Tar-Pamlico 2156 Fox Creek Aquatic Habitat 27.1 Tar-Pamlico 2178 New Hope Chestnut Oak Forest 5.4 Neuse TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 2179 Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge 640.9 Neuse 2180 Camp Chestnut Ridge 281.1 Neuse 2190 Poplar Ridge Slopes and Bottom 131.9 Neuse 2191 Cates Creek Hardpan Forest 7.5 Neuse 2193 Little River Uplands 1213.9 Neuse 2195 Jimmy Ed Road Hardpan Forest 19.8 Neuse 2197 Eno River Mesic Slopes and Floodplain 207.5 Neuse 2216 Tar River/Lynch Creek Floodplain 114.2 Tar-Pamlico 2239 Tar River Fern Slopes 81.0 Tar-Pamlico 2265 Six Forks Longleaf Pine Forest 41.7 Neuse 2286 Swift Creek/Gold Rock Swamp Forest 780.2 Tar-Pamlico 2287 Fishing Creek/Arcola Hardwood Forest 406.1 Tar-Pamlico 2289 Shocco Creek/Centerville Floodplain Forest 880.4 Tar-Pamlico 2290 Reedy Creek Aquatic Habitat 79.3 Tar-Pamlico 2295 Hyco/Ghent Hardwood Forest 147.2 Roanoke 2311 Betsy-Jeff Penn 4-H Camp Forest 81.7 Roanoke 2318 Brown Mountain 818.0 Roanoke 2341 Smith River Slopes 40.5 Roanoke 2345 Collins Bridge Bluffs 48.6 Roanoke 2353 Dan River Bends 530.9 Roanoke 2359 Eno River Mountain Spleenwort and Rhododendron Bluff 21.7 Neuse 2363 Falls Lake Shoreline and Tributaries 8080.8 Neuse 2365 Red Mountain/Flat River Slopes 226.5 Neuse 2372 Shocco Creek/Lickskillet Hardwood Forest 740.9 Tar-Pamlico 2376 Epps-Martin Road Upland Forest (does not qualify)16.5 Roanoke 2394 McGhees Mill Basic Forest 89.2 Roanoke 2395 McGhees Mill Powerline Clearing 3.5 Roanoke 2463 Drinkwater Creek Wet Hardwood Forest 116.9 Tar-Pamlico 2464 Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seeps 260.8 Tar-Pamlico 2465 Sparrow Road Wet Hardwood Forest 125.5 Tar-Pamlico 2466 Lick Branch Slopes 34.1 Roanoke 2467 Lake Michie Corridor 1883.0 Neuse 2469 Quail Roost Oak Uplands (does not qualify)16.9 Neuse 2474 Archies Knob 154.5 Roanoke 2477 Snow Creek Wetland (does not qualify)5.3 Roanoke 2479 Mountain View Forest (does not qualify)282.1 Roanoke 2480 Town Fork Forest (does not qualify)216.5 Roanoke 2481 Ash Camp Creek Wetland 50.9 Roanoke 2482 Mills Creek Equisetum Wetland (does not qualify)14.2 Roanoke 2483 Pine Hall Slopes 130.4 Roanoke 2500 Hyco/Castle Floodplain Forest 99.8 Roanoke 2521 Clam Shoal 72.7 Tar-Pamlico 2542 Odom Floodplain and Bluffs 236.6 Roanoke 2577 Cypress Creek Natural Area 59.8 Tar-Pamlico 2578 Shelton Creek Alluvial Forest 27.6 Tar-Pamlico 2579 Little Shocco Creek Hardwood Forest 306.7 Tar-Pamlico 2594 McGhees Mill Road Rare Plant Site 14.5 Roanoke 2595 Dunnaway Road Rare Plant Site 42.8 Roanoke 2596 South Hyco Creek Slopes 137.4 Roanoke 2597 Storys Creek/Marlowe Creek Swamp 374.9 Roanoke 2599 Marlowe Creek Slopes 226.7 Roanoke 2600 Hagers Mountain 84.1 Roanoke 2601 Piedmont Community College Hardwood Forest 414.9 Roanoke 2602 Carver Drive Outcrops and Seeps 101.5 Roanoke 2603 Mill Creek/NC 49 Hardwood Forest 339.0 Roanoke 2604 Mayo Creek Slopes (does not qualify)87.8 Roanoke TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 2605 Poole Road Ridge 193.2 Roanoke 2606 Dirgie Mine Road Rare Plant Site 15.2 Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico 2607 Adcock Road Hardwood Forest 341.7 Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico 2608 Tar River (Person) Slopes 125.9 Tar-Pamlico 2609 Wheelers Church Basic Forest 71.6 Roanoke, Neuse 2610 Alderidge Creek Flats 259.5 Neuse 2611 Hurdle Mills Flats 220.4 Neuse 2612 Satterfield Road Rare Plant Site 4.0 Neuse 2613 Timberlake Hardpan Forest 10.0 Neuse 2614 South Flat River Outcrops 90.5 Neuse 2615 Chappels Creek Flats (does not qualify)119.9 Neuse 2616 Deep Creek Salamander Site 5.8 Neuse 2618 Deep Creek Mountain and Slopes 257.5 Neuse 2650 Little Grassy Creek Aquatic Habitat 10.1 Roanoke 2651 Cashie River Aquatic Habitat 543.2 Roanoke 2657 Crabtree Creek Aquatic Habitat 110.4 Neuse 2675 Hogans Creek Floodplain and Slopes 941.0 Roanoke 2689 Mebane Bridge Slope 18.6 Roanoke 2709 Smith River Bluffs 21.0 Roanoke 2711 Stokesdale Slopes 53.7 Roanoke 2714 Tate Road Forest 238.6 Roanoke 2718 Walnut Creek Bottomland Forests 283.8 Neuse 2724 Lower Eno River/Little River Bottomlands 2364.9 Neuse 2725 Middle Lick Creek Bottomlands 1034.2 Neuse 2728 Stirrup Iron Creek Marsh and Sloughs 217.9 Neuse 2729 Leatherwood Cove 159.0 Neuse 2740 Brumley Impoundment Mafic Slopes 37.1 Roanoke 2780 Brice Creek Swamps 723.7 Neuse 2824 Redwood Road Remnant Glade 22.5 Neuse 2856 Middle Conoconnara Swamp 446.1 Roanoke 2887 Hell Swamp Wet Hardwood Forest 70.4 Tar-Pamlico 2894 Fishing Creek Fern Slopes 91.1 Tar-Pamlico 2895 Maple Branch Floodplain Forest 243.5 Tar-Pamlico 2938 Country Line Creek Bluffs 61.3 Roanoke 2939 Country Line Creek Natural Area 2305.8 Roanoke 2940 Bigelow Road Slopes 316.3 Roanoke 2943 Long Road Mafic Uplands 63.8 Roanoke 2946 Polk Huff Road Dry Forest 10.4 Tar-Pamlico 2980 Russell Loop Road Dry Forest 63.6 Roanoke 2989 Dan River/Caswell Swamp and Levee 73.4 Roanoke 2990 Wolf Island Creek/Dan River Slopes 45.2 Roanoke 2991 Hogans Creek/NC 86 Hardwood Forest 110.0 Roanoke 2992 Dan River/Blanch Levee and Slopes 48.8 Roanoke 2993 St. James Church Flats 160.4 Roanoke 2994 River Bend Road Mafic Slopes 64.1 Roanoke 2995 Hyco Lake Slopes 199.1 Roanoke 2996 Dan River/Milton Floodplain and Slopes 74.6 Roanoke 2997 Country Line Creek/Milton Slopes 49.8 Roanoke 3001 Hyco Creek Slopes 248.8 Roanoke 3013 Lynch Creek Hardwood Forest 60.0 Roanoke 3014 Smith Creek Alluvial Forest and Slopes 479.8 Neuse 3065 Garris Chapel Cypress Pond 38.4 Neuse 3097 Mud Castle Slopes 232.5 Roanoke 3099 Halifax Bluffs 263.9 Roanoke 3171 Tar River/Wolfpen Branch Floodplain 149.5 Tar-Pamlico 3172 River Park North Floodplain Forest 349.8 Tar-Pamlico TABLE C-3 ID Natural Heritage Program Natural Area Acres Basin Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas within the Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse River Basins 3179 Tar River/Belltown Road Slopes 27.9 Tar-Pamlico 3180 Ledge Creek/Holman Creek Slopes 114.4 Neuse 3191 Kernersville Lake Park Hardwood Forest 110.9 Roanoke Source: NCNHP, 2014 Note: Further details regarding each natural area including its NCNHP site rating and geospatial databases are available at www.nchnhp.org/web/nhp/natural-areas Table C‐4 Historic Landmark Location Building/District # Ashburn Hall (Capehart House) W of Kittrell on SR 1101, Kittrell 77001009 Ashland N of Henderson on Satterwhite Point Rd., Henderson 73001371 Belvidere (Boyd House) NC 1329, NE end, Williamsboro 92001603 Burnside Plantation House On SR 1335, Williamsboro 71000621 Capehart, Thomas, House W of Kittrell on SR 1105, Kittrell 77001010 Crudup, Josiah, House S of Kittrell on US 1, Kittrell 79003342 Henderson Central Business Historic District (Henderson Fire Station and Municipal Building)Garnett St. from Church to Young Sts., Henderson 87001249 Henderson Fire Station and Municipal Building Garnett and Young Sts., Henderson 78001973 LaGrange (Robards‐Royster House) S of Townsville off SR 1308, Harris Crossroads 82003519 Library and Laboratory Building‐‐Henderson Institute (Henderson Institute Historical Museum)Rock Spring St., Henderson 95001399 Machpelah 12079 NC 39, Townsville 7000215 Mistletoe Villa Young Ave., Henderson 78001974 Parham, Maria, Hospital (Maria Parham Apartments) 406 S. Chestnut St., Henderson 94001066 Pleasant Hill/Hawkins House (Rivenoak) W of Middleburg on SR 1371, Middleburg 79001758 Pool Rock Plantation NE of Williamsboro on SR 1380, Williamsboro 78001977 St. James Episcopal Church and Rectory Jct. of SR 1551 and SR 1555, Kittrell 78001976 St. John's Episcopal Church SR 1329, Williamsboro 71000622 Stone, Daniel, Plank House Address Restricted, Henderson 84002531 Vance County Courthouse Young St., Henderson 79001975 West End School 1000 S. Chestnut St., Henderson 4001585 Zollicoffer's Law Office 215 N. Garnett St., Henderson 78001975 Vance County Historic Landmarks Table C‐4 Historic Landmark Location Building/District # Browne, Mary Ann, House (Oakley;Oakley Grove;Faulcon‐‐Browne House;Browne,Dr. LaFayet)NC 1530, Vaughan 86001912 Buck Spring Plantation (Nathaniel, Macon, House) N of Vaughan on SR 1348, Vaughan 70000480 Buxton Place NC 58 W side, 0.2 mi. N of jct. with NC 1628, Inez 93000323 Chapel of the Good Shepherd (added 1977 ‐ Building ‐ #77001013) E of Ridgeway, Ridgeway 77001013 Cherry Hill ** (added 1974 ‐ Building ‐ #74001384) SE of Warrenton on NC 58, Inez 74001384 Coleman‐White House (Whitesome) Halifax and Hall Sts., Warrenton 73001380 Dalkeith SW of Arcola off NC 43, Arcola 74001382 Duke, Green, House SE of Manson off SR 1100, Manson 74001383 Elgin SE of Warrenton on SR 1509, Warrenton 73001381 Hawkins, William J., House W of Norlina on SR 1103, Ridgeway 78001982 Hebron Methodist Church SR 1306, Oakville 84002547 Lake O'Woods S of Inez of SR 1512, Inez 79001760 Liberia School 4.5 mi. S of Warrenton, Sw side of NC 58, Wareenton 05000438 Little Manor Address Restricted, Littleton 73001378 Reedy Rill S of Warrenton off SR 1600, Warrenton 74001385 Shady Oaks (Cheek‐Twitty House) SE of Warrenton on SR 1600, Warrenton 76001346 Skinner, Dr. Charles and Susan, House and Outbuildings NC 1528, 0.25 mi. SW of NC 158, Littleton 00001186 Sledge‐Hayley House Frankin and Hayley Sts., Warrenton 80002904 Thornton, Mansfield, House (added 1977 ‐ Building ‐ #77001014) SE of Warrenton, Warrenton 77001014 Tusculum SE of Warrenton off SR 1635, Arcola 74001386 Warren County Fire Tower 4.5 mi. S of Warrenton on NC 58 S, Liberia 0000064 Warren County Training School East side of NC 1300, Wise 06000294 Warrenton Historic District U.S. 401, Warrenton 76001347 Watson, John, House (Burwell House) Petway Burwell Rd., 1/4 mi. W of NC 401, Warrenton 90001954 Williams Jr., Solomon and Kate, House (The Anchorage) Jct. of NC 58 and NC 1626, Inez 3000968 Warren County Historic Landmarks Table C‐4 Historic Landmark Location Building/District # Andrews‐‐Moore House 95 Simon Collie Rd., Bunn 98001506 Baker Farm (Perdue) SW of Bunn on SR 1720, Bunn 82001297 Bryson, Albert Swain, House Pine Lane, Franklin 84000541 Cascine S of Louisburg on SR 1702, Louisburg 73001342 Cascine (Boundary Increase) N side of NC 1702, Louisburg 85003114 Clifton House and Mill Site SR 1103, Royal 80002835 Cooke House SW of Louisburg near jct. of SR 1114 and SR 1109, Louisburg 75001265 Cowee‐‐West's Mill Historic District Address Restricted, Franklin 00001569 Davis, Archibald H., Plantation (Cypress Hall) SE of Louisburg off NC 581, Justice 750013266 Dean Farm 6 mi. E of Louisburg on NC 56, Louisburg 750013267 Franklin County Training School‐‐Riverside Union School 53 W. River Rd., Louisburg 11001011 Franklin Presbyterian Church 45 Church St., Franklin 86003718 Franklin Terrace Hotel 67 Harrison Ave., Franklin 82003483 Franklinton Depot 201 E. Mason St., Franklinton 90001941 Fuller House 307 N. Main St., Louisburg 78001954 Green Hill House S of Louisburg near jct. of SR 1760 and 1761, Louisburg 75001358 Harris, Dr. J. H., House 312 E. Mason St., Franklinton 75001360 Jeffreys, William A., House SE of Youngsville on SR 1101, Youngsville 76001323 Jones‐‐Wright House (Polly Wright House) NC 1003 W side, 0.2 mi. S of jct. with NC 1252, Rocky Ford 92000149 Kearney, Shemuel, House 1 mi. S of Franklinton on U.S. 1, Franklinton 75001361 Laurel Mill and Col. Jordan Jones House SW of Gupton at jct. of SR 1432 and 1436, Gupton 75001362 Locust Grove (Foster House) N of Louisburg on U.S. 401, Ingleside 75001269 Louisburg Historic District Roughly bounded by Allen Lane, Main and Cedar Sts., Franklin, Elm, and King St., Louisburg 87000041 Main Building, Louisburg College Louisburg College campus, Louisburg 78001955 Massenburg Plantation Address Restricted, Louisburg 75001270 Massenburg Plantation (Boundary Increase) 821 NC 561, Louisburg 0000025 Monreath S of Ingleside on NC 39, Ingleside 75001264 Nequasee Address Restricted, Franklin 80004598 Pendergrass Building 6 W. Main St., Franklin 91001469 Perry School 2266 Laurel Hill‐Centerville Rd., Centerville 10001110 Perry, Dr. Samuel, House E of Gupton on SR 1436, Gupton 75001263 Person Place 603 N. Main St., Louisburg 72000962 Person‐McGhee Farm US 1, Franklinton 79003343 Portridge SR 1224, 0.3 mi. N of jct. with NC 56, Louisburg 90000351 Rose Hill W side of US 401 S, Louisburg 06000339 Saint Agnes Church 27 Franklin St., Franklin 87000822 Savage, Dr. J. A., House (The Albion Academy) 124 College St., Franklinton 80002834 Siler, Jesse R., House 115 W. Main St., Franklin 82003484 Speed Farm W side NC 1436 between NC 1432 and NC 1434, Gupton 91001907 Sterling Cotton Mill (Franklinton Cotton Mill) SE jct. of Seabord RR tracks and E. Green St., Franklinton 96000568 Taylor, Archibald, House Address Restricted, Wood 75001273 Taylor, Patty Person, House Address Restricted, Louisburg 75001271 Vann, Aldridge H., House 115 N. Main St., Franklinton 07001373 Vine Hill Address Restricted, Centerville 75001259 Wheless, Thomas and Lois, House 106 John St., Louisburg 07000887 Williamson House 401 Cedar St., Louisburg 75001272 Franklin County Historic Landmarks Table C‐4 Historic Landmark Location Building/District # Abrams Plains NW of Stovall 79001711 Adoniram Masonic Lodge Jct. of NC 1410 and NC 1300, Cornwall 88001253 Allen‐‐Mangum House NC 1700, Grissom 88000410 Amis, Rufus, House and Mill Address Restricted, Virgilina 88000416 Blackwell, James, House NC 1411, Cornwall 88000407 Bobbitt‐‐Rogers House and Tobacco Manufactory District Address Restricted, Wilton 88001262 Brassfield Baptist Church NC 96 and NC 1700, Wilton 88001267 Brookland (added 1988 ‐ District NC 1443, Grassy Creek 88000412 Central Orphanage Antioch Dr. and Raleigh Rd., Oxford 88001257 Edgewood NC 1437, Grassy Creek 88000421 Ellixson, William, House Address Restricted, Wilbourns 88000404 Elmwood Address Restricted, Lewis 88000406 First National Bank Building 302 Main St., Creedmoor 88001254 Freeman, James W., House NC 1623, Wilton 88000411 Granville County Courthouse Main and Williamsboro Sts., Oxford 79001710 Harris‐‐Currin House Address Restricted, Wilton 88001258 Hart, Maurice, House (Rock‐a‐way) NC 1430, Stovall 88000420 Hill Airy S of Stovall, Stovall 74001349 Hunt, Joseph P., Farm NC 1514, Dexter 88001265 Lawrence, John P., Plantation NC 1700, Grissom 88001264 Littlejohn, Joseph B., House 219 Devin St., Oxford 88001268 Locust Lawn Address Restricted, Oxford 88000422 Mount Energy Historic District NC 1636 and NC 56, Mount Energy 88001266 Oak Lawn Address Restricted, Huntsboro 88000408 Oliver‐‐Morton Farm NC 1417, Oak Hill 88001269 Oxford Historic District (Granville County Courthouse)Roughly bounded by College, New College and Gilliam and Raliegh, Front, Broad and Goshen and Hayes Sts., Oxford 88000403 Paschall‐‐Daniel House Address Restricted, Oxford 88001263 Peace, John Mask, House (Bambro Plantation)NC 1613, approx. 0.5 mi. SE of jct. with NC 1615 at Peace's Chapel, Fairport 3000301 Peace, John, Jr., House NC 1627, Wilton 88000405 Puckett Family Farm NC 1333, Satterwhite 88000423 Red Hill NC 1501, Bullock 86001632 Rose Hill NC 1442, Grassy Creek 88000415 Royster, John Henry, Farm Address Restricted, Bullock 88001260 Royster, Marcus, Plantation NC 96, Wilbourns 88000409 Salem Methodist Church NC 1522, Huntsboro 88001259 Sherman, Elijah, Farm US 158, Berea 88001256 Smith, William G., House NC 1527, Bullock 88000417 Stovall, John W., Farm NC 1507, Stovall 88001270 Sycamore Valley NC 1400, Grassy Creek 88000419 Taylor, Archibald, Plantation House 5632 Tabbs Creek Rd., Oxford 1001132 Taylor, Col. Richard P., House NC 1524, Huntsboro 88000414 Thorndale 213 W. Thorndale Dr., Oxford 88000413 Tunstall, Eldon B., Farm NC 1500, Bullock 88001255 Wimbish, Lewis, Plantation NC 1443, Grassy Creek 88000418 Winston, Obediah, Farm NC 1638, Creedmoor 88001261 Granville County Historic Landmarks John H. Kerr Reservoir Recreation Opportunities Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Request Appendix D OASIS Modeling Technical Memorandum This page has been intentionally left blank. Diana Kees, Communications Director diana.kees@ncdenr.gov Phone: (919) 715-4112 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ncdenr 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 RSS feed: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/opa/news-releases- rss Twitter: http://twitter.com/NCDENR An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Dee Freeman, Secretary N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Release: Immediate Contact: Sarah M. Young Date: Jan. 20, 2011 Phone: (919) 715-4939 Public meeting rescheduled for Roanoke River Basin RALEIGH – An initial public meeting on state efforts to plan for future water use in the Roanoke River Basin, originally scheduled for Dec. 17, has been rescheduled for Jan. 26 in Reidsville. The meeting will be from 9:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. in the Advanced Technologies Building of Rockingham Community College, 560 County Home Road in Reidsville. The meeting will enable the N.C. Division of Water Resources to start gathering information about the water users in the Roanoke River Basin. The state agency is developing a water resources plan and a hydrologic model that can be used by planners, developers and county officials in the Roanoke River basin. The Roanoke River Basin spans parts of 19 counties on or near the Virginia border, including parts of Rockingham, Stokes and Caswell counties. The state Division of Water Resources is responsible for developing a water resources plan for each of the state’s major river basins. Each plan is based on 50-year water use projections and uses a detailed hydrologic model that tracks all surface water by quantifying withdrawals, the return of treated wastewater to the basin and the impact of reservoir operating rules. The development of a hydrologic model for the Roanoke River Basin is a key component of the final Roanoke River Basin Plan. State agencies use the hydrologic computer models to evaluate and make decisions about proposed water withdrawals, plan for increased water use due to growth and manage river basin water demands during a drought. State officials have completed models for the Cape Fear and Neuse river basins and are working on models for the Broad and Tar-Pamlico basins. The hydrologic models will enable local governments to evaluate options for expected water needs in the basin during the next 50 years. No prior registration is required for these meetings. People unable to attend can still watch the meeting by logging onto the live webcast of the meeting at https://DENR.ncgovconnect.com/DWRRoanoke. Please visit the website before the meeting to check for compatibility and then log in during the scheduled meeting times. When you join the meeting, type your name in the space labeled “guest.” Please call (919) 501-4273 to listen to the presentations. # # # Diana Kees, Communications Director diana.kees@ncdenr.gov Phone: (919) 715-4112 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ncdenr 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 RSS feed: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/opa/news-releases- rss Twitter: http://twitter.com/NCDENR An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Dee Freeman, Secretary N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Release: Immediate Contact: Sarah M. Young Date: Jan. 20, 2011 Phone: (919) 715-4939 Public meeting rescheduled for Roanoke River Basin RALEIGH – An initial public meeting on state efforts to plan for future water use in the Roanoke River Basin, originally scheduled for Dec. 17, has been rescheduled for Jan. 26 in Reidsville. The meeting will be from 9:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. in the Advanced Technologies Building of Rockingham Community College, 560 County Home Road in Reidsville. The meeting will enable the N.C. Division of Water Resources to start gathering information about the water users in the Roanoke River Basin. The state agency is developing a water resources plan and a hydrologic model that can be used by planners, developers and county officials in the Roanoke River basin. The Roanoke River Basin spans parts of 19 counties on or near the Virginia border, including parts of Rockingham, Stokes and Caswell counties. The state Division of Water Resources is responsible for developing a water resources plan for each of the state’s major river basins. Each plan is based on 50-year water use projections and uses a detailed hydrologic model that tracks all surface water by quantifying withdrawals, the return of treated wastewater to the basin and the impact of reservoir operating rules. The development of a hydrologic model for the Roanoke River Basin is a key component of the final Roanoke River Basin Plan. State agencies use the hydrologic computer models to evaluate and make decisions about proposed water withdrawals, plan for increased water use due to growth and manage river basin water demands during a drought. State officials have completed models for the Cape Fear and Neuse river basins and are working on models for the Broad and Tar-Pamlico basins. The hydrologic models will enable local governments to evaluate options for expected water needs in the basin during the next 50 years. No prior registration is required for these meetings. People unable to attend can still watch the meeting by logging onto the live webcast of the meeting at https://DENR.ncgovconnect.com/DWRRoanoke. Please visit the website before the meeting to check for compatibility and then log in during the scheduled meeting times. When you join the meeting, type your name in the space labeled “guest.” Please call (919) 501-4273 to listen to the presentations. # # # MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL A P P E N D I X D D R A F T T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M Modeling Evaluation of the Effects of the Kerr Lake Regional Water Supply Interbasin Transfer PREPARED FOR: Kerr Lake Regional Water System PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL DATE: January 10, 2011 Introduction The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) is in the process of requesting a certificate for an increase in interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Roanoke River. In order to meet the regulatory requirements of the North Carolina General Statute 143-215.22L related to surface water transfers, an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared and approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission (NC EMC). This technical memorandum (TM) is a resource document for the EIS and will be included as an Appendix to the EIS. The Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (RRBHM), developed by a contractor to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), was used to evaluate the potential impacts from the increased water withdrawal and IBT. The purpose of the modeling was to evaluate the effects of an increased surface water withdrawal from John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake) within the Roanoke River basin on key social, environmental, and economic indicators for the system. Evaluation of the IBT requires an analysis of potential water supply and demand under future conditions within a 50-year planning window. These demands are described in another Technical Memorandum (TM) entitled - Demand and Discharge Projections for the Roanoke River Basin (CH2M HILL, 2010), included as an attachment. The RRBHM shall be approved by the NC EMC. To date, this process is not complete. The modeling results, presented herein and used for the purposes of evaluating the potential for impacts to the Roanoke River basin resulting from the proposed IBT in an EIS, are considered preliminary at this time. Purpose of the TM The purpose of this document is to describe:  Key indicators used to measure social, environmental, and economic impacts for the basin  The RRBHM model used for the evaluation of these key parameters  Impacts of the proposed interbasin transfer on these key indicators MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-2 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL  Other conditions influencing these impacts such as potential variation due to climate change as well as management factors such as the water shortage response plans required in North Carolina for public water systems. This TM will provide information on the modeling and the results. The analysis and discussion of how the results characterize the impacts is contained in the EIS. Overview of the Proposed Transfer The KLRWS currently provides water directly or indirectly to municipal and county systems in four counties and three river basins in northeastern North Carolina (Figure D-1). The water withdrawal for the system is from Kerr Lake on the Roanoke River. The owners of the KLRWS and primary bulk customers served by the system are City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, known as the “Partners.” They also currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. These include Warrenton, Norlina, Kittrell, and Franklin County with future sales to Granville County and the Vance County Water System. Franklin County then also sells water to Bunn, Lake Royale, and Youngsville, and while also obtaining additional supply from Franklinton and Louisburg in the Tar River basin. Of these water users, only the City of Henderson returns treated wastewater effluent to the Roanoke River basin. The system currently produces on average 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water, and maximum day production approaches 8.5 mgd. Water demand projections for the KLRWS were prepared in 2004 to evaluate future demands. These projections supported expansion of the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to 20 mgd and the request for a reallocation of water supply storage in Kerr Lake, which was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the 2005 Reallocation Report (USACE, 2005). The 2005 reallocation report approved a request by the City of Henderson for a reallocation of 20 mgd from the usable conservation pool storage at Kerr Lake for water supply. This supply corresponds to approximately 10,292 acre-feet (AF), bringing the total water supply storage allocation to 21,115 AF for all Kerr Lake agreements. The KLRWS Partners recognize that an IBT certificate is required if this expansion in water treatment capacity is constructed because service areas and water sales occur outside the Roanoke River basin. The KLRWS currently has an IBT from the Roanoke River basin of approximately 5 mgd. KLRWS’s grandfathered IBT is 10 mgd is to the Tar River basin and Fishing Creek subbasin as defined by NC General Statutes governing IBT [NCGS 143- 215.22L] (NC General Assembly, 2009) and approved by the NCDWR. Future water supply planning shows a projected IBT of approximately 22.5 mgd by 2040 to the Tar River basin and 1.6 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin (EarthTech, 2008). The transfer to the Neuse River basin in Franklin County is currently below 0.3 mgd, and it is projected not to exceed 2.0 mgd by 2040 (CH2M HILL, 2010). This analysis supports the request for an increase in KLRWS’s IBT from the Roanoke River to the Tar River basin, Fishing Creek subbasin, and the Neuse River basin. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-3 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-1 Kerr Lake Regional Water System Partners and Customers MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Hydrological Modeling Analysis Hydrological Indicators An EIS typically addresses a broad range of impact categories. The NC Administrative Code and guidance from various Federal agencies specify 15 to 20 resource categories that are evaluated. Impacts to these categories are a mixture of social, economic and environmental considerations. These impacts are typically described as being direct, secondary and/or cumulative impacts. This TM focuses on key indicators related to impacts in the Roanoke River basin that will be used to describe impacts in the EIS. As part of the IBT EIS process and as required for the NC General Statues, a broad public notice of information on the transfer was distributed. A series of five public scoping meetings was also held to solicit input on issues to be evaluated in the EIS. Comments were requested specifically in regard to potential impacts of the transfer to be evaluated and alternatives to the transfer. This information is summarized in Section 1 of the EIS. For the purpose of the development of a hydrological model for the Roanoke River basin, the potential impacts and alternatives identified during scoping and in the public meetings are as follows:  Potential Impacts Identified  Reduced water for downstream fisheries and recreation  Inability of communities to obtain future water supply for growth  Reduced lake property values from lower lake water levels  Impacts to recreation and tourism due to decreased lake level  Precedent setting such that other communities can transfer water out of the basin  Potential Alternatives Identified  No growth  No water sales  Obtain water from other sources  Return of wastewater to the basin In addition, the NCGS 143-215.22L includes a number of criteria that need to be considered by the EMC in the source basin including the necessity and reasonableness of the amount of surface water to be transferred and the cumulative impact on the source river basin. The primary consideration is the determination of detrimental effects on the source river basin. The effects must be considered for the present and the reasonably foreseeable future and include impacts to public, industrial, economic, recreational, and agricultural water supply needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, electric power generation, navigation, and recreation. For the purposes of this analysis, a 50-year planning period is being used. A hydrological model for a river basin can be used to assess changes in hydrological features for current and future conditions based on a time series of hydrological inputs to the basin. Key features 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 MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-5 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL indicators can be used to evaluate impacts in the categories identified above or can be used with other tools or information to describe these impacts. Background on the RRBHM Kerr Lake is part of a hydrologically linked system of rivers and reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin (Attachment I). 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 through Kerr Lake. From Kerr Lake, it flows into Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake, and on through the coastal plain before emptying into the Albemarle Sound in eastern North Carolina. Only 36 percent of the basin is within North Carolina, with the remaining 64 percent located in Virginia. This system is modeled using the OASIS water resources program which combines graphical representations of components such as river sections, demands, and withdrawals with logical statements which describe their behavior. These statements, including operational rules, demands values, and elevation-storage relationships are evaluated within a linear programming environment to determine the state of each component within the system (Hydrologics, 2006). Water use information was originally compiled in 1989 for use in evaluating impacts to be considered with various Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing efforts in the Roanoke River basin. Additional efforts were undertaken for the North Carolina Striped Bass Management Board to compile information on consumptive use in the basin (NC DWR, 1991). This comprehensive effort is also the basis of the information used in the first OASIS model of the basin, developed in 1997 (NC DWR, 2010). The 1997 model was organized by reservoir and type of facility. The model includes Smith Mountain, Leesville, Philpott, Kerr, Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoirs. Hyco Lake and Mayo Lake were not modeled as discrete entities. However, the demands from the thermal power plants were included in the model. The facility types included Public Water Supply (PWS), Irrigation (IRR), Self-Supplied Industry (SSI), and Thermal Power (TP). Agriculture was not explicitly included in the model. Rather, agricultural use is implicitly included in the inflow time series that are used to drive the model. While extensive information was used as the basis of the original model, this information was aggregated so that demands and discharges were represented by a single node related to each reservoir. Figure D-2 shows a schematic of the original model. This structure provided limited spatial resolution. In addition, the water use numbers used in the original model were prior to wide spread reporting of water use, and in many cases were generalized estimates. NCDWR updated its 1997 OASIS model in conjunction with the developer of the OASIS software program (Hydrologics, Inc.) to evaluate flow and reservoir elevation impacts of various water supply withdrawals and discharges in the Roanoke River basin. The model includes withdrawals and discharges of at least 100,000 gallons per day (gpd, or 0.1 mgd). A schematic of the revised model is provided in Figure D-3, which shows each reservoir represented by a blue triangle, depicting it as an aggregation point. The red squares represent demands, and the yellow circles represent discharges. CH2M HILL obtained the OASIS model from NCDWR to evaluate the hydrologic impacts of the proposed IBT on water resources in the Roanoke River basin. This model was used to establish the baseline MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-6 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL scenario and a number of future scenarios within the 50-year planning window which could be used to evaluate potential changes in system reservoir levels, instream flow, and power generation as a result of the IBT. NCDWR and Hydrologics were in the process of updating the model as CH2M HILL was working with the Partners on early stages of the IBT Certificate process. CH2M HILL worked with NCDWR and Hydrologics to verify the accuracy of the draft model. In addition, CH2M HILL performed an independent review and provided recommendations to NCDWR on March 8, 2010. Hydrologics, under contract to NCDWR, modified the draft model to create the model used in this evaluation. The following section describes the information and process used to verify the RRBHM inputs. Model Use for Evaluating IBT A process to evaluate the potential changes in the key impact indicators of water levels (elevation), flows, and power generation that may occur as a result of the IBT was developed by CH2M HILL in collaboration with NCDWR. The approach for this process was based on NCDWR’s RRBHM, which uses the OASIS water resources optimization software. The analysis included development of an assessment strategy, estimation of future water use, revision of the RRBHM, and evaluation of differences under a number of future scenarios with and without the increased IBT. CH2M HILL met with NCDWR to discuss the strategy for evaluating the proposed increased IBT. The IBT analysis is based on the comparison of the key hydrological indicators under various future conditions to describe impacts for the EIS and assess the statutory criteria that must be considered by the EMC. Future conditions of importance that were identified in discussions with NC DWR and through input provided through the scoping meetings include:  Future North Carolina water demands  Future inflows based on changes in hydrology resulting from climate change  Increased IBT as a result of future requests for water supply storage and interbasin transfer The revised RRBHM did not include projections for future water use. It was therefore necessary to estimate demands and discharges in the basin to evaluate the changes in water resources under existing (2010), baseline (when grand-fathered IBT is projected to be reached (2015), 2030 (when the maximum day demand IBT is equivalent to the allocated storage), requested 30-year IBT (2040), and 50-year planning cycle (2060) timeframes. CH2M HILL collected information on existing and projected demands and returns for the entire Roanoke River basin. These demands and returns, including sources for all information, are summarized in a companion TM entitled Demand and Discharge Projections in Roanoke River Basin (CH2M HILL, 2010). MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-7 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-2 Schematic of Original (1989) Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model Entities and Relationships MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-8 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-3 Schematic Showing the Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model Entities and Relationships MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-9 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Data Sources Demand and discharge entities evaluated were based on a preliminary draft of the OASIS model and a number of additional sources. Table D-1 shows the sources of data for both current and future demand estimations. A more detailed description of these sources is provided in Attachment II. TABLE D-1 Data Sources For Current And Future Demands and Discharges Entity Type Model Classification State Current Demand/Discharge Data Source Future Demand/Discharge Data Source Municipalities/ Authorities Public Water Supply (PWS) NC NCDWR Local Water Supply Plans Local Water Supply Plans VA Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) Various websites US Census data VA State projections Agriculture Irrigation (IRR) NC Implicitly included Assume Constant VA Implicitly included Assume Constant Industry/Rock Quarries Self-supplied Industry (SSI) NC NCDWR Registered Withdrawals Assume Constant VA VADEQ Various websites Assume Constant Power Plants Thermal Power plants (TP) NC NCDWR Assume Constant VA VADEQ Assume Constant Current and Future Demands and Discharges Demand summary information was calculated based on the total demands by class and the average flow measured below the Roanoke Rapids Dam from 1953 – 2009 at United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage 02080500. Only data recorded since the beginning of 1953 were considered relevant, because construction of the reservoirs in the system has changed flow patterns. Agricultural demands were included for comparison and were determined based on the estimates used in the original RRBHM (NCDWR, 1989). A “Remaining” category was computed by subtracting the demands from the average flow at the USGS gage. This flow category is probably understated, since a significant amount of the withdrawals are actually returned to the basin. However, the Remaining category is useful for putting the magnitude of the withdrawals into perspective. Summaries of the basinwide demands as compared to the remaining basin flows are presented in Table D-2 and Figures D-4 and B-5. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-10 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE D-2 Comparison of Predicted Demands (mgd) Category 2010 (Baseline) 2030 2040 2060 Public Water Supply 110.9 127.5 134.2 157.7 Additional Interbasin Transfer1 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Industrial 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 Thermal Power 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 Agriculture 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 Remaining Surface Water2 4,863.1 4,841.50 4,834.8 4,811.3 1IBT beyond the current IBT (2010) or grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd (after ~2015) 2 As measured at USGS gage 02080500 below Roanoke Rapids Dam. FIGURE D-4 Comparison of Water Demands and Remaining Basin Flow for 2010 Public Water Supply 2.18% Interbasin Transfer 0.10% Industrial 0.75%Thermal Power 0.70% Agriculture 0.65% Remaining Surface Water 95.62% Public Water Supply Interbasin Transfer Industrial Thermal Power Agriculture Remaining Surface Water MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-11 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-5 Comparison of Water Demands and Remaining Basin Flow for 2040 As Figures D-4 and B-5 show, the totaled water demands in the basin are approximately 4 percent in 2010 and approximately 5 percent in 2040. The KLRWS, including the grandfathered IBT, accounted for only approximately 0.1 percent of the average flow in the system in 2010. By 2040, the total KLRWS portion would be approximately 0.5 percent. Model Review As described above, the original model was revised based on more current demand and discharge information. Hydrologics incorporated these changes into a revised model and performed a model calibration effort. The model results were reviewed using 2007 demands and discharges. A comparison of discharges for the last decade is provided in Figure D-6. Public Water Supply 2.64% Interbasin Transfer 0.20% Industrial 0.75%Thermal Power 0.70% Agriculture 0.65% Remaining Surface Water 95.06% Public Water Supply Interbasin Transfer Industrial Thermal Power Agriculture Remaining Surface Water MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-12 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-6 Evaluation of Model Calibration In general, the model accurately replicates the measured flow. The system is very dynamic and Kerr Lake level is allowed to vary more than the lower reservoirs. For this reason, the actual discharges often do not follow the guide curves, as shown in Figure D-7. In many cases, the model forces discharges to match the guide curves more closely than is actually occurring, causing a discrepancy between the measured flow and the modeled flow. The following is an excerpt (Whisnant et al., 2009) describing the operation of Kerr, Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoirs. Reservoir elevation at Kerr Dam is increased during spring and early summer months relative to the rest of the year; this is to provide for spring anadromous fish spawning downstream and less average inflow during the summer. Striped bass in particular require high water conditions during the spring to move up the river to spawning grounds. The elevated guide curve in late spring provides for the larger-than-usual minimum releases required out of downstream Roanoke Rapids Dam to achieve such conditions. During the winter and early spring, the guide curve shows lower storage values at Kerr Reservoir in order to provide flood control capacity for high spring flows (Kerr Dam Water Control Plan, 1995). In general, Gaston Dam is operated as “run-of-Kerr,” i.e. the timing and amount of releases made from Gaston Dam generally mirror those made from the Kerr Dam upstream. Dominion is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to maintain lake elevation fluctuation at Lake Gaston to within approximately 1 foot at all times except during flood events and spawning season, when the limits are 4 feet and 2 feet, respectively. Roanoke Rapids Dam is not operated as „run-of-Kerr,‟ i.e. the storage and subsequent re-release of water released upstream from Kerr Dam and Gaston Dam is commonplace at Roanoke Rapids Dam. Dominion is obligated to maintain lake fluctuation at Roanoke Rapids within approximately 5 ft. at all times. With a wider operational lake elevation band and the ability to 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 1/1/2000 1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 Flo w ( c f s ) Kerr Lake Stage Calibration Observed Kerr Lake Baseline Guide Curve MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-13 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL re-regulate Kerr Dam releases, Dominion has some flexibility in operating Roanoke Rapids Dam to optimize hydropower generation. FIGURE D-7 Comparison of Kerr Lake Measured Discharge and Guide Curve Source: Whisnant et al., 2009 Future Projections Projections to 2060 were made for PWS components using relationships to known demands and population projections through 2050. Irrigation, industrial, and power plant demands and discharges were assumed to be constant throughout the study period, which extends to 2060. See the TM entitled Demand and Discharge Projections in Roanoke River Basin (CH2MHILL, 2010) in Attachment II for more information. Model Structure Once the entities were identified and demand and discharge numbers were established, CH2M HILL worked with the NCDWR and Hydrologics to identify entities which were spatially related using the model structure presented in Figure D-3. For example, the withdrawal and discharge for the Town of Eden, NC are associated with a single node. These associated entities were used by Hydrologics to specify the final model structure. The revised model greatly increases the spatial resolution of the model. As part of the update, Hydrologics also extended the simulation period to include the timeframe from MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-14 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL January 1930 through December 2009. This period covers a wide range of hydrologic conditions, including the severe droughts in the early 1930s, early 1950s, late 1960s, and the recent droughts in the last decade. Demands and discharges are specified in the model, typically as monthly values. The model can predict instream flow and reservoir storage for each component of the model structure on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Hydrological analyses were run on a daily basis for the IBT analysis. In addition to tracking flow and storage, the model estimates the power generated by the hydropower facilities in the Roanoke River system, including Smith Mountain, Kerr, Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoirs. Based on guidance from Hydrologics, power generation results were evaluated on a weekly basis. Analysis of Potential IBT Influences on Key Indicators The revised model was used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed increased IBT under future conditions. The primary scenarios that were evaluated were for demands in 2030, 2040, and 2060. The 2030 timeframe coincides with when the allocation from the lake is projected to be required on a maximum daily demand basis. The 2040 timeframe coincides approximately with the time when the proposed IBT, on an average daily demand basis, is exhausted. The 2060 timeframe meets the NCDWR’s requirement for a 50-year planning period. A number of primary scenarios were developed: a baseline (2010), a run focused on exhaustion of the grandfathered IBT, and a baseline and IBT run for 2030, 2040, and 2060 demands. The baseline runs simulate the water balances in the Roanoke River based on the withdrawals and discharges described in the TM entitled Demand and Discharge Projections in Roanoke River Basin (CH2MHILL, 2010) for 2030, 2040, and 2060. These runs include the grandfathered IBT but do not include the proposed IBT. The IBT runs are identical with the exception that an additional demand, based on the timeframe, is added to the KLRWS withdrawal for each of the future scenarios. A significant fraction is returned to the basin as wastewater discharge, with the remainder being removed from the system. Additional scenarios were developed to test the sensitivity of the system to Water Supply Response Plans (WSRP) and global climate change (GCC). These are described following the comparison of the primary scenarios. A summary of the scenarios is provided in Table D-3. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-15 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE D-3 Summary of OASIS Scenario Components Scenario Component 2010 (baseline) 2030 2030 IBT 2040 2040 IBT 2060 2060 IBT3 GCC positive3 GCC negative3 WSRP3 Grandfathered IBT Y1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Additional IBT N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Climate change impacts N N N N N N N Y Y N Water Shortage Response Plans N N N N N N N N N Y Scenario Basis 2010 2030 2030 2040 2040 2060 2060 2060 2060 2060 Modeled IBT Amount (mgd)2 5.0 10.0 15.8 10.0 20.1 10 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 KLRWS Average Day Demand, non- IBT (mgd) 2.9 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.5 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 Total Basin Average Day Demand (mgd) 222.9 234.5 244.5 241.2 251.2 264.7 274.7 274.7 274.7 274.74 1 KLRWS is currently using a portion of its grandfathered IBT. This existing condition is used as the baseline. Full use of grandfathered IBT (maximum day) is not expected until approximately 2015. 2 IBT amounts are modeled as average daily demand for long range water supply planning. 3 The proposed IBT Certificate amount is likely to be reached prior to 2060. It is assumed that KLRWS will continue to have increasing demands in-basin demands but the IBT would be managed not to exceed the IBT Certificate currently being requested. 4 The WSRP is in effect only during drought period. The impact of the WSRP on Total Basin Average Daily demand was not calculated. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-16 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Each scenario was run using the RRBHM, and then the baseline and IBT scenario results were compared for each timeframe. For many of these scenarios – two baselines are shown; baseline based on 2010 water use and the baseline for the year the scenario IBT is projected to be met. The model was run on a daily timestep using the “Guide Curve” release rules as the guidelines for operation of the reservoirs since this set of rules includes the drought protocols. Procedures used in the modeling analyses included the “Virginia Beach Accounting” “Spawning Releases”, and “Betterment Policy”. Numerical and graphical methods were used to evaluate the differences which might occur as a result of the IBT. The following metrics were evaluated:  Reservoir level (elevation) at each of the six reservoirs in the system  Discharge below each of the six reservoirs in the system (instream flow)  Power generation at each of the hydropower reservoirs These indicators were evaluated by running the scenarios and doing a direct day to day comparison of reservoir elevation and discharge for each scenario group, e.g., 2010 baseline vs. 2030 baseline vs. 2030 IBT. The results are tabulated for each scenario group and timeseries plots are provided in a few instances to further illustrate the similarities or differences that were calculated. Detailed results for each scenario are included in the attachments to this TM and generally include the following results:  Lake elevation o Comparison of baselines scenarios – 2010, 2030, 2040 and 2060 o Comparison of 2030 baseline and 2030 IBT o Comparison of 2040 baseline and 2040 IBT o Comparison of 2060 baseline and 2060 IBT  Entire simulation  2000s droughts  Elevation duration  Blow up of elevation duration  Lake Outflow (same)  Power Generation (same) The following is a brief discussion of model results. Analyses specific to different environmental resources are included in the EIS. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-17 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Reservoir Elevation The results for the 2030, 2040, and 2060 baseline and IBT scenarios were compared to evaluate if changes would occur to reservoir elevations. Long term results were compared to determine whether there was an impact to reservoir level. Elevations during drought periods, discussed in more detail below, were also evaluated. A summary of the average reservoir elevations and differences for the long-term and recent drought periods is provided in Table D-4. The differences for each reservoir are calculated by subtracting the daily elevation predicted under the IBT scenario from the baseline scenario for the water use projected for that same year. The average difference is determined by taking the average of the daily differences. A negative difference indicates that the IBT scenario has a higher elevation, and a positive difference indicates that the baseline has a higher value. The average difference in elevation for the reservoirs was zero for the 2030, 2040, and 2060 scenarios. 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 specifies for each reservoir. This operational mode tends to maintain the reservoir level by regulating releases. For this reason, average lake elevation is usually the exact same. In the case of the 2002 drought, Kerr Lake did show a slight difference in elevation of 0.1 feet. Because of the drought, the elevation falls below the guide curve and the discharge is maintained at the same for the IBT and non-IBT. This results in a slightly lower elevation in the IBT scenario. For the 2007 drought, the elevation is occasionally above the guide curve and the impact is to discharge instead of elevation. Graphical comparisons of reservoir elevations were created to allow for evaluation of changes that may result from the IBT. As noted above, no difference in average elevation is seen between the baseline and IBT scenarios. A long-term comparison of 2040 reservoir elevations for Smith Mountain, the most upstream reservoir, is provided in Figure D-8. Figure D-9 provides the long-term comparison of elevation for Kerr Lake for both scenarios. At this scale, no difference is seen, though slight positive and negative short-term differences do occur. Figure D-10 provides a comparison of the simulated 2040 reservoir elevations during the extreme drought period seen in the 2000-2009 period. A review of the plots and data show that the reservoir level is drawn down below 292 feet in the baseline and IBT scenarios for the same period of time, 80 days. The duration of the drawdown is the same with the elevation in IBT scenario being slightly lower (< 6 inches) than the baseline scenario. A comparison of the 2040 reservoir elevations for Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir is provided in Figure D-11 and Figure D-12. A duration plot of Kerr Lake reservoir elevation for the 2040 baseline and IBT scenarios is provided in Figure D-13. This plot shows the percent of time that the reservoir level falls below a certain level. Figure D-13 shows that difference in frequency that IBT scenario is lower than the baseline scenario is minimal. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-18 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE D-4 Evaluation of Changes in Reservoir Elevation for Baseline and Proposed IBT Scenarios Scenario Comparison Results Smith Mountain Leesville Philpott Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids 2030 Average Baseline Elevation (feet) 794.6 600.0 972.5 299.8 200.0 132.0 Average Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 791.2 600.0 972.7 291.8 200.0 132.0 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 792.9 600.0 971.7 296.1 200.0 132.0 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2040 Average Baseline Elevation (feet) 794.6 600.0 972.5 299.8 200.0 132.0 Average Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 791.3 600.0 972.7 291.8 200.0 132.0 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 793.0 600.0 971.7 296.1 200.0 132.0 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2060 Average Baseline Elevation (feet) 794.6 600.0 972.5 299.8 200.0 132.0 Average Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 791.3 600.0 972.7 291.9 200.0 132.0 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 793.0 600.0 971.7 296.1 200.0 132.0 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2002 Exceptional Drought Period - 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002 2007 Exceptional Drought Period - 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008 MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-19 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-8 Long-term Comparison of Smith Mountain Lake Elevation for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-20 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-9 Long-term Comparison of Kerr Lake Elevation for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-21 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 7 FIGURE D-10 Comparison of Differences in Kerr Lake Elevation during the Recent Droughts for the 2040 Scenario MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-22 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-11 Comparison of Lake Gaston Elevation for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-23 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-12 Comparison of Roanoke Rapids Reservoir Elevation for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-24 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-13 Complete Elevation-Duration Curve for 2040 Kerr Lake Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-25 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Discharges (Instream Flow) A comparison of discharges under the baseline and IBT scenarios was also performed for the 2030, 2040, and 2060 demand conditions. No difference is seen in the average discharge, or reservoir release, from the upstream Smith Mountain, Leesville, and Philpott Reservoirs. This indicates that the proposed IBT would not require upstream releases to maintain the elevation of the lower reservoirs, even during periods of drought. As shown in Table D-5, the average discharge from Kerr Lake under the 2030 IBT scenario is approximately 8.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) lower than under the baseline scenario. This suggests that the model generally “chooses” to maintain lake level versus maintaining the same discharge rate for the two scenarios. A difference of 8.8 cfs is approximately 0.1 percent of the average discharge from Kerr Lake. This increases to approximately 0.2 percent for the 2060 scenario. A comparison of the 2040 reservoir release results for Kerr Lake is provided in Figure D-14. A similar difference in reservoir release is seen in Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir, since the flow from these reservoirs is directly related to the release from Kerr Lake. The 2002 drought period shows no difference in discharge for any of the reservoirs for the 2030, 2040, or 2060 scenarios. As noted previously, the reservoir elevation for Kerr Lake falls below the guide curve during the drought and the reservoir is operated to maintain flow by regulating discharge. The 2007 drought shows a decrease in discharge ranging from 15.9 cfs (0.5 percent of drought flow) to 32.4 cfs (0.9 percent of drought flow). Figure 17 shows the discharge rate from Kerr Lake for the 2040 baseline and IBT scenarios. A flow duration curve for Kerr Lake was generated to evaluate the percentage of time that a given flow is met or exceeded. This is helpful in directly comparing changes in flow regimes. The complete flow duration curve for the current flows, 2030 baseline, and IBT scenarios is provided in Figure D-15 and an expanded curve examining the lowest 5 percent of the curve is shown in Figure D-16. Little difference is seen between the baseline and IBT scenarios. The model includes code designed to replicate the operating rules supporting the striped bass fishery below Roanoke Rapids. Minimum discharges of 5,550 cfs are required for the period between April 1 and June 15, with a brief increase to 8,350 cfs for the period from April 26 through May 4. The change in reservoir elevation related to this drawdown period can be seen in the guide curve shown in Figure D-10. The striped bass fishery requirements are met in the model in both the baseline and IBT runs. This results in a small drawdown in the IBT scenario, but since the period is brief and the withdrawal is small compared to the average discharge, no discernible difference is seen in the elevation comparisons. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-26 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE D-5 Evaluation of Changes in Reservoir Discharge for Baseline and Proposed IBT Scenarios Scenario Comparison Results Smith Mountain Leesville Philpott Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids 2030 Average Baseline Discharge (cfs) 1,729.2 1,412.0 241.1 7,459.6 7,979.8 7,687.8 Average Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.8 8.8 Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 795.8 472.3 22.1 1,817.9 2,020.4 1,692.6 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 988.9 669.9 124.6 3,334.1 3,677.9 3,369.3 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 16.0 16.0 2040 Average Baseline Discharge (feet) 1,730.8 1,413.6 241.1 7,460.1 7,979.5 7,687.6 Average Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 795.8 472.3 22.1 1,818.6 2,020.4 1,692.6 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 988.9 669.9 124.6 3,331.5 3,674.7 3,366.1 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 28.4 28.4 2060 Average Baseline Discharge (feet) 1,733.9 1,416.8 241.1 7,464.4 7,981.1 7,699.7 Average Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 17.8 17.8 Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 795.8 472.3 22.1 1,809.6 2,008.8 1,692.8 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 988.9 669.9 124.6 3,341.0 3,681.5 3,382.5 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 32.4 32.3 2002 Exceptional Drought Period - 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002 2007 Exceptional Drought Period - 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008 MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-27 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-14 Long-term Comparison of Kerr Lake Releases for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-28 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-15 Flow Duration Curve for Kerr Lake Discharge for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-29 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-16 Flow Duration Curve (Low Flow Area) for Kerr Lake Discharge for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-30 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-17 Kerr Lake Discharge During Recent Drought Period for 2040 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-31 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Power Generation As noted above, releases from the three upstream reservoirs are the same between scenarios. For this reason, power generation is also equal. No impacts or changes to power generation would occur in the upstream reservoirs as a result of the increased IBT. The differences in generation for the three lower reservoirs are provided in Table D-6. Results for the upper reservoirs are not currently generated by the RRBHM. An average daily change of 4.9 megawatt-hours (MWh) is seen in power generation from Kerr Lake (approximately 1,600 MWh annually). To put this in perspective, the total annual generation from the Kerr Lake Hydropower station is 426,749 MWh (Whisnant et al., 2007). Thus the decrease in discharge results in a small decrease in power generation, equivalent to approximately 0.5 percent of the average generation. Based on the 2005 USACE allocation report, the value of a MWh over the life of the project is $33.51. This equates to a daily loss in revenue of less than $164.20 at each generation facility and an annual loss in revenue of $59,932 at each facility. A comparison of the 2040 power generation differences during the last decade is provided in Figure D-18. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-32 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE D-6 Evaluation of Changes in Power Generation for Baseline and Proposed IBT Scenarios Scenario Comparison Results Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids 2030 Average Baseline Power (MWe) 1,000.3 789.4 846.3 Average Difference 4.9 3.4 2.2 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 533.1 434.6 410.9 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 52.1 43.8 41.3 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 450.4 381.5 377.2 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 0.9 0.6 0.6 2040 Average Baseline Power (MWe) 997.6 787.3 846.5 Average Difference -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 488.2 393.2 374.1 Average Difference during 2002 Drought -2.8 -0.1 -1.9 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 448.9 382.2 377.1 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 1.4 1.0 1.1 2060 Average Baseline Power (MWe) 993.0 783.8 845.9 Average Difference 4.4 3.2 2.8 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 496.8 392.9 386.1 Average Difference during 2002 Drought -0.2 0.0 -0.9 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 515.9 431.8 432.5 Average Difference during 2007 Drought 68.6 51.3 55.8 2002 Exceptional Drought Period - 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002 2007 Exceptional Drought Period - 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008 MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-33 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-18 Example Differences in Kerr Lake Power Generation for 2030 Scenarios MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-34 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Drought Conditions In the last ten years, North Carolina experienced two of the most extreme droughts on record. These droughts occurred from approximately August 2001 through March 2003 and March 2007 through November 2009 (See Figure D-19). Both droughts included periods of exceptional drought, the most extreme drought classification. While the 2007-2009 drought had a slightly longer duration, a review of the model output indicates that the 2001 – 2003 drought resulted in the lowest overall lake level during the recent drought period (See Figure D-10). The model results for the 2060 baseline and IBT runs were reviewed over the period of exceptional drought for the 2001 through 2003 drought. Figure D-20 illustrates that a difference of less than half of one foot occurs during this extreme drought. The duration of the draw down is not changed as a result of the IBT withdrawal. The releases from Kerr Lake were also reviewed for this period to determine whether the releases were scaled back to maintain the lake level. Figure D-21 shows that releases were reduced equally for both scenarios during the exceptional drought period. A final check was performed on the elevation discharge from Smith Mountain Lake to verify that the model was not causing increased releases from upstream dams to maintain the level of Kerr Lake. The results of the elevation and discharge comparison for the extreme drought period in 2060 are provided in Figure D-22 and Figure D-23. Water Shortage Response Plans Each municipality is required to have a Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) to guide conservation of water during dry to extreme drought conditions. These plans typically assign a suggested reduction in demand based on a set of triggers such as streamflow or reservoir level. The plans for the municipalities in NC were reviewed to determine the reductions and triggers specified by each. Many of the entities used site specific triggers such as the distance from the source waters level and the intake to determine whether a drought was occurring. This type of information is not tracked in the OASIS model. The KLRWS uses Kerr Lake water level as a trigger which is tracked in the model and can be used to evaluate the impacts of the implementation of WSRPs. The KLRWS triggers and reductions are provided in Table D-13. TABLE D-13 Kerr Lake Regional Water Supply Water Shortage Response Summary Drought Level Demand Reduction Trigger 0 0% Kerr Lake water level above 292’ 1 5% Kerr Lake water level nears 292’ 2 10% Kerr Lake water level nears 290’ 3 40% Kerr Lake water level nears 285’ 4 50% Kerr Lake water level at or below 280’ MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-35 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL The triggers specified in the KLRWS plan were used as an overall trigger for all water supplies in the basin to test the sensitivity of supply to these rules. The reservoir elevation is readily tracked in the model and can be considered an indicator of supply across the basin. The majority of the entities follow a less stringent demand reduction for levels 3 and 4. Therefore, using the KLRWS trigger for the entire system is somewhat more conservative than using the individual plans. A comparison of the 2060 baseline, 2060 IBT, and 2060 with the WSRP rules is provided in Figure D-24. The application of the WSRPs results in a small, upwards shift (<2 inches) in elevation resulting in the conservation of approximately 8,000 – 10,000 ac-ft of water. Global Climate Change Changes in global climate conditions can potentially impact water supply if atmospheric temperatures increase and rainfall patterns change. This topic is being studied by numerous international agencies with many having projections of changes to precipitation and temperature. Predictions for potential changes in precipitation and temperature for the Roanoke River basin were generated using an “ensemble” of model results. This approach has been used in numerous studies to present the range of conditions that the different models predict. In addition to the range of models which exist, different “emission” scenarios are run using the models. These quantify factors such as expect change in greenhouse gas releases, future energy sources, and conservation. The ensemble of models was run for the A1B scenario, a moderate emission scenario that neither predicts a continuation of current emission increases nor a widespread adoption of alternative energy sources. Results for predicted changes in precipitation for the Kerr Lake area are presented in Figure D-25. The results show that precipitation in the next 90 years is expected to increase by 53 mm/yr to 147 mm/yr with a mean increase of 93 mm/yr. For the 50 year study period through 2060, precipitation increases are expected to range from 35 to 100 mm/yr with a mean increase of 61 mm/yr. If the mean result is used as the most likely outcome, these predictions suggest that long- term water supplies may increase by approximately five percent. However, temperatures are also expected to increase as shown in Figure D-26. The Climate Change Impacts in the United States (Karl et. al., 2009) suggests that in general meteorology will become more extreme with more intense rainfall periods and more extreme drought periods. Based on the model results and the conclusions from the climate change report, a set of sensitivities runs were performed to determine the impacts on water supply in the Roanoke River basin. The total inflow to the system was adjusted to a +10 percent level and a – 10 percent level. Results are shown in Figure D-27 and Figure D-28. The potential impacts due to climate change are considerably larger than the changes which may result from the IBT. Obviously, much uncertainty is associated with predictions of impacts due to climate change. The results of the analysis do show that while lake level estimates are sensitive to climate factors, the net difference in water level during the 50-year planning period is less than two feet in the negative direction and four feet in the positive direction. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-36 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Source: Division of Water Resources Drought Monitoring Program FIGURE D-19 Drought Level for the Roanoke River Basin Drought Level Exceptional Drought Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Abnormally Dry Normal Trend MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-37 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-20 Kerr Lake Elevation during 2002 Exceptional Drought Period (2060 Scenario) MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-38 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-21 Kerr Lake Releases during 2002 Exceptional Drought Period (2060 Scenario) MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-39 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-22 Evaluation of Upstream Reservoir (Smith Mountain Lake) Elevation during Exceptional Drought MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-40 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-23 Evaluation of Upstream Reservoir (Smith Mountain Lake) Discharge during Exceptional Drought MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-41 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-24 Kerr Lake Elevation during 2002 Exceptional Drought Period (2060 Scenario) including WSRPs MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-42 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-25 Predicted Change in Precipitation for Henderson, NC. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-43 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-26 Predicted Change in Temperature for Henderson, NC. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-44 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-27 Comparison of 2060 Baseline, 2060 IBT, and Climate Change Runs for 2000 - 2009 MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-45 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE D-28 Comparison of 2060 Baseline, 2060 IBT, and Climate Change Runs during 2002 Exceptional Drought Period MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER D-46 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Summary and Conclusions The RRBHM was used to evaluate the hydrologic impacts of the proposed IBT on water resources in the Roanoke River basin. This model was used to establish the baseline scenario and a number of future scenarios which could be used to evaluate potential changes in system reservoir levels, instream flow, and power generation as a result of the IBT. Changes to elevation levels for all reservoirs in the system were minimal for all scenarios. Similarly, the change in reservoir releases was less than 0.5 percent under all scenarios. Changes in power generation were also minimal. The requested increase in IBT and withdrawal by the KLRWS is very small compared to the average releases for Kerr Lake. It is for this reason that an increased transfer of water out of the Roanoke River basin as part of the IBT would be expected to have a negligible social, environmental, and economic impacts to stakeholders in the basin. References CH2M HILL. 2010. Demand and Discharge Projections in Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC. EarthTech. 2008. KLRWS IBT Projections. Hydrologics. 2006. User Manual for OASIS with OCL. Raleigh, NC. NC DWR. 1991. Roanoke River Basin Water Use Investigation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. NC DWR. 2010. Roanoke River Basin Model webpage. http://www.ncwater.org/basins/Roanoke/. Accessed on June 8, 2010. NC General Assembly. 2009. § 143-215.22L. Regulation of surface water transfers. Raleigh, NC. SimCLIM. 2010. SimCLIM Online Documentation. http://www.simclim.com/docs/. Accessed August 5, 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. Whisnant, R.B., G.W. Characklis, M.W. Doyle, V.B. Flatt, and J.D Kern. 2009. Operating Policies and Administrative Discretion at The John H. Kerr Project. Chapel Hill, NC. MODELING EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY INTERBASIN TRANSFER PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT I Roanoke River Basin Map PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY RESULTS – MODEL AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT II Demand and Discharge Projections in Roanoke River Basin 1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT II TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (Draft) Demand and Discharge Projections for the Roanoke River Basin PREPARED FOR: North Carolina Division of Water Resources PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL on behalf of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System DATE: June 16, 2010 Introduction The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) is in the process of requesting a certificate for an interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Roanoke River. The Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (RRBHM), developed by a contractor to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), was used to evaluate the potential impacts from the IBT as described in the Technical Memorandum (TM) entitled Evaluation of Roanoke River Basin Water Supply in Relation to a Kerr Lake Regional Water Supply Interbasin Transfer (CH2M HILL, 2010). The purpose of the modeling effort was to determine the effects of the proposed IBT withdrawal from the John H Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake), within the Roanoke River Basin, on system reservoir levels, instream flow and power generation. This effort involved collecting data for a large geographical area, depicted in Figure 1, including two states with different reporting requirements. North Carolina demand projections were based on Local Water Supply Plans provided by NCDWR. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) provided historic demand data which was correlated to US Census population projections to develop demand projections. Evaluation of the proposed IBT required a forecast of potential water supply and demand under future conditions within a 50-year planning period. This TM describes the process used to forecast withdrawals and discharges through the year 2060. Background KLRWS currently provides water directly or indirectly to municipal and county systems in four counties and four river basins [as defined in N.C.G.S. 143-22G(1)] in northeastern North Carolina. The water supply for the system is Kerr Lake, an impoundment of the Roanoke River. The owners of 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” They also currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. These include current sales to the towns of Warrenton, Norlina, and Kittrell, and Franklin County, with future sales to Granville County, Vance County Water System, and the Triangle North Business Parks. Franklin County then also sells water to the towns of Bunn, Lake Royal, and Youngsville. DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN \ 2 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL The system currently produces on average 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water. Maximum day production approaches 8.5 mgd. KLRWS currently has a maximum day IBT from the Roanoke River Basin of approximately 5 mgd, which is less than their grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd (letter dated April 22, 1998). The projected IBT by 2040 is approximately 22.5 mgd to the Tar River Basin and 1.6 mgd to the Fishing Creek Subbasin. The transfer to the Neuse River Basin is currently below 0.3 mgd, and is projected not to exceed 2.0 mgd by 2040. Approach Kerr Lake is part of a hydrologically linked system of rivers and reservoirs in the Roanoke River Basin (see Figure 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 through Kerr Lake. From Kerr Lake, it flows into Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake, and on through the coastal plain before emptying into the Albemarle Sound in eastern North Carolina. Only 36 percent of the basin is within North Carolina, with the remaining 64 percent located in Virginia. NCDWR has developed an OASIS model, in conjunction with the developer of the software (Hydrologics), to evaluate river flow and reservoir elevation impacts of various water supply withdrawals and discharges in the Roanoke River Basin. The model includes all withdrawals and discharges of at least 100,000 gallons per day (0.1 mgd). A schematic of the model is provided in Figure 2. CH2M HILL obtained the OASIS model from NCDWR to evaluate the hydrologic impacts of the proposed IBT on water resources in the Roanoke River Basin. This model was used to establish the baseline scenario and a number of future scenarios which could be used to evaluate potential changes in system reservoir levels, instream flow, and power generation as a result of the IBT. Future Demand Scenarios Water demand and wastewater discharge estimates for the years 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060 were compiled or projected based on available data. The baseline model includes all withdrawals and discharges of at least 100,000 gallons per day under current conditions. Demand and discharge projections for these entities were developed for each of the 10-year increments. A more detailed description of the model structure and entities included in the model are provided in the TM referenced above (CH2M HILL, 2010). The baseline run was used as the structure for the future scenarios. The only changes to the runs from the baseline condition are the projected demands and discharges, as described in the following sections. Data Sources The determination of entities to be evaluated was based on a preliminary draft of the model, data provided by NCDWR and VADEQ, and additional research. Table 1 shows the sources of data for both current and future demand and discharge estimates. A more detailed description of these sources is provided in Appendix A. Public water supply information for North Carolina was derived primarily from Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). These documents provided water demand projections DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN \ 3 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL through 2050 for North Carolina PWSs. When available, Draft 2008 LWSPs were used. Although these are considered draft documents at present, they do provide a current estimate of water use and the most recent demand projections. Fortunately, all the significant municipalities in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin have submitted 2008 LWSPs to the State. Baseline municipal demands and discharges for Virginia were derived from a spreadsheet provided by VADEQ describing historical demands and discharges. DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE 1 Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Features DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN \ 5 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE 2 Schematic Showing the Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model Entities and Relationships DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 6 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE 1 Data Sources for Current and Future Demand and Discharge Estimations Entity Type Model Classification State Current Demand/Discharge Data Source Future Demand/Discharge Data Source Municipalities/ Authorities Public Water Supply (PWS) NC NCDWR Local Water Supply Plans Local Water Supply Plans VA VADEQ Various websites US Census data VA State projections Agriculture Irrigation (IRR) NC Implicitly included Assume Constant VA Implicitly included Assume Constant Industry/Rock Quarries Self-supplied Industry (SSI) NC NCDWR Registered Withdrawals Assume Constant VA VADEQ Various websites Assume Constant Power Plants Thermal Power Plants (TP) NC NCDWR Assume Constant VA VADEQ Assume Constant As noted in Table 1, water uses by agricultural entities are implicitly included in the model. During model development, Hydrologics quantified the demands and withdrawals above each calibration point and adjusted the model nonpoint source inflows to account for net losses in the basin. These included agricultural irrigation, evapotranspiration, and irrigation returns. For the future scenarios, the current relationships were assumed to also apply. Industrial demands and discharges for North Carolina were compiled from water withdrawal information provided by NCDWR. Baseline industrial demands and discharges for Virginia were derived from a spreadsheet provided by VADEQ describing historical demands and discharges. The North Carolina and Virginia demands and discharges were compared with corresponding demands and discharges in the original model to verify the completeness of the list of entities. Future Projections One aspect of the IBT evaluation was to evaluate changes in water resources in the Roanoke River Basin with respect to future demands. This section describes the methods used to quantify the projected municipal demands and discharges for the future scenarios. The methodologies used were adapted to fit different data available from North Carolina and Virginia; therefore, the methodologies used are presented by state. As noted previously, agricultural, industrial, and power demands and associated discharges were maintained at current levels. North Carolina Public Systems The 2008 LWSPs project water demand on 10-year intervals though 2050. For this reason, linear regressions were used to extrapolate to 2060 demands. Table 2 below shows the DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 7 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL demand projections for the primary PWSs in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin. TABLE 2 NC Public Water Suppliers’ Projected Demands (mgd) Entity Name 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060a Eden 8.20 11.34 11.50 9.62 9.86 10.03 10.20 Halifax County 8.47 9.76 10.46 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 KLRWS 6.54 8.37 14.49 19.94 24.66 29.38 34.10 Madison 0.61 1.41 2.17 2.58 3.03 3.34 3.65 Mayodan 0.65 1.31 1.43 1.56 1.70 1.86 2.02 Roanoke Rapids 5.08 6.92 6.88 6.84 6.80 6.76 6.72 Roxboro 2.84 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.50 5.75 6.00 Weldon 4.37 3.71 3.77 3.70 2.86 2.93 3.01 Yanceyville 0.36 0.48 0.64 0.88 1.08 1.26 1.45 Source: NC Draft 2008 LWSPs a Extrapolated demand projections b KLRWS projections were provided by EarthTech IBT projections It is also important to project wastewater demands for dischargers. The LWSPs include annual average daily discharge (AADD) of wastewater discharge for the year the plan was submitted. For an entity with a Draft 2008 LWSP, discharge projections were determined by calculating their discharge as a percentage of demand in the base year of 2008 and holding this ratio constant through 2060. Table 3 shows the factor of discharge as a percentage of demand. The percentage calculated in Table 3 was used to project discharge through 2060, as seen in Table 4. For those that discharge all or a portion of their wastewater to the Roanoke River basin, the discharge is important for estimating IBT and evaluating impacts with the RRBHM. For communities that discharge to a receiving basin, this estimate is important for evaluating future impacts of the transfer in the receiving basins. DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 8 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE 3 Discharge Projection Factors Based on 2008 LWSPs Entity Name Total Demand (mgd) Discharge (mgd) Percent Return City of Eden 8.20 6.69 81.7% City of Henderson 6.54 2.56 a 39.1% Town of Mayodan 0.65 1.03 b 158.2% Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District 5.08 4.00 78.8% City of Roxboro 2.84 1.86 65.4% Town of Weldon 4.37 0.94 21.5% Town of Yanceyville 0.36 0.28 78.9% Town of Madison 0.61 0.02 b 3.3% Source: NC Draft 2008 LWSP and EarthTech IBT projections a The majority of the entities partnered with KLWRS discharge their wastewater to the Tar River Basin. The City of Henderson is the only entity that discharges back to the Roanoke River Basin. The discharge reported for KLRWS comes from the Kerr Lake Regional WTP (0.12) and the Henderson WRF (2.44). Discharge projections are based on EarthTech IBT projections. b Wastewater from the Town of Madison is also handled by the Mayodan Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) TABLE 4 NC Public Water Supply NPDES Permit Holders and Discharge Projections Discharge Projections by Year (mgd) Permit Holder Permit Name 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050a 2060a Eden Dry Creek WWTP 0.31 0.32 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28 Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP 8.95 9.07 7.59 7.78 7.91 8.05 Henderson Henderson WRF 2.54 2.88 3.10 3.41 3.72 4.02 Henderson Kerr Lake Regional WTP 0.15 0.26 0.36 0.45 0.54 0.63 Mayodan Mayodan WWTP 1.97 2.15 2.34 2.56 2.80 3.04 Mayodan Mayodan WTP 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Roanoke Rapids WWTP 5.45 5.43 5.39 5.36 5.33 5.29 Roxboro Roxboro WWTP 3.14 3.27 3.40 3.60 3.76 3.92 Weldon Weldon WWTP 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.62 0.63 0.65 Yanceyville Yanceyville WWTP 0.32 0.43 0.59 0.73 0.86 0.98 Yanceyville Yanceyville WTP 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 Madison Town of Madison WWTP 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 Source: NC Draft 2008 LWSPs and EarthTech IBT projections a Extrapolated discharge projections DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 9 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL A number of smaller municipalities did not have 2007 or 2008 LWSPs. Coincidentally, these PWS do not withdraw surface water from the Roanoke River Basin, since they use groundwater for supply, but they do discharge to the basin. For these municipalities, discharges were determined using their 2002 LWSP data. Year 2040, 2050, and 2060 returns were projected using the same linear regression approach as computed for 2008 LWSPs. Table 5 shows the projected discharges for the PWS entities that do not directly withdraw from the Roanoke River Basin. There are a few PWS entities in North Carolina that do not develop their own LWSPs, but were considered based on their inclusion in the 1989 model and conversations with NCDWR. The Department of Correction at Odom, in Orange County, NC, and the Caledonia WWTP in Halifax County, NC were recommended for inclusion. Their projections were developed using the same method for NC entities with a LWSP, but based on a 2002 LWSP for Orange County and a 2008 LWSP for Halifax County. TABLE 5 Discharge Projections Based on NC 2002 LWSP Discharge Projections by Year (mgd) WWTP 2002 2007a 2010 2020 2030 2040a 2050a 2060a Lewiston-Woodville 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Plymouth 0.58 0.48 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Walnut Cove 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.32 Williamston 0.89 1.10 1.23 1.33 1.45 1.56 1.68 1.79 Windsor 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 Source: NC 2002 LWSP a Extrapolated discharge projections Irrigation, Industry, and Power Plants For non-PWS components, several sources were evaluated to verify the demands and discharges; however, no projections were made. As noted above, water use for agriculture, industrial, and power entities were held constant. Declining agricultural activity and industrial production suggest that these demands may be decreasing in the future. Although power production may increase in the future, current technologies have significantly reduced water use and in many cases, a new generation facility will replace older facilities, with a net decrease in water demand. The consumption from these facilities was assumed to be constant. For those entities with demands and discharges that could not be verified by additional data sources conservatively, the values used in the 1989 model were incorporated. Appendix B contains a list of NC and VA Self-Supplied Industry (SSI) and Power Plant (TP) entities that were included in the model update. Below is a list of the some of the sources used for evaluating non-PWS demands and discharges; more detailed information for these sources is provided in Appendix A: • NCDWR Registered Withdrawal Annual Reports • NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS) Reports DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 10 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Permit Compliance System (PCS) database of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits • NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) • Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) Query Virginia Virginia is currently establishing a program that requires the development of Water Supply Plans (WSPs). Draft reports for municipalities with a population of more than 15,000 are expected to be released in the near future. WSPs for smaller municipalities are not required until November 2010. For Virginia PWS components historical withdrawal and discharge data were provided by VADEQ. Per capita rates for withdrawals and discharges were based on these data and the 2007 population and these rates were used with population projects to project future water demand and associated discharges. This approach assumes that future demand is primarily a function of residential growth. Additional research was done to clarify components of the original model and validate data received from VADEQ. One of the main documents used for data validation was the 2003 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the Virginia Western Piedmont Economic Development District. Population Projections The Virginia Workforce Connection website houses US Census data for 1990 and 2000, as well as Virginia population projections on a county and city level for 2010, 2020, and 2030. A population growth rate was determined using Years 1990 and 2030. This growth rate was then calculated as a percentage of population in 2000, Ka in Equation 1. Equation 1. Population growth rate as a percentage of population in the year 2000 () ()200012 12 2000 PTT PP T PKa ⋅− −=∆ ∆= In Equation 1, P2 represents the year being projected and P1 represents the previous data point. For the purpose of estimating Ka, an average was calculated for the change in population over various 10-year intervals. Once the growth rate was calculated, the population was projected using Equation 2. Equation 2. Population projection as a function of growth rate ()112220002000PTTPKPaa+−⋅⋅= This method was applied for all counties and cities containing a demand or discharge as provided by VADEQ, as seen in Appendix C. Demand and Discharge Projections Baseline demands were compiled based on information from VADEQ and the original Roanoke River Basin model. Discharge information was compiled from the USEPA’s PCS database and information provided by VADEQ. VADEQ data contained records for each DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 11 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL year that the discharge or demand was reported as being over 0.1 mgd. The average ratio of demand and discharge to population was assumed to remain constant throughout the planning period. Projections were made using Equation 3. Equation 3. Demand and discharge projection as a function of population   ×= 1 212 PPDD Table 6 shows the Virginia PWS withdrawals evaluated, their base year demand, data source, the city or county associations made for projection purposes, and the demand and discharge projections for each of those entities. DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 12 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE 6 Virginia PWS Demand Projections Entity Name Withdrawal (mgd) Source Association Projection (mgd) 2002 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 Altavista Service Area – Roanoke River 1.22 VADEQ Altavista 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.29 1.35 1.37 1.4 1.46 1.51 Altavista Service Area – Reed Creek 0.4 VADEQ Altavista 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 Bedford (City) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) – Big Otter River 0.17 VADEQ Bedford City 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Bedford (City) WTP – Stoney Creek Reservoir 1.13 VADEQ Bedford City 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.09 1.09 1.08 Blackwater River WTP 1.02 2003 CEDS Rocky Mount 1.02 1.11 1.14 1.27 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.64 1.76 Brookneal WTP 0.14 VADEQ Brookneal 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Chatham WTP 0.42 VADEQ Chatham 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.50 Clarksville WTP 0.28 VADEQ Clarksville 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 Danville Industrial WTP 0.94 VADEQ Danville City 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.83 Danville WTP 7.78 VADEQ Danville City 7.78 7.78 7.64 7.67 7.72 7.61 7.43 7.13 6.84 Gretna WTP 0.21 VADEQ Gretna 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.25 Halifax (Town) 0.17 VADEQ Halifax 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 High Point Service Area 0.16 VADEQ Bedford County 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.28 Keysville WTP 0.14 VADEQ Charlotte County 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Martinsville WTP 4.13 VADEQ Martinsville City 4.13 4.13 4.04 3.92 3.92 3.86 3.77 3.61 3.46 DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 13 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE 6 Virginia PWS Demand Projections Entity Name Withdrawal (mgd) Source Association Projection (mgd) 2002 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 Roanoke River Service Authority (RRSA) – Lake Gaston 1.41 VADEQ Mecklenburg County 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.46 1.50 1.54 Salem WTP 4.20 VADEQ Salem City 4.20 4.20 4.18 4.15 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.19 4.20 South Boston WTP 1.842 1989 Model South Boston 1.84 1.88 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.04 2.08 2.14 2.20 Stuart WTP 0.28 VADEQ Patrick County 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 VA Beach 25.20 VADEQ Virginia Beach 25.20 25.20 25.95 27.25 28.57 29.15 30.02 31.47 32.91 Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) - Falling Cr/Beaverdam Cr WTP 0.70 VADEQ Roanoke County 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.92 0.97 WVWA –Roanoke City - Carvins Cove 8.41 VADEQ Roanoke City 8.41 8.41 8.28 8.11 8.11 8.04 7.93 7.75 7.57 WVWA - Spring Hollow WTP 4.86 VADEQ Roanoke County 4.86 4.86 4.96 5.32 5.69 5.83 6.05 6.40 6.76 Table 7 shows the Virginia discharge entities evaluated, the data source for the base year discharge, the city or county associations made for projection purposes, and the discharge projections for each of those entities. DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 14 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE 7 Virginia PWS Discharge Projections Name Discharge (mgd) Source Association Projection (mgd) 2002 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 Altavista WWTP 2.14 VADEQ Altavista 2.14 2.14 2.17 2.26 2.36 2.40 2.45 2.55 2.65 Appomattox Trickling Filter Plant 0.13 VADEQ Appomattox 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 Bedford (City) WWTP 0.99 VADEQ Bedford City 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 Briarwood Village Mobile Home Park Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) 0.11 VADEQ Albemarle County 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 Brookneal Town - Falling River Lagoon 0.11 VADEQ Brookneal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 Brookneal Town - Staunton River Lagoon 0.10 VADEQ Brookneal 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 Brookneal WTP 0.17 VADEQ Brookneal 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.21 Campbell County CWS - Rustburg Service Area 0.10 VADEQ Campbell County 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 Chatham WWTP 0.31 VADEQ Chatham 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 Clarksville WWTP 0.26 VADEQ Clarksville 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 Dan River - Schoolfield Complex 0.19 VADEQ Danville City 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 Danville WTP 0.41 VADEQ Danville City 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.36 Danville WWTP 5.49 VADEQ Danville City 5.49 5.49 5.39 5.41 5.45 5.37 5.24 5.03 4.83 Department of Correction - Baskerville 0.33 VADEQ Mecklenburg County 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 Ferrum Town - Sewage Treatment Plant 0.17 VADEQ Franklin County 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.27 DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 15 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TABLE 7 Virginia PWS Discharge Projections Name Discharge (mgd) Source Association Projection (mgd) 2002 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 Gretna WTP 0.20 VADEQ Gretna 0.20 0.20 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 Gretna WWTP 0.15 VADEQ Gretna 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 Henry Co PSA 0.22 VADEQ Henry County 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 Keysville WWTP 0.13 VADEQ Charlotte County 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Mecklenburg Co Schools Bluestone High School 1.16 VADEQ Mecklenburg County 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 Montgomery County Public Service Authority (PSA) - Elliston-Lafayette WWTP 0.12 VADEQ Montgomery County 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 Rocky Mount 0.82 VADEQ Rocky Mount 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.93 1.02 1.06 1.12 1.21 1.30 RRSA - WTP 0.15 VADEQ Mecklenburg County 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 RRSA - Roanoke County Service Area 0.22 PCS Roanoke County 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.32 South Hill WWTP 0.93 VADEQ South Hill 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 Shawsville Sewage Treatment Plant 0.12 VADEQ Montgomery County 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 South Boston - Maple Ave WWTP 1.57 VADEQ South Boston 1.57 1.57 1.59 1.64 1.68 1.70 1.73 1.78 1.83 Stuart STP 0.26 VADEQ Patrick County 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 WVWA - Carvins Cove Water Filtration Plant (FP) 0.44 VADEQ Roanoke County 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.62 WVWA – Water Pollution Control Plant 63.75 VADEQ Roanoke County 63.75 63.75 65.15 69.87 74.69 76.56 79.37 84.06 88.74 DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 16 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Irrigation, Industry, Power Plants For non-PWS components, where no projection was made in the 1989 NCDWR model, the consumption was assumed to be constant. Additional research, including the USEPA’s Permit Compliant System, was performed to verify current demands and discharges. Appendix B contains a list of NC and VA SSI and TP entities recommended for the model update. Summary Table 8 below shows a summary of all demands and discharges for the Roanoke River basin for the planning period. TABLE 8 Total Demands and Discharges for the Roanoke River Basin (mgd) Total Demands and Discharges for the Roanoke River Basin (mgd) 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 Demand 258 270 280 286 289 293 300 308 Discharge 175 183 190 195 197 201 208 214 Net Demand 83 87 90 92 92 92 93 94 DEMAND AND DISCHARGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 17 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL References Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Prepared for the Virginia Western Piedmont Economic Development District. Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) Query, Registered Facilities -Domtar, http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Capacity_Use/Central_Coastal_Plain /. Accessed January, 2010 NCDWR Local Water Supply Plans, Sub-basin search - Roanoke River (14-1) http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php. Accessed September 2009 NCDWR Draft 2008 Local Water Supply Plans, Sub-basin search - Roanoke River (14-1) http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php. Accessed by Toya Ogallo, 8, February, 2010 NCDWR Water Withdrawal and Transfer Registration Annual Water Use Reports, http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Water_Withdrawal_and_Transfer_Re gistration/report. Accessed January, 2010 NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS), Permit Reports, http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reports.html. Accessed September 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Permit Compliance System (PCS) database of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_query_java.html. Accessed June 2009 through April 2010 Virginia Workforce Connection, Decennial Census and State Demographer Projections http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/analyzer/populatchoice.asp?cat=HST_DEMOG&session=p opulat&time=&geo=/. Accessed March 2009. Appendix A Data Sources Used in Demand and Discharge Projections A-1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS – DEMAND PROJECTIONS UPDATES ARE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT II - APPENDIX A Data Sources Used in Demand and Discharge Projections Model Classification State Source Data - General Data – Specific Access/Contact Date Accessed/ Received General NC USEPA Water Discharge Permits Permit Compliance System Database Various queries by facility name and NPDES ID http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_quer y_java.html July 2009 – March 2010 VA NC NCDWR List of NPDES dischargers in Roanoke River Basin Active_Roanoke_NPDES.xls E-mail correspondence with Steve Nebiker, Hydrologics September 28, 2009 VA VADEQ Surface Water Withdrawals Henderson_030110.xls E-mail correspondence with Jason Ericson, VADEQ, Office of Ground and Surface Water Supply Planning March 1, 2010 Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Individual Permits Nonmetallic mining VPDES Permits PWS NC NCDWR 2002 LWSPs Lewiston-Woodville, Plymouth, Walnut Cove, Williamston, Windsor http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planni ng/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php July and August 2009 2008 Draft LWSPs Yanceyville, Eden, Halifax, Hamilton, Kerr Lake, Madison, Mayodan, Roanoke Rapids, Roxboro, Warrenton, Weldon E-mail correspondence with Toya Ogallo, NCDWR, River Basin Management Section February 8, 2010 VA CEDS 2003 Report for West Piedmont Economic Development District Danville-Chatham, Martinsville-Henry, Hurt-Gretna, Rocky-Mount Boones Mill, Stuart-Patrick Springs http://www.wppdc.org/ January 2010 Self-supplied Industry (SSI) NC NCDWR 2007 Water Withdrawal and Transfer Registration – Annual Water Use Report Roanoke Rapids Mill, Perdue Farms, Reidsville Quarry, Shelton Quarry, Greystone Quarry, Transco http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registr ation/Water_Withdrawal_and_Transfer_Regis tration/report January 2010 Central Coastal Plain Use Area Query of Registered Facilities - Domtar http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registr ation/Capacity_Use/Central_Coastal_Plain/ January 2010 Thermal Power plants (TP) NC NCDWR Surface Water Withdrawals Reported to NCDWR under GS143-215.22H DE_PE NC Power Plant Withdrawals.xlsx Compiled by D. Rayno of NCDWR from Water Withdrawal Registration data submitted to NCDWR, Sent via e-mail by Steve Nebiker of Hydrologics September 28, 2009 Appendix B Non-PWS Demands and Discharges in NC and VA ATTACHMENT II - APPENDIX B Non‐PWS Demands and Discharges in NC and VA State Type Reservoir Name 1989 Model Source Withdrawal Discharge NC SSI Kerr ITG/Burlington Demand NC DWQ 1.63 2.01 NC SSI Roanoke Rapids RRapMill 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 19.80 21.14 NC SSI Albermarle SSI ‐ Bertie County 1989 Model 0.36 ‐ NC SSI Hamilton SSI ‐ Halifax County 1989 Model 1.30 0.00 NC SSI Albermarle SSI ‐ Martin ‐ Weyerhaeuser 1989 Model 11.58 ‐ NC SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Rockingham ‐ MillerCoors WWTP NC DWQ ‐1.79 NC SSI Albermarle SSI ‐ Washington ‐Domtar CCPCUA and PCS DMR 64.43 34.30 NC TP Kerr TP ‐ Person ‐ Mayo Steam Electric 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 7.9 (net)‐ NC TP Kerr TP ‐ Rockingham ‐Dan River Steam Station 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 1.9 (net)‐ NC TP Kerr TP ‐ Stokes ‐Belews Creek Steam Station 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 12.7 (net)‐ NC TP Albermarle TP ‐Washington County 1989 Model 11.6 (net)‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain Adams Construction Co ‐ Fowler Sand Plant VA DEQ ‐1.08 VA SSI Smith Mountain Boxley Materials Company ‐ Blue Ridge VA DEQ ‐0.67 VA SSI Kerr Boxley Materials Company ‐ Fieldale Plant VA DEQ ‐1.25 VA SSI Kerr DAN RIVER INC VA DEQ 0.96 0.37 VA SSI Smith Mountain Koppers Ind Demand VA DEQ 1.00 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP VA DEQ 1.76 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Bedford ‐ Blue Ridge Wood Preserving Inc VA DEQ ‐0.18 VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Campbell ‐ BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ LAWYERS ROAD PLANT VA DEQ 0.86 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Campbell ‐ BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ LAWYERS ROAD PLANT VA DEQ 0.18 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Franklin ‐ Ronile Incorporated VA DEQ ‐0.11 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Franklin ‐ THE WATER FRONT ‐ GOLF COURSE VA DEQ 0.12 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Franklin ‐ TSO of Virginia VA DEQ ‐0.17 VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐ BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES VA DEQ 0.16 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ MARTINSVILLE PLANT VA DEQ 0.18 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ MARTINSVILLE PLANT VA DEQ 0.26 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐CPFILMS INC ‐ Fieldale Plant VA DEQ 1.14 0.62 VA SSI Philpott SSI ‐ Patrick HANES BRANDS INC VA DEQ 0.14 0.35 VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Pittsylvania ‐ TUSCARORA COUNTRY CLUB VA DEQ 0.11 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Pittsylvania ‐ VIRGINIA ELECTRIC VA DEQ 0.61 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Pittsylvania ‐Corning Inc ‐ Danville VA DEQ ‐0.14 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals LLC ‐ Roanoke VA DEQ ‐0.13 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Marathon Petroleum Company LLC ‐ Roanoke Terminal VA DEQ ‐0.18 State Type Reservoir Name 1989 Model Source Withdrawal Discharge VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Transmontaigne Montvale Atlantic Terminal VA DEQ ‐0.78 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Western Energy Montvale Terminal VA DEQ ‐0.14 VA SSI Kerr VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS VA DEQ 0.16 1.49 VA SSI Kerr Vulcan Construction Materials ‐ Chatham VA DEQ ‐0.39 VA TP Kerr Dominion ‐ Altavista Power Station VA DEQ 0.43 0.22 VA TP Kerr Dominion ‐ Mecklenburg Power Station VA DEQ ‐0.49 VA TP Kerr Dominion ‐ Pittsylvania Power Station VA DEQ ‐0.11 VA TP Kerr Old Dominion Demand (Clover Plant)VA DEQ 9.18 1.05 VA TP Kerr SSI ‐ Bedford ‐AEP ‐ Smith Mountain Hydro Plant VA DEQ ‐2.37 VA TP Kerr TP ‐ Campbell ‐ AEP ‐ Leesville Hydro Plant VA DEQ ‐0.66 VA TP Kerr TP ‐ Mecklenburg ‐John H Kerr Powerhouse VA DEQ ‐0.55 VA TP Philpott TP ‐ Patrick ‐ Philpott Dam Hydroelectric Plant VA DEQ ‐0.31 VA TP Kerr TP ‐ Pittsylvania ‐ Roxboro Steam Electric 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 1 (net)‐ Appendix C Virginia County Population Projections ATTACHMENT II - APPENDIX C VirginIa PWS Demand and Discharge Projections Withdrawal Dishcarge (MGD) (MGD) 2002 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 VA DEQ ALTAVISTA SERVICE AREA 0.40 ‐Altavista 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 VA DEQ ALTAVISTA SERVICE AREA 1.22 ‐Altavista 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.29 1.35 1.37 1.40 1.46 1.51 VA DEQ ALTAVISTA WWTP ‐2.14 Altavista 2.14 2.14 2.17 2.26 2.36 2.40 2.45 2.55 2.65 VA DEQ Appomattox Trickling Filter Plant ‐0.13 Appomattox 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 VA DEQ BEDFORD (CITY) WTP 0.12 ‐Bedford City 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 VA DEQ BEDFORD (CITY) WTP / WWTP ‐0.99 Bedford City 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 VA DEQ BEDFORD (CITY) WTP / WWTP 0.92 Bedford City 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 VA DEQ Bedford County PSA ‐ HIGH POINT SERVICE AREA 0.16 ‐Bedford County 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.28 VA DEQ Briarwood Village Mobile Home Park STP ‐0.11 Albemarle County 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 VA DEQ Brookneal Town ‐ Falling River Lagoon ‐0.11 Brookneal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 VA DEQ Brookneal Town ‐ Staunton River Lagoon ‐0.10 Brookneal 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 VA DEQ BROOKNEAL WTP ‐0.17 Brookneal 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.21 VA DEQ BROOKNEAL WTP 0.14 Brookneal 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 VA DEQ CAMPBELL COUNTY CWS ‐ RUSTBURG SERVICE AREA ‐0.10 Campbell County 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 VA DEQ CHATHAM WTP ‐0.31 Chatham 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 VA DEQ CHATHAM WTP 0.42 Chatham 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.50 VA DEQ CLARKSVILLE WTP ‐0.26 Clarksville 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 VA DEQ CLARKSVILLE WTP 0.28 Clarksville 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 VA DEQ Dan River ‐ Schoolfield Complex ‐0.19 Danville City 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 VA DEQ DANVILLE INDUSTRAL WTP 0.94 ‐Danville City 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.83 VA DEQ DANVILLE WTP ‐0.41 Danville City 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.36 VA DEQ DANVILLE WTP 7.78 Danville City 7.78 7.78 7.64 7.67 7.72 7.61 7.43 7.13 6.84 VA DEQ DANVILLE WWTP ‐5.49 Danville City 5.49 5.49 5.39 5.41 5.45 5.37 5.24 5.03 4.83 VA DEQ Department of Correction ‐ Baskerville ‐0.33 Mecklenburg County 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 VA DEQ Ferrum Town ‐ Sewage Treatment Plant ‐0.17 Franklin County 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.27 VA DEQ GRETNA WTP ‐0.15 Gretna 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 VA DEQ GRETNA WTP 0.20 Gretna 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 VA DEQ HALIFAX (TOWN) ‐0.21 Halifax 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 VA DEQ HALIFAX (TOWN) 0.17 Halifax 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 VA DEQ Henry Co PSA ‐0.22 Henry County 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 VA DEQ KEYSVILLE WTP ‐0.13 Charlotte County 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 VA DEQ KEYSVILLE WTP 0.14 Charlotte County 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 VA DEQ MARTINSVILLE WTP 4.13 ‐Martinsville City 4.13 4.13 4.04 3.92 3.92 3.86 3.77 3.61 3.46 Projection (MGD)Source Name Association VA DEQ Mecklenburg Co Schools Bluestone High School ‐1.16 Mecklenburg County 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 VA DEQ Montgomery County PSA ‐ Elliston‐Lafayette WWTP ‐0.12 Montgomery County 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 1989 Model Roanoke City ‐TINKER CR‐ CATAWBA CR DIVERSION 4.677 ‐Roanoke City 4.68 4.518877574 4.45 4.36 4.36 4.32 4.26 4.17 4.07 VA DEQ Rocky Mount ‐0.82 Rocky Mount 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.93 1.02 1.06 1.12 1.21 1.30 2003 CEDS Rocky Mount ‐ BLACKWATER RIVER WTP 1.02 ‐Rocky Mount 1.02 1.106422599 1.14 1.27 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.64 1.76 VA DEQ RRSA 1.41 ‐Mecklenburg County 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.46 1.50 1.54 VA DEQ RRSA ‐ BOYDTON SERVICE AREA ‐0.15 Mecklenburg County 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 PCS RRSA ‐ ROANOKE COUNTY SERVICE AREA ‐0.22 Roanoke County 0.22 0.228650424 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.32 VA DEQ RRSA ‐ South Hill WWTP ‐0.93 South Hill 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 VA DEQ SALEM OLD WTP 1 4.20 ‐Salem City 4.20 4.20 4.18 4.15 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.19 4.20 VA DEQ Shawsville Sewage Treatment Plant ‐0.12 Montgomery County 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 VA DEQ South Boston ‐ Maple Ave WWTP ‐1.57 South Boston 1.57 1.57 1.59 1.64 1.68 1.70 1.73 1.78 1.83 1989 Model SOUTH BOSTON WTP 1.842 ‐South Boston 1.84 1.882806193 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.04 2.08 2.14 2.20 VA DEQ STUART WTP ‐0.26 Patrick County 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 VA DEQ STUART WTP 0.28 Patrick County 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 VA DEQ VA Beach 25.20 ‐Virginia Beach 25.20 25.20 25.44 26.22 27.04 27.37 27.88 28.74 29.63 VA DEQ WVWA ‐FALLING CR/BEAVERDAM CR WTP 0.70 ‐Roanoke County 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.92 0.97 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ Carvin's Cove ‐0.44 Roanoke County 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.62 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ ROANOKE (CITY) SERVICE AREA 8.41 ‐Roanoke City 8.41 8.41 8.28 8.11 8.11 8.04 7.93 7.75 7.57 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR 10.07 ‐Roanoke County 10.07 10.07 10.29 11.03 11.79 12.09 12.53 13.27 14.01 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ SPRING HOLLOW WTP 4.86 ‐Roanoke County 4.86 4.86 4.96 5.32 5.69 5.83 6.05 6.40 6.76 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ WPCP ‐63.75 Roanoke County 63.75 63.75 65.15 69.87 74.69 76.56 79.37 84.06 88.74 ATTACHMENT II - APPENDIX B Non‐PWS Demands and Discharges in NC and VA State Type Reservoir Name 1989 Model Source Withdrawal Discharge NC SSI Kerr ITG/Burlington Demand NC DWQ 1.63 2.01 NC SSI Roanoke Rapids RRapMill 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 19.80 21.14 NC SSI Albermarle SSI ‐ Bertie County 1989 Model 0.36 ‐ NC SSI Hamilton SSI ‐ Halifax County 1989 Model 1.30 0.00 NC SSI Albermarle SSI ‐ Martin ‐ Weyerhaeuser 1989 Model 11.58 ‐ NC SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Rockingham ‐ MillerCoors WWTP NC DWQ ‐1.79 NC SSI Albermarle SSI ‐ Washington ‐Domtar CCPCUA and PCS DMR 64.43 34.30 NC TP Kerr TP ‐ Person ‐ Mayo Steam Electric 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 7.9 (net)‐ NC TP Kerr TP ‐ Rockingham ‐Dan River Steam Station 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 1.9 (net)‐ NC TP Kerr TP ‐ Stokes ‐Belews Creek Steam Station 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 12.7 (net)‐ NC TP Albermarle TP ‐Washington County 1989 Model 11.6 (net)‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain Adams Construction Co ‐ Fowler Sand Plant VA DEQ ‐1.08 VA SSI Smith Mountain Boxley Materials Company ‐ Blue Ridge VA DEQ ‐0.67 VA SSI Kerr Boxley Materials Company ‐ Fieldale Plant VA DEQ ‐1.25 VA SSI Kerr DAN RIVER INC VA DEQ 0.96 0.37 VA SSI Smith Mountain Koppers Ind Demand VA DEQ 1.00 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP VA DEQ 1.76 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Bedford ‐ Blue Ridge Wood Preserving Inc VA DEQ ‐0.18 VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Campbell ‐ BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ LAWYERS ROAD PLANT VA DEQ 0.86 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Campbell ‐ BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ LAWYERS ROAD PLANT VA DEQ 0.18 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Franklin ‐ Ronile Incorporated VA DEQ ‐0.11 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Franklin ‐ THE WATER FRONT ‐ GOLF COURSE VA DEQ 0.12 ‐ VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Franklin ‐ TSO of Virginia VA DEQ ‐0.17 VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐ BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES VA DEQ 0.16 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ MARTINSVILLE PLANT VA DEQ 0.18 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐BOXLEY MATERIALS COMPANY ‐ MARTINSVILLE PLANT VA DEQ 0.26 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Henry ‐CPFILMS INC ‐ Fieldale Plant VA DEQ 1.14 0.62 VA SSI Philpott SSI ‐ Patrick HANES BRANDS INC VA DEQ 0.14 0.35 VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Pittsylvania ‐ TUSCARORA COUNTRY CLUB VA DEQ 0.11 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Pittsylvania ‐ VIRGINIA ELECTRIC VA DEQ 0.61 ‐ VA SSI Kerr SSI ‐ Pittsylvania ‐Corning Inc ‐ Danville VA DEQ ‐0.14 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals LLC ‐ Roanoke VA DEQ ‐0.13 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Marathon Petroleum Company LLC ‐ Roanoke Terminal VA DEQ ‐0.18 State Type Reservoir Name 1989 Model Source Withdrawal Discharge VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Transmontaigne Montvale Atlantic Terminal VA DEQ ‐0.78 VA SSI Smith Mountain SSI ‐ Roanoke ‐ Western Energy Montvale Terminal VA DEQ ‐0.14 VA SSI Kerr VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS VA DEQ 0.16 1.49 VA SSI Kerr Vulcan Construction Materials ‐ Chatham VA DEQ ‐0.39 VA TP Kerr Dominion ‐ Altavista Power Station VA DEQ 0.43 0.22 VA TP Kerr Dominion ‐ Mecklenburg Power Station VA DEQ ‐0.49 VA TP Kerr Dominion ‐ Pittsylvania Power Station VA DEQ ‐0.11 VA TP Kerr Old Dominion Demand (Clover Plant)VA DEQ 9.18 1.05 VA TP Kerr SSI ‐ Bedford ‐AEP ‐ Smith Mountain Hydro Plant VA DEQ ‐2.37 VA TP Kerr TP ‐ Campbell ‐ AEP ‐ Leesville Hydro Plant VA DEQ ‐0.66 VA TP Kerr TP ‐ Mecklenburg ‐John H Kerr Powerhouse VA DEQ ‐0.55 VA TP Philpott TP ‐ Patrick ‐ Philpott Dam Hydroelectric Plant VA DEQ ‐0.31 VA TP Kerr TP ‐ Pittsylvania ‐ Roxboro Steam Electric 2008 Reg Withdrawal Report 1 (net)‐ ATTACHMENT II - APPENDIX C VirginIa PWS Demand and Discharge Projections Withdrawal Dishcarge (MGD) (MGD) 2002 2007 2010 2020 2030 2034 2040 2050 2060 VA DEQ ALTAVISTA SERVICE AREA 0.40 ‐Altavista 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 VA DEQ ALTAVISTA SERVICE AREA 1.22 ‐Altavista 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.29 1.35 1.37 1.40 1.46 1.51 VA DEQ ALTAVISTA WWTP ‐2.14 Altavista 2.14 2.14 2.17 2.26 2.36 2.40 2.45 2.55 2.65 VA DEQ Appomattox Trickling Filter Plant ‐0.13 Appomattox 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 VA DEQ BEDFORD (CITY) WTP 0.12 ‐Bedford City 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 VA DEQ BEDFORD (CITY) WTP / WWTP ‐0.99 Bedford City 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 VA DEQ BEDFORD (CITY) WTP / WWTP 0.92 Bedford City 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 VA DEQ Bedford County PSA ‐ HIGH POINT SERVICE AREA 0.16 ‐Bedford County 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.28 VA DEQ Briarwood Village Mobile Home Park STP ‐0.11 Albemarle County 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 VA DEQ Brookneal Town ‐ Falling River Lagoon ‐0.11 Brookneal 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 VA DEQ Brookneal Town ‐ Staunton River Lagoon ‐0.10 Brookneal 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 VA DEQ BROOKNEAL WTP ‐0.17 Brookneal 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.21 VA DEQ BROOKNEAL WTP 0.14 Brookneal 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 VA DEQ CAMPBELL COUNTY CWS ‐ RUSTBURG SERVICE AREA ‐0.10 Campbell County 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 VA DEQ CHATHAM WTP ‐0.31 Chatham 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 VA DEQ CHATHAM WTP 0.42 Chatham 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.50 VA DEQ CLARKSVILLE WTP ‐0.26 Clarksville 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 VA DEQ CLARKSVILLE WTP 0.28 Clarksville 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 VA DEQ Dan River ‐ Schoolfield Complex ‐0.19 Danville City 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 VA DEQ DANVILLE INDUSTRAL WTP 0.94 ‐Danville City 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.83 VA DEQ DANVILLE WTP ‐0.41 Danville City 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.36 VA DEQ DANVILLE WTP 7.78 Danville City 7.78 7.78 7.64 7.67 7.72 7.61 7.43 7.13 6.84 VA DEQ DANVILLE WWTP ‐5.49 Danville City 5.49 5.49 5.39 5.41 5.45 5.37 5.24 5.03 4.83 VA DEQ Department of Correction ‐ Baskerville ‐0.33 Mecklenburg County 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 VA DEQ Ferrum Town ‐ Sewage Treatment Plant ‐0.17 Franklin County 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.27 VA DEQ GRETNA WTP ‐0.15 Gretna 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 VA DEQ GRETNA WTP 0.20 Gretna 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 VA DEQ HALIFAX (TOWN) ‐0.21 Halifax 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 VA DEQ HALIFAX (TOWN) 0.17 Halifax 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 VA DEQ Henry Co PSA ‐0.22 Henry County 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 VA DEQ KEYSVILLE WTP ‐0.13 Charlotte County 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 VA DEQ KEYSVILLE WTP 0.14 Charlotte County 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 VA DEQ MARTINSVILLE WTP 4.13 ‐Martinsville City 4.13 4.13 4.04 3.92 3.92 3.86 3.77 3.61 3.46 Projection (MGD)Source Name Association VA DEQ Mecklenburg Co Schools Bluestone High School ‐1.16 Mecklenburg County 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 VA DEQ Montgomery County PSA ‐ Elliston‐Lafayette WWTP ‐0.12 Montgomery County 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 1989 Model Roanoke City ‐TINKER CR‐ CATAWBA CR DIVERSION 4.677 ‐Roanoke City 4.68 4.518877574 4.45 4.36 4.36 4.32 4.26 4.17 4.07 VA DEQ Rocky Mount ‐0.82 Rocky Mount 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.93 1.02 1.06 1.12 1.21 1.30 2003 CEDS Rocky Mount ‐ BLACKWATER RIVER WTP 1.02 ‐Rocky Mount 1.02 1.106422599 1.14 1.27 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.64 1.76 VA DEQ RRSA 1.41 ‐Mecklenburg County 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.46 1.50 1.54 VA DEQ RRSA ‐ BOYDTON SERVICE AREA ‐0.15 Mecklenburg County 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 PCS RRSA ‐ ROANOKE COUNTY SERVICE AREA ‐0.22 Roanoke County 0.22 0.228650424 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.32 VA DEQ RRSA ‐ South Hill WWTP ‐0.93 South Hill 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 VA DEQ SALEM OLD WTP 1 4.20 ‐Salem City 4.20 4.20 4.18 4.15 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.19 4.20 VA DEQ Shawsville Sewage Treatment Plant ‐0.12 Montgomery County 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 VA DEQ South Boston ‐ Maple Ave WWTP ‐1.57 South Boston 1.57 1.57 1.59 1.64 1.68 1.70 1.73 1.78 1.83 1989 Model SOUTH BOSTON WTP 1.842 ‐South Boston 1.84 1.882806193 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.04 2.08 2.14 2.20 VA DEQ STUART WTP ‐0.26 Patrick County 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 VA DEQ STUART WTP 0.28 Patrick County 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 VA DEQ VA Beach 25.20 ‐Virginia Beach 25.20 25.20 25.44 26.22 27.04 27.37 27.88 28.74 29.63 VA DEQ WVWA ‐FALLING CR/BEAVERDAM CR WTP 0.70 ‐Roanoke County 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.92 0.97 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ Carvin's Cove ‐0.44 Roanoke County 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.62 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ ROANOKE (CITY) SERVICE AREA 8.41 ‐Roanoke City 8.41 8.41 8.28 8.11 8.11 8.04 7.93 7.75 7.57 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR 10.07 ‐Roanoke County 10.07 10.07 10.29 11.03 11.79 12.09 12.53 13.27 14.01 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ SPRING HOLLOW WTP 4.86 ‐Roanoke County 4.86 4.86 4.96 5.32 5.69 5.83 6.05 6.40 6.76 VA DEQ WWVA ‐ WPCP ‐63.75 Roanoke County 63.75 63.75 65.15 69.87 74.69 76.56 79.37 84.06 88.74