The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKLRWS_IBTPetition_Final_03202015 Final Interbasin Transfer Petition Submitted to North Carolina Environmental Management Commission Submitted by Kerr Lake Regional Water System March 2015 3120 Highwoods Blvd Suite 214 Raleigh, NC 27604 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 1 Contact Page Agency Lead North Carolina Division of Water Resources Harold Brady 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699‐1611 919‐707‐9005 Applicants Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) on behalf of its Partners and bulk customers Christy Lipscomb, Director 134 Rose Ave. Henderson, NC 27536 KLRWS Partners: City of Henderson, City of Oxford and Warren County Bulk Customers: City of Henderson Franklin County Bunn Lake Royale Kittrell Vance County City of Oxford Stovall South Granville Water System (for Creedmoor) Wilton Granville County Warren County Norlina Warrenton Littleton Consultant Contact CH2M HILL, Inc. Jaime Robinson, Project Manager 3120 Highwoods Blvd Suite 214 Raleigh, NC 27604 704‐543‐3279 CONTACT PAGE 2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX III Contents Section Page Contact Page .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Agency Lead ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Applicants ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Consultant Contact ................................................................................................................................. 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Organization of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System .......................................................... 1‐1 1.2 The Requested Action ............................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.3 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1‐2 1.3.1 Kerr Lake Allocation .................................................................................................. 1‐2 1.3.2 Guiding Legislation .................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3.3 Finding of No Significant Impact ............................................................................... 1‐2 2 Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water ..................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 KLRWS WTP and Distribution Infrastructure ......................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Wastewater Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.3 The Transfer of Water ............................................................................................................ 2‐1 3 Predicted Water Demands and Uses ........................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Population Projections ........................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Average Daily Water Demands .............................................................................................. 3‐1 3.3 Maximum Month Average Day Water Demands ................................................................... 3‐3 3.4 Interbasin Transfer ................................................................................................................. 3‐4 4 Environmental Resources ........................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 Source Basin .............................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1.2 Receiving Basins ........................................................................................................ 4‐5 4.2 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources ......................................................................... 4‐9 4.2.1 Source Basin .............................................................................................................. 4‐9 4.2.2 Receiving Basins ...................................................................................................... 4‐10 5 Water Usage Data and Water Conservation ................................................................................ 5‐1 5.1 Water Usage .......................................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.2 Water Shortage Response Plan ............................................................................................. 5‐1 5.3 Water Use Reduction Measures ............................................................................................ 5‐1 5.4 Water Stewardship Efforts ..................................................................................................... 5‐2 6 Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives ..................................................................... 6‐1 7 Water Transfers and Withdrawals from the Source Basin ........................................................... 7‐1 8 Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer ................................................................................ 8‐1 8.1 Lake Level ............................................................................................................................... 8‐1 8.2 Reservoir Release ................................................................................................................... 8‐2 CONTENTS, CONTINUED IV KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 8.3 Hydropower ............................................................................................................................ 8‐4 9 Future Water Supply Needs ........................................................................................................ 9‐1 10 References ................................................................................................................................ 10‐1 Appendixes A Finding of No Significant Impact – EA B Water Shortage Response Plan Tables 2‐1 KLRWS Distribution System Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 2‐1 3‐1 Past and Projected Annual County Population Totals ......................................................................... 3‐1 3‐2 Past and Projected Total Average Daily Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd) .................................. 3‐3 3‐3 Past and Projected Total MMD Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd) ............................................... 3‐4 3‐4 IBT Summary for KLRWS – 2013, 2045, and 2060 ............................................................................... 3‐5 4‐1 North Carolina Water Supply Classifications for the Roanoke River Basin ......................................... 4‐1 4‐2 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Fishing Creek Subbasin for the Year 2014................... 4‐2 4‐3 2012 Impairments in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River and Major Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4‐4 Impairments in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin ............................................ 4‐3 4‐5 303(d) Listed Waters in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River, Dan River, and Smith River ................................................................................................................................... 4‐3 4‐6 303(d) Listed Streams in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin .............................. 4‐4 4‐7 Water Supply Classifications for the Tar River Basin ........................................................................... 4‐5 4‐8 Water Supply Classifications for the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin 4‐6 4‐9 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Tar River Basin for the Year 2014 ................................ 4‐6 4‐10 Summary of 303(d) Listed Waters in the Tar River Basin .................................................................... 4‐7 4‐11 303(d) Listed Streams in the Tar River Basin ....................................................................................... 4‐7 4‐12 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Fishing Creek Subbasin for the Year 2014................... 4‐8 4‐13 303(d) Listed Streams in the Fishing Creek Subbasin .......................................................................... 4‐8 4‐14 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Neuse River Basin for the Year 2014 ........................... 4‐9 4‐15 303(d) Listed Streams in the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin ............ 4‐9 4‐16 Federally Listed Aquatic Species within the Service Area ................................................................. 4‐11 6‐1 Summary of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 6‐3 7‐1 Public Water Systems in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin .............................. 7‐1 7‐2 Registered Water Withdrawals in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin ............... 7‐2 8‐1 Lake Level Difference for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during 2002 and 2007 Droughts .............................................................................................................................................. 8‐2 8‐2 Reservoir release differences for the entire simulation period and during the 2002 and 2007 droughts .............................................................................................................................................. 8‐3 8‐3 Power Generation Differences for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during the 2002 and 2007 Droughts ..................................................................................................................... 8‐4 CONTENTS, CONTINUED Section Page KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX V Figures 1‐1 Kerr Lake Regional Water System Water Sales ................................................................................... 1‐3 2‐1 Summary of Interbasin Transfers ‐ 2013 ............................................................................................ 2‐3 2‐2 Summary of Interbasin Transfers ‐ 2045 ............................................................................................ 2‐5 2‐3 Summary of Interbasin Transfers – 2060 ............................................................................................ 2‐7 3‐1 Projected Average Daily Demands for KLRWS and Partners .............................................................. 3‐2 3‐2 Projected Average day of a Maximum Month Demands and IBT for KLRWS ..................................... 3‐4 8‐1 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – 2002 drought close‐up. ........................... 8‐2 8‐2 Comparison of Kerr Lake Releases for 2045 Scenarios during Extreme Drought Period of 2002 ...... 8‐3 CONTENTS, CONTINUED VI KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX VII Acronyms and Abbreviations AF acre‐feet ATC CA CCTV cfs Authorization to Construct critical area closed‐circuit television cubic feet per second EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FONSI I&I Finding of No Significant Impact Inflow and infiltration IBT interbasin transfer Kerr Lake John H. Kerr Reservoir KLRWS Kerr Lake Regional Water System LWSP Local Water Supply Plan MCLP MWh MG Mecklenburg Co‐Generation Limited Partnership Megawatt hour Million gallons mgd million gallons per day MMD NCCGIA average day of a maximum month North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis NCDENR NCDMF NCDWR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina Division of Water Resources NC EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission NHPNA natural heritage program natural area NOI Notice of Intent NSW nutrient sensitive waters O&M operation and maintenance ORW Outstanding Resource Waters RRBHM Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model SGWSA TMDL TKN South Granville Water and Sewer Authority total maximum daily load total Kjehldahl nitrogen ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS VIII KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX TN TP USACE USEPA total nitrogen total phosphorus U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WSRP Water Shortage Response Plan WWTP wastewater treatment plant KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 1 Executive Summary The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) currently provides water directly or indirectly to municipal and county systems in four counties and three river basins in northeastern North Carolina. The water supply for the system is John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake) on the Roanoke River, and the water is used in the Roanoke, Tar‐Pamlico, and Neuse River basins. This reservoir is also known as Buggs Island Lake in Virginia. It is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and KLRWS has an annual average day water storage allocation of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). The owners of the KLRWS and primary bulk customers served by the system are the City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, known as the “Partners.” Ownership responsibility is 60 percent, 20 percent, and 20 percent, respectively. They also currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. These include Stovall, Warrenton, Norlina, Vance County, Kittrell, and Franklin County. Future sales will occur from Oxford to South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWSA) for use by Creedmoor and its customer, Wilton. Franklin County now owns the Youngsville water system, is in the process of purchasing the Franklinton water and wastewater systems, and also sells water to Bunn and Lake Royale. Franklin County also obtains a small amount of additional supply from Louisburg. The system currently produces on average 6.0 mgd of finished water. Maximum month production was 7.8 mgd in 2013 and maximum day production approached 10 mgd. In 2013, the KLRWS maximum month interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Roanoke River basin was approximately 4.6 mgd, which is below the current maximum day grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd. Recent updates to North Carolina G.S. 143‐215.22L now allows IBT compliance to be measured as the daily average of a calendar month. The grandfathered IBT equivalent as calculated as the daily average of a calendar month using recent data is 9.7 mgd. The KLRWS is requesting an IBT Certificate under Session Law 2014‐120 to meet their 2045 demand projections, representing a 30‐year water resources planning window. Of the water produced, some remains in the Roanoke River basin through (1) consumptive use, (2) discharge and treatment through septic systems, and (3) treatment at the City of Henderson’s wastewater treatment plant and effluent discharge into Nutbush Creek, a tributary of Kerr Lake. The majority of the transferred water is to the Tar River basin, with smaller amounts transferred to the Fishing Creek subbasin in Warren County and the Neuse River basin. In 2045, the projected maximum month average day withdrawal from Kerr Lake is 17.4 mgd, which is less than the Partners’ 20 mgd annual average day storage allocation in Kerr Lake, and the projected maximum month average day IBT is 14.2 mgd including:  10.7 mgd to the Tar River basin  1.7 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin  1.8 mgd to the Neuse River basin In working toward the development of this preferred alternative of an increase in IBT, KLRWS continues to ensure continued water service to the Partners, their expanding service areas, and the local utilities that have contracts with the Partners. The following steps have been undertaken by the Partners to plan for future demands:  Completed design and an environment assessment (EA) for Kerr Lake Regional water treatment plant (WTP) expansion (2003) and received extension on the Authorization to Construction (ATC) through December 2016  Cooperated with USACE on a Reallocation Report after requesting a conversion from a water use agreement to a water supply storage agreement in Kerr Lake in order to increase withdrawals (2005) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX  Submitted a Notice of Intent to North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (NC EMC) for increased IBT (2009)  Prepared a Scoping Document to comply with recent IBT regulations (2009)  As required by the 2007 general statutes, conducted public notification efforts and held five public meetings within the source basin and receiving basins of the proposed IBT to gather input from citizens in North Carolina and Virginia, community organizations, and public agencies (2009)  Updated water demand projections to reflect 2013 statutory changes which now define measurement of IBT as the daily average of a maximum calendar month, based on 2013 LWSPs developed by the primary and secondary bulk customers of the Partners (2014)  Included the updated water demand projections (including updates for Virginia water users) in the evaluation of impacts conducted with the updated Roanoke River basin hydrologic model (2014)  Submitted EA which reflects 2014 statutory changes from Session Law 2014‐120, which has since been codified in §143‐215.22L (effective September 18, 2014), along with the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to North Carolina Environmental Review Clearinghouse (2015)  Public hearing scheduled for March 31, 2015 The next step in the certification process is this petition submittal to the NC EMC for an IBT certificate followed by an associated public hearing and opportunity for public comment before the NC EMC rules on the petition. This petition for an IBT certificate includes the following elements in support of the request for IBT: 1. Organization of the KLRWS and the Requested Action 2. KLRWS Infrastructure 3. Present and future water supply needs of the KLRWS and its customers including consumptive and nonconsumptive uses 4. Environmental resources discussion including water quality and quantity information for the source reservoir and the receiving rivers and information on aquatic habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species 5. Water usage data, water conservation, water efficiency, and water stewardship measures used by the KLRWS 6. Alternative sources of water to avoid or minimize an increase in IBT 7. Registered water transfers and withdrawals from the source reservoir and planned transfers or withdrawals 8. How the proposed transfer, if added to all other transfers and withdrawals within the source basin, would not reduce the amount of water available for use to a degree that would impair existing uses or existing and planned uses of the water 9. Future water supply needs within the Roanoke River basin KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 1-1 Introduction 1.1 Organization of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) currently provides water directly or indirectly to municipal and county systems in four counties and three river basins in northeastern North Carolina. The water supply for the system is John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake) on the Roanoke River and the water is used in the Roanoke, Tar‐Pamlico, and Neuse River basins. The owners of the KLRWS and primary bulk customers served by the system are the City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, known as the “Partners.” Ownership responsibility is 60 percent, 20 percent, and 20 percent, respectively. They also currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. These include Stovall, Warrenton, Norlina, Vance County, Kittrell, and Franklin County. Future sales will occur from Oxford to South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWSA) for use by Creedmoor and its customer, Wilton. SGWSA has purchased Creedmoor’s utilities and currently there is no date set for construction of an interconnection with Oxford (when appropriate, this effort would be subject to SEPA and other environmental permitting). Franklin County now owns the Youngsville water system, is in the process of acquiring ownership of Franklinton’s utilities, and also sells water to Bunn and Lake Royale. Franklin County also obtains a small amount of additional supply from Louisburg (Figure 1‐1). 1.2 The Requested Action The system currently produces on average 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water. Maximum month production was 7.8 mgd in 2013 and maximum day production approached 10 mgd. The water treatment plant (WTP) is currently rated for 10 mgd and facility expansion to 20 mgd is in the implementation stages. Matching the WTP capacity, the KLRWS has a grandfathered IBT amount of 10 mgd on a maximum day basis. Recent updates to North Carolina G.S. 143‐215.22L now allows IBT compliance to be measured as the daily average of a calendar month, which based on recent plant data would be equivalent to approximately 9.7 mgd. In 2013, the KLRWS maximum month interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Roanoke River basin was approximately 4.6 mgd. Of the water produced, some stays in the Roanoke River basin through (1) consumptive use, (2) discharge and treatment through septic systems, and (3) treatment at the City of Henderson’s wastewater treatment plant and effluent discharge into Nutbush Creek, a tributary of Kerr Lake. Using Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) data and an understanding that a portion of water is returned to the Roanoke River basin, projected maximum month IBT was calculated for the planning years of 2045 and 2060 and broken into transfer amounts to the Tar River basin, the Fishing Creek subbasin, and the Neuse River basin. In 2045, the projected maximum month average day withdrawal from Kerr Lake is 17.4 mgd and the associated IBT is 14.2 mgd including:  10.7 mgd to the Tar River basin  1.7 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin  1.8 mgd to the Neuse River basin Predictions to 2060 include a maximum month average day withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. This corresponds to an average day withdrawal of 15.9 mgd, which is less than the Partners’ 20 mgd annual average day storage allocation in Kerr Lake. After factoring in the wastewater return and consumptive use in the Roanoke River basin, average day and maximum month average day IBT out of the basin are 12.7 and 16.4 mgd, respectively. The break down by receiving basin for the predicted maximum month average day 2060 IBT is:  12.8 mgd to the Tar River basin  1.9 mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin  1.8 mgd to the Neuse River basin 1 INTRODUCTION 1-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 1.3 Background 1.3.1 Kerr Lake Allocation The 2005 reallocation report issued by 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 storage. This report is included in an appendix of the EA. This volume corresponds to an average annual daily withdrawal of 20 mgd and is approximately 1 percent of the total conservation pool storage (980,054 AF). As a result, the total water supply storage allocation for all Kerr Lake water supply agreements increased to 21,115 AF. Reallocation finalizes the conversion of an original average annual 20‐mgd “water use” agreement to a “storage agreement.” The recommendations in the USACE report state “The reallocation of storage discussed in this report is economically justified and will not significantly impact the authorized purposes of Kerr Lake. The reallocation will not require any structural or operational change” (USACE, 2005). 1.3.2 Guiding Legislation In 2014, Senate Bill 734 was ratified as Session Law 2014‐120 and includes a rewrite of G.S. 143‐215.22L(w), “Requirements for Coastal Counties and Reservoirs Constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.” This Session Law has been codified in §143‐215.22L. This section of the law allows for an expedited IBT process for Kerr Lake, a USACE‐managed reservoir. Given that the USACE approved the withdrawal or transfer on or before July 1, 2014 (the deadline date listed in the statute), this process, unlike the original statute language, does not require an EIS unless it would otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. The revised statute includes that upon NCDENR’s determination that the environmental document is adequate to meet the intent of the statute and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is prepared that NCDENR shall publish notice of the petition and hold one public hearing. After a 30‐day public comment period following the public hearing and preparation of a hearing officer’s report by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), the NC EMC shall make a final determination whether to grant the IBT certificate. 1.3.3 Finding of No Significant Impact The IBT request process was initiated in 2009 by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the NC EMC. The NOI was signed by the three Partners, City of Henderson, City of Oxford, and Warren County. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated FONSI was submitted to the NC Environmental Review Clearinghouse for publication on January 23, 2015. This followed a review period for NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the EA and provided comments on March 16, 2015. Raleigh Durham Butner Red Oak Rocky Mount Chapel Hill Tarboro Cary Dortches Roxboro Morrisville Carrboro Wake Forest Roanoke Rapids Hillsborough Zebulon Nashville Gaston Weldon Rolesville Enfield Stovall Stem Princeville Norlina Momeyer Franklinton Littleton Spring Hope Leggett Bunn Castalia Garysburg Warrenton Elm City Macon Middleburg Halifax Sharpsburg Seaboard Whitakers Kittrell Conetoe Centerville Knightdale PinetopsWilson NASH HALIFAX WAKE PERSON DURHAM EDGECOMBE ORANGE NORTHAMPTON CHATHAM WILSON PITTJOHNSTON HALIFAX MECKLENBURG BRUNSWICK GREENSVILLE 5 0 52.5 Miles Roanoke Rapids Lake Figure 1-1Water SalesInterbasin Transfer from Roanoke River BasinKerr Lake Regional Water System LakeGaston KerrLakeMayoReservoir Lake Hyco Louisburg HendersonOxford Youngsville Creedmoor LakeRoyale FallsLake WARREN VANCE GRANVILLE FRANKLIN 40 85 95 Legend Interstate Highway Water Body KLRWS Partners Water Customers River Basins Major Road County Border Municipalities Major Hydrography WWTP Discharge Fishing Creek (15-2) Contentnea (10-2) Neuse (10-1) Tar (15-1) Roanoke (14-1) 1 INTRODUCTION 1-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 2-1 Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water 2.1 KLRWS WTP and Distribution Infrastructure The raw water intake for the KLRWS WTP is located on the Anderson Creek arm of Kerr Lake and has a capacity of 20 mgd. From the 10 mgd WTP, transmission mains convey finished water to each of the Partners. The WTP will be expanded to 20 mgd, as detailed in the ATC. The ATC expiration date has been extended to December 2016; the letter documenting this change is included in an appendix to the EA. Finished water is then conveyed to bulk customers, as depicted in Figure 1‐1. Table 2‐1 presents details of each of these connections, including age of infrastructure. Given the sizes and ages of the existing infrastructure, it is not anticipated that additional conveyance capacity will be needed or that lines will need to be replaced during the planning period to 2045. Existing infrastructure connecting the WTP and the Partners’ distribution systems is sufficient to meet future water demands. TABLE 2‐1 KLRWS Distribution System Infrastructure Connection Pipe Size (inches) Installation Year c Pipe Age (years) d KLRWS to City of Henderson 24a, 36 1974a 40 KLRWS to City of Oxford 20b, 24a, 30, 36 1974a, 2003b 40, 11 KLRWS to Warren County 20, 24a, 26 1974a 40 a 24” Pipe installed in 1974 b 20” Pipe installed in 2003 d If not noted, installation year not known c Pipe age calculated in 2014 2.2 Wastewater Infrastructure As the KLRWS is strictly a potable water provider, each Partner and their respective customers has a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Of the water users depicted in Figure 1‐1, the City of Henderson discharges and Stovall WWTP disposes of wastewater in the Roanoke River basin. Stovall has a land application system. All other facilities discharge to other basins as part of the current IBT. Each of these facilities is currently operating under its permitted capacity and it is expected that the increases in wastewater flows predicted as part of the proposed increase in IBT can be accommodated within the limits of the existing permitted capacities. Figures 2‐1 through 2‐3 detail these actual (2013) and projected (2045 and 2060) water movements between basins. 2013 LWSP data were used to generate these figures. 2.3 The Transfer of Water In total, the KLRWS is requesting an IBT certificate to transfer on an average day of a maximum month (MMD) basis 14.2 mgd out of the Roanoke River basin. All of these transfers are accounted for based on where the water is consumed or discharged. For example, water must flow through the Tar River basin to reach customers in the Neuse River basin but is accounted for as a transfer from the Roanoke River basin to the Neuse River basin. Consumptive use does occur in the Roanoke River basin as well, which does not constitute IBT. Portions of the City of Henderson, Stovall, Vance County, Granville County, and Norlina service areas are within the Roanoke River basin. This has been accounted for the in the IBT calculations presented in Figures 2‐1 through 2‐3. 2013 LWSP data were used to generate these figures. The requested IBT amount of 14.2 mgd reflects a 30‐year planning period to 2045. Additional water supply planning data to 2060 are presented as a look at projected long‐term water demand and supply trends. 2 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND THE TRANSFER OF WATER 2-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX According to 2013 LWSP data, transfers to the Tar River basin and Fishing Creek subbasin are expected to continue increasing beyond 2045. The total IBT to the Neuse River basin is not expected to measurably increase beyond 2045. This is due to the assumption that, as growth occurs in Franklin County into the future, customers would also be provided with sewer service to the extent practicable. Franklin County’s wastewater system discharges to the Tar River basin, not the Neuse River basin. Therefore, a reduction in consumptive use of water in Franklin County’s Neuse River basin portion of the service area could occur. This is balanced by other utilities’ (SGWASA) increases in transfer to the Neuse River basin. FIGURE 2-1 KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ADD AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND SUMMARY OF INTERBASIN TRANSFERS KERR LAKE PARTNERS Con.CONSUMPTIVE USE YEAR 2013 Max Month - August WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY ADD KLRWS MMAD MMAD MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAY ROANOKE 2.70 Tar IBT 3.64 WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MMAD 0.74 Fishing Cr IBT 0.82 BASIN 0.01 Demands 0.03 0.19 Neuse IBT 0.19 0.01 Sum Below 0.03 5.97 Withdrawal 7.36 -0.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Roanoke 3.23 Sales 7.05 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MMAD 0.02 WW 0.02 to Roanoke 0.24 Process Loss 0.31 from Roanoke 0.74 Fishing Cr IBT 0.82 to Fishing Crk to Roanoke ROANOKE 0.58 Service Area 0.58 RIVER 0.94 Total 1.01 TAR BASIN 0.17 Con. Use 0.17 to Roanoke RIVER ADD OXFORD MMAD ADD HENDERSON MMAD 0.28 Con. Use 0.28 to Fishing Crk BASIN 1.28 Tar IBT 1.40 1.43 Tar IBT 2.24 0.14 WW 0.13 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MMAD 0.00 Neuse IBT 0.00 0.19 Neuse IBT 0.19 4.95 0.00 Demands 0.00 1.28 Service Area 1.40 1.37 Service Area 2.55 0.15 Sale 0.13 to Norlina 0.00 0.00 1.29 Total 1.42 5.72 3.66 Total 4.62 0.19 Sale 0.30 to Warrenton 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Roanoke 0.06 Con. Use 0.31 to Tar -0.27 Con. Use 0.03 to Roanoke ADD Norlina MMAD 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Tar 1.22 WW 1.09 to Tar -0.62 Con. Use 0.06 to Tar 0.15 Demands 0.13 0.00 Con Loss 0.00 to Neuse 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Creedmoor 2.26 WW 2.16 to Roanoke 0.15 Sum Below 0.13 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar 0.01 Sale 0.03 to Stovall 0.03 Con. Use 0.02 to Roanoke NEUSE 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Granville Co.0.06 Sale 0.07 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.03 Con. Use 0.02 to Fishing Crk RIVER 2.24 Sale 2.30 to Franklin Co.0.09 WW 0.09 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.00 Sale 0.00 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MMAD ADD Creedmoor MMAD RIVER 0.00 Demands 0.00 ADD Warrenton MMAD 0.00 Demands 0.00 BASIN 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.19 Demands 0.30 FISHING CREEK 0.00 Sum Below 0.00 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Roanoke 0.19 Sum Below 0.30 (SUBBASIN TO TAR) 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Tar ADD Kittrell MMAD 0.00 Con. Use 0.00 to Tar -0.03 Con. Use 0.12 to Fishing Crk 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar 0.06 Demands 0.07 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Roanoke 0.23 WW 0.18 to Fishing Crk FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.06 Sum Below 0.06 0.06 Con. Use 0.06 to Tar TAR NEUSE 0.00 WW. 0.00 to Tar RIVER WARREN COUNTY RIVER ADD Franklin Co.MMAD BASIN BASIN 1.95 Service Area 2.00 2.24 Total 2.30 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 1.05 Con. Use 1.06 to Tar ADD Bunn MMAD ADD MMAD 0.19 Con. Use 0.19 to Neuse 0.12 Demands 0.14 Withdrawal ROANOKE 5.97 7.67 0.71 WW 0.75 to Tar 0.12 Sum Below 0.14 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE -0.07 0.23 0.00 Con. Use 0.14 to Tar TAR 0.72 1.79 0.12 Sale 0.14 to Bunn 0.11 WW 0.00 to Tar FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.27 0.42 0.17 Sale 0.17 to Lake Royale NEUSE 0.19 0.19 Wastewater Discharge ROANOKE 2.26 2.47 TAR 2.04 1.84 ADD Lake Royale MMAD FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.46 0.40 0.17 Demands 0.17 NEUSE 0.00 0.00 Louisburg 0.17 Sum Below 0.17 Total Return to ROANOKE 2.19 2.69 Contract 0.17 Con. Use 0.17 to Tar IBT TAR 2.76 3.63 0.67 From Tar 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 0.74 0.82 IBT NEUSE 0.19 0.19 Total IBT 3.68 4.63 check 5.87 7.33 NOTES: 1 Values were determined using the 2013 LWSPs. 2 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin, as noted in LWSPs. 3 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 4 Future sales customers and new water systems not fully online in 2013 are shown as zero. 2 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND THE TRANSFER OF WATER 2-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. FIGURE 2-2 KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ADD AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND SUMMARY OF INTERBASIN TRANSFERS KERR LAKE PARTNERS Con.CONSUMPTIVE USE YEAR 2045 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER ADD KLRWS MMAD KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY 8.16 Tar IBT 10.70 MMAD MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAY ROANOKE 1.39 Fishing Cr IBT 1.68 WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MMAD 1.19 Neuse IBT 1.77 BASIN 0.01 Demands 0.02 10.74 Total IBT 14.16 0.01 Sum Below 0.02 - Demand Factor 1.26 0.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Roanoke 13.77 Withdrawal 17.40 from Roanoke ADD WARREN CO MMAD 0.01 WW 0.01 to Roanoke 13.77 Check 17.35 1.39 Fishing Cr IBT 1.68 0.18 Process Water 0.23 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.19 Service Area 1.50 RIVER 1.65 Total 2.07 TAR BASIN 0.23 Con. Use 0.34 to Roanoke RIVER 0.37 Con. Use 0.55 to Fishing Crk BASIN ADD OXFORD MMAD ADD HENDERSON MMAD 0.59 WW 0.60 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MMAD 2.68 Tar IBT 3.38 5.48 Tar IBT 7.33 1.10 Demands 1.39 0.80 Neuse IBT 1.01 0.39 Neuse IBT 0.76 0.15 Sale 0.18 to Norlina 1.10 Sum Below 1.39 1.58 Service Area 1.99 3.54 Service Area 4.46 0.32 Sale 0.39 to Warrenton 3.49 Total 4.40 to Tar & Neuse 8.63 Total 10.92 ADD Norlina MMAD 0.55 Con. Use 0.69 to Tar 0.07 Con. Use 1.00 to Tar 0.38 Con. Use 0.66 to Roanoke 0.15 Demands 0.18 0.55 WW 0.69 to Tar 1.51 WW 1.00 to Tar 0.89 Con. Use 1.55 to Tar 0.15 Sum Below 0.18 0.80 Sale 1.01 to SGWSA 2.26 WW 2.02 to Roanoke 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Roanoke NEUSE 0.01 Sale 0.02 to Stovall 0.06 Sale 0.07 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Fishing Crk RIVER 1.10 Sale 1.39 to Granville Co.4.80 Sale 6.32 to Franklin Co.0.07 WW 0.07 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.23 Sale 0.30 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MMAD ADD SGWSA MMAD RIVER 0.23 Demands 0.30 ADD Warrenton MMAD 0.78 Service Area 0.98 BASIN 0.23 Sum Below 0.30 0.32 Demands 0.39 FISHING CREEK 0.80 Total 1.01 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Roanoke 0.32 Sum Below 0.39 (SUBBASIN TO TAR) 0.04 Con. Use 0.49 to Neuse ADD Kittrell MMAD 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Tar 0.16 Con. Use 0.23 to Fishing Crk 0.74 WW 0.49 to Neuse 0.06 Demands 0.07 0.00 WW 0.00 0.16 WW 0.16 to Fishing Crk 0.02 Sale 0.03 to Wilton 0.06 Sum Below 0.07 FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.06 Con. Use 0.07 to Tar TAR WARREN COUNTY ADD Wilton MMAD 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar RIVER 0.02 Demands 0.03 ADD Franklin Co.MMAD BASIN 0.02 Sum Below 0.03 NEUSE 4.05 Service Area 5.10 0.02 Con. Use 0.03 to Neuse RIVER 4.80 Total 6.32 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 0.00 WW 0.00 to Neuse BASIN 2.19 Con. Use 2.76 to Tar ADD Bunn MMAD ADD MMAD 0.39 Con. Use 0.76 to Neuse 0.32 Demands 0.40 Withdrawal ROANOKE 13.77 17.40 1.47 WW 1.85 to Tar 0.32 Sum Below 0.40 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.77 1.21 0.32 Sale 0.40 to Bunn 0.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Tar TAR 4.26 6.76 0.43 Sale 0.55 to Lake Royale 0.31 WW 0.39 to Tar FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.56 0.84 NEUSE 0.45 1.28 Wastewater Discharge ROANOKE 2.26 2.02 TAR 3.85 3.94 ADD Lake Royale MMAD FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.83 0.84 0.43 Demands 0.55 NEUSE 0.74 0.49 Louisburg 0.43 Sum Below 0.55 Total Return to ROANOKE 3.03 3.23 Contract 0.43 Con. Use 0.54 to Tar IBT TAR 8.10 10.70 0.67 From Tar 0.01 WW 0.01 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 1.39 1.68 IBT NEUSE 1.19 1.77 Total IBT 10.68 14.16 check 14.16 NOTES: 1 MMAD values were determined using a 1.260 Demand Factor, based on 2007-2013 water production data. 2 Water from Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non-KLRWS water. 3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin, as noted in LWSPs. 4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 2 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND THE TRANSFER OF WATER 2-6 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. FIGURE 2-3 LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ADD AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND SUMMARY OF INTERBASIN TRANSFERS KERR LAKE PARTNERS Con.CONSUMPTIVE USE YEAR 2060 WATER SALES BY PARTNERS IBT INTERBASIN TRANSFER KLRWS KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM GRANVILLE COUNTY ADD KLRWS MMAD MMAD MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAY ROANOKE 9.84 Tar IBT 12.84 WW WASTEWATER RIVER ADD Stovall MMAD 1.74 Fishing Cr IBT 1.85 BASIN 0.01 Demands 0.02 1.37 Neuse IBT 1.72 0.01 Total 0.02 Demand Factor 1.26 0.01 Con. Use 0.01 to Roanoke 15.93 Withdrawal 20.07 from Roanoke 0.01 WW 0.01 to Roanoke 15.93 Check 20.07 ADD WARREN CO MMAD to Fishing Crk 0.19 Process Water 0.23 to Roanoke ROANOKE 1.74 Fishing Cr IBT 1.85 RIVER 1.36 Service Area 1.72 TAR BASIN 1.82 Total 2.30 RIVER ADD OXFORD MMAD 0.26 Con. Use 0.39 to Roanoke BASIN 3.24 Tar IBT 4.08 ADD HENDERSON MMAD 0.42 Con. Use 0.63 to Fishing Crk ADD Granville Co.MMAD 0.87 Neuse IBT 1.10 6.60 Tar IBT 8.76 0.68 WW 0.69 to Fishing Crk 1.50 Demands 1.89 1.74 Service Area 2.19 0.49 Neuse IBT 0.62 1.50 Total 1.89 4.13 Total 5.20 3.70 Service Area 4.66 0.15 Sale 0.18 to Norlina 0.08 Con. Use 0.10 to Tar 9.97 Total 12.57 0.32 Sale 0.40 to Warrenton ADD Norlina MMAD 0.75 Con Loss 0.94 to Tar 1.66 WW 2.09 to Tar 0.40 Con. Use 0.69 to Roanoke 0.15 Demands 0.18 0.75 WW 0.94 to Tar 0.87 Sale 1.10 to SGWSA 0.93 Con. Use 1.62 to Tar 0.15 Total 0.18 0.01 Sale 0.02 to Stovall 2.36 WW 2.11 to Roanoke 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Roanoke NEUSE 1.50 Sale 1.89 to Granville Co.0.06 Sale 0.07 to Kittrell VANCE COUNTY 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Fishing Crk RIVER 5.98 Sale 7.53 to Franklin Co.0.07 WW 0.07 to Fishing Crk BASIN 0.24 Sale 0.30 to Vance Co. TAR ADD Vance Co MMAD ADD SGWSA MMAD RIVER 0.24 Demands 0.30 ADD Warrenton MMAD 0.85 Service Area 1.08 BASIN 0.24 Total 0.30 0.32 Demands 0.40 FISHING CREEK 0.87 Total 1.10 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Roanoke 0.32 Total 0.40 (SUBBASIN TO TAR) 0.04 Con. Use 0.05 to Neuse ADD Kittrell MMAD 0.12 Con. Use 0.15 to Tar 0.19 Con. Use 0.24 to Fishing Crk 0.81 WW 1.02 to Neuse 0.06 Demands 0.07 0.00 WW 0.00 to Roanoke 0.13 WW 0.16 to Fishing Crk 0.02 Sales 0.03 to Neuse 0.06 Total 0.07 FRANKLIN COUNTY 0.06 Con. Use 0.07 to Tar TAR WARREN COUNTY ADD Wilton MMAD 0.00 WW 0.00 to Tar RIVER 0.02 Demands 0.03 ADD Franklin Co.MMAD BASIN 0.02 Total 0.03 NEUSE 5.15 Service Area 6.48 0.02 Con. Use 0.03 to Neuse RIVER 5.98 Total 7.53 IBT SUMMARY FOR KLRWS 0.00 WW 0.00 to Neuse BASIN 2.78 Con. Use 3.51 to Tar ADD Bunn MMAD ADD MMAD 0.49 Con. Use 0.62 to Neuse 0.40 Demands 0.51 Withdrawal ROANOKE 15.93 20.07 1.87 WW 2.36 to Tar 0.40 Total 0.51 Consumptive Loss ROANOKE 0.56 0.91 0.40 Sale 0.51 to Bunn 0.01 Con. Use 0.02 to Tar TAR 5.16 6.95 0.43 Sale 0.55 to Lake Royale 0.39 WW 0.49 to Tar FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.65 0.93 NEUSE 0.55 0.70 WW Discharge ROANOKE 2.36 2.11 TAR 4.68 5.90 ADD Lake Royale MMAD FISHING CREEK (subbasin to Tar)0.88 0.93 0.43 Demands 0.55 NEUSE 0.81 1.02 Louisburg 0.43 Total 0.55 Total Return to ROANOKE 2.93 3.02 Contract 0.43 Con. Use 0.54 to Tar IBT TAR 9.84 12.84 0.67 From Tar 0.01 WW 0.01 to Tar IBT FISHING CREEK 1.53 1.85 IBT NEUSE 1.37 1.72 Total IBT 12.73 16.42 check 16.42 NOTES: 1 MMAD values were determined using a 1.260 Demand Factor, based on 2007-2013 water production data. 2 Water from Louisburg subtracted from Franklin County totals since non-KLRWS water. 3 Consumptive use dispersement based on % of system in each basin, as noted in LWSPs. 4 Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation and other consumptive uses. 2 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND THE TRANSFER OF WATER 2-8 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 3-1 Predicted Water Demands and Uses KLRWS is actively planning to meet its Partners’ and the Partners’ customers’ needs for a safe, reliable water supply into the future. Using a typical 30‐year water supply planning period to 2045, KLRWS shows a projected average day demand of 13.8 mgd and MMD of 17.4 mgd. This demand is based on population projections, industrial demands, service area expansion plans, planned connections to the water supply, and LWSPs developed by the customers of this regional water supplier; in other words, these demands represent both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. The Partners provide a cost‐effective solution to water supply needs for their customers and intend to continue serving as a regional supplier into the future. LWSPs are available on the NCDWR website. In addition to serving future projected population, commercial, and industrial growth, The Partners and their wholesale customer systems are extending water service areas, obtaining new water customers who are currently served by private wells. This is non‐growth related service area expansion is especially occurring in Vance and Warren Counties. Residents in Vance County have complained about the quality of their well water caused by a high mineral content, which creates taste and odor issues, and areas of groundwater contamination. These well water issues seem most concentrated in southern Vance County. To meet these future water demands, the Partners intend to increase their withdrawal from Kerr Lake in the Roanoke River basin by expanding their WTP and by obtaining an IBT Certificate beyond their current grandfathered amount. 3.1 Population Projections According to projection data included in the LWSPs and other sources, population growth will occur at a slow rate in Vance and Warren Counties, while more rapid growth is occurring in Granville County (where Oxford is located) and Franklin County, which is in relatively close proximity to the Research Triangle area. Table 3‐1 lists population projections through 2030 for each of the counties within the KLRWS service area. TABLE 3‐1 Past and Projected Annual County Population Totals County 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 Franklin 47,260 53,880 60,813 62,697 63,433 66,009 68,611 71,211 Granville 48,498 53,090 57,577 57,910 59,310 61,336 63,361 65,388 Vance 42,954 43,192 45,358 45,056 45,583 45,692 45,802 45,913 Warren 19,972 20,072 20,939 20,453 20,456 20,088 19,855 19,705 Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, 2013 3.2 Average Daily Water Demands Figure 3‐1 and Table 3‐2 presents average daily water demand projections through 2060. These projections reflect residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional growth projections. 3 PREDICTED WATER DEMANDS AND USES 3-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX FIGURE 3‐1 Projected Average Daily Demands for KLRWS and Partners 3 PREDICTED WATER DEMANDS AND USES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 3-3 TABLE 3‐2 Past and Projected Total Average Daily Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd) Partner Entity Served 2013 2020 2030 2040 2045 2050 2060 City of Henderson 1.37 2.96 3.19 3.49 3.54 3.59 3.70 Franklin County 1.95 2.08 3.04 3.65 4.05 4.45 5.15 Bunn 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.40 Lake Royale 0.17 0.37 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Kittrell 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Vance County 0.00 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 City of Henderson TOTAL 3.66 5.86 7.19 8.16 8.63 9.10 9.97 City of Oxford 1.28 1.35 1.44 1.53 1.58 1.63 1.74 Stovall 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Granville County 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.10 1.20 1.50 SGWSA (for Creedmoor) 0.00 0.42 0.57 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.85 Wilton 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 City of Oxford TOTAL 1.29 2.11 2.64 3.17 3.49 3.72 4.13 Warren County 0.67 0.89 1.01 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.36 Norlina 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Warrenton 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 Littleton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Warren County TOTAL 1.01 1.34 1.46 1.58 1.65 1.71 1.82 KLRWS TOTAL 5.97 9.30 11.29 12.92 13.77 14.52 15.93 Source: Data provided by KLRWS and 2013 Local Water Supply Plans 3.3 Maximum Month Average Day Water Demands For KLRWS, the current relationship between average day demands and maximum month demands produces a demand factor of 1.26. This demand factor was conservatively calculated as the maximum ratio between WTP average annual and maximum month water use data for the period of fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013 (KLRWS maintains data by July to June fiscal years). Predicted MMD water demands are presented in Table 3‐3. 3 PREDICTED WATER DEMANDS AND USES 3-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 3.4 Interbasin Transfer Based on basin boundaries and wastewater discharge locations, the KLRWS demand and IBT projections (average day of a maximum month or MMD) are summarized in Table 3‐4. Figure 3‐2 illustrates current and projected demands by river basin while Figures 2‐1 through 2‐3 provide greater detail of water movement including consumptive uses and nonconsumptive uses such as wastewater discharge into another basin. FIGURE 3‐2 Projected Average day of a Maximum Month Demands and IBT for KLRWS TABLE 3‐3 Past and Projected Total MMD Demands and Sales for KLRWS (mgd) Partner (Total Including Sales) 2013 2020 2030 2040 2045 2050 2060 City of Henderson 4.62 7.38 9.06 10.28 10.87 11.47 12.57 City of Oxford 1.63 2.65 3.32 4.00 4.40 4.68 5.20 Warren County 1.27 1.69 1.84 2.00 2.07 2.15 2.30 KLRWS TOTAL 7.5 11.7 14.2 16.3 17.4 18.3 20.1 Source: Data provided by KLRWS and 2013 Local Water Supply Plans, updated in 2014 Values were calculated using data in Table 2‐3 with a demand factor of 1.26. SECTION 3 PREDICTED WATER DEMANDS AND USES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 3-5 TABLE 3‐4 IBT Summary for KLRWS – 2013, 2045, and 2060 2013 (mgd) 2045 (mgd) 2060 (mgd) Water Usage Subbasin ADD MMD ADD MMD ADD MMD Withdrawal Roanoke 6.0 7.7 13.8 17.4 15.9 20.1 Consumptive Loss Roanoke ‐0.1 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.9 Tar 0.7 1.8 4.3 6.8 5.2 6.9 Fishing Creek (subbasin to Tar) 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 Neuse 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.7 Wastewater Discharge Roanoke 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.1 Total Return To Roanoke 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.0 IBT Tar 2.8 3.6 8.1 10.7 9.8 12.8 IBT Fishing Creek 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.9 IBT to Neuse 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.7 Notes: 1. MMD values are defined as average day of a maximum month and were determined using a 1.26 demand factor building from on 2013 water production data. 2. Water from Franklinton and Louisburg was subtracted from Franklin County totals since it is non‐KLRWS water. 4. Consumptive use includes wastewater to septic tanks, water used for irrigation, and other consumptive uses. 5. Average day consumptive loss in 2013 in the Roanoke River basin is negative and is skewed by a few wet weather events. 3 PREDICTED WATER DEMANDS AND USES 3-6 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 4-1 Environmental Resources Environmental resources are discussed in detail in the EA and associated FONSI published in January 2015. The FONSI is included as Appendix A to this petition. Of particular concern during the evaluation of potential impacts associated with the transfer of water from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar, Neuse, and Fishing Creek basins are water quality, water quantity, and aquatic habitat resources. Discussions provided below are focused on these environmental resources. 4.1 Water Resources This discussion is presented first for the source basin and then for the three receiving basins. 4.1.1 Source Basin 4.1.1.1 Water Quantity and Water Supply Water quantity in the Roanoke River basin is managed through release regimes for each of the reservoirs within the system. These release regimes include flows to maintain instream aquatic habitats including seasonal variations and water storage management for functions such as flood control and water supply storage. Reservoirs are managed by the USACE, Appalachian Power, Dominion Power, and Duke Energy. Water quantity issues related to the KLRWS withdrawal from Kerr Lake are addressed in the 2005 USACE Reallocation Report, which determined that no significant impacts would be associated with the 20‐mgd water storage allocation other than a small amount of lost hydropower potential and that this water supply storage was the best alternative to meet the area’s water supply needs (USACE, 2005). A list of North Carolina streams classified as water supply watersheds is included in Table 4‐1. TABLE 4‐1 North Carolina Water Supply Classifications for the Roanoke River Basin Stream Name Classification User Unnamed Tributary to Dan River WS‐II Camp Sertoma Country Line Creek WS‐II Town of Yanceyville South Hyco Creek WS‐II City of Roxboro Storys Creek WS‐II City of Roxboro Anderson Creek WS‐III KLRWS Fullers Creek WS‐III Town of Yanceyville Belews Creek WS‐IV Town of Kernersville Dan River WS‐IV Town of Madison and City of Eden Mayo River WS‐IV Town of Stoneville Roanoke River WS‐IV Roanoke Rapids Smith River WS‐IV City of Eden Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA), 2014; North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2013a 4.1.1.2 Water Quality The City of Henderson discharges to Nutbush Creek, which flows into Kerr Lake and is a 303(d)‐listed stream for biological impairment. The City’s current NPDES permit includes a provision to allow expansion of the 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX discharge to 6.0 mgd; the limits in the permit are designed to preserve instream water quality. The facility has not had a violation or penalty since 2001 and thus has a long track record of compliance. Recent facility data are included in Table 4‐2. Some water customers in the Roanoke River basin do not have sewer service; instead, they have on‐site (septic) systems for treatment. It is expected that as water lines are extended, many customers will not be connected to sewer system given the more rural nature of the basin. TABLE 4‐2 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Fishing Creek Subbasin for the Year 2014 Average Annual Discharge DO BOD5 (summer) BOD5 (winter) Ammonia TN TP (summer) TP (winter) Nitrate/ Nitrite TKN (mgd) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Henderson Annual Average 2.67 8.5 1.3 3.6 0.9 21.5 0.5 21.2 0.2 Permit Limit 4.14 min. 6.0 6.0 12.0 3.0 N/A 1.0 1.5 N/A N/A A compilation of 303(d)‐listed streams in Virginia is included in Table 4‐3, which also identifies the percentage of impaired water size by water body type in the Roanoke River and its major tributaries, summarized by impairment type; the 2012 list is shown. Further details on the major impaired streams listed are shown in Table 4‐5. Table 4‐4 shows the miles and acreages of impaired waters from the North Carolina 2012 list, summarized by impairment type, within the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin. All waters in North Carolina are in Category 5 on the 2012 303(d) List for mercury due to statewide fish consumption advisories for several fish species. Further details on all of the listed waters in North Carolina’s portion of the Roanoke River basin are shown in Table 4‐6. TABLE 4‐3 2012 Impairments in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River and Major Tributaries Impairment Type Rivers (% of impaired water size) Lakes (% of impaired water size) Bacteria 87 Benthics 18 Mercury in Fish Tissue 12 71 PCBs in Fish Tissue 12 93 Temperature 6 DO 3 54 DDD/DDE <1 DDT in Fish Tissue <1 Source: VADEQ, 2014 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 4-3 TABLE 4‐4 Impairments in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin Impairment Type Stream (miles) Waterbody (acres) Aquatic Weeds 4,185 Cadmium 18.3 Chlorophyll a 901.5 Copper 13.2 Dioxin 31.6 Ecological/Biological Integrity ‐ Benthos 495.6 Ecological/Biological Integrity – Fish Community 344.4 Fecal Coliform (recreation) 212.0 High pH 4,185 High Water Temperature 6,371.4 Low DO 28.5 Turbidity 58.0 90.7 Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life 53.7 25,027.2 Water Quality Standards Water Supply 14.2 Zinc 4.5 Source: NCDWR, 2013 TABLE 4‐5 303(d) Listed Waters in the Virginia Portion of the Roanoke River Basin, Roanoke River, Dan River, and Smith River Cause Group Code Waterbody Impairment Cause Miles/Acres L03R‐01‐TEMP Roanoke River Temperature 13.08 Miles L04R‐01‐HG Roanoke River Mercury in Fish Tissue 10.20 Miles L42R‐01‐TEMP Dan River Temperature 15.10 Miles L50R‐01‐TEMP Smith River Temperature 9.182 Miles L60R‐01‐HG Dan River, Banister River and Hyco River Mercury in Fish Tissue 61.66 Miles/1,655.60 Acres L60R‐01‐PCB Dan River, Banister River and Hyco River PCB in Fish Tissue 61.66 Miles/1,655.60 Acres Source: VADEQ, 2014 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX TABLE 4‐6 303(d) Listed Streams in the North Carolina Portion of the Roanoke River Basin Assessment Unit Number Stream or Waterbody Parameter of Interest Miles/Acres 23‐8‐(1)a Nutbush Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 1.7 Miles 23‐8‐(1)b Nutbush Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos, & Ecological/Biological Integrity Fish Community 1.6 Miles 22‐(1)b Dan River Turbidity 11.6 Miles 22‐27‐(1.5) Belews Creek (Kernersville Lake) Chlorophyll a 46.1 Acres 22‐(38.5) Dan River Turbidity 0.6 Miles 22‐40‐(1) Smith River Copper 2.8 Miles 22‐40‐(2.5) Smith River Copper 0.5 Miles 22‐(39)a Dan River Turbidity 13.8 Miles 22‐40‐(3) Smith River Copper 1.8 Miles 22‐39(b) Dan River Turbidity 9.6 Miles 22‐56‐(3.5)a County Line Creek (Farmers Lake) Chlorophyll a, Turbidity 90.7 Acres 22‐58‐4‐(1.4) South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro) Chlorophyll a 493.6 Acres 22‐58‐12‐6a Marlowe Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.6 Miles 22‐58‐12‐6b Marlowe Creek Copper, Zinc, Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 4.5 Miles 23‐10‐2 Newmans Creek (Little Deep Creek) Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.1 Miles 23‐10a Smith Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.1 Miles 23‐10c Smith Creek Turbidity 3.0 Miles 23‐30b Quankey Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 3.4 Miles 23‐(26)b3 Roanoke River Low DO 17.8 Miles 26 Albemarle Sound Dioxin 6.5 Miles Source: NCDWR, 2013. There are three total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs for the Roanoke River. Most recently, the Decision Rationale for the PCB TMDL was published in 2010 after PCBs were included in the 1998 303(d) list (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2010). One notable difference is the new impairment cause of PCB in the water column. The benthic TMDL for aquatic life use impairments and the bacteria TMDL for primary contact use impairment both went into effect in 2006 (USEPA, 2006a; USEPA, 2006b). When the bacteria impairment was initially listed in 1996, Virginia was using fecal coliform as the indicator. Since 2003, E. coli and enterococci have been adopted as the indicators. Other TMDLs exist for major tributaries within the Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin; the documents can be found on the USEPA’s website (USEPA, 2014). 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 4-5 4.1.2 Receiving Basins 4.1.2.1 Water Quantity and Water Supply Tar River Basin The Tar River basin contains water supply areas under the classifications of WS‐II and WS‐IV. Table 4‐7 lists the water supply areas by classification and location. All waters in this watershed have a supplemental classification as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). This is assigned to waters that either experience or are subject to microscopic and macroscopic vegetation growth due to the presence of excess nutrients (NCDWR, 2004); the Tar River basin is classified as NSW to protect the estuary from excessive nutrient loading. Waters at Pamlico Sound, including Swanquarter Bay Refuge, Juniper Bay and many of its tributaries, and parts of the sound itself, are classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). TABLE 4‐7 Water Supply Classifications for the Tar River Basin Stream Name Classification User Cedar Creek WS‐II NSW City of Louisburg Fishing Creek (Enfield) WS‐IV NSW Town of Enfield Hatchers Run WS‐II NSW Town of Oxford (not in use) Sally Kearney Creek WS‐II NSW City of Louisburg Tar River WS‐IV NSW City of Greenville Tar River WS‐IV NSW City of Louisburg Tar River WS‐IV NSW Town of Oxford (not in use) Tar River and Tar River Reservoir WS‐IV NSW City of Rocky Mount Tar River WS‐IV NSW Town of Tarboro Source: NCCGIA, 2014; NCDWR, 2013a Note: Fishing Creek subbasin is not included in this table (see Section 4.1.1.3). Fishing Creek Subbasin A portion of Fishing Creek is classified as WS‐IV for the Town of Enfield’s water supply usage. Farther downstream, a portion is classified for the Town of Tarboro’s usage. Neither is currently being used for public water supply. Neuse River Basin The service area portion of the Neuse River basin (southern Granville and Franklin Counties) contains water supply areas under the classification of WS‐II and WS‐IV, as listed in Table 4‐8. All waters in the lower Neuse River basin are assigned a supplemental classification of NSW, for waters that either experience or are subject to microscopic and macroscopic vegetation growth due to the presence of excess nutrients (NCDWR, 2009a). 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-6 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX TABLE 4‐8 Water Supply Classifications for the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin Stream Name Classification User Knap of Reeds Creek (Lake Butner) WS‐II NSW Town of Butner Ledge Creek (Lake Rogers) WS‐II NSW City of Creedmoor Falls Lake WS‐IV NSW Durham, Granville, & Wake Counties Source: NCCGIA, 2014; NCDWR, 2013a 4.1.2.2 Water Quality The increased transfer of water to the Tar River, Fishing Creek, and Neuse basins would translate into an increase in wastewater discharges at the Oxford, Warrenton, Bunn, Franklin County, and SGWSA WWTPs. These NPDES permits were issued to protect instream water quality while allowing for flexibility with adaptive management strategies. All waters in North Carolina are in Category 5 of the 2012 303(d) List for mercury due to statewide fish consumption for several fish species. Tar River Basin The Tar‐Pamlico River basin has a nutrient management strategy in place; Phase III is currently underway. Phosphorus and nitrogen reduction goals are the focus, with trading and other mechanisms set up to cost‐ effectively reduce nutrient loading. Wastewater treatment facilities within the basin currently have permits with adequate capacity for increases in wastewater generated as a result of additional water supply. These facilities have been in compliance with their permits, as summarized for 2014 in Table 4‐9. TABLE 4‐9 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Tar River Basin for the Year 2014 Average Annual Discharge DO BOD5 (summer) BOD5 (winter) Ammonia TN TP (summer) TP (winter) Nitrate/ Nitrite TKN (mgd) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Oxford Annual Average 1.231 8.0 1.2 1.0 0.29 4.4 0.16 0.1 3 1.3 Permit Limit 3.5 min. 6.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 summer; 2.0 winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Franklin County Annual Average 0.762 9.2 5.0 6.6 0.91 11.6 0.71 0.55 9.25 2.37 Permit Limit a 3.0 min. 5.0 8.0 18.0 1.0 summer; 2.0 winter Monitor Monitor Monitor a Franklin County’s facility is currently operating under its 1.0 mgd permit page; the facility is permitted for up to 3.0 mgd. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 4-7 Table 4‐10 indicates the miles and acreage of impaired waters located in the Tar River basin as included in the 2012 303(d) list, with the exception of the Fishing Creek subbasin presented in Table 4‐12, summarized by impairment type. Further details on impaired stream miles listed are presented in Table 4‐11. TABLE 4‐10 Summary of 303(d) Listed Waters in the Tar River Basin Impairment Type Stream (miles) Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 47.9 Low DO 41.7 Turbidity 33.0 Source: NCDWR, 2013b TABLE 4‐11 303(d) Listed Streams in the Tar River Basin Assessment Unit Number Stream Parameter of Interest Stream (miles) 28‐5a North Fork Tar River Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.9 28‐11c Fishing Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 0.9 28‐11d Fishing Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 1.0 28‐11e Fishing Creek Turbidity 6.1 28‐11‐2 Foundry Branch Low DO 5.5 28‐(15.5) Tar River Turbidity 14.8 28‐29‐(2)b Cedar Creek Turbidity 12.1 29‐30a Crooked Creek Low DO 15.1 28‐30b Crooked Creek Low DO 5.4 28‐68b Stony Creek (Boddies Millpond) Low DO, Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.9 28‐(36)b Tar River Low DO 3.4 28‐(64.5) Tar River Low DO 6.4 28‐78‐1(8)b1 Sandy Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 5.3 28‐83ut8 UT to Town Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 2.6 28‐81 Hendricks Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 3.9 28‐87‐(0.5)d Conetoe Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 6.7 28‐87‐1.2 Ballahack Canal Turbidity, Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 8.4 28‐96 Greens Mill Run Ecological/Biological Integrity ‐ Benthos 7.3 Source: NCDWR, 2013b UT = unnamed tributary Fishing Creek Subbasin The Fishing Creek subbasin, which is part of the Tar River basin and includes portions of Vance and Warren Counties, is considered a separate subbasin from the Tar River basin under IBT statute. The Town of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-8 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX Warrenton’s WWTP, owned by Warren County, has a capacity of 2.0 mgd; 2014 wastewater characteristics are presented in Table 4‐12. TABLE 4‐12 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Fishing Creek Subbasin for the Year 2014 Average Annual Discharge DO BOD5 (summer) BOD5 (winter) Ammonia TN TP (summer) TP (winter) Nitrate/Nitrite TKN (mgd) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L ) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L ) Warren Co. Annual Average 0.550 9.6 0.6 3.6 0.01 summer; 2.0 winter 21.6 1.88 1.38 21.6 0.3 Permit Limit 2.0 min. 5.0 9.0 18.0 0.1 summer; 4.0 winter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A As shown in Table 4‐13, the 2012 list includes the mainstem of Fishing Creek due to low DO levels and an unnamed tributary to Beech Swamp for mercury and zinc. TABLE 4‐13 303(d) Listed Streams in the Fishing Creek Subbasin Assessment Unit Number Stream Parameter of Interest Stream Miles 28‐79‐(1) Fishing Creek Low DO 36.7 28‐79‐30ut1 UT to Beech Swamp Water Column Mercury, Zinc 2.2 Source: NCDWR, 2013b Neuse River Basin SGWSA has obtained ownership of the City of Creedmoor’s facilities. The facility falls under the Falls Lake Nutrient Strategy, which requires annual loading limits for nutrients. A facility upgrade and expansion is currently underway. New permit requirements, which will further reduce nutrient loading under Stage I of the Falls Lake Nutrient Strategy, will take effect on January 1, 2016. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 4-9 TABLE 4‐14 Wastewater Discharge Characteristics in the Neuse River Basin for the Year 2014 Average Annual Discharge DO BOD5 (summer) BOD5 (winter) Ammonia TN TP (summer) TP (winter) Nitrate/Nitrite TKN (mgd) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) SGWSA Annual Average 1.98 8.87 2.37 2.45 0.12 4.31 0.15 0.17 3.4 0.91 Permit Limit 5.5 min. 6.0 5.0 10.0 2.0 summer; 4.0 winter 58,599 lb/year 2.0 2.0 N/A N/A Current Permit: TN annual mass limit: 58,599 lbs/year 2016 Permit Page: TN annual mass limit of 22,420 lb/year; TP of 2,284 lb/year Table 4‐15 indicates the miles of impaired waters located in the eastern tributaries to Falls Lake. Within this scope, only Knap of Reeds Creek and Smith Creek are listed for impairment. All waters in North Carolina are in Category 5 of the 2012 303(d) List for mercury due to statewide fish consumption for several fish species. TABLE 4‐15 303(d) Listed Streams in the Eastern Tributaries to Falls Lake Portion of Neuse River Basin Assessment Unit Number Stream Parameter of Interest Stream Miles 27‐4‐(6) Knap of Reeds Creek Zinc 5.6 27‐4‐(8) Knap of Reeds Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Benthos 0.6 27‐23‐(2) Smith Creek Ecological/Biological Integrity Fish Community 5.8 Source: NCDWR, 2013b The tributaries within the WS‐II watersheds, including Knap of Reeds Creek, Ledge Creek, and Holman Creek, are listed as HQW. Lake Butner, Lake Rogers (Ledge Creek), and Falls Lake are listed as Critical Area (CA). 4.2 Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources Federally listed species known to occur in the project service area are included in Table 4‐16. In addition, many natural heritage program natural areas (NHPNA) have been identified, many of which provide habitat for state and/or federally listed species. Detailed discussion of aquatic and wildlife habitat and resources is provided in the associated EA (CH2M HILL, 2015). 4.2.1 Source Basin Several federally listed species are known to occur in the source basin in Virginia and North Carolina. Fishing, especially for striped bass and shad, is also an important recreational and commercial activity in the Roanoke River basin. In addition, one NHPNA is present in the Granville County portion of the source basin. The proposed project would not likely have any direct effects on these federally listed species or their habitats in Kerr Lake, as no construction would occur and there are no known occurrences of aquatic protected species near the water withdrawal location. In addition, no discernable water quality or quantity impacts result from the proposed transfer of water. With no construction and no discernable changes 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-10 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX predicted, the upstream NHPNA in Granville County and the downstream Roanoke River Management Area for striped bass are not expected to be directly impacted by the proposed project. The NCWRC will continue to manage this fishery and its open seasons. The NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) also has developed and is implementing fisheries management plans for anadromous fish in the Roanoke River basin (NCDMF, 2015). 4.2.2 Receiving Basins Several listed freshwater mussel and fish species are federally listed in the Tar and Neuse River basins. The aquatic communities, especially in the Tar River basin, exhibit many rare species. In turn, many lengths of stream have been designated as NHPNAs in the Tar River basin. The Fishing Creek watershed contains diverse aquatic species, and its biological ratings have generally been assessed as good and excellent. The NCWRC has recognized it as a priority area for habitat protection, but there are no waters currently classified as HQW or ORW (NCDWR, 2010b). 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 4-11 TABLE 4‐16 Federally Listed Aquatic Species within the Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Watershed (Roanoke, Tar, Neuse) County a County Status a Vertebrates American Eel Anguilla rostrata FSC All a Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren Current Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion FSC Neuse, Tar b Granville, Vance Current Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus FSC Tar, Neuse c Franklin, Granville, Vance Current Neuse River Waterdog Necturus volucellus FSC Neuse, Tar b Franklin, Vance, Warren Current Pinewoods Shiner Lythrurus matutinus FSC Neuse, Tar c Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren Obscure Roanoke Bass Ambloplites cavifrons FSC All c Franklin, Granville, Warren Current Invertebrates Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC All c Franklin, Granville, Warren Current Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC Roanoke c Granville Current Chowanoke Crayfish Orconectes virginiensis FSC Roanoke a Granville Current Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Tar c Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren Current Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC Tar c Granville Current Mountain River Cruiser Macromia margarita FSC All Franklin, Granville Current Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Tar, Neuse c Franklin, Warren Current Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC Tar c Franklin, Granville, Vance Current Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC Tar c Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren Current a USFWS, 2014a b NCNHP, 2014 c NCWRC, 2014 E = Endangered FSC = Federal Species of Concern 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-12 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 5-1 Water Usage Data and Water Conservation The Partners desire to minimize environmental impacts while meeting their water supply needs; in addition, selecting alternatives that have lower environmental impacts meets the requirements of federal and state environmental legislation. 5.1 Water Usage While water conservation programs can reduce the IBT, they likely cannot eliminate the need for an IBT. KLRWS supplies little irrigation water, as evidenced by their relatively low peak day to average day ratio (peaking factor) of 1.3 (compared with many urban/suburban systems that have peaking factors of 1.5 and above as a result of a combination of seasonal cooling demands for commercial/industrial customers and irrigation demands). For KLRWS, the current relationship between annual average day demands and average day in a maximum month demands produces a demand factor of 1.26. This demand factor was conservatively calculated as the maximum ratio between WTP average annual and average day in a maximum month water use data for the period of fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013 (KLRWS maintains data by fiscal year). Irrigation water demands in the service area comprise a very low percentage of the KLRWS’s total water demands. While the majority of the KLRWS water demands are residential, existing residential development is olderand irrigation systems are not as common as in more recently developed, subdivided areas. Customers will be added as water service is extended to current individual groundwater well water users in Vance, Granville, and Warren Counties. While recent and future residential development is more likely to include irrigation, it is not predicted that the demand factor will increase over time. Also, conservation efforts and programs to minimize water system losses (as discussed in this section and Section 6) would aid in minimizing the likelihood of a rise in the demand factor over time. Therefore, this 1.26 demand factor was used to predict future maximum month demands to 2060. 5.2 Water Shortage Response Plan KLRWS has developed a Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) that was agreed to by the Partners, the City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County in 2011 (Ordinance Book 8, Ordinance 11‐04, Chapter 15B). The purpose of the plan, which is included in Appendix B, is to declare official phases of water supply shortage and voluntary and mandatory conservation measures for those phases. Enforcement measures are also included. The plan applies to the three Partners; each of which would notify their employees and customers (including wholesale) of the water shortage phase and corresponding conservation measures. Each wholesale customer must comply with the same measures. These plans have been approved by NCDWR and are available on their website. 5.3 Water Use Reduction Measures The KLRWS is planning multiple efforts to reduce water loss in the distribution system. The expansion of the WTP will also include improvements to the treatment process. These improvements are aimed in part to reduce the volume of water needed for system flushing. This will reduce non‐revenue water loss. The KLRWS also encourages good water stewardship through public education efforts including on its website. The program suggests ways customers can prevent and detect water leaks and ways to limit water consumption through actions such as installing water‐saving devices. The City of Henderson conducted a study of unaccounted for water to incorporate projects that reduce water loss in its future capital planning. After removing non‐revenue water, the system loss was calculated as 3.4 percent during the 2013 to 2014 fiscal year. Unaccounted for and nonrevenue water are tracked monthly and meter replacements are occurring. These measures will increase the system’s efficiency and continued stewardship of its water supply. 5 WATER USAGE DATA AND WATER CONSERVATION 5-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX The City of Oxford is also taking steps to reduce water loss. In addition to regular tracking of unaccounted for water, a valve mapping and installation program is now underway to install additional water valves in the City’s system. This is particularly valuable in the reduction of water loss during situations such as water line breaks. Areas can be more quickly isolated, repairs made, and service restored while minimizing water loss. Meters improvements are also being made, with replacements first targeted for larger commercial users. The function of the master meter at the transfer point from the KLRWS to the City of Oxford has also been improved. In addition, a large water user meter audit is underway by an outside firm and the City is prepared to make corrections as needed to improve data accuracy. The City has also partnered with the North Carolina Rural Water Association for leak detection and will continue to do so as needed. Warren County actively tracks its water use and water system losses through monthly auditing of water usage and distribution data. Through this effort, a monthly zero consumption report is prepared to identify meters that may need repair or replacement. Water losses, both nonrevenue and unaccounted for, are reviewed and actions are taken to reduce losses as needed. 5.4 Water Stewardship Efforts Both water demand management and water quality protection efforts are underway in the service area. Combined, these efforts demonstrate the water stewardship efforts of the KLRWS and its Partners. The City of Henderson’s investment in upgrades to its WWTP is underway; construction of the expansion and associated treatment process improvements is near completion. In addition to investments made at the WWTP, the City has an ongoing inflow and infiltration (I&I) identification and corrections program. Maintenance staff inspect manholes and sewer lines to identify areas where stormwater may be entering the collection system and make needed improvements using funds appropriated in the capital improvements budget. The City has invested in a truck with closed‐circuit television (CCTV) equipment to view the inside of sewer lines in order to identify needed repairs efficiently and funds an ongoing effort to limit tree root growth associated I&I issues and overflows. The City of Oxford is currently investing in collection system and WWTP improvements that will benefit water quality. The City continues to implement repair projects from its 1999 inflow and infiltration (I&I) study through its capital improvement plan. Other projects are aimed at reducing I&I into the collection system where road flooding associated with stormwater issues enters sewer system manholes. The funding for this program is coming from its stormwater utility fee, which is allowing the City to switch from a reactionary approach to I&I to more of a proactive program. At the City‘s WWTP, a flow equalization basin is currently being constructed. This 1 million gallon (MG) holding basin will function to temporarily store influent so that it can be slowly fed into the WWTP, improving the facility’s operation and treatment capabilities at peak flow wet weather events. These investments in the City’s infrastructure will lead to water quality benefits especially during wet weather events. Warren County’s WWTP, operated by the Town of Warrenton, has been operating well below its permitted concentration limits, as discussed earlier in Section 4, including with regard to ammonia and other effluent characteristics that have the potential to impact aquatic life. Continued performance of the facility is important, as Warren County recognizes the high quality resources in Fishing Creek. The sewer system is also being expanded, reducing the number of septic systems in the watershed. This will also aid in the protection of water resources. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 6-1 Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives The general categories of alternatives to IBT include managing water demand, identifying water supplies in the receiving basins, and returning water to the source basin. The Partners desire to minimize environmental impacts while meeting their water supply needs; in addition, selecting alternatives that have lower environmental impacts meets the requirements of federal and state environmental legislation. These alternatives were selected to meet the requirements of the IBT rules (NCGS 143‐215.22L) and to address comments received during the scoping process. Alternatives were screened, based on the following criteria:  Ability to meet 2045 water supply needs – alternatives which do not meet these water supply needs were eliminated from further consideration, as they do not meet the project purpose and need.  Environmental considerations – alternatives which were likely to have a significant impact on environmental resources in comparison with other alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Water resources impacts are of particular focus and could include impacts to water supply in the Roanoke River basin, impacts to aquatic resources in the source and receiving basins, and impacts to hydropower generation in the Roanoke River basin.  Cost considerations – the no action alternative and the alternative including IBT have essentially no costs since little or no new infrastructure is proposed. The proposed WTP expansion will be constructed regardless of the selected alternative, although sizing may be revisited if the no action alternative were to move forward. Treatment process improvements would still occur. Costs for the WTP expansion are accounted for in the Partners’ rate model and budget. Costs are therefore compared among the other alternatives. Alternatives that have costs significantly higher than other alternatives to the proposed project were not selected as the preferred alternative in part because these alternatives would not meet the KLRWS purpose of being fiscally responsible to their customers. Existing distribution and wastewater treatment infrastructure would remain for all alternatives; thus operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to maintain existing infrastructure would be identical under all alternatives. Table 6‐1 summarizes each of the project alternatives. Note that the planned WTP expansion is necessary regardless of the selected alternative and therefore is not accounted for in the assessment of new infrastructure requirements. Cost estimates were performed at a high level; detailed cost analysis and comparison has not been conducted for the various alternatives presented. As such, cost ranges are presented. Based on the analyses above, Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative. The rationale for this selection instead of other technically feasible but more costly options can be summarized as follows:  Alternative 1 ‐ No Action Alternative – While this alternative does not meet the project purpose and need, it is a requirement of the North Carolina SEPA to review this alternative.  Alternative 2 – Increase IBT – This option meets the stated purpose and need, is within the USACE 20 mgd water storage allocation in Kerr Lake and is evaluated in this EA.  Alternative 3c – Minimize IBT by finding an alternative water supply source with offline storage in the Tar‐Pamlico River basin. This alternative meets the purpose and need, but would result in higher wetland and stream impacts compared to the proposed project; this alternative could impact federally listed species in the Tar‐Pamlico River basin.  Alternative 5 – Minimize IBT by discharging treated wastewater back to the Roanoke River basin. This alternative would meet the stated purpose and need. This alternative would require more piping infrastructure than the proposed project, and thus may have greater construction‐related wetland and stream impacts. 6 WATER SUPPLY AND INTERBASIN TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES 6-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX The other alternatives do not meet the screening criteria established at the beginning of this section. They either did not meet 2045 water supply needs, had much higher environmental impacts than other alternatives, had costs that were significantly higher than other alternatives to the proposed project, or some combination of the above. In addition to the alternatives considered in the EA, G.S. 143‐215.22L includes language requiring the consideration of reinjection storage as a water source. Reinjection storage and recovery typically involves the injection of treated effluent to support the replenishment of aquifer storage. This practice is more common in the coastal plain than in the piedmont. Given the geographic spread of the service area across multiple river basins, significant infrastructure investment would be needed in multiple locations to construct reinjection storage. In addition, the current water distribution systems would need significant re‐ working and additional water treatment capabilities would be needed to meet water demands. The regional solution of IBT presented here offers much more water supply reliability than the use of reinjection storage and recovery. 6 WATER SUPPLY AND INTERBASIN TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 6-3 TABLE 6‐1 Summary of Alternatives Alternative Meets Purpose and Need? Increase Allocation from Kerr Lake? Requires New Infrastructure? Potential Environmental Impacts Planning Level Capital Cost for KLRWS (2015 Dollars)1 1. No Action No No No Insignificant environmental impacts; growth would still occur and private wells would be constructed to meet needs $0 2. Increase IBT to Meet Needs of KLRWS Yes No No No significant environmental impacts to water resources in the Roanoke River basin (water supply, lake levels, hydropower) per modeling results $0 3a. Avoid additional IBT by using a surface water withdrawal from the Tar River basin No No Yes Significant environmental impacts to aquatic habitat and species on the Tar River as the recommended instream passing flow would not be met Not evaluated since adequate water would not be provided under this alternative 3b. Avoid additional IBT by constructing a new water supply reservoir on the Tar River No No Yes Significant environmental impacts to flow regime, wetlands, and aquatic habitat and federally listed species, from reservoir construction and a limited instream passing flow Eliminated due to environmental impacts and potential for inadequate water 3c. Avoid additional IBT by using a water withdrawal with offline storage in the Tar River basin Yes No Yes Environmental impacts to the flow regime on the Tar River include aquatic habitat and federally listed species, and impacts to wetlands may result from offline storage Storage cost alone could exceed $540 million (1 order of magnitude higher than Alternative 5) 4. Avoid additional IBT by using groundwater No No Yes Environmental impacts from new wellfields include those to the slowly renewable groundwater resources; impacts to water supply, hydropower, and lake level in the Roanoke River basin are less significant than those from the proposed project Cost not evaluated since adequate water would not be provided under this alternative 5. Minimize IBT by discharging wastewater to Roanoke River basin Yes No Yes Direct environmental impacts would result from new linear infrastructure and impacts to water resources and hydropower would result from some loss of water from the Roanoke River basin, however, these would not be as significant as the IBT $17,030,000 to $111,400,000 depending on number of treatment plants used to transfer effluent back to Roanoke River basin 6 WATER SUPPLY AND INTERBASIN TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES 6-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX TABLE 6‐1 Summary of Alternatives Alternative Meets Purpose and Need? Increase Allocation from Kerr Lake? Requires New Infrastructure? Potential Environmental Impacts Planning Level Capital Cost for KLRWS (2015 Dollars)1 6a. Avoid additional IBT by using Pamlico Sound as source No No Yes Significant direct environmental impacts due to linear infrastructure and using coastal estuary water including land use, wetlands, and aquatic and terrestrial resources, among others $820,000,000 ‐ $910,000,000 (order of magnitude higher than Alternative 5) 6b. Avoid additional IBT by using groundwater from coastal area No No Yes No significant environmental impacts to water resources in the Roanoke River basin (water supply, lake levels, hydropower) per modeling results $680,000,000 ‐ $886,800,000 (order of magnitude higher than Alternative 5) Note: Costs are approximate only and have been included for high‐level planning purposes. (in 2015 dollars) 1The cost of reallocation on hydropower is approximately $3,455,000 (2005 dollars). The KLRWS is currently compensating the USACE annually for the lost hydropower. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 7-1 Water Transfers and Withdrawals from the Source Basin The Roanoke River basin stretches from Virginia to North Carolina and includes many public water systems and registered water withdrawals. Other uses such as agriculture also occur. To meet the requirements of G.S. 143‐215.22L, the following tables list these North Carolina registered systems as provided in the updated NCDWR Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (RRBHM) (Hydrologics, 2014). There are no current NC IBT certificates in the basin; KLRWS holds a grandfathered IBT amount of 10 mgd on a maximum day basis. Table 7‐1 lists the public water systems while Table 7‐2 lists all registered water withdrawals. Virginia does not regulate IBT but there is a transfer of 60 mgd from Lake Gaston for Virginia Beach and some smaller water transfers in the upper portion of the basin. Other public water systems and withdrawals occur in the Virginia portion of the Roanoke River basin. Several entities in addition to KLRWS hold existing water supply agreements to use Kerr Lake as a water source:  Town of Clarksville, Virginia  City of Virginia Beach, Virginia  Virginia Department of Corrections, Virginia  Mecklenburg Co‐Generation Limited Partnership (MCLP), Virginia  Burlington Industries, Virginia (facility closed in 2005) TABLE 7‐1 Public Water Systems in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin Public Water System ID System Name System Owner Water Source Name 0217010 Town of Yanceyville Town of Yanceyville Farmer Lake 0217010 Town of Yanceyville Town of Yanceyville Fuller’s Creek 0273010 City of Roxboro City of Roxboro City Lake 0273010 City of Roxboro City of Roxboro Lake Roxboro 0273409 Roxboro Steam Plant Duke Energy Hyco Lake 0279010 Town of Eden Town of Eden Dan River 0279025 Town of Mayodan Town of Mayodan Mayo River 0279030 Town of Madison Town of Madison Dan River 0291010 Henderson‐Kerr Lake Regional Water City of Henderson, City of Oxford, and Warren County Kerr Lake 0442010 Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Roanoke River 0442010 Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Roanoke Rapids Lake 0442020 Weldon Water System Town of Weldon Roanoke River 7 WATER TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SOURCE BASIN 7-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX TABLE 7‐2 Registered Water Withdrawals in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin ID Owner Name Facility Name County 0057‐0013 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Belews Creek Steam Station Stokes 0218‐0013 Aqua North Carolina Applegate Forsyth 0218‐0015 Aqua North Carolina Bethel Forest Forsyth 0218‐0055 Aqua North Carolina Bexley Place Forsyth 0218‐0058 Aqua North Carolina Bishops Ridge Forsyth 0218‐0150 Aqua North Carolina Deer Path Forsyth 0218‐0218 Aqua North Carolina Graystone Forest Forsyth 0218‐0310 Aqua North Carolina Kynwood Forsyth 0218‐0366 Aqua North Carolina Mikkola Downs Forsyth 0218‐0439 Aqua North Carolina Pine Knolls Forsyth 0218‐0521 Aqua North Carolina Smokerise Forsyth 0218‐0572 Aqua North Carolina Stoney Point – Forsyth Forsyth 0378‐0093 Utilities, Inc. Abington Forsyth 0218‐0048 Aqua North Carolina Belews Landing Rockingham 0218‐0096 Aqua North Carolina Cedar Hollow Rockingham 0218‐0717 Aqua North Carolina Collybrooke Rockingham 0218‐0371 Aqua North Carolina Mineral Springs Rockingham 0218‐0455 Aqua North Carolina Quail Oaks Rockingham 0218‐0464 Aqua North Carolina Richwood Acres Rockingham 0218‐0470 Aqua North Carolina Ridgeway Courts Rockingham 0745‐0001 Deep Springs Country Club Deep Springs Country Club Rockingham 0057‐0010 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Dan River Steam Station Rockingham 0219‐0046 Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Reidsville Quarry Rockingham 0755‐0001 Mitchell Wilson Lynrock Golf Course Rockingham 0218‐0354 Aqua North Carolina Meadow Ridge – Guilford Guilford 0218‐0555 Aqua North Carolina Sprinkle Caswell 0819‐0001 CertainTeed Gypsum NC CertainTeed Gypsum Roxboro Plant Person 0033‐0009 Duke Energy Carolinas Mayo Electric Generating Plant Person 0033‐0008 Duke Energy Carolinas Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Person 0668‐0001 Roxboro Country Club Roxboro Country Club Person 0218‐0380 Aqua North Carolina Mountain Creek Granville 0199‐0022 Vulcan Construction Materials, L.P. Greystone Quarry Vance 0064‐0001 Fate B. Everett, Jr. Fate B. Everett, Jr. Halifax 7 WATER TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SOURCE BASIN KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 7-3 TABLE 7‐2 Registered Water Withdrawals in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River Basin ID Owner Name Facility Name County 0037‐0001 Kapston Kraft Paper Corp. Roanoke Rapids Mill Halifax 0348‐0001 North Carolina Dept. of Correction Enterprise Farms Halifax 0207‐0001 Johnston Farm Johnston Farm Northampton 0104‐0005 Brinkley Farms, Inc. Marmaduke Farm Bertie 0244‐0002 Horace Ward, Jr. Ward Farms Bertie 0244‐0003 Horace Ward, Jr. Ward Farms Bertie 0244‐0004 Horace Ward, Jr. Ward Farms Bertie 0244‐0005 Horace Ward, Jr. Ward Farms Bertie 0244‐0006 Horace Ward, Jr. Ward Farms Bertie 0244‐0007 Horace Ward, Jr. Ward Farms Bertie 0372‐0001 Bryant Bros., Inc. Bryant Bros., Inc. Bertie 0325‐0001 Harden Farms Inc. Harden Farms Bertie 0230‐0001 Perdue Farms, Inc. Lewiston Bertie 0343‐0001 Ted Winslow Ted Winslow Farm Bertie 0822‐0001 EWM, LLC Bent River Materials Bertie 0822‐0001 EWM, LLC Bent River Materials Bertie 7 WATER TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SOURCE BASIN 7-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 8-1 Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer Direct impacts to the Roanoke River basin from the increase in water transfer from the basin were evaluated by using the updated NCDWR Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (RRBHM). A hydrological model for a river basin can be used to assess changes in hydrological indicators for current and future conditions based on a time series of hydrological inputs to the basin. Key indicators that the model can estimate are river flows at various points within the river basin, reservoir water levels, and changes in hydroelectric power generation. These indicators can be used to evaluate and/or describe various potential environmental and economic impacts related to key issues identified during scoping. These potential impacts can be summarized as follows:  Reduced water for downstream fisheries and recreation  Inability of communities to obtain future water supply for growth  Reduced lake property values from altered aesthetics or access related to lower water levels  Impacts to recreation and tourism due to lower water levels  Precedent setting, such that other communities could transfer water from the basin All except the last of these potential impacts can be evaluated based on the results generated using the updated RRBHM (Hydrologics, 2014). The last issue is a policy question for the EMC and NCDWR. The updated RRBHM was used to evaluate changes in indicators for the following alternatives:  2010 Baseline – IBT is about 4.6 mgd  2045 Baseline – Includes grandfathered IBT amount (10 mgd)  2045 IBT – IBT increases to 14.2 mgd  2060 Baseline – Includes grandfathered IBT amount (10 mgd)  2060 IBT – IBT increases to 17.3 mgd A full discussion of the use of the RRBHM and modeling outcomes is presented in Appendix D of the EA. 8.1 Lake Level Lake level estimates are fairly insensitive to changes in demand due to the large inflows from the watershed and volume of the reservoir. Changes to elevation are relatively insensitive even during drought periods but show the largest change due to overall increase in demand in comparing the 2010 to 2045 Baseline results. Table 8‐1 summarizes the average changes in elevation during the simulation period and during the two extreme drought periods in the 2000s for three reservoirs in the Roanoke system: Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. Figure 8‐1 details lake level changes in Kerr Lake during the 2002 drought. None of the reservoirs showed a discernible difference in elevation between the 2045 baseline and IBT 2045 scenarios during the 2002 and 2007 droughts. Kerr Lake was the only reservoir that showed any differences, albeit slight, during the exceptional drought periods. The model runs simulate the operation of the reservoirs based on the guide curves specified for each reservoir. This operational mode tends to maintain the reservoir level by regulating releases. For this reason, average lake elevation is usually the same for the different scenarios. In the case of the 2002 drought, Kerr Lake did show a slight difference in elevation of 0.2 feet. Because of the drought, the elevation falls below the guide curve, and the discharge is maintained at the same elevation for the IBT and non‐IBT. This results in a slightly lower elevation in the IBT scenario. Modeling results for other reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin show no discernible difference between the 2010 and 2045 Baseline conditions or the Proposed 2045 IBT, which is similar to the results summarized in Table 8‐1. 8 IMPACTS ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSFER 8-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX TABLE 8‐1 Lake Level Difference for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during 2002 and 2007 Droughts Scenario Comparison Results (feet) Roanoke River Reservoirs Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids 2045 Baseline versus 2045 IBT Average Baseline Elevation 299.8 200.0 132.0 Average Elevation during 2002 Drought 284.8 200.0 132.0 Average Difference with IBT during 2002 Drought ‐0.2 0.0 0.0 Average Elevation during 2007 Drought 284.6 200.0 132.0 Average Difference with IBT during 2007 Drought ‐0.1 0.0 0.0 FIGURE 8‐1 Lake level changes for Proposed 2045 IBT for Kerr Lake – 2002 drought close‐up. 8.2 Reservoir Release Reservoir releases were also evaluated for each of the mainstem reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin for the period of record and during the period of extreme drought. As with lake level, there were no projected changes in releases for reservoirs upstream of Kerr Lake. Table 8‐2 summarizes differences in water releases for three reservoirs in the system: Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir during significant drought periods. Figure 8‐2 depicts Kerr Lake modeling results using 2045 baseline water demands and the hydrologic record for the 2002 drought. These modeling results indicate that most of the future changes resulting from the IBT are predicted to occur as outflow from Kerr Lake. The average difference in release from Kerr Lake is approximately 5.0 mgd, which is 8 IMPACTS ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSFER KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 8-3 less than the average IBT. Since the model is balancing water, this is likely due to very small changes in lake elevation predicted as a result of the IBT (less than 0.05 foot, which is rounded to 0.0 in Table 8‐1). TABLE 8‐2 Reservoir release differences for the entire simulation period and during the 2002 and 2007 droughts Scenario Comparison Results (cfs) Roanoke River Reservoirs Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids 2045 Baseline Average Baseline Discharge 7,443.5 7,888.8 7,491.5 2045 Baseline Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 3,077.3 3,247.8 2,921.0 2045 IBT Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 3,082.3 3,252.7 2,956.2 Average Difference during 2002 Drought 5.0 4.9 5.2 2045 Baseline Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 2,691.2 2,989.8 2,681.7 2045 IBT Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 2,683.1 2,981.7 2,673.6 Average Difference during 2007 Drought ‐8.1 ‐8.1 ‐8.1 Average baseline discharge has been calculated using the period of record 2002 Drought – 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002 2007 Drought – 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008 FIGURE 8‐2 Comparison of Kerr Lake Releases for 2045 Scenarios during Extreme Drought Period of 2002 In summary, water quantity in the Roanoke River basin would likely not be impacted by the proposed IBT. 8 IMPACTS ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSFER 8-4 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 8.3 Hydropower Hydropower, a renewable energy resource, is generated in the Roanoke River basin including from Kerr Lake. No hydropower projects are present in the receiving basin. The evaluation of potential impacts to hydropower using the updated RRBHM was similar to the evaluation of impacts to water quantity. Since no changes to lake levels or releases in reservoirs upstream of Kerr Lake would occur, hydropower issues were evaluated only for Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir (Table 8‐3). During the evaluation process for the 20 mgd allocation, the USACE determined that there would be a small reduction in power capability from Kerr Lake as a result of the withdrawal. The USACE could quantify that amount and the Partners are now compensating the USACE on an annual basis (USACE, 2005). The total amount of water leaving the Roanoke River basin is considered as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. In addition to this IBT request, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia has an intake in Lake Gaston and has permission to transfer a maximum of 60 mgd. The City of Virginia Beach also paid the USACE for its storage of 10,200 acre‐feet in Kerr Lake and as part of its easement agreement for its intake in Lake Gaston reimburses Virginia Power for the lost energy production capability due to the transfer of water. TABLE 8‐3 Power Generation Differences for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period and during the 2002 and 2007 Droughts Scenario Comparison Results (MWh) Kerr Lake Lake Gaston Roanoke Rapids 2045 Baseline versus 2045 IBT Average Baseline Power 471,074 342,548 348,778 Average Power during 2002 Drought 185,668 161,193 159,085 Average Difference during 2002 Drought with IBT ‐680 ‐346 ‐372 Average Power during 2007 Drought 342,152 249,559 253,131 Average Difference during 2007 Drought with IBT ‐378 ‐156 ‐168 Notes: 2002 Exceptional Drought Period – 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002 2007 Exceptional Drought Period – 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 9-1 Future Water Supply Needs Future water supply needs in the Roanoke River basin including agricultural, recreational, industrial, and hydropower uses are included in the updated RRBHM that was used for the analysis supporting the IBT request (Hydrologics, 2014). North Carolina local water supply plans for the year 2012 and water resources planning information from Virginia were used in the model development. This most recent version of the model is the most up‐to‐date compilation of all future water supply planning data in the basin. Significant water uses such as the transfer from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach, hydropower, and release regimes to meet instream flow targets to protect the aquatic habitats in the lower reaches of the Roanoke River are all included in the model. The model has been used by NCDWR for the purposes of assessing the ability of the watershed to meet future supply needs within the Roanoke River basin. Results show that the river basin, given its large size and water storage, is able to meet future water needs through the planning period. Additional analysis conducted to evaluate the IBT request and presented in the EA and associated FONSI support this conclusion. 9 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY NEEDS 9-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX 10-1 References CH2M HILL. 2015. Environmental Assessment for the Interbasin Transfer of the Roanoke River Basin. Prepared for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. 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. Hydrologics, Inc. 2014. OASIS Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model. Developed and updated for the NCDWR. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2015. Fisheries Management Plans. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/fmps‐under‐development. Accessed March 2015. Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013b. North Carolina Integrated Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Roanoke River Basin Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2014. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO) and Natural Heritage Program Natural Area (NHPNA) Databases. July 2014. North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. 2013. Population Estimates and Projections. http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates.shtm Accessed October 2014. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014a. Kerr Reservoir Monthly Elevation, Flow and Generation Statistics Since 1953. http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/kerrmsr.txt. Accessed August 2014. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Reallocation Report – John H. Kerr Reservoir Water Supply Storage Reallocation Request for the City of Henderson, North Carolina. Wilmington District. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEAP). 2014. Virginia Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_state.control?p_state=VA&p_cycle=&p_report_type=T. Accessed October 2014. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for Franklin, Granville, Vance, and Warren Counties, North Carolina. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html. Accessed August 2014. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2014. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessments/ 2012305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx. Accessed August 2014. 10 REFERENCES 10-2 KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX Appendix A Finding of No Significant Impact - IBT KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank. KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX Appendix B Water Shortage Response Plan KLRWS_IBTPETITION_FINAL_03202015_V2.DOCX This page is intentionally left blank.