Kerr-IBT-HOR-Oct2015

Kerr Lake Regional Water System

Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate

Hearing Officer’s Report

Environmental Management Commission

North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources

October 2015
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

1

Hearing Officer’s Recommendations
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) has submitted a petition for an
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate in order to transfer up to 14.2 million gallons per day from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar River, Neuse River, and Fishing Creek basins.
The owners of KLRWS and primary bulk customers of the system are the City of
Henderson, City of Oxford, and Warren County, known as the “partners.” They also
currently sell water to 11 secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren,
Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. These customers include the Towns of Stovall, Warrenton, Kittrell, and Norlina, as well as Granville County, Vance County, and Franklin
County. Future sales will occur from the City of Oxford to South Granville Water and
Sewer Authority (SGWSA) for use by the Town of Creedmoor and its customer, the Town
of Wilton. Franklin County now owns the Town of Youngsville water system and also
sells water to the Town of Bunn and Lake Royale community.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L (w)(3), a public hearing was held to receive public
comments on the requested IBT certificate. The public hearing was held on March 31,
2015 at 6:30 p.m. at the City Hall in the City of Henderson. A total of 15 oral comments
were received at the hearing. Two hundred thirty-five (235) individuals submitted written comments, which included 1,419 petition signatures, during the public comment period for
the Petition. In cases where a signed petition was submitted, only the individual who
submitted the petition was counted as a written commenter; however, the number of
signatures on each petition was recorded and documented.
Having reviewed and considered the comments received during the public review process
and the requirements set forth in the North Carolina General Statutes, the Hearing Officer
and the Division Director recommend that the EMC grant the KLRWS a permitted transfer
amount not exceed a maximum of 10.7 million gallons per day from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar River Basin, 1.7 million gallons per day from the Roanoke River Basin to
the Fishing Creek River Basin, and 1.8 million gallons per day from the Roanoke River Basin
to the Neuse River Basin, calculated as a daily average of a calendar month basis, with the
following conditions:
1. Within 90 days of receipt of the IBT certificate, the KLRWS shall prepare and submit a
water conservation plan subject to approval by the EMC that specifies the water
conservation measures, including a rate pricing structure, to be implemented by the
partners to ensure the efficient use of the transferred water. Except in circumstances of technical or economic infeasibility or adverse environmental impact, the water
conservation plan shall provide for the mandatory implementation of water
conservation measures that equal or exceed the most stringent water conservation plan
implemented by a public water system that withdraws water from the source river
basin. All bulk water customers of KLRWS, as identified in this IBT Certificate, shall implement a water conservation plan at least as stringent as the requirements imposed
on the KLRWS. The Certificate Holders shall not transfer any water to any other unit
of local government unless that unit of local government agrees to be bound by this
condition in full.
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

2

2. Within 90 days of receipt of the IBT certificate, the KLRWS shall prepare and submit a
drought management plan subject to approval by the EMC that specifies how the
transfer shall be managed to protect the source river basin (Roanoke River basin)
during drought conditions or other emergencies that occur within the source river basin. Except in circumstances of technical or economic infeasibility or adverse
environmental impact, this drought management plan shall include mandatory
reductions in the permitted amount of the transfer based on the severity and duration of
a drought occurring within the source river basin and shall provide for the mandatory
implementation of a drought management plan by the KLRWS that equals or exceeds the most stringent drought management plan implemented by a public water system that
withdraws water from the source river basin. All bulk water customers of KLRWS, as
identified in this IBT Certificate, shall implement a drought management plan at least
as stringent as the requirements imposed on the KLRWS. The Certificate Holders
shall not transfer any water to any other unit of local government unless that unit of local government agrees to be bound by this condition in full. 3. Within 90 days of receipt of the IBT certificate, the KLRWS shall prepare and submit a
quarterly compliance and monitoring plan subject to approval by the EMC. The plan
shall include methodologies and reporting schedules for reporting the following
information: daily transfer amount calculated as the average daily over the maximum month, compliance with certificate conditions, progress on mitigation measures, drought management, and reporting. A copy of the approved plan shall be kept on file
with the Division of Water Resources (Division) for public inspection. The Division
shall have the authority to make modifications to the compliance and monitoring plan
as necessary to assess compliance with the certificate. The quarterly compliance and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter. The KLRWS shall employ any methods or install and
operate any devices needed to measure the amount of water that is transferred during
each calendar quarter, calculated as a daily average of a calendar month.
4. The Commission may amend the certificate to reduce the maximum amount of
water authorized to be transferred whenever it appears that an alternative source of
water is available to the certificate holder from within the receiving river basin,
including, but not limited to, the purchase of water from another water supplier
within the receiving basin or to the transfer of water from another sub-basin within
the receiving major river basin.
5. The Commission shall amend the certificate to reduce the maximum amount of
water authorized to be transferred if the KLRWS's current projected water needs
are significantly less than the KLRWS's projected water needs at the time the
certificate was granted.
6. The KLRWS shall not resell the water that would be transferred pursuant to the certificate to another public water system. This limitation shall not apply in the case
of a proposed resale or transfer among public water systems within the receiving
river basin as part of an inter-local agreement or other regional water supply
arrangement, provided that each participant in the inter-local agreement or regional
water supply arrangement is a co-applicant for the certificate and will be subject to all the terms, conditions, and limitations made applicable to any lead or primary
applicant.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

4

Table of Contents

Hearing Officer’s Recommendations …………………………………………………….. 1
Part 1 – Interbasin Transfer Certificate ……………………………………………….. 5
Findings of Fact ……………………………………………………………………….. 7
1) Necessity, Reasonableness, and Uses of the Proposed Transfer ……………… 7 2) Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Detrimental Effects on the Source River Basin ……………………………………………………………. 11 3) Cumulative Effects on the Source Major River Basin of Any Current or Projected Water Transfer or Consumptive Water Use …………………….. 15 4) Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Beneficial and Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basins ……………………………………………… 17 5) Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Transfer …………………………… 19 6) Applicants’ Use of Impoundment Storage Capacity …………………………. 24 7) Purposes of Any US Army Corps of Engineers Multi-Purpose Reservoir Relevant to the Petition ………………………………………………………. 24 8) Whether KLRWS’s Service Area is Located in Both the Source and Receiving River Basins ………………………………………………………. 26 9) Any Other Facts or Circumstances Reasonably Necessary to Carry Out the Purposes of the Statute ……………………………………………............ 26 Decision ……………………………………………………………………………….. 27
Part 2 – Staff Response to Comments

Part 3 – Appendices Appendix A – Notice of Public Hearing – March 31, 2015 Appendix B – NC Statutes and Administrative Rules for Water Transfers
Appendix C – Responses: Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Request
Hearing Officer’s Report Preparation Questions (CH2M HILL, Inc., July 7, 2015)
Appendix D – Responses to Comments from US Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding the Kerr Lake Regional Water System Environmental Assessment on the Proposed Interbasin Transfer (CH2M HILL, Inc., March 22, 2015)

List of Figures
Figure 1 – KLRWS and Regional Water Movement ……………………………………… 10
List of Tables
Table 1 – Percentage of Service Area in Individual River Basins ……………………….. 8 Table 2 – Past and Projected Annual County Population Totals ………………………… 9 Table 3 – Lake Level Difference for Proposed 2045 IBT for Entire Simulation Period
and During 2002 and 2007 Droughts ………………………………………….. 13
Table 4 – Reservoir Release Differences for the Entire Simulation Period and During
the 2002 and 2007 Droughts ………………………………………………….. 13 Table 5 – Kerr Lake Water Storage Allocation ………………………………………….. 25
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

5

PART 1 – INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

6

CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
TO TRANSFER WATER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN TO THE TAR,
FISHING CREEK, AND NEUSE RIVER BASINS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(w)
On January 2, 2009, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) filed a notice of intent
with the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to request an interbasin transfer
(IBT) certificate. The requested IBT certificate will increase the authorized transfer from 10
million gallons per day (MGD) (the grandfathered amount) to 14.2 MGD. The permitted transfer amount shall not exceed 10.7 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar River Basin, 1.7 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin to the Fishing Creek Basin, and 1.8 MGD
from the Roanoke River Basin to the Neuse River Basin, calculated as a daily average of a
calendar month basis. These transfer amounts are based on water use projections to 2045. IBT
basins are defined in N.C.G.S. §143-215.22G.
A public hearing on the Interbasin Transfer Certificate for the Kerr Lake Regional Water
System was held on March 31, 2015 in the City of Henderson pursuant to N.C.G.S §143-
215.22L(w)(3). See Appendix A for the public notice of the hearing. A total of 15 oral
comments were received. There were 235 individuals who submitted written comments,
which included 1,419 petition signatures.
The EMC considered the KLRWS’s request at its regular meeting on November 5, 2015.
According to N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(w)(7), the EMC shall grant the certificate if it finds that
the KLRWS has established by a preponderance of evidence that the petition satisfies the
requirements of subsection (m) of N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L. Subsection (m) requires that (1) the benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer; (2) the
detriments have been or will be mitigated to the maximum degree practicable; (3) the amount
of the transfer does not exceed the amount of the projected shortfall under the applicant's
water supply plan after first taking into account all other sources of water that are available to
the applicant; and that (4) there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer. See Appendix B for the North Carolina statutes and administrative rules which govern surface
water transfers in the state.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(w)(7), the EMC may grant the requested certificate in
whole or in part, or deny it, and may grant a certificate imposing such limitations and
conditions as it deems necessary and relevant. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(w)(6),
in making its final determination, the EMC specifically considered the factors set out in N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(k):

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

7

1. The necessity and reasonableness of the amount proposed to be transferred and its
proposed uses,
2. The present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects on the source river
basin, 3. The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or
consumptive water use that, at the time the Commission considers the petition
for a certificate is occurring, is authorized under this section or is projected in any
local water supply plan for public water systems with service area located within
the source river basin that has been submitted to the Department in accordance with N.C.G.S. §143-355( l ),
4. The present and reasonably foreseeable future beneficial and detrimental effects on the
receiving river basin,
5. The availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer,
6. If applicable, the applicant’s present and proposed use of impoundment storage capacity and the applicant’s right of withdrawal under N.C.G.S. §§143-215.44 through 143-215.50,
7. If the water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose reservoir
constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the purposes and
water storage allocations established for the reservoir at the time the reservoir was authorized by the Congress of the United States, 8. Whether the applicant’s service area is located in both the source and receiving river
basins, and
9. Any other facts or circumstances which are reasonably necessary to carry out the
purposes of this part. The Commission Finds:
The members of the EMC reviewed and considered the record, including the applicant’s
notice of intent to request an interbasin transfer certificate, the petition, the environmental
assessment (EA), the Hearing Officer’s Report and all other sources of information
required by N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(l). Based on the record, the Commission makes the following findings of fact.

Findings of Fact
(1) Necessity, Reasonableness, and Uses of the Proposed Transfer. 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
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

8

River basins. The KLRWS has a grandfathered capacity to transfer up to 10 million gallons a
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.” They
also currently sell water to secondary bulk customers that include communities in Warren, Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. These customers include the Towns of Stovall,
Warrenton, Kittrell, and Norlina, as well as Granville County, Vance County, and Franklin
County. Future sales will occur from the City of Oxford to South Granville Water and Sewer
Authority (SGWSA) for use by the Town of Creedmoor and its customer, the Town of Wilton.
Franklin County now owns the Town of Youngsville water system and also sells water to the Town of Bunn and Lake Royale community. Figure 1 illustrates the movement of water from
the water treatment plant at Kerr Lake, operated by the City of Henderson, to the Partners and
bulk customers. Table 1 identifies the three partners, their respective bulk customers, and the
river basins in which their service areas are located.
Table 1. Percentage of KLRWS Service Area in Individual River Basins
System River Basin
Roanoke Tar Neuse Fishing Creek
Oxford 100%
Granville Co. 100% Stovall 100% SGWASA 100%
Wilton 100%
Henderson 30% 70% Franklin Co. 85% 15%
Bunn 100% Lake Royale 100% Vance Co. 50% 50%
Kittrell 100%
Warren Co. 38% 62% Warrenton 100%
Norlina 50% 50%

KLRWS is actively planning to meet the Partners’ and their customer’s systems 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 of a maximum month demand (MMD)
of 17.4 MGD. It is projected that 3.2 MGD will be returned to the Roanoke River Basin, with the other 14.2 MGD transferred out of the basin. Future demand is based on population projections, service area expansion plans, planned connections to the water supply, and Local
Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) developed by the customers of this regional water supplier. In
addition to serving future population and commercial growth, the Partners and their customer
systems are extending water service areas and obtaining new customers who are currently
served by private wells. This will be especially widespread in Vance and Warren Counties, where residents have voiced concerns about the quality of their well water caused by a high
mineral content, which creates taste and odor issues. In addition, many private wells have
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

9

shown to be unreliable during the recent episodes of droughts in the region.

To meet future water demands within the entirety of the service area, the Partners intend to increase their withdrawal from Kerr Lake in the Roanoke River basin by expanding their existing 10 MGD water treatment plant (WTP) to 20 MGD. An authorization to construct
(ATC) the WTP was granted to KLRWS by the NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources - Public Water Supply Section on March 23, 2006; PWSS Plan Review
Project Serial No. 05-01344. Among other approvals, the issuance of a FONSI related to the environmental assessment document preceded the granting of the ATC. Several extensions have been granted since the 2006 approval. An ATC extension has been granted for the
current design of the proposed WTP expansion through December 19, 2016.

Both the expansion and increased withdrawal can be accommodated by the KLRWS’s current annual average day water supply storage allocation of 20 MGD in Kerr Lake, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 2005. In 2013, the population of the
KLRWS service area was 186,000, with an average day maximum month demand (MMD)
of 7.7 MGD. The projected service area population in 2045 is nearly 224,000 with a MMD
of 17.4 MGD. Table 2 presents the projected population growth through 2045 for the KLRWS service area.
Table 2. Past and Projected Annual Population Growth for KLRWS Service Area
County 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Franklin 47,260 53,880 60,813 62,697 63,433 66,009 68,611 71,211 74,151 77,916 81,680
Granville 48,498 53,090 57,577 57,910 59,310 61,336 63,361 65,388 69,149 71,819 74,489
Vance 42,954 43,192 45,358 45,056 45,583 45,692 45,802 45,913 47,021 47,532 48,043
Warren 19,972 20,072 20,939 20,453 20,456 20,088 19,855 19,705 19,878 19,800 19,723

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

10

Figure 1 – KLRWS and Regional Water Movement

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

11

More information about the future population growth and water demand projections may be
found in Section 2.1 of the EA.

The proposed certificate is to allow the transfer of up to 14.2 MGD daily average for a
calendar month, for the month in which IBT is expected to be the highest. This increase is
needed in order to support the projected population growth, expanded service area, and water supply needed for the economic growth of the area serviced by the KLRWS over the next 30
years.

Based on the record, the Commission finds that current grandfathered water supply transfer rate is insufficient to supply the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and its related service areas for the reasonable 30-year planning horizon through the year 2045. Providing water
for the anticipated growth of these communities is necessary to support continued growth in
this region. The requested IBT certificate for the transfer of 14.2 MGD daily average for a
calendar month is found to be a necessary and reasonable amount to support the growing residential and industrial needs of this area.

(2) Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Detrimental Effects on the Source River
Basin.
To evaluate the direct impacts on the source basin resulting from the increased IBT, the primary tool used was the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (model), updated in 2014. 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. The model considers all major water withdrawals and discharges within the Roanoke River basin. As required under N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L(k)(2),
data from local water supply plans were used in developing the model. In addition, industrial,
recreation, energy production, mining, and agricultural withdrawals were factored into the
model. The initial set of conditions for the model represents demands, discharges and management
protocols as reported from the 2010 calendar year for both North Carolina and Virginia.
This model scenario provides a point of comparison to characterize the impacts of changes in
demands and management scenarios by incorporating future demands to create several future scenarios. Estimates of future demands and discharges through the year 2045 were developed by DWR using data reported in individual local water supply plans, registered
water withdrawers, and as provided by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

12

For model development, USGS gage data covering their individual period of record was
utilized to establish flow conditions. Lake levels were evaluated for each of the reservoirs in
the Roanoke River basin for the period of record and specifically during periods of extreme
drought. In evaluating this alternative, lake levels for three different bases of comparison were used:

 Lake levels during the modeling simulation period, 1930 through 2011, based on
estimated water demands and returns during 2010, when the IBT was about 4.6 mgd – referred to as the 2010 Baseline;
 Lake levels with all water demands in the basin projected to 2045 and with the
KLRWS IBT capped at the grandfathered amount (10 mgd) – referred to as the 2045
Baseline;
 Lake levels with all water demands in the basin projected to 2045 and with the KLRWS IBT at 14.2 mgd MDD – referred to as the 2045 IBT.

The detailed modeling analysis (presented in Appendix D of the EA) indicates that lake
level estimates are fairly insensitive to changes in demand due to the large inflows from the watershed and volume of the reservoir. Changes to elevation are relatively insensitive even during drought periods but show the largest change due to overall increase in demand in
comparing the 2010 to 2045 Baseline results.

Table 3 summarizes the average changes in elevation during the simulation period and during two recent extreme drought periods, 2002 and 2007, for three reservoirs in the Roanoke system: Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. None of the
reservoirs showed a discernible difference in elevation between the 2045 baseline and 2045
IBT 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. When the IBT was superimposed on the 2045 Baseline elevation under 2002 drought conditions, the lake elevation dropped an additional 0.2 feet (2.4 inches). Under the 2007 drought conditions, the elevation dropped 15.2 feet from the average
2045 Baseline elevation to 284.6 feet. When the IBT was superimposed on the 2007 drought
conditions, the lake elevation dropped an additional 0.1 feet (1.2 inches). These modeling
results indicate that even during exceptional drought conditions, the proposed IBT increase will have negligible effects on the elevation of Kerr Lake.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

13

Table 3. 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

Reservoir releases were also evaluated for each of the main stem reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin for the period of record and during the period of extreme drought. As with lake level, there were no projected changes in releases for reservoirs upstream of Kerr Lake.
Detailed modeling results for these reservoirs are shown in Appendix D of the EA. Table 4
summarizes differences in water releases for three reservoirs in the system: Kerr Lake, Lake
Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir.
Table 4. Reservoir Release Differences for the Entire Simulation Period and During the
2002 and 2007 Droughts
Scenario Comparison Results (cfs)
Roanoke River Reservoirs
Kerr Gaston Roanoke Rapids
2045 Baseline versus
2045 IBT
Average Baseline Discharge 7,443.5 7,888.8 7,491.5
Average Discharge during 2002 Drought 3,077.3 3,247.8 2,921.0
Average Difference during 2002 Drought 5.0 4.9 5.2
Average Discharge during 2007 Drought 2,691.2 2,989.8 2,681.7
Average Difference during 2007 Drought -8.1 -8.1 -8.1
2002 Drought – 6/18/2002 through 10/15/2002
2007 Drought – 10/16/2007 through 3/10/2008

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

14

The modeling results indicate that most of the changes resulting from the IBT are predicted to
occur as outflow from Kerr Lake. The average difference in release from Kerr Lake is
approximately 5.0 mgd, which is less than the average IBT. Since the model is balancing
water, this is likely due to very small changes in lake elevation predicted as a result of the IBT (less than 0.05 foot, which is rounded to 0.0 in Table 3). The reductions in release are
predicted to be identical in Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir to those occurring from
Kerr Lake, indicating that the changes as a result of the IBT are occurring in outflow or storage
in Kerr Lake. The actual changes in the flows as a result of the IBT are quite small,
representing 0.07 percent on average, 0.16 percent during the 2002 drought conditions, and 0.30 percent during the 2007 drought conditions. According to the 2005 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Reallocation Report for Kerr Lake, the average annual release from Kerr Dam is
8,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) which equates to 5,170 mgd. The maximum proposed IBT
allowed under the requested certificate is 14.2 mgd, which represents approximately one-
quarter of one percent of the average annual release from the Kerr Dam.

The Environmental Assessment concluded that the proposed IBT would likely not have a
noticeable effect on the source basin. The predicted direct impacts to lake levels, all less than 0.2 feet, are not expected to secondarily impact other features of the reservoirs, such as boat
ramps, docks, or water intake structures. Additional modeling and analyses were conducted for
the Hearing Officer’s report in order to estimate the additional time boat launches might be
closed due to low water conditions as a result of the requested IBT. Of the 38 boat launches on
Kerr Lake, the lowest 26 launches (with elevations between 287.5 feet and 293.5 feet) showed no functional difference between the 2045 baseline and 2045 IBT scenarios. The highest 12
launches (with elevations between 294.5 feet and 296.5 feet) show less than a day’s difference
on an average annual basis between the future scenarios with and without the IBT. See
Appendix C for more detailed results and analyses of possible impacts to boat launches as a
result of the requested IBT. Water levels are not predicted to decrease by such an amount that the water intake structures would be impacted, and the guide curves in place aid in the
balancing of water levels among the reservoirs. These existing structures are not likely to be
impacted by the proposed project.

Other water quality secondary and cumulative impacts to the Roanoke River basin, particularly
to Kerr Lake, could result from the proposed project. The watershed of Nutbush Creek
includes a portion of the City of Henderson and is the receiving stream for the City of
Henderson’s wastewater discharge. This stream is on the 303(d) list for biological impairment and urban stormwater impacts are a factor. According to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), this project would not significantly impact the ability of
Nutbush Creek to meet the metrics for standard Class C waters. Impacts would not be
significantly different from those of the No Action Alternative. The proposed IBT is not
projected to result in increased water quality issues in Nutbush Creek, beyond the existing
impairments, and will not require an increase to current permit limits.
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

15

Based on the record, the Commission finds that the detrimental effects on the source basin
described in N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L(k)(2) will be very small and difficult to perceive.
Additionally, the Commission finds that it is advisable to mitigate the impacts of secondary and cumulative effects caused by growth in the region serviced by the Kerr Lake Regional Water System through the implementation of local ordinances for jurisdictions that are within the Kerr
Lake watershed for the protection of the lake. The Commission also finds that state permitting
programs will continue to protect water quality in Nutbush Creek.

(3) Cumulative Effects on the Source Major River Basin of Any Current or Projected Water Transfer or Consumptive Water Use.
Local water supply plan data, including current and projected water use and water transfers,
were used to develop the input data sets for the Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model (model scenarios. The model was used to evaluate current and future scenarios of basin water use. Details of the application of this model and the results of analyses of a wide range of scenarios
are included in Appendix D of the Environmental Assessment document.

A comparison of Kerr Lake levels projected for the 2045 Baseline and 2045 IBT scenarios was made, utilizing drought conditions projected from the exceptional 2002 and 2007 drought events. Based on the model simulations, the average 2045 Baseline lake elevation was 299.8
feet. Under the 2002 drought conditions, the elevation dropped 15 feet to 284.8 feet. When the
IBT was superimposed on the 2002 drought conditions, the lake elevation dropped an
additional 0.2 feet (2.4 inches). Under the 2007 drought conditions, the elevation dropped 15.2 feet from the average 2045 Baseline elevation to 284.6 feet. When the IBT was superimposed on the 2007 drought conditions, the lake elevation dropped an additional 0.1 feet (1.2 inches)
(Table 3). These modeling results indicate that even during exceptional drought conditions, the
proposed IBT increase will not have a noticeable effect on the elevation of Kerr Lake. The two
reservoirs downstream of Kerr Lake in the Roanoke River Basin, Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir, are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain constant
elevations; modeled lake levels for these reservoirs were unaffected by either drought or IBT
conditions.

The detailed modeling analysis presented in Appendix D of the EA indicates that lake level estimates are fairly insensitive to changes in demand due to the large inflows to Kerr Lake from
the watershed and volume of the reservoir. Changes to elevation are relatively insensitive even
during drought periods; the largest change is due to the overall increase in demand when
comparing the 2010 to 2045 Baseline results. A comparison of discharges, or reservoir
releases, under the baseline and IBT scenarios was performed for the 2030, 2040, and 2060 demand conditions. No difference was seen in the average discharge from the three reservoirs
upstream of Kerr Lake in the Roanoke River Basin. This indicates that the proposed IBT
would not require upstream releases to maintain the elevation of Kerr Lake and the lower
reservoirs, even during periods of drought.
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

16

The total amount of water leaving the Roanoke River basin is considered as part of the
cumulative impacts analysis for the proposed project. In addition to this IBT request, the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia has an intake in Lake Gaston and has permission to transfer a
maximum of 60 mgd, with recent transfers averaging 25.7 mgd (as reported in 2010).
Virginia Beach’s transfer (also referred to as the Lake Gaston Project) does not impact Lake
Gaston levels because lake levels are controlled by both FERC licensing and Virginia Power.
However, Kerr Lake releases are impacted by the Lake Gaston Project. Downstream flows are
reduced by approximately 1 percent; during drought this impact could approach 3 to 4 percent. Also during droughts, downstream flow must be maintained to protect instream habitats and
when necessary augmented flows from the storage purchased in Kerr Lake are used. This
amounts to an impact to Kerr Lake water levels of 2 to 4 inches, which is separate from the
estimated 1.2 to 2.4-inch decrease in water level from the IBT. Cumulatively, these impacts are
not significantly different from that previously approved for the Lake Gaston Project and the City of Virginia Beach. Cumulatively with this proposed IBT, downstream flows in the Roanoke River would not be impacted beyond the 1 percent anticipated for the City of Virginia
Beach withdrawal.

The City of Henderson’s wastewater treatment plant discharges to Nutbush Creek, a 303(d)-listed stream for biological impairment, which empties into Kerr Lake. The City’s current national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit includes a provision to allow
expansion of the discharge to 6.0 mgd. The facility has not had a violation or penalty since
2001 and thus has a long track record of compliance; continued compliance, should expansion
to 6.0 mgd occur, will be important to the continued protection of water quality in Nutbush Creek and Kerr Lake. Increased impacts to Nutbush Creek are not expected with the increased wastewater discharge. The NPDES permit has already been approved to 6.0 mgd; the limits in
the permit are designed to preserve instream water quality of Nutbush Creek. In summary,
water quality in the Roanoke River basin would likely not be impacted by the proposed IBT.
Based on the record, the Commission finds that the proposed IBT represents a small transfer within a large river system. The cumulative effects of this proposed water transfer and
consumptive water uses as described in N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(k)(3) will not have a noticeable
effect on the source basin. The provisions for drought management, water conservation, and monitoring and compliance reporting required by N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(n) will provide additional protection to the source basin and, therefore, those provisions are incorporated into this certificate.
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

17

(4) Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Beneficial and Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basins.
The receiving basins, to which water is transferred from Kerr Lake via both consumptive use
and wastewater discharge, include the Tar and Neuse River basins as well as the Fishing Creek basin. See Finding No. 1 for reasonably foreseeable future beneficial effects on the receiving
basins.

There would be no anticipated detrimental effects to public water supply in the Tar River, Neuse River and Fishing Creek. Other municipalities do use the Tar River for water supply; however, because the initial withdrawal is from the Roanoke River basin, the available water
supply in the Tar River would not be reduced by the IBT. Because stream flows in the
receiving basins are not expected to change significantly due to the proposal, no detrimental
effects are likely to occur to navigation, recreation, or flooding. No construction activities
directly associated with the proposed increase in IBT are anticipated in the receiving basins. As documented in the EA, within the receiving basins, the proposed IBT will not have direct
impacts to soils, wildlife resources, land cover, agricultural land and prime farmland, forested
resources, public lands and scenic and natural areas, archaeological and historic resources, air
quality, noise levels, and toxic substances/hazardous wastes.
Primary detrimental effects to water quality from the IBT would originate from operation of
existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Wastewater discharges are expected to
increase, but as documented in the EA are within the limits of the current NPDES permitted
flows. The increased transfer of water to the Neuse River, Tar River, and Fishing Creek
basins would translate into an increase in wastewater discharges at the Town of Butner, City of Oxford, Town of Warrenton, Town of Bunn, and Franklin County WWTPs.

The Tar-Pamlico River basin has a nutrient management strategy in place; Phase III is
currently underway. Phosphorus and nitrogen reduction goals are the focus, with trading and
other mechanisms set up to cost-effectively reduce nutrient loading. The four WWTPs associated with this project, listed above, are owned by members of the Tar-Pamlico Basin
Association (Association) and have nutrient monitoring without limits as part of their permits;
instead, there is an overall nutrient loading cap for the Association.

The Association has a cap for total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading, which has not been exceeded since the inception of the program even though flows have increased, as shown in
annual reports documenting monthly mass loadings of nutrients. The Association has
accomplished this performance by instituting biological nutrient removal at individual
facilities and monitoring water quality at over 35 stations throughout the basin, including
upstream and downstream of these WWTPs. In addition, nitrogen offset credits have been banked and can be used against future nutrient exceedances. The loading cap and other
efforts by the Association would minimize any potential detrimental effects to downstream
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

18

water quality as a result of this project. Therefore, the Pamlico Sound would not likely see
additional nutrient impacts due to the increased wastewater discharge that could result from
this project.
These NPDES permits were issued to protect instream water quality while allowing for
flexibility with adaptive management strategies. The permitting process for each of these
facilities has complied with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act requirements.
DWR’s antidegradation policy requires that only the alternative that causes the least amount
of environmental damage can be permitted under the NPDES program. Direct impacts related to flooding and streambank erosion due to an increase in stream flow (from treated effluent)
could be minor. The permitted NPDES flows would accommodate the proposed IBT flow
amounts without creating additional significant impacts.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Urban development of the receiving basins could adversely affect water quality. Indirect or secondary impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat in areas adjacent to and downstream
of these areas could occur with full urbanization. Urbanization is most likely in Franklin
County, with lower densities of development occurring in Granville and Vance Counties.
Short-term declines in water quality from installation of sewer and water lines, as well as public facility construction projects, and long-term declines in water quality from land use
changes could have significant impacts on water quality and subsequent impacts on aquatic
habitat, wetlands, and sensitive aquatic and amphibian species in the service area and
downstream within the study area. However, with the existing regulatory and non-regulatory environmental protection programs in effect at the local, state, and federal levels, the impacts of the proposed IBT would be minimal when compared to those of the no action alternative.
See Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment for the local, state, and federal regulations
and programs that will serve to mitigate detrimental effects from the proposed IBT. While no
new construction is directly associated with this proposed IBT project, other water system expansion projects, unknown at this time, could include additional infrastructure. Connections between the Partners and their customers are currently in place and of adequate
capacity to accommodate projected sales to 2045.

Changes in land use can have a major effect on both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. Land use changes associated with urbanization, for example, if not properly planned and managed, can dramatically alter the natural hydrology of an area. Impervious surfaces
increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. These changes lead to more frequent and
severe flooding and also to degradation of water quality from the various stormwater
pollutants that wash off impervious areas during rain events (for example, sediments, nutrients, pathogen-indicators).
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

19

The population projections for Warren County, including the Fishing Creek watershed, show
almost flat growth; therefore, no development-related secondary and cumulative impacts
would likely occur in this basin. Some industrial growth could occur, however it is not
expected to be significant enough to influence population growth projections.
Based on the record, the Commission finds that detrimental effects on the receiving basins as
described in N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L(k)(4) will be avoided due to the implementation of
existing federal, state, and local regulations and protection programs. The transfer will support continued population growth and result in indirect and cumulative impacts from that growth. These impacts include effects on wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat,
and water quality similar to the secondary growth effects described in Finding No. 2.
However, these impacts are projected to be mitigated as a result of federal, state, and local
protection programs.

(5) Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Transfer.
Several alternatives to the proposed project were defined and evaluated for their ability to meet
the Kerr Lake Regional Water System’s water supply needs through 2045. The following information regarding water supply alternatives is from Section 3.1 of the EA document. The following six categories of alternatives, with a total of nine different water supply alternatives,
were evaluated and are summarized below:

1. Alternative 1 - No action (Not to exceed grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd) Under this alternative, KLRWS would continue to provide water to customers in Warren,
Vance, Franklin, and Granville Counties. KLRWS would not exceed the grandfathered
IBT of 10 mgd to the Tar River, Neuse River, and Fishing Creek basins. However a
request would be made to update the certificate to reflect the average day of a calendar
month compliance measure that was incorporated in statute through Session Law 2013-388. This alternative would preclude KLRWS from providing additional water service to
its Partners and the public water systems that have contracts with the Partners. This
alternative is deficient because it would limit the ability of KLRWS to meet future peak
day demands and would provide KLRWS with no resilience to drought. In addition,
planned connections to users who currently have individual wells would not occur. This alternative would not meet the project purpose and need.
2. Alternative 2 – Increase in IBT to meet 2045 demands (Proposed IBT Certificate)
This alternative would result in an increased IBT to the Tar, Fishing Creek, and Neuse
River basins. Under this alternative, KLRWS would continue to be a regional provider of
water and would serve its customers in Granville, Franklin, Vance, and Warren Counties.
This would involve expanding the existing WTP to 20 mgd initially and meeting all contracted and future demands of the system within the planning period. To distribute
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

20

water to the expanded system, the KLRWS would need an increase in its authorized IBT
to 14.2 mgd on a maximum month basis from the Roanoke River basin (Kerr Lake) to the
Tar River basin (10.7 mgd), to the Fishing Creek basin (1.7 mgd), and to the Neuse River
basin (1.8 mgd). Essentially no new infrastructure would be built as part of this alternative; major transmission mains are already in place.

3. Avoid IBT increase by finding alternative surface water sources:

 Alternative 3a – Avoid Additional IBT by using a surface water withdrawal from the
Tar River Basin
This alternative would eliminate the need for an increased IBT between the Roanoke and Tar River basins. A new WTP or additional infrastructure and an expansion of an
existing WTP would be necessary.

One potential water source is Lake Devin, which historically had been the City of
Oxford’s water source. Lake Devin lies on Hatchers Run at a point which drains 1.55 square miles. USGS has estimated that the 20-year safe yield from Lake Devin is approximately 2 mgd. This water supply source would not result in adequate water to
meet the long-term needs. Additionally, installation of new infrastructure would be
required to resume use of Lake Devin as a water supply source. Therefore, this
alternative does not meet the project purpose and need. Another potential water source is the main stem of the Tar River. The Town of Louisburg
could expand its water supply intake to meet the needs of KLRWS’s Franklin County
customers or a parallel intake could be constructed. A review of USGS stream gage data
from January 1, 2000 through December 29, 2009 indicates that flows occasionally fell below target levels for aquatic habitat during summer months. A spreadsheet model was developed to evaluate how often the projected flow needs would be met by the Tar River.
It was assumed that 11.5 cfs (7.4 mgd) should be maintained at the USGS flow gage
based on a 1995 instream flow study conducted by DWR. For 2 percent of the estimated
period of record, no withdrawals would be allowed in efforts to meet the recommended instream passing flow of 11.5 cfs. Therefore, it appears the Tar River is not a viable source to meet long-term water supply needs as a run-of-the-river source.

 Alternative 3b – Avoid IBT by constructing a new water supply reservoir on the Tar River A new reservoir could be built in the upper reaches of the Tar River in Granville County.
Building a new reservoir typically has greater environmental impact than other
alternatives. A new reservoir would modify the flow regime in the river, would impact
many acres of wetlands, and would modify instream habitat. This has the potential to
significantly impact aquatic species such as the federally endangered Tar River
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

21

spinymussel and dwarf wedgemussel.

An impoundment and associated pumping and conveyance infrastructure could be
constructed in Franklin County on the Tar River to meet County demands. A new supply of approximately 3.3 mgd on an average day demand basis would be needed to serve the
Tar and Neuse River basins. In order to meet future needs and comply with the instream
flow requirement of 11.5 cfs in the Tar River at Louisburg, approximately 980 acre-feet
of storage would be required. Assuming an average depth of 6 feet, a depth similar to the
average depth of Lake Devin in Oxford and Tar River Reservoir in Rocky Mount, results in a reservoir that is approximately 160 acres which would likely result in significant
impacts to aquatic habitat and federally listed species.

 Alternative 3c – Avoid IBT by using a water withdrawal with offline storage in the Tar River Basin
An offline reservoir which uses the Tar River as a water supply source could be used.
During low flow conditions as discussed under Alternative 3a, water could not be withdrawn based on the instream flow targets. The use of offline storage was considered to determine if the Tar River plus offline storage would meet the 2045 water supply needs
of KLRWS. The benefits of offline storage include the ability to withdraw flows at
greater rates when water levels are high and to rely on the storage volume to manage peak
demands and extended periods of low river flow. Both yearlong and seasonal withdrawal scenarios were considered.

Cost and availability of sites to build the storage remain significant limitations. Offline storage options include damming a tributary to the Tar River, using aboveground storage
tanks, or filling abandoned quarries. Damming tributaries to the Tar River would require
approximately 2,600 acre-feet of usable water supply storage covering approximately
4,200 acres assuming an average depth of 6 feet. This depth is similar to the average
depth of Lake Devin in Oxford and Tar River Reservoir in Rocky Mount. The total storage requirement could be accomplished cumulatively in more than one tributary
drainage area; however, this alternative presents similar challenges as described for
Alternative 3b.

Aboveground tanks would be costly. The cost to develop storage ranges from $0.50 to
$1.00 per gallon depending on the cost of land. Other alternatives have costs which are
two orders of magnitude lower. There are four quarries registered with the NCDEQ Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, three of which are used to mine sand, and as such would not likely support water storage or have sufficient storage capacity. A
crushed stone quarry was originally issued a permit in 2005, and would likely still be in
use in 2045. Finally, quarries are privately owned, and their availability for future use is
not guaranteed. There are no known quarries which provide a feasible storage option.
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

22

4. Alternative 4 – Avoid Additional IBT by Finding Alternative Groundwater Sources
Under this alternative, a groundwater source would be used to supply water to meet future needs in the Tar and Neuse River basins, equivalent to approximately 3.0 mgd on an
average daily demand (ADD) basis. The current grandfathered IBT would be used to
meet needs in the Fishing Creek watershed. There would be some environmental impacts
around any proposed well field, and there could be impacts to groundwater resources in the area. The USACE evaluated this alternative when reviewing the request for
additional allocation from Kerr Lake to the KLRWS. In 2005, the USACE found that
well yields in the region are low; the maximum yield is 100 gallons per minute (gpm),
which is the equivalent of 0.144 mgd, and the best producing well that the Town of Bunn
operated had a capacity of 40 gpm. Based on the maximum yield of 100 gpm, KLRWS would need to install 21 wells to meet the 2045 average day demand and 24 wells to meet
the maximum day demand; this assumes that the grandfathered 10-mgd IBT would
continue. Since well yields would likely not be at the maximum levels, more wells would
likely be required to meet 2045 demands. The USACE concluded that expected well
yields would not produce an adequate supply of water to meet future needs.

In addition to problems with well yield, Vance County has indicated that many of its
residents have complained about odor and discoloration issues with their private wells.
Given these concerns, the potential water supply from groundwater is likely inadequate to meet the project purpose and need, and may not provide adequate water quality without
additional treatment.

5. Alternative 5 – Minimize IBT by Discharging to Roanoke River Basin
This alternative could be accomplished by either: (1) returning raw wastewater to the Roanoke River basin for treatment at the City of Henderson’s WWTP and discharging to
the Nutbush Creek arm of Kerr Lake, or (2) returning treated effluent to the Roanoke
River basin. Given the advantages of returning treated effluent, rather than raw
wastewater, to the source basin, the treated effluent option was the alternative that was
considered.
This alternative would require the construction of new wastewater effluent force mains
and pump stations to convey treated wastewater from one or more of the WWTPs in the
service area that discharge to the Tar River, Neuse River (once sales begin to Southern
Granville Water and Sewer Authority) or Fishing Creek basins. Costs of this infrastructure and associated operational and maintenance costs would be significant.
There would be direct environmental impacts associated with this alternative because new
infrastructure would be built to convey the treated effluent back to the Roanoke River
basin.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

23

This alternative would not eliminate IBT due to the large amounts of consumptive use in
the receiving basins. Approximately 8.3 mgd could be returned to the Roanoke River
under this alternative, but there would remain an IBT of approximately 3.9 mgd. This
alternative would minimize the IBT and likely keep it under the grandfathered IBT amount. It would meet water demands, require construction of new transmission lines
back to the Roanoke River basin, and continue to promote the partnerships created by the
local governments. While this alternative meets the purpose and need of the project,
significant infrastructure costs would be necessary and direct environmental impacts
would occur with construction.
6. Use Coastal Water as a Source

 Alternative 6a - Avoid an increase in IBT by using coastal water as source water through desalination technology Estuarine water would need to come from the Pamlico Sound to avoid an IBT and meet
the purpose of this alternative. Water would need to undergo a desalination treatment
process before it could be used as a drinking water source. In general, it is better to site
the plant near the water source, which would not allow use of the current treatment facility. One reason for this is that the wastewater from the treatment process needs to be discharged, and there would be problems in permitting a brackish discharge near Kerr
Lake. Pumping saline water long distance would also pose O&M issues for conveyance
and pumping infrastructure, since saline waters are highly corrosive.
In addition to high costs, using coastal estuary water would have significant direct environmental impacts. Transmission infrastructure would need to be built from the coast
to the KLRWS service area, resulting in land use, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial
resource, and many other impacts because of the distance from the service area. In
addition, energy-intensive pumping of the water back would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed alternative. A new water treatment plant would also be required, along with desalination technology. This alternative would not impact water
supply or hydropower use in the Roanoke River basin, but it would require a new
wastewater discharge to the estuary. Using coastal estuary water does not meet the
purpose and need and has potential significant direct environmental impacts.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

24

 Alternative 6b - Avoid an increase in IBT by using groundwater from the coastal area
Using water from the PCS Phosphate Mine in Aurora, North Carolina was also evaluated.
PCS Phosphate uses multiple wells to relieve artesian pressure on the mining floor. Thus, they produce a large quantity of groundwater that could be used as a drinking water supply. Eagle Water Company has contracted with PCS Phosphate for 58 mgd of water
that it could sell. The transmission infrastructure would result in impacts to land use,
wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial resource, and many other impacts because of the distance
of the required pipeline route. This alternative would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions associated with pumping the water. There would be no impacts on water supply or hydropower in the Roanoke River basin. Costs related to this alternative, which
include transmission mains, pump stations, and costs associated with obtaining access to
the water from the mine, are an order of magnitude higher than the costs to pump
wastewater back to the Roanoke River basin. Additionally, the water supply source may not be viable once mining is discontinued. The KLRWS would not have control over the mining operation or schedule for operation. Thus this alternative does not meet the
purpose and need of the project.
Based on the record, the Commission finds that reasonable alternatives to the proposed IBT were considered. Based on a review of the project information, the Commission finds the
recommended alternative (Alternative 2) to be the most feasible for meeting the KLRWS’s water
supply needs while minimizing detrimental environmental impacts and that the applicant’s need
for water cannot be satisfied by alternatives within the receiving basins.
(6) Applicants’ Use of Impoundment Storage Capacity. Based on the record, the Commission finds that this item is not applicable.

(7) Purposes of Any US Army Corps of Engineers Multi-Purpose Reservoir Relevant to
the Petition. John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake) was constructed in 1952 to provide flood control, generation of hydroelectric power, mosquito control, pollution abatement, conservation of fish
and wildlife, low water control navigation, and recreation. Reallocation of the lake’s
conservation storage pool to include water supply occurred in 1958. The reservoir has
2,262,421 acre-feet (AF) of usable storage, which the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) actively manages for power production, flood control, stream flow regulation, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife management.

Of Kerr Lake’s usable storage, approximately 57% (1,282,367 AF) is dedicated to flood control
storage and the other 43% (980,054 AF), referred to as the conservation pool, and is reserved for hydropower generation and water supply. Table 5 presents the allocation of water storage
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

25

in Kerr Lake. The City of Clarksville, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Mecklenburg Co-Generation facility (Dominion Resources), and the City of
Henderson, NC (KLRWS), are existing users of water from Kerr Lake for municipal and
industrial water supply.

Table 5. Kerr Lake Water Storage Allocation

Drainage Area (square miles) 7,800
Storagea (AF) Total Usable Pool (Elevation 268-320 ft msl) 2,262,421
Flood Control Pool (Elevation 300-320 ft msl) 1,282,367
Conservation Pool (Elevation 268-300 ft msl 980,054
Hydropower 958,939
Water Supply 21,115
a Storage remaining after 100 years of sedimentation from July 1953
Source: 2005 USACE Reallocation Report

The KLRWS began withdrawing water from Kerr Lake in 1978. In 2005, the KLRWS
requested from the USACE a reallocation of 10,292 acre-feet (AF) from Kerr Lake’s usable
conservation pool storage for water supply. The reallocation of 10,292 AF of storage to satisfy
this request increased the total water supply storage allocation for all Kerr Lake water supply agreements to 21,115 AF and leaves 28,885 AF of storage remaining for reallocation. This
reallocation finalized the conversion of an original 20 million gallon per day (mgd) ‘water use’
agreement to a ‘storage agreement.’ According to the USACE’s analysis of the request,
operation of the reservoir with a 20 mgd water withdrawal during the critical low flow period
(2002 drought conditions) would result in an elevation at Kerr of 0.26 feet (3.1 inches) lower than what would be expected without any withdrawal. According to the USACE, normal
reservoir operations and recreation activities (fishing, boating, swimming, etc.) would not be
adversely impacted by this change. The 20 mgd withdrawal (not expected to be reached before
the year 2060) is not significant enough to alter reservoir operation; this volume equates to
approximately 31 cubic feet per second (cfs), which represents only 0.38% of the 8,000 cfs average annual release from Kerr Dam. The volume of Kerr Lake is too large compared to
KLRWS’s maximum allowed withdrawal amount for that withdrawn to have a noticeable
effect.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

26

As previously noted, the 20 mgd that the KLRWS is approved by the USACE to withdraw
from Kerr Lake is not expected to be reached until at least 2060. For the 30-year planning
window utilized for this IBT certificate request, it is expected that by 2045 approximately 17.4
mgd will be withdrawn in order to meet the average day maximum month demand, and of that 14.2 mgd will be transferred outside the Roanoke River basin.
Based on the record, the Commission finds that the water storage allocation and proposed
interbasin transfer are consistent with the federally authorized project purposes of Kerr Lake.

(8) Whether KLRWS’s Service Area is Located in Both the Source and Receiving River
Basins.
The service areas for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System are within the Roanoke River basin
(source), the Tar River basin (receiving), the Neuse River basin (receiving), and the Fishing Creek basin (receiving) as illustrated in Figure 1. The percentages of land area served by
KLRWS within each river basin are presented in Table 1. The Commission finds that the Kerr Lake Regional Water System’s service area population is located within both the source and receiving basins, thereby avoiding the removal or receipt of water in a basin not contained within the existing service area.

(9) Any Other Facts or Circumstances Reasonably Necessary to Carry Out the Purposes
of the Statute.
The Commission finds that to protect the source basin during drought conditions, and to
mitigate the future need for allocations of the limited resources of this basin, a drought management plan is appropriate. The plan shall describe the actions that the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and their secondary bulk customers will take to protect the Roanoke River Basin during drought conditions. The provisions for drought management, water conservation, and monitoring and compliance reporting as required in N.C.G.S. §143-215.22L(n) and specifically incorporated into this certificate will provide additional protection to the source basin and these provisions shall convey to all bulk water customers of KLRWS, as
identified in this IBT certificate.

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

27

Decision
Based on the Findings of Fact stated above, the Commission has determined that (1) the
benefits of the proposed certificate outweigh the detriments of the certificate; (2) any
detriments of the proposed certificate will be mitigated to the maximum degree practicable under the conditions of this Certificate; (3) the amount of the transfer does not exceed the
amount of the projected shortfall under the applicant's water supply plan after first taking into
account all other sources of water that are available to the applicant; and (4) there are no
reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer. Therefore, and by duly made motions, the
Commission grants the Kerr Lake Regional Water System’s request to transfer water from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar River, Fishing Creek, and Neuse River basins. The permitted
transfer amount shall not exceed a maximum of 10.7 million gallons per day from the Roanoke
River Basin to the Tar River Basin, 1.7 million gallons per day from the Roanoke River Basin
to the Fishing Creek basin, and 1.8 million gallons per day from the Roanoke River Basin to the
Neuse River Basin, calculated as a daily average of a calendar month basis.
The certificate is subject to the conditions below, which are imposed under the authority of
N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L. The Kerr Lake Regional Water System shall comply with any plan
that is approved pursuant to this Certificate and any approved amendments to such plan. A
violation of any plan approved pursuant to this Certificate will be considered a violation of the
terms and conditions of this Certificate.
1. Within 90 days of receipt of the Interbasin Transfer Certificate, the Kerr Lake Regional
Water System shall prepare and submit a water conservation plan subject to approval
by the Division of Water Resources (Division) that specifies the water conservation measures, including a rate pricing structure, to be implemented by the partners to ensure the efficient use of the transferred water. Except in circumstances of technical or
economic infeasibility or adverse environmental impact, the water conservation plan
shall provide for the mandatory implementation of water conservation measures that
equal or exceed the most stringent water conservation plan implemented by a public water system that withdraws water from the source river basin. All bulk water customers of Kerr Lake Regional Water System, as identified in this Interbasin
Transfer Certificate, shall implement a water conservation plan at least as stringent as
the requirements imposed on the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. The Certificate
Holders shall not transfer any water to any other unit of local government unless that unit of local government agrees to be bound by this condition in full. 2. Within 90 days of receipt of the Interbasin Transfer Certificate, the Kerr Lake Regional
Water System shall prepare and submit a drought management plan subject to approval
by the Division that specifies how the transfer shall be managed to protect the source
river basin (Roanoke River basin) during drought conditions or other emergencies that occur within the source river basin. Except in circumstances of technical or economic
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

28

infeasibility or adverse environmental impact, this drought management plan shall
include mandatory reductions in the permitted amount of the transfer based on the
severity and duration of a drought occurring within the source river basin and shall
provide for the mandatory implementation of a drought management plan by the Kerr Lake Regional Water System that equals or exceeds the most stringent drought
management plan implemented by a public water system that withdraws water from the
source river basin. All bulk water customers of Kerr Lake Regional Water System, as
identified in this Interbasin Transfer Certificate, shall implement a drought
management plan at least as stringent as the requirements imposed on the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. The Certificate Holders shall not transfer any water to any
other unit of local government unless that unit of local government agrees to be bound
by this condition in full.
3. Within 90 days of receipt of the Interbasin Transfer Certificate, the Kerr Lake Regional
Water System shall submit a quarterly compliance and monitoring plan subject to approval by the Division. The plan shall include methodologies and reporting schedules for reporting the following information: daily transfer amount calculated as the average
daily over the maximum month, compliance with certificate conditions, progress on
mitigation measures, drought management, and reporting. A copy of the approved plan
shall be kept on file with the Division for public inspection. The Division shall have the authority to make modifications to the compliance and monitoring plan as necessary to assess compliance with the certificate. The quarterly compliance and monitoring report
shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter.
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System shall employ any methods or install and operate
any devices needed to measure the amount of water that is transferred during each calendar quarter, calculated as a daily average of a calendar month. 4. The Commission may amend the certificate to reduce the maximum amount of water
authorized to be transferred whenever it appears that an alternative source of water is
available to the certificate holder from within the receiving river basin, including, but not
limited to, the purchase of water from another water supplier within the receiving basin or to the transfer of water from another sub-basin within the receiving major river basin. 5. The Commission shall amend the certificate to reduce the maximum amount of water
authorized to be transferred if the KLRWS’s actual future water needs are significantly
less than the KLRWS’s projected water needs at the time the certificate was granted.
6. The KLRWS shall not resell the water that would be transferred pursuant to the certificate to another public water system. This limitation shall not apply in the case of a proposed resale or transfer among public water systems within the receiving river basin
as part of an inter-local agreement or other regional water supply arrangement, provided
that each participant in the inter-local agreement or regional water supply arrangement is
a co-applicant for the certificate and will be subject to all the terms, conditions, and limitations made applicable to any lead or primary applicant.
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate: Hearing Officer’s Report
October 14, 2015

29

7. If the Commission determines that information in the record material to its Findings of
Fact, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L(k), was erroneous, incomplete, or otherwise
contained material misrepresentations, misstatements, or misinterpretations the
Commission may reopen and modify or revoke this Certificate to ensure continued compliance with N.C.G.S. Chapter 143, Article 21, Part 2A.

NOTICE: The holders of this certificate are jointly and severally responsible for compliance
with the terms, conditions and requirements stated herein, and are therefore jointly and
severally liable for all penalties assessed to enforce such terms, conditions and requirements as provided in N.C.G.S. §143-215.6A.

This is the day of , 2015.

Gerard P. Carroll, Chairman

PART 2 – STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page1
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
1 1 Adams, Kirk NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
2 2 Adams, Paulette NC Citizen 4/19/2015 Email 1
3 3 Adams, Troy NC Citizen 4/19/2015 Email 1
4 4 Adesso, Gene President, Roanoke River Association 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
5 Adesso, Gene NC Citizen 4/13/2015 Email - Petition 1
6 5 Alberg, Otto 4/17/2015 Email
7 6 Alger, Rob NC Citizens 4/20/2015 Petition 2
8 7 Allen, Angela Director, Granville County Tourism Development Authority 4/30/2015 Letter
9 8 Allen, Denise NC Citizen 4/23/2015 Email
10 9 Anthony, Nancy VA Citizen 4/30/2015 Letter
11 10 Arnold, SD NC/VA Citizens 4/30/2015 Email - Petition 17
12 11 Avent, Frank Director, Halifax County Economic Development Commission 4/24/2015 Letter
13 12 Bailey, Merritt NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
14 13 Barnes, John President, Henderson-Vance Chamber of Commerce 4/29/2015 Email
15 14 Beazley, Don NC Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
16 15 Benjamin, Pete Field Supervisor, US Fish and Wildlife Service 3/16/2015 Letter
17 16 Berry, Jim NC Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
18 17 Ballard, Bishop 4/26/2015 Email
19 18 Boisot, Donna 4/16/2015 Email
20 19 Bolton, Carolyn NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
21 20 Bosworth, Charles NC Citizen 4/27/2015 Email
22 Bosworth, Charles NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Letter – Petition 8
23 21 Bradley, Dale VA Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
24 22 Brantley, Karney NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
25 23 Brewer, Beth NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
26 Brewer, Beth NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email - Petition Cover
27 Brewer, Beth NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Attachment - Petition 2
28 24 Brewer, Tyler NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Letter - Petition 28
29 25 Brown, Dan CEO, Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District 3/31/2015 Letter-Hearing
30 26 Browne, Linda NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
31 27 Brown, Tony Manager, Halifax County 4/17/2015 Letter
32 28 Bunn, Tina NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
33 29 Burnett, Scott VA Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
34 30 Burnette, Vicky VA Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
35 Burnette, Vicky VA Citizen 4/17/2015 Letter
36 31 Burton, Bobby NC Citizen 4/23/2015 Email - Petition 1
37 32 Carter, Brandy NC Citizen 4/26/2015 Email 2
38 33 Carter, Wayne County Administrator, Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors 4/30/2015 Letter
39 34 Catherwood, Robert NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
40 35 Cestaro, Mike 4/19/2015 Email
41 CH2MHill Response to USFWS 3/25/2015 Letter
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page2
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
42 36 Champion, Kim NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
43 37 Charlton, ACR VA Citizen 4/28/2015 Letter
44 38 Colanero, Linda NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email
45 Colanero, Linda NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email
46 39 Coleman, Dawn NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
47 40 Coleman, Jill 4/18/2015 Email
48 41 Colemen, Levi 4/18/2015 Email
49 42 Cooper, Elaine VA Citizen 4/24/2015 Petition 1
50 43 Craft, Gregory NC Citizen 4/27/2015 Email
51 Craft, Gregory NC Citizen 4/27/2015 Petition 11
52 44 Craig, Bill NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email - Petition
53 45 Creech, Stan NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
54 46 Crossman, Jayce VA Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
55 47 Currin, David NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
56 Currin, David NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Petition 2
57 48 Currin, Ginnie Executive Director, Granville County Chamber of Commerce 4/29/2015 Letter
58 49 Curtis, Randy NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
59 50 Darnall, Clayton 4/16/2015 Email
60 51 Davie, Robert Administrator, Town of Warrenton 4/14/2015 Resolution
61 52 Dayberry, Carol VA Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
62 53 Deck, Heather River Keeper, Pamlico Tar River Keeper Foundation 4/20/2015 Hearing Transcript
63 Deck, Heather Sound Rivers, Inc.4/30/2015 Letter
64 54 Doughtie, Emory Mayor, Roanoke Rapids 4/13/2015 Letter
65 55 Dowhan, Jeff NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
66 56 Drake, Doneal NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
67 57 Dugal, Tre VA Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
68 58 Duncan, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
69 Duncan, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email 2
70 59 Dunston, Sidney Chair, Franklin County Board of Commisioners 4/14/2015 Resolution
71 60 Early, Thomas NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
72 61 Echols, Margaret 4/25/2015 Email
73 62 Edwards, Priscilla VA Citizen 4/18/2015 Email - Petition 1
74 63 Elam, Lou 4/19/2015 Email
75 64 Elmore, Charles NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email
76 65 Estes, Harvey NC Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
77 66 Falls, Sonya NC Citizen 4/11/2015 Email
78 67 Ferrucio, Deborah NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
79 Ferrucio, Deborah NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email
80 Ferrucio, Deborah NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
81 68 Field, Cheryl VA Citizen 4/22/2015 Email
82 69 Field, Peyton VA Citizen 4/22/2015 Email
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page3
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
83 70 Finch, Lois VA Citizens 4/22/2015 Petition 13
84 71 Fleming, Della NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
85 72 Fleming, Ernest NC Citizens 4/28/2015 Petition 32
86 73 Ford, Wilton VA Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
87 74 Fowler, Hugh NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
88 75 Francher, Patricia 4/22/2015 Email
89 76 Francis, Gary NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
90 77 Freeman, Tom NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
91 78 Gaillard, Harriet NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
92 79 Garrett, Mike NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
93 Garrett, Mike NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email - Petition 1
94 Garrett, Mike NC Citizen 4/21/2015 RESCIND -1
95 80 Gazzara, Pat 4/16/2015 Email
96 81 Gordon, Gregg Chairman, Southside Planning District Commission 4/29/2015 Letter
97 82 Grenier, Paul NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email 1
98 83 Gross, Doug NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
99 84 Halasz, James Administrator, Halifax Co. VA 3/18/2015 Letter
100 85 Hale, James NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
101 86 Hanson, Arthur NC Citizen 4/19/2015 Email
102 87 Harris, Catherine 4/18/2015 Email
102a 88 Hayes, Judy NC Citizens Fax-Petition 20
103 89 Heflin, Bill NC Citizen 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
104 90 Hemann, Randy City Manager, Oxford 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
105 91 Herman, Mike NC Citizen 3/20/2015 Email
106 92 Hilliard, Dick 4/18/2015 Email
107 93 Hines, David NC Citizen 4/27/2015 Email
108 94 Hoback, David Director, West Piedmont Planning District Commission 3/30/2015 Letter & Resolution
109 95 Hodge, Tashiea VA Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
110 Hodge, Tashiea VA Citizen 4/30/2015 Email - Petition 2
111 96 Hoke, Joan 4/25/2015 Email 1
112 97 Holder, Gary NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
113 98 Hoyle, Susan NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
114 99 Hubbard, Allan NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
115 Hubbard, Allan NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
116 Hubbard, Allan NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
117 100 Hubbard, Bibb NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
118 101 Hughes, Doug NC Citizen 4/22/2015 Email
119 102 Hunter, Ben NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
120 103 Hunter, Mary NC Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
121 104 Hunt, Victor County Commissioner, Warren County 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
122 105 Hurst, Rita VA Citizen 4/19/2015 Email
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page4
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
123 106 Hyson, Angela NC Citizen 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
124 107 Hyson, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
125 Hyson, John NC Citizen 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
126 Hyson, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 1 86
127 Hyson, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 2 94
128 Hyson, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 3 74
129 Hyson, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 4 105
130 Hyson, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 5 40
131 108 Inscoe, Michael Henderson City Council & KLRWS Advisory Board - Public Hearing 3/31/2015 Resolution-Hearing
132 109 Jackson, Clifton NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
133 110 Jacobs, Chuck 4/16/2015 Email
134 111 Johnson, Ann VA Citizen 4/20/2015 Email 2
135 112 Johnson, Sharon VA Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
136 113 Jones, Robin VA Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
137 114 Kearny-Dunlap, Angelena Clerk, Warren County Board of Commissioners 4/9/2015 Letter & Resolution
138 115 Keefe, John VA Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
139 116 Keman 4/16/2015 Email
140 117 Kemp, Olivia NC Citizen 4/27/2015 Email
141 118 Kemp, Robert NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Letter 13
142 119 Kimball, Allen 4/18/2015 Email
143 120 King, Doug NC Citizens 4/20/2015 Petition 2
144 121 Kohl, Donald NC Citizens 4/24/2015 Email
145 122 Langston, Danny NC Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 24
146 123 Lawrimore, Gina VA Citizens 4/14/2015 Petition 3
147 124 Leonard, Jay NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
148 125 Longest, Ryke Director, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic 2/20/2015 Letter
149 Longest, Ryke Director, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic 4/29/2015 Letter-Hearing
150 126 Macdonald, John NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email
151 127 Manning, J Rives NC Citizen 4/8/2015 Letter
152 Manning, J Rives NC Citizen 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
153 128 Matthews, Larry NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
154 129 McClarnon, Keith NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
155 130 McMillian, Jordan NC Citizen 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
155a 131 Meacham, Julia Mayor, Town of Weldon 5/25/2015 Letter
156 132 Melhinch, Charlie 4/20/2015 Email
157 133 Mendenhall, Bryce Director, Franklin County Public Utilities 3/28/2015 Letter-Hearing
158 134 Metzger, Jeannette NC Citizen 4/25/2015 Email
159 135 Michalak, Paula NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
160 136 Milam, Ann 4/21/2015 Email
161 137 Miller, Bob 4/22/2015 Email
162 138 Mills, Harry Economic Director, Granville County 4/30/2015 Letter
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page5
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
163 139 Lane, Thomas SGWASA (from Thomas Lane, Chairman)4/29/2015 Letter
164 140 Murphy, Robert Manager, Vance County Board of Commissioners 4/14/2015 Resolution
165 141 Nanney, Barbara 4/23/2015 Email
166 142 Netherwood, William 4/23/2015 Email
167 143 Newsom, Marvin NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
168 144 Noel, Scott 4/17/2015 Email
169 145 Norwood, Carla NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
170 Norwood, Carla NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 21
171 146 Nutt, Jim NC Citizen 4/19/2015 Email
172 Nutt, Jim NC Citizen 4/14/2015 Email - Petition 2
173 147 Oakley, Dale NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
174 148 O'Hatnick, Jake NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
175 149 O'Hatnick, Joannah NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
176 150 O'Hatnick, Robert 4/20/2015 Email
177 151 O'Hatnick, Suzanne NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
178 O'Hatnick, Suzanne NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
179 O'Hatnick, Suzanne NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
180 152 Olmert, Catherine VA Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
181 153 Olmert, Pat VA Citizen 4/23/2015 Email
182 154 Pace, Tim Chairman, Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee 4/27/2015 Letter
183 155 Patrick County Board of Supervisors 4/13/2015 Resolution
184 156 Pegram, Curt NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
185 157 Pharr, Ginger VA Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
186 158 Phillips, Elisabeth NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
187 159 Plaster, Mary VA Citizen 4/23/2015 Email
188 160 Potter, Al NC Citizen 3/1/2015 Hearing Transcript
189 Potter, Al President, Lake Gaston Association 4/16/2015 Letter
190 161 Prince, Dennis VA Citizens 4/27/2015 Petition 19
191 162 Purser, Allen President, Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce 3/25/2015 Letter
192 163 Rector, John 4/17/2015 Email
193 164 Redman, Bob 4/16/2015 Email
194 165 Reese, Evelyn 4/28/2015 Email
195 166 Reese, Randolph 4/28/2015 Email
196 167 Richardson, Eugene NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
197 Richardson, Eugene NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Petition 12
198 168 Rivers, Al NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Email
199 Rivers, Al NC Citizen 4/21/2015 Petition 2
200 Rivers, Al NC Citizen 4/21/2015 RESCIND -1
201 169 Robbins, Katherine NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
202 170 Roberson, Annette NC Citizen 4/23/2015 Petition 1
203 171 Roberson, Tommy NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page6
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
204 Roberson, Tommy NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Petition 17
205 172 Ruff, Frank VA Senator - 15th District 4/29/2015 Letter
206 173 Ryan, John President, Ponderosa Property Owners Association 4/9/2015 Letter
207 174 Sampson, Jay NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
208 Sampson, Jay NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Petition 4
209 175 Save Our Lake NC/VA Citizens 4/20/2015 Petition 1 31
210 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/20/2015 Petition 2 53
211 Save Our Lake VA Citizens 4/23/2015 Petition 3 7
212 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/28/2015 Petition 4 28
213 Save Our Lake NC Citizens Petition 5 4
214 Save Our Lake VA Citizens Petition 6 3
215 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 7 23
216 Save Our Lake NC Citizens Petition 8 79
217 Save Our Lake NC/VA Citizens Petition 9 12
218 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 10 5
219 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/28/2015 Petition 11 31
220 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 12 32
221 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 13 67
222 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 5/5/2015 Petition 14 61
223 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 5/5/2015 Petition 15 25
224 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 5/5/2015 Petition 16 108
225 Save Our Lake NC Citizens 5/7/2015 Petition 17 22
226 176 Schill, Jerome NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
227 177 Secrest, Dave NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
228 178 Sergent, Jackie Mayor, Oxford 3/31/2015 Hearing Transcript
229 Sergent, Jackie Mayor, Oxford 4/29/2015 Resolution
230 179 Smith, Dora & Michael VA Citizens 4/14/2015 Email - Petition 2
231 180 Smith, Seth NC Citizens 4/10/2015 Petition 17
232 181 Smith, Wes NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
233 182 Solari, Bill 4/17/2015 Email
234 183 Steagall, Shannon 4/24/2015 Email
235 184 Steagall, Steve 4/24/2015 Email
236 185 Steelman, Bill NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
237 186 Steigerwald, Steve NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
238 187 Stratford, Linda VA Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
239 188 Stroud, Barbara NC/VA Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 86
240 189 Sullivan, Sean Troutman Sanders LLP For City of Oxford 4/30/2015 Letter
241 190 Swope, Laurie VA Citizen 4/25/2015 Email
242 Swope, Laurie VA Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
243 Swope, Laurie VA Citizen 4/8/2015 Petition 20
244 191 Sykes, Robert Commissioner, Hobgood 3/30/2015 Email
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page7
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
245 192 Teel, Julie 4/29/2015 Email
246 193 Teel, RG 4/28/2015 Email
247 194 Tharrington, Sally VA Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
248 195 Thomas, Richard NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
249 196 Thompson, Chris NC Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
250 197 Thompson, Estes VA Citizen 5/2/2015 Email
251 198 Thompson, Robert NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
252 199 Thornhill, Sandy 4/27/2015 Email
253 200 Timberlake, Frank NC Citizen 4/27/2015 Email
254 201 Tovey, John NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
255 202 Trout, Randy VA Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
256 203 Turner, Kimberly County Manager, Northampton 4/20/2015 Letter
257 204 Twisdale, Tracy NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
258 205 Vanburen, Cathy NC Citizens 4/30/2015 Petition 20
259 206 VanWingerden, Don VA Citizen 4/27/2015 Email
260 VanWingerden, Don VA Citizen 4/27/2015 Petition 2
261 207 Vaughn, Henry Henry County 4/6/2015 Resolution
262 208 Wade, Antha NC Citizen 4/18/2015 Email
263 209 Walston, Jim 4/17/2015 Email
264 210 Warner, Frank NC Citizens 4/21/2015 Petition 12
265 211 Watkins, Catherine 4/22/2015 Email
266 212 Watkins, John NC Citizen 4/28/2015 Email
267 213 Watkins, Steve 4/21/2015 Email
268 214 Watkins, Wes 4/2/2015 Email
269 215 Wemyss, Todd 4/18/2015 Email
270 216 West, Roger NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
271 217 Whitmore, Mallory 4/29/2015 Email
272 Whitmore, Mallory 4/29/2015 Email
273 Whitmore, Mallory 4/29/2015 Email
274 Whitmore, Mallory 4/29/2015 Email
275 Whitmore, Mallory 4/29/2015 Email
276 218 Whitworth, Horace NC Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
277 219 Wilkins, Sarah 4/24/2015 Email
278 220 Williams, James 4/17/2015 Email
279 221 Williams, Venae NC Citizen 4/20/2015 Petition - See 143
280 222 Williford, Leslie 4/20/2015 Email
281 223 Wilson, Jeanne 4/18/2015 Email
282 224 Wilson, Lenny NC Citizen 4/12/2015 Email
283 225 Wilson, Nancy NC Citizen 4/24/2015 Email
284 226 Wingold, Burl 4/20/2015 Email
285 227 Woerner, Bruce VA Citizen 4/16/2015 Email
Kerr Lake Regional Water System Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate
Public Comments Received
Hearing Officer's Report - Part 2
Part 2 - Page8
#unique #Name Affiliation Date Submitted Format # Petition Signatures
286 228 Woods, Clairborne 4/30/2015 Email
287 229 Woolfenden, Sandra VA Citizen 4/17/2015 Email
288 230 Wortham, Chris 4/28/2015 Email
289 231 Wrenn, James Hopper, Hicks & Wrenn, PLLC for Granville County 4/30/2015 Letter
290 232 Wright, Thomas VA House Delegate, 61st District 4/30/2015 Letter
291 233 Yancey, Lloyd VA Citizen 4/20/2015 Email
292 234 Young, Robert NC Citizen 4/29/2015 Email
293 235 Zollicoffer, John NC Citizen 4/30/2015 Email
Total 1419
Blank space in affiliation is due to no information provided.
Part 2 - Page 9

Kerr Lake Regional Water System IBT Certificate Request – Public Comments
Hearing Held March 31, 2015
# Comment Commenter(s) Response
1 Certificate Would Encourage Future IBTs: Further
strengthens the negative practice of shifting
existing water resources to provide a future benefit
to a particular area outside the basin area at a
direct consequence to the communities located in
the source basin area.
108, 261 It is unknown how approval of this IBT request will affect future decisions by the
EMC or legislation from the North Carolina General Assembly.
2 Cumulative Demand Pressures on the Roanoke
(Source) Basin: The EA does not consider the effect
cumulative withdrawals could have on waters in the
source basin (upstream and downstream of the
withdrawal). Oppose IBT by resolutions because it
could cause negative economic and environmental
impacts to the source basin area. Kerr Lake levels
should be sustained.
11, 36, 37, 108,
134, 182, 201, 202,
205, 261
The modeling analyses1 conducted for the EA using the Roanoke River Basin
Hydrologic Model were consistent with the requirements of G.S. 143-
214.22L(k)(3) and G.S. 113-A (SEPA) to consider the cumulative effect of current
and projected demands through 2045. Accordingly, all projected public water
supply demands within the Roanoke River basin, both upstream and
downstream of Kerr Lake, were included in the modeling scenarios1. Demand
data used for the model development included Local Water Supply Plan
information (submitted by individual water systems), Water Withdrawal
Registration (non-water system information), and information provided by
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, including both water system and
non-water system demands. Water use projections came from the same data
sources. The results and analyses were presented in Section 8 of the IBT Petition.
3 Cumulative Withdrawals From Kerr Lake: There is
concern about the cumulative effect of multiple
withdrawals from Kerr Lake and the transfer of that
water out of the source basin. Also concern that
approval of this request will make it easier for
future IBTs.
91, 182, 187, 205,
247, 290
The modeling analyses1 conducted for the EA using the Roanoke River Basin
Hydrologic Model considered the cumulative effect of current and projected
demands through 2045. Demand data used for the model development included
Local Water Supply Plan information (submitted by individual water systems),
Water Withdrawal Registration (non-water system information), and
information provided by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(including both water system and non-water system demands). Future water use
projections came from the same data sources.

Future water supply withdrawals from Kerr Lake will have to be approved by the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of the approval process, any new
water supply reallocation request must undergo a full environmental review
through the federal National Environmental Policy Act, which solicits public
input as part of the process. The USACE has identified up to 50,000 acre-feet in
Part 2 - Page 10

Kerr Lake is available for water supply (representing 2% of the reservoir’s usable
pool); of that amount, currently 21,115 acre-feet has been allocated. Therefore,
there are possibly 28,885 acre-feet of storage still available to allocate for water
supply. Any future IBTs in North Carolina would require a complete petition
process and certificate from the EMC.
4 Define IBT.

123, 124, 125, 201,
259, 288
IBT (Interbasin Transfer) refers to the transfer of surface water between river
basins.
5 EA Was Inadequate to Support a “Finding of No
Significant Impact” (FONSI): EA does not
adequately address the direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts and further
analysis is needed. EA contains minimal analysis of
economic, environmental, and social impacts. The
document should also have cost comparison of
alternatives. EA does not include information
regarding the presence of endangered and
threatened aquatic species as well as Natural
Heritage areas. EA lacks detailed information and
statistics regarding projected regional need for
water use by Kerr Lake RWS.
5, 10, 12, 16, 21,
22, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 43, 45,
53, 63, 64, 65, 71,
79, 96, 103, 105,
113, 118, 124, 125,
138, 144, 148, 149,
151, 153, 155a,
161, 169, 171, 174,
175, 178, 182, 185,
186, 187, 191, 205,
206, 227, 233, 235,
238, 241, 246, 253,
256, 271, 272, 273,
285, 290, 291
Based upon extensive hydrologic modeling evaluations of the requested basin
transfer, NCDENR and the Department of Administration determined that the
proposed transfer is not expected to result in significant impacts to the
environment or associated natural resources within the source or receiving
basins. Potential direct environmental and societal impacts are addressed
throughout the EA. Indirect and cumulative impacts are addressed in section 5 of
the EA for each subject reviewed for potential impacts. EA documents typically
do not contain economic analysis, instead focusing attention on uncovering any
potential significant impacts to the environment. A planning level comparison of
capital costs associated with the different alternatives is more appropriately
provided in Table 6-1 of the Petition document. Federally and state protected
species as well as significant protected natural habitat areas are addressed in
sections 4.12, 4.13, and 5.13 of the EA. The current and projected water supply
demands of the KLRWS service area are presented in tables 2.3 and 2.4 of the
EA.
6 Environmental Impact Statement Should Be
Conducted: Commenters stated that this IBT
request should have triggered the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement not an
Environmental Assessment and want a full
environmental impact study to be performed. An
environmental assessment is inadequate and does
not meet the “hard look” standard required by the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The IBT
law requires an EIS to be prepared for every
proposed transfer of water from one major basin to
another for which a certificate is required.
5, 10, 12, 16, 21,
22, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 38, 43,
44, 45, 53, 63, 64,
65, 71, 79, 96, 103,
105, 113, 118, 124,
125, 138, 144, 148,
149, 151, 153,
155a, 161, 169,
171, 174, 175,
178, 182, 185, 186,
187, 191, 205, 206,
227, 233, 235,
238, 241, 246, 253,
256, 271, 272, 273,
285, 290, 291
The requirement that an EIS be prepared for proposed water transfers between
major basins is stated in G.S. 143-215.22L(d) “…an environmental impact
statement shall be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one
major river basin to another for which a certificate is required under this
section.” However, in G.S. 143-215.22L(w)(2) there is the exception, “… except
that an environmental impact statement shall not be required unless it would
otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes.”
Because DENR reached the conclusion of being able to issue a FONSI, and given
the exception in G.S. 143-215.22L(w)(2), it was concluded that an EIS was not
required.
Part 2 - Page 11

7 Explain Why the Corps Is Compensated for
Hydropower.

123, 124, 125, 201,
259, 288
The reservoir was originally conceived for the purposes of generating
hydropower (primary objective), reducing flood damage, improving navigation,
and promoting recreational (such as fishing) opportunities. The Water Supply
Act of 1958 expanded the function of the reservoir to include providing water
supply. In 2005 the KLRWS and the USACE agreed on a reallocation of waters in
Kerr Lake for water supply purposes and in doing so agreed to compensate
USACE for the lost hydropower potential (see Section 5.1.3 of the EA).
8 Exploration of Alternative to Return Transferred
Water Back to Source Basin: Needed exploration to
return of all water upstream of the withdrawal or
near the point of extraction.
17, 28, 63, 89, 103,
107, 139, 182, 189
Returning treated wastewater to the Roanoke River basin was one of the
alternatives considered in the EA (alternative 5-see Section 3.5 of the EA). That
alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the IBT due to the large
consumptive uses of the transferred water in the receiving basins. This
alternative would require the construction of transmission lines and pump
stations to return wastewater to the source basin. The construction would result
in direct environmental impacts and significant costs associated with building
the infrastructure and continued operation and maintenance.
9 Exploration of Reclaimed Water Alternative:
Needed exploration conservation alternatives
including tertiary treatment (i.e., use of reclaimed
water).
17, 107 The EA explored a total of nine different water supply alternatives to meet the
needs of the KLRWS and their customers (see Section 3 of the EA and Findings of
fact No. 5). All alternatives were evaluated based on ability to meet 2045
demands, environmental impact considerations, and cost considerations; the
preferred alternative was identified to increase the IBT to 14.2 mgd.

Alternative 5 evaluated the potential use of reclaimed water (i.e., tertiary
treatment) and other conservation initiatives. Alternative 5 would pump treated
effluent back to the Roanoke River Basin. While it would reduce the IBT needed,
it would not be eliminated, and there would be new infrastructure required, with
associated environmental impacts and cost.
10 Future Allocation of Water: should be preserved
for the development of local rural interests.
187, 189 The proposed IBT certificate to transfer surface water between river basins does
not alter the amount of water allocated from Kerr Lake by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. The KLRWS currently has
an allocation of 20 mgd; the IBT request is to transfer 14.2 mgd. The allocation
of water from Kerr Lake is determined by the USACE through a reallocation
process. No change to the allocation is needed or requested by this requested
IBT.
11 Impact on Minimum Releases. 29, 152, 189 Per the USACE reallocation agreement with KLRWS, guidance and protocol for
minimum releases will remain unchanged from the 20 mgd allocation. This
would include any water transferred outside the Roanoke River basin.

Part 2 - Page 12

12 Impacts from Exotic Weeds. 29, 152, 189 An increased presence of noxious, invasive aquatic weeds is not anticipated from
this IBT request. As demonstrated by the hydrologic model (and discussed
above), water levels are projected to be minimally affected by the requested IBT;
thereby, providing little additional opportunities for weeds to take root from
exposed ground. Additionally, no new infrastructure in Kerr Lake will be required
for the requested IBT; thereby, providing no source for the introduction of exotic,
invasive plants or animals.
13 Impacts of IBT Transfer on Downstream Flows:
Impact of the proposed transfer on the 7Q10 flow
statistic for the lower Roanoke River including all
other existing transfers.
29, 152, 189 Reservoir releases were also evaluated by the hydrologic model for the EA for
each of the main stem reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin for the period of
record including periods of extreme drought. The actual changes in the
downstream flows as a result of the IBT are quite small, representing 0.07
percent reduction on average and up to 0.30 percent reduction under 2007
drought conditions (Section 5.1.1.1 of the EA). Therefore, there are no projected
changes in USACE operational guidelines for releases from reservoirs upstream
or downstream as a result of this requested IBT.
14 Impacts of IBT Transfer on Virginia: IBT could have
a significant economic and environmental impact
on Virginia localities and could reduce the instream
flow and assimilative capacity of water bodies in
the Roanoke River Basin, especially during drought
conditions. This could result in greater conflicts for
commonly held water resources among the two
states and will set an inappropriate precedent for
periodic incremental increases in water resources
shared by the two states. Virginia communities
need to be included in the modeling.
5, 108, 205, 261,
290,
The modeling analyses1 conducted for the EA using the Roanoke River Basin
Hydrologic Model were consistent with the requirements of G.S. 143-
214.22L(k)(3) to consider the cumulative effect of current and projected
demands through 2045. Accordingly, all projected public water supply demands
within the Roanoke River basin, both upstream and downstream of Kerr Lake,
were included in the modeling scenarios1. Water demands for water users in
Virginia, both existing and projected, are included in the hydrologic model, as
provided by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Section 5.1.1.1 of
the EA details the results of the hydrologic modelling efforts, which found no
impacts to upstream flows from this requested IBT; thereby, avoiding any
potential assimilative capacity issues.
15 Impacts to Aquatic Wildlife: EA needs specific
linkages between the existing regulations and
programs and the impacts to locations where
listed/petitioned species are present. US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified the Upper
Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems as
significant resources for the protection of federally
listed endangered species as well as several other
rare and endemic species. For the protection of
these species, provisions must be made for
wastewater treatment, especially emerging
contaminants, and details on potential wastewater
16, 62, 63, 148,
149
The requested IBT Certificate will result in no direct infrastructure construction
and minimal impact on the source waters. Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 in the EA
address the specific links between the IBT Certificate authority and existing
federal and state protected species laws.

Flows in the source basin will essentially remain unchanged by this proposed IBT.
Flows in the receiving basins, including the Tar River and Fishing Creek basins,
are projected to slightly increase, as treated wastewater discharges from water
systems will increase by the access the additional transferred water. As noted in
Sections 5.1.1 and 5.12.2 of the EA, adequate permitted capacity is in place for
discharge of treated wastewater as a result of the proposed transfer. Most
facility upgrades are in place with the exception of the South Granville Water
Part 2 - Page 13

treatment plant expansions or new discharges.
Similarly, need to address nutrient reduction
strategies that will occur with this IBT request for
aquatic species protection.
and Sewer Authority upgrades in the Neuse River basin which are under
construction. Environmental impacts associated with increased flows from
treated wastewater, including protected species, were analyzed for national
pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) discharge permits previously
issued. Should new scientific findings be revealed that demonstrate impacts to
these protected species from nutrient loading attributed to wastewater
treatment plant discharges, then the NPDES permits would need to be
reevaluated regarding their environmental protection. Additional information is
available in Appendix D (memo to USFWS).

Little information exists in the literature as to the effects that “emerging
contaminants” have on the receiving waters and the wildlife present within
them. Furthermore, it is unknown if these contaminants are present in the
treated wastewater flows entering the Tar River, as they are not required to be
tested for per the existing NPDES permit. Therefore, an environmental document
would be unable to make an impact assessment regarding this subject.

Section 5.1.1.2 in the EA details the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Management Strategy
agreement between the Oxford, Warrenton, Bunn, and Franklin County
wastewater treatment plants. According to the 2015 Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Plan, data suggest that nutrient loading is being driven more by the amount of
precipitation (and corresponding runoff) than by nutrient concentrations. Each
utility monitors total nitrogen and total phosphorus; some have specific loading
limits while others are awaiting annual loading limits with the next cycle of their
NPDES permits. A similar nutrient reduction strategy is in place in the Falls Lake
watershed within the Neuse River basin. Detailed information can found in the
Section 5.1.1.2 in the EA.
16 Impacts to Downstream Floodplain Wetlands. 29, 152, 189 There are no projected changes in USACE operational guidelines for releases
from reservoirs upstream or downstream as a result of this requested IBT;
therefore, no impacts to floodplain wetlands along the Roanoke River are
anticipated.
17 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts on Receiving
Basin: Concerns about the water quality and
quantity impacts facilitated by growth resulting
from this IBT request. Specifically, secondary and
cumulative impacts related to the IBT request on
the receiving basin, which leads to increases in
stormwater, wastewater, impervious surfaces,
16, 62, 63, 149 Indirect and cumulative impacts are addressed throughout Section 5 of the EA
for each subject reviewed for potential impacts. The mitigation of potential
impacts from increased stormwater, impervious surfaces, erosion, and
sedimentation has been adequately addressed in Section 6 of the EA, where the
federal, state, and local regulations and programs available to protect water
quality are discussed.

Part 2 - Page 14

erosion, and sedimentation. Wastewater discharges are expected to increase, but have been shown to be
within existing limits of current NPDES permitted flows. As noted in Sections
5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of the EA, adequate permitted capacity is in place for discharge
of treated wastewater as a result of the proposed transfer. Indirect and
cumulative impacts from projected growth are discussed in sections 5.2, 5.3, and
5.4 of the EA.
18 Lake Levels - Combined Effect of IBT and Future
Drought on Kerr Lake: Commenter concerned that
IBT would have caused 2 foot drop in lake levels
during 2002 drought and when combined with
Virginia Beach IBT would have caused 10 foot drop
in lake levels during 2002 drought.
114 This concerned citizen’s comments stem from a misinterpretation of the data
and modeling analyses presented in the EA. The specific comments refer to
Figure 5-3 of the EA and interprets the figure to illustrate that if the requested
IBT had been in place during the 2002 drought, then Kerr Lake levels would have
dropped an additional two feet. Figure 5-3 is meant to illustrate the modeled
lake levels under 2002 drought conditions for the 2010 baseline year (blue line),
2045 baseline year (green line), and year 2045 with the requested IBT.
Therefore, the graph is showing at the peak of the 2002 drought conditions, the
model projecting the lake level to be approximately two feet lower between
2010 (with the water supply/withdrawal needs at that time) and 2045 (with the
water supply/withdrawal needs projected at that time) with the IBT. The model
projects that most of the reduction in lake level is attributed to increased water
demand tied to growth between 2010 and 2045; the difference in lake level
between the 2045 baseline conditions and 2045 IBT conditions is estimated to be
0.2 feet, or 2.4 inches.
19 Lake Levels - Increased Fluctuation on Kerr Lake:
Commenters are concerned that fluctuating lake
levels will cause depreciation in property values and
will cause issues with boaters, swimmers, campers,
and make the lake inaccessible to others who use
the lake for recreational purposes.
More information is needed on what the impacts to
Kerr Lake would be. More information needed on
the effect of this proposed transfer on Kerr Lake
levels.

22, 34, 68, 74, 77,
91, 99, 114, 115,
116, 123, 124, 125,
140, 141, 158, 161,
166, 174, 175,
177, 186, 201,
233, 237, 253, 259,
282, 288
Lake levels at Kerr Lake currently fluctuate due to the US Army Corps of
Engineers’ operation of reservoirs in the Roanoke River basin. When the
Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model was run for the EA, the model simulated
the 2002 drought conditions and estimated the elevation of Kerr Lake dropped
by 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) under the 2045 IBT scenario when compared to the 2045
Baseline scenario. When the model simulated the 2007 drought conditions, the
elevation of Kerr Lake dropped by 0.1 feet (1.2 inches) under the 2045 IBT
scenario when compared to the 2045 Baseline scenario. Therefore, modeling
results support that lake levels will not be significantly affected by the proposed
IBT.

Additional analyses were conducted for the Hearing Officer’s report in order to
estimate the additional time boat launches might be closed due to low water
conditions as a result of the requested IBT (see Appendix C). Of the 38 boat
launches on Kerr Lake, the lowest 26 launches (with elevations between 287.5
feet and 293.5 feet) showed no functional difference between the 2045 baseline
and 2045 IBT scenarios. The highest 12 launches (with elevations between 294.5
Part 2 - Page 15

feet and 296.5 feet) show less than a day’s difference on an average annual
basis between the future scenarios with and without the IBT.
20 Lake Levels – Potential Lowering of Kerr Lake From
Future Drought Conditions: Concerns that drought
in the future will lower the lake level significantly.
Certificate should require a Drought Management
Plan that restricts uses during droughts.
21, 22, 30, 39, 68,
77, 91, 99, 107,
114, 115, 116, 123,
132, 141, 182, 186,
195, 203, 244, 248,
253
The modeling analyses conducted for the EA evaluated lake levels with all water
demands in the basin projected to 2045 with the KLRWS IBT capped at the
grandfathered amount (10 mgd), referred to as 2045 Baseline, as well as lake
levels projected to 2045 and with the KLRWS IBT at the maximum requested
14.2 mgd, referred to as 2045 IBT. When the model simulated the 2002 drought
conditions, the elevation of Kerr Lake dropped by 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) under the
2045 IBT scenario when compared to the 2045 Baseline scenario. When the
model simulated the 2007 drought conditions, the elevation of Kerr Lake
dropped by 0.1 feet (1.2 inches) under the 2045 IBT scenario when compared to
the 2045 Baseline scenario. See Table 5-1 and Figures 5-1 to 5-5 in the EA
document.

The Department agrees with the requirement for a Drought Management Plan.
If granted by the EMC, the certificate will contain conditions requiring the
KLRWS provide for DWR’s approval a Water Conservation Plan, Drought
Management Plan, and Compliance and Monitoring Plan. The Drought
Management Plan will specify how the transfer will be managed to protect the
Roanoke River Basin during drought conditions or other emergencies. The Plan
will also include mandatory transfer reductions based on the severity and
duration of a drought occurring within the Roanoke River basin and will provide
for the mandatory implementation of a drought management plan by the
KLRWS. Additional water requested through this IBT certificate will not be
transferred until this requirement is complete and has been approved.
21 Lake Levels - Potential Lowering of Lake Gaston by
IBT: Commenters are concerned that the request
will lower Lake Gaston lake levels and impact them
negatively by decreasing property values and
recreational use.
30, 95, 147, 188,
192, 226, 277, 278
The modeling analyses1 conducted for the EA using the Roanoke River Basin
Hydrologic Model were consistent with the requirements of G.S. 143-
214.22L(k)(3) to consider the cumulative effect of current and projected
demands through 2045. Accordingly, all projected public water supply demands
within the Roanoke River basin, both upstream and downstream of Kerr Lake,
were included in the modeling scenarios1. Demand data used for the model
development included Local Water Supply Plan information (submitted by
individual water systems), Water Withdrawal Registration (non-water system
information), and information provided by Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (including both water system and non-water system
demands). Water use projections came from the same data sources. Lake
Gaston showed no discernable difference in lake elevation when both 2002 and
2007 drought conditions were modeled when the 2045 IBT scenario was
Part 2 - Page 16

compared against the 2045 Baseline scenario (see EA, Section 5.1, Table 5-1 and
Figures 5-6 and 5-7).
22 Limit IBT to Grandfathered Systems, Don’t Expand
Geographic Scope of Water Being Transferred.
205, 232 The current IBT certificate request from the Kerr Lake Regional Water System
(KLRWS) is a grandfathered system approved to transfer up to 10 mgd. The
certificate request is to increase the maximum transfer amount to 14.2 mgd. The
KLRWS currently provides water to municipal and county systems in four
counties located within three major river basins (Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and
Neuse). Over the 30-year planning period to 2045, the KLRWS does plan to
expand its service area and connect residences currently served by private wells
for their water supply.
23 Negative Economic Impact on Future Growth of
the Source Basin: Concerns that the IBT request will
cause a detrimental impact to property, tourism,
future commercial development and the economy
in the source basin. Need to address the financial
benefit to the source basin of this IBT request.
Identify the benefits of the citizens by the
requested transfer. Cause regulatory restrictions on
localities in the basin, adversely affecting their
economics.

11, 21, 22, 34, 36,
37, 38, 42, 52, 55,
65, 68, 77, 79, 81,
82, 84, 91, 92, 93,
96, 99, 103, 118,
123, 124, 125, 132,
138, 141, 152, 161,
168, 169, 176, 177,
182, 187, 198, 201,
202, 203, 233, 237,
244, 248, 259, 262,
266, 282, 283, 286,
288
Table 5-1 and Figures 5-1 to 5-5 in the EA document detail the potential impacts
to lake levels in Kerr Lake and adjacent property owners. Due to the recreational
use of Kerr Lake, additional analyses have been conducted to better describe
potential impacts to boating resources. Therefore, additional model analyses
were conducted specifically looking at the period of time that this IBT request
might result in lake levels being below boat ramps; thereby, precluding usage of
those boat ramps. The results demonstrate that of the 38 boat launches on Kerr
Lake, the lowest 26 launches (with elevations between 287.5 feet and 293.5
feet) showed no functional difference between the 2045 baseline and 2045 IBT
scenarios. The highest 12 launches (with elevations between 294.5 feet and
296.5 feet) show less than a day’s difference on an average annual basis
between the future scenarios with and without the IBT. As a result of the
proposed IBT, boat launches at elevation 294.5 feet might be closed an
additional 0.2 days per year (approximately 5 hours); at elevation 295.5 feet,
launches might be closed an additional 0.6 days per year (approximately 14
hours); at elevation 296.5 feet, the highest launch might be closed 0.3 days per
year less (approximately 7 hours) based on how the system is expected to
operate under the 2045 IBT scenario. This analysis and detailed results are
presented in Appendix C. This analysis is intended to demonstrate that no
perceptible recreational, and thereby economic, impacts are expected to occur
from this requested IBT.

Though the financial benefits of the proposed IBT are not specifically outlined in
the EA or Petition, the applicant has demonstrated the purpose and need of the
requested IBT in Section 2. The purpose and need is to meet the projected water
supply needs of all customers in the KLRWS service area, including water
systems that purchase water from the Partners. As shown in Figure 1-2, the
service area for the KLRWS covers four counties and three river basins.
Part 2 - Page 17

24 Opposition - General: Commenters oppose
allowance of IBTs; water should not be transferred
from one basin to another.
1, 6, 15, 18, 19, 23,
24, 39, 40, 46, 47,
48, 50, 54, 59, 61,
66, 67, 72, 75, 87,
88, 98, 100, 102,
117, 119, 120, 122,
123, 124, 125, 133,
135, 136, 150, 152,
154, 156, 160, 165,
171, 179, 180, 181,
184, 193, 196, 236,
247, 249, 250, 251,
252, 255, 257, 263,
265, 267, 268, 269,
270, 276, 280, 284,
287
Comment noted.
25 Opposition Petition or Want to be Added to a
Petition: Commenters provided a petition opposing
the IBT request.
2, 3, 5, 7-(2), 11-
(17), 22-(8),
25/26/27-(2), 28-
(28), 36, 37-(2), 49,
50/51-(11), 56-(2),
69-(2),73, 83-(13),
85-(32), 92/93,
94(R), 97, 102a-
(20), 109/110-(2),
111, 126-(86), 127-
(94), 128-(74), 129-
(105), 130-(40),
134-(2), 141-(13),
143-(2), 145-(24),
146-(3), 169/170-
(21), 172-(2), 190-
(19), 197-(12),
198/199-(2),
200(R), 202,
203/204-(17),207/
208-(4), 209-(31),
210-(53), 211-(7),
A total of 1,443 petition signatures were counted and documented.
Part 2 - Page 18

212-(28), 213-(4),
214-(3), 215-(23),
216-(79), 217-(12),
218-(5), 219-(31),
220-(32), 221-(67),
222-(61), 223-(25),
224-( 108), 225-
(22), 230-(2), 231-
(17), 239-(86),
242/243-(20), 258-
(20), 260-(2), 264-
(12)
26 Opposition Rescinded: Commenters originally
opposed the request then rescinded their objection
to the request.
94, 200 Change in position noted.
27 Proposed Conditions - Water Efficiency,
Conservation and Reuse is Needed: EMC should
create a condition to require the applicants to
initiate additional regional planning and initiatives
related to water conservation. A detailed water
efficiency and water conservation plan is needed
with measures to ensure water is used
appropriately. Applicants need to utilize reuse and
develop conservation rate structures.
16, 62, 63, 89, 139,
149, 182, 189
The Department agrees with the requirement for a Water Conservation Plan. If
granted by the EMC, the certificate will contain conditions requiring the KLRWS
provide for DWR’s approval a Water Conservation Plan, Drought Management
Plan, and Compliance and Monitoring Plan. The Water Conservation Plan will
specify the water conservation measures, including a rate pricing structure,
which will be implemented by the KLRWS to ensure the efficient use of the
transferred water.
28 Public Comment - Lack of proper notification:
Additional public information needs to be provided.

9, 21, 22, 32, 44,
45, 46, 50, 53, 58,
65, 78, 79, 80, 91,
103, 123, 124, 125,
141, 144, 169, 171,
174, 175, 176, 178,
201, 227, 234, 235,
241, 245, 246, 253,
259, 273, 283, 288
Per G.S. 143-215.22L(w), the Department is required to provide written notice of
the petition and public hearing in the Environmental Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation in the source river basin, and a newspaper of general
circulation in the receiving river basin. Notices were published in the Franklin
Times (Franklin Co, receiving basin, published 3/5/15), the Daily Herald (Halifax
Co, source basin, published 3/5/15) and the Mecklenburg Sun (Mecklenburg Co,
VA, source basin, published 3/4/15). These publications exceeded the minimum
notification requirements. Additionally, NCDENR distributed a news release on
March 24, 2015, one week before the hearing, which is standard procedure to
alert media. It was sent to all media in NC, including the Henderson Dispatch. A
direct link to the news release is
http://www.ncwater.org/phpns/images/uploads/90423Kerr%20Lake%20IBT%2
0release_2.pdf. Though the news release was distributed to all media, NCDENR
could not ensure that the media would write or publish stories about the
Part 2 - Page 19

hearing. Per G.S. 143-215.22L(w), the Department is required to accept
comments on the IBT petition for 30 days following the public hearing. The
public hearing was held on March 31, 2015 and comments were accepted
through April 30, 2015, as stated in the public hearing notice (see Appendix A).
29 Public Comment - Cancel Deadline: Commenters
wanted to cancel public comment period due to a
need for more public hearings.
9, 21, 22, 32, 44,
45, 65, 78, 79, 80,
124, 125, 141, 144,
169, 174, 178, 227,
234, 235, 241,
245, 246, 253, 273,
283
Per G.S. 143-215.22L(w), the Department is required to provide a single public
hearing related to the Environmental Assessment document.
The public hearing was held on March 31, 2015 at the Henderson Town Hall in
Henderson, NC. Comments were accepted through April 30, 2015, as stated in
the public hearing notice (see Appendix A). The public comments received did
not raise questions or point out information not already considered by the
Environmental Assessment document. Because no new issues were being raised,
it was not deemed necessary or beneficial to extend the comment period beyond
the required 30 days.
30 SEPA Act (HB795): Bill would facilitate a lack of
public scrutiny and would probably be done
without an environmental impact statement, public
hearings and public sentiment and affect the lives
of millions of people.
79, 80 The recently enacted changes to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
associated with Session Law 2015-90, were signed into law by Governor McCrory
on June 19, 2015. Section 7 of Session Law 2015-90 deals specifically with
maintaining the existing environmental reviews for proposed IBT requests.
Therefore, the existing IBT requirements are not expected to be affected by the
recently passed changes to SEPA from Session Law 2015-90.
31 Support Provided: Support for the Interbasin
Transfer Certificate request to support population
growth, residential and economic development.
This includes both comments from private citizens
as well as resolutions from units of local
government.
8, 14, 41, 57, 60,
70, 104, 121, 131,
137, 155, 157, 162,
163, 164, 167, 228,
229, 240, 254, 289,
292, 293
Comment noted.
32 The City of Henderson Controls All the Water in
Kerr Lake.

72, 123, 124, 125,
201, 259, 288
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) controls and manages the water in
Kerr Lake. The City of Henderson is one of three partners who own the Kerr Lake
Regional Water System (KLRWS), which is requesting the IBT certificate to
transfer 14.2 mgd. The KLRWS has an allocation from the USACE for up to 20
mgd of water from Kerr Lake.

Part 2 - Page 20

33 Water Will be Transferred to Raleigh and
Surrounding Area: The Triangle has the resources
to expand or build their own water reservoirs and
should reduce their consumption and conserve
more instead of gaining access to water from Kerr
Lake.
4, 13, 20, 35, 75,
76, 101, 106, 124,
125, 139, 142, 159,
168, 173, 188, 192,
194, 195, 198, 232,
253, 262, 281
Per the petition for the IBT certificate, the transferred water is for the Kerr Lake
Regional System partners and their customers located in Vance, Warren,
Granville, and Franklin Counties (i.e., existing service area). The EMC and the
General Assembly have recognized this concern and a condition of the IBT
Certificate will be that water may not be transferred to water systems that are
not listed as co-applicants on the certificate. This restricts the allowance to the
three lead KLRWS partners and their bulk customers identified on the certificate.
Any proposed IBT request to transfer water to Raleigh would require a separate
and complete petition process and certificate from the EMC.

____________________________________
1 Access to the hydrologic model and all the model scenarios presented in the EA and the Hearing Officer’s Report are publicly available. Please
visit http://www.ncwater.org/data_and_modeling/Roanoke/ to request public access to the Roanoke River Basin Hydrologic Model.
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water Diversion from Roanoke River Basin
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 12:22:02 AM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
As a NC resident and property owner on Lake Gaston, I write to inform you that I am vehementlyopposed to diverting water from the Roanoke River Basin.
As this can only create unimaginable problems in the unforeseeable future, I can only hope that plansto divert water do not go forward.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Sincerely,
Kirk AdamsMacon, NC
From:carolyn adams
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:PUBLIC PETITION. SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 6:46:37 PM
We the below signed in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD(ten million gallons daily)
Of inter Basin Transfer to the Tar/Neuse River Baisins because of thecumulative impact on Kerr/Buggs Island levels, as well as undisclosedimpacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance andWarren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR. 521 Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC. 27699-1611
NAME___Paulette Adams__________/. PHONE NUMBER___252-213-3367___
From:carolyn adams
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:PUBLIC PETITION SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:57:38 PM
We the below signed in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD(ten million gallons daily)
Of inter Basin Transfer to the Tar/Neuse River Baisins because of thecumulative impact on Kerr/Buggs Island levels, as well as undisclosedimpacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance andWarren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR. 521 Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC. 27699-1611
NAME______Troy Adams____________/. PHONE NUMBER__252-430-6247____
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Gene Adesso - I am president of the Roanoke River Association. Our organization has been
monitoring the IBT request since its inception and we’ve been assisted in that regard by the
Duke Law and Environmental Center. The director of that center is here and will speak to you
if you want after the meeting. I am going to be very short and will give more time to him
because he is going to speak in terms of the response. One or two things I think I’d like to say
though. We’ve talked about Wake County and we’ve talked about the fact that the IBT request
has nothing to do with Wake County, and that is true. You should also be aware however, that
Wake County, Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill have in the year 2005 put a request into the
Corp of Engineers for 50 million gallons of water every day allocation. The lake supply allocation
in Kerr Lake has 28,000 acres left. The rest of it has been allocated already. If they were
granted that allocation it would use that total up so there would be no more water supply. On
top of that allocation request I should also tell you that in one point in time when the boom
was going on and Raleigh was really desperate for a water supply they had someone do a study
on alternatives. They had put together a full project on inter-basin transfer of 50 million gallons
of water a day out of Kerr Lake and it’s in a book I got at home. It was presented to Raleigh,
Durham and Chapel Hill at that time. On top of another thing talking about a bi-state (Kerr)
lake can get an IBT from two states. Virginia doesn’t have a IBT statute, all you have to do in
Virginia is get a permit. That is what was done on 60 million gallons a day taken out of Lake
Gaston to Virginia Beach. So basically NC does not have a monopoly on this that water also
belongs to Virginia and the Virginia communities. I would ask if the Virginia communities
basically were included in the modeling and the supply and I believe they were. Is that true?
(Answered: They were) – End

PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Gene Addesso (919) 414 -4591

APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)
From:Otto
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Denial of permit to draw water
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 9:44:33 AM
Dear Ms. Nimmer, In our local paper your address was given as the person to
contact in regard to the permit to draw water from Kerr Lake. As this effects a
number of things I request that the permit be denied. Thank you, Ott and Yvonne
Alberg residents of Lake Gaston
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Rob Alger 919-810-6225
Nancy Alger 252-617-0430 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)

124 Hillsboro Street • PO Box 820 Oxford, NC 27565 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]

April 30, 2015

Dear Kim Nimmer,
After reviewing the Petition for Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer
Certificate provided during the public hearing at the Henderson City Hall, it is clear that this
transfer is essential to the support and growth of tourism development in Granville County which is linked to thriving communities and a healthy economy, both of which depend upon a sustainable and long-term water supply for growth.

At the same time, lake related recreation both feeds tourism and depends upon plenty of water to
provide that recreation. So we are pleased that the Environmental Assessment document indicated that the requested 4.2 mgd IBT would make a negligible impact on lake water levels while also supporting water needs to meet projected growth in our and area counties for the next
30 years. Furthermore, as we see it, this transfer will not only not cause any harmful effects on
Kerr Lake, but it will also support the economic development of the surrounding areas.
The role of the Granville County Tourism Development Authority is to promote the use and
development of the County’s recreational, historic, and tourism resources. The TDA feels that
supporting this certificate will increase opportunities in these areas and create new ones in the
process.
Therefore, the Tourism Development Authority of Granville County is pleased to join the City of
Oxford in support of the Proposed Kerr Lake Interbasin Transfer Certificate.

Sincerely,
Angela P. Allen
Angela P. Allen, Director
Granville County Tourism Development Authority
From:Denise Allen
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Proposed Draw Down of Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:37:30 PM
Importance:High
Dear Kim,
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed draw down of Kerr Lake. I am only hearing of this
through a couple of letters to the editor in a local paper just in the last two weeks. Back when the
City of Virginia Beach wanted to get water from Lake Gaston/Roanoke River there was a lot of
notification about it and public meetings to inform the public and also forums to express opinions.
There was a lot of opposition about letting Va. Beach get water.
I am a resident of Warren Co. and I am a real estate broker in which my business concentration is at
Lake Gaston. I grew up in this area enjoying both of these beautiful lakes and the tourism is a big
part of these counties income as well as people buying vacation/retirement homes. The people of
the affected counties are owed the facts of what is being proposed and this should be published in
the local papers for all concerned citizens to read before any further action is taken!
Please do the right thing by the residents and let us have a say in whether this should happen.
Thank you,
Denise

Denise C. Allen, Realtor/Broker Licensed in NC/VAColdwell Banker Advantage2401 Eaton Ferry Rd.
Littleton, North Carolina 27850
Office [phone] ext. 234Cell [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any attachments are confidential property of the
sender. The information is intended only for the use of the person to whom it was addressed. Any other
interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for
any unauthorized reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify
the sender and purge the message you received. Do not forward this message without permission.

From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Please, Please, Please Save Our Water
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:18:25 PM
Importance:HighWe the below signed are in opposition to the permit to increase 10MFD ofInter Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse RiverBasins because of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lakewater levels, as well as undisclosed impacts on the environment, theeconomy, and tourism in Vance,and Warren Counties as well as SouthsideVirginia.434-252-6894 Judy Brown434-252-6894 Kent Brown434-689-5560 Danny Arnold919-702-2293 Sheila Arnold434-689-5560 Ali Arnold434-636-2719 Maurine King434-636-2719 Sid Arnold252-438-4478 Tamara Martin252-438-5672 Julie Ball434-689-5506 Rod Beckwith434-689-5506 Gloria Beckwith404-987-3054 Sheri Sims434-774-6543 Ken Sims434-774-4519 Maria Sims252-257-2257 James Eatmon919-693-9888 Clarence Ayers252-430-4424 Allan Pixler
From:Merritt EMBARQ
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:51:32 PM
Kim,I am opposed to any increase in the amount of water takenfrom the Roanoke River Basin. There is uncontrolled growthin the Raleigh Durham area promoted by developers that haveno regard for the area; they only want to make money.I lived in Raleigh from 1983 to 2002 before moving to LakeGaston. The water supply in north Raleigh was in trouble in1983. Did the area limit growth? No.Now they want to take water from the Roanoke Basin so theycan build more.Where does stop? We don't want a problem like NorthernCalifornia where they have water reshoring so they can sendwater to Los Angeles where water use is not reshown.
Merritt Bailey164 S Macon DriveLittleton, NC 27850
From:John Barnes
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Regional Water System Inter-Basin Transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:52:36 PM
Importance:High
Kim, Please accept this e-mail correspondence as notification that the Henderson-Vance Chamber of
Commerce fully supports the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) inter-basin transfer
request for an increase of 4.2 million gallons per day (mgd) to their current grandfathered transferof 10 mgd million gallons per day on a maximum day basis.
The increase is needed to ensure that future water demands for the KLRWS and its customers,
which includes municipal and county systems in Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties,and three river basins in northeastern North Carolina, can be sustained through 2045.
An available and abundant water supply and its sustainability to prospective industry, is vital to the
economic growth and development of the four-county region. And, according to environmentalassessment studies conducted by the firm CH2M HILL, a global leader in engineering andconstruction based in Denver Colorado, the increase in projected transfers will show no noticeable
impact. Their study includes projected lake levels during extreme drought, low flow duration and
hydropower. The KLRWS inter-basin transfer request is crucial for the economic growth and viability of the
four-county region and will serve as an essential component for an effective economic
development strategy for attracting new industry. Your consideration and approval of the KLRWS request is most earnestly appreciated.

All the best,John BarnesPresident
Henderson-Vance County Chamber of Commerce
414 S. Garnett StreetHenderson, NC 27536252-438-8414
[e-mail]

From:Don Beazley
To:Nimmer, Kim
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 10:05:00 AM
Please note my opposition to WBT from the Roanoke River to any otherdestination. Thank you for
your consideration of my stance on this proposed legislation.

Don Beazley
Littleton, NC\
Full time Lake Gaston Resident
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box33726
Ralei gh, North Carolina 27 63 6 -37 26
16 March 2015
Mr. Harold Brady
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
Public Water Supply Section
1634 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
RE: Comments on Draft EA (dated January 2015) for IBT increase from Kerr Lake to Tar
River, Neuse River & Fishing Creek basins, Vance, Granville, Warren & Franklin
Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Brady:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received a request on 16 January 2015 by CH2M
Hill to provide comments on the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Interbasin
Transfer (IBT) increase from Kerr Lake to Tar River, Neuse River, and Fishing Creek basins.
The Service has identified the Upper Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems as significant
resources for the protection of federally listed endangered species as well as several other rare
and endemic species. Federal goals for the conservation of trust species depend explicitly on the
sustained integrity of the Upper Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) seeks to increase the existing IBT from John
H. Ken Reservoir (Kerr Lake) in the Roanoke River basin to the Tar River basin, Neuse River
basin, and Fishing Creek subbasin to provide sufficient water for future demand. The KLRWS is
owned by the City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, and additional water is
sold to Stovall, Warrenton, Norlina, Vance County, Kittrell, and Franklin County. Future sales
are proposed to South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWASA) for use by Creedmoor
and Wilton. The KLRWS expects water demand to increase beyond the 10 MGD
(grandfathered) allowed with the current IBT certificate during the next 30 to 45 years. The
projected demands for year 2045 represented in MMD (average day of a maximum month
demand) are l}.7mgd to the Tar River basin, I.7mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin, and 1.8mgd
to the Neuse River basin. In total, the KLRWS is requesting an IBT certificate to transfer on an
MMD basis 14.2mgd out of the Roanoke River basin. The US Atmy Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has already allocated the storage equivalent of 20mgd average day demand within
Kert Lake to the KLRWS.
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16March2}l5
Page2
The Service has significant interest in the conservation of globally and nationally-significant
aquatic resources in the Tar fuver basin. Two of our office's overarching goals is to recover
populations of federally listed species (including the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon),Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum)) and conserve at-risk species such that their listing is unnecessary
(USFWS 2012). Several streams in the Upper Tar River basin and the Fishing Creek subbasin
have been identified as essential to the survival and recovery of the dwarf wedgemussel, the Tar
River spinymussel, and harperella (USFWS 1990,1992,1993). In addition, the NC Natural
Heritage Program G\ICNHP) characterizes the Upper Tar River and Fishing Creek as having
"Outstanding" significance for aquatic biodiversity; they are in the top 3Yo of the most highly
significant natural heritage sites in NC. In fact,the Upper Tar River is one of the best locations
in NC for the dwarf wedgemussel, Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and Chameleon
lampmussel (Lampsilis sp.); and the Fishing Creek subbasin is the global stronghold for the Tar
River spinymussel. These basins support 18 species identified as imperiled by NCNHP
O{CNHP 2015). Of these species, three (Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi), and the NC spiny crayfish (Orconectes carolinensls)) are endemic to
only the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico drainages and occur nowhere else on the planet. The Service is
especially interested in projects that may affect federal at-risk species (i.e., those species for
which the Service has been petitioned to list under ESA and for which the Service will be
making listing determinations in the next two years) including the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), yellow lance (Ellipito lanceolata), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Carolina
madtom, Neuse River waterdog, and Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis).
The KLRWS has assessed several alternatives to meet their water needs for the next 30 years.
The applicant's preferred alternative is to increase the IBT from the Roanoke River basin from
l0 to 20 MGD and continue to treat and discharse wastewater into the Tar River. Neuse River.
and Fishing Creek basins.
With increased water supply available to the upper Tar and Neuse River Basins, the Service is
extremely concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) related to this project,
especially because of the sensitive species and habitats in this area. Additional water supply
allows for increased growth and development, which in turn generates stormwater, increased
impervious surfaces, more wastewater, and other SCI which in tum impact aquatic species and
the habitats they live in. The EA states that there "is the potential for water quality and quantity
impacts related to growth in the project area, facllitated in part by the availability of an adequate
waters supply" (EA - p.1-5). Section 6.1 of the draft EA provides a brief description of existing
regulations and programs, but the "analysis does not attempt to measure the perfonnanco of these
regulations...to improve specific environmental conditions" (EA - p.6-1). While the accounting
of regulations and programs was overall thorough (with the exception of the omission of the
state's riparian buffer rules (which was said to be provided in Section 6.I.2, but was not), the
Service contends that in order to concur with a finding of no significant impact for the project,
specific linkages of the existing regulations and programs to the impacts to locations where
listed/petitioned species are present is essential. While the listing of regulations and programs
was informative, it is difficult to review the project and understand how to "connect the dots."
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16March2015
Page 3
We suggest that this information could be best presented by discussing how recommendations
contained in in the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (DENR's) Guidance
for Preparing SEPA Documents and Addressing Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/deao/sepa) and in the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's
Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic
and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (August 2002,
http://rnnry.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conservins/documents/2002 GuidanceMemorandumforsec
ondarlrandCurnulativelmpacts.pdO arclarc not accounted for in existing regulations/programs. If
this proposed level of analysis goes beyond the scope of an EA, then the Service recommends
the applicant to consider developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Because of the additional water supply, provisions must be made for wastewater treatment. It is
often a misconception that highly treated effluent is beneficial to the receiving system,
particularly regarding increased flows during droughts or periods of low flow. However, the
concentration of effluent constituents of concern is also increased during these low flow periods.
This is particularly important because emerging contaminants of concern including
pharmaceuticals and personal care products containing endocrine-disrupting compounds are not
treated in typical wastewater treatment systems. The sedentary nature of mussels and plants
means they are unable to move away from the discharge location(s) and would be continuously
exposed. Accordingly, effluent characteristics need to be protective of mussels at all times,
including the instantaneous minimum flow.
Details on potential wastewater treatment plant expansions or new discharges were not suffrcient
in the draft EA. The Service knows of three potential projects for which substantial detail and
analysis for SCI should be included - one is a current project, Franklin County's proposed new
discharge to the Tar R.iver; one is a possible future project given potential increase of supply to
Creedmoor, and includes SGWASA's proposed new discharge to the Tar River (different
location than the Franklin County project); and one includes the City of Raleigh as a future bulk
water purchase customer. Each of these projects could have significant environmental effects -
some potentially positive, and some negative. Provision of water through this increased IBT
request could make those projects viable, and therefore they need to be analyzed in the EA.
It is not clear why the NC Division of Water Resources OICDWR) would allow an IBT into a
Nutrient Sensitive Watershed (NSW). Both the Falls Reservoir watershed and the Tar River are
NSW's. The EA states, o'the nutrient reduction strategies and NPDES permits in place are
sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species and their habitats" (p. 5-39). Supplying
additional water through an increased IBT enables additional nutrients to be discharged, and
while nutrient offsets may be in place, they are not discussed adequately in the EA. The Service
would like to see detailed information about the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association and resulting
nutrient allocations as well as the Falls Lake strategy incorporated and discussed relative to
impacts in the EA.
The Service would like to encourage a discussion with the applicant about the reconsideration of
Alternative #5, minimizing IBT by discharging to the Roanoke River basin. While this
alternative was deemed to meet the project's purpose and need, it was eliminated because
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16 March 2015
Page 4
"significant infrastructure costs would be necessary and direct environmental impacts would
occnr with construction" (EA - p.3-8). Information provided under Alternative #2 rndrcates that
"the KLRWS is currently compensating the USACE annually for the lost hydropower" (EA - p.
3-2). The Service would like to see a comparison of the infrastructure costs to transport
wastewater back to the Roanoke basin versus the loss of hydropower income, which was
estimated to be $3,455,000 (2005 dollars). Once these costs are evaluated, as well as the costs
associated with future consultations for new discharges in the Tar River basin, Altemative #5
may seem more desirable, or a combination of altnernatives might also be more sensible.
As a minor point, the Service would like to inform the applicant that the information provided on
the Roanoke logperch on p. 4-35 is out of date. Please visit:
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode:E01G or
http://www.ncwildlife.ore/Learning/Species/Fish/Roanokelogperch.aspx for more current
information on the species.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft EA. In summary, the Upper
Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems are extremely significant aquatic resources, and thus
secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project to these areas must be carefully
evaluated. The protection of the Tar River basin and the rare species it contains is one of our
office's highest priorities. For these reasons, we believe it is extremely important to accurately
assess the costs and benefits of alternative #5 , fully value the quality of the natural environment
in the project area, and continue to involve the resource agencies and the public in the process.
The Service is willing to meet with the applicant and others to share information and explore
means of achieving a shared vision of sound water supply and wastewater disposal and for
conserving the aquatic resources of the Tar River basin for the continuing benefit of the
American people. If you have any questions regarding our comments on this project, please
contact Sarah McRae of this office at9l9-856-4520xI6 or [e-mail]. Thank you
for your cooperation in the effort to protect endangered and threatened species.
Field Supervisor
Lyn Hardison, NCDENR
Vann Stancil, NCWRC
Gabriela Garrison. NCWRC
Shari Bryant, NCWRC
Jaime Robinson. CH2M Hill
eC:
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16March2015
Page 5
References:
NC Natural Heritage Program. 2015. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Biotics
Database and Mapviewer. (http:llportal.ncdenr.org/weblnhpldatabase-search; accessed March
2015).
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) Recovery Plan. Newton
Corner, Massachusetts. 60pp.
-----1992. Tar [River] spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia. 40pp.
-----1993. Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts. 52pp.
-----2012. Five Year Strategic Plan (2012-2017). Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office. Raleigh, NC. 19pp.
From:Jim Berry
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Etta Ann Berry; Scott Berry; Jeff Linker
Subject:Intrabasin transfer
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 7:53:09 PM
Hello:
This will inform of my opposition to removal of water from the Roanoke River. As a near 40 yearresident at Lake Gaston, I have witnessed the development of almost 300 subdivisions on the 350 mileperimeter of the 50 year old lake.
The homes in these subdivisions, with tax values that range from modest to millions of dollars, werebuilt there primarily because of the "constant level" nature of the lake. Anything that threatens thataspect of the lake undermines the future tax base of the five surrounding counties as well as theprosperity and dreams of the thousands of homeowners involved. [For example, unable to afford sucha home those many years ago, I have slowly built it over the intervening decades (and it is almostfinished!)].
Please explore all potential alternatives including tertiary treatment and return of all water back to nearthe point of extraction.
Cordially,
James Berry P.E.US EPA, Retired
Jim Berry
From:Ballard Bishop
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Water Sale
Date:Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:42:26 AM
It has come to our attention that Water in Kerr Lake (Bugg's Island) has been offered for sale
to Henderson to sell to another place. As landowners on Kerr Lake we oppose this and pay
enough taxes to say HECK NO - The water in Kerr Lake is not for sale and Henderson does not
need 10 million more gallons - Just put a bucket in your backyard this weekend.
STOP your insideous plan to sell lake water.
BALLARD BISHOP
JANICE PUTNAM
owners
Piney Pointe
From:Carolyn Bolton
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr water
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 12:57:35 PM
Please do not allow water to be pumped to RTP area for their development needs. Kerr Lake is alreadysharing water with others.
Regards,Carolyn G. Bolton
Warren County resident.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Brady, Harold M.
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: inner-basin transfer
Date:Monday, April 27, 2015 9:22:46 AM

From: C William Mary Jane Bosworth [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:15 AMTo: Brady, Harold M.; Young, Sarah; Fransen, Tom; Senator Angela Bryant; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]: inner-basin transfer
I am very concerned about the long term effects that the inner basin transfer may have on the
environment of Kerr Lake. We have suffered through a number of droughts and low waterperiods that can only be exacerbated by the additional removal of water from the lake. My
concern is that even when the lake is at low levels, contractual obligations will require thecontinued drawdown of the lake. This of course can have severe effects on our tourist
industry, spawning grounds and our lake ecosystem.
I am also very concerned about the future of Vance County and our immediate neighbors, the
water in Kerr Lake and the Roanoke River system is one of the few bright spots in our localeconomy and should be used to further business investment in our local tri-county area.

I hope that you will assist us in delaying the cut off period for public comment and a full
environmental impact study, so that the long range consequences of any inner basin transferscan be studied and appreciated.
Sincerely;
Charles Bosworth
252-492-0531
2317 Pool Rock Rd.Henderson, NC 27537
[e-mail]
From:Dale Bradley
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Opposition to Inter-Basin Water Transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:25:28 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,

This is to notify you that we are opposed to the Inter-Basin Water Transfer permitthat currently allows the Kerr Lake Regional Water System Partners (KLRWP) thetransfer of up to 10 million gallons of water per day from Kerr Lake to areas inWarren, Oxford, Henderson, and other cities south of us. We are also against theirrequest to transfer an additional 10 million gallows of water per day from theRoanoke River to other watersheds.

Please ensure that our opposition is logged as appropriate to stop this permit.

Sincerely,

Mike and Dale Bradley40 Chanco DriveEbony, VA 23845

From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-Basin Water Transfer from Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:52:05 AM
As a taxpaying citizen of the City of Henderson and Vance County and a former citizen of WarrenCounty, I strongly oppose the proposed additional inter-basin transfer of water out of Kerr Lake by theKLRWS. This process has been faulty from the start and if approved, the outcome would be disastrousfor our area. I urge you to take action against this transfer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karney F. Brantley110 Westlake DriveHenderson, NC 27536
From:Beth Brewer
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Petition
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:58:47 PM
Hi Kim,
A friend sent me a petition to sign opposing a water transfer of up to 10M gallons ofwater per day from Kerr Lake. Can we email a petition to you so long as ourcontact information in included?
Beth Brewer
From:Beth Brewer
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Petition
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:25:56 PM
Attachments:Kerr Lake Petition - Brewer.xlsx
Kim -
Please find attached a couple of petition signatures.
Thanks!
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
Name Phone Number
Elizabeth M Brewer 252-430-7170
Mary Elizabeth Brewer 252-430-7170
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of
Inter Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River
Basins because of the undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy,
and tourism in Vance and cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake
water levels, as well as Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer (KLRWP)
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 9:50:59 AM
TO:  NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ATTN: Kim Nimmer

My husband and I live on waterfront property on Lake Gaston and are
concerned about the proposal being considered to double the amount of Inter-
Basin water transfers currently allocated to the Kerr Lake Regional Water
System “Partners” (KLRWP).  We were alerted to this proposal by the Lake
Gaston Association which represents the interests of the lake, property owners
around the lake, and the counties which surround it:
“The Kerr Lake Regional Water System "Partners" (KLRWP) currently has
authority to transfer up to 10 million gallons of water per day (MGD) water from Kerr
Lake to areas in Warren, Oxford, Henderson and others cities south of us. Of that
amount only under 3 MGD is returned to the Roanoke River Basin at Kerr Lake. The
KLRWP seeks to transfer an additional 10 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin.”
We also recognize that the Virginia Beach pipeline also is authorized to
transfer water from our lake as one of the sources for its water supply and has
been doing that since about the mid-1990’s.

When we had the opportunity, we did connect to the Warren County Water
System, which now supplies the water to our home, so we recognize that we
sort of have competing (and perhaps) conflicting interests with regard to this
water transfer issue.  We now depend upon the water supplied by Warren
County.  However, we also are seriously concerned about the impact increased
water withdrawals would have on the lake levels and the lake environment.  What
would happen if NC were to experience a serious drought like California has
right now?

We urge the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources to require
a full environmental impact study of proposed increases in water withdrawal
from the Roanoke River Basin.  This study should also consider potential impact
of future water withdrawal increases.  We further demand fully-disclosed
publication and reporting of the environmental impact study’s conclusions.

Yours truly,
Linda and Chuck Browne
129 Rocky Branch Circle
Macon, NC 27551
Home: 252-257-5889
From:Bunn, Tina
To:"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]";"[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; Bunn, Dean
Subject:Kerr Lake Interbasin Water
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:51:25 PM
URGENT REQUEST –

Cancel the 4/30/15 Interbasin Transfer Public Comment Deadline.
Call for public hearings.
Call for a complete Environmental Impact Study.

Please forward this email to any Councilman, Commissioners not included in the distribution.
As an NC and VA property owner this issue is very important to me. Our citizens deserve to be heard
on this topic and we need a full impact study to understand the implications of this water transfer
on our lakes and rivers.
Thank you,

Dean R. Bunn
109 S. Fort St.
Nashville, NC 27856
[e-mail]

____________________________________________________________This message, including any attachments, may contain confidential informationintended for a specific individual and purpose, and may be protected by law. If youare not the intended recipient please delete this message immediately. Anydisclosure, copying or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action basedon it, by any unintended recipient is strictly prohibited.
From:Scott Burnette
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter basin water transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 6:48:56 PM
I am in favor or insisting on a full environmental impact study of the effects of divert water from the
lake. Please add my name to the list.
Scott Burnette
South Hill, VA
From:Vicky Burnette
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water Proposal
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 9:06:09 AM
Dear Kim Nimmer,
Having just read a disturbing article in the Viewpoint section of The Mecklenburg Sun, I am writing to express my
dismay and to oppose the idea of increasing the daily drawdown of Kerr Lake. Sorry I missed the meeting, but I
did not know about it.
My home is in Clarksville and the lake is one of the last major sources of revenue that we have. Burlington
Industries is gone! Russell Stover is gone! This leaves us with zero industry and little chance of attracting any if
others siphon the water away. Our recreation and fishing attractions need water and maintain healthy lake levels
for fish spawning, boat ramps and swimming areas is essential.
I am asking that you do a complete environmental study before considering taking more water from the lake. It is
important to the quality of life for us all.
Sincerely,
Vicky Burnette
1082 Old Rock Road
Clarksville, VA 23927
From:Bobby Burton
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Fw: PUBLIC PETITION : SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:36:51 AM
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: carolyn adams <[e-mail]>
To: Mary Mcmillan <[e-mail]>; MACEY PAYNTER <[e-mail]>; Leigh
Anne Fowler <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Watkins John and Mary Edith
<[e-mail]>; Maltais Katie <[e-mail]>; Melanie Brewer
<[e-mail]>; audrey currin <[e-mail]>; Wade Barbara and
Lee <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Storm Dick and Carolyn
<[e-mail]>; Cook John and Trudy <[e-mail]>; Floyd Ken and Jeri
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bobby Burton
<[e-mail]>; Jessie Curtis <[e-mail]>; Cameron Curtis
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Patsy
Rooker <[e-mail]>; Shelia Paynter <[e-mail]>; Denise Rice
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kim Oettinger
<[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>;
Schaard Pam <[e-mail]>; Sandra White <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; wsmith <[e-mail]>
Cc: padams <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 6:35 PM
Subject: PUBLIC PETITION : SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD (ten million
gallons daily)
Of inter Basin Transfer to the Tar/Neuse River Baisins because of the cumulative
impact on Kerr/Buggs Island levels, as well as undisclosed impacts on the
environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and Warren Counties as well as
Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR. 521 Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC. 27699-
1611
NAME____________Bobby Burton______/. PHONE NUMBER______252-432-
1438________
From:Brandy Carter
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Save Our Lake Water
Date:Sunday, April 26, 2015 8:15:31 AM
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter Basin Transfer from theRoanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because of the cumulative impact on KerrLake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy,and tourism in Vance and Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
Brandy and Bob Carter(252)-432-5887(252)-432-0357
Sent from my iPhone
From:Bob and Sandra Catherwood
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter basin transfer from Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:35:19 AM
Ms. Nimmer;

I wish to go on record in opposition to the proposed transfer of additional water from
Kerr Lake to support other counties and industry in other counties beyond those currently
being served by the waters of Kerr Lake. It seems absurd to argue that the level of Kerr Lake
would not be affected by the removal of 10 million gallons of water per day. I have seen
Kerr Lake at extremely low levels during dry years when docks were on dry land or there
was insufficient water to allow access to docks. The additional removal would worsen this
situation. Rather than transferring this additional water to help population and industrial
growth in other areas, this resource should be used for that purpose in Vance, Granville and
Warren Counties. It seems that every effort has been made to gain approval in a dark and
secretive manner, with little or no notice given to those who would be most directly
affected.

I have lived in Vance County for 41 years, and during that time, it has appeared as though
our community leaders have always acted to stifle growth and development of our area. I
believe this is another step in that direction. The City of Henderson may gain additional
revenue, but at what cost? And what will that additional revenue be used for? There are too
many examples of the failure to take positive steps.

As one enters Vance County from any direction, there are signs that say “ Vance County,
Home of Kerr Lake”. Lets keep it that way by not sending its waters elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Robert K. Catherwood
From:Mike and Cindie Cestaro
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:LGA Executive Director
Subject:Unintended consequences of increases in Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 5:25:04 PM
Water rights -- the prospects of a water war similar to what is happening in theWest Coast should not be ignored.
Kerr Lake residents are already seeing their property values affected because ofdeclining and unstable water levels.
The stability of hydroelectric power we have become use to is being placed at risk.
A negative affect on down stream hydrilla control and recreational fishing will affectthe economic viability of the NC/VA Lake Gaston area.
This effort is a short sighted attempt to solve a problem by using valuable longterm resources to correct poor use and consumption practices. The solution is not to wastefully drain from the future needed resources, but toimplement today's available solutions, e.g., responsible use, intra-governmentconsumption practices, and recycling, reuse, and reclamation programs, universalbuilding codes requiring structures to improve the use of water coming in, andthe use of water products discharged, and universal irrigation and farming practices.
Inter basin transfer is treating a symptom, not the problem, i.e., no comprehensiveand collaborative inter-government resource management.
Mike Cestaro
From:Champion, Kim
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:save Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:38:06 AM
Greetings Kim Nimmer,

I am not in favor of the Kerr Lake inter-basin transfer. Vance County and Warren County are in Tier
One and these are the counties that should receive special treatment for economic growth. Franklin
County should not be allowed to receive almost all the increase allotment amount. Please help
support and protect our environment.

Thank you,

Kim Champion
Manson, N.C.
From:Linda Colanero
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 1:48:04 PM
Please cancel the public comment deadline and schedule more public hearings regarding the Kerr LakeInterbasin Transfer. Citizens are also calling for a full environmental impact study and statement.Thank you.
Linda and Daniel ColaneroLake residents
Sent from my iPad
From:Brady, Harold M.
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Water
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 1:28:07 PM
-----Original Message-----From: Linda Colanero [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:24 PMTo: Brady, Harold M.Subject: Water
My husband and I would like you to reconsider the inter basin water transfer until a full environmentalimpact study has been done. Please cancel public comment deadline and schedule more publichearings. More people need to be informed. Consider the impact on the Tier I counties. Thank you.
Sincerely,Linda and Daniel ColaneroManson, NC
Sent from my iPad
From:Dawn Coleman
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Proposed Increase IBT for Kerr Lake regional water system-OPPOSED
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 1:46:25 PM
I am OPPOSED to the proposed increase IBT from Kerr Lake. The precedence it sets for futureproposals and the long term impacts on Warren and Vance counties is of serious concern to me. I wasalso very disappointed to find no public hearing was held to inform local residents as to what was beingproposed/planned. Its a shame our elected officials would think this was ok to proceed without thepublic's knowledge.
Sincerely,
Dawn Coleman252-257-4722
From:1
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Denial of Drawdown
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 9:28:25 AM
Please deny drawdown of Kerr Lake for water supply.
Jill Coleman
From:Coleman, Levi
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Denial of Kerr Lake Drawdown
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 9:05:22 AM
Hello,
I would like to deny the additional drawdown of Kerr Lake's water supply. Please let me know if I needto take any additional effort to have my vote counted. Thank you and have a great weekend!
Levi Coleman
Sent from my iPhone
This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential,and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Anydissemination or use of this electronic mail or its contents (including any attachments) by persons otherthan the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, pleasenotify us immediately by reply e-mail so that we may correct our internal records. Please then deletethe original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you.
Elaine C. Cooper / 804.731.3173
804.731.3173
From:Gregory Craft
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:petition attached
Date:Monday, April 27, 2015 9:16:40 AM
Attachments:lake petition.PDF
Kim,
Petition attached with names on property owners on Kerr Lake.
How can we keep up with the permit process? Do you have any information on theeffect of this proposed transfer on Kerr Lake levels?
Thanks,
-- Gregory F. CraftOfficial Durham Visitor and Relocation GuideCarolina Custom [e-mail]919-612-6382
From:Bill Craig
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-Basin Transfer
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:24:29 AM
Hi Kim,
My wife and I reside in Vance County.
We oppose the inter-basin water transfer proposal. It appears that ifthe proposal is passed, one of Vance County's greatest assets will bedisproportionately distributed to other counties. This will likely havea detrimental impact on tourism and future commercial development here.
Thank you for being a conduit for our concerns.
Bill Craig
From:Stan Creech
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:30:31 AM
I'm strongly opposed to the water transfer without any environmental study orsubstantial public input.
-- Stan Creech
Creech Import Repair, Inc.1818 St. Albans Dr., Suite 106Raleigh, NC 27609(919) 872-1999www.CreechImport.com http://creechimport.wordpress.com/
From:Jayce Crossman
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Opose Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:31:20 PM
Hi Kim: I live on Lake Gaston (15 years) and I feel it would not be in the best interest of all
of us living here or to the river to indulge in transferring more water from from the Roanoke
River Basin. I am against this additional drain that this latest North Carolina proposal will
do. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opposition. Joyce A. Crossman, 556 Long
Branch Drive, VA 23950
From:David Currin
To:"Mike Garrett"; Nimmer, Kim
Subject:RE: Inter Basin Transfer - Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:34:57 AM
Attachments:PUBLIC PETITION (3).docx
Hello Ms. Nimmer,

I agree with Mike Garrett.

David T. Currin
Century 21 – Hancock Properties, Inc.
Cell: 919-482-0435

From: Mike Garrett [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:28 AMTo: [e-mail]: Inter Basin Transfer - Kerr Lake

Kim Nimmer,

I have attached a copy of the petition signed by myself opposing the Inter Basin
Transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin to support the Raleigh/Wake
County growth surge. I have lived in this area all of my life and spent the last
23 years marketing & selling real estate in the area. A large part of my
business is Kerr Lake property sales and the other area I work hard in is
Commercial real estate. I know that it is being said that this transfer will not
affect our water levels but I beg to differ. There is already an average of 40
million gallons of water a day coming out of this lake via the Lake Gaston
pipeline to Virginia Beach. I say that it is coming out of Kerr Lake because
there is an agreement between the power houses of the two lake dams to
maintain Lake Gaston at a constant level which in turn means that that water
must come from Kerr Lake. Vance County which houses most of Kerr Lake that
is in North Carolina is a Tier 1 County which means that it is a very poor county
that is identified as needing help with economic growth. We need commercial
industry to create jobs and tax base so that our county can flourish, our
schools can improve, and the quality of life for all citizens can be improved.
We fought hard against the Virginia pipeline and lost. During that time, Raleigh
& Wake County were making inquiries about putting pipeline into the lake to
get water for themselves and that was stopped. Now it appears that they are
trying to slip in the back door to get the water. They only need the water
because of their continued growth, well we need that growth in our county
and if we provide water out of the Roanoke River Basin to them, then we are
“cutting off or noses to spite our faces” only aiding their growth & not ours.
Industry will never come to Vance, Warren, & Northern Granville County until
they see it as the most logical option because we can provide the water they
need. Wake County has Falls Lake to draw from and if they are out growing
that then legislators & commerce should be directing industry and business
that are looking in the area to the counties just north of them where there is
plenty of land and plenty of water, at least for now. I am strongly opposed to
this Inter Basin Transfer of Water and believe that had it be publicized in a
manner to reach all the residence of these counties, there would have been a
much larger turn out at the public meeting. I really feel like someone is trying
to “slip one by us” which is an atrocity to the Tier 1 counties that are already
struggling to make ends meet and promote growth.

Respectfully

Michael G. Garrett
Licensed Broker in NC andThe Commonwealth of Virginia
Coldwell Banker Advantage857 S. Beckford Drive, Suite C
Henderson, NC 27536(252) 431-6262 – Direct
[phone] – MobilePersonal Website: http://www.OnKerrLake.com
Company Website: http://www.advantagecb.comE-Mail: [e-mail]
…..download my free mobile app….
MGarrett.www.gocba.com/
I am never too busy for your referrals.

NC & VA require that you be informed by a Realtor who they are representing in any transaction.
I can be a Buyer’s Agent, Seller’s Agent, or a Dual Agent. Be sure to ask me for details.
If you are working with another Realtor, please let me kow before we start working together. I
look forward to working with you.

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Mike Garrett – 252-438-0197 /
David T. Currin – 919-482-0435/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Proposed Increase IBT for Kerr Lake regional water system-OPPOSED
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 12:13:00 PM
I am OPPOSED to the proposed increase IBT from Kerr Lake. The precedence it sets for futureproposals and the long term impacts on Warren and Vance counties is of serious concern to me. I wasalso very disappointed to find no public hearing was held to inform local residents as to what was beingproposed/planned. Its a shame our elected officials would think this was ok to proceed without thepublic's knowledge.
Sincerely,
Randy Curtis252-456-2543
From:Clayton
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:IBT
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2015 8:26:50 PM
Against!
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Heather Deck – I am the river keeper with the Pamlico Tar River Foundation. I think I’m one of
two people in the room that are here to speak mainly on the impacts of the receiving basin. The
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation has over 2,000 members who live, work, and play and make their
lively hood from the Tar-Pamlico River. I’m mainly speaking here tonight about the impacts of
the receiving basin, and the ongoing critical need for long term planning to conserve our
precious limited water resources. There are counties that are a part of this IBT, mainly counties
that are within the Tar-Pam basin, but there are many counties that are downstream. The
counties that are a part of the existing IBT and the future expansion of this request are part of
that network of head water areas that flow downstream where hundreds of thousands of
people get their drinking water supply as well in the Tar and fishing creek water shed. We did
comment on the EA and the funding that was done and we do appreciate the responses by the
consultants and some of the partners on the questions that were incorporated in the petition.
Our major concern in those comments have been the water quality impact facilitated by the
growth from this IBT. There was a lot of talk tonight about the economic growth and the
potential for the economic growth and the impacts facilitated by this growth were really not
evaluated in the EA so that was the basis of comments at that point. But tonight I want to focus
mainly on the comments on the certificate and the EMC’s responsibility to ensure protections
for the receiving basin. I will also add that the Pamlico River Foundation does support the
comments by the Roanoke River Association. There was one thing that I really wanted to point
out, in the EA there were some inaccurate graphs and I think those have been corrected. But, at
one point and time there was some maps that dictated transfer into Creedmoor and a
discharge into the Tar River Basin, but that is no longer accurate. Creedmoor is now a part of
Sigwasa and this discharge goes to the Neuse. But I think that has been corrected but I did
want to point that out. What we’ve talked about the comments to the EA is the significance to
the Tar River, the upper Tar River especially and fishing creek. It is looked at as a refuge of
national significance for a number of endangered aquatic species. We have mussels that are
endangered species and there is a real need in the future to plan to protect these aquatic
mussels moving forward. I think we need to think about this as not about human needs but
environmental needs as everything is pretty much intertwined and the protection of these
species and water quality is one of those things that we have to do in order to protect our own
communities, our own health and the quality of water for our own needs. I would like to
commend the local governments on the numerous efforts that were laid out with the EA and
things done to conserve water and to protect water quality. We do need to continue to
prioritize these efforts within our communities with education with land owners with industrial
users. As a part of the Pamlico-Tar River foundation I do say to you that are elected officials and
the community here tonight we want to play a role in that, we want to be supportive of that
going forward. The regional partners in this group have an established relationship and a
system that could be the model for North Carolina and beyond for future water planning and
for conservation measures. I want to talk now a little bit about what’s in the general statues
related to the commission’s authority to the IBT certificate. There are specifics in the general
statute that’s talked about in subsection M, that on the final determination of a certificate the
one thing that they have to consider are the detriments being mitigated to the maximum
degree practical and the other one is there are no other reasonable alternatives to proposed
transfer. With that what we would like to request is that the EMC consider adding on conditions
to a transfer if it does move forward, and that is allowed under subsection N of the general
statues. The first condition that we would like to have considered is that the partners be
required under this condition to initiate additional regional planning and initiative related to
water conservation. Those things may include water use for existing and future industrial users
for additional local planning and other ordinances that may be available to them in other
avenues for volunteering incentive based required measures to consider conserving water. The
second condition be that those local government that currently have fixed or flat rate
structures for water rates convert conservation rate structures. I think at this point in time only
two of those IBT’s have current conservation rate structures, Bunn and Creedmoor if I’m
correct. That’s one of those things I think would be a benefit for water conservation moving
forward. – End

April 30, 2015
Via Email

Kim Nimmer
DENR-Division of Water Resources
Planning Branch
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
By fax [phone] and
e-mail to: [e-mail]

RE: Comments of RRBA on Proposed KLRWS Interbasin Transfers

To whom it may concern:

Sound Rivers, Inc 1 (SRI) submits these comments on the proposed Kerr Lake interbasin transfer
certificate request and supporting Environment Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). The proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) is from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar-Pamlico and
Neuse River basins via the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS).

Sound Rivers monitors, protects and enhances the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse Rivers and watersheds while
promoting environmental justice. We represent approximately 5000 members. We submit these
comments in addition to our public hearing comments on March 31, 2015.

Sound Rivers Supports RRBA Position
SRI fully supports the comments submitted by the Duke Environment Law and Policy Clinic on behalf of
the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA)2. We agree that the EA is legally insufficient to meet the
requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and that an EIS is required.

EA lacks sufficient information
As noted in our comments submitted to the State Clearinghouse on February 20, 2015 and
enclosed here, the EA does not provide sufficient information regarding both direct and indirect
impacts expected from the project and does not provide DWR adequate information in order to
conclude that the action will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment.

1 Sound Rivers, Inc. is the new name of the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation following our April 1, 2015 merger with
the Neuse River Foundation.
2 Letter from Ryke Longest, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic to Kim Nimmer, DWR re: comments of RRBA
on KLRWS interbasin transfers submitted on April 30, 2015.
Additionally, the US Fish and Wildlife Service in their comments regarding the EA noted the assessment
lacked sufficient information to address the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts and
recommended that further evaluation be conducted. 3 We fully support the position of the US FWS and
agree that further analysis is warranted and required by law.

IBT Certificate should be denied
In addition to the lack of information in the EA that fails to fully characterize the environmental impacts,
the certificate request should be denied because it fails to meet the requirements of G.S. §143-
215.22L(m)(2) and §143-215.22L(m)(4). The KLRWS has not sufficiently mitigated detriments to the
maximum extent practicable and there may be reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer. We
encourage DWR, KLRWS partners and local governments to continue to evaluate the ability to enact
alternative 5 that would include returning wastewater to the Roanoke River Basin as well as encouraging
re-use of treated wastewater, especially by current and new industrial users.

The mitigation measures outlined in Section 6 are insufficient to mitigate the detriments of the
proposed IBT and reveal a great need for all IBT recipients to transition to a conservation rate structure.
Currently only two of the local governments within the service area use such a rate structure.

Recommendations
We recommend that the EMC should return the IBT certificate request and require an EIS to be
completed. However, if the EMC decides to grant the IBT certificate, we would recommend that the
commission require additional conditions as allowed by G.S. §143-215.22L(n). The first condition should
include a requirement that all local governments that currently operate under fix or flat rate structures
be required to convert to a conservation rate structure within a specified time frame. Secondly, an
excellent opportunity exists for the KLRWS, an established partnership, to become a state and national
model regarding future water conservation planning. Should a certificate be granted, we recommend
that the EMC require as a condition, that the partners initiate regional planning regarding water
conservation that would include, but not be limited to, water re-use with existing and future industrial
users, local planning options including ordinances and other avenues for voluntary incentives , and
other requirements for water conservation.

Sound Rivers greatly supports regional conservation planning and will support any efforts that reduce or
eliminates the need for the proposed IBT.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Heather Deck
Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper
Sound Rivers, Inc

3 Letter from Pete Benjamin, US Fish and Wildlife Service, to Mr. Harold Brady, NC DWR re: Comments on IBT
increase from Kerr Lake. March 16, 2015.

February 20, 2015
Via Email

State Clearinghouse
NC Dept. of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301

Re: Comments on EA and FONSI for IBT increase from Kerr Lake to Tar River, Neuse
River and Fishing Creek basins

To whom it may concern:

The Pamlico-Tar River Foundation (PTRF) submits these comments on the Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) from the
Roanoke River basin to the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River basins via the Kerr Lake Regional Water System
(KLRWS).

PTRF, founded in 1981, is a grassroots environmental organization representing greater than 2000
members and a licensed member of Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. Our mission is to enhance and protect
the Pamlico-Tar River watershed through education, advocacy, and research.

Adequacy of Environmental Assessment
PTRF is commenting on the EA per 01 NCAC 25 .0506, where any interested party may make comments
on the adequacy of the documents. Furthermore, we have provided supplemental information that we
request be reviewed by DWR for consideration.

FONSI inadequate
As described in North Carolina’s Administrative Code (01 NCAC 25 .0505) the Division of Water
Resources must include certain information in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

“A FONSI shall contain the following information: (1) a brief narrative description of the
proposed activity including a description of the area affected by the proposed activity and a site
location map, where appropriate; (2) a list of probable environmental impacts of the proposed
activity; (3) a list of the reason(s) for concluding that the action will not have a significant
adverse effect on the quality of the environment, with reference to any mitigation activities to
be carried out, thereby negating the necessity of preparation of an EIS; (4) a statement that no
EIS is to be prepared and that the FONSI completes the environmental review record which is
available for inspection at the Clearinghouse.”

The FONSI does not adequately include the anticipated impacts to the receiving basins, as is required by
rule. The FONSI and the EA, as noted in our comments below, inaccurately state that no direct impacts
will occur from this project. Furthermore, the evaluation of secondary and cumulative impacts is
incomplete and thereby does not provide the agency with sufficient information to make a FONSI
determination.

EA lacks sufficient information
The EA does not provide sufficient information regarding both direct and indirect impacts expected from
the project and does not provide DWR adequate information in order to conclude that the action will
not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment.

First, the preferred alternative (alternative 2) will require construction and will result in direct impacts,
contrary to what is stated in the EA. While the partners will not be constructing new lines, there will be
new water sales that will occur from the expanded IBT (water sales to SGWASA and Creedmoor).
Additionally, the EA identifies that significant service area expansion can be anticipated. While the EA
points to conversion for many residential users from groundwater via wells that will not result in new
construction of homes, it will result in impacts to waters and wetlands via construction of new water
lines.

New infrastructure required due to new water sales and the anticipated expansion of service areas is
exactly what is intended to be evaluated by SEPA. While the applicant can speculate whether or not the
infrastructure will or will not be built absent the IBT, it will certainly be built if the IBT is approved and
must be evaluated.

Furthermore, the EA fails to adequate address secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) due to the
expected growth facilitated by the expanding IBT. The statement that growth will occur absent the
expanded IBT is not backed up and contradictory to what is stated in Section 1, “..the potential for water
quality and quantity impacts related to growth in the project area, facilitated in part by the availability of
an adequate water supply.”

As noted in Appendix C, under the Environmental Justice assessment, “while the availability of adequate
future water supply is not a primary driver of growth in Warren county, water supply assurances are
important for this county’s ability to attract future employment opportunities via industry and
development.” It goes on to say that “water supply would not be a limiting factor in the area’s economy
and ability to attract new industries or residents.” The EA attempt to serve the interest of determining a
FONSI by stating that the expanded IBT and resulting increased and assured water supply will have no
impact on the area’s growth that will cause SCI, yet they claim in the EJ section that the expanded IBT is
necessary to promote growth.

Other information missing
Section 4 of the EA fails to include all wastewater dischargers, including information on the City of
Louisburg’s plant and discharge, a major NPDES permit. Minor dischargers are also not included, even
though some have had significant impacts to receiving stream water quality, as noted in the Tar-Pamlico
Water Quality Plan. Included in this analysis should be more detailed information on both the major and
minor NPDES wastewater dischargers in the receiving basins. That information should include their
compliance record and current average flows.

Section 5.1.1.3 states that “Little to no increase in wastewater discharge to Fishing Creek is expected,
direct impacts to the Fishing Creek basin are not likely to occur.” However, Section 2 Exhibits 1 and 2
demonstrate essentially a doubling of wastewater discharge to Fishing Creek.

Additionally, the EA does not include information regarding current sludge application sites and
evaluation of future land application needs for additional sludge triggered via the IBT and expanded
wastewater discharge as well as the potential for new industrial discharge.

Endangered and Threatened Species
The EA does include information regarding the presence of endangered and threatened aquatic species
as well as Natural Heritage areas. However, the EA fails to adequately evaluate the likely impact that will
occur due to the expected growth the IBT will facilitate.

As described in the NC Wildlife Resource Commission’s “Wildlife Action Plan”, the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin is home to 39 priority aquatic species, including 16 freshwater mussel species.1 Of those 16 mussel
species, the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) identifies
13 species that are either federally or state listed endangered, state or federal species of concern, or
species that are classified as significantly rare. In total, 18 species of freshwater mussel either currently
or historically existed within the river basin. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists the upper
Tar River as a “nationally significant aquatic habitat”. The US FWS characterizes the Tar River as a
“mussel refugium of national significance,” which supports “one of the two remaining best populations”
of the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel in North Carolina.”2

These critical species are threatened by inadequate water quality standards for several pollutants,
including criteria for ammonia, commonly found in wastewater discharge. There are also highly sensitive
to non-point source pollution from activities such as sludge application, stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces as well as sedimentation from agriculture, silviculture or new construction.

Federally Listed Endangered Species within the Tar-Pamlico Basin
The Tar-Pamlico River basin is home to two freshwater mussel species that receives protection under
the Endangered Species Act. The Tar River spinymussel, which is endemic to North Carolina, and the
dwarf wedgemussel. Additionally, several species have been petitioned for listing under the ESA and
include the green floater and atlantic pigtoe, both found within the basin.

The Tar River spinymussel is a unique mussel and one of only three freshwater mussels with spines in
the world. It is found only within the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins, with a greater extent of
distribution found within the Tar River and its tributaries. As noted by US FWS, the species is in great
peril due to small, isolated populations. The 2009 review of the Tar River Spinymussel Recovery Plan
states the need for improved water quality standards for this species’ protection.

“Also, recent studies indicate that current federal and state water quality standards for several
pollutants commonly found in wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff are either not

1 NC Wildlife Resource Commission, “Wildlife Action Plan”. 2005. http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan.aspx
2 Letter from Pete Benjamin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Bruce Pleasant, USDA – Rural Development, Re:
application by City of Creedmoor for funding for WWTP. January 24, 2013
available (no criteria or standard derived) or likely not protective of freshwater mussels and
current regulations controlling the discharge or runoff of these pollutants are not protective.” 3

The dwarf wedgemussel was historically found along the eastern seaboard, but is now in rapid decline.
Most of the remaining populations within the Tar River basin are small and isolated. Threats include the
toxic effects from industrial, domestic and agricultural pollution. 4

Upper Tar River Basin
The upper Tar River watershed supports a diverse aquatic population and is the source of drinking water
for the majority of communities located downstream. The upper Tar River has been generally
characterized as having good water quality, but growth in the region has led to an increase in stressors
that require additional management efforts and protections in order to maintain the integrity of the
River system.

The Upper Tar River Subbasin in Person and Granville Counties is a globally significant freshwater
resource. In fact, it is considered a “Hot Spot” for freshwater conservation by The Nature Conservancy
(TNC). In terms of rare species richness, it is considered one of the top 72 out of 2,000 subbasins across
the United States.5

The largest threat to the quality of the upper Tar will be growth the region will experience, including the
growth supported by the expanded IBT. Research regarding the protection of aquatic species and water
quality point to the threat of zinc and chlorine, both highly toxic to aquatic species.6 The 2010
Basinwide Water Quality Plan7 notes that the river has shown signs of stress due to an increase in
organic nitrogen, turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, copper and zinc.

Additionally, there are numerous wastewater discharges within the upper Tar River watershed. Within
sub-basin 03-03-01, there are 10 individual NPDES permit sites and 14 General NPDES sites, dominated
by Single Family Domestic Wastewater Discharge certificates of coverage.

Sensitive freshwater mussel species known to inhabit the Upper Tar River basin include the dwarf
wedgemussel, atlantic pigtoe, triangle floater, yellow lance, yellow lampmussel, green floater, creeper
and notched rainbow.

Swift & Fishing Creek Sub-basins
As noted in the Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Plan, both Swift and Fishing Creek watersheds are a
threatened and endangered species protection priority area.8

Swift and Fishing Creek sub-basins support 10 rare mussel species, including the Tar River spinymussel
and dwarf wedgemussel. There are an additional 8 mussel species, included 6 state threatened species.

3 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Tar River Spinymussel Recovery Action Plan, 2009 Review.
4 http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_dwarf_wedgemussel.html
5 Master, Lawrence L., Stephanie R. Flack and Bruce A. Stein, eds. 1998. Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
6 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 52pp.
7 2010 Tar-Pamlico Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/tarpamlico/2010
8 2010 Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Plan. DWR.
Research suggests that Swift Creek supports the best yellow lance and Atlantic pigtoe populations found
throughout their distribution.9 Both sub-basins are identified as priority areas for habitat protection. 10

Threats to the sub-basins include both point and non-point source pollution, including numerous
biosolid application fields, with currently unknown impacts.

Recommendations
We recommend that DWR require supplemental information in the EA, especially regarding secondary
and cumulative impacts to endangered and threatened species. This information is critical in order to
determine whether a FONSI should be issued. Additionally, DWR must include in its evaluation of the EA
a list of the impacts from the project expected in the receiving basins, not just the source basin.

We further encourage DWR, KLRWS partners and local governments to continue to evaluate the ability
to enact alternative 5 that would include returning wastewater to the Roanoke River Basin as well as
encouraging re-use of treated wastewater, especially by current and new industrial users. The mitigation
measures outline in Section 6 also reveal a great need for all IBT recipients to transition to a
conservation rate structure. Currently only two of the local governments within the service area use
such a rate structure. Additionally, the EA includes information on the age of the current water lines and
we would encourage the partners to use all available resources for long-term maintenance and
inspection of water lines to reduce unnecessary water loss.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Heather Deck
Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation

9 Prince, A. 1997. NC Natural Heritage Program. The Upper Tar River Basin: Swift Creek and Fishing Creek
subbasins.
10 NC WRC. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan.
From:Jeff & Jodie Dowhan
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-Basin Water Transfer out of the Roanoke River Basin
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 2:30:52 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
I am communicating with you to address my opposition regarding inter-basin water
transfers out of the Roanoke River Basin. I am a resident of Halifax, NC and it is my
opinion that the water in the Roanoke River Basin should be used by the
communities in the basin from the origin out through Albemarle Sound. The
communities may have water in excess of their current needs but if inter-basin water
transfers out of the Roanoke River Basin continue the future growth and economic
expansion potential of the Roanoke River Basin communities will be compromised. At
the very least should a transfer be considered all applicable laws and regulations
such as the need to perform an environmental impact assessment and adequate
public notice to obtain and respond to public comments should be conducted.

Respectfully,
Jeff Dowhan
From:Don Drake
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Inter Basin Transfers
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 6:30:39 PM
I am opposed to the proposed doubling of the amount of water transferred
from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar-Pamlico basin. Reducing the water in
the Roanoke River basin to the benefit of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System would be the
proverbial "robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If, as Michael Inscoe, Chair of the KLRWS said, the increase would be just "a drop in the bucket", then KLRWS
should be able to get by without that extra drop. The N.C. Environmental Management Commission should
preserve the Roanoke River for use within its area to meet our future needs. Large parts of Warren County are
still not served by public water. Once that service is provided, and the impact of that extra usage and any new
business users is seen, the amount of water truly needed in the Roanoke River Basin might be better evaluated.
Until that time, the Roanoke's water should be left where it is.
Donald Drake
250 Canaan Shores Rd.
Littleton, NC 27850
[e-mail]
From:Tre Dugal
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Lake Gaston IBT
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 9:51:32 AM
I am a homeowner on Lake Gaston and I am in opposition of transferring water from other watersheds.If this water is removed from the basin without any chance of it returning to the lake, this lake will endup like Kerr Lake. I do not want to see this happen to this beautiful natural resource.
Thank you,
Tre' Dugal59 Dogwood LaneBoydton, VA
Sent from my tablet.
From:John Duncan
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Opposing Water Withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:08:55 PM
I am writing to you, members of the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, as a home owner of property at Kimball Point on Kerr Lake. My
extended family and I OPPOSE the proposal to increase the amount of water
withdrawn from Kerr Lake to 14 million gallons per day (mgd). The most recent data
indicate that the current level of withdrawal of water is 5.9 mgd. As you can see, the
proposal nearly more than doubles that.
My extended family has owned three properties at Kerr/Buggs Island Lake since the
1950s - a place where multiple generations have met, summered, lived and enjoyed
the lake. It was somewhat of a shock to learn today of the proposal to increase so
dramatically the level of water to be diverted from the lake.
We have experienced drought at the lake - and the resultant danger to water craft
when stumps that have long been deep underwater are then closer to the surface.
The scarring of the land around the lake with a dramatically lower water level has an
economic impact as well, with both safety and looks compromised. We had a severe
drought in 2002 and another in 2007. Those were an anomaly. What is proposed,
however, would lead to long term danger for water craft and scarring of the land and
nature around the lake. Property values would plummet. Tourism would be sadly
impacted in an area of the state where the economy is not strong now. Nowhere in
the documents that I have seen is any information about how much lower the water
level would be with the proposed change.
With the information that I have now, my extended family and I are OPPOSED to the
proposal to increase the withdrawal of water from Kerr Lake to 14 million gallons a
day.
It is worth noting, as well, that very likely there are other property owners like my
cousins and myself who do not live in the area year-round and who had no
opportunity to see any information about the proposal. Even some who do live in the
area have expressed to me their surprise at learning - belatedly - of this proposal.
It is my hope that you will OPPOSE this proposal.
Sincerely,
John Duncan
17 Old Turnpike Road
Arden, NC 28704
Mobile: [phone]
163 Oak Tree Lane
Manson, NC
From:Angela
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Fwd:Petition to Prevent Water Withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:49:46 PM
-------- Original Message --------Subject: Petition to Prevent Water Withdrawal from Kerr LakeFrom: John Duncan <[e-mail]>To: [e-mail]:
Please add my wife’s and my name to the petition opposing water withdrawal from Kerr Lake.
John and Talia Duncan163 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553Mobile - 828-699-9916
Home Address:17 Old Turnpike RoadArden, NC 28704
From:Margaret Echols
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:23:46 PM
Please stop this from going forward!!
Please ma'am. This area needs Kerr Lake. How can the city of Henderson speak for all of the water inKerr Lake??
Thank you for your time.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Pat Edwards
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:petition to save Kerr Lake
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 2:38:00 PM
PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBERPriscilla O Edwards, 7573575339
/
From:Lou Elam
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:42:20 AM
Please do not allow further water drawdown from Kerr Lake. The many people who enjoy this lake allready contend with fluctuating water levels and inaccessible areas frequently. We would greatlyappreciate your denial of this proposal. Thank you! Lou Ann and Jim Elam
Sent from my iPhone
From:Tom Elmore
To:Nimmer, Kim; [e-mail]
Subject:Kerr Lake Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 2:56:36 PM
Ms. Nimmer
I was just made aware of the plans evidently already in place and approved for transfer ofmillions of gallons of water each day from Kerr lake to to the Raleigh community of FranklinCounty.
I am not a resident of Vance, Granville or Warren county but I have been a tourist there since myyouth in 1961. I grew up in Durham and now live in Timberlake. I was raised every summer atKerr lake and my son was raised every summer there. My love of the lake and my experiencesthere have shaped my life. DENR seems ready to wipe that and any future experiences for meand countless others right out of existence!
I am incredibly disappointed in the decisions and policy of all involved. Shame On You! You haveviolated the scared duty you have to conduct the business of DENR to the benifit of all NorthCarolina residents.
I fully oppose this action taken by very narrow minded and obviously greed driven individuals. Iintend to support both in financial and personal action to fight you in every way and to reversethis action now or how ever long it takes.
WE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THIS LAKE ARE FIGHTING MAD! Get used to us because we areNOT GOING AWAY!
Charles Elmore1270 Frank Timberlake RDTimberlake, NC 27583
[e-mail]
From:Harvey Estes
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:LGA Executive Director
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 10:18:45 AM
I would like to record my opposition to any further water transfer from the Roanoke to the Neuse/ CapeFear basin area. I am a resident of the Durham area, and live in the Cape Fear basin, and I realize thatmy opinion may lead to higher water costs in my area. My reason is that any permission to obtainwater from adjacent water basins would delay the inevitable requirement that all of us diminish ourwater consumption, and live within our water constraints, however uncomfortable or expensive thatmight be. California should be a lesson for us all! Thank you for your attention to my opinion. HarveyEstes, 3542 Hamstead Court, Durham, NC, 27707.
From:Deborah Ferruccio
To:Brady, Harold M.; Young, Sarah; Nimmer, Kim; Fransen, Tom; [e-mail]; Senator AngelaBryant; [e-mail]; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tare Davis; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc:kmr; Gary Robertson; kferral; edalesio; smooneyh; Capital Correspondence; [e-mail];
Amanda Lehmert; Independent Weekly; bball; cdowell; pgannon; jjones; jvalencia; rkhrais; lbonner;
bhenderson; jmurawski; Jim Morrill; rose.hoban; loretta.boniti; tim.boyum; ben.mcneely; kmccullen;
molly.parker; [e-mail]; bferrell; lauraleslie; Mark Binker; Bmildwurf; cbrowder; Jonathan.camp;
joel.brown
Subject:Public Comment on Proposed Kerr Lake Interbasin Transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:28:10 PM
To: Kerr Lake Regional Water System Officials, the News Media and N.C. Legislators
Below is a letter I sent for the public record to Kim Nimmer, N.C Dept. of Environment and Natural ResourcesDivision of Water Resources: Interbasin Transfer Program Manager voicing my adamant opposition to theproposed IBT based on the numbers -- the millions of gallons per day (MGD) that simply do not add up.Weakened requirements in H795 would facilitate the IBT and should not be passed.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ferruccio297 Davis-Hyman Rd.Norlina, N.C. 27563(252) 257-2604 and [phone]
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Nimmer:
We, the people of the Kerr Lake region and the downstream Roanoke River Basin depend
on Kerr Lake water for our lives, our economic sustenance, and for the future prosperity of
our region. We are categorically opposed to the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) for the
following reasons:
First, the IBT would permanently adversely impact the Kerr Lake region's water use and
economic potential by diverting more than the remainder of Kerr Lake Regional Water
System's KLRWS future water allotment. The IBT would send much-needed water from
our "distressed, low-growth" Tier 1 counties to "prosperous, high-growth" Tier 2 and 3
counties via the Tar and Neuse Rivers.
KLRWS was originally allotted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a cap of 20 million
gallons of water per day (MGD) for the three partners who own the system -- the City of
Henderson, Warren County, and Oxford, which sell water within the immediate area to
towns such as Norlina, Warrenton, Stovall and Creedmoor.
Currently the combined water use of KLRWS partners and their customers is 15 MGD
(7.67 Vance + 2.69 Franklin/Tar River + .82 Warren/Tar + .19 Granville/Neuse = 15 MGD).
The simple math reveals that KLRWS's remaining water allotment is 5 MGD for future use
by the partners.
How, then, can KLRWS and local officials plan to send 9.21 MGD to Franklin County
via the Tar River without surpassing the system's allocated total 20 MGD (15 + 9.21 =
24.21 MGD)? Local and other economic development officials who back the IBT
must be planning that the Kerr Lake region's future population and water needs will
not grow but will actually decline.
Because the IBT would divert more than the KLRWS's allotted future water use, it
necessarily follows that the Kerr Lake water transfer must be viewed for what it is, ill-
conceived and discriminatory, aimed at robbing water from a Tier 1, poor, minority region
and sending it south to prosperous communities for economic development that should
occur in the Kerr Lake region where the water is and where the economic need is.
Citizens of the Kerr Lake region and Roanoke River Basin will never accept the IBT, and
local and state officials need to prepare for a battle they cannot win.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ferruccio
297 Davis-Hyman Rd
Norlina, NC 27563
[phone] [phone]
From:Deborah Ferruccio
To:Brady, Harold M.; Young, Sarah; Nimmer, Kim; Fransen, Tom; [e-mail]; Senator AngelaBryant; [e-mail]; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tare Davis; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc:John Hyson; Cliff Jackson; Ken Ferruccio; Leslie James
Subject:Please Request: Interbasin Transfer Public Comment Deadline Cancelled Public Hearings Scheduled
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 2:21:35 PM
To All Involved in the Proposed Interbasin Transfer Decision:
Citizens of the Kerr Lake region met last night and discussed the proposed Kerr LakeInterbasin Transfer. We all agreed that the public has the right to fully weigh in onthe issue and that as stakeholders who deserve justice we must be a meaningfulpart of the decision-making process.
Today, I have contacted many of you by telephone requesting that you support cancellation of the April 30th public comment deadline. With more time, you can alsosupport our request for several official public hearings where all involved can learnmore about the rationale for this transfer and about the potential impacts.
The public has the right to knowledge the right to express its sentiment, and as ourofficials, you have the responsibility to provide public forums where an open,transparent process can allow and facilitate the best decisions possible concerningthis body of water that is crucial to so many.
Thank you for your consideration of this request
Sincerely,
Deborah Ferruccio(252) 257-2604 and [phone]
From:Deborah Ferruccio
To:[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Twisdale, Tracy; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Greg Goddard;[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Scott Steagall;[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]; Victoria Lehman; Ken Ferruccio; [e-mail];[e-mail]; Cliff Jackson
Cc:Brady, Harold M.; Young, Sarah; Nimmer, Kim; Fransen, Tom; [e-mail]; Senator Angela
Bryant; [e-mail]; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tare Davis; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:H795 and Proposed Kerr Lake InterBasin Transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:24:55 PM
To: Local Officials and Preserve Our North Carolina Lakes Community
From: Ken Ferruccio
See: Letter to Nimmer + NC Legislators
Date: April 29, 2015
To: Kim Nimmer, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources and North
Carolina,
News Media, and NC Legislators
From: Ken Ferruccio
297 Davis-Hyman Rd.
Norlina, N.C. 27563
Subject: House Bill 795 and the Proposed Kerr Lake Interbasin Transfer
House Bill 795 would facilitate a lack of public scrutiny concerning the transfer of water
from Kerr Lake and the Roanoke River Basin for economic development in the Tier 2 and
Tier 3 counties, possibly at the sacrifice of the Tier 1 counties. Furthermore, the transfer
could and probably would be done without an environmental impact statement, public
hearings and public sentiment and affect the lives of millions of people.
At any given time the water supply is limited. To designate the coastal plain counties
connected to the Roanoke River Basin as “low growth” or no “growth counties” then
deplete the very resource that would enable them to grow -- namely, water for economic
development in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 counties and the usual urban sprawl -- would be
discriminatory.
The non-discriminatory argument that the water could be evenly distributed is based on
extrapolating present and past amounts of water provided by the Roanoke River Basin
and other sources to future needs, an extrapolation based ultimately on the assumption
that nature is consistent, a rather risky assumption at any time and place, such as in
California, Texas, and other places having negative economic impacts because of long
periods of drought limiting or abolishing water sources.
The News and Observer stated (April 28) that House Bill 795 is “another assault on the
environment and should be protested” but predicted it would “sail through.”
House Bill 795 must be defeated.
From:Cheryl
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:HELP - YOUR SUPPORT IS REQUESTED
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:01:04 PM
Please DENY the permit for additional water withdrawal from Kerr Lake.
All the residents from Southside Virginia are extremely concerned regarding the possibility of
additional water withdrawals from Kerr Lake.
The lake levels shift regularly now and additional withdrawals will have significant negative
impact on the area - folks living on the lake, folks who's income are supported by Kerr Lake
activities and the tourists that visit the area.
Please consider all email notifications as additions to the petitions you are receiving.
I am available to participate/lead activities to support efforts to deny the request should you/your
team require.
Thanks in advance for your support to deny the request.
Cheryl Stoshak Field
From:Peyton field
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WATER !!!!
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:50:23 PM
Please DENY the permit for additional water withdrawal from Kerr Lake.
The lake levels shift regularly now and additional withdrawals will have significant negative impact onthe area - residents, tourists and advertising.
Please consider all email notifications as additions to the petitions you are receiving.
This is becoming an extremely popular concern of all residents in Southside Virginia and we wouldgreatly appreciate your support in denying the request.
Sincerely,Peyton B. Field
From:Della Fleming
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:public petition...save our lake water
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 8:03:13 AM
I am in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter Basin Transfer from the
Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because of the cumulative impact on
Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as undisclosed impacts on the
environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and Warren Counties as well as Southside
Virginia.

Della Fleming / 252-456-3775
From:Margaret
To:Nimmer, Kim; Bobby johnson
Cc:Hugh and Peg Fowler
Subject:Kerr Lake water
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 7:28:13 AM
Several years ago as President of the Eatons Ferry Estates POA I wrote in opposition to transferring
water to other jurisdictions. Today as a private citizen I would like to do the same. I had two fears at
the time our water system was put in place. One was the aforementioned dilution of the supply and
secondly that a contaminate could be put in the water that would make the entire system useless.
What protection would be put in place to protect the initial users. Lake Gaston already supplies
Virginia Beach. There is a finite quantity of water but an ever growing quantity of people. When do
you say no?
Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix are supplied water and electricity from the same
source. That source looks to be drying up from lack of proper rain and the like. Some day in the not
to distant future that source will disappear. What do they do then? When demend exceeds supply
where do you go, what do you do?
Let's not put our selves into that position. Hugh Fowler
187 S Sunset Dr.
Littleton, NC 27850
From:Patricia Fracher
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr lake
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:15:11 PM
I write to deny additional withdrawal of water fr KerrLake/Buggs Island.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Harriet Gaillard
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:57:14 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
Please add me to the list of concerned citizens and Kerr Lake property owners who are dismayed andalarmed at the process by which counties in North Carolina with no vested interest in beautiful KerrLake other than the millions of gallons of water they can buy on the cheap and use for their owneconomic development.
There are so many questions that property owners have not had the opportunity to ask and we weresurely not notified of any public hearings in a timely manner that would have allowed us to ask thesequestions. Were there any hearings offered to the property owners and if so, where were they andwhen? And where were they publicized?
Who would bear rhe cost of pipelines and pumping stations to even begin transferring water? What isthe amount of water that can ultimately be pumped out of Kerr Lake since the lake is dependent onrivers that are dependent on rainfall and favorable climate. What would happen in a drought if NC andVirginia farmers needed to access the water bordering their counties? How much water could countieson the lake withdraw if they became attrative to certain industries because of the valuable waterresource and wanted to improve their own economy?
I watched Kerr Lake being flooded as a child and have spent part of every year at Kerr Lake. For thepast few years, my husband and I have been renovating a lake house there that was left to me by myaunt. I have enjoyed the lake in every season and revel in it's beauty now as the lake is full and thetrees bursting with spring colors.
However, I have also seen it very dry and the water dangerously low for boating and campsites empty. Please study the material carefully and thoughtfully and prayerfully before you sign off on anything thatwill impact the lives of so many people and the environment in which they live.
Thank you,
Harriet Gaillard3906 Sweeten Creek RoadChapel Hill, NC 27514
Sent from my iPad
From:Mike Garrett
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Transfer - Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:27:53 AM
Attachments:PUBLIC PETITION (3).docx
Kim Nimmer,

I have attached a copy of the petition signed by myself opposing the Inter Basin
Transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin to support the Raleigh/Wake
County growth surge. I have lived in this area all of my life and spent the last
23 years marketing & selling real estate in the area. A large part of my
business is Kerr Lake property sales and the other area I work hard in is
Commercial real estate. I know that it is being said that this transfer will not
affect our water levels but I beg to differ. There is already an average of 40
million gallons of water a day coming out of this lake via the Lake Gaston
pipeline to Virginia Beach. I say that it is coming out of Kerr Lake because
there is an agreement between the power houses of the two lake dams to
maintain Lake Gaston at a constant level which in turn means that that water
must come from Kerr Lake. Vance County which houses most of Kerr Lake that
is in North Carolina is a Tier 1 County which means that it is a very poor county
that is identified as needing help with economic growth. We need commercial
industry to create jobs and tax base so that our county can flourish, our
schools can improve, and the quality of life for all citizens can be improved.
We fought hard against the Virginia pipeline and lost. During that time, Raleigh
& Wake County were making inquiries about putting pipeline into the lake to
get water for themselves and that was stopped. Now it appears that they are
trying to slip in the back door to get the water. They only need the water
because of their continued growth, well we need that growth in our county
and if we provide water out of the Roanoke River Basin to them, then we are
“cutting off or noses to spite our faces” only aiding their growth & not ours.
Industry will never come to Vance, Warren, & Northern Granville County until
they see it as the most logical option because we can provide the water they
need. Wake County has Falls Lake to draw from and if they are out growing
that then legislators & commerce should be directing industry and business
that are looking in the area to the counties just north of them where there is
plenty of land and plenty of water, at least for now. I am strongly opposed to
this Inter Basin Transfer of Water and believe that had it be publicized in a
manner to reach all the residence of these counties, there would have been a
much larger turn out at the public meeting. I really feel like someone is trying
to “slip one by us” which is an atrocity to the Tier 1 counties that are already
struggling to make ends meet and promote growth.

Respectfully

Michael G. Garrett
Licensed Broker in NC andThe Commonwealth of Virginia
Coldwell Banker Advantage857 S. Beckford Drive, Suite C
Henderson, NC 27536(252) 431-6262 – Direct
[phone] – MobilePersonal Website: http://www.OnKerrLake.com
Company Website: http://www.advantagecb.comE-Mail: [e-mail]
…..download my free mobile app….
MGarrett.www.gocba.com/
I am never too busy for your referrals.
NC & VA require that you be informed by a Realtor who they are representing in any transaction.
I can be a Buyer’s Agent, Seller’s Agent, or a Dual Agent. Be sure to ask me for details.
If you are working with another Realtor, please let me kow before we start working together. I
look forward to working with you.

PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Mike Garrett – 252-438-0197 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)
From:Mike Garrett
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Inter Basin Transfer - Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:50:54 PM
Attachments:PUBLIC PETITION (3).docx
Dear Kim,

I am sorry to appear to be jerking you around but it has come to my attention
that incorrect information has been passed around regarding the Inter Basin
Transfer of water out of Kerr Lake. I have been led to believe that the Inter
Basin Transfers of water were outside of the 3 Basins that make up the
ownership of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. Mike Inscoe of the
Henderson City Council called me to explain that the Inter Basin Transfer was
only among the 3 basins associated with Henderson, Oxford, & Warrenton’s
ownership of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and that no water would be
transferred outside of that. He also explained that this process had to be
completed to get the additional 10,000,000 gallons of water already approved
by the ACE to be released to the Kerr Lake Regional Water System for use
within our three basins; the Roanoke River Basin, the Tar River Basin, & the
Fishing Creek Basin for our future growth. That being the case, I respectfully
resend my objection to this request and move to support the transfer request.

Respectfully,

Michael G. Garrett
Licensed Broker in NC andThe Commonwealth of Virginia
Coldwell Banker Advantage857 S. Beckford Drive, Suite C
Henderson, NC 27536(252) 431-6262 – Direct
[phone] – MobilePersonal Website: http://www.OnKerrLake.com
Company Website: http://www.advantagecb.comE-Mail: [e-mail]
…..download my free mobile app….
MGarrett.www.gocba.com/
I am never too busy for your referrals.
NC & VA require that you be informed by a Realtor who they are representing in any transaction.
I can be a Buyer’s Agent, Seller’s Agent, or a Dual Agent. Be sure to ask me for details.
If you are working with another Realtor, please let me kow before we start working together. I
look forward to working with you.

From: Mike Garrett [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:28 AMTo: '[e-mail]'Subject: Inter Basin Transfer - Kerr Lake

Kim Nimmer,

I have attached a copy of the petition signed by myself opposing the Inter Basin
Transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin to support the Raleigh/Wake
County growth surge. I have lived in this area all of my life and spent the last
23 years marketing & selling real estate in the area. A large part of my
business is Kerr Lake property sales and the other area I work hard in is
Commercial real estate. I know that it is being said that this transfer will not
affect our water levels but I beg to differ. There is already an average of 40
million gallons of water a day coming out of this lake via the Lake Gaston
pipeline to Virginia Beach. I say that it is coming out of Kerr Lake because
there is an agreement between the power houses of the two lake dams to
maintain Lake Gaston at a constant level which in turn means that that water
must come from Kerr Lake. Vance County which houses most of Kerr Lake that
is in North Carolina is a Tier 1 County which means that it is a very poor county
that is identified as needing help with economic growth. We need commercial
industry to create jobs and tax base so that our county can flourish, our
schools can improve, and the quality of life for all citizens can be improved.
We fought hard against the Virginia pipeline and lost. During that time, Raleigh
& Wake County were making inquiries about putting pipeline into the lake to
get water for themselves and that was stopped. Now it appears that they are
trying to slip in the back door to get the water. They only need the water
because of their continued growth, well we need that growth in our county
and if we provide water out of the Roanoke River Basin to them, then we are
“cutting off or noses to spite our faces” only aiding their growth & not ours.
Industry will never come to Vance, Warren, & Northern Granville County until
they see it as the most logical option because we can provide the water they
need. Wake County has Falls Lake to draw from and if they are out growing
that then legislators & commerce should be directing industry and business
that are looking in the area to the counties just north of them where there is
plenty of land and plenty of water, at least for now. I am strongly opposed to
this Inter Basin Transfer of Water and believe that had it be publicized in a
manner to reach all the residence of these counties, there would have been a
much larger turn out at the public meeting. I really feel like someone is trying
to “slip one by us” which is an atrocity to the Tier 1 counties that are already
struggling to make ends meet and promote growth.

Respectfully

Michael G. Garrett
Licensed Broker in NC andThe Commonwealth of Virginia
Coldwell Banker Advantage857 S. Beckford Drive, Suite C
Henderson, NC 27536(252) 431-6262 – Direct
[phone] – MobilePersonal Website: http://www.OnKerrLake.com
Company Website: http://www.advantagecb.comE-Mail: [e-mail]
…..download my free mobile app….
MGarrett.www.gocba.com/
I am never too busy for your referrals.

NC & VA require that you be informed by a Realtor who they are representing in any transaction.
I can be a Buyer’s Agent, Seller’s Agent, or a Dual Agent. Be sure to ask me for details.
If you are working with another Realtor, please let me kow before we start working together. I
look forward to working with you.

From:Pat Gazzara
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter basin water transfer
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:56:57 PM
Kim I live on Lake Gaston and moved here and with the sole purpose of enjoying the fishing. I'm very concerned about this watertransfer and how it would affect the lake. I am opposed to this action. Respectfully, Patrick Gazzara
Sent from my Samsung Mobile
From:Paul Grenier
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Barbara Stroud
Subject:Kerr Lake
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 8:17:36 PM
Kim;
Please add my name & phone number to the petition.
Thanks, Paul
Paul Grenier 252-438-2821
From:James K. Hale
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Water transfer
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 10:23:45 AM
I would like to voice my opinion that I am against inter basin watertransfers. These transfers will at some point impact the lives of thoseliving in the Roanoke River basin in a negative way.
--James K. Hale(Kenny)Hale Plumbing Inc910 Park AveRoanoke Rapids, NC 27870252 537 9871
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water transfer
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 10:29:45 AM
We are opposed to any water transfer out of lake gaston. Developers of the Raleigh Durham and
Virginia beach areas take advantage of the system and should do better planning to anticipateshortages that may occur in the future. If we hold the line now, maybe that will encourage betterplanning now.
Arthur and Linda HansonMacon NCSent from my iPad
From:Harris, Catherine
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Deny
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:19:53 AM
Please deny the Kerrlake withdrawal permit. Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Bill Heflin - I live on Lake Gaston in Warren County. I don’t have any prepared notes to leave
y’all and if I had prepared them they would have changed entirely. There are three things, first
off I’m in with the Lake Gaston Association and we’ve been getting questions like crazy from
our members about what all this means and we haven’t been able to give them good answers.
I think that this assessment you have may go a long ways towards that and I’d like to take a
copy with me when I leave if I can. Just as a citizen the other thing, it seems like there would be
a whole lot less objection to this if the water were coming back to Kerr Lake, if it wasn’t a one
way trip and I know that there would be a lot of money involved in that, and I don’t know what
that would be, but it seems like the objections would be lessened to a greater degree if we
were getting the water back when you were done with it from the treatment plant. Secondly, I
don’t know what the financial benefit to the Kerr Basin is from you; I didn’t hear a dollar
amount or anything like. That if somebody could make that clear, that would be good
information for everybody to know. The last thing is on the Environmental Impact Statement I
think I understand that is required by law and I don’t understand how that is getting pushed
aside, it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not an expert on this by any means, I’ve just heard little
bits, but I don’t understand how it’s being neglected. Those are my comments. Thank you for
your time – End

From:Dick Hilliard
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Water Permit
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 2:56:32 PM
This email is sent in opposition to the proposal to permit the withdrawal of water from Kerr Lake for usein the Triangle area. Kerr Lake experiences enough water level fluctuations without having this problemexacerbated by withdrawing millions of gallons of water for the greater Triangle area. As a near lakeresident and frequent user of lake resources I am expressing strong dissension to this proposal, and amurging denial of this permit.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPad
From:David Hines
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Opposition to Inter Basin Transfers.
Date:Monday, April 27, 2015 11:05:40 AM
I’m opposed to IBTs. The full effects of IBTs are still not completely understood and expose
environmental and public health dangers.

We’ve all seen the negative effects of IBTs in California just on the availability of water during
droughts.

There are alternatives available to municipalities for public water supplies, specifically deep wells.

These are more more costly of course but avoids theft of water from neighboring communities.

Less waste, more foresight and intelligent planning are the better answers.

Thank you,

David Hines,
Littleton, NC 27850
[phone]
[e-mail]
From:thodge
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Save Our Lake Water Petition
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:27:16 PM
Attachments:DOC231.pdf
Importance:High
Great Day Kim, Please see attached the signed petition with Paulette and Jacqui’s signature. Any
questions please don’t hesitate to call. Thanks

Tashiea Hodge, Marketing Support Manager
www.taskpbsi.com

1555 King Street, Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314
Office: 703-575-6464 / Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

From:joan hoke
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Lake petition
Date:Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:22:39 PM
please send petition to sign
From:G Holder
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:KLRWP
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 10:08:08 AM
Good morning,
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System "Partners" (KLRWP) currently has authority to
transfer up to 10 million gallons of water per day (MGD) water from Kerr Lake to areas inWarren, Oxford, Henderson and others cities south of us. Of that amount only under 3 MGD
is returned to the Roanoke River Basin at Kerr Lake. The KLRWP seeks to transfer anadditional 10 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin. We are totally opposed Inter-Basin
Transfers (IBT) from the Roanoke River to other watersheds.
Gary and Georgia Holder105 Pinewood Acres Dr
Henrico NC 29842
From:Susan
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter- basin Water Transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:07:30 AM
>>> As a resident of Vance Co. I most definitely am not in favor of this inter-basin water transfer. Morestudies need to be done and more discussion of consequences to our county > need be done before moving forward. I think then the proposal will be viewed as detrimental to ourcounty and our lake.>> Susan Hoyle
From:Allan Hubbard
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; Senator Angela Bryant; [e-mail]
Subject:Impact of unconstrained Interbasin transfers on Kerr Lake levels during droughts
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:34:53 PM
Ms. Nimmer -
Please incorporate the comments below in proceedings on the Kerr Lake RegionalWater System Interbasin Transfer certificate request.
THE PROPOSED IBT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A DROP OF TWO FEET IN KERR LAKEDURING OCTOBER OF THE 2002 DROUGHT
As I read Figure 5-3 of the Environmental Assessment, if the proposed InterbasinTransfer had been in effect, Kerr Lake would have dropped an additional two feet,about 20 feet instead of 18 feet, in October during the 2002 drought. (Figure 5-3depicts a drop from an elevation of 296 feet to 276 feet taking into effect theproposed IBT instead of to 278 feet without the effect of the proposed IBT).
The EA explains that "on average," the proposed IBT would have only caused adecrease in lake level during the full 18 month duration of the drought of .2 feet(i.e., 2.4 inches) (EA at page 5-3, Table 5-1, and Figure 5-2). Averages can bemisleading. As is clear from the graph in Figure 5-3, the impact of the proposed IBTwould grow more severe at a much greater rate as the lake level graduallydecreased, accounting for the drop of two additional feet during October of the 2002drought. This is not surprising, since the lake at such a low level, with its graduallysloping bed, will have much less acreage of surface water for the IBT to draw from.
THE VIRGINIA BEACH IBT COMBINED WITH THE PROPOSED IBT WOULD HAVECAUSED A DROP OF 10 FEET IN KERR LAKE DURING OCTOBER OF THE 2002DROUGHT
If the Virginia Beach IBT is taken into account, the combined IBTs would haveaccounted for 10 feet of the 20-foot drop in the lake level during October of the2002 drought. (As I understand it, the current Virginia Beach IBT is about 4 timesthe proposed IBT; if the proposed IBT would have caused a drop of two feet in thelake level in October 2002, then the Virginia Beach IBT would have caused a drop of8 feet, or a combined drop of 10 feet.)
THERE SHOULD BE CONSTRAINTS ON INTERBASIN TRANSFERS DURINGDROUGHTS
I am not aware of any constraints on IBTs during a drought, and would not besurprised if IBTs actually peak during droughts. This is inequitable. There should beconstraints on IBTs during droughts, and the lower the lake's level sinks, the greaterthose constraints should be. Owners of lake front lots have as great, or greater,interest in their boating, fishing and scenic rights in the lake as do IBT customers intheir water consumption.
DROUGHTS MAY BECOME MORE COMMON IN THE FUTURE
Although in the last 15 years there apparently have only been two droughts worthyof note -- the 2002 and 2007 droughts -- that does not mean that, given thescientific warnings of coming climate changes, droughts will not be more frequent inthe future.
MY INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED IBT
My sister and I own a cottage on Kimball Point at Kerr Lake. The cottage has beenin the family since the dam was built. We plan to pass it on to our respectivechildren, and hope they in turn will pass the cottage on to their children andgrandchildren.
During the 2002 drought, the lake was not a pleasant place to spend time. My hopeis that there will be minimal such episodes in the future.
ACTION REQUESTED; OTEHR ISSUES
If the certificate is ultimately granted, it should be conditioned on appropriateconstraints on the volume of water that can be drawn from the lake during periodsof drought.
I have only had time to focus on the narrow issue of IBTs during periods ofdrought. There well may be other issues that need to be addressed (e.g., how canNorth Carolina agencies unilaterally make decisions affecting Kerr Lake, most ofwhich falls within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia).
Sincerely,
Allan C. Hubbard
159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553; and
701 Winans WayBaltimore, MD 21229
410-566-3464202-271-7113 (mobile)

From:Allan Hubbard
To:Senator Angela Bryant
Cc:Nimmer, Kim; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:Re: Impact of unconstrained Interbasin transfers on Kerr Lake levels during droughts
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:29:31 PM
Dear Senator Bryant -
Thank you for your prompt response to my comments.
I don't know whether you have had an opportunity to review Figure 5-3 in theEnvironmental Assessment, but that is the basis for my assertion that the proposedIBT would have a significant impact on lake levels during a 2002-type drought.
According to Fig. 5-3, the proposed IBT would have resulted in an additional drop inthe lake level of two feet during October of the 2002 drought. Two feet strikes meas a significant decrease, particularly if viewed with the Virginia Beach IBT, which Icalculated would result in a combined drop of 10 feet.
As for the system taking appropriate action, are there data available that show whatIBTs were made during the 2002 drought? If IBTs were appropriately constrainedduring that drought, then I stand corrected.
Sincerely,
Allan Hubbard
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Sen. Angela Bryant <[e-mail]>wrote:
Mr. Hubbard: Please see the attached presentation from the public hearing. There is
no information from this assessment that the requested IBt transfer will decrease lake
levels significantly during drought. I feel sure the water system will take responsible
action during any drought and that if necessary the state, local, and federal
governments will intervene.

Sen. Angela R. Bryant
District 4- Halifax, Vance, Nash, Wilson and Warren Counties
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 520
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
919-733-5878
[e-mail]
www.ncleg.net
919-733-3113- fax
Karon Hardy - Leg. Asst.
[e-mail]

From: Allan Hubbard [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:35 PMTo: [e-mail]: Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; Sen. Angela Bryant;[e-mail]: Impact of unconstrained Interbasin transfers on Kerr Lake levels duringdroughts
Ms. Nimmer -
Please incorporate the comments below in proceedings on the Kerr LakeRegional Water System Interbasin Transfer certificate request.
THE PROPOSED IBT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A DROP OF TWO FEET IN
KERR LAKE DURING OCTOBER OF THE 2002 DROUGHT
As I read Figure 5-3 of the Environmental Assessment, if the proposed InterbasinTransfer had been in effect, Kerr Lake would have dropped an additional two
feet, about 20 feet instead of 18 feet, in October during the 2002 drought. (Figure 5-3 depicts a drop from an elevation of 296 feet to 276 feet taking into
effect the proposed IBT instead of to 278 feet without the effect of the proposedIBT).
The EA explains that "on average," the proposed IBT would have only caused a
decrease in lake level during the full 18 month duration of the drought of .2 feet(i.e., 2.4 inches) (EA at page 5-3, Table 5-1, and Figure 5-2). Averages can be
misleading. As is clear from the graph in Figure 5-3, the impact of the proposedIBT would grow more severe at a much greater rate as the lake level gradually
decreased, accounting for the drop of two additional feet during October of the2002 drought. This is not surprising, since the lake at such a low level, with its
gradually sloping bed, will have much less acreage of surface water for the IBTto draw from.
THE VIRGINIA BEACH IBT COMBINED WITH THE PROPOSED IBT
WOULD HAVE CAUSED A DROP OF 10 FEET IN KERR LAKE DURINGOCTOBER OF THE 2002 DROUGHT
If the Virginia Beach IBT is taken into account, the combined IBTs would have
accounted for 10 feet of the 20-foot drop in the lake level during October of the2002 drought. (As I understand it, the current Virginia Beach IBT is about 4
times the proposed IBT; if the proposed IBT would have caused a drop of twofeet in the lake level in October 2002, then the Virginia Beach IBT would have
caused a drop of 8 feet, or a combined drop of 10 feet.)
THERE SHOULD BE CONSTRAINTS ON INTERBASIN TRANSFERSDURING DROUGHTS
I am not aware of any constraints on IBTs during a drought, and would not be
surprised if IBTs actually peak during droughts. This is inequitable. There
should be constraints on IBTs during droughts, and the lower the lake's levelsinks, the greater those constraints should be. Owners of lake front lots have as
great, or greater, interest in their boating, fishing and scenic rights in the lake asdo IBT customers in their water consumption.
DROUGHTS MAY BECOME MORE COMMON IN THE FUTURE
Although in the last 15 years there apparently have only been two droughts
worthy of note -- the 2002 and 2007 droughts -- that does not mean that, giventhe scientific warnings of coming climate changes, droughts will not be more
frequent in the future.
MY INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED IBT
My sister and I own a cottage on Kimball Point at Kerr Lake. The cottage hasbeen in the family since the dam was built. We plan to pass it on to our
respective children, and hope they in turn will pass the cottage on to theirchildren and grandchildren.
During the 2002 drought, the lake was not a pleasant place to spend time. My
hope is that there will be minimal such episodes in the future.
ACTION REQUESTED; OTEHR ISSUES
If the certificate is ultimately granted, it should be conditioned on appropriateconstraints on the volume of water that can be drawn from the lake during
periods of drought.
I have only had time to focus on the narrow issue of IBTs during periods ofdrought. There well may be other issues that need to be addressed (e.g., how can
North Carolina agencies unilaterally make decisions affecting Kerr Lake, most ofwhich falls within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia).
Sincerely,
Allan C. Hubbard
159 Oak Tree Lane
Manson, NC 27553; and
701 Winans WayBaltimore, MD 21229
410-566-3464
202-271-7113 (mobile)

<KLRWS Public Hearing_03.15.pdf>
From:Allan Hubbard
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Senator Angela Bryant; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Peele,
Linwood; Brady, Harold M.
Subject:Re: Impact of unconstrained Interbasin transfers on Kerr Lake levels during droughts
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:35:53 PM
Ms Nimmer -
Many thanks for your detailed response to my comments.
With regard to your discussion of the lake levels during a 2002 equivalent drought,the data you refer to are based on "average" drops in the lake level, which showthat the proposed IBT would result in only a .2 foot drop, on average over the 18month life of the drought. This misses my point that averages can be misleading. Ifyou focus on October of the 2002 drought, as depicted in the graph at figure 5-3 ofthe EA, the proposed IBT would cause a drop of two feet in the lake level, from 278feet to 276 feet (both of which, incidentally, are well below the "average" 284.8 footlevel of the lake during the 2002 drought you reference in your email).
As for constraints on IBT transfers during periods of drought, after seeing yourreferences to NC statutory requirements for such constraints, I reviewed the IBTpetition submitted by the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. I was pleasantlysurprised to see that the petition, at Appendix B, does set forth a detailed watershortage response plan that imposes constraints on IBT transfers during periods ofdrought. I see that the plan has been approved by the NCDWR, but see noreference to review or approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. Did NCDWRcoordinate its review with the Corps? Also, does NCDWR serve as a watchdog toensure satisfactory compliance with the water shortage response plan? It should.
Finally, do you know whether the Virginia Beach IBT arrangement has a similarwater shortage response plan? Although that may be a Virginia issue, it certainlyaffects owners, like me, of lake front property in North Carolina.
Sincerely,
Allan Hubbard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Nimmer, Kim <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Hubbard,
The information presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) shows that during the extreme
drought conditions of 2002, the hydrologic model predicted that the drop in lake elevation
attributed to the IBT in the year 2045 would be 0.2 feet, or 2.4 inches as you stated. Please refer
to Table 5-1 on page 5-4 of the EA. That table shows the baseline elevation for Kerr Lake to be
299.8 feet. The 2002 drought conditions drop the lake elevation to 284.8 (a 15-foot drop). When
the IBT is factored into the model, the lake elevation drops 0.2 feet from the drought conditions,
which would lower the lake level by a total of 15.2 feet. As taken from the EA document:

“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.
Figures 5-1 to 5-5 illustrate the results for Kerr Lake for the Proposed 2045 IBT based on the
updated RRBHM simulations. These simulations show little discernible differences between any of
the three simulations depicted based on increased basin demands between 2010 and 2045 or the
added influence of the IBT even during the 2002 drought (Figure 5-2) or in the lower end of the
duration curve (Figure 5-5).”

Two of the conditions placed on all IBT certificates (as required by state statute G.S. 143-215.22L
(n)) is that there be both a water conservation plan that, “specifies the water conservation
measures that will be implemented by the applicant in the receiving river basin to ensure the
efficient use of the transferred water…” and a drought management plan that “specifies how the
transfer shall be managed to protect the source river basin during drought conditions or other
emergencies that occur within the source river basin.” The drought management plan, “shall
include mandatory reductions in the permitted amount of the transfer based on the severity and
duration of a drought occurring within the source river basin and shall provide for the mandatory
implementation of a drought management plan by the applicant.”

In addition, Water Shortage Response Plans (required for water supply systems statewide under
administrative rules 15A NCAC 02E. 0607) also place triggers for the implementation of system-
wide water conservation measures and initiatives. These triggers are based upon water supply
levels of the specific water system. The water conservation measures reduce water usage
system-wide; thereby, reducing the total basin transfers.

Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate for the
Kerr Lake Regional Water System. NCDENR will be accepting comments regarding the proposed
certificate through April 30, 2015. All comments received will be part of the public record, and
will be included along with responses prepared by NCDENR as part of the Hearing Officer’s Report
to the NC Environmental Management Commission. The Environmental Management
Commission is the decision-making body for the proposed IBT certificate. We anticipate the final
determination will be made at the Environmental Management Commission’s July 9th meeting.

Best Regards,
Kim Nimmer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kim Nimmer
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Program
Water Supply Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

NOTICE: Emails sent to and from this account are subject to the Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

From: Allan Hubbard [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:29 PMTo: Senator Angela BryantCc: Nimmer, Kim; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; [e-mail]: Re: Impact of unconstrained Interbasin transfers on Kerr Lake levels during droughts

Dear Senator Bryant -

Thank you for your prompt response to my comments.

I don't know whether you have had an opportunity to review Figure 5-3 in theEnvironmental Assessment, but that is the basis for my assertion that theproposed IBT would have a significant impact on lake levels during a 2002-typedrought.

According to Fig. 5-3, the proposed IBT would have resulted in an additional dropin the lake level of two feet during October of the 2002 drought. Two feet strikesme as a significant decrease, particularly if viewed with the Virginia Beach IBT,which I calculated would result in a combined drop of 10 feet.

As for the system taking appropriate action, are there data available that showwhat IBTs were made during the 2002 drought? If IBTs were appropriatelyconstrained during that drought, then I stand corrected.

Sincerely,

Allan Hubbard
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Sen. Angela Bryant <[e-mail]>wrote:
Mr. Hubbard: Please see the attached presentation from the public hearing. There
is no information from this assessment that the requested IBt transfer will decrease
lake levels significantly during drought. I feel sure the water system will take
responsible action during any drought and that if necessary the state, local, and
federal governments will intervene.

Sen. Angela R. Bryant
District 4- Halifax, Vance, Nash, Wilson and Warren Counties
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 520
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
919-733-5878
[e-mail]
www.ncleg.net
919-733-3113- fax
Karon Hardy - Leg. Asst.
[e-mail]

From: Allan Hubbard [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:35 PMTo: [e-mail]
Cc: Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; Sen. Angela Bryant;[e-mail]: Impact of unconstrained Interbasin transfers on Kerr Lake levels duringdroughts

Ms. Nimmer -

Please incorporate the comments below in proceedings on the KerrLake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer certificate request.

THE PROPOSED IBT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A DROP OF TWO FEET INKERR LAKE DURING OCTOBER OF THE 2002 DROUGHT

As I read Figure 5-3 of the Environmental Assessment, if the proposedInterbasin Transfer had been in effect, Kerr Lake would have droppedan additional two feet, about 20 feet instead of 18 feet, in Octoberduring the 2002 drought. (Figure 5-3 depicts a drop from an elevationof 296 feet to 276 feet taking into effect the proposed IBT instead of to278 feet without the effect of the proposed IBT).

The EA explains that "on average," the proposed IBT would have onlycaused a decrease in lake level during the full 18 month duration ofthe drought of .2 feet (i.e., 2.4 inches) (EA at page 5-3, Table 5-1,and Figure 5-2). Averages can be misleading. As is clear from thegraph in Figure 5-3, the impact of the proposed IBT would grow moresevere at a much greater rate as the lake level gradually decreased,accounting for the drop of two additional feet during October of the2002 drought. This is not surprising, since the lake at such a low level,with its gradually sloping bed, will have much less acreage of surfacewater for the IBT to draw from.

THE VIRGINIA BEACH IBT COMBINED WITH THE PROPOSED IBTWOULD HAVE CAUSED A DROP OF 10 FEET IN KERR LAKE DURINGOCTOBER OF THE 2002 DROUGHT

If the Virginia Beach IBT is taken into account, the combined IBTswould have accounted for 10 feet of the 20-foot drop in the lake levelduring October of the 2002 drought. (As I understand it, the current
Virginia Beach IBT is about 4 times the proposed IBT; if the proposedIBT would have caused a drop of two feet in the lake level in October2002, then the Virginia Beach IBT would have caused a drop of 8 feet,or a combined drop of 10 feet.)

THERE SHOULD BE CONSTRAINTS ON INTERBASIN TRANSFERSDURING DROUGHTS

I am not aware of any constraints on IBTs during a drought, and wouldnot be surprised if IBTs actually peak during droughts. This isinequitable. There should be constraints on IBTs during droughts, andthe lower the lake's level sinks, the greater those constraints shouldbe. Owners of lake front lots have as great, or greater, interest in theirboating, fishing and scenic rights in the lake as do IBT customers intheir water consumption.

DROUGHTS MAY BECOME MORE COMMON IN THE FUTURE

Although in the last 15 years there apparently have only been twodroughts worthy of note -- the 2002 and 2007 droughts -- that doesnot mean that, given the scientific warnings of coming climate changes,droughts will not be more frequent in the future.

MY INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED IBT

My sister and I own a cottage on Kimball Point at Kerr Lake. Thecottage has been in the family since the dam was built. We plan topass it on to our respective children, and hope they in turn will passthe cottage on to their children and grandchildren.

During the 2002 drought, the lake was not a pleasant place to spendtime. My hope is that there will be minimal such episodes in thefuture.

ACTION REQUESTED; OTEHR ISSUES

If the certificate is ultimately granted, it should be conditioned onappropriate constraints on the volume of water that can be drawn fromthe lake during periods of drought.

I have only had time to focus on the narrow issue of IBTs duringperiods of drought. There well may be other issues that need to beaddressed (e.g., how can North Carolina agencies unilaterally makedecisions affecting Kerr Lake, most of which falls within the boundariesof the Commonwealth of Virginia).

Sincerely,

Allan C. Hubbard

159 Oak Tree Lane
Manson, NC 27553; and

701 Winans Way
Baltimore, MD 21229

410-566-3464
202-271-7113 (mobile)

<KLRWS Public Hearing_03.15.pdf>
From:Bibb Hubbard
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Please DENY PERMIT for additional withdrawl from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 7:51:54 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer:
I hope it is in your power to deny a permit for an additional withdrawal of 10 million gallons of water
per day from Kerr Lake. Many other lake owners and I did not know of any hearings on this subjectand I object strenuously to additional substantial withdrawals of water from Kerr/ Buggs Island Lake.
My family has owned property at Kimball Point for many decades, having been one of the first residentsof the lake. We have built family traditions around the lake and it has become the fabric of our family,holding us all together. We plan on keeping it in our family for generations to come.
It is astonishing that this proposal has serious consideration under the auspices that 10 million gallonsof water a day won't have a negative impact.How in the world anyone can think that such a withdrawalwill have no impact is beyond understanding.
Please do respond to my request.
SincerelyBibb Hubbard159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553
[e-mail]
21 West Windsor Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22301
From:Doug Hughes
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-basin water transfer opposition
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:50:31 PM
Hi Kim,
My name is Doug Hughes and I am writing to convey my opposition to the increased inter-basin
water transfer of 10mgd from Kerr Reservoir. I reside on Lake Gaston and served on the Board of
the Lake Gaston Association for 10 years, the last three of which were as Association President. We
as a Board were diametrically opposed to transferring any more water out of the Roanoke River
Basin. I now serve as the Vice Chairman of the Northampton County Economic Development
Commission and Secretary/Treasurer of the Upper Coastal Plains Council of Governments. As such, I
am acutely aware of the importance of keeping the water within the Roanoke River Basin to the
future economic development of our currently depressed region. I was a stakeholder during the
early discussions of this transfer and opposed it then as I do now. It is especially disconcerting to me
that a full Environmental Impact Study was not conducted as originally promised. It is my sincere
hope that the water that is so vital to our Roanoke River Basin communities and their futures is not
further reduced by the needs and wants of those who are expanding beyond their capacity.
Thank you,

Doug Hughes
[phone]
146 Windy Pt. Cir.
Henrico, NC 27842

From:Ben Hunter
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Withdrawal Permit
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 8:56:01 AM
Ms. Nimmer,
I am writing to let you know that I am one of the many opposing any permits forfurther withdrawal from Kerr Lake. I am from Warren County and have property onKerr Lake. This is of great concern.
Thank you,
Ben Hunter
From:Mary Hunter
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Opposed
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:22:25 AM
I am a property owner at Kerr Lake and am OPPOSED to the proposed additional withdrawal
of water from that lake.
Mary Hunter210 Plummer Street
Warrenton, NC 27589252 257-2321
From:Rita Hurst
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:IBT
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 5:13:39 PM
I reside along Gaston Lake in Virginia and am a member of LGA. I strongly oppose
Interbasin transfers.

Rita Hurst
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Angela Hyson – I would like to start off by asking a question first. Would you raise your hand if
you are just a public citizen and not an elected official? I’m glad to see a few people here. I
think pretty much every topic has been pretty much touched on I’m here to speak tonight
though as a resident of Kerr Lake. I have lived on Kerr Lake since 1947 in one capacity or
another. I was there when it was a river, then I saw the dam finished in 1952 and 53. I have
seen the lake fluctuate quite a bit. Mr. Manning, I commend you and you have my sympathy, I
agree with you whole heartedly. I heard someone speak and say that Gaston Lake, how many
dollars it brings and so forth. That’s a whole different game; there are measures in place to
protect Gaston Lake. Gaston Lake does not fluctuate. Kerr Lake does fluctuate. A couple
summers ago we couldn’t put a boat in the lake or take a boat out because there was not a
ramp on Kerr Lake that was above a level where you could launch a boat. Issued by the Army
Corp of Engineers, saying no boats could go in or be taken out. That was just a couple of
summers ago, and then we had a drought. Everyone knows about the drought of 2002, you tell
me what else is going to happen when you take out approximately 15 more million gallons of
water. I don’t think anybody in here can play God and say the water is going to stay at a certain
level. Do I feel for people who need water, yes I do. There is a study going on now at the
University of North Carolina that was started in 2013 saying that water is going to be the
number one issue in this country. Folks, I would like to see everybody have water, but I want to
have water in the Roanoke River Basin. I want to protect our own first. The original agreement
was between Oxford, Henderson and Warren County. Do I want to see Henderson, Oxford and
Warren County succeed? Absolutely, I’m a Warren County resident and have been my whole
life. Do I want to see us though at the price of sacrificing our water and giving it to other people
at our own expense, no I do not. There comes a time when you have to access your own water
resources in your own given area. Sometimes we may not like it, sometimes it may require
spending additional money, but if that additional money has to be spent, it has to be spent. If
that means tapping into the Tar River, if that means tapping into the Neuse River by other
sources, in these other regions so be it. We cannot supply the world with water. I looked at the
map as it was being displayed by Mr. Brady, and I thought the way this is going approximately ¼
of NC is being supplied by the Kerr Lake reservoir. There is something wrong with that picture,
something very wrong with that picture. So, we come to what do we do. Well, the point is, we
have to do something. Alternative 2, I looked at it and by the way I read all 170 pages of this
booklet yesterday and today because I wanted to be thoroughly informed to see what in the
world had taken so long to write this proposal. The IBT, we could do that just as it’s written.
What is it going to do? It’s going to require additional water supply, it is going to affect the lake
levels and it is going to have an effect on the hydropower impacts in the Roanoke River Basin.
So what are we doing? Henderson is turning around and paying for the KLRWS and
compensating the U.S. Corp of Engineer way on up in the millions of dollars started in 2005.
Why in the world are we compensating the U.S. Corp of Engineers for hydropower when the
original purpose of the whole lake was for flood control and to create hydropower? We could
avoid the IBT by doing an alternative that means constructing a new water supply reservoir on
the Tar River. It has been recommended that we could also draw water with an off line storage
in the Tar River Basin, maybe in a granite pit. I read several suggestions of how it can be done.
Or perhaps Alternative 5, minimize the inter-basin transfer by discharging treated waste water
back up to the ORB. There are opportunities for reclaimed water. Living on the Roanoke River
Basin, I want to see the water come back, even if it is used water. Thank you – End

From:John Hyson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:57:09 AM
Attachments:scan0002.pdf
scan0004.pdf
Ms. Nimmer:
We are attaching several files of Petitions against this Inter Basin Transfer, that
principally authorizes the movement of large amounts of water from the poor counties
along the Roanoke River Basin to transfer it to the richer counties near Raleigh.
(Due to the file sizes there will be one more email following this with additional
Petitions.) These are the signatures - and phone numbers per your suggestion - of
hundreds of citizens of this region from all elements of our society who find the
suggestion of more of the Roanoke River Basin waters being taken from us
objectionable. We are aware that several hundred more Petitions and messages
have been sent to you in recent days.
We also find objectionable the manner in which our representative government - both
locally and in Raleigh - betrayed our trust to manipulate the legal process already
established to deceptively remove the Environmental Impact Statement, public
notification, and public input elements of this Permit procedure. What is grievous
about this is that powers-to-be apparently wanted this so badly they felt this overt
deception was worth their political risk.
It is our hope that these volumes of objection might if not to have an effect to cancel
this Permit, at least to convince those behind the scenes and on the Environmental
Management Committee to open the procedure as it was designed for public
disclosure and review before put in place.
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

John Hyson - Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. We’re just private citizens
and we live up on Kerr Lake. Somebody told me one time that zoning is what other people can
tell you what you can do with your property. Inter-basin transfer is what other people can do
with your water. I think that we’re taking water from Kerr Lake and sending it to other regions
such as Bunn and Youngsville and Lake Royal and Creedmoor and it’s been pointed out we’re
taking away from Halifax county and other people down river too. All of these people from
Youngsville, etc. are within minutes of Falls Lake there’s a lot of water down there they’ve
mentioned that their property growth has been an output from Wake County. So, even though
we’re not talking about water going directly to Wake County we’re talking about water going to
the bedrooms of Wake County. It’s all much in the same. The other thing is we’ve all probably
heard the laws have been redacted after the fact if we say this is all in motion and by law, no
other communities are going to be able to tack onto this system we might just have a ruling
come down that, oh yeah we changed our mind and these communities can tack on with this
system. There goes more water into Wake County etc. I’m concerned too cause I might be
simple minded, but right now we’re taking 4.64 million gallons a day out of Kerr Lake. We’ve
got the capacity or the permit to take up to 20 million gallons a day. How are we going to
sustain the lake levels? Where is more water going to come from to increase 15 million gallons
input in Kerr Lake per day? Kerr Lake was originally made for flood control and hydroelectric
production there was no mention in the initial establishment of Kerr Lake that it would be
involved in inter-basin transfer. Kerr Lake has become a financial boom to those counties that
adjoin the lake. We have restaurants, we have businesses, we have motels that all prosper. We
have employment that prospers by the benefit of all those establishments that have that
tourism. We had the opportunity a few years ago to go out and visit Lake Mead, that’s also a
lake that was established back in the 30’s for flood control and hydroelectric production. That
white line you see is the cleared rock when that lake has been sucked down 60 feet in water
level to supply the likes of Las Vegas and Los Angeles. We’ve all heard in the paper where Los
Angeles is trying to figure a way to get a pipeline to the Mississippi River. So we need to protect
the water that we have I’m seeing this as the beginning of a direction. The reason that people
want to take water out of Kerr Lake as we’ve heard is to help provide growth in other counties,
in more rural areas. Well, we’ve got rural areas too, we’ve got counties that need employment,
we’ve got counties that need growth, we’ve got counties that need industrial and real estate
growth and we’ve got the water. So, let’s let the growth happen here in Vance County, Warren
County, Mecklenburg County, Granville County, and let the people that work in Wake County
worry about where they’re going to get their water. - End
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-Basin Water Transfer from Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:52:05 AM
As a taxpaying citizen of the City of Henderson and Vance County and a former citizen of WarrenCounty, I strongly oppose the proposed additional inter-basin transfer of water out of Kerr Lake by theKLRWS. This process has been faulty from the start and if approved, the outcome would be disastrousfor our area. I urge you to take action against this transfer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karney F. Brantley110 Westlake DriveHenderson, NC 27536
From:Cliff Jackson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:07:00 AM
Dear Ms. Nimmer:
We, the people of the Kerr Lake region and the downstream Roanoke River Basin, depend
on Kerr Lake water for our lives, our economic sustenance, and for the future prosperity of
our region. We are categorically opposed to the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) for the
following reasons:
First, the IBT would permanently adversely impact the Kerr Lake region's water use and
economic potential by diverting more than the remainder of Kerr Lake Regional Water
System's (KLRWS) future water allotment. The IBT would send much-needed water from
our "distressed, low-growth" Tier 1 counties to "prosperous, high-growth" Tier 2 and 3
counties in the Tar and Neuse River basins.
KLRWS was allotted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a cap of 20 million gallons of
water per day (MGD) for the three partners who own the system -- the City of Henderson,
Warren County, and Oxford, which sell water within the immediate area to towns such as
Norlina, Warrenton, Stovall and Creedmoor.
Because the proposed IBT would divert more than the KLRWS's allotted future water use,
it necessarily follows that the Kerr Lake water transfer must be viewed for what it is, ill-
conceived and discriminatory, aimed at robbing water from a Tier 1 poor minority region
and sending it south to prosperous communities for the economic development that should
actually occur in our Kerr Lake region where the water is and where the economic need is
most desperate.
Citizens of the Kerr Lake region and Roanoke River Basin will never accept the IBT and
the resulting mud flats during our periodic droughts. The economic value of our water is
critical for our tourism, our future development, and indeed, the future prosperity of our
region.
Thank you,
Clifton Jackson
323 Hamme Mill Rd
Warrenton NC 27589
From:Ann Johnson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 2:59:42 PM
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of InterBasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins becauseof the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well asundisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance andWarren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
Dan Johnson 863-450-2765Ann Johnson 863-450-2765We were living here full time and now spend summers in this area. Thank you for your concerns.
Dan and Ann Johnson
From:Sharon Johnson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake withdrawal
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 2:14:12 PM
Please DENY the request to withdraw water from Kerr Lake. I have lived on the lake for over 50
years, & enough is enough!!! That was not the intent.

Sharon P Johnson, GRI,CRB,QSC,SFR
Associate Broker, Century 21 Clary & Associates, Inc.
231 E Atlantic St./P O Box 300
South Hill, VA 23970
434-447-8740 (0)
434-774-5741 (m)
434-447-5858 (f)
Licensed Associate Broker in Commonwealth of Virginia
Licensed Broker in State of North Carolina
http://www.c21clary.com/sharon.html

From:Robin Jones
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Deny permit for further withdrawal of water from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 10:43:50 AM
Dear Kim,

My husband and I live near Palmer Point on Kerr Lake. We grew up boating and skiing on the lake
since we were 5 years old. We want to save the lake for our grandchildren.
Please deny further water withdrawal from Kerr Lake!!!!
Thank you,

Robin Jones
161 Carters Lane
Boydton, VA 23917

Robin B. Jones, CPA, CFP
Creedle, Jones, and Alga, PC
PO Box 487
828 N Mecklenburg Avenue
South Hill, VA 23970
434-447-7111 phone
434-447-5793 fax

This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for theperson/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.

From:John Keefe
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:07:49 PM
Ms. Nimmer,
I'm writing to register my strong opposition to the proposed increase in thedrawdown of water from the Roanoke River. The economic impact will be disastrousfor those of us who depend on the long term attractiveness of Kerr Lake.
Sincerely,
John B. KeefeBracey, VA
From:Robert C kemp
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Monday, April 27, 2015 5:48:56 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer:
This letter is in regard to the proposed Kerr Lake Inter Basin Transfer that is to be considered
on July 9, 2015. I understand April 30, 2015 is the last day to voice an opinion on thissubject.
I grew up in Warren County and have lived in Vance County for many years. I have spent a
lot of time at Kerr Lake and have seen what it looks like when the water level is low and Ican tell you "it's not pretty" and it is not functional. If this IBT that has been proposed
happens the level of the lake will eventually be lower and lower as the years go by. KerrLake is this area's biggest asset and having a good water supply will help this area get
industries and boost this economy. Vance and Warren are two of the poorest counties in thestate.
Tourism and fishing tournaments bring people from all over the southeast to Kerr Lake. Theycamp at the lake, stay in local motels, use our restaurants, buy our gas and return year after
year. If we lose them our economy would become even worse than it is.It would be a sad day if people were unable to enjoy Kerr Lake the way it is used now.
Please deny this transfer.Thank you.
Olivia Kemp
From:Allen Kimball
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Water
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 1:20:43 PM
Deny! Deny! Pleas deny the Triangle water authorities the permit to draw water from Kerr Lake to aid indevelopment of Triangle activities by moving water to a different river basin. For those of us that were original land owners and had to give up our property for the creation of KerrLake, to now come along and want us to give up millions of gallons of water for development of areasoutside the Kerr Lake River Basin is adding insult to injury.Deny the permit!!!Allen Kimball
Sent from my iPad
From:Donald Kohl
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Water Basin
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 5:00:18 PM
We'd like to express our deep concern regarding the proposed transfer of
water from the Kerr Lake Basin. Kerr Lake is the only hope any any
improvement in the Vance County area. the Recreational draw as well as the
potential to entice industry to this area is dependent on a reliable amount off
water in this Basin. Before this proceeds any further, a thorough impact study
needs to be conducted as well as Public Hearings on the matter.
It appears that this has been a less than transparent effort on the part of
the City Council and other decision makers.
Sincerely Concerned,
Alice E. Kohl
Donald N. Kohl
280 Puddle stone lane
Henderson
PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Gina Lawrimore / [phone]
Denis Medlin / [phone]
Cyndi Evans / [phone]
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)
From:Jay Leonard
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer (IBT)
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 10:33:48 AM
We support LGA's position on IBT. It is essential that the promisedLake Gaston water level be maintained for Lake Gaston property owner'sand recreational users of the lake.
Jay LeonardLinda Leonard1489 Golf Course RDLittleton, NC 27850
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic Ryke Longest, Director
Box 90360 Telephone: [phone]
Durham, NC 27708-0360 Toll Free: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

February 20, 2015

Harold Brady DENR-Division of Water Resources
Planning Branch
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
By fax [phone] and e-mail to: [e-mail]

RE: Environmental Assessment of Proposed KLRWS Interbasin Transfers

Dear Harold,
On behalf of the Roanoke River Basin Association, we submit the following
comments regarding the environmental document submitted by Kerr Lake Regional
Water System and the responsive document issued by Tom Fransen, “Finding of No
Significant Impact,” and submitted to the North Carolina’s Department of Administration for review in the Clearinghouse. In that notice, your office directed that comments
regarding the environmental document be directed to you by February 20, 2015. Based
upon review of the materials presented as well as readily available peer-reviewed
literature, this document does not adequately meet the “hard look” standard required by
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Please note that these comments, while critical of the documents prepared and the
FONSI which resulted from them, are not directed at the substance of the request
presented. RRBA has a long history of holding state and federal agencies accountable for thoroughly analyzing the impacts of transfers of water from the Roanoke River Basin.
Pointing out the deficiencies in the supporting documents does not necessarily indicate
RRBA’s ultimate opposition to the underlying request, as these are separate and distinct
issues.
I. This IBT Proposal Should have Triggered the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement not an Environmental Assessment
In North Carolina, Inter-Basin Water Transfers (“IBTs”), or large surface water
transfers between river basins, are regulated by the Environmental Management
Commission (“EMC”) under General Statute § 143-215.22L. This regulation requires that
all proposed IBTs exceeding 2 million gallons per day (“mgd”), calculated as a daily average of a calendar month and not to exceed 3,000,000 gallons per day in any one day,
first require EMC certification and approval. Certification is additionally required for
March 30, 2015
Page 2
water transfer increases by 25% or more above the average daily amount during the
period between July 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, and for increases to transfers permitted
pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. §162A-7. This law requires an environmental impact
statement be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required.

The first step in the certification process is the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to file an
IBT Petition. In February 2009, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (“applicant”)
submitted a NOI to Request an IBT Certificate to the EMC. The proposed project, as revised in 2014, will transfer 14.2 mgd, calculated as the average day of a (maximum)
calendar month, from the Roanoke River IBT basin to the Tar River (10.7 mgd), Fishing
Creek (1.7 mgd), and Neuse River (1.8 mgd) IBT basins. According to the applicant, this
transfer volume represents the projected 2045 demands of the existing customer base and
anticipated growth of the service area. The applicant has a current grandfathered IBT of 10 mgd, calculated as a maximum day, which is equivalent to 9.7 mgd, calculated as the
average of a calendar month.

Then, the EMC shall conduct a study of the environmental impacts for the
proposed IBT. The law provides that
“The study shall meet all of the requirements set forth in N.C. GEN.
STAT. 113A-4 and rules adopted pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. 113A-4.
An environmental assessment shall be prepared for any petition for a
certificate under this section. The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the
General Statutes; except that an environmental impact statement shall
be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required under this section.”

See N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L(d) (emphasis added).

According to law, every IBT from one major river basin to another requires an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). The source and the receiving river basins of
the proposed project are within the seventeen “major river basin” of North Carolina. N.C.
GEN. STAT. §143-215.22G(1). For this reason, we maintain that an EIS should have
been prepared for this proposal, rather than an Environmental Assessment as the
document was captioned.
Any EIS produced in compliance with this section must include:

(1) A comprehensive analysis of the impacts that would occur in the
source river basin and the receiving river basin if the petition for a certificate is granted;
March 30, 2015
Page 3
(2) An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer,
including water supply sources that do not require an interbasin transfer
and use of water conservation measures; and
(3) A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed interbasin transfer.
See N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L(d)

Also, IBT certificate applicants are subject to the general EIS requirements of
SEPA (N.C. GEN. STAT.§ 113A 4), which is supplementary to the requirements of other statutes. One of the enumerated purposes of SEPA is “to require agencies of the State to consider and report upon environmental aspects and consequences of their actions
involving the expenditure of public moneys or use of public land.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A-2. SEPA’s provisions “provide a mechanism by which all affected State agencies
raise and consider environmental factors of proposed projects.” In re Environmental Management Com. etc., 53 N.C. App. 135, 141 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) “The primary
purpose of both the state and federal environmental statutes is to ensure that government
agencies seriously consider the environmental effects of each of the reasonable and
realistic alternatives available to them.” Orange County v. North Carolina Dep't of
Transp., 46 N.C. App. 350, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
To effectuate SEPA’s stated policy, the General Assembly restricted state agency
actions by imposing procedural requirements. SEPA’s procedural requirements were
supplemental to any other requirements set by law. The General Assembly recognized
that absent procedural requirements, agencies could not be held accountable by the people, who hold the rights. The very caption of this section of SEPA explains its
purpose: “Provisions Supplemental.” As the law provides:

“The policies, obligations and provisions of this Article are supplementary to
those set forth in existing authorizations of and statutory provisions applicable to State agencies and local governments. In those instances where a State agency is
required to prepare an environmental document or to comment on an
environmental document under provisions of federal law, the environmental
document or comment shall meet the provisions of this Article.”
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -10.
SEPA has provisions specifying when an environmental document is not required.
There is a list of actions which are exempted from coverage. Had the General Assembly
intended to allow the state agency to not prepare a document when a federal document
was being prepared, it would have added that to the list found in SEPA. See N.C. Gen. Sta. § 113A-12 (List of exempted actions, like water lines, shellfish leases and driveway
connections to public roads).

Thus any IBT related environmental document prepared for EMC review of an
IBT request must also address these standard issues: “(a) The environmental impact of the proposed action;
March 30, 2015
Page 4
(b) Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(c) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact;
(d) Alternatives to the proposed action; (e) The relationship between the short term uses of the environment
involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of
long term productivity;
(f) Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would
be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4

For this reason, we contend that the submitted “Environmental Assessment” does
not satisfy the requirements of North Carolina’s law. We recognize that the Division and
the applicant appear to be operating under the assumption that a section contained in last year’s regulatory grab bag bill supports their decision. See N.C. Sess. Law 2014-120,
Section 37. This change in the law, does not exempt IBTs from bi-state Army Corps of
Engineer’s reservoirs from SEPA. Rather the section states that an EIS isn’t required
“unless it would otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A.” Any transfer of
the size represented here must trigger requirement of EIS under SEPA. Even though the current proposed increase is significantly smaller than originally proposed, the Roanoke
River Basin is an environmentally sensitive area. The reduced scope of the request is
direct proof that applying complete SEPA review to IBT requests works as the drafters
intended. By assembling better information on the actual demand, the proposal now
more accurately represents projected demand, and many construction related impacts have been avoided.

SEPA’s reason for existence is to cause agencies to examine the environmental
impacts before they make a decision. Like the National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”), the SEPA statute is aimed to produce better decisions and to arm citizens with procedural tools to hold agencies accountable for making those decisions transparently.
The predicate for requiring an EIS is the significance of the potential environmental
impacts. Until and unless an agency studies the impacts and reports their study the public
cannot be satisfied that the agencies are seriously considering the environmental effects
of each alternative available to them. Orange County v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 46 N.C. App. 350, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Even if the decision to do an EIS instead of an EA was discretionary, it is clear
that an IBT of this size would trigger the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4. The
General Assembly itself has declared the importance of all issues involving the allocation and use of waters within the Roanoke River Basin, especially as they relate to Kerr Lake. “The State reserves and allocates to itself, as protector of the public interest, all rights in
the water located in those portions of Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston that are in the State.”
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.22B. Thus these water rights are state property and their
use and allocation are subject to protection by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, above and beyond the statutory minimum provisions set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L.
March 30, 2015
Page 5

II. This Environmental Document was Inadequate to Support a Finding of No
Significant Impact
To support a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), we expect to see
analysis of all the direct impacts of the proposal as well as the cumulative and secondary
impacts of the proposal itself. Major secondary impacts of this proposal were not
analyzed, creating undue segmentation of the analysis and major gaps. The North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act requires that agencies take a hard look before making a decision on a proposal. This environmental document does not provide such a hard
look. The following examples support our contention.

The Water Treatment Plant (“WTP”) expansion’s potential impacts on wildlife
were not discussed in section 5. Construction expanding the WTP’s capacity to 20 mgd depends on the approval of this IBT request. Lack of construction in this proposal is cited
as the reason behind the conclusion of no direct impacts on species, yet no details are
provided as to any ramifications of the WTP expansion-related construction (section 2.1).
Further, these expansions will also certainly spur growth and development and the
secondary impacts of this development are not assessed at all. No discussion of the impact of “smaller water line construction” or its impacts on species is provided in
section 5.

Analytical evidence and sufficient discussion are lacking throughout section 5 to
support the conclusions that there are no impacts on federally listed species (sections 5.12 and 5.13). The conclusions of no direct impacts or no significant secondary and
cumulative impacts are made without supporting information behind the claims. For
example, although 5.12.1 states that no significant changes will occur in lake elevation,
lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in the source basin, there is no data provided
as to which levels are considered significant for the involved species. Secondly, in section 5.12.2, minimal impacts to water quality and sensitive species aquatic habitat in
the Tar River basin aren’t further defined or explored. As a third example, section 5.13.1
fails to include any consideration of downstream effects on species in the source basin.
Analysis in sections 5.12 and 5.13 do not specifically address the endangered and
threatened species present including: Roanoke Logperch, Southern Bog Turtle, James Spinymussel, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River Spinymussel, Small Whorled Pogonia,
Small-anthered Bittercress, and Smooth Coneflower that are discussed in 4.12 and 4.13.
In addition, the statement that “water quantities needed to protect aquatic habitats would
remain available” in the Secondary and Cumulative Impacts section of 5.12.1 does not
meet the standard of a hard look. Further definition of these quantities and discussion of how their appropriate levels would be monitored and ensured is missing. Without the data
and analysis, this is a simply an unsupported conclusion. The Environmental
Assessment’s Section 5’s examination of the proposed IBT’s impacts on shellfish, fish,
wildlife, natural vegetation and their habitat lacks any real supporting detail to merit the
FONSI.
March 30, 2015
Page 6
In sum, our comment is that the environmental document provided is legally
insufficient to meet the requirements of SEPA and factually to support a FONSI. These
defects must be corrected for a thorough and accurate analysis of impacts. This is the
minimum that is required to achieve the statute’s objectives of informed public debate that results in an informed decision.

Very Truly Yours,
/s/

Ryke Longest

Environmental Law & Policy Clinic Ryke Longest, Director
Box 90360 Telephone: [phone]
Durham, NC 27708-0360 Toll Free: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

April 30, 2015

Kim Nimmer DENR-Division of Water Resources
Planning Branch
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
By fax [phone] and e-mail to: [e-mail]

RE: Comments of RRBA on Proposed KLRWS Interbasin Transfers

Dear Harold,
On behalf of the Roanoke River Basin Association, we submit the following
comments regarding the interbasin transfers proposed by Kerr Lake Regional Water
System (Kerr Lake IBT) and the underlying environmental assessment and responsive
document issued by Tom Fransen, “Finding of No Significant Impact.” RRBA has a long history of holding state and federal agencies accountable for thoroughly analyzing the
impacts of transfers of water from the Roanoke River Basin. Based upon review of the
materials presented as well as readily available peer-reviewed literature, the application
and supporting documents for the Kerr Lake IBT do not meet the standards set forth
under North Carolina law. We would also note that the materials presented do not even currently reflect the proposed plans as they still show a pipeline to Creedmoor.
Accordingly the Environmental Management Commission should reject the proposal and
send it back for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the impacts
of the project as required by law.
I. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Correctly Identified Defects in the Environmental Assessment Prepared to Support the IBT

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was invited to comment on the draft
environmental assessment (EA) developed for this proposal. Substantively, these comments focused on the need for increased analysis of secondary and cumulative
impacts in the EA, and recommended the development of an environmental impact
statement (EIS) in order to adequately address secondary and cumulative impacts. FWS
suggested that analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts should include discussion of
the NC Wildlife Resource Commission’s (WRC) guidance for mitigation of secondary and cumulative impacts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was invited to
April 29, 2015
Page 2
comment on the draft environmental assessment (EA) developed for this proposal. See
Letter from Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, Raleigh Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to Harold Brady, NCDENR Division of Water Resources (March 16,
2015) [hereinafter Letter]. Substantively, these comments focused on the need for increased analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts in the EA, and recommended the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) in order to adequately address
secondary and cumulative impacts. FWS suggested that analysis of secondary and
cumulative impacts should include discussion of the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission’s (WRC) guidance for mitigation of secondary and cumulative impacts. FWS interest in the Kerr Lake IBT stems from the fact that several state and
federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species are located in these
watersheds. In fact, three of these species occur only in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
drainages. The FWS is concerned that secondary and cumulative impacts of the IBT would adversely affect state and federally protected wildlife because the IBT would lead to increased development in the receiving basins, which would in turn lead to negative
impacts on water quality in the receiving basins. See Letter at 2. The FWS recommends
development of an EIS to analyze these secondary and cumulative impacts, and cites the
WRC guidance on secondary and cumulative impacts as an appropriate tool to direct this analysis. This guidance provides support for the FWS comments in turn. See North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Guidance Memorandum to Address and
Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality 2 (2002) [hereinafter WRC Guidance], available online at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conserving/documents/2002_GuidanceMemorandumforSecondaryandCumulativeImpacts.pdf (last accessed on April 28, 2015)
The FWS has identified several streams in the Upper Tar River basin and the
Fishing Creek subbasin as essential to the survival and recovery of the dwarf
wedgemussel, the Tar River spinymussel, and the harparella. The receiving basins also support numerous state listed species and federal at-risk species. FWS is extremely concerned about the secondary and cumulative impacts of the IBT on these species.
Secondary impacts are defined as probable impacts caused by and resulting from the
proposed activity that occur later in time or in another location. Cumulative impacts are
defined as impacts resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past, present, and probable future activities in the area. Increased water supply in the receiving basin allows for increased growth and development, which leads
to increases in stormwater, wastewater, impervious surfaces, erosion, and sedimentation,
among other secondary and cumulative impacts. See Letter at 3.

The draft EA recognizes the “potential for water quality and quantity impacts related to growth in the projected area, facilitated in part by the availability of an
adequate water supply.” Although the draft EA identifies existing regulations and
programs that may address these secondary and cumulative impacts, it does not
specifically discuss how these existing regulations and programs will address secondary
and cumulative impacts and in turn provide for the protection of listed and at-risk species. FWS contends that this analysis is “essential” in order for FWS to concur with the draft
April 29, 2015
Page 3
EA’s finding of no significant impact. FWS identifies the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources’ Guidance for Preparing SEPA Documents and
Addressing Secondary and Cumulative Impacts and the previously mentioned WRC
Guidance for Mitigation of Secondary and Cumulative Impacts as a framework for conducting this analysis. FWS recommends that the applicant consider developing an EIS in the event that this analysis goes beyond the scope of an EA. FWS then specifically
critiques the draft EA for not properly analyzing the effects of anticipated wastewater
increases and the construction of new wastewater treatment plants, and the potential for
increased nutrient discharge into a watershed that is identified as “nutrient sensitive.” WRC guidance for mitigation of secondary and cumulative impacts specifically
identifies water quality impacts as a result of increased development. Without proper
safeguards, increased development can lead to increased stormwater runoff, increased
sedimentation and pollution, riparian habitat loss, and in turn lead to decreased freshwater biodiversity. Federally endangered and threatened species, specifically freshwater mussels, are particularly susceptible to the negative secondary and cumulative impacts of
increased development. Mitigation of these secondary and cumulative impacts may be
accomplished by the maintenance of forested stream buffers, reduction of impervious
surfaces, establishment of erosion and sediment control plans, effective stormwater control and treatment, and the use of appropriate stormwater and wastewater infrastructure.

WRC guidance recommends maintenance of 100-foot native forested buffers
along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native forested buffers along each side of intermittent streams and wetlands. These buffers should be increased to 200 feet and 100 feet, respectively, for waters containing federally listed species. WRC recommends
that local governments limit impervious surfaces to less than 10% of the watershed, and
recommend that the local government provide for open space that maintains
predevelopment conditions. Where federally listed species may be affected, developments exceeding 6% impervious surfaces should obtain permits that require stormwater controls designed to replicate and maintain predevelopment water conditions.

Municipalities are encouraged to incorporate specific criteria, such as establishing
perimeter controls at development sites and stabilizing soils using grass and mulch cover, into their erosion and sediment control plans (and to develop these plans if they don’t exist). WCS recommends more stringent protections in areas where federally listed
species may be impacted, and recommends coordination with state and federal agencies
in both the development and implementation of these measures. Finally, WCS
recommends prevention of direct stormwater or wastewater discharge into streams and
installation of appropriate stormwater and wastewater infrastructure. This includes the use of force mains and appropriate siting and maintenance of these features. These
recommendations are the same for areas where federally listed species may be present.

FWS’s recommendation that an EIS may be necessary to analyze secondary and
cumulative impacts reinforces the argument that an EIS for the Kerr Lake IBT was required. Furthermore, the WRC guidance document identifies specific secondary and
April 29, 2015
Page 4
cumulative impacts that may result from increased development in the receiving basin
and how these impacts are best mitigated. This information is useful in terms of
identifying the specific information missing from the EA and providing a reference for
what appropriate analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts would include. RRBA agrees with the concerns expressed by FWS. The Kerr Lake IBT’s
supporting environmental document does not provide the information needed to allow
FWS to concur with NC DENR staff’s conclusion that there are no significant impacts.
The failure also shows that NC DENR has not considered the factors required by statute for an IBT decision.
II. This IBT Proposal Should have Triggered the Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement not an Environmental Assessment
In North Carolina, Inter-Basin Water Transfers (“IBT”), or large surface water transfers between river basins, are regulated by the Environmental Management
Commission (“EMC”) under law. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.22L. This law requires
that all proposed IBTs exceeding 2 million gallons per day (“mgd”), calculated as a daily
average of a calendar month and not to exceed 3,000,000 gallons per day in any one day, first require EMC certification and approval. Certification is additionally required for water transfer increases by 25% or more above the average daily amount during the
period between July 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, and for increases to transfers permitted
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §162A-7. This law requires an environmental impact
statement be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required. The Kerr Lake IBT meets both of these triggers.

Last legislative session, an amendment was enacted as part of the Regulatory
Reform Act of 2014, a “Christmas Tree Bill” loaded down with unrelated “ornaments” including section 37. The added language prescribes a different manner of notice for an IBT under the following conditions: “or (iii) to withdraw or transfer water stored in any
multipurpose reservoir constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
partially located in a state adjacent to North Carolina, provided the United States Army
Corps of Engineers approved the withdrawal or transfer on or before July 1, 2014.” See 2014 N.C. Sess. Law 120 at § 37 (emphasis added). The amended language in Section 37 does not apply to the Kerr Lake IBT, since the United States Army Corps of
Engineers never approved this transfer. While the proposal withdrawal is within the
storage allocation of KLRWS, transfer of water outside the basin on the North Carolina
side of Kerr Lake is governed by North Carolina law. No approval of the transfer by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers appears of record in this matter.
The first step in the certification process is the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to file an
IBT Petition. In February 2009, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (“applicant”)
submitted a NOI to Request an IBT Certificate to the EMC. The proposed project, as
revised in 2014, will transfer 14.2 mgd, calculated as the average day of a (maximum)
April 29, 2015
Page 5
calendar month, from the Roanoke River IBT basin to the Tar River (10.7 mgd), Fishing
Creek (1.7 mgd), and Neuse River (1.8 mgd) IBT basins. According to the applicant, this
transfer volume represents the projected 2045 demands of the existing customer base and
anticipated growth of the service area. The applicant has a current “grandfathered” IBT of 10 mgd, calculated as a maximum day, which is equivalent to 9.7 mgd, calculated as the average of a calendar month.

Then, the EMC shall conduct a study of the environmental impacts for the
proposed IBT. The law provides that “The study shall meet all of the requirements set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat.
113A-4 and rules adopted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-4. An
environmental assessment shall be prepared for any petition for a
certificate under this section. The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the
General Statutes; except that an environmental impact statement shall
be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required under this section.”
See N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L(d) (emphasis added).

According to law, every IBT from one major river basin to another requires an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). The source and the receiving river basins of the proposed project are within the seventeen “major river basin” of North Carolina. N.C.
GEN. STAT. §143-215.22G(1). For this reason, we maintain that an EIS should have
been prepared for this proposal, rather than an Environmental Assessment as the
document was captioned. Any EIS produced in compliance with this section must include:

“(1) A comprehensive analysis of the impacts that would occur in the
source river basin and the receiving river basin if the petition for a certificate is granted. (2) An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer,
including water supply sources that do not require an interbasin transfer
and use of water conservation measures.
(3) A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may
arise from the proposed interbasin transfer.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L(d)

Also, IBT certificate applicants are subject to the general EIS requirements of
SEPA (N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 113A 4), which is supplementary to the requirements of other
statutes. One of the enumerated purposes of SEPA is “to require agencies of the State to consider and report upon environmental aspects and consequences of their actions
April 29, 2015
Page 6
involving the expenditure of public moneys or use of public land.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A-2. SEPA’s provisions “provide a mechanism by which all affected State agencies
raise and consider environmental factors of proposed projects.” In re Environmental
Management Com. etc., 53 N.C. App. 135, 141 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) “The primary purpose of both the state and federal environmental statutes is to ensure that government agencies seriously consider the environmental effects of each of the reasonable and
realistic alternatives available to them.” Orange County v. North Carolina Dep't of
Transp., 46 N.C. App. 350, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
To effectuate SEPA’s stated policy, the General Assembly restricted state agency actions by imposing procedural requirements. SEPA’s procedural requirements were
supplemental to any other requirements set by law. The General Assembly recognized
that absent procedural requirements, agencies could not be held accountable by the
people, who hold the rights. The very caption of this section of SEPA explains its purpose: “Provisions Supplemental.” As the law provides:
“The policies, obligations and provisions of this Article are supplementary to
those set forth in existing authorizations of and statutory provisions applicable to
State agencies and local governments. In those instances where a State agency is required to prepare an environmental document or to comment on an environmental document under provisions of federal law, the environmental
document or comment shall meet the provisions of this Article.”
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -10.
SEPA has provisions specifying when an environmental document is not required. There is a list of actions which are exempted from coverage. Had the General Assembly
intended to allow the state agency to not prepare a document when a federal document
was being prepared, it would have added that to the list found in SEPA. See N.C. Gen.
Sta. § 113A-12 (List of exempted actions, like water lines, shellfish leases and driveway connections to public roads).
Thus any IBT related environmental document prepared for EMC review of an
IBT request must also address these standard issues:
“(a) The environmental impact of the proposed action; (b) Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(c) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact;
(d) Alternatives to the proposed action;
(e) The relationship between the short term uses of the environment
involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity;
(f) Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would
be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.”
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4

April 29, 2015
Page 7
For this reason, we contend that the submitted “Environmental Assessment” does
not satisfy the requirements of North Carolina’s law. We recognize that the Division and
the applicant appear to be operating under the assumption that a section contained in last
year’s regulatory grab bag bill supports their decision. See N.C. Sess. Law 2014-120, Section 37. This change in the law, does not exempt all IBTs from bi-state Army Corps of Engineer’s reservoirs from SEPA. Rather the section states that an EIS isn’t required
“unless it would otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A.”

While current proposed IBT is significantly smaller than the originally proposal, the “preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.” Sierra Club v.
United States Dep´t of Transport, 753 F.2d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Describing
extraordinary measures taken by Agency to reduce all impacts of noise from larger
aircraft using Jackson Hole Airport). The Applicant has not demonstrated that it has included extraordinary measures to reduce impacts to a minimum. Rather the applicant only supposes that since no new construction will be directly required by the IBT, there
will be no impacts from the IBT.

The reduced scope of the request is direct proof that applying complete SEPA review to IBT requests works as the drafters intended. By assembling better information on the actual water supply demand, the proposal now more accurately represents
projected demand. While many water supply infrastructure construction related impacts
have been avoided, the development growth fueled by the new water supply has not been
evaluated at all. SEPA’s reason for existence is to cause agencies to examine the environmental
impacts before they make a decision. Like the National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”), the SEPA statute is aimed to produce better decisions and to arm citizens with
procedural tools to hold agencies accountable for making those decisions transparently. The predicate for requiring an EIS is the significance of the potential environmental impacts. Until and unless an agency studies the impacts and reports their study the public
cannot be satisfied that the agencies are seriously considering the environmental effects
of each alternative available to them. Orange County v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp.,
46 N.C. App. 350, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). Even if the decision to do an EIS instead of an EA was discretionary, it is clear
that an IBT of this size would trigger the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4. The
General Assembly itself has declared the importance of all issues involving the allocation
and use of waters within the Roanoke River Basin, especially as they relate to Kerr Lake.
“The State reserves and allocates to itself, as protector of the public interest, all rights in the water located in those portions of Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston that are in the State.”
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.22B. Thus these water rights are state property and their
use and allocation are subject to protection by the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act, above and beyond the statutory minimum provisions set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat.
§143-215.22L.
April 29, 2015
Page 8
III. The Kerr Lake IBT Environmental Document was Inadequate to Support a Finding of No Significant Impact

To support a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), we expect to see analysis of all the direct impacts of the proposal as well as the cumulative and secondary impacts of the proposal itself. Major secondary impacts of this proposal were not
analyzed, creating undue segmentation of the analysis and major gaps. The North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act requires that agencies take a hard look before making
a decision on a proposal. The “hard look” doctrine indicates:
“What constitutes a “hard look” cannot be outlined with rule-like precision. At the least, however, it encompasses a thorough investigation into the environmental
impacts of an agency's action and a candid acknowledgment of the risks that those
impacts entail. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (agencies must
assure that “the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated”); Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Johnson, 165 F.3d 283, 288 (4th Cir.1999) (Hughes River II ) (same); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)
(agencies shall “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives”) (emphasis added)”.
Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Dep't of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 185 (4th Cir. 2005) According to this doctrine, this environmental document does not provide such a hard
look. The following examples support our contention.

The Water Treatment Plant (“WTP”) expansion’s potential impacts on wildlife were not discussed in section 5. Construction expanding the WTP’s capacity to 20 mgd depends on the approval of this IBT request. Lack of construction in this proposal is cited
as the reason behind the conclusion of no direct impacts on species, yet no details are
provided as to any ramifications of the WTP expansion-related construction (section 2.1).
Further, these expansions will also certainly spur growth and development and the secondary impacts of this development are not assessed at all. No discussion of the impact of “smaller water line construction” or its impacts on species is provided in
section 5.

Analytical evidence and sufficient discussion are lacking throughout section 5 to support the conclusions that there are no impacts on federally listed species (sections 5.12 and 5.13). The conclusions of no direct impacts or no significant secondary and
cumulative impacts are made without supporting information behind the claims. For
example, although 5.12.1 states that no significant changes will occur in lake elevation,
lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in the source basin, there is no data provided
as to which levels are considered significant for the involved species. Secondly, in section 5.12.2, minimal impacts to water quality and sensitive species aquatic habitat in
the Tar River basin aren’t further defined or explored. As a third example, section 5.13.1
fails to include any consideration of downstream effects on species in the source basin.
Analysis in sections 5.12 and 5.13 do not specifically address the endangered and
threatened species present including: Atlantic Sturgeon, Roanoke Logperch, Southern
April 29, 2015
Page 9
Bog Turtle, James Spinymussel, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River Spinymussel, Small
Whorled Pogonia, Small-anthered Bittercress, and Smooth Coneflower that are discussed
in 4.12 and 4.13.
In addition, the statement that “water quantities needed to protect aquatic habitats would remain available” in the Secondary and Cumulative Impacts section of 5.12.1 does
not meet the standard of a hard look. Further definition of these quantities and discussion
of how their appropriate levels would be monitored and ensured is missing. Without the
data and analysis, this is a simply an unsupported conclusion. The Environmental Assessment’s Section 5’s examination of the proposed IBT’s impacts on shellfish, fish, wildlife, natural vegetation and their habitat lacks any real supporting detail to merit the
FONSI.

In sum, our comment is that the environmental document provided is legally insufficient to meet the requirements of SEPA and factually to support a FONSI. These defects must be corrected for a thorough and accurate analysis of impacts. This is the
minimum that is required to achieve the statute’s objectives of informed public debate
that results in an informed decision. Accordingly, the Commission should reject the Kerr
Lake IBT proposal and not accept it again until the applicant completes an Environmental Impact Statement.

Very Truly Yours,
/s/
Ryke Longest

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box33726
Ralei gh, North Carolina 27 63 6 -37 26
16 March 2015
Mr. Harold Brady
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
Public Water Supply Section
1634 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
RE: Comments on Draft EA (dated January 2015) for IBT increase from Kerr Lake to Tar
River, Neuse River & Fishing Creek basins, Vance, Granville, Warren & Franklin
Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Brady:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received a request on 16 January 2015 by CH2M
Hill to provide comments on the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Interbasin
Transfer (IBT) increase from Kerr Lake to Tar River, Neuse River, and Fishing Creek basins.
The Service has identified the Upper Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems as significant
resources for the protection of federally listed endangered species as well as several other rare
and endemic species. Federal goals for the conservation of trust species depend explicitly on the
sustained integrity of the Upper Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) seeks to increase the existing IBT from John
H. Ken Reservoir (Kerr Lake) in the Roanoke River basin to the Tar River basin, Neuse River
basin, and Fishing Creek subbasin to provide sufficient water for future demand. The KLRWS is
owned by the City of Henderson, the City of Oxford, and Warren County, and additional water is
sold to Stovall, Warrenton, Norlina, Vance County, Kittrell, and Franklin County. Future sales
are proposed to South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWASA) for use by Creedmoor
and Wilton. The KLRWS expects water demand to increase beyond the 10 MGD
(grandfathered) allowed with the current IBT certificate during the next 30 to 45 years. The
projected demands for year 2045 represented in MMD (average day of a maximum month
demand) are l}.7mgd to the Tar River basin, I.7mgd to the Fishing Creek subbasin, and 1.8mgd
to the Neuse River basin. In total, the KLRWS is requesting an IBT certificate to transfer on an
MMD basis 14.2mgd out of the Roanoke River basin. The US Atmy Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has already allocated the storage equivalent of 20mgd average day demand within
Kert Lake to the KLRWS.
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16March2}l5
Page2
The Service has significant interest in the conservation of globally and nationally-significant
aquatic resources in the Tar fuver basin. Two of our office's overarching goals is to recover
populations of federally listed species (including the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon),Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum)) and conserve at-risk species such that their listing is unnecessary
(USFWS 2012). Several streams in the Upper Tar River basin and the Fishing Creek subbasin
have been identified as essential to the survival and recovery of the dwarf wedgemussel, the Tar
River spinymussel, and harperella (USFWS 1990,1992,1993). In addition, the NC Natural
Heritage Program G\ICNHP) characterizes the Upper Tar River and Fishing Creek as having
"Outstanding" significance for aquatic biodiversity; they are in the top 3Yo of the most highly
significant natural heritage sites in NC. In fact,the Upper Tar River is one of the best locations
in NC for the dwarf wedgemussel, Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and Chameleon
lampmussel (Lampsilis sp.); and the Fishing Creek subbasin is the global stronghold for the Tar
River spinymussel. These basins support 18 species identified as imperiled by NCNHP
O{CNHP 2015). Of these species, three (Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi), and the NC spiny crayfish (Orconectes carolinensls)) are endemic to
only the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico drainages and occur nowhere else on the planet. The Service is
especially interested in projects that may affect federal at-risk species (i.e., those species for
which the Service has been petitioned to list under ESA and for which the Service will be
making listing determinations in the next two years) including the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), yellow lance (Ellipito lanceolata), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Carolina
madtom, Neuse River waterdog, and Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis).
The KLRWS has assessed several alternatives to meet their water needs for the next 30 years.
The applicant's preferred alternative is to increase the IBT from the Roanoke River basin from
l0 to 20 MGD and continue to treat and discharse wastewater into the Tar River. Neuse River.
and Fishing Creek basins.
With increased water supply available to the upper Tar and Neuse River Basins, the Service is
extremely concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) related to this project,
especially because of the sensitive species and habitats in this area. Additional water supply
allows for increased growth and development, which in turn generates stormwater, increased
impervious surfaces, more wastewater, and other SCI which in tum impact aquatic species and
the habitats they live in. The EA states that there "is the potential for water quality and quantity
impacts related to growth in the project area, facllitated in part by the availability of an adequate
waters supply" (EA - p.1-5). Section 6.1 of the draft EA provides a brief description of existing
regulations and programs, but the "analysis does not attempt to measure the perfonnanco of these
regulations...to improve specific environmental conditions" (EA - p.6-1). While the accounting
of regulations and programs was overall thorough (with the exception of the omission of the
state's riparian buffer rules (which was said to be provided in Section 6.I.2, but was not), the
Service contends that in order to concur with a finding of no significant impact for the project,
specific linkages of the existing regulations and programs to the impacts to locations where
listed/petitioned species are present is essential. While the listing of regulations and programs
was informative, it is difficult to review the project and understand how to "connect the dots."
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16March2015
Page 3
We suggest that this information could be best presented by discussing how recommendations
contained in in the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (DENR's) Guidance
for Preparing SEPA Documents and Addressing Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/deao/sepa) and in the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's
Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic
and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (August 2002,
http://rnnry.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conservins/documents/2002 GuidanceMemorandumforsec
ondarlrandCurnulativelmpacts.pdO arclarc not accounted for in existing regulations/programs. If
this proposed level of analysis goes beyond the scope of an EA, then the Service recommends
the applicant to consider developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Because of the additional water supply, provisions must be made for wastewater treatment. It is
often a misconception that highly treated effluent is beneficial to the receiving system,
particularly regarding increased flows during droughts or periods of low flow. However, the
concentration of effluent constituents of concern is also increased during these low flow periods.
This is particularly important because emerging contaminants of concern including
pharmaceuticals and personal care products containing endocrine-disrupting compounds are not
treated in typical wastewater treatment systems. The sedentary nature of mussels and plants
means they are unable to move away from the discharge location(s) and would be continuously
exposed. Accordingly, effluent characteristics need to be protective of mussels at all times,
including the instantaneous minimum flow.
Details on potential wastewater treatment plant expansions or new discharges were not suffrcient
in the draft EA. The Service knows of three potential projects for which substantial detail and
analysis for SCI should be included - one is a current project, Franklin County's proposed new
discharge to the Tar R.iver; one is a possible future project given potential increase of supply to
Creedmoor, and includes SGWASA's proposed new discharge to the Tar River (different
location than the Franklin County project); and one includes the City of Raleigh as a future bulk
water purchase customer. Each of these projects could have significant environmental effects -
some potentially positive, and some negative. Provision of water through this increased IBT
request could make those projects viable, and therefore they need to be analyzed in the EA.
It is not clear why the NC Division of Water Resources OICDWR) would allow an IBT into a
Nutrient Sensitive Watershed (NSW). Both the Falls Reservoir watershed and the Tar River are
NSW's. The EA states, o'the nutrient reduction strategies and NPDES permits in place are
sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species and their habitats" (p. 5-39). Supplying
additional water through an increased IBT enables additional nutrients to be discharged, and
while nutrient offsets may be in place, they are not discussed adequately in the EA. The Service
would like to see detailed information about the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association and resulting
nutrient allocations as well as the Falls Lake strategy incorporated and discussed relative to
impacts in the EA.
The Service would like to encourage a discussion with the applicant about the reconsideration of
Alternative #5, minimizing IBT by discharging to the Roanoke River basin. While this
alternative was deemed to meet the project's purpose and need, it was eliminated because
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16 March 2015
Page 4
"significant infrastructure costs would be necessary and direct environmental impacts would
occnr with construction" (EA - p.3-8). Information provided under Alternative #2 rndrcates that
"the KLRWS is currently compensating the USACE annually for the lost hydropower" (EA - p.
3-2). The Service would like to see a comparison of the infrastructure costs to transport
wastewater back to the Roanoke basin versus the loss of hydropower income, which was
estimated to be $3,455,000 (2005 dollars). Once these costs are evaluated, as well as the costs
associated with future consultations for new discharges in the Tar River basin, Altemative #5
may seem more desirable, or a combination of altnernatives might also be more sensible.
As a minor point, the Service would like to inform the applicant that the information provided on
the Roanoke logperch on p. 4-35 is out of date. Please visit:
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode:E01G or
http://www.ncwildlife.ore/Learning/Species/Fish/Roanokelogperch.aspx for more current
information on the species.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft EA. In summary, the Upper
Tar River and Fishing Creek ecosystems are extremely significant aquatic resources, and thus
secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project to these areas must be carefully
evaluated. The protection of the Tar River basin and the rare species it contains is one of our
office's highest priorities. For these reasons, we believe it is extremely important to accurately
assess the costs and benefits of alternative #5 , fully value the quality of the natural environment
in the project area, and continue to involve the resource agencies and the public in the process.
The Service is willing to meet with the applicant and others to share information and explore
means of achieving a shared vision of sound water supply and wastewater disposal and for
conserving the aquatic resources of the Tar River basin for the continuing benefit of the
American people. If you have any questions regarding our comments on this project, please
contact Sarah McRae of this office at9l9-856-4520xI6 or [e-mail]. Thank you
for your cooperation in the effort to protect endangered and threatened species.
Field Supervisor
Lyn Hardison, NCDENR
Vann Stancil, NCWRC
Gabriela Garrison. NCWRC
Shari Bryant, NCWRC
Jaime Robinson. CH2M Hill
eC:
KLRWS IBT draft EA
16March2015
Page 5
References:
NC Natural Heritage Program. 2015. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Biotics
Database and Mapviewer. (http:llportal.ncdenr.org/weblnhpldatabase-search; accessed March
2015).
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) Recovery Plan. Newton
Corner, Massachusetts. 60pp.
-----1992. Tar [River] spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia. 40pp.
-----1993. Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts. 52pp.
-----2012. Five Year Strategic Plan (2012-2017). Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office. Raleigh, NC. 19pp.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY (August 2002)
Page 2
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Executive Summary Thousands of acres of land are developed each year in North Carolina, and this development consists of many individual and often unrelated projects. Without proper safeguards, the cumulative effects of land development can transform the landscape and negatively impact the environmental character and natural functions of the ecosystems. North Carolina projects a population increase of more than 3 million new individuals by the year 2020 (N. C. Progress Board 2001); therefore, it is imperative that coordinated measures be implemented to protect wildlife resources and their habitats. When development is conducted in an unplanned and amorphous or ambiguous pattern it can have more serious impacts on ecosystem function. Rapidly developing landscapes can result in stream degradation due to increases in stormwater runoff, sedimentation and other pollutants, and riparian habitat losses. Some of the greatest impacts of development, both land-based and near-water development, occur on water quality in our streams and rivers. Many of our native species of aquatic organisms have become highly imperiled as a result. The decline in freshwater species is a direct reflection of declining quality of our streams and rivers, and rare and sensitive species are particularly affected by secondary and cumulative impacts associated with urban development due to their sensitivity to slight habitat alterations. A more comprehensive approach to project review is necessary if we are to effectively protect the environmental resources of the State. This approach should scrutinize the cumulative and secondary impacts (CSI) associated with all projects subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements as closely as direct impacts. Cumulative effects are defined as effects resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past, present, and probable future activities in the area. Cumulative effects can occur from individually minor but collectively significant activities taking place over a period of time. Secondary effects are defined as probable effects caused by and resulting from the proposed activity although they are later in time or further removed in distance. Presently, cumulative and secondary impacts are often not fully addressed in an environmental review. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), has identified as part of the 2000 strategic plan the need to develop a policy for evaluating and mitigating the cumulative and secondary impacts. Identification of measures to mitigate for secondary and cumulative impacts was determined to be an important component of addressing impacts. This document was primarily authored by biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation. Significant contributions were provided by the CSI Working Group, which includes representatives from numerous state agencies concerned with the conservation of natural resources. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which supports these recommendations, also provided constructive review of the document. This document is intended to serve as a guidance memorandum for local governments to assist with addressing secondary and cumulative impacts associated with public projects. Implementation of these recommendations will assist in the mitigation of impacts to water quality, to fish and wildlife and their habitat generally, and in situations where federally threatened and endangered species exist. Alternatives to these measures will be examined on a case-by-case basis, provided that the same level of protection is afforded. The recommendations provided herein are intended to be applied to new developments or to existing developments for

Page 3
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

which significant modifications or expansions are proposed. Incorporation of the measures that are outlined throughout the document by local governments will alleviate the concerns of the natural resource agencies and will provide for a smoother and more timely review of environmental documents and permits. The recommendations presented in this document to avoid or mitigate these impacts are based on the best available science and were obtained by a synthesis of scientific information in journals, publications, reference books, and personal communication with professionals familiar with North Carolina aquatic species and other natural resources. However, the recommendations may be revised as more information becomes available about species’ habitat requirements and measures necessary to protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat and water quality. It is envisioned that through the active participation and initiative of local governments in partnership with State resource and regulatory agencies, the concerns regarding impacts of significance will be alleviated and the review of environmental documents and permits will be more efficient and effective. Recommendations include measures regarding: • Forested buffers • Stream and wetland resources • Infrastructure locations • Floodplains • Impervious surfaces and stormwater treatment • Erosion and sediment control
Page 4
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Preface This document is intended to serve as a guidance memorandum for local governments to assist with addressing secondary and cumulative impacts associated with public projects. Implementation of these recommendations will assist in the mitigation of impacts to water quality, to fish and wildlife and their habitat generally, and in situations where federally threatened and endangered species exist. Alternatives to these measures will be examined on a case-by-case basis, provided that the same level of protection is afforded. The recommendations provided herein are intended to be applied to new developments or to existing developments for which significant modifications or expansions are proposed. Incorporation of the measures that are outlined throughout the document by local governments will alleviate the concerns of the natural resource agencies and will provide for a smoother and more timely review of environmental documents and permits. Agencies, municipalities, landowners, and the public share a responsibility to protect and conserve fish and wildlife, which are public resources. Efforts to minimize secondary and cumulative impacts may not show immediate rewards, however such efforts are important to prevent future damage to riparian and stream systems and to rebuild degraded areas. These efforts will also help meet the anti-degradation standard established in Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0201, which provides for the maintenance, protection, and enhancement of existing uses. During the fall of 2001 and through 2002 the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) established and guided a Cumulative and Secondary Impact (CSI) Working Group. This group was made up of a variety of staff from Divisions within DENR. The CSI Working Group undertook the task of identifying, drafting, and developing a system and protocol for ensuring that cumulative and secondary impacts are adequately addressed during the review of documents required under the N. C. Environmental Policy Act. Identification of mitigation measures effective in reducing potential negative impacts associated with projects was a major component of this endeavor; therefore, a “mitigative measures” subgroup was formed. This document was developed as a result of that effort. This document was primarily authored by biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation, and significant contributions were provided by the mitigative measures subgroup. The document includes comments, ideas, and suggestions from the entire CSI Working Group, which includes representatives from the N. C. Division of Coastal Management, N. C. Division of Environmental Health, N. C. Division of Land Resources, N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries, N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation, N. C. Division of Water Quality, N. C. Division of Water Resources, N. C. Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the NCWRC. Constructive comments from many of these agencies improved the document. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which supports these recommendations, also provided constructive review of the document. The NCWRC and the Division of Parks and Recreation recognize that ongoing development and change to the natural landscape will continue and that continued economic development is critical to the citizens of the state. Furthermore, a healthy state is dependent upon a healthy economy and a healthy natural environment, both of which are integrated components. How and where change to the landscape occurs makes all the difference in the future of a sustainable economy and healthy natural environment. The assembled information consists of recommendations, that when implemented by a local government, will
Page 5
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

simultaneously work to maintain or improve water quality, protect aquatic habitat, permit economic expansion, and preserve the character of the land. Introduction Thousands of acres of land are developed each year in North Carolina, and this development consists of many individual and often unrelated projects. Without proper safeguards, the cumulative effects of land development can transform the landscape and negatively impact the environmental character and natural functions of the ecosystems. North Carolina projects a population increase of more than 3 million new individuals by the year 2020 (N. C. Progress Board 2001); therefore, it is imperative that coordinated measures be implemented to protect wildlife resources and their habitats. Most citizens want a clean environment and a healthy economy, therefore measures must be implemented statewide to allow economic growth without significant and irretrievable impacts to North Carolina’s environment. Some of the greatest impacts of development, both land-based and near-water development, occur on water quality in our streams and rivers. Many of our native species of aquatic organisms have become highly imperiled as a result. Approximately one-third of North American freshwater fish species (Williams et al. 1989) and 72% of freshwater mussel species (Williams et al. 1993) qualify for classification as “endangered”, “threatened”, or “special concern” at the federal level, and habitat loss is a primary culprit, particularly for mussels. In North Carolina, 21% of freshwater fishes and 53% of freshwater mussel species are designated endangered, threatened, or of special concern at the state level (LeGrand et al. 2001). The decline in freshwater species is a direct reflection of declining quality of our streams and rivers. Federally endangered and threatened species are particularly affected by secondary and cumulative impacts associated with urban development due to their sensitivity to slight habitat alterations. A high proportion of listed species occurs within areas of the state that are developing the most rapidly; some have lost major reaches of their habitats within the past few decades, others are in danger of being extirpated from entire river basins, and one species has been extirpated from the state, and thus is extinct (Carolina Elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta). When development is conducted in an unplanned and amorphous or ambiguous pattern it can have more serious impacts on ecosystem function. Rapidly developing landscapes can result in stream degradation due to increases in stormwater runoff, sedimentation and other pollutants, and riparian habitat losses. Measures that may mitigate these impacts include preservation of forested stream buffers of appropriate size, reduction of impervious surfaces, and effective stormwater treatment. The recommendations presented in this document to avoid or mitigate these impacts are based on the best available science and were obtained by a synthesis of scientific information in journals, publications, reference books, and personal communication with professionals familiar with North Carolina aquatic species and other natural resources. However, the recommendations may be revised as more information becomes available about species’ habitat requirements and measures necessary to protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat and water quality. General Mitigation Measures for All Watersheds (more extensive measures apply to watersheds that support federal endangered and threatened species) Although riparian zones constitute a small percentage of the landscape, they frequently perform important ecological functions and contain a disproportionately high number of wildlife
Page 6
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

species in comparison to most upland habitats (Fischer et al. 2000; Knutson and Naef 1997). As a matter of policy, the American Fisheries Society strongly urges that riparian areas be considered unique and distinctly valuable habitats, and that such areas be declared of critical environmental concern (AFS 1985). Riparian areas perform many functions that are essential to maintaining water quality, aquatic species survival, and biological productivity. With regards to the measures required to protect streams from pollutants, the further the intervention occurs from the source, the greater the costs to society (Reeves et al. 1991); resulting in a gradient from prevention to interdiction to restoration (Waters 1995). Watershed protection has been the most successful method of habitat rehabilitation (Reeves et al. 1991); however, given the difficulty of totally preventing or eliminating pollutants (e.g. sediment) at the source, interdiction such as the use of riparian buffers is an important tool in reducing damage to streams (Waters 1995). The functions of riparian zones are well documented and convey sometimes subtle but critical benefits to society. These functions are listed below. Forested riparian area functions • Reduce pollutants and filter runoff • Improve air quality and lower ozone levels • Maintain stable water flows • Help sustain natural channel morphology • Help maintain water and air temperature by providing shade • Stabilize stream banks • Provide most of the organic carbon and nutrients to support the aquatic food web • Provide sources of large woody debris for the stream channel • Help reduce the severity of floods • Facilitate the exchange of groundwater and surface water • Provide critical wildlife habitat Numerous studies have evaluated buffer widths needed for stream protection. Often these have focused on a single parameter, which has resulted in a large variation in recommended buffer widths (Appendix A). For a buffer to effectively perform for all riparian processes, wider contiguous buffers (100–300 feet) are recommended (Knutson and Naef 1997; May and Horner 2000; Martin et al. 2000; Palik et al. 2000; Richards and Hollingsworth 2000; Stewart et al. 2000). Effective buffer sizes depend upon specific site conditions, such as slope and soil type. Although variable widths may be more applicable in some circumstances, they are often more difficult to understand, implement, and enforce. Therefore, we offer generalized recommendations of minimum buffer widths for predictable application across the North Carolina landscape. Because specific conditions differ, some deviations from the general recommendation may be acceptable, however deviations should be kept to a minimum. Discussions regarding buffers or riparian corridors refer to forested buffers where the dominant vegetation consists of native trees and shrubs. Streams with wide, forested riparian corridors in developed areas are essential for the protection of water quality and aquatic habitats. Natural riparian corridors are diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats (Naiman et al. 1993), and riparian ecosystems have the greatest vulnerability to alteration (Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein). The maintenance of riparian habitat may yield the greatest gains for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife across the landscape while involving the least amount of area. Numerous significant and negative consequences can result when headwater streams are lost (Meyer and Wallace 2001), and the effects of degradation accumulate; therefore, the condition of the stream in the lower reaches is closely dependent on the condition in the
Page 7
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

headwaters (Vannote et al. 1980). In addition, headwater streams can significantly reduce nutrient export to rivers (Alexander et al. 2000; Peterson et al. 2001).
1. We recommend the maintenance or establishment of a minimum 100-foot native forested buffer along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native forested buffer along each side of intermittent streams and wetlands throughout the present and future service areas or the entire municipal jurisdiction (EPA 2000; Stewart et al. 2000). We additionally encourage the implementation of buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important functions that they provide as headwater streams (Alexander et al. 2000; Peterson et al. 2001). Buffers should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream bank (Knutson and Naef 1997), which may result in wider buffers on higher gradients, and must be provided over the entire length of stream, including headwater streams. Further, we recommend leaving 30% of the development area as greenspace, which would include buffers and wetlands and ensure that the greenspace is connected to natural resources.
Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have greater and more flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity (Horner et al. 1999) and could ameliorate many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality (Naiman et al. 1993). As expansion of developed areas continues into the watershed, wildlife habitat can change, become fragmented, and even disappear. Riparian buffers provide travel corridors and habitat areas for wildlife displaced by development. In addition, riparian buffers serve to protect water quality by stabilizing stream banks, filtering capacity of stormwater runoff, and provide habitat for aquatic and fisheries resources.
2. We recommend that delineation of streams be conducted for the municipal service area according to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) or N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) methodology. This information can be found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlans/strmfrm.html (accessed May 2002). U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps underestimate the extent of streams. Recent research has shown that USGS maps can underestimate total stream length in the Piedmont of North Carolina by 25 % (Gregory et al. in press).
3. We recommend that sewer lines, water lines, and other utility infrastructure be kept out of riparian buffer areas (Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein). All utility crossings should be kept to a minimum, which includes careful routing design and the combination of utility crossings into the same right-of-way (provided there is not a safety issue). Discontiguous buffer segments can impair riparian functions disproportionate to the relative occurrence of the breaks in the buffer (May and Horner 2000; Van Sickle 2000), and multiple crossings can result in cumulative impacts. The directional bore (installation of utilities beneath the riverbed, avoiding impacts to the stream and buffer) stream crossing method should be used for utility crossings wherever practicable, and the open cut stream crossing method should only be used when water level is low and stream flow is minimal. Manholes or similar access structures should not be allowed within buffer areas. Stream crossings should be near perpendicular (75o to 105o) to stream flow and should be monitored at least every three months for maintenance needs during the first 24 months of the project and then annually thereafter. Sewer lines associated with crossing areas should be maintained and operated at all times to prevent the discharge to land or surface waters. We recommend a minimum 50–100 feet setback on all streams, lakes, and wetlands for these structures, which falls in line with the recommended buffer widths. In circumstances where minimum setbacks cannot be attained, sewer lines shall be constructed of ductile iron or other substance of equal durability. Further, pesticides
Page 8
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

(including insecticides and herbicides) should not be used for maintenance of rights-of-way within 100 feet of perennial streams and 50 feet of intermittent streams, or within floodplains and wetlands associated with these streams.
4. Avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of construction corridors. Re-seed disturbed areas with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Avoid fescue based mixtures because fescue is invasive and provides little benefit to wildlife. Native, annual small grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended (See http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/wetplant/wetland_plants.htm, and http://www.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/coeng/Storm/services/vegetation/vegetation.htm). Where feasible, use woody debris and logs from corridor clearing to establish brush piles and downed logs adjacent to the cleared right-of-way to improve habitat for wildlife. Allowing the corridor area to revegetate into a brush/scrub habitat would maximize benefits to wildlife. For areas adjacent to residential areas, a native shrub/grass option may also be beneficial. Minimize corridor maintenance and prohibit mowing between April 1 and October 1 to minimize impacts to nesting wildlife. We suggest a maintenance schedule that incorporates only a portion of the area —one third of the area, for example—each year instead of the entire project every 3 or 4 years. Herbicides and pesticides should never be used in wetland areas or near streams, as described above in item 3.
5. We recommend that the local governments prohibit commercial or residential development within the 100-year floodplain. Undeveloped floodplains strongly influence aquatic systems, support a combination of riparian and upland vegetation used by aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, supply a rich source of food to aquatic communities (Junk et al. 1989), and provide an important sediment trapping function (Palik et al. 2000). The filling of floodplains increases the potential for flooding of adjacent properties and interferes with the natural hydrologic process of the waterways. It also disrupts the continuity of migration corridors for wildlife. Instead, we recommend that developers set aside a portion of the land to be developed as green space and concentrate these areas along the streams and rivers (see Item 1 above). In addition we encourage “infill” (new development in unused or underutilized land in existing urban areas) development in urbanized portions of the jurisdiction and recommend the site practices for infill and brownfield development issued by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov; accessed May 2002) and the Center for Watershed Protection (http://www.cwp.org/; accessed May 2002). Floodplain maps may need to be updated to reflect development of the watershed. Floodplain remapping studies in Charlotte showed that buildout conditions would result in a floodplain width change from an average of 429 feet to 611 feet (http://www.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/coeng/storm/floodinfo/floodmaps.htm; accessed May 2002)
6. We recommend that the local government limit impervious surfaces to less than 10% of the watershed (Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al. 2000; Mallin et al. 2000; May and Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001). The construction of roadways and other impervious surfaces in new neighborhoods can produce short-term direct impacts as well as long-term cumulative effects. Multiple studies have shown that stream degradation occurs at approximately 10% coverage by impervious surfaces (Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al. 2000; Mallin et al. 2000; May and Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001). Likewise, the Wake County Watershed Management Plan Task Force performed a correlation
Page 9
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

analysis of impervious surfaces to watershed classification based on water quality data, and they found that watersheds of unimpaired streams averaged 8% imperviousness, impacted streams averaged 11%, and degraded streams averaged 24% (http://projects.ch2m.com/WakeCounty/; accessed May 2002).
We also recommend that the local government provide for sufficient open space to effectively reduce impervious surface so that predevelopment hydrographic conditions are maintained, limit curb and gutter in new developments, and prevent direct discharges of stormwater into streams. To achieve no net change in the hydrology of the watershed, we recommend installation of grassed swales in place of curb and gutter and on-site stormwater management (i.e. bioretention areas or other attenuation measures). These designs often cost less to install (Kwon 2000) and significantly reduce environmental impacts from residential development. Information regarding financing stormwater management can be found at http://stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu/ (accessed May 2002).
Many of these recommendations have been applied in Maryland to protect the Chesapeake Bay from water quality degradation (MDE 2000). Suggested examples to accomplish the <10% impervious goal are using conventional designs at a level of <10% imperviousness or using conservation clusters with higher densities, with dedicated open space and other stormwater control measures to mimic the hydrograph consistent with an impervious coverage of less than 10%. Reduction of road widths is one method to reduce overall impervious surface coverage. The N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has issued road guidelines that allow for the reduction in street widths when compared to standard secondary road guidelines. This material can be found at http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/operations/tnd.pdf (accessed May 2002). In addition, there are site planning practices that, when incorporated with the above mentioned road building guideline, can further reduce the amount of impervious surface within a site (see recommendations in the document Better Site Design (Center for Watershed Protection; http://www.cwp.org/; accessed May 2002).
7. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate the need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be designed to allow passage of aquatic organisms. Generally, this means that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least one foot below the natural streambed. If multiple cells are required, the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankfull stage. This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate movements of aquatic organisms. If culverts are long and sufficient slope exists, baffle systems are recommended to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other aquatic organisms. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage. In addition, culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future maintenance. Finally, riprap should not be placed on the streambed.
8. We recommend that municipalities incorporate the elements listed below into their erosion and sediment control plans (see Brown and Caraco 2000 for additional information). Sediment is considered the most important cause of water pollution in the
Page 10
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

United States (Waters 1995), and construction is considered the most damaging phase of the development cycle to aquatic resources (Brown and Caraco 2000).
a) Minimize clearing and grading and only perform these operations in the context of an overall stream protection strategy. b) Protect waterways by preventing clearing adjacent to waterways, and stabilize drainage ways. c) Phase construction for larger construction sites (>25 acres) to reduce the time and area that disturbed soils are exposed. d) Stabilize soils as rapidly as possible (<2 weeks) by establishing a grass or mulch cover. e) Protect steep slopes, and avoid clearing or grading existing steep slopes as much as possible. f) Establish appropriate perimeter controls at the edge of construction sites to retain or filter concentrated runoff from relatively short distances before it leaves the site. g) Employ advanced settling devices that contain design features which include greater wet or dry storage volume, perforated risers, better internal geometry, use of baffles, skimmers and other outlet devices, gentler side-slopes, and multiple cell construction. h) Implement a certified contractors program so that trained and experienced contractors are on-site. i) Sedimentation impacts should be minimized by regular inspection of erosion control measures, and sediment control devices should be maintained in good and effective condition at all times. Erosion and sediment controls should be reassessed after storms. The incorrect installation of erosion control structures and those not properly maintained can result in sedimentation impacts to nearby streams and wetlands. Specific Mitigation Measures for Waters Containing Federally Listed Species Federally endangered and threatened species are particularly affected by secondary and cumulative impacts associated with urban development due to their sensitivity to habitat degradation and resulting high probability of extirpation. A high proportion of listed species occurs within portions of the state that are developing the most rapidly; some have lost major reaches of their habitats within the past few decades, others are in danger of being extirpated from entire river basins, and one species has been extirpated from the state, and thus is extinct (Carolina Elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta). It is not just single species that are in danger of being lost in some systems, but entire faunas and communities. For those watersheds that support federally endangered and threatened species, the following additional conditions shall be followed. These measures provide a higher degree of protection and also serve to protect the state-listed species and the general biotic integrity of these systems. The natural resource agencies’ concerns regarding indirect effects to threatened and endangered species will be alleviated by adoption of these measures. The attached map (Appendix B) shows the location of NCDWQ designated 14 digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) drainage basins that support federally endangered and threatened species, and provide an indication of where the more extensive measures will apply. This map may be updated, as more information becomes available. Stormwater
Page 11
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

1. Permits for new developments exceeding 6% imperviousness shall be required to include stormwater controls designed to replicate and maintain the hydrographic condition at the site prior to the change in landscape and at a minimum include provisions that satisfy WS II-HQW minimum standards (WSII-HQW waters as precedent; Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al. 2000; Mallin et al. 2000; May and Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000). This can be achieved through a variety of measures (see Item 6 above).
2. Insufficient information exists in the literature for the minimum buffer widths necessary to ensure the continued survival of federally endangered and threatened aquatic species. Therefore, the following minimum buffer recommendations are based on the best scientific information available and the opinion of biologists most familiar with the species in the state. The minimum recommended buffer widths may actually need to be more or less stringent; and therefore, recommended widths may be modified as more information becomes available. A 200-foot native, forested buffer on perennial streams and a 100-foot forested buffer on intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, shall be required for new developments. Detailed studies have resulted in recommendations of 200-foot buffers and wider for protection of priority habitats in the U. S. (Knutson and Naef 1997, and references therein; Martin et al. 2000; Richards and Hollingsworth 2000). If wooded buffers do not exist, then these areas shall be revegetated or allowed to naturally revegetate (so long as the area is pervious) to increase the functionality of a forested buffer. (Knutson and Naef 1997, and references therein; 200-foot buffers on Randleman Lake; 200-foot buffers associated with protection of aquatic endangered species habitats required for Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion Project in 1995 – City of Wilson).
3. Grassed swales shall be used in place of curb and gutter for new developments, except in areas with >5% slope. Check dams, level spreaders, and other associated best management practices shall be used to minimize the effect of stormwater runoff entering the riparian buffer areas. In areas where slopes exceed 5%, stormwater collected in piped conveyance systems shall be directed away from surface waters and best management practices shall be employed at both the intake and the outlet areas. Curbs and gutters may be used in combination with sidewalks in areas where clustering of uses increases the net local density to a level greater than 4 dwelling units per acre. This will separate the pedestrian portion of a street-scape from the automobile portion and will encourage greater pedestrian mobility within the cluster development (see recommendations in Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide at http://www.walkinginfo.org/insight/features_articles/userguide.htm; accessed May 2002). Clustering development away from riparian areas will also allow for greater stream protection.
4. We recommend that that direct discharges of stormwater to streams not be allowed. Effective energy dissipation at the pipe outlet shall be accomplished to prevent scour of the stream channel and buffer. Stream habitats are maintained most effectively when stormwater runoff is dispersed through a vegetated or grassed buffer zone prior to entering the riparian buffer. The ditching or piping of stormwater except when used in combination with grassed swales, level spreaders and check dams shall not be allowed in the riparian buffer. At no time should any mandated vegetated buffer zone be used for these engineered devices. In addition, the use of trees—particularly evergreen species—can be an effective component of an integrated stormwater management plan and can reduce the amount of surface water runoff by as much as 7% on a site due to interception, transpiration, and other processes (see http://www.sustainable-
Page 12
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

communities.agsci.ubc.ca/bulletins/TB_issueforest.pdf, and http://wcufre.ucdavis.edu/urban.htm; accessed May 2002).
5. Emergency management procedures shall provide for the containment of runoff from fighting residential, commercial, or industrial fires and for the removal and clean up of any hazardous spills that may endanger nearby streams, instead of flushing contaminants into waterways.
Wastewater Infrastructure
1. Force mains shall be used to the greatest extent practicable. Gravity sewer lines shall be installed to follow along the outside of the100-year floodplain contour unless topographic features, existing development, or other conditions restrict this technique.
2. Public and private sewer lines adjacent to streams shall parallel streams and be sited as far as practicable from stream and tributary corridors (Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein). A minimum 200-foot buffer shall be provided for perennial streams and a 100-foot buffer for intermittent streams to maintain the integrity of the buffer or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain. Sewer lines close to streams shall be constructed of ductile iron or other substance of equal durability, similar to the guidance under the general mitigation measures item number 3.
3. No new sewer lines or structures shall be installed or constructed in the 100-year floodplain or within 50 feet of wetlands associated with a 100-year floodplain (Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein).
4. Septic tanks, lift stations, wastewater treatment plants, sand filters, and other pretreatment systems shall not be located in areas subject to frequent flooding (areas inundated at a 10-year or less frequency) unless designed and installed to be watertight and to remain operable during a 10-year storm. Mechanical or electrical components of treatment systems shall be above the 100-year flood level or otherwise protected against a 100-year flood (As per rule 15A NCAC 18A .1950 – Location of Sanitary Sewage Systems).
5. Only aerial crossings elevated sufficiently to reduce the risk of flood damage or directional boring stream crossings shall be allowed. The placement of these crossings will be limited to major stream or creek confluences. Manholes or similar access structures shall not be allowed within buffer areas. Stream crossing areas shall be monitored once a quarter for maintenance needs.
Water and Utility Infrastructure (Electricity, Telecommunications, and Gas) 1. All water lines and utilities shall follow roads or meet the requirements associated with sewer line placements (Killebrew 1993; Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein). Stream crossing guidance is presented under the general mitigation measures item number 3.
Page 13
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Maintenance of Rights-of-Ways
1. Insecticides and herbicides shall not be used within 200 feet of streams, floodplains, and associated wetlands (Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein) except when needed to protect native flora and fauna from exotics and when using appropriately labeled products, such as biopesticides (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/; accessed May 2002).
2. Native, forested plant communities shall be maintained within 200-foot buffer area of streams, floodplains, and associated wetlands. A closed canopy will be maintained over streams. Emphasis will be placed upon trimming trees, instead of tree removal, within 200 feet of streams, floodplains, and associated wetlands (Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein).
Sediment and Erosion Control
1. In addition to the items listed under the general mitigation measures, locally enforced stringent erosion and sedimentation control requirements shall be developed and implemented for all construction. The development of these requirements shall be fully coordinated with the state and federal agencies involved in aquatic endangered species protection. These measures shall be state-of-the-science and significantly exceed state minimum requirements for sediment and erosion control. Local ordinances shall be developed to prevent “forestry exemptions” from turning into development opportunity without meeting the conditions identified in this memorandum.
2. Fill or buildings shall not be allowed in the 100-year floodplain (as described in previous sections).
Additional Recommendations for Federally Listed Species
1. The local government shall solicit assistance and concurrence from resource agencies such as NCDWQ, N. C. Division of Land Resources, NCWRC, N. C. Natural Heritage Program, and USFWS during the initial development and assessment of best management practices for stormwater management, sediment and erosion control, utility placement, etc.
2. Maps shall be developed of the anticipated construction lines of utilities associated with expanded service areas. This information shall become part of a Geographic Information System (GIS) database housed and maintained by the local government. Surveys or reviews will use maps and field determinations, when necessary, in conjunction with USACOE and NCDWQ delineation criteria for wetlands and waters. As infrastructure or development is planned or developed, field surveys should be conducted to assess impacts and means to avoid impacts. Field surveys (delineation) or intensive map reviews (including soil surveys, National Wetland Inventories (NWI) maps, USGS maps, watershed protection maps of all wetlands and waters) shall be completed and mapped with GIS technology. All GIS databases and associated files shall be provided to state and federal agencies upon request.
Page 14
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

3. Local governments shall encourage and offer incentives for new developments, as part of the subdivision review process, to use low impact development technique for stormwater control (Low Impact Development; EPA Document # 841– B-00-002 and 841-B-00-003), and reduce impediments to implementing the plan. Proposed projects that are subject to NCEPA review shall identify as a part of the subdivision review process anticipated impervious surface amounts prior to plat approval.
4. Developers and builders, including land-clearing operators, shall be required to participate in a local government stormwater and sediment erosion control education program. Certification and bonding is recommended.
5. Infiltration practices (e.g., reduced road widths, rain gardens, parking lot bioretention areas, increased sheet flow instead of ditching, and disconnect impervious areas) to maintain predevelopment hydrographic conditions shall be emphasized over detention ponds. Condition information should include the base flow for low flow conditions.
6. Conservation Reserve Program lands and restoration of prior converted wetlands shall be encouraged to help manage overall stormwater impacts as part of a regional integrated stormwater management plan.
7. Site gas stations, car washes, and other “spill” land uses at least 200 feet from streams and wetlands.
8. The local government shall provide an environmental check-off list that a developer must complete before the issuance of development approvals to ensure protection of aquatic habitats for threatened and endangered species and that proper state and federal permits have been obtained. This shall preclude the issuance of any subdivision plan, building, and utility permits without inclusion of pertinent protective measures. This process shall ensure that land clearing does not occur without a site plan, including erosion control.
9. A watershed impact evaluation board shall be established to review projects within the service area with aquatic, endangered species. The board would ensure compliance, preview infrastructure and development plans, and be eligible to seek funding for conservation initiatives designed to protect and preserve aquatic, endangered species.
10. We encourage local governments to consider retrofit options, including abandonment of chronic problem areas especially where projects exist in floodplains and are on failing septic systems. These areas should not be candidates for sewer service. Local governments should explore all buyout opportunities of these areas prior to exploration of providing sewer services to these areas. In addition, this should apply to schools and other public institutions. These public facilities should be relocated to more suitable areas. Local governments are encouraged to strengthen local land development codes to ensure that privates lands donated to the public for usage of schools and other public facilities (i.e. fire, police, or medical facilities) are located outside of the 100-year floodplain so as to avoid future problems.
11. We recommend the use of conservation easements, public ownership, or deed restrictions to ensure the perpetual conservation of natural buffer areas.

Page 15
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Literature cited AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1985. AFS policy statement #14: Strategies for stream riparian area management. AFS, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: http://www.fisheries.org/Public_Affairs/Policy_Statements/Index_policy_statements.shtml. (May 2002). Alexander, R. B., R. A. Smith, and G. E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–761. Arnold, C. L., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage—the emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243–258. Brown, W., and D. Caraco. 2000. Muddy water in – muddy water out? Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):393–403. City of Wilson. 1995. EIS for the Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion. Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise-Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, and R. E. Smith. 2000. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the piedmont of North Carolina. Pages 299–304 in P.J. Wigington, Jr. and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Model ordinances to protect local resources. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D. C. Available: http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/NPS/ordinance/index.htm. (May 2002). Fischer, R. A., C. O. Martin, and J. C. Fischenich. 2000. Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors for water quality and wildlife. Pages 457–462 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. Gregory, J. D., E. Fleck, S. D. Smith, D. Penrose, J. Lawson, and R. Darling. In press. Defining, identifying, and mapping headwater streams in North Carolina. Water Resources Research Institute, University of North Carolina, Raleigh. Horner, R. R., C. W. May, E. H. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious cover, aquatic community health, and stormwater BMPs: is there a relationship? Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, Tampa, Florida. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Pages 110–127 in D. P. Dodge, ed. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106, Ottawa. Killebrew, C. J. 1993. Oil and gas activities. Pages 209–220 in C. F. Bryan and D. A. Rutherford, eds. Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines for evaluation. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Page 16
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Kwon, H. 2000. An introduction to better site design. Watershed Protection Techniques 3(2)623–632. LeGrand, J. E., Jr., S. P. Hall, and J. T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. Mallin, M. A., K. E. Williams, E. C. Esham, and R. P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10:1047–1056. Martin, C. O., R. A. Fischer, and H. H. Allen. 2000. Riparian issues on Corps of Engineers and DOD Military Lands. Pages 317–322 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. May, C. W., and R. R. Horner. 2000. The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-riparian ecosystems. Pages 281–286 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2000. 2000 Maryland stormwater design manual, volumes I and II. Center for Watershed Protection and MDE, Water Management Administration, Baltimore, Maryland. Available: http://www.mde.state.md.us/environment/wma/stormwatermanual/. (May 2002). Meyer, J. L., and J. B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. Pages 295–317 in M. C. Press, N. J. Huntly, and S. Levin, eds. Ecology: achievement and challenge. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U. K. Naiman, R. J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications. 3:209–212. North Carolina Progress Board. 2001. North Carolina 20/20 Report. Available: http://www.ncpb.state.nc.us/scoreboard.htm. (May 2002). Palik, B. J., J. C. Zasada, and C. W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture. Pages 233–254 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365. Peterson, B. J., W. M. Wollheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, E. Marti, W. B. Bowden, H. M. Valett, A. E. Hershey, W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D. D. Morrall. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86-90.
Page 17
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Reeves, G. H., J. D. Hall, T. D. Roelofs, T. L. Hickman, and C. O. Baker. 1991. Rehabilitating and modifying stream habitats. Pages 519–557 in W. R. Meehan, ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. Richards, C., and B. Hollingsworth. 2000. Managing riparian areas for fish. Pages 157–168 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3):100–111. Stewart, J. S., D. M. Downes, L.Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209–214 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshell, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130–137. Van Sickle, J. 2000. Modeling variable-width riparian buffers, with an application to woody debris recruitment. Pages 107–112 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6–22. Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navaro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2–20.
Page 18
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Appendices Appendix A. Minimum riparian habitat buffer widths needed to retain various riparian habitat functions as reported in the literature. Riparian habitat function Perpendicular distance from stream in meters (feet in parentheses)
Source
Filter Nutrients (General) 36(118) Young et al. 1980 (MN)
18(59) retention of only
20–50% of surface
ammonium and 50% of
nitrite and nitrate
Daniels and Gilliam 1996 (NC)
9(29) grass Dillaha et al. 1989 in Osborne and Kovacic
1993
30(98) Doyle, et al. 1977 in Osborne and Kovacic
1993
31(102) 94% reduction in
ground water nitrate
Hanson et al. 1994
30(100) 78% reduction in
groundwater nitrate
Hubbard 1997 (GA)
16(52) Jacobs and Gilliam 1985 (NC)
10(32) James, et al. (in press) in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993
55(180) Jordan et al. 1993 (MD)
25(82) Lowrance, et al. 1984
10–40(33–131) Lowrance 1992 (GA)
16(52) or 39(127) grass Osborne and Kovacic 1993 (IL)
19(62) ~70–80% reduction Peterjohn and Correll 1984 (MD)
50(164) 80–90% reduction Peterjohn and Correll 1984 (MD)
30(98) Pinay and Decamps 1988 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993
27(88) grass Schnabel 1986 in Osborne and Kovacic
1993
30(98) Spruill 2000 (NC)
17–20(56–66) or 31(100) to produce lowest simulated outputs
Williams et al. 2000 (GA)
21(70) reduced surface N
by 67% and ammonium by
71% [recommended 40m
(118)]
Young et al. 1980 (MN)
Filter Nitrogen
27(88) grass Young, et al. 1980 in Osborne and Kovacic 1993

Page 19
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Riparian habitat function Perpendicular distance from stream in meters (feet in parentheses)
Source
10(32)–20(65) Aubertin and Patric 1974 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993 (WV)
Nearly 50% of 137Cs
labeled sediment moved
over 100m(328) in riparian
area
Cooper et al 1987 (NC)
16(52) Cooper and Gilliam 1987 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993
6–18(20–59) Daniels and Gilliam 1996 (NC)
9(30) (grass filter) Dillaha et al. 1989 (VA); Dillaha et al. 1988 (VA); Magette et al. 1989 (MD)
9(29) Haupt and Kidd 1965 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993 (ID)
55(180) Jordan et al. 1993 (MD)
Most sediment deposited
within 1st 30(98) of buffer
but extends 80(262) in
riparian buffers
Lowrance et al. 1988 (GA)
30(98) removed 75-80%
from storm water in logged
areas
Lynch et al. 1985
28(92) for 81% efficiency Mander et al. 1997 (Estonia)
16(52) or 39(127)grass Osborne and Kovacic 1993 (IL)
19(62) trapped 90% of
sediment
Peterjohn and Correll 1984 (MD)
50(164) trapped 94% of
sediment
Peterjohn and Correll 1984 (MD)
50(164) for 84% total and
73% soluble P removal
efficiency
Peterjohn and Correll 1984 (MD)
15(49)–45(147) Trimble and Sartz 1957 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993 (NH)
30(100) recommended for
trapping sediment
Wenger 1999
17–20(56–66) or 28(92) to
produce lowest simulated
outputs
Williams et al. 2000 (GA)
21(69) for 67% total and
69% soluble P removal
efficiency
Young et al. 1980 (MN)
Filter Sediment/Phosphorus
27(90) removed 93%
sediment from feedlot;
23(75) removed only 33%
from dairy farm runoff
Young et al. 1980 (MN); Horner and Mar
1982 in Castelle et al. 1994
Page 20
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Riparian habitat function Perpendicular distance from stream in meters (feet in parentheses)
Source
9(30) (fecal coliform/grass
filter)
Coyne et al. 1998 (KY) Filter Contaminants
15–80 (49–262) adequate
for nonpoint source
pollution
Phillips 1989 (NC)
55(180) Jordan et al. 1993 (MD) Erosion Control
30(100) Raleigh et al. 1986 in Knutson and Naef
20x bankful width each
side (E channel type
streams >10 ft wide at
bankfull and <5% slope)
Llhardt, et al. 2000 (Eastern U.S.)
10x bankfull width each
side (other channel type
streams >10 ft wide at
bankfull and <5% slope)
Llhardt, et al. 2000 (Eastern U.S.)
Entire floodplain +
>30(100) (For identifiable
floodplain and terrace
slopes)
Llhardt, et al. 2000 (Eastern U.S.)
Stream Type Maintenance (Rosgen 1996)
>61(200) (>5% slope) Llhardt, et al. 2000 (Eastern U.S.)
>30(100) Fetherston, et al. 1995 (Pacific NW)
Majority of recruitment
within 45(148)
Knutson and Naef 1997 (review)
Large Woody Debris
46(150) Robinson and Beschta 1990
10(32)–20(65) Aubertin and Patric 1974 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993 (WV)
>30(100) provides shading
of old growth forest
Beschta et al. 1987 in Castelle et al. 1994
and Knutson and Naef
10(32) Brazier and Brown 1973 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993 (OR)
12(39) Corbett, et al. 1978 in Osborne and Kovacic
1993 (NC)
Water Temperature Control
31(101) Lynch and Corbett 1990 in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993 (PN)
>45(148) and up to
300(985)
Brosofske, et al. 1997 (WA) Microclimate Influence
61–122(200–399) Chen et al. 1990 in Knutson and Naef
Page 21
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Riparian habitat function Perpendicular distance from stream in meters (feet in parentheses)
Source
Food Resources >30(100) particulate
organic matter (POM)
Palik, et al. 2000 (Eastern U.S.)
73–275(240–902) semi-
aquatic resources
Burke and Gibbons 1995 (SC)
>30(100) to minimize
short-term logging impacts
on streams
Davies and Nelson 1994 (Australia)
15–30(50–100) for
minimum maintenance
Johnson and Ryba 1992 in Knutson and
Naef
>30(100) May and Horner 2000 (WA) ; Martin et al. 2000 (MI, VA) ; Stewart et al. 2000 (WI)
>61(200) Richards and Hollingsworth 2000 (Eastern
U.S.)
Instream habitat and aquatic resources
164(534) semi-aquatic resources Semlitsch 1998 (multi state)
Appendix A literature cited Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. Pages 878–882 in A. J. Castelle, A. W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements – a review. Journal of Environmental Quality. Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman, and J. F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimate gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7:1188–1200. Burke, V. J. and J. W. Gibbons. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: A case study of freshwater turtles in a Carolina Bay. Conservation Biology 9:1365–1369. Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1990. Microclimatic pattern and basic biological responses at the clearcut edges of old-growth Douglas-fir stands. In K. L. Knutson, and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. Cooper, J. R., J. W. Gilliam, R. B. Daniels, and W. P. Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51: 416–420. Coyne, M. S., R. A. Gilfillen, A. Villalba, Z. Zhang, R. Rhodes, L. Dunn, and R. L. Blevins. 1998. Fecal bacteria trapping by grass filter strips during simulated rain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 53(2):140–145. Daniels, R. B. and J. W. Gilliam. 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian filters. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60:246–251.
Page 22
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Davies, P. E. and M. Nelson. 1994. Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Resources 45:1289–1305. Dillaha, T. A., R. B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the ASAE 32(2):513–519. Dillaha, T. A., J. H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mostaghimi, and V. O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of vegetative filter strips as a best management practice for feed lots. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60(7):1231–1238. Fetherston, K. L., R. J. Naiman, R. E. Bilby. Large woody debris, physical process, and riparian forest development in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology 13:133–144. Hanson, G. C., P. M. Groffman, and A. J. Gold. 1994. Denitrification in riparian wetlands receiving high and low groundwater nitrate inputs. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:917–922. Horner, R. R. and B. W. Mar. 1982. Guide for water quality impact assessment of highway operations and maintenance. Pages 878–882 in A. J. Castelle, A. W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements – a review. Journal of Environmental Quality. Hubbard, R. K. 1997. Riparian buffer systems for managing animal waste. In S. Wenger. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 59 pp. Jacobs, T. C. and J. W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. Journal of Environmental Quality 14(4):472–478. Johnson, A. W. and D. M. Ryba. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths to maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. In K.L. Knutson and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, and D. E. Weller. 1993. Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent cropland. Journal of Environmental Quality 22:467–473. Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. Llhardt, B. L., E. S. Verry, and B. J. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pages 23–42 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Lowrance, R. 1992. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a Coastal Plain riparian forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:401–405. Lowrance, R. R., S. McIntyre, and C. Lance. 1988. Erosion and deposition in a field/forest system estimated using cesium-137 activity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41(4):266–271.
Page 23
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Lynch, J. A., E. S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best management practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution on forested watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:164–167. Magette, W. L., R. B. Brinsfield, R. E. Palmer and J. D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Transactions of the ASAE 32(2):663–667. Mander, U., V. Kuusemets, K. Lohmus, and T. Mauring. 1997. Efficiency and dimensioning of riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Ecological Engineering 8:99–324.
Martin, C. O., R. A. Fischer, and H. H. Allen. 2000. Riparian issues on Corps of Engineers and DOD Military Lands. Pages 317–322 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. May, C. W. and R. R. Horner. 2000. The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-riparian ecosystems. Pages 281–286 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. Osborne, J. L. and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243–258. Palik, B. J., J. C. Zasada, and C. W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture. Pages 233–254 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed. Observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475. Phillips, J. D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests along a Coastal Plain river. Journal of Hydrology 110:221–237. Raleigh, R. F., T. Hickman, R. C. Soloman, and P. C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. In K. L. Knutson, and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. Richards, C., and B. Hollingsworth. 2000. Managing riparian areas for fish. Pages 157–168 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Robison, E. G., and R. L. Beschta. 1990. Identifying tress in riparian areas that can provide coarse woody debris to streams. Forestry Science 36:790–801. Semilitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113–1119. Spruill, T. B. 2000. Statistical evaluation of effects of riparian buffers on nitrate and ground water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1523–1538.
Page 24
August 2002 CSI Mitigation Measures

Stewart, J. S., D. M. Downes, L.Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209–214 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 59 pp. Williams, R. G., R. Lowrance, and S. P. Inamdar. 2000. Simulation of nonpoint source pollution control using the riparian ecosystem management model (REMM). Pages 433–438 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon. Young , R. A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 9(3):483–487.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2013
SESSION LAW 2014-120 SENATE BILL 734
*S734-v-3*
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FURTHER REGULATORY RELIEF TO THE CITIZENS OF NORTH CAROLINA BY PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN UNNECESSARY OR OUTDATED STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AND MODERNIZING OR SIMPLIFYING CUMBERSOME OR OUTDATED REGULATIONS, AND BY MAKING VARIOUS OTHER STATUTORY CHANGES. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: ELIMINATE, AS OBSOLETE, THE SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTOR AUTHORITY, THE COMMITTEE ON DROPOUT PREVENTION, THE STATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, THE STATE EDUCATION COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA DESIGNATION COMMISSION, THE GOVERNOR'S MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR NURSING, AND THE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS SECTION 1.(a) Part 20 of Article 10 of Chapter 143B of the General Statutes is repealed. SECTION 1.(b) Article 6B of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes is repealed. SECTION 1.(c) G.S. 116C-1 reads as rewritten: "§ 116C-1. Education Cabinet created. (a) The Education Cabinet is created. The Education Cabinet shall be located administratively within, and shall exercise its powers within existing resources of, the Office of the Governor. However, the Education Cabinet shall exercise its statutory powers independently of the Office of the Governor. (b) The Education Cabinet shall consist of the Governor, who shall serve as chair, the President of The University of North Carolina, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Chairman of the State Board of Education, the President of the North Carolina Community Colleges System, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the President of the North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities. The Education Cabinet may invite other representatives of education to participate in its deliberations as adjunct members. (c) The Education Cabinet shall be a nonvoting body that: (1) Works to resolve issues between existing providers of education. (2) Sets the agenda for the State Education Commission. (3) Develops a strategic design for a continuum of education programs, in accordance with G.S. 116C-3. (4) Studies other issues referred to it by the Governor or the General Assembly. (d) The Office of the Governor, in coordination with the staffs of The University of North Carolina, the North Carolina Community College System, and the Department of Public Instruction, shall provide staff to the Education Cabinet." SECTION 1.(d) G.S. 116C-2 is repealed. SECTION 1.(e) Article 26 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes is repealed. SECTION 1.(f) Section 18.10 of S.L. 2001-491 reads as rewritten: "SECTION 18.10. Notwithstanding G.S. 158-8.1, the Western North Carolina Regional Economic Development Commission shall develop a regional heritage tourism plan and shall present the plan to the 2002 Regular Session of the 2001 General Assembly no later than May 1, 2002. The National Heritage Area Designation Commission created pursuant to Section 18.4 of this act shall terminate August 1, 2014."

Page 2 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
SECTION 1.(g) Part 24 of Article 9 of Chapter 143B of the General Statutes is repealed. SECTION 1.(h) G.S. 90-171.71 is repealed. SECTION 1.(i) G.S. 143B-711 reads as rewritten: "§ 143B-711. Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public Safety – organization. The Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public Safety shall be organized initially to include the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission, the Board of Correction,the Section of Prisons of the Division of Adult Correction, the Section of Community Corrections, the Section of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Treatment Programs, and such other divisions as may be established under the provisions of the Executive Organization Act of 1973." SECTION 1.(j) G.S. 143B-715 is repealed. CLARIFY PROCESS FOR READOPTION OF EXISTING RULES SECTION 2. G.S. 150B-21.3A(d) reads as rewritten: "(d) Timetable. – The Commission shall establish a schedule for the review and readoption of existing rules in accordance with this section on a decennial basis as follows: (1) With regard to the review process, the Commission shall assign by assigning each Title of the Administrative Code a date by which the review required by this section must be completed. In establishing the schedule, the Commission shall consider the scope and complexity of rules subject to this section and the resources required to conduct the review required by this section. The Commission shall have broad authority to modify the schedule and extend the time for review in appropriate circumstances. Except as provided in subsection subsections (e) and (f) of this section, if the agency fails to conduct the review by the date set by the Commission, the rules contained in that Title which have not been reviewed will expire. The Commission shall report to the Committee any agency that fails to conduct the review. The Commission may exempt rules that have been adopted or amended within the previous 10 years from the review required by this section. However, any rule exempted on this basis must be reviewed in accordance with this section no more than 10 years following the last time the rule was amended. (2) With regard to the readoption of rules as required by sub-subdivision (c)(2)g. of this section, once the final determination report becomes effective, the Commission shall establish a date by which the agency must readopt the rules. The Commission shall consult with the agency and shall consider the agency's rule-making priorities in establishing the readoption date. The agency may amend a rule as part of the readoption process. If a rule is readopted without substantive change, the agency is not required to prepare a fiscal note as provided by G.S. 150B-21.4." AUTHORIZE LICENSING BOARDS TO ADOPT RULES FOR PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SECTION 3. G.S. 55B-12 reads as rewritten: "§ 55B-12. Application of regulations of licensing boards. (a) A professional corporation shall be subject to the applicable rules and regulations adopted by, and all the disciplinary powers of, the licensing board as herein defined. Nothing in this Chapter shall impair the disciplinary powers of any licensing board applicable to a licensee as herein defined. No professional corporation may do any act which its shareholders as licensees are prohibited from doing. (b) Subject to the requirements of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes, any licensing board subject to this Chapter may adopt rules to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including any rules needed to establish fees within the limits set by this Chapter." OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARD REPORTING AMENDMENTS SECTION 4. G.S. 93B-2 reads as rewritten:

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 3
"§ 93B-2. Annual reports required; contents; open to inspection; sanction for failure to report. (a) No later than October 31 of each year, each occupational licensing board shall file electronically with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Joint Regulatory ReformLegislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee an annual report containing all of the following information: (1) The address of the board, and the names of its members and officers. (1a) The total number of licensees supervised by the board. (2) The number of persons who applied to the board for examination. (3) The number who were refused examination. (4) The number who took the examination. (5) The number to whom initial licenses were issued. (5a) The number who failed the examination. (6) The number who applied for license by reciprocity or comity. (7) The number who were granted licenses by reciprocity or comity. (7a) The number of official complaints received involving licensed and unlicensed activities. (7b) The number of disciplinary actions taken against licensees, or other actions taken against nonlicensees, including injunctive relief. (8) The number of licenses suspended or revoked. (9) The number of licenses terminated for any reason other than failure to pay the required renewal fee. (10) The substance of any anticipated request by the occupational licensing board to the General Assembly to amend statutes related to the occupational licensing board. (11) The substance of any anticipated change in rules adopted by the occupational licensing board or the substance of any anticipated adoption of new rules by the occupational licensing board. (b) No later than October 31 of each year, each occupational licensing board shall file electronically with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Office of State Budget and Management, and the Joint Regulatory ReformLegislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee a financial report that includes the source and amount of all funds credited to the occupational licensing board and the purpose and amount of all funds disbursed by the occupational licensing board during the previous fiscal year. (c) The reports required by this section shall be open to public inspection. (d) The Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee shall notify any board that fails to file the reports required by this section. Failure of a board to comply with the reporting requirements of this section by October 31 of each year shall result in a suspension of the board's authority to expend any funds until such time as the board files the required reports. Suspension of a board's authority to expend funds under this subsection shall not affect the board's duty to issue and renew licenses or the validity of any application or license for which fees have been tendered in accordance with law. Each board shall adopt rules establishing a procedure for implementing this subsection and shall maintain an escrow account into which any fees tendered during a board's period of suspension under this subsection shall be deposited." OAH ELECTRONIC FILING SECTION 5.(a) Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 150B-23.3. Electronic filing. In addition to any other method specified in G.S. 150B-23, documents filed and served in a contested case may be filed and served electronically by means of an Electronic Filing Service Provider. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Electronic filing means the electronic transmission of the petition, notice of hearing, pleadings, or any other documents filed in a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings, as further defined by rules adopted by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Page 4 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
(2) Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP) means the service provided by the Office of Administrative Hearings for e-filing and e-service of documents via the Internet. (3) Electronic service means the electronic transmission of the petition, notice of hearing, pleadings, or any other documents in a contested case, as further defined by rules adopted by the Office of Administrative Hearings." SECTION 5.(b) This section is effective when it becomes law and applies to contested cases filed on or after that date. STREAMLINE RULE-MAKING PROCESS SECTION 6.(a) G.S. 150B-19.1(h) is repealed. SECTION 6.(b) G.S. 150B-21.4 reads as rewritten: "§ 150B-21.4. Fiscal notes and regulatory impact analysis on rules. (a) State Funds. – Before an agency adopts publishes in the North Carolina Register the proposed text of a permanent rule change that would require the expenditure or distribution of funds subject to the State Budget Act, Chapter 143C of the General Statutes it must submit the text of the proposed rule change, an analysis of the proposed rule change, and a fiscal note on the proposed rule change to the Office of State Budget and Management and obtain certification from the Office of State Budget and Management that the funds that would be required by the proposed rule change are available. The agency shall submit the text of the proposed rule change, an analysis of the proposed rule change, and a fiscal note on the proposed rule change to the Office at the same time as the agency submits the notice of text for publication pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.2. The fiscal note must state the amount of funds that would be expended or distributed as a result of the proposed rule change and explain how the amount was computed. The Office of State Budget and Management must certify a proposed rule change if funds are available to cover the expenditure or distribution required by the proposed rule change. (a1) DOT Analyses. – In addition to the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, any agency that adopts a rule affecting environmental permitting of Department of Transportation projects shall conduct an analysis to determine if the rule will result in an increased cost to the Department of Transportation. The analysis shall be conducted and submitted to the Board of Transportation when the agency submits the notice of text for publication. The agency shall consider any recommendations offered by the Board of Transportation prior to adopting the rule. Once a rule subject to this subsection is adopted, the Board of Transportation may submit any objection to the rule it may have to the Rules Review Commission. If the Rules Review Commission receives an objection to a rule from the Board of Transportation no later than 5:00 P.M. of the day following the day the Commission approves the rule, then the rule shall only become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1). (b) Local Funds. – Before an agency adopts publishes in the North Carolina Register the proposed text of a permanent rule change that would affect the expenditures or revenues of a unit of local government, it must submit the text of the proposed rule change and a fiscal note on the proposed rule change to the Office of State Budget and Management as provided by G.S. 150B-21.26, the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, and the North Carolina League of Municipalities. The fiscal note must state the amount by which the proposed rule change would increase or decrease expenditures or revenues of a unit of local government and must explain how the amount was computed. (b1) Substantial Economic Impact. – Before an agency adopts publishes in the North Carolina Register the proposed text of a permanent rule change that would have a substantial economic impact and that is not identical to a federal regulation that the agency is required to adopt, the agency shall prepare a fiscal note for the proposed rule change and have the note approved by the Office of State Budget and Management. The agency must also obtain from the Office a certification that the agency adhered to the regulatory principles set forth in G.S. 150B-19.1(a)(2), (5), and (6). The agency may request the Office of State Budget and Management to prepare the fiscal note only after, working with the Office, it has exhausted all resources, internal and external, to otherwise prepare the required fiscal note. If an agency requests the Office of State Budget and Management to prepare a fiscal note for a proposed rule change, that Office must prepare the note within 90 days after receiving a written request for the note. If the Office of State Budget and Management fails to prepare a fiscal note within this

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 5
time period, the agency proposing the rule change shall prepare a fiscal note. A fiscal note prepared in this circumstance does not require approval of the Office of State Budget and Management. If an agency prepares the required fiscal note, the agency must submit the note to the Office of State Budget and Management for review. The Office of State Budget and Management shall review the fiscal note within 14 days after it is submitted and either approve the note or inform the agency in writing of the reasons why it does not approve the fiscal note. After addressing these reasons, the agency may submit the revised fiscal note to that Office for its review. If an agency is not sure whether a proposed rule change would have a substantial economic impact, the agency shall ask the Office of State Budget and Management to determine whether the proposed rule change has a substantial economic impact. Failure to prepare or obtain approval of the fiscal note as required by this subsection shall be a basis for objection to the rule under G.S. 150B-21.9(a)(4). As used in this subsection, the term "substantial economic impact" means an aggregate financial impact on all persons affected of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) in a 12-month period. In analyzing substantial economic impact, an agency shall do the following: (1) Determine and identify the appropriate time frame of the analysis. (2) Assess the baseline conditions against which the proposed rule is to be measured. (3) Describe the persons who would be subject to the proposed rule and the type of expenditures these persons would be required to make. (4) Estimate any additional costs that would be created by implementation of the proposed rule by measuring the incremental difference between the baseline and the future condition expected after implementation of the rule. The analysis should include direct costs as well as opportunity costs. Cost estimates must be monetized to the greatest extent possible. Where costs are not monetized, they must be listed and described. (5) For costs that occur in the future, the agency shall determine the net present value of the costs by using a discount factor of seven percent (7%). (b2) Content. – A fiscal note required by subsection (b1) of this section must contain the following: (1) A description of the persons who would be affected by the proposed rule change. (2) A description of the types of expenditures that persons affected by the proposed rule change would have to make to comply with the rule and an estimate of these expenditures. (3) A description of the purpose and benefits of the proposed rule change. (4) An explanation of how the estimate of expenditures was computed. (5) A description of at least two alternatives to the proposed rule that were considered by the agency and the reason the alternatives were rejected. The alternatives may have been identified by the agency or by members of the public. (c) Errors. – An erroneous fiscal note prepared in good faith does not affect the validity of a rule. (d) If an agency proposes the repeal of an existing rule, the agency is not required to prepare a fiscal note on the proposed rule change as provided by this section." SECTION 6.(c) This section is effective when it becomes law and applies to proposed rules published on or after that date. REPRESENTATION OF SMALL BUSINESS ENTITIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS SECTION 7.(a) G.S. 150B-23(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) A contested case shall be commenced by paying a fee in an amount established in G.S. 150B-23.2 and by filing a petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings and, except as provided in Article 3A of this Chapter, shall be conducted by that Office. The party who files the petition shall serve a copy of the petition on all other parties and, if the dispute concerns a license, the person who holds the license. A party who files a petition shall file a certificate of service together with the petition. A petition shall be signed by a party, an attorney representing a party, or other representative of the party as may specifically be

Page 6 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
authorized by law, and, if filed by a party other than an agency, shall state facts tending to establish that the agency named as the respondent has deprived the petitioner of property, has ordered the petitioner to pay a fine or civil penalty, or has otherwise substantially prejudiced the petitioner's rights and that the agency: (1) Exceeded its authority or jurisdiction; (2) Acted erroneously; (3) Failed to use proper procedure; (4) Acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or (5) Failed to act as required by law or rule. The parties in a contested case shall be given an opportunity for a hearing without undue delay. Any person aggrieved may commence a contested case hereunder. A local government employee, applicant for employment, or former employee to whom Chapter 126 of the General Statutes applies may commence a contested case under this Article in the same manner as any other petitioner. The case shall be conducted in the same manner as other contested cases under this Article. A business entity may represent itself using a nonattorney representative who is one or more of the following of the business entity: (i) officer, (ii) manager or member-manager, if the business entity is a limited liability company, (iii) employee whose income is reported on IRS Form W-2, if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing, or (iv) owner of the business entity, if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing and if the owner's interest in the business entity is at least twenty-five percent (25%). Authority for and prior notice of nonattorney representation shall be made in writing, under penalty of perjury, to the Office on a form provided by the Office." SECTION 7.(b) G.S. 105-290 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(d2) Business Entity Representation. – If a property owner is a business entity, the business entity may represent itself using a nonattorney representative who is one or more of the following of the business entity: (i) officer, (ii) manager or member-manager, if the business entity is a limited liability company, (iii) employee whose income is reported on IRS Form W-2, if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing, or (iv) owner of the business entity, if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing and if the owner's interest in the business entity is at least twenty-five percent (25%). Authority for and prior notice of nonattorney representation shall be made in writing, under penalty of perjury, to the Commission on a form provided by the Commission." SECTION 7.(c) This section is effective when it becomes law and applies to contested cases and appeals commenced on or after that date. MERCHANT EXEMPTION FROM LOCKSMITH LICENSING SECTION 9. G.S. 74F-16 reads as rewritten: "§ 74F-16. Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to: … (6) A merchant, or retail or hardware store, when the merchant or store does not purport to be a locksmith and lawfully (i) rekeys a lock at the time of sale of the lock, (ii) duplicates a key, except for duplicating a transponder type key that requires programming, or (iii) installs as a service a lock on a door if both the door and lock were purchased from the same merchant.store, so long as all of the following apply: a. It is lawfully duplicating keys or installing, servicing, repairing, rebuilding, reprograming, rekeying, or maintaining locks in the normal course of its business. b. It maintains a physical location in this State. c. It maintains a sales and use tax permit in accordance with G.S. 105-164.16. d. It does not represent itself as a locksmith. …." REPEAL OUTDATED PUBLIC UTILITIES STATUTES OR REPORTS SECTION 10.(a) G.S. 62-36A and G.S. 62-36.1 are repealed. SECTION 10.(b) G.S. 62-158(d) reads as rewritten:

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 7
"(d) The Commission, after hearing, may adopt rules to implement this section, including rules for the establishment of expansion funds, for the use of such funds, for the remittance to the expansion fund or to customers of supplier and transporter refunds and expansion surcharges or other funds that were sources of the expansion fund, and for appropriate accounting, reporting and ratemaking treatment. The Commission and Public Staff shall report to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations on the operation of any expansion funds in conjunction with the reports required under G.S. 62-36A." SECTION 10.(c) G.S. 62-159(d) reads as rewritten: "(d) The Commission, after hearing, shall adopt rules to implement this section as soon as practicable. The Commission and Public Staff shall report to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations on the use of funding provided under this section in conjunction with the reports required under G.S. 62-36A." SECTION 10.(d) G.S. 62-133.2(g) is repealed. SECTION 10.(e) Section 14 of S.L. 2002-4 is repealed. SECTION 10.(f) Section 14 of S.L. 2007-397 is repealed. SECTION 10.(g) Section 6.1 of S.L. 1995-27 is repealed. CLARIFY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER EXEMPTION SECTION 11.(a) G.S. 89C-25 reads as rewritten: "§ 89C-25. Limitations on application of Chapter. This Chapter shall not be construed to prevent or affect:prevent the following activities: (1) The practice of architecture, architecture as defined in Chapter 83A of the General Statutes, landscape architecture, landscape architecture as defined in Chapter 89A of the General Statutes, or contracting or any other legally recognized profession or trade.contracting as defined in Articles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Chapter 87 of the General Statutes. (2) Repealed by Session Laws 2011-304, s. 7, effective June 26, 2011. (3) Repealed by Session Laws 2011-304, s. 7, effective June 26, 2011. (4) Engaging in engineering or land surveying as an employee or assistant under the responsible charge of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor or as an employee or assistant of a nonresident professional engineer or a nonresident professional land surveyor provided for in subdivisions (2) and (3) of this section, provided that the work as an employee may not include responsible charge of design or supervision.surveyor. (5) The practice of professional engineering or land surveying by any person not a resident of, and having no established place of business in this State, as a consulting associate of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor licensed under the provisions of this Chapter; provided, the nonresident is qualified for performing the professional service in the person's own state or country. (6) Practice by members of the Armed Forces of the United States; employees of the government of the United States while engaged in the practice of engineering or land surveying solely for the government on government-owned works and projects; or practice by those employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, county employees, or employees of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts who have federal engineering job approval authority that involves the planning, designing, or implementation of best management practices on agricultural lands. (7) The internal engineering or surveying activities of a person, firm or corporation engaged in manufacturing, processing, or producing a product, including the activities of public service corporations, public utility companies, authorities, State agencies, railroads, or membership cooperatives, or the installation and servicing of their product in the field; or research and development in connection with the manufacture of that product or their service; or of their research affiliates; or their employees in the course of their employment in connection with the manufacture, installation, or servicing of their product or service in the field, or on-the-premises maintenance of machinery, equipment, or apparatus

Page 8 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
incidental to the manufacture or installation of the product or service of a firm by the employees of the firm upon property owned, leased or used by the firm; inspection, maintenance and service work done by employees of the State of North Carolina, any political subdivision of the State, or any municipality including construction, installation, servicing, maintenance by regular full-time employees of streets, street lighting, traffic-control signals, police and fire alarm systems, waterworks, steam, electric and sewage treatment and disposal plants; the services of superintendents, inspectors or foremen regularly employed by the State of North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State or a municipal corporation; provided, however, that the internal engineering or surveying activity is not a holding out to or an offer to the public of engineering or any service thereof as prohibited by this Chapter. Engineering work, not related to the foregoing exemptions, where the safety of the public is directly involved shall be under the responsible charge of a licensed professional engineer, or in accordance with standards prepared or approved by a licensed professional engineer. (7a) The engineering or surveying activities of a person as defined by G.S. 89C-3(5) who is engaged in manufacturing, processing, producing, or transmitting and delivering a product, and which activities are reasonably necessary and connected with the primary services performed by individuals regularly employed in the ordinary course of business by the person, provided that the engineering or surveying activity is not a holding out or an offer to the public of engineering or surveying services, as prohibited by this Chapter. The engineering and surveying services may not be offered, performed, or rendered independently from the primary services rendered by the person. For purposes of this subdivision, "activities reasonably necessary and connected with the primary service" include the following: a. Installation or servicing of the person's product by employees of the person conducted outside the premises of the person's business. b. Design, acquisition, installation, or maintenance of machinery, equipment, or apparatus incidental to the manufacture or installation of the product performed by employees of the person upon property owned, leased, or used by the person. c. Research and development performed in connection with the manufacturing, processing, or production of the person's product by employees of the person. Engineering or surveying activities performed pursuant to this subdivision, where the safety of the public is directly involved, shall be under the responsible charge of a licensed professional engineer or licensed professional surveyor. (8) The (i) preparation of fire sprinkler planning and design drawings by a fire sprinkler contractor licensed under Article 2 of Chapter 87 of the General Statutes, or (ii) the performance of internal engineering or survey work by a manufacturing or communications common carrier company, or by a research and development company, or by employees of those corporations provided that the work is in connection with, or incidental to products of, or nonengineering services rendered by those corporations or their affiliates. (9) The routine maintenance or servicing of machinery, equipment, facilities or structures, the work of mechanics in the performance of their established functions, or the inspection or supervision of construction by a foreman, superintendent, or agent of the architect or professional engineer, or services of an operational nature performed by an employee of a laboratory, a manufacturing plant, a public service corporation, or governmental operation. (10) The design of land application irrigation systems for an animal waste management plan, required by G.S. 143-215.10C, by a designer who exhibits, by at least three years of relevant experience, proficiency in soil science and basic hydraulics, and who is thereby listed as an Irrigation

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 9
Design Technical Specialist by the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission." SECTION 11.(b) G.S. 89C-19 reads as rewritten: "§ 89C-19. Public works; requirements where public safety involved. This State and its political subdivisions such as counties, cities, towns, or other political entities or legally constituted boards, commissions, public utility companies, or authorities, or officials, or employees of these entities shall not engage in the practice of engineering or land surveying involving either public or private property where the safety of the public is directly involved without the project being under the direct supervision of a professional engineer for the preparations of plans and specifications for engineering projects, or a professional land surveyor for land surveying projects, as provided for the practice of the respective professions by this Chapter. An official or employee of the State or any political subdivision specified in this section, holding the positions set out in this section as of June 19, 1975, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section so long as such official or employee is engaged in substantially the same type of work as is involved in the present position. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit inspection, maintenance and service work done by employees of the State of North Carolina, any political subdivision of the State, or any municipality including construction, installation, servicing, and maintenance by regular full-time employees of, secondary roads and drawings incidental to work on secondary roads, streets, street lighting, traffic-control signals, police and fire alarm systems, waterworks, steam, electric and sewage treatment and disposal plants, the services of superintendents, inspectors or foremen regularly employed by the State of North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State, or municipal corporation. The provisions in this section shall not be construed to alter or modify the requirements of Article 1 of Chapter 133 of the General Statutes." BAIL BOND SHIELD AMENDMENT SECTION 12.(a) G.S. 58-71-40(d1) reads as rewritten: "(d1) While engaged in official duties, a licensee is authorized to carry, possess, and display a shield as described in this subsection. The shield shall fulfill all of the following requirements: (1) Be an exact duplicate in size, shape, color, and design of the shield approved under G.S. 74C-5(12) and pictured in 12 NCAC 07D. 0405 on May 1, 2013.May 1, 2013, except that the design may be altered by stamping, inlaying, embossing, enameling, or engraving to accommodate the license number. With respect to size of the shield, the shield shall be 1.88 inches wide and 2.36 inches high. (2) Include the licensee's last name and corresponding license number in the same locations as the shield referenced in subdivision (1) of this subsection. (3) With reference to the shield described in subdivision (1) of this subsection, in lieu of the word "Private," the shield shall have the words "North Carolina," and in lieu of the word "Investigator," the shield shall have the words "Bail Agent." Any shield that deviates from the design requirements as specified in this section shall be an unauthorized shield and its possession by a licensee shall constitute a violation of the statute by the licensee." SECTION 12.(b) G.S. 15A-540 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(d) A surety may utilize the services and assistance of any surety bondsman, professional bondsman, or runner licensed under G.S. 58-71-40 to effect the arrest or surrender of a defendant under subsection (a) or (b) of this section." ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE POOLS SECTION 13.(a) Notwithstanding Section 1109.14 of the 2012 NC State Building Code (Building Code), swimming pools shall be required to be accessible only to the extent required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and federal rules and regulations adopted pursuant to that Act.

Page 10 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
SECTION 13.(b) The Building Code Council shall adopt a rule to amend Section 1109.14 of the 2012 NC State Building Code (Building Code) consistent with Section 13(a) of this act. SECTION 13.(c) Section 13(a) of this act expires on the date that the rule adopted pursuant to Section 13(b) of this act becomes effective. ABC PERMITS/SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES SECTION 14. G.S. 18B-1006(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) School and College Campuses. – No permit for the sale of malt beverages, unfortified wine, or fortified wine alcoholic beverages shall be issued to a business on the campus or property of a public school, college, or university. school or college, other than at a regional facility as defined by G.S. 160A-480.2 operated by a facility authority under Part 4 of Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes except for a public school or college function, unless that business is a hotel or a nonprofit alumni organization with a mixed beverages permit or a special occasion permit. This subsection shall not apply on property owned by a local board of education which was leased for 99 years or more to a nonprofit auditorium authority created prior to 1991 whose governing board is appointed by a city board of aldermen, a county board of commissioners, or a local school board. This subsection shall also not apply to the constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina with respect to the sale of beer and wine at (i) performing arts centers located on property owned or leased by the institutions if the seating capacity does not exceed 2,000 seats; (ii) any golf courses owned or leased by the institutions and open to the public for use; or (iii) any stadiums that support a NASCAR-sanctioned one-fourth mile asphalt flat oval short track, that are owned or leased by the institutions, and that only sell malt beverages, unfortified wine, or fortified wine at events that are not sponsored or funded by the institutions. Notwithstanding this subsection, special one-time permits as described in G.S. 18B-1002(a)(5) may be issued to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for the Loudermilk Center for Excellence facility. This subsection shall not apply to the following: (1) A regional facility as defined by G.S. 160A-480.2 operated by a facility authority under Part 4 of Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes, unless the permit is for a public school or public college or university function. (2) Property owned by a local board of education and leased for 99 years or more to a nonprofit auditorium authority created prior to 1991 whose governing board is appointed by a city governing board, a county board of commissioners, or a local school board. (3) A hotel. (4) A nonprofit alumni organization. (5) Restaurants, eating establishments, food businesses, or retail businesses on the property defined by G.S. 116-198.33(4). (6) Any golf courses owned or leased by the public college or university and open to the public for use. (7) The sale of malt beverages, unfortified wine, or fortified wine at the following: a. Performing arts centers located on property owned or leased by the public college or university. b. Any stadiums that support a NASCAR-sanctioned one-fourth mile asphalt flat oval short track, that are owned or leased by the public college or university, and that only sell malt beverages, unfortified wine, or fortified wine at events that are not sponsored or funded by the public college or university. (8) Special one-time permits as described in G.S. 18B-1002(a)(5) for the Loudermilk Center for Excellence facility at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill." ENFORCE MUNICIPAL FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE IN ETJ SECTION 15. G.S. 160A-360(k) reads as rewritten: "(k) As used in this subsection, "bona fide farm purposes" is as described in G.S. 153A-340. As used in this subsection, "property" means a single tract of property or an

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 11
identifiable portion of a single tract. Property that is located in the geographic area of a municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction and that is used for bona fide farm purposes is exempt from exercise of the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Article. Property that is located in the geographic area of a municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction and that ceases to be used for bona fide farm purposes shall become subject to exercise of the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Article. For purposes of complying with 44 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, property that is exempt from the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the county's floodplain ordinance or all floodplain regulation provisions of the county's unified development ordinance." PERMIT CHOICE SECTION 16.(a) Chapter 143 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read: "Article 80. "Permit Choice. "§ 143-750. Permit choice. (a) If a permit applicant submits a permit for any type of development and a rule or ordinance changes between the time the permit application was submitted and a permit decision is made, the permit applicant may choose which version of the rule or ordinance will apply to the permit. (b) This section applies to all development permits issued by the State and by local governments. (c) This section shall not apply to any zoning permit." SECTION 16.(b) Part 1 of Article 18 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 153A-320.1. Permit choice. If a rule or ordinance changes between the time a permit application is submitted and a permit decision is made, then G.S. 143-750 shall apply." SECTION 16.(c) Part 1 of Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 160A-360.1. Permit choice. If a rule or ordinance changes between the time a permit application is submitted and a permit decision is made, then G.S. 143-750 shall apply." SECTION 16.(d) This section is effective when it becomes law and applies to permits for which a permit decision has not been made by that date. COMMUNITY COLLEGE BREWING COURSE WAIVER SECTION 17.(a) Article 11 of Chapter 18B of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 18B-1114.6. Brewing, Distillation, and Fermentation course authorization. (a) Authorization. – The holder of a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course authorization may: (1) Manufacture malt beverages on the school's campus or the school's contracted or leased property for the purpose of providing instruction and education on the making of malt beverages. (2) Possess malt beverages manufactured during the brewing, distillation, and fermentation program for the purpose of conducting malt beverage tasting seminars and classes for students who are 21 years of age or older. (3) Sell malt beverages produced during the course to wholesalers or to retailers upon obtaining a malt beverages wholesaler permit under G.S. 18B-1109, except that the permittee may not receive shipments of malt beverages from other producers. (4) Sell malt beverages produced during the course, upon obtaining a permit under G.S. 18B-1001(2). (b) Limitation. – Authorization for a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course shall be granted by the Commission only for a community college or college that offers a brewing, distillation, and fermentation program as a part of its curriculum offerings for students of the school. For purposes of this section, the term "brewing, distillation, and fermentation program"

Page 12 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
includes a fermentation sciences program offered by a community college or college as part of its curriculum offerings for students of the school. (c) Malt Beverage Special Event Permit. – The holder of a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course authorization who obtains a malt beverages wholesaler permit under G.S. 18B-1109 subject to the limitation in subsection (a) of this section may obtain a malt beverage special event permit under G.S. 18B-1114.5 and where the permit is valid may participate in approved events and sell at retail at those events any malt beverages produced incident to the operation of the brewing, distillation, and fermentation program. The holder of a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course authorization may participate in not more than six malt beverage special events within a 12-month period and may sell up to 64 cases of malt beverages, or the equivalent volume of 64 cases of malt beverages, at each event. For purposes of this subsection, a "case of malt beverages" is a package containing not more than 24 12-ounce bottles of malt beverage. Net proceeds from the program's retail sale of malt beverages pursuant to this subsection shall be retained by the school and used for support of the brewing, distillation, and fermentation program. (d) Limited Application. – The holder of a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course authorization shall not be considered a brewery for the purposes of this Chapter or Chapter 105 of the General Statutes." SECTION 17.(b) G.S. 18B-1114.5(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) Authorization. – The holder of a brewery,brewery permit, a malt beverage importer,beverages importer permit, a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course authorization, or a nonresident malt beverage vendor permit may obtain a malt beverage special event permit allowing the permittee to give free tastings of its malt beverages and to sell its malt beverages by the glass or in closed containers at trade shows, conventions, shopping malls, malt beverage festivals, street festivals, holiday festivals, agricultural festivals, balloon races, local fund-raisers, and other similar events approved by the Commission. Except for a brewery operating under the provisions of G.S. 18B-1104(7), all malt beverages sampled or sold pursuant to this section must be purchased from a licensed malt beverages wholesaler." SECTION 17.(c) G.S. 18B-1001(2) reads as rewritten: "§ 18B-1001. Kinds of ABC permits; places eligible. When the issuance of the permit is lawful in the jurisdiction in which the premises are located, the Commission may issue the following kinds of permits: … (2) Off-Premises Malt Beverage Permit. – An off-premises malt beverage permit authorizes (i) the retail sale of malt beverages in the manufacturer's original container for consumption off the premises, (ii) the retail sale of malt beverages in a cleaned, sanitized, resealable container as defined in 4 NCAC 2T.0308(a) that is filled or refilled and sealed for consumption off the premises, complies with 4 NCAC 2T.0303, 4 NCAC 2T.0305, and 4 NCAC 2T.0308(d)-(e), and the container identifies the permittee and the date the container was filled or refilled, and (iii) the holder of the permit to ship malt beverages in closed containers to individual purchasers inside and outside the State. The permit may be issued for any of the following: a. Restaurants;Restaurants. b. Hotels;Hotels. c. Eating establishments;establishments. d. Food businesses;businesses. e. Retail businesses. f. The holder of a brewing, distillation, and fermentation course authorization under G.S. 18B-1114.6. A school obtaining a permit under this subdivision is authorized to sell malt beverages manufactured during its brewing, distillation, and fermentation program at one noncampus location in a county where the permittee holds and offers classes on a regular full-time basis in a facility owned by the permittee. …." SECTION 17.(d) G.S. 66-58(c)(1a) reads as rewritten: "§ 66-58. Sale of merchandise or services by governmental units. …

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 13
(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not prohibit: … (1a) The sale of products raised or produced incident to the operation of a community college or college viticulture/enology program as authorized by G.S. 18B-1114.4.G.S. 18B-1114.4 or the operation of a community college or college brewing, distillation, or fermentation program as authorized by G.S. 18B-1114.6. …." GOOD SAMARITAN LAW SECTION 18. G.S. 90-21.14 reads as rewritten: "§ 90-21.14. First aid or emergency treatment; liability limitation. (a) Any person, including a volunteer medical or health care provider at a facility of a local health department as defined in G.S. 130A-2 or at a nonprofit community health center or a volunteer member of a rescue squad, who receives no compensation for his services as an emergency medical care provider, who voluntarily and without expectation of compensation renders first aid or emergency health care treatment to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured, (1) When the reasonably apparent circumstances require prompt decisions and actions in medical or other health care, and (2) When the necessity of immediate health care treatment is so reasonably apparent that any delay in the rendering of the treatment would seriously worsen the physical condition or endanger the life of the person, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the person or for damages for the death of the person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of the treatment unless it is established that the injuries were or the death was caused by gross negligence, wanton conduct or intentional wrongdoing on the part of the person rendering the treatment. The immunity conferred in this section also applies to any person who uses an automated external defibrillator (AED) and otherwise meets the requirements of this section. …." PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGEMENT SECTION 20.(a) Chapter 58 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read: "Article 56A. "Pharmacy Benefits Management. "§ 58-56A-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) Health benefit plan. – As defined in G.S. 58-50-110(11). This definition specifically excludes the State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees. (2) Insurer. – Any entity that provides or offers a health benefit plan. (3) Maximum allowable cost price. – The maximum per unit reimbursement for multiple source prescription drugs, medical products, or devices. (4) Pharmacy. – A pharmacy registered with the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy. (5) Pharmacy benefits manager. – An entity who contracts with a pharmacy on behalf of an insurer or third-party administrator to administer or manage prescription drug benefits. (6) Third-party administrator. – As defined in G.S. 58-56-2. "§ 58-56A-3. Maximum allowable cost price. (a) In order to place a prescription drug on the maximum allowable cost price list, the drug must be available for purchase by pharmacies in North Carolina from national or regional wholesalers, must not be obsolete, and must meet one of the following conditions: (1) The drug is listed as "A" or "B" rated in the most recent version of the United States Food and Drug Administration's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also known as the Orange Book.

Page 14 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
(2) The drug has a "NR" or "NA" rating, or a similar rating, by a nationally recognized reference. (b) A pharmacy benefits manager shall adjust or remove the maximum allowable cost price for a prescription drug to remain consistent with changes in the national marketplace for prescription drugs. A review of the maximum allowable cost prices for removal or modification shall be completed by the pharmacy benefits manager at least once every seven business days, and any removal or modification shall occur within seven business days of the review. A pharmacy benefits manager shall provide a means by which the contracted pharmacies may promptly review current prices in an electronic, print, or telephonic format within one business day of the removal or modification." SECTION 20.(b) The Department of Insurance, in collaboration with the Department of Commerce and the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy, shall study the issue of pharmacy benefits management company regulation. Specifically, the study shall include: (i) frequency of disclosure of and methodology for calculating maximum allowable cost prices by the pharmacy benefits management companies; (ii) appeals procedures for pharmacies relating to maximum allowable cost pricing; (iii) consumer protections and the disclosure of consumer health information by pharmacy benefits managers; (iv) regulation of the various forms of incentives offered to a consumer by pharmacy benefits managers and its effects on choice of pharmacy; and (v) any further industry regulation deemed necessary to study. The Department of Insurance shall report the collective findings and recommendations, including any proposed legislation, to the 2015 General Assembly on or before January 20, 2015. SECTION 20.(c) Section 20(a) of this section becomes effective January 1, 2015, and applies to contracts entered into, renewed, or amended on or after that date. LIMITED FOOD SERVICES AT LODGING FACILITIES SECTION 21.(a) G.S. 130A-247(7) reads as rewritten: "(7) "Limited food services establishment" means an establishment as described in G.S. 130A-248(a4), with food handling operations that are restricted by rules adopted by the Commission pursuant to G.S. 130A-248(a4) and that prepares or serves food only in conjunction with amateur athletic events. Limited food service establishment also includes lodging facilities that serve only reheated food that has already been pre-cooked." SECTION 21.(b) G.S. 130A-148(a4) reads as rewritten: "(a4) For the protection of the public health, the Commission shall adopt rules governing the sanitation of limited food service establishments. In adopting the rules, the Commission shall not limit the number of days that limited food service establishments may operate. Limited food service establishment permits shall be issued only to the following: (1) political Political subdivisions of the State, State. (2) establishments Establishments operated by volunteers that prepare or serve food in conjunction with amateur athletic events, events. (3) Lodging facilities that serve only reheated food that has already been pre-cooked. (4) or for establishments Establishments operated by organizations that are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) or section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." SECTION 21.(c) The Commission for Public Health shall adopt rules to conform to the provisions of this section. AMEND HOTEL CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM REQUIREMENT SECTION 22.(a) Section 19(c) of S.L. 2013-413 is repealed. SECTION 22.(b) Section 19(e) of S.L. 2013-413 reads as rewritten: "SECTION 19.(e) This section is effective when it becomes law, except that (i) subsection (b) of this section becomes effective October 1, 2013, and expires October 1, 2014; and (ii) subsection (c) of this section becomes effective October 1, 2014.2013." SECTION 22.(c) G.S. 143-138(b2) reads as rewritten: "(b2) Carbon Monoxide Detectors.Alarms. – The Code (i) may contain provisions requiring the installation of either battery-operated or electrical carbon monoxide detectorsalarms in every dwelling unit having a fossil-fuel burningcombustion heater, appliance, or fireplace, and in any dwelling unit having an attached garage and (ii) shall contain

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 15
provisions requiring the installation of electrical carbon monoxide detectorsalarms at a lodging establishment. Violations of this subsection and rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall be punishable in accordance with subsection (h) of this section and G.S. 143-139. In particular, the rules shall provide: (1) For dwelling units, carbon monoxide detectorsalarms shall be those listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory that is OSHA-approvedapproved to test and certify to American National Standards Institute/Underwriters Laboratories Standards ANSI/UL2034 or ANSI/UL2075 and shall be installed in accordance with either the standard of the National Fire Protection Association or the minimum protection designated in the manufacturer's instructions, which the property owner shall retain or provide as proof of compliance. A carbon monoxide detectoralarm may be combined with smoke detectors if the combined detectoralarm does both of the following: (i) complies with ANSI/UL2034 or ANSI/UL2075 for carbon monoxide alarms and ANSI/UL217 for smoke detectors; and (ii) emits an alarm in a manner that clearly differentiates between detecting the presence of carbon monoxide and the presence of smoke. (2) For lodging establishments, including tourist homes that provide accommodations for seven or more continuous days (extended-stay establishments), and bed and breakfast inns and bed and breakfast homes as defined in G.S. 130A-247, carbon monoxide detectorsalarms shall be installed in every enclosed spacedwelling unit or sleeping unit having a fossil fuel burningcombustion heater, appliance, or fireplace and in any enclosed space, including a sleeping room,every dwelling unit or sleeping unit that shares a common wall, floor, or ceiling with an enclosed spacewith a room having a fossil fuel burningcombustion heater, appliance, or fireplace. Carbon monoxide detectorsalarms shall be (i) listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory that is OSHA-approvedapproved to test and certify to American National Standards Institute/Underwriters Laboratories (ANSI/UL) Standards ANSI/UL2034 or ANSI/UL2075, (ii) installed in accordance with either the standard of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) or the minimum protection designated in the manufacturer's instructions, which the lodging establishment shall retain or provide as proof of compliance, (iii) receive primary power from the building's wiring, where such wiring is served from a commercial source, and (iv) receive power from a battery when primary power is interrupted. A carbon monoxide detectoralarm may be combined with smoke detectors if the combined detectoralarm complies with the requirements of this subdivision for carbon monoxide alarms and ANSI/UL217 for smoke detectors.alarms. In lieu of the carbon monoxide alarms required by this subsection, a carbon monoxide detection system, which includes carbon monoxide detectors and audible notification appliances installed and maintained in accordance with NFPA 720, shall be permitted. The carbon monoxide detectors shall be listed as complying with ANSI/UL2075. For purposes of this subsection, "lodging establishment" means any hotel, motel, tourist home, or other establishment permitted under authority of G.S. 130A-248 to provide lodging accommodations for pay to the public.public, and "combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace" means any heater, appliance, or fireplace that burns combustion fuels, including, but not limited to, natural or liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, kerosene, wood, or coal for heating, cooking, drying, or decorative purposes, including, but not limited to, space heaters, wall and ceiling heaters, ranges, ovens, stoves, furnaces, fireplaces, water heaters, and clothes dryers. For purposes of this subsection, candles and canned fuels are not considered to be combustion appliances. (3) The Building Code Council shall modify the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention) to regulate the provisions of this subsection in new and existing lodging establishments, including hotels, motels, tourist homes that provide accommodations for seven or more continuous days (extended-stay

Page 16 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
establishments), and bed and breakfast inns and bed and breakfast homes as defined in G.S. 130A-247; provided nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Building Code Council from establishing more stringent rules regulating carbon monoxide alarms or detectors for new lodging establishments, including hotels, motels, tourist homes that provide accommodations for seven or more continuous days (extended-stay establishments), and bed and breakfast inns and bed and breakfast homes as defined in G.S. 130A-247. The Building Code Council shall modify the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention) minimum inspection schedule to include annual inspections of new and existing lodging establishments, including hotels, motels, and tourist homes that provide accommodations for seven or more continuous days (extended-stay establishments), and bed and breakfast inns and bed and breakfast homes as defined in G.S. 130A-247 for the purpose of compliance with this subsection. (4) Upon discovery of a violation of this subsection that poses an imminent hazard and that is not corrected during an inspection of a lodging establishment subject to the provisions of G.S. 130A-248, the code official responsible for enforcing the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention) shall immediately notify the local health director for the county in which the violation was discovered, or the local health director's designee, by verbal contact and shall also submit a written report documenting the violation of this subsection to the local health director for the county in which the violation was discovered, or the local health director's designee, on the next working day following the discovery of the violation. Within one working day of receipt of the written report documenting a violation of this subsection, the local health director for the county in which the violation was discovered, or the local health director's designee, shall investigate and take appropriate action regarding the permit for the lodging establishment, as provided in G.S. 130A-248. Lodging establishments having five or more rooms that are exempted from the requirements of G.S. 130A-248 by G.S. 130A-250 shall be subject to the penalties set forth in the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention). (5) Upon discovery of a violation of this subsection that does not pose an imminent hazard and that is not corrected during an inspection of a lodging establishment subject to the provisions of G.S. 130A-248, the owner or operator of the lodging establishment shall have a correction period of three working days following the discovery of the violation to notify the code official responsible for enforcing the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention) verbally or in writing that the violation has been corrected. If the code official receives such notification, the code official may reinspect the portions of the lodging establishment that contained violations, but any fees for reinspection shall not exceed the fee charged for the initial inspection. If the code official receives no such notification, or if a reinspection discovers that previous violations were not corrected, the code official shall submit a written report documenting the violation of this subsection to the local health director for the county in which the violation was discovered , or the local health director's designee, within three working days following the termination of the correction period or the reinspection, whichever is later. The local health director shall investigate and may take appropriate action regarding the permit for the lodging establishment, as provided in G.S. 130A-248. Lodging establishments having five or more rooms that are exempted from the requirements of G.S. 130A-248 by G.S. 130A-250 shall be subject to the penalties set forth in the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention). (6) The requirements of subdivisions (2) through (5) of this subsection shall not apply to properties subject to the provisions of either G.S. 42-42 or G.S. 42A-31." SECTION 22.(d) G.S. 130A-248 reads as rewritten: "§ 130A-248. Regulation of food and lodging establishments.

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 17
… (b) No establishment shall commence or continue operation without a permit or transitional permit issued by the Department. The permit or transitional permit shall be issued to the owner or operator of the establishment and shall not be transferable. If the establishment is leased, the permit or transitional permit shall be issued to the lessee and shall not be transferable. If the location of an establishment changes, a new permit shall be obtained for the establishment. A permit shall be issued only when the establishment satisfies all of the requirements of the rules and the requirements of subsection (g) of this section.rules. The Commission shall adopt rules establishing the requirements that must be met before a transitional permit may be issued, and the period for which a transitional permit may be issued. The Department may also impose conditions on the issuance of a permit or transitional permit in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission. A permit or transitional permit shall be immediately revoked in accordance with G.S. 130A-23(d) for failure of the establishment to maintain a minimum grade of C. A permit or transitional permit may otherwise be suspended or revoked in accordance with G.S. 130A-23. … (g) All hotels, motels, tourist homes, and other establishments that provide lodging for pay shall install either a battery-operated or electrical carbon monoxide detector in every enclosed space having a fossil fuel burning heater, appliance, or fireplace and in any enclosed space, including a sleeping room, that shares a common wall, floor, or ceiling with an enclosed space having a fossil fuel burning heater, appliance, or fireplace. Carbon monoxide detectors shall be listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory that is OSHA-approved to test and certify to American National Standards Institute/Underwriters Laboratories Standards ANSI/UL2034 or ANSI/UL2075, and installed in accordance with either the standard of the National Fire Protection Association or the minimum protection designated in the manufacturer's instructions, which the establishment shall retain or provide as proof of compliance. A carbon monoxide detector may be combined with smoke detectors if the combined detector complies with the requirements of this subdivision for carbon monoxide alarms and ANSI/UL217 for smoke detectors.comply with the requirements of G.S. 143-138(b2)(2). Upon notification of a violation of G.S. 143-138(b2)(2) by the code official responsible for enforcing the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention) in accordance with G.S. 143-138(b2)(4), the local health department is authorized to suspend a permit issued pursuant to this section in accordance with G.S. 130A-23." SECTION 22.(e) No later than March 31, 2015, the Building Code Council shall adopt a rule to amend the NC State Building Code (Fire Prevention) as it applies to structures required to comply with the provisions of G.S. 143-138(b2)(2), as enacted by this section, to adopt the standards for carbon monoxide alarms contained in the 2015 International Fire Code promulgated by the International Code Council. The effective date of the rule required by this section shall be no later than June 1, 2015. CONTESTED CASES FOR CAMA PERMITS SECTION 23. G.S. 113A-121.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 113A-121.1. Administrative review of permit decisions. (a) An applicant for a minor or major development permit who is dissatisfied with the decision on his application may file a petition for a contested case hearing under G.S. 150B-23 within 20 days after the decision is made. When a local official makes a decision to grant or deny a minor development permit and the Secretary is dissatisfied with the decision, the Secretary may file a petition for a contested case within 20 days after the decision is made. (b) A person other than a permit applicant or the Secretary who is dissatisfied with a decision to deny or grant a minor or major development permit may file a petition for a contested case hearing only if the Commission determines that a hearing is appropriate. A request for a determination of the appropriateness of a contested case hearing shall be made in writing and received by the Commission within 20 days after the disputed permit decision is made. A determination of the appropriateness of a contested case shall be made within 15 days after a request for a determination is received and shall be based on whether the person seeking to commence a contested case: (1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule; (2) Is directly affected by the decision; and

Page 18 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
(3) Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for the hearing is not frivolous. If the Commission determines a contested case is appropriate, the petition for a contested case shall be filed within 20 days after the Commission makes its determination. A determination that a person may not commence a contested case is a final agency decision and is subject to judicial review under Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. If, on judicial review, the court determines that the Commission erred in determining that a contested case would not be appropriate, the court shall remand the matter for a contested case hearing under G.S. 150B-23 and final decision on the permit pursuant to G.S. 113A-122. Decisions in such cases shall be rendered pursuant to those rules, regulations, and other applicable laws in effect at the time of the commencement of the contested case. (c) A When the applicant seeks administrative review of a decision concerning a permit under subsection (a) of this section, the permit is suspended from the time a person seeks administrative review of the decision concerning the permit until the Commission determines that the person seeking the review cannot commence a contested case or the Commission makes a final decision in a the contested case, as appropriate,case, and no action may be taken during that time that would be unlawful in the absence of a permit. (d) A permit challenged under subsection (b) of this section remains in effect unless a stay is issued by the administrative law judge as set forth in G.S. 150B-33 or by a reviewing court as set forth in G.S. 150B-48." OPEN BURNING SECTION 24.(a) The definitions set out in G.S. 143-212, G.S. 143-213, and 15A NCAC 02D .1902 (Definitions) apply to this section. SECTION 24.(b) 15A NCAC 02D .1903 (Open Burning Without an Air Quality Permit). – Until the effective date of the revised permanent rule that the Commission is required to adopt pursuant to Section 3.11(d) of this section, the Commission and the Department shall implement 15A NCAC 02D .1903 (Open Burning Without an Air Quality Permit) as provided in Section 3.11(c) of this section. SECTION 24.(c) Implementation. – Notwithstanding Paragraph (b) of 15A NCAC 02D .1903 (Open Burning Without an Air Quality Permit), no air quality permit is required for the open burning of leaves, logs, stumps, tree branches, or yard trimmings if the following conditions are met: (1) The material burned originates on the premises of private residences and is burned on those premises. (2) There are no public pickup services available. (3) Nonvegetative materials, such as household garbage, lumber, or any other synthetic materials, are not burned. (4) The burning is initiated no earlier than 8:00 A.M. and no additional combustible material is added to the fire between 6:00 P.M. on one day and 8:00 A.M. on the following day. (5) The burning does not create a nuisance. (6) Material is not burned when the North Carolina Forest Service has banned burning for that area. The burning of logs or stumps of any size shall not be considered to create a nuisance for purposes of the application of the open burning air quality permitting exception described in this subsection. SECTION 24.(d) Additional Rule-Making Authority. – The Commission shall adopt a rule to amend 15A NCAC 02D .1903 (Open Burning Without an Air Quality Permit) consistent with Section 3.11(c) of this section. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B-19(4), the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be substantively identical to the provisions of Section 24(c) of this section. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as provided by G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). SECTION 24.(e) Sunset. – Section 24(c) of this section expires on the date that rules adopted pursuant to Section 24(d) of this section become effective. SECTION 24.(f) Local Government Air Pollution Control Program Limitation. – G.S. 143-215.112(c) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 19
"§ 143-215.112. Local air pollution control programs. … (c) (1) The governing body of any county, municipality, or group of counties and municipalities within a designated area of the State, as defined in this Article and Article 21, subject to the approval of the Commission, is hereby authorized to establish, administer, and enforce a local air pollution control program for the county, municipality, or designated area of the State which includes but is not limited to: a. Development of a comprehensive plan for the control and abatement of new and existing sources of air pollution; b. Air quality monitoring to determine existing air quality and to define problem areas, as well as to provide background data to show the effectiveness of a pollution abatement program; c. An emissions inventory to identify specific sources of air contamination and the contaminants emitted, together with the quantity of material discharged into the outdoor atmosphere; d. Adoption, after notice and public hearing, of air quality and emission control standards, or adoption by reference, without public hearing, of any applicable rules and standards duly adopted by the Commission; and administration of such rules and standards in accordance with provisions of this section. e. Provisions for the establishment or approval of time schedules for the control or abatement of existing sources of air pollution and for the review of plans and specifications and issuance of approval documents covering the construction and operation of pollution abatement facilities at existing or new sources; f. Provision for adequate administrative staff, including an air pollution control officer and technical personnel, and provision for laboratory and other necessary facilities. … (6) No local air pollution control program may limit or otherwise regulate any combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace in private dwellings. For purposes of this subdivision, "combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace" means any heater, appliance, or fireplace that burns combustion fuels, including, but not limited to, natural or liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, kerosene, wood, or coal, for heating, cooking, drying, or decorative purposes." SECTION 24.(g) G.S. 143-215.108 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "§ 143-215.108. Control of sources of air pollution; permits required. … (j) No Power to Regulate Residential Combustion. – Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to give the Commission or the Department the power to regulate the emissions from any combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace in private dwellings, except to the extent required by federal law. For purposes of this subsection, "combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace" means any heater, appliance, or fireplace that burns combustion fuels, including, but not limited to, natural or liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, kerosene, wood, or coal, for heating, cooking, drying, or decorative purposes." SECTION 24.(h) G.S. 160A-193 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "§ 160A-193. Abatement of public health nuisances. (a) A city shall have authority to summarily remove, abate, or remedy everything in the city limits, or within one mile thereof, that is dangerous or prejudicial to the public health or public safety. Pursuant to this section, the governing board of a city may order the removal of a swimming pool and its appurtenances upon a finding that the swimming pool or its appurtenances is dangerous or prejudicial to public health or safety. The expense of the action shall be paid by the person in default. If the expense is not paid, it is a lien on the land or premises where the nuisance occurred. A lien established pursuant to this subsection shall have the same priority and be collected as unpaid ad valorem taxes. …

Page 20 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
(c) The authority granted by this section does not authorize the application of a city ordinance banning or otherwise limiting outdoor burning to persons living within one mile of the city, unless the city provides those persons with either (i) trash and yard waste collection services or (ii) access to solid waste dropoff sites on the same basis as city residents." COASTAL STORMWATER GRANDFATHER SECTION 25.(a) The definitions set out in G.S. 143-212, G.S. 143-213, and 15A NCAC 2H .1002 apply to this section. SECTION 25.(b) 15A NCAC 02H .1005 (Stormwater Requirements: Coastal Counties). – Until the effective date of the revised permanent rule that the Commission is required to adopt pursuant to Section 26(d) of this section, the Commission and the Department shall implement 15A NCAC 02H .1005 (Stormwater Requirements: Coastal Counties) as provided in Section 25(c) of this section. SECTION 25.(c) Implementation. – Notwithstanding Paragraph (h) of 15A NCAC 02H .1005 (Stormwater Requirements: Coastal Counties), the provisions and requirements applicable to any grandfathered development activity subject to Subparagraph (a)(2) of 15A NCAC 02H .1005 shall also be applicable to an expansion of the development activity. For purposes of this subsection, "grandfathered development activity" means development activity that is regulated by provisions and requirements of 15A NCAC 02H .1005 (Stormwater Requirements: Coastal Counties) that was effective at the time of the original issuance of any of the authorizations listed in Subparagraph (h)(2) of 15A NCAC 02H .1005, because the authorization meets the criteria set forth in that Subparagraph; and "expansion of the development activity" means development activity conducted on a contiguous property or properties under a subdivision plat approved by the local government prior to July 3, 2012. SECTION 25.(d) Additional Rule-Making Authority. – The Commission shall adopt a rule to amend 15A NCAC 02H .1005 (Stormwater Requirements: Coastal Counties) consistent with Section 25(c) of this section. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B-19(4), the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be substantively identical to the provisions of Section 25(c) of this act. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as provided by G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). SECTION 25.(e) Sunset. – Section 25(c) of this section expires on the date that rules adopted pursuant to Section 25(d) of this section become effective. AMEND TRANSPLANTING OF OYSTERS AND CLAMS STATUTE SECTION 26. G.S. 113-203 reads as rewritten: "§ 113-203. Transplanting of oysters and clams. (a) It is unlawful to transplant oysters taken from public grounds to private beds except: (1) When lawfully taken during open season and transported directly to a private bed in accordance with rules of the Marine Fisheries Commission. (2) Repealed by Session Laws 2009-433, s. 6, effective August 7, 2009. (3) When the transplanting is done in accordance with the provisions of this section and implementing rules. (a1) It is lawful to transplant seed clams less than 12 millimeters in their largest dimension and seed oysters less than 25 millimeters in their largest dimension and when the seed clams and seed oysters originate from an aquaculture operation permitted by the Secretary. (a2) It is unlawful to do any of the following: (1) Transplant oysters or clams taken from public grounds to private beds except when lawfully taken during open season and transported directly to a private bed in accordance with rules of the Marine Fisheries Commission. (2) Transplant oysters or clams taken from permitted aquaculture operations to private beds except from waters in the approved classification. (3) Transplant oysters or clams from public grounds or permitted aquaculture operations utilizing waters in the restricted or conditionally approved classification to private beds except when the transplanting is done in accordance with the provisions of this section and implementing rules. (a3) It is lawful to transplant seed oysters or seed clams taken from permitted aquaculture operations that use waters in the restricted or conditionally approved classification

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 21
to private beds pursuant to an Aquaculture Seed Transplant Permit issued by the Secretary that sets times during which transplant is permissible and other reasonable restrictions imposed by the Secretary under either of the following circumstances: (1) When transplanting seed clams less than 12 millimeters in their largest dimension. (2) When transplanting seed oysters less than 25 millimeters in their largest dimension. (a4) It is unlawful to conduct a seed transplanting operation pursuant to subsection (a3) of this section if the seed transplanting operation is not conducted in compliance with its Aquaculture Seed Transplant Permit. (b) It is lawful to transplant from public bottoms to private beds oysters or clams taken from polluted waters in the restricted or conditionally approved classifications with a permit from the Secretary setting out the waters from which the oysters or clams may be taken, the quantities which may be taken, the times during which the taking is permissible, and other reasonable restrictions imposed by the Secretary for the regulation of transplanting operations. Any transplanting operation which does not substantially comply with the restrictions of the permit issued is unlawful. (c) Repealed by Session Laws 2009-433, s. 6, effective August 7, 2009. (d) It is lawful to transplant to private beds in North Carolina oysters taken from natural or managed public beds designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission as seed oyster management areas. The Secretary shall issue permits to all qualified individuals who are residents of North Carolina without regard to county of residence to transplant seed oysters from said designated seed oyster management areas, setting out the quantity which may be taken, the times which the taking is permissible and other reasonable restrictions imposed to aid the Secretary in the Secretary's duty of regulating such transplanting operations. Persons taking such seed oysters may, in the discretion of the Marine Fisheries Commission, be required to pay to the Department for oysters taken an amount to reimburse the Department in full or in part for the costs of seed oyster management operations. Any transplanting operation which does not substantially comply with the restrictions of the permit issued is unlawful. (e) The Marine Fisheries Commission may implement the provisions of this section by rules governing sale, possession, transportation, storage, handling, planting, and harvesting of oysters and clams and setting out any system of marking oysters and clams or of permits or receipts relating to them generally, from both public and private beds, as necessary to regulate the lawful transplanting of seed oysters and oysters or clams taken from or placed on public or private beds. (f) The Commission may establish a fee for each permit established pursuant to this subsection in an amount that compensates the Division for the administrative costs associated with the permit but that does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) per permit. (g) Advance Sale of Permits; Permit Revenue. – To ensure an orderly transition from one permit year to the next, the Division may issue a permit prior to July 1 of the permit year for which the permit is valid. Revenue that the Division receives for the issuance of a permit prior to the beginning of a permit year shall not revert at the end of the fiscal year in which the revenue is received and shall be credited and available to the Division for the permit year in which the permit is valid." EXEMPT CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILLS FROM THE MINIMUM FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO OTHER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES SECTION 27. G.S. 130A-295.2 reads as rewritten: "§ 130A-295.2. Financial responsibility requirements for applicants and permit holders for solid waste management facilities. … (h) To meet the financial assurance requirements of this section, the owner or operator of a sanitary landfilllandfill, other than a sanitary landfill for the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste, shall establish financial assurance sufficient to cover a minimum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) in costs for potential assessment and corrective action at the facility. The Department may require financial assurance in a higher amount and may increase the amount of financial assurance required of a permit holder at any time based upon the types of waste disposed in the landfill, the projected amount of waste to be disposed in the landfill,

Page 22 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
the location of the landfill, potential receptors of releases from the landfill, and inflation. The financial assurance requirements of this subsection are in addition to the other financial responsibility requirements set out in this section. (h1) To meet the financial assurance requirements of this section, the owner or operator of a sanitary landfill for the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste shall establish financial assurance sufficient to cover a minimum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) in costs for potential assessment and corrective action at the facility. The financial assurance requirements of this subsection are in addition to the other financial responsibility requirements set out in this section. … (j) In addition to the other methods by which financial assurance may be established as set forth in subsection (f) of this section, the Department may allow the owner or operator of a sanitary landfill permitted on or before August 1, 2009, to meet the financial assurance requirement set forth in subsection (h) of this section by establishing a trust fund which conforms to the following minimum requirements: … (4) Payments into the fund shall be made in equal annual installments in amounts calculated by dividing the current cost estimate for potential assessment and corrective action at the facility, which which, for a sanitary landfill, other than a sanitary landfill for the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste, shall not be less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) in accordance with subsection (h) of this section, by the number of years in the pay-in period. (5) The trust fund may be terminated by the owner or operator only if the owner or operator establishes financial assurance by another method or combination of methods allowed under subsection (f) of this section. (6) The trust agreement shall be accompanied by a formal certification of acknowledgement." ON-SITE WASTEWATER APPROVAL CLARIFICATION SECTION 28.(a) G.S. 130A-343 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "§ 130A-343. Approval of on-site subsurface wastewater systems. … (j1) Clarification With Respect to Certain Dispersal Media. – In considering the application by a manufacturer of a wastewater system utilizing expanded polystyrene synthetic aggregate particles as a septic effluent dispersal medium for approval of the system under this section, neither the Commission nor the Department may condition, delay, or deny the approval based on the particle or bulk density of the expanded polystyrene material. With respect to approvals already issued by the Department or Commission that include conditions or requirements related to the particle or bulk density of expanded polystyrene material, the Commission or Department, as applicable, shall promptly reissue all such approvals with the conditions and requirements relating to the density of expanded polystyrene material permanently deleted while leaving all other terms and conditions of the approval intact. …." SECTION 28.(b) Until the reissuance of approvals by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or the Commission for Public Health as required by Section 28(a) of this act, conditions or requirements in existing approvals relating to the particle or bulk density of expanded polystyrene shall have no further force or effect. REFORM AGENCY REVIEW OF ENGINEERING WORK SECTION 29.(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply to Section 6 of this act: (1) Practice of Engineering. – As defined in G.S. 89C-3. (2) Professional Engineer. – As defined in G.S. 89C-3. (3) Regulatory Authority. – The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Health and Human Services, and any unit of local government operating a program (i) that grants permits, licenses, or approvals to the public and (ii) that is either approved by or delegated from

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 23
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or the Department of Health and Human Services. (4) Regulatory Submittal. – An application or other submittal to a Regulatory Authority for a permit, license, or approval. In the case of a unit of local government, Regulatory Submittal shall mean an application or submittal submitted to a program approved by or delegated from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or the Department of Health and Human Services. (5) Submitting Party. – The person submitting the Regulatory Submittal to the Regulatory Authority. (6) Working Job Title. – The job title a Regulatory Authority uses to publicly identify an employee with job duties that include the review of Regulatory Submittals. Working Job Title does not mean job titles that are used by the human resources department of a Regulatory Authority to classify jobs containing technical aspects related to the Practice of Engineering. SECTION 29.(b) Standardize Certain Regulatory Review Procedures. – No later than December 1, 2014, each Regulatory Authority shall review and, where necessary, revise its procedures for review of Regulatory Submittals to accomplish the following: (1) Standardize the provision of review and comments on Regulatory Submittals so that revisions or requests for additional information that are required by the Regulatory Authority in order to proceed with the permit, license, or approval are clearly delineated from revisions or requests for additional information that constitute suggestions or recommendations by the Regulatory Authority. For purposes of this subdivision, "suggestions or recommendations by the Regulatory Authority" means comments made by the reviewer of the Regulatory Submittal to the Submitting Party that make a suggestion or recommendation for consideration by the Submitting Party but that are not required by the Regulatory Authority in order to proceed with the permit, license, or approval. (2) With respect to revisions or requests for additional information that are required by the Regulatory Authority in order to proceed with the permit, license, or approval, the Regulatory Authority shall identify the statutory or regulatory authority for the requirement. SECTION 29.(c) Informal Review. – No later than December 1, 2014, each Regulatory Authority shall create a process for each regulatory program administered by the Regulatory Authority for an informal internal review at the request of the Submitting Party in each of the following circumstances: (1) The inclusion in a Regulatory Submittal of a design or practice sealed by a Professional Engineer but not included in the Regulatory Authority's existing guidance, manuals, or standard operating procedures. This review should first be conducted by the reviewing employee's supervisor or, in the case of a Regulatory Authority that is a unit of local government, either the reviewing employee's supervisor or the delegating or approving State agency. If this initial review was not conducted by a Professional Engineer, then the Submitting Party may request review by (i) a Professional Engineer on the staff of the Regulatory Authority or (ii) the delegating or approving State agency in the case of a Regulatory Authority that is a unit of local government. If the Regulatory Authority or delegating or approving State agency does not employ a Professional Engineer qualified and competent to perform the review, it may provide for review by a consulting Professional Engineer selected from a list developed and maintained by the Regulatory Authority. The Regulatory Authority may charge the Submitting Party for the costs of the review by the consulting Professional Engineer. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to limit the authority of the Regulatory Authority to make a final decision with regard to a Regulatory Submittal following the reviews described in this subdivision. (2) A disagreement between the reviewer of the Regulatory Submittal and the Submitting Party regarding whether the statutory or regulatory authority identified by the Regulatory Authority for revisions or requests for

Page 24 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
additional information designated as "required" under the procedures set forth in Section 29(b) of this act justifies a required change. SECTION 29.(d) Scope. – Nothing in Section 29(c) of this act shall limit or abrogate any rights available under Chapter 150B of the General Statutes to any Submitting Party. SECTION 29.(e) Procedure to Develop List of Consulting Professional Engineers. – Regulatory Authorities shall develop formal written procedures to prepare and maintain a list of consulting Professional Engineers required pursuant to subdivision (1) of Section 29(c) of this act. SECTION 29.(f) Pilot Study. – No later than March 1, 2015, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall complete a pilot study on the Pretreatment, Emergency Response and Collection System (PERCS) wastewater collection system permitting program and the stormwater permitting program and perform the following activities with the assistance and cooperation of the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors and the Professional Engineers of North Carolina: (1) Produce an inventory of work activities associated with the operation of each regulatory program. (2) Determine the work activities identified under subdivision (1) of this subsection that constitute the Practice of Engineering. (3) Develop recommendations for ensuring that work activities constituting the Practice of Engineering are conducted with the appropriate level of oversight. SECTION 29.(g) Report. – The Department shall report the results of the pilot study to the Environmental Review Commission no later than April 15, 2015. SECTION 29.(h) Review of Working Job Titles. – No later than December 1, 2014, each Regulatory Authority and the Department of Transportation shall do the following: (1) Review the Working Job Titles of every employee with job duties that include the review of Regulatory Submittals. (2) Propose revisions to the Working Job Titles identified under subdivision (1) of this subsection or other administrative measures that will eliminate the public identification as "engineers" of persons reviewing Regulatory Submittals who are not Professional Engineers. SECTION 29.(i) Initial Report. – Each Regulatory Authority shall report to the Environmental Review Commission prior to the convening of the 2015 Regular Session of the 2015 General Assembly on implementation of the following, if applicable: (1) The standardized procedures required by Section 29(b) of this act. (2) The informal review process required by Section 29(c) of this act. (3) The review of Working Job Titles required by Section 29(h) of this act. SECTION 29.(j) Annual Report. – Beginning in 2016, each Regulatory Authority shall annually report to the Environmental Review Commission no later than January 15 on the informal review process required by Section 29(c) of this act. The report shall include the number of times the informal review process was utilized and the outcome of the review. SECTION 29.(k) Annual Reporting Sunset. – Section 29(j) of this act expires on January 1, 2019. SPEED LIMIT WAIVER IN STATE PARKS AND FORESTS SECTION 31.(a) G.S. 143-116.8 is amended by adding two new subsections to read: "§ 143-116.8. Motor vehicle laws applicable to State parks and forests road system. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, all the provisions of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes relating to the use of highways and public vehicular areas of the State and the operation of vehicles thereon are made applicable to the State parks and forests road system. For the purposes of this section, the term "State parks and forests road system" shall mean the streets, alleys, roads, public vehicular areas and driveways of the State parks, State forests, State recreation areas, State lakes, and all other lands administered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This term shall not be construed, however, to include streets that are a part of the State highway system. Any person violating any of the provisions of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes hereby made applicable in the State parks and forests road system shall, upon conviction, be

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 25
punished in accordance with Chapter 20 of the General Statutes. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as in any way interfering with the ownership and control of the State parks road system by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the forests road system by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (b) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a vehicle in the State parks road system at a speed in excess of twenty-five miles per hour (25 mph). When the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources determines that this speed is greater than reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist in the State parks road system, the Secretary may establish a lower reasonable and safe speed limit. No speed limit established by the Secretary pursuant to this provision shall be effective until posted in the part of the system where the limit is intended to apply. (1a) It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a vehicle in the State forests road system at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour. When the Commissioner of Agriculture determines that this speed is greater than reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist in the State forests road system, the Commissioner may establish a lower reasonable and safe speed limit. No speed limit established by the Commissioner pursuant to this provision shall be effective until posted in the part of the system where the limit is intended to apply. … (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a person may petition the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for a waiver authorizing the person to operate a vehicle in the State parks road system at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour in connection with a special event. The Secretary may impose any conditions on a waiver that the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare, and the natural resources of the State park. These conditions shall include a requirement that the person receiving the waiver execute an indemnification agreement with the Department and obtain general liability insurance in an amount not to exceed three million dollars ($3,000,000) covering personal injury and property damage that may result from driving in excess of 25 miles per hour in the State parks road system subject to the conditions determined by the Secretary. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a person may petition the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for a waiver authorizing the person to operate a vehicle in the State forests road system at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour in connection with a special event. The Commissioner may impose any conditions on a waiver that the Commissioner determines to be necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare, and the natural resources of the State forest. These conditions shall include a requirement that the person receiving the waiver execute an indemnification agreement with the Department and obtain general liability insurance in an amount not to exceed three million dollars ($3,000,000) covering personal injury and property damage that may result from driving in excess of 25 miles per hour in the State forests road system subject to the conditions determined by the Commissioner." SECTION 31.(b) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall amend their rules to be consistent with Section 31(a) of this act. SCOPE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR ORDINANCES SECTION 32.(a) Section 10.2 of S.L. 2013-413 is repealed. SECTION 32.(b) No later than November 1, 2014, and November 1, 2015, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall report to the Environmental Review Commission on any local government ordinances that impinge on or interfere with any area subject to regulation by the Department. SECTION 32.(c) No later than November 1, 2014, and November 1, 2015, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall report to the Environmental Review Commission on any local government ordinances that impinge on or interfere with any area subject to regulation by the Department. SECTION 32.(d) In developing the reports pursuant to Sections 32(b) and 32(c) of this act, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of

Page 26 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
Agriculture and Consumer Services shall solicit and receive input from the public regarding any local government ordinances that impinge on or interfere with any area subject to regulation by the respective Department. FEE ROLLBACK FOR OYSTER PERMITS UNDER PRIVATE DOCKS SECTION 33.(a) Subsection (m) of G.S. 113-210 are repealed. SECTION 33.(b) This section becomes effective July 1, 2014. LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEASES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES SECTION 34. G.S. 160A-272 reads as rewritten: "§ 160A-272. Lease or rental of property. … (c) The council may approve a lease for the siting and operation of a renewable energy facility, as that term is defined in G.S. 62-133.8(a)(7), for a term up to 20 25 years without treating the lease as a sale of property and without giving notice by publication of the intended lease. This subsection applies to Catawba, Mecklenburg, and Wake Counties, the Cities of Asheville, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem, and the Towns of Apex, Carrboro, Cary, Chapel Hill, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Holly Springs, Knightdale, Morrisville, Rolesville, Wake Forest, Wendell, and Zebulon only." INLET HAZARD AREAS SECTION 35.(a) The definitions set out in G.S. 113A-103 apply to this section. SECTION 35.(b) 15A NCAC 07H .0304 (AECs Within Ocean Hazard Areas). – Until the effective date of the revised permanent rule that the Commission is required to adopt pursuant to Section 35(d) of this act, the Commission and the Department shall implement 15A NCAC 07H .0304 (AECs Within Ocean Hazard Areas) as provided in Section 35(c) of this act. SECTION 35.(c) Implementation. – Notwithstanding Subparagraph (3) of 15A NCAC 07H .0304 (AECs Within Ocean Hazard Areas), the Commission shall not establish any new and shall repeal any existing inlet hazard area in any location with the following characteristics: (1) The location is the former location of an inlet, but the inlet has been closed for at least 15 years. (2) Due to shoreline migration, the location no longer includes the current location of the inlet. (3) The location includes an inlet providing access to a State Port via a channel maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. SECTION 35.(d) Additional Rule-Making Authority. – The Commission shall adopt a rule to amend 15A NCAC 07H .0304 (AECs Within Ocean Hazard Areas) consistent with Section 35(c) of this act. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B-19(4), the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be substantively identical to the provisions of Section 35(c) of this act. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as provided by G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). SECTION 35.(e) Sunset. – Section 35(c) of this act expires on the date that rules adopted pursuant to Section 35(d) of this act become effective. SECTION 35.(f) Nothing in this section is intended to prevent the Commission from (i) studying any current inlet hazard area or any other area considered by the Commission for designation as an inlet hazard area, (ii) designating new inlet hazard areas, or (iii) modifying existing inlet hazard areas consistent with Section 35(c) of this act. HUNTING TRIALS SECTION 36.(a) The Wildlife Resources Commission shall adopt rules to clarify the requirements in 15A NCAC 10B .0114 addressing which participants in retriever field trials are required to possess a hunting license, including out-of-state participants, judges, and spectators. SECTION 36.(b) In developing the rules pursuant to Section 36(a) of this act, the Wildlife Resources Commission shall hold public hearings and consult with field trial groups active in the State.

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 27
EXPEDITED IBT PROCESS FOR CERTAIN RESERVOIRS SECTION 37. G.S. 143-215.22L(w) reads as rewritten: "(w) Requirements for Coastal Counties.Counties and Reservoirs Constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. – A petition for a certificate (i) to transfer surface water to supplement ground water supplies in the 15 counties designated as the Central Capacity Use Area under 15A NCAC 2E.0501, or (ii) to transfer surface water withdrawn from the mainstem of a river to provide service to one of the coastal area counties designated pursuant to G.S. 113A-103, or (iii) to withdraw or transfer water stored in any multipurpose reservoir constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and partially located in a state adjacent to North Carolina, provided the United States Army Corps of Engineers approved the withdrawal or transfer on or before July 1, 2014, shall be considered and a determination made according to the following procedures: (1) The applicant shall file a notice of intent that includes a nontechnical description of the applicant's request and identification of the proposed water source. (2) The applicant shall prepare an environmental document pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, except that an environmental impact statement shall not be required unless it would otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. (3) Upon determining that the documentation submitted by the applicant is adequate to satisfy the requirements of this subsection, the Department shall publish a notice of the petition in the North Carolina Register and shall hold a public hearing at a location convenient to both the source and receiving river basins. The Department shall provide written notice of the petition and the public hearing in the Environmental Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the source river basin, a newspaper of general circulation in the receiving river basin, and as provided in subdivision (3) of subsection (c) of this section. The applicant who petitions the Commission for a certificate under this subdivision shall pay the costs associated with the notice and public hearing. (4) The Department shall accept comments on the petition for a minimum of 30 days following the public hearing. (5) The Commission or the Department may require the applicant to provide any additional information or documentation it deems reasonably necessary in order to make a final determination. (6) The Commission shall make a final determination whether to grant the certificate based on the factors set out in subsection (k) of this section, information provided by the applicant, and any other information the Commission deems relevant. The Commission shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each factor. (7) The Commission shall grant the certificate if it finds that the applicant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the petition satisfies the requirements of subsection (m) of this section. The Commission may grant the certificate in whole or in part, or deny the request, and may impose such limitations and conditions on the certificate as it deems necessary and relevant." ELIMINATE OUTDATED AIR QUALITY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SECTION 38.(a) G.S. 143-215.3A reads as rewritten: "§ 143-215.3A. Water and Air Quality Account; use of application and permit fees; Title V Account; I & M Air Pollution Control Account; reports. … (c) The Department shall report to the Environmental Review Commission and the Fiscal Research Division on the cost of the State's environmental permitting programs contained within the Department on or before 1 November of each year. In addition, the Department shall report to the Environmental Review Commission and the Fiscal Research Division on the cost of the Title V Program on or before 1 November of each year. The reports report shall include, but are is not limited to, fees set and established under this Article, fees

Page 28 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
collected under this Article, revenues received from other sources for environmental permitting and compliance programs, changes made in the fee schedule since the last report, anticipated revenues from all other sources, interest earned and any other information requested by the General Assembly." SECTION 38.(b) The following sections of S.L. 2002-4 are repealed: (1) Section 10. (2) Section 11, as amended by Section 12 of S.L. 2006-79 and S.L. 2010-142. (3) Section 12. (4) Section 13. SECTION 38.(c) G.S. 143-215.108(g) is repealed. CLARIFYING CHANGES TO STATUTES PERTAINING TO THE MANAGEMENT OF VENOMOUS SNAKES AND OTHER REPTILES SECTION 39. G.S. 114-419(b) reads as rewritten: "§ 14-419. Investigation of suspected violations; seizure and examination of reptiles; disposition of reptiles. … (b) If the Museum or the Zoological Park or their designated representatives find that a seized reptile is a venomous reptile, large constricting snake, or crocodilian regulated under this Article, the Museum or the Zoological Park or their designated representative shall determine final disposition of the reptile in a manner consistent with the safety of the public, which in the case of a venomous reptile for which antivenin approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration is not readily available, may include euthanasia.shall be euthanized unless the species is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973." REFORM ON-SITE WASTEWATER REGULATION SECTION 40.(a) G.S. 130A-334 reads as rewritten: "§ 130A-334. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this Article: … (1b) "Ground absorption system" means a system of tanks, treatment units, nitrification fields, and appurtenances for wastewater collection, treatment, and subsurface disposal. … (7a) "Plat" means a property survey prepared by a registered land surveyor, drawn to a scale of one inch equals no more than 60 feet, that includes: the specific location of the proposed facility and appurtenances, the site for the proposed wastewater system, and the location of water supplies and surface waters. "Plat" also means, for subdivision lots approved by the local planning authority and recorded with the county register of deeds,if a local planning authority exists at the time of application for a permit under this Article, a copy of the recorded subdivision plat that has been recorded with the county register of deeds and is accompanied by a site plan that is drawn to scale. … (15) "Wastewater system" means a system of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal in single or multiple components, including a ground absorption system, privy, septic tank system, public or community wastewater system, wastewater reuse or recycle system, mechanical or biological wastewater treatment system, any other similar system, and any chemical toilet used only for human waste. A wastewater system located on multiple adjoining lots or tracts of land under common ownership or control shall be considered a single system for purposes of permitting under this Article." SECTION 40.(b) G.S. 130A-335(f1) reads as rewritten: "(f1) A preconstruction conference with the owner or developer, or an agent of the owner or developer, and a representative of the local health department shall be required for any authorization for wastewater system construction issued with an improvement permit under G.S. 130-336 when the authorization is greater than five years old. Following the conference,

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 29
the local health department shall issue a revised authorization advise the owner or developer of any rule changes for wastewater system construction that includes incorporating current technology that can reasonably be expected to improve the performance of the system. The local health department shall issue a revised authorization for wastewater system construction incorporating the rule changes upon the written request of the owner or developer." SECTION 40.(c) G.S. 130A-336 reads as rewritten: "§ 130A-336. Improvement permit and authorization for wastewater system construction required. … (b) The local health department shall issue an authorization for wastewater system construction authorizing work to proceed and the installation or repair of a wastewater system when it has determined after a field investigation that the system can be installed and operated in compliance with this Article and rules adopted pursuant to this Article. This authorization for wastewater system construction shall be valid for a period equal to the period of validity of the improvement permit, not to exceed five years,permit and may be issued at the same time the improvement permit is issued. No person shall commence or assist in the installation, construction, or repair of a wastewater system unless an improvement permit and an authorization for wastewater system construction have been obtained from the Department or the local health department. No improvement permit or authorization for wastewater system construction shall be required for maintenance of a wastewater system. The Department and the local health department may impose conditions on the issuance of an improvement permit and an authorization for wastewater system construction. (c) Unless the Commission otherwise provides by rule, plans, and specifications for all wastewater systems designed for the collection, treatment, and disposal of industrial process wastewater shall be reviewed and approved by the Department prior to the issuance of an authorization for wastewater system construction by the local health department. (d) If a local health department repeatedly fails to issue or deny improvement permits for conventional septic tank systems within 60 days of receiving completed applications for the permits, then the Department of Environment and Natural Resources may withhold public health funding from that local health department." REPEAL WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD RULES SECTION 41.(a) The General Assembly finds that the statutory authority for the Governor's Waste Management Board was repealed by S.L. 1993-501 and, therefore, regulations previously promulgated by that Board are no longer enforceable or necessary. SECTION 41.(b) The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources shall repeal 15A NCAC Chapter 14 (Governor's Waste Management Board) on or before December 1, 2014. Until the effective date of the repeal of the rule required pursuant to this section, the Secretary, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Environmental Management Commission, or any other political subdivision of the State shall not implement or enforce 15A NCAC Chapter 14 (Governor's Waste Management Board). WELL CONTRACTOR LICENSING CHANGES SECTION 42.(a) G.S. 87-43.1 is amended by adding the following new subdivision to read: "§ 87-43.1. Exceptions. The provisions of this Article shall not apply: … (10) To the installation, construction, maintenance, or repair of electrical wiring, devices, appliances, or equipment by a person certified as a well contractor under Article 7A of this Chapter when running electrical wires from the well pump to the pressure switch." SECTION 42.(b) G.S. 87-98.6 reads as rewritten: "§ 87-98.6. Well contractor qualifications and examination. (a) The Commission, with the advice and assistance of the Secretary, shall establish minimum requirements of education, experience, and knowledge for each type of certification for well contractors and shall establish procedures for receiving applications for certification, conducting examinations, and making investigations of applicants as may be necessary and appropriate so that prompt and fair consideration will be given to each applicant.

Page 30 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
(b) The Commission, with the advice and assistance of the Secretary, shall establish minimum requirements of education, experience, and knowledge for each type of certification for well contractors for the installation, construction, maintenance, and repair of electrical wiring devices, appliances, and equipment related to the construction, operation, and repair of wells. Requirements developed pursuant to this subsection shall apply only to the initial certification of an applicant and shall not be required as part of continuing education or as a condition of certification renewal." SECTION 42.(c) This section is effective when it becomes law. The requirements of subsection (b) of G.S. 87-98.6, as enacted by Section 42(b) of this act, apply to applicants applying for certification on or after the date this section becomes effective. STANDARDIZE LOCAL WELL PROGRAMS SECTION 43.(a) G.S. 87-97 reads as rewritten: "§ 87-97. Permitting, inspection, and testing of private drinking water wells. (a) Mandatory Local Well Programs. – Each county, through the local health department that serves the county, shall implement a private drinking water well permitting, inspection, and testing program. Local health departments shall administer the program and enforce the minimum well construction, permitting, inspection, repair, and testing requirements set out in this Article and rules adopted pursuant to this Article. No person shall unduly delay or refuse to permit a well that can be constructed or repaired and operated in compliance with the requirements set out in this Article and rules adopted pursuant to this Article. (a1) Use of Standard Forms. – Local well programs shall use the standard forms created by the Department for all required submittals and shall not create their own forms unless the local program submits a petition for rule-making to the Environmental Management Commission, and the Commission by rule finds that conditions or circumstances unique to the area served by the local well program constitute a threat to public health that will be mitigated by use of a local form different from the form used by the Department. … (k) Registry of Permits and Test Results. – Each local health department shall maintain a registry of all private drinking water wells for which a construction permit or repair permit is issued.issued that is searchable by address or addresses served by the well. The registry shall specify the physical location of each private drinking water well and shall include the results of all tests of water from each well. The local health department shall retain a record of the results of all tests of water from a private drinking water well until the well is properly closed in accordance with the requirements of this Article and rules adopted pursuant to this Article. …." SECTION 43.(b) Notwithstanding 15A NCAC 02C .0107(j)(2), neither the Department of Environment and Natural Resources nor any local well program shall require that well contractor identification plates include the well construction permit numbers. Local well programs may install a plate with the well construction permit number or any other information deemed relevant on a well at the expense of the local program. SECTION 43.(c) The Environmental Management Commission shall adopt a rule to amend 15A NCAC 02C .0107(j)(2) consistent with Section 43(b) of this act. SECTION 43.(d) Section 43(b) of this act expires on the date that the rule adopted pursuant to Section 43(c) of this act becomes effective. SECTION 43.(e) If the well location marked on the map submitted with an application to a local well program is also marked with a stake or similar marker on the property, then the local well program may not require the contractor to be on–site during the on-site predrill inspection, as long as the contractor is available by telephone to answer questions. SENATOR JEAN PRESTON MARINE SHELLFISH SANCTUARY SECTION 44.(a) It is the intent of the General Assembly to establish a marine shellfish sanctuary in the Pamlico Sound to be named in honor of former Senator Jean Preston, to be called the "Senator Jean Preston Marine Shellfish Sanctuary." SECTION 44.(b) The Division of Marine Fisheries of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall designate an area of appropriate acreage within the Pamlico Sound as a recommendation to the Environmental Review Commission for

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 31
establishment of the "Senator Jean Preston Marine Shellfish Sanctuary" and create a plan for managing the sanctuary that includes the following components: (1) Location and delineation of the sanctuary. – The plan should include a location for the sanctuary that minimizes the impact on commercial trawling. In addition, the sanctuary should be gridded into areas leased to private parties for restoration and harvest and areas operated and maintained by the State for restoration that are not open for harvest. The leased and unleased areas should be arranged in a pattern where leased squares are surrounded on four sides by unleased squares. (2) Administration. – The plan should include the prices to be charged for the leased portions of the sanctuary, including an administration fee to be retained by the Division to support the leasing and monitoring program. The plan shall also provide that the balance of lease payments collected by the Division be transferred to the General Fund with a recommendation that some or all of the proceeds be used for the support of the State's special education programs in memory of Senator Jean Preston. (3) Funding. – The plan should include a request for appropriations sufficient to provide funds for the construction of appropriate bottom habitat and shellfish seeding and for Division staff necessary to conduct oyster restoration and monitoring activities. The plan should provide that, whenever possible, construction and shellfish seeding be carried out by contract with private entities. (4) Commercial fisherman relief. – To promote the diversification of commercial fishing opportunities, the plan should include a program to award free or discounted leases under this section to commercial fishermen who (i) have held one or more commercial fishing licenses continually for a period of 10 or more years and (ii) receive at least fifty percent (50%) of their income from commercial fishing with those licenses. (5) Recommendations. – The plan should include recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes needed to expedite the expansion of shellfish restoration and harvesting in order to improve water quality, restore ecological habitats, and expand the coastal economy. SECTION 44.(c) No later than December 1, 2014, and quarterly thereafter until submission of a final plan to the Environmental Review Commission, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall report to the Environmental Review Commission regarding its implementation of this section and its recommended plan. CLARIFY GRAVEL UNDER STORMWATER LAWS SECTION 45.(a) G.S. 143-214.7(b2) reads as rewritten: "(b2) For purposes of implementing stormwater programs, "built-upon area" means impervious surface and partially impervious surface to the extent that the partially impervious surface does not allow water to infiltrate through the surface and into the subsoil. "Built-upon area" does not include a wooden slatted deck, deck or the water area of a swimming pool, or gravel.pool." SECTION 45.(b) The Environmental Management Commission shall amend its rules to be consistent with the definition of "built-upon area" set out in subsection (b2) of G.S. 143-214.7, as amended by Section 45(a) of this act. SECTION 45.(c) Unless specifically authorized by the General Assembly, neither the Environmental Management Commission nor the Department of Environment and Natural Resources have the authority to define the term "gravel" for purposes of implementing stormwater programs. Any rule adopted by the Environmental Management Commission or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources that defines the term "gravel" for purposes of implementing stormwater programs is not effective and shall not become effective. SECTION 45.(d) This section is effective when it becomes law. Subsection (b2) of G.S. 143-214.7, as amended by Section 45(a) of this act, applies to projects for which permit applications are received on or after that date. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE CLUSTER BOX UNITS/NO STORMWATER PERMIT MODIFICATION REQUIRED

Page 32 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
SECTION 46.(a) Notwithstanding the requirements of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes and rules adopted pursuant to that Article, the addition of a cluster box unit to a single-family or duplex development permitted by a local government shall not require a modification to any stormwater permit for that development. This section shall only apply to single-family or duplex developments in which individual curbside mailboxes are replaced with cluster box units whereupon the associated built-upon area supporting the cluster box units shall be considered incidental and shall not be required in the calculation of built-upon area for the development for stormwater permitting purposes. SECTION 46.(b) This section is effective when this act becomes law and expires on December 31, 2015, or when regulations on cluster box design and placement by the United States Postal Service become effective and those regulations are adopted by local governments, whichever is earlier. MODIFICATION OF APPROVED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS SECTION 47.(a) The definitions set out in G.S. 130A-343 shall apply to this section. SECTION 47.(b) 15A NCAC 18A .1969(j) (Modification of Approved Systems). – Until the effective date of the revised permanent rule that the Commission is required to adopt pursuant to Section 47(d) of this act, the Commission and the Department shall implement 15A NCAC 18A .1969(j) (Modification of Approved Systems) as provided in Section 47(c) of this act. SECTION 47.(c) Implementation. – Notwithstanding 15A NCAC 18A .1969(j) (Modification of Approved Systems), the rule shall be implemented so as to not require a survey or audit of installed modified accepted systems in order to confirm the satisfactory performance of such systems. SECTION 47.(d) Additional Rule-Making Authority. – The Commission for Public Health shall adopt a rule to amend 15A NCAC 18A .1969(j) (Modification of Approved Systems) consistent with Section 47(c) of this act. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B-19(4), the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be substantively identical to the provisions of Section 47(c) of this act. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as provided by G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). SECTION 47.(e) Sunset. – Section 47(c) of this act expires on the date that the rule adopted pursuant to Section 47(d) of this act becomes effective. CAPSTONE PERMITTING SECTION 48. G.S. 150B-23 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "§ 150B-23. Commencement; assignment of administrative law judge; hearing required; notice; intervention. … (g) Where multiple licenses are required from an agency for a single activity, the Secretary or chief administrative officer of the agency may issue a written determination that the administrative decision reviewable under Article 3 of this Chapter occurs on the date the last license for the activity is issued, denied, or otherwise disposed of. The written determination of the administrative decision is not reviewable under this Article. Any licenses issued for the activity prior to the date of the last license identified in the written determination are not reviewable under this Article until the last license for the activity is issued, denied, or otherwise disposed of. A contested case challenging the last license decision for the activity may include challenges to agency decisions on any of the previous licenses required for the activity." CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE ACT SECTION 49.(a) Chapter 47E of the General Statutes reads as rewritten: "Chapter 47E. "Residential Property Disclosure Act. … "§ 47E-2. Exemptions. The following transfers are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter:

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 33
(1) Transfers pursuant to court order, including transfers ordered by a court in administration of an estate, transfers pursuant to a writ of execution, transfers by foreclosure sale, transfers by a trustee in bankruptcy, transfers by eminent domain, and transfers resulting from a decree for specific performance. (2) Transfers to a beneficiary from the grantor or his successor in interest in a deed of trust, or to a mortgagee from the mortgagor or his successor in interest in a mortgage, if the indebtedness is in default; transfers by a trustee under a deed of trust or a mortgagee under a mortgage, if the indebtedness is in default; transfers by a trustee under a deed of trust or a mortgagee under a mortgage pursuant to a foreclosure sale, or transfers by a beneficiary under a deed of trust, who has acquired the real property at a sale conducted pursuant to a foreclosure sale under a deed of trust. (3) Transfers by a fiduciary in the course of the administration of a decedent's estate, guardianship, conservatorship, or trust. (4) Transfers from one or more co-owners solely to one or more other co-owners. (5) Transfers made solely to a spouse or a person or persons in the lineal line of consanguinity of one or more transferors. (6) Transfers between spouses resulting from a decree of divorce or a distribution pursuant to Chapter 50 of the General Statutes or comparable provision of another state. (7) Transfers made by virtue of the record owner's failure to pay any federal, State, or local taxes. (8) Transfers to or from the State or any political subdivision of the State. (b) The following transfers are exempt from the provisions of G.S. 47E-4 but not from the requirements of G.S. 47E-4.1: (9)(1) Transfers involving the first sale of a dwelling never inhabited. (10)(2) Lease with option to purchase contracts where the lessee occupies or intends to occupy the dwelling. (11)(3) Transfers between parties when both parties agree not to complete a residential property disclosure statement or an owners' association and mandatory covenants disclosure statement. … "§ 47E-4. Required disclosures. … (b2) With regard to transfers described in G.S. 47E-1, the owner of the real property shall include in any real estate contract, an oil and gas rights mandatory disclosure as provided in this subsection: (1) Transfers of residential property set forth in G.S. 47E-2 are excluded from this requirement, except that the exemptions provided under subdivisions (9) and (11) of G.S. 47E-2 specifically are not excluded from this requirement. (2) The disclosure shall be conspicuous, shall be in boldface type, and shall be as follows: OIL AND GAS RIGHTS DISCLOSURE Oil and gas rights can be severed from the title to real property by conveyance (deed) of the oil and gas rights from the owner or by reservation of the oil and gas rights by the owner. If oil and gas rights are or will be severed from the property, the owner of those rights may have the perpetual right to drill, mine, explore, and remove any of the subsurface oil or gas resources on or from the property either directly from the surface of the property or from a nearby location. With regard to the severance of oil and gas rights, Seller makes the following disclosures: Yes No No Representation ___________ 1. Oil and gas rights were severed from __ __ __ Buyer Initials the property by a previous owner. Yes No ___________ 2. Seller has severed the oil and gas __ __ Buyer Initials rights from the property.

Page 34 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
Yes No ___________ 3. Seller intends to sever the oil and __ __ Buyer Initials gas rights from the property prior to transfer of title to Buyer. (c) The rights of the parties to a real estate contract as to conditions of the property of which the owner had no actual knowledge are not affected by this Article unless the residential disclosure statement or the owners' association and mandatory covenants disclosure statement, as applicable, states that the owner makes no representations as to those conditions. If the statement states that an owner makes no representations as to the conditions of the property, then the owner has no duty to disclose those conditions, whether or not the owner should have known of them. "§ 47E-4.1. Required mineral and oil and gas rights disclosures. (a) With regard to transfers described in G.S. 47E-1 and G.S. 47E-2(b), the owner of the real property shall furnish to a purchaser a mineral and oil and gas rights mandatory disclosure statement. The disclosure shall be conspicuous, shall be in boldface type, and shall be as follows: MINERAL AND OIL AND GAS RIGHTS DISCLOSURE Mineral rights and/or oil and gas rights can be severed from the title to real property by conveyance (deed) of the mineral rights and/or oil and gas rights from the owner or by reservation of the mineral rights and/or oil and gas rights by the owner. If mineral rights and/or oil and gas rights are or will be severed from the property, the owner of those rights may have the perpetual right to drill, mine, explore, and remove any of the subsurface mineral and/or oil or gas resources on or from the property either directly from the surface of the property or from a nearby location. With regard to the severance of mineral rights and/or oil and gas rights, Seller makes the following disclosures: Yes No No Representation ___________ 1. Mineral rights were severed from __ __ __ Buyer Initials the property by a previous owner. Yes No ___________ 2. Seller has severed the mineral __ __ Buyer Initials rights from the property. Yes No ___________ 3. Seller intends to sever the mineral __ __ Buyer Initials rights from the property prior to transfer of title to Buyer. Yes No No Representation ___________ 4. Oil and gas rights were severed from __ __ __ Buyer Initials the property by a previous owner. Yes No ___________ 5. Seller has severed the oil and gas __ __ Buyer Initials rights from the property. Yes No ___________ 6. Seller intends to sever the oil and __ __ Buyer Initials gas rights from the property prior to transfer of title to Buyer. (b) The North Carolina Real Estate Commission shall develop and require the use of a mineral and oil and gas rights mandatory disclosure statement to comply with the requirements of this section. The disclosure statement shall specify that the transfers identified in G.S. 47E-2(a) are exempt from this requirement but the transfers identified in G.S. 47E-2(b) are not. The disclosure statement shall provide the owner with the option to indicate whether the owner has actual knowledge of the specified characteristics or conditions. The owner may make no representations only as to a previous severance of mineral rights and previous severance of oil and gas rights. (c) The rights of the parties to a real estate contract as to the severance of minerals or the severance of oil and gas rights by the previous owner of the property and of which the owner had no actual knowledge are not affected by this Article unless the mineral and oil and

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 35
gas rights mandatory disclosure statement states that the owner makes no representations as to the severance of mineral rights or the severance of oil and gas rights by the previous owner of the property. If the statement states that an owner makes no representations as to the severance of mineral rights or the severance of oil and gas rights by the previous owner of the property, then the owner has no duty to disclose the severance of mineral rights or the severance of oil and gas rights, as applicable, by a previous owner of the property, whether or not the owner should have known of any such severance. "§ 47E-5. Time for disclosure; cancellation of contract. (a) The owner of real property subject to this Chapter shall deliver to the purchaser the disclosure statements required by this Chapter no later than the time the purchaser makes an offer to purchase, exchange, or option the property, or exercises the option to purchase the property pursuant to a lease with an option to purchase. The residential property disclosure statement statement, the mineral and oil and gas rights mandatory disclosure statement, or the owners' association and mandatory covenants disclosure statement may be included in the real estate contract, in an addendum, or in a separate document. … "§ 47E-6. Owner liability for disclosure of information provided by others. The With the exception of the disclosures required by G.S. 47E-4.1, the owner may discharge the duty to disclose imposed by this Chapter by providing a written report attached to the residential property disclosure statement and the owners' association and mandatory covenants disclosure statement by a public agency or by an attorney, engineer, land surveyor, geologist, pest control operator, contractor, home inspector or other expert, dealing with matters within the scope of the public agency's functions or the expert's license or expertise. The owner shall not be liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission of any information delivered pursuant to this section if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was made in reasonable reliance upon the information provided by the public agency or expert and the owner was not grossly negligent in obtaining the information or transmitting it. "§ 47E-7. Change in circumstances. If, subsequent to the owner's delivery of a residential property disclosure statement and statement, the mineral and oil and gas rights mandatory disclosure statement, or the owners' association and mandatory covenants disclosure statement to a purchaser, the owner discovers a material inaccuracy in a disclosure statement, or a disclosure statement is rendered inaccurate in a material way by the occurrence of some event or circumstance, the owner shall promptly correct the inaccuracy by delivering a corrected disclosure statement or statements to the purchaser. Failure to deliver a corrected disclosure statement or to make the repairs made necessary by the event or circumstance shall result in such remedies for the buyer as are provided for by law in the event the sale agreement requires the property to be in substantially the same condition at closing as on the date of the offer to purchase, reasonable wear and tear excepted. "§ 47E-8. Agent's duty. A real estate broker or salesman acting as an agent in a residential real estate transaction has the duty to inform each of the clients of the real estate broker or salesman of the client's rights and obligations under this Chapter. Provided the owner's real estate broker or salesman has performed this duty, the broker or salesman shall not be responsible for the owner's willful refusal to provide a prospective purchaser with a residential property disclosure statement statement, the mineral and oil and gas rights mandatory disclosure statement, or an owners' association and mandatory covenants disclosure statement. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to conflict with, or alter, the broker or salesman's broker's duties under Chapter 93A of the General Statutes. …." SECTION 49.(b) This section becomes effective January 1, 2015, and applies to contracts executed on or after that date. REPORTS ON MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 50. Section 1 of S.L. 2013-82 reads as rewritten: "SECTION 1. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall develop Minimum Design Criteria for permits issued by the stormwater runoff permitting programs authorized by G.S. 143-214.7. The Minimum Design Criteria shall include all requirements for siting, site preparation, design and construction, and post-construction monitoring and

Page 36 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
evaluation necessary for the Department to issue stormwater permits that comply with State water quality standards adopted pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1, 143-214.7, and 143-215.3(a)(1). In developing and updating the Minimum Design Criteria, the Department shall consult with a technical working group that consists of industry experts, engineers, environmental consultants, relevant faculty from The University of North Carolina, and other interested stakeholders. The Department shall submit interim reports on its progress in developing the Minimum Design Criteria to the Environmental Review Commission no later than September 1, 2014, and December 1, 2014. The Department shall submit a final report, including its recommendations to the Environmental Review Commission no later than September 1, 2014.February 1, 2015." CLARIFY EFFECTIVE DATE OF DEFINITION OF DISCHARGE OF WASTE SECTION 51.(a) Section 17 of S.L. 2012-187 reads as rewritten: "SECTION 17. Section 11 of this act is effective when it becomes law and applies to contested cases filed or pending on or after that date. Except as otherwise provided, this act is effective when it becomes law." SECTION 51.(b) This section becomes effective July 16, 2012. STATEWIDE VENUS FLYTRAP PENALTIES SECTION 52.(a) Article 22 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 14-129.3. Felony taking of Venus flytrap. (a) Any person, firm, or corporation who digs up, pulls up, takes, or carries away, or aids in taking or carrying away, any Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) plant or the seed of any Venus flytrap plant growing upon the lands of another person, or from the public domain, with the intent to steal the Venus flytrap plant or seed is guilty of a Class H felony. (b) This section shall not apply to any person, firm, or corporation that has a permit to dig up, pull up, take, or carry away the plant or seed, signed by the owner of the land, or the owner's duly authorized agent. At the time of the digging, pulling, taking, or carrying away, the permit shall be in the possession of the person, firm, or corporation on the land." SECTION 52.(b) G.S. 14-129 reads as rewritten: "§ 14-129. Taking, etc., of certain wild plants from land of another. No person, firm or corporation shall dig up, pull up or take from the land of another or from any public domain, the whole or any part of any Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), trailing arbutus, Aaron's Rod (Thermopsis caroliniana), Bird-foot Violet (Viola pedata), Bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), Blue Dogbane (Amsonia tabernaemontana), Cardinal-flower (Lobelia cardinalis), Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), Dutchman's Breeches (Dicentra cucullaria), Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum), Walking Fern (Camptosorus rhizophyllus), Gentians (Gentiana), Ground Cedar, Running Cedar, Hepatica (Hepatica americana and acutiloba), Jack-in-the-Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), Lily (Lilium), Lupine (Lupinus), Monkshood (Aconitum uncinatum and reclinatum), May Apple (Podophyllum peltatum), Orchids (all species), Pitcher Plant (Sarracenia), Shooting Star (Dodecatheon meadia), Oconee Bells (Shortia galacifolia), Solomon's Seal (Polygonatum), Trailing Christmas (Greens-Lycopodium), Trillium (Trillium), Virginia Bluebells (Mertensia virginica), and Fringe Tree (Chionanthus virginicus), American holly, white pine, red cedar, hemlock or other coniferous trees, or any flowering dogwood, any mountain laurel, any rhododendron, or any ground pine, or any Christmas greens, or any Judas tree, or any leucothea, or any azalea, without having in his possession a permit to dig up, pull up or take such plants, signed by the owner of such land, or by his duly authorized agent. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor only punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00)seventy-five dollars ($75.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00)one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175.00) for each offense. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the Counties of Cabarrus, Carteret, Catawba, Cherokee, Chowan, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Granville, Hertford, McDowell, Pamlico, Pender, Person, Richmond, Rockingham, Rowan and Swain.offense, with each plant taken in violation of this section constituting a separate offense. The Clerk of Court for the jurisdiction in which a conviction occurs under this section involving any species listed in this section that also appears on the North Carolina Protected Plants list created under the authority granted by Article 19B of Chapter 106 of the General Statutes shall report the

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 37
conviction to the Plant Conservation Board so the Board may consider a civil penalty under the authority of that Article." SECTION 52.(c) This section becomes effective December 1, 2014, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. EXPAND DAILY FLOW DESIGN EXEMPTION FOR LOW-FLOW FIXTURES SECTION 53. Section 34(b) of S.L. 2013-413 reads as rewritten: "SECTION 34.(b) Implementation. – Notwithstanding the Daily Flow for Design rates listed for dwelling units in 15A NCAC 18A .1949(a) or for other establishments in Table No. 1 of 15A NCAC 18A .1949(b) (Sewage Flow Rates for Design Units), a wastewater system shall be exempt from the Daily Flow for Design, and any other design flow standards that are established by the Department of Health and Human Services or the Commission for Public Health provided flow rates that are less than those listed in Table No. 1 of 15A NCAC 18A .1949(b)15A NCAC 18A .1949 (Sewage Flow Rates for Design Units) can be achieved through engineering design that utilizes low-flow fixtures and low-flow technologies and the design is prepared, sealed, and signed by a professional engineer licensed pursuant to Chapter 89C of the General Statutes. The Department and Commission may establish establish, by rule, lower limits on reduced flow rates as necessary to ensure wastewater system integrity and protect public health, safety, and welfarewelfare, provided that the Commission relies on scientific evidence specific to soil types found in North Carolina that the lower limits are necessary for those soil types. Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as provided by G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). Proposed daily design flows for wastewater systems that are calculated to be less than 3,000 total gallons per day shall not require State review pursuant to 15A NCAC 18A .1938(e). Neither the State nor any local health department shall be liable for any damages caused by a system approved or permitted pursuant to this section." AMEND ISOLATED WETLANDS REGULATION SECTION 54.(a) Until the effective date of the revised permanent rule that the Environmental Management Commission is required to adopt pursuant to Section 54(c) of this act, the Commission and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall implement 15A NCAC 02H .1305 (Review of Applications) as provided in Section 54(b) of this act. SECTION 54.(b) Notwithstanding 15A NCAC 02H .1305 (Review of Applications), all of the following shall apply to the implementation of 15A NCAC 02H .1305: (1) The amount of impacts of isolated wetlands under 15A NCAC 02H .1305(d)(2) shall be less than or equal to one acre of isolated wetlands east of I-95 for the entire project and less than or equal to 1/3 acre of isolated wetlands west of I-95 for the entire project. (2) The mitigation ratio for impacts of greater than one acre for the entire project under 15A NCAC 02H .1305(g)(6) shall be 1:1 and may be located on the same parcel. (3) For purposes of Section 54(b) of this section, "isolated wetlands" means a Basin Wetland or Bog as described in the North Carolina Wetland Assessment User Manual prepared by the North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team, version 4.1 October, 2010, that are not jurisdictional wetlands under the federal Clean Water Act. An "isolated wetland" does not include an isolated man-made ditch or pond constructed for stormwater management purposes or any other man-made isolated pond. SECTION 54.(c) The Environmental Management Commission shall adopt rules to amend 15A NCAC 02H .1300 through 15A NCAC 02H .1305 consistent with Section 54(b) of this act. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B-19(4), the rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to this subsection shall be substantively identical to the provisions of Section 54(b) of this act. Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as though 10 or more written objections had been received as provided by G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). SECTION 54.(d) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall study (i) how the term "isolated wetland" has been previously defined in State law and whether

Page 38 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
the term should be clarified in order to provide greater certainty in identifying isolated wetlands; (ii) the surface area thresholds for the regulation of mountain bog isolated wetlands, including whether mountain bog isolated wetlands should have surface area regulatory thresholds different from other types of isolated wetlands; and (iii) whether impacts to isolated wetlands should be combined with the project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or streams for the purpose of determining when impact thresholds that trigger a mitigation requirement are met. The Department shall report its findings and recommendations to the Environmental Review Commission on or before November 1, 2014. SECTION 54.(e) This section is effective when it becomes law. Section 54(b) of this act expires on the date that rules adopted pursuant to Section 54(c) of this act become effective. ENERGY AUDIT REQUIREMENTS SECTION 55. G.S. 143-64.12 reads as rewritten: "§ 143-64.12. Authority and duties of the Department; State agencies and State institutions of higher learning. (a) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the State Energy Office shall develop a comprehensive program to manage energy, water, and other utility use for State agencies and State institutions of higher learning and shall update this program annually. Each State agency and State institution of higher learning shall develop and implement a management plan that is consistent with the State's comprehensive program under this subsection to manage energy, water, and other utility use, and that addresses any findings or recommendations resulting from the energy audit required by subsection (b1) of this section. The energy consumption per gross square foot for all State buildings in total shall be reduced by twenty percent (20%) by 2010 and thirty percent (30%) by 2015 based on energy consumption for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Each State agency and State institution of higher learning shall update its management plan annually biennially and include strategies for supporting the energy consumption reduction requirements under this subsection. Each community college shall submit to the State Energy Office an annuala biennial written report of utility consumption and costs. Management plans submitted annuallybiennially by State institutions of higher learning shall include all of the following: (1) Estimates of all costs associated with implementing energy conservation measures, including pre-installation and post-installation costs. (2) The cost of analyzing the projected energy savings. (3) Design costs, engineering costs, pre-installation costs, post-installation costs, debt service, and any costs for converting to an alternative energy source. (4) An analysis that identifies projected annual energy savings and estimated payback periods. … (j) The State Energy Office shall submit a report by December 1 of eachevery odd-numbered year to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental OperationsEnergy Policy Commission describing the comprehensive program to manage energy, water, and other utility use for State agencies and State institutions of higher learning required by subsection (a) of this section. The report shall also contain the following: (1) A comprehensive overview of how State agencies and State institutions of higher learning are managing energy, water, and other utility use and achieving efficiency gains. (2) Any new measures that could be taken by State agencies and State institutions of higher learning to achieve greater efficiency gains, including any changes in general law that might be needed. (3) A summary of the State agency and State institutions of higher learning management plans required by subsection (a) of this section and the energy audits required by subsection (b1) of this section. (4) A list of the State agencies and State institutions of higher learning that did and did not submit management plans required by subsection (a) of this section and a list of the State agencies and State institutions of higher learning that received an energy audit. (5) Any recommendations on how management plans can be better managed and implemented."

Senate Bill 734-Ratified Session Law 2014-120 Page 39
STUDY USE OF CONTAMINATED PROPERTY SECTION 56.(a) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall study ways to improve the timeliness of actions necessary to address contaminated properties such that the property is safe for productive use, threats to the environment and public health are minimized to acceptable levels, and the risk of taxpayer-funded remediation is reduced. The Department shall specifically consider all of the following: (1) The expansion of risk-based remediation of groundwater to all remediation programs under the Department. (2) The resources needed within the Department to oversee remediation, including the potential to expand the use of Department-approved private environmental consulting and engineering firms to implement and oversee remedial actions. (3) That rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission for water quality standards applicable to groundwater be no more stringent than the lower of the federal or State maximum contaminant levels for drinking water in cases where the maximum contaminant levels have been adopted. (4) Liability protection for innocent purchasers of nonresidential property who take actions consistent with the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for due diligence and due care regarding investigations and contaminants found. (5) Other matters the Department deems appropriate to further the goals of this study. SECTION 56.(b) The Department shall report the results of this study, including any recommendations, to the Environmental Review Commission no later than November 1, 2014. HARDISON AMENDMENT CLARIFICATION SECTION 57. G.S. 150B-19.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 150B-19.3. Limitation on certain environmental rules. (a) An agency authorized to implement and enforce State and federal environmental laws may not adopt a rule for the protection of the environment or natural resources that imposes a more restrictive standard, limitation, or requirement than those imposed by federal law or rule, if a federal law or rule pertaining to the same subject matter has been adopted, unless adoption of the rule is required by one of the following:subdivisions of this subsection. A rule required by one of the following subdivisions of this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of G.S. 150B-21.3(b1) as if the rule received written objections from 10 or more persons under G.S. 150B-21.3(b2): (1) A serious and unforeseen threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. (2) An act of the General Assembly or United States Congress that expressly requires the agency to adopt rules. (3) A change in federal or State budgetary policy. (4) A federal regulation required by an act of the United States Congress to be adopted or administered by the State. (5) A court order. (b) For purposes of this section, "an agency authorized to implement and enforce State and federal environmental laws" means any of the following: (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources created pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1. (2) The Environmental Management Commission created pursuant to G.S. 143B-282. (3) The Coastal Resources Commission established pursuant to G.S. 113A-104. (4) The Marine Fisheries Commission created pursuant to G.S. 143B-289.51. (5) The Wildlife Resources Commission created pursuant to G.S. 143-240. (6) The Commission for Public Health created pursuant to G.S. 130A-29. (7) The Sedimentation Control Commission created pursuant to G.S. 143B-298. (8) The North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission created pursuant to G.S. 143B-293.1. (9) The Pesticide Board created pursuant to G.S. 143-436."

Page 40 Session Law 2014-120 Senate Bill 734-Ratified
FORESTRY FEES CORRECTION SECTION 58. G.S. 106-1004, as enacted by S.L. 2014-100, reads as rewritten: "§ 106-1004. Fees for forest management plans. The Board of Agriculture shall establish by rule a schedule of fees for the preparation of forest management plans developed pursuant to Article 83 of this Chapter. The fees established by the Board shall not exceed the amount necessary to offset the costs of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to prepare forest management plans." RECOURSE WHEN AGENCY FAILS TO ACT SECTION 59.(a) G.S. 150B-23 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(a4) If an agency fails to take any required action within the time period specified by law, any person whose rights are substantially prejudiced by the agency's failure to act may commence a contested case in accordance with this section seeking an order that the agency act as required by law. If the administrative law judge finds that the agency has failed to act as required by law, the administrative law judge may order that the agency take the required action within a specified time period." SECTION 59.(b) G.S. 150B-44 reads as rewritten: "§ 150B-44. Right to judicial intervention when final decision unreasonably delayed. Unreasonable delay on the part of any agency or administrative law judge in taking any required action shall be justification for any person whose rights, duties, or privileges are adversely affected by such delay to seek a court order compelling action by the agency or administrative law judge. Failure of an administrative law judge subject to Article 3 of this Chapter or failure of an agency subject to Article 3A of this Chapter to make a final decision within 120 days of the close of the contested case hearing is justification for a person whose rights, duties, or privileges are adversely affected by the delay to seek a court order compelling action by the agency or by the administrative law judge.The Board of Trustees of the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees is a "board" for purposes of this section." SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE SECTION 60. If any section or provision of this act is declared unconstitutional or invalid by the courts, it does not affect the validity of this act as a whole or any part other than the part declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. SECTION 61. Except as otherwise provided, this act is effective when it becomes law. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 15th day of August, 2014. s/ Phil E. Berger Presiding Officer of the Senate s/ Thom Tillis Speaker of the House of Representatives s/ Pat McCrory Governor Approved 12:10 p.m. this 18th day of September, 2014
From:JLM
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 3:13:38 PM
I am absolutely in opposition to the proposed transfer of water out of Kerr Lake and I am very willing tosupport a lawsuit.
I know numerous arguments have already been made against this egregious proposal.
John Macdonald185 Diamond Pt RdHenderson
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Rives Manning – I’m a citizen of Halifax County, Roanoke Rapids. I appreciate the opportunity
to come here tonight to speak. I’m also a county commissioner of Halifax County; I serve on the
Halifax County Economic Development Commission along with the Gaston Weed Council. So,
I’m a little familiar with the property and the water here. I’m a property owner in Halifax
County along the Roanoke Rapids Lake where we have four to five foot of fluctuation per week
and this gets a little old. I have no animosity and I don’t mean to hurt Vance County or
Henderson or Warren County or Granville County. I have ties going way back, my father was
born in Henderson and my grandmother was born in Granville County. But, I was raised in
Halifax County and we’re downstream. When Mr. Ensco was pointing out that rural county and
rural people were trying to help, well that’s exactly what I am trying to do. I’m not trying to hurt
anybody up stream, but I want the same favor back from them. I don’t want them hurting us
by taking water that would be coming downstream and we need. There was a senator a few
years ago talking about money, he would say a nickel here, a dime there and he keeps on till he
gets a million dollars then we get into big money. We’re talking about here a little bit of water
here, 4.2 million, and a little bit later and first and last we’re talking about big money, big water.
That’s taken out, and us downstream would not have the opportunity to use that. We’re also a
tier 1 county, the ones east of us are also tier 1 county, the need water and folks, I’m opposed
to this withdrawal increase. I feel like it needs to be taken into consideration the penalties that
are coming against those of us downstream, because if we can site an industry that’s a big
water user but we can’t get our increase as these have already gotten then we’re SOL and we
don’t need to be that either. We’re a tier 1 county, North Hampton County is a tier 1 county
and the other ones to the east of us are tier 1, we need the water and the potential. So I ask
y’all to turn down this request. – End

From:Larry Matthews
To:Nimmer, Kim; [e-mail]
Cc:Deborah Ferruccio; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:Re: COMMENTS AGAINST IBT FROM KERR LAKE - FOR THE RECORD
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:13:41 PM
Ms. Nimmer, I too am a native of Piedmont North Carolina, a business man, a lover &
user of Kerr Lake and, most important, a voting taxpaying citizen.
I would like to go on record as being in full agreement and support of the letters
opposing this Transfer from Mr Timberlake, the KerrLakeParkWatch, and the effort
led by Ms. Deborah Ferruccio. I am totally opposed until an impact study has been
performed and the citizens of this state can insure that our government officials are
following legal and ethical due process...and not backdoor politics.
While I know the you have no real say so in the final outcome, with your field and
background being Environmental Science, I would think that you understand our
desire for an impact study.
Thank you for your consideration. And thank you for serving the citizens our State as
the Interbasin Transfer Program Manager.
Larry Matthews
4508 Jilandre Ct
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Cell 919-740-7451 919-740-7451

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to
take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson
On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:58 PM, "Nimmer, Kim" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Timberlake,
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate
for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. NCDENR will be accepting comments
regarding the proposed certificate through April 30, 2015. All comments received will be
part of the public record, and will be included along with responses prepared by NCDENR
as part of the Hearing Officer’s Report to the NC Environmental Management Commission.
The Environmental Management Commission is the decision-making body for the
proposed IBT certificate. We anticipate the final determination will be made at the
Environmental Management Commission’s July 9th meeting.

Best Regards,
Kim Nimmer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kim Nimmer
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Program
Water Supply Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

NOTICE: Emails sent to and from this account are subject to the Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:48 PM
To: Nimmer, Kim
Cc: Deborah Ferruccio; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: COMMENTS AGAINST IBT FROM KERR LAKE - FOR THE RECORD

Ms. Nimmer,

I am a native and a taxpayer of Granville County and am handle Public Affairs for the
400-member group, Kerr Lake Park Watch. I understand that you are accepting
public comment regarding the proposed IBT (Interbasin Water Transfer) from Kerr
Lake to Franklin County and other areas.

You may regard this both as my personal and professional statement in representing
the citizens' group, Kerr Lake Park Watch in OPPOSING THE TRANSFER, especially
until such time as the public's requests and demands for input and the execution of
the much requested Environmental Impact Study have been achieved.

I am a former state parks board chairman, a former DENR
board member and have served in a number of other environmental
and parks areas. the Corps of Engineers.

If you need additional information, you will find my contact information
at the very end of this email.

We have recently been asked by media and public officials about why Kerr Lake
Park Watch, an organization focused on the public parks around Kerr Lake is so
vested in what happens with the lake’s water. I want to expound on that.

When the allocation for the removal of 20 million gallons of water per day from Kerr
Lake was approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers, that actually occurred
before the withdrawal of 60 million gallons of water per day from Lake Gaston, which
Kerr has to replace almost every day.

Also, whether the Corps will defend this position or not is unknown, but the Corps
originally did not intend for the water to be dispersed, especially sold for a single
town’s profit, to areas outside of the Roanoke River Basin. Citizens in three counties,
Vance, Granville and Warren have been irate over the water issue for years because
of the sale of Kerr Lake water to “outside the area” but they are always thwarted by
officials who promise that system water will come to their areas, but at a high or
prohibitive costs. You must know that the City of Henderson and Vance County et al
water wars are famous in ethics classes and debates.

At KLPW we have seen droughts in the last ten years that have made picnic areas
into empty parking lots and campgrounds where only the crows play…alone. If
there’s just low water, the people don’t come to the picnic grounds and the nearly
1000 campsites on the lake. It’s simple, the water is the draw.
The Roanoke River Basis Association can give you far better water resources data
than our group can and we have found their information to be forthright, verifiable and
the truth.

We flat do not want that water drawn from Kerr Lake, without a full Environmental
Impact Study. It’s that simple. We want an honest, impartial study and then, let us all
let the chips fall where they may. We say, “What’s the harm?”

The harm is in the way the City of Henderson as the Kerr Lake Water Resources
System has maneuvered around the public for its own gain and avoided public
scrutiny and encouraged higher levels of government to help. We say, the action of
the water transfer may be legal, but it is certainly not ethical. I mentioned this in a
citizen grassroots meeting recently that our own government is railroading the system
to keep public opinion away from the process and has enjoined with major industry
pulling Governor McCrory’s strings and the strings of the General Assembly to
circumvent public input and approval.

The extra allocation of water belongs to the Tier One counties of Vance, Granville
and Warren. If companies want to develop, let them follow the water to the Kerr Lake
area, not to Tier Two Franklin County and as everyone knows, eventually to Tier One
Wake County.

Any city, county or state employee or official who inhibits any citizen’s rights to
scrutinize and to participate in a governmental process such as this Interbasin Water
Transfer, should be fired or removed from office and then prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law for civil rights violations. In our opinion, the State of North Carolina,
the City of Henderson and any other public official who supports the process done so
far on this IBT, has displayed brazen disregard for the public and have supported
those officials who have used every rule and in the absence of rules, made new ones
to circumvent the public’s demand for a full Environmental Impact Statement on the
Interbasin Transfer of water from Kerr Lake to Franklin County and others.

We do not like battling, but we will use every resource and every means to seek out
the identities of these people and bring them to the public’s attention until such time
as the public is given a chance to be heard and obeyed. If you look at the totally
different compositions of the Sierra Club, the Roanoke River Basin Association, your
local citizens’ group, “Preserve Our North Carolina Lakes Community” and our own
Kerr Lake Park Watch, all of these diverse groups of people asking for the exact
same thing, an Environmental Impact Statement, there has to be something to this.

Frank Timberlake
Lead, Public Affairs
KERR LAKE PARK WATCH
Office [phone]
Cell [phone]
email: [e-mail]
www.kerrlakeparkwatch.org
http://www.facebook.com/KerrLakeParkWatch

Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Jordan McMillian - I’m here on behalf of the Vance County and the Vance County Water District
to provide our support for the requested inter-basin transfer. We believe it’s important for the
region to the existing citizens and the potential customers in this area. For a rural area such as
ourselves regionalism is how we survive. We share resources, we work together and the Kerr
Lake regional water system is one of the greatest examples of regionalism. Its multiple parties
working together for the benefit of providing clean drinking water to those in need in our area.
The data suggest that the water is going to stay here, 10.7 million gallons as we’ve heard in the
Tar River Basin, 1.7 into the fishing creek. That’s the four counties in this region, Granville,
Vance, Warren and Franklin Counties and then 1.8 million to the Neuse Basin. This request is
about regionalism for us, providing for the citizens that live in a rural area. The challenge
obviously is the fact that river basins divide our area. So, this is the challenge and we believe
that increasing that IBT capacity is a start to the solution. Just to share a brief story on the
Vance County Water District, probably one of the newest systems in the state. A few years
back in 1997 the county was going through a land use process, during that process the citizens
came forward and said we need clean drinking water. There were, and there remains
contamination, hot spots of contamination and poor water quality. So, as a result of that, we
formed the Vance County Water District in 2004. We went through a full environmental
assessment, received a finding of no significant impact in 2008 for a proposed 165 mile project.
We are currently wrapping up construction, we’ve only built half of that, about 50 percent and
we’re looking at roughly 1,000 committed customers. So, in doing that we received grant
funds and loan funds from the USDA, we received grant funds from the N.C Rural Center and
the Department of Commerce. We’ve worked with the underground storage tank division of
DENR and we have addressed some of these contamination areas through this project. So, the
important take away is that we’re still not where we need to be, we have not reached all the
citizens that we have, and we have not addressed all the clean water needs that we have in this
area in our county and the region. During our planning process the county considered many
alternatives. We were lucky enough that the Kerr Lake regional water partnership was in place
and had the ability to transfer between basins; we have customers between both basins. To
conclude, we believe and Vance County believes in this capacity for inter-basin transfer not only
enhances our regional model but will ensure that we have clean drinking water available for our
citizens in the future. - End

From:Charlie Melhinch
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:IBT
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 10:38:57 AM
I want to go on record in opposition to IBT. perhaps anotherreservoir needs to be considered--maybe the tar river?
From:Jeannette Metzger
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water transfer from Kerr Lake.
Date:Saturday, April 25, 2015 7:51:01 PM
We live on "Nutbush Creek" area of Kerr Lake and already experience shallow water
issues at times throughout the summer. Also, hydrilla has taken over our area and we
have to ride out on the boat to swim. It has also devalued our property. We see no
reason to increase to decrease. We are against the transfer. John and Jeannette
Metzger 442 Pool Rock Plantation Lane Henderson NC 27537. email:
[e-mail] and [e-mail].
Thank you. J. Metzger
From:Paula Michalak
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Roanoke Water Transfer to Raleigh Durham
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 7:06:42 AM
April 17, 2015
Dear Ms. NImmer,
I am writing to you regarding the possible increase in water transfer from the Roanoke Water Basin tothe Raleigh-Durham area (The IBT). I am opposed to this action because I believe it could disrupt theintegrity of the Roanoke Water Basin. I live in Wilson, NC, butown property on Lake Gaston. A decade ago, Wilson had a water shortage. Our leadership voted for andbuilt a larger reservoir, so we could be independent of others in our need for water. This expenditurewas fairly large for our community, but it was something we had to do. Raleigh-Durham should enlargetheir own reservoir, or add a new reservoir, to save the rain when we are having a surplus of that.
Thank you.
Paula Michalak
From:Ann Milam
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 2:43:46 PM
We vote along WITH the LGA.
Bruce and Ann MilamEaton’s Ferry Estates property owners
From:MILLER, BOB COL
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:47:46 PM
Ms. Nimmer-I am dismayed to learn of the plan to withdraw a large amount of additional water
from Kerr Lake, especially without the more thorough Environmental Impact Study. This sounds like
a special interest and underhanded approach. As a longtime lake front property owner in the area I
register my opposition to any such action. It will eventually do unnecessary damage to the shoreline
and property values. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Bob Miller
From:Barbara Nanney
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water withdrawal
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:10:20 PM
I oppose the withdrawal of water to Kerr Lake.
Sent from my iPad
From:Ned Netherwood
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:IBWT
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:32:51 AM
Good morning Kim.
I hope my email finds you well. I am writing to you this morning to express my sincere
concern about the above subject and removal of additional water from the Roanoke
River Basin on a daily basis for other areas that does not return much of it to our
area.

My wife and I just bought this beautiful lake house 2 years ago here and it is in a
small cove as we did not want to be on the main lake. That said, our water depth is
not as deep as we would like but with a proposal like this we have real concerns
about it being or becoming even lower. A water lake house is not of much value if
there is little water adjacent to the property.

We need to be sure it stays this way and would really appreciate any assistance,
regardless of any political pressure to make this happen, to be sure it does NOT.

Sincerely
Concerned Waterfront Property owner
William Netherwood, jr.
Ned
From:SGt Noel
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:LGA Executive Director
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 11:45:50 AM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,

As a full-time resident on Lake Gaston, I would like to express my opposition to the Inter
Basin Water Transfer (IBT). It is my opinion that the removal of water from the Roanoke
River Basin will be detrimental to the overall environment of the river, lakes and
surrounding areas. Although I understand the water concerns of the metropolitan areas
south of the Roanoke River Basin, I feel that the degradation of the river basin environment
would be permanent and severely impact those of us that currently live, work and depend
on the river.

Regards,
Scott G. Noel

Carla
 Norwood,
 PhD

Gabriel
 Cumming,
 PhD

164
 Norwood
 Lane,
 Manson,
 NC
 27553

(252)
 456-­‐3471
 home
 |
 (252)
 431-­‐5164
 cell

April
 29,
 2015

Ms.
 Kim
 Nimmer

NC
 DENR
 Interbasin
 Transfer
 Program
 Manager

Raleigh,
 NC

Dear
 Ms.
 Nimmer,

We
 are
 writing
 to
 express
 our
 strong
 opposition
 to
 the
 proposed
 interbasin
 transfer
 permit

from
 Kerr
 Lake/Roanoke
 River
 basin
 to
 the
 Tar
 and
 Neuse
 basins.

As
 residents
 and
 business
 owners
 in
 rural,
 Tier
 One
 Warren
 County,
 we
 believe
 that
 it
 is
 a

mistake
 to
 transfer
 any
 more
 of
 the
 water
 allocation
 to
 which
 Warren
 County
 has
 a
 right
 to

more
 urban
 areas
 outside
 the
 basin.

 According
 to
 documents
 regarding
 the
 interbasin

transfer
 that
 we
 have
 reviewed,
 the
 proposal
 would
 significantly
 increase
 the
 water
 going

to
 Franklin
 County
 in
 the
 next
 thirty
 years,
 with
 minimal
 increases
 to
 the
 Fishing
 Creek

basin.

 Transferring
 water
 rights
 from
 our
 rural,
 economically
 distressed
 community
 to

more
 urban,
 suburban
 and
 wealthy
 communities
 is
 problematic
 in
 several
 ways.

 First,
 it

threatens
 our
 communities’
 long-­‐term
 quality
 of
 life
 by
 potentially
 reducing
 residents
 and

visitors
 to
 enjoy
 and
 benefit
 from
 Kerr
 Lake
 as
 a
 recreation
 area
 and
 tourist
 attraction,
 as

draws
 from
 the
 lake
 increase.

Second,
 this
 interbasin
 transfer
 undermines
 our
 community’s
 economic
 future
 by

thoughtlessly
 giving
 away
 an
 important
 asset—abundant
 and
 clean
 water—that
 could

otherwise
 be
 used
 to
 attract
 much-­‐needed
 industry
 and
 jobs
 to
 our
 community.

 As
 water

scarcity
 increases
 in
 our
 region,
 Warren
 County
 may
 be
 able
 to
 benefit
 by
 being
 able
 to

offer
 water
 resources
 and
 a
 healthy,
 clean
 environment.

 However,
 if
 more
 developed
 areas

like
 Franklin
 County
 have
 access
 to
 these
 water
 resources
 instead
 of
 us,
 there
 will
 be
 little

reason
 for
 businesses
 to
 consider
 locating
 in
 our
 community.

 The
 water
 of
 Kerr
 Lake
 is
 a

community
 asset
 that
 deserves
 to
 be
 protected
 for
 the
 betterment
 of
 the
 local
 communities,

not
 given
 to
 more
 urban
 areas
 to
 subsidize
 sprawl
 and
 over-­‐development
 while
 widening

the
 economic
 gap
 between
 the
 state’s
 rural
 and
 urban
 counties.

 Third,
 interbasin
 transfers

are
 ecologically
 problematic
 and
 we
 believe
 they
 should
 be
 minimized
 on
 environmental

grounds.

Furthermore,
 we
 feel
 that
 opportunities
 for
 public
 engagement
 surrounding
 this
 issue
 have

been
 at
 best
 inadequate
 and
 at
 worst
 willfully
 opaque.

 We
 are
 professionals
 who
 work
 in

the
 environmental
 and
 economic
 development
 fields,
 and
 have
 expertise
 in
 community

engagement
 and
 participatory
 research
 and
 evaluation.

 We
 live
 on
 historic
 family

property,
 part
 of
 which
 was
 submerged
 during
 the
 construction
 of
 Kerr
 Lake.

 Until
 we

were
 made
 aware
 of
 this
 impending
 decision
 a
 couple
 of
 weeks
 ago
 by
 neighbors,
 we
 had

not
 heard
 anything
 about
 this
 issue,
 and
 to
 date
 have
 neither
 read
 nor
 received
 any
 official

notifications
 of
 the
 interbasin
 transfer
 process
 or
 any
 opportunities
 to
 educate
 ourselves

and
 engage
 as
 citizens
 in
 the
 decision
 making
 about
 the
 proposed
 transfer.

 This
 suggests

that
 DENR
 and
 other
 leaders
 who
 are
 shaping
 this
 process
 care
 little
 about
 meaningful

public
 engagement,
 informed
 decision
 making
 or
 the
 long-­‐term
 consequences
 of
 this

decision
 for
 our
 community.

Feel
 free
 to
 contact
 us
 if
 you
 have
 any
 questions
 about
 our
 position.

Thank
 you,

Carla
 Norwood,
 PhD

  Gabriel
 Cumming,
 PhD

From:Jim Nutt
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Save Our Lake Water
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:39:15 PM
Signing the Public Petition for Save out Lake Water.

James Nutt 252-492-7133
Kay Nutt 252-492-7133

490 Parrott Road
Henderson, NC 27637
From:Dale Oakley
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water Transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:45:38 PM
I have lived in Vance County all of my life. Our water supply is vital to the growth of Vance,
Warren and Granville Counties. Franklin County will take our water and next it will be Wake
County.
This transfer should not be approved.
Dale Oakley
27 Lakewood Court
Henderson, NC 27537
252-431-4315
From:Jake O.
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; Senator Angela Bryant; [e-mail]
Subject:Opposition to Interbasin transfers from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:07:10 PM
Ms. Nimmer:
As a member of a family that has lived and owned property on the Lake since beforeits creation, I am opposed to the Interbasin Transfer Proposal.
My primary concern is the lack of awareness about the existence of this proposal,and its potential impact, by the citizens who would presumably be most impacted byit. The impacted community must have sufficient time to consider and respond tothe proposal, and my understanding is that as of this deadline there large portionsof the impacted community who are either unaware or just vaguely aware of howthis action may have a great impact on their future. I consider that to be unfair.
My secondary concern is that the environmental impact statement indicates a trivialdrop in shoreline elevation after the additional water is removed from the Lake. While I am not a hydrologist, I find this implausible and would need to hear a directand satisfactory response to this concern before approving of the transfer.
Regards,Jake O'Hatnick
159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553
1611 Jackson StreetBaltimore MD 21230
From:Joannah O"Hatnick
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Objections to withdrawing additional water from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:16:26 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer:
I am writing to you to record my objections to the current proposal to increase the amount of water
withdrawn daily from Kerr Lake. Many people who own property adjoining Kerr Lake were not aware of
the proposal, or of any hearings on the matter, until quite recently. In addition, the environmental and
economic impacts -- impacts on wildlife, on tourism, on taxes coming into the county's economy
(assuming dropping property values of houses on the lake -- of withdrawing greater amounts of water
from Kerr Lake do not appear to have been fully evaluated and taken into account. I have spent much
time at Kerr Lake, and I have always hoped, and assumed, that my children could also benefit from
enjoying Kerr Lake as much as I have. With the proposed additional withdrawing of water, I am no
longer sure that they will have the opportunity to enjoy the lake as much as my sibling, my cousins, our
families, and I have.
I do not support the approval of the proposal to withdraw additional water from Kerr Lake.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joannah O'Hatnick
Property of extended family:
159 Oak Tree Lane
Manson, NC 27553
Current residence:
58 Mont Street
Guelph, Ontario N1H 2A4
Canada
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Additional water withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 6:43:55 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
I have interest in Kerr Lake through family. We have been enjoying the lake and
contributing to the local economy for more than 40 years.
As I recall, our family never received notification that such a scheme for water
withdrawal from the lake was up for consideration. Due process appears to have
been violated.
On that basis alone, the permit should be denied!
Robert O'Hatnick
From:Suzanne
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Re: Please DENY PERMIT for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:06:08 AM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I see that a press release was issued one week before the hearing. A week’s notice is clearly insufficient. One question is where was it published? I certainly never got any notice. It should have been sent to residents of the lake. Thank you for the additional information.
I have read the documents you sent, but, since I am not trained in water management, an explanation for the lay person would be helpful. To me, who experienced the dramatic drop in water level in the droughts of 2002 and 2007, it is difficult to imagine how increasing the release of water from +/- 5 mgd to 14 mgd would not also cause a dramatic drop in water level for Kerr/Buggs Island Lake. Is there an additional source of water coming INTO Kerr Lake - or only more leaving?
It appears that this has already been decided because this approach costs the least in terms of infrastructure development. If anyone wanted to know what the residents of the lake think, we would have been notified directly and in a timely fashion. We were not. Promising to replace our wells with a different system sounds like appeasement. My extended family and I are not appeased and I ask for considerably more information in a manner that is understandable to the lay person. Please make my comments part of the public record.
I will be in touch with the members of the Environmental Management Commission and will change my plans so that I can be present at that meeting,
Sincerely,
Suzanne H. O’Hatnick159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553
[e-mail]432 Drury LaneBaltimore, MD 21229
On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Nimmer, Kim <[e-mail]> wrote:
Ms. O’Hatnick,
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate for the
Kerr Lake Regional Water System. NCDENR will be accepting comments regarding the proposed
certificate through April 30, 2015. All comments received will be part of the public record, and will
be included along with responses prepared by NCDENR as part of the Hearing Officer’s Report to the
NC Environmental Management Commission. The Environmental Management Commission is the
decision-making body for the proposed IBT certificate. We anticipate the final determination will be
made at the Environmental Management Commission’s July 9th meeting.

Please see the news release that was sent out about the public hearing and proposed interbasin
transfer request at:
http://www.ncwater.org/phpns/images/uploads/90423Kerr%20Lake%20IBT%20release_2.pdf.

For more detailed information about the request and to see the supporting documents, go to
http://www.ncwater.org/?page=294.

The final determination for the certificate will be made by the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) at its July 9, 2015 meeting. To see more information on the EMC, including a
member list, go to http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/emc.

Best Regards,
Kim Nimmer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kim Nimmer
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Program
Water Supply Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

NOTICE: Emails sent to and from this account are subject to the Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

From: Suzanne [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 6:37 PMTo: Nimmer, KimSubject: Please DENY PERMIT for additional withdrawal from Kerr LakeImportance: High Dear Ms. Nimmer:
I hope it is in your power to deny a permit for an additional withdrawal of 10 million
gallons of water per day from Kerr Lake. Many other lake owners and I did not know of any hearings on this subject and I object strenuously to additional substantial withdrawals of
water from Kerr/ Buggs Island Lake.
I own property at Kimball Point which our extended family has enjoyed for many decades. I have put considerable sums of money into maintaining and enhancing the property for
generations to come. Visions of a mud hole instead of our lake are not appetizing. How in the world anyone can think that such a withdrawal will have no impact is beyond my
understanding.
Please do respond to my request. If there were hearings, why was I not informed? Although I live much of the year in Baltimore, Maryland, I would have come to testify had I known.
Sincerely,
Suzanne H. O’Hatnick
159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553
410-362-2604
[e-mail]
432 Drury LaneBaltimore, MD 21229
From:Brady, Harold M.
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Interbasin Transfer Petition
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 2:41:09 PM
-----Original Message-----From: Suzanne [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 2:45 PMTo: Brady, Harold M.Subject: Interbasin Transfer Petition
Dear Mr. Brady,
I am contacting you since you represent the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. I attempted toreach you by phone, but it was constantly busy.
My concern as a property owner on Kimball Point at Kerr/Buggs Island Lake is that I only just learnedabout the proposal to increase the daily release of water from Kerr Lake from the most recent data oncurrent release of 5.9 mgd to 14 mgd.
Although reports I have just reviewed indicate no environmental impact, surely somewhere someonehas noted the economic impact of severely lowering the water level of Kerr Lake. Nowhere have I seenestimates of how much lower the water will be. Nonetheless, it seems only common sense - unless youcan assure me to the contrary - that nearly tripling the outflow of water with no increase in inflow willdrop the water level drastically, endangering water craft because of all the tree stumps that currently lierather far below the surface. That does not include the scarred land that will result from severelylowered water levels and the impact that will have on home values for those of us who own, visit orrent our properties.
I would appreciate information on just how much the water level will drop at Kerr Lake under theproposal. Please contact me at the Baltimore number or my email address. At this point I am OPPOSEDto any proposal that recommends authorizing the release of up to 14 mgd at Kerr Lake.
Sincerely,
Suzanne H. O’Hatnick159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553
410-362-2604
432 Drury LaneBaltimore, MD [e-mail]
From:Suzanne
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Please DENY PERMIT for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 6:22:22 PM
Importance:High
Dear Ms. Nimmer:
I hope it is in your power to deny a permit for an additional withdrawal of 10 million gallons of water per day from Kerr Lake. Many other lake owners and I did not know of any hearings on this subject and I object strenuously to additional substantial withdrawals of water from Kerr/ Buggs Island Lake.
I own property at Kimball Point which our extended family has enjoyed for many decades. I have put considerable sums of money into maintaining and enhancing the property for generations to come. Visions of a mud hole instead of our lake are not appetizing. How in the world anyone can think that such a withdrawal will have no impact is beyond my understanding.
Please do respond to my request. If there were hearings, why was I not informed? Although I live much of the year in Baltimore, Maryland, I would have come to testify had I known.
Sincerely,
Suzanne H. O’Hatnick159 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553
[e-mail]
432 Drury LaneBaltimore, MD 21229
From:Catherine Olmert
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 10:27:57 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Please DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake Catherine Olmert133 Oak Tree LaneManson, NC 27553 Catherine Watkins Olmert, CICPresident Watkins Insurance Agency, Inc.Partner- Keystone Insurers GroupPhone [phone] Cell [phone]
Ranked 5th of the nation's top 100 Independent
Agencies by Insurance Journal in 2013

Coverage may not be bound by email or fax.
Confidentiality notice: The information included in this email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intendedrecipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution orsimilar action is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of theoriginal message immediately. An Independent Insurance Agency can pinpoint exactly how changes in yourdeductibles or your lifestyle can lower your insurance costs. They can proposesafety measures that earn discounts or tell you how to package one policy withanother to save money and improve coverage. For stability, quality andconvenience, make your informed insurance purchase from an IndependentInsurance

From:Pat Olmert
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Please DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:18:59 PM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
Please DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake

Kim I am a resident, homeowner and small business owner on Kerr Lake and without
major, major income in the right hands our local counties surrounding the lake we cannot afford more withdrawal from lake waters. This is all we have. I am all for a win win
but we would need to charge a lot more for our only such a valuable resource.

Pat Olmert
Watkins Insurance Agency
A Member of Keystone Insurers Group
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

Coverage may not be bound by email or fax.
Confidentiality notice: The information included in this email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or
similar action is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the
original message immediately.

Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee
Mr. Tim Pace, P.E., Chairman
County of Henry
PO Box 7
Collinsville VA 24078
276-634-2559
April 27, 2015
Kim Nimmer
Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
RE: Comments on Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Certificate Request
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
The Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee (VRRBAC) reviewed the
Environmental Assessment for an Interbasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin as well as
other relevant documents, including the Appendices, Interbasin Transfer Petition, and FONSI. It
is the opinion of the VRRBAC that the Environmental Assessment does not take into account all
of the potential impacts from this interbasin transfer (IBT) request. For that reason, the
VRRBAC opposes the Interbasin Transfer Certificate request based on the current
Environmental Assessment and advises the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to
necessitate a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
A full EIS should be required based on the following factors as identified by the VRRBAC:
• Environmental Impact Statements are the accepted practice for projects of this
magnitude, specifically surface water transfers between river basins. The scale of this
proposed IBT will involve multiple local and regional jurisdictions as well as cross a
state boundary, all of which should justify a full EIS.
• The Environmental Assessment does not take into account the effect that cumulative
withdrawals (multiple interbasin transfers) could have on the basin systems.
• The Environmental Assessment does not sufficiently analyze the potential upstream
impacts of the interbasin transfer, which may include restrictions on future water
withdrawals for localities that reside upstream.
• The Environmental Assessment contains minimal analysis of economic and
environmental impacts. An EIS will provide stronger technical analysis to demonstrate
that any negative economic and/or environmental impacts are mitigated.
• The Environmental Assessment lacks detailed information and statistics regarding the
projected regional need for water use by the Kerr Lake Regional Water System.
Additionally, the VRRBAC proposes that the EMC assign certain operational conditions to any
IBT certificate issued in the event that an EIS is not completed.
1. The IBT should be limited to the existing service area of the Kerr Lake Regional Water
System. The transfer request spans a larger geographic scale than the grandfathered
system, as some localities listed in the Certificate are not currently in the service area.
2. The IBT Certificate should require submittal of a Drought Management Plan for
NCDENR review and approval. The Drought Management Plan should include, at a
minimum, the following requirements:
a. Assignment of specific water elevations in Kerr Reservoir that determine specific
drought stage conditions (e.g., Watch, Warning and Emergency) that trigger
reductions in water use within the areas served by Kerr Lake Regional Water
System.
b. A procedure to assess vulnerability to drought conditions and adjust water usage
to prolong available supply
c. A detailed description of the conservation measures to be taken whenever either
of the following occur:
i. Lake Kerr water elevations are at or below the prescribed drought trigger
elevations
ii. A Drought Emergency has been declared by either the Commonwealth of
Virginia or by the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council
for an area that includes all or parts of the Roanoke River Basin.
The VRRBAC remains deeply interested in the Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin
Transfer Certificate request and hopes that the EMC fully considers our stated position. This
letter was approved by the membership of the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory
Committee (listed below) and signed by the Chairman.
Chair and Vice-Chair Legislative Members Non-Legislative Members
Chair: Tim Pace
1st Vice Chair: Billy Martin
2nd Vice Chair: Al Zimmerman
Congressman Robert Hurt
Senator Frank Ruff
Senator William M. Stanley, Jr.
Delegate James Edmunds, II
Delegate Charles D. Poindexter
Delegate Sam Rasoul
Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr.
Christopher Blakeman
Read Charlton
John Field
Hay wood J. Hamlet
Evelyn Janney
Bob Jean
John Lindsey
Gerald V. Lovelace
Don Smith
Mark Wagner
Sincerely,
Tim Pace, P.E.
Chairman, Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee
cc: Tom Fransen, Chief, Water Planning Section
NC DENR
VRRBAC members (electronic distribution)
From:Curt Pegram
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-basin Water Transfer
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:45:02 AM
Ms. Nimmer:
I am disinclined to believe that elected officials and career bureaucrats are sincerely
interested in the good of the people of Vance and Warren Counties in any case that involves
substantial benefit for corporate interests and the people in their back pockets.
DO NOT TRANSFER ANY MORE WATER FROM KERR LAKE TO ANY NEW SOURCES. PUT A
MORATORIUM ON ANY INCREASE IN ROUTINE TRANSFERS.
Has no one learned a damned thing from the misuse of water resources in California?
Hold a referendum for an educated public. It is a true saying of Adam Smith, that whenever
businessmen meet, the conversation ends with a conspiracy against the public.
I have a strong dislike for these frat-boy/lodge-brother/country club member confederations
that are upheld and enforced by government regulators at the people's expense. Shame on
you all.
Leave our lake be. It is our best source of potable water, recreation and revenue. DO NOT
MESS THIS UP. Bring the industry and jobs here, why don't you? You know where they're
needed right well, don't you?
Put the entire matter (facts and figures, plans and projections--plus the secrets) before the
public and let us taxpayers and registered voters conclude the business in more
representative fashion. Let the Army Corps of Engineers build reservoirs in the Tar River
Basin. Pull the pacifiers from the corporate types who think themselves entitled and elite
and give them a dose of fresh reality.
You people aren't planners, you're facilitators of corporate malfeasance and there should be
criminal liabilities imposed upon those who squander natural resources for personal gain.
I am grateful for your time and consideration. Please convey these observations and better
suggestions to your partners in crime. I'll be contacting our county commissioners and
council members. I'll be happy to address you all in person.
Regards,
Curt Pegram
Henderson, NC
252.432.8653
From:phillipsbets
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]; Senator Angela Bryant; [e-mail]
Subject:Opposition to and impact of Interbasin transfers from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:17:06 AM
Ms. Nimmer -
My family has owned property on Kerr Lake since the damn was built and before the lake was ever filled. I still
own some of that property and so do many of my cousins. We were blindsided by this proposal and OPPOSE
THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER PROPOSAL.
I believe there should be strenuous constraints during periods of drought; the stronger the drought, the more
constraints there should be. We already had problems in 2002 and 2007 and subsequent to the transfers to
Virginia Beach. Boat ramps were closed, fishing tournaments cancelled, spawning grounds were lost, and plant
cover was lost which caused additional erosion of lake shore lines. There were also other lost recreational
opportunities and therefore spending in the County.
I also believe such a drop in lake levels would create dangerous situations for boaters, swimmers, campers and
others who use the lake for recreational purposes due to barely submerged rocks , stumps, etc.
I also believe there should be an environmental impact statement done on this proposal as I believe it would
adversely affect birds, fish, other wildlife and plant life significantly.
Although the Corps of Engineers does own the lake itself , I believe there should be more communication among
the governmental entities involved and surrounding property owners who have paid and do pay real estate taxes
to the County for years.
Please study this proposal and all the ramifications much more carefully.
Sincerely,
Elisabeth H. Phillips (Please NOTE the correct spelling of my Elisabeth - there is no Z.)
163 Oak Tree Lane
Manson, NC 27553
5110 Marbury Circle NW (Residence and mailing address)
Atlanta, GA 30327-4962
[phone]
[phone] (cell)
Transcription for Public Hearing – Kerr Lake IBT (3-31-2015)

Al Potter - I’m the president of the Lake Gaston Association. I don’t have any prepared notes
either. I’ve burned a couple of brain cells listening to this tonight. As a member of Lake Gaston
who has five counties on Lake Gaston; two in Virginia and three in North Carolina we’d like to
be a good neighbor. We’d like to see Warren County get the water they need. We think Oxford
and Vance County who are also on Kerr Lake have a right to take the water. However, the
elephant in the room here is that, Raleigh wants it all. If Raleigh wants it all, I don’t want
anybody to get any. When you think about it, Franklin says you’re the fastest growing county
but you’re a bedroom county. Raleigh has expanded out to their giving water to southern
Franklin County that goes into some other basin is giving it to Raleigh. If Raleigh gets its foot in
the door I’m afraid it will keep digging and pretty soon we won’t have any water to give. Lake
Gaston is supposedly protected and it has a standard water level, however, when you get down
to the point it can’t be protected forever if you take all the water out and if dominion cannot
make power out of the lake then we don’t have a lake at all. Our lake plans on making power,
making hydroelectric renewable energy. So, we really have to make a decision whether we
want renewable energy and power or if we want to provide water to the world. Frankly, I’d like
to go and use the lake, I’d like the power. Thank you. – End

From:John Rector
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Water Transfers From Lake Gaston
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 6:44:09 PM
Kim – I live on Lake Gaston and strongly object to any further proposals to reduce our water levels.
Millions of gallons of water are currently being taken from the lake to support various communities.
While I appreciate the need for water, Lake Gaston is not the solution to water shortages in distant
metropolitan areas. Cities such as Raleigh need to find their own solutions, and take meaningful
measures to reduce water consumption prior to asking other communities to solve their problem. I
did not move here to see the lake depleted by non-residents.

Thanks for considering my opinion.

Sincerely,

John Rector
From:Bob Redman
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Opposition to IBT from Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:57:32 PM
Ms. Nimmer, I am a member of the Lake Gaston Association and own recreational propertyon Lake Gaston. As a member of the LGA, I support their opposition to IBT fromKerr Lake.
R.C.Redman, Jr
From:Evelyn Reese
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Don"t take the lake
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:55:35 PM
Please do not take the Lake. I am not in favor of this Kerr Lake inter-basin transfer. It seems Wake
Forest (Wake County) area is confused about the lake levels and that it can easily be refilled.
From:Evelyn Reese
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Don"t take Kerr Lake
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:14:58 PM
I am NOT in favor of the Kerr Lake inter-basin transfer. Please don’t
take the lake.

The lake covers part of my Daddy’s original family farm…the Corps of
Engineers recently planted pine seedlings on the shoreline of his farm
to intentionally BLOCK access or view of the lake from the same family
landowners since 1948-49.

Irrigation of this farm joining the lake is now prohibited but previously
was allowed for 50+ years. Water cannot be drawn from the lake for
irrigating crops; yet, the inter-basin transfer would involve more
water on a weekly basis than farmers would use in several months!!!
REMEMBER US FROM THE 50s???

I have seen the lake when you could walk across the coves because of
the water level being so low. During a drought in recent years, there
was concern by the Henderson Water System about conserving water
for local usage because the lake level was so low that it would fall
below the suction pipe that draws water from the lake to supply
current customers. What if we have another drought, what will
replace the water that is being transferred out?

I see no benefit for this Tier 1 area by allowing the inter-basin water
transfer. The water being transferred out going to Tar River and
Neuse River will benefit Granville, Franklin and Wake Counties but will
be detrimental to Vance and Warren County with no benefit.

W. Randolph Reese
Life time resident

From:Eugene Richardson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:RE: FW:
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:43:31 AM
I HAVE BEEN IN WARREN CO ALL MY 64 YRS AND HAVE BEEN FISHING KERR LAKE ALL MY LIFE. IFISH BASS TOURNEMENTS AND SINSE THEY STARTED PULLING WATER OUT OF KERR IT HAS NOTBEEN THE SAME. THE WATER USE TO GET WAY UP IN THE TREES AND NOW WITH ALL THE RAIN WEHAVE HAD ITS BEARLEY UP TO THE RUTS OF THE TREE. THANKS FOR WHAT YOU DO.
-----Original Message-----From: Nimmer, Kim [mailto:[e-mail]]Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:34 AMTo: Eugene RichardsonSubject: RE: FW:
Ms. Richardson,Thank you for your comments and signed petition regarding the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT)Certificate for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. NCDENR will be accepting comments regarding theproposed certificate through April 30, 2015. All comments received will be part of the public record,and will be included along with responses prepared by NCDENR as part of the Hearing Officer's Reportto the NC Environmental Management Commission. The Environmental Management Commission is thedecision-making body for the proposed IBT certificate. We anticipate the final determination will bemade at the Environmental Management Commission's July 9th meeting.
Best Regards,Kim Nimmer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Kim NimmerInterbasin Transfer (IBT) ProgramWater Supply Planning BranchNCDENR - Division of Water Resources1611 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-1611
Phone: [phone]Email: [e-mail]
NOTICE: Emails sent to and from this account are subject to the Public Records Law and may bedisclosed to third parties.
-----Original Message-----From: Eugene Richardson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:13 AMTo: Nimmer, KimSubject: FW:
-----Original Message-----From: Gene R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:07 AMTo: Eugene RichardsonSubject:
This E-mail was sent from "RNP240BFA" (Aficio MP 4001).
Scan Date: 04.21.2015 11:06:54 (-0400)
From:Al Rivers
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Rep. Nathan Baskerville; Tommy Hester; Tom Church; "Tommy Roberson"; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:Kerr Lake Additional Draw Down
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:39:05 PM
Attachments:PUBLIC PETITION (3).docx
Kim Nimmer,

I have attached a copy of the petition signed by myself and others opposing
the Inter Basin Transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin to support the
Raleigh/Wake County growth surge. I have lived in this area most of my life
and spent the last 24 years marketing & selling real estate in the area and
advocating for Vance County. Along with some Kerr Lake residential sales, the
major part of my business is Commercial Real Estate which includes recruiting
new business and industry to this area which is already difficult, at best,
because of some of our situations and with continued increases in our water
transfers to other areas you are making it impossible to get anyone interested
in moving their business to Henderson and Vance County as we will eventually
run out of the very resource that should make us attractive. Sometimes I just
feel like the people making these decisions just treat us like step children. I
know that it is being said that this transfer will not affect our water levels but I
find that to be totally unbelievable. There is already a huge amount of water
transferred out of our area every day via the Lake Gaston pipeline to Virginia
Beach. This is coming out of Kerr Lake because we supply Lake Gaston to the
detriment of Kerr Lake. Vance County houses much of Kerr Lake and is a Tier 1
County which means that we are very poor county that is identified as needing
help with economic growth. We need industry to create jobs and tax base so
that our county can flourish, our schools can improve, and the quality of life for
all citizens can be improved. With these type maneuverings by officials who
should support and protect us, this will not happen as we will not have the
necessary product, specifically WATER, to offer to our future prospects. We
stood and fought hard against the Virginia pipeline and lost. During that time,
Raleigh & Wake County were making inquiries about putting pipeline into the
lake to get water for themselves and that was stopped. Now it appears that
they are trying to slip in a back door to help themselves to our water. They
only need the water because of their continued growth, well we need that
growth in our county and if we provide water out of the Roanoke River Basin
to them, then we are “cutting off or noses to spite our faces” only aiding their
growth while hurting the possibilities of our own growth. Industry will never
consider Vance, Warren, & Northern Granville County until they see it as the
most logical option because we can provide the water, along with other
infrastructure, they need. Wake County needs to take care of its own
problems and leave our future alone. Our legislators, the Department of
Commerce and the various associations that we actually belong to should be
directing business and industry that is looking, to areas other than Wake
County and the RTP. The first word out of those groups is they have the
services and help. These services and help that they say is available was made
available by State and Federal $$. That infrastructure and services should be
made available to the poorer counties like us and not always in the Raleigh’s of
the world. Most everybody that I know, except the politicians, are opposed to
the Inter Basin Transfer Agreement, if the intent is to allow Raleigh and Wake
County or anybody else for that matter to draw water from Kerr Lake are
strongly opposed to any further transfer. I feel the public hearing to publicize
this was sort of “snuck” by us so there would be no opposition. I think it is
underhanded and am adamantly opposed to any additional transfer of
water out of Kerr Lake. Additional meetings should be scheduled and
advertised so that everybody interested has a way to voice their opinion.

Please do not continue to mortgage the future of this area in favor of some
other area.

PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Mike Garrett – 252-438-0197 /
Al Rivers 252-430-9157 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)
From:Al Rivers
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Rep. Nathan Baskerville; Tommy Hester; Tom Church; "Tommy Roberson"; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:RE: Kerr Lake Additional Draw Down
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:59:37 PM
Hello all!!!

Based on information received this morning I am herewith withdrawing this letter of opposition to
NCDENR representative. I am told that the additional 10mm gallons requested is for the use of the 3
current owners of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. I am withdrawing this only on the premise
that Wake County and Raleigh will not get any of this allocation and it will be for the future growth
of current ownership and subscribers to the system, only.

Sorry about the misinformation.

Al Rivers

From: Al Rivers [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:39 PMTo: '[e-mail]'Cc: '[e-mail]'; Tommy Hester ([e-mail]); Tom Church; 'TommyRoberson'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]: Kerr Lake Additional Draw Down

Kim Nimmer,

I have attached a copy of the petition signed by myself and others opposing
the Inter Basin Transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin to support the
Raleigh/Wake County growth surge. I have lived in this area most of my life
and spent the last 24 years marketing & selling real estate in the area and
advocating for Vance County. Along with some Kerr Lake residential sales, the
major part of my business is Commercial Real Estate which includes recruiting
new business and industry to this area which is already difficult, at best,
because of some of our situations and with continued increases in our water
transfers to other areas you are making it impossible to get anyone interested
in moving their business to Henderson and Vance County as we will eventually
run out of the very resource that should make us attractive. Sometimes I just
feel like the people making these decisions just treat us like step children. I
know that it is being said that this transfer will not affect our water levels but I
find that to be totally unbelievable. There is already a huge amount of water
transferred out of our area every day via the Lake Gaston pipeline to Virginia
Beach. This is coming out of Kerr Lake because we supply Lake Gaston to the
detriment of Kerr Lake. Vance County houses much of Kerr Lake and is a Tier 1
County which means that we are very poor county that is identified as needing
help with economic growth. We need industry to create jobs and tax base so
that our county can flourish, our schools can improve, and the quality of life for
all citizens can be improved. With these type maneuverings by officials who
should support and protect us, this will not happen as we will not have the
necessary product, specifically WATER, to offer to our future prospects. We
stood and fought hard against the Virginia pipeline and lost. During that time,
Raleigh & Wake County were making inquiries about putting pipeline into the
lake to get water for themselves and that was stopped. Now it appears that
they are trying to slip in a back door to help themselves to our water. They
only need the water because of their continued growth, well we need that
growth in our county and if we provide water out of the Roanoke River Basin
to them, then we are “cutting off or noses to spite our faces” only aiding their
growth while hurting the possibilities of our own growth. Industry will never
consider Vance, Warren, & Northern Granville County until they see it as the
most logical option because we can provide the water, along with other
infrastructure, they need. Wake County needs to take care of its own
problems and leave our future alone. Our legislators, the Department of
Commerce and the various associations that we actually belong to should be
directing business and industry that is looking, to areas other than Wake
County and the RTP. The first word out of those groups is they have the
services and help. These services and help that they say is available was made
available by State and Federal $$. That infrastructure and services should be
made available to the poorer counties like us and not always in the Raleigh’s of
the world. Most everybody that I know, except the politicians, are opposed to
the Inter Basin Transfer Agreement, if the intent is to allow Raleigh and Wake
County or anybody else for that matter to draw water from Kerr Lake are
strongly opposed to any further transfer. I feel the public hearing to publicize
this was sort of “snuck” by us so there would be no opposition. I think it is
underhanded and am adamantly opposed to any additional transfer of
water out of Kerr Lake. Additional meetings should be scheduled and
advertised so that everybody interested has a way to voice their opinion.

Please do not continue to mortgage the future of this area in favor of some
other area.

From:Katherine Robbins
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Increase of Inter Basin Transfer from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 3:22:16 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
I feel compelled to write to you because of some major concerns I have about thefuture of Kerr Lake. I am in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of InterBasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins becauseof the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well asundisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance andWarren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
I was told that the deadline to argue against this permit was April 30, 2015, andthat only confused me further, since as a resident of Raleigh I have heard and readNOTHING about this. Could you please provide articles in the public forumaddressing this change? I must have somehow missed them. I would certainly hopethat something that would drastically change both a source of water within thebasins, and the water draw at Kerr Lake would have been announced in a verypublic manner. I am concerned that residents of the counties are not aware of boththe environmental and economic impacts this decision brings for many counties ofNorth Carolina and Virginia.
If your office could please provide me the resources for when this was officiallyannounced and advertised, I would greatly appreciate it. In the meantime, I believethis permit should be denied.
Thank you.Sincerely,Katherine Robbins
-- Katherine Kemp [e-mail]/katherinerobbins
From:annette roberson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Fwd: PUBLIC PETITION: SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:23:17 AM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "TommyRoberson" <[e-mail]>Date: April 23, 2015 at 4:18:30 AM EDTTo: "'annette roberson'" <[e-mail]>Subject: RE: PUBLIC PETITION: SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
I signed it and all of our employees signed it

From: annette roberson [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:33 PMTo: tommy robersonSubject: Fwd: PUBLIC PETITION: SAVE OUR LAKE WATER

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paulette Adams <[e-mail]>
Date: April 22, 2015 at 1:17:59 PM EDT
To: 'annette roberson' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: PUBLIC PETITION: SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
This is only to get a public hearing and over 2000 emails or written
petitions have to be in before the end of this month/or it is a done deal
and lake level will go to 268 feet. We the public need to have a say
in this. This would be taking water from one water shed to
another. Franklin county wants to have this water. Please email
this to all you know.

From: annette roberson [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:27 AMTo: Paulette AdamsSubject: Re: PUBLIC PETITION: SAVE OUR LAKE WATER

I signed it.
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Paulette Adams <[e-mail]>
wrote:
     We the below signed in opposition to the
Permit to increase 10MGD (ten million gallons
daily) Of inter Basin Transfer to the
Tar/Neuse  River Baisins because of the
cumulative impact on Kerr/Buggs Island levels, 
as well as undisclosed impacts on the
environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance
and Warren Counties as well as Southside
Virginia.

To:     [e-mail]

NCDENR.       521 Salisbury St.       1611
Mail Service Center   Raleigh, NC. 27699-1611

NAME____annette Roberson______________/. PHONE
NUMBER________2524926084______

This email Must be sent before April 30,2015
From:Tommy Roberson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Scanned from Robco MFG
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:49:34 AM
Attachments:Scanned from Robco MFG.pdf
Ms. Nimmer, please find attachment of opposition to the proposed Permit ofInterBasin Transfer. These are the employees of Robco Manufacturing(Alumadock) in Henderson, NCWe build and install docks on Kerr Lake and others. We have lived throughprevious droughts and draw downs of the lake and could not put in ourproducts due to low water. We have always been told by the USACE that KerrLake was built for 1. Flood Control 2. Power Generation 3. Recreation.
Thank you.
Tommy RobersonPresident Robco Manufacturing, Inc.Alumadock Marine Structures/ Gutterdeck ProductsP 252.438.7399 x 102F 252.438.2108www.alumadock.comwww.gutterdeck.com
-----Original Message-----From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:45 AMTo: TommySubject: Scanned from Robco MFG
Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using aXerox Multifunction Device.
Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi-Page
Multifunction Device Location: Device Name: WC7225
From:Jay Sampson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:John Hyson
Subject:Save Our Lake Water
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:59:15 AM
Attachments:Public Petition.pdf
Kim,
Good morning.
Here is the petition for save our lake.
My wife and I signed it, as well as a few of my co-workers.

We have a place at Kerr Lake.
And are very concerned about protecting the water levels.

Thanks for attention to this matter.

G&M Service Company
Your Heating & Cooling ExpertsSince 1978Jay SampsonOperations ManagerOffice: 919-772-8820 ext 1Mobile: [phone]Fax: [phone]EMail: [e-mail]: www.gandmservice.com

From:Jerry Schill
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 5:44:25 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
This email relates to ongoing KLRWP discussions regarding the proposed additional water transfer of 10 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin. My objective is to provide you with my position before the April 30 end of the public comment period
As a concerned Lake Gaston homeowner and North Carolina resident, I am looking for assurance that any potential future water transfer changes to the Roanoke River basin will not result in an additional lowering of the Lake Gaston daily mean levels. My situation may, or may not, be unique; but the current Lake Gaston levels generally allow me to use my boat dock and boats about 80 to 90 percent of the boating season. So far that has been sufficient. Water transfers that result in lowering the average daily levels would have a serious impact on my lake usage as well as the potential catastrophic degradation to value of my property. Saving for life, just to live on, and use, the lake, required significant personal sacrifice. Understandably, this may not seem as significant to the members of the NCDENR, but it is real to me.
I appreciate that you must be busy with this and other issues, but please let me know what the impact would be. Should I lose use of the lake, I would look for compensation to cover resultant dredging and modifications to the existing boat dock.
Regards,
Jerome E. Schill71 Gail DriveLittleton, NC252-586-7971
From:Dave Secrest
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Transfer Proposal
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 12:23:28 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
I do not support the proposal to increase (double) the daily drawdown
volume of water from Lake Kerr. The public has no tolerance for an
attempt to propose legislation that threatens to apparently mis-manage
our water resources, especially while the proposal lies firmly within a cloud
of mis-information and contradictory analysis provided by a state-
contracted firm. Common sense would tell you that if only three citizens
attended the public hearing, the credibility of that hearing is null and void
- there was no public hearing. You need to determine why that happened.
Both the contracting agent and your office have to ensure the completion
of drastically improved methods of informing the public in order to hold
another legitimate hearing or series of hearings.
I am a resident of Warren Couny, a Navy veteran and was raised on
factual accuracy, pro-active communications and trust. My impression is
that your department's consulting agent, CH2MHILL, has not demonstrated
any of those pre-requisites for achieving well-understood results. This
apparent sub-par performance reflects poorly on your department's
attention-to-detail and execution of oversight/supervisory responsibilities to
the public.
I strongly recommend you stop this proposal in its tracks now, put yourself
in the shoes of those citizens to be affected and then make corrections in
your instructions and requirements for CH2MHILL's deliverables. Numerical
data has to be accompanied by written analysis that can be understood by
all - then we can debate the proposal.

Widely promulgating the renewed and authenticated results of your
directed review through all forms of media would be necessary in order to
restore the public's confidence in your work on this IBT proposal, the very
legitimacy of which is in question.
Sincerely, dave secrest, retired Navy
RESOLUTION By the
City of Oxford Board of Commissioners
SUPPORTING THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM’S PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER (IBT) PETITION

WHEREAS, the City of Oxford has been a partner member of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System with the City of Henderson and Warren County since 1974; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oxford is located within the Tar-Pamlico River basin and is a bulk water customer of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System, and provides water to citizens, business, and industry within Granville County who are located in both the Roanoke and Tar-Pamlico River basins; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oxford provides water to the Town of Stovall in the Roanoke River basin and anticipates providing water to South Granville Water and Sewer Association, whose jurisdiction falls within the Neuse River basin;
and
WHEREAS, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System has previously obtained an allocation of storage in Kerr Lake from
the US Army Corps of Engineers equivalent to an average annual water demand of 20 million gallons per day (mgd); and ,
WHEREAS, the City of Oxford is nearing its current allocation allotment and seeks to expand its allocation to support current and future customers; and
WHEREAS, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System is currently limited to transferring 10 mgd from the Roanoke River basin and has submitted an IBT request to increase the transfer to 14.2 mgd; and
WHEREAS, the customers of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System including the City of Oxford have projected reasonable increases in water demand based on moderate growth projections; and
WHEREAS the Kerr Lake Regional Water System partners desire to provide a solution to their increased water supply needs that is fiscally responsible for their customers as well as environmentally responsible; and
WHEREAS, the proposed interbasin transfer can occur using existing pipeline infrastructure already in place; and the
alternatives to the transfer all have substantially higher cost and significant potential environmental impacts from pipeline
and other infrastructure construction, with no identified benefit to the environment;
WHEREAS, the effects of the proposed transfer in the Roanoke River basin on key indicators of lake levels, dam outflow
and hydropower generation have been analyzed and shown to have no detrimental impacts; and
WHEREAS, wastewater facilities treating wastewater from use of this additional water have previously had impacts analyzed and have already received their permits; and
WHEREAS, the total of all the Kerr Lake Regional Water System Partners and wholesale customers is projected to have adequate water supply for its needs through 2045 if the request to increase the Interbasin Transfer is approved; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oxford Board of Commissioners do hereby:
1. Recognize the importance of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System in providing clean drinking water to a region
that is divided by its river basins; and
2. Support the requested interbasin transfer request of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System as an efficient means to
meet the projected water demands of the region it serves.

Adopted this the 28th day of April, 2015

By: _________________________________ Jacqueline vdH Sergent, Mayor
City of Oxford

ATTEST __________________________________
Barbara C. Rote, Clerk to the Board

PUBLIC PETITION
SAVE OUR LAKE WATER
We the below signed are in opposition to the Permit to increase 10MGD of Inter
Basin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Tar/Neuse River Basins because
of the cumulative impact on Kerr Lake/Buggs Island Lake water levels, as well as
undisclosed impacts on the environment, the economy, and tourism in Vance and
Warren Counties as well as Southside Virginia.
To: [e-mail]
NCDENR 521 N. Salisbury St. 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
NAME / PHONE NUMBER NAME / PHONE NUMBER
Dora H. Smith – 434-774-0945 / Michael W. Smith – 434-774-0947
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APRIL 30th, 2015 DEADLINE
(Your name and phone number are required for your opinion to count)
From:William Solari
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:InterBasin Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 11:14:53 AM
Ms. Nimmer,
We are both adamantly opposed to the proposed Permit to increase 10MGD of
water Inter Basin transfer from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar/Neuse River
Basins. This water may be needed to provide for the growth and economic viability of
the areas along the Roanoke River, Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and on down-stream to
the Coast. This transfer can have a cumulative impact on Kerr Lake water levels, as
well as undisclosed effects on the environment, the economy, future growth of
industry and its needs for clean and available water sources to support such growth
in Vance, Warren, and Halifax Counties---areas already suffering the distress of
higher than average unemployment. Robbing us of this resource, can inhibit the future
recovery of these depressed economies in these 3 Counties. Please do not approve
this request without a detailed environmental and economic impact study on the loss
of this valuable resource to our area, and our children.
--
Sylvia & Bill Solari
From:Scott Steagall
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:No Inter Basin Transfer
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 2:16:38 PM
Kim,
Please add my name to the list of those opposed to this transfer request, especiallywithout *real* public hearings and a real scientific impact statement.
ThanksScott SteagallHenderson, NC
From:shannon steagall
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:I oppose the interbasin transfer from Kerr lake!!
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 2:41:42 PM
Cancel the April 30 Interbasin Transfer Public Comment Deadline
--
Shannon
From:Bill Steelman
To:Nimmer, Kim; Bill Steelman; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:IBT certificate
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:53:06 PM
Kim, being the Co-owner and operator of Chelsea Farms, a USDA 15 acre farm in Warren
County, ( my wife is the owner)I have strong concerns about the proposal to send water
from a Tier I county to a Tier II county.I feel there needs to be more time for Farm Owners
and the Public to be included in meetings and or hearings to bring to light the impact of this
issue for the present and the future.I will also be in contact with Senator Angela Bryant who
represents Warren County. I do not feel that a small group of County Commissioners should
be able to make this kind of decision without the input of the people they are suppose to
be looking out for.
Thank you for your service and please continue to be a Guardian of our natural resources.
William Steelman
From:Steve Steigerwald
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Lake Gaston Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 1:41:53 PM
Kim,I own a house in Raleigh and a house in Warren County. I have lived in Raleighsince 1965. I am vehemently apposed to transferring more and more water out ofthe Roanoke River Basin to any other areas, cities, states, etc. Other areas mustlearn to develop responsibly including obtaining natural resources from within theirown area. I am speaking of over populated areas such as Virginia Beach andRaleigh. Why should the Roanoke River basin suffer financially for the benefit ofother areas. At face value, this last statement may appear to be in correct, but whenthe river and lakes in the Roanoke River basin are significantly reduced, propertyvalues and property taxes will drop off dramatically. Warren county in particular isone of the poorest counties in the state and is hugely supported by the influx ofmoney driven solely by the above ground water of the lakes and Roanoke river. All this and the environmental impact on the river and the fish in it both seasonallyand year round is FAR to great a cost to bear on a poor county.-- Steve Steigerwald
From:Linda Stratford
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Roanoke IBT -- opposed
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:46:17 AM

I'm opposed to the interbasin transfer of water, most especially without an
environmental impact study for both/all basins involved.
The study criteria should require very high standards for water conservation in the
requesting area. I particularly oppose a transfer to the Raleigh area. Having lived in
Raleigh for almost 20 years, I know that water conservation measures there are
almost non-existent, unlike other areas of North Carolina, notably Greensboro.
It's hard for me to believe that in this era of environmental awareness, anyone would
even consider a move like this, much less sign off on it without a study (Tom Frasen,
NC DENR Chief of the Water Planning Section). Point of interest: some Californians we know have proposed a water pipeline from
the Southeast (that's ALL of us) to California. After all, they grow 90% of our
produce.
Bottom line: It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
Linda Stratford
471 Dock Side Drive
Clarksville, VA 23927
Life is supposed to be fun! ~ Abraham

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Attorneys at Law
434 Fayetteville Street
Suite 1900,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 919.835.4100 telephone
troutmansanders.com

SEAN M. SULLIVAN 919.835.4173 telephone
919.829.8748 facsimile
[e-mail]

ATLANTA BEIJING CHICAGO HONG KONG NEW YORK NORFOLK ORANGE COUNTY PORTLAND
RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN DIEGO SHANGHAI TYSONS CORNER VIRGINIA BEACH WASHINGTON, DC

April 30, 2015
BY EMAIL – ORIGINAL BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
Kim Nimmer
Interbasin Transfer Program Water Supply Planning Branch
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
[e-mail]

Re: Comments of the City of Oxford, North Carolina regarding Proposed Kerr Lake
Interbasin Transfer Certificate Dear Ms. Nimmer:

This firm represents the City of Oxford, North Carolina (“Oxford”) – one of the three
members of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (“KLRWS”). Oxford appreciates the opportunity to provide the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (“DENR”) and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (“EMC” or the
“Commission”) with additional information regarding the KLRWS’s proposed interbasin transfer
(“IBT”) of 4.2 million gallons of water per day from Kerr Lake to the Tar River, Fishing Creek
and Neuse River basins (the “Proposed Transfer”). In light of recent attempts to mischaracterize the nature and environmental impact of the Proposed Transfer, this correspondence provides citations to previous environmental assessments of the Proposed Transfer and relevant legal
authorities. We hope that this information will assist the Commission in separating the facts and
the applicable law from well-meaning, but inaccurate, advocacy.
Background
On an average day, close to five billion gallons of water passes through Kerr Lake and is
discharged through the dam into Lake Gaston.1 The Proposed Transfer of 4.2 million gallons per
day represents less than a tenth of one percent of that volume.
1 Ed Wyatt, Interim Manager, City of Henderson, North Carolina, Information Relative to Kerr Lake Regional
Water System (KLRWS) Interbasin Transfer, available at

25764294v1
One of the main goals of the Proposed Transfer is to allow Oxford to prepare to meet the
projected future demand for potable water in Granville County. If approved, the Proposed Transfer will effectively double Oxford’s allocation of water from the KLRWS from two million gallons per day to four million gallons per day. Oxford will provide water to its own customers
in central and northern Granville County via transfers to the Tar River basin and it will be able to
assist the South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (“SGWSA”) in meeting the future
demands of SGWSA’s customers through transfers to the Neuse River basin.2 The northern piedmont of our state is still struggling to recover from the demise of its
traditional industries, such as textile manufacturing. Unemployment in this region remains well
above the state average,3 and the economically disadvantaged populations in this area (including
significant minority populations) have not reaped the benefits of the recent growth in North Carolina’s major urban centers. While this phenomenon is not solely due to issues of water availability, local governments must be able to show they have sufficient resources to meet
projected future water demand in order to recruit new jobs to these areas. Approving the
Proposed Transfer will help Oxford and Granville County to make this demonstration and
resolve one of the issues that has frustrated previous economic development efforts. Discussion
As explained below, previous environmental assessments regarding the Proposed
Transfer have shown that its effect on the elevation of water in Kerr Lake will be negligible, and the analysis of potential environmental impacts has been more than sufficient to satisfy the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”).4

I. Effect of the 2014 Regulatory Reform Act
Comments regarding DENR’s proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) for the Proposed Transfer5 implied that DENR and the KLRWS were under a mistaken impression

http://homeinhenderson.com/2015/04/28/news/information-relative-to-kerr-lake-regional-water-system-klrws-
interbasin-transfer/ (last visited Apr. 30, 2015). 2 As DENR noted in its Neuse River demand report, SGWSA is expected to have insufficient water supplies to meet
projected demand as early as 2030. 3 See North Carolina Department of Commerce, North Carolina’s February County and Area Employment Figures
Released (Apr. 8, 2015), available at https://www.ncesc1.com/pmi/rates/PressReleases/County/NR_Feb2015CountyRelease_M.pdf (last visited Apr. 30, 2015).
4 N.C.G.S. § 113A-1, et seq.
5 Tom Fransen, Finding of No Significant Impact (Jan. 16, 2015), available at http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Kerr/Final-Kerr_Lake_IBT_FONSI_signed.doc.pdf (last visited Apr. 30, 2015).

25764294v1
that Section 37 of the 2014 Regulatory Reform Act6 provided substantive support for DENR’s
decision not to develop a full Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”).7 This is incorrect. The FONSI does not cite the 2014 RRA as a basis for the finding, and the Environmental Assessment that supports the FONSI (the “2015 EA”) explicitly acknowledges that an EIS may still be
necessary for the Proposed Transfer.8

The history of Section 37 helps to clarify its somewhat ambiguous meaning. Prior to Section 37 becoming law, N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L(d) required the preparation of an EIS for:

[E]very proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another
for which a certificate is required…. Thus, regardless of whether an IBT would result in significant environmental impacts, a full EIS
would have been required for the Proposed Transfer.9 As a result of Section 37, though, the
Proposed Transfer is exempt from this “automatic” EIS requirement. Instead, DENR is only
required to prepare an EIS for the Proposed Transfer if it concludes that the transfer will result in significant effects on the quality of the environment in North Carolina. Consistent with this revised requirement, DENR and the KLRWS prepared the 2015 EA to evaluate whether an EIS
is required, and DENR eventually concluded it was unnecessary.

II. Effect of the Proposed Transfer on Kerr Lake Water Levels Given that the Proposed Transfer involves less than one tenth of one percent of the
average daily water flow through Kerr Lake, it should come as little surprise that extensive
modeling efforts have confirmed the effect of the Proposed Transfer on water levels in the lake
will be negligible. The KLRWS’s environmental consultant, CH2M Hill, modeled the effect of the Proposed Transfer in two different scenarios:
· A year of average rainfall and flow through Kerr Lake (in this case, 2010) with
estimated demands present in 2045 in place (including the full 10 million gallons per day of grandfathered IBT from Kerr Lake), but without the Proposed Transfer (identified as the 2045 Baseline); and

6 N.C. Sess. Law 2014-120, Section 37 (“Section 37”). Hereinafter, this correspondence refers to the 2014 Regulatory Reform Act – as a whole – as the “2014 RRA.”
7 See Comments of the Roanoke River Basin Association (Feb. 20, 2015) (hereinafter, the “RRBA Comments”). 8 See CH2M Hill, Environmental Assessment for an Interbasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin at 1-5 (Jan.
2015), available at http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Kerr/KLRWS_EA_20150116.pdf
(last visited Apr. 30, 2015).
9 The Proposed Transfer would involve withdrawing water from one major river basin, the Roanoke, and discharging it into the Tar and Neuse River major basins.

25764294v1
· A year of average rainfall and flow through Kerr Lake (again 2010) with both the Proposed Transfer and all other estimated demands (including the full grandfathered IBT) in place (identified as the 2045 IBT).10

In addition, for each of these scenarios, CH2M Hill modeled the difference in lake elevation
from the Proposed Transfer that would result from the rainfall and flow through Kerr Lake that occurred during:
· The 2002 drought year; and

· The 2007 drought year.
Based on the results of this analysis, CH2M Hill reached the following conclusions:

1. The average elevation of Kerr Lake is unaffected by the Proposed Transfer.11
2. If the 2007 drought were to occur again, the average elevation of Kerr Lake would be
0.1 feet (1.2 inches) lower as a result of the Proposed Transfer.12

3. If the 2002 drought were to occur again, the average elevation of Kerr Lake would be 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) lower as a result of the Proposed Transfer.13

Finally, it is important to note that during the 2002 drought, the actual average elevation of Kerr
Lake was approximately 14.5 feet below normal and during the 2007 drought, the actual average
elevation of Kerr Lake was approximately 5.1 feet below normal.14
In other words, under normal conditions, the Proposed Transfer has no direct effects on
the environment of North Carolina. And, during extreme drought conditions, the environmental
effects from the slight reduction in average lake elevation due to the Proposed Transfer will be
imperceptible when compared to the effect of Kerr Lake being between 5 and 15 feet below normal pool due to natural precipitation patterns and the Corps’ normal operation of the lake.

10 See 2015 EA at 5-3.
11 See id. (noting Kerr Lake, Lake Gaston, and Roanoke Rapids Reservoir showed no discernible difference in average elevation).
12 See id. at 5-4, table 1. 13 See id. 14 See id. at 5-13, table 5-3 (as compared to normal pool of 300.0 msl). Normal elevations of Kerr Lake during the
months of the 2002 and 2007 droughts range between 295.5 msl and 302.0 msl. See USACE, Shoreline Management Plan for John H. Kerr Reservoir at 5 & 35 (Jan. 1995), available at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/recreation/johnhkerrlake/SMP1995.pdf (last visited Apr. 30, 2015).

25764294v1
III. Sufficiency of the Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant
Impact under SEPA As explained in Section II, above, DENR and the KLRWS have not simply assumed that
there will be no environmental impact from the Proposed Transfer, nor is that conclusion based
solely on the notion that the KLRWS will not need to expand its water treatment plant to
accommodate the Proposed Transfer.15 In fact, CH2M Hill has developed a detailed analysis that demonstrates the negligible impact of the Proposed Transfer on water levels in Kerr Lake. This analysis accounts for current and increased future demands from the KLRWS members as well
as the effects of current and increased future demands from other users. This analysis also
demonstrates that releases from Kerr Lake into Lake Gaston, Roanoke Rapids Reservoir and the
downstream portions of the Roanoke River will not be significantly affected by the Proposed Transfer.16 CH2M Hill’s modeling establishes that no changes in releases from the three lakes will occur during normal conditions and that the maximum reduction in release rates under any
of the modeled drought scenarios will be 8.1 cubic feet per second.17 This compares to a
reduction of flow through the three lakes between 4,500 to 4,800 cubic feet per second (550-600
times greater) due to natural precipitation patterns and the Corps’ management of the lakes during the same drought scenario.18 Again, the effect of the Proposed Transfer has been demonstrated to range from imperceptible (at most) to non-existent (under normal conditions).

DENR is entitled to apply the “Rule of Reason” when deciding on the extent of its SEPA-
required analysis.19 Thus, contrary to the assertions in comments regarding the draft FONSI,20 there is ample support for the conclusion that there will be no impacts to fish or shellfish in Kerr Lake (section 5.12.1 of the 2015 EA) or on any “downstream” species (section 5.13.1 of the
2015 EA). Similarly, the lack of meaningful effects from the Proposed Transfer on water levels
or flows makes the development of water quantities that would be required to protect in-lake and
downstream species entirely unnecessary.21 Finally, DENR’s and the KLRWS’s analysis of secondary/indirect impacts within the
2015 EA is also appropriate. One commenter on the draft FONSI suggested that the 2015 EA
does not provide sufficient information about the effects of development that could result from
15 See RRBA Comments at 4.
16 See 2015 EA at 5-10, table 5-2. 17 See id.
18 See id.
19 See Orange County v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, 265 S.E.2d 890, 911-12 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980) (noting in context of alternatives analysis, the Rule of Reason does not require government agencies to
“consider every one of the ‘infinite variety’ or ‘unexplored and undiscussed alternatives that inventive minds can suggest’”).
20 See RRBA Comments at 6. 21 See id.

25764294v1
the Proposed Transfer.22 The level of detail that the commenter seeks, however, is unrealistic in
this case. Providing more than a qualitative discussion of these issues in the 2015 EA would require an oracle of the type not seen since ancient Greece. For example, regarding impacts to species and water quality in the Tar River, DENR and the KLRWS would need to speculate as to
future growth patterns in Granville, Vance and Franklin Counties as well as in upstream
locations. They would then need to speculate as to the requirements of future stormwater
regulations and related improvements to water quality. They would also need to speculate regarding the future effluent limits that would be applied to every NPDES permit holder within the basin. To provide a discussion of the impacts associated with smaller water lines, DENR and
the KLRWS would also have to guess as to the locations of higher-volume users over the next
thirty years in order to develop a sense of where distribution lines would need to be located.
They would then have to develop a methodology for evaluating how all of these variables would affect water quality and how water quality, quantity and other biological factors would combine to affect species in the Tar River. Given the fantastic nature of such an assessment, both its
credibility and its value to DENR or the EMC in evaluating the Proposed Transfer appear
limited.
Please accept this correspondence as notice of Oxford’s desire to have the opportunity to speak at the Commission’s meeting in July regarding the Proposed Transfer. Feel free to contact
me at [phone] if I can provide you with any additional information in the interim.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Sullivan

cc: Randy Hemann, Manager, City of Oxford, North Carolina
James C. Wrenn, Jr., Esq., County Attorney, Granville County, North Carolina
22 See id. at 4 (regarding growth-related impacts generally); 5 (regarding water line construction and related impacts
on protected species); 6 (regarding water quality-related impacts from development).
From:Laurie
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Basin Water Transfer
Date:Saturday, April 25, 2015 12:56:53 PM
I would like to say that I am against this and any future water transfers as a landowner on this lake. Iexpected to have water under my boat, not in someone else's home, etc. Cancel the April 30, 2015Interbasin Transfer Public Comment Deadline, have some public hearings that are fully advertised, andget the appropriate environmental impact study before making such a huge decision.
Laurie Swope
Sent from my iPad
From:Laurie Swope
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Interbasin Transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:25:23 PM
Attachments:Interbasin Transfer Petition.pdf
Please accept the following signatures that do not want water taken from Kerr Lakeat any point.
Laurie Swope
From:julie teel
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Interbasin Water transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13:57 AM
Please stop the April 30 public comment deadline. We need public hearings. We also need an
environmental impact statement.

From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Interbasin Water transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 9:51:26 PM
Cancel the April 30 Interbasin Transfer Public comment deadline. We need public hearings
on this matter. We also need an Environmental impact study. We need clarification on Mr.
Inscoe’s clarifications. They just made me more confused.
Sent from Windows Mail
From:Sally Tharrington
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 1:14:24 PM
I ask that you deny this permit.
Our taxes are constantly increased and yet, now what our higher taxes are for isbeing taken away. With every approval, another entity will ask. -- Sally TharringtonDirector of Financial AidSouthside Virginia Community College434-949-1061
From:Richard Thomas
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:"Lake Gaston Association Members"
Subject:Inter Basin water transfer
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:06:40 PM
Dear MS. Nimmer,

As a full time resident on Lake Gaston in the Roanoke Valley River Basin Watershed I would like to go
on record as opposing the proposed inter-basin transfer of water from Kerr Lake to the areas of
Oxford and other areas south of us. I have been involved in watershed organizations in both
Wisconsin and New Jersey for the past 25 years. Most recently serving on the Board of Directors of
the South Jersey Land and Water Trust for 10 years before moving to North Carolina. Anyone
associated with watersheds knows and accepts that inter-basin transfer from one water shed to
another has the potential to create negative impacts on the hydrology of the contributing water
shed as well as endanger the plants and animals.

I ask you to rethink this proposal and attempt to find another solution that will not endanger our
water shed and the economy of our area for the sake of the positive impact it may have on the
accepting area. The potential in times of drought to cause irreversible damage to the Roanoke
Valley area will be there if this transfer is allowed to happen.

Respectfully,

Richard E. Thomas – Board of Directors Eatons Ferry Estates property Owners Association
116 Pinecrest Court
Littleton, NC 27850
From:Estes Thompson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake transfer
Date:Saturday, May 02, 2015 2:06:58 PM
I am against transferring anymore water from the Roanoke River watershed.
Estes Thompson321 Cedar LaneClarksville VA
From:Rob Thompson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Inter Basin Transfer
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:00:27 AM
Kim,
As a life long resident of Warren County I wanted to let you know that I am stronglyopposed to the proposed Kerr Lake Inter Basin Transfer. I see no reason our lakeshould provide water for the urban sprawl that is taking over Franklin County.
Thank You,
Robert Thompson
-- Robert A. ThompsonProject ManagerCast Stone Systems, Inc.532 N. Main StreetWarrenton, NC 27589252-257-1599 Telephone[phone] [e-mail]
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake-Buggs Island
Date:Monday, April 27, 2015 9:15:15 AM
Perhaps it did not occur to any of you that people do live on this lake and rely onthe water to have the casual life that it provides. We completely understand thatothers need water for every day life but have found a way in the past and will againin the future with your assistance and not in lowering the water levels of our lake. Itwill damage the life style of many individuals, businesses and visitors. It will not takebusiness to your areas but will send business to other locations and perhaps otherstates. Then of course, you will need to find an other way to get revenue. Someone with a better thinking process needs to be in charge of this project asthere have been answers in the past that did not damage any of the abovementioned things. We all have a piece of this land and want to keep it the pres-teenarea that it is now. You will, in fact, damage that in your efforts to make an easycure for a problem that may or may not exist at this time. Our young folks go to college all the time to learn how to handle this type ofsituation, perhaps, and it is only a thought, that the older men and women in chargelet some new folks look at this situation if there really is one and give their thoughtson how to resolve the problem. I am one of the older folks and I appreciate newinput even if it goes against my old people thinking. This letter will not sway you one way or the other but I hope that it makes you thinktwice about your projected plan to ruin the habitat and life style around BuggsIsland in the future. Sandy Thornhill
Piney Point
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Deborah Ferruccio; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject:COMMENTS AGAINST IBT FROM KERR LAKE - FOR THE RECORD
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:48:48 PM
Ms. Nimmer,

I am a native and a taxpayer of Granville County and am handle Public Affairs for
the 400-member group, Kerr Lake Park Watch. I understand that you are
accepting public comment regarding the proposed IBT (Interbasin Water Transfer)
from Kerr Lake to Franklin County and other areas.

You may regard this both as my personal and professional statement in representing
the citizens' group, Kerr Lake Park Watch in OPPOSING THE TRANSFER, especially
until such time as the public's requests and demands for input and the execution of
the much requested Environmental Impact Study have been achieved.

I am a former state parks board chairman, a former DENR board member and
have served in a number of other environmental and parks areas. the Corps of
Engineers.

If you need additional information, you will find my contact information at the
very end of this email.
We have recently been asked by media and public officials about whyKerr Lake Park Watch, an organization focused on the public parks
around Kerr Lake is so vested in what happens with the lake’s water. I
want to expound on that.
When the allocation for the removal of 20 million gallons of water per day
from Kerr Lake was approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers, that
actually occurred before the withdrawal of 60 million gallons of water perday from Lake Gaston, which Kerr has to replace almost every day.

Also, whether the Corps will defend this position or not is unknown, but
the Corps originally did not intend for the water to be dispersed,especially sold for a single town’s profit, to areas outside of the Roanoke
River Basin. Citizens in three counties, Vance, Granville and Warren have
been irate over the water issue for years because of the sale of Kerr Lake
water to “outside the area” but they are always thwarted by officials whopromise that system water will come to their areas, but at a high or
prohibitive costs. You must know that the City of Henderson and Vance
County et al water wars are famous in ethics classes and debates.
At KLPW we have seen droughts in the last ten years that have made
picnic areas into empty parking lots and campgrounds where only the
crows play…alone. If there’s just low water, the people don’t come tothe picnic grounds and the nearly 1000 campsites on the lake. It’s
simple, the water is the draw.
The Roanoke River Basis Association can give you far better water
resources data than our group can and we have found their informationto be forthright, verifiable and the truth.

We flat do not want that water drawn from Kerr Lake, without a full
Environmental Impact Study. It’s that simple. We want an honest,impartial study and then, let us all let the chips fall where they may. We
say, “What’s the harm?”

The harm is in the way the City of Henderson as the Kerr Lake WaterResources System has maneuvered around the public for its own gain
and avoided public scrutiny and encouraged higher levels of government
to help. We say, the action of the water transfer may be legal, but it is
certainly not ethical. I mentioned this in a citizen grassroots meetingrecently that our own government is railroading the system to keep
public opinion away from the process and has enjoined with major
industry pulling Governor McCrory’s strings and the strings of the General
Assembly to circumvent public input and approval.
The extra allocation of water belongs to the Tier One counties of Vance,
Granville and Warren. If companies want to develop, let them follow the
water to the Kerr Lake area, not to Tier Two Franklin County and aseveryone knows, eventually to Tier One Wake County.
Any city, county or state employee or official who inhibits any citizen’s
rights to scrutinize and to participate in a governmental process such asthis Interbasin Water Transfer, should be fired or removed from officeand then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for civil rights
violations. In our opinion, the State of North Carolina, the City of
Henderson and any other public official who supports the process done sofar on this IBT, has displayed brazen disregard for the public and havesupported those officials who have used every rule and in the absence of
rules, made new ones to circumvent the public’s demand for a full
Environmental Impact Statement on the Interbasin Transfer of water fromKerr Lake to Franklin County and others.
We do not like battling, but we will use every resource and every means
to seek out the identities of these people and bring them to the public’sattention until such time as the public is given a chance to be heard andobeyed. If you look at the totally different compositions of the Sierra
Club, the Roanoke River Basin Association, your local citizens’ group,
“Preserve Our North Carolina Lakes Community” and our own Kerr Lake
Park Watch, all of these diverse groups of people asking for the exactsame thing, an Environmental Impact Statement, there has to be
something to this.

Frank Timberlake
Lead, Public Affairs
KERR LAKE PARK WATCH
Office [phone]
Cell [phone]
email: [e-mail]
www.kerrlakeparkwatch.org
http://www.facebook.com/KerrLakeParkWatch

Mr. John Tovey
114 Saddletree Rd
Oxford, NC 27565
April 29, 2015

Dear Sir/ Madam
I have recently heard, with dismay that the City of Oxford could be denied from drawing the
extra water from the Kerr Lake Regional Water System, the extra water being essential to the
local rural communities, including Oxford.
I have read and heard that studies concluded that NO SIGNIFICANT drop in the water table of
Kerr Lake would occur. This extra water is needed to maintain the community and help the
further expansion of the local communities. No harm will be impacted to the environment or
the residents of Kerr Lake.
The local communities NEED this safe clean water to continue to live and enjoy their
communities, this is not a privilege, it’s a basic human right and for a small group of lake side
residents to complain that, “We are afraid the water level could possibly drop” seems to be a
little selfish. We are a community, all of us, whether you live in town, countryside or lake.
As I said before this extra water, I believe a new total of 14.2 million gallons per day an increase
of only 4.2 million GPD (and NOT the 10 million that some have stated) is, if you excuse the pun,
a drop in the ocean, but is ESSENTIAL for day to day living and future expansion, which would
benefit ALL.
Please pass this proposal for the good of all.

Yours Faithfully

John Tovey (a very concerned Citizen)

From:Twisdale, Tracy
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Concerned citizen with regards to any negative effects on Kerr Lake
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:20:28 PM
Ms. Nimmer: I am a North Carolina State Employee that lives in Vance County in Manson, NC on Kerr Lake and I amvery concerned about the possibility of loosing any of our natural resources that Kerr Lake offers to thisgreat state of North Carolina and Virginia. We need to preserve our natural resources at all costs to include our water, wildlife, fisheries, tourism,property values & peace of mind. Please don't allow any legislation to take from us the one really good thing we have going for us in thisrural county area. So much depends on Kerr Lake and all the good that comes from it. Without Kerr Lake, we are just a dried up piece of land that has a history of once being something greatand providing us a great resource. Thank you for any attention that you can provide to the concerned citizens of this 4 county area thathave grave concerns about the future of the beloved Kerr Lake. Sincerely, Tracy P. Twisdale
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed tothird parties by an authorized state official.
From:Don Van Wingerden
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:Gregory Craft
Subject:Save Our Lake Water
Date:Monday, April 27, 2015 7:22:10 AM
Attachments:PETITION KERR LAKE WATER_20150427071609.PDF
Kim,
We have a 2nd home at 5101 Thomas Rd and would like our names added to this
petition. Where can we learn more on what the proposition would do to the lake.
Thanks,
Don

Donald Van Wingerden
Vice -President
Atlantic Building Supply Inc.
703-335-5455

RESOLUTION OF THE
HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

In Opposition of the Interbasin Transfer Certificate
for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System

WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) is
soliciting public comment on the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) interbasin transfer (IBT)
certificate request; and

WHEREAS, KLRWS has requested an increase to its current grandfathered IBT of 10 million gallons
per day (mgd) to an amount over 14 mgd; and

WHEREAS, the proposed water withdrawal could cause substantial negative economic and
environmental impacts to the North Carolina and Virginia counties, cities, and towns located in the
Roanoke River Basin; and

WHEREAS, the out-of-basin transfer of water will further solidify the routine practice of shifting
natural resources to benefit a particular area at a direct consequence to other areas in the Roanoke
River Basin; and

WHEREAS, the proposed water transfer would reduce the flow and assimilative capacity of rivers
and streams in the Roanoke River Basin; and

WHEREAS, the out-of-basin transfer may have the effect of causing regulatory restrictions to be
imposed on localities upstream, affecting their water use and wastewater discharges, and ultimately
adversely affecting their economies:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Henry County Board of Supervisors that, on this 24th
day of March, 2015, it does hereby proclaim its strong opposition to the granting of additional
interbasin transfers from the Roanoke River Basin, and does hereby call this matter to the attention
of industries, businesses, counties, cities, towns and citizens in the Roanoke River Basin.

H.G. Vaughn, Chairman
Henry County Board of Supervisors
From:Antha Wade
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Reservoir
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 3:30:51 PM
Dear Ms Nimmer,
I am hereby asking you to DENY the Triangle authorities their request to pullmillions of gallons of water from Kerr Lake for development within the ResearchTriangle. The Corp of Engineers already have to pull millions of gallons of water tokeep Lake Gaston at a steady level, water for Henderson, and not to forget thatLake Gaston is also supplying water to VA Beach. I feel all of this is so totally unfairand causes even more distress to counties that are already under state povertylevels. This action will effect all of Kerr Lake and I feel will have a huge financialimpact on poor counties as well as those with moderate income levels.
I feel dropping the water will have a major impact on the fish in the lake. The basstournaments and regular fishing bring in a lot of income to Warren, Vance, andseveral other counties. My family has owned land on this lake for generations andthis is just unfair and irresponsible.
Please don't let this happen.
Sincerely,
Antha Buchanan Wade126 Rose Hill Rd.Manson, NC 27553Warren County
From:Jim Walston
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Oppose Inter basin water transfer (IBT) from Roanoke River Basin
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 10:08:32 AM
I’m asking you to oppose Inter basin water transfer (IBT) from Roanoke River Basin.
Thanks
Jim Walston
Full time resident
From:Catherine Watkins
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake/Buggs Island transfer of water
Date:Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:15:43 AM
Please DENY permit for additional withdrawal from Kerr Lake.
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter-basin Water Transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:19:25 PM
Ms. Nimmer & the NCDENR:

I am writing this because of my concern for the proposed inter-basin water transfer from
Kerr Lake to counties south of the Tar River. Please understand that my concern is based in
the lack of quality information, a bunch of disinformation, and a general lack of trust that
my local and state government to make the best choice for the citizens that they represent.
I live on Kerr Lake, the value of my home is directly affected by the level and quality of the
water in Kerr Lake, and I don’t think anyone at any level of government has taken into
consideration my home’s value, my family’s financial situation, or my opinion of what needs
to happen to the water in Kerr Lake. I am 100% sure that this decision is all about money
for the City of Henderson, and it certainly seems that the rational for the movement of
water from Kerr Lake stops there.

Please put a hold on the decision to continue with this project. Please present
more/better/accurate information to the citizens of Vance County and the Kerr Lake area
before the NCDENR moves forward.

Thank you.

John Watkins
85 Sunset Cove Lane
Manson, NC 27553
252-456-5280

From:Steve Watkins
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:water withdrawal
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:56:01 PM
Please deny water withdrawal as I live on the lake and would like tohave my grandchildren enjoy it as much as I have enjoyed the lake.
From:Watkins, Wes
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:permit for additional water with drawal
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:19:56 AM
Please DENY permit for additional water withdrawal from Kerr Lake

Wes Watkins

From:Wemyss, Todd
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Do Not Pass Kerr Lake Permit
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:09:49 AM
Please do NOT pass increase in withdrawal amounts.
Sent from my iPhone
From:R West
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Inter Basin Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 9:35:14 AM
I am a resident of Lake Gaston, and my family & I are not in favor of any Inter Basin Water
Transfer from Lake Gaston or the Roanoke River Basin to other watersheds.

Roger & Mary West
135 Twin Oaks Lane
Henrico, NC 27842
From:Mallory Whitmore
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:05:35 PM
Dear Ms. Nimmer,
I am reaching out to you in desperation, concerning the Kerr Lake IBT. The citizens
of the soon to be affected area are just now finding out about this. Unfortunately,
most missed the memos that seem to have been intended to be overlooked. The
final public hearing made news only 30 minutes before the meeting took place. The
public has not had enough time to process this, let alone take action. Although they
have met the requirements to obtain the permit, I am deeply concerned about the
future of Kerr Lake and everyone who depends on it. I am not expecting you to stop
this, but I am requesting that we are given more time and opportunity for opposition.
I grew up on Kerr Lake and know the level fluctuation all too well. Without a full
environmental impact study, I fear the worst for the lake and everyone who depends
on it.
This could be crippling for the local economy that is and always has been struggling.
I also think that it's foolish to sell our water for the next 30+ years without doing a full
study.
Please help us if you can.
Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I have added a link that will
hopefully give you a better idea of what we are going through.
Deeply concerned, feeling helpless and hopeless,
Mallory Whitmore
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_559db5e2-e387-11e4-9af6-
47f24105f55a.html
From:Fransen, Tom
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:15:02 AM
Please include this email as an official comment on the Kerr IBT. I’ll go ahead and respond
to Ms. Whitemore.
From: Reeder, Tom Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:02 AMTo: Harwood, Joseph E; Ragan, JamieCc: Fransen, Tom; Zimmerman, JaySubject: RE: Kerr Lake IBT
I’m sending this on to Tom Fransen. He can take care of this. Thanks.

Tom Reeder
Assistant Secretary for Environment
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
919-707-8619
[e-mail]

From: Harwood, Joseph E Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:59 AMTo: Ragan, Jamie; Reeder, TomSubject: RE: Kerr Lake IBT
Tom,
Unfortunately, Jamie Ragan is on leave today and tomorrow, and this came in on the Ombudsman
line yesterday afternoon. In Jamie’s absence, I’m forwarding this to you to see if you could get
someone in Water Quality to respond to this person….as you can see she called 3 times according to
Dorothy’s note….

Thanks much……

H.

Joseph E Harwood
Ombudsman
Office of the Secretary
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
[e-mail]
Office – 919-707-8623

From: Ragan, Jamie Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:08 PM
To: Harwood, Joseph ESubject: FW: Kerr Lake IBT
Suggestions?

From: Harris, Dorothy L [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:55 PMTo: Ragan, JamieSubject: FW: Kerr Lake IBT
She has also called three times and said she would tomorrow as well (she’s nice, but persistant) – is
this something you would handle? If not, let me know.

From: Mallory Whitmore [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:49 PMTo: Vandervaart, DonaldCc: [e-mail]: Kerr Lake IBT Dear Secretary van der Vaart,
I am reaching out to you in desperation, concerning the Kerr Lake IBT. The citizens of the
soon to be affected area are just now finding out about this. Unfortunately, most missed thememos that seem to have been intended to be overlooked. The final public hearing made
news only 30 minutes before the meeting took place. The public has not had enough time toprocess this, let alone take action. Although they have met the requirements to obtain the
permit, I am deeply concerned about the future of Kerr Lake and everyone who depends onit. I am not expecting you to stop this, but I am requesting that we are given more time and
opportunity for opposition. I grew up on Kerr Lake and know the level fluctuation all too well. Without a full
environmental impact study, I fear the worst for the lake and everyone who depends on it. This could be crippling for the local economy that is and always has been struggling.
I also think that it's foolish to sell our water for the next 30+ years without doing a full study.
Please help us if you can.
Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I have added a link that will
hopefully give you a better idea of what we are going through.
Deeply concerned, feeling helpless and hopeless,
Mallory Whitmore
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_559db5e2-e387-11e4-9af6-
47f24105f55a.html

From:Young, Sarah
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Fwd: Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:23:18 PM
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone
----- Forwarded message -----From: "Mallory Whitmore" <[e-mail]>To: "Young, Sarah" <[e-mail]>Subject: Kerr Lake IBTDate: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 5:09 pm
Dear Ms. Young,
I am reaching out to you in desperation, concerning the Kerr Lake IBT. The citizens
of the soon to be affected area are just now finding out about this. Unfortunately,
most missed the memos that seem to have been intended to be overlooked. The
final public hearing made news only 30 minutes before the meeting took place. The
public has not had enough time to process this, let alone take action. Although they
have met the requirements to obtain the permit, I am deeply concerned about the
future of Kerr Lake and everyone who depends on it. I am not expecting you to stop
this, but I am requesting that we are given more time and opportunity for opposition.
I grew up on Kerr Lake and know the level fluctuation all too well. Without a full
environmental impact study, I fear the worst for the lake and everyone who depends
on it.
This could be crippling for the local economy that is and always has been struggling.
I also think that it's foolish to sell our water for the next 30+ years without doing a full
study.
Please help us if you can.
Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I have added a link that will
hopefully give you a better idea of what we are going through.
Deeply concerned, feeling helpless and hopeless,
Mallory Whitmore
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_559db5e2-e387-11e4-9af6-
47f24105f55a.html
From:Fransen, Tom
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:21:00 AM
Looks like the same comment sent to the Secretary.

From: Mallory Whitmore [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:10 PMTo: Fransen, TomSubject: Kerr Lake IBT
Dear Mr. Fransen,
I am reaching out to you in desperation, concerning the Kerr Lake IBT. The citizens
of the soon to be affected area are just now finding out about this. Unfortunately,
most missed the memos that seem to have been intended to be overlooked. The
final public hearing made news only 30 minutes before the meeting took place. The
public has not had enough time to process this, let alone take action. Although they
have met the requirements to obtain the permit, I am deeply concerned about the
future of Kerr Lake and everyone who depends on it. I am not expecting you to stop
this, but I am requesting that we are given more time and opportunity for opposition.
I grew up on Kerr Lake and know the level fluctuation all too well. Without a full
environmental impact study, I fear the worst for the lake and everyone who depends
on it.
This could be crippling for the local economy that is and always has been struggling.

I also think that it's foolish to sell our water for the next 30+ years without doing a full
study.

Please help us if you can.

Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I have added a link that will
hopefully give you a better idea of what we are going through.

Deeply concerned, feeling helpless and hopeless,

Mallory Whitmore

http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_559db5e2-e387-11e4-9af6-
47f24105f55a.html

From:Brady, Harold M.
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:FW: Kerr Lake IBT
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:40:29 PM

From: Mallory Whitmore [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:06 PMTo: Brady, Harold M.Subject: Kerr Lake IBT Dear Mr. Brady,

I am reaching out to you in desperation, concerning the Kerr Lake IBT. The citizens
of the soon to be affected area are just now finding out about this. Unfortunately,
most missed the memos that seem to have been intended to be overlooked. The
final public hearing made news only 30 minutes before the meeting took place. The
public has not had enough time to process this, let alone take action. Although they
have met the requirements to obtain the permit, I am deeply concerned about the
future of Kerr Lake and everyone who depends on it. I am not expecting you to stop
this, but I am requesting that we are given more time and opportunity for opposition.
I grew up on Kerr Lake and know the level fluctuation all too well. Without a full
environmental impact study, I fear the worst for the lake and everyone who depends
on it.
This could be crippling for the local economy that is and always has been struggling.

I also think that it's foolish to sell our water for the next 30+ years without doing a full
study.

Please help us if you can.

Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I have added a link that will
hopefully give you a better idea of what we are going through.

Deeply concerned, feeling helpless and hopeless,

Mallory Whitmore

http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_559db5e2-e387-11e4-9af6-
47f24105f55a.html

From:Whitworth, Horace
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Regional Water transfers
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 9:45:51 AM
Dear Ms. Nimmer: I am a home owner in Warren County and am contacting you to respectfully convey my
objection to any proposed increase in the inter basin transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin to other
watersheds. The current authorized transfer limits are appropriate and should not be exceeded. Thank you for
your consideration.

Horace Whitworth,
190 Westwinds Rd
Macon NC 27551

Horace P. Whitworth CFA
Chief Executive Officer
Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley LLC 6806 Paragon Place, Suite 300 | Richmond, VA 23230 | p: 804-521-6369 | f: 804-213-4911www.tswinvest.com

Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley LLC archives and reviews outgoing and incoming e-mail. It may be produced at the request of regulators
or in connection with civil litigation. The information contained in this email may be privileged and confidential information, intended only for
the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify us immediately by telephone and delete this email. Thank you.

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
From:Sarah Wilkins
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:water transfer
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 10:23:21 AM
Please do not change the current system of releasing our water from Lake Gaston.

Sarah Wilkins
[e-mail]
From:James Williams
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Concern for Lake Gaston
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 10:24:26 AM
Please be responsible when making decisions concerning Lake Gaston and the entire Roanoke valley.
Each area of our Great Country should be allowed to protect their assets without fear of them beinggobbled up by areas only interested in growth no matter what the cost to their neighbors.
Thanks
James WilliamsSent my iPad
From:Leslie Williford
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake permit
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 12:37:40 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a new home owner at Kerr Lake, but my family has been on the lake since it's formation. To saythat I am dismayed at the recent discussion about another water withdrawal is an understatement. Iread the information about the decision, including the report about no significant environmental impact. Removing that much water from any ecosystem would impact the wildlife and foliage in the area, not tomention the basin, itself since this water will not be replaced. Please do not move forward with thisrecommendation. Thank you for your time.Leslie S. WillifordSent from my iPad
From:jeanne wilson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Deny permit
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2015 7:53:03 PM
Please deny permit for water to be pulled from Kerr Lake to supply Research Triangle Park.
From:Nancy Wilson
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Interbasin Water Transfer
Date:Friday, April 24, 2015 12:30:24 PM
Kim Nimmer, Interbasin Transfer Program Manager,
I am a resident of Vance County, and I am also the Vance County TourismDevelopment Authority Director. We have a serious issue facing Vance, Warren andGranville Counties, Kerr Lake Inter-basin water transfer. The request byHenderson City Council/Regional Water System, to double the 10 MGD to 20 MGDwill create critical and negative effects to Kerr Lake. Tourism will suffer greatly, andwe will lose visitors who generate new dollars for our local economy. Kerr Lake willturn to a mud flat during low water and drought. Fishing, boating, camping, sailing,special events and leisure activities will stop. The 1.2 millions visitors who come tothe North Carolina side of Kerr Lake will go away.
Why would a Tier 1 county, Henderson City Council sell 13 million gallons of water toa Tier 2 county that boarder's Wake County? Vance County and Warren Countyneeds industry, retail sales, commercial businesses and residential growth. If ourallotment of water is sold to Franklin County, we will lose an opportunity to recruitbusiness. A total of 12,84 MGD will go to the Tar and Neuse River Basins, anincrease of 9.21. Franklin County will not return the water back to Kerr. We will see10+million gallons of water per day leaving Kerr Lake going to another basin. Pleasehelp stop Kerr Lake from being "Sold Out.". We need jobs in Vance, Warren andGranville Counties. Industry brings jobs, and water brings industry. Without water,we will not have jobs or industry. Tourism is a true form of economicdevelopment. Kerr Lake is our greatest asset in Vance County.
The following is needed.
Cancel the April 30 Inter basin Transfer Public Comment Deadline
Call for Public Hearings
Call for an Environmental Impact Statement
Your help will be greatly appreciated,
Nancy Wilson, Executive DirectorVance County Tourism Development Authority946T-W. Andrews AvenueHenderson, NC 27536252-438-2222
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
From:[e-mail]
To:Nimmer, Kim
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Proposed Taking of Water from Kerr Lake
Date:Monday, April 20, 2015 1:32:34 PM
Dell - Internal Use - Confidential

Kim:

I wanted to get you an email asking that the proposal be rejected.  I am a homeowner on the lake and
further reductions in lake level will severely impact my cove and my ability to use the Lake as I have done
over the past 50 years.

I hope that you receive a substantial number of emails asking that this proposal not be approved.

Best Regards !

Burl and Karyn Wingold
From:Claiborne Woods
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake Interbasin Transfer
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:15:29 PM
NO we are not in favor of the Kerr Lake inter-basin transfer.. We have lived on this lake for
nearly 20 years. We pay dearly for the privilege to do so. There have been many times whenour "lake front property" looked more like "desert front property" due to the lack of water.
And my friends there will be more dry times to come. In case no one noticed there is nomore land being made, and the water we have is all we will have.
We already provide water to communities that were not in the original agreement (i.e.
Franklin County). It is NOT the responsibility of Vance County to provide water to areasthat have chosen to build on every square inch of ground that they have and are only NOW
thinking about how to provide water to these areas. But this is not what is on the minds ofthose in charge - all they want to do is fatten the bottom line! This is not the answer. We
began selling water to Franklin County - and the money was good - but it still wasn'tenough. So what do we do - times are tough - SELL WATER AGAIN. After all it worked
before..........
Lets be honest, our officials have side stepped the process, held late night meetings that JohnQ. Public was not aware of. and they continue to make up the rules as they go along! We
can't attend "meetings" when they only held one which was poorly advertised at that. Thiswreaks of collusion. We already can't get industry to come here. Now you want to sell off
our water supply to some other area so they can attract the businesses? There is somethingterribly wrong with this picture.
Do the math people - you can't continue to take away from something and not put anything
back. And pardon the pun - but one day the well will be dry and Vance County will notunderstand how this happened.
Stop this before it is too late. Vance County is disappearing before our eyes. There is one
thing for certain - it is difficult to attract industry now - but what will it be like when we haveNOTHING to offer?
Claiborne Woods
From:woolfwoman
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Interbasin water transfer
Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 5:22:55 PM
I have been a Lake Gaston property owner for many years. I am against the transferof water from the Roanoke River, particularly in the amounts being requested. Thiswould be counter-productive to our philosophy of improving Lake Gaston in order tomake it a desirable location to live and play.Please register my comments as being against any interbasin water transfer.
Sandra Woolfenden703 978 1887
Sent from Samsung tablet
From:Chris Wortham
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake inter-basin transfer
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:14:24 AM
I am totally against the water transfer. We should be looking out for Vance,Granville and Warren counties. Our city and county officials should be looking outfor us. Why are they not. What do we gain as citizens of Vance, Warren andGranville by helping to attract businesses and new people to other areas. Something smells about this transfer .
From:Chick
To:Nimmer, Kim
Subject:Kerr Lake RWS Interbasin Transfer Certificate Application
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:09:56 PM
My name is Robert G. Young, Jr and I live at 120 White Oak Drive in Henderson, NC..I would like to
request that NCDENR approve The Kerr Lake IBT Certificate. I served as Mayor of Henderson from
1979 to 2003 and worked closely with NCDER and the US Army Corps of Engineers on our water
system. This water system can meet the needs of water customers for the next 30 years. The approval
of this certificate will allow KLRWS to meet the needs in rural Vance, Granville, Warren and Franklin
Counties. KLRWS must be able to provide safe,clean drinking water to citizens in rural communities
and small towns now and in the future. Thank You.
From:John H. Zollicoffer, Jr.
To:Brady, Harold M.; Nimmer, Kim; Rep. Nathan Baskerville; [e-mail]
Cc:Linda Worth (Warren County); Randy Hemann (City of Oxford); (Pete) O"Geary James; Ed Wyatt (City
Manager); Rix Edwards; Frank Frazier; "Mike Inscoe"
Subject:Kerr Lake Regional Water System Inter-Basin Transfer Permit Support
Date:Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:52:25 PM
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I was one of the team that travelled to Washington and Atlanta in 1972-73 to help form and create
the Kerr Lake Regional Water System. While I am not longer the official attorney for the Regional
Water Systen or of the City of Henderson ( having become "Of Counsel" in my law firm last October ),
I take great pride in the Regional Water System and in the wonderful opportunities it has for the future
growth and economic opportunities for the rural area north of theTriangle.
The 3 "partners" in the Regional Water System ( Henderson, Oxford, and Warren County ) have had
20 million gallons of water a day allotted to them from Kerr Lake ( in the Roanoke River basin ) since
1973 when the Regional System was first created. However, only Henderson's wastewater plant is in
the Roanoke River Basin, and all other water ( including that passing through Oxford's and Warren
County's, and Henderson's customer Franklin County's, wastewater plants and indeed southern Vance
County also ) has its end-product in basins of other rivers and tributaries. Thus, much of the System's
water allottment cannot be utilized as our present inter-basin transfer permit is limited to only half of
our water allottment from Kerr Lake.
We have already experienced difficulty in recruiting prime industrial prospects within our individual
3 "partners' water
systems because of the limitations on our inter-basin transfer capacity, and growth and economic
development is direly needed here. The Environmental Assessment has shown that our present request for the small additional inter-
basin transfer would not have any significant effect on the environment ( including the water levels in
Kerr Lake ). The opposition to our application, I submit, is largely based on mis-information and false
rumors ( including that Kerr Lake would become a "mud flat", and that all of the inter-basin water would
go to Raleigh, leaving the areas served by Henderson, Oxford and Warren County dry ). As you well
know, and the existing Environmental Assessment bears out, these "rumors" are unfounded and false. I am still in close contact with the leaders of the governing bodies of Henderson, Oxford and Warren
County and they have ( together with those of Vance and Granville Counties, in which the cities are
located ) all passed Resolutions in strong support of this inter-basin transfer request. The Henderson
Dispatch wrote an editorial today supporting the approval of this transfer without delay, and we trust the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Natural Resourses will do so.
Please make this letter part of the record in support of the inter-basin transfer application of the Kerr
Lake Regional Water Sysdtem partners.
Thank you.
John H. Zollicoffer, Jr.
Stainback, Satterwhite & Zollicoffer, PLLC
Attorneys at Law
115 North Garnett Street
P. O. Drawer 19
Henderson, NC 27536

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

PART 3 – APPENDICES

Appendix A

Notice of Public Hearing

March 31, 2015

Interbasin Transfer Certificate for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System

The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) will hold a public
hearing to receive comments on the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) interbasin transfer
(IBT) certificate request.
The KLRWS currently provides water directly or indirectly to municipal and county systems in
Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties, and three river basins in northeastern North
Carolina. Kerr Lake, the sole surface water source of the KLRWS, is within the Roanoke River basin
and is managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The KLRWS has requested an increase to their current grandfathered IBT of 10 million gallons per
day (mgd) on a maximum day basis in order to meet future water demands for the KLRWS and its
customers through 2045. This request will address future projected transfers to the Tar River basin
of 10.7 mgd, Neuse River basin of 1.8 mgd, and Fishing Creek (Warren County) basin of 1.7 mgd,
resulting in a total transfer of 14.2 mgd from the Roanoke River basin. The proposed IBT values are
calculated on an average day of the maximum month, per current statutory regulation.
The public hearing will start at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 31, 2015, at the City of Henderson City
Hall. The public may review the supporting environmental documents at:
http://ncwater.org/?page=294.
The purpose of this announcement is to encourage interested parties to attend and/or provide
relevant written and verbal comments. Division of Water Resources staff requests that parties
submit written copies of oral comments. Based on the number of people who wish to speak, the
length of oral presentations may be limited.
If you are unable to attend, you may mail written comments to Kim Nimmer, Division of Water
Resources, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611. Comments may also be submitted
electronically to [e-mail]. Mailed and emailed comments will be given equal
weight. All comments must be postmarked or emailed by April 30, 2015.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

March 31, 2015, 6:30 PM
City Hall – City of Henderson
134 Rose Avenue, Henderson, NC 27536
Appendix B

NC Statutes and Administrative Rules
for Water Transfers

G.S. 143-215.22L Page 1
§ 143-215.22L. Regulation of surface water transfers.
(a) Certificate Required. – No person, without first obtaining a certificate from the
Commission, may:
(1) Initiate a transfer of 2,000,000 gallons of water or more per day, calculated
as a daily average of a calendar month and not to exceed 3,000,000 gallons
per day in any one day, from one river basin to another.
(2) Increase the amount of an existing transfer of water from one river basin to
another by twenty-five percent (25%) or more above the average daily
amount transferred during the year ending 1 July 1993 if the total transfer
including the increase is 2,000,000 gallons or more per day.
(3) Increase an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another above
the amount approved by the Commission in a certificate issued under G.S.
162A-7 prior to 1 July 1993.
(b) Exception. – Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a
certificate shall not be required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the full
capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was in existence
or under construction on 1 July 1993.
(c) Notice of Intent to File a Petition. – An applicant shall prepare a notice of intent to
file a petition that includes a nontechnical description of the applicant's request and an
identification of the proposed water source. Within 90 days after the applicant files a notice of
intent to file a petition, the applicant shall hold at least one public meeting in the source river
basin upstream from the proposed point of withdrawal, at least one public meeting in the source
river basin downstream from the proposed point of withdrawal, and at least one public meeting
in the receiving river basin to provide information to interested parties and the public regarding
the nature and extent of the proposed transfer and to receive comment on the scope of the
environmental documents. Written notice of the public meetings shall be provided at least 30
days before the public meetings. At the time the applicant gives notice of the public meetings,
the applicant shall request comment on the alternatives and issues that should be addressed in
the environmental documents required by this section. The applicant shall accept written
comment on the scope of the environmental documents for a minimum of 30 days following
the last public meeting. Notice of the public meetings and opportunity to comment on the scope
of the environmental documents shall be provided as follows:
(1) By publishing notice in the North Carolina Register.
(2) By publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in:
a. Each county in this State located in whole or in part of the area of the
source river basin upstream from the proposed point of withdrawal.
b. Each city or county located in a state located in whole or in part of
the surface drainage basin area of the source river basin that also falls
within, in whole or in part, the area denoted by one of the following
eight-digit cataloging units as organized by the United States
Geological Survey:
03050105 (Broad River: NC and SC);
03050106 (Broad River: SC);
03050107 (Broad River: SC);
03050108 (Broad River: SC);
05050001 (New River: NC and VA);
05050002 (New River: VA and WV);
03050101 (Catawba River: NC and SC);
03050103 (Catawba River: NC and SC);
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 2
03050104 (Catawba River: SC);
03010203 (Chowan River: NC and VA);
03010204 (Chowan River: NC and VA);
06010105 (French Broad River: NC and TN);
06010106 (French Broad River: NC and TN);
06010107 (French Broad River: TN);
06010108 (French Broad River: NC and TN);
06020001 (Hiwassee River: AL, GA, TN);
06020002 (Hiwassee River: GA, NC, TN);
06010201 (Little Tennessee River: TN);
06010202 (Little Tennessee River: TN, GA, and NC);
06010204 (Little Tennessee River: NC and TN);
03060101 (Savannah River: NC and SC);
03060102 (Savannah River: GA, NC, and SC);
03060103 (Savannah River: GA and SC);
03060104 (Savannah River: GA);
03060105 (Savannah River: GA);
03040203 (Lumber River: NC and SC);
03040204 (Lumber River: NC and SC);
03040206 (Lumber River: NC and SC);
03040207 (Lumber River: NC and SC);
03010205 (Albemarle Sound: NC and VA);
06020003 (Ocoee River: GA, NC, and TN);
03010101 (Roanoke River: VA);
03010102 (Roanoke River: NC and VA);
03010103 (Roanoke River: NC and VA);
03010104 (Roanoke River: NC and VA);
03010105 (Roanoke River: VA);
03010106 (Roanoke River: NC and VA);
06010102 (Watauga River: TN and VA);
06010103 (Watauga River: NC and TN);
03040101 (Yadkin River: VA and NC);
03040104 (Yadkin River: NC and SC);
03040105 (Yadkin River: NC and SC);
03040201 (Yadkin River: NC and SC);
03040202 (Yadkin River: NC and SC).
c. Each county in this State located in whole or in part of the area of the
source river basin downstream from the proposed point of
withdrawal.
d. Any area in the State in a river basin for which the source river basin
has been identified as a future source of water in a local water supply
plan prepared pursuant to G.S. 143-355(l).
e. Each county in the State located in whole or in part of the receiving
river basin.
(3) By giving notice by first-class mail or electronic mail to each of the
following:
a. The board of commissioners of each county in this State or the
governing body of any county or city that is politically independent
of a county in any state that is located entirely or partially within the
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 3
source river basin of the proposed transfer and that also falls within,
in whole or in part, the area denoted by one of the eight-digit
cataloging units listed in sub-subdivision b. of subdivision (2) of this
subsection.
b. The board of commissioners of each county in this State or the
governing body of any county or city that is politically independent
of a county in any state that is located entirely or partially within the
receiving river basin of the proposed transfer and that also falls
within, in whole or in part, the area denoted by one of the eight-digit
cataloging units listed in sub-subdivision b. of subdivision (2) of this
subsection.
c. The governing body of any public water system that withdraws water
upstream or downstream from the withdrawal point of the proposed
transfer.
d. If any portion of the source or receiving river basins is located in
another state, all state water management or use agencies,
environmental protection agencies, and the office of the governor in
that state upstream or downstream from the withdrawal point of the
proposed transfer.
e. All persons who have registered a water withdrawal or transfer from
the proposed source river basin under this Part or under similar law
in an another state.
f. All persons who hold a certificate for a transfer of water from the
proposed source river basin under this Part or under similar law in an
another state.
g. All persons who hold a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit for a discharge of
100,000 gallons per day or more upstream or downstream from the
proposed point of withdrawal.
h. To any other person who submits to the applicant a written request to
receive all notices relating to the petition.
(d) Environmental Documents. – The definitions set out in G.S. 113A-9 apply to this
section. The Department shall conduct a study of the environmental impacts of any proposed
transfer of water for which a certificate is required under this section. The study shall meet all
of the requirements set forth in G.S. 113A-4 and rules adopted pursuant to G.S. 113A-4. An
environmental assessment shall be prepared for any petition for a certificate under this section.
The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be
made in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes;
except that an environmental impact statement shall be prepared for every proposed transfer of
water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required under this
section. The applicant who petitions the Commission for a certificate under this section shall
pay the cost of special studies necessary to comply with Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the
General Statutes. An environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to this subsection shall
include all of the following:
(1) A comprehensive analysis of the impacts that would occur in the source river
basin and the receiving river basin if the petition for a certificate is granted.
(2) An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer, including
water supply sources that do not require an interbasin transfer and use of
water conservation measures.
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 4
(3) A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise
from the proposed interbasin transfer.
(e) Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Document. – The Commission shall
hold a public hearing on the draft environmental document for a proposed interbasin transfer
after giving at least 30 days' written notice of the hearing in the Environmental Bulletin and as
provided in subdivisions (2) and (3) of subsection (c) of this section. The notice shall indicate
where a copy of the environmental document can be reviewed and the procedure to be followed
by anyone wishing to submit written comments and questions on the environmental document.
The Commission shall prepare a record of all comments and written responses to questions
posed in writing. The record shall include complete copies of scientific or technical comments
related to the potential impact of the interbasin transfer. The Commission shall accept written
comment on the draft environmental document for a minimum of 30 days following the last
public hearing. The applicant who petitions the Commission for a certificate under this section
shall pay the costs associated with the notice and public hearing on the draft environmental
document.
(f) Determination of Adequacy of Environmental Document. – The Commission shall
not act on any petition for an interbasin transfer until the Commission has determined that the
environmental document is complete and adequate. A decision on the adequacy of the
environmental document is subject to review in a contested case on the decision of the
Commission to issue or deny a certificate under this section.
(g) Petition. – An applicant for a certificate shall petition the Commission for the
certificate. The petition shall be in writing and shall include all of the following:
(1) A general description of the facilities to be used to transfer the water,
including current and projected areas to be served by the transfer, current
and projected capacities of intakes, and other relevant facilities.
(2) A description of all the proposed consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of
the water to be transferred.
(3) A description of the water quality of the source river and receiving river,
including information on aquatic habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered
species; in-stream flow data for segments of the source and receiving rivers
that may be affected by the transfer; and any waters that are impaired
pursuant to section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §
1313(d)).
(4) A description of the water conservation measures used by the applicant at
the time of the petition and any additional water conservation measures that
the applicant will implement if the certificate is granted.
(5) A description of all sources of water within the receiving river basin,
including surface water impoundments, groundwater wells, reinjection
storage, and purchase of water from another source within the river basin,
that is a practicable alternative to the proposed transfer that would meet the
applicant's water supply needs. The description of water sources shall
include sources available at the time of the petition for a certificate and any
planned or potential water sources.
(6) A description of water transfers and withdrawals registered under G.S.
143-215.22H or included in a local water supply plan prepared pursuant to
G.S. 143-355(l) from the source river basin, including transfers and
withdrawals at the time of the petition for a certificate and any planned or
reasonably foreseeable transfers or withdrawals by a public water system
with service area located within the source river basin.
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 5
(7) A demonstration that the proposed transfer, if added to all other transfers and
withdrawals required to be registered under G.S. 143-215.22H or included in
any local water supply plan prepared by a public water system with service
area located within the source basin pursuant to G.S. 143-355(l) from the
source river basin at the time of the petition for a certificate, would not
reduce the amount of water available for use in the source river basin to a
degree that would impair existing uses, pursuant to the antidegradation
policy set out in 40 Code of Federal Regulation § 131.12 (Antidegradation
Policy) (1 July 2006 Edition) and the statewide antidegradation policy
adopted pursuant thereto, or existing and planned consumptive and
nonconsumptive uses of the water in the source river basin. If the proposed
transfer would impact a reservoir within the source river basin, the
demonstration must include a finding that the transfer would not result in a
water level in the reservoir that is inadequate to support existing uses of the
reservoir, including recreational uses.
(8) The applicant's future water supply needs and the present and reasonably
foreseeable future water supply needs for public water systems with service
area located within the source river basin. The analysis of future water
supply needs shall include agricultural, recreational, and industrial uses, and
electric power generation. Local water supply plans prepared pursuant to
G.S. 143-355(l) for water systems with service area located within the
source river basin shall be used to evaluate the projected future water needs
in the source river basin that will be met by public water systems.
(9) The applicant's water supply plan prepared pursuant to G.S. 143-355(l). If
the applicant's water supply plan is more than two years old at the time of
the petition, then the applicant shall include with the petition an updated
water supply plan.
(10) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission for review of
the proposed water transfer.
(h) Settlement Discussions. – Upon the request of the applicant, any interested party, or
the Department, or upon its own motion, the Commission may appoint a mediation officer. The
mediation officer may be a member of the Commission, an employee of the Department, or a
neutral third party but shall not be a hearing officer under subsections (e) or (j) of this section.
The mediation officer shall make a reasonable effort to initiate settlement discussions between
the applicant and all other interested parties. Evidence of statements made and conduct that
occurs in a settlement discussion conducted under this subsection, whether attributable to a
party, a mediation officer, or other person shall not be subject to discovery and shall be
inadmissible in any subsequent proceeding on the petition for a certificate. The Commission
may adopt rules to govern the conduct of the mediation process.
(i) Draft Determination. – Within 90 days after the Commission determines that the
environmental document prepared in accordance with subsection (d) of this section is adequate
or the applicant submits its petition for a certificate, whichever occurs later, the Commission
shall issue a draft determination on whether to grant the certificate. The draft determination
shall be based on the criteria set out in this section and shall include the conditions and
limitations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law that would be required in a final
determination. Notice of the draft determination shall be given as provided in subsection (c) of
this section.
(j) Public Hearing on the Draft Determination. – Within 60 days of the issuance of the
draft determination as provided in subsection (i) of this section, the Commission shall hold
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 6
public hearings on the draft determination. At least one hearing shall be held in the affected
area of the source river basin, and at least one hearing shall be held in the affected area of the
receiving river basin. In determining whether more than one public hearing should be held
within either the source or receiving river basins, the Commission shall consider the differing
or conflicting interests that may exist within the river basins, including the interests of both
upstream and downstream parties potentially affected by the proposed transfer. The public
hearings shall be conducted by one or more hearing officers appointed by the Chair of the
Commission. The hearing officers may be members of the Commission or employees of the
Department. The Commission shall give at least 30 days' written notice of the public hearing as
provided in subsection (c) of this section. The Commission shall accept written comment on the
draft determination for a minimum of 30 days following the last public hearing. The
Commission shall prepare a record of all comments and written responses to questions posed in
writing. The record shall include complete copies of scientific or technical comments related to
the potential impact of the interbasin transfer. The applicant who petitions the Commission for
a certificate under this section shall pay the costs associated with the notice and public hearing
on the draft determination.
(k) Final Determination: Factors to be Considered. – In determining whether a
certificate may be issued for the transfer, the Commission shall specifically consider each of
the following items and state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard
to each item:
(1) The necessity and reasonableness of the amount of surface water proposed to
be transferred and its proposed uses.
(2) The present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects on the
source river basin, including present and future effects on public, industrial,
economic, recreational, and agricultural water supply needs, wastewater
assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, electric power
generation, navigation, and recreation. Local water supply plans for public
water systems with service area located within the source river basin
prepared pursuant to G.S. 143-355(l) shall be used to evaluate the projected
future water needs in the source river basin that will be met by public water
systems. Information on projected future water needs for public water
systems with service area located within the source river basin that is more
recent than the local water supply plans may be used if the Commission
finds the information to be reliable. The determination shall include a
specific finding as to measures that are necessary or advisable to mitigate or
avoid detrimental impacts on the source river basin.
(3) The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer
or consumptive water use that, at the time the Commission considers the
petition for a certificate is occurring, is authorized under this section, or is
projected in any local water supply plan for public water systems with
service area located within the source river basin that has been submitted to
the Department in accordance with G.S. 143-355(l).
(4) The present and reasonably foreseeable future beneficial and detrimental
effects on the receiving river basin, including present and future effects on
public, industrial, economic, recreational, and agricultural water supply
needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat,
electric power generation, navigation, and recreation. Local water supply
plans prepared pursuant to G.S. 143-355(l) that affect the receiving river
basin shall be used to evaluate the projected future water needs in the
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 7
receiving river basin that will be met by public water systems. Information
on projected future water needs that is more recent than the local water
supply plans may be used if the Commission finds the information to be
reliable. The determination shall include a specific finding as to measures
that are necessary or advisable to mitigate or avoid detrimental impacts on
the receiving river basin.
(5) The availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer, including
the potential capacity of alternative sources of water, the potential of each
alternative to reduce the amount of or avoid the proposed transfer, probable
costs, and environmental impacts. In considering alternatives, the
Commission is not limited to consideration of alternatives that have been
proposed, studied, or considered by the applicant. The determination shall
include a specific finding as to why the applicant's need for water cannot be
satisfied by alternatives within the receiving basin, including unused
capacity under a transfer for which a certificate is in effect or that is
otherwise authorized by law at the time the applicant submits the petition.
The determination shall consider the extent to which access to potential
sources of surface water or groundwater within the receiving river basin is
no longer available due to depletion, contamination, or the declaration of a
capacity use area under Part 2 of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General
Statutes. The determination shall consider the feasibility of the applicant's
purchase of water from other water suppliers within the receiving basin and
of the transfer of water from another sub-basin within the receiving major
river basin. Except in circumstances of technical or economic infeasibility or
adverse environmental impact, the Commission's determination as to
reasonable alternatives shall give preference to alternatives that would
involve a transfer from one sub-basin to another within the major receiving
river basin over alternatives that would involve a transfer from one major
river basin to another major river basin.
(6) If applicable to the proposed project, the applicant's present and proposed
use of impoundment storage capacity to store water during high-flow periods
for use during low-flow periods and the applicant's right of withdrawal under
G.S. 143-215.44 through G.S. 143-215.50.
(7) If the water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose
reservoir constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the
purposes and water storage allocations established for the reservoir at the
time the reservoir was authorized by the Congress of the United States.
(8) Whether the service area of the applicant is located in both the source river
basin and the receiving river basin.
(9) Any other facts and circumstances that are reasonably necessary to carry out
the purposes of this Part.
(l) Final Determination: Information to be Considered. – In determining whether a
certificate may be issued for the transfer, the Commission shall consider all of the following
sources of information:
(1) The petition.
(2) The environmental document prepared pursuant to subsection (d) of this
section.
(3) All oral and written comment and all accompanying materials or evidence
submitted pursuant to subsections (e) and (j) of this section.
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 8
(4) Information developed by or available to the Department on the water
quality of the source river basin and the receiving river basin, including
waters that are identified as impaired pursuant to section 303(d) of the
federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)), that are subject to a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) limit under subsections (d) and (e) of section
303 of the federal Clean Water Act, or that would have their assimilative
capacity impaired if the certificate is issued.
(5) Any other information that the Commission determines to be relevant and
useful.
(m) Final Determination: Burden and Standard of Proof; Specific Findings. – The
Commission shall grant a certificate for a water transfer if the Commission finds that the
applicant has established by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following:
(1) The benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the
proposed transfer. In making this determination, the Commission shall be
guided by the approved environmental document and the policy set out in
subsection (t) of this section.
(2) The detriments have been or will be mitigated to the maximum degree
practicable.
(3) The amount of the transfer does not exceed the amount of the projected
shortfall under the applicant's water supply plan after first taking into
account all other sources of water that are available to the applicant.
(4) There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer.
(n) Final Determination: Certificate Conditions and Limitations. – The Commission
may grant the certificate in whole or in part, or deny the certificate. The Commission may
impose any conditions or limitations on a certificate that the Commission finds necessary to
achieve the purposes of this Part including a limit on the period for which the certificate is
valid. The conditions and limitations shall include any mitigation measures proposed by the
applicant to minimize any detrimental effects within the source and receiving river basins. In
addition, the certificate shall require all of the following conditions and limitations:
(1) A water conservation plan that specifies the water conservation measures
that will be implemented by the applicant in the receiving river basin to
ensure the efficient use of the transferred water. Except in circumstances of
technical or economic infeasibility or adverse environmental impact, the
water conservation plan shall provide for the mandatory implementation of
water conservation measures by the applicant that equal or exceed the most
stringent water conservation plan implemented by a public water system that
withdraws water from the source river basin.
(2) A drought management plan that specifies how the transfer shall be managed
to protect the source river basin during drought conditions or other
emergencies that occur within the source river basin. Except in
circumstances of technical or economic infeasibility or adverse
environmental impact, this drought management plan shall include
mandatory reductions in the permitted amount of the transfer based on the
severity and duration of a drought occurring within the source river basin
and shall provide for the mandatory implementation of a drought
management plan by the applicant that equals or exceeds the most stringent
water conservation plan implemented by a public water system that
withdraws water from the source river basin.
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 9
(3) The maximum amount of water that may be transferred, calculated as a daily
average of a calendar month, and methods or devices required to be installed
and operated that measure the amount of water that is transferred.
(4) A provision that the Commission may amend a certificate to reduce the
maximum amount of water authorized to be transferred whenever it appears
that an alternative source of water is available to the certificate holder from
within the receiving river basin, including, but not limited to, the purchase of
water from another water supplier within the receiving basin or to the
transfer of water from another sub-basin within the receiving major river
basin.
(5) A provision that the Commission shall amend the certificate to reduce the
maximum amount of water authorized to be transferred if the Commission
finds that the applicant's current projected water needs are significantly less
than the applicant's projected water needs at the time the certificate was
granted.
(6) A requirement that the certificate holder report the quantity of water
transferred during each calendar quarter. The report required by this
subdivision shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 30 days after
the end of the quarter.
(7) Except as provided in this subdivision, a provision that the applicant will not
resell the water that would be transferred pursuant to the certificate to
another public water system. This limitation shall not apply in the case of a
proposed resale or transfer among public water systems within the receiving
river basin as part of an interlocal agreement or other regional water supply
arrangement, provided that each participant in the interlocal agreement or
regional water supply arrangement is a co-applicant for the certificate and
will be subject to all the terms, conditions, and limitations made applicable
to any lead or primary applicant.
(o) Administrative and Judicial Review. – Administrative and judicial review of a final
decision on a petition for a certificate under this section shall be governed by Chapter 150B of
the General Statutes.
(p) Certain Preexisting Transfers. – In cases where an applicant requests approval to
increase a transfer that existed on 1 July 1993, the Commission may approve or disapprove
only the amount of the increase. If the Commission approves the increase, the certificate shall
be issued for the amount of the preexisting transfer plus any increase approved by the
Commission. A certificate for a transfer approved by the Commission under G.S. 162A-7 shall
remain in effect as approved by the Commission and shall have the same effect as a certificate
issued under this Part. A certificate for the increase of a preexisting transfer shall contain all of
the conditions and limitations required by subsection (m) of this section.
(q) Emergency Transfers. – In the case of water supply problems caused by drought, a
pollution incident, temporary failure of a water plant, or any other temporary condition in
which the public health, safety, or welfare requires a transfer of water, the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources may grant approval for a temporary transfer. Prior to
approving a temporary transfer, the Secretary shall consult with those parties listed in
subdivision (3) of subsection (c) of this section that are likely to be affected by the proposed
transfer. However, the Secretary shall not be required to satisfy the public notice requirements
of this section or make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in approving a temporary
transfer under this subsection. If the Secretary approves a temporary transfer under this
subsection, the Secretary shall specify conditions to protect other water users. A temporary
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 10
transfer shall not exceed six months in duration, but the approval may be renewed for a period
of six months by the Secretary based on demonstrated need as set forth in this subsection.
(r) Relationship to Federal Law. – The substantive restrictions, conditions, and
limitations upon surface water transfers authorized in this section may be imposed pursuant to
any federal law that permits the State to certify, restrict, or condition any new or continuing
transfers or related activities licensed, relicensed, or otherwise authorized by the federal
government. This section shall govern the transfer of water from one river basin to another
unless preempted by federal law.
(s) Planning Requirements. – When any transfer for which a certificate was issued
under this section equals or exceeds eighty percent (80%) of the maximum amount authorized
in the certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Department a detailed plan that specifies how
the applicant intends to address future foreseeable water needs. If the applicant is required to
have a local water supply plan, then this plan shall be an amendment to the local water supply
plan required by G.S.143-355(l). When the transfer equals or exceeds ninety percent (90%) of
the maximum amount authorized in the certificate, the applicant shall begin implementation of
the plan submitted to the Department.
(t) Statement of Policy. – It is the public policy of the State to maintain, protect, and
enhance water quality within North Carolina. It is the public policy of this State that the
reasonably foreseeable future water needs of a public water system with its service area located
primarily in the receiving river basin are subordinate to the reasonably foreseeable future water
needs of a public water system with its service area located primarily in the source river basin.
Further, it is the public policy of the State that the cumulative impact of transfers from a source
river basin shall not result in a violation of the antidegradation policy set out in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations § 131.12 (1 July 2006 Edition) and the statewide antidegradation policy
adopted pursuant thereto.
(u) Repealed by Session Laws 2013-388, s. 2, effective August 23, 2013.
(v) Modification of Certificate. – A certificate may be modified as provided in this
subsection:
(1) The Commission or the Department may make any of the following
modifications to a certificate after providing electronic notice to persons who
have identified themselves in writing as interested parties:
a. Correction of typographical errors.
b. Clarification of existing conditions or language.
c. Updates, requested by the certificate holder, to a conservation plan,
drought management plan, or compliance and monitoring plan.
d. Modifications requested by the certificate holder to reflect altered
requirements due to the amendment of this section.
(2) A person who holds a certificate for an interbasin transfer of water may
request that the Commission modify the certificate. The request shall be
considered and a determination made according to the following procedures:
a. The certificate must have been issued pursuant to G.S. 162A-7,
143-215.22I, or 143-215.22L and the certificate holder must be in
substantial compliance with the certificate.
b. The certificate holder shall file a notice of intent to file a request for
modification that includes a nontechnical description of the
certificate holder's request and identification of the proposed water
source.
c. The certificate holder shall prepare an environmental document
pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, except that an
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 11
environmental impact statement shall not be required for the
modification of a certificate unless it would otherwise be required by
Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes.
d. Upon determining that the documentation submitted by the certificate
holder is adequate to satisfy the requirements of this subsection, the
Department shall publish a notice of the request for modification in
the North Carolina Register and shall hold a public hearing at a
location convenient to both the source and receiving river basins. The
Department shall provide written notice of the request for the
modification and the public hearing in the Environmental Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation in the source river basin, a
newspaper of general circulation in the receiving river basin, and as
provided in subdivision (3) of subsection (c) of this section. The
certificate holder who petitions the Commission for a modification
under this subdivision shall pay the costs associated with the notice
and public hearing.
e. The Department shall accept comments on the requested
modification for a minimum of 30 days following the public hearing.
f. The Commission or the Department may require the certificate
holder to provide any additional information or documentation it
deems reasonably necessary in order to make a final determination.
g. The Commission shall make a final determination whether to grant
the requested modification based on the factors set out in subsection
(k) of this section, information provided by the certificate holder, and
any other information the Commission deems relevant. The
Commission shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions
of law with regard to each factor.
h. The Commission shall grant the requested modification if it finds that
the certificate holder has established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the requested modification satisfies the requirements of
subsection (m) of this section. The Commission may grant the
requested modification in whole or in part, or deny the request, and
may impose such limitations and conditions on the modified
certificate as it deems necessary and relevant to the modification.
i. The Commission shall not grant a request for modification if the
modification would result in the transfer of water to an additional
major river basin.
j. The Commission shall not grant a request for modification if the
modification would be inconsistent with the December 3, 2010
Settlement Agreement entered into between the State of North
Carolina, the State of South Carolina, Duke Energy Carolinas, and
the Catawba River Water Supply Project.
(w) Requirements for Coastal Counties and Reservoirs Constructed by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. – A petition for a certificate (i) to transfer surface water to
supplement ground water supplies in the 15 counties designated as the Central Capacity Use
Area under 15A NCAC 2E.0501, (ii) to transfer surface water withdrawn from the mainstem of
a river to provide service to one of the coastal area counties designated pursuant to G.S.
113A-103, or (iii) to withdraw or transfer water stored in any multipurpose reservoir
constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and partially located in a state
G.S. 143-215.22L Page 12
adjacent to North Carolina, provided the United States Army Corps of Engineers approved the
withdrawal or transfer on or before July 1, 2014, shall be considered and a determination made
according to the following procedures:
(1) The applicant shall file a notice of intent that includes a nontechnical
description of the applicant's request and identification of the proposed water
source.
(2) The applicant shall prepare an environmental document pursuant to
subsection (d) of this section, except that an environmental impact statement
shall not be required unless it would otherwise be required by Article 1 of
Chapter 113A of the General Statutes.
(3) Upon determining that the documentation submitted by the applicant is
adequate to satisfy the requirements of this subsection, the Department shall
publish a notice of the petition in the North Carolina Register and shall hold
a public hearing at a location convenient to both the source and receiving
river basins. The Department shall provide written notice of the petition and
the public hearing in the Environmental Bulletin, a newspaper of general
circulation in the source river basin, a newspaper of general circulation in
the receiving river basin, and as provided in subdivision (3) of subsection (c)
of this section. The applicant who petitions the Commission for a certificate
under this subdivision shall pay the costs associated with the notice and
public hearing.
(4) The Department shall accept comments on the petition for a minimum of 30
days following the public hearing.
(5) The Commission or the Department may require the applicant to provide any
additional information or documentation it deems reasonably necessary in
order to make a final determination.
(6) The Commission shall make a final determination whether to grant the
certificate based on the factors set out in subsection (k) of this section,
information provided by the applicant, and any other information the
Commission deems relevant. The Commission shall state in writing its
findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each factor.
(7) The Commission shall grant the certificate if it finds that the applicant has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the petition satisfies the
requirements of subsection (m) of this section. The Commission may grant
the certificate in whole or in part, or deny the request, and may impose such
limitations and conditions on the certificate as it deems necessary and
relevant. (1993, c. 348, s. 1; 1997-443, ss. 11A.119(a), 15.48(c); 1997-524,
s. 1; 1998-168, s. 4; 2001-474, s. 28; 2007-484, s. 43.7C; 2007-518, s. 3;
2008-125, s. 1; 2008-198, s. 11.5; 2010-155, ss. 2, 3; 2011-398, s. 50;
2013-388, s. 2; 2014-120, s. 37.)

SECTION .0400 - REGULATION OF SURFACE WATER TRANSFERS

15A NCAC 02E .0401 APPLICABILITY
(a) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3), the amount of a transfer shall be determined by the amount of water moved from the
source basin to the receiving basin, less the amount of the water returned to the source basin.
(b) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3)(a) and 143-215.22G(3)(b), and notwithstanding the definition of basin in G.S. 143-
215.22G(1), the following are not transfers:
(1) The discharge point is situated upstream of the withdrawal point such that the water discharged will
naturally flow past the withdrawal point.
(2) The discharge point is situated downstream of the withdrawal point such that water flowing past the
withdrawal point will naturally flow past the discharge point.
(c) The withdrawal of surface water from one river basin by one person and the purchase of all or any part of this water by
another party, resulting in a discharge to another river basin, shall be considered a transfer. The person owning the pipe or
other conveyance that carries the water across the basin boundary shall be responsible for obtaining a certificate from the
Commission. Another person involved in the transfer may assume responsibility for obtaining the certificate, subject to
approval by the Division of Water Resources.
(d) Under G.S. 143-215.22I(b), a certificate is not required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the full
capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing or under construction on July 1,
1993. The full capacity of a facility to transfer water shall be determined as the capacity of the combined system of
withdrawal, treatment, transmission, and discharge of water, limited by the element of this system with the least capacity as
existing or under construction on July 1, 1993.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.22G; 143-215.22I; 143B-282(a)(2);
Eff. September 1, 1994.

Appendix C

Responses: Kerr Lake Regional Water
System Interbasin Transfer Request
Hearing Officer’s Report Preparation
Questions
(CH2M HILL, Inc., July 7, 2015)

Responses: Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Request Hearing Officer’s Report Preparation Questions
PREPARED FOR: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
COPY TO: KLRWS
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL, Inc.
DATE: July 7, 2015
PROJECT NUMBER: 376894
REVISION NO.: Final

CH2M HILL, Inc. (CH2M) received questions from the Division of Water Resources (DWR) on June 22, 2015.
These responses are to be used in support of the preparation of the Hearing Officer’s Report for the Kerr
Lake Regional Water System’s (KLRWS) request for an increase in interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Roanoke
River basin.
1. What is the sensitivity or inherent error of the USGS flow gage below Kerr dam? This is intended to
provide context as to whether the modeled impacts are within the error of the gage.
Flow from Kerr Lake is measured by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Tony Young at the
Wilmington USACE office was contacted regarding gaging at the dam. He stated that there are no published
error estimates for the gage. He did state that the rating curve used to estimate the flows may have errors
associated with it but that they assume that the errors are likely both under- and over-estimates, depending
on the location on the rating curve, and that the errors are assumed to essentially cancel out. They do not
believe that there is an overall high or low bias to the flow estimates. He also stated that discharge
estimates are affected by operation of the turbines and that uncertainty in flow estimates is inherent in
these measurements.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates gage 02080500, which is located downstream of Roanoke Rapids
Reservoir. Jeanne Robinson at the Raleigh USGS office was contacted. She indicated that the Annual Data
Reports for that gage include an assessment of record quality. The gage is considered to have good
accuracy. The stage-discharge relationship is evaluated on a routine basis to ensure that estimates are
within five percent of base ratings. Adjustments are made, as needed, to the calculated stage-discharge
relationship to maintain this level of accuracy.
Based on these responses, it seems that USGS is satisfied with estimates +/- 5 percent and that should
therefore be considered in evaluating modeled impacts.
2. Are there any gages (i.e., staff or similar) within the lake to measure changes in water level elevations
across the lake?
Two stage elevations are reported by the USACE, an HW gage and a digital collection platform (DCP) gage.
Review of recent data shows the difference in these two gages is consistently less than 0.1 feet. Data from
these gages, and similar ones in other Roanoke River basin reservoirs, are used in part to manage the
network of reservoirs and are monitored for many purposes including drought management. Recent
provisional data can be reviewed here: http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/dcp05.htm.
RESPONSES: KLRWS IBT PETITION HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT
2

3. Please provide additional model analyses describing impacts to state or federal boat ramps through
Kerr Lake. In other words, what is the percentage of time and duration the existing boat ramps will be
closed due to low water conditions and how much longer does this requested IBT make the conditions?
The USACE and NC Parks Department manage 32 of the 38 boat launches on Kerr Lake. These agencies were
contacted to determine ramp elevations at each launch point and to question whether there are specific
management rules regarding closure of boat ramps.
The USACE was able to provide ramp elevations for all launches on the lake. No specific rules for launch
closure based on lake elevation are known to exist; individual ramps are visually assessed when elevations
begin to reach the bottom elevations and decisions are based on best professional judgement. Practically
speaking, boat ramps are not useable to the very bottom elevation of a ramp since boat trailers may
become stuck if the tires are off of the pavement. A rule of thumb estimate of 2.5 feet of water depth above
the bottom of the ramp was assumed to be the point when a ramp would be closed by management for
safety reasons. For this reason, 2.5 feet were added to the ramp bottom elevations to specify the minimum
elevation criteria used for closure decisions. Since the closure elevation is only an estimate, they were
rounded to the nearest half foot.
The frequency of water level falling below each launch elevation over the 82-year simulation period (almost
30,000 days) was determined. Table 1 summarizes the number of days launches with ramps at each
elevation could be closed during the period of record under both the 2045 baseline and 2045 IBT scenarios.
It can be seen that periods when most or all launches would be closed are nearly identical. It is only the
ramps with elevations above 294.5 feet that anything more than a negligible difference is seen. The highest
launch, Satterwhite Point Marina, is actually expected to be functional for an extra 23 days over the 82 year
period based on how the system is expected to operate under the 2045 IBT scenario.
It should be noted that the closure time and the number of launches shown in Table 1 are not cumulative.
For example, under the 2045 baseline scenario, the lake elevation is expected to fall below 294.5 feet for
915.0 days over the 82-year simulation period or on average approximately 11.2 days per year. Twelve total
launches have potential closure elevation of 294.5 or lower. For the 2045 IBT scenario, the lake is predicted
Table 1. Summary of estimated boat launch closure frequency during the 82-year period of record
Launch
elevations
(feet)
Number
of
launches
2045 Baseline
total days
closed
2045 Baseline
average
days/year closed
2045 IBT
total days
closed
2045 IBT
average
days/year closed
Total difference
(days)
Average
annual
difference
(days/year)
287.5 5 94.3 1.1 94.6 1.2 -0.3 0.0
288.5 4 106.9 1.3 107.2 1.3 -0.3 0.0
289.5 0 114.4 1.4 114.7 1.4 -0.3 0.0
290.5 2 125.7 1.5 125.7 1.5 -0.0 0.0
291.5 4 171.9 2.1 175.7 2.1 -3.9 0.0
292.5 5 265.6 3.2 266.2 3.2 -0.6 0.0
293.5 6 353.9 4.3 354.8 4.3 -0.9 0.0
294.5 7 915.0 11.2 933.8 11.4 -18.9 0.2
295.5 4 3449.7 42.1 3499.7 42.7 -50.0 0.6
296.5 1 6070.6 74.0 6047.6 73.7 +23.1 -0.3
Data provided by the USACE
RESPONSES: KLRWS IBT PETITION HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT
3

to fall below 294.5 feet for 933.8 days over the 82-year simulation period or on average approximately 11.4
days per year. It should also be noted that this assessment assumes all ramps are closed at a launch point
when the closure elevation is reached; closure decisions are at the discretion of ramp management. Many
launch points have multiple ramps, some with different lower elevations, so the estimated statistics
presented Table 1 are conservative.
Boat launch closure is not defined by specific policies but is based on more subjective assessment of existing
and expected conditions by launch site management. An estimate of the potential days of closure was
performed based on published boat ramp elevations and a rule of thumb related to the functionality of the
ramps. The lowest 26 launch areas showed no functional difference between the future scenarios with and
without the IBT. The highest 12 launches show less than a day’s difference on an average annual basis
between the future scenarios with and without the IBT.
4. What is the recurrence interval of 2002 and 2007 droughts? Are they considered 50-year, 100-year, etc.
events? We are consulting with USGS on an answer, but would appreciate thoughts on this as it is related
to the model results.
This issue was discussed with Hydrologics, the firm that developed the Roanoke River basin hydrologic
model (RRBHM), and USGS. No specific recurrence statistics are available at this time. USGS does not
calculate recurrence statistics. The 2002 drought led to the lowest recorded water surface elevations in Kerr
Lake during the 82-year period of record, likely do to its long duration. The 2007 drought was not as severe
in the Roanoke River basin. Kerr Lake water surface elevation (or stage) data are presented for the period
from 2000 to 2011 in Figure 1. It is evident that the 2002 drought was both longer and more severe than the
2007 drought.

Figure 1
Observed Kerr Lake stage data from 2000 to 2011
Two measures, days below a certain water surface elevation and minimum water surface elevation, can be
used to qualitatively assess the severity of the droughts. Since the OASIS model assumes the same USACE
reservoir operational rules and same conditions but varies watershed inflows, the model can be used to
assess the relative severity of droughts throughout the 82-year period of record. No changes in demand or
RESPONSES: KLRWS IBT PETITION HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT
4

operation are implied in the model throughout a run so the demands on the reservoir are the same for the
1950’s drought as for the 2002 or 2007 drought.
5. Are the modeled lake elevation changes (2.4 inches under 2002 drought conditions and 1.2 inches
under 2007 drought conditions) attributed to the proposed IBT statistically significant within the
sensitivity of the model? What is the error range for the model?
Note that these lake elevation changes are in reference to Kerr Lake and the 2045 dataset.
Hydrologics was consulted and staff indicated that they do not have numbers quantifying the error between
the modeled and gaged data. Hydrologics developed the RRBHM and DWR conducted a review prior to their
acceptance of the completed model.
DWR was consulted regarding their approach to model validation of the RRBHM OASIS model. DWR used a
number of industry standard statistical measures to assess accuracy including Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency,
RMSE-observations standard deviation ratio, and percent bias. These three measures were applied at seven
USGS gage locations for the period from 2007 through 2012. All locations received a satisfactory rating, as
determined by DWR, for all measures. The percent bias, the tendency to be larger or smaller than observed
data, for this period was -12.3 percent for the Roanoke River gage USGS02080500. This suggests that the
model in general under predicts flow.
It is understood by those using the model that the differences between the model and gage data are
expected to be moderately high due to the methods with which the model calculates statistics. The OASIS
model uses monthly withdrawal and discharge estimates and operational rules to estimate reservoir levels
and stream flow. Withdrawals and discharges are likely to be variable within a given month depending on a
number of conditions such as weather and changes in population. In addition, while the operating rules are
guidelines for operation, they can’t be and aren’t followed as closely in reality as they are in the model.
Since the error estimates for the model are based on river flow, these are difficult to convert to lake
elevation. It is our opinion that the predicted changes in elevation are within the likely error of the model
and certainly barely perceptible to someone utilizing the lake.
6. Need documentation regarding the documented concerns presented in the EA about groundwater
quality (Vance and Warren counties). What data/information is available to support statements in EA
regarding reliability of private wells during recent drought episodes and residents’ concerns about water
quality?
The Vance County Water System planning process included public meetings in 2008 and 2009. Residents
presented their water quality and drought resilience comments at these meetings. Their concerns, along
with private groundwater well sampling, were used to support the formation of the Vance County Water
System and as evidence of the demand for a reliable and safe potable water supply in the area. The project’s
environmental assessment, which discusses on pages 3 and 4 issues such as fecal coliform contamination of
wells that are too shallow and close to septic tanks, received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This EA and evidence of the FONSI and its publication according
to federal rules is attached.
The Vance County Water System is designed to meet the potable water demands of existing rural area
residents and sign-ups for pre-construction tie-ins to the system have been strong, with approximately 1,000
to date.
7. List of recipients who received the original NOI in 2009.
This request was clarified with Kim Nimmer/DWR. The request is for the list of recipients of the public notice
for the public meetings associated with the 2009 submittal of the Notice of Intent (NOI) by the KLRWS
Partners. The public notice process followed the 2007 version of the IBT statute. This list, organized by
section of the statute, is attached.
Appendix D

Responses to Comments from U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Regarding the Kerr
Lake Regional Water System
Environmental Assessment on the
Proposed Interbasin Transfer
(CH2M HILL, Inc., March 22, 2015)

USFWS RESPONSES_KLRWSIBT.DOCX/[INSERT JETT ID] 1
M E M O R A N D U M
Responses to Comments from US Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding the Kerr Lake Regional Water System Environmental Assessment on the Proposed Interbasin Transfer
PREPARED FOR: Harold Brady/DWR Kim Nimmer/DWR
COPY TO: Tom Fransen/DWR
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
DATE: March 22, 2015

Overview
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided comments on the Kerr Lake Regional Water System
(KLRWS) Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Environmental Assessment (EA) on March 16, 2015. The following
responses have been prepared for use by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) in
preparing comment responses and in developing the hearing officer’s report of the public proceedings.
The KLRWS is seeking an increase in approved transfer from the current grandfathered, maximum day IBT of
10 mgd, equivalent to 9.7 mgd on an average day of a maximum month, to 14.2 mgd on an average day of a
maximum month. This is an increase in 4.5 mgd over the current amount.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The USFWS letter discusses concerns regarding both cumulative impacts resulting from construction of new
water lines associated with service area expansions and secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) due to the
expected growth facilitated by the expanding IBT. The most significant ongoing construction is associated
with the Vance County Water System which prepared an EA (under the National Environmental Policy Act
[NEPA] due to federal funding sources) and received a FONSI in 2008 for construction of 165 miles of water
distribution mains, three elevated storage tanks, and five booster pump stations. These water mains have
been and continue to be constructed along North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) rights-of-
way. The potential for impacts associated with the Vance County Water System have already been
considered under appropriate environmental regulations. The majority of Vance County Water System
customers are current residents that are being converted from individual, private groundwater wells to a
public water system.
Infrastructure will be required for the City of Oxford to serve the Town of Creedmoor via connections to the
South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWASA). However, at this time, planning efforts have not
begun and insufficient information is available to estimate impacts. It is expected that this infrastructure
investment will trigger the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process and direct impacts will be
evaluated and mitigated through this process at the appropriate time, when more planning information is
available.
The increase in IBT is 4.5 mgd, and SCI associated with this focus mainly on construction of small water lines
within the NCDOT right-of-way, where little environmental impacts are expected and with growth in areas
such as Franklin County. The Franklin County water system serves low density areas of the county, as it does
not always extend sewer service. Lot sizes are typically larger, limiting population density and potential for
SCI to environmental resources. Water supply of this smaller amount could be achieved in other ways, such
as through offline storage from a Tar River intake, however it is anticipated that these other, viable water
sources would carry greater environmental impact that the proposed small increase in IBT.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER
2
Increased Wastewater Discharges
The USFWS letter discusses impacts of increasing wastewater discharge in general. The letter indicates that
wastewater flows are not beneficial during drought conditions and the potential impacts of emerging
contaminants. The letter goes on to say that the EA did not fully evaluate wastewater discharges to the Tar
River and associated SCI with other projects. These include Franklin County’s proposed new discharge to the
Tar River, SGWASA’s proposed discharge to the Tar River and the bulk transfer of water to the City of
Raleigh. Each of these is addressed below.
 Adequate permitted capacity is in place to treat wastewater as a result of the proposed transfer. Most
facility upgrades are in place with the exception of the SGWASA upgrades in the Neuse River basin which
are under construction. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and permits have previously been
issued.
 Franklin County is in the planning stage of evaluating options for their facilities but no decisions have
been made and regulatory processes through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) have not
started. We understand that speculative limits have been requested and received from DWR but this
does not signify that a decision has been made. Their evaluation is partially in response to consideration
for an increase in industrial discharge but no decision has been made at this time.
 The Town of Creedmoor did receive speculative limits for a potential discharge to the upper Tar River.
However, the Creedmoor water and sewer system has subsequently been purchased by SGWASA. The
proposed IBT from the Roanoke to the Neuse River basin is based on SGWASA treating the wastewater
and discharging within the Neuse River basin. A discharge to the Tar would require environmental
review and permitting. It would also eventually require a modification to the IBT certificate.
 No bulk transfer of water to Raleigh is included in the proposed transfer and the General Statutes will
require the certificate to prohibit water sales to systems that were not identified in the petition. While
Kerr Lake may have been identified as an alternative to the Little River Reservoir project for the City of
Raleigh, it is not included in their long range water supply plan or their 2013 Local Water Supply Plan
and could not be allowed by this proposed IBT.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
The USFWS indicates that it is not clear why DWR would allow a transfer into a basin classified as a nutrient
sensitive water (NSW). This is answered by the previous response that current permitted wastewater
capacities can accommodate water generated by the transfer. In addition, even if dischargers had to be
increased, the dischargers could provide further treatment to reduce nutrient loading and pursue other
options provided under the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS).
The Tar-Pamlico NMS agreement involves nutrient loading limits on point sources in the basin. Nutrient
trading is permissible. The total nitrogen (TN) load goal is 1,361,000 kg/year at Washington and is currently
not yet being met with the implementation of the 30 percent reduction goal. The total phosphorus (TP) goal
is to have no increase from the 1991 level of 180,000 kg/year at Washington, and this is only being achieved
in some years (drier years) in the watershed. According the 2015 Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan, data suggest
that nutrient loading is being driven more by the amount of precipitation (and corresponding runoff) than by
nutrient concentrations. Each utility monitors TN and TP; some have loading limits while others are awaiting
annual loading limits with the next cycle of their NPDES permits. Facilities in the Tar River basin that receive
water from the KLRWS include:
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER
3
TABLE 1
Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Members that Receive
Water Supply from the KLRWS

Permit Owner Permitted Flow (mgd)
Town of Bunn 0.3
Franklin County 3.0
City of Oxford 3.5
Town of Warrenton 2.0
Source, NCDWR Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan, 2014

A similar nutrient reduction strategy is in place in the Falls Lake watershed within the Neuse River basin. The
Falls Lake Rules were adopted by the NC Environmental Management Commission in 2010. SGWASA is
currently upgrading its facility to meet treatment requirements planned to go into effect in 2016. Currently
the facility has a TN annual mass limit of 58,599 lbs/year and in 2016 this loading will reduce to 22,420
lbs/year and a TP annual mass limit of 2,284 lbs/year will begin.
Return of Water to the Roanoke River Basin
USFWS urges reconsideration of the EA’s alternative 5, which would return water to the Roanoke River
basin. Estimated cost information for all alternatives is included in the IBT Petition which is being published
in the North Carolina Environmental Clearinghouse prior to the March 31, 2015 public hearing. The capital
costs of this return range from $17 Million to $111 Million and include substantial impacts associated with
infrastructure construction and pumping. This alternative was considered to have more detrimental impacts
than the proposed IBT.