19910171 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19910816

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone] ,
TELECOPY TO: UaLS
FAX NUl !BER: __-?
FROM: V
___ PHONE:
NUMBER OF PAGr` Ii ? CLT.T1D1KG ;'S'HE COVER SHEET:
f
k
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, N.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary August 16, 1991 Director
Mr. Lester Lowe
F.T. Green and-Associates
Post Office Box 609
303 North Goldsboro Street
Wilson, North Carolina 27893
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the
Federal Clean Water Act
Proposed water intake structure
Halifa.: County
Water Quality Certification # 2595
On 22 May 1.991, the Division of Environmental Management
issued Water Quality Certification # 2595 to the Town of Weldon
for their water intake. The attached condition replaces
condition # 2 of that Certification.
If we can.bc of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us
Sincerely,
George T. Everett
GTE : JD
Lowe.ltr; D-6
cc: Wilmington'District COE
Raleigh Regional Office, DE14
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541, 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 9 19/395 -3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
r-Vlr a-
3 /16/91
4nl CERTIFICATION CONDITION
TOWN OF WELDON
CERTIFICATION NO. 2595
The Director of the Division of Environmental Management,
acting in accordance with decision criteria to be established by
the Director for such purpose, may in his discretion restrict the
rights of the permittee to withdraw water to the extent he
concludes that the quantity or quality of water in the river
during a period of time is sufficiently reduced that continued
withdrawal will cause a violation of water quality standards, or
other environmental standards established to protect striped bass
or other fish, and wildlife. Any such restriction shall remain
in effect only for the period of time such condition exists and
shall, to the extent of the Director's authority to do so, be
imposed on an equitable basis with other permitted users,
considering. the amount of water withdrawn, conditions downstream
from the point of withdrawal, and other factors the director
deems appropriate. The decision criteria established by the
Director relevant to this condition concerning restriction of
water withdrawals from the river shall be provided the permittee,
together with a reasonable opportunity to comment thereon. The
permittee recognizes that the establishment of such criteria is
discretionary with the Director, and will not constitute
rulemahing under.Article 2 of the N.C. Administrative Procedures
Act, N.C.G.S. Chapter 150n. The provisions of Article 3,
Administrative Hearings, and Article 4, Judicial Review, shall
apply to any final decision of the Director to restrict
withdrawals:as set forth herein.
r.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary May 22, 1991 Director
Mr. Lester Lowe
F. T. Green and Associates
P.O. Box 609
303 North Goldsboro St.
Wilson, N.C. 27393
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
.,Clean Plater Act,
Proposed water intake structure
Hal-.fc-x County
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 2595
issued to,.the Torn cf Pieldon dated May 22, 1991.
If we can s)e•of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us
Si ere ,
G rge Everett
Director
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
REGIONALOMCES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 91914?1j6-IS1 704/663-1699 919/733 -23 14 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
c: Pollution Prevention PaN-s
PA, f ?\ 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
?? AT. "dual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

NORTH CAROLINA
Halifax County
1r, CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to the Town of Weldon pursuant to an application filed on the 22
day of January, 1991 to construct a water intake structure in the
Roanoke River
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of the Roanoke River
in conjunction with the proposed water intake structure in
Halifax County will not result in a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
.-urbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. The Director of the Division of Environmental Man-
agement may restrict the rights of the permittee to
{ withdraw water if he concludes that such restric-
t'on i.s necessary to ensure compliance with estab-
i'shed water quality of other environmental stan-
dards in the river.
violatiohs ;:r any condition herein set forth shall result in
.revocation of this Certification.
t This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 22 day of May, 1991.
DIVISION Or ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
/Fn George T. Everett, Director
WQC4 2595
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
III.
"j q U

SUBJECT:
qI q -??? -5-S ?S-

vt-ors-a e e
4 lqj? &-?'

Saks
r/
M-)f2-5
r
V?-
Lf
From:
a ? srnre'a,,.y
?J. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
" • $.,,,,,,,Health, - eq Printed on Recycled Paper
i
Westmoreland - LG&E Partners
August 14, 1992 t
aLI G 13 1992
TE:R -OUPLITY
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management r
Water Quality Section
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Westmoreland-Hadson Partners Name Change
Please be advised that effective July 27, 1992, Westmoreland-Hadson
Partners changed its name to Westmoreland- LG&E Partners.
Consequently, all :,orrespondence and other documentation should reflect
this namc change f, om that date forward.
If you have. any questions, please give me a call.
1
Sincerely,
0.
Donna J. Sharpe
:djs P
S --

Westmoreland Energy, Inc.
300 Preston Avenue, Fifth Floor
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
lephone:;(Sfl4) 979-2500
•lecopy: [phone]
LGKE Development Corporation
12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 260
Fairfax, Virginia 22033
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopy: [phone]

- , R-LJ j
L= i
L'2_ c3
00
N
?I cn U
C-J
414
cp3 p
O ?? I cs
UL
?
O c/1
L1
? p
0
? C)
M U
1 "ant W. Cobey. Jr. -?
, y& tary uJ* Environrnent. Ilealttt. r
and Natural Res urces t v
RESPOND BY:
PLEASE: Draft a reply for my signature and return to me.
Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by me
(copy to Secretary's Office).
Draft a reply for the Governor's signature and return
to me.
Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by
o ernor Martin (copy to Secretary's Office)
For your information.
Take appropriate action.
Note and file.
:Die and return to me. 1
ate and sec me about this.
i omments and/or recommendations.
REMARKS:
1 n ? l r
ILI,
AUG
r, ^r '
• i
A+
12 N. Salisbury Street
AUG

Kaleiyh 27611 [phone]
,,I Ore
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Nationni Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
?? . NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
*'A„$of,* I Southeast Regiorfal Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
August 2, 1991 ----
?Y
f
ial)? 2 ? 19?;i
Lt. Colonel Thomas
District.Engineer,
Department of the
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North
C. Suermann---_r?c_.
Wilmington District
Army, Corps of Engineers
Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Suermann:
his. responds to your July 16, 1991, letter requesting our comments
on additional information concerning Action ID. 199100397,
regarding the proposal by the Town of Weldon to construct a water
intake structure'on the Roanoke River at Weldon. The additional
information was provided by representatives of the Town of Weldon
at a June 19, 1991, meeting and in a June 20, 1991, letter.
The applicant has agreed to reduce the water intake slot size to
1 mm as recommended by state and federal conservation agencies. In
addition, conditions of the State of North Carolina's 401 water
quality certification have been accepted. These conditions enable
'-he Director of the Division of Environmental Management to
restrict water withdrawal to ensure compliance with established
water quality or other environmental standards in the river.
The applicant has done a comner_dable job in reducing the potential
individual effects of this project. The construction and
operational aspects of this project have been resolved to our
satisfaction. We remain concerned, however, over the cumulative
adverse impact of water withdrawals from the Roanoke River system.
This project continues to add to a growing list of existing or
nrcposed consunpt.Lva r nd non-ccnsunptive coin-mitTM_rts of Anan_Yn
..fiver water at the possible ea:pense of environmental quality and
the river's striped bass population. This population has been on
the decline for many years despite intensive regulation of the
fishery. Experts on the striped bass population hypothesize that
an important cause of the fishery's decline may relate to the
quantity, timing, and quality of water necessary for spawning and
survival of eggs and larvae. Additionally, possible adverse
?:ffects of reduced water flows on habitat suitability in the
Danoke River and Albemarle S,3und may be problematic.

o W O
u N
w O U
r O `U
Z O
Q F-
W Z
(7 W
H ?
IL
W
W
a
•. a.
ti
O
Q.
0
j
O
LLt
z
e
z
0
a
cc
W?
Q z U
W _
> N
O
Q Cl)
(n cl Cl)
U W ? ¢ o
w
LL
O0 W
9 u- -j o
0
-
F- - LL 0u
Q C3 C7
W z Z w
Q ?
co
F-z Q C7Oui
Q
U -1
H
_
C- Z
O C) 4
U
p a \
O C Z
z
O \

21
N
U
Qi
O
U
W
i Q
zl- N
??)) 44 CO
ck1 O 110 U
P cV 2
?4 o x
oF~ox.
4J -P M
U 34 •H
O «S • v
Fa01OH
Q A Ql a
O
U) LLI
ui D
Z w
m CC
CC
U O
LL. }
L
O <
z
of
IL
d
N
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
August 21, 1991
Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Dr. Wright:
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
In keeping with your request, this office has circulated to interested
state review agencies U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Action ID.
199100397 dated January 10, 1991 which describes a project proposal by the
Town of Weldon. The project, for which Sections 10 and 404 permits are
required and which involves construction of a new raw water intake structure,
is located in the Roanoke River, adjacent the N. C. Highway 48 bridge, in
Roanoke Rapids, Halifax County.
Based upon a lengthy coordinated agency review with some key agencies
submitting additional and/or. revised comments in consideration of project
refinements, the state, through this viewpoint position, interposes no
objection to the proposal. Several agencies have, however, incorporated
remaining concerns in their revised comments. These agencies and the comment
of each follow:
Wildlife Resources Commission - initially objecting to the project
(re. February 5, 1991 memorandum to the writer) due to the potential
for striped bass egg entrainment, the Commission removed its objection
in a special letter of August 12 to your office. This position was
taken after agreements were reached on screen size. The writer
notes, however, the Commission will "reserve the right to supple-
ment comments" .... should short or long term impacts seem likely;
Division of Environmental Management - for the record, issued an
amended version of the requireO. Section 401 Water Quality Certifi-
cation on August 16, 1991. It is noted that the Division Director
has included certain safeguards in the conditions of Certification
No. 2595 so as to allow him to revisit the issue should it appear
that state water quality standards or other environmental standards
established to protect striped bass or other fish and wildlife
would be violated;
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Enual Onnnminirv Affirmative Artinn Fmnlnwr
1 u
Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Page 2
August 21, 1991
Division of Land Resources - reported early in the process that an
erosion and sedimentation plan would be required for the project if
more than one acre of land disturbing activity would have taken place.
In a telephone communication on August 13, DLR reported no plan had
been submitted;
State Property Office, Dept. of Administration - finds that an ease-
ment is required from the Council of State for structure installation in
the Roanoke River. As of August 13, an application for such easement
had not been submitted to the Property Office;
Division of Water Resources - early in the review process expressed
concern over cumulative impacts of the various consumptive uses pro-
posed for-the River and suggested review of all such uses;
Division of Marine Fisheries - maintains its concern over the potential
for cumulative impacts to the imperaled Roanoke-Albemarle striped bass
fishery. This Division emphasizes the importance of the Congressionally
formed Striped Bass Management Board and would prefer that Board and the
Roanoke River Flow Committee become more involved in the review of
?i
such uses;
Dept. of Transportation submits that any work within the Highway
right-of-way will require a detailed presentation to the Division
of Highways District Engineer's office for review and approval before
commencing any work.
For the record,, it is noted that the Divisions of Archives and History,
Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, and Community Assistance
submitted returns containing "No Comment" check offs. The Division of
Environmental Health serving as the lead agency for the review of the
Environmental Assessment likewise did not submit objection under this Public
Notice viewpoint review. However, DEH did notify the writer early on about
the concerns of key agencies reviewing the E.A. Most of those agencies also
have reviewed the Notice to which this letter responds directly. DEH later
reported (5/24/91) that the EA review was complete with the implication that
project refinements had resolved most of the agency concerns.

Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Page 3
August 21, 1991
Should you require additional information from the state on this
important matter, do not hesitate to contact this office or the responding
agencies.
Very sincerely,
Jo R. Parker, Jr.
Inland 1404 Coordinator
cc: Inter-Departmental Review Agencies
Dr. Ernie Carl, DEHNR
Corps of Engineers, Falls Lake
Alan Hirsh, Attorney Generals Office

MNOruDJ-.AUFI. cu.[wT C. uITC. )II
wIUTA. r. TJ.raow.Jw. LISA .. ...N[n
r.o.AS r. uu. .o.uo w. woccws
r.oNAS r AoA.s. Jw. JAC. w. w.wl.
CHAwL[... N[ttir.Jw. STCPHCN T. TCWC.TO.
TNO.AS W. N. AL..ANOIw TI.OTNr S. RIOwOA.
...I.T A. -O-3 'Os, 1. M. LISCNW.
JoN. T. wIUTA. sow ""no. N. S-C.
rwJ.w. w IN..O. Jw. .IIIA.CTN D. SCOTT
Au[wT w, sE". Jw. JAC. s..OL..S
wICNAwD N. 1--. w[us[N O. CLAW.. W
.ANC. a. w..Da[NAw .0...10.10....
w. sT..... --I wO.cwT A. CO-N
.AwGI[ T. CAS.
P
rt -11 .. .-SO.
Gw ITCNEN W. [WALT
CITN MP
.
.. S. T.O.AS JON.1 .."..0.
pAV10 w. DDwTO. WINSTON L. -L. Jw.
HUON w. OVER MOLT .0.1.1 1. WILSON. Jw.
'.'pAVID N..1AN0 J,SS.C. --C-
.T.- D. .IN.... .... ...I.Ncn
JOHN C. COO.. I,-J. 00..0.
T.O.A. A. ... .ICHAIL C. LOBO
.0-111 ILLMM J. .wIA..Jw.
Arcs .. = . IC..E1 S. SWI. D.LI•
o. worc[?orcu r [N..NVnno,Jw.
JON. C. .I1a.[w0 .AwO. .. THOw.10.
WILLU. ..OMN, Jw. DAVID w. N OST11LE.
SCOTT A. WILSON rwI.N.J. C..T. Jw.
JAM.. [. "T[. ..N POTT[.
A.O. C. o-SO.. m ...I ..wOD1
.T[v[N .. wO DISLLL wIC-0 N. COO.
JONN O..4wD
M CWw111
MAUPIN TAYLOR
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Alan Hirsch, Esq.
Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0620
Re: 401 Certification Condition
Town of Weldon
Certification No. 2595
Our File No. 9424.002
Dear Alan:
Attached please find a copy of the 401 certification
condition with the changes you had suggested in our previous
draft. Also added at the end is the sentence which you last
suggested to Ralph Daley with changes suggested by us. Also, we
have added another sentence at the end of the condition
concerning the permittee's right to an administrative appeal of
the directors' final action with regard to limitation of water
withdrawals.
We realize you will be out of town on vacation, but we would
appreciate your forwarding this proposed revision to the
appropriate people for review in your absence. Hopefully, when
you return, we will be able to quickly wrap this matter up.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3201 GLENWOOD AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612-5008
TELEPHONE [phone]
I u wl C.:ROLMA
tj ;0ittt ` i:£"+E?tAL'S Offiit
IJUL 2 5 1991
' r "EIVED
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27619-9764
TELEFAX 19191 782-8788
WASHINGTON OFFICE
1130 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 750
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20036-3904
TELEFAX 12021 457-8558
TELEPHONE [phone]
HOCK HILL OFFICE
446 LAKESHORE PARKWAY, SUITE 200
ROCK HILL. SOUTH CAROLINA 29730.4205
TELEFAX 48031 324-2093
TELEPHONE [phone]
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
881-4010
July 23, 1991
about the
It
G , .
7/23/91
401 CERTIFICATION COY-LTION
TOWN OF WELDO.
CERTIFICATION NO. 2595
The Director of the Division of Environmental Management,
acting in accordance with elf.r¢¢?i?/?¢¢¢??¢//¢¢¢?i¢¢?
procedures a1t?X? to be established by the
Director for such purpose, may in his discretion
restrict the rights of the permittee to withdraw water to the
extent tU/O?¢t¢t he concludes that the quantity or quality of
water in the river during a period of time is sufficiently reduced
that continued withdrawal will cause a violation of O??41611)i¢d
water quality standards or other ¢?t'416Xj iOd environmental
standards established to protect striped bass ar other fish and
wildlife. Any such restriction shall remain in effect only for
the period of time such condition exists and shall, to the extent
7>
of?the Director's authority to do so, ?Ji4jX be imposed on an ?.;
equitable basis with other permitted users, considering the amount
of water withdrawn, conditions downstream from the point of
withdrawal, and other appropriate factors. Notice of ?Yi?/?I¢yb
procedures established by the Director relevant to this
condition concerning restriction of water withdrawals from the
river shall be provided the permittee, together with a reasonable
opportunity to comment thereon. The permittee recognizes A4d
AotOO? that the adoption of such procedures is discretionary with
the Director, and will not constitute rulemaking under Article 2
of the N.C. Administrative Procedures Act, N C G S Chapter 150B
The provisions of Article 3, Administrative Hearings, and Article
? r
4, Judicial Revicw, shall apply to any final decision of the
Director to restrict water withdrawals as set forth herein.
mmm/fhs6/monl3
i/jc?ErJz~

`d. AUG 09 '91 09:11 F.T. GREEN, WILSON

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OFENGINEERS
RO, BOX 1890
WfLMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1880
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199100397
Mr. Lester Lowe
F.T. Green & Associates
Post Office Box 609
Wilson, North Carolina
August 5,• 1991
1
27893 '•_'_

P.2/5
--• Dear Mr. Lowe:
By public notice of January 10, 1991, we advertised your application on
behalf of the Town of Weldon for Department of the Army authorization to
construct a raw water intake structure on the Roanoke River, Roanoke Rapids,
Halifax County, North Carolina.
After review of your June 20, 1991 response to their May IS, 1991
comments, the National Marine Fisheries Service has recommended that a
permit decision on the proposed intake be delayed pending completion of a
report by the Striped Baas Management Board, which is due later this year.
Their August 2, 1991 letter (copy enclosed) was forwarded to you by telefax
on August S, 1991. This recommendation is due to potential cumulative
adverse impacts of water withdrawals from the Roanoke River system to
striped bass resources and their habitat, and to the potential that
significant additional information concerning water flow requirements will
be provided by this report. Should such a time delay be unacceptable, we
suggest that you contact the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine
what additional information can be provided which would adequately address
the concerns of that objecting agency. Additional information you provide
may be forwarded directly to the Service to expedite their review and our
processing of your application.
Eric Alsmeyer of My Raleigh Field Office staff, telephone (919)
846-0749, is responsible for processing your application and is available to
assist you in coordinating with the review agencies. Pleace advise us of
your intentions, in writing, within 20 days of your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
C• hi ne wri ht
cef, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
AUG 09 '91 09:12 F. T. GREEN. WILSON
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Diviaion.of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources
Post .Offices Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Hr. John Parker
Division of coastal management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fiahoriea Service
Habitat Conaervation Service
Pivora Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ma. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Ra::eigh; North Carolina 276363726
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
P.3/5
4.0
-r OP,CAUG 08 '91 89:12 F. T. GREEN,. WILSON _ V}!FS SERA R•4/x}001/002
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CdE MIanC€
i i National Oceanic and Atmnaphoric Administration
4 NATIONAL MARINE FISH$AIE8 SERVICE
°'QOV- , i southeast Regional offico
9450 Xoger Boulevard
St. Petersburg,;Florida 33702
August 2, 1991
pF.GEtVF.D
Lt. Colonel Thomas C. suermann AUG 2 1991
District Engineer, Wilmington District REGULATORY BRANCH
Department of they army, corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Suormann:
This responds to your July 15, 1991, letter requesting our comments
on additional information concerning Action 20. 199100397r
regarding the proposal by the Town of Weldon to construct a water
intake structure on the Roanoke River at Weldon. The additional
information was provided by representatives of the Town of Weldon
at a June 19, 1991, meeting and in a June 20, 1951, letter.
The applicant has agreed to reduce the water intake slot size to
1 mm as recommended by state and federal conservation agencies. in
addition, condition: of the state of North Carolinafs 401 water
quality certification have been accepted. These conditions enable
the Director of the Division of Environmental Management to
restrict water withdrawal to ensure compliance with established
water quality or other environmental standards in the raver.
The applicant ham done a commendable job in reducing the potential
individual effects of this project. The construction and
operational aspects of this project have been resolved to our
satisfaction. We remain concerned, however, over the cumulative
adverse impact of water withdrawals from the Roanoke River system.
This'project continues to add to a growing list of existing or
proposed consumptive and non-consumptive commitments of Roanoke
River water at the possible expense of environmental quality and
the rivers striped bass population. This population has been on
the decline for many years despite intensive regulation of the
fishery: Experts on the striped bass population hypothesize that
an important cause of the fishery's decline may relate to the
quantity, timing, and quality of water necessary for spawning and
survival, of eggs and larvae. Additionally, possible adverse
effects of reduced water flows on habitat suitability in the
Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound may be problematic.

r OSIOHUG 'O8 'S1 *69: 13 F, T. 6RLEi I,' 'WILSON NXFS SERO P. 5/f? 002/002

Issues related to the condition and neads of the striped bass
population in the Roanoke River are currently being addressed by
the Striped Sass Management Board (SB14B) convened by an act of
Congress. The Wilmington District Corps of Engineers also has been
a party to these deliberations. The findings of the SBMB are in
preparation with a report due to Congress later this year. We
believe the permitting of thin project should be delayed pending
completion of the SEMB I s repor_t_and then-cv-aluated_.i.ni ht of
their findings. A baseline of conditions nacezoaty for continued
striped bass production must first be established as a basis upon
which to assess and. balance the cumulative affects of water
withdrawals.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely, _
r
ndreas Mager, ar.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
Jr
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
a:`?II!/i;; ( WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
f `"WUI' U. v l P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
`? -- July 16, 1991
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199100397
Mr. Andreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Dear Mr. Mager:
r
By public notice of January 10, 1991, we advertised an application on
behalf of the Town of Weldon for Department of the Army authorization to
construct a raw water intake structure on the Roanoke River, Roanoke Rapids,
Halifax County, North Carolina. By letter dated May 15, 1991, you
recommended that the permit request be denied based on potential adverse
impacts to fisheries resources, particularly striped bass, and their habitat
in the Roanoke River.
In a June 19, 1991 meeting with Mr. Ronald Sechler of your Beaufort,
North Carolina office, Eric Alsmeyer of my staff and Dennis Stuart of the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and in the enclosed letter
dated June 20, 1991, the applicant's representative has provided information
which addresses the concerns you have raised. We are anticipating final
action on this permit request, and would appreciate your comments concerning
this information on or before July 31, 1992.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

f Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
N r-th Carolina Department of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188
a 1:7
F.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS / PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 609 1 303 NORTH GOLDSBORO STREET I WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27693
TELEPHONE [phone]
June 20, 1991
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
SUBJECT: Action ID 199100397
Town of Weldon
404 Permit Application
Dear Mr. Wright:
0 elv
311
a( -
In response to the comments made by the National Marine
Fisheries service in a letter to your office, dated May 15, 1991,
a meeting was held on June 19, 1991, in our Raleigh office with
representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Wildlife Resources Commission, Corps of Engineers, Hadson
Development, Westmoreland Energy, and F. T. Green and Associates;
P. A.
As referenced in the attached NMFS letter, their concerns with
screen slot size and cumulative withdrawal impacts needed further
evaluation. First, NMFS, in conjunction with the Wildlife
Resources Commission, has recommended that the proposed slot size
be reduced from 2.5 mm to 1.0 mm on the intake screens. After
further review of this request, we are in concurrence with this
change and have agreed to reduce the size to 1.0 mm. The second
area of concern dealt with cumulative impacts of the project on the
fishery resources and their habitat. In response to this shared
concern, a summary of water withdrawal issues was prepared which
discusses the proposed withdrawals and illustrates how the project
will not adversely impact the striped bass population or habitat.
(A copy of this summary was distributed and discussed at the
meeting and is attached for your use.) In addition, shortly after
the May 15, 1991 letter was prepared by the NMFS, we received
approval from the State on the Environmental Assessment and 401
Certification for the transmission line and intake structure. A
copy of these documents also has been included as a part of this
response.

Mz G.*Wayne Wright
June 20, 1991
Page 2
I trust this information is sufficient for your review. If
stions or comments, please do not hesitate to
you have any qu
contact this off'ce.
Respectfully,
F. T. GREEN & ASSOCIATES, P. A.
este owe
LL/ j ed
Enclosures
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Resources Commission
John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Hadson Partners
Dave Stoner, Westmoreland Energy
L. K. Gantt, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
D4.062091
IMPORTANT
To
_
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

i

!^
Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
?v v? Printed on Recycled Paper
J ? .
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Wil ian w. oj:ey Jr
January 22, 1991 ? ? seaetary
Dr. George T.. Everett
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Dr. Everett:
The attached L. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 00397 dated
1/10/91 describing a project proposed by The Town o e don
is being circulated to interested state agencies for co=ents on applicable
Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on 't)ie.proposed
project and return this form by 2/11/91
y?.. _ Very sincerely, ?.
\ S
Jol?
n R. Parker, Jr.
404 Coordinator
REPLY
i his office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
A S
igned 1 i
? a?,
Date l
Agency
JRP:jr/aw
P.O Box 27667. Paleie.:lorih (:zrplir)z 27611.7657 Telephone [phone]
f tid e( ?I ? /••• Sf 1I?
1 ::1r r ,
s ;r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
--MEMORANDUM--
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Doug Lewis
?c;-
DATE: May 10, 1991 "
SUBJECT: 91-0702 Town of Weldon Raw Water System Improvement
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (EHNR) has
reviewed the Environmental Assessment/ Finding of No Significant Impact
(EA/FONSI) concerning the proposed water intake for the Town of Weldon.
Reviewing divisions have raised concerns regarding environmental impacts of the
project. However, for the reasons set out below, we believe this project does
not need further environmental analysis.
(1) The Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) has raised concerns
regarding the entrainment/impingement of fish eggs or larvae in the intake
screens. However, the applicant is prepared to reduce the size of the screen
openings from 2.5 mm to 1.0 mm if the WRC determines that such an action
will substantially reduce entrainment/impingement. Furthermore, even 2.5 mm
screens will reduce entrainment as compared to the current 1 inch screening.
(2) Information has been prepared and conditions imposed which address
the concerns raised about the 401 Water Quality Certification which is issued by
the Division of Environmental Management. V
(3) Information in the EA/FONSI and the attached appendices supports
the view that improvements being made in the Weldon wastewater treatment
plant as part of the project will result in maintained or improved water quality,
notwithstanding the consumptive uses of water discussed below.
(4) Perhaps the most critical issue raised by the reviewing divisions is
the impact on the river of the project's consumptive use of water. This use
must be considered cumulatively with other reasonably anticipated uses in the
Roanoke Basin. The Division of Environmental Management has concluded that
PO Rox 27687. Palei2h, North Carolina 27AlI7e87 IA-phonc 41'x7336376
An Fgrnl OrrxmUnitx, :Altmrar!•.,• -v ?_,, i rrl?ln?.rr

Memo To: Chrys Baggett
Page Two
May 10, 1991
the assimilative capacity of the Roanoke is now essentially depleted. In
addition, the State and federal agencies charged with protection of fish and
wildlife have concluded that there is insufficient water in the Roanoke during
low flow periods to provide appropriate conditions for striped bass spawning and
other fish and wildlife needs. Therefore, even relatively minor consumptive
water uses may have significant impacts on water quality, and on fish and
wildlife dependent on the river.
This project will consume less than 3 million gallons per day (mgd). This
use represents less than one-half of one percent of the lowest minimum flow
conditions (1,000 cubic feet per second). Although the consumptive use of that
amount of water may theoretically cause environmental problems, the removal of
3 mgd is sufficiently small that it is unlikely, standing alone, to cause a
significant impact on the environment of the river.
However, given the increased use of water in the river system projected
in the years to come, as well as the large number of projects proposed for the
river system, some of which would place inordinate demands on the river, all
proposals must be evaluated for their cumulative impact. For example, although
withdrawal of 3 mgd may not have a significant environmental impact, five such
projects, each consuming 3 mgd, or a cumulative total of 15 mgd, would cause
significant adverse environmental impacts. In considering whether withdrawals of
that magnitude may be allowed to occur, the appropriate officials must take
steps to insure that an EIS evaluating instream flows, among other things, is
completed, and the findings of the EIS carefully evaluated. At this time,
however, because of the relatively small size of this project, and the ability of
appropriate officials to restrict consumption of water by the project if conditions
in the river so require, we have concluded that a FONSI is appropriate here.
Nevertheless, the withdrawal that results from this project will lower further the
threshold at which full environmental analysis is required for future projects.
t?
Iar_r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
May 1, 1991
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Dorne?)k>
RE: Status of 401 Certification-related questions for Town of
Weldon 404 permit
On April 8, 1991, I wrote to you regarding technical ques-
tions which the Town of Weldon had not yet successfully answered
for the 401 Certification. On April 16, 1991, I received a let-
ter from Mr. Lester Lowe (F.T. Green and Associates) with
responses to the six unanswered questions. After review, I
believe that these answers are sufficient with respect to techni-
cal matters. I plan to send the 401 Certification file to George
Everett later this week for his decision.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
CC. Karl Schaffer, RRO
Pollutlon Pmnientlon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Meigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Jam> G. Martin, Govemor April 8, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
VI! 9arn %V. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROt1: John Dornelgt
SUBJECT: Revised EA for Town Weldon
Raw Water System Improvements
I have reviewed the Town of Weldon's EA relative to DEM's
questions in our March 22 memo to yourself (attached). Some of
these questions have been answered. However, there are five
questions (I 2, I 3, II 2, IV 1 and IV 2) which have not been
answered in the EA.
I am not certain whether you will need to have these
questions answered before you can okay the EA. However, we will
need to have these questions satisfactorily answered before DEM
can make a decision on the 401 Certification.
If appropriate and needed, please have the consultants
contact me to discuss this matter.
JD/lj
McGee-EA.mem/D-2
Attachment
cc: Carl Schaffer
Eric Alsmeyer, COE
Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Madson Partners
Leo Greer, F.T. Green and Associates
Pollution Prevention Pays
P .O. Box 27687, Meigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
a? C l1 ??
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor March 22, 1991 George I Everett, Ph.D.
William Vtf: Cobey, Jr., Secretary Dlrector
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Dorney ? r_?JR)
RE: Questions raised during March 8 meeting regarding Town of
Weldon intake application
The following questions were raised by State and Federal
agency personnel during the March 8 meeting. I will also send
the questions to Ralph Daley-and Leo Green, consultants for West-
moreland/Hadson and the Town, respectively. These will serve as
questions for you to raise for the E.A. as well as 401 questions
with an attempt to coordinate your and my review responsibili-
ties. Some of these questions were at least partially answered
at the meeting but are included here for completeness. I would
expect that the Town or Westmoreland/Hadson could quickly answer
these previously addressed questions.
I. Wildlife/aquatic life:
1. What measures will be taken to reduce entrain-
ment/entrapment especially of striped bass eggs and larvae?
2. How effective will these measures be considering what is
known about the vertical and horizontal (across the river) dis-
tribution of eggs and larvae?
3. What databases or sources were used to determine the
amount of striped bass reproduction at and above the water
intake? How much reproduction is present at or above the intake
location?
II. Water Quantity
1. Westmoreland/Hadson has presented data indicating that
they will consume from 0.03 to 0.47`,, (worst case - maximum with-
drawal at 7Q10) of the river flow. What effect is the removal
likely to have on striped bass and other aquatic life especially
since aquatic life tends to be more stressed at low flow?
Pouudon Prevention rays
PO Box 27687. F A6gh. North C vohn,t 27611 7687 Telephone [phone]
t o
2. What would be the cumulative impact of Weldon's with-
drawal and other planned cogeneration plants along the river on
aquatic life and river flow?
3. How will the enlarged withdrawal effect the Roanoke Rap-
ids Sanitary District's withdrawal? Please address impacts at
rid nimum, normal and high river flows.
III. Water Quality
If. What effect will the withdrawal have on downstream
assimilative capacity especially for BOD?
2. How can you assure that sediment impacts (during con-
struction or operation) will not occur at the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District's intake?
IV. Other Questions
1. Has the Division of Coastal Management been contacted
regarding the need for a state consistency determination? If so,
is state consistency required?
2. Has DOT been contacted regarding any concerns about
bridge impacts from blasting?
3. Why must the proposed channel tie into the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District's channel rather than go into the river chan-
nel?
For your information, DEM (Karl Shaffer) will inspect the
waterline alignment for wetland impacts. A 401 Certification
will be needed. If an individual 401 Certification is needed,
DEM will need to do a Public Notice for that purpose. We will
also review the 0.49 acres of wetland fill for the cogeneration
plant.
.. Please- contact me if you need any elaboration on these ques-
tions.
cc. Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Hadson Partners
Leo Green, F.T. Green and Associates
John Wray, Water Resources
Linda Sewell, Environmental Health
Karl Shaffer, DEM
Tim Nifong, Attorney General's Office
Wilson Laney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicc
Mire Gantt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
J)erinis Stewart, Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
?e:i_don. ]'.r/D-3
G
Weldon Information - Dr. Ernie Carl Meeting
State Clearinghouse records show no other state agency has
commented on Weldon EA/FONSI.
401 Water Quality Certification - John Dorney!s:•comments of
March 22, 1991 have been resolved. With George Everett's
approval a 401 will be issued around the first week of May.
NPDS Permit - Permit modified and issued to the Town of
Weldon February 28, 1991. Westmoreland has not applied for
a Pretreatment Permit.
Consistency - No determination as of April 22, 1991
EHNR's Review Procedure - Release environmental documents
for state review after departmental issues have been
resolved. Weldon was released to the State Clearinghouse
pending Marine Fisheries, 401, and Wildlife Resources
Commission issues. Because issues remain with the revised
EA\FONSI, normal procedure would be for Planning and
Assessment to package departmental comments and return to
the initiating division (Environmental Health) for
resolution.. In this case, it has been recommended by Linda
Sewall and supported by Tim Nifong Attorney General's Office
that EHNR's comments be submitted directly to the State
Clearinghouse. This would make EHNR's comments part of the
state's formal record and protect our interest in the Lake
Gaston proceedings. As the state lead agency, Environmental
Health is still responsible for seeing that EHNR's issues
are resolved. Either by working directly with the commenting
divisions, coordinating replies through Planning and
Assessment, or permit requirements/conditions. NOTE: If
issues were raised by other state agencies/ local government
resolutions would have to be resolved through the State
Clearinghouse.
a
?. STA7Z
r,
ITV Q?W ??
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Planning & Assesxsmen,
FROM: John D. Wray
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment, Reference #387
Town of Weldon, Halifax County
Raw Water System Improvements
John N. Morris
Director
We have reviewed the subject EA revised March 27, 1991.
This project by itself would appear to be generally satisfactory.
However, because a number of similar projects are being planned
and developed in the Roanoke River Basin that involve significant
consumptive water losses, this project must be evaluated along
with the others to determine the cumulative environmental impact
of these various consumptive losses.
JDW/va
cc: John Sutherland
Woody Yonts
Tom Fransen
John Morris
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 276167687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
e 0
>y< ? ?
APR ,P,?l
fling
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769 • Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769
James G. Martin, Governor William T. Hogarth, Director
William W. Col cy, Jr., Secretary [phone]
MT`T?ORANDUM
TO: MELBA McGEE, DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT J
THROUGH: BILL HOGARTH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES?
Fh.OI: SARA E. WINSLOW, BIOLOGIST SUPERVISOR, Gl ''
DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES, NORTHERN DISTRICT
P.?TE: APRIL 5, 1991
SUBJECT: EA FOR RAW WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF WELDON
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has received and
roviewed the EA for the Town of Weldon raw water system improvements.
Thl.s agency objects to the increased water withdrawals from the Roanoke
River basin and the possible cumulative impacts that may result.
The Roanoke River functions as a spawning and nursery area for
f:triped bass, blueback herring, alewife, American shad and hickory shad,
l1 of which are anadromous species. Other commercially and
recreationally important species utilize the river system as spawning
and nursery areas.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries (ASMFC) has developed
management plans for all of these anadromous species. To meet the
objectives of these management plans, this agency must rely on other
state and federal agencies to assist us with managing environmental
impacts in the area of habitat, water quality and quantity.
The situation in North Carolina is particularly acute as the
Roanoke-Albemarle Striped Bass population is supported wholly by only
ono spawning river, the Roanoke River. Other Atlantic Coast populations
t:r(1 Supported by numerous spawning rivers and nursery areas.
The EA states that when the facilities are completed, a maximum of
['CD of water may be withdrawn from the river. Of the total, 3.0 MGD
?.:i?ctrawal will be for Westmoreland Hadson Partnership coal powered
co-;,oneration plant and 2.0 MGD for the Town of Weldon. Based on the
anticipated water withdrawal and discharge rates, consumptive use from
th.! project would range from 2.48 to 3.00 MGD on a monthly average, and
2.-7 MGD on an annual average. Even though the EA states that the
An Equal Oprx)rtunity Affirmative Acnon Employer
C)
MELBA McGEE
APRIL S, 1991 - PAGE 2
project will have no significant or measurable change on river flow nor
impact on the various resources, the Division objects to the project
based on the following:
North Carolina is currently under a Congressional Act, The Study of
Striped Bass in Albemarle Sound and Roanoke River Basin (see attachment
#1). The act specifically states that the study will include
determining the combined effects of pollution and other-natural and
human alterations of the physical environment, including the effects of
water withdrawals, discharges and flows, on striped bass migration,
spawning and on the viability and condition of eggs and larval fish.
The ASMFC adopted Amendment #4 to the Striped Bass Management Plan
in October, 1989. The contribution of degradation in water quality and
quantity, levels particularly in the spawning and nursery areas, to the
decline of east coast striped bass stocks has been the object of
intensive study for over a decade by the ASMFC. Amendment #4 contains
several action recommendations to protect these critical striped bass
environments in support of the overall plan goals (see attachment #2).
The Congressional mandate established the Striped Bass Management
Board to oversee and coordinate the various programs/projects to be
addressed concerning the Act. The Roanoke River Flow Committee, a
group comprised of individuals from state and federal agencies also
works closely with the Board. The proposed project needs full review by
the Striped Bass Management Board and the Roanoke River Flow Committee.
The Division feels that due to the Congressional Act, the current
Lake Gaston litigations and the points addressed in ASMFC Amendment #4
that a full EIS should be prepared for this project. The State of North
Carolina and the Division of Marine Fisheries are taking great strides
to protect and enhance the spawning and nursery area habitats from
further degradation.
i711: SEW: j tg
r
LUZ STAT. 2984 PUBLIC LAW 100-589-NOV. 3, 1988
Public Law 100-589
100th Congress
An Act
Nor. 3. 1969 To authorize appropriations to carry out the Atlantic Stri;ed Bass Conservation Act
(H.R. 41241 for Ctscai years 19,19 through 1991. and for other purposes.
Be it enacted b,l the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United Slates of America in Congress assembled,
16 USC 1851 SF.(,T10N 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS,
note. Section 7 of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (16 U.S
C
.
.
1851) is amended by striking "and 1988," and inserting in lieu
thereof "1988, 1989. 1990, and 1991.".
16 USC 1851 SEC. 2. KPPF(TIVF. PFRIOD.
note. Section 9 of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (16 U.S
C
.
.
1851) is amended by striking "1988." and inserting in lieu thereof

SPC. 9. FUNDING OF STRIPED BASS STUDIES.
Section 7(d) of the Anadramous Fish Conservation Act (16 U
S
C
.
.
.
757g(d)) is amended by striking "the fiscal year ending Septem-
ber 30. 1980." and nil that follows through "September 30, 1988"
and inserting in lieu thereof "each of the fiscal years 1988, 1989
,
1990, r.nd 1931".
SEC. 4. COMMISSION FUNCTIONS.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 1351 note) is amended by inserting "and at any other time
it deems necessary," immediately after "thereafter.".
16 USC 1851
note SM 5. STUDY OF STRIPED BASS IN AL13EATARLE SOUND AND ROANOKE
. RIVER BASIN.
(a) F1NDiNcs.--The Congress finds that:
(1) The anadromous stock of striped bass in the Albemarle
S
d
R
k
oun
-
oano
e River Basin area of North Carolina sustained
important commercial and recreational fisheries as recently as
'
tho 1960
s and 1970'x.
(2) This stock has been declining for some time and is severely
depressed at present. and may soon reach a level from which
recovery will be exceptionally difficult.
(3) The reasons for this decline are thought to include fishing;
other human activities and environmental factors, such as un-
suitable water flow before, during, and after critical spawning
periods: degradation of water quality by pollutants; the impact
of eutrophication on the food chain, and the impact of changing
land use activities.
(4) Current Federal and interstate efforts to conserve the
Atlantic striped bass, while effective in identifying factors
contributing to the decline of other important Atlantic coastal
migratory stocks of striped bass and steps that will be effective
in reversing that decline, have not made a major contribution to
V Y
i
PUBLIC LAW 100-589-NOV. 3, 1988 102 STAT. 2985
the protection and restoration of the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke
River stock of striped bass.
(5) Because the striped bass and the aquatic environment of
the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke River basin presently are being
significantly affected by combined but not fully understood
causes, a study should be undertaken to obtain additional bio-
logical information to understand the significance of fishing,
water flows, and other factors in the decline of the striped bass
populations in the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke River basin and.
if feasible, develop an effective course of action for restoring
these important stocks of striped bass.
(b) S-runY.-
(1) IN oENERAL.-The Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, in consultation with the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall---
(A) immediately undertake a biological study of the
striped bass fishery resources and habitats of the Albemarle
Sound-Roanoke River basin area;
(B) develop short-term and long-term recommendations
for Federal and State government agencies for restoring
and conserving such resources and habitats: and
(C) submit the results of such study and such rec- North Carolinet.
ommendations to the Congress and to the States of North Virginia.
Carolina and Virginia as soon as practicable, but not later
than 86 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) CONTENTS of THE STUDY.-The study conducted under this
subsection shall, to the extent existing data are adequate, use
such existing data and shall include-
(A) a description of the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke River
basin area, and an investigation and analysis of the effects
of land and water use practices on the striped bass popu-
lation and habitats of the area;
(I3) an investigation and analysis of the abundance and
age and Reographic distribution of the Albemarle Sound-
Roanoke River stock of striped bass, including the amount
and geographical location of migration and spawning
habitat;
(C) an investigation and analysis of factors that may
affect the abundance and age and geographic distribution of
the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke River stock of striped bass.
including--
(1) the extent and causes of mortality at successive
stages in the life cycle of striped bass, including mortal-
ity due to recreational and commercial fishing; and
(11) the combined effects of pollution and other natu-
ral and human alterations of the physical environment,
Including the effects of water withdrawals, discharges,
and flows, on striped bass migration and spawning and
on the viability and condition of eggs and larval fish- '
(D) an investigation and analysis of the status ana
effectiveness of current striped bass management measures
implemented by State and Federal authorities, including
State fishing regulations and Federal fish stocking activi-
ties, reservoir management and water flow regulation, and
an analysis of whether any additional State or Federal
measures would be effective in halting the decline and
r

102 STAT. 2986 PUBLIC LAW 100-589-NOV. 3, 1988
initiating the recovery of the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke
River stock of striped bass: and
(E) a recommendation of whether conservation of the
Albermarle Sound-Roanoke River stocks of striped bass
could be improved by management of these stocks under
the provisions of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission's Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for
Striped Bass and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation
Act.
(C) PARTICIPATION BY STATE AOENmm.-
(1) The Director of the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries, the Executive Director of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, the Secretary of the Virginia Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, and the District Engineer for the
Wilmington District of the United States Army Corps of Engi-
neers shall be invited to have their agencies participate in
conducting the study and developing recommendations pursu-
ant to subsection (b).
(2) To facilitate participation by the agencies referred to in
paragraph (1), should they decide to participate, a Memorandum
of Understanding will be executed with such officials setting
forth the respective responsibilities of the entities involved in
conducting the study and developing those recommendations.
(d) CONSULTATION.-In carrying out the study under subsection (b),
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. other Federal
agencies, the Albermarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, Dominion Re-
sources, Inc./Virginia Power/North Carolina Power, affected local
governments in North-Carolina and Virginia, appropriate commer-
cial and recreational fishing interests, and other interests shall' be
consulted, to the maximum extent practicable.
(e) AUTHORIZATION or APPROPRIATIONS.-There is authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $1.000,000 to carry out the requirements of
thin section. These appropriations will remain available until
expended.
(f) STATE ADTIIoItrrY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
as authorizing any State to manage fisheries within the jurisdiction
of another State.
(g) RwrRIcnoN w; Usz OF On= FuNns.-Amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization contained in section 7(d) of the Anad-
romous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757g(d)) shall not be used to
carry out this section.
I6 USC 1851 SEC, 6. PROTECTION OF STRIPED BASS IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
bete. ZONE.
(a) RmuLATION or FismNa IN Excrus1vE ECONOMIC ZONr--The
Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate regulations governing the
fishing for Atlantic striped bass in the exclusive economic zone that
the Secretary determines to be consistent with the national stand-
ards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1851) and necessary and appro-
priate to-
(1) ensure the effectiveness of State regulations or a Federal
moratorium on fishing for Atlantic striped bass within the
coastal waters of a coastal State: and
(2) achieve conservation and management goals for the Atlan-
tic striped bass resource.
r

e

Fisheries Management Peport No. 15
of the
ATLANTIC STATES MARINE
FISHERIES COMMISSION
M[
NN
SC
CA

fr ,CU
t
SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
STRIPED BASS FMP-
AMENDMENT #4
October 1989

0
10. HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The contribution of degradation in water quality,
particularly in the spawning and nursery
east coast striped bass stocks has been thoeobject ofeintensiv of
study for over a decade (ESBS, 1986, 1987, e
numerous factors, including toxic contaminants, lowTO date,
elevated metals levels, have been identified as possibleand
contributory factors to the poor reproduction of Chesapeake ga
stocks of striped bass. Y
On the Hudson, reproductive success of striped bass has
been excellent in recent years, but PCH contamination of the
environment has led to the fish being inedible and thus to
restrictions on harvest.
Other environmental alterations may status of striped bass stocks. y also impact on the
' withdrawal and other t Construction, dredging, water-
striped bass spawnin YPes of projects in the vicinity of or on
habitat or alter its suinursry tabilitynforosuccessfulareas
etriped bass life cycleet. Facilities such as power may reduce
completion
of
cause direct mortality of striped bass through such ayente
? as entrainment in Cooling water flow and impingement on intake
J It'is extremely important
ment measures cannot be affective inaenhancint fisheries manage-
striped bass stocks if habitat and water qualitynarerinadequate.
While fisheries harvests are a major factor impacting 9
I tion status and dynamics and are amenable to control and popula-
lotion, good habitat q and anipu-
uantity and quality are the underpinnings
of the very existence of a
habitat and water qualit population. Without adequate
y, there would be no fish for harvest.
Detailad presentations of data and evidence documenting the
types of environmental impacts discussed above are esent
the revised nource document for this management planr(ASHFCa in
1989). It is this material which serves as the basis for the
recommendations presented below.
Recommendation 4. States in which striped bass spawning
sho occurs
w wacQ every effort to declare r
nursery areas eto in
r be striped bass spawning and
tion should be accompanieddbof special protective; such declara-
habitat qualit y requirements of nondegradaticn of
y, including minimization of nonpoint source run-
off, prevention of significant increases in contaminant loadings,
and prevention of the introduction of any now categories of
contaminants into the area (via specific restrictions on NPDES
-37r-
discharge permits for facilities in those areas) ; this action
should be taken within the normal cyclical process of criteria
review that occurs in most estates; for those agencies without
water quality regulatory authority,. protocols and schedules for.
providing input on water quality regulations to the responsible
agency should be identified or created, to ensure that water
quality needs of striped bass stocks are met.
Recommendation S. water quality criteria for striped bass
spe.wnxn9 an nursery groan should be established or existing
criteria should ba upgraded to levels which are sufficient to
ensure successful reproductiont ;suggested criteria for key
environmental variables and contaminants are presented in the
Sources Document for this management plan; protocols established
in response to recommendation 19 for interacting with water
quality regulatory agencies within the state should be followed
with regard to establinhing acceptable water quality criteria,
and any actions taken should be consistent with federal clean
Water Act guidelines and apecificationc.
Recommendation 6. state and federal agencies should take steps
to limit tHe introduction of or eliminate contamination of the
environment from compounds which are known to be accumulated its
striped bass tissues and which pose a threat to human health;
some compounds of concern identified by FDA are listed in. Table
10.1, together with FDA action levels.
Recommendation 7. All state and federal agencies responsible
or rev cw ng impact statements and permit applications for
projects or facilities proposed for striped bass spawning and
nursery areas shall ensure that those projects-will have no or
only minimal impact on local stocks; of special concern are
natal rivers of-stocks considered depressed.or undergoing
restoration; any project resulting in elimination of critical
habitat (e.g., dredging, filling) should be avoided.
Recommendation S. Projects involving water withdrawal (e.g.,
power g antat rrigation, water supply projects) should be
scrutinized to ensure that adverse impacts resulting from
imp ingement, entrainment, and/or modificationn of flow and
salinity regimes due to water removal will not adversely impact
on stripped bass stacks; water use and flow regime guidelines
should be developed, where necessary, which are protective of
striped bass spawning and nursery-areas and which-will ensure
the long-term hoplth of the stoc)c.
t _

U

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager 00,.O??
.Habitat Conservation Program
Date: April 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Project Number 399: Revised Environmental Assessment for Raw
Water System Improvements Town of Weldon
As the attached comments show, the subject document addresses some of the
previous comments regarding the Town of Weldon/Roanoke Valley Project on the
Roanoke.River. Unfortunately some concerns were apparently overlooked when
preparing the revised document. In general, we do not believe that comments 3, 4,
6, 10 have been adequately addressed. In view of insufficient information, we
recommend the following modifications:
1. We have noted that testing for impingement/entrainment of striped
bass eggs was done with preserved specimens and the recommended
slot size is 2.5 mm. It is likely that, if spawning occurs near the water
intake structure, eggs will not be fully water hardened and may not be
comparable to preserved eggs. Consequently, we recommend use of a
screen with 1.0 mm, slot openings. Additional justification for this
recommendation is derived from the fact that concentrated spawning
may occur up to the base of the Roanoke Rapids Dam depending
upon flow conditions instead of only at river mile 135 as stated in the
document.
2. With regarAs to Comment #4, what % of the river flow will be
diverted through the intake canal? This may be a project feature that
.could have significant impacts on other habitat features and biological
parameters, especially during low to moderate flows. If the flow
diversion is substantial, we believe that further modifications to the
intake canal would be in order.
3. We believe that information regarding total water withdrawals (except
for agricultural irrigation) and point-source discharges is available.
Similarly, there are known proposals for increases in withdrawals (and
discharges). Each project individually may not have a "significant"
Memo (2) April 16, 1991
?_. effect on the river system. However, the cumulative effect of all
withdrawals and discharges is having an effect. We recommend that
the current and all future environmental documents provide summary
information for all known and proposed withdrawals and discharges
and an assessment of the effect of an individual project's impacts on
water use in the Roanoke River. If the Roanoke River and adjacent
habitats are to continue their wildlife and fisheries functions, it is
imperative that resource agencies examine each project more
carefully.
4. It appears that document preparers and project sponsors have chosen
to not respond to our request for information regarding ash content
and the mono-landfill to be constructed. We view this as a project
component important for assessment of overall environmental impact.
With this in mind, we recommend that the mono-landfill not be
located in an area where high quality wildlife habitat or wetlands
would be affected. Similarly, the facility should not be located near
surface waters.
If there is agreement to incorporation of these modifications we may be willing to
concur with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
4
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we
can provide further assistance, please call on us.
DLS/lp
cc: Dr. Wilson Laney
Mr. Wayne Jones
Mr. Tim Nifong

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
ID. 199100397
Mr. Lester Lowe
F.T. Green & Associates
Post.Office Box 609
Wilson, North Carolina
27893
June 21, 1991
Dear Mr. Lowe:
By public notice of January 10, 1991, we advertised your application on
behalf of the-Town of Weldon for Department of the Army authorization to
construct a raw water intake structure on the Roanoke River, Roanoke Rapids,
Halifax County, North Carolina.
After review of your May 2, 1991, response to their March 8, 1991,
comments, the National Marine Fisheries Service has continued to recommend
denial of your application by the enclosed letter dated May 15, 1991. A copy
of this letter was forwarded to you by telefax on June 7, 1991. This
recommendation is due to potential adverse impacts to fisheries resources,
particularly striped bass, and their habitat in the Roanoke River. We suggest
that you provide additional information to address these comments and/or
revise your plans to satisfy the interests of the objecting agency.
Additional information you provide may be forwarded directly to the Service to
expedite their review, and our processing of your application.
Eric Alsmeyer of my Raleigh Field Office staff, telephone [phone],
is responsible for processing your application, and is available to assist you
in coordinating with the review agencies. Please advise us of your
intentions, in writing, on or before July 1, 1991.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
..
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Section - Water Quality Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
rLMf Or co`
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratia i,
s,aJ +?o NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ?Jd
j'Aris Of A
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
May 15; 1991
Lt. Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Suermann:
This responds to the May 2, 1991, letter from F. T. Green and
Associates, consultants for the Town of Weldon, concerning the
town's proposal to construct a new raw-water intake structure in
the Roanoke River at Weldon, Halifax County, North Carolina.
Information accompanying the May 2, letter was provided as an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and apparently supplements Permit
Action I.D. 199100397. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) first commented on the proposed action by letter dated March
8, 1991.
Based on coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) , the NMFS remains convinced that various aspects
of this project would be detrimental to the Roanoke River
anadromous striped bass population. We are specifically concerned
that the 2.5 mm slot size to be used for intake screening is too
large and an unacceptable level of striped bass egg entrainment
will occur. In order to eliminate all egg entrainment, we believe
that screen slot size should be reduced to 1.0 mm.
We also share the NCWRC's view that the cumulative impact of
withdrawing an additional 5.0 mgd of river water will further
reduce river flow and degrade the quality of the water and habitat
utilized by striped bass. In this regard, the EA provides no
convincing information that allows us to conclude that additional
water withdrawals will not harm fishery resources and their
habitat. Furthermore, the EA does not address project related
impacts in association with views and recommendations of the
Roanoke River Flow Management Committee. As you are aware, the
views of this Committee are probably the most authoritative
available and should be considered.
75 Years Stimulating America's Progress * 1913-1988
= ? `ta

In the absence of additional information that alleviates our
concerns, the NMFS continues to recommend against Department of the
Army authorization of the project as it is currently proposed.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours,
s
Andreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
91
C 4J4N79
w
J 6.?nC4 cv?'1
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor January 22, 1991' Wi 11 im W GJw, Jr, ctary
Dr. George T.. Everett
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Dr. Everett:
The attached U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 00397 dated
1/10/91 describing a project proposed by The Town o?TeTdon
is being circulated to interested state agencies for co vents on applicable
Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed
project and return this form by 2/11/91
Very sincerely,
John R. Parker, Jr.
404 Coordinator
1i.
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
l/ Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Signed
Date l /Z
Agency - ??'f 1 W 11
JRP:jr/aw
P.O. Box 27667. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
MEMO
1?A Q
TO:
r
/GVJ
/10
?C
F
• 11 ?) i ) i?41

At ,"? --r .FiUr I1
? f 1-^ fl-1
SEC IL) :
,.e-„a STATE o.. a,
^
r 1i
From:
r':34ry North Carolina Department of
?. ealth, and Natural Resources
DATE:
SUBJECT:

V

9,
t/
Environment,
?g Printed on Recycled Paper
MEMO
DATE:
TO: SUBJECT:
0
1 c??
7u
•• V
(3- it
6
Aeo
01 L
From: .? .?_
L3^ North Carolina Department of Environment
•?.? Health, and Natural Resources Printed on Recycled Paper
?,, s awM

• ' ?
__ _ _ __
_. _ ?.
a .r` G`?`-. _. ?.
'_
r ? ? , r r'?
__
?, ??
??
7
?- ??
?.r
??
t
a
t`

NORTH CAROLINA
Halifax County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to the Town of Weldon pursuant to an application filed on the 22
day of January, 1991 to construct a water intake structure in the
Roanoke River
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of the Roanoke River
in conjunction with the proposed water intake structure in
Halifax County will not result in a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 8 day of May, 1991.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN'T'
WQC# 2595
George T. Everett, Director
NT
jell ?
_ e'. SiAho
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
May 1, 1991
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Dorne4>
RE: Status of 401 Certification-related questions for Town of
Weldon 404 permit
On April 8, 1991, I wrote to you regarding technical ques-
tions which the Town of Weldon had not yet successfully answered
for the 401 Certification. On April 16, 1991, I received a let-
ter from Mr. Lester Lowe (F.T. Green and Associates) with
responses to the six unanswered questions. After review, I
believe that these answers are sufficient with respect to techni-
cal matters. I plan to send the 401 Certification file to George
Everett later this week for his decision.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
CC. Karl Schaffer, RRO
Polludon Pmwndon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Enual Onnortunitv Affirmative Action Employer
F.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 609 1 303 NORTH GOLDSBORO STREET I WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27893
TELEPHONE [phone]
April 16, 1991
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attention:. Mr. John Dorney
SUBJECT: Town of Weldon
Raw Water System Improvements
Dear Mr. Dorney:
In response to your letter to Melba McGee dated March 22,
1991, I have enclosed for your review a copy of the responses to
questions I-2, I-3, II-2, IV-1, and IV-2.
If you should have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
Respectfully,
F. T. GREEN & ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Lester Lowe
LL/ j ed
Enclosures
cc: Melba McGee
Ralph Daley
David Stoner
D1.041691

Question I-2: How effective will these measures be considering
what is known about the vertical and horizontal
(across the river) distribution of eggs and larvae?
Answer: To the best of our knowledge, there is no
quantitative data or information regarding the
vertical and horizontal distribution of eggs and
larvae in the Roanoke River in the vicinity of the
proposed intake. Even though this information is
not available, the proposed project and design uses
state-of-the-art wedge wire screens to minimize
fish egg impingement/entrainment. Test conducted
on this screen determined that fish eggs and
larvae, unless they were within 3 or 4 inches of
the screen centerline would be swept past the
screen by the river current as if not water
withdrawal was even taking place. Furthermore, the
proposed project will have a positive or beneficial
impact on striped bass egg/larvae
impingement/entrainment when compared to the
existing intake 'structure independent of the
distribution of fish eggs in the river. Additional
supporting information is contained in the revised
Environmental Assessment dated March 27, 1991.
Question I-3: What databases or sources were used to determine
the amount of striped bass reproduction at and
above the water intake? How much reproduction is
present at or above the intake location?
Answer: According to published and unpublished information
and research by Dr. -W. Hassler, Dr. R. Rulifson,
Dr. C. Manooch, N. Hill, J. Brown and others, the
location and timing of striped bass spawning
activity in the Roanoke River is influenced by
river flow and by water temperature and discharges
from the John H. Ken Reservoir and Lake Gaston
control the river flow.
Striped bass spawning in the Roanoke River occurs
from late April through early ' June from
approximately RM (river mile post) 78 to RM 137 at
the Roanoke Rapids Dam, but spawning is
concentrated at the fall line at RM 130 near the
Town of Weldon.
Additional information is contained in the
following references: 1) Hassler, W. W., N. L. Hill
and J. T. Brown. 1981 "The status and abundance of
striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Roanoke
D1.041691
- 1 -
1=."1'.GRlai\?' ??SSOCI??1'GS

River and Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, 1966-
1980." North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
Special Scientific Report 38, Project AFS-14,
Morehead City and 2) Rulif son, R. A. and C. S.
Manooch, III. 1990. "Recruitment of Juvenile
Striped Bass in the Roanoke River, North Carolina,
as related to Reservoir Discharge." North American
Journal Fisheries Management 10:397-407.
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, both the
existing and proposed intake structures are located
at approximately RM 135 which is approximately 5
miles upstream from the area where the
concentration of striped bass spawning occurs.
Question II-2: What would be the cumulative impact of Weldon's
withdrawal and other planned cogeneration plants
along the river on aquatic life and river flow?
Answer: As stated in a letter to you dated march 27, 1991
(copy attached), there appears to be neither a
proper legal nor practical basis for evaluating the
cumulative effects of all current and future
projects which may be proposed for the Roanoke
River Basin. Compliance with such a requirement
would be difficult if not impossible to achieve,
would be based on undetermined standards or
criteria, and might result in a legally
questionable action by the State on Weldon
Project's permit applications.
To the best of our knowledge, no water withdrawal
permits (401/404) for any other cogeneration or
other consumptive water use projects in the Roanoke
River Basin have yet been filed with NCDEHR or the
Army Corps of Engineers. The only cogeneration
.? project located in North Carolina within the
Roanoke River Basin is the Panda-Rosemary Project.
The Panda-Rosemary cogeneration project is a fully
dispatchable natural gasfired power plant located
in Roanoke Rapids, and it is in commercial
operation. The Panda-Rosemary project is purchasing
? r water from and discharging wastewater to the
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District. The Sanitary
District obtains its water from Lake Gaston located
??<<rl
?? above the Roanoke Rapids Dam. These water and
SC?' sewer services provided by the Sanitary District
are being done with the existing infrastructure
(i.e. no facility improvements were required) and
within and in accordance with the District's water
withdrawal and NPDES permits.
D1.041691 - 2 -
1=."1'.GRI:E? ?1't :?SSOCI;? 1'ES
r; /1,. e
Based on discussions with several sources, the
consumptive water use of the Panda Project is
estimated to be approximately 300,000 gallons per
day (0.3 MGD). Since this water use is within and
in accordance with the applicable Sanitary
District's permits, no adverse impacts on aquatic
life or river flow will occur. Furthermore, since
the Sanitary District's permits are existing and
effective, their impact and conditions were
considered as part of the permit review process for
the Weldon project permits.
Furthermore, regardless of the magnitude of water
withdrawals, the cumulative effects of upstream
water withdrawals may not necessarily result in
proportional decreases in downstream river flows.
The Roanoke River Basins's flow regime has been
significantly altered and is regulated by six
impoundments within Virginia and North Carolina for
flood control, hydroelectic power generation, and
recreation. Thus, actual river flows are dependent
upon how discharges are regulated from these dams,
in addition to natural or man-made hydrologic
conditions (such as water withdrawals).
Flows downriver from Roanoke Rapids are controlled
by discharges from the Gaston Dam in Roanoke
Rapids. These flows are regulated under the
facility's Federal Power Commission's license.
Additionally, since 1989, a modified flow regime to
improve river flow conditions relative to striped
bass populations has been implemented by virginia
Power, operator of the reservoir. This flow regime
has been recommended by the Roanoke River Water
Flow Committee and accepted by Virginia Power and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Given that
flows in this reach of the river are largely
controlled by operation of this reservoir,
relatively small water withdrawals from distant
portions of the river's drainage basin may not
significantly influence river flows below the dam.
Question IV-1: Has the Division of Coastal Management been
contacted regarding the need for a state
consistency determination? If so, is state
consistency required?
Answer: Local environmental counsel for Westmoreland Hadson
Partners contacted Mr. James E. Wuenscher of the
Division of Coastal Management on approximately
March 18 and 26, 1991, regarding the need for a
D1.041691
- 3 -
f =."1'. GR I .I3 ti ? .\ SSOC 1 ?\"1? I :S

ti
D1.041691
state consistency determination. Mr. Wuenscher
indicated that the question of consistency review
for projects located outside the North Carolina
coastal zone was an area of considerable
uncertainty at present. He said that "where to
draw the line" for such projects had not been
decided. He confirmed that a Certification of
Consistency had been received for the Weldon Water
Intake Project. He said that he did not know
whether a consistency review would be necessary in
this case.
We do not feel that a state consistency review is
required. Although 1990 amendments to the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act broadened the scope of
the Federal consistency review requirement, no
Federal regulations or guidance has been issued on
how States should apply this significant new
federal requirement. Furthermore, no State rules
or guidance has been issued defining how one
determines whether a particular project would
significantly affect the North Carolina coastal
zone. A consistency review for projects lying
outside the 20-county coastal zone should not be
required before Federal and/or State rules or
guidelines establishing criteria for identifying
projects potentially affecting the coastal zone
have been adopted. Any such rules or guidelines
should be subject to public review and comment
before being adopted.
Requiring a consistency review for the
Weldon/Roanoke Valley Project has statewide
implications. This project would be the first
instance where a consistency review is required for
a North Carolina municipal or industrial project
(i.e., no projects to date other than the Lake
Gaston pipeline have been subject to consistency
review). Requiring a consistency review for this
project or for other planned or future municipal
and industrial projects across much of the state
would represent a major policy change on the part
of the State. We feel that such a major expansion
in state environmental review requirements,
especially in the absence of adequate guidance,
would be unreasonable and unwise. The State's
authority under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA) and implementing regulations for any such
requirement is unclear. Furthermore, applying such
a substantive new requirement to every major
municipal and industrial project located on any of
the rivers flowing to the coast may vary well be in
- 4 -
1=."I'.GRIiIiN?;?SSOCI??"I'IiS

violation of the rule making requirements of
N.C.G.S. 150B-2 and Article 2 of N.C.G.S. 150B.
Finally, the two issues raised as the primary
justification for requiring a consistency review
have been addressed in other comments.
Specifically, the impact of the proposed project on
the assimilative capacity of the Roanoke River and
the project's effect on striped bass eggs and
larvae have already been addressed. The proposed
project would have a beneficial effect on striped
bass spawning compared to the present water intake
structure. Also, the project would have negligible
affects on the assimilative capacity of the river.
For these reasons, this project will not have a
significant effect on the coastal zone and,
consequently, should not be subject to consistency
review.
Question IV-2: Has DOT been contacted regarding any concerns about
bridge impacts from blasting?
Answer: From initial conversations with DOT officials
concerning possible blasting operations in the
vicinity of the bridge, a review of the proposed
work will be conducted by the bridge maintenance
and structures division once an encroachment
agreement is submitted for approval. As a
provision of this encroachment approval, DOT will
probably require a detail blasting plan of the
proposed work near the existing Hwy. 48 bridge
bents.
An independent seismic consultant has already begun
preliminary investigation on such a plan which
would include pre-blast surveys of existing
structures, blast design engineering, computer
assisted vibration analysis, and pre/post blast
monitoring. Once final construction drawings are
complete, this plan will be submitted to the
required review agencies in order to obtain all the
necessary approvals and permits.
D1.041691
- 5 -
%@1
F.T.GHF-E-N& ASSOCI NIT--S
- e
WES i MO ELAND - HADSON PAh ?'NERS
345
March 27, 1991

Mr. John Dorney 2=t''?,
Water Quality Planner ?ay

North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development G
?,
Post Office Box 27667
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Town of Weldon - 401 Water Quality Certificate
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners - Roanoke Vallev Project
Roanoke River Cumulative Consumptive Use Impact
Dear John:
At the March 8, 1991 meeting and subsequent inter-agency correspondence regarding the
Weldon/Roanoke Valley Project ("Weldon Project"), it was generally agreed that the consumptive use of the
Weldon Project by itself would have no significant adverse impact on the Roanoke River. It was suggested
that the Weldon Project perform a cumulative consumptive use impact/effect review of the entire Roanoke
River Basin.
The review of cumulative impacts/effects is not appropriate in this case because of numerous legal
and practical problems associated with such a review. The legal basis for requiring an assessment of the
potential impact of future speculative consumptive water use projects is unclear. Neither the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA), N.C.G.S. 113A-1, et al, nor the general NCEPA regulations adopted
by the Department of Administration articulate a policy requiring permit applicants to document the
cumulative effect of future projects potentially affecting the same resources, see 1 NCAC 25. The language
of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources NCEPA regulations, while expressly
referring to cumulative effects, appears to authorize such review only when cumulative effects are not 11d:LK
otherwise considered in the approval process, see 15A NCAC 1C. 0503(3). The NPDES permit and other ,?01
?4k ,?,?,
approval processes already take into account the cumulative effect of the proposed project. JJ
Several significant practical difficulties are also associated with a requirement to assess the
cumulative effects of future projects. First, no permits (401/404) for any other cogeneration or other
consumptive water use projects in the Roanoke River Basin have yet been filed with the Department. Thus
obtaining information on these speculative projects will be extremely difficult. At a minimum, other projects
should not be considered "reasonably foreseeable future activities" under the language of 15 NCAC 1C.
0101(d)(2) until permit applications have been filed. Prior to filing permit applications, the Weldon Project
lacks the ability to obtain sufficient information upon which to base an assessment of cumulative effects.
Second, these practical problems are compounded by the fact that some future projects are located outside
North. Carolina. Not only would availability of information be a problem, the right of North Carolina
agencies to review such projects is unclear. Third, the practical basis for disapproving or modifying the
Weldon Project based on the cumulative effects of other future speculative projects is unclear, especially
if the environmental impacts of the Weldon Project are deemed acceptable. It would be unreasonable for
Westmoreland Energy, Inc. Hadson Development Corporation
300 Prescott Avenue, 5th Floor 12500 Fair Lakes Circle - Suite 260
Charlottesville, VA 22901 Fairfax, VA 22033
[phone] [phone]
FAX [phone] FAX [phone]
31
Mr.,John R. Dorney
;March 27, 1991
Page 2
the State to deny approval or propose project modification based solely on the potentially adverse
cumulative effects of future speculative projects which may or may not ever be developed. Fourth, it is not
clear what enforceable regulatory standards or criteria are available for determining when such cumulative
effects would be unacceptable or deemed to be significant. Finally, because the Roanoke River Basin has
not been designated a capacity use area under N.C.G.S. 143-215.11, et M., disapproval of a current project
in order to avoid the potentially adverse impacts of future projects involving consumptive water use would
not be reasonable.
In summary, there appears to be neither a proper legal nor practical basis for evaluating the
cumulative effects of all current and future projects which may be proposed for the Roanoke River Basin.
Compliance with such a requirement would be difficult if not impossible to achieve, would be based on
undetermined standards or criteria, and might result in a legally questionable action by the State on Weldon
Project's permit applications.
If you have any comments or require additional clarification on this matter, please contact me at
[phone]. The revised Environmental Assessment was submitted to Linda Sewall on March 27, 1991.
Based on the revised Environmental Assessment and this letter, I am confident that all issues/concerns have
been adequately addressed so that a finding of no significant impact can be made and that the 401 Water
Quality Certificate can be issued in the near future.
Sincerely,
WESTMORELAND - HADSON PARTNERS
4?1 /9, A&
Ralph D. Daley
Director, Project Development
RDDrmg/249-t.-172
cc: D. Stoner W. Purrington
F. Sheffield & L. Greer.
I- Lowe B. Flattery
R. Kennel File: RV 4.2.3.2
0
DAVID A.' STONER
MANAGER, PROJECT DEVELOPMI
W SMORELAND F,NERCY. INC.
CRIZENS C.OIM.IONWEALTII CENTER DIRECT 661-9865204
300 PRESTON AVENUE,STH FLOOR MAIN 604-979-2500
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 25901 FAX [phone]
/fl HADSON DEV/'ELONLIENT
CORPORA _ / IO/V-A HADSON COMPANY
Ralph D. Daley
Pm; (: r G, . L ;
Flj< lo":)
STAI[ o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street c Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
]a Y• (. G. Martin, Governor April 8, 1991
AWilli . in W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Dornep?>f
SUBJECT: Revised EA for Town f Weldon
Raw Water System Improvements
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
I have reviewed the Town of Weldon's EA relative to DEM's
questions in our March 22 memo to yourself (attached),. Some of
these questions have been answered. However, there are five
questions (I 2, I 3, II 2, IV 1 and IV 2) which have not been
answered in the EA.
I am not certain whether you will need to have these
questions answered before you can okay the EA. However, we will
need to have these questions satisfactorily answered before DEM
can make a decision on the 401 Certification.
If appropriate and needed, please have the consultants
contact me to discuss this matter.
JD/lj
McGee-EA.mem/D-2
Attachment
cc: Carl Schaffer
Eric Alsmeyer, COE
Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Madson Partners
Leo Greer, F.T. Green and Associates
r,
Pollution Pr wndon rays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
MEMO
DATE:
?{?n ?r? r`?Jc" /I S1lCY
T0: C? N SUBJECT.
0 Wo L l/
j9)
LA3
?'??., ?? ?? F?G??;?%?? ??/z ?.' Lr"-rC:??crr?C? / ?•???''? ? tJ!i)?%i,.i?iC!
i

D.? /'1

From:
d Na SUIF q; 4 .
4?>
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
,`? ?' ? ?? Printed on Recycled Paper

John
Ron
1I.looked at the March 27 letter on the 401 WQ Certification
for the Rj'oanoke Valley Project and have the following comments. -
Cumulative impacts is certainly a legitimoate requirement
for us to require in an EA. The Dept of Administration
rules require that an EA include a discussion
of the following items: ....."(4) environmental effects of
the proposed activity and alternatives." (1 NCAC 25
Section .0502) In the definitions (0108(b)),
"Environmental effect inclu5es primary, secondary, and
cumulative impacts for the project " Therefore, there
must be some discussion of cumulative effects. The detail
of discussion is however up to the state agency to decide.
He is right that DEM discharge and non discharge permits
do require consideration of cumulative impacts!GS
143-215.1(d)(2). Its not clear if that requirement
applies for every permit or approval DEM issues but it can
be argued that it can apply to them.
The SEPA rules do have some provisions about the need to
get data that is not reasonably available. See attached
Departmental rules which provide our position. Basically,
we weigh the importance of the data to our decision and
the cost and availability of the data.

}

TO: F -*-
P-
DATE:
SUBJECT: ?S?k 5i1? !l - l t ?J; z •?

_i
???-_ L_(L?J_ ?ln./? ??Il'yl ?i?0 (-' -. ;?i r,J ! f r.,•?-r ? -J

31) - J -
z
i - Ilij??C yv _
From
s ST Iz °$
North Carolina C
`g Health and Natt
?- J1
-?)
nt,
led Paper
M?M
PIF
/i
: / Ix
WESTMORELAND - HADSON PARTNERS
March 27, 1991
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planner
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27667
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Town of Weldon - 401 Water Quality Certificate
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners - Roanoke Valley Project
Roanoke River Cumulative Consumptive Use Impact
Dear John:
At the March 8, 1991 meeting and subsequent inter-agency correspondence regarding the
Weldon/Roanoke Valley Project ("Weldon Project"), it was generally agreed that the consumptive use of the
Weldon Project by itself would have no significant adverse impact on the Roanoke River. It was suggested
that the Weldon Project perform a cumulative consumptive use impact/effect review of the entire Roanoke
River Basin.
The review of cumulative impacts/effects is not appropriate in this case because of numerous legal
and practical problems associated with such a review. The legal basis for requiring an assessment of the
potential impact of future speculative consumptive water use projects is unclear. Neither the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA), N.C.G.S. 113A-1, et al, nor the general NCEPA regulations adopted
by the Department of Administration articulate a policy requiring permit applicants to document the
cumulative effect of future projects potentially affecting the same resources, see 1 NCAC 25. The language
of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources NCEPA regulations, while expressly
referring to cumulative effects, appears to authorize such review only when cumulative effects are not
otherwise considered in the approval process, see 15A NCAC 1C. 0503(3). The NPDES permit and other
approval processes already take into account the cumulative effect of the proposed project.
Several significant practical difficulties are also associated with a requirement to assess the
cumulative effects of future projects. First, no permits (401/404) for any other cogeneration or other
consumptive water use projects in the Roanoke River Basin have yet been filed with the Department. Thus
obtaining information on these speculative projects will be extremely difficult. At a minimum, other projects
should not be considered "reasonably foreseeable future activities" under the language of 15 NCAC 1C.
0101(d)(2) until permit applications have been filed. Prior to filing permit applications, the Weldon Project
lacks the ability to obtain sufficient information upon which to base an assessment of cumulative effects.
Second, these practical problems are compounded by the fact that some future projects are located outside
North Carolina. Not only would availability of information be a problem, the right of North Carolina
agencies to review such projects is unclear. Third, the practical basis for disapproving or modifying the
Weldon Project based on the cumulative effects of other future speculative projects is unclear, especially
if the environmental impacts of the Weldon Project are deemed acceptable. It would be unreasonable for
Westmoreland Energy, Inc. Hadson Development Corporation
300 Prescott Avenue, 5th Floor 12500 Fair Lakes Circip - Suite 260
;Charlottesville, VA 22901 Fairfax, VA 22033
'•[phone] [phone]
FAX [phone] FAX [phone]
1vlr.-John R. Dorney
March 27, 1991
Page 2
the State to deny approval or propose project modification based solely on the potentially adverse
cumulative effects of future speculative projects which may or may not ever be developed. Fourth, it is not
clear what enforceable regulatory standards or criteria are available for determining when such cumulative
effects would be unacceptable or deemed to be significant. Finally, because the Roanoke River Basin has
not been designated a capacity use area under N.C.G.S. 143-215.11, et eq., disapproval of a current project
in order to avoid the potentially adverse impacts of future projects involving consumptive water use would
not be reasonable.
In summary, there appears to be neither a proper legal nor practical basis for evaluating the
cumulative effects of all current and future projects which may be proposed for the Roanoke River Basin.
Compliance with such a requirement would be difficult if not impossible to achieve, would be based on
undetermined standards or criteria, and might result in a legally questionable action by the State on Weldon
Project's permit applications.
If you have any comments or require additional clarification on this matter, please contact me at
[phone]. The revised Environmental Assessment was submitted to Linda Sewall on March 27, 1991.
Based on the revised Environmental Assessment and this letter, I am confident that all issues/concerns have
been adequately addressed so that a finding of no significant impact can be made and that the 401 Water
Quality Certificate can be issued in the near future.
Sincerely,
WESTMORELAND - HADSON PARTNERS
Ralph D. Daley
Director, Project Development
RDD/j mg/249-L-172
cc: D. Stoner
F. Sheffield
L. Lowe
R. Kennel
W. Purrington
E. L. Green
B. Flattery
File: RV 4.2.3.2

?- r
4c?Y*?k?Y?Y*9c*?c?k?Yic?ric4tic?Y**ir?Y?Y?k?k4c?Y?c?k?Y***?r*4c?Y*9c?Y9c?Y?c**?k?k**ic*?k?r?Y**4c?Y7Yic
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
April 5, 1991 =
MEM0RANDUtI
TO John Dorney
THROUGH Arthur Mouberry, P.E.
Timothy L. Donnelly, P.E.
t5 ,,
FROM Karl Shaffer
SUBJECT 401 Water Quality Certification
Town of Weldon - Water Transmission Line
Halifax County
On March 21, 1991, I met with Lester Lowe of F.T. Green
and Associates to review the water line layout and
associated wetland impacts. The water line will follow
existing water line, sewer line, gas line, and or electric
line easements and right-of-way for the majority of its
course from N.C. Route 48 bridge to Weldon's water treatment
facility.
Approximately 0.2 acres of wetlands (excluding surface
waters) are associated with this proposal. This includes
wetlands already in the easement or right-of-way. The line
layout adequately avoids large areas of wetlands. Of the
0.2 acres to be impacted, surrounding woodland will
effectively buffer any potential water quality problems.
Ten small intermittent tributaries must be crossed. Mr.
Lowe explained the water line would be placed underneath
these tributaries. Care must be taken during construction
to minimize sediment or other pollutant loading to these
streams.
The larger streams will be crossed with an aerial
crossing. No wetlands will require fill associated with
these crossings.
Mr. John Dorney
Page -2-
Where wet areas are encountered, the engineer
responsible for line layout and construction quality control
has been instructed to route the water line so as to avoid
these areas. (The water line will be installed on the dry or
upland side of the easement wherever possible.)
The Raleigh Regional Office feels that the design of
the line has minimal potential impacts and recommends that a
401 Water Quality Certification be issued for the project.
AM:TLD:KS:bas
cc: Lester Lowe
Eric Alsmeyer
David Stoner
Ralph Daley

h.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 609 1 303 NORTH GOLDSBORO STREET I WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27893
TELEPHONE [phone]
March 27, 1991
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Attention: Ms. Linda C. Sewall
SUBJECT: Revised Environmental Assessment
Raw Water System Improvements
Town of Weldon
Dear Ms. Sewall:
In response to comments made by the various reviewing
agencies, I have enclosed for your review seven (7) copies of the
revised Environmental Assessment for the above referenced project.
If you have additional questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to call.
Respectfully,
F. T. GREEN & ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Lester Lowe
LL/jed
Enclosures
cc: Ralph Daley
David Stoner
John Dorney
Ward Purrington
Frank Sheffield
D1.032291
E. LEO GREEN, P.E.
cF.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 609
303 NORTH GOLDSBORO STREET
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27893
TELEPHONE [phone]
a
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
p
D
0
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
i '2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
r
RAW WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF WELDON
.
DECEMBER 21, 1990
REVISED: MARCH 27, 1991
Linda C. Sewall, Deputy Director
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
[phone]
F. T. Green & Associates, P. A.
303 N. Goldsboro Street
Wilson, North Carolina 27893
0
0
I. Existing Environment
The project covers an area of approximately 4.8 miles in
length from its beginning point in the Roanoke River at
the Hwy. 48 bridge to the filtration plant in Weldon.
The project is within or adjacent to the Roanoke River
floodplain and crosses through mixed industrial and
uninhabited wooded areas while bordering on some
residential development. Soil types consist of mostly
Chewacla-Congaree, Cecil-Appling-Worsham and some
Norfolk-Orangeburg series, with shallow groundwater
depths, and subterranean granite and felsic formations.
Surface waters are classified as WS-III for the Roanoke
River.
II. Proposed Project and Need
The proposed project will consist of a new intake
structure and pumping station at the Hwy. 48 bridge, a
new 24" 0 raw water transmission line to Weldon's water
filtration plant and associated modifications to the
water plant itself. These improvements will replace the
Town's existing intake structure and 12" 0 water
transmission line which will allow the Town to meet all
current and future water supply demands.
In April of 1990, Westmoreland Hadson Partnership (WHP)
of Virginia announced its intention to build a $200
million coal powered co-generation plant adjacent to the
Town of Weldon (a fact sheet on the Roanoke Valley
Project is included in Appendix I). Upon completion and
start up, this facility will require a maximum of three
(3) million gallons of untreated water per day for their
operation. WHP has made a request to the Town of Weldon
for this supply and a water service agreement covering
both water supply and wastewater treatment was executed
by the parties on January 29, 1991.
The Town of Weldon presently operates a water supply and
treatment system capable of producing between 1.5 and 2.0
million gallons of treated water per day. The existing
12" 0 water transmission line is approximately 60 years
old and requires a high degree of maintenance. Though
the water filtration plant can produce the 1.5 to 2.0
mgd, the existing line cannot supply this quantity. The
current average withdrawal rate is limited to a maximum
of .40-.50 mgd due to the capacity restraints of the
line. However, with a new and larger line, Weldon would
be in a position to meet the demand for raw untreated
0
0
- 1 -

0
0
water to WHP, enhance the supply capability to the present
treatment facility and to serve the needs to Halifax County,
Northampton County, Caledonia State Prison and future expansions
within Town. Therefore, the following is proposed for
construction:
1. Raw water intake structure and pumping station at
Hwy. 48 Bridge over the Roanoke River in Roanoke
Rapids;
2. 24" 0 D.I. raw water transmission main adjacent to
Hwy. 48, across Champion International Paper Mill
property and then within an existing 40' combined
water/sewer easement (parallel 12" 0 raw water line
for Weldon and 30" 0 sewer interceptor for Roanoke
Rapids Sanitary District to the Weldon water plant);
3. Water filtration plant modifications.
The facilities when completed will be capable of
providing a maximum of five (5) million gallons of raw
water per day (3.0 MGD for WHP and 2.0 MGD for the Town
of Weldon) and provide a firm production capacity of two
(2) million gallons per day at the water treatment plant.
A copy of the proposed system is included in Appendix I.
The proposed water supply project by the Town of Weldon
and the proposed Roanoke Valley cogeneration project by
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners have completed significant
environmental review by a number of local, State, and
Federal Agencies. A number of water related issues
including consumptive use and potential water quality
impacts related to the proposed cogeneration project
were raised by the Water Quality Section of Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) and the Water Resources
Planning Section of the Division of Water Resources (DWR)
as part of the application for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity from the N. C. Public Utilities
Commission. The issues raised by the DEM and DWR were
satisfactorily addressed as evidenced by the interagency
correspondence contained in Appendix I. As a result of
this review, the majority of the major permits have been
obtained. A list of the major permits and approvals
including the applicant, responsible agency, and status
are summarized in Table II-1 contained in Appendix I.
0
0
- 2 -
??.?r.cizi.r;?&.?ssocin??-ts
0
0
III. Alternative Analysis
1. Nothing - The option of doing nothing was considered
and immediately eliminated from consideration
because the improvements are necessary for WHP to
operate the proposed plant and the Town of Weldon to
serve its needs.
2. Route through Roanoke Rapids - This option was
considered whereby the transmission line would be
routed from the raw water intake structure/pumping
station, through Roanoke Rapids and then Weldon
within existing rights-of-way and new easements to
the filtration plant. It was eliminated from
consideration due to higher costs associated with
more footage of pipe, easement costs and
construction impact on highly populated areas within
the corporate limits.
3. Separate Intake for WHP - The option of installing a
separate intake structure for the Roanoke Valley
Project (RVP) was considered and eliminated for a
number of reasons. First, combining intake with
the Town of Weldon provided badly needed water
system improvements for Weldon, and offered
economic/developmental advantages to the Roanoke
Valley Project. Second, upgrading existing intakes
and channels would impact the river less than
construction of a new intake at the RVP site. The
upgraded system could tie into existing intake
channels, as proposed, while a raw intake at the RVP
site would probably require more river bottom
excavation and blasting. Finally, the proposed
location of Weldon's intake is farther upstream, and ,
more likely above the major striped bass spawning
areas.
4. Groundwater Supply - WHP investigate groundwater
supplies for the RVP. Suitable long term
groundwater supplies were not available from the
granite bedrock underlying the site.
Therefore, the preferred alternative involves
construction of the new intakes and utilization of the
existing water/sewer easement to the filtration plant
with a limited need for new easements across Champion
International Corporation property and WHP property.
0
e
- 3 -
g 00
1=."1'.GIt1iG\?' ASSOCINITS
0
0
IV. Environmental Consequences of Preferred Alternative
a. Changes in Land Use
The proposed alternative should have no significant
adverse impact on existing land use since the raw
water intake structure and pumping station is within
the Roanoke River floodplain and a vast majority of
the proposed transmission line will be in the
existing 40' water/sewer easement. Other segments
crossing the Champion International Paper Mill
property should not alter the current land use
there as well.
Temporary changes in the land use at the riverbank
adjacent to the new intake structure may occur as
the result of fill material being placed to handle
construction equipment/activities. However, once
construction is complete, the bank will be restored
to its original condition. This temporary
encroachment within the existing Roanoke River
floodway has been approved by the City of Roanoke
Rapids under guidelines set forth by FEMA. (See
Appendix II for copy of approval letter.)
b. Wetlands
The proposed project will have a minimal impact on
wetlands. Based upon a site investigation conducted
by the Land Quality Section of the Division of
Environmental Management (Karl Shaffer, March 21,
1991), a total of .20 acres of wetlands will be
impacted as result of this project. Most of the
locations are isolated small pockets of wetlands
which do not cover an area greater than 50 feet in
length. Even in these impacted areas there are
adequate buffers available on each side of the
proposed layout which will help offset the
disturbance. In addition, the project will cross
approximately eight to ten small streams and one
crossing at Chockoyotte Creek. Approximately a
third of these crossings may require aerial pipeline
spans where as the remaining ones will be buried.
Access to the proposed project is adequate
throughout its approximate five mile length and will
not involve crossing any known wetlands. Since a
majority of the system will be placed in existing
easements which have been previously disturbed and
cleared, impact to wetlands in these areas will be
further reduced.
0
0
- 4 -
C? Q-,l
1 ."I.GR1:13I\?t ASSOCINITS
a
0
D
10
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
The proposed alternative will have no adverse impact
on agricultural lands since none of the project
crosses any known functional agricultural land uses.
Public Lands
There are no known lands within the project area
designated as publicly owned parks, etc. that would
be adversely impacted.
Scenic and Residential Areas
The proposed project will have no adverse impact on
these type of areas since the location/route
involves crossing developed industrial property and
then running within an existing 40' sewer/water
easement. The intake structure will not interfere
with any boating activities since its location will
be near the bank behind an existing raw water
pumping station.
Areas of Archeological or Historical Value
There are no known areas of archeological or
historical value that the project would impact with
the exception of the Roanoke Canal. Some parts of
the existing 40' water/sewer easement may border the
canal, but no disturbances are anticipated.
Air Quality
The proposed project should have little or no impact
on air quality during construction. Only minor
exhaust from heavy machinery will be a factor to air
quality.
Groundwater Ouality
The proposed project will have little or no effect
on the groundwater quality within the project area
since this project is surface water related.
Noise Levels
The proposed project may involve some temporary
annoyance from noise to those in very close
proximity to the construction. Machinery and
possible remote blasting may contribute to this
factor.
- 5 -
0
1=."I'.Gltlil =,\ ?t ;?SSOCI;? I?GS
a
0
j. Water Supplies
The proposed project will have no adverse impact on
the water supply of the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary
District and will provide a great benefit to the
overall supplies of both the Town of Weldon and WHP.
The initial withdrawal rates through the proposed
facility will average 3.75 mgd. Future peak system
withdrawal is proposed to be 5.0 mgd. The proposed
intake channel will be sized to deliver water to the
new facility at maximum demand at minimum river
elevation (49.5 M.S.L.). A further discussion on
water withdrawal is presented in Section P.
k. Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
The proposed project will have a positive or
beneficial impact on fish, especially striped bass
and their habitat during operation when compared to
the existing intake structure due primarily to the
revised intake structure design. The proposed
project will have little or no adverse impact on
fish during construction of the proposed intake.
The basis of these impact assessments are described
below.
Based on concern about potential striped bass egg
impingement/entrainment, the Town of Weldon has
revised the design of the raw water intake
structure. This revised design was submitted to the
Army Corps of Engineers on March 11, 1991, and a
copy of this submittal is included in Appendix III.
The revised design includes a proposed intake
channel which contains no dead ends and is parallel
to the main river flow. The proposed channel will
be approximately 15' wide or 1.5% of the existing
width of the river in this area. This intake
channel will maintain a maximum stream velocity to
ensure that fish eggs travel with stream flow. The
new structure will be smaller than the existing
facility and provide an overall net reduction in
encroachment area within the Roanoke River floodway
(see map in Appendix III).
The most important feature of the revised design is
the proposed use of circular wedge wire screens for
raw water intake. The wedge wire screens were
developed in the 1970's specifically to minimize
fish egg/larvae impingement and entrainment in raw
0
0
- 6 -

0
0
0
0
water intakes. A literature review of fish
protection and wire screen is also included in
Appendix IV. The circular wedge wire screens are
considered state-of-art devices by engineers,
biologists, environmental scientists, and regulatory
agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The circular wedge wire screens have been
used in over 60 static (lake or reservoir) and free
flowing (river) installations. A partial list of
intake screen installations by Cook Screen
Technologies, Inc. is included with the literature
review. Circular screen installations in North
Carolina include Neuse River Raw Water Pump Station
in Raleigh, City of Newton, City of Norwood, City of
Calhoun Falls, City of Albemarle, City of
Burlington, City of Morganton in the Catawba River
and the Greenville Utilities Commission. The
Greenville Utilities installation includes 4 screens
which have a capacity of 12 MGD in the Tar River
installed in 1982, and this free flowing river
application is very similar to the proposed
application in the Roanoke River by Weldon.
The state-of-the-art wedge wire screen
specifications include a slot intake velocity of 0.5
feet per second (fps) at maximum design flow and 4
mm screen slot openings. Tests conducted on this
screen determined that fish eggs and larvae, unless
they were within 3 or 4 inches of the screen
centerline would be swept past the screen by the
river current as if no water withdrawal was even
taking place. Weldon's specifications
are more conservative including the use of dual
intake screens with intake velocity of 0.25 fps
during normal or expected operation at maximum flow
of 2.5 mgd per screen. Under the worst case
condition of one screen not in operation, the
remaining screen is sized at 0.5 fps slot velocity
at maximum design flow of 5 mgd. In addition,
Weldon is proposing screens with 2.5 mm slot
openings which are approximately 40% narrower than
the standard 4mm slot openings.
The environmental consequences of the project during
both construction and operation must be considered.
The project will have little or no adverse impact on
fish during construction because of the following
reasons:
- 7 -

a

0
0
1. Construction will take place during periods of
low river flow and not during the spawning
season of the striped bass (March through
June).
2. The proposed intake structure is near the river
bank where the water is very shallow at the
time of construction and are not in an area of
major fish activity.
3. Actual construction period in the river will be
kept to a minimum.
4. A cofferdam will be constructed to isolate the
area of the river containing the intake channel
and intake screens. By isolating this area,
disruption of the normal river flow will be
temporary.
5. Blasting of the intake channel will be done in
accordance with NCDOT specifications and good
engineering practices. Actual blasting time
will be short, and the use of the cofferdam
will minimize shock waves carried by the water.
The proper blasting pressures will be selected
to minimize seismic shock waves.
During the actual operation of the proposed project,
a positive or beneficial impact on fish and their
habitat, especially striped bass, will result when
compared to the existing Weldon intake structure.
Both the existing and proposed intake structures are
located at approximately river mile post 135 which
is 5 miles upstream from the area where the
concentration of striped bass spawning occurs.
(Rulifson, R. A. and C. S. Manooch, III,
"Recruitment of Juvenile Striped Bass in the Roanoke
River, North Carolina, as Related to Reservoir
Discharge"). As a result, the location of the
proposed project will minimize potential striped
bass egg impingement/entrainment during spawning.
The positive or beneficial impact is primarily due
to the difference in intake structure design.
Weldon's existing intake structure has been used for
approximately 40 years, and it consists of an 18"
diameter pipe with a 1" slotted screen to prevent
trash or debris from entering the pump wet well (see
Appendix V). Because of this design, any striped
bass egg which enters the "zone of influence" of the
- 8 -
?J ~l

a
a
intake will be entrained and destroyed. The
proposed intake structure as described earlier is
designed specifically to minimize fish egg
impingement and entrainment. An analysis of
potential fish entrainment and impingement was
performed by Cook Screen Technologies, Inc., a copy
of which is included in Appendix IV. The results of
this analysis are that at a water withdrawal rate of
5 mgd shaped wire screens designed to maximum
through slot velocity can be expected to produce
less egg and larvae entrainment and impingement than
the existing intake pipe at a water withdrawal rate
0.5 mgd.
The operation of the proposed intake will also not
impact striped bass spawning due to any perceived
change in Roanoke River flows. The river flows in
this reach are controlled by discharges from the
Virginia Power hydroelectric facility at the Lake
Gaston Dam. Since 1988, Virginia Power has
voluntarily controlled discharges during the period
April 1 - June 15 each year, to minimize extreme low
or high flow events, thereby optimizing conditions
for striped bass spawning. As described in section
p, consumptive use due to operation of the intakes
comprises less than 1/10 of one percent of the
Roanoke River flow, on average. The operation of the
proposed intakes will therefore not significantly or
measurably impact Roanoke River flows, and no
related impacts to striped bass spawning will occur.
Likewise, no impacts to other fish, aquatic life, or
habitat is anticipated even under conditions of
maximum withdrawals and low river flows. A worst
case analysis of consumptive use provided in section
p indicates that a maximum of 0.4 percent of river
flow would be consumed, in any case. As above, this
amount of consumptive use would not significantly or
measurably impact Roanoke River discharges or
elevations. Thus no stresses or impacts to fish,
aquatic life, or aquatic or wetland habitat will
occur.
The new intake structure shall also be of added
benefit from a maintenance standpoint. Little or no
maintenance will be required once the new facility
is constructed. The system will be designed such
that two (2) units will be incorporated from which
one of the two could handle the design flow in the
event of a problem to either one. The proposed
- 9 -
1=."I?.GRI3GN?c ??SSOCI??"1'GS
0
0
1.
M.
n.
screen system as previously discussed is designed to
help eliminate impingement/entrainment of fish eggs
which will further reduce maintenance on the
facility.
Wildlife and Their Habitats
Though there are several threatened or endangered
animals known in the Halifax County area, the
proposed project should have no impact on any of
these due to the lines being installed through a
developed industrial site and the existing open 40'
water/sewer easement.
Introduction of Toxic Substances
The proposed project will not introduce any toxic
substances to the environment.
Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
The proposed project will not contribute to
eutrophication of the receiving waters or other
impacts to water quality. The N. C. DEM and U. S.
EPA have conducted reviews of potential impacts to
Roanoke River water quality, eutrophication effects,
and impacts to assimilative capacity in three
separate permitting efforts related to this proposed
project:
The N.C. DEM's issuance of an Industrial
Pretreatment Discharge Permit No. 247210001 for
discharges from the Roanoke Valley Project to
the Town of Weldon's POTW:
The U.S. EPA's issuance of a FONSI (Appendix
VI) related to approval of the amended 201
facilities plan for the expansion to the Weldon
POTW to accommodate the Roanoke Valley
Project's discharges; and
The N.C. DEM's reissuance of a NPDES permit No.
NC0025721 for the Weldon POTW. In this permit
the state imposed more stringent BOD effluent
limits (from 30 to 18 mg/1), specifically
incorporating issues on the river assimilative
capacity, to further protect water quality in
the receiving waters of the Roanoke River.
0

- 10 -
1=."I?.G12fiI:N?' ,?SSOCI.?"I?I:S
f?l

Based on these permitting reviews and the
insignificant and immeasurable impacts to river
discharge described in Section p, no significant
adverse impacts to water quality in the Roanoke
River Basin are anticipated from the project.
o. Sedimentation and Erosion Control
The proposed project will have some minor impact on
sediment runoff while construction of the intake
structure and channel occurs. The major concern
associated with construction in this area will be
control of sediment runoff and impact on water
quality. All available techniques and equipment
will be utilized to diminish adverse impacts from
sediment runoff which may occur during excavating
and filling operations. Early identification of
problem areas during the planning stage will help
minimize erosion problems.
Construction of the transmission line will be
located in previously disturbed areas which can be
controlled from erosion and sediment runoff through
the use of an integrated system of control measures
and management techniques which meet the
requirements of the N. C. Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 and all local governing
agencies. All disturbances are temporary and will be
permanently stabilized upon completion of any
construction activity.
p. Water Withdrawal
Although the proposed project will result in
increased water withdrawal from the Roanoke River,
no significant adverse impacts to the river or its
uses are anticipated. Water withdrawal data is
summarized in Appendix VII, and includes both the
town of Weldon's future water supply water needs and
the needs of the proposed Roanoke Valley Project.
Data on total withdrawals, total return discharges,
consumptive use, and comparisons to roanoke River
Flow data are provided.
Weldon currently withdrawals an average of
approximately 0.5 mgd. Proposed new withdrawals may
total 5.0 mgd, which consists of Weldon's current
use of 0.5 mgd,proposed municipal water use of up to
1.5 mgd (Weldon, Caledonia Prison Farm and portions
of Halifax and Northampton Counties), and industrial
0
r
- 11 -
1=.T.Gf21:LN?'t :?SSOCI?? I?I:S
0
0
0
0
use of up to 3.0 mgd by the Roanoke Valley Project.
Although the proposed project will result in a
maximum withdrawal rate of 5 mgd, a portion of this
water will be returned to the river via the Weldon
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) under NPDES
permit No. NC0025721. Wastewater from the Roanoke
Valley Project is also directed to the Weldon POTW
for discharge under an Industrial Pretreatment
Discharge Permit No. 257210001. Finally, some water
supplied by the Town of Weldon to the Caledonia
Prison Farm will also be returned to the river under
the prison's NPDES permit.
Based on the anticipated water withdrawal and
discharge rates, consumptive use from the proposed
project will range from 2.48 to 3.00 mgd on a
monthly average, and 2.87 mgd on an annual average.
The majority of this consumptive use is due to the
Roanoke Valley Projects evaporative losses in
cooling systems. This consumptive use represents
between 0.04 to 0.09 percent of the monthly average
Roanoke River Flows, and 0.05 percent of the annual
average river flow. Thus, on average, consumptive
use from the proposed withdrawals represents less
than one-tenth of one percent of the Roanoke River
flow.
Furthermore, a worst-case analysis of consumptive
use reveals that a maximum of 0.4 percent of the
river's flow would be consumed in any condition.
This analysis compares the daily maximum consumptive
use to the 7Q10 flow (low flow value of 7 days
duration with an expected occurrence every 10 years)
in the Roanoke River. This daily maximum
consumptive use is expected to occur only 2-4 days
per year in July or August. Conversely, river
flows near the 7Q10 value of 1192 cfs typically
occur somewhat later in the year during August,
September, or October. Thus, even in this unlikely
case, worst-cast maximum consumptive use comprises
less than one-half of one percent of river flow.
This amount of consumptive use will have no
significant impact on the quantity or quality of the
Roanoke River. No significant or measurable chancres
in river stage or discharge will occur, even under
extreme low flow events. Thus, no adverse impacts
to its uses, including fisheries, aquatic life and
habitat, recreation, water supply, wetland and non-
wetland habitat and assimilative capacity, are
- 12 -

anticipated. Furthermore, the lack of adverse
impact can be seen from the State's issuance of a
FONSI, NPDES Permit and Industrial Pretreatment
Permit (refer to Section n. for further
discussion).
IV. Mitigative Measures to Environmental Consequences
a. Changes in Land Use
Upon completion of work, seed and mulch all
disturbed areas using approved seeding and mulching
methods. Areas where bank or ditch stabilization is
necessary, use rip rap with an appropriate
geotextile underlines, and restore features such as
driveways, fences, etc. back to their original or
better condition.
a
b. Wetlands
To mitigate impacts to wetlands disturbed during
construction, all requirements as set forth under
the Corps 404 Permit, specifically under Section 12
of the Nationwide Permit for Utility Line
Installation, and the State's 401 Water Quality
Certification shall be adhered to. The major points
of impact for this project are at several ditch
locations and one major creek crossing, which can be
protected by using selected erosion and
sedimentation control practices. The individual
character of each crossing will determine the extent
of protection each may require. Nonetheless,
devices such as silt fence, rip rap for re-
stabilization, and rock check dams are excellent
control measures. Other isolated sections of
wetlands within the proposed layout shall be
returned to their pre-construction contour
elevation. Final stabilization for all areas
disturbed will include seeding and mulching using
approved methods. All methods and devices
incorporated will have prior approval by the local
governing agencies as required under the N. C.
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
No mitigative measures needed.
d. Public Lands
No mitigative measures needed.
0
0
- 13 -
go,-,
1=.T.GRI:I:N& ASSOCI, FE-S
0
0
e. Scenic and Recreational Areas
No mitigative measures needed.
f. Areas of Archeological or Historical Value
To avoid disturbing the Roanoke Canal, use of
acceptable sedimentation/erosion control methods
will be applied and any disturbance that must occur
will be repaired with proper stabilization using rip
rap and/or seeding and mulching. All methods shall
be approved by local and state agencies. Refer to
Section o. for further information.
g. Air Ouality
To ensure proper emissions are maintained from
machinery exhaust, all equipment will be
checked/inspected prior to operation on the project.
h. Groundwater Ouality
No mitigative measures needed.
i. Noise Levels
To reduce any annoyance from loud equipment, muffler
systems could be installed while working in
proximity of the urban area near Roanoke Rapids and
in Weldon.
j. Water Supplies
Prior to development of final plans, cross sections
will be performed along the existing channel into
the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District's intake
structure to ensure that capacity to this unit will
not be diminished. If the existing channel size is
not sufficient to accommodate both system flows, it
is proposed that this channel be enlarged.
Furthermore, by extending the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District channel downstream this will help
eliminate deposits of sediment in the present "dead
end channel" for the district's intake system. The
plan of providing continuous flow through this
channel should also virtually eliminate any sediment
deposits at either of the intake structures.
The piped blow off system currently operated by the
District will be field located prior to any dredging
and/or blasting operations to ensure that the
0
0
- 14 -
'?
ASSOCINFES
a
0
proposed construction will not have any adverse
impacts on the piping system. In addition, to
ensure that the existing District's channel does not
become filled with materials from dredging and
blasting, cross sections will be taken of this
channel before and after construction of the new
channel.
Due to a significant amount of blasting which would
be required for a new channel extending
perpendicularly into the existing river channel, it
was decided to tie the proposed channel into the
District's channel. Furthermore, by paralleling the
proposed channel with the flow of the river will
produce a continuous movement of water at all
conditions of river levels and system demands.
Potential problems associated with blasting and
excavation near the existing bridge will require the
use of very strict blasting plans developed from
vibrational seismic monitoring procedures to be
incorporated into this construction.
All work on the proposed intake structure and
channel will be coordinated with proper authorities;
i.e. DOT, Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District, N. C.
Power, Town of Weldon and other required regulatory
agencies. Necessary erosion control devices will be
provided to help minimize sediment runoff into the
river. Any temporary fill areas i.e. construction
causeways, cofferdams, etc. used during construction
shall be properly stabilized as required. All work
shall also conform under the permit requirements of
the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the
State's 401 Water Quality Certification.
0
0
k. Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitat
No mitigative measures are required during the
operation of the proposed project because the
proposed intake structure design using state-of-the-
art circular wedge wire screens will have positive
or beneficial environmental consequences.
Furthermore, the new channel not having any dead end
sections and paralleling the main river flow will
provide a continuous stream velocity to ensure fish
eggs movement with stream flow. The probability or
percentage of striped bass egg impingement and
entrainment is estimated to be lower for the
proposed intake structure at maximum design flows (5
mgd) as compared to Weldon's existing intake
structure at the actual maximum withdrawal rate (0.5
mgd).
- 15 -

0
I!'
To mitigate possible disturbance to fish and their
habitat during construction of the proposed intake,
the following measures will be taken:
1. Construction will not take place during the
striped bass spawning season.
2. Actual construction period in the river will be
kept to a minimum.
3. A cofferdam will be used to isolate the
construction area from the river and to
minimize shock wave formation during blasting.
4. Blasting of the intake channel will be kept to
a minimum.
All blasting activities shall be performed by
licensed and qualified personnel. Blasting
pressures shall be minimized to avoid large adverse
impacts on the fish and aquatic life in the general
vicinity of the blasting area. Prior to any
blasting, a sound source shall be initiated in the
waters at the site to try and deter all fish away
from the area and thereby reduce the potential
danger to them. With over 90% of the energy from the
blast being used to break the rock, the remaining
energy will go into the waters as vibrations and
noise. These vibrations decrease as they travel
outward and will have far lesser effects on fish
that have been deterred away from the general
blasting area.
1. Wildlife and Their Habitat
No mitigative measures needed.
M. Introduction of Toxic Substances
No mitigative measures needed.
n. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
To mitigate possible eutrophication, all approved
permits (NPDES, Pretreatment, etc.) shall be
complied with in order to meet limitations imposed
by the State to protect the water quality of the
Roanoke River.
a
0
- 16 -
I=."I?.GRGI:\ ?'t ,?SSOCI??"I?IiS
0
0
o. Sedimentation and Erosion Control
To mitigate possible erosion problems associated
with the intake structure and channel, all temporary
fill areas, cofferdams, etc. shall be stabilized
with appropriate rip rap with a geotextile
underliner. In addition, the use of silt fence
shall act as a control from sediment runoff along
the bank into the river. Work along the main
transmission line shall present only minor erosion
problems except at ditch and creek crossings where
silt fence, bank stabilization with rip rap, rock
check dams and filter basins, where applicable,
shall be incorporated. Permanent stabilization
shall include seeding and mulching the permanent
easement using approved seeding schedules for this
part of the state.
All sedimentation and erosion control measures
shall be approved by the local governing agencies
and will be an integral component of the
construction process to prevent erosion and
sedimentation problems on this project.
p. Water Withdrawal
Even though no impacts to the Roanoke River flow
quantity, quality, or uses are anticipated to occur,
the proposed project does include measures to limit
water use. The design of the proposed Roanoke
Valley Project incorporates wastewater recycling to
limit water usage (for example use of cooling tower
blowdown rather than raw water for ash wetting and
flue gas desulfurization). Good engineering and
operating practices will also serve to further limit
consumptive use.
0
a
- 17 -
-0) Q
,, ?..? C
0
0
APPENDIX I
0
0
rl:

0
0
ROANOKE VALLEY PROJECT
FACT SHEET
Owner: Westmoreland-Hadson Partners, a joint venture of Westmoreland Energy,
Inc. and Hadson Development Corporation.
Plant: A coal-fired cogeneration facility producing steam and electricity from a
pulverized coal boiler using flue gas desulfurization to be designed and
constructed by Uttmsystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Location: Weldon Township, Halifax County, North Carolina, between City of
Roanoke Rapids and Town of Weldon.
Site: 113 acres McDaniel Industrial Site adjacent to Becker Farms Industrial
Park and bounded by CSX Railroad and Roanoke River.
Power Output: 165 megawatts of electricity to be supplied to Virginia Electric & Power
Company through its affiliate, North Carolina Power, under a 25-year
contract.
Energy Output: Steam supplied to Patch Rubber Company and potentially to other
tenants of the Becker Farms Industrial Park.
Fuel. 500,000 tons annually of low sulfur bituminous coal supplied by
Westmoreland Coal Company with rail delivery by CSX Transportation
Company.
Water Supply: 2.2 million gallons per day (average) and 3 million gallons per day
(maximum) of raw riv
w
t
t
b
id
d b
th
T
f W
er
er
a
o
e prov
e
y
e
own o
eldon.
Water Discharge: 115,000 gallons per day (average) and 400,000 gallons per day
(maximum) of
retreated w
t
t
i
l
il
p
as
ewa
er (pr
y coo
mar
ing water) to be
discharged for final treatment by Town of Weldon sewer system in
accordance with State and Local permit regulations.
Air Quality: Facility to be designed and operated with Best Available Control
Technology including dry lime scrubber, low NO= burners with advanced
overtire air, and baghouse for S02, NO, particulates, and fugitive dust
control in accordance with Federal, State, and Local permits and
regulations.
Ash Disposal. Non-hazardous coal and lime ash to be disposed in an ash monofill to
be constructed and operated by Halifax County at Integrated ash
monofll/municipal solid waste landfill.
Schodule: Complete project development and commence construction Second
Quarter 1991 with Commercial Operation scheduled mid-1994.
Prolod Benefits: Taxes: $200 million Investment for Halifax County.
Jobs: 350 construction and 44 direct permanent
plant operation.
Local Purchases: Project wUl purchase local goods and
services during construction and operation.
Business Development: Catalyst to attract new businesses to Becker
Farms Industrial Park requiring low pressure
steam.
Infrastructure: Water and sewer systems' improvements
forTown of Weldon; integrated ash monofill
and municipal solid waste landfill for Halifax
County.
241RDD - blare {, 1991
S,Arl
'
90
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resoels.
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. ,Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary John N. Morris
Director
June 28, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning & Assessment
FROM: John Sutherland, Chief
Water Resources Plan ng Section
SUBJECT: Roanoke Valley Project
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners
Application for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity
The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the
Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity (CPCN) for a proposed electric generating facility
near Roanoke Rapids. This application does not contain any
information on environmental impacts or the water use of the
proposed project. The following information is needed in order
for this Division to determine what conditions should be added
to the CPCN to protect water resources:
1. The source of water to be used by the facility.
2. The maximum instantaneous amount of water used by
the facility.
3. The location and quantity of wastewater discharged.
4. The maximum consumptive water use created by the
facility and the times of year of its occurrence.
P.o. Box 27687, Rjki,fi, North GrDliti 27611-7687 Tekphone 919.7334064
p An Equal OPportuniry Affirmudw Aaiun Employer
.4elba McGee
Roanoke Valley Project
Page 2
5. The impact of the project's consumptive use on the
source of the project's water supply.
6. An assessment of the cumulative impact of this and
other proposed thermal electric generating projects
in the Roanoke River Basin with regard to
consumptive water use and its impact during low
flows in the Roanoke River.
tie appreciate this opportunity to comment and will be
glad to discuss our comments with you, the applicant, or the
North Carolina Utilities Commission.
JS:SER/va
cc: John Wray
Tom Fransen
Steve Reed

B
Westmoreland - Hadson Partners
B. fznrrd er
F11-E lov ¢2.7
FEDERAL EXPRESS
August 17, 1990
a John Sutherland
Chief, Water Resources Planning Section
Division of Water Resources
p N.C. DEHNR
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Roanoke Valley Project
Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
Response to DWR Comments
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
This letter is in response to your June 28, 1990 memo (attached) to Melba McGee, Project
Review Coordinator, Division of Planning and Assessment, providing comments on
Westmoreland-Hadson Partner's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. Outlined below are responses to your request for additional information:
1. Water Source
Water will be supplied to the Roanoke Valley Project through an agreement with the Town
of Weldor.. The Town is currently planning an upgrade of their existing raw water supply
line and intake structures on the Roanoke River near Roanoke Rapids, N.C., to
accommodate future community and project needs. The Town of Weldon will be
responsible for all 401/404 permitting associated with upgrade of their system.
2. WnterUs,1g&
The projected water requirements and wastewater discharge for the project are provided on
Table 1 below:
Westmorland F-aer;y, Inc.
2955 Ivy Road - Suite 302
Chartottetvill-. VA 22901
[phone]
FAX [phone]

Hadson Development Corp.
12500 Fair Bites Cim - Suite 260
Fairfax, VA 22033
[phone]
FAX [phone]
B.,
John Sutherland
Page 2
August 17, 1990
TABLE 1
Roanoke Valley Project
Water Requirements and Wastewater Discharge
Wastewater
Total Discharge To Consumptive
Water Supply Weldon POTW I,g
Daily Maximum (MGD) 3.07 0.39 2.96*(4.58 cfs)
Annual Avg. (MGD) 2.28 0.11 2.17 (3.36 cfs)
*Daily Maximum (Summer) Consumptive use conservatively calculated using annual
average wastewater discharge estimates.
3. Water Usage
All wastewater from the facility will be pretreated prior to discharge to the Town of
Weldon's Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) under a pretreatment discharge
permit. The Partners filed an application for a pretreatment discharge permit with the NC
a Division of Environmental Management in early July. Daily maximum and annual average
wastewater discharges from the Roanoke Valley Project are shown in Table 1 above.
The Town of Weldon's POTW discharges to the Roanoke River, just southeast of Weldon,
n N.C. The Town of Weldon has submitted an application for an amended NPDES permit to
jj increase the size of the POTW and quantity of discharge to accommodate future community
expansion and the additional wastewater stream from the project.
a 4. Consumptive Use
a Estimated consumptive water use created by the facility is shown above in Table 1.
Maximum consumption will occur in the summer.
5. Consumptive Use Impacts
As shown on Table 2 below, the project's consumptive use will not significantly impact the
Roanoke River (from which the Town of Weldon draws its water). The maximum
a consumptive use from the facility constitutes only 0.06 percent of annual average daily
river flow and only 0.46 percent of the 7 day • 10 year low-flow in the Roanoke River.
0
0

John Sutherland
Page 3
R August 17, 1990
Table 2
Roanoke Valley Project
Consumptive Use as a Percentage of Roanoke River Flow
Consumptive Use
Roanoke River Flow at Annual Average (3.36 cfs) Maximum (4.59 cfs)
Roanoke Rapids. N.C.
Daily Average (7674 cfs) 0.04%
0.06%
Q-7-10 Low-Flow (1000 cfs) 0.33% 0.46%
6. Consumptive Use in the Roanoke River Basin
The Partners do not have data available regarding other proposed cogeneration projects in
the Roanoke River Basin. As described above, the maximum consumptive use from the
Roanoke Valley Project constitutes only 0.46 percent of the 7 day - 10 year low-flow of the
Roanoke River.
I have discussed these issues briefly with Steve Reed of your staff. I will follow-up with
Steve to ensure these responses satisfy concerns raised in your June 28 memorandum.
Assuming this information is adequate, I request that you forward a memo to the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC), in order to "close the loop" on these comments. Please
indicate that your concerns have been addressed and you do not require a public hearing to
be held for our application to discuss them. The memo to the PUC should be addressed to
Sandra Webster, Chief Clerk, North Carolina PUC with copies to Gisele Rankin and
Sammy Kirby of the PUC staff.
I would appreciate your timely response to this request since issuance of the Certificate is
being held, pending resolution of your comments. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
DAS/ks
Attachment
0
Djjef,?__
David A. Stoner
Project Development Manager
C

I
a John Sutherland
Page 4
August 17, 1990
cc: S. Reed - NC DWR
S. Webster - NC PUC
S. Kirby - NC PUC
G. Rankin - NC PUC
u
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 t
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 13, 1990
r,
MEMORANDUM
John N. ,'Morris
Di actor
TO: Ms. Gisele Rankin
Legal Division, NCUC Public Staff
FROM: Steve ReedgZ,,_ R"
SUBJECT: Roanoke Valley Project
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners
Application for Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity
The Division of Water Resources provided comments on the
'subject project in our June 28, 1990 memorandum to Ms. Melba
McGee. We received a letter dated August 17, 1990 from Westmore-
land-Hadson Partners which addressed all of our comments in the
June 28 memorandum.
We have no objection issuance Certificat Convenience and Necessity for the Roanoke Valley of
y oject.
Please contact me at 733-4064 if you need any additional
information.
SER/va
a
0
cc: Mr. John gray, DWR
Mr. John Sutherland, DWR
Mr. Tom Fransen, DWR
Ms. Melba McGee, DPA
Mr. David Stoner, Westmoreland-Hadson
PAt P277687' Rze, North CII!' 276167687 Tel.-0, 9M7334054
An Egwl Opvorwity AA,,,,, Action, Empbyrr
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc?
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street C Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin. Govemor June 26, 1990 George T. Everett. Ph.D.
William W. Cobey. Jr.. Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Steve Tedder
a SUBJECT: Project No. 90-0965; Notice of Application for
Certificate of Public Conveniance and Necessity by
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners, Halifax County
a The subject application concerns a proposed coal-fired
cogeneration facility in Weldon, NC. It is conceivable that
up to three permits/certifications could be required by DEM
for this facility. There is insufficient information
contained in the application to make a definitive statement
on the number and type. Each permit is discussed separately,
Ci below.
Pretreatment Permit
According to the application package, wastewater from the
facility will be pretreated and piped to the publically-owned
treatment works (POTW) in Weldon. A pretreatment permit will be
required to allow discharging this water to the POTW. In this
regard, it is understood that the town is presently seeking
permission from DEM to increase the size of the POTW in order to
be able to accomodate the 400,000 gallons of wastewater to be
sent to the plant from the cogeneration facility. Preliminary
indications are that the plant will be allowed to expand.
Li Discharge Permit
The Utilities Commission is advised that DEM could require a
discharge permit from the facility if the coal storage area is
uncovered and exposed to rainfall. The permit would be required
a for the stormwater runoff that would flow from the stockpiled
coal. The pH of the runoff water would be one DEM's major
concerns.
401 Water Quality Certification
0
This certification would be required if there was sufficient

Pctludon Prerendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687. Melgh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opponuniry Afiirmadve Action Employer
Ms. Melba McGee
June 26, 1990
Page 2
proposed filling of Section 404 (Clean Water Act) wetlands at
the cogeneration site to warrant issuance of a permit from the
U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to allowance of any filling,
the applicant would have to convince the Corps, DEM and other
agencies that there was no viable alternative use of the site
' that would avoid wetlands filling. DEM has no indication, at
this time, that development of the site would involve any
wetlands. However, it would be prudent for the Commission to
obtain a statement from the Corps concerning potential wetlands
impacts and permit requirements for development at the site.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this
0 project. Please contact Mr. Alan Clark if you have any
questions. (733-5083)
[1!
90-0965.Mem/SEPAL
cc: Alan Wahab
Tim Donnelly
0
0
0., f 71

Westmoreland - Hadson Partners
August 17, 1990,
Steve Tedder
Chief, Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Q N.C. DEHNR
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Roanoke Valley Project
Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
Response to DEM Comments
Dear Mr. Tedder:
N
8. fLA TT tT Y
Fig E ,e V 4. Z .7
This letter is in response to your June 26, 1990 memo (attached) to Melba McGee, Project
Review Coordinator, Division of Planning and Assessment, providing comments on
Westmoreland-Hadson Partner's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. Outlined below are responses to your request for additional information:
Pretreatment Permit
As you know, wastewater from the Roanoke Valley Project will be pretreated prior to
discharge to the Town of Weldon's publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
Westmoreland-Hadson Partners (The Partners) filed an application for a pretreatment
discharge permit with the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) in early
July, and have had continuing discussions with Doug Finan of the DEM regarding this
application. Also be informed that the Town of Weldon has submitted an application for an
amended NPDES permit to increase the size of the POTW and quantity of discharge to
accomodate this project's and anticipated community wastewater streams.
Discharge Permit
The Partners are aware of agency concerns regarding treatment and discharge of
stonmwater runoff from the facility's coal stockpile. Accordingly, this runoff will be
-collected and pretreated in a lined basin, prior to discharge to the Town of Weldon under
the Pretreatment Discharge Permit discussed above. Since this as well as all other
industrial discharges from the facility will be handled under the Pretreatment Discharge
Permit, a NPDES permit will not be required for the facility.
westmomhnd Energy. Inc. 11adsm Development Corp.
O 2955 Ivy Road - Suite 302 12500 Fair Islcu Ciro - Suite 260
Charlcsesvtlle. VA 22901 Fairfax. VA 22033
[phone] [phone]
FAX [phone] FAX [phone]
0
01- Steve Tedder
August 17, 1990
Page 2
401 Water Qulily Certification
The Partners are also aware of Section 404 (Clean Water Act) wetlands requirements.
Preliminary studies indicate that no wetlands areas will be impacted by development of the
site. However, The Partners are currently performing a detailed wetlands delineation of the
site, which will include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contacts on an as-needed basis, to
identify potential wetlands impacts and permit requirements.
I have discussed these issues with Boyd Devane of your staff, who indicated these
responses satisfy concerns raised in your June 26 memorandum. Assuming this is the
case, I request that you forward a memo to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in
order to "close the loop" on these comments. Please indicate that your concerns have been
addressed and you do not require a public hearing to be held for our application to discuss
them. The memo to the PUC should be addressed to Sandra Webster, Chief Clerk, North
Carolina PUC with copies to Gisele Rankin and Sammy Kirby of the PUC staff.
I would appreciate your timely response to this request since issuance of the Certificate is
being held, pending resolution of your comments. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
k?
JjDavid A. Stoner
Project Development Manager
DAS/ks
Attachment
cc: B. Devane - NC DEM
S. Webster - NC PUC
S. Kirby - NC PUC
G. Ranldn - NC PUC
0
0
3 1??6'? p 1 0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management _
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
lames G. Martin. Gavemor George T. Everett, PhD.
YAM= WSecretary August 29, 1990 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sandra Webster, Chief Clerk
N.C. Public Utilities Commission
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief, Water Quality Section
SUBJECT: Roanoke Valley Project (Westmoreland-Hadson Partners)
Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity
This is in followup to a June 26, 1990 memorandum prepared by
this office concerning Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
permit and certification requirements for the referenced project.
In response to this memorandum, a letter dated August 17, 1990
was-sent to me from Mr. David A. Stoner, Project Development
Manager.
Based on review of Mr. Stoner's letter, DEM is satisfied that
Q Westmoreland-Hadson Partners is aware of it's DEM permit
obligations. Permit issuance decisions will be made within the
near future.
Please advise if you need any additional information.
ST:ARC/kls
Webster.mem/ARC2
cc: Gisele Rankin, NCPUC
Sammy Kirby, NCPUC
David Stoner, Westmoreland-Hadson Partners
T 'zA cs"'i
Pe!_-r on Premidon Pays
P.O. Box 27687. Mel.-N North Carotru 27611-7687 Telephon- 919-733.7015

TASK II-1
PROPOSED PROJECT
TOWN OF WELDON C WELDON') AND
WESTMORELAND-HADSON PARTNERS (VBY)
MAJOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Category Permit Applicant Agency Status
Land Use Zoning WHP Weldon Zoning Ordinance Amendment formally adopted May 7, 1990.
Flue Gas WHP FAA Final Permit issued February 14, 1991, pursuant to Aeronautical Study
Stack Height No. 90-A50-2143-OE.
Air Air Quality, WHP NC DEM Final Air Permit No. 6964 issued January 24, 1991.
including PSD
Water Industrial WHP NC DEM Final Pretreatment Permit No. 257210001 issued January 11, 1991.
:'retreatment
NPDES Discharge - Weldon NC DEM FONSI issued by EPA on August 27, 1990, and Final NPDES Permit
Modification No. NC0025721 issued February 28, 1991.
Joint 401/404 Weldon NC DEM and Application filed December 7, 1990; public comment period ended
Army COE February 12, 1991; revised Environmental Assessment submitted March 26,
1991.
Non-Tidal WHP Army COE Final authorization by nationwide permit obtained February 11, 1991.
Wetlands
Solid Waste Phase I (Site) Halifax NC DWM Phase I (Site) Permit Application filed March 25, 1991.
(Ash) Phase II (Con- County
struction) - Ash
Monofill
Regulatory Qualifying WHP FERC Final QF Certificate issued July 3, 1990, pursuant to Docket
Facility No. QF 90-147-000.
Certificate
Certificate of WHP NC PUC Order granting Certificate issued September 27, 1990, pursuant to Docket
Public Convenience No. SP-77.
and Necessity
March 25, 1991 241(WP50)RDD:TA13LE-ILAP1
a
0
APPENDIX II
0
0
a

iJV R:.YAPJOAZ BiemDPdDS
Mr. E. Leo Green, P. E.
F. T. Green & Associates, P. A.
P. 0. Box 609
Wilson, NC 27893
Dear Mr. Green:
I am responding to your letter of February 6, 1991, regarding the proposed
flood-way encroachment and raw water intake structure for the Town of Weldon. It
is my understanding from your letter, that the new intake facility that is
proposed to be placed within the Roanoke River flood-way will be less of an
encroachment than the existing intake structu
my understanding that any fill placed in the re located in the river. Also, it
flood-way during construction will is
be
removed and the flood-way restored to its original condition. Based on th is
information, the City of Roanoke Rapids will be in a position to issue a permit to
Q develop within a flood hazard area at the time of the construction of th is
facility, since there will be an overall net reduction in the encroachment area.
Should you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance, please do not
hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sinc rely yours,
CBA:am
cc: Mr. Victor H. Denton, City Manager
Mr. Brad Loar, FEMA
0
Charles B. Archer, AICP
Director of Planning
I1
r'
0
February 7, 1991
0
Oi
APPENDIX III
0
0 r)
a
F.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS / PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 609 1 303 NORTH GOLOSOORO STREET I WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27893
TELEPHONE [phone]
March 11, 1991
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11413 Falls of The Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Attention: Eric Alsmyer
RE: Action I.D. 199100397
Raw Water Intake construction
Town of Weldon
Dear Mr. Alsmyer:
Enclosed for your records is a copy of the revised map
showing the new location of the proposed intake channel and
intake screens. This new layout was presented at the meeting on
March 8, 1991 and was given a favorable response by those in
attendance. I have also attached a detail of the proposed
circular wedge screen which was incorporated to resolve the fish
egg entrainment/impingement issue.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Respectfully,
F.T. GREEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
dAj ?
Lester Lowe
0
LL/raj
Enclosure
cc: Ralph Daley
0
rBENCHMARK: PAINTED CHISELED SQUARE D-059
CORNER OF BRIDGE AT EAST ENTRANCE EXISTING
TO HALIFAX PAPER & BOARD CO. EXISTING ROANOKE RAPIDS INTAKE CHANNEL
ELEV. 38.41 RAW WATER INTAKE STRUC.
1 1 PROPOSED INTAKE CHANNEL

EXIST ----
-
SUPPORT I
BENTS EXIST
l.•:.•.::.j I
2 STORY
BRICK CONC SUPPORT KC,
48
BENTS Hn 1
. I ! ......?
STRUCTURE
1
....
t I .
(BRIDGE)
- -
::
-----------
,.1 LIIit W11uL___J .'.'L1
1 GW I 1 1 L'
PP----__-_ 1 EXI
. -? WA
STING CONC.
TER WAKE
PROPOSED J :?• STU
77 . i ?, • :a
CAT WALK L'• : i PROPO CTURE
SED
\
PppR??OppP??OppS$$ID?? l:.•::.:•. INTAKE

RAW MUTER
::
•.
' `?'
j
t :::: ? SCREE
NS
?
"
\
EDGE
Coto.0 INTAKE l EDGE :..:
i
?• 6?:
PAD l STRRCTURE ?•
?
:.:._:.n
? 1 RIVER
?jY:
;?•
?
7
?
.
'
1cr PVCTOP EDGE
y 3
DRAIN \ OF 1 OF

BANK RIVER
\\
1

w
\
(NICK)
LIFAX PAPER k
HALIFAX Z
\
DOARD COMPANY \

15'-ll \
\
O
\
\
\
Z

I?'y \
• \ Q
O
?
\\ CO
NC. PAD \\
\
\
\
\ SITI= PLAN
\ SCALE 1' - 50•

CROSS-SECTION PROPOSED CHANNEL \
NO SCALE
PLAN AND PROFILE SPAN 'J' N.C.D.O.T. PROD. /1379
SCALE 1' - 30' HWY. 48 BRIDGE
gp 90

80
80

100 YR. FLOOD
70 63.1 M.S.L. 70
MAX. W.L.
60 \ TOP 65, EXIST
PROFILE 56.5
NORM. W.L. 60
PROPOSED 53.0
50 - - - - CHANNEL MIN. W.L. 50
- - -
-- 49.5
7
#10
BENT
6
?9 -_--.
p
-
1 ! lqv 4Q Dj ==== -
EXIST. CONC. PROP. INTAKE BEM #9 INV. 40.00
STURCTURE STRUCTURE PROPOSED
INTAKE SCREEN
W WATER INTAKE
F .T. GREEN AND ASSOCIATES, PA STR
ENGINEERS
N N
G TOWN OF WELDON
OR
TH
O
HALIFAX CO. NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 6, X991
DEBRIS DEFLECTOR
?- THRU SLOT VELOCITY
?- 0.5FPS05MGD
20"O WATER -
SUPPLY
2" AIR BURST
SCREEN SCOUR
PIPESET &
FLANGE
I
I
PLAN INTAKE SCREEN
SCALE 1" = 5'
48.7±
8ECT ioN THRU CHANNEL
SCALE 1 = 10'
F.T. GREEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WILSON NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 6, IM
RAW WATER INTAKE
STRUCTURE AND CHANNEL
TOWN OF WELDON
HALIFAX CO. NORTH CAROLINA
?0
e?o ? s Go
001
cn?
hc?
c
coy ccs • ,?,pl
?a? P ?ti?P
?sGG 5' ???
pccaGGS• C??
t1• c` ?ab? ,ti15 c?`?`a``?l
c?%co
cnc co Q? pcbc? 99
%k c? o E
?GG •`'' P`c` o c?
1?b`` G p?'? `n?, a???cs any ? a`
G• `Ncc %I, arc ??a c???a` -NIto
c a
Cpa???'b%%()- f P,cc
G?c?c ???oo ?? a?cc
I PC
caSts O`>a P65 of ??`c G\ ?`?``GC5
CPO
Q on of?c of J?``y Of ? G. v?'?5 ai` ` 5 • P
o v•
0

Piease type or print. Carefully describe all an- d. Describe the planned use of the project.
To provide a new rata water intake
ticipaced development activities, including construe-
land clearing, and
paving
filling
xcavation facility for Town of Weldon
,
,
,
cion, e
stormwater control. If the requested information is
-
N/A (not a
i
p
te
not relevant to your project, wr
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9 must be completed for LAND :AND WATER `.
`
-
all projects. :
CHARACTERISTICS w ,.•
'
~
1 ':APPLICANT ' - .? _'?:. _ .... . -. N/A
a. Size of entire tract
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
rlnn
of W
a. Name Tn c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
9
o.
R^v 51
Address p tional Geodetic Vertical Datum 48, to 64 MSL
City 41 _1 don State 1??'
o
491A
916
914 d. Soil types and texture(s) of tract
i
d
-
-
Zip 27890 IDay phone ts
epos
Alluvial-
X Landowner or Authorized agent e. Vegetation on tract N/A
b. Project name (if any) Raw Water
Intake Stniettire f. Man-made features now on tract -
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give Raw water pimp station
the owner's name and address. g. What is the LAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
N/A tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED Rural Other
PROJECT h. How is the tract toned by local government?
)
M-2 (Mixed Industrial
i. How are adjacent waters classified? WS - ITT
a. Street address or secondary road number
S9
Ri
k
R
48 B
i j, Has a professional archaeological survey been
ver
e
de over
oano
r
IICay. carried out for the tract? N/A
b. City, town, community, or landmark If so, by whom?
Roanoke Rapids -

c. County Halifax
in city limits or planning
Is proposed work with
d -

5 UPLAND DEVELO -}Y?
.
jurisdiction? Yes
e. Name of body of water nearest project Complete this section if the project includes any
P.oanoke River upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED, structures proposed N/A
USE. OF PROPOSED PROJECT ,
b. Number of lots or parcels
a. Describe all development activities you propose c. Density (Give the number of residential units
(for example, building a home, motel, manna, and the units per acre.) N/A
bulkhead, or pier).
Proposed raw water intake structure- d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed N/A
for Town of Weldon
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
a one acre of land, the Division of Land
If you plan to build a marina, also complete Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
and attach Form DCM-MP-2. tation control plan at least 30 days before land
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex- disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
iscing project, new work, or both?
47or c
N sedimentation and erosion control plan been
ew submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
c. Will the project be for community, private, or N/A -
commercial use? f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
Corm mity of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
Q buildings, or rooftops. N/A

.,
?'&•;AD 17ITI O NAI< INEO RIviAI•I O N
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A Copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
A check for $100 made payable to the, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard. notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and A statement bn the use of public funds. If the
f
bli
d
f
d
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 V` x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal pu
c
s, st-
iture o
un
project involves the expen
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed Environmental ental Policy Act
N
orth Carolina
description.) rl
(
.
Please note that original drawings are preferred and 9 CERTIFICATION AND PER
only high quality copies will'be accepted. Blue-line
rints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16 SION TO ENTER ON LANT3?'ti'
• -• f s•?-?i'?..
p
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Cotes of Engineers regard-
Any permit issued in response to this application
b
d
h
d
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or e
escri
e
in t
will allow only the development
location map is a part of plat requirements and it application. The project will be subject to condi-
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per, tions and restrictions contained in the permit. '
sonnet unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like. I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
may have been developed in consultation with the and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
Division of Environmental Management. such program.
a A list of the names and complete addresses of the I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
individuals have 30 days in which to submit tom- state and federal review agencies to enter on the
ments on the proposed project to the Division of aforementioned lands in connection with
Coastal Management. The applicant must advise evaluating information related to this permit ap-
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen.
of the permit application to them by
co
di plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
py
ng a
registered or certified mail. This notification is re- h day of
This is the 7
quired by G.S. 113.229(d). 19 _

Name Shauyior1, International _Corp.
}(
T?M
-
4
'
Address P.O. Box _5830 er ' agent
Authori
"o
Roanoke Rapids, N.C. 27870
Name Roanoke Rapi cis Sani tare District
Send the completed application materials to the
Address 635 Hamilton S tree .
278
70
N
h C
li Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
See the
ineers
f E
C
A
ort
na
aro
Roanoke Rapids, .
ng
orps o
rmy
and the U.S.
.
Name map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
number.
Address DCM office and addresses and phone
r
0-
3
0
Fom [Y--M-MP-2
? MARINA
? DEVELOPMENT
0
N/A
-0
Attach this form to the Application for Permits to
Develop in North Carolinas Coastal Area. Be sure
to complete all other sections of that application
which relate to this proposed project, including
upland areas, even if duplicative. All shore-based
facilities must be included in application and work
plats.
L MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Check below the type of marina proposed.
Commercial Public
Residential
b. Will the marina be open to the general public?
c. If there is residential development associated
with the marina, how many units or lots are
planned?
d. Check all of the types of service to be
provided.
Full service, including travel
lift and/or rail
Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
Dockage ("wet slips") only
Number of slips
0 Dry storage
Number of boats
Boat ramp(s)
I-1 Other (describe)
0
0
e. Check below the proposed type of siting.
Land cut and access channel
Open water with dredging for basin
and/or channel
Open water, no dredging required
Other (describe)
f. Describe the typical boats to be served (for ex-
ample, open runabout, charter boats, sail boats,
or mixed types).
g. Typical boat length
h. Maximum boat length
i. Are any floating buildings planned?
If so, describe.

+c? (??? ??TT?N ?xo[
:;%f•?`i???¦?i?++•,?ii?i?y:ai ':+;.GOK?::irvr r:Zrt.+-r.,t.
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities
which will be included in the proposed project.
Office toilets
Toilets for patrons
Number
Location
Showers
Boat holding tank pumpout
Type and location
b. Describe treatment type and location for all
sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe solid waste, fish offal, and trash
disposal.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from
boats be controlled?
e. Give the location and number of "No Sewage
Discharge" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for
containing industrial type pollutants, such as
paint, sandblasting waste, and petroleum pro-
ducts.
g. Where will residue be disposed of?
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No
Wake" signs proposed.
Note: Regulatory signs such as these require ad-
ditional approval by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission.
4
0
0
APPENDIX IV
0
0
0
Mr. Ralph D. Daley
Hadson Development Corporation
-70 unalea' 187912500 Fair Lakes Circle Suite 260
Fairfax, Virginia 22033
000K SCREEN TECNNOLOb.
20 March 1991
Subject: Water Intake Screening - Town of Weldon, North Carolina
Fish Entrainment and Impingement
Dear Mr. Daley:
The enclosed analysis is provided in response to your inquiry regarding infor-
mation on the effectiveness of Cook Intake Screens to reduce fish entrainment
and impingement at water intakes.
The analysis is a comparison of anticipated entrainment and impingement at the
existing intake pipe and what should be expected at the proposed intake sys-
tem.
The basis for the analysis is:
o Existing water supply is through an 18" diameter pipe with a withdrawal
rate of 0.5 MGD and a pump guard with 1" mesh openings on the end of the
supply pipe. Location of the intake pipe is away from the main or any
developed channel.
o Proposed water supply will be through two 30" diameter screen assem-
blies. Screen openings in the range of 2 1/2 mm. The screen openings
will be inwardly enlarging to minimize material entrapment in the open-
ing. The screen surface wire will be circumferentially wrapped produc-
ing continuous slots and a smooth screen surface. The axis of the
screen assemblies is parallel to the direction of the river flow. The
screens will be placed in a channel to increase available water depth
and increase the ambient flow past the screens. The ambient current is
in the range of 2 feet per second past the screens. And, the water
withdrawal rate will be 5.0 MGD.
In summary, studies that have been performed indicate that stripped bass egg
and larval (as well as all other species) losses due to entrainment and im-
pingement will be dramatically reduced through the use of Cook Intake Screens.
For the conditions used for this analysis it is expected that the entrainment
and impingement losses through the proposed screens will be less than through
the existing open intake pipe. If you have questions or would like additional
information please let me know. We have enclosed a copy of a partial list of
Cook Intake Screen installations for your referral.
Best Regards,
Lee Cook
Manager of Engineering
encl: Analysis, Installations
cc: Gary Broome, Heyward; Leo Green, F. T. Green Engineers
1292 Glendale-Milford Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45215 [phone] Easylink No: 62943929 FAX: [phone]
a
0
TOWN OF WELDON, NORTH CAROLINA
WATER INTAKE SCREENS
ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ANALYSIS
BASIS FOR THE ANALYSIS
EXISTING
o Water supply is through an 18" diameter pipe,
o Withdrawal rate of 0.5 MGD,
o A pump guard with I" mesh openings on the end of the supply pipe, and
o Location of the intake pipe is away from the main or any developed
channel.
PROPOSED
o Water supply will be through two 30" diameter screen assemblies,
o Screen openings in the range of 2 1/2 mm,
o The screen openings will be inwardly enlarging to minimize material
entrapment in the opening,
o The screen surface wire will be circumferentially wrapped producing
continuous slots and a smooth screen surface,
o The axis of the screen assemblies is parallel to the direction of the
river flow,
o The screens will be placed in a channel to increase available water
depth and increase the ambient flow past the screens,
o The ambient current is in the range of 2 feet per second past the
screens, and
o The water withdrawal rate will be 5.0 MGD.
ANALYSIS
EXISTING SYSTEM
For the existing system it is assumed that the entrainment and impingement of
fish eggs and larvae will correspond to the density of the eggs in the water
body. This assumption is consistent with the results of laboratory and field
studies for open pipes.
Entrainment and impingement of adult and juvenile fish will, in general, be
less than their relative abundance in the source water body. These more
mature organisms are more able to sense the changes in current direction and
actively avoid being sucked into the pipe. This avoidance ability is enhanced
O when the fish encounter a physical barrier (a screen) with low through screen
velocity.
C
r
1
0
0
PROPOSED SYSTEM
Entrainment and impingement for the conditions planned for the proposed system
has been extensively studied.1 Comparative information was assembled relating
what was expected through an open pipe to what was actually measured. The
percentages provided in this analysis reflect that comparative information.
For the conditions identified above tests were performed using preserved
Q striped bass eggs of two different mean diameters. Impingement was less than
1 percent for all egg sizes. Entrainment of eggs with a mean diameter of 2.6
mm was in the range of 5 percent and entrainment of eggs with a mean diameter
of 2.3 mm was in the range of 10 percent. The combined entrainment and im-
pingement of eggs was less than 10 percent of what would be expected through
an open pipe.
a Entrainment studies of striped bass larvae were also performed. Tests were
performed with a through screen velocity slightly higher than is proposed for
the Weldon intake. Bypass current for the test was limited to 0.5 feet per
second to allow observation of the tests. The following observations were
reported:
1. With increasing bypass current the "range of influence" of the screen
decreased. Range of Influence is the term used to define the likelihood of
O
larvae, egg or fish interaction with the screen. When the bypass current
increases the likelihood that the organism will encounter the screen in any
way decreases - the fish, eggs, and larvae are swept past the screen before
they have an opportunity to know that it exists (as they would be swept past a
log or boulder in the stream).
2. Larval striped bass can actively and effectively avoid impingement and
entrainment through shaped wire screens designed to maximum through slot
ri velocity.
3. Tests were performed by releasing the larvae within the boundary layer
along the upstream debris deflector on the test screen (on the screen center-
line upstream of the screen). This is the most severe test because it ensures
interaction between the larvae and the screen. Under these most severe condi-
tions the escape percentage for the larvae was in the range of 50 percent.
This most severe test protocol was used after it was determined that fish,
eggs, and larvae released in less severe locations upstream of the assembly
were swept past the screen by the ambient current before any larvae/screen
interactions occurred. In effect, unless the larvae was within 3 or 4 inches
of the screen centerline it would be swept past the screen by the current as
if there were no water withdrawal.
I
Summary
At a water withdrawal rate of 5 MGD shaped wire screens designed to maximum
through slot velocity can be expected to produce less egg and larvae entrain-
ment and impingement than the existing intake pipe.
1. Hanson, Brian N., STUDIES OF THREE CYLINDRICAL PROFILE-WIRE SCREENS
MOUNTED PARALLEL TO FLOW DIRECTION., Passive Intake Screen Workshop, Dec 4,5,
1979, L. E. Cook Editor
0
a
0
STUDIES OF THREE CYLINDRICAL PROFILE-WIRE SCREENS
MOUNTED PARALLEL TO FLOW DIRECTION
Brian N. Hansonl
Abstract.--Three cylindrical profile-wire screens mounted
parallel to flow direction were compared to determine relative
operating performances. Screen A, having 1-mm radial slots,
was most effective at excluding striped bass Slarvae creen and w as
most efficiently backwashed after clogging.
1-mm axial slots, was most effective in excluding preserved
striped bass eggs. The 2-mm radial slots of Screen C ode is
screen most resistant to debris fouling. Overall superiority
of one screen over another was not demonstrated, however, each
screen exhibited application potential.
INTRODUCTION
Profile-wire screen is an effective
fine-mesh screening media in terms of engineering
and biological performance. Laboratory
experiments of 12- x 24-inch cylindrical screens
mounted perpendicular to ambient flow
demonstrated high potential to exclude eggs and
larvae from cooling water intakes. Two
characteristics which detracted from the
screens' otherwise excellent performance were
the presence of an intake velocity gradient from
the proximal to distal end of the screen face
and the potential for impingement on the leading
and trailing sides. The axial flow design
eliminated these characteristics with a flow
equalizer, a reduction in the screen length to
diameter ratio, and the reorientation of the
screen axis parallel to ambient flow.
This report presents results of experiments
designed to ascertain the relative clogging
resistance, backwash efficiencies, and fish eggs
and larvae exclusion characteristics of three
screens mounted parallel to flow.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Test Facility
All experiments were conducted in a 30-
,x 15-ft oval flume (fig. 1). The aluminum and .
plywood channel was 33 inches wide and 48 inches
deep with a median circumference of 67.7 ft.
Water was pumped from a 4- x 8- x 4-ft sump by
a 5-hp horizontal turbine pump which initiated a
1Reoearch Biologist, Radiation Management
Corporation, Delmarva Ecological Lab, Middletown,
Delaware 19709.
gravity flow from the flume channel through the
test screens. Pump rate was measured with an
Envirotech Sparling water meter and controlled
by butterfly valves. Maximum sustained pump
rate was 225 gpm. Discharge reentered the flume
opposite the sump. Water depth for all tests was
35 inches (4,787 gallons).
A single 83-inch diameter paddle wheel with
six 27- x 40-inch blades was used to generate
channel currents. The wheel was driven by a
3-hp electric motor through a variable speed
hydraulic transmission coupled to a 20 : 1 right
angle gear reduction. Channel velocity was
measured with a Marsh-McBirney Model 201
electromagnetic current meter.
Air blast backwash experiments were
conducted utilizing a dual volume system. Two
9-ft, 2-inch lengths of 4-inch PVC pipe,
connected by a threaded coupling, served as a
1.6-ft3 accumulator vessel; one length yielded
0.8 ft3. A 4-inch butterfly valve released
pressurized air through a 4-ft length of 1-inch
diameter high-pressure hose to a 1- x 12-inch
diffuser pipe positioned inside the screen
cylinder 2 inches above the lower surface (fig.
2). Air exited the diffuser through two rows of
eight equidistant 1/4-inch diameter holes
positioned 135' from top dead center.
Screens and Intake Assembly
All test screens were 12-inch diameter by
12-inch long cylinders with 407. open area.
Screens A and C, 1- and 2-mm slots, respectively,
were designed with slots radial about and
perpendicular to the screen axis. Screen B was
of the axial design with 1-mm slots oriented
parrallel to the screen axis.
Q 97
3? (sAi?.??}WI's r1Lx_ , ? n?ri 1 ?• '?.:.?*?,- ,.1lh4 .
0
0

Figure 1.--Schematic diagram of test facility. A - Screen, B - Air release valve, C - 9-ft, 2-inch
accumulator vessel, D - air compressor, E - Channel, F - Sump, G - Paddle wheel, 11 - Larval fish
release point.
Test screens were mounted on a manifold
attached to the channel sump common wall during
?- testing. A 6-inch diameter by 6-inch long pipe,
welded to the manifold, served as the flow
equalizer (fig. 2). The air diffuser pipe was
located immediately below the flow equalizer.
The downstream portion of the manifold tapered
into a cone. Screens were secured to the mani-
a fold by six machine screws; the 12-inch long
nose cone was secured to screens in the same
manner.
Wire "tip" was determined for screens A
and C. Wrapping of the profile-wire about the
reinforcing rods during construction results in
a slight tilt of the wire which produces a
somewhat smoother surface in one direction along
the screen axis than the other (fig. 3). Most
tests were conducted with the smooth surface
oriented into ambient flow. Screens A and C
were tested with the tip in forward and reversed
orientation during egg impingement- and entrain-
ment tests.
0 Egg Exclusion
The capability of the test screens to
exclude fish eggs was investigated by exposure
of the functioning intake to a very high density
of preserved striped bass eggs. Two size ranges
of eggs were used. Mean diameter of the smaller
eggs (A) was 2.3 mm (range 1.3-2.7 mm); the
larger eggs (AA) were 2.6 mm in diameter with a
range of 2.2 to 3.0 mm. Tests were conducted
0
0
a
A
M
0 o B
0
a b
0
C
Figure 2.--Schematic diagram of test assembly
showing screens A, B, and C. (a - manifold;
b - flow equalizer; c - air diffuser; d =
nose cone.)
?? 7 _ \7 VL
..
Figure 3.--Schematic diagram showing tilt of wire.
(a - reinforcing rod; b - wire.)
0 98
0
0

with all three screens; both radial screens were
tested with wire tip forward and reversed to
determine possible differences in performance.
Prior to each test, 500 ml of eggs
(approximately 43,950 of the smaller and 30,174
of the larger eggs) were dispersed in the flume
at a preselected channel velocity. The intake
was operated at an average through-slot velocity
(ATSV) of 0.4 fps until the average egg passed
the, screen 20 times. After the 20th pass, a
500µ mesh Nytex screen was placed downstream of
the test screen to recover free eggs. The
intake was then stopped and impinged eggs were
freed from the screen and recovered in the same
manner. Entrained eggs were collected with a
5O0µ mesh plankton net attached to the screen
discharge. Impinged, entrained, and free eggs
were volumetrically measured and percentages of
the total calculated.
The mean percentage of the total eggs in
the flume that impinged and entrained on each
pass was determined by the formula:
EIR = (1 - n, F) (100)
where EIR - entrainment and impingement rate;
n = number of passes; and F = ratio of free to
total eggs at test end. The mean percentage of
all exposed eggs the screen impinged and
entrained per pass was calculated by the formula:
C= (EIR•Ae1)100
Where E - percentage of eggs exposed which were
entrained and impinged; EIR - entrainment and
impingement rate; and Ae = exposure area or the
percentage of cross-sectional area that the
screen and zone of influence occupied in
relation to the cross-sectional area of the flume
channel. The limit of the zone of influence was
the maximum distance from the screen surface
that an egg could occupy and be deflected to the
screen. The maximum distances were determined
to be approximately 2 inches, 1 inch, and 0.5
inch for channel velocities 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0
fps, respectively. Exposure areas were 17.4%,
13.3%, and 11.5% of the cross-sectional area of
the flume channel for the above respective
velocities.
Larval Exclusion
The radial (A) and axial (B) 1-mm slot
screens were tested to determine the extent of
protection afforded striped bass larvae. Tests
were conducted with an ATSV of 0.4 fps and a
channel velocity of 0.5 fps. Specimens were
obtained from the Elkton Striped Bass Hatchery
(Elkton, lid.) and maintained on a diet of
natural zooplankton in two aerated 20-gallon
aquaria.
Each test consisted of the individual
release of from 20 to 50 larvae 2-4 inches
upstream of the screen's leading cone (fig. 1).
Interaction with the screen and larval behavior
was observed until the specimen was swept past
the screen or entrained. Data recorded for
*each specimen included screen contact point,
entrainment and/or impingement point, number
of impingements, escape point, and general
observations. Upon completion of a test,
specimens were retrieved with a 500µ mesh
screen. Those entrained were collected by a
500µ mesh plankton net affixed to the screen
discharge pipe. A Bausch & Lomb stereo zoom
dissecting scope equipped with an ocular
micrometer was used to measure total length of
all larvae to the nearest 0.1 mm.
Debris Contamination
Each screen was tested at an ATSV of 0.4
fps in three channel velocities: 0.5, 1.0, and
2.0 fps. The debris used to clog the screens
consisted of partially decayed marsh grasses
collected from Scott Run, a tributary of the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The standard
test load was set as the concentration of debris
required to clog screen A in 30-60 min when
load,
operated in a 1-fps ambient current. This
e d
1/2 gallon of wet detritus (105 cm3/m3),
as the standard experimental load for all
subsequent tests.
All test loads were prepared simultane-
ously from a well-mixed stock to ensure
accurate comparison of the test screens. Each
load was placed in a 1-gallon jar and allowed
to settle for 2 days. Debris was then added
or removed until each jar contained 1/2 gallon
of settled solids.
r7j 99
rd M, ss ? . 1?e4.n, • 1 +'W i' t.
0% Each test proceeded in the following
-Lnanner: 1) debris was dispersed in the flume,
channel velocity was set and maintained,
the test screen was thoroughly cleaned with
a stiff brush, 4) the intake was started and
allowed to run until time-to-clog (TTC) was
allowed After completion of a test, a
afferent channel velocity was set and the
procedure was repeated. Most tests were
eplicated at least once. Data recorded during
:ach test included description of clogging
attern, head versus time, general observations,
and TTC. Tests were terminated after 4 hr unless
a clogged condition was imminent.
0 Since debris had a tendency to "fall out"
or settle at low channel velocities, compressed
air was released along the channel floor on each
end of the flume to create turbulence and
Dresuspend the debris. This system was employed
during all tests at 0.5- and 1.0-fps channel
velocities. The channel floor was also swept
aevery 15 min with a stiff-bristled push broom
during tests at 0.5 fps.
Upon completion of the full set of tests
for a particular screen, the debris was removed
from the flume. A new load of debris was added
and thoroughly dispersed. The screen was,
retested with the new debris at 1.0 fps and TTC
was compared to previous 1.0-fps results. This
transition control test was conducted each time
a new screen was to be tested to ensure accurate
comparisons between screens.
Q In addition to the above tests, screen B
was tested in a 1.0-fps current with an ATSV of
0.3 fps and 0.2 fps, and screen A was tested
a with "tip" reversed in a channel current of 1.0
fps and ATSV of 0.4 fps. No replicates of these
tests were conducted.
Air Blast Backwash
The effectiveness of pressurized air in
cleaning clogged screens was investigated on
screens A and B. Accumulator volumes of 0.8
and 1.6 ft3 (1 and 2 times the test screen
volume) were tested at air pressures of 20, 40,
and 80 psi. Debris was the same type used in
contamination tests but at twice the concentra-
tion (210 cm3/m3). All tests were conducted
in a 1.0-fps channel current and an ATSV of
0.4 fps.
Each test consisted of nine trials. The
trials denoted the type of cleaning and were
in the following order: manual, 20 psi, 40 psi,
80 psi, manual, 80 psi, 40 psi, 20 psi, and
manual. Initially, the test screen was cleaned
with a brush and operated until TTC was
determined. The intake was then stopped and
the sump allowed to refill until less than 4
inches of head remained. The pump was re-
started and at precisely a 4-inch head, a blast
of air was released within the screen. Time-to-
clog was recorded for the trial and the procedure
was repeated for a different air pressure.
Manual cleaning of the screen was consider-
ed 100% effective. Subsequent air backwashes
were compared to manual cleaning to determine
effectiveness. Effectiveness percentages were
calculated for each pressure by the formulae:
+ 4x2 + 4(x12) 100
E20 - [?4XI
(3M1+M2) 3(M2+3113) 3(3111+2M2+3M3)
2Y1 + 2Y2 + 2(yl+Y2) 100
E40 - [3(111+M2) 3(M2+M3) 3(M1+2M2+M3)
The decrease in rate of water filtered by
clogged screens was determined for each test and
0 expressed in percent transmittance. This value
is the percentage of the initial flow rate
a through the screen at any given time when the
screen appears clogged. The flormula used to
calculate percent transmittance was:
T - (1 - VsdC1h)100
where T- percent transmittance, Va - volume per
a inch of depth in the sump (19.95 gallons); d -
channel/sump differential factor (0.875); R
rate '(gpm); and h - rate of change in head
(inches/min).
n
r 4,1 + 4z2 + 4(z1?2) 100
E80 L3(M1+3M2) 3(3M2+M3) 3(M1+6M2+M3)
where 111 - TTC of first manual cleaning; M2
TTC of second manual cleaning; M3 - TTC of third
manual cleaning; xl - TTC of first backwash @
20 psi; x2 - TTC of second backwash @ 20 psi;
yl - TTC of first backwash @ 40 psi; y2 - TTC of
second backwash @ 40 psi; zl - TTC of first
backwash @ 80 psi; and z2 - TTC of second
backwash @ 80 psi.
a ? 100
Li
0
These formulae were derived to compensate
for increasing TTC in tests due to detritus
falling out of suspension.
ranged from 39.21% to 1.85% of total eggs in the
flume (Table 1). These values translate to
14.126% and 0.809% of all eggs exposed (within
screen's zone of influence) per pass. As
expected; entrainment and impingement of the
smaller egg size (A) was substantially greater
than that for the larger (AA). Combined impact
(entrainment and impingement) for A eggs ranged
from 66.00% to 2.92% of all eggs in the flume;
combined impact per pass of A eggs exposed
ranged from 30.178% to 1.28%. Overall impact
to the larger eggs (AA) was less than 1.0%,
except for the test with tip reversed in a
0.5-fps current which was 9.09%. Impact per
pass of AA eggs exposed was less than 0.4%.
Impingement was greater than entrainment in
a 0.5-fps channel velocity; entrainment was
greater in currents of 1.0 and 2.0 fps.
Overall, entrainment and impingement declined
with increased channel velocity.
In order to allow air to exit the diffuser
at the desired test pressure, the accumulator
was pressurized to values given by:
(PD + PA)(Vi + V2) arm
PG + V2
where PG a gauge pressure (psi) of accumulator;
PD = pressure at diffuser (20, 40, an 80 psi);
PA = atmospheric plus water depth pressure
(15.7 psi); VL = volume of vessel between
release valve and diffuser (0.19 ft3); V2 =
volume of accumulator vessel (0.8 and 1.6 ft3
and 1 atm = 14.7 psi. Gauge pressures
necessary to achieve the desired diffuser
pressure (PD) were:
Pn 0.8 ft3 1.6 ft3
A total 100 striped bass larvae (5.7-
10.5 mm TL) were exposed to the screen during
two tests (Table 2). Overall, 77 specimens
contacted the screen; 75.32% (58) of these
escaped. Twenty specimens were entrained.
20 psi 29 psi 25 psi The debris clogging resistance of Screen A
a 40 psi = 54 psi 48 psi was examined in eight trials (Table 3). Time-
80 psi = 104 psi 92 psi to-clog (TTC) ranged from 34.13 min to 94.93
min. Mean TTC for 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-fps
channel velocities were 38.24, 37.21, and 90.24
RESULTS min, respectively.
Screen A Effectiveness of air blast backwash was
investigated with a total of 18 tests (Table 4).
Scree n A was tested in 12 egg entrainment/ Mean efficiency ranged from 97.7% to 86.8% of
impingement experiments. Co mbined entrainment manual cleaning.
and impinge ment of both egg sizes (A and AA)
Table 1.--Entrainment and impingement of preserved striped bass eggs by test screens in three
channel velocities. ATSV was 0.4 fps.

At Sere., A
M2
Co.b.3 Screen
A A•geve
M reed
Comb. S
A- creen 8
M
Comb.
A Screen C
M
Comb. Screen
A C•Reversed
M Co.b
0.5 fps
ment (;)
I
i
42
77
0.00
18.06
43.45
6.61
79.64
I0.63
0.00
6.42
7.51
I5.63
8.49
5.98
I8.56
11.11
14
nge
mp
t (Z)
l .
67
18 0.20 IL l5 3.99 2.48, 9.70 6.73 10
0. 5.00 79.46 67.83 74.13 :0.14 69.0] 73.
n.en
Lntrs
b l
d (Z) .
00
66 0.70 ]9.21 ' 58.44 9.09 ]8.94 19.16 0.0
1 11.42 63.03 83.48 83.22 86.72 87.61 86.e3
46
ne
Com
:1 Rnre (Z)
C (7.) .
3.231
30.118 O.Ol0
0.057 2.458,
14.126 4.193
24.684 0.473
2.770 7.4]6
14.000 1.038
6.08,0 0.005
0.029 0.604
3.471 8.489
48.781 8.610
49.48) 8.538
49.069 9.468
54.414 9.915
36.963 9.6
53.477
LO fps
ment (Z)
i
70
0
0.00
0.18
0.20
0.05
0.14
0.25
0.00
0.15
0.20
0.40
0.28
0.00
0.50
0.20
Imp
nge
nt (Z)
l .
65
5 0.05 7.71 5.66 0.83 7.69 7.4t 0.20 4.41 25.75 14.20 21.05 21.35 19.00 23.95
nme
Cntrs
d (Z)
bi .
95
5 0.05 3.55 5.86 0.88 7.83 7.66 0.20 4.62 25.95 14.60 11.7) 21.75 19.50 24.15
ne
Com
LI it (Z) .
306
0 0.003 0.181 0.307 0.044 0.195 0.790 0.010 0.236 1.491 0.786 1.192 1.555 1.078 1.317
C (Z) .
701
2 0.023 t.361 2.263 0.371 1.466 2.932 0.023 1.174 11.211 5.910 8.962 11.911 6.105 10.272
.
2.0 fns
ent (Z)
I
i
05
0
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.06
0.05
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.60
0.16
ngem
mp
ent (Z)
l
: .
85
3 0.10 2.72 2.62 0.30 1.79 6.44 0.05 7.84 11.94 5.40 9.28 12.82 11.10 12.12
nm
ntre
d (Z)
bi .
90
3 0
10 1.35 2.92 0.30 1.85 6.49 0.05 7.87 12.04 5.60 9.42 17.02 11.70 12.48
ne
Com
EI Rete (1) .
0
199 .
0.005 0.119 0.148 0.015 0.093 0.373 0.003 0.197 0.679 0.188 0.49) 0.695 0.620 0.664
C (Z) .
1.730 0.043 1.035 1.281 0.130 0.809 2.913 0.026 1.117 S.557 2.304 4.281 6.043 5.391 3.114
(Smeller egg site (11 - 2.3 mm diameter). 43.950 Introduced into flume, n/m ) - 2,42 8
2LarRer egIt site (R - 2.6 s.e dl- ter). 70 ,174 Introduced Into flume, n/w3 - 1.662
]Assuming homngen enus wis ing, cstc ulsted f rom emplriesl da te, not tested, n/m2 - 2 .046
l01
101
??1(a1 ?rf 1?il Rr dtli??f qtl lil-l. r.i4N ?)_??{?y a ?i: kf???t.'a .?.

[;;Fable 2.--Results of striped bass larval entrainment tests. Channel velocity was 0.5 fps and
ATSV was 0.4 fps.
Test
Sere., A I
Serean 8 T.e
6cr.-n A t 2
Screen 0 To
screen A tal
Screen 0
n Tested SO 20 50 40 too 60
A Total Len1tA (m) 6.7 6.3 6.2 7.8 7.3 7.4
Bane. (m) 3.7.8.3 3.5.7.3 6.3-10.3 6.2.9.3 3.7.10.3 3.3-9.5
Aga (days) it it 18 16 11-18 11.16
Entrained (n) 12 to 8 to 20 28
Entrained (?) 24.00 50.00 16.00 43.00 20.00 46.67
Screen Contacts, 39 l3 38 33 77 48
Escapea (n) 28 5 30 1! 58 20
Eaeepaa (1) 71.79 33.33 MIPS .3.43 73.32 4t_.67
able 3.--Results of debris contamination
experiments. .
8J CV TIC TT3-12 IT T,
(fn.) (min) (min) (1) (1)
rev, A 0.5 39.00 22.00 96.8) 96. t7
O.S 37.48 20.48 96.59 93.96
1.0 37.98 18.98 96.32 9S.10
1.0 34.13 17.13 95.92 94.85
1.0 35.60 17.60 96.03 95.15
1.01 41.12 18.12 96.15 96.54
2.0 85.53 24.55 97.16 96.47
2,0 94.93 31.93 97.81 97.49
"' ret• 8 0.3 9).75 61.75 98.67 99.33
0.5 118.63 88.65 99.21 98.93
1.0 142.85 81.85 99.15 99.15
1.0 132.97 79.97 99,13 99.35
1.0 127
52 95
52 99.27 99.2)
?
1 2.0 - - I00.00 100.00
U 2.0 100.00 100.00
0.52 293.87 213.87 99.57 99.56
0.53 1,125.00 945.00 99.85 99.87
re.n C 0.5 - 99.80 99.94
1.0 476.38 416.58 99.8) 99.96
1,0 99.80 99.77
2.0 100.00 100.00
tlp" reversed
OJ fps
ATSV - 0.2 fps
O-L Q 102

Table 4.--TTC for each air blast backwa,ii
and associated mean efficiencies;.
_ TTC {s in)
Screen A
n?? T
'S
0.0 act 1.6 sef 0.8 act
Manual 14.87 14.63 22.40 t•.•'
20 pat 13.00 17.43 15.28
40 pet 13.78 14.70 17.55
80 pat 14.52 14.65 20.38 :r A-
wnual 15.45 15.25 26.37 '
80 pal 15.28 15.32 27.21 `
40 p.1 14.92 15.20 20.65 .• 8.
20 pet 13.78 14.93 17.12 ..
Manual 15.95 16.53 30.21 ,I rfflelence M _
Screen A S. r_._ b _
0.8 act 1.6 6 scf o.e lef
20 pal 86.8 91.3 61.6
40 pal 93.0 97.0 72.5
80 psi 96.5 97.7 82.7

a
0
Screen B terminated). Mean TTC increased with channel
velocity. A reduction in ATSV from 0.4 to 0.3
Six egg entrainment/impingement tests •? fps more than doubled TTC; a reduction to 0.2
were conducted. Combined entrainment and fps increased TTC more than 10-fold.
impingement for both egg sizes ranged from
11.42% to 3.87% of total eggs in the flume Mean efficiencies in 18 air blast backwash
(Table 1). The rate of entrainment and tests (Table 4) ranged from 61.8% (0.8 scf @
D impingement per pass of eggs within the zone 20 psi) to 82.7% (0.8 scf @ 80 psi).
of influence ranged from 3.471% to 1.713%
(fig. 4). Entrainment and impingement of the
smaller egg size (A) ranged from 19.16% in a Screen C
0.5-fps current to 6.49% in a 2.0-fps current.
Impact on AA eggs was less than 0.25% for all Screen C impinged and entrained an average
velocities. The screen entrained and impinged 49.069% of the eggs (both A and AA) within the
a maximum 6.08% of all A eggs in the zone of zone of influence per pass in a 0.5-fps current
a influence per pass. Impingements outnumbered (Table 1). This value decreased to 8.962% and
entrainments in a 0.5-fps current; at the 4.287% in currents of 1.0 and 2.0 fps, respective-
other channel velocities, impingement was ly. Values in the tip reversed configuration
negligible; entrainment was less than 5.0% of were 55.437%, 10.232%, and 5.774%. Combined
the total eggs in the flume. entrainment and impingement was essentially
C%
the same for A and AA eggs in a 0.5-fps
current. The smaller A eggs were entrained
and impinged in greater numbers than AA eggs
in currents of 1.0 and 2.0 fps. Entrainment
was substantially greater than impingement
regardless of egg size or channel velocity.
Overall, combined impingement and entrainment
of both egg sizes ranged from 86.85% to 9.42%
of total eggs in the flume (Table 1).
Only four debris contamination tests were
conducted (Table 3). The screen failed to reach
a 12-inch head in 4 hr. Time-to-clog for the
extended test was 476.58 min. Bead at time of
termination for tests in 0.5- and 1.0-fps
channel currents were 8.125 inches and 7.125
inches, respectively.
DISCUSSION
Egg Exclusion
Figure 4.--Percent entrainment and impingement
of combined eggs exposed to all screens in
three channel velocities.
During larval entrainment tests, 60
striped bass (5.5-9.5 mm TL) were exposed to
the screen (Table 2). Less than half of the
48 larvae which contacted the screen were able
to escape. Overall, 46.67% of the larvae
entrained.
A total of seven debris contamination
trials was conducted (Table 3). Time-to-clog
ranged from 93.75 min to over 4 hr (tests
The pattern of impingement was similar
for all screens but varied with channel
velocity. Impingement began on the top middle
and backside (side nearest channel-sump common
wall) areas of the screen surface (fig. 5) in
tests at 0.5-fps channel velocity. These areas
continued to impinge eggs at a higher rate than
other parts of the screen as the test progressed.
Noticeable impingement then progressed to the
middle side and middle bottom areas.of the screen
surface. As the density of eggs on this middle
band increased and restricted flow, eggs
impinged on either side of the band. Impingement
spread in both directions along the screen axis
until the entire surface was covered. At
higher channel velocities, impingement patterns
were similar except the band which formed around
0
a
103
*.1M 1.0 y. - 1.0M
?'.;?it s;crr pFrt. ji T" -
1"J 5;
0
SIDE
41

OVEMEAD

CF ;4
,. ,V?. .Ty •
,Figure S.--Progression of egg impingement over
time.
the middle in a 0.5-fps current was displaced
Q 1-2 inches downstream. Impingement on the
upper surface was not as pronounced initially,
but the backside area continued to impinge eggs
at a higher rate than other parts of the screen.
Comparison of results indicates screen B
was superior in terms of egg exclusion (fig. 6).
The low rates of entrainment and impingement
(relative to screens A and C) undoubtedly
reflect the axial slot orientation and slot width.
The 1-mm slot effectively prevented entrainment,
while the slot orientation allowed eggs which
contacted the surface to roll the length of the
screen and be washed away by the channel current.
Eggs which entrained were usually fragmented or
distorted. Impingement was due to wedging in
the slots.
The overall performance of screen A was
good and comparable to screen B at velocities
of 1.0 and 2.0 fps. However, in a current of
0.5 fps, this screen entrained and impinged
more than three times as many eggs as screen
B. The 1-mm slot effectively controlled
entrainment, but the radial slot orientation
offered a better medium for impingement at low
channel velocities than the axial slot of
screen B. Eggs which contacted the screen
surface met greater resistance and were not as
easily washed from the screen by the channel
current. lioweve'r, wedging in the slots was
less prominant on screen A and impingement
Q consisted of eggs resting on opposing wires
over a slot. It was not unusual for impinged
eggs to roll a short distance along a slot,
0
. .. .. . _.. ... ?, 5,•??(s, - 7 :: yr' ? --
perpendicular to ambient flow. Eggs which
rolled the screen length were subject to abrasion
or rupture; the potential for this damage would
be greater for eggs rolling down A-reversed.
The 2-mm slot of screen C offered little
resistance to entrainment, and it was unusual
for eggs of either size to roll down the screen
and be washed away.
Larval Exclusion
A shortage of larvae precluded extensive
investigations; however, sufficient numbers were
tested to compare screen performance.
T
Y.
f,.
Figure 6.--Percent entrainment and impingement
of combined eggs by the test screens in three
channel velocities. Subscript r denotes screen
reversed.
The ability of screen A to exclude a large
portion of the larvae exposed resulted from
the radial slot orientation. Most larvae
oriented parallel to the current (normal to the
slot) so specimens which could not actively
escape the screen's influence were aided by
the ambient current. This orientation tended
to support impinged larvae and allowed them
to slide along the screen and be carried away.
The axial slot orientation of screen B
facilitated entrainment of larvae and escapes
were restrictee to those specimens physically
able to resist the intake current.
a 104

The data may not reflect the actual
difference in the degree of protection between
screens A and B because visibility was less
than optimum during tests of screen B and only
specimens seen entering the screen were counted
as entrained. During one test, 60% of the
larvae released were discounted because it was
unknown whether they entrained or not. '11any
specimens appeared likely to entrain as they
approached the intake on-the backside of the
screen, but visibility prevented confirmation.
Entrained larvae collected at the end of the
tests always outnumbered the observed count,
but extra larvae were not included in
calculations since it was unknown whether
entrainment occurred on the initia], or
subsequent passes.
Debris Contamination
A 2.25-2.50-inch head was required to
induce a 225-gpm flow at channel velocities of
0.5 and 1.0 fps; 2.75 inches was required at
2.0 fps. These values increased only after
the screens were covered with debris and
appeared clogged. Head generally increased at
a relatively slow rate and, in most cases, a
change from 3 to 12 inches required a substantial
portion of the test (Table 5). Mean trans-
mittance (xT) of screen A was greater than 95%
of design capacity during each test; the means
for screens B and C exceeded 98%. Transmittance
at tests' termination (Te) ranged from 94.85% to
97.49% for screen A and from 98% to 100% for
screens B and C (Table 5).
Debris impingement patterns were similar
to egg impingement patterns. The backside of
all screens always impinged a greater density
of detritus than other areas. In currents of
0.5 fps, debris impinged uniformly over the
entire screen surface with the highest density-
on the middle portion. Debris built up on the
middle portion and spread evenly to each end at
a channel velocity of 1.0 fps; in currents of
2.0 fps, debris spread to the downstream end
and then to the upstream end.
Screen C was very resistant to clogging
because its 2-mm slot width allowed much of
the debris to entrain rather than impinge.
Although some debris did impinge, the amount
was insufficient to clog the screen in 4 hr.
Screen B was also resistant to clogging. Slot
orientation enhanced the washing effect of
channel current and large clumps of debris
frequently sloughed off the screen. Screen A
clogged relatively rapidly at all channel
velocities and exhibited a minimum of self
cleaning.
Table 5.--Time-to-clog (TTC), time for 3-12
inch head change (TT3-12)0 average transmittance
(PT), and transmittance at test termination (Te)
by channel velocity (CV) for debris contamina-
tion tests.
TTC (min)
Trial 1 TrIs1 2 Tr.sl 7- Trlal 4 M •o
Sereeo A 76.14
0.5 fps 39.00 ]7.46
1.0 fps 35.60 77.96 74-171 41.121 77.21
2.0 fps 65.55 94.93 90.24
Scrsso S - 106.19
0.5 fps 97.75 116.63
.
1.0 fps 132.97 127.52 :42.651 134.45
2.0 fps 240.002 240.002 - 240.00
Scrsso
0.5 C
fps 240.00
240.002 240.00
2
67 -
1.0 fps 476.5
240.00
00
240
-
2.0 fps .
240.002 - -
_ ATSy (fp-)
Screen S 0.4 0.7 7.2
1_21.- OOZ
67 1
291
0.5 fps ,
.
.
106.19
'Transition Control
2Tsrrmlnatad before 12-Inch head
lAllovad to roa until 12-loch hssd
4frolectad
Air Blast Backwash
Screen A had substantially higher mean
air blast backwash efficiencies than screen
B (fig. 7); the lowest mean efficiency for
screen A (86.8% at 20 psi and 0.8 ft 3) was higher
than the best for screen B (82.7% at 80 psi and
0.8 ft3). Screen A was effectively cleaned at
40 and 80 psi with both accumulator volumes.
The screen appeared virtually clean after an
80-psi backflush having only a few patches of
debris scattered randomly over the screen surface.
Patches were localized on the bottom and middle
side portions of the screen after a 40-psi blast.
A blast of 20 psi cleaned the top and upstream
4 inches of the screen surface and left a
patchy mat of debris on the rest of the screen.
Cleaning patterns were similar for both
accumulator volumes tested, but backflushing with
the lesser volume left higher densities of
detritus on the screens.
Backflushing of screen B left distinct
patches of debris on the screen surface regardless
of air volume or pressure. A blast at 20 psi
left a dense mat of debris on the sides and
bottom portions of the screen and patches on the
top surface. A blast of 40 psi left the screen
essentially clean on the upper portions, patchy
105
Sy>eTJ}. .; ,+,. a. 'a'r'+la-si;':??=L?• .e..4::: .Lad«si?.e.?±.?
a
4/ A
M

I N
{ 'igure 7.--Efficiency (%) of air blast backwash
for screens A and B tested with two accumulator
volumes at three pressures.
Oon the sides, and uniformly matted on the bottom.
The same pattern was present at 80 psi, but the
remaining debris was less dense.
Cleaning appeared to result from bubbles
exiting the bottom and rising up and along the
sides of the screen. This tended to loosen
debris and carry it toward the surface. This
action may account for the substantial
difference in cleaning efficiencies for screens
DA and B because debris removal is facilitated
when bubbles travel in the direction of slot
orientation.
CONCLUSIONS
Screen A performed better than screen B
in larval entrainment and air blast backwash
I-{ tests, but screen B out performed A in debris
?f clogging tests and egg entrainment and impinge-
ment tests. Screen C ranked first in clogging
resistance and last in egg exclusion.
In terms of biological savings, screen A
can be considered superior to the others. Its
larval exclusion ability outweighs its relative-
ly poor performance in egg exclusion tests
since the eggs of most fishes are much smaller
than the striped bass eggs tested and would
tend to entrain regardless of slot orientation.
i
Operating performance varied between
screens. Screen A was not as resistant to
clogging as the others, but it was easily
cleaned once clogged. Screen B resisted
clogging; however; it was more difficult to
0
clean. Importance of one characteristic over
another must be considered to evaluate relative
performance. The necessity to clean a clogged
screen may be more important than increasing
running time.
Screen C cannot be accurately compared
to the others. Its ability to exclude early
life stages of fish is probably poor, while
its long-term operating potential is probably
very good.
The test program demonstrated that each
test design had potential application, but no
single design was clearly superior to the
others. Each screen exhibited interrelated
strengths and weaknesses which could heavily
influence application as surface water intakes.
Puny of the characteristics were mutually
exclusive and optimization and maximization
of performance depends on screening objectives
and ambient conditions.
Comparison of cylindrical screens mounted
perpendicular versus parallel to ambient flow
was not investigated in the test program.
However, some generalizations can be presented
based on previous studies of the perpendicular
orientation (11anson et al. 1978). The parallel
orientation is favored for egg exclusion
because it eliminates the two primary causes
of impingement and entrainment of the
perpendicular orientation, namely, leading
side entrainment and trailing side impingement
due to eddies. The parallel orientation is
probably more effective at excluding larval
fish if the radial slot screen is incorporated.
The axial slot would probably perform no
better than the perpendicular-to-flow design
since the slots of both are parallel to
flow and subsequent larval orientation.
Comparison of clogging resistance of the two
orientations cannot be estimated with any
certainty. Backwash efficiencies of the
parrallel-to-flow design was as high as 97.7%.
Efficiency of the perpendicular-to-flow design
was as high as 100%, but the intake had to be
shut down and the screen sealed in order to
attain values this high. The best efficiency
with the intake operating was 93.9%. The
average was approximately 60-70%.
106
•'i? t?• s me: I" v? 4F` ?_°_ Aa-j ia_ may„ -
I
I
GLOSSARY
A eggs - Smaller preserved striped bass
eggs. Size range was 1.3-2.7 mm diameter.
Mean diameter was 2.3 mm.
AA eggs- Larger preserved striped bass
eggs. Size range was 2.2-3.0 mm diameter.
Mean diameter was 2.6 mm.
LITERATURE CITED
ATSV - Average through-slot velocity. Manson, B. N., W. M. Bason, B. E. Beitz, and
Calculated by division of volume per unit time K. E. Charles. 1978. Studies of Profile-Wire
by screen surface open area. Screen as Surface Water Intakes. Spec. Rept.
for Delmarva Power and Light Co. Ichthyological
Axial slot - Slot direction parallel to Associates, Inc. 178pp.
screen axis and channel flow.
Contact point - Point on screen surface
in which a larva first contacts the screen.
Entrainment - Passage of material through
the screen slot.
Escape point - Point on screen surface
in which a larva last contacts the screen.
Exclusion - Prevention of entrainment and
impingement.
Mead - Water level differential between the
channel and sump due to pressure differential
across the screen surface.
Impingement - Adherence of material to the
screen surface due to water passage through the
slot.
Radial slot - Slot direction perpendicular
to screen axis and channel flow.
Screen A - Radial slot, cylindrical screen
1 ft in length and diameter. Slot width is 1 mm;
wire width is 1.5 mm. Open area is 40% of total
surface area.
Screen B - Axial slot screen. All
measurements are the same as Screen A.
Screen C - Radial slot, cylindrical screen
1 ft in length and diameter. Slot width is 2 mm;
wire width is 3 mm. Open area is 40% of total
surface area.
Transmittance - Tile fraction of original
flow rate through a screen at any given time.
Mean transmittance (RT) is calculated for the
time between a head change of 3-12 inches.
Transmittance at test end (Te) is calculated
for the time between the final two head
measurements.
TTC - Time-to-clog. Length of time
required for head to increase to 12 inches due
to debris clogging.
Wire tip - Slight tilt of wire producing
smooth surface in one direction and rough
surface in opposite direction (fig. 4).
107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
o.
0
Cook Screen Division
Partial Intake Screen Installation List
--- --------------------------------------------------------------
National Distillers Produces Co.
Frankfort, Kentucky
Screen Diameter Slot Air T3A1 Unit Capacity Number Contact
L6" L Ilational Distillers
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marais Des Cygnes WL1dl Lfe Area
Trading Post, Kansas
Engineer: Novak and Lay.
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" .438" Yes 11.5 I]GD 2 D. Novak
913 742 7441
Cleveland Mississippi Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Cleveland, I1 Lss Lss ipp L
Engineer: Clark-D Le :z Engineers
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 UnL'= Capacity Number Contact
36" .L25 no 4. L.MGD 7 B. Henson
60L 981 1234
Raw Water Intake Screens
Danvers, Massachusetts
Engineer: Whitman and Howard
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
30" .250 yes 12.5 NGD 2 E. Chang, Proj Eng
Whitman & Howard
- - ------ ----------
Granlees Ravi Water Pump Station
Sacramento, California
Engineer: Raymond VaLl and Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" .093 yes 2.5 HGD U J. Tudeman RVA
916 929 3323
Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 1 Cook Screen
a

blest Lake Intake Facility
Danbury, Connecticut
Engineer: Flaherty-Giavara Associates, P.C.
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
42" .250 yes 7 MGD 7
E. R
rg
260
203
789
- - -----------------------
Peace River Regional Water --
Facility
a Desoto County, Florida
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
48" .250 no 22 f9GD max 3 General Devel Corp
and Port Charlotte, Fla
30" .250 no 15 f 1GD max 3 80 625 8282
ri --------------------------- - --------- --------- -----? ??-------------??
City of flew Haven
Engineer: Malcolm P irn ie, Inc
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA-1 Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" diameter screen, Everdur ;a copper based alloy)
Neuse River Raw Water Pump Station
Raleigh, North Carolina
Engineer: Olsen Associates, Inc.
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" .250 no 15 MGD 4 Olsen Associates
Roaring River Fish Screens
Solano County, California
Engineer: Scare of California
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/11 Unit Capacity Number Contact
48 --- 56"x72" flat panel framed screen assemblies 0.093" slot
304 Stainless Steel throughout
Rockport Raw Water Intake Screens
Rockport, Ma ine
Engineer: Consumers Wa'_er Company
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contac
28" . i40 no 5.2 fSGD 1 Paul Noran
207 773 6438
0 Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 2 Cook Screen

0
a
[ ton tgomery County Water Supply
Montgomery County, North Carolina
Engineer: Moore Gardner/Black and Veatch
Screen D Lameter Slot Air B/W Unit capacity [dumber Contact
42" .125 no 6 MGD 2 Max Foster

---- - 704 847 2100
-------- - --
- - ----------------- - --------
Silver Ski Resort: - -------- -
Snow Shoe, West Virginia
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/t Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" .L00 no 3.8 HGD L Southern UtLl Inc.
[lead Paper Company
Chillicothe, Ohio
Engineer: The Ranney Division
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
16" .L40 no 4.3 HGD 4
U -------------------- ---------------------- ---------------
6Leb Slater Development
Mitchell, South Dakota
Engineer: Bartlett and Wes t/Boyle Engineering
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/w Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" .25 yes 8.4 MGD 1 Ranney Div Hydro Grp
614 882 3104
Uplands Company Water Intake
Lake Austin, Texas
Engineer: Espey, Huston and Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
42" .156 yes 12 MGD 1 F. Hogan
5L2 684 1914
Calhoun Falls Water Intake
Calhoun Falls, South Carolina
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Contact
30" .187 no 2.3 [1GD 2 Southern Champ. Cnst
U Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 3 Cook Screen

River Place
a Lake Austin, Texas
Espey, Huston and Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/61 Unit Capacity Number Contact
48" .156 yes L5 MGD 1 F. Liogan
512 684 19L4
----------------------------- --- - -----------
Shuttle Pfeadow Dam
New Britton, Conn
Engineer: Flaherty-G Lavara Associates, Inc.
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" 250 yes 7 MGD 3 Ronald Haestad, Inc
203 753 9800
---------- - - -------------- - -------------- - - -----------------
C L ty of Newton
Newton, North Carolina
Engineer: Olsen Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/61 Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" .250 yes 8 HGD L Evans, Eller & Assoc
704 872 6584
Allentown, Pennsylvania
Engineer: O'Brien and Gere
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
42" .079 yes 8 MGD 8
0
Gainesboro, Tennessee
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Contact
l6" .13 yes 1150 gpm l John Park
615 377-3952
----- --------- - ---------- - ----- - ----
Palm Springs, Florida
Engineer: Reese, Macon and Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/61 Uni`. Capacity Number Contact
l6" . 125 yes 500 gpm 1 J Lm Macon
305 433-9311
--------------------- - -------- - ------------- - -------- - -------- - -
Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 4 Cook Screen
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
a
Yankton, South Dakota
Engineer: Kirkham, Michael and Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
L8" .25 no 2000 gpm 2 ClLnton Webber

-
- 402 393-5630
- --
---------------- - --------------
PHS Indian Hospital Arizona - -
---
Engineer: U.S. Public Health Service
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" .l yes 2L00 gpm 1 - John Collins

---- 602 669-2137
- - --
------- - - --
Poly-Ii L
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
L8" .125 yes L300 gpm 2 Frank Ozmun

- 7L7 348-6824
-
University of Washington
Engineer: JUB Engineers
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" L2 yes 2500 gpm 2 Doug Ensor

------
-------- 509 783-2144
------------
------------------- -------- -------
GatesvLlle, Texas
Engineer: Wallace Engineering
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
42" .2 no 4600 gpm 9 W.D. Graue
214 827-7481
Hamilton, Illinois
Engineer: Crawford, Murphy, and Tilley
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/[ 7 Unit Capacity Number Contact
l8" .25 yes 350 gpm 1 Mike H Lllyer
- --___-__309 _839-6439
_ _
TaylorsvLlle, Kentucky
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" . L4 yes 1000 gpm L United Pipe Line
Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 5 Cook Screen
a
0
Q m Lam L Co. , Kansas
Engineer: Bartlett and West
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit CapacLty Number Contac'
28° l5 yes 2.5 MGD 3 Hatt Purcell
------ 913 539-7513
-------------------- - - ------ - --------- - -- - -------- - - --
Maine Fire Pro'.:ec t Lon .
Engineer: Atlantic Gulf
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/il Unit Capacity Number Contact
2411 .125 no 1500 gpm 2 Diane Shelton
206 481-4272
tUtchell, South Dakota
Engineer: Schmucker, Paul, Nohr & Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W UnL: Capacity Number Contact
24" .L25 yes 2500 gpm 1 Greg Sheesley
605 996-7583
----------------------------------------------------------------
MorLson, Tennessee
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" .08 yes L.5'MGD L John Park
6L5 377-3957
--------------------------------------------------------
Horton, m Lss Lss Lpp L
Engineer: CnS-Clark Dietz
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 UnL- Capacity Number Contact
30" .L25 no 4000 gpm 6 Jim Bowden
205 432 266L
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newport, P.hode Island
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/LI Unit Capacity Number Contact
30" .25 no 7 11GD l Manuel Botelle

-------- 40L 847-4621
------------
------------------------------
tlorwood, North Carolina --------------
Engineer: Moore Gardner Black and Veatch
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Contact
30" L9 yes 4200 gpm 1 John Garland
704 479-72L1
0 Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 6 Cook Screen

0
0
a
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
Olive Hill, Ohio
Screen Diameter Slot Air IIA7 Unit Capacity Number Contact
20" .125 yes 900 gpm 2 Gary Lensch
513-667-5721
---- ----- -------- - ------- ----
Crittenden, Livingston Ky
Screen Diameter Sloc Air BA1 UnLc Capacity Number Contact
L8" . L25 yes 350 gpm 2 E. B. White

--- - ----
- - - - 502 443-2444
- ------------
--------- - -- - ---- - -----
Ef f Ingham, Ill Lno is
Engineer: Crawford, Murphy, and Tilley
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/11 Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" .375 yes 3300 gpm L Mautz and Oren

-- - - ------
- ------ 217 342-2111
---------- - - -------- ------ - --
Colorado Springs Park, Cc
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
L2" .125 yes 365 gpm L Sue Johnson

-
----
-------- 303 520-6375
-- --------
------------------- ---------- ------
-
Cherokee Co. Georgia
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA7 Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" . L5 yes 4 11GD 3 Welker and Assoc.

- ---------- - - - - ---
- --------
----- - --------
- - ----- 402 422-1902
- - ------
Brick Twsp, 11. J.
Screen DLamecer Slot Air B/6] Unit Capacity Number Contact
30" .125 yes 6 MGD 1 James Daley
20L 458-7000
- -------------------- - ------------- ------------------------------
Calhoun Falls, N.C.
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit CapacLty Number Contact
30 .187 no 1600 gpm 2 Southern Champ. Const
Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 7 Cook Screen
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
fl
Chief Joseph Dam
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
36" .06 22 U.S. Bureau of Recl
over-wrap screens to expand capacity of units by others
Paint Creek Raw Water
Engineer: Eugene L. O'Brien
Screen Diameter Slot Air B/W Unit Capacity Number Contact
18 .13 yes 1600 gpm 1 Eugene O'Brien
812 273-4360
-------- - --------- - -- --- -
-----------------
Albemarle, N.C -----
Engineer: HDR
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Contac':
48" 3n4m system 4514 2 Triplex Construct ion

- -------
--------- 704 882-6033
- - ---------- --
- -------------------- ----- - - - -----
East Yolo, Calif
Engineer: Clendennan Engineers
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
40" .093 yes 7818 3 Hoffman Construction

---- - -
-- - ----- 503 221-881L
- --
-------------- ----- - ---- - - - - -----
Fitzgerald Creek, Ga
Engineer: Welker and Associates
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" .125 yes 1000 l Southern Champ Const-
404 455-4016
------------------------------------------
r1ooref Leld W. Va.
Engineer: W M Lam Pallav Lc Ln L
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI UnL'-. Capacity Number Contact
L8" . L6 yes L600 2 Weld Lng, Inc.
304 346-0763
----------------------
Partial Intake Screen Installation List Page 8 Coot. Screen

a
i:obe Development Proje ct
Engineer: Tipton and Kalmbach
Screen DLameter Slog: Air BAI Unit Capacity Nluiber Contact
0 2811 .25 yes 3590 2 TIC, Inc.

----------
----------
---------------
-------- 303 241-L9L6
-------------------
a ------------
Martin Processing
Engineer: Martin Processing
r7v
Screen Diameter Slot
Air BAI
Unit Capacity
Number
L
Contact
P
i
ti
M
30" << yes 3280 rocess
ng
ar
n
703 629-L71L
O ---------------------- ---------- --------------- ------- ---------------

p MerLdan, Connecticut
Flaherty*GLavara
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Cont-act
2711 .375 yes L944 L SLdeco
0 203 272-0644
0 -------- `--------- ---- ----- --------------- -------- ------------------
Newburyport, Massachusetts
M. Anthony Lally Associates
'
Screen Diameter Slot Air BAI -- Capacity
Uni Number Contact
24" .375 yes 2921 2 Puma Corp.
Q --603 382-7172
-
Pine 1IL11 Lake, t4.Y.
Q State of New York
Screen Diameter Slot Air BA1 Unit Capacity Number Contact-
24" .093 yes 2500 2 Clark Co..

---------------------
----------
----------------
-------- 607 746-2727
-------------------
Red Lion, Pa.
C. S. Davidson
Q Screen Diameter Slot ALr BAI Unit Capacity Number Contact
24" .120 yes 2506 l Conewago Contr.
717 632-7722
-------------------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ----------------------
a
Partial Intake Screen Installat ion Lis: Page 9 Cook Screen
Q
Robinson TWsp, Pa.
NIRA
Screen D Lame ter Slot Air B/I1 Un L t Capac L::y Number Con `_ac':
24" . L30 yes 2638 2 Kran Lck Mech Contr
4L2 824-L200
Par:.Lal Intake Screen Installation List Page LO Cook Screen
0
0
APPENDIX V
0
0
0
0
a?? 1
0
1
J
?G
?v
O?

o a

J U G o
'. Q

Op
lQ?
Q
2-
Q
Q
5
Q
50
j?
Q5

?S
'VA
/y/ 1//?S' 021J
1Q V
Q
00 ?
a1
O Q

a?5
?Q
mlrp/
?O
0
J
Q
0z
W
Lli
Q.
Cf)
z
0
a
cf)
CL
O
-N
C
0
APPENDIX VI
0
c
If Ao
?e
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
AUG 2 7 1990 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
n
FINDING OF 230 SI1P'ICANT L'?A.C'r
4proval of the Ann-x4od Weldon Port±on
otf he Roanoke }rapids 201 Facilities Plan
Welckm, North carviiu
The National Eve urmental Polio"., Act requires FLdera1 acenc'?os to
cete!.-nir;e w .et.' er a prc;cx)se i maier agenc,? act-'or, will significantly
affect. rile envirc'-rm::t. Cne suclj major action, defined by SeCt?cn
sli (c) (1) of thu Clear. Water Act, is I;DA approval of a facilities Flap
pr°pa-"ed pursuant to Section 201 of that Act. In mkina this
detez-m.naticn, EPA assumes that all facilities and actions recam-ended
by tr,e plan will be i -ple-nerted, whether or not %P:, yrants are issued
to fund construction of any facilities. If our analysis concludes tzt
i,-z-plerrarting the plan will not significantly affect the enviromrnt,
1-21A issues a Findinc of No Significant InFact WNSI).
A Neoative Declaration (presently referred to as a FNSI) was issued
Az:ri? 29, 1981 to uncrade and expand Roanoke Rapids' wastewater
treatment facilit'_e5. A FNS! was approved August 30, 1988 for the
construction of a t_reatiy--rlt plat:t to serve the Torn of I'.Cilira;x. A
project was approved August 9, 1988 for Weldon to construct a 0.6 mccl
oxidation ditch. Iddit_onal capacity is now requirod at the Weldon's
treatment facility. This FZ;SI precedes approval of the Weldon portion
of the Roanoke Rapids 201 Facilities Plan (partially funded under EPA
grant C370449-01).
Attached is an Evirormnntal Assessment containing detailed information
supporting this action in the following sections: A) Proposed Facili-
ties and Actions, Grant Status; P) Existing Envirxxvrent; C) Existing
Wastewater Facilities; D) Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions; F)
Altemati.ves Analysis; F) Environmental Consequences, P-itigative
Peasures; G) Public Participation, Sources Consulted.
rlm?
imi
J
a

Carmy-,nts supporti ncj or disagreeing with this proposed F.PA action
received within 30 days of the date of this FNS1 will be evaluated
before we proceed. If you wish to ccnment, phono [phone] or
write:
Exnesto Perez, P.E., Chief
Technology Support Unit
Municipal Facilities sranch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Cou.rtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365-2401
Sincerely yours,
Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator

0
0

SIR TAL • ?_ 2,ffz `

A. Proposed Facilities and Actions, Grant Status
0
Figure 1 shows the planning area, Figure 2 identifies the location of
the proposed facilities, and Figure 3 is a schematic of the proposed
treatment plant.
Treatment Facilities. Me Town of Weldon is currently constructing a
0.6 mad oxidation itch, and will expand the plant to handle an
additional 0.4 mgd.. The additional capacity is required to treat
wastewater from a cogeneration facility to be operated by Westmoreland
Energy. Effluent from the cogeneration facility will be artpatible
with Weldon's wastewater, and Westmoreland Energy is responsible for
constructing all facilities necessary to convey the effluent to
Weldon's sewer system. The expansion will rcquire the construction of
an aeration basin, a secot4ary clarifier, a chlorine contact chamber
dechlorination equiRnant, and a lift station. An existing clarifier
will be converted to a digester. Sludge will be transported and land
applied by a private contractor.
Grant Status: The proposed facilities are included in the scope
of EPA grant C370625-01. The total cast is $1,307,258, with
$1,085,251 being grant eligible for 55 percent EPA participation.
EPA's share is $596,888, and the local share is $710,370. Zhe
reserve capacity cost ratio is 1.00. Westmoreltuxi Energy will pay
all debt service and operation and maintenance costs associated
with the proposed 0.4 mgd treatment plant expansion.
13. Exietinq Environment
s arc generally sand and clay, and they range frcrn well drained
to poorly drained.
Tb ra ± and Soils. The eke Rapids planning area covers a
portion o NOrrh)i ptcn and Halifax Counties. The Town of Weldon is
located in Halifax County, The topography of the Weldon area is flat.
The mil
Surface Water. The Roanoke Rapids planning area lies in the Pbanoke
RRvur bas lei, +and the Tdwm of Weldon is located in sub-basin 08. Ttye
Roanoke River is listed as being chemically/physically impaired duu to
sediment, bacteria, and toxic problerm. T1e irmpairment can be
attributed to non-point and point sources. The effluent being
discharged frorn Wieldon's treatmdnt plant contributes to the degradation
of the Roanoke River.
Water LuMly, 711C Town of Weldon receives it.9 potable water from the
Ibanoke River. Both quality and quantity are adequate for future needs.
0
0

Additional Envixorzental Parameters. All significant environmental
par5etc3rs to irr{aart y the proposed project are discussed in
Section F (Environmental Cunsc uencas, Mitigative Measures) .
C. Existing Waatuwdtc3r Facilities
The Town of W--ldon currently operates a 0.5 mgd trickling filter
truatment plant which was constructed in 1960. The plant is presently
being upgraded and expanded to treat 0.6 mgd. The effluent is
discharged into the ftoarx>ke River, ar4 the discharge point will remain
the same for both the current 0.6 mgd expansion and the proposed 0.4
mgd improvements. Effluent limits for the existing 0.5 mgd and the
upgraded 0.6 mad plant are DOD, -30 mg/l and T5S-30mg/l. The
additional 0.4 mgd will increase the total flow to 1.0 mgd and a more
stringent limit of DODO -?, 18 mg/l will be required. All residents
within the Town of Weldon are served by the central collection and
treatment system. Infiltration and inflow is non-excessive.
D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions
The existing 0.5 mgd treatment plant is hydraulically and organically
overloaded. Vie plant has an existing flow of 0.591 mgd, and
consistently violates the BOD5 and TSS interim and final effluent
limits. The facility is being upgraded and expanded to a 0.6 rrgd
plant, and Westmoreland Energy has requested 0.4 mgd additional
capacity in the town's collection and treatment system. Therefore, the
proposed project is necessary to treat the wastewater and to protect
water quality in the Boanoke River.
E. Alternatives Analvsis

Weldon's wastewater treatment plant was being upgraded and expin ad at
the time Wastmoreland Energy expressed a dusire to add 0.4 mgd to the
system. This request limited the number of viable alternatives wtLich
could be considered and they are:
1. No-Action. Weldon's treatment plant is being upgraded and
expa: , t capacity was not planned for the 0.4 myd for
Westmoreland Energy. No action would result in adding another
discharge point to the already degraded Poanoke River.
-2-
? 01

2. A New Treatnr_tlt Plant. This alternative would require a new
treatment plant to be constructed at the irxiustrial plant site,
and the effluent would be discharged into the Roanoke River. It
is not the most cost-effective alternative nor the Trost
environmentally sound approach.
3. rxi_ the Weldon Plant. This alternative would require that
the Town of Weldon expand the 0:6 mgd facility, which is currently
under construction, to 1.0 m?d. Westmoreland Energy will be
responsible for financing the transport of its wastewater to the
town's collection system. This alternative would not result in
another effluent discharge point to the Roanoke Rivur. It is the
mist cost--effective and e.rtvironmexrtally sound alternative
Q (selected alternative).
F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigative Measures
The Weldon treatment plant is located on a 4.82-acre tract of land, and
the proposed improvements will be located parallel to the facilities
presently under construction. All proposed facilities will be located
in previously disturbed areas. Construction activities will cause
limited and tenporary environrmrntal inpauts. &tclbrentation problems
will be minimized by adhering to a sedimentation and erosion control
plan. The treatment facilities will be located in the 100-year
floodplain. All appropriate facilities will be floodpruufed or
constructed above the 100-year floodplain elevation. It has been
determined to be rrore cost effective to utilize the existing site than
to locate the treatment plant at a site that is not in the 100-year
floodplain. The existing site has been previously disturbed, and there
should be no significant adverse inpact to the natural and beneficial
values of the floodplain. The Departmnt of Cultural Resources has
determined that no cultural resources will be impacted by the selected
alternative. The Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Parks and
Recreation has expressed :rare concerns about the inpact the project
will have an the Atlantic; elktoe, the tidewater mucket, and other
freshwater imssels. Specific ooncerns expressed were poisoning by
chlorine, discharge of heavy petals, and suffocation by siltation.
The additional expansion will require more atrutgexrt effluent limits,
and this should help protect freshwater musaels. 11he Division of Land
Resources will approve a sedimentation and erosion control plan which
will reduce siltation to protect the mussel population. Dechlorination
equipment will be installed to assure that toxic Javetls of chlorine are
not discharged into the Roanoke rUver. Wastewater fran the
cogeneration facility will be similar in strength attd characteristics
to domestic flows. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated
that the rermval of pine or pine-hardwood habitat might impact the
I
-3-
0
0

(11"'
er4angarnd red-oockaded woodpeckers. ire wastewater tzeatmant. plant
expansion will take place in previously cleared areas. A biological
assessment of the force main route will be conducted fran the
a cogeneration facility to Weldon's collection system. The survey will
be performed to determitxi if the appropriate habitat is available for
the red-cockaded woodpecker, IAcal aryl state permits will be required
to construct the cogeneration plant, and the project should be
constructed in an environmentally sound = ner. .
G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
Q A public hearing was held July 23, 1990 on the Weldon portion of the
RDanoke Rapids 201 Facilities Plan. The heariny covered the need to
increase capacity at the Weldon plant, the proposed alternatives for
Q solving the problgn, and the costs to irrpl:em it the selected plan. No
opposition to the proposed project has been expressed. Westnoreland
Energy will pay all operation and maintenance costs ati.,=iated with the
proposed expansion. The average user will pay approxirmtely $11.83 pe.r
=nth for sewer service, and the proposed project will not increase the
user charges.
a The proposed project is in c=pliance with the State's Air Quality
Inplerrentation Plan and the Statewide Water Quality Management Plan.
Sources consulted about this project for information or concurrence
includedi
D
a. Town of Weldon
b. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
-Ehvirorrrental Health
-Wildlife Reaourcos Ccnmission
-Parka and Recreation
-(mutter Section
-Air Quality Section
c. North Carolina bepartmelst of Cultural R,usources
d. North Carolina State Clearinghouse
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
f. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviw
g. Region L Council of Govemmnts
-4-
0

H. Special Conditions:
As a special condition to any grant offer, thb grantee will be
required to implement the following actions:
1. Pretreatment program which includes the Pretreatment
Standards for New Source (PSNS) co-generators in accordance
with federal and State of North Carolina regulations.
2. The grantee, upon accepting any grant, agrees that upon
completion of this project period the existing needs from
the committed industrial user will be treated at this
facility in accordance with 40 CRF Par 35.2123(c). Failure
to do so will result in any expenditure of Federal funds
being ruled ineligible.
3. Prior to contract award, under any EPA grant, the applicant
shall:
a. Conduct a
Woodpecker
wastewater
site. Any
mitigative
Department
approval.
habitat survey for the Red-Cockaded
within the area of influence of the proposed
transport system and co-generator facility
such purvey plans, reports and necessary
measures shall be coordinated with the
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife service for
b. Execute a legal and binding agreement contract with the
user (co-generator) to ensure the commitments for
financial, pretreatment, capacity, existing needs and
other areas of responsibilities.

Amended Wldon Partion of the Roanoke PzPids
201 Facilities Plan
1 ct Mitigative meam=s
Construction Activities A sedimentation and erosion
control plan will bf: inplenr_nted
to minimize siltation problems
in the Roanoke River.
Floodplain Construction Appropriate facilities will be
floodproofed for protection and
any unneccassary land disturbing
activities will be avoided.
Aquatic Species Dechlorimtion equipment will be
required to protect freshwater
mussels
Discharge of Heavy Metals
Pretreatment Standards for New Source
(PSNS) co-generators will be required

tl

0.4 MGO
AERATION
BASIN
ea -+- . --------------- --- 1
PROPOSED 0.4 MGO 1 I
' CLARFEA
1 ? _ ?s I 1
EXISTING CLARFER Ne ' \ 1
TO BE CONVERTED
---??
TO DIGESTER
0.6 MGD
0.6 MGD CLARFER \\ I 1 1 AERATION
UAbZi
r-i
?7 `_-? I N1 L1
_ - 1
I L__ J ( EXISTING TRICKLING L-1 J
FILTER \\ I /
t MAIN PU11P STATION \ \ \\ fl ACCESS R AD
EXISTING SPIRAGESTER ' I \\\ I
1 I \` \ rt
:::1111 \ \
I NOTE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV. 55.0 J ,
F. g-irc 3
SCHEMATIC
TOWN OF WELDON
y _?? ?....? _?? r ...? -?? F ? _?? F y -?? f ?? -ice r..y
CHLORNATION FACILITIES
t SAND DRYING BEDS
I
E -------------
1
I , --------------? I
I I I I I
1 I I I I
L t I I
i -? ---------------I--J
LEGEND
E EXISTING FACILITIES
SCALE, I' - 60• UNITS BEING CONSTRUCTED 'PER 0.6 UGD EXPANSION ICURRENTI
VfLDOrrLI ® UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF. MODIFIED PER 0.4 MGD EXPANSION (PROPOSED)
WWTP
x , R
\ \ ` 1
SLUDGE ffOCOeJG
???©ASIN
- \ cam( l' O_`__ ?f ?' ?' l l :r \-f. ( '1 `f • ^`•, h'
%
jo.
V y ` ? 1, iii I
?l ` I I.. 1 7 t .
y gavel jj )• ???.` \r,\?. 1 •\ ?I .!9 i l/?_ - .-
C )p
'? t ?, Y ,OlsDoss, ?o" I• --?`\?` Z F??I'`?N \\\\` , r ?\ '?\ /r `•.
Q 1 `\ O?./•J , 'It'' lam' OVeldop,) '?`' ?1 t/? ?• •I? i ! ?.? ? , ?'1
,1.•• 1 ?) / ?' it •y` x)01 ??-' $tla
'h I?: rii •'? '__ .?/--.';.1• ? ,t?o 1^ 11 ?? _ ••
Go'i
coulst
( 16x1 ,.Its •" 'l tail :i ? '`• I'. ? ,' :, ' ? ' ;•? ,?
?, ??' ? ? _ . I _,?•F? :???.%• ", ? .... ,?' /,, ? TREATMENT
`'SITE
PLANT
r; D.
\\ Radio t lil. ' •? ?,.? r ?? -•• i !? i 1 • ail'' r6; ?^, ?' a wdt ••
Weldo;
s l r Seh
50
.14
.' ?I ,, 11 •,, .,' ;,. •e ?•, 111 ?\? \\ \ ?`, ??.'.
,) - Ica '• •?` :- .II•,?:1: 'de,
ure
TOWN OF WELD
V
( .I'i1, •. , ', ilk I ,
• '- ?= ? ?•' ` ?• r? ?? ? ? ?? . ?>?? ' •
Toff ENT
THEA
i, FACILITIES
till
IeP-
c 1.
201

0 / / /
'-l ILr,.
\ Iaaa
1
:IAIIFAX
COUNTY
- ( AIRPCR'
1
I \r
01

G:,5tCN ? l
_ RC?;NCIt? = G"R SBURG
;itAPICS .?::\ r k
-- 1N E?'JC f?? ?'? NCp?N4 ?a
O
J -
i
v.• C//
Figure 1 4 r ??
201 FACILITIES PLAN
i NING AAEa. HAl!FJX
® BCUMir" DELINEATION
I
SEALS : 111 - 2 MIL_IES
1
t
i
D I -

APPENDIX VII
at
EiJ
F
a
o w >-
acs
z n.
w in
W J W
Q cn
V.. > M
a OwCC
zYU3
O
O0
acc
a
}i

m m 0 In
O
(O
N
-f
N -
O
O -
"f
O -
m
- -
O
O -
-
n -
V
0 -
M
0 -
In
m -
O
(D - -
co
O - -
N
M
O) Y
? .- O N .- n ^ CO C) C') N - N
C
C) m O O O O n m In LO M (D N CO
Co C LL
> Q O > U
cc

3
m
y .. o
O r-
It
!
t
?f
?f
Co
CO
Q)
M
CO
(D
In
to
co
` O C C
O O O O O O O O O O O a7
© o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 O O

m

E
o
F
-
N
C
p
N
n
n
cc)
n
rn
O
co
c)
-
rn
co
n
O
O a (D In (D n CO O O m O N (D V - N M
U N N N N N N M N N N N N N M
m
v g
O M M co M M In to n n (O In v •a •?
Q, y o` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
O
M
= v> O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
>?
m

m E
Y 7
C p N n n cO r, Im O co M .- M CO N O
c (J m CO O O N c? N N rn n (p
(fl O
OU - N N N N N N N .- N N
C:
M _ 30
m O?
`
O ?
O .-
O ?-•
O +-
O N
O N
O N
O N
O N
O N
O .-
O •--
O M
O
m
v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C >

E
c ? ? n r? r? n n n n n n n ? t? t?
O 0 6 's 6 6 0 0 6 6 6 0 6 O O
U
O
C) « >
cr- N
-t,

C) M N O O r- M M N N O O n

t r- . E
M
M C7 V V V V V V V M M V n
U O U
N,. C.S
C o

R m
3 ?
r-
cc:
co
m p
.r- p o
O to
M (D
O CO co
N N
V co
V O
Q In
M .
N co
O In
CO co
N O
O
-t c) q - T v v v v v .1 m v LO
O

m
?
O m ¢ U
> ? n C)i o E E m
C

L =
?".
C
~

m
>

m
U 7

C N

a
lt
? cl
Q
Q
fn C.)
0 0
z C)
p
C)
c0
U
N_
cli
LL
C
a
CD
E E
m O
> v
(q _m
co
f U
c I=-
0 O
U E
m
O 'o
a` m ro 21
L Ib
m E ? ?
??
c 0 co
o N
a In
O 0 tD
CC ca rn
C
0 C:
co O
.0 "D T
0U vm n
m
E y
0
3 " E °C
m m o
O) ? Y
N CO m O
C
m U 0
O
(b ? L C=
U
t7 Z >
o? o m
vo
>
c c m c
0 0 C;
m
Q) n.
v° CO O :3
a? 3 m MC co:
C) ? O m
E n OC
o ° E
o 7
m N O 70
3 N p Cu
co v E
L co O
t N E
T7 O x
30 3a.- E
U U' d O U
00 °i io ` o
N O a N> a
O
O O)
•y •N t o) - - d
.N O O _.
> v 03 m >
0
>>0ECC
E c c
E°Ern?
E Ecc E °'>NOc
E
0 0 0 0?>.?O d
E E •t= E 2E L -a E
N tN y m p w 0
«?• QC ¢zi co
0 E7 ? N M V lo-
Z

,r,rro
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Jaynes G. Martin, Govemor March 22, 1991 George I Everett, PhD.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Dorney ;?;Zp'-T1\ J
RE: Questions raised during March 8 meeting regarding Town of
Weldon intake application
The following questions were raised by State and Federal
agency personnel during the March 8 meeting. I will also send
the questions to Ralph Daley and Leo Green, consultants for West-
moreland/Hadson and the Town, respectively. These will serve as
questions for you to raise for the E.A. as well as 401 questions
with an attempt to coordinate your and my review responsibili-
ties. Some of these questions were at least partially answered
at the meeting but are included here for completeness. I would
expect that the Town or Westmoreland/Hadson could quickly answer
these previously addressed questions.
I. Wildlife/aquatic life:
1. What measures will be taken to reduce entrain-
ment/entrapment especially of striped bass eggs and larvae?
2. How effective will these measures be considering what is
Cs4v?
known about the vertical and horizontal (across the river) dis-
tribution of eggs and larvae? 3. What databases or sources were used to determine the OP f?11)1
amount of striped bass reproduction at and above the water
intake? How much reproduction is present at or above the intake
location?
II. Water Quantity
1. Westmoreland/Hadson has presented data indicating that
they will consume from 0.03 to 0.47% (worst case - maximum with-
drawal.at 7Q10) of the river flow. What effect is the removal
likely.to have on striped bass and other aquatic life especially
since'.,aquatic life tends to be more stressed at low flow?
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Guolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

2. What would be the cumulative impact of Weldon's with-
drawal and other planned cogeneration plants along the river on
aquatic life and river flow?
3. How will the enlarged withdrawal effect the Roanoke Rap-
ids Sanitary District's withdrawal? Please address impacts at
minimum, normal and high river flows.
III. Water Quality
1. What effect will the withdrawal have on downstream
assimilative capacity especially for BOD?
struction or operat
Sanitary District's
IV. Other Question
1. Has the Division of Coastal Management been contacted
regarding the need for
is state consistency required?
2. Has DOT been contacted regarding any concerns about
bridge impacts from
3. Why must th
Sanitary District's channel rather
chan-
nel?
For your information, DEM (Karl Shaffer) will inspect the
2. How can you
waterline alignment
will be needed. If
DEM will need to do
also review the 0.4!
plant.
assure that sediment impacts (during con-
ion) will not occur at the Roanoke Rapids
intake?
s
a state consistency determination? If so,
blasting?
e proposed channel tie into the Roanoke Rapids
than go into the river for wetland impacts. A 401 Certification
an individual 401 Certification is needed,
a Public Notice for that purpose. We will
3 acres of wetland fill for the cogeneration
. Please contact me if you need any elaboration on these ques-
tions.
cc. Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Hadson Partners
Leo Green, F.T. Green and Associates
John Wray, Water Resources
Linda Sewell, Environmental Health
Karl Shaffer, DEM
Tim Nifong, Attorney General's Office
Wilson Laney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Gantt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Weldon.lt,r/D-3

5 ,
r.
............... ..??%................. -
----------------------------------
I MOM
1
INTRODUCTION
WHY A GUIDE?

GLOSSARY
AIR BURST SAN SCOUR (ABSS) - Mechanism for
screen cleaning involving release of air through the air
burst screen scour pipeset in the screen. The air is released
Prior to this guide no academic text nor manufacturer's condensed guide existed for the application of cylindrical intake through the screen, expands and rises, sweeping over the
screens. This guide is for the use of ft engineer in selecting and designing cylindrical, passive surface watefintdke'.' screen to carry away debris.
screens for their water projects. AIR BURST SCREEN SCOUR PIPESET - The pipe and
' associated connection positioned in the screen to create
Cook Screen has been designing and producing water screen products since 1879. As the patented inventor of the* effective air release for air burst screen scour cleaning.
continuous wedge wire product, our capabilities include the ability to manufacture the-largest unspliced screen in the BIOFOULING - Growth and accumulation of organisms
world. that are physically attached to the screen (as opposed to
debris which might accumulate on the screen without
We are committed to providing high quality products, prompt and efficient delivery, and full supportto ourcustomersand physical attachment).
their engineers. This guide is one example of that commitment. BUBBLER TUBE SYSTEM A tech i f wale I I
- n que or r eve
(pressure) measurement involving air flow bubbling
GUIDE SCOPE through a tube connected to a pressure transducer. The
. term is also used to describe systems that employ twin
Using the Cook Screen Engineers' Guide you ".n be introduced to the major considerations of, •? tubes connected to a differential pressure transducer,
?
F •
BULK HEAD DESIGN -As it relates to intake screening this
• screen capacity and sizing, ; term reflects design of a screen to be mounted on a wall or
• screen construction, geometry, and configuration, other partition. In general, this type of design is used when
ease of access and removal of the screen is desired.
• optimal screen location within the water source, COOK AIR BUR!* SCREEN SCOUR SYSTEM - Afactory
• debris handling and screen cleaning, and assembled and factory tested, base plate mounted unit
• factors such as ice, debris, environmental regulations, and biological growth. consisting of compressor, receiver tank, control panel,
and valves. Available from Cook Screen in manual and
The Engineers' Guide will not completely answer these questions. It will raise the major issues to help ensure the best automatic models.
possible design for your customers and ours. DESIGN WATER LEVEL - The water level selected by the
engineer to be used in determination of the screen size
and location.
ENTRAINMENT - The passage of water bome materials
' including aquatic life forms through the screen and into
the intake system.
' HIGH WATER LEVEL (HWL) -- The water depth at the
intake site during periods of high flow conditions,
;# commonly the 100 year flood level.
• • HYDROSTATIC COLLAPSE STRENGTH - The pressure
dgerence that the screen is designed to withstand
used In pounds per square foot, pounds per square
inch or feet of water.
JMPINGEMENT The trapping of water home materials
including aquatic life forms on the screen surface.
Jr
INFILTRATION GALLERY - A horizontal underground
WWuh of porous material or with openings for collecting
percolating water. Often placed underneath a river bed or
s parallel to the river. After placement of the collector the '

.a-
trench is baddfilled with either native aggregate or a
specially sized filter pack.
INTERFACE DETAIL - Adrawing or sketch which identifies
the location and type of connection employed for
installation.
LOW WATER LEVEL (LWL) - The water depth at the intake
site during low flow or drought conditions.
MARINE ENVIRONMENT - A water source with significant
salt concerrir"an and the organisms characteristic of sea
water envimr,0*nts.
PASSIVE INTAKE SCREENING - A technique of screening
invohring.design to low maximum through slot velocity
and posr'hWng of the screen in the water body so as to
eliminate impingement, debris accumulation, and the
need for debris handling.
PROFILE WIRE - The generic term for screens constructed
of specially shaped wire which is generally triangular in
shape.
SLOT $IZE - The dear opening space between adjacent
profile wires.
STAINLESS STEEL-' An iron based alloy with chromium as
the principal alloying element. Most common for use in
screen construction are austenitic stainless steels whose
principal alloying elements are chromium and nickel.
Alloy is corrosion resistant in most environments.
STREAM VELOCITY - The velocity of flow in the water
body. In rivers it is the velocity of the river flow passing the
intake location. In lal t:+ a velocity of storm driven
wave currents at the•?inl?cration.
VELOCITY, APPROACH -The velocity component normal
to the screen immediately ahead of the screw Lace.
VELOCITY, AVERA NROPGH SLOT - fhe ;velocity
calculated by flow rate through the screen by
the screen's o
VELOCITY, MA UM THROUGH SLOT - The highoNt
velocity through the screen at any point on the screen face.
This term takes into account those velocity non-
uniformities created both by water withdrawal and by the
geometry of the screen/water source interactions.
VERTICAL TRAVELING WATER SCREEN - A mechanical
device consisting of screen panels, motorized drive
mechanism, support and guide frame, high pressure
spray wash system, and debris collection trough. These
screens are often protected by an additional trash rack
with mechanical raking system.
TYPICAL CONFIGURATIONS
- -- ---- ------
CYLIND6ICAL
INTAKE
41 f
SCREENS
Figure 12. Tower Intake for
multilevel withdrawal.
Figure 15. Multiple screens
on common header.
Figure 13. Single screen
located offshore.
Figure 16. Bulkhead mount
with guide rail set.
Figure 14. Multiple screens
manifold mounted.
Figure 17. Screen mounted
on pump protection can.
ADDITIONAL LITERATURE
GENERAL: SCREEN:
• Fish Protection and Profile Wire Screens: A Literature Review • Discussion of Clearances
• The First 20 Questions in Intake Design • Performance Testing of Submerged Intake Screen
• List of Cook Local Representatives • Application Brochures
• Regulatory Agencies Involved with Intake Design ;
• Cook Screen Partial Installation List ,
• Optimum Location of Intake Facility
• A Background and History of Cylindrical Intake Systems AIR BURST SCREEN SCOUR SYSTEMS.
• Shaped Wire Screens for Cooling Water Intakes • Sizing an Air Burst Screen Scour System j
• Infiltration Galleries - Selected Topics • CABSS Operating Manuals
• Biofouling
• Ice Related Issues • A Guide For: CABSS System Specifications i

ENGINEERS'
GUIDE
TYPICAL APPLICATIONS
water systems -Irrigation supply -Cogeneration water supply -Water treatment
-lndastrial water systems -Fire protection supply Cooling water to power stations Hydroelectric plants
*Fisheries and fish hatcheries
t
ABOUT THE COMPANY
Cook Sam was founded in 1679 by August D. Cook. The company development was based on the patent issued to Mr. Cook in 1881 for
the first water screen employing continuous slot wedge wire construction. The company has remained in the forefront of technological
leadership while expanding its sales into the world's international markets. Cook invented the first wedge wire wrapped screen, and the first '
packaged skid-mounted ABSS System. • '
• LD082.
Local Representative:
COOK SCREEN TECHNOLOGIES,rINQ ?
1292 Glendale-Milford Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215
Telephone [phone] °
FAX: [phone]s a'

COOK SCREEN
•
'i
AN
Figure 18. Cook Ah%Burst Screen
Scour (CABSS) Unit. Available in
Manual or Automatic models.
Factory assembled and tested.
q? 0.-7 L
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(FONSI)
Raw Water System Improvements
Town of Weldon, North Carolina

The State Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-1 through 1'0)- requires that
the Divisioh of Environmental Health determine whether a proposed major agency
action will significantly affect the environment. Construction of Raw Water System
Improvements is such a major action.
In order to determine whether construction of the proposed improvements will
cause significant environmental impacts, an environmental assessment has been
prepared. This environmental assessment is attached. It contains detailed
information on the key issues, including a brief description of the proposed project
and a summary of probable environmental impacts. None of the impacts were found
to be significant.
On the basis of the analysis of the impacts as shown in the environmental
assessment, no environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared. This FONSI
completes the environmental review record which is available for inspection at the
State Clearinghouse.
Summary of FONSI for publication in the Environmental Bulletin: After
completion of an environmental assessment under G. S. 113A-1 through 1 C, a finding
of no significant impact (FONSI) has been made in the case of the proposed
improvements of the Town of Weldon Raw Water System. Information supporting the
need for the proposed project was reviewed, along with relative impacts and costs
of alternative approaches.

Linda C. Sewall
Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Health

• ? Sur[
M a?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor March 22, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
\AAUIam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee

FROM: John Dorney ^,?
RE: Questions raised during March 8 meeting regarding Town of
Weldon intake application
The following questions were raised by State and Federal
agency personnel during the March 8 meeting. I will also send
the questions to Ralph Daley and Leo Green, consultants for West-
moreland/Hadson and the Town, respectively. These will serve as
questions for you to raise for the E.A. as well as 401 questions
with an attempt to coordinate your and my review respbnaibili-
ties. Some of these questions were at least partially answered
at the meeting but are included here for completeness. I would
expect that the Town or Westmoreland/Hadson could quickly answer
these previously addressed questions.
I. Wildlife/aquatic life:
1. What measures will be taken to reduce entrain-
ment/entrapment especially of striped bass eggs and larvae?
2. How effective will these measures be considering what is
known about the vertical and horizontal (across the river) dis-
tribution of eggs and larvae?
3. What databases or sources were used to determine the
amount of striped bass reproduction at and above the water
intake? How much reproduction is present at or above the intake
location?
II. Water Quantity
1. Westmoreland/Hadson has presented data indicating that
they will consume from 0.03 to 0.47% (worst case - maximum with-
drawal at 7Q10) of the river flow. What effect is the removal
likely to have on striped bass and other aquatic life especially
since aquatic life tends to be more stressed at low flow?
PoUudon PnevenNon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
2. What would be the cumulative impact of Weldon's with-
rawal and other planned cogeneration plants along the river on
quatic life and river flow?
3. How will the enlarged withdrawal effect the Roanoke Rap-
ds Sanitary District's withdrawal? Please address impacts at
inimum, normal and high river flows.
II. Water Quality
T. What effect will the withdrawal have on downstream
similative capacity especially for BOD?
2. How can you assure that sediment impacts (during con-
struction or operation) will not occur at the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District's intake?
IV. Other Questions
1. Has the Division of Coastal Management been contacted
regarding the need for a state consistency determination? If so,
is state consistency required?
2. Has DOT been contacted regarding any concerns about
bridge impacts from blasting?
3. Why must the proposed channel tie into the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District's channel rather than go into the river chan-
nel?
For your information, DEM (Karl Shaffer) will inspect the
waterline alignment for wetland impacts. A 401 Certification
will be needed. If an individual 401 Certification is needed,
DEM will need to do a Public Notice for that purpose. We will
also review the 0.49 acres of wetland fill for the cogeneration
plant.
Please contact me if you need any elaboration on these ques-
tions.
cc. Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Hadson Partners
Leo Green, F.T. Green and Associates
John Wray, Water Resources
Linda Sewell, Environmental Health
Karl Shaffer, DEM
Tim Nifong, Attorney General's Office
Wilson Laney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Gantt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Weldon.1_tr/D-3
IW
o..n?nv
•?W py. r.0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: ft- Linda Sewall
Division of E#ironmental Health
FROM: Melba Mc a
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 387 - Weldon/Roanoke Malley Raw Water System
DATE: March 22, 1991
The Department of Environment Health, and Natural
Resources has reviewed the Facility Plan for the Weldon Regional
Raw Water System Project. As a result of this review our
divisions have raised specific questions and identified specific
informational voids that prevent us from adequately evaluating
project impacts and discussing potential mitigation measures.
The applicant is to be commended for their effort in meeting with
and providing additional information to affected
divisions. We also recognize their eagerness to implement
measures that will avoid or lessen possible impacts.
The department is concerned with the impact this project
will have on downstream flows in the Roanoke River. The
Westmoreland project is one of an increasing number of
consumptive water use projects that, while small, will have a
cumulative impact Qn the Roanoke River.
Also of concern are the possible adverse impacts on striped
bass spawning nursery and foraging areas. The Roanoke-Albemarle
Striped Bass population is supported wholly by only one spawning
river, the Roanoke River.
Another concern is the impact on wetlands during
construction. The EA does not reflect that these wetlands fall
under a Nationwide Permit, although it is our understanding that
they do. It is our opinion that adverse impacts can still result
from activities authorized through a Nationwide Permit. EHNR
supports every effort to minimize wetland conversion and to
mitigate where feasible.
N) I;( is -1in.8" R'llei)!h, "V,.rth (.undin,, 17t,II 71,87 lcl,phom )Ili 7331,i76

These issues along with others are contained in the
division's responses which are part of this submittal. As the
state's lead agency, the Division of Environmental Health is
responsible for seeing that these concerns-are satisfactorily
resolved prior to review through State Clearinghouse. We suggest
the applicant notify the Division of Coastal Management to
discuss if a consistency determination is required.
cc: Alan Hirsch
John Wray
Alan Clatk
John Parker
Steve Benton
John Dorney
Zfi r
AN

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
MEMORANDUM V Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis ewart, Manager
Habitatonservation Program »>"
DATE: March 21, 1991
SUBJECT: Supplementary comments on the Town of
Weldon/Roanoke Valley Cogeneration Project,
Halifax County, North Carolina
As a result of our meeting with the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources on March 8, 1991,
it was agreed that agency representatives would submit a
list of their concerns regarding the subject project. We
have assumed that these concerns will be addressed in a
revised environmental document. Prior to our concurring
with an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact or issuance of either a Water Quality Certification
or Department of the Army authorization we request that the
following concerns be satisfactorily resolved:
1. There should be a detailed explanation of each
component of the overall project. The Town of
Weldon should explain their portion of the
project and Westmoreland-Hadson Partners should
fully explain their proposal.
2. The Westmoreland-Hadson Partnership should fully
explain criteria used for site selection.
Although there has been much discussion
regarding entrainment/impingement of egg and
larval fish, especially for striped bass, we
continue to have concerns over this potential
effect. The Cook Screen appears to represent
"state-of-the-art" with regards to preventing
entrainment and impingement. However, this
issue needs further discussion and a contingency
plan should be developed if significant
mortality should occur as a result of the new
r
intake structure. We recommend that the
Westmoreland-Hadson Partnership develop a
monitoring program which would provide an
objective database for egg and larval mortality
over time.
4. We are also very concerned over the relatively
large size of the proposed intake canal. Since
this canal will be excavated entirely in solid
rock, excavation will be done by use of
explosives. We believe that alternatives to the
.canal, including a smaller structure should be
more thoroughly investigated. If the present
design remains unchanged we request hydrologic
analyses to determine the extent to which river
channea's and currents may undergo changes which
could?fgct other habitat types. In addition,
we-r st that information on the time of year
proposed for excavating the canal and blasting
pressures be 19rovided.
5. We recommend that there be clear concise
statements regarding water needs for the Town of
Weldon and the Roanoke Valley Project. We need
to know current withdrawals, increase in
withdrawals (with and without the cogeneration
plant), the extent of evaporation, and the
amount of water returned to the river.
6. We are especially concerned about the effects of
significant increases in water withdrawals
during periods of low flow on fish, freshwater
mussels, and other aquatic organisms. Increased
withdrawals during low flows may also affect
adjacent wetland and non-wetland wildlife
habitat. When combined with the cumulative
effect of all withdrawals, effects could be
compounded. These issues must be addressed.
7. There has been little to no discussion regarding
maintenance of the intake structure. What type
of maintenance activities should resource
agencies expect and when would these activities
occur?
8. We recommend that all construction impacts to
wetlands, including those which may be
authorized under Nationwide Permits, either be
avoided or that there be compensatory mitigation
in the form of wetlands restoration or creation.
If wetland jurisdictional delineations have not
been completed for the site, we recommend that
project sponsors coordinate with the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
•¢
9. Water quality issues, including assimilative
capacity and the NPDES permit which was
apparently issued a short time ago should be
thoroughly discussed. A coMplete
characterization of cogeneration plant
discharges should be included as well as the
capabilities of the Town of•Weldon's ability to
treat increased loads without bypassing must be
included in the environmental document.
10.' There should be a thorough discussion regarding
ash content as well as transport and disposal
techniques in the mono-fill. If the mono-fill
does not already exist, there should be a
characterization of the site where such a
landf is to be located.
Thank you,fo heropportunity to provide these
comments. If vfe can further assist you office, please call
on us.
cc: Dr. Wilson Laney, USFWS
Mr. Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Tim Nifong

e STA1j o
r?
J?.
°v aw.,,oy
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N. Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 24, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba
FROM: John
SUBJECT: Envir
Impro"
We have rev'i,
1. According to
Town of Weldon IIw:
rather than cor sl
project descript:
2. On page 1, t1i
(1) to meet the W,"
for raw untreated
capability of the'
withdrawal capabi"
-increased withdras
cogeneration planii
MC(ee
I i?
hjerland
I
gntal Assessment for Raw Water System
Onts, Town of Weldon, #387
this EA and have the following comments:
ft Crowder, Director of Public Utilities, the
use the existing raw water intake structure
!c',t a new one. If that is true, then the
on page 1 should be changed.
f.
4A states that the reason for the project is
!'r demands by the coal cogeneration facility
',ter and (2) to enhance the treatment
resent treatment facility. Will. the increased
y enhance the treatment facility or is the
L'.just to meet the water demands of the
Please clarify.
3. On page 2, un' Alternative ve Analysis, two other alternatives
could be describe
.r
1.) Groundwat' - Describe the feasibility of the
cogenerat nn facility withdrawing enough water for its
deeds fro the ground.
2) Separate t0ke - Describe the feasibility of the
cogenerrat i plant wi. thdrawi.ng raw water d_i rect.l_y from
the riverp
h
.0. Boxi2'7687, Pwleigh, North C_arohna 27611 7687 lclcphonc 919733 4(k> -t
An Equal 0pporwill", .Affirmativc Action Employer
r
MEMORANDUM - Town of Weldon, dated 1/24/91.
Page Two
4. On page 4, under Water Supplies, the EA states that the
withdrawal will have no adverse impact on water supplies. If
this project was the only planned withdrawal from the Roanoke
basin, that might be true. This section should address the
cumulative impacts of all existing and planned withdrawals on the
water quality and quantity in the Roanoke River.
5. On page 4, under Shellfish or Fish and'Their Habitats, the
location of the intake is described as being in a very shallow
area where fish would not be present. If the water is too
shallow for fish, is it deep enough for the intake to work in a
reliable manner?
cc: John Wray
Tom Fransen
Steve Reed
Reid Campbell
Sid Harrell

a srnR
it
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor March 22,- 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee
FROM : John Dorney ;cam P" ,TR-\)
RE: Questions raised dtfing March 8 meeting regarding Town of
Weldon intake applicati.dn-
The following questiong,were raised by State and Federal
agency personnel during the March 8 meeting. I will also send
the questions to Ralph Daley and Leo Green, consultants for West-
moreland/Hadson and the Town, respectively. These will serve as
questions for you to raise for the E.A. as well as 401 questions
with an attempt to coordinate your and my review responsibili-
ties. Some of these questions were at least partially answered
at the meeting but are included here for completeness. I would
expect that the Town or Westmoreland/Hadson could quickly answer
these previously addressed questions.
I. Wildlife/aquatic life:
1. What measures will be taken to reduce entrain-
ment/entrapment especially of striped bass eggs and larvae?
2. How effective will these measures be considering what is
known about the vertical and horizontal (across the river) dis-
tribution of eggs and larvae?
3. What databases or sources were used to determine the
amount of striped bass reproduction at and above the water
intake? How much reproduction is present at or above the intake
location"?
II. Water Quantity
1. Westmoreland/Hadson has presented data indicating that
they will consume from 0.03 to 0.470 (worst case - maximum with-
drawal at 7Q10) of the river flow. What effect is the removal
likely to have on striped bass and other aquatic life especially
since aquatic life tends to be more stressed at low flow?
PoUudon Prewndon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

2. What would be the cumulative impact of Weldon's with-
drawal and other planned cogeneration plants along the river on
aquatic life and river flow?
3. How will the enlarged withdrawal effect the Roanoke Rap-
ids Sanitary District's withdrawal? Please address impacts at
minimum, normal and high river flows.
III. Water Quality
1. What effect will the withdrawal have on downstream
assimilative capacity especially for BOD?
2. How can you assure that sediment impacts (during con-
struction or operation) will not occur at the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District's intake?
IV. Other Questions
1. Has the Divisi6n %Df Coastal Management been contacted
regarding the need for a state c,onsi§tency determination? If so,
is state consistency required?
2. Has DOT been contacted regarding any concerns about
bridge impacts from blasting?
3. Why must the proposed channel tie into the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District's channel rather than go into the river chan-
nel?
For your information, DEM (Karl Shaffer) will inspect the
waterline alignment for wetland impacts. A 401 Certification
will be needed. If an individual 401 Certification is needed,
DEM will need to do a Public Notice for that purpose. We will
also review the 0.49 acres of wetland fill for the cogeneration
plant.
Please contact me if you need any elaboration on these ques-
tions.
cc. Ralph Daley, Westmoreland/Hadson Partners
Leo Green, F.T. Green and Associates
John Wray, Water Resources
Linda Sewell, Environmental Health
Karl Shaffer, DEM
Tim Nifong, Attorney General's Office
Wilson Laney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Gantt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Weldon.ltr/D-3

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
FROM: Sara WinslowJ11-
RE: #387 -'Raw Water System Improvements
DATE: March 22, 1991
The Roanoke River Functions as a spawning and nursery area
for blueback herring, alewife, American shad, hickory shad, and
important species utilize the river'•?ystem as spawning and
nursery area.
The Atlantic States Marine
develop[ed management plans for
To meet the objectives of these
rely on other state and federal
managing environmental impacts
quality and quantity.
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has
all of these anadromous species.
management plans this agency must
agencies to assist us with
in the area of habitat, water
The situation in North Carolina is particularly acute as the
Roanoke-Albemarle Striped Bass population is supported wholly by
only one spawning river, the Roanoke River. Other Atlantic Coast
populations are supported by numerous spawning rivers and nursery
areas.
On October 4, 1989, the ASMFC adopted Amendment #4 to the
Striped Bass Management Plan. The contribution of degradation in
water quality and quantity, levels particularly in the spawning
and nursery areas, to the decline of east coast striped bass
stocks has been the object of intensive study for over a decade
by the ASMFC. Amendment #4 contains several action
recommendations to protect these critical striped bass
environments in support of the overall plan goals.
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Marine
Fisheries are taking great strides to protect and enhance the
spawning and nursery area habitats from further degradation. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on this amended 201
Facilities Plan.
A01 State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
L.
Reviewing Office:
Project Number: I Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding tnese permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office.
i irne
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
f Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
acilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
J permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging Into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre'
ppNGBtion technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit NIA 7 days
(15 days)

Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement

facilities and/or Emission Sources
N/A 60 days
190 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with

NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
N/A 60 days
prior to demolition.

Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800. (90 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan fi led with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activit
y.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
Mining Permit AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

Dam Safety Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
Continued on reverse

Normal Pr
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
:rmit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
eophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
late Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15-20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
)1 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
AMA Permit for MAJOR development. $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
AMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
3veral geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any mon ants need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
bandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
ether comments (attach additional pag s as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

y I
I
reviewer signature +agency date
Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
?11(704) 251.6208
-1 Moorseville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 8115
[phone]
Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC ?7889
[phone]
REGIONAL OFFICES
Winston-Salem Regional Office
8001 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winton-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
19) 486.1541
Raleigh Regional Office
ox 27687
Raleigh, INC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
23 /S/?)
1
<eU6 ll u;
IQ-IV
/Yllp /?Os?;
1?1J i
W/al) a'a r7etk
?C fy? 2?? NV&& (
7
-pI) c? Un un?s w `??i?5
Ube 5 rvvl wP I (?..-?J ? ?CYd? Sov? ?" G? r ???u-(J utul L ?Q11 ?'s
?0% ,Y\.c ri,
Cpl c ztc
(,OQ Zt ?s fi cJVcs .
ICJ/
Q ? fin[ Iln ?, ,ry ,??
Gp d,
q na ?•
U) _ acuj? (ic
`J
L
Lei
UJ>Z I C Gv? 5 l `??- ? GSCk ? ? .??w
vl-
FvY view i
?vv, Vl fj (Ci,?j l t >i_ /??fvc7 i ? .
LA-C
&wf04W A,
rn?m,?Q
294 IW,
-Qtf
'\A) ` yr cP.
?lU?) cD?s Q eCt'? - ???1 ?j0
JAJQ
Mr-'
? f

on

J,06 t, 4 ova
J?V?t I 4-)\Cv-\, ?S
u5?t
\4-4 -h?- cQ-c`?,e.
re
cQ,?? c4 wa!?
v ?
1
S ?
VU( f f? ? ?7 (LAAI_)
?f 6? fig.
(t)"j"4k
?-
?I
uw 6 ?,? e cl m
Now alA/ ?
00
r
UJ-
!l (iW Lt?ati 'G ScuS
t
71y?
z
(nru L? 1 5 ua. ° S,
- L Vz,
,S
} It
t
r?
C-1-5?)
O ? ,.i?(? ??? vV U?? 11 ? ? ? C S ?? ?•??.G?
C ?
CA&
te
La') - C / 3 u ??Ii c[ Q9 -S b S
l.? ?J vin-?Q i r? Uo
I c
?C C
'yp
/v
?-
?il®Zl?/?
Y0
04V yv-,e
64 6TID
?"- ?? C?JV1Vl1?1 fie, a 0 S IT-
J o/`
u? 5 CUs-t_ '
of ).?P COU.t.
Pat) av
U
WV4 ? cvy" S v- 4?,Ivy w4?+-
G--
}
ro
J ?_S ? j 1Ll ???U V

??1??'a??
qAV
&vd li
11 y 401,
)0- 9 '(I ,,'t,QQ11J( C.

5 ° 4 oy" 1
Ct Ss ; '<?; ?9 C' C? Q C u?es?j CM. CP ?l
CC ?-?' V ?
kli/ dpW7
OJ/ A(lorl L cc .
.M
*4

6?tl Yl- 8
L"n-9-
J?O'ff,eoer Vlnb4 Y
(31't1
,604„
'rrn I?i?on?
?E?t1 N? s cS?
?? ,? idol
I°IL`bmwy7- otsew /NC.
-D. J . OF E -Ao I-kc--(VA

L?t- ti-L 5 o•J 0 e,J Lo

p, ?j o X. e -*
-733- S-09%3
782- ski
- 40 (o I
-7 33 - 870
?- 96?d-'1ac
Wrsrno,erL.A)V -gtgoS#A) P??r?? s
9.C. A4komey Gets I Cgicc,
S, [is ? ad W lld l,{ .Service
C. (thSOU Fc- A .5-
c
c
Pd`f- 9711-24710
703 -/6S(-7ZOO
Q t'7- z37-sue
-7 ?5 -3-& i .-) s

ITS$-- S q?-q
737- sz8 7
733 - 76 38
?33#?
Mt-Mo
TO:
A STATE o.
Nnv m ?s
From:
North Carolina Depp?
Health and Nat)
QUGY WnM`? n
^
DATE:
SUBJECT:
,,.;nt of Environment,
tasources gv?? Prlnfedon Recycled Paper
C (.1 ok k
MEMO
TO:
'.7-
SUBJECT:
ale r?h)
CW4
?g

d
rDR
re wle?
From:

ti SWFo-
North Carolina Derlartment of Environment,
Health and Natural
Printed on Recycled Paper
DATE:
'} IMPORTANT
To nr -
Date '& it Time W _
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M_ LW
of- IF 77 A%&" I q*
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
Signed
TELEPHONED PLEA -CALL
CALLED TO SEE YO WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS 70 SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESQURCES
•
bate 19_
O.lte'"
e
rom:
amatks: -' ?-"

ACTION _
? Note and file ? Note, initial and forward
? Note and return to me ? Your comments, please
? Note and see me about this, ? For your Information
? For your approval V.. "121'Prepare reply for my signature
? Per our conversation ? Prepare Information for me to reply
? Per your request ? Please answer, with copy to me
Return with more details To be filed
IMPORTANT
To- '1 0 1--('V
Date 2/Z? Time 61` 3 Z
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M-?L-N4 If\z-ol
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS 70 SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
!s

N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
IMPORTANT
To? - _
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M ("/ "?
of ?t ?d (lYl?
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message LIJ, tS?L_ /'yeJ .D 0 L/Y
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, HF lih; and Natural Resources ,
-p.
1
?ome er vlr4AY I°lE?N14NT OLSGv /"Vc. 782- S51 1
-7 E'3 - z 870
0 C-,) Lo \ 4r \ ` ? atllt- SGS --I a-00
S 703 768'- 7Zao
Rcl' vt (?t w? ???Sc S S. 7 3 -(O 3 ?°
??q k??- ??a ,r r ?= - nit -7 33-a 314-
t?.c. Aforneu r..,,?i? „Q:, _ 'T33- 5425
737_ 5ZE7
733 -76 59
_J? - ? ? ?3? 404
- ??
t
A#,j2AX-

13s
_ ._ _L,?J? 5..11 1
w rQOtvla(
44P 0AGEy
k L SE4
A i-?'-
'?M I?i?on7
46wtvt S 571C--?.p-

&0,) Y?
I4t EDMwV 7- OL SCW
,rJ I
G?-
17. J , of Eno l-?C«(V
VV A -L 5 o,D 0 e.J LL(-,0
P?j
-733-S-D9%3
782-S5?1
-n3 -40(o 1
-7 33 -2870
?off
i:c:T - 9613 -? ac
SvIf- 17t-?moo
WFsrN aEL. Ame- NAOSo,4) AVrwF-z s
7,
k: m, - LT (D
9-c- MianN Gt n' iy Cgicc.
703 76g-7Zb0
4t= Z37-sac
_7 3 ??-l0 3 ?? y
733-IP-2 31
'133- 5425
S. s l? ad tv ld (,4 Service -737- sz6 7
/V. c. a),'pu Fc- 4.5- &. - 733 - 76 38
r
ROANOKE VALLEY PROJECT
FACT SHEET
Owner. Westmoreland-Hadson Partners, a joint venture of Westmoreland Energy,
Inc. and Hadson Development Corporation.
Plant: A coal-fired cogeneration facility producing steam and electricity from a
i
d
d
i
t
l
i
b
d
gne
an
on
e
es
fur
zat
o
pulverized coal boiler using flue gas desu
constructed by Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Location: Weldon Township, Halifax County, North Carolina, between City of
Roanoke Rapids and Town of Weldon.
Site: 113 acres McDaniel Industrial Site adjacent to Becker Farms Industrial
Park and bounded by CSX Railroad and Roanoke River.
Power Ouout 165 megawatts of electricity to be supplied to Virginia Electric & Power
Company through its affiliate, North Carolina Power, under a 25-year
contract.
Energy OuOut: Steam supplied to Patch Rubber Company and potentially to other
tenants of the Becker Farms Industrial Park.
Fuel: 500,000 tons annually of low sulfur bituminous coal supplied by
Westmoreland Coal Company with rail delivery by CSX Transportation
Company.
Water &Wly: 2.2 million gallons per day (average) and 3 million gallons per day
(maximum) of raw river water to be provided by the Town of Weldon.
Water Discharge: 115,000 gallons per day (average) and 400,000 gallons per day
t
il
li
b
ng water)
o
e
y coo
(maximum) of pretreated wastewater (primar
discharged for final treatment by Town of Weldon sewer system In
accordance with State and Local permit regulations.
Air Quality Facility to be designed and operated with Best Available Control
Technology including dry lime scrubber, low NO= burners with advanced
overtire air, and bag Ouse for SO2, NO. particulates, and fugitive dust
control in accordance with Federal, State, and Local permits and
regulations.
Ash Disposal: Non-hazardous coal and lime ash to be disposed in an ash monof ll to
be constructed and operated by Halifax County at integrated ash
monof i/municipal solid waste landfill.
Schedule: Complete project development and commence construction Second
Quarter 1991 with Commercial Operation scheduled mid-1994.
Project Ba-W ts: Taxes: $200 million Investment for Halifax County.
Jobs: 350 construction and 44 direct permanent
plant operation.
Local Purchases: Project will purchase local oods and
services during construction and operation.
Business Development: Catalyst to attract new businesses to Becker
Farms Industrial Park requiring low pressure
steam.
Infrastructure: Water and sewer systems' Improvements
for Town of Weldon; integrated ash monofill
and municipal solid waste landfill for Halifax
County.
241RDD . MKcb f, 1"l
ROANOKE VALLEY PROJECT
PROJECT STRUCTURE

MAJOR PERAM AND APPROVALS
Permit M lestow Sdm dele
--- Pobbc
Deemed Notice
9"mu bmk AMU= AS= Elk Q11210 um EN
Land Use ZANIbg WHP Taws of Weldon ??90 NA mm ?lL?4 mm
P1me an WHp FAA NA NA 2114M
Ste* Hdglkt
9edi?eatatba UEAC NC DLR To be obtained prior to oortrecdom.
Control, Plan
Bma ft UF.AC 'lbws of Weldon To be obtained prior b comptsaioa.
Air Air Qmmft, WHP NC DEN mm
PSD
Water hdaaI "
Tretratmmw WHP NC DEN T?j?Q 19f1?4 NA X11381
NPDES Di dmp -
Modulation Weldon NC DEN 1141 211491 2fAW
Joist 4011404 Weldon NC DEN and j?l?Q 31 NA EM 4MM
Army COE
o
? WHP Afmy am c L NA NA Y1191
a
Wwamda ?
Solid Wage Prase I mm) Haffu NC DWM 3/15191 4AM NA NA 5/15141
(Aar) pbm Q (Comm County 11191 192 NA NA 4192
etrsctiom) - A?
Momolll
Regulatory Qndwft WHP FERC
Polity
mate
Cerro aft of WHP NC PUC
tmblic Convenience
and Neomity
: Bold nderline demotes actual data or milestone complete.
mm NA NA NA Tl
ill fim NA 7L 4 ffil?
Revised 315191

TOWN OF WELDON AND
ROANOKE VALLEY PROJECT
WATER USE SUMMARY
The following table provides a summary of water withdrawal data
from the proposed expansion to the Town of Weldon's intakes on the
Roanoke River near Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. This expansion is
intended to serve both the Town of Weldon's future water supply water
needs and the needs of the proposed Roanoke Valley Project. Data on total
withdrawals, total return discharges, consumptive use, and comparisons to
Roanoke River Flows are provided.
As indicated on the attached table, total consumptive use from the
proposed withdrawals ranges from 3.84 to 4.64 CFS on a monthly average,
and 4.44 CFS on an annual average. This consumptive use represents only
0.04 to 0.05 percent of the monthly average Roanoke River flows, and 0.05
percent of the annual average river flow. Furthermore, a worst-case
analysis reveals that a maximum of 0.47 percent of the river's flow would
be consumed in any condition. This analysis compares the project's
maximum daily consumptive use of 5.57 CFS to the river's 7Q10 low-flow
value of 1192 CFS.
L
TOWN OF WELDON AND r
?.
ROANOKE VALLEY PROJECT
WATER USE SUMMARY
Withdrawal
from Discharge
Returned to Weldon
Consum tive Use 3 Roanoke Valley Project
Consumptive Use 4 Total
Consumptive Use Average
Roanoke

Month Roanoke River
MGD 1 Roanokg River
MGD 2
MGD (% of
Riverflow
MGD (% of
Riverflow
CFS (% of
Rlverflow River Flow
(CFS) [51
January 4.00 1.38 0.7 0.01 1.92 0.03 4.05 0.04 9,160
February 3.95 1.38 0.7 0.01 1.87 0.03 3.98 0.04 10,012
March 4.06 1.39 0.7 0.01 1.97 0.03 4.13 0.04 10 224
April 4.18 1.40 0.7 0.01 2.08 0.03 4.30 0.04 10,100
may 4.28 1.41 0.7 0.01 2.17 0.03 4.44 0.04 10,704
June 4.42 1.43 0.7 0.02 2.29 0.05 4.63 0.06 7,119
Jul 4.43 1.43 0.7 0.02 2.30 0.06 4.64 0.08 5,800
August 4.40 1.42 0.7 0.02 2.28 0.07 4.61 0.09 5,379
September 4.35 1.42 0.7 0.02 2.23 0.07 4.53 0.09 5,3 4
October 4.21 1.40 0.7 0.02 2.11 0.06 4.35 0.08 5,203
November 4.08 1.39 0.7 0.02 1.99 0.05 4.16 0.06 6,555
December 3.85 1.37 0.7 0.01 1.78 0.04 3.84 0.05 7,260

Annual Av . 4.28 1.41 0.7 0.01 2.17 0.04 4.44 0.05 8.106

Worst Case [61 1 5.00 1.41 0.7 0.09 2.90 0.38 5.57 0.47 1,192
Notes:
[1] Assumes maximum design 2 MGD withdrawal for Weldon and monthly average water use by Roanoke Valley Project.
[2] Assumes maximum design 0.8 MGD discharge from Weldon, 0.5 MGD discharge from Caledonia Prison Farm, and monthly average water discharge
from Roanoke Valley Project.
[31 Assumes maximum design 2 MGD withdrawal for Weldon, 0.8 MGD discharge from Weldon and 0.5 MGD discharge from Caledonia Prison Farm.
[4] Monthly average Roanoke Valley Project consumptive use.
15] Based on 25-year period of record 1964-1989 at Roanoke Rapids, NC
[6] Assumes Roanoke Valley Project maximum daily consumptive use vs. Roanoke River 7010, 1964-1989 data.

F Lsh Pro tec t ton and Prof Lle W Lre Screens
A L L ,.era Lure Review
In :roduc t ion and Lac}u round
Screening of water intake systems has been conrnon practice for virtually as
long as people have been pumping water. Intake screening was fLrs'_ provided
for two purposes -- pump protection and keeping unwanted material from the
inflow. A wide variety of screening systems have been used. Early systems
Were often framed panels of woven wire mesh or perforated metal. Water wells
end water well screens thrown into or buried in the bottom of shallow water
bodies were also commonly used for water supply.
In L895 vertical traveling screen machines were invented. The machines were
designed to address the clogging problems experienced with the flat screen
panels placed at the end of intake canals. The screen machines were generally
designed for approach velocities of 2 feet per second or more to ensure that
'.he debris would stay on the screen face until Lt could be blasted into a
debris trough using high pressure sprays. Everything on the screens was
defLned to be debris. For the next half century intake screening remained
rela;-.Lvely unchanged. Larger volume water intake systems tended to use
traveling screen machines, smaller systems used simpler screens. Some
addL:Lonal screen systems evolved, continuous belt screen machines were
developed as were rotating drum screens.
In the years following World War II the size of thermoelectric power
generating plants and the associated water requirements increased dramatically
as did demand for electricity. In conjunct ion with this increase traveling
water screen machines go': larger and more complex. During this period of
rap id expans Lon and grow --h fLsher Les' issues generally rece Lved no a t ten Lon.
Some consideration was given to these issues in the Pacific Northwest where
hydroelectric development in she 30's had significantly influenced the size of
commercial catches and where treaty commitments provided some leverage to
Indian na- Lons in the area. In the res L of the country fisheries issues
related to screen operation tended to involve attention to power outages
caused by screen blockage or screen collapse caused by impingement of large
numbers of fish on the screens. In the 601s, fisheries' factors began to
receive attention at thermoelec tr Lc power stations, first as related to
thermal discharge and subsequently relative to fish kills at the intake
screens or as a result of entrainment of organisms and damage as they passed
trough the cooling water loop. Passage of the I]a t Tonal Environmental Policy
Act resulting in the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Clean Water Ac with its cooling water intake and discharge criteria in the
late 60's and early 70's created a mechanism for regulation of intake
screen ing prac t ice.
Cook Screen Page L Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897

Intake science lurched forward. The legal requirement to protect fish at
water intake created an Indus try that could provide the biological data
engineers needed for designs. National policy recognized a problem but,
exclusive of the west coast and hydro-related research, there was little solid
information on practical issues of fish screening. Further, the information
-ha t d id ex is t was in the doma in of f fisher Les b Lolog is is and f fish and w Lldl fife
managers who had historically not had a close working relationship with
eng ineers .
In the mid 70's many b Lolog Ls ts, eng Lneers , and environmental scientists
i collected data, postulated possible modifications of traveling screen
mach Ines , and commenced deba to on what cons t i to ted s Lgn if Lcan t en tra Lnmen t and
LmpLngement, what survival rates were acceptable, and how to collect f Lsh and
re.-urn them to the water source with acceptable loss levels. Two studies took
a different approach. These studies related to the use of cylindrical,
prof Lle wire screens as Ln takes . The studies were carried on independently
but with overlapping goals.
At :he Delmarva Ecological Study site in Sump L'.:, Delaware biologists W ill Lam
H. Bason, Brian Hanson, and Dr. Ed Raney, funded by Delmarva Power and LLght,
examined the poa'_en t Lal for the use of cylindrical profile wire screens for
wa ter w L thdracval while minimizing entrainment and imp Lngemen t of striped bass
eggs and larvae. Ac the same time Lee Cook began work on improving the design
of the screens to reduce or eliminate screen clogging. Mssrs Basin, et al
discovered that striped bass larvae could actively avoid the screens for
extended periods and that eggs tended to roll over the screens rather than
being sucked through the screen openings. Mr. Cook discovered that the
predominant mechanism for screen clogging was progressive clogging associated
with very non-uniform flow through the screens. Through extensive hydraulic
modeling, ver if ied w L Vh physical testing, Mr. Cook developed a technique to
create a much more uniform velocity distrLbu'Lon through the screen. The
ability to know and choose the maximum velocity through the screen
significantly reduced the clogging potential. Remote screen cleaning
techniques that had been developed for perforated pipe intake were also
Lncorpora ?.ed Ln to the screen design.
These engineering and fisheries research developments established the basis
from which work on f Lsh protection using prof Lle wire water intake screens
proceeded. The following review provides a brief description of the published
research of fish behavior on or near profile wire screens for water intakes.
The summaries are presented in approximate chronological order. Relevant
research assoc La'ted with some engineering studies is also included for
completeness.
A bibliography is provided.

Cook Screen Page 2 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897

4D
L) I7L11Lam 11. Bason, Brian N. Hanson, Barry E. Beitz, and Kevin E. Charles
conducted he fLrsc reported research on prof Lle wire water intake screens and
fish.- The work addressed:
o egg, larval, and fish en tra Lnmen t and impingement,
o average through screen velocities from 0.2 to L.5 feet per second,
o performance characteristics as a function of intake velocity, debris
load, and channel velocity, and
o, effectiveness of continuous air sweeping on clogging, Lmpingement,
and entraLnment.
aj The results of the tests included the following. Only organisms within inches
of the screen surface have any interaction with the screen. F Lsh conf Lned in
the vicinity of the screen were not impinged on the screen surface or
en tra Lned. ' * Larval f Lsh conf Lned in the v Lc in L ty of the screen could act Lvely
avoid the screen and larval fish larger than about 20mm could avoid the screen
virtually indefinitely. In sL:uatLons where a channel Current existed f Lsh,
eggs, and larvae were carried rapidly past the screen. Over a wide range of
current velocities and in cake velocities the screens were very res Ls tant to
debris clogging. A continuous curtain of air bubbles kept the screen clear of
debris and moved larval fish off the screen face. Additional research
regarding screen construction and orientation was des Lreable to eliminate
impingement 'areas on the upstream and downstream face of the cylinder that
existed' when the screen axis was perpendicular to the channel flow direction
and to reduce or elLmna to the non-un Lform L ty of flow that existed with a
simple screen cylinder.
2) Thomas H. Key and John C. Miller performed the first reported Ln-sLtu
studies on the screens. The tests focused on operating performance of the
screens. A screen wLJl a Lmm slot and an average through screen velocity of
0.5 feet per second was used. Results of the tests indicated that the screens
could opera ;:e virtually Lnde f in i to ly without cleaning or attention and that
debris fouling of the screens was not experienced. They also found that
ac:--ached biological growth on the screens adversely affected screen
performance and tha in s L cua t Lons where b Lofoul Lng was experienced,
provisions were required to either prevent Lt or to remove the screens for
cleaning. Prior co the biofoulLng season at the site the screens operated for
24 hours per day for two months with no increase in head differential
Lnd Lca t Lng clogging. During the fouling season screen withdrawal to remove
accumulated biological growth was required as frequently as once every two
weeks.
3) John H. Heuer and David A. Tomljanovich performed an extensive array of
studies to evaluate the effect of screen orientation ;horizontal or vertical),
screen opening size ;slot), average 'through screen velocity, and channel or
stream current velocLty on entraLnment of seven different larval species.
Slot sizes of L/2, L, and 2m were tested. Slot velocities of L/4, L/2, and
3/4 feet per second were tested. And, stream velocities of 1/4, 1/2, 1, and 2
feet per second were tested. In virtually all cases the larval species
f displayed the ability to sense and actively avoid the screen and en tra trunen t
was lower than projected for planktonic organisms.
Cook Screen Page 3 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897
} W

4) Brian Hanson, W ill Lam Bason, Barry Be L tz, and Kevin Charles substantially
extended the tests initially reported in '1) . A number of screen
configurations were tested and impingement tes t Lng was extended to more than
1700 specimens of 21 different species. Further clogging resistance studies
were performed. In addition, subs :an t Lal additional data on the prototype
screen testing reported in ; 2) was provided including biological information
on amb Len c- fish, egg, and larval concentrations vs. specimens entrained
through the screen. Results of the work complimented and confLrmed the
earlier work. They showed that striped bass egg entraLnment could be
dramatically reduced and eggs impinged for periods of less than 2 minutes
showed 95% survival. Air curtain sweeping of the screen could eliminate or
dramatically reduce screen clogging and eliminate prolonged impingement of
eggs. In the in-s L to pro to type studies impingement and en trainmen t
experiences were consis tent w L ;:h laboratory experiences. Amb Len t
concentrations of fish of all life stages were significantly higher than in
:he water passing through the screen. As reported earlier - clogging from
debris is virtually non-ex Ls tan t but care should be used in b Lofoul Lng
environments.
5) Malcolm E. Browne reported results of a pro to type test screening system.
Prototype screens of Lmm and 2mm slo'' size were tested. The screens used flow
modulating systems to create more uniform velocities through the screen but
did not incorporate orientation approaches to minimize screen Ln terac t Lon w i h
organisms and debris caused by stream currents. The tests addressed both the
operational characteristics of the screens and environmental performance. The
operational studies indicated more than 98% screen availability. Test
arrangement precluded air backwash while pumping or the use of air curtain
cleaning. Growth of organisms a -:aching to ':he screen surface provided the
principal form of clogging. observations of impingement indicated that
vLrtually all organisms were able to avoid the screens if they desired. Some
spec Les were observed actively moving over the screen surface to feed on
debris or aqua Lc growth. En tra Lnmen t studies were limited to behavior of
screened vs. unscreened intakes and no information on tow net sampling of
ambLent concentrations was provided. Lm slot screens produced greater
en'tra irtnen': exclus Lon eff Lc Lenc Les than 2mm slot screens or the open inlet.
An interesting observation was greater entraLnment through a 2mm slot screen
than an open pipe. [This result may reflect current created screen/organLsm
Ln terac t Lon that might be avoided by using screens with the screen axis
parallel to the direction of stream current flow. ed.]
6) John Gulvas and Ibrahim ZeLtoun conducted a series of tests comparing
impingement and entrainment through 2m and 3/8" slot screens with open pipe
and tow net samples. The test results indicated no impingement or debris
accumula t Lon on either screen and substantially lower en tra Lnmen't in all
pumped samples than gathered in tow net collections. Results indicated that
fish a v Lr,:ually all life stages did demonstrate ac'.: Lve avoidance of the flow
veloc L t Les associated with water withdrawal.
Cook Screen Page 4 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897
y
7) Lawrence W. Smith and David A. Ferguson performed a comprehensive
evaluation of screen characteristics evaluating clogging, cleaning, and
corrosion rate of screens constructed of woven wire mesh, perforated metal,
and profile w ire . Clogging studies provided direct comparison of screen
ma?erLals over a range of approach velocities and a range of stream ;bypass)
velocities. The test produced an internally consistent set of results.
For a particular type of screen construct Lon, screens with larger screen
openings clog less rapidly. For similar screen openings sizes woven wire mesh
screens clogged most rapidly, followed by perforated metal, corrogated
perforated metal, slotted woven wire mesh, and `.hen profile wire screening.
Profile wire screening was much less likely to clog than any other screen
construction including screens with openings twice as large. Cylindrical
profile ' w ire screens tested were LO or more times more resistant to clogging
than all , o tier screens tested with similar opening sizes. in addition,
pressure drop through clean profile screens with 3/32" slot openings was
approximately 1/2 of that for every other screen tested except a perforated
metal screen with 1/4" dLame`.er holes.
In the corrosion studies, corrosion on profile wire screens was less severe or
equal to corr(shion on all other screens tested.
8) Wayne LLfton reported on the results of a carefully designed matrix of in
situ tests intended to verify reliability of the intake system, compare the
relative en'tra Lnmen t and impingement behavior of screens with lmm and 2mm
slots, and evaluate the relative performance of these screens wL::h open pipe
and tow samples.
The study proved 'he screens ; both 1mm and 2mm slot sizes) :o be reliable and
maintenance free. No cleaning or backwash Lng was required during the study.
I : also showed en'.:ra Lnmen :, to be reduced by 60% over open pipe en tra Lnmen t .
Entrainment was much more dramatically reduced over tow samples. The use of 1
or 2mm screen virtually eliminated all impingement. No statistically
s"LgnLf Lcan : difference was observed between the 1mm and 2mm screens. Ne Lther
screen clogged. Neither screen created increased pumping resistance. Both
screens dramatically reduced entraLnment. Both screens virtually eliminated
impingement. [During the intake design process and the design and operation
of the test program the u t d L ty and its consultants coordinated closely with
local, sate, and federal regulators. This cooperation helped alert the
designers to problems with the original design concepts that might otherwise
have caused operational problems unrelated to environmental compliance. The
cooperation and results of the --es'--Lng also resulted in a decision by the
regulators .ha: the system was so good that they could waive the requirement
for environmental performance monitoring of the final system. ed.]
9) Brian Hanson conducted a series of studies to examine `the behavior of
screens with near uniform through screen velocity and screen axis parallel to
the direction of flow. Impingement, en:'-ra Lnmen t, slot orientation, egg size,
and L and 2mm slot size relationships were examined. Debris studies and air
rst backwash cleaning parameters such as pressure and volume were also
ves t Lga bed.
4f 3
Cook Screen Page 5 Fish Protection Rev Lew 906 774-7897
'l A
Results of the studies included the following. Screens with 2mm slot were
more likely to entrain the striped bass eggs and larvae tested and less likely
to clog than screens with Lmm openings. Air burst backwash effectively
cleaned the circumferentially wrapped screens at all combinations of receiver
volume and test pressure ;test conditions ranged from l screen volume at 20
psLg to 12 screen volumes at 80 psig). Air burst backwash cleaning was
substantLally less effective with the axial slot screen. The effect of slot
orientation on entrainment and impingement provided some interesting results.
IIL':h through screen velocity and slot opening size held constant the effect of
slot or Len to t Lon and wire tilt ',wire tilt is a product of the manufacturing
process of circumferentially wrapped prof Lle wire screens) was examined. At
1/2 foot per second stream velocity, axial slot screens resulted in less
impingement and entra Lnmen t than c Lrcumferen t Lally wrapped screens. At stream
veloc L It Les of L foot per second or higher, circumferential slot screens
performed better and, while the results were similar, screens with wire tip
toward the flow proved superior to screens with wire t Lp away from the
direction of flow.
10) R. T. Richards reported on the results of sedLment transport in the
vicinity of cylindrical Ln. ake screens and upstream barriers when the screens
are installed"
nstal led in water bodies with undonsol Lda ted bed material or a bed
covered wLth a sign LfLcant depth of sLlt and fLne sedLment. The general
results of the study were to indicate that upstream pro tec t Lve barriers, when
used, should be kept to a minimum. Otherwise, scouring and deposition can
distort the bed conditions at and around the screen to adversely effect screen
performance.
LL) James M. Wiersema, Dorothy Hogg, and Lowell J. Eck performed a series of
studies to evaluate the relative rate of b iolog ical growth on pumped screens
of different ma ter Lals . These studies, performed in Galveston Bay, indicated
that copper alloys, particularly the 70% copper, 30% nickel alloy and the 90%
copper, 10% nickel alloy.resu1ted in substantial reduction in the rate of
accumulation of attached debris. The alloys were much superior to type 304
stainless steel in ;these tests.
'12) Peter M. McGroddy, Steven PetrLch, and Lory Larson reported the results
of tests to evaluate clogging, btofoulLng, and cleaning characteristics of
fine mesh screens for marine intakes. No stud Les of f Lsh behav Lor -- adult,
egg #or larvae were performed. Under the conditions tested, clogging rates
with `concentrated debris were determined to be too high for use in a once
through, off shore system, bLofoulLng was reported as signLfLcant, and
multiple burst cleaning was required to clean debris from the screens but did
not remove attached growth. [The screens used in the study were of a
construction that has been demonstrated as more likely to clog and more
dif fLcul;: to clean than continuous slot prof Lle wire screens. Long term
stud Les were cancelled when a reliable water supply to the test facility could
no be provided due to operational difficulties at the vertical traveling
screen machines. ed.]

Cook Screen Page 6 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897

13) Brian Hanson ex ;.ended the work reported in ; L) and ; 4) to evaluate
age/length relationships on striped bass and yellow perch. Using a screen
w L th Lm slot the tests ind ica ted total protection could be provided to all
striped bass longer than L0.5mm and all yellow perch longer than L3mm.
L4) Malcolm E. Browne, Lawrence B. Glover, David W. More and David W.
Ballenger reported on results of a s ign if Lcan t expansion of the testing
originally discussed in ; 5). Impingement on the 1 and 2mm slot screens tested
was virtually non-existant. Entrainment through the screens was sLgnificantly
lower than concen tra t ions in tow samples a the site. B iofoul Lng studies
indicated that fouling on copper nickel alloy screens and screens with
antifouling coating was substantially less dense than was observed on
stainless steel alloys. Air backwash was found zo be effective in screen
cleaning. Air cleaning did not completely remove attached growth.
L5) Robert G. Otto, Thomas I. Hiebert and Vincent R. Kranz reported on the
results of a prototype screen test in the Mississippi River. The prototype
was a full size screen. The test report focuses on entrainment and
imp ingemen;: 6xper Lence when compared with tow net and fixed net collections.
Open pipe studies were not performed. Entrainment of eggs and larvae through
the screen was much lower than ambient densities as collected with fixed net
and towed nets! While P species were present in the net samples, no fish
larger than 8mm were entrained through the screens.
L6) Ibrahim H. ZLetoun, John A. Gulvas, and John Z. Reynolds reported results
of studies comparing entraLnmen and impingement on 2mm, 3/8" slot and open
pipe intakes with ambient densities determined using tow nets. Testing was
performed at tow locations - off shore in an area expected to have low
densities and in an on shore intake canal.
Test results differed at the two sites. In both cases all fish eggs and
larvae were substantially less abundant in pumped systems than in tow samples.
At the offshore ;deepwater) site the numbers of entrained organisms through
pumped systems, whether screened or not, was similar. In the canal entrained
organisms were less prevalent in samples from the 3/8" opening than through
the opan pipe and less prevalent through the 2mm opening screen than through
the 3/8" slog screen. Cylindrical profile wire screens served to
substantially reduce entrainment of fish larvae at mesh sizes well above that
whjc?h may be accounted for by physical exclusion alone. No impingement or
debr i# accumulation was observed on the screens.
17) James E. Mudge, G. Scot`_ Jeane, K. Perry Campbell, Bruce R. Eddy, and
Lynn E. Foster reported on the salmon en tra Lnmen t and impingement studies at a
cylindrical, perforated pipe water intake screen site on the Columbia River.
Sampling of entrained organisms was 1 Lm i -ed to sizes that would be re to ined in
a 2rin woven wire mesh basket. Approach velocity to the screens was L/2 foot
per second and the screens had 0.4" diameter holes. No fish, eggs or larvae
were en.,--rained or impinged.

Cook Screen Page 7 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897
Y,
f .
1.
18) Robert Ettema, A. M. Asce, and J. Craig Johnson reported on a series of
model studies leading to the design of a water intake system for a shallow
sand-bed river. The system, based around cylindrical profile wire screens,
included a system to eliminate the severe sedimentation problems that had
plagued. intake systems on such river systems. It also incorporated techniques
for thermal discharge near the intake for prevention of frazil ice formation
on the screens. The result was a reliable intake system design that has been
constructed and operated as designed. The system provides environmental
protection, debris free water, system protection, and water supply under a set
of cond i t ions that generally made any sort of reliable intake screening
impossible.
19) Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. performed an 18 week study designed to
evaluate screen resistance ':o b iofoul ing and the effectiveness of daily air
backwash on minimizing biological growth and attachment. Screens constructed
of 70% copper, 30% nickel were used. The screens had 2mm screen openings.
Pump tests and static tests were performed. A type 304 stainless steel screen
of identical construction was used as a basis for comparison. Photographic,
analytical, and descriptive records of results are provided. Test results
included verification of the success of copper alloy screens in delaying
biological g'row;.h on the screens -- pump rates through the '-free pump tested
screens were not effected by clogging. Daily air backwash cleaning did assist
in keeping screens clean but did not significantly effect screen clogging or
performance.
20) Stephen B. Weisberg, William H. Burton, Fred Jacobs, and Eric A. Ross
reported 'en results of studies of ich thyoplank ton entrainment through profile
wire screens. Screens with 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm screen opening were tested. The
screens were found to be very effective in minimizing entrainment. A
coorelation was found between screen opening size and entrainment prevention.

•
i
Cook Screen Page 8 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897
B Lbl Lography
1) Hanson et. al., 1977. A Practical Intake Screen which Substantially
reduces the Entrainmen't and Impingement of Early Life Stages of Fish. Pages
393-407. in L.D. Jensen, ;ed.) Fourth National Workshop On EntraLnmen'' and
Impingement.
2) Key and Miller L977. Preliminary Studies on the Operating Aspects of
Small Slot Wedgewire Screens with Conceptual Designs for Power Station Use.
Pages 385-393. in L.D. Jensen, ;ed.) Fourth National Wbrkshop On Entrainment
and Impingement.
3) Heuer and Toml janov Lch 1978. A study on the Protection of Fish Larvae a';
Water Intakes Using Wedge-VILre Screening. Pages 169-195. In R. K. Sharma and
J. B. Palmer ;eds)., Larval Exclusion Systems for Power Plant Cooling Water
Intakes, Proceedings of the Workshop.
4) H&pson et. al., 1978. Practicality of ProfLle-Wire Screen in Reducing
EntraLnment and Impingement. Pages 195-234. In R. K. Sharma and J. B. Palmer
;eds)., Larval Exclusion Systems for Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes,
Proceedings of the Workshop.
5) Browne 1979. Progress Report on Profile Wire Intake Screens Testing -
Forked River, New Jersey. Pages 17-39. In L. E. Cook ;ed), Passive Intake
Screen Workshop,.Proceed Lngs of the 6brkshop.
6) Gulvas and Ze L town 1979. Cylindrical Wedge-I] ire Screen Investigations in
Offshore Lake Michigan for the J.H. Campbell Plant, 1979. Pages 39-47. In L.
E. Cook ;ed), Passive Intake Screen Workshop, Proceedings of the Workshop.
7) Sm L':h and Ferguson 1979. Cleaning and Clogging Tests of Passive Screen
in the Sacramento River, California. Pages 47-73. In L. E. Cook ;ed),
Passive Intake Screen Workshop, Proceedings of the Workshop.
8) L Lf ton 1979. Biological Aspects of Screen Testing of the St. Johns
River,` Palatka, Florida. Pages 87-97. In L. E. Cook ;ed), Passive Intake
Screen Workshop, Proceedings of the Workshop.
9) Hanson 1979. Studies of Three Cylindrical ProfLle-Wire Screens Mounted
Parallel to Flow Direction. Pages 97-109. In L. E. Cook ;ed), Passive Intake
Screen Workshop, Proceedings of the 6Zrkshop.
10) Richards 1979. A Po ten t Lal Sedimentation Problem with Cylindrical Inlet
Installqi;.Lons. Pages 109-1L3. In L. E. Cook ;ed), Passive Intake Screen
Workshop, Proceedings of the lbrkshop.
IL) li iersema et. al. 1979. B Lofoul Lng Studies in Galveston Bay - Biological
? Aspects. Pages 123-137. In L. E. Cook ;ed), Passive Intake Screen Workshop,
Proceedings of the 4brkshop.
Cook Screen Page 9 Fish Protection Review 906 774-7897

L2) McGroddy e:. al. 1981. Fouling and Clogging evaluation of Fine-Mesh
Screens for Offshore Intakes in the Marine EnvLronmen Pages 5-22. In P.B.
Dorn and J.T. Johnson ;eds.) Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant
Cooling Water Systems. Proceeding of the Workshop.
13) Hanson 1981. Studies of Larval Stripped Bass and Yelow Perch Exposed to
a lmm Slot Profile-Wire Screen Model Intake. Pages 22-36. In P.B. Dorn and
J.T. Johnson ;eds.) Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plane Cooling Water
Systems. Proceeding of the lbrkshop.
14) Browne et. al. L98L. In-Situ Biological and Engineering Evaluation of
FLne-Mesh ProfLle-47Lre Cylinders as Power Plant Intake Screens. Pages 36-47.
In P.B. Dorn and J.T. Johnson ;eds.) Advanced Intake Technology for Power
Plant Cooling Water Systems. Proceeding of the Workshop.
15) Otto et. al. 1981. The effectiveness of a Remote, ProfLle-Wire Screen
Intake Module in Reducing the Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae. Pages 47-
57. -*' P'.B. Dorn and J.T. Johnson ;eds.) Advanced Intake Technology for
Power Plant Cooling Water Systems. Proceeding of the Workshop.
16) Ze L toun et. al. L981. Effectiveness of Small Mesh Cylindrical ?4edge-W Lre
Screens in Reducing Fish Larvae Entrainment at an Offshore and an onshore
Location of Lake Michigan. Pages 57-65. In P.B. Dorn and J.T. Johnson ;eds.)
Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plane. Cooling Water Systems. Proceeding
of the Workshop j. .
17) Mudge e ice. al. 198 L . Evaluation of a Perforated Pipe Intake Structure for
Fish Protection. Pages 115-128. In P.B. Dorn and J.T. Johnson ;eds.)
Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Dater Systems. Proceeding
of the Workshop.
L19) Ettema et. al. 1984. Wedge-WLre Intake Screens for Shallow Sand-Bed
River. Pages 1139-1145. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume L10,
No.'8, August L984.
19) Espey 1981. A Study of the Effectiveness of an Air Backwash System in
Preventing B Lofoul Lng Growth in the Marine Environment. Report to the Copper
Development Association. August 1981.
9
20) WeLsberg 1987. RedUCtLons in Ichthyoplankton Entrainment us Lng Fine-
mesh, Wedge-wire Screens. in press. scheduled for 1987 publica:Lon in North
American Journal of Fisheries Management.
"It
* M?
Cook Screen Page 10 F Lsh Pro':ec :'Lon Rev Lew 906 774-7897

t
b
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
RAW WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF WEL DON
DECEMBER 21, 1990
Linda C. Sewall, Deputy Director
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
[phone]
w
F. T. Green & A.•- _ates, P. A.
303 N. Gola.. Street
Wilson, Noxkh irr, ". ina 27893
• 91

I. Existing Environment
The project covers an area of approximately 4.8 miles in
length from its beginning point in the Roanoke River at
the Hwy. 48 bridge to the filtration plant in Weldon.
The project is within or adjacent to the Roanoke River
floodplain and crosses through mixed industrial and
uninhabited wooded areas while bordering on some
residential development. Soil types consist of mostly
Chewacla-Congaree, Cecil-Appling-Worsham and some
Norfolk-Orangeburg series, with shallow groundwater
depths, and subterranean granite and felsic formations.
Surface waters are classified as WS-III for the Roanoke
River.
II. Proposed Project and Need
In April of 1990, Westmoreland Hadson Partnership (WHP)
of Virginia announced its intention to build a $200
million coal powered co-generation plant adjacent to the
Town of Weldon. Upon completion and start up, this
facility will require there (3) million gallons of
untreated water per day for their operation. WHP has
made a request to the Town of Weldon for this supply and
negotiations to provide it are nearing completion.
The Town of Weldon presently operates a water supply and
treatment system capable of producing between 1.50 and
2.0 million gallons of treated water per day. In order
to meet the WHP demand for raw untreated water and to
enhance the treatment capability of the present treatment
;facility, the town proposes to construct the following:
1, Raw water intake structure and pumping station at
Hwy. 48 Bridge over the Roanoke River in Roanoke
° Rapids;
2. 24" 0 D.I. raw water transmission main adjace `
Hwy. 48, across Champion International Paper`1 gi1p
property and then within an existing 40' combined
water/sewer easement (parallel 12" 0 raw water line
for Weldon and 30" 0 sewer interceptor for Roanoke
Rapids Sanitary District to the Weldon water plant);
3. Water filtration plant modifications.
The facilities when completed will be capable of
providing five (5) million gallons of raw water per day
(3.0 MGD for WHP and 2.0 MGD for the Town of Weldon) and
provide a firm production capacity of two (2) million
gallons per day at the water treatment plant.
- 1 -
41
91
F.'1'.G1fl;1N& ASSOCI NF :S
i
.III. Alternative Analysis
1. Nothing - The option of doing nothing was considered
and immediately eliminated from consideration
because the improvements are necessary for WHP to
operate the proposed plant and the Town of Weldon to
serve its needs.
2. Route through Roanoke Rapids - This option was
considered whereby the transmission line would be
routed from the raw water intake structure/ pumping
station, through Roanoke Rapids and then Weldon
within existing rights-of-way and new easements to
the filtration plant. It was eliminated from
consideration due to higher costs associated with
more footage of pipe,; easement costs and
construction impact on highly populated areas within
the corporate limits.
Therefore, the preferred alternative involves
utilization of the existing water/sewer easement to the
filtration plant with a limited need for new easements
across Champion International Corporation property and
the beneficiary of this project, WHP.
IV. Environmental Consequences of Preferred Alternative
a. Changes in Land Use
The proposed alternative should have no significant
adverse impact on existing land use since the raw
water intake structure and pumping station is within
the Roanoke River floodplain and a vast majority
most of the proposed transmission line will be in
n the existing 40' water/sewer easement. Other
segments crossing the Champion International Paper
Mill wood yard should not alter the current land use
there as well.
b. Wetlands
The proposed alternative will
adverse impact on the wetland
construction of the raw water
pumping station and the first
transmission A ne which is
jurisdictional wetland areas.
4 w,

- 2 -
have some minor
s during initial
intake structure,
leg of the 24"
located within
go
1 "I GRIA-N ;ASSO(:In'I'I_S
C.
The proposed alternative will have no adverse impact
on agricultural lands since n. of the project
crosses any known functional agt ltural land uses.
d. Public Lands
there are no known lands within the project area
designated as publicly owned parks, etc. that would
be adversely impacted.
e. Scenic and Residential Areas
The proposed project will have adverse impact on
these type of areas s, he location/route
involves crossing developi strial property and
then running within an eti.sting 40' sewer/water
easement. The intake strudture will not interfere
with any boating activities "since its location will
be near the bank behind an existing raw water
pumping station.
f. Areas of Archeological or Historical Value
There are no known areas of archeological or
historical value that the project would impact with
the exception of the Roanoke Canal. Some parts of
the existing 40' water/sewer easement may border the
canal, but no disturbances are anticipated.
g. Air Quality
The proposed project should have little or no impact
on air quality during construction. Only minor
exhaust from heavy machinery will be a factor to air
quality.
h. Groundwater Ouality
The proposed project will have little or no effect
on the groundwater quality within the project area
since this project is surface water related.
i. Noise Levels
The proposed project may involve some temporary
annoyance from noise to those in very close
proximity to the construction. Machinery and
possible remote blasting may contribute to this
factor.

- 3 -
91
F.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID 199100397 January 10, 1991
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE TOWN OF WELDON, Post Office Box 551, Weldon, North Carolina 27890,
has applied for a Department of the Army permit (DA) TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAW WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE IN THE ROANOKE RIVER AT ROANOKE
RAPIDS, HALIFAX COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by representatives
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the application
show the proposed construction of a new raw water intake structure directly
below the existing pumping station off N.C. 48 in Roanoke Rapids. In
addition, a new intake channel would be excavated from the proposed facility
to an existing channel serving the intake structure for the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District. The channel would be approximately 110 feet long, 15 feet
wide and 5 feet below minimum water level. Construction of the intake would
involve blasting of approximately 350 cubic yards of granite rock and disposal
of the material on uplands off the site. Construction of the intake itself
will involve minor excavation with disposal of material on the upland, and if
necessary, placement of temporary fill for construction access and an
isolation cofferdam. The construction access fill would involve, at the
maximum, placement of approximately 260 cubic yards of select backfill or
stone below the top of the bank, to form a causeway. proximately 50 feet
long, 20 feet wide and 7 feet high. Exact quantities/dimensions of temporary
fill would depend on construction methods and equipment used and on the water
level generated by the dam release upstream. Plans showing the proposed
construction are included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
DA permit will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal
has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued
qntil the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as required by PL
92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404(b) of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment
period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this
lapplication. Requests for public hearing shall state, with particularity, the
-reasons for holding a public hearing.

'10 IN
-2-
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered'-
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The. decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under whip
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards,`,flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations 9f
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. F
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of
the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agencies' 404(b)(1`) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any
other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interes
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes, and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity.Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineer
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this

t-1

, OH
I
VNrK)UVO H INON NOS-IM
5b33I?OfV3 ml M=
Yd ' MVK)OSSd CNV ICJ *X=l
32U1L nuns Mwunis
3) W. N'a " CROP cur CROP cur *ONOO USiX3

6$ 1N38
" - - oil
os
09
OL

09

06
.oz - .?- 3TrJS
S-EK)dd aNY NY ld
3742S ON
MHO C ESOdOdd NOLLOM-SSOUO

,.'
? os'rir
•
? ,?. AN1
` MOTS 301S
1a 'XOSddV
AWdnW OWN
H3M )RM
30 jo NNW
30M dCLL OM Dj
IM3
3XYM
SUVM MVS
IMS7
F
1 _ mod'
UULUJ
-JNOO NJRJB
AN= Z
•AO 092 s 173 =SCWV
MAY) L*43,409 Of1211.S AAVVSOJM31
•pnH S 3HV1NI H31VM MV21 WK YA313
SOkMd 3H0NV021 ONLLSM '00 02JV013 ;p g3dVd XVjnyH Ol
30NYHIN3 1SSV3 1V 300ING j0 H3NSOO NO
32MJ10S 0313SIHO 031NIVd :>16"H0N38
-3-
comments are used to assess impacts on
?erties, water quality, general environmental
terest factors listed above. Comments are
imental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
al Environmental Policy Act. Comments are
Eor apublic hearing and to determine the
roposed activity---- -----
aer to issue this Department of the Army
North Carolina Division of Environmental
or waives State certification required by
zt. The DEM considers whether or not the
th Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
a and this public notice for the DA permit
for certification.
ling the Clean Water Act certification may be
avironmental Operations Section, North
1 Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Copies of such materials will be furnished
pon payment of reproduction costs.
f Environmental Management plans to take
he Clean Water Act certification on or after
mments regarding the application for Clean
to in writing delivered to the North
1 Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
: b fore January 28, 1991, Attention:
D the proposed work, as outlined above, will
ntion: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, until 4:15 p.m.,
[phone].
j-
k.
1.
M.
n.
Water Supplies
The proposed project will have no adverse impact on
the water supplies, rather will provide a great
benefit to the overall supplies to the town and WHP.
Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
The proposed project will have little or no adverse
impact on the fish and their habitat. Due to the
proximity of the proposed intake,4tructure near the
river bank, the waters here are vi shallow and are
not in an area where fish would b%Jocated.
Wildlife and Their Habitats
Though there are several threatened or endangered
animals known in the Halifax County area, the
proposed project should have no impact on any of
these due to the lines being installed through a
developed industrial site and the existing open 40'
water/sewer easement.
Introduction of Toxic Substances
The proposed project will not introduce any toxic
substances to the environment.
Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
The proposed project will not contribute to
eutrophication of receiving waters.
IV. Mitigative Measures to Environmental Consequences
a. Changes in Land Use
Upon completion of work seed and mulch all disturbed
areas, provide stabilization with rip rap etc. where
needed and restore features such as driveways, etc.
back to original or better condition.
b. Wetlands
Any disturbance in wetlands will be done in strict
accordance with the requirements set forth under a
U. S. Army Corps 404 Permit which is currently under
review for work at the intake structure.
- 4 -
90
E=.T.(;RE=E\ & .-\SSOCIATES
C. Prime or Unique Agkicultural Lands
No mitigative measures needed.
d. Public Lands
No mitigative measures needed.--..
e. Scenic and Recreational Areas
No mitigative measures needed.
f.

V
To avoid disturbing the Roane Canal, use of
acceptable sedimentation/erosiofi control methods
will be applied and any distUrbance that must occur
will be repaired with proper stabilization using rip
rap and/or seeding and mulching. All methods shall
be approved by local and state agencies.
g. Air Quality
To ensure proper emissions are maintained from
machinery exhaust, all equipment will be
checked/inspected prior to operation on the project.
h. Groundwater Quality
No mitigative measures needed.
i. Noise Levels
To reduce any annoyance from loud equipment, muffler
systems could be installed while working in
proximity of the urban area near Roanoke Rapids and
in Weldon.
j. Water Supplies
No mitigative measures needed except provide proper
sedimentation/erosion methods to prevent runoff from
polluting the river. These methods shall be
approved by the local and state agencies.
- 5 -
FT GREl E\A SSOCIATES
i.

k. Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitat
To mitigate possible disturbance to the fish and
their habitat, efforts shall be made to disturb as
little of the area as needed for the intake
structure and its components and to work in strict
accordance with the requirements of the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers 404 Permit.."-",
1. Wildlife and Their Habitat
No mitigative measures needed.
M. Introduction of Toxic Substances
No mitigative measures needed.
n. Eutrophication of Receiving.Waters
No mitigative measures needed.
- 6 -
?
go
F.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES

February 5, 1991
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Army Corps of Engineers
11413 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Reference: Raw Water Intake Construction
Town of Weldon, North Carolina
Action I.D.> 199100397
Piedmont Olsen No. 38965.08
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
•?
wy, '"'
f'

FEB 11
OVA tai of t-? `<,r ?,.
_; 'i

On behalf,of the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District, we are responding to a
Public Notice from the Department of the Army concerning a permit application
from the Town of Weldon to construct a raw water intake structure and channel
in the Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. The proposed channel
connects to an existing raw water intake channel operated by the Sanitary
District. We offer the following questions, comments and concerns:
1. How will the proposed construction impact the quantity and quality
of raw water at the District's intake?
a) What are the average and peak withdrawal rates at the proposed
intake?
b) Withdrawal of water through the proposed channel could reduce
the water available to the District's intake. Consideration
should be given to the available flow at minimum, normal, and
high river levels.
c) Higher velocities created by intake through the proposed
channel could cause increased quantities of sediment to be
deposited in the District's channel.
d) The District currently operates a piped blow-off system to
remove sediments deposited in the intake channel. What
precautions will be taken to ensure that this pipe is not
damaged during dredging and blasting operations?
e) Materials from dredging and blasting operations during
construction of the proposed channel could be deposited in the
District's channel.
2. Why must the proposed channel tie into the District's channel
rather than extend perpendicularly into the river channel?
3. Blasting operations could disturb the footings for Bents No. 9 and
10 of the NC48 Bridge.

On behalf of the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District, we are requesting the
aforementioned concerns be addressed during the review process for the
yio

Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
February 5, 1991
Page 2
Department of the Army permit and D.E.M. 401 Certification. Please contact
this office should you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
PIEDMONT OLSEN INC.
Ag,'M V /,
Robert N. Vinay U P.E.
RNV/lj
cc: Mr. G. Macon Reavis
Mr. Steve Tedder

i
I
1.

f,
t
?: 0 w

N Z
Q

C)
?
O
X
a J•
n O)O CL
OD Q { ,_ r 0
4
lD
?! t
{

yyy

`?1 J

3
i
,

I? r

' '.
•.r'
?,,

_,
O?
i
-?
4

,.
'.,

:- ? '
?i
, I'
.. '. j.
r ? ?
+?
?,
'
,.
Y?J:Ir ?I
? ... -

'. .?
.r
?...
j
II:

d

?? ? jj
f
j
I
?_
. I
?. - k I??
? ?
?, I.
II

.. r

?
- _ .../
_ I y
j I
I;
*/
? I
?,,.
.air L..
?
?

- ,..,..
? ?
i ??

i
-?h_?v' ?r
??' ? ?
.. ,.
I ?.

? f;

? +,
*
?
,?
?.
a

?

?

?.
?.

?

? °,
i

.. i
I
S

., ???
i
`\
r ? ..
? .?
- ..
,r ? ?
r " :?
r
? ?
..
?? ?
-
;
? , .
?
t s,_

,? ??
:M o
3 r?4> a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin,:Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
February 25, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Alsmeyer, COE
Karl Shaffer, DEM
Mike Gantt, USFWS
John Morris, Water Resources
Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Alan Hirsch, Attorney General's Office
Ralph Daley
Linda Sewall, Water Supply'*
John Parker, Coastal Management
Dennis Stewart,.WRC
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries
Tom Welborne, EPA
FROM: John Dorney Of3©Ij
Re.. Town of Weldon 404/401 Application for
pumping station and transmission line.
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
raw water intake,
Based on a request from Ralph Daley (consultant to Town of
Weldon), I have scheduled a meeting for March 8, 1991 at 9 AM in
the 9th' floor.confprence room of the Archdale Building to discuss
concerns about the Town of Weldon project. The Town will be
prepared to discuss the project and answer questions raised. The
main objective of the ''meeting is to develop a list of questions
for the Town which reflect concerns by the interested agencies.
Please call me at 919-733--5083 if yUU arcs able to attend.
JRD/kls
404/401.mem/40.t's
cc: Steve Tedder
Robert Vinay, Consuitant
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District

PoUudon Prewendon Pays
PO Box 1 1687. Raleigh, North Carolum 7 7611 168i i eleph. inc- 919 7 3 3 7015
A., {n , 0 l 1..,........... . nN:.....-... 1 „ .
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
February 13, 1991 )c 11'? , +j
M E M O R A N D U M
u?
cj
TO
John Dorney
THROUGH Arthur Mouberry, P.E.OR
Timothy L. Donnelly, P.E.
?.:
J,
FROM //- Karl Shaffer <
SUBJECT 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC)
Raw Water System Improvements
Town of Weldon
Halifax County
The Town of Weldon proposes to construct a raw water
intake, pumping station, and a 24-inch transmission line to
utilize water from the Roanoke River. The following items
were not adequately addressed in the Environmental
Assessment of December 21, 1990: A
1. Wetlands impacts during construction of the
24-inch transmission line are not discussed, and
an approved wetland map was not submitted.
i' 2. Sedimentation control during construction of the
intake and transmission line has not been
addressed. It is important that these impacts be
minimized.
3. Studies are underway which suggest that stream
flow is the major factor in hatching and survival
of striped bass eggs. Due to the decline of this
fish species and the importance of the Roanoke
River as a natural migratory route for striped
bass, it is felt that further study and attention
is warranted.
The Raleigh Regional office recommends issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification if the impacts of the above
mentioned items can be minimized to your satisfaction.
AM:TLD:KS:bas
Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # o pages ?
To From
Co. Co.
Dept. Phone #
Fax # Fax #
;'1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO December 18, 1990
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199100397
S:
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:
?'bru 1991,
e-?
Enclosed is the application of the Town of Weldon, for Department of the
Army authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to construct a
water intake structure in the Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids, Halifax County,
North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a
valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification may be required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same
law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after receipt
of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State action.
Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by February 19, 1991, the
District Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Eric Alsmeyer, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,

A Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):

Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources And
Community Development
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
MEMO
DATE: -
TO: SUBJECT:

4

i
i

From:
w STATE
o
?a ?...- North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
+M„ ,,,^ gDa
Printed on Recycled Paper
? W s
DATE:
Go..sc.??? . ?'?•-- ?--?'1-Gus?t?? ? S ?kS Tt?.??Z`r-r?
--rc?c..? w ? K o?--? (? ?, v ?'? ? -ru ? ??t, ? SSA ?S +??E
. Jges ., ;cs rte. ?? Cc ie.) vrw-
1.
,?•Z-??oc=+?w+w o? u? ?- F`-?? ?w?? kss???? ?CA!-tis?C,
,1 ?.c,?°?"'? , ? S ?w ? t?{1. v ?-Ae?G ?6arS? `J ?s3 v CJJ
Z . WI-AL - G w?TL+ sr%%VxC' VAS f4cr
,; ^5r-&.11 A0w-*'rj- * ,xsat.,,r-.
4(?-

Ar- c.ctj ' F -r-L" G rr-A
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
TO: r ?"+ `? SUBJECT:
-4;'?
y?am)) y?.? h
•.1?..}? t ... ? y r
> y ¢
e a STNI
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of ErMronmental (Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor 7snuary 1-3, 1991 George I Everett, Ph.D. -
W RIam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: John Dorne d'tAI-Xl
RE: Town of Weldon request for 404 permit (and 401
Certification) for raw water intake structure.
We are reviewing the above mentioned project for a 401
Certification. I recently got a phone call inquiring whether an
EA,or EIS would be required for this project. Please advise.
You can reach me at 733-5083.
JD/kls
Baggett.mem/401
rotlutlon Prevention Pays
P.Q. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
f. JAN 1991
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID 199100397 January 10, 1991
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE TOWN OF WELDON, Post Office Box 551, Weldon, North Carolina 27890,
has applied for a Department of the Army permit (DA) TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAW WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE IN THE ROANOKE RIVER AT ROANOKE
RAPIDS, HALIFAX COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by representatives
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the application
show the proposed construction of a new raw water intake structure directly
below the existing pumping station off N.C. 48 in Roanoke Rapids. In
addition, a new. intake channel would be excavated from the proposed facility
to an existing channel serving the intake structure for the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District. The channel would be approximately 110 feet long, 15 feet
wide and 5 feet below minimum water level. Construction of the intake would
involve blasting of approximately 350 cubic yards of granite rock and disposal
of the material on uplands off the site. Construction of the intake itself
will involve minor excavation with disposal of material on the upland, and if
necessary, placement of temporary fill for construction access and an
isolation cofferdam. The construction access fill would involve, at the
maximum, placement of approximately 260 cubic yards of select backfill or
stone below the top of the bank, to form a causeway approximately 50 feet
long, 20 feet wide and 7 feet high. Exact quantities/dimensions of temporary
fill would depend on construction methods and equipment used and on the water
level generated by the dam release upstream. Plans showing the proposed
construction are included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
DA permit will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal
has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued
until the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as required by PL
92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404(b) of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment
period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with particularity, the
reasons for holding a public hearing.