Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Application - City of Durham

Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation Application

City of Durham

Do Not Remove from Room

JORDAN LAKE
WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION
APPLICATION

Submitted by:

The City of Durham,N.C.
Department of Water Resources

Table of Contents
Introductory Letter/Letter of Financial Commitment Page 1
Section I: Population and Water Use Projections Pages 2-4
Section II: Current Water Supply Sources Page 5
Section III: Alternative Sources Pages 6-11
Section IV: Conservation and Demand Management Page 12
Section V: Plans to Use Jordan Lake Page 13
Appendix A: Water Supply System Report 1995 Update
Appendix B: Water System Facilities Map 1995 Update
Appendix C: Cost Evaluations for Alternatives from Section III

DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM

NORTH CAROLINA

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
101 CITY HALL PLAZA
DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 27701
Telephone[phone] Fax[phone]

September 26

Mr. Tom Fransen , P.E.
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7687

RE : Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Application

Dear Mr. Fransen:

The City of Durham,N.C. is pleased to submit the attached Jordan Lake Allocation Application
for consideration. As required in the application instructions,this letter serves as a written
commitment for all financial obligations related to receiving an allocation from Jordan Lake.
This effort, including filing the application,issuing the financial commitment, and amending the
Water Supply Plan to include Jordan Lake as a water supply alternative, was approved by the
Durham City Council on September 16, 1996. The City of Durham, as reflected in the
application, is requesting a 25 MGD Level II Allocation and anticipates development and use by
2015. The application has been prepared by the City's Depaiintent of Water Resources and
includes required information as specified from Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation
Application Guidelines Booklet dated July, 1996 and instructions received from the Applications
Workshop held on August 8,1996.

If you have questions concerning the City of Durham's application, please contact Mr. A. T.
Rolan, Director of Water Resources, City of Durham,N.C. at 919-560-4381, Fax [phone],
or E-Mail: [e-mail].

Sincerely

Orville W. Powell
City Manager
cc: Mr. A. T. Rolan

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AITIRMAT"IVE ACTION EMPLOYER

Section I Population and Water Use Projections

The following projections have been updated in the Water Supply System Report and are
tabulated in the same format as outlined in the Application Guidelines Booklet. The population
projections are similar to projections as stated in the Durham City-County Planning
Department's "The Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan" with minor adjustments made for
some remaining Durham County residents that are not yet served by City of Durham water. The
projections for water use are based on 3% growth factor as derived from demand records from
1981 through 1995.

Proposed Jordan
Year Water System Water Use Current System Lake Allocation
Populations Projections System Yield Deficit Level I Level II
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
1995 141,000 25.6 38.0 None 2.9
2000 195,300 29.4 38.0 None 2.9
2005 33.2 38.0 None 2.9
2010 237,500 37.0 38.0 None 2.9
2015 40.9 38.0 2.9 2.9
2020 279,300 44.7 38.0 6.7 22.1
2025 48.5 38.0 10.5 22.1
2030 52.5 38.0 14.5 22.1*
* It is important to note that at the year 2030 the projected use will be 52.5 MGD and the total
raw water storage capacity will be 63 MGD if the allocation is granted. This will allow a 20%
safety factor. If the water use projections are high then the excess capacity could possibly be
available for assistance with providing other small towns such as Hillsborough and Butner with
bulk finished water.

Future Water Demand Projections
Department of Water Resources

HISTORICAL WATER USE FOR THE CITY OF DURHAM SYSTEM
(3 % Growth)
Year AVG. DAY DEMAND PEAK DAY DEMAN RATIO 3% Growth AVG.DAY-Growth
(MGD) (MGD)
1980
1981 17.28 21.18 1.23
1982 17.06 21.22 1.24
1983 18.12 28.61 1.58
1984 18.93 25.04 1.32
1985 19.54 25.11 1.29
1986 20.51 26.59 1.30
1987 20.98 30.37 1.45
1988 21.73 33.35 1.53
1989 21.99 27.74 1.26
1990 22.27 30.19 1.36
1991 21.65 29.23 1.35
1992 23.32 35.61 1.53
1993 24.89 36.90 1.48
1994 25.40 33.90 1.33
1995 25.60 37.20 1.45
1996 26.32
1997 27.08
1998 27.85
1999 28.61
2000 29.38
2001 30.15
2002 30.91
2003 31.68
2004 32.44
2005 33.21
2006 33.98
2007 34.74
2008 35.51
2009 36.27
2010 37.04
2011 37.81
2012 38.57
2013 39.34
2014 40.10
2015 40.87
2016 41.64
2017 42.40
2018 43.17
2019 43.93
2020 44.70
2021 45.47
2022 46.23
2023 47.00
2024 47.76
2025 48.53
2026 49.30
2027 50.06
2028 50.83
2029 51.59
2030 52.36
c1sym\atr3.wk4

Section II Current Water Supply Sources

The following table includes data in a format as required by the Application Guidelines and
serves as a brief description of currently available City of Durham water supply sources. A more
complete description can be found in the 1992 City of Durham Water Supply Plan.

Source Name Source Location Source Type Estimated Yield Water Quality
County River Basin (MGD)
Lake Michie Durham Neuse Surface 19.0 Excellent
Little River Lake Durham Neuse Surface 18.0 Excellent

Section III Alternative Sources

The City of Durham has historically recognized the need to develop potential sources of future
water supply, including a previous request for allocation from Jordan Lake. The following table
summarizes alternatives that are considered reasonable at this time.

Estimated Environmental Institutional
Alternative Name Yield Cost Water Quality Impacts Implementation
(MGD) ($/1000 gal)
Lake Michie Expansion 30 Excellent Moderate Typical
Jordan Lake 25 Good Minor Simple
Teer Quarry 5 Good Minor Typical

Alternative Discussion :

Alternatives for the Lake Michie Expansion Project and the Teer Quarry Development are
discussed in detailed in the City of Durham 1992 Water Supply Plan and need no further
discussion at this time. The Jordan Lake alternative was not considered a feasible alternative
until recently when the allocation process was opened up. The City of Durham decided to seek
addition of this alternative to its water supply options for the following reasons:

1. Since Jordan Lake already exists and procedures are in place to formally reserve a
specific capacity , the certainty of being able to develop this as a raw water source is
relatively high.

2. The unit costs for this raw water storage are fairly low when compared to other
alternatives.

3. Development of Jordan Lake as a raw water source for the City of Durham will not create

any interbasin transfer problem since Durham wastewater facilities currently have
NPDES discharge permits greater than the allocation requested.

4. The Triangle J Water Quality Modeling Data(partly supported by the City of Durham)
shows that the Jordan Lake has adequate quality for use as drinking water.

The development of Jordan Lake as a water supply for the City of Durham will be pursued as a
joint venture with either the Town of Cary or Orange Water and Sewer Authority initially.
The City of Durham believes that a regionalized approach can best serve the needs of all in the
most cost-effective manner. Although a cooperative approach would be the first considered by
the City of Durham, it should be recognized that it is feasible to build a separate pumping facility
and pipeline to Durham for the purpose of conveying raw water obtained from Jordan Lake.

7

Economic Evaluation of Alternatives:

1. Lake Michie Expansion (Additional 30 MGD 20 yr S.Y. or 25 MGD 50 yr S.Y.)

The economic alternative for Lake Michie expansion has been discussed in detail in the City of
Durham Water Supply Plan, Appendix H. A copy of the cost summary for the alternatives is
included. The costs for preferred alternative, raising Lake Michie to elevation 380 M.S.L. are in
1988 dollars. Accordingly those costs have been adjusted for inflation using a annual 3%rate.

2. Teer Quarry Storage Project (8 MGD)

The economic alternative for the Teer Quarry Project is discussed in the Little River EIS
Document and is attached for review. The estimate has been adjusted for inflation using an
annual rate of 3%. This alternative is still only conceptual in nature and is dependent on
acquisition of the land and quarry from the owner. Although active mining has ceased from the
quarry, the pit has not been enlarged to the capacity as anticipated in the EIS. Also the company
who owns the quarry has maintained mining permits for the facility so it may be questionable
whether the site may be available in the near future.

3. Jordan Lake Alternative: (25 MGD 50 yr S.Y.)

As stated previously,the City of Durham will initially pursue a joint venture with the Town of
Cary or OWASA to develop a water supply source. The concept will be to contract for
permanent bulk sales of water to Durham with the pricing to reflect both capital and O&M costs
associated with the additional production costs. Although details are not yet available for this
type of arrangement it is conceivable to assume that bulk purchases will be priced at a level
which would approximately equal to a utility's basic rate minus the costs for billing and
distribution.

Another approach for the Jordan Lake alternative is for the City of Durham to build all facilities
necessary for the transmission of raw water to a City of Durham water treatment plant. For this
alternative general cost data have been used to prepare estimates of relative costs.

Environmental Evaluation:

1. Lake Michie Expansion Alternative

Information on environmental impacts such as additional land requirements and loss of wetlands
areas can be found in the City of Durham Water Supply Plan, Appendix H. There would
certainly be a requirement for mitigation of inundated lands and temporary disruption of certain
traffic patterns as road relocations are built. No endangered species are known to be affected at
this time. The project would need an extensive EIS tb address all issues. It is the opinion of the
City of Durham that the environmental impacts would be rated moderate.

2. Teer Quarry Storage Project Alternative

Information on the environmental impacts of this alternative are as yet not well developed;
however, it is a good possibility that there would be some ground water impacts near the quarry
site. Beyond land needed to actually acquire the site no other lands would needed. No
endangered species are known to be affected at this time. It would be anticipated that only minor
mitigative measures would be needed since only the pit area would be inundated. It is the opinion
of the City of Durham that the environmental impacts of this alternative would be minor.

3. Jordan Lake Alternative

Environmental impacts of using Jordan Lake as a water supply for the City of Durham are
considered the least of any alternative presented since there would be no additional lands
inundated. Construction of additional infrastructure such as pipelines and plant expansion to
accommodate City of Durham needs will likely cause some short-term environmental impacts,
however it is the opinion of the City of Durham those impacts would be minor.

Institutional Evaluation:

1. Lake Michie Expansion

The development of this alternative would be a typical lake development project where a full
review of existing and feasible alternatives would be examined in a full Environmental Impact
Statement. It is anticipated that the City of Durham would need to obtain a wide range of permits
from both the State and the Army Corps of Engineers. Since the City of Durham currently owns
a majority of the land needed to expand the lake, public acceptance problems would not be a
major issue from a property owner point of view. Mitigative measures might be difficult in some
respects since the expanded lake might affect the N.C. State University forestry camp upstream
on the Flat River.

2. Teer Quarry Storage Project

The development of the Teer Quarry as a water storage reservoir is considered to be less
developed in terms of feasibility and concept. Groundwater impacts of the project would need to
be considered initially, and if the pit was feasible for a water storage facility,the rest of the
development would be typical of large water resources projects. It is anticipated that permits
from the State and the Army Corps of Engineers would be required for the construction of the
intake on the Eno River and quarry intake and pumping station. There could be a perception
problem for the water quality of the Eno River.

3. Jordan Lake Water Supply Project

The Jordan Lake water supply alternative as contrasted to the other two alternatives is considered
to be simple. Since the allocation can be reserved, a sound and dependable capital project For
development of this alternative only plant and pipeline infrastructure would need to be
constructed, assuming the existing intake would be available for use by the City of Durham. If a
new intake were necessary, the alternative would need to be classified as typical since additional
permits from the State and the Army Corps of Engineers would be necessary. Some public
perception may be encountered concerning the quality of raw water available from the lake,
however the Triangle J-U.S.G.S. Water quality monitoring data provides a good baseline of
quality over last few years.

Wastewater Return Alternative:

It is anticipated that no net diversion will result from an allocation of 25 MGD to the City of
Durham since the southern Durham wastewater service area currently has NPDES Discharge
Permits of 26 MGD of capacity.

Section IV Conservation and Demand Management

Conservation and demand management are described in detail in the City of Durham Water
Supply Plan under Appendix C and G. Other activities not included in the reference material
cited include water accounting and customer use counseling by two full-time water conservation
staff employees and a significant public relations program. Efforts to develop reclaimed
wastewater market are underway with a recent feasibility study conducted by Triangle J. Some
excerpts are included for review.

Section V Plans to Use Jordan Lake

If an allocation is approved for the City of Durham, this alternative will be incorporated into the
City of Durham Water Supply Plan. Plans for contract purchase of bulk water will be discussed
more in detail with both Cary and OWASA to see if an agreement can be negotiated.
Opportunities for participation in oversized pipelines to prepare for bulk water transfers between
utilities will require advance planning and modeling as well as an understanding of other utilities
water needs.

In the event that efforts to cooperate regionally are unsuccessful, the City of Durham will
tentatively plan to obtain raw water from the existing intake on the east side of the lake in the
area of U.S. 64 and follow N.C. 751 north to a City of Durham site,possibly on Farrington Road
in southern Durham County. If the water use projections are correct,the City of Durham will
need to begin preparing for this project at about 2005 in order to procure financing, prepare
plans, and build the necessary facilities to begin withdrawal of raw water and treatment at a plant
site.

Raw and Finished Water Quality Monitoring Plan:

The City of Durham will carefully monitor the quality of the raw and finished water from Lake
Jordan either through a contract with another utility or independently. All monitoring will be at
minimum in accordance with requirements of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, and the United States EPA.

Costs: See Appendix C for cost analysis for each of the alternatives dicussed in Section III.

Appendix A

North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT FOR 1995
Report for January 1 to December 31, 1995
Completed By: A.T. Rolan Date: June 1996
Section 1: General Information
A. PWS Identification Number: 03-32-010
B. River Basin Name: Flat River Basin, Little River Basin -Both in Neuse River Basin
C. Name: City of Durham,North Carolina
D. Contact Person: A.T. Rolan
E. Contact Person's Title: Director, Department of Water Resources
F. Mailing Address of System: 101 City Hall Plaza
G. City: Durham H. County: Durham I. State: North Carolina J. Zip Code: 27701
K. Phone: [phone]
L. Ownership of System: Municipality, City of Durham, North Carolina
M. The present population served by the system: 141,012
The 2000 projected system population to be served is: 195,300
The 2010 projected system population to be served is: 237,500
The 2020 projected system population to be served is: 279,300
If a 25 percent or larger increase in population to be served by this system is projected for any one five year period, please explain.
Section 2: Water Use Information
A. Total water use for 1995 including all purchased water: 9400.9 million gallons (MG).
B. Average Annual Daily Water Use: 25.6 million gallon per day(MGD).
C. Maximum Daily Water Use for Report Year: 37.2 million gallons (MG) Date of Occurrence: 8/2/95
City ofDurham,N.C. PW ID#03-32-010

REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995
D. Average Annual Water Use:
Metered Accounts Nonmetered Connections/Use
Type Number Water Use (MGD) Number Estimated Use (MGD)
Residential 48096 13.5
Commercial/Industrial 2839/80 5.6
Institutional 80 2.4
Public Use(accounted n/a 0.08
for)*
Bulk sale to other suppliers 2 0.03
Unaccounted for 4.15
Total 51645 25.75
*This amount is both estimated and metered use
E. Average monthly water use for 1995 in MGD:
Month Use (MGD) Month Use (MGD)
January 22.3 July 29.3
February 23.2 August 32.6
March 23.7 September 27.5
April 25.7 October 25.9
May 27.1 November 23.2
June 25.8 December 22.5
City of Durham,N.C. PdSIDII 03-32-010

F. List the system's largest water users and their average use in MGD:
Water Customer Average Use Water Customer Average Use
Duke University&Med. Center 1.53 MGD Liggett&Myers 0.17 MGD
Glaxo Wellcome 0.83 MGD NIEHS 0.13 MGD
Motorola 0.25 MGD V.A. Hospital 0.13 MGD
IBM 0.35 MGD Mitsubishi Semiconductor 0.21 MGD
Durham Regional Hosp. Corp. 0.28 MGD MCNC 0.08 MGD
G. Year 2000 projected water use by this system: 29.4 MGD
Year 2010 projected water use by this system: 37.0 MGD
Year 2020 projected water use by this system: 44.7 MGD
Do projections include an anticipated increase in industrial water customers? Yes
City of Durham,N.C. PWSID#03-32-010

REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995
Section 3: Water Supply Sources
A. List all surface water sources:
Name of Stream Drainage Is Location Location Avg. #of days Safe Yield Safe Yield Limits to Limits to Raw Water Regular
and/or Area Withdrawal Latitude Longitude Daily Withdrawal MGD MGD Total Daily Total Daily Storage or
Reservoir (sq.miles) Metered? Withdrawal 20 year 50 year Output Output Capacity Emergency
MGD Type Capacity MG Use
Flat River/ 168 yes 36-9-3 78-49-50 8.2 305 22.4 19 Pumps 32 MGD 4000 Regular
Lake Michie
Little River/ 97 yes 36-6-45 78-51-45 19.5 358 20.6 18 Pumps 48 MGD 4900 Regular
Little River
Lake
Eno River --- --- 36-4-40 78-53-0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Emerg.
Total 265 --- --- --- --- --- 43 37 --- 80 8900
***City of Durham has no ground water sources
B. What is the system's total off-stream raw water storage capacity? 135 MG
C. List connection to other water supplies:
Supplier Name Receiver Name Average Daily Number of Days Max. Transfer Regular or
Water Transferred Water Capacity (MGD) Emergency
(MGD) Transferred
City of Durham,NC Town of Hillsborough, NC 0.5 33 1 Emerg.
City of Durham,NC Orange Water& Sewer Authority 2 9 4.7 Emerg.
D. Is present supply sufficient to serve the 10-year projected water use? YES
If no, please explain proposed plan of action.
City ofDurham.N.C. PL35ID#03-32-010

E. Proposed sources to be added to meet projected needs:
Source Name Source Type Location Location Proposed Avg. Daily Proposed Operational
Ground or Surface Latitude Longitude Withdrawal (MGD) Date
Teer Quarry Surface(off stream storage) 36-4-10 78-53-27 Intermittent Unknown
Lake Michie Expansion Surface 38-8-52 78-49-50 Up to 50 MGD 2020
Section 4: Wastewater Discharge Information
A: List all wastewater discharge permits held by the system:
NPDES Permit# Permit Capacity Design Capacity Avg. Annual Daily Receiving Stream Location Location
MGD MGD Discharge MGD Latitude Longitude
NC 0047597 20.0 20.0 8.2 New Hope Creek 35-54-15 78-58-25
NC 0023841 20.0 20.0 8.4 Ellerbee Creek 36-1-43 78-51-54
B. Number of sewer connections with service area: 62,176
C. Number of"water only" connection with septic systems: 3,794
D. Explain any plans for wastewater treatment facilities to be built within the next 10 years:
City ofDurham.N.C. PWS/Dil 03-32-010

E. List average daily wastewater discharge by month for the report year:
Total Average Monthly Wastewater Discharge for 1995 (MGD)
Month Discharge Month Discharge
January 17.7 July 16.1
February 17.5 August 16.6
March 16.9 September 14.9
April 13.2 October 18.5
May 14.4 November 18.5
June 16.8 December 17.6
Section 5: Water Conservation
A. What is the total estimated miles of distribution system? 825.4 miles
B. What is the primary type and size of the distribution lines? Type: CI, DI Size: 2" - 42"
(Only insignificant amounts of galvanized and AC)
C. Has the system added or replaced any lines during the report year? Yes If yes, specify- Various
D. Did you work or flush your hydrants during the report year? Yes If yes, what was the frequency? 6,410 /year
E. Do you have a valve exercise program? Yes If yes, what was the frequency? 13,270/year
F. Does your system have an active leak detection program? No
G. Does your system have a cross connection control program? Yes
H. Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of your system? No
I. Do you have a water conservation plumbing code in effect in your service area? Yes
J. Did you provide water conservation information to your customers during the report year?Yes
K. Was water use ever restricted during the report year? No
L. Has water use ever been restricted in the past 10 years? Yes
M. Estimate the system's water use in MGD and population served for the following years:
1970: 13.19 MGD 100,000 (est.) people 1975: 15.29 MGD population not available
1980: 17.35 MGD 112,000 (est.) people 1985: 19.54 MGD population not available
N. Do you have a drought or water conservation ordinance in effect? Yes If yes, please attach a copy.
O. Metering
Ciry ofDurham.N.C. PWSID#03-32-010

1. Is the finished water output metered? Yes
2. Is the raw water output metered? Yes
3. What is the oldest series of meters in your system? 21 years old
4. Do you have an active meter replacement program? Yes
5. How many meters did you replace during the year? 3,189
P. What is the system's finished water storage capacity? 19 MG
Section 6: Distribution Map
Draw the present boundaries of your water distribution system locating the source(s), points of intake and discharge, water and wastewater
treatment facilities, and interconnections with other systems on the enclosed county highway map. Also, show in a different line type or color future
improvements or any proposed points of intake or discharge, water or wastewater facilities, interconnections, or service extension areas.
Section 7: Water Supply Planning
A. Have you participated in regional water supply planning? Yes
B. Do you need technical assistance in developing a local water supply plan? No
C. Do you need technical assistance with a leak detection program? No
D. Do you need technical assistance with any other water supply or use problem? No
E. Do you have stage-storage curves for your surface water sources? Yes
F. List the major water supply reports or studies on which you base your planning:
G. Who provides engineering services to your system? City of Durham - Department of Engineering and various consulting firms
H. Please list the major problems that your system faces in meeting your present and future water supply needs. Include consideration of
quantity and quality problems, as well as legal, institutional and financial problems.
City of Durham,N.C. PWSID#03-32-010

Appendix B

Attachment A
1996

Proposed water and sanitary sewer
service area boundary and
annexation boundary between
the City of Durham and
the Town of Cary

City of Durham
(Check Plot)

Hillsborough, N.C.

WPS Service Area
Boundary Between
Durham & Hillsborough

End of Document