Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation and IBT Rec Round Two

JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
ALLOCATION & INTERBASIN TRANSFER
RECOMMENDATIONS
ROUND TWO
September 2000
Water Allocation Committee
Environmental Management Commission
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resource
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of North Carolina has been assigned the use of the entire water supply storage
in B. Everett Jordan Lake and, under GS 143-354(a)(11), can assign this storage to any local
government having a need for water supply storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G.0500
describes the specific procedures used when allocating the Jordan Lake water supply storage.
The two main criteria for Jordan Lake water supply allocations are future water needs and
availability of alternative water supplies. Also, the administrative rule requires the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC or Commission) to coordinate the review of any
allocation requests with the certification of any interbasin transfers that maybe required.
In June 1997, the Division of Water Resources (DWR or Division) held a public hearing
on its recommendations for Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations for round two. In
December 1997, the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Hearing Officer and the
Director of the Division:
1.no allocation to the City of Durham;
2.no allocation to the City of Fayetteville;
3.no allocation to the City of Greensboro;
4.allocating 2.0 million gallons of water per day (mgd) to Holly Springs;
5.deferring its decision on allocations for Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and Wake/RTP until the
interbasin transfer review process is completed; and
6.deferring its decision on Chatham and Harnett Counties’ applications until the Commission
takes action on those applications requiring interbasin transfer certification.
Allocation Recommendations
The Division of Water Resources’ recommendations are summarized in Table 1 (below).
The Division’s allocation recommendations are consistent with the December 1997 EMC
decision. The Division recommends:
1.no increase in Chatham County’s existing allocation (currently 6.0 mgd);
2.no allocation to Harnett County;
3.allocating an additional 5.0 mgd to the Towns of Cary and Apex (for a total allocation of 21.0
mgd);
4.allocating 2.5 mgd to the Town of Morrisville; and
5.allocating 1.5 mgd to Wake County/Research Triangle Park.
The allocations to Cary/Apex, Morrisville and Wake/RTP involve interbasin transfers.
Recommendations concerning these interbasin transfers are below.
ii
Table 1. Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations for Round Two (a)
Applicant
Current
Allocation
(mgd)
Requested
Additional
Allocation
(mgd)
Recommended
Additional
Allocation
(mgd)
Interbasin Transfer
Certification
Required
Chatham County 6.0 7.0 0.0 No
Durham none 25.0 0.0 No
Fayetteville none 20.0 0.0 No
Greensboro none 25.0 0.0 No
Harnett County none 12.0 0.0 No
Holly Springs 2.0 (b)4.5 (b)0.0 No
Cary/Apex 16.0 29.0 5.0 Yes
Morrisville none 4.5 2.5 Yes
Wake County/
Research Triangle Park none 3.5 1.5 Yes
Total 24.0 130.5 9.0
(a)Allocations obtained are actually a percentage of the water supply storage in Jordan Lake.
However, since all (100 percent) of the water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of
100 mgd, allocations are conveniently expressed here in terms of mgd. For example, a 6.0
mgd allocation actually represents an allocation of 6.0 percent of Jordan Lake’s water supply
storage.
(b)Holly Springs had requested an allocation of 4.5 mgd and was granted an allocation of 2.0
mgd in the December 1997 EMC decision.
Interbasin Transfer Recommendations
As part of their allocation requests, the Towns of Cary, Apex and Morrisville, and Wake
County (for RTP South) have petitioned the EMC for an increase in the existing Cary/Apex
interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate from 16 to 27 million gallons per day (mgd). The transfer
diverts water from the Jordan Lake (Haw River) subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin.
To support their petition for transfer, the petitioners prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Cape Fear River Basin Model was use to assess the impact of the transfer
on reservoir operations and downstream flows. Model runs for seven alternatives were evaluated
for present and 2030 demands. The EIS determined that the transfer will not have any significant
direct impacts on either the source or receiving basin. Secondary effects from growth, such as
increased runoff, erosion and loss of open space, are expected to have negative impacts on water
quality and fish and wildlife habitat. These impacts will be mitigated to a large extent through
existing regulations and programs, as well as new initiatives.
iii
The Division held a public hearing on the draft EIS on June 13, 2000. Following
completion of a second public review, the petitioners will present their transfer petition and
supporting documentation to the EMC Water Allocation Committee to forward to the full EMC.
The EMC will consider the transfer requests at the same time as Jordan Lake allocations. If the
EMC approves the project for hearing, a public hearing will be held following a 30-day public
notice period. The EMC will make a final decision after reviewing the hearing officer’s report.
Based on a careful review of the EIS and public record, the Division of Water Resources
recommends that the EMC grant the petitioners’ request for an IBT certificate of 27 mgd
subject to the following conditions:
Condition No. 1. The Towns of Cary and Apex will manage the authorized transfer amount in
such a way that none of the individual Jordan Lake water supply allocation holders (Cary/Apex,
Morrisville, and Wake County) are prevented from fully using their respective allocations.
Condition No. 2. Prior to exceeding 80 percent of their permitted transfer amount, or 21.6 mgd
on a maximum day basis, the Towns of Cary and Apex shall begin construction of the facilities
required to return reclaimed water to the Cape Fear Basin. The Towns may be exempted from
this requirement if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division of Water Resources
that they can avoid exceeding their permitted interbasin transfer amount.
Condition No. 3. Prior to transferring water under this certificate, the Towns of Cary and Apex
will work with the Division of Water Resources to develop a compliance and monitoring plan
subject to approval by the Division. The plan will include methodologies and reporting schedules
for reporting the following information: maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with
permit conditions, progress on mitigation measures, and drought management and reporting. A
copy of the approved plan will be kept on file with the Division for public inspection. The
Division of Water Resources will have the authority to make modifications to the compliance
and monitoring plan, as necessary.
Condition No. 4. Prior to transferring water under this certificate, the Towns of Cary, Apex, and
Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) will develop individual water shortage response
plans, subject to approval by the Division. The Towns of Cary and Apex will develop a drought
management plan for the interbasin transfer, incorporating the individual water shortage response
plans and subject to approval by the Division. The plans will tie specific actions to the percent
storage remaining in each of the petitioners’ Jordan Lake water supply accounts. A copy of the
approved plans will be kept on file with the Division for public inspection. The Division of
Water Resources will have the authority to approve modifications to the drought management
plan, as necessary.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................iv
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................1
ALLOCATION CRITERIA.....................................................................................................................3
ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................5
INTERBASIN TRANSFER RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................7
MODEL RESULTS ............................................................................................................................16
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. CHATHAM COUNTY NEEDS ASSESSMENT..............................................................A-1
APPENDIX B. HARNETT COUNTY NEEDS ASSESSMENT.................................................................B-1
APPENDIX C. CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL: 2015 SCENARIO ................................................C-1
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIS ................................D-1
1
BACKGROUND
In June 1997, the Division of Water Resources held a public hearing on its
recommendations for Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations. In December 1997, the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted the recommendations
of the Hearing Officer and the Director of the Division of Water Resources, deferring its decision
on Chatham and Harnett Counties’ applications until the Commission takes action on those
applications requiring interbasin transfer certification. This document provides recommendations
for those allocation requests involving interbasin transfer certification and the requests of
Chatham and Harnett Counties.
Schedule
In May 1996, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a request to re-open the
allocation process from the Towns of Cary and Apex for an increase in their water supply storage
in B. Everett Jordan Lake. This was the first time since the initial allocation in 1988 that the
allocation process had been opened. When such requests are received, it is Division policy to
open the allocation process to anyone interested in either obtaining a new allocation or increasing
an existing allocation.
When the request was received on May 8, 1996, the Division of Water Resources began
an extensive notification effort, including:
§ existing allocation holders and previous applicants;
§ registered water withdrawers in the Cape Fear Basin;
§ public water systems and waste water dischargers downstream of Jordan Lake; and
§ municipal and county officials in each county in the Cape Fear River basin or within a
50-mile radius of Jordan Lake.
The Division of Water Resources held a public information meeting on June 27, 1996 to
explain the allocation process in greater detail and to receive comments about the process. Based
upon the applications received, the Division of Water Resources made recommendations for
water supply storage allocations in a report in March 1997. With the approval of the EMC, a
public hearing was held to discuss the proposed allocations in June 1997. After that public
hearing, the EMC made a final decision for those allocations that did not involve interbasin
transfer (i.e., Holly Springs). For allocations that involve an interbasin transfer (i.e., Cary/Apex,
Morrisville, and Wake/RTP), the EMC decisions on both the allocation and interbasin transfer
certification were deferred until completion of the interbasin transfer review process. The EMC
also deferred decisions on allocations for Chatham and Harnett County at that time. A summary
of that decision is shown in Figure 1. The final step for each applicant receiving an allocation
will be entering into a repayment contract with the State for the water supply costs.
2
Figure 1. December 1997 Environmental Management Commission Decision
I.Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations (a)
Applicant
Current
Allocation
(mgd)
Requested
Additional
Allocation
(mgd)
Recommended
Additional
Allocation
(mgd)
Interbasin Transfer
Certification
Required
Chatham County 6.0 7.0 (b)No
Durham none 25.0 0.0 No
Fayetteville none 20.0 0.0 No
Greensboro none 25.0 0.0 No
Holly Springs none 4.5 2.0 No
Cary/Apex 16.0 29.0 5.0 Yes
Morrisville none 4.5 2.5 Yes
Wake County/
Research Triangle Park none 3.5 1.5 Yes
Harnett County none 12.0 (b)
(a) Allocations obtained are actually a percentage of the water supply storage in Jordan Lake.
However, since all (100 percent) of the water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of 100
mgd, allocations are conveniently expressed here in terms of mgd. For example, a 6.0 mgd
allocation actually represents an allocation of 6.0 percent of Jordan Lake’s water supply storage.
(b) Chatham and Harnett Counties’ allocation requests will be processed with those requests
requiring interbasin transfer certification.
II.Delay final decision on those allocation requests requiring interbasin transfer certification under G.S. 143-
215.22I (as indicated in the summary table above). The final decision will not be made until the interbasin
transfer review is completed.
III.Modify the water supply storage contracts. Existing contracts specify the weekly average withdrawal hat
cannot be exceeded by the allocation holder. The water supply storage contracts between the State and the
allocation holders will be modified to base the contract on the use of the storage allocated, rather than on a
maximum rate of withdrawal. The contract will also require the allocation holder to develop a drought and water
shortage response plan acceptable to both the State and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
3
ALLOCATION CRITERIA
The two main criteria for Jordan Lake allocations are future water needs and availability
of alternative water supplies. Applications submitted in 1996 and 1997 contained the following
information:
§ projected population and water use
§ safe yield estimates of current and alternative sources
§ description of conservation and demand management practices
§ outline of plan to use water from Jordan Lake
§ plan for monitoring water quality
§ cost of developing water supply facilities at Jordan Lake
§ costs of alternative sources of supply
Water demand is computed on an average daily basis to correspond with the
recommended contract changes and the reservoir safe yield estimate. The original 30 year
planning horizon (the year 2025) was revised to a 20 year planning horizon (the year 2015) to
allow for greater flexibility in making future allocations.
Future Water Needs
Applicants provided estimates of water use for the period 1995 through 2025. For each
applicant, the Division also performed an independent analysis of future need. The analysis
considered factors affecting water demand, including:
§ population growth
§ service area expansion
§ conservation
§ unaccounted water use
§ interconnections
§ industrial development
The independent analysis followed several general steps. First, the Division estimated
future service population out to the year 2025. The starting point was the Office of State
Planning (OSP) population forecast. In most cases, OSP estimates were modified to reflect
additional information provided by the applicants.
The second step was to develop future per capita water use rates that include the effects
of water conservation, industrial growth, and changing urban patterns. Conservation savings are
expected to result from changes in plumbing codes, improved system maintenance, customer
education, and adoption of water reuse.
In the third step, the Division estimated future water use by multiplying estimated service
population by the future per capita rate. The analysis assumed all water use attributable to new
population would be consumed at the future per capita rate. The analysis also assumed that water
use by the current population would gradually attain the future per capita rate due to fixture
4
replacement and other conservation programs. The Division assumed “replacement” would occur
at an annual rate of 3 percent.
The allocation process imposes a cost on both the State and local governments.
Therefore, the Division applied an additional test to be sure applicants would not need to apply
for an increased allocation for at least the next 5 to 10 years (year 2005). The Division used a
common rule of thumb for water supply planning: when a water system’s average daily demand
is at or exceeds 80 percent of their available yield, then a system needs to start expansion of their
existing supplies. The Division applied this rule of thumb to the applicants’ 2005 projected
average daily water demands to determine if there was adequate water for the next 10 years.
Alternatives
Applicants were required to provide information on alternative water supplies that could
be developed in lieu of a Jordan Lake allocation. Alternatives may include bulk purchases from
other suppliers, new reservoir and well development, and reservoir expansion. The list of
alternatives should have included all potential sources that the system had previously evaluated.
Systems were not required to perform new feasibility studies of other potential supplies. The
Division evaluated each alternative based on financial cost and institutional difficulty of
developing the resource in comparison with a Jordan Lake withdrawal. The Division also
considered the impact of each alternative on interbasin transfer and other environmental impacts.
In cases where a system has a viable alternative to Jordan Lake, the Division has
recommended an adjustment in the allocation request to account for the alternative supply.
Chatham and Harnett Counties
Chatham County had submitted a formal application in November 1996. They submitted
updated information in February 1997, March 1997, May 2000, and July 2000. Harnett County
did not submit a formal application during 1996-1997, but provided updates to their Local Water
Supply Plan (LWSP) at the Public Hearing in June 1997, and again in July 2000. In both cases,
DWR analyzed their future water needs based on a planning horizon of 2015. These analyses
indicated that a detailed analysis of their alternative water supplies was unnecessary.
5
ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Allocation Recommendations
The Division of Water Resources’ recommendations are summarized in Table 1. The
Division’s allocation recommendations are consistent with the December 1997 EMC decision.
Furthermore, the Division recommends no increase in Chatham County’s existing allocation and
no allocation to Harnett County. These systems have sufficient water supplies to satisfy their
projected 2015 water demands, as demonstrated in Appendices A and B.
Table 1. Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations for Round Two (a)
Applicant
Current
Allocation
(mgd)
Requested
Additional
Allocation
(mgd)
Recommended
Additional
Allocation
(mgd)
Interbasin Transfer
Certification
Required
Chatham County 6.0 7.0 0.0 No
Durham none 25.0 0.0 No
Fayetteville none 20.0 0.0 No
Greensboro none 25.0 0.0 No
Harnett County none 12.0 0.0 No
Holly Springs 2.0 (b)4.5 (b)0.0 No
Cary/Apex 16.0 29.0 5.0 Yes
Morrisville none 4.5 2.5 Yes
Wake County/
Research Triangle Park none 3.5 1.5 Yes
Total 24.0 130.5 9.0
(a)Allocations obtained are actually a percentage of the water supply storage in Jordan Lake.
However, since all (100 percent) of the water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of
100 mgd, allocations are conveniently expressed here in terms of mgd. For example, a 6.0
mgd allocation actually represents an allocation of 6.0 percent of Jordan Lake’s water supply
storage.
(b)Holly Springs had requested an allocation of 4.5 mgd and was granted an allocation of 2.0
mgd in the December 1997 EMC decision.
Watershed Diversions
The Jordan Lake watershed is that portion of the Haw River sub-basin upstream of Jordan
Lake Dam. To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality purposes, the
current rules limit allocations that will result in diversions out of the lake’s watershed to 50
percent of the total water supply yield, or 50 mgd. This provision is specific to the Lake’s
6
watershed because water returned below the dam does not replenish the reservoir’s water supply
and water quality pools. The EMC may review and revise this limit based on experience in
managing the Lake and on the effects of changes in the Lake’s watershed that will affect its
yield.
This 50 mgd limit refers to annual average diversions, since yields are typically based on
annual averages. Currently, 19.4 percent of the 100 mgd yield is diverted out of the Lake’s
watershed. Table 2 summarizes the estimated diversions out of the Lake’s watershed, based on
the 2015 demand projections and the recommended allocation amounts. As shown, 26.5 mgd of
the 42.5 mgd total recommended allocation would be diverted out of the Lake’s watershed as of
2015, leaving 23.5 mgd of the water supply storage still available for future allocations outside
the Lake’s watershed under the current 50 mgd limit.
This administrative rule has raised a number of water quality and public health issues
during the allocation process. A computer model was developed as part of the interbasin transfer
certification process. Division staff will use the model to determine if a joint study with the
Corps, the Division of Water Quality, and the Division of Environmental Health is needed to
reconsider the 50 percent rule. For this current, second round of allocations the limit does not
need to be revised.
Table 2. Estimated 2015 Jordan Lake Watershed Diversions
System
Total Recommended
Allocation
(mgd) 1
2015 Watershed
Diversion
(mgd) 2
Chatham County 6.0 3.0
Durham 0.0 0.0
Fayetteville 0.0 0.0
Greensboro 0.0 0.0
Holly Springs 2.0 2.0
Harnett County 0.0 0.0
Cary/Apex 21.0 18.3
Morrisville 2.5 2.5
Wake/RTP South 1.5 1.2
Orange County 3 1.0 1.0
OWASA 3 10.0 0.0
TOTAL 44.0 28.0
1 Includes existing allocation amounts 2 Based on preferred alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement for RTP South and the
Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville in Wake County
3 Existing allocation holder, but did not apply for additional allocation
7
INTERBASIN TRANSFER RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of their water supply allocation requests, the Towns of Cary, Apex and
Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) have petitioned the EMC for an increase in the
Cary/Apex interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate from 16.0 to 27.0 million gallons per day (mgd).
The transfer diverts water from the Jordan Lake (Haw River) subbasin to the Neuse River
subbasin. The Division of Water Resources has reviewed the petitioners’ request for a certificate
and recommends that the Commission grant a certificate, with conditions, for the requested
amount.
Statutory Authority
In 1993, the Legislature adopted the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act (GS 143-
215.22I). The intention of the law is to regulate large surface water transfers between river basins
by requiring a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). In general,
a transfer certificate is required for a new transfer of 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd) or more
and for an increase in an existing transfer by 25 % or more, if the total including the increase is
2.0 mgd or more. The law, as amended, requires that an environmental assessment be prepared
for all petitions for certification. The determination of whether an environmental impact
statement is also required will be made in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
Before granting an IBT certificate, the EMC must consider the following seven criteria:
(1) The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the transfer
(2) Detrimental effects on the source river basin, including cumulative effects of any
transfers or consumptive use
(3) Detrimental effects on the receiving basin
(4) Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer
(5) Use of impounded storage
(6) Purposes and water storage allocations in a US-COE multi-purpose reservoir
(7) Any other facts or circumstances necessary to carry out law
A certificate will be granted for a transfer if the applicant establishes and the EMC
concludes that the benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the transfer, and
the detriments have been or will be mitigated to a reasonable degree. The EMC may grant the
petition in whole or in part, or deny it, and may require mitigation measures to minimize
detrimental effects.
Review Process
At its December 1997 meeting, the EMC voted to delay decisions on those allocation
requests requiring an IBT certificate until all documentation has been completed for the IBT
requests. Four of the Jordan Lake allocation requests (Towns of Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and
Wake County/Research Triangle Park) will have an associated IBT totaling about 24 mgd in
8
2030. The Division recommended issuing a single certificate for this group of petitioners, since
they share common treatment and discharge facilities.
The Division subsequently worked with the petitioners to develop the required
environmental documentation. Due to the complexity of issues and concerns from downstream
communities, the Division recommended that the petitioners prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The key steps of the review process are shown below in Table 3.
In order to assess the impact of the transfer on reservoir operations and downstream
flows, the petitioners participated in the development of a Cape Fear River Basin Model
(additional discussion follows this section). Model runs for seven alternatives were evaluated for
present and 2030 demands.
The Division held a public hearing on the draft EIS on June 13, 2000. Three speakers
provided oral comments. An additional 21 written comments were received through the State
Clearinghouse. The majority of comments cited downstream concerns such as water quality,
adequate water supply, and economic equity. A summary of public comments is provided in
Appendix D.
Table 3. Review Process for Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and Wake County (RTP South) Interbasin Transfer
Dates Activity
1997 EIS Scoping
1997-2000 Development of Cape Fear Basin Model
December 1999 Draft EIS Submitted
December – June 2000 DENR Review
June - July 2000 60-Day Public Review and Public Hearing
August 2000 Final EIS Submitted
August - Sept. 2000 30-Day Public Review
September 2000 Record of Decision
September 2000 EMC Water Allocation Committee
October 2000 Full EMC
November 2000 EMC Holds Public Hearing
February 2001 EMC Issues Decision
9
Following completion of a second public review, the petitioners will present their transfer
petition and supporting documentation to the EMC Water Allocation Committee to forward to
the full EMC. The EMC will consider the transfer requests at the same time as Jordan Lake
allocations. If the EMC approves the project for hearing, a public hearing will be held following
a 30-day public notice period. The EMC will make a final decision after reviewing the hearing
officer’s report.
Evaluation
The Division of Water Resources has evaluated the applicants’ petition and supporting
EIS with respect to the seven criteria listed in the IBT law [GS 143-215.22I(f)]. A summary of
this evaluation follows:
(1) Necessity, Reasonableness, and Benefits of the Transfer
The 27.0 mgd requested transfer amount is based on the petitioners’ combined 2030
projected transfer of 24.1 mgd, plus 10% for contingencies. The transfer amount is consistent
with the petitioners’ requested Jordan Lake allocations, which the Division finds reasonable (see
previous discussion). Note that the planning period for the IBT request extends beyond the
planning period for allocations. It is assumed that the petitioners would need addition allocations
or other new water supplies prior to 2030. This transfer amount also assumes that Cary/Apex will
construct a regional water reclamation facility that will discharge to the Cape Fear River,
therefore limiting the need for additional future transfers.
(2) Detrimental Effects on Source Basin
The Cape Fear River Basin Model was used to evaluate the transfer’s direct
environmental impacts to the Haw River subbasin, including the main stem of the Cape Fear
River downstream to Fayetteville. As required under the IBT statute, local water supply plans
were considered in developing the model. In addition, industrial and agricultural withdrawals
were model inputs. A comparison of the seven alternatives showed that the proposed transfer
will not have any significant impacts on Lake levels, water supply needs, or downstream flows
compared to the other alternatives and base scenarios. Since wastewater assimilation is directly
related to flows, no significant changes in wastewater assimilation are expected. Similarly, no
impacts were identified for hydropower generation, navigation or recreation.
Secondary effects from growth such as increased runoff, erosion, and loss of open space
are expected to have negative impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. These
impacts will be mitigated to a large extent through existing regulations and programs, as well as
new initiatives. The most notable of these initiatives is Cary’s Open Space and Historic
Resources Plan, which will identify and protect sites of high value. Cary proposes to spend $12
million to implement this initiative. See the IBT petition for more detailed information on
mitigation measures.
10
(2a) Cumulative effect on Source Basin of any transfers or consumptive water use projected in
local water supply plans
Local water supply plan data, including current and projected water use and water
transfers, were used to develop the input data sets for the Cape Fear River Basin Model. The
model was used to evaluate current and future scenarios of basin water use. The model runs
demonstrated that there were no significant direct impacts, including cumulative impacts, due to
the proposed transfer.
(3) Detrimental Effects on Receiving Basin
The proposed transfer will utilize existing permitted wastewater discharges to the Neuse
River subbasin; therefore, no plant expansions will be required. Previous studies for the existing
plants indicated no significant direct impacts to water quality on the receiving streams. Because
stream flows in the Neuse River subbasin are not expected to change significantly due to the
proposal, no impacts are likely to occur to navigation, recreation, or flooding.
Secondary effects from growth, such as increased runoff, erosion and loss of open space,
are likely to negatively impact water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in the receiving basin,
for the same reasons as in the source basin. Existing regulations and programs, as well as new
initiatives will mitigate these impacts to a large extent.
(4) Alternatives to Proposed Transfer
The petitioners evaluated six alternatives to the proposed transfer. The alternatives
considered include:
Alternative 1A: No IBT Increase and No Additional Jordan Lake Allocations
§ No increase in the existing 16-mgd (average day basis) Jordan Lake allocation
§ No increase in the existing IBT certificate (16 mgd on a maximum day basis)
§ No construction of a regional treatment and water reclamation facility
§ No other additional discharges to the source basin, in western Wake County
Alternative 1B: No IBT Increase with Additional Jordan Lake Allocations
§ Increases in Jordan Lake water supply allocations
§ No increase in existing IBT certificate (16 mgd on maximum day basis)
Alternative 2: Obtain Water from the Neuse River Basin
§ No increase in existing IBT certificate (16 mgd)
§ Regional Cape Fear WWTP
§ Purchase of finished water from the Neuse River basin
11
Alternative 3: Increase Wastewater Discharges to Cape Fear River Basin
§ No increase in existing IBT certificate (16 mgd)
§ Additional Jordan Lake water supply allocations
§ Relocation of existing Apex and Cary WWTP discharges to Cape Fear basin
§ Regional Cape Fear WWTP
Alternative 4: Merger of Water and Sewer Utility Operations of Town of Cary and City of
Durham
Alternative 5: No Regional Treatment and Water Reclamation Facility
Table 4 (below) compares the proposed transfer with the six alternatives. Factors used in
the comparison of alternatives include:
§ required increase in interbasin transfer
§ direct and indirect impacts
§ ability to meet future water needs
§ capital cost
§ construction of a regional water reclamation facility
§ outside water purchases
§ expansion of Cary/Apex water treatment plant
Except for Alternative 1A, which does not serve the projected water supply needs of the
petitioners, the alternatives will not substantially reduce the expected impacts of the proposed
transfer increase. The only significant impacts associated with the proposed transfer are
secondary impacts associated with growth. All of the alternatives will have essentially the same
growth related impacts due to high rates of regional growth. The Commission finds that the
proposed alternative is the most feasible means of meeting the petitioners’ long-term water
supply needs while minimizing overall impacts and cost.
12
Table 4. Summary of Alternatives
Alternatives
Item
Proposed
Action
1A
No Action
1B
No Action
2
Water From
Neuse
3
Move WWTP
Discharges
4
Merger with
Durham
5
No Regional
WWTP
Increase in IBT (mgd)11 0 0 0 0 0 29
Significant Direct Impacts No No No Yes Yes No Yes
Significant Secondary Impacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Additional Jordan Lake Allocations Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2030 MDD Water Demands (mgd)53.6 19 43.8 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6
Maximum IBT (mgd)251 16 16 16 16 19
(Neuse to Haw)
45
Total Capital Cost (million)$225.7 $11.1 $206.6 $206.9 $279 $248 $84.0
Water Reuse 3.8 mgd 3.8 mgd 3.8 mgd 3.8 mgd 3.8 mgd 3.8 mgd 3.8 mgd
Construct Regional WWTP
(2030 max month capacity)
18.0 mgd No 18.0 mgd 18.0 mgd 18.0 mgd 18.0 mgd No
Finished Water Purchases
(2030 max day demand)
No No No 9.2 mgd No No No
Expand Cary/Apex WTP (capacity
beyond 40 mgd, max day basis)
20.0 mgd No 9.0 mgd 9.0 mgd 20.0 mgd 20.0 mgd 20.0 mgd
Note: 1 Projected IBT in 2030 is approximately 25 mgd. The requested amount of 27 mgd includes some contingency.
13
(5) Impoundment Storage
This criterion is not applicable, as the petitioners do not have an impoundment.
(6) Jordan Lake Purposes/Water Supply
Jordan Lake is a multi-purpose reservoir constructed by the USCOE. The lake is designed
to provide a water supply safe yield of about 100 mgd. Currently, only about one-third of the
water supply has been allocated.
(7) Other Considerations
The petitioners are actively pursuing water conservation and reuse. The Towns of Cary
and Apex provide finished water to several communities in their region.
Compliance and Monitoring
The Division requested the petitioners to include a compliance and monitoring plan as
part of the petition document. The plan specifies the following reports:
(1) Calculation of daily IBT amount on a maximum daily basis, submitted monthly
(2)Status of compliance with permit condition No. 1, submitted annually
(3)Status of key elements in mitigation plan, submitted annually
(4)Drought management reporting and conditions, submitted during drought events
Permit Condition No. 3 requires the petitioners to have an approved compliance and
monitoring plan prior to transferring additional water under this certificate. The Division will
work with the petitioners to develop a finalized plan.
Drought Management Plan
The IBT statute requires that petitioners prepare a drought management plan. The plan
must show what actions a certificate holder will take to protect the source basin during drought
conditions. The IBT petition includes a description of the water shortage response policies for
each of the four petitioners. Actions are tied to the number of days remaining in each party’s
Jordan Lake water supply pool. Note that RTP South does not operate a water system, but is
contractually obligated to implement any conservation measures that Cary puts into effect.
Permit Condition No. 4 requires the petitioners to have an approved drought management
plan prior to transferring additional water under this certificate. The Division will work with the
petitioners to develop finalized plans.
14
Recommendation
After careful review of the Environmental Impact Statement and public record, the
Division of Water Resources finds that the benefits of the transfer outweigh the detriments, and
the detriments have been or will be mitigated to a reasonable degree. The Division recommends
that the Commission grant the applicant’s request for an IBT certificate of 27 mgd, subject
to the following conditions:
Condition No. 1. The Towns of Cary and Apex will manage the authorized transfer amount in
such a way that none of the individual Jordan Lake water supply allocation holders (Cary/Apex,
Morrisville, and Wake County) are prevented from fully using their respective allocations.
Explanation: The Division has recommended that the Commission issue the transfer certificate
jointly to the Towns of Cary and Apex, who own the facilities used to transfer the water. This
arrangement provides some flexibility to the petitioners to maximize use of their authorized
transfer amount. The above condition ensures that sufficient transfer permit capacity is available
to each of the four petitioners to use their associated water supply allocations.
Condition No. 2. Prior to exceeding 80 percent of its permitted transfer amount, or 21.6 mgd on a
maximum day basis, the Towns of Cary and Apex shall begin construction of the facilities
required to return reclaimed water to the Cape Fear Basin. The Towns may be exempted from
this requirement if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division of Water Resources
that they can avoid exceeding their permitted interbasin transfer amount.
Explanation: The petitioners’ requested transfer amount is based on the permitted discharge
capacities of the South Cary, North Cary, and Apex WWTPs that discharge to tributaries of the
Neuse River. The request assumes that additional wastewater flows would be discharged to the
Cape Fear River through a new regional WWTP. The new plant would be needed prior to 2010
to meet projected flows. This condition is needed to insure orderly development of a regional
WWTP plant.
This condition is also consistent with a provision of the IBT statute that requires facility
planning. The statute specifies that when any transfer permitted under the law equals 80% of the
maximum amount authorized, the applicant shall submit a plan to the Department specifying
how the applicant intends to address future water needs [GS 143-215.22I(l)]. When the transfer
equals 90% of the authorized amount, the applicant shall begin implementation of the submitted
plan. Due to the recognized need for a regional facility that discharges to the Cape Fear River,
the Division recommends that construction of a new facility commence earlier than that required
under the law.
Condition No. 3. Prior to transferring water under this certificate, the Towns of Cary and Apex
will work with the Division of Water Resources to develop a compliance and monitoring plan
subject to approval by the Division. The plan will include methodologies and reporting schedules
for reporting the following information: maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with
permit conditions, progress on mitigation measures, and drought management and reporting. A
copy of the approved plan will be kept on file with the Division for public inspection. The
Division of Water Resources will have the authority to make modifications to the compliance
and monitoring plan, as necessary.
15
Explanation: The compliance and monitoring plans provide a mechanism for enforcing
provisions in the permit. In addition, the Division of Water Resources will use this information
to issue an annual status report for the certificate.
Condition No. 4. Prior to transferring water under this certificate, the Towns of Cary, Apex, and
Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) will develop individual water shortage response
plans subject to approval by the Division. The Towns of Cary and Apex will develop a drought
management plan for the interbasin transfer, incorporating the individual water shortage response
plans and subject to approval by the Division. The plans will tie specific actions to the percent
storage remaining in each of the petitioners’ Jordan Lake water supply accounts. A copy of the
approved plans will be kept on file with the Division for public inspection. The Division of
Water Resources will have the authority to approve modifications to the drought management
plan, as necessary.
Explanation: The drought management plan ensures that IBT certificate holders minimize
impacts to the source river basin during drought conditions. The drought management plan is
required under GS 143-215.22I(h).
16
MODEL RESULTS
The Cape Fear River Basin Model was used to determined the impacts of the Division of
Water Resources’ recommended allocations. The Cape Fear River Basin Model was developed
through a multi-agency effort to assist decision makers involved in the allocation and interbasin
transfer processes. MIKE BASIN modeling software was used to develop a graphical and
numerical representation of water supply and demand in the Cape Fear Basin to help resolve
conflicts and lead to an efficient use of water resources. The model includes the entire watershed
from the headwaters down to Lock and Dam #1 near Wilmington.
Two model scenarios were developed for this purpose, a 1998 Scenario and a 2015
Scenario. The 1998 Scenario includes the best information available on water withdrawals and
discharges during the year 1998. These conditions were then applied to the entire, 69 year period
of record available for the model (1/1/1930-12/31/98).
The 2015 Scenario includes the Division’s allocation recommendations, and projected
water withdrawals and discharges for the year 2015. The 2015 Scenario also includes an
operational Randleman Lake (as described in the Environmental Impact Statement for
Randleman Lake) and the proposed regional wastewater treatment plant presented in the
Environmental Impact Statement for RTP South and the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville in
Wake County. These conditions were then applied to the entire, 69 year period of record
available for the model (1/1/1930-12/31/98). See Appendix C for a more detailed description of
this scenario.
A third model scenario, the Natural Scenario, is depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4. This
scenario models conditions as they would be if there were no reservoirs, and no withdrawals or
discharges of any kind in the Cape Fear River Basin. These conditions were then applied to the
entire, 69 year period of record available for the model (1/1/1930-12/31/98).
When reviewing the results of the model, it is important to remember that the scenarios
presented should be compared with each other, not against the historic record. Comparing the
results of the 1998 and 2015 scenarios indicates that the Division’s recommended allocations
would not negatively impact flows downstream of Jordan Lake, and would not negatively impact
the reliability of the Lake’s water quality pool. Figures 2, 3, and 4 depict modeled flows under
the three scenarios at Lillington, Fayetteville, and the Wilmington intake above Lock and Dam
#1. Note that flows in the Cape Fear River are virtually identical under the 1998 and 2015
scenarios, but that during drought conditions, flows are somewhat higher under the 2015
Scenario. Also note that flows are higher during drought conditions under the 2015 Scenario than
the Natural Scenario.
Figure 5 depicts the relative reliability of the water quality pool under the 1998 and 2015
Scenarios. The chart displays the number of days in a given year that the water quality pool is
depleted under a given scenario. The years depicted are the only years that this occurs during the
69 year period of record available for the model (1/1/1930-12/31/98). Note that the water quality
pool is depleted less frequently under the 2015 Scenario than under the 1998 Scenario.
17
Figure 2. Modeled Flows at Lillington
Figure 3. Modeled Flows at Fayetteville
Cape Fear River Flows at Lillington
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Flow (cfs)Natural Scenario 1998 Scenario 2015 Scenario
Cape Fear River Flows at Fayetteville
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Flow (cfs)Natural Scenario 1998 Scenario 2015 Scenario
18
Figure 4. Modeled Flows Near Lock and Dam #1
Figure 5. Modeled Jordan Lake Water Quality Pool Reliability
Water Quality Pool Depletion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1930 1933 1941 1951 1953 1954 1968 1973 1977 1986 1990
Year
(Aug Y - Feb Y+1)1998 Scenario 2015 Scenario
Note: The Water Quality Pool is never depleted during the
other 58 years in the model’s period of record.
Cape Fear River Flows at Wilmington/LCFWSA Withdrawals
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Flow (cfs)Natural Scenario 1998 Scenario 2015 Scenario
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. CHATHAM COUNTY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ..............................................................A-1
APPENDIX B. HARNETT COUNTY NEEDS ASSESSMENT.................................................................B-1
APPENDIX C. CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL: 2015 SCENARIO ................................................C-1
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIS ................................D-1
A-1
APPENDIX A
Chatham County Needs Assessment
The Division finds that Chatham County water systems have no need of an increased Jordan Lake water
supply storage allocation based on a 2015 planning horizon and information in the Chatham County
Water Feasibility Study Update and the most recent Local Water Supply Plans. Total water demand is
projected to be 2.96 mgd in the year 2015 (see Table A-1), based on an average day demand under their
Aggressive Expansion Scenario. Chatham County currently has a Jordan Lake water supply storage
allocation of 6.0 mgd, 3.04 mgd greater than the projected demand.
The Division also notes that Chatham County may fall under the requirements for an Interbasin Transfer
Certificate in the future, depending upon its distribution of water from Jordan Lake to its proposed
Southwest and Northwest Service Areas, and depending upon its sales of water from Jordan Lake to Siler
City (see Interbasin Transfer section, p.A-5).
Table A-1: Total Water Demand
2015 Demand 2015 Supply Deficit
(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)
Chatham County, All Service Areas 1 2.96 6.00 -3.04
Siler City 2 3.20 5.80 -2.60
Notes:1 2015 Demand from Table A-2. 2015 Supply = current Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation.2 2015 Demand and 2015 Supply from Table A-5.
Demand Projections
The Division relied upon the Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update for demand projections,
considering its Aggressive Expansion Scenario. The Division compared the Study’s five service areas
with the current three service areas and their corresponding 1997 Local Water Supply Plans. The Division
then calculated average daily demands for Chatham County based on the maximum daily demands and
the maximum to average demand factors provided in the Study (see Tables A-2 and A-3).
A-2
Table A-2: Chatham County Service Area Demand
1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
(mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1
Northeast Service Area
- Residential 0.48 0.57 0.76 1.01 1.31 1.64 2.02
- Commercial 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.26 0.31
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.06 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.23
- Treatment Losses (10%)0.06 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.23
Subtotal 0.68 0.81 1.07 1.42 1.82 2.28 2.79
Southeast Service Area
- Residential 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13
- Commercial 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Subtotal 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Central Service Area
- Residential 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.16
- Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.13 0.19 0.25
Southwest Service Area
- Residential 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.35
- Commercial 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.44
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08
Subtotal 0.21 0.24 0.32 0.43 0.56 0.70 0.87
Northwest Service Area
- Residential 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.24
- Commercial 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.26
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Subtotal 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.31 0.42 0.55
Total County-Wide Demand 1.01 1.20 1.65 2.26 2.96 3.77 4.67
Source:Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (May 2000).
Notes:1 Average Day Demand, computed by applying the Maximum to Average Demand Factors from table 3 to
the Maximum Day Demand from table 3-12, Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (May 2000).
A-3
Table A-3: Chatham County Maximum to Average Demand Factors
Current Service Areas M/ADF12
Northeast Service Area North
- Residential 2.41
- Commercial 1.62
Southeast Service Area East
- Residential 1.49
- Commercial 1.47
Central Service Area East
- Residential 1.49
- Commercial 1.47
Southwest Service Area Southwest
- Residential 1.57
- Commercial 1.64
Northwest Service Area Southwest
- Residential 1.57
- Commercial 1.64
Source:Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (May 2000).
Notes:1 Current Service Areas were matched with Future Service Areas, based on figure 1 (Existing Water
System) and figure 3 (Service Area Map), Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (May 2000).
2 M/ADF = Maximum to Average Demand Factor. Data from table 3-11, Chatham County Water
Feasibility Study Update (May 2000).
Water Sales
The Division considered all contractual sales listed in the Chatham County Local Water Supply Plans,
then excluded contracts for emergency use (see Table A-4). The City of Durham contract mentioned in
the North Chatham Plan was also excluded, as the Durham Local Water Supply Plan makes no mention of
such a contract, and Durham is being considered for its own Jordan Lake allocation. The contract for 2.0
mgd with Siler City remains.
The Division then considered the 2015 projected water demands for Siler City (see Table A-5). Review of
the Siler City Local Water Supply Plan indicates their current supply is adequate for their projected
demands on an average day basis, even without purchasing water from Chatham County.
A-4
Table A-4: Chatham County Future Water Sales to Other Systems
Contract
Amount
Contract
Ends
Notes 2015 Contract
Amount
(mgd)(mgd)
North Chatham Water System
OWASA 2.0 Unk emergency use 0.0
Durham 5.0 Unk not shown in Durham LWSP 0.0
East Chatham Water System
None 0.0
Southwest Chatham Water System
Siler City 2.0 Unk 2.0
Total Future Sales Contracts Amount 2.0
Source:Data for Future Sales Contracts from table 7-F, Local Water Supply Plans for North Chatham Water
System (10 Sep 98), East Chatham Water System (15 Sep 98), and Southwest Chatham Water System (15
Sep 98).
Table A-5: Town of Siler City Service Area Demand and Supply
1997 2000 2010 2020 2015
ADD ADD ADD ADD ADD MDD1
Population 2 5541 5868 6929 7601 7232 7232
Per Capita Demand (gpd)141 141 141 141 141 141
Residential Demand (mgd) 3 0.784 0.830 0.980 1.075 1.023 1.330
Commercial Demand (mgd) 4 0.212 0.225 0.266 0.292 0.278 0.361
Industrial Demand (mgd) 5 1.310 1.387 1.638 1.800 1.711 2.225
Backwash (mgd) 6 0.033 0.035 0.041 0.045 0.043 0.056
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd) 7 0.114 0.121 0.143 0.156 0.149 0.193
Service Area Demand (mgd)2.453 2.598 3.068 3.368 3.204 4.165
Siler City Supply (mgd)3.8 3.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
Water Demand Deficit (mgd)-1.347 -1.202 -2.732 -2.432 -2.596 -1.635
Source:Data for 1997, 2000, 2010 and 2020 ADD from tables 7-A and 7-B, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of
Siler City (reviewed 27 Jan 00).
Supply data from table 8-A, Local Water Supply Plan for the Town of Siler City (reviewed 27 Jan 00).
Notes:1 Maximum Day Demand calculated by applying a Peak to Average Day Demand Factor of 1.3, from the
LWSP-1997 Engineer Review.
2 2015 Population calculated based on a linear regression (a = 90.58531, b = -175297).
3 2015 Residential Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.0128, b = -24.7682).
4 2015 Commercial Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.003513, b = -6.80021).
5 2015 Industrial Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.021542, b = -41.6951).
6 2015 Backwash calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.000525, b = -1.01478).
7 2015 Unaccounted-for Water calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.001847, b = -3.57292).
A-5
Interbasin Transfer Issues
Chatham County faces potential interbasin transfers under a few conditions. If Chatham County supplies
their Northwest or Southwest Service Areas with water from Jordan Lake, water is transferred from the
Haw River Basin to the Deep River Basin. If Chatham County supplies Siler City with water from Jordan
Lake, water is transferred from the Haw River Basin to the Deep River Basin. If the total amount
transferred from the Haw River Basin to the Deep River Basin by the Chatham County system is 2.0 mgd
or more on a maximum day basis, Chatham County will require an Interbasin Transfer Certificate.
Looking at the Chatham County Service Areas alone (without supplying water to Siler City), Chatham
County would require an Interbasin Transfer Certificate sometime between 2020 and 2025 if Jordan Lake
supplies the Northwest and Southwest Service Areas (see Table A-6). Considering Siler City alone
(without supplying water to the Northwest and Southwest Service Areas), if Chatham County sells water
from Jordan Lake to Siler City, Chatham County would require an Interbasin Transfer certificate for any
maximum day amount of 2.0 mgd or more. These two scenarios are additive. If Chatham County
develops a countywide system supplied by Jordan Lake, any water sold to Siler City accelerates Chatham
County’s need for an Interbasin Transfer Certificate.
A-6
Table A-6: Chatham County Demands by River Basin
1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
MDD MDD MDD MDD MDD MDD MDD
(mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1 (mgd)1
Northeast Service Area
- Residential 1.15 1.37 1.82 2.44 3.15 3.96 4.86
- Commercial 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.34 0.42 0.50
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.13 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.44 0.54
- Treatment Losses (10%)0.13 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.44 0.54
Subtotal 1.55 1.84 2.44 3.26 4.19 5.26 6.44
Southeast Service Area
- Residential 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.19
- Commercial 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.09
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Subtotal 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.31
Central Service Area
- Residential 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.24
- Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.28 0.37
Ha
w

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
Total Haw Basin Demand 1.65 1.95 2.63 3.55 4.59 5.80 7.12
Southwest Service Area
- Residential 0.14 0.16 0.21 0.28 0.36 0.45 0.55
- Commercial 0.17 0.19 0.26 0.35 0.46 0.58 0.72
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.13
Subtotal 0.34 0.39 0.52 0.69 0.90 1.13 1.40
Northwest Service Area
- Residential 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.38
- Commercial 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.23 0.32 0.42
- Unaccounted-for Water (10%)0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08
Subtotal 0.09 0.13 0.21 0.34 0.50 0.67 0.88De
e
p

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
Total Deep Basin Demand 0.43 0.52 0.73 1.03 1.40 1.80 2.28
Source:Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (May 2000).
Notes:1 MDD = Maximum Day Demand. Data from table 3-12, Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update
(May 2000).
B-1
APPENDIX B
Harnett County Needs Assessment
The Division finds that the Harnett County Department of Public Utilities has no need of a Jordan Lake
water supply storage allocation based on a 2015 planning horizon and information in the most recent
Local Water Supply Plans. Total water demand is projected to be 13.314 mgd in the year 2015 (see Table
B-1). The water supply available is estimated to be 32.32 mgd, 19.006 mgd greater than the projected
demand (see Cape Fear River Supply section, p.B-6).
Table B-1: Total Harnett County Water Demand
2015 Demand 2015 Supply Deficit
(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)
Harnett County Service Area 1 11.050
Town of Lillington 2 0.865
Town of Angier 3 0.286
Town of Coats 4 0.254
Town of Linden 5 0.062
Town of Fuquay-Varina 6 0.796
Total 13.314 32.32 -19.006
Notes:1 Total from Table B-2.2 Total from Table B-4.3 Total from Table B-5.4 Total from Table B-6.
5 Total from Table B-7.6 Total from Table B-8, less the total from Table B-9.
Demand Projections
Harnett County’s latest Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) was used as the data source for all demand
projections, as well as the Local Water Supply Plans of subsidiary water systems. Given that water
systems have traditionally calculated demand forecasts erring on the side of generosity for their LWSPs,
the Division projections for 2015 should also err on the side of generosity. Harnett County’s projected
water demand for 2015 was accepted without detailed analysis. Projected water demands for some of their
water sales to other systems were calculated by various methods, including linear regression of the
respective system demand projections. The 2015 demand projections were then totaled for all systems
considered (see Tables B-2 – B-9).
B-2
Table B-2: Harnett County Service Area Demand
1998 2000 2010 2020 2015
Population 1 69800 88500 127440 168221 152928
Per Capita Demand (gpd)66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7
Residential Demand (mgd) 2 4.656 5.903 8.500 11.220 10.200
Commercial Demand (mgd) 3 0.08 0.1 0.35 0.35 0.35
Backwash (mgd) 3 0.133 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.33
Unaccounted-for water (mgd) 3 0.153 0.153 0.159 0.21 0.17
Service Area Demand 4 5.022 6.376 9.339 12.110 11.050
Source:Data for 1998, 2000, 2010 and 2020 from tables 7-A and 7-B, Local Water Supply Plan for Harnett County
Dept. of Public Utilities (07 Jul 00).
Notes:1 2015 Population from Harnett County Water Use Calculations for Year 1998, appendix to Local Water
Supply Plan.
2 2015 Residential Demand = 2015 Population ´ 66.7 gpdpc3 2015 Commercial Demand, Backwash, and Unaccounted-for water from Harnett County Water Use
Calculations for Year 1998, appendix to Local Water Supply Plan.4 2015 Service Area Demand = Residential Demand + Commercial Demand + Backwash + Unaccounted-
for Water
Water Sales
Harnett County sells water to a number of systems. The Division considered all contractual sales, then
excluded contracts for emergency use and contracts expiring prior to 2015 (see Table B-3). The Holly
Springs contract was also excluded, as the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) granted
Holly Springs a Jordan Lake allocation in December 1997. The water systems remaining were the Towns
of Lillington, Angier, Coats, Linden and Fuquay-Varina.
The Division then considered the 2015 projected water demands for those systems buying water from
Harnett County (see Tables B-4 – B-9).
B-3
Table B-3: Harnett County Future Water Sales to Other Systems
Contract
Amount
Contract
Ends
Notes
(mgd)
Lillington 2.0 2017
Angier 2.02 perpetual
Coats 0.72 perpetual
Linden 0.25 perpetual
Woodlake 0.144 1999 contract expires
Fuquay Varina 4.70 2029
Holly Springs 8.50 2035 received JL allocation
Carolina Trace 0.10 no contract
Moore County 2.00 no contract
Chatham County 2.00 no contract
Wellons 0.50 no contract
Resort Development 0.80 no contract
Johnston County perpetual emergency use
Dunn 2.5 perpetual emergency use
Erwin 1.0 perpetual emergency use
Source:Data from tables 2-G and 7-F, Local Water Supply Plan for Harnett County Dept. of Public Utilities (07 Jul
00).
Table B-4: Town of Lillington Service Area Demand
1997 2000 2010 2020 2015
Population 1 3003 3323 4655 6523 5635
Per Capita Demand (gpd)36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3
Residential Demand (mgd) 2 0.109 0.121 0.169 0.237 0.205
Commercial Demand (mgd) 3 0.018 0.022 0.033 0.049 0.041
Industrial Demand (mgd) 4 0.233 0.281 0.422 0.634 0.534
Institutional Demand (mgd)0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Unaccounted-for water (mgd)0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084
Service Area Demand 5 0.445 0.509 0.709 1.005 0.865
Source:Data for 1997, 2000, 2010 and 2020 from table 7-B and Appendix A, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of
Lillington (17 Sep 98).
Notes:1 2015 Population calculated based on a linear regression (a = 152.5601, b = -301774).
2 Residential Demand = Population ´ Per Capita Demand
3 2015 Commercial Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.001324, b = -2.62572).
4 2015 Industrial Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.017149, b = -34.0217).5 2015 Service Area Demand = Residential Demand + Commercial Demand + Industrial Demand +
Institutional Demand + Unaccounted-for Water
B-4
Table B-5: Town of Angier Service Area Demand
1992 2000 2010 2020 2015
Population 1 2265 2283 2504 2711 2600
Per Capita Demand (gpd)70.13 70.13 70.13 70.13 70.13
Residential Demand (mgd) 2 0.159 0.160 0.176 0.190 0.182
Commercial Demand (mgd) 3 0.0425 0.0509 0.0639 0.0803 0.072
Industrial (mgd) 4 0.0209 0.02174 0.02196 0.02218 0.0221
Institutional (mgd)0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017
Unaccounted-for water (mgd)0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
Service Area Demand 5 0.232 0.242 0.271 0.302 0.286
Source:Data for 1992, 2000, 2010 and from Addendum #2, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of Angier (10 Mar
95).
Notes:1 2015 Population calculated based on a linear regression (a = 16.80248, b = -31256.6).2 Residential Demand = Population ´ Per Capita Demand
3 2015 Commercial Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.00135, b = -2.6487).
4 2015 Industrial Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = 0.0000422, b = -0.06301).5 2015 Service Area Demand = Residential Demand + Commercial Demand + Industrial Demand +
Institutional Demand + Unaccounted-for Water
Table B-6: Town of Coats Service Area Demand
1997 2000 2010 2020 2015
Population 1 1800 1887 1900 2500 2249
Per Capita Demand (gpd) 2 64.4 89.0 88.9 89.2 89.0
Residential Demand (mgd) 3 0.116 0.168 0.169 0.223 0.200
Commercial Demand (mgd)0 0 0 0 0
Backwash (mgd)0 0 0 0 0
Unaccounted-for water (mgd) 4 0.044 0.045 0.046 0.06 0.054
Service Area Demand 5 0.160 0.213 0.215 0.283 0.254
Source:Data for 1997, 2000, 2010 and 2020 from tables 7-A and 7-B, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of Coats
(14 Sep 98).
Notes:1 2015 Population calculated based on a linear regression (a = 27.58301, b = -53330.5).2 Per Capita Demand = Residential Demand / Population
3 2015 Residential Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = .003792, b = -7.44037).
4 2015 Unaccounted-for water calculated based on a linear regression (a = .000648, b = -1.25172).5 2015 Service Area Demand = Residential Demand + Commercial Demand + Backwash + Unaccounted-
for Water
B-5
Table B-7: Town of Linden Service Area Demand
1997 2000 2010 2020 2015
Population 1 800 850 950 1060 1006
Per Capita Demand (gpd) 2 60.7 60.6 60.7 60.7 60.7
Residential Demand (mgd) 3 0.04852 0.05155 0.05762 0.06429 0.06100
Commercial Demand (mgd)0.00058 0.00058 0.00058 0.00058 0.00058
Institutional Demand (mgd)0.00013 0.00013 0.00013 0.00013 0.00013
Unaccounted-for water (mgd)0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001
Service Area Demand 4 0.049 0.052 0.058 0.065 0.062
Source:Data for 1997, 2000, 2010 and 2020 from tables 7-A and 7-B, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of
Linden (25 Nov 98).
Notes:1 2015 Population calculated based on a linear regression (a = 11.0023, b = -21163.9).
2 Per Capita Demand = Residential Demand / Population
3 2015 Residential Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = .000667, b = -1.28382).4 2015 Service Area Demand = Residential Demand + Commercial Demand + Institutional Demand +
Backwash + Unaccounted-for Water
Table B-8: Town of Fuquay-Varina Service Area Demand
1997 2000 2010 2020 2015
Population 1 6300 8760 18268 38942 29551
Per Capita Demand (gpd)
Residential Demand (mgd)
Commercial Demand (mgd)
Backwash (mgd)
Unaccounted-for water (mgd)
Service Area Demand 2 0.7187 1.0512 2.1922 4.6730 3.546
Source:Data for 1997, 2000, 2010 and 2020 from tables 7-A and 7-B, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of
Fuquay-Varina (received 03 Nov 99).
Notes:1 2015 Population calculated based on a linear regression (a = 1391.882, b = -2775092).
2 2015 Service Area Demand calculated based on a linear regression (a = .168138, b = -335.251).
B-6
Table B-9: Town of Fuquay-Varina Future Water Purchases
Amount
(mgd)
Garner 0.750
Johnston County 2.000
Total Supply (less Harnett County)2.750
Source:Data from tables 3-D and 8-A, Local Water Supply Plan for Town of Fuquay-Varina (received 03 Nov 99).
Cape Fear River Supply
The Division estimates that Harnett County can safely rely on a supply of 50 cfs from the Cape Fear
River, or 32.32 mgd. This is based on the confidence interval allowed the US Army Corps of Engineers in
meeting their 600 cfs target flow at the Lillington gage.
C-1
APPENDIX C
Cape Fear River Basin Model: 2015 Scenario
Summary
Conditions for the year 2015 were applied to the entire period of record in the model, 01/01/1930-
12/31/1998. Jordan Lake is allocated in accordance with the recommendations made in December 1997.
Agricultural withdrawals remain unchanged. Watersupply withdrawals and discharges are all increased by
50% as a default, with notable exceptions (below). Larger public systems are adjusted in accordance with
their projections as reported in the Local Water Supply Plans (LWSP), or in accordance with the DWR
analysis of their Jordan Lake application. Larger industrial systems (utilities) remain unchanged.
Randleman Lake is represented in the model in accordance with available information from the
Randleman EIS and associated LWSPs.
Jordan Lake: Allocations based on December 1997 recommendations.
Durham: No Jordan Lake allocation and no water supply withdrawals in the Cape Fear Basin.
Increased Cape Fear wastewater discharges at existing WWTPs based on DWR
demand projections and information provided by the City of Durham.
Cary/Apex: Jordan Lake withdrawal with demand based on DWR projection. Discharge in
accordance with preferred EIS alternative at a Regional WWTP just below Buckhorn
Dam.
Chatham: Northeast, Southeast and Central Chatham systems obtain their water from Jordan
Lake with demand based on the latest Chatham County information. Goldston Gulf,
Pittsboro and Siler City expand in accordance with their Local Water Supply Plans.
Northwest and Southwest Chatham withdrawal water from a new Deep River WTP
in the Carbonton area. Wastewater discharged at current ratios to existing WWTPs in
North Chatham, Siler City and Pittsboro.
OWASA: No Jordan Lake withdrawal. Increased withdrawals from University Lake and Cane
Creek in accordance with LWSP, with corresponding discharges at existing WWTPs.
Orange: No Jordan Lake withdrawal.
Morrisville: Fully using allocation with pattern based on 1997 Local Water Supply Plan. No
wastewater discharges in the Cape Fear apart from the Regional WWTP.
Holly Springs: Fully using allocation with pattern based on 1997 Local Water Supply Plan.
Allocation is released from Jordan and withdrawn from Cape Fear just above
Lillington gage. No wastewater discharges in the Cape Fear apart from the Regional
WWTP.
RTP: Fully using allocation with pattern based on Cary/Apex. No wastewater discharges in
the Cape Fear apart from the Regional WWTP.
Harnett: No Jordan Lake allocation. Increased Cape Fear withdrawal based on DWR analysis
of LWSPs. Increased wastewater discharges at Lillington, Angier and Fuquay-Varina
WWTPs based on current pattern.
Sanford: Increased withdrawal and discharge based on LWSP projections.
Fayetteville: No Jordan Lake allocation. All future increases in demand withdrawn from Cape
Fear River. All future increases in wastewater discharged at Cross Creek. Increased
wastewater discharge at Spring Lake based on current pattern and LWSP projection.
Reidsville: Increased withdrawal based on LWSP, with corresponding discharges at existing
WWTPs.
Asheboro: No water withdrawals in Cape Fear Basin. Increased wastewater discharge based on
LWSP projection.
C-2
Graham/Mebane: Graham, Mebane, Haw River and Green Level are supplied by Graham-Mebane
Lake. Increased withdrawal based on LWSP projections. Corresponding increases in
wastewater discharges at Graham and Mebane WWTPs.
Burlington: Burlington, Gibsonville, Elon College and Alamance are supplied by both lakes.
Withdrawals and discharges based on current pattern and LWSP projections.
Greensboro: All future increase in demand is withdrawn from Randleman Lake, based on LWSP
projections. All corresponding future increased wastewater discharged at T.Z.
Osborne WWTP.
High Point: No withdrawal from Randleman Lake. All future increase in demand is withdrawn
from City and Oak Hollow Lakes. Corresponding increase in Highpoint wastewater
is discharged at Eastside WWTP, along with wastewater from Jamestown and
Archdale.
Jamestown: All future demand is withdrawn from Randleman Lake, based on LWSP projections.
Archdale: All future demand is withdrawn from Randleman Lake, based on LWSP projections.
Randleman: All future increase in demand is withdrawn from Randleman Lake, based on LWSP
projections. All wastewater is discharged at existing Randleman WWTP.
Wilmington: Increased withdrawal from Cape Fear River in accordance with LWSP. Used same
expansion rate for Lower Cape Fear WSA withdrawal.
Utilities: CP&L’s Cape Fear and Shearon Harris withdrawals and discharges remain constant.
Model Details
2015 Scenario
27 July 2000
MIKE BASIN Simulation ID: all1
Simulation Start Time: 01/01/1930
Simulation End Time: 12/31/1998
Number of Analysis Years: 69
Simulation Interval: 1 day
Additional details are available upon request from the Division of Water Resources.
D-1
APPENDIX D
Summary of Public Comments Received
On Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The table on the following pages is taken from the Final Environmental Impact Statement for RTP South
and the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville in Wake County for the Increase in Interbasin Transfer
from the Haw River Basin to the Neuse River Basin (August 2000). This table summarizes the public
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for RTP South and the Towns of Cary, Apex, and
Morrisville in Wake County for the Increase in Interbasin Transfer from the Haw River Basin to the
Neuse River Basin (December 1999).
Summary of Public Comments (from Final EIS)
Name/Organization Date of Comment Submittal Summary of Comments
(letters attached)
Section of
Response Summary
Where Comments
are Addressed
Mick Noland, Chief Operating
Officer for City of Fayetteville
Public Works Commission
Statement at public hearing: July 13,
2000
- IBT amount assumes construction of a proposed regional
wastewater treatment plant with discharge to the Cape
Fear River
- The alternative to purchase water from Raleigh should be
reevaluated
- The model does not simulate the low flow conditions
experienced in 1998
- The Jordan Lake water quality pool is insufficient for
downstream water quality needs
- The current safe yield estimate of 100 mgd from Jordan
Lake is questionable
- EIS needs to provide information on whether the
cumulative impacts of all water withdrawals and transfers
are acceptable
- EIS should be evaluated objectively without consideration
of construction already underway on water treatment plant
III.A
II.A
I.A
I.B
I.C
I.D
IV.F
John Malzone, Cumberland
County Chamber of Commerce
Statement at public hearing: July 13, 2000 - IBT may inhibit growth in the Fayetteville region I. M
Elton Hendricks, President of
Methodist College
Statement at public hearing: July 13, 2000 - If aggressive conservation was used as an assumption in
the IBT, there may be significant direct impacts
- Triangle should put the water back in the Cape Fear River
after they use it.
III.B
I.E, IM, II.B
Senator Tony Rand, 24th District Letter dated: July 13, 2000 - Triangle communities should put water back in Cape Fear
River after they remove it
I.E, I.M, II.B
Lura S. Tally, former member of
North Carolina Senate
Letter dated: July 7, 2000 - If Triangle communities do not replace water they remove
from Cape Fear, they will cause problems downstream
I.E, I.H
Rollin S. Shaw, City Council
Member, Fayetteville and Dr.
Frank S. Shaw
Correspondence dated: July 30, 2000 - Cary should return water it removes from the Cape Fear I.E, I.M, II.B
David Brook, Deputy State Memorandum dated: July 3, 2000 - IBT will not impact property eligible for listing in National N/A
Name/Organization Date of Comment Submittal Summary of Comments
(letters attached)
Section of
Response Summary
Where Comments
are Addressed
Historic Preservation Officer, NC
Department of Cultural Resources
Register of Historic Places
Rick Givens, Chairman, Chatham
County Board of Commissioners
Letter dated: July 18, 2000 - Downstream users need assurance that there will be
adequate water supply and adequate water quality
I.B, I.E, I.H
Larry B. Thomas, Director of
Public Works, City of Sanford
Letter dated: July 20, 2000 - Transfer of water will have negative environmental impact
on Cape Fear River Basin. Each transfer should not be
reviewed individually.
- Transfer of water will have negative economic impact on
Cape Fear River Basin
I.B, I.D, I.E
I.B, I.C, I.E
Mick Noland, Chief Operating
Officer of Water Resources
Division, Public Works
Commission, City of Fayetteville
Letter dated: July 27, 2000 *- Future agricultural water withdrawals should be described.
- Randleman Lake should be simulated in the model
- A modeling scenario should be included that compares the
proposed alternative, with only current and recommended
Jordan Lake allocations, to the Base 1998 case.
I.J
I.K
I.L
Hugh T. Caldwell, Director of
Public Utilities, City of Wilmington
Letter dated: July 27, 2000 - The proposed IBT may impact downstream water quality
and assimilative capacity
- The EIS did not consider the affects of Durham obtaining
an allocation from Jordan Lake
I.E, I.H
I.O
Rodney Tart, Director, Harnett
County Department of Public
Utilities
Letter dated: July 31, 2000 - EIS indicates there will be minimal impact on downstream
water supply at Lillington. Does not object to the IBT.
However, as growth continues, water resources will
become more limited. Therefore, plans should begin to
return water to the Cape Fear
- Support DWR’s efforts to develop a comprehensive model
of future Cape Fear River use
II.B
IV.G
Hal Broadfoot, citizen of
Fayetteville
Correspondence dated: July 13, 2000 - Triangle financing its growth by using water resources that I.G
Name/Organization Date of Comment Submittal Summary of Comments
(letters attached)
Section of
Response Summary
Where Comments
are Addressed
belong to downstream users
- Fayetteville, unlike upstream neighbors, have invested in
state-of-the-art water and wastewater treatment
IV.D
Reid Gannt, citizen of Fayetteville Correspondence dated: July 13, 2000 - Allowing this interbasin transfer will be disastrous for Cape
Fear River
I.E, I.H
Marie Tinnin Stewart, citizen of
Fayetteville
Correspondence dated: July 13, 2000 - Build a treatment plant that will correct the interbasin
transfer prior to withdrawing more water from Jordan Lake
II.B
Scott M. Bigelow, citizen of
Lumberton
Correspondence dated: July 13, 2000 - What conservation measures are being undertaken in
Triangle?
- Build a new WWTP that discharges to the Cape Fear
- Look at 100 year drought; in drought impacts of pollution
are amplified
- Did study account for pollution in Cape Fear?
- Good planning would dictate that state grow in areas
where there are resources to support the growth
- Legislature should fund study to ensure that North Carolina
will not experience the water problems of the west
- Use supply and demand to dictate who gets water
- Make the IBT certificate temporary. If water quality in the
Cape Fear declines, revoke or cut back the transfer
- Hold hearing downstream in Cape Fear and not in Cary
- Triangle does not need water
II.C
II.B
I.D
I.H
IV.A
IV.B
IV.E
I.I
I.N
IV.C
Colonel W. S. Crumlish, USA
Retired, Corps of Engineers
Letter dated: July 11, 2000 - Water should remain in Cape Fear Basin I.E
Walter D. Dietrich, citizen of
Fayetteville
Letter dated: July 16, 2000 - State has underestimated [sic] the drinking water capacity
of Jordan Lake
I.C
Name/Organization Date of Comment Submittal Summary of Comments
(letters attached)
Section of
Response Summary
Where Comments
are Addressed
- Interbasin transfer should not be allowed; plant that will
return water to Cape Fear River should be built first II.B
James and Jenny Rosser, citizens
of Fayetteville
Correspondence dated: July 30, 2000 - Apex should return water it removes from the Cape Fear II.B
Maryann and Bob McCoy, citizens
of Fayetteville
Correspondence dated: July 30, 2000 - Cary should return water it removes from the Cape Fear II.B
D. R. Himocks, Jr., citizen of
Fayetteville
Correspondence dated: July 31, 2000 - Towns that remove water from the Cape Fear should
return it to avoid situation similar to Colorado River
II.B, IV.B
* Many of the comments submitted in this letter were identical to the oral statement provided on July 13, 2000 at the public hearing. Only those comments that were not
included in the July 13, 2000 statement are summarized in this table.