CaryEIS

P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................ES-1
SECTION 1 Background and Project Description..............................................................1-1
1.1 Background.............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Description.................................................................................................1-2
SECTION 2 Purpose and Need..............................................................................................2-1
2.1 Population Growth ................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Water Demand Projections...................................................................................2-1
2.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities.............................................................2-3
2.4 IBT Calculation......................................................................................................2-4
SECTION 3 Existing Environment and Primary or Direct Consequences....................3-1
3.1 Source Basin.............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Land Use........................................................................................................3-4
3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resource .......................................................................3-10
3.1.4 Water Resources and Water Quality .......................................................3-18
3.1.5 Air Quality...................................................................................................3-24
3.1.6 Groundwater Resources............................................................................3-25
3.1.7 Noise Level..................................................................................................3-25
3.1.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes .....................................................3-25
3.2 Receiving Basin.....................................................................................................3-26
3.2.1 Wetlands......................................................................................................3-27
3.2.2 Land Use......................................................................................................3-28
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources......................................................................3-31
3.2.4 Water Resources and Water Quality .......................................................3-37
3.2.5 Air Quality...................................................................................................3-40
3.2.6 Groundwater Resources............................................................................3-40
3.2.7 Noise Level..................................................................................................3-41
3.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes.....................................................3-41
SECTION 4 Secondary and Cumulative Environmental Consequences.......................4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Secondary Impacts..................................................................................................4-3
4.2.1 Water and Sewer Infrastructure.................................................................4-3
4.2.2 Buildout of the Source and Receiving Basins...........................................4-4
4.3 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................4-10
SECTION 5 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Alternative 1: No Action........................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Alternative 1A: No IBT Increase with No Additional
Allocation of Water from Jordan Lake ....................................................5-2
5.1.2 Alternative 1B: No IBT Expansion With Additional Jordan Lake
Water Allocation.........................................................................................5-5
5.2 Alternative 2: Obtain Water From the Neuse River Basin ...............................5-7
5.3 Alternative 3: Increase Wastewater Discharges to Cape Fear River Basin ..5-10
5.4 Alternative 4: Merger of Water and Sewer Utilities........................................5-12
5.5 Alternative 5: No Regional Treatment and Water Reclamation Facility.....5-14
5.6 Conclusion.............................................................................................................5-16
SECTION 6 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts........................................................................6-1
6.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs .............................6-1
6.1.1 Federal Regulations......................................................................................6-1
6.1.2 State Regulations..........................................................................................6-3
Contents (Continued)
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT ii
6.2 Summary of Local Regulations and Programs ................................................6-11
6.2.1 Open Space Preservation...........................................................................6-11
6.2.2 Riparian Buffers and Stream Restoration................................................6-21
6.2.3 Pollution Prevention ..................................................................................6-23
6.2.4 Western Wake Regional WWTP...............................................................6-30
6.3 Other Potential Mitigation Measures................................................................6-30
6.3.1 Water and Sewer Infrastructure EA/EIS Conditions............................6-30
SECTION 7 Agency Involvement..........................................................................................7-1
SECTION 8 References............................................................................................................8-1
Appendices
A Supporting Tables
B Hydrologic Modeling
C Resource Agencies Consultation
D Land Use, Growth Management, and Conservation Information
E Cost of Alternatives & Proposed Action
Figures
1 Project Study Area........................................................................................................1-3
2 Land Cover....................................................................................................................3-6
3 Rare and Significant Natural Areas and Habitats..................................................3-13
4 Water Quality..............................................................................................................3-20
5 Stream Use Support....................................................................................................3-23
6 Jurisdictional Boundaries ............................................................................................4-2
7 Close Up of Land Cover...............................................................................................4-5
Tables
1 Areas of Potential Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting & NC EPA
Processes for Projects in the Source and Receiving Basins.................................. ES-2
2 Water Supply Allocation Recommendations for IBT Applicants..........................1-1
3 Projected IBT..................................................................................................................1-4
4 Population Projections.................................................................................................2-1
5 Raw Water Demand Projections.................................................................................2-2
6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities....................................................................2-3
7 Interbasin Transfer Water Balance Table (Maximum Day Basis)..........................2-5
8 Number of Transfers According to DWR Basin/Subbasin Classification............2-6
9 Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring in the Source
Basin..............................................................................................................................3-12
10 Threatened and Endangered Species for the Receiving Basin .............................3-33
11 IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 1A....................................5-2
12 IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 1B.....................................5-5
13 IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 2 – Obtain Water
from Neuse River Basin...............................................................................................5-8
14 IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 3 – Relocate
Wastewater Discharges to Cape Fear.......................................................................5-10
15 IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 4 ....................................5-13
16 IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 5 – No Regional
Contents (Continued)
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT iii
Treatment and Water Reclamation Facility ............................................................5-15
17 Summary of Alternatives...........................................................................................5-17
18 Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs from Section 6.1 and
the Environmental Resources They Protect............................................................6-11
19 Local Government Initiatives Beyond State Regulations to Protect Water Quality
and Wildlife Habitat...................................................................................................6-12
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT iv
Acronyms
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADD average daily demand
APFO Adequate Public Facility Ordinance
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
cfs cubic feet per second
CWMTF North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
DEHNR North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DOT Department of Transportation
du/ac dwelling unit per acre
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
EA environmental assessment
EID environmental information document
EIS environmental impact statement
EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETJ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GMP Growth Management Plan
GDP General Development Plan
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd gallons per day
IBT interbasin transfer
LOD limits of disturbance
MDD maximum daily demand
mgd million gallons per day
NC CRD North Carolina Cultural Resources Department
NC EPA North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCCGIA North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT v
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHP Natural Heritage Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OSHRP Open Space and Historic Resources Plan
OWASA Orange Water and Sewer Authority
PPAs Perimunicipal Planning Areas
PUD Planned Unit Development
R&D research and development
RC Recreation and Conservation
RCA Resource Conservation Area
RDU Airport Raleigh/Durham Airport Authority
RTP South Research Triangle Park South
SCLMP Swift Creek Land Management Plan
TJCOG Triangle J Council of Governments
TLC Triangle Land Conservancy
TND Traditional Neighborhood Development
UDO Unified Development Ordinance
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UT unnamed tributary
WPAO Watershed Protected Area Overlay
WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
WRP North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
WSWS Water Supply Watershed
WTP water treatment plant
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT ES - 1
Executive Summary
The Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, and Wake County are requesting an interbasin
transfer (IBT) certificate from the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) for a total of 27.0 mgd, from the Haw River basin to the Neuse River basin. This
represents an increase of 11 mgd from the existing 16.0-mgd IBT certificate of the Towns of
Cary and Apex. The EMC determined that there were no significant impacts associated with
the IBT of 16.0 mgd in 1989. Results of the Cape Fear River Basin hydrologic model, which
was developed under the guidance of the Division of Water Resources (DWR), have
confirmed the lack of impact for the 11-mgd increase in IBT.
This Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies and discusses the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed IBT on both the source and receiving basins,
and proposed Utility Services Area. Potential impacts on wetlands, urban lands, prime
agricultural lands, forestry resources, public and recreational lands, archaeological and
historical resources, fish and wildlife resources, sensitive aquatic and terrestrial species and
habitats, water quality and water resources, air quality, groundwater, noise, and toxic
substances were evaluated. Also evaluated in detail were the direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts of the following project alternatives: 1) no action; 2) water acquisition from the Neuse
basin; 3) increased wastewater discharges to the Cape Fear basin; 4) merger of water and
sewer utilities with Durham; and 5) no construction of a regional treatment and water
reclamation facility in the Cape Fear River.
This EIS concludes that the direct impacts of the proposed IBT on both the source and
receiving basins would be insignificant. The project will not significantly change lake
elevations, minimum dam releases, surface water hydrology, or water quality in the source or
receiving basins, or in downstream areas. Existing discharges or permits in the receiving
basin will not be expanded or amended as a result of the proposed IBT. No direct impacts to
environmental resources are expected.
The potential for the proposed IBT to facilitate growth and development in the source and
receiving basins, however, when combined with other planned water, sewer and
transportation infrastructure for the region, may be significant. Impacts from such growth are
predicted to potentially cause significant impacts to a variety of environmental resources.
These impacts, however, should be reduced substantially by the implementation of existing
and proposed federal, state and local regulations. To address the potentially significant
indirect impacts that may remain, enhancements are identified that could strengthen local
environmental protection efforts.
The EIS also provides a list of mitigation measures designed to reduce the potentially
significant direct environmental impacts of water and wastewater infrastructure projects in
the project area through conditions on future environmental assessment (EA) and EIS
documents that are required under North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NC EPA).
Table 1 lists future water and sewer projects for which impacts will be evaluated prior to
approval and permitting.
P:
/
1
5
6
0
0
3
C
a
r
y

I
B
T
/
I
B
T
/
D
O
C
S
/
E
A
_
M
A
Y
0
0
FI
N
A
L
DR
A
F
T
ES

-

2
TA
B
L
E

1
Ar
e
a
s

o
f

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

b
e

A
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

b
y

P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

&

N
C

E
P
A

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

f
o
r

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

S
o
u
r
c
e

a
n
d

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
n
s
So
u
r
c
e

B
a
s
i
n

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
n
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
IB
T
We
s
t
e
r
n
Wa
k
e
WW
T
P
Ca
r
y

/

A
p
e
x
WT
P
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Se
w
e
r

L
i
n
e
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
Wa
t
e
r

L
i
n
e
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
IB
T
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ca
r
y

N
o
r
t
h
WW
T
P
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ca
r
y

S
o
u
t
h
WW
T
P
Se
w
e
r

L
i
n
e
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
Wa
t
e
r

L
i
n
e
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
We
t
l
a
n
d
s

P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Ur
b
a
n

/

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

L
a
n
d

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Pu
b
l
i
c

L
a
n
d

/

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e
s

P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Pr
i
m
e

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

L
a
n
d

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Fo
r
e
s
t
r
y

L
a
n
d

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

/

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

A
r
e
a
s

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Wil
d
l
i
f
e

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Fi
s
h
e
r
i
e
s

a
n
d

A
q
u
a
t
i
c

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

&
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
PI

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Wa
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

L
I

L
I
♦
LI

L
I

L
I
••
LI

L
I
No
i
s
e

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

L
I
••
PI

P
I
To
x
i
c

&

H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

S
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s

L
I

P
I
♦
PI

L
I

L
I
••
PI

L
I
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

G
r
o
w
t
h

(
w
i
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
P
I

P
I
♦
PI

P
I

P
I
••
PI

P
I
LE
G
E
N
D
:

P
I

=

A
r
e
a
s

o
f

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t

(
m
a
j
o
r

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e

i
n

N
C

E
P
A

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LI

=

A
r
e
a
s

o
f

L
i
m
i
t
e
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

(
m
i
n
o
r

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e

i
n

N
C

E
P
A

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
♦
=

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

C
a
r
y

/

A
p
e
x

W
a
t
e
r

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n
t

h
a
v
e

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

b
e
e
n

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

i
n

a

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

E
A

d
o
c
u
m
en
t

a
n
d

p
e
r
m
i
t
s
ha
v
e

b
e
e
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
.
•
=

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

C
a
r
y

N
o
r
t
h

a
n
d

S
o
u
t
h

W
W
T
P
s

h
a
v
e

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

b
e
e
n

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

i
n

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

E
A

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

t
h
a
t

h
a
v
e

b
ee
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
.
No

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

i
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

a
s

a

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

t
h
e

I
B
T
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e

i
s

m
e
a
n
t

t
o

s
h
o
w

t
h
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e

o
f

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
s
s
u
e
s

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

“P
I
”

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

a
r
e
a
s

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

o
c
c
u
r

a
s

a
di
r
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e

i
s

n
o
t

m
e
a
n
t

t
o

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
f

e
a
c
h

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
n

t
h
e
s
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.

T
h
e

i
n
d
i
vi
d
u
a
l

S
E
P
A
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

w
i
l
l

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

o
r

n
o
t

t
h
e
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT ES - 3
Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and Wake County have gone to great lengths to reduce the amount of the
proposed IBT. The requested IBT is limited to an increase of 11 mgd as the communities individually and
regionally pursue options to reduce demands, implement water reuse, and return wastewater to the Cape
Fear River basin. Without these efforts, their combined needs could necessitate an IBT of about 50 mgd.
Except for one alternative, which is considered infeasible, the other alternatives evaluated in this EIS will
not alter the projected growth in the area, meaning that all of the alternatives will result in substantially the
same indirect impacts as the proposed action. A few of the alternatives actually create additional direct and
indirect impacts that may be significant. None of the identified alternatives significantly reduces potential
indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and meets short-term and long-term water supply
needs of the applicants at the same time.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 1 - 1
SECTION 1
Background and Project Description
1.1 Background
B. Everett Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake) is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) multi-
purpose lake located in Chatham County, North Carolina. The construction of the dam
started in 1967 and Jordan Lake completed filling in 1982, covering an area of 14,300 acres.
Jordan Lake Dam is located on the Haw River just downstream of the confluence of the Haw
River and the New Hope Creek.
Jordan Lake is designed to provide for water supply, recreation, flood control, fish and
wildlife management, and flow augmentation to maintain downstream Cape Fear River
water quality during natural low flow periods. The water supply component of the Jordan
Lake storage volume is estimated to provide a safe yield of 100 mgd. Currently Chatham
County, Cary/Apex, Holly Springs, and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
have allocations for water supply from Jordan Lake.
During 1996, the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, as well as Wake County/Research
Triangle Park South (RTP South), requested authorization from DWR and the EMC to
withdraw water from Jordan Lake to meet potable water demands for their rapidly growing
communities. The Cary/Apex water treatment plant (WTP) currently treats raw water
withdrawn from Jordan Lake and supplies water on a regular basis to Cary, Apex,
Raleigh/Durham Airport Authority (RDU Airport), RTP South, and the Town of Morrisville
from the allocation of 16 mgd which was granted to Cary/Apex in 1987. Although the DWR
recommended additional individual allocations in 1997 for Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and
RTP South as shown in Table 2, the Cary/Apex WTP will continue to treat and supply the
allocations to the RDU Airport, Morrisville, and RTP South. However, the 1997 allocation is
contingent upon the issuance of an IBT certificate by the EMC.
TABLE 2
Water Supply Allocation Recommendations for IBT Applicants
Allocation Applicant Current Allocation (mgd)DWR Total Allocation
Recommendation (mgd) 1
Apex and Cary 16.0 21.0
Morrisville 0 2.5
Wake County/RTP South 0 1.5
1 Based on 2015 average day demands.
Currently there are three wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that serve Cary, Apex,
Morrisville, RTP South, and RDU Airport. The North Cary WWTP (permitted at 12 mgd)
serves northern, western, and central Cary, Morrisville, RDU Airport, and RTP. The South
Cary WWTP (permitted at 16 mgd) serves eastern, central, and southern Cary. Apex also
has a WWTP (permitted at 3.6 mgd) that serves the residents within the Apex town limits.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 1 - 2
The basin boundary between the Cape Fear River basin and the Neuse River basin runs
through the Towns of Cary and Apex (see Figure 1), and all three of the WWTPs discharge
in the Neuse basin. Raw water is withdrawn from the DWR designated Haw River basin (in
the Cape Fear River basin); treated water is supplied in both the Haw River basin and the
Neuse basin; and wastewater is discharged in the Neuse basin. A transfer of water occurs
from the Haw River basin to the Neuse River basin for the purpose of this IBT.
1.2 Project Description
The transfer of water from one river basin to another is defined by DWR as an IBT and
requires a certificate from the EMC in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.22I. Cary/Apex currently has an IBT certificate for 16 mgd (maximum day basis) and
has begun the application process to increase their IBT to 27.0 mgd, an increase of 11.0 mgd.
This EIS provides supporting documentation for the IBT certificate application for the study
area designated as the following “Source” and “Receiving” basins, as shown in Figure 1:
• Haw River Basin (source basin): Jordan Lake and the watershed areas of 03-06-05 and
03-06-06, and the Haw River arm of Jordan Lake (and its floodplain). The Haw and Cape
Fear rivers from the Jordan Lake dam to the town of Lillington are also included.
• Neuse River Basin (receiving basin): The general area contained within the outer
boundary of the existing/projected Utility Service Area contributing to the proposed IBT
(North Cary, South Cary, and Apex WWTPs), as well as Crabtree Creek and Middle
Creek extending from the WWTP service area boundary to their individual confluence
with the Neuse River.
The boundary of the study area around the river and creeks is offset 0.7 miles from the
shoreline to incorporate floodplain areas as shown on digital Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps.
The Cary North WWTP, the Cary South WWTP and the Apex WWTP will not be expanded
as a result of the proposed IBT. No WWTP capacity will be requested in the Neuse River
basin in conjunction with this IBT request, since current permitted discharge amounts are
adequate. One or more WWTPs and/or water reclamation facilities, assumed to discharge
to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River, are being considered or planned and will likely
serve Cary, Apex, and the Wake County portion of RTP, as well as other portions of western
Wake County. This will limit the amount of water discharged to the Neuse River basin,
thereby minimizing the IBT amount. At present, several alternative discharge locations
below the Jordan Lake dam are being investigated for those proposed facilities. The request
addressed by this document is for the maximum IBT that will occur during the planning
period through 2030 (24.1 mgd, as shown in Table 3), plus an additional contingency factors
that brings the total requested IBT amount to 27 mgd. Section 2.4 provides a further
discussion of how the IBT figures were calculated. The proposed action assumes the future
return of water to the source basin through a highly treated effluent from a regional
treatment and water reclamation facility in the mainstem of the Cape Fear River.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 1 - 3
Figure 1
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 1 - 4
TABLE 3
Projected IBT1
Year IBT Maximum Day
(mgd)
2000 19.7
2010 17.9
2020 18.4
2030 24.1
1 Projected IBT calculations are only estimates if an IBT increase of 11 mgd is granted
Population, water demand, and wastewater flow projections are presented in Section 2, as
well as the IBT calculation. The existing conditions and primary consequences of the
proposed IBT are presented in Section 3, followed by a discussion of the secondary
consequences in Section 4.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 2 - 1
SECTION 2
Purpose and Need
2.1 Population Growth
The towns of Cary and Apex and the surrounding areas have grown rapidly. Over the last
two decades, Cary’s population has almost tripled while Apex’s has almost doubled. The
future rate of growth for Apex is expected to be higher than Cary’s historical growth trends.
Morrisville had an average population increase of 19 percent annually between 1980 and
1990; however, the development slowed in the early 1990s because of the shortage of water
and limited sewer capacity. Growth has been rapid since the agreement with the Town of
Cary in 1995 for additional water and wastewater treatment capacity. Since that time, Cary
has adopted a building permit allocation system that is based on the availability of treated
water.
Population projections are presented in Table 4. A special U.S. Census documented Cary’s
population as of April 1998 as 85,400. Population projections are not calculated for Wake
County since the water supply allocation is for RTP South, which is exclusively office and
industrial. Development rates for the available acreage were estimated based on historical
records.
TABLE 4
Population Projections
Year Apex Cary Morrisville
1997 11,500 82,700 2,100
2000 22,000 94,400 6,500
2010 48,800 120,900 14,700
2020 74,600 154,700 20,800
2030 100,400 198,000 27,000
2.2 Water Demand Projections
The average daily water demand (ADD) projections presented in Table 5 have been updated
since the 1995-1996 Jordan Lake allocation applications. Average day demands for the towns
are based on historic average treated water demands of 102, 110, and 213 gallons per capita
per day for Cary, Apex and Morrisville, respectively. Raw water needs are increased by 8
percent over treated water demands to account for WTP losses. The maximum day
demands (MDD) were calculated based on historical MDD/ADD peaking factors of 1.65 for
Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, and 1.5 for RTP South. The towns plan to utilize conservation
measures; Cary and Morrisville have a goal of reducing per capita water demands by 20
percent by 2015 from the 1998 level, and Apex plans to reach 20 percent reductions by 2027.
These demand reductions are included in the projections below. Projections for Cary also
incorporate the implementation of water reuse to reduce the MDD by 2.2 mgd in 2002,
increasing to 3.8 mgd in 2015.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 2 - 2
TABLE 5
Raw Water Demand Projections
Cary Apex Morrisville RTP South
Year ADD1 MDD2 ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD
1997 10.3 16.5 1.2 2.0 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3
2000 10.7 17.6 2.6 4.3 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7
2010 9.9 16.3 5.2 8.6 2.9 4.8 2.0 2.9
2020 11.8 19.5 7.15 12.4 3.8 6.3 2.5 3.7
2030 15.7 25.8 9.6 15.8 5.0 8.3 2.5 3.7
1ADD = Average Day Demand (mgd)
2MDD = Maximum Day Demand (mgd)
The Cary/Apex WTP has a rated capacity of 16 mgd; Cary owns 77 percent of this amount,
12.32 mgd, while Apex owns the remaining 3.68 mgd. Cary currently cannot produce
enough treated water to supply the entire Town’s needs; therefore, Cary contracts with both
Raleigh and Durham on a “take and pay” basis for additional treated water. The contract
with the City of Raleigh is to purchase 4.5 mgd of treated water a minimum of 280 days each
year through September 30, 2003, and the contract with the City of Durham is to purchase
3.5 mgd of treated water every day through April 30, 2002. Morrisville also has a contract
with Durham for the purchase of 1.5 mgd through 2003. Expansion of the Cary/Apex WTP
to 40 mgd is being planned, and the outside contracts will not be necessary following
completion of the proposed expansion.
Cary has a Water Conservation Ordinance, and the Town Manager is authorized to
determine when certain conditions exist that require water restrictions or rationing
measures. When the Town Manager determines that a water emergency exists, conservation
efforts will be enforced and may include voluntary conservation measures, mandatory
conservation measures, and water shortage emergency measures. Cary has also hired a
permanent Water Conservation Specialist and adopted a Water Conservation Demand
Management Program, which provides incentives and guidance to homeowners and
developers.
Morrisville has also adopted an ordinance establishing water shortage conservation
measures. The Town Manager is authorized to adopt and enforce water conservation
measures when it has been determined that an emergency exists in Morrisville. The
emergency measures will be adopted as a Town Policy and will apply to all water users of
the Town.
The Apex ordinance establishes continuing water conservation measures that apply at all
times whether or not a water shortage exists. In addition, the Town Manager may initiate
and enforce five stages of conservation ranging from voluntary, different levels of
mandatory, and finally, rationing. As of July 20, 1999, Apex no longer offers irrigation
meters to customers, and the rate for existing irrigation customers was increased to
$4.65/1000 gallons.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 2 - 3
The towns’ conservation programs are planned to reduce peak demands and the associated
IBT and are reflected in Table 5.
As part of the IBT certification process, the IBT Certificate will include a drought
management plan (approved by the EMC) describing management of the transfer to protect
the source river basin during drought conditions.
2.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities
Cary operates two municipal WWTPs that discharge to the Neuse River basin and
contribute to the proposed IBT. The North Cary WWTP discharges into Crabtree Creek and
the South Cary WWTP discharges to Middle Creek. Apex also has a WWTP that discharges
into the Neuse River basin via Middle Creek. The permitted flows and design flows for the
facilities are listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities
WWTP Permitted
Capacity (mgd) 1 Existing Facility
Design Capacity
(mgd) 1
Expected 2030
Capacity (mgd) 1
North Cary 12.0 10.0 12.0
South Cary 16.0 12.8 16.0
Apex 3.6 3.6 0.0
2
Cape Fear WWTPs
(combined)
-- -- 40
1 Based on maximum month flows.
2 Apex plans to shift wastewater discharge to the planned Cape Fear River basin WWTP
when the existing facility reaches the end of its useful life.
Both Cary and Apex are in the process of planning for a new plant (either together, or as
part of a regional facility) to discharge to the Cape Fear River basin, which would result in a
decrease of the total IBT amount to the Neuse River basin. Wake County and other local
governments have been discussing the concept of a regional WWTP to accommodate Cary,
Apex, and other communities in western Wake County as well as adjacent areas in Harnett
and Chatham counties. As previously mentioned, this EIS assumes the return of water to the
source basin through a highly treated effluent from a regional treatment and water
reclamation facility by 2010. It is also assumed that this facility will discharge into the
mainstem of the Cape Fear River. However, there are no specific plans and the location of
such a plant (or plants) is only speculative at this time. It is recognized that in the future
there may be more than one new facility discharging into the Cape Fear River basin that will
service the communities of the region (within or adjacent to the study area).
Discharge to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River will not result in an IBT from the Haw
River basin to the Cape Fear River basin. Results using the Cape Fear River Basin
Hydrologic Model (Appendix B) showed that direct hydrologic impacts from a discharge to
the Cape Fear River upstream of Lillington are equivalent to the impacts from a discharge
into Jordan Lake.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 2 - 4
Cary is in the process of implementing a 1.6-mgd (MDD) reclaimed water system based on
the North Cary WWTP. This system would provide highly treated water to customers for
nonpotable uses such as irrigation and cooling water make-up. Several major customers
have been identified and have agreed to participate in the program. Additional users will be
included in the system when the distribution lines are installed. The first phase of the
system has been designed and permitted. The system is projected to be operating at the 1.6-
mgd level in 2002, and to increase to 3.2 mgd by 2015.
Additionally, Cary designed a water reuse project at the South Cary WWTP. Several parks,
schools, and ball fields have been identified as potential reuse customers. The expected rate
of reuse from the South Cary WWTP is about 0.6 mgd MDD in 2001. Therefore, the
implementation of water reuse at both plants is expected to reduce the MDD by 2.2 mgd in
2002 and 3.8 mgd in 2015. This system is currently under regulatory review. Reuse
opportunities have also been identified for the Apex WWTP. Apex is pursuing industrial
reuse opportunities with Cooper Tools and Ready-Mix for approximately 0.1 MGD.
2.4 IBT Calculation
Based on the water demand projections presented in Table 5 and the estimated wastewater
discharge to the Cape Fear River basin, the IBT calculation is presented in Table 7. The
following assumptions apply:
• Customer consumptive use includes in-basin water uses such as irrigation and septic
systems and is assumed to be 22 percent of raw water withdrawal based on discussions
with the DWR staff. In addition to customer consumptive use, total consumptive uses
include WTP losses of eight percent in the Haw River Basin.
• A WWTP that will discharge to the Cape Fear River will be on-line prior to the year 2010
and will treat the discharges proposed in the table.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 2 - 5
TABLE 7Interbasin Transfer Water Balance Table (Maximum Day Basis)
Year Water Withdrawal
from the Haw
River Basin
Consumption Estimated
Wastewater
Discharge1
Total Return
to the Haw
River Basin2 3
Interbasin
Transfer4
Haw
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
Haw
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
2000 23.4 3.7 3.3 0.0 16.4 3.7 19.7
2010 32.6 5.4 7.0 9.2 11.0 14.7 17.9
2020 41.8 6.9 8.7 16.5 9.7 23.5 18.4
2030 53.6 8.6 10.3 20.9 13.8 29.5 24.1
1Estimated wastewater discharges represent the amount of water withdrawal that is discharged as wastewater.
They do not include the impacts of inflow and infiltration or seasonal consumptive use variations on actual
wastewater discharge amounts.
2Total Return to Haw River Basin = Haw River Basin Consumption + Haw River Basin Wastewater Discharge.
3Analysis using the Cape Fear Hydrologic Model (Appendix B) showed that discharge of wastewater to the Cape
Fear River basin upstream of Lillington was equivalent to discharge into Jordan Lake (Haw River basin). It is
assumed that the discharge will be to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River.
4Interbasin Transfer = Water withdrawal from Haw River Basin – Total Returned to Haw River Basin
While the IBT need based on the calculations presented in Table 7 is about 25 mgd in 2030,
the requested IBT of 27 mgd allows for about a 10 percent contingency to account for
uncertainty in the projections. A limited sensitivity analysis shows the potential for the
proposed IBT to reach a peak of 27 mgd during the planning period based upon considering
the following factors:
• Historically the region’s growth has exceeded projections, and all the towns are
predicting growth at slower rates than have occurred recently.
• The towns are working toward aggressive conservation goals, but potential savings are
hard to quantify and program success can vary greatly among different communities.
• It may take longer than expected to obtain permits for Cary’s planned reuse system.
• It may take longer then expected to obtain permits and construct the planned WWTP
discharging to the Cape Fear River basin.
According to a draft DWR document concerning IBTs in the Cape Fear basin completed for
updating the Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, there are several
transfers between the Cape Fear and the Neuse basins. Currently, only a few numerical
estimates have been made; however, the estimated IBT will be required in future water
supply plan submittals to DWR. Durham and Raleigh were listed as transferring 18 and 0.8
mgd, respectively, from the Neuse to the Cape Fear basin, while Benson was listed as
transferring 1.0 mgd from the Cape Fear to the Neuse basin. With the Cary/Apex permitted
transfer of 16.0 mgd, the net “known” transfer is 1.8 mgd from the Neuse basin to the Cape
Fear basin. The number of IBTs occur as noted in Table 8.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 2 - 6
TABLE 8Number of Transfers According to DWR Basin/Subbasin Classification
Source Receiving IBT Emergency IBT Total
Haw basin Neuse basin 1 2 3
Neuse basin Haw basin 2 3 5
Cape Fear basin Neuse basin 3 2 5
Neuse basin Cape Fear basin 2 5 7
Note: The basin numbers include the transfers indicated for the subbasins. DWR’s names of basin for IBT purposes differs
from North Carolina Department of Water Quality’s (DWQ’s) standard identification procedures.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 1
SECTION 3
Existing Environment and Primary or Direct
Consequences
The existing environment for the proposed IBT study area is divided into two sections:
• Section 3.1—Source Basin, which describes the portion of the study area from which raw
water is withdrawn
• Section 3.2—Receiving Basin, which describes the portion of the study area where
wastewater is discharged
Each basin is further divided and described by the following potentially affected areas:
wetlands, land use, fish and wildlife resources, water resources/water quality, air quality,
groundwater resources, noise level, and toxic substances/hazardous waste.
The existing environment is described for each area studied, followed by a discussion of the
primary consequences, if any, on the area. The secondary/cumulative impacts of the
proposed IBT as a whole are discussed in Section 4. The data were gathered through
literature reviews, Internet searches, GIS queries, phone conversations, letters, and meetings
with various resource agencies.
3.1 Source Basin
The "source basin", for purpose of the IBT rules, is DWR’s designated Haw River basin (part
of the Cape Fear River basin). The source basin study area includes Jordan Lake and the
watershed areas of 03-06-05 and 03-06-06, and the Haw River arm of Jordan Lake (and its
floodplain). The area contained within the current jurisdictional boundaries of the Town’s of
Apex, Cary and Morrisville and RTP South is referred as the Urban Service Area in this
document. The Haw and Cape Fear rivers from the Jordan Lake Dam to the town of
Lillington are also included in the study area (Figure 1). Potential flow impacts downstream
of Lillington at Fayetteville are evaluated to address specific comments from stakeholders
during the EA and EIS scoping processes.
The boundary of the study area around water bodies is offset 0.7 miles from the shoreline to
incorporate flood plain areas as shown on FEMA flood zone maps.
The Cape Fear River basin encompasses a land area that is approximately 200 miles long
and 60 miles wide stretching from northwest of Greensboro to southeast of Wilmington.
One-third of the basin is located in the Piedmont and the remaining area lies in the Coastal
Plain. The Cape Fear River, the largest river system in North Carolina, forms at the
confluence of the Deep and Haw rivers in south central North Carolina in the Piedmont
physiographic region and flows southeasterly for approximately 195 miles where it
discharges into the Atlantic Ocean near Southport. The Cape Fear is the largest river basin
lying completely within the state of North Carolina, with a total drainage area of more than
9,000 square miles. The basin includes portions of 27 counties and 114 municipalities, and
encompasses about 600 miles of freshwater streams and rivers, 36 lakes, and approximately
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 2
60 square miles of estuarine waters (DWQ 1996; North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission [NC WRC] 1998).
The portion of the Piedmont within the source basin is characterized by rolling hills and
incised valleys. Land elevations in this area range from about 1,000 feet to approximately
300 to 400 feet. The floodplains are generally relatively narrow, but there are relatively
broad in-stream areas. In contrast to the Piedmont, floodplains of major rivers in the Coastal
Plain are broad and well developed. Along the border of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain,
the land is also characterized by rolling hills (DWQ, 1996).
3.1.1 Wetlands
According to the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs and similar areas." In general, wetlands share three key characteristics: wetland
hydrology, wetland soils, and wetland plants. Wetlands and vegetated riparian areas are
valuable because they preserve biological diversity, protect wildlife, provide natural open
spaces, protect water quality, stabilize stream banks, control erosion, and prevent flooding
damage.
3.1.1.1 Existing Environment
The northern portion of the source basin project area is characteristic of the Piedmont
physiographic province of the state, which is characterized by rolling topography with
broad ridges, sharply indented stream valleys, and low gradient streams composed of a
series of sluggish pools separated by riffles and occasional small rapids. Stream floodplains
in the region are relatively narrow and mostly forested (DWQ, 1998). The southern portion
of the source basin, downstream of Jordan Lake Dam, however, enters into the Coastal Plain
Province, which is characterized by flat terrain and slow-moving, blackwater streams lined
by extensive swamps, bottomland hardwood forests, or marshes. (DWQ, 1998).
Floodplains are the low, relatively flat-lying areas adjacent to streams that are subject to
flooding during periods of intense rainfall. Associated with floodplains are often riverine
wetlands, which function as storage areas for floodwaters, slowing runoff and thereby
lessening flood levels downstream. These wetlands also serve as areas of deposition for
sediment and other material carried by floodwaters. Area streams tend to have relatively
narrow floodplains, although broader floodplains are associated with several significant
local streams in the source basin, including White Oak Creek. Riverine wetlands are
associated with each of these floodplains and are common throughout the area.
The type and area of wetlands within the study area were determined using U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps in Geographical
Information System (GIS) format. The coverage of each wetland type within the study area
was estimated directly from the GIS database (USFWS, 1999A). The source basin study area
is comprised mostly of open water, the majority of which is represented by Jordan Lake and
the Haw and Cape Fear rivers. Excluding open water, total wetland coverage within the
entire source basin study area is approximately 37,454 acres. Of this total wetland acreage,
84.1 percent is located in the unincorporated area around Jordan Lake; 12.3 percent is within
the Haw and Cape Fear River corridor; and 3.6 percent is within the Urban Services Area for
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 3
Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and RTP South (USFWS, 1999A). Table A-1 in Appendix A
provides a complete breakdown of wetland acreages from the NWI GIS data search.
The source basin study area is extensively covered by palustrine forested wetlands. Broad-
leaved deciduous bottomland forested wetlands constitute approximately 38 percent of the
total wetland coverage within the source basin study area. Other palustrine wetland types
within the study area of the source basin include palustrine scrub shrub, palustrine
emergent, and palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetlands, representing approximately 2
percent, 0.7 percent, and 4.5 percent, respectively, of the total wetland coverage within the
source basin study area. Extensive Headwater Forest wetlands are associated with the
floodplains of the headwater tributaries of Jordan Lake (Morgan Creek, New Hope Creek,
and Northeast Creek) and, to a lesser extent, with the floodplain of the Haw and Cape Fear
rivers downstream of Jordan Lake Dam, which are dominated with Palustrine and Riverine
Bottomland Hardwood Forests (North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program [NCWRP],
1998A).
Lacustrine (lake) unconsolidated bottom wetlands are also found surrounding Lake Jordan,
making up approximately 48 percent of the total wetland acreage in the source basin. The
riverine unconsolidated bottom classification constitutes approximately 2 percent of the
wetland coverage within the study area of the source basin, located primarily along the
Haw and Cape Fear corridors (USFWS, 1999A).
Dominant tree species of the forested wetlands in the source basin include red maple (Acer
rubrum), and ash (Fraxinus spp.)(Schafale, 1990).
The types of natural wetland community types known to occur in the counties that compose
the source basin project area are listed and described in Table A-3 in Appendix A. The
majority of the wetlands within the source basin project area are of bottomland hardwood
and headwater forests of the Piedmont/Low Alluvial Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Levee
and Swamp Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, Floodplain Pools,
Piedmont/Mountain Semi-Permanent Impoundment, Rocky Bar and Shore, or Upland
Depression Swamp Forest natural community types (NCWRP, 1998A; Natural Heritage
Program [NHP],1999).
The Cape Fear River basin contains many rare animal and plant species which are
dependent on wetlands or open water for their existence. For more information on these
species, please see the Fish and Wildlife Section of this EIS.
3.1.1.2 Primary Impacts
The proposed transfer does not require the construction of additional water intake
structures in Jordan Lake. Therefore, direct impacts are not expected. However, expansion
of associated facilities such as pumps, raw water transmission lines, water treatment plants,
and the finished distribution system may be necessary. These associated projects will be
permitted separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their wetland and
environmental impacts evaluated under separate North Carolina Environmental Protection
Agency (NCEPA) or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, when and if
they become necessary.
DWR has developed a hydrologic model for the Cape Fear River Basin for water supply
planning, using Moffat & Nichol and the Danish Hydraulic Institute as contractors. The
model considers all major water withdrawals (water supply and irrigation) and discharges
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 4
within the Cape Fear River basin, including those into and out of Jordan Lake. The model
has been used to evaluate the impact of the requested IBT on Jordan Lake surface water
elevation, minimum releases from the dam, water quality pool levels, the target flows at
Lillington, flows at Fayetteville, and water quality pool levels (see Appendix B). The
proposed IBT will not have any significant direct impacts on wetlands in the source basin.
Model results indicate that the proposed IBT increase will not result in significant changes
in surface lake elevations, minimum lake releases, or downstream flows compared to the
other alternatives and the base scenarios. The proposed IBT will not have any direct impacts
on wetlands in the source basin due to construction since there is no construction associated
with the proposed IBT.
3.1.2 Land Use
3.1.2.1 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the existing land cover and land uses in the source basin. The
primary source for land cover information is satellite imagery data developed by Earth
Satellite Corporation for the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (NCCGIA). Created to assist governmental agencies and others in making resource
management decisions, these data provide a seamless coverage of the Source and Receiving
basins. The satellite imagery reflects land cover conditions at imagery dates and field data
collection activities occurring between May of 1993 and June of 1996.
Urban / Developed Lands
The major land cover categories are described as Urban Lands, Agricultural Lands, Forest
Lands, Shrub Lands, and Water. The NCCGIA land coverage classifies urban land uses as
either high intensity developed or low intensity developed. High intensity developed land
has more than 80 percent synthetic or impervious land cover, while low intensity developed
land represents between 50 and 80 percent synthetic cover.
The overall acreage and the proportions of these land cover categories are illustrated in
Table A-1 in Appendix A. It should be noted that the State and Triangle J Council of
Government generally concur that the NCCGIA land use data underestimates low density
urban land. Efforts to update land use from the source satellite imagery are in the process of
being funded by the Triangle J Council of Governments through funds provided by the
Cape Fear River Assembly.
Jordan Lake and Urban Services Area. As shown on Table A-1 in Appendix A, land uses
surrounding Jordan Lake in the source basin project area (see Figure 2) include 178,565 acres
of forest; 1,603 acres of agriculture; 21,521 acres of open land; and 13,873 acres of urban land
uses. The Urban Services portion of the source basin contains the western edges of Cary,
Morrisville, Apex, and RTP South. This area also includes portions of planned urban areas
within Cary’s jurisdiction abutting the ACOE land around Jordan Lake, which includes
Cary’s existing town boundary, and the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and Special Study
Areas for Cary immediately adjacent to Jordan Lake. In this planned urban services area
within the source basin, there are 21,391 acres of forest land; 586 acres of agricultural land;
4,445 acres of open land; and 880 acres of urban land (see Table A-1 in Appendix A).
As shown on Table A-4 in Appendix A, Subbasins 03-06-05 and 03-06-06 (which contain
Jordan Lake and the Urban Services Area on the source basin side for the project), rapidly
increased annual population growth between 1980 and 1990 (2.5 percent), with a steadily
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 5
increasing amount of population density. Total population and density for these subbasins
in 1990 was 159,975 people, with 277 persons per square mile for Subbasin 05, and 509
persons per square mile for Subbasin 06 (DWQ, 1996).
Most of the developed lands surrounding Jordan Lake are concentrated along headwater
tributaries draining into the lake from the north and northeast. Several large residential
Planned Unit Development projects (i.e., Panther Creek and Amberly) are planned in Cary’s
ETJ, immediately to the east of ACOE land surrounding Lake Jordan’s northeast boundary.
The largest concentration of high and low intensity developed lands occurs along New
Hope Creek in the City of Durham. Morgan Creek drains developed lands from the cities of
Chapel Hill and Carborro. The headwaters of Northeast Creek drain most of Research
Triangle Park, and small portions of the cities of Morrisville and Durham.
Generally, soils in the receiving basin around Cary function well as absorption fields for
septic systems and present few problems for construction, such as high shrink-swell
potential. However, soils in the source basin, particularly at the western edge of Wake
County and in Chatham County, tend to function poorly as absorption fields and have a
high shrink-swell potential. Very large lot sizes for residential and other development are
therefore planned in the part of the Chatham County Study Area beyond Cary’s future
urban services area, since the area is not planned to be served by municipal sewers (Cary,
1996).
Haw and Cape Fear River Corridor. As shown on Table A-1 in Appendix A, land uses
surrounding the Haw and Cape Fear rivers in the source basin project area include 17,105
acres of forest; 964 acres of agriculture; 2,697 acres of open land; and 257 acres of urban land
uses. Total acreage of land in the river corridor portion of the source basin is 22,461 acres,
including 1,437 acres of water bodies.
As shown on Table A-4 in Appendix A, Subbasin 03-06-07 (which contains the stretch of the
Haw and Cape Fear Rivers shown on Figure 1 and its basin drainage area), has very low
population density, but has, in the past ten years had a very rapid increase in annual rate of
population growth (4.4 percent). Total population and density for this subbasin in 1990 was
39,713 people, with 98 persons per square mile (DWQ, 1996).
South of Jordan Lake, small pockets of developed land are found along State Highway 55
and US Highway 401 in the cities of Apex, Holly Springs, and Fuquay-Varina. Portions of
Apex and Holly Springs drain to White Oak Creek, a tributary to Harris Reservoir, and the
Cape Fear River. Fuquay-Varina drains to the Cape Fear River via Neal Creek.
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways)
This section discusses lands designated for a particular public or conservation use. These
include State and local parks, recreation areas, and greenways. Park and recreation areas
were identified based on data created cooperatively by the NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), NC Division of Parks and Recreation, and the NCCGIA,
depicting the boundaries of recreation projects constructed using Land and Water
Conservation Funds. These public lands, generally held in perpetuity, cannot be
redeveloped without a permit. These lands include: recreation sites; district, county,
municipal, and community parks; playgrounds; greenways; nature trails; ballparks; beach
access; state boating access areas; and some state forests. The source basin contains a variety
of public lands, which are described on Table A-5 provided in Appendix A.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 6
Figure 2
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 7
Jordan Lake State Recreation Area and Raven Rock State Park are both located in the source
basin. Jordan Lake is a very popular regional recreational area, containing 14,300 acres of
camping, fishing, boating, sailing, hiking, swimming, and picnicking areas (DeLorme, 1993).
Fishing tournaments are held throughout the year, with the most plentiful recreational fish
caught being crappie, catfish, and pan fish, although largemouth bass, striped bass, white
bass, carp, and sunfish are also present (DeLorme, 1993). All twelve recreational areas
around the lake provide boat ramps, fishing areas, and parking. Most others provide
camping, swimming, and trails. Many visitors at the site enjoy birdwatching. In addition to
these recreational uses, Jordan Lake contains an educational state forest on the western
shore, off of Big Woods Road, that provides outdoor environmental education, including a
talking tree trail, and picnic facilities (NC Parks and Recreation, 1997).
According to Mike Seigh with NC Parks and Recreation, Jordan Lake had an estimated 1.2
million visitors in 1997, with 70 percent of the visitation occurring between May and
September. Of the visitors, 90,000 were campers and 75 percent of those were NC residents.
Potential impacts from low flows could be inaccessible boat ramps and docks, and increased
exposure of underwater hazards (e.g., tree stumps). Most impacts to recreation would occur
with an 8- to 10-foot drop in water elevation (Seigh, 1998).
Raven Rock State Park consists of 3,136 acres located on the Cape Fear River in Harnett
County. Popular activities at the park include fishing at the Fish Traps and at the mouth of
Campbell Creek and canoeing the Class I-III rapids of the 56-mile Cape Fear River Canoe
Trail. Raven Rock is renowned for its spectacular rock cliffs. Hiking along the Rock Loop
Trail is also a popular recreational activity in the park. Nature study opportunities are
provided (DeLorme, 1993).
In addition to public lands utilized for recreation, the source basin has a variety of lands
dedicated to conservation and natural resource protection. These lands include the 41,872-
acre New Hope Wildlife Game Lands around the northern edge of Jordan Lake and the
2,421-acre Lee Game Lands and Shearon Harris Game Lands near Harris Reservoir off the
Cape Fear River north of Lillington. These gamelands are administered by the WRC and
contain hunting opportunities for deer, raccoon, fox, rabbit, squirrel, turkey, quail, and
waterfowl (DeLorme, 1993).
The portion of the Haw River in the project area northeast of Pittsboro is also a popular
fishing area, with species caught including largemouth bass, white bass, catfish, and sunfish
(DeLorme, 1993).
A network of greenways is planned for or already exists in most of the municipalities
throughout the basin. Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake County have been working
together as well as with the Triangle Land Conservancy, the Triangle Greenways Council,
and the NC Division of Parks and Recreation (Trails) to ensure connectivity of their
greenways and other trails on a regional basis. There are plans to link the Towns’ greenways
with the American Tobbacco Trail as well as Umstead Park trails, Lake Crabtree, and Lake
Johnson. The Southwest Wake County land use plan that has been adopted includes a
regional greenway system of approximately 46 miles to continue Town greenways.
Cary is proposing an extensive series of greenways and conservation corridors throughout
the portion of its jurisdiction in the Jordan Lake watershed. In addition, Cary is planning
some neighborhood, regional, and community parks adjacent to ACOE property on the
eastern edge of Jordan Lake (Cary, 1996).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 8
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land
Prime farmland is one of several kinds of important farmland defined by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). It is of major importance for meeting the nation’s short
and long range needs for food and fiber. These soils are best suited for producing high
yields of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops with minimal input of energy and
economic resources and the least damage to other environmental resources. Approximately
55 percent of the soils in Orange County, 21 percent in Durham County, 23 percent in
Chatham County, and 35 percent in Wake County are considered prime farmland (personal
communication with jurisdictional Soil and Water Conservation Districts).
Most agricultural land uses in the source basin occur to the west of N.C. 55, with centers in
the Green Level and Carpenter communities, and to the west of Jordan Lake, south of
Chapel Hill (Cary, 1996). As shown on Table A-1 included in Appendix A, agricultural land
made up less than one percent of the land within the Jordan Lake project area, five percent
of the Haw and Cape Fear corridor area, and two percent of the Urban Services Area within
the source basin. Major crops grown include tobacco, soybeans, wheat, barley, oats, corn,
and pastures and forages.
Soils in the floodplain around Jordan Lake consist mostly of Chewacla soils that are poorly
drained (USDA, 1971; USDA, 1977). Soils that have a high water table and are frequently
flooded have severe limitations when used for agriculture even if those soils qualify as
prime agricultural land. These limitations would almost entirely exclude all of the soils in
the floodplain of the waterbodies in the source basin study area from being considered of
significant importance as prime agricultural land.
Although some NC counties have enacted voluntary farmland preservation programs, they
have not been adequate to slow the conversion of agricultural lands to suburban land uses.
It has been estimated that Wake County alone has lost 50 percent of its agricultural land
since 1970. Under present policies, it is likely that suburbanization will continue within the
source basin, around the land controlled by the ACOE (encircling Jordan Lake) and south of
Jordan Lake Dam into Lee and Harnett counties. Agricultural land throughout the source
basin is rapidly converting to large-lot residential subdivisions despite a lack of public water
and sewer services.
Although much of the original forest community in the source basin study area has
progressively been cleared out for wood products, crop production, and residential and
industrial development, significant forested areas remain in eastern Chatham County
surrounding Jordan Lake and in the New Hope Game Lands. Natural reseeding of
abandoned tracts of land in urban areas usually results in a mixture of pine and second
growth hardwoods. Forest land occupies approximately 217,061 acres or about 83 percent of
the total land area in the source basin study area. The natural forest vegetative cover for the
source basin consists primarily of mixed coniferous and broadleaf forests. Table A-6 in
Appendix A lists the known types of terrestrial or upland forest Natural Communities that
occur in the source basin counties. Wetland forests known to exist in the source basin are
listed in the Wetlands Section. Additionally, the distribution of forest land in the study area
is presented in Figure 2.
Forests provide a number of "quality of life" benefits for local communities. For example, the
conversion of large tracts of forest to paved surfaces and grass lawns can have profound
impacts on urban micro-climates, causing summer temperatures to be higher and winter
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 9
temperatures to be lower. For a number of reasons, this micro-climatic effect is also linked to
declining air quality. Forests also provide habitat for wildlife and selected sites may serve
the community as parks, greenways, and recreational areas. Forested buffers protect water
quality in local streams by slowing stormwater runoff and removing nutrients, sediment,
and other pollutants, and can also be used as a buffer or screen between incompatible land
uses. Finally, trees provide an important urban amenity by enhancing the beauty and
overall attractiveness of a community, thereby contributing to overall land value (Cary,
1996).
Archaeological and Historic Areas
NCEPA requires the conservation and protection of North Carolina’s natural resources and
preservation of "the important historic and cultural elements of our common inheritance."
The Upper Piedmont has enjoyed a rich history since being settled by Europeans in the
1700s.
Historic structures from those periods are significant since they preserve North Carolina
history. Historic districts consist of whole blocks of downtown areas including many
structures that are culturally and historically significant. Most of the historic sites and
districts in the source basin are clustered around the cities of Durham, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro on tributaries draining to Jordan Lake from the north. There are also four 19th
century National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites scattered along the shores of
Jordan Lake. Table A-7 in Appendix A lists the historic sites and districts located in the
counties that make up the source basin, as listed in the NRHP as determined by the
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History. Wake County is not
considered part of the source basin for purposes of this analysis. The total number of
historic sites and historic districts in the counties that make up the source basin are 135 and
22, respectively.
Archaeological sites are important since they contain the only material remains of extinct
Native American cultures dating back 12,000 years throughout North Carolina. The Cape
Fear and Neuse River basins contain many archeological sites that have been surveyed and
several sites where significant archeological resources have been found from many native
groups that lived in the region up until 200 years ago. As shown on Table A-8 in Appendix
A, the total number of prehistoric sites found in the counties that compose the source basin
(excluding Wake County) is 2,050.
According to the NC Cultural Resources Department (NC CRD), there were more than 7,000
recorded archaeological sites located within the Cape Fear River Basin, 1,200 of which were
located in Wake County. Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving basins, and the
fact that no construction will occur with the project, NC CRD did not require the
preparation of an archeological survey for the project (refer to Gledhill-Early, 1998, letter in
Appendix C).
3.1.2.2. Primary Consequences
The proposed IBT will not have any direct impacts on urban/developed land, public lands,
recreational land, prime agricultural land, forest land, or archeological or historic resources
in the source basin, since no construction is planned for the proposed IBT. Many of the
infrastructure improvements that transfer finished drinking water to the Neuse River
subbasin are already in place.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 10
The Cape Fear River Basin hydrologic model shows that the proposed IBT increase will not
have a significant effect on land use resources since there will be no significant changes in
lake elevation nor significant modification to releases from the Jordan Lake dam compared
to the other alternatives and base scenarios. Flooding of low areas is not expected under the
proposed action.
3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resource
3.1.3.1 Existing Environment
Wildlife Habitat and Resources
The vegetation in the central Cape Fear River basin around Jordan Lake is characterized
mainly by mixed upland hardwoods, mixed hardwoods and conifers, and southern yellow
pine. Interspersed among these types of vegetation are bottomland forest and hardwood
swamps. The northern part of the river basin consists mainly of mixed upland hardwoods
and southern yellow pine with small areas of bottomland forest, hardwood swamps, and
deciduous shrubland. The southern edge of the river basin and the southeastern portion of
the river basin have a high density of cultivated land. The southwestern portion of the basin
is mainly mixed hardwoods and conifers mixed with southern yellow pine. Throughout the
entire river basin are large pockets of mixed hardwoods and conifers (NHP, 1999).
Jordan Lake is not only a major regional water supply, but the gamelands and recreational
lands that surround it play a key role in maintaining populations of wildlife throughout the
region. Natural wetland and forest community types that exist in the counties that make up
the source basin are listed in separate tables in Appendix A. Figure 3 summarizes rare and
significant species and habitats.
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources
The major tributaries which feed into the Cape Fear are generally dark and acidic swamp-
drainage streams. The waters of the Cape Fear are usually very turbid. The majority of the
Cape Fear is a typical coastal plain river meandering along a flat, broad flood plain and
forming a series of pools. Aquatic resources within the basin are varied and include
important sport fish, commercial fish, and threatened and endangered species (DWQ, 1996).
Over 95 fish species have been found in the Cape Fear River basin including a variety with
recreational and commercial importance. Striped bass are stocked regularly in Jordan Lake
by the WRC (NC WRC, 1998). Recreationally and commercially important anadromous
species, including striped bass, American and hickory shad, and herring, migrate into
freshwater portions of the Cape Fear River and tributaries to spawn during the spring (NC
WRC, 1998).
Sport fishing in the study area occurs in farm ponds, municipal water supply reservoirs, and
riverine sections of the Cape Fear and its tributaries. Species sought include many different
sunfish, bass (striped and largemouth), and catfish. Jordan Lake supports at least 28
different species of fish including several different species of bass, sunfish, and shad, as
described on Table A-9 in Appendix A. Anadromous species occurring in the Cape Fear
Estuary, lower Cape Fear River, and Northeast Cape Fear River include blue-back herring,
alewife, hickory shad, and Atlantic sturgeon. In addition, American shad and striped bass
are actively pursued by anglers.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 11
The majority of commercial fishing occurs a substantial distance downstream of the study
area within the Cape Fear estuary and immediately upstream of Lock and Dam No. 1.
Species sought include marine-estuarine, anadromous, and freshwater.
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats
The Cape Fear River basin is home to 30 endangered, threatened, or special concern species,
including fish, amphibians, mammals, crustaceans, and mollusks. Figure 3 shows the
location of rare and significant species and habitats in the project area, and Table 9 lists
significant rare and protected species in the source basin, as provided by the NHP. A
discussion of selected significant species, habitat, and location is found below.
In addition to these species, several significant natural areas and sites have been identified
by LeGrand (1999) and Roe (1986) around Jordan Lake, including:
• New Hope Creek Floodplain (Stagecoach Road to NC 54)
• New Hope Creek Floodplain (north and south of Old Chapel Hill Road)
• Haw River Habitat (confluence of Haw River and Lake Jordan)
• Jordan Lake Eagle Foraging Habitat (entire length of Jordan Lake north of US64)
• Morgan Creek Swamp (Jordan Lake to Farrington Mill Road)
Aquatic Vertebrates
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
The Cape Fear shiner is both a federal and state listed endangered species. The shiner is a
small minnow that is mostly found in pools, slow riffles, and runs with gravel, cobble, or
boulder bottoms. It requires good currents, circumneutral pH, and abundant water willow
(Justicia americana) (Jon Alderman, Wildlife Resources Commission, communication 1998).
The Cape Fear shiner is small, rarely exceeding 2 inches in length. The fish's body is flushed
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides (Snelson, 1971). The fins are
yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a thin black
bar along its margin. The Cape Fear shiner, unlike most other members of the large genus
Notropis, feeds extensively on plant material, and its digestive tract is modified for this diet
by having an elongated, convoluted intestine. Plant material forms the primary part of the
shiner's diet. No information is presently available on the species' breeding behavior,
fecundity, or longevity (USFWS, 1999B).
The Cape Fear shiner formerly occurred in Haw River tributaries impounded by the
reservoir, and probably occurred in segments of the Haw and lower New Hope Rivers now
flooded and no longer suitable. It does not occur in the Neuse River basin.
The USFWS has identified it to exist in four small populations in the Cape Fear drainage in
Randolph, Moore, Lee, Harnett, and Chatham counties, North Carolina—approximately 4.1
miles of the Rocky River from North Carolina State Highway 902 Bridge downstream to
Chatham County Road 1010 Bridge; approximately 0.5 river mile of Bear Creek, from
Chatham County Road 2156 Bridge downstream to the Rocky River, then downstream in
the Rocky River (approximately 4.2 river miles) to the Deep River, then downstream in the
Deep River (approximately 2.6 river miles) to a point 0.3 river mile below the Moncure,
North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging Station (USFWS, 1999B). Two
additional populations were identified in 1995 to be in the Haw River in Chatham County,
one above the dam at Bynum, and the other below the dam at Bynum, to the headwaters of
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 12
the Haw River arm of Jordan Lake. Both of these populations were considered small,
isolated, and vulnerable to extirpation (Alderman, 1995).
TABLE 9
Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring in the Source Basin
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal
Status
Aquatic Resources
Vertebrates
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E E
Hemidactylium scutatum four-toed salamander SC -
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E E
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater T FSC
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T FSC
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T FSC
Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot T -
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke slabshell T -
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater T -
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR * FSC
Toxolasma pullus1 Savannah lilliput T FSC
Terrestrial Resources
Vertebrates
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle E T
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E E
Vascular Plants
Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella E E
Phacelia covillei buttercup phacelia C -
Juglans cinerea Butternut FSC
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap FSC
Isotria meedeoloides small whorled pogonia E E
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur FSC
E = Endangered
T = Threatened
SC = Special Concern
FSC = Federal Special Concern
SR * = Significantly Rare (only a NHP designation)
C = Candidate
Source: NHP, 1997 & 1999; 1 USFWS; personal communication with Tom Augspurger
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 13
Figure 3
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 14
At least until 1987, the shiner was present in the Cape Fear River and tributaries between
Buckhorn Dam and Lillington. Although it was believed that it may be extirpated from this
area a population of Cape Fear shiner was inventoried at the Haw River Aquatic Habitat
Natural Area. This area is south of Highway 64 on the Haw River, immediately before the
river becomes part of Jordan Lake. No extant (living) populations have been found or are
known to exist in the source basin project area in the immediate location of Jordan Lake or
in the Cape Fear River below the Haw/Cape Fear confluence (Alderman, 1995 and USFWS,
1999C).
Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)
The four-toed salamander lives in moist mossy woods near seeps and in fish-free vernal
pools with thick moss for nesting. It prefers peat bogs or mossy areas bordering streams as
breeding sites. Its unique breeding habit, where eggs are laid in moss and larvae wiggle
down to the water, makes them especially sensitive to any changes in hydrology (Braswell,
personal communication). Adult salamanders have also been found in woodland habitats
during summer. The four-toed salamander is found in several counties in North Carolina
including eastern Chatham, western Wake, southern Durham, and Orange counties
(Braswell and Murdock 1979). According to Alvin Braswell, with the NC Museum of
Natural History, four-toed salamanders have been found at Jordan Lake, primarily using
the western side of the lake for breeding. LeGrand (1999) found a healthy population of the
species in Morgan Creek Floodplain Forest Natural Area, located on the northwest side of
the lake, where Morgan Creek drains into Lake Jordan. Hemidactylium scutatum is a species
of special concern for the state of North Carolina.
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous species that prefers to live in deep pools with soft
substrates and vegetated bottoms and moves to deeper water in winter. It spawns in
freshwater wetlands or rapid streams with gravel or cobble bottoms. Historically,
populations of this species were located throughout the Cape Fear drainage basin. It is both
a federally and state listed endangered species.
Both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were once plentiful in the Cape Fear River but the
population levels for both species are currently at low levels, with the few remaining
individuals located primarily in the lower Cape Fear and Brunswick rivers. The last
shortnose sturgeon to be captured in the Cape Fear River was collected in 1993 (NCWRC,
1998). Moser, who captured that last individual, observed in 1995 that low level dams such
as Lock and Dam No. 1 on the lower Cape Fear River blocked upstream migration of
shortnose sturgeon (Moser, 1995B). Recent conversations with Mike Wicker (USFWS)
indicated that in the past few years the ACOE has improved their operations at the three
lock and dams on the Cape Fear to allow more fish passage. He indicated that anadromous
(and catadromous) fish and eels of all varieties are able to get above L&D Nos. 1 and 2 easily
now, with some getting above No. 3. However, if they were to get above No. 3, they would
be stopped at Buckhorn Dam, located above the Chatham/Harnett county line on the Cape
Fear River (Mike Wicker, USFWS, personal communication).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 15
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
The American eel is a catadromous species which occupies temperate and tropical portions
of the Atlantic Ocean. The American eel is the only North American species of eel. It is
catadromous, spending most of its life in fresh or brackish water and returning to the sea to
breed and die. Eels have extremely elongated bodies referred to as anguilliform, and they
travel by synchronous undulations of the body. They often hide when hunting by sliding
backwards into crevices and under soft sediment. Although not specifically sited in the
project area, a literature search indicates that this species is very prevalent in Virginia’s
freshwater streams, from the coastal plain to the Piedmont, and is listed on species lists for
some of North Carolina’s streams (NC Museum lists it for the Neuse basin). Obstructions
caused by dams have been documented to extirpate the species from river segments in VA.
Terrestrial Vertebrates
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head
and tail with a dark brown body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not
fully develop the majestic white head and tail until the fifth or sixth year. Fish are the
primary food source but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles
(both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about three
feet from head to tail, weigh approximately 10 to 12 pounds, and have a wingspread that
can reach seven feet. Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Breeding pairs of bald eagles unite for life or until the death of their mate. The breeding
season varies throughout the U.S., but typically begins in the winter for the southern
populations and progressively shifts toward spring the further north the populations occur.
The typical nest is constructed of large sticks and lined with soft materials such as pine
needles and grasses. The nests are very large, measuring up to six feet across and weighing
hundreds of pounds. Many nests are believed to be used by the same pair of eagles year
after year. Female eagles lay an average of two eggs; however, the clutch size may vary from
one to three eggs. The eggs are incubated in about 35 days. The young fledge 9 to 14 weeks
after hatching and at approximately 4 months the young eaglets are on their own (USFWS,
1999B).
Nesting bald eagles are generally associated with mature, secluded forests (particularly
conifers) where there are flowing streams, areas of open water, and abundant fish. Bald
eagles began nesting at Jordan Lake shortly after it was completed in 1981. Prior to this, no
nestings had been reported in North Carolina since 1971. Four active bald eagle nests were
recently found on lands surrounding Jordan Lake, three of which were on ACOE lands at
the northern end of Jordan Lake (LeGrand, 1999). The bald eagle is federally listed as a
threatened species and state listed as an endangered species; however, the bald eagle will be
delisted at the federal level as a threatened species in the near future. It is unknown at this
time if the eagle will be afforded any protected status once this delisting occurs.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker is 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span of 35 to 38
centimeters. There are black and white horizontal stripes on its back, and its cheeks and
underparts are white. Its flanks are black streaked. The cap and stripe on the side of the neck
and the throat are black. The male has a small red spot on each side of the black cap. After
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 16
the first post-fledgling molt, fledgling males have a red crown patch. This woodpecker's diet
is composed mainly of insects, including ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, and
corn ear worms, if available. About 16 to 18 percent of the diet includes seasonal wild fruit
(USFWS, 1999B).
Egg laying occurs during April, May, and June with the female utilizing her mate's roosting
cavity for a nest. Most often, the parent birds and some of their male offspring from
previous years form a family unit called a group. A group may include one breeding pair
and as many as seven other birds. Commonly, these groups are comprised of three to five
birds. Rearing the young birds becomes a shared responsibility of the group. However, a
single pair can breed successfully without the benefit of the helpers.
This bird's range is closely tied to the distribution of southern pines. Historically, the red-
cockaded woodpecker occurred from East Texas and Oklahoma, to Florida, and north to
New Jersey. The present distribution is similar, except the species has been extirpated from
Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are most commonly
used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are
primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging
habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older with foraging
preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In good, well-stocked pine habitat,
sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those which are infected with
a fungus producing what is known as red-heart disease. The cavity tree ages range from 63
to 300 plus years for longleaf, and 62 to 200 plus years for loblolly and other pines. The
aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3
to 60 acres. The average cluster is about 10 acres. Completed cavities in active use have
numerous, small resin wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowing apparently as
a cavity defense mechanism against rat snakes and possibly other predators. The territory
for a group averages about 200 acres, but observers have reported territories running from a
low of around 60 acres, to an upper extreme of more than 600 acres. The expanse of
territories is related to both habitat suitability and population density (USFWS, 1999B).
Natural Heritage Program files indicate that a population of red cockaded woodpeckers
existed in the study area near Shearon Harris. This population has not been in existence
since 1980 (NHP, unpublished records).
Invertebrates
Cape Fear mussels (7 species)
Seven state protected species, the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus),
Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), Savanna lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), and triangle
floater (Alasmidonta undulata) occur in free-flowing streams in the Cape Fear River basin.
Areas with significant populations include the Deep River, Rocky River, Cape Fear River
above Fayetteville, the Black River, Town Creek, and Rices Creek. A population of the
Savannah lilliput (federally listed as a Species of Concern) is listed by the USFWS as existing
in the Morgan Creek/University Lake watershed near Chapel Hill (USFWS, 1999B; USFWS,
personal communication with Tom Augspurger of USFWS). Populations of both the yellow
lampmussel and brook floater were found by Alderman in the Haw River Aquatic Habitat
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 17
Natural Area, south of US 64, where the Haw River meets Jordan Lake (NCWRC,
unpublished records). All seven of the mussels mentioned here are listed as threatened by
the state of North Carolina.
Septima’s clubtail (Gomphus septima)
Gomphus septima is a species of dragonfly in the Cape Fear drainage and occurs in sympatry
with the Cape Fear shiner. It may occur perched on rocks, in riffle habitats composed of
shallow depths, swift moving waters, and high oxygen levels. Like the Cape Fear shiner, it
requires abundant water willow (Justicia americana). It did occur in other streams with
similar habitats to the Cape Fear River in the 1960s, but is no longer found in those streams
(Ken Tennessen, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication 1998). The Natural
Heritage Program (unpublished records_inventoried this dragonfly within the Haw River
Aquatic Habitat Natural Area, south of US 64, where the Haw River meets Jordan Lake.
Gomphus septima is a federal species of concern.
Vascular Plants
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum)
Harperella is an annual plant that occurs in rocky or gravelly shoals and margins of clear,
swift-flowing stream sections, along the edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal
plain, in damp meadows, or in soggy ground around springs. It can tolerate a certain
amount of flooding, but will be smothered if too much silt is deposited. Harperella is found
in Chatham County along a stretch of the Deep River and in Granville County on a Tar
River tributary (WWF Guide to Endangered Species of North America Vol. I. 1992). It is
both a federally and state listed endangered species.
Buttercup phacelia (Phacelia covillei)
Phacelia covillei, also known as buttercup phacelia, or Phacelia ranunculacea, is usually found
in alluvial woods or floodplains. It is found in several counties in North Carolina including
Chatham County. P. covillei is found in the upper headwaters of the Cape Fear River in the
Potomac. It has a narrow distribution, but is abundant in this area (Jame L. Amoroso,
Natural Heritage Program, personal communication 1998). LeGrand (1999) found this
species on two Natural Area sites around Jordan Lake—Poe’s Ridge and Haw River Slopes.
This is a candidate species for the state of North Carolina.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Isotria medeoloides is a terrestrial, woodland orchid. It is found most commonly in second-
growth deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forest with an open canopy and shrub layer, a
sparse herb layer, and light to moderate shade. Small whorled pogonia typically prefers
deep leaf litter over an acidic loam with a low nutrient content (WWF Guide to Endangered
Species of North America Vol. I. 1992). It is both state and federally listed as an endangered
species.
3.1.3.2 Primary Consequences
In total, there appears to be a significant number of rare natural communities, Significant
Natural Areas, and sensitive species potentially existing in the source basin project area. In
addition, there is a substantial number of recreational fishery species that exist in the lakes
and rivers that compose the source basin. No anadromous fish species, however, are
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 18
predicted in the source basin project area, due to several dams located downstream blocking
upstream migration, especially Buckhorn Dam.
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the source basin, could be
directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water out of the
basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow into or out of the reservoir changes
dramatically. Such changes could lead to either flooding or draining of sensitive species or
habitat areas, or shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system
changes.
The Cape Fear River Basin hydrologic model has been used to evaluate the impact of the
requested interbasin transfer on Jordan Lake surface water elevation, minimum releases
from the dam, water quality pool levels, the target flows at Lillington, and flows at
Fayetteville (see Appendix B). The proposed IBT will not have any significant direct impacts
on fish, fish spawning or nursery areas, aquatic, wildlife or sensitive resources or their
habitats within the source basin, above or below Jordan Lake dam in the source basin since
model results do not predict significant changes in surface lake elevations or minimum lake
releases compared to the other alternatives or base scenarios.
The proposed transfer does not require the construction of additional water intake
structures in Jordan Lake and therefore will not cause any direct impacts to fish or wildlife
resources.
3.1.4 Water Resources and Water Quality
3.1.4.1 B. Everett Jordan Lake and its Tributaries
Jordan Lake is used in part to maintain a minimum flow of approximately 550 to 600 cubic
feet per second (cfs) at Lillington. The target flow is 600 cfs but a flow 550 cfs is considered
acceptable due to flow variability (ACOE, personal communication with Alan Piner ). The
required minimum flow release from the Jordan Lake dam is 40 cfs. However, this
minimum release only takes place during short duration events, such as maintenance. The
reservoir is operated to meet a minimum low flow release of 130 to 200 cfs (ACOE, personal
communication with Eric Farr). The dam is located on the Haw River just downstream of
the confluence of the Haw River and the New Hope Creek.
Jordan Lake has a shoreline of approximately 150 miles. The major tributaries to Jordan
Lake are the Haw River, Northeast Creek, New Hope Creek, and Morgan Creek (Figure 1).
The reservoir is about five miles long on the Haw River arm, and 17 miles long on the New
Hope Creek arm. The Jordan Lake Project encompasses an area of 46,768 acres of which
13,900 acres are permanently flooded to form a reservoir at 216 feet above mean sea level. At
this elevation, Jordan Lake has a total capacity of 215,100 acre-feet, a maximum depth of 66
feet, and a mean depth of about 17 feet. The Haw River arm has a mean hydraulic retention
time of five days, and the New Hope Creek arm has a mean hydraulic retention time of 418
days (DWQ, 1996; DENR, 1999).
Figure 4 delineates the Water Supply Watershed (WSWS) Areas in the study area. In North
Carolina, all waterbodies used for public water supply are given a “WS” classification.
Jordan Lake has been classified “WS-IV-NSW” waters. Minimum statewide water supply
protection standards (certain watershed development and wastewater discharge
restrictions) apply to the Water Supply Watershed Areas. Municipal and industrial point
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 19
sources are allowed in WS-IV waters. Chatham County, Holly Springs, Cary/Apex,
OWASA, and Orange County have been authorized to withdraw water from Jordan Lake.
The lake has been eutrophic since it was filled in 1982. In 1983, the Jordan Lake drainage
basin was classified as nutrient sensitive (NSW) and the DWQ implemented a basinwide
nutrient management strategy aimed to control phosphorus inputs from point sources.
Elevated nutrient and chlorophyll a levels have frequently been found in the reservoir along
with periodic blooms of blue-green algae. The nutrient enrichment of Jordan Lake has been
reported by DWQ, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Triangle J Council of
Governments, and the USGS, DENR, 1999; USGS, 1990; USGS, 1996). Researchers at UNC
and USGS have reported that Jordan Lake supports a large phytoplankton standing crop
that reduces ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate to very low concentrations when gross
primary productivity is highest during the warm months (USGS, 1997; Kuenzler, et al.,
1986). These low nutrient concentration periods coincide with lake’s low surface water
elevations (drawdown levels) that characterize the summer months. It has also been
reported that the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations during these periods are not
consistently low enough to limit algal growth (Kuenzler, et al., 1986). According to USGS,
the greatest concentrations of phosphorus generally occurred during late summer and fall
months. Peaks in chlorophyll a concentration coincided with phosphorus peaks (USGS,
1996). A trend analysis conducted by USGS indicates that during the period 1991-1995
Jordan Lake experienced an increasing trend in chlorophyll a; however, a trend was not
detected for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, total iron, and total
manganese (USGS, 1997).
DWQ reported, in a two-year study, that violations of the NC water quality standard of not
greater than 110 percent saturation for dissolved gases occurred in Jordan Lake, with the
highest values found in August (DENR, 1999).
DWQ and Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project monitoring stations for the
surface waters in the study area are shown in Figure 4. Monitoring locations in Northeast
Creek and in New Hope Creek have revealed elevated median summer concentrations of
nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen and conductivity. Elevated fecal coliform values have been observed
in Northeast Creek, New Hope Creek, and Morgan Creek.
Bioclassifications of the Jordan Lake tributaries range from Excellent to Poor, with ecological
health ratings ranging from Good to Poor/Fair. The lake is considered threatened for overall
use due to elevated nutrients. New Hope Creek, and Morgan Creek are partially supporting
their uses. Third Fork Creek (another lake tributary) and a section of Morgan Creek are not
supporting its uses (DWQ, 1996). Figure 5 illustrates the Use Support Ratings for the study
area.
Metal samples collected in Jordan Lake by DWQ in 1996-1997 indicated concentrations
higher than the state water quality action levels for copper and zinc (DENR, 1999).
Concentrations in excess of the action levels of copper, iron, and zinc have also been
reported in ambient monitoring stations in New Hope Creek (near Blands), and Morgan
Creek (near Farrington) (DEHNR, 1995). These parameters are included as Action Levels
versus standards in the State rules because total recoverable measurements for these
parameters are not necessarily indicative of toxicity related problems associated with
bioavailable fractions of the metals.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 20
Figure 4
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 21
DWQ has collected and analyzed 128 fish tissue samples in Subbasins 03-06-05 and 03-06-06
of the Jordan Lake watershed. The vast proportion of samples has been lower than FDA and
U.S. EPA criteria for metals, except for five samples that had mercury concentrations above
the FDA and U.S. EPA criteria. These three samples were collected at the mouth of New
Hope Creek, Morgan Creek, and Folkner Creek (DEHNR, 1995).
According to DWQ, upstream water quality of the lake’s major tributaries is being impacted
by urban runoff (DWQ, 1996). A number of streams have been targeted for nonpoint source
controls in the source basin. In particular, the body of Jordan Lake (including the arms of its
major tributaries and the Haw River arm) has been given the highest priority rating for
nonpoint source management of waters under Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act
and the Unified Watershed Assessment program. This rating will prioritize implementation
of non-point source management strategies in the basin. University Lake, in the Morgan
Creek watershed, has also been given high priority for nonpoint source controls because it
provides habitat for the invertebrate Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus). This species has
been listed as threatened by the State of North Carolina and as a federal species of concern
by the USFWS.
The USDA and DENR have also recently launched a Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP), with the participation of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), the Farm Service Agency, the NC Wetlands Restoration Program, and the N.C.
Clean Water Management Trust Fund to create 5,000 acres of buffers and conservation areas
in the Jordan Lake watershed. This program uses financial incentives to encourage farmers
to voluntarily remove sensitive land from agricultural use.
3.1.4.2 Cape Fear River
The confluence of the Haw River and the Deep River, downstream from the B. Everett
Jordan Lake dam, form the Cape Fear River in Subbasin 03-06-07 (Figure 1). Subbasin 03-06-
07 consists mainly of the Cape Fear River and several small tributaries. As shown on Figure
4, approximately one-third of the segment of the Cape Fear in the source basin study area
(from the dam to Lillington) is classified “WS-IV” waters. Figure 4 delineates the Water
Supply Watershed Areas in the study area. The Cape Fear River at Lillington has the
following hydrologic characteristics: drainage area = 3,464 sq. mi2; average flow = 3,580 cfs;
and 7Q10 = 535 cfs. These flow statistics have been estimated by USGS after the Jordan Lake
dam was constructed.
DWQ maintains two ambient monitoring stations in the segment of the Cape Fear River in
our study area: Cape Fear River at NC 42 (near Corinth), and Cape Fear at US 401 (near
Lillington) (Figure 1). Fecal coliform and iron levels exceeded criteria for 38 percent and 59
percent, respectively, for all samples collected near Corinth. These exceedances decreased to
25 percent for fecal coliform and to 47 percent for iron at US 401. Copper concentrations also
exceeded the NC action level. Bioclassifications for the Cape Fear River at Lillington have
been good from 1983 to 1993. Fish tissue samples collected within the portion of the study
area have been below the FDA and U.S. EPA criteria for metals, dioxin, and organic
contaminants, except for a sample collected near Moncure that was equal to the U.S. EPA
screening value (DEHNR, 1995). An analysis conducted by CH2M HILL water quality data
collected by the Middle Cape Fear River Association (MCFRMA) during the last half of 1998
indicated that the water quality of the river is good. The data further indicated that nutrient
levels are elevated and that DO levels are compromised in the lower reaches of the river
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 22
(CH2M HILL , 1999). This segment of the Cape Fear is not considered NSW waters and it is
fully supporting its uses. Figure 5 illustrates the Use Support Ratings for the study area.
3.1.4.3 303 (d) Listed Streams
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. The State must prioritize
these waterbodies and prepare a management strategy or total maximum daily load
(TMDL). The Jordan Lake’s major tributaries New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek, and
Morgan Creek, are included in the North Carolina’s 303 (d) list. In addition, other small
stream and tributaries in the source basin study area are listed; these are: Third Fork Creek,
Bolin Creek, Meeting of the Waters Creek, and White Oak Creek. Most of these streams have
been reported to be impaired mainly due to urban run-off and land development, except for
White Oak Creek that is believed to also be impaired by on-site septic systems. DWQ has
assigned a medium priority to most of these streams.
3.1.4.4 Primary Impacts
As previously mentioned, DWR has developed a hydrologic model for the Cape Fear River
Basin for water supply planning, using Moffatt & Nichol and the Danish Hydraulic Institute
as contractors. The model was designed to assist DWR with evaluating Jordan Lake
allocation and interbasin transfer issues. The model considers all major water withdrawals
(water supply and irrigation) and discharges within the Cape Fear River basin, including
those into and out of Jordan Lake. The model has been used to conduct analyses of the
impact of the requested interbasin transfer on Jordan Lake surface water elevations,
minimum releases from the dam, water quality pool levels, the target flows at Lillington,
and flows at Fayetteville.
The ACOE has asserted that the withdrawal would have no impact on the current operation
of the dam or the lake. The potential impacts of the proposed increase in interbasin transfer
will be on the cumulative reservoir outflows. The model has been used to evaluate whether
there will be significant changes in the flow frequency distribution (See Appendix B). The
model results indicate that there are not significant changes in flow downstream from the
dam compared to the other alternatives and base scenarios; therefore 1) the transfer will not
affect downstream water users and their future needs; and 2) the transfer will not affect
downstream wastewater discharges (from an assimilation standpoint).
During a drought situation Cary would be following the water conservation measures
established in the Water Conservation Ordinances, which include either voluntary or
mandatory conservation measures for the service area depending on the severity of the
drought. Apex utilizes continuing water conservation measures, as well as additional
voluntary, mandatory and rationing measures as established in the Water Conservation
Provisions of the Code of Ordinances. Morrisville has also established an ordinance for
Water Shortage Conservation Measures. Therefore, the expected impacts on lake surface
elevations and cumulative reservoir outflows during a drought would be even less than
those predicted by the model.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 23
Figure 5
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 24
No water quality models have been developed by the State for Jordan Lake or for the upper
segment of the Cape Fear River (above Buckhorn Dam). The Triangle J Council of
Governments is currently leading efforts for the development of a water quality model for
Jordan Lake. This model is expected to be completed in 2002. The Town of Cary has
developed a QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear River from the Jordan Lake Dam to the
Buckhorn Dam. DWQ has not approved the model because of concerns related to river
velocity estimates, oxidation rates for ammonia and organic nitrogen, phytoplankton effects,
and sediment oxygen demands. Therefore, direct impacts on the water quality of the source
basin cannot be assessed with a modeling tool at this time. However, changes in the existing
assimilative capacity of the surface waters in the source basin are not expected since the
DWR hydrologic model indicates there would not be any major changes in the hydrology of
the system related to the increase in IBT for the applicants.
3.1.5 Air Quality
According to the U.S. EPA AIRS database, the overall ambient air quality in the source basin
has mostly been in the “Good” range. An Air Quality Index (AQI) is used to report ambient
air conditions for the prominent pollutant, and the AQI ranges from good, moderate,
unhealthful, very unhealthful, to hazardous. From 1994 through 1998, the index levels have
not exceeded the moderate range, with most reports indicating a higher percentage of the
days in the “Good” range. In 1997, Chatham County reported more days in the “Moderate”
range than in the “Good” range.
Wake and Durham were non-attainment areas for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide and ozone and were redesignated as attainment
areas in September 1995 and June 1994, respectively. The U.S. EPA established a new, more
stringent NAAQS for ozone in 1997. The new 0.08-ppm eight-hour standard took effect in
1997; however, on May 14 1999, a federal appeals court blocked the U.S. EPA from imposing
the new standard. Currently there are ambient monitoring sites in Wake, Chatham, and
Durham counties that are in violation the new standard; however, none of the sites are in
violation of the old 0.12-ppm eight-hour average standard. If the new standard remains in
effect, it is likely that Wake County and the surrounding counties will be classified as a non-
attainment area for ozone. Once the attainment level is determined, the non-attainment
contingency plan will be reviewed and implemented over an anticipated two to five year
time frame.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). According to the NC Air Awareness
program, NOx is the limiting factor on the formation of ozone in North Carolina because of
the abundance of naturally occurring VOCs from trees, which cannot be controlled. In NC
urban areas, more than 60 percent of NOx emissions are from automobiles.
3.1.5.1 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT, and the increased withdrawal of
water will not affect air quality. Therefore, there are no primary air quality impacts in the
source basin.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 25
3.1.6 Groundwater Resources
The study area in the source basin is located in the physiographic region described as the
Piedmont region, which is between the Blue Ridge and the Coastal Plain region. According
to the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the crystalline bedrock aquifer in the
Piedmont region has relatively little storage capacity, and the well yields tend to be low
(around 5-35 gal/min). The USGS indicates that the major groundwater related issues in
North Carolina are (1) declining water levels (especially in the Coastal Plain region); (2)
contamination from hazardous wastes and landfill leachate; and (3) effects of land use on
water quality (especially the effects of urbanization).
All of the Triassic geologic area, which includes Apex, west of Cary, and Morrisville, has
problems with no yield or low yield wells. Water cannot move through the upper portions
of sediments; therefore, it is difficult for groundwater to be created. It is also difficult to find
water-yielding veins in the sediments.
3.1.6.1 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT, and the increased withdrawal of
water will not affect groundwater resources. According to Basic Elements of Ground-Water
Hydrology with References to Conditions in North Carolina (Heath, 1980), groundwater recharge
occurs by precipitation in all inter-stream areas (areas except along streams and their
adjoining flood plains). Streams and flood plains are, under most conditions, discharge
areas for groundwater; therefore, there are no primary impacts to groundwater resources
due to the project.
3.1.7 Noise Level
Quiet is conducive to psychological and physiological well-being for humans. Just as
excessive noise has been documented to negatively affect human health and welfare,
elevated noise levels from human activities can disrupt the normal behavior patterns of
wildlife, interfering with migration, breeding, hunting, and predator avoidance.
The source basin currently exhibits the day-to-day normal noise conditions representative of
mostly forested and open land cover. Seasonal use of Jordan Lake for recreational purposes
contributes to increased mobile source, as well as water craft, noise during the warmer
months.
3.1.7.1 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT and, therefore, no increase in
noise levels from the proposed IBT. The increased withdrawal of water will not affect noise
levels in the source basin; therefore, there are no primary noise impacts in the source basin.
3.1.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
Prior to the 1970s, few controls were in place to control the discharge of hazardous materials
into the environment. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 was adopted to regulate hazardous waste disposal and the
cleanup of abandoned sites on a national level. In addition, North Carolina passed the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act in 1987 to establish a program which identifies,
assesses, and remedies hazardous waste disposal sites not addressed by other programs.
Currently, approximately 1,000 sites have been identified nationwide.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 26
According to the 1996 annual "Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Report" to the North
Carolina General Assembly, there are currently no inactive hazardous waste sites in Cary
identified on the federal "Sites Priority List." However, the "Old State Lab" site, owned by
North Carolina State University, is identified on the "Sites with Evaluations Pending" list.
This site, approximately 278 acres in size, is bounded on three sides by Chatham Street, 1-40,
and Cary Towne Boulevard, respectively. (Cary, 1996)
Although there are no operating hazardous waste landfills within the study area, there are
several treatment, storage or disposal facilities (TSDs) within the study area. Chatham,
Orange and Johnston Counties area listed with one TSD each per the RCRA Notifiers List of
TSDs from the NC Division of Waste Management. Wake County is listed as having five
TSDs within Cary and Apex. Household hazardous waste collection sites are available in
Chatham, Orange and Wake Counties, as well as the City of Durham.
Potential sources for toxic substances present in the source basin are agricultural-related
substances such as fertilizers, weed control chemicals, and pesticides. Other common toxic
substances are employed in the construction of homes and commercial buildings such as
glues, solvents, and paints. Typical household hazardous wastes would include oils,
cleaners, solvents, paints, herbicides and fertilizers.
3.1.8.1 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT. There are no potentially
significant impacts to the environment from the releases of toxic substances or hazardous
wastes associated with the proposed IBT.
3.2 Receiving Basin
The "receiving basin" is considered to be the portion of the study area that is within the
Neuse River subbasin. The receiving basin study area includes a general area (Urban Service
Area) delineated by the outer boundary of the existing/projected Utility Service Area
contributing to the proposed IBT (North Cary, South Cary, and Apex WWTPs). This outer
boundary followed in most cases the current jurisdictional boundaries, except around the
RDU International Airport property. The study area also includes Crabtree Creek and
Middle Creek (and their floodplains) extending from the WWTP service area boundary to
their individual confluence with the Neuse River (Figure 1).
The boundary of the study area around water bodies is offset 0.7 mile from the shoreline to
incorporate flood plain areas as shown on FEMA flood zone maps.
The Neuse River watershed is the third largest river basin in North Carolina. It is located
within the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions and includes portions of 19
counties. It encompasses about 6,100 square miles, with approximately 3,300 miles of
freshwater streams, more than 500 square miles of salt water, and several impoundments.
The river is formed by the confluence of the Eno and Flat rivers northeast of Durham. The
uppermost portion of the Neuse River is impounded by Falls- of-the-Neuse Dam, an ACOE
project. One dam is also located near Raleigh (Milburnie Dam) with several additional small
impoundments on upstream tributaries. Quaker Neck Dam, located near Goldsboro, was
removed in 1998 to restore access to upstream spawning areas used by anadromous fishes.
From the Falls-of-the-Neuse Dam the river flows southeasterly into an estuary at New Bern
and then into Pamlico Sound (NC WRC, 1998B).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 27
The Neuse and its tributaries drain all or a portion of 18 counties in North Carolina. The
Piedmont Region of North Carolina encompasses the upper third portion of the Neuse
River. The tributaries included in the Piedmont Region are generally swift and turbid and
usually flow through well-defined valleys and narrow flood plains. The Coastal Plain
waters are dark and slow moving. The average stream gradient within this region is 1.1
percent.
3.2.1 Wetlands
3.2.1.1 Existing Environment
The northern portion of the receiving basin project area is characteristic of the Piedmont
physiographic province of the state, which is characterized by rolling topography with
broad ridges, sharply indented stream valleys, and low gradient streams composed of a
series of sluggish pools separated by riffles and occasional small rapids. Stream floodplains
in the region are relatively narrow and mostly forested (DWQ, 1998). The southern portion
of the receiving basin, downstream of the North Cary WWTP and the Apex WWTP,
however, enters into the Coastal Plain Province, which is characterized by flat terrain and
slow-moving, blackwater streams lined by extensive swamps, bottomland hardwood forests
or marshes. (DWQ, 1998).
The type and area of wetlands within the study area were determined using USFWS NWI
maps in GIS format. The coverage of each wetland type within the study area was estimated
directly from the GIS database. (USFWS, 1999A) Total wetland coverage within the
receiving basin study area is approximately 9,365 acres. Eleven percent (1,029 total acres) is
within the Crabtree Creek corridor; 67 percent (6,305 total acres) is within the Middle Creek
Corridor; and 22 percent (2,032 total acres) is within the Urban Service Area for Apex, Cary,
Morrisville, and RTP South (USFWS, 1999A). Table A-1 in Appendix A provides a complete
breakdown of wetland acreages from the NWI GIS data search.
Most of the wetland coverage within the Urban Service Area is represented by palustrine
forested wetlands associated with floodplains of Swift Creek (only within the service areas
of Apex and Cary), and Crabtree and Middle Creeks to their confluence with the Neuse
River. Palustrine hardwood bottomland forests make up 62 percent of the Urban Services
portion on the receiving basin. Broad-leaved deciduous forested wetlands constitute
approximately 40 percent and 70 percent, respectively, of the total wetland coverage for the
Crabtree Creek and Middle Creek portions of the receiving basin area. In total, PFO
wetlands compose 65 percent of the entire receiving basin.
Other palustrine wetland types within the study area of the receiving basin include
palustrine scrub shrub, palustrine unconsolidated bottom, and palustrine emergent
wetlands, representing approximately 14 percent, 8 percent, and 1 percent, respectively, of
the total wetland coverage within the source basin study area. The riverine unconsolidated
bottom classification constitutes approximately 1 percent of the wetland coverage within the
receiving basin (located primarily along the Haw and Cape Fear corridors), while the
lacustrine wetlands compose approximately 3 percent of the receiving basin (USFWS,
1999A). The plant species composition of the receiving basin is similar to that of the source
basin with forested wetlands being dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), and ash
(Fraxinus spp.).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 28
The types of natural wetland community types known to occur in the counties that compose
the receiving basin project area are listed and described in Table A-10, found in Appendix
A. The majority of the wetlands within the receiving basin project area are of bottomland
hardwood and headwater forests of the Piedmont/ Low Alluvial Forest, Piedmont/
Mountain Levee Forest or Piedmont/ Mountain Bottomland Forest natural community
types (NCWRP, 1998A; NHP,1999). Without performing detailed wetlands mapping and
field delineations, there is no way to tell whether or not each of these wetland natural
communities exist in the defined receiving basin study area since the NWI maps do not
distinguish between wetland natural community types.
The Cape Fear River Basin contains many rare animal and plant species which are
dependent on wetlands or open water for their existence. For more information on these
species, please see the Fish and Wildlife Section of this EIS.
3.2.1.2 Primary Consequences
The proposed IBT will not have any significant direct impacts on wetlands in the receiving
basin since the additional amount of wastewater planned to be discharged from the North
Cary, South Cary and Apex Wastewater Treatment Plants as a result of the proposed IBT
will not require existing plants to be expanded, nor will it require additional plants to be
constructed, as explained in the Water Resources section of this document. Although the
total amount of treated effluent discharged from these facilities will increase as a result of
the proposed IBT, these discharges will not exceed their current permit limits. The effects of
increased flows in the receiving basin were considered at the time the original National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits were issued. There will therefore
be no significant water quality impacts to the receiving basin as a direct result of the
proposed IBT. The proposed IBT will also not have any direct impacts on wetlands in the
receiving basin due to construction since no construction for the proposed IBT is planned.
No significant flooding of wetlands is predicted from the proposed IBT.
3.2.2 Land Use
3.2.2.1 Existing Environment
Urban / Developed Lands
Existing developed lands represent approximately 13 percent of the total acreage in the
Urban Services Area portion of the receiving basin. This area currently contains 28,939 acres
of forest; 566 acres of agriculture, 9,416 acres of open land; and 6,094 acres of urban uses.
Total land area in this portion of the receiving basin totals 45,012 acres (not including water
bodies) (see Table A-1 in Appendix A).
Existing developed lands represent approximately 2 percent of the total land acreage in the
Middle Creek corridor project area. This area currently contains 18,686 acres of forest; 8,281
acres of agriculture; 3,030 acres of open land; and 549 acres of urban uses. Total land area in
this portion of the receiving basin totals 30,546 acres (not counting water bodies).
Developed areas in the Middle Creek corridor are mostly clustered in the upper reaches of
the basin near the towns of Apex, Holly Springs, and Fuquay-Varina.
Existing developed lands represent approximately 21 percent of the total acreage in the
Crabtree Creek corridor project area. This area currently contains 10,198 acres of forest; 360
acres of agriculture; 1,285 acres of open land; and 3,220 acres of urban uses. Total land area
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 29
in this portion of the receiving basin totals 15,063 acres (not including water bodies). The
Crabtree Creek corridor is heavily developed from Cary, through downtown Raleigh, to the
confluence with the Neuse River south of Hwy 64 in southeast Raleigh.
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways)
The urban services portion of the receiving basin contains some open spaces and greenway
areas surrounding Crabtree Lake and Crabtree Creek above the lake in Morrisville and
Cary, and Swift Creek within Apex and Cary. Long-range plans for Cary show several
neighborhood, regional, and community parks around the Town, most not located on any
particular stream or creek, but more oriented around residential developments. Cary is,
however, proposing an extensive series of greenways and conservation corridors
throughout the receiving basin area, along stream corridors.
The Crabtree Creek corridor contains a variety of public lands, which are described in Table
A-11 located in Appendix A. Approximately three miles of Crabtree Creek run through
William B. Umstead State Park just downstream of the North Cary WWTP. Totaling 5,442
acres, Umstead State Park is the largest recreation area in the basin. In addition to mountain
bike and horse trails, the park offers ten hiking trails with over 19 miles of fairly easy hiking.
Other activities include picnicking, camping, swimming, and fishing.
In addition to public lands utilized for recreation, the city of Raleigh has an extensive
network of greenways in the Crabtree Creek receiving basin. Totaling 27.5 miles and over a
1,000 acres, the Capital Area Greenways system provides for activities such as walking,
jogging, hiking, fishing, and picnicking.
The Middle Creek corridor has no recreational lands, public lands, greenways, or parks or
open spaces. The portion of Middle Creek within Cary’s planning jurisdiction, however, is
planned as a conservation corridor, with tributaries off of Middle Creek proposed for
conservation corridors also (Cary, 1996).
The portion of Swift Creek within Cary’s current jurisdiction (within the project’s Urban
Services portion of the receiving basin north of Lake Wheeler) contains the Hemlock Bluffs
State Natural Area (DeLorme, 1993). A large portion of the Swift Creek floodplain to the east
of Regency Parkway has been set aside as conservation and recreational land, including
Hemlock Bluffs State Park, Lochmere Park, and Lochmere Golf Course. North of Regency
Parkway, Swift Creek flows through heavily urbanized lands, including the office and
commercial employment center adjacent to U.S. Highway 1, near the U.S. 64 interchange.
Cary, 1996) The Town of Cary is also planning a large linear park, greenway, and
conservation corridor along Swift Creek and its tributaries through the Town. Most of the
perennial and intermittent blue line streams within Cary are planned for greenways or
conservation corridors (Cary, 1996).
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land
Approximately 35 percent of the soils in Wake County and 52 percent of the soils in
Johnston County are considered prime farmland (USDA, 1994; and personal communication
with jurisdictional Soil and Water Conservation Districts). Cultivated lands represent
approximately 2 percent of total land uses in the Crabtree Creek corridor, 27 percent of the
total land area in the Middle Creek corridor, and 1 percent of the land within Urban Service
Area. Cultivated lands in the Crabtree Creek basin are primarily clustered along the
northern side of the creek near its confluence with the Neuse River. Large tracts of
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 30
cultivated lands are distributed throughout the Middle Creek basin with the exception of
the upper headwaters of the creek, which drain the Towns of Apex and Holly Springs.
Major crops grown include tobacco, soybeans, wheat, barley, oats, corn, and pastures and
forages.
Agricultural land throughout the receiving basin is rapidly converting to residential
subdivisions and even some limited commercial uses despite a lack of public water and
sewer services. This is most evident in the Swift Creek and Middle Creek watersheds, and
along the lower stretches of Middle and Crabtree Creek in Wake and Johnston counties.
Although much of the original forest community in the study area has been progressively
cleared out for wood products, crop production, and residential and industrial
development, significant forested areas remain. Natural reseeding of abandoned tracts of
land usually results in a mixture of pine and second growth hardwoods. The acres of forest
land within the Urban Service Area portion of the receiving basin totals 28,939 acres, while
the Crabtree Creek corridor contains 10,198 acres of forest and the Middle Creek corridor
contains 18,686 acres. The natural forest vegetative cover for the source basin consists
primarily of mixed coniferous and broadleaf forests. Table A-12, presented in Appendix A,
lists the known types of terrestrial or upland forest Natural Communities that occur in the
source basin counties. Wetland forests known to exist in the source basin are listed in the
Wetlands Section. Additionally, the distribution of forest land in the study area is presented
in Figure 2.
Archaeological and Historic Areas
The Upper Piedmont has enjoyed a rich history since being settled by Europeans in the early
1700s. Historic structures from those periods are significant since they preserve North
Carolina history. Historic districts consist of whole blocks of downtown areas including
many structures that are culturally and historically significant. Table A-13 in Appendix A
lists the historic sites and districts located in the counties that make up the receiving basin,
as listed in the NRHP as determined by the Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History.
The total number of historic sites and historic districts in the counties that make up the
receiving basin are 149 and 12, respectively. The majority of the historic sites in the receiving
basins are located in the cities of Raleigh, Apex, and Fuquay-Varina in Wake County. Wake
County has more than 100 listings in the NRHP. In Raleigh, 75 listings include ten historic
districts, Umstead State Park, and three properties that also are National Historic
Landmarks. Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Knightdale, Wake Forest, and Zebulon, as
well as rural areas of the county, have a total of 29 listings.
Archaeological sites are important since they contain the only material remains of extinct
Native American cultures dating back 12,000 years throughout North Carolina. The Cape
Fear and Neuse River Basins contain many archeological sites that have been surveyed and
several sites where significant archeological resources have been found from many native
groups that lived in the region up until 200 years ago. As shown on Table A-8 in Appendix
A, the total number of prehistoric sites found in the counties that compose the receiving
basin (Wake and Johnston) is 1,500. Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving
basins, and the fact that no construction will occur with the project, the NC CRD did not
require the preparation of an archeological survey for the project (refer to Gledhill-Early,
1998, letter in Appendix C).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 31
3.2.2.2 Primary Consequences
The proposed IBT will not have any direct impacts on urban/developed land, public lands,
recreational land, prime agricultural land, forest land, or archeological or historic resources
in the receiving basin, since no construction is planned for the proposed IBT.
Increased wastewater discharges into Middle and Crabtree Creeks as a result of the
proposed IBT will be within existing permit limits and will not significantly affect land uses
or land resources along the receiving stream corridors. No properties or land resources will
be subject to additional threats of flooding as a result of the proposed IBT.
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
3.2.3.1 Existing Environment
Wildlife Habitat and Resources
Since the Neuse River spans two physiographic provinces—the coast and the lower
Piedmont—the river basin contains a wide array of natural communities, both upland and
wetland (NHP, 1999). A total of 29 endangered, threatened, special concern or significantly
rare species, including fish, amphibians, mammals, crustaceans, and mollusks, is listed by
federal and state agencies for the basin (NHP, 1999).
The vegetation in the Neuse River Basin consists of southern yellow pine, mixed hardwoods
and conifers, mixed upland hardwoods, evergreen shrubland, and bottomland forest and
hardwood swamps. There are areas of high intensity and low intensity developed land
throughout the river basin and also a few areas of cultivated land. Each of these types of
vegetation occurs throughout the river basin with an emphasis on developed land in the
southeastern portion of the basin.
Wake County is home to a variety of terrestrial species including both birds and mammals,
as shown on Table A-14 in Appendix A. Figure 3 summarizes rare and significant species
and habitats.
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources
Over 90 fish species have been found in the Neuse River basin including a variety with
recreational and commercial importance. Popular sportfish species found in the freshwater
portion of the river and reservoirs include largemouth bass, sunfish, crappie, catfish, and
pickerel. The Neuse River basin is also home to a variety of other, non-game species of fish,
including several species of shiners and suckers (see Table A-15 in Appendix A). Lake
Michie, a 219-half acre impoundment on the Flat River, is considered a trophy largemouth
bass fishery.
The freshwater rivers and streams of the Neuse Basin are spawning areas for anadromous
fishes such as shad and herring, which are saltwater species that migrate upriver to spawn.
Recreationally and commercially important anadromous species in the Neuse Basin include
striped bass, American and hickory shad, and herring. They migrate into freshwater
portions of the Neuse River and tributaries to spawn during the spring. The Neuse River
below New Bern to Pamlico Sound supports valuable recreational and commercial fisheries
for striped bass, speckled trout, croaker, flounder, and spot (NC WRC, 1998B). Other
important commercial and recreational fishing stocks in either the fresh or estuarine waters
of the Neuse include catfish, flounder, blue crab, and oyster.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 32
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhyncus) and the Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser breirostrum)
were once plentiful in the Neuse River. Atlantic sturgeon have declined significantly and
shortnose sturgeon are thought to be extirpated from the basin. The Roanoke bass, listed as
a significantly rare species in North Carolina, is found almost exclusively within the Eno
River basin. This situation may be changing, however, since the Quaker Neck Dam was
removed from the Neuse River near Goldsboro in January 1998. This opened up 75 miles of
the Neuse mainstem and 925 miles of basin tributaries to anadromous fish such as striped
bass, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, hickory shad, and Atlantic sturgeon. These
saltwater fish have been unable to use this freshwater spawning habitat since 1952, when
the dam was constructed for a CP&L Steam Plant (American Sportfishing Association,
1997). According to Mike Wicker with the USFWS (personal communication), the Neuse
River above the old Quaker Neck dam site has seen a substantial influx of anadromous fish
species since it was removed. In the project area, Crabtree Creek is now open to
anadromous species, with these species being seen all the way to old Lassiter Mill Dam in
Raleigh. And with the gate at the dam opened and recent partial removal of the dam itself, it
is most likely that anadromous species are up to Umstead Park and even to the dam at
Crabtree Lake. Anadromous species have also been sighted all the way to the South Cary
WWTP on Middle Creek and to Lake Benson dam on Swift Creek.
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats
Like the Cape Fear River Basin, the Neuse River Basin is home to a variety of protected
aquatic and terrestrial species. Figure 3 shows the location of rare and significant species
and habitats in the project area, and Table 10 lists significant rare and protected species in
the receiving basin, as provided by NHP. A discussion of selected significant species,
habitat, and location is found below.
Vertebrates
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests at the tops of tall trees near the edges of
estuarine habitats, but it also nests in the Piedmont at large reservoirs such as Falls Lake and
Lake Wheeler. It forages for fishes on both fresh and brackish waters of lakes, large rivers,
and sounds. It has been identified to occur along Lake Wheeler and Swift Creek, outside of
the project area (NHP, 1999). It will soon be delisted at the federal level as a threatened
species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker lives in large tracts of pine or mixed pine/hardwood forest
with some pines at least 60 years old. It is both a state and federally listed endangered
species.
Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum)
The tiger salamander requires forested temporary pools on high floodplains or headwaters
that provide a refuge from predatory fishes, particularly the mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki). It tends to inhabit marshes, forests, or grassland, depending on the location. It has
been identified in Middle Creek in the project area (NHP, 1999) and is listed as a threatened
species by the state of North Carolina.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 33
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
The American eel is a poorly documented catadromous species that lives its life in
freshwater and requires saltwater for breeding. The American eel is listed in the NC Natural
History Museum’s species database as having been sighted in the Neuse River basin. In
addition, the NC Division of Marine Fisheries lists the eel as being observed between 1972
and 1997 in the Neuse Basin (NC DMF, 1997).
Additional significant species include the aquatic amphibian named the Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi), which is a state species of concern that is endemic to the Neuse
and Tar systems in the upper Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont. Another aquatic vertebrate
species endemic to North Carolina is the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus). Like the
Neuse River waterdog, this small fish lives only in the Neuse and Tar basins and is listed as
a species of concern by the state. (NHP, 1999)
TABLE 10
Threatened and Endangered Species for the Receiving Basin
Scientific Name Common Name State
Status
Federal
Status
Aquatic Resources
Vertebrates
Ambystoma tigrinum tiger salamander T -
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedgemussel E E
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater T -
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T FSC
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke slabshell T -
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T FSC
Lasmigona subviridis green floater E FSC
Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot T -
Vascular Plants
Isoetes piedmontana Piedmont quillwort T -
Portulaca smallii Small's portulaca T -
Terrestrial Resources
Vertebrates
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle E T
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E E
Vascular Plants
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E-SC E
Ruellia humilis low wild-petunia T -
Trillium pusillum var pusillum Carolina least trillium E FSC
E = Endangered
T = Threatened
SC = Special Concern
FSC = Federal Special Concern
SR = Significantly Rare
C = Candidate
Source: NHP, 1997 & 1999
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 34
Invertebrates
Dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
The dwarf-wedge mussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The
shell's outer surface (periostracum) is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint
green rays that are most noticeable in young specimens. This mussel is considered to be a
long-term brooder, with gravid females reportedly observed in fall months. Like other
freshwater mussels, this species' eggs are fertilized in the female as sperm are taken in
through their siphons as they respire. The eggs develop with the female's gills into a larvae
(glochidia). The females later release the glochidia which then attach to the gills or fins of
specific host fish species. Based on anecdotal evidence, such as dates when gravid females
are present or absent, it appears that release of glochidia occurs primarily in April in North
Carolina. Recent research has confirmed at least three potential fish host species for the
dwarf-wedge mussel to be the tessellated darter, Johnny darter, and mottled sculpin
(USFWS, 1999B).
The dwarf-wedge mussel occurs in at least 25 stream reaches along the Atlantic Coast from
New Brunswick, Canada, to North Carolina. Documented populations in North Carolina
are located in the following drainages and streams: Neuse River Drainage-Little River
(Wake and Johnston County); Swift Creek (Wake and Johnston County); Middle and Buffalo
Creek (Johnston County); Turkey Creek (Nash and Wilson County); Stony Creek (Nash);
and Moccasin Creek (Nash, Wilson, and Johnston Counties); Tar River Drainage-Tar River
and Shelton Creek (Granville County); Ruin, Little Ruin, and Tabbs Creek (Vance County);
Cedar, Crooked, Fox, Shocco, and Little Shocco Creeks (Franklin County); and Shocco Creek
(Warren County) (USFWS, 1999B).
The dwarf-wedge mussel lives in medium to large streams and usually occurs on a
sand/gravel bottom, but sometimes burrows into clay at the edges of channels. It occurs in
the Neuse River basin, but does not occur in the Cape Fear River basin. It is both a federally
and state listed endangered species.
Neuse River mussels (6 species)
Six state protected species, the triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), yellow lance (Elliptio
lanceolata), Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and the squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus), occur in free-flowing
streams in the Neuse River basin. All six species, with the exception of the green floater, are
considered threatened species by the state of North Carolina. The green floater is listed as an
endangered species by the state of North Carolina. Many of the larger rivers in the state,
such as the main stem of the Neuse, no longer support populations of rare mussels because
of high amounts of sedimentation and pollution. Most populations of the rare mollusk
species occur in the Piedmont and upper Coastal Plain, in rapidly developing areas such as
the Research Triangle (NHP, 1999).
Septima’s clubtail (Gomphus septima)
Gomphus septima is a species of dragonfly that occurs in both the Neuse and Cape Fear
drainage. (NHP, 1999) When in the Cape Fear Basin it appears in sympatry with the Cape
Fear shiner. Like the Cape Fear shiner, it requires abundant water willow (Justicia
americana). It may occur perched on rocks, in riffle habitats composed of shallow depths,
swift moving waters, and high oxygen levels. Gomphus septima is a federal species of
concern.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 35
Among the other rare fishes in the Neuse Basin, the Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) and
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) have restricted ranges, being limited mainly to the
Piedmont and upper Coastal Plain of southern Virginia and North Carolina (NHP, 1999).
Vascular Plants
Piedmont quillwort (Isoetes piedmontana)
Piedmont quillwort occurs in wet depressions on granite flatrock outcrops. It has been
reported from northeastern Wake County, but not Chatham County. It is considered a
threatened species by the state of North Carolina.
Small’s portulaca (Portulaca smallii)
Small’s portulaca occurs in wet depressions on granite flatrock outcrops. Populations are
known from northeastern Wake County. It is considered a threatened species by the state of
North Carolina.
Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from 1 to 3 feet in
height. Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants
with both male and female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal,
erect, dense cluster, and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from
June to July; while the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to
October. Michaux's sumac is historically thought to be endemic to the coastal plain and
Piedmont of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. The USFWS listed the species as
endangered on September 28, 1989, due to its rarity and vulnerability to threats. Only 36
extant populations are known, with 31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia, and two
populations in Georgia. Currently, the plant is documented in the following North Carolina
counties: Richmond, Hoke, Moore, Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, and Wake (USFWS,
1999B).
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided
an open area. When found in the Piedmont region, it is usually associated with clayey soils
derived from mafic rock such as the Carolina slates. At least twelve of the plant's
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of way, roadsides, or on the edges of
artificially maintained clearings. Two other populations are in areas with periodic fires, and
two populations exist on sites undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in
a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay (USFWS, 1999B).
Low wild-petunia (Ruellia humilis)
Low wild-petunia occurs in mesic to dry open woods on diabase dikes and sills. It is known
to occur in northeastern Wake County (Cary-Apex Environmental Assessment, 1997). It is
considered a threatened species by the state of North Carolina.
Carolina least trillium (Trillium pusillum var pusillum)
Carolina least trillium is a colonial species which grows in alluvial woods in the lower
Piedmont and Coastal Plain. No populations are known from Chatham County. The only
known colony in Wake County is on N.C. State University property in the Swift Creek basin
southeast of Cary (Cary-Apex Environmental Assessment, 1997). It is considered an
endangered species by the state of North Carolina.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 36
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) compiles the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources’ (DEHNR’s) list of Significant
Natural Heritage Areas as required by the Nature Preserve Act (NCGS Chapter 113-A- 164
of Article 9A). The list is based on the program's inventory of natural diversity in the State
(DEHNR, 1997). Natural areas are evaluated on the basis of the occurrences of rare plant
and animal species, rare or high-quality natural communities, and geologic features. The
global and statewide rarity of these elements and the quality of their occurrence at a site
relative to other occurrences determines a site's significance rating. The sites included on
this list are the best representatives of the natural diversity of North Carolina, and therefore
have priority for protection. Inclusion on the list does not imply that any protection or
public access exists. The following SNHAs have been identified along with seven small
SNHA’s within the receiving basin project area.
Swift Creek. This stream in southern Wake and Johnston counties contains eleven rare
animals: one rare fish and ten rare mussels, including the federally endangered dwarf-
wedge mussel. Although there are several protected areas along the stream above Lake
Wheeler, all of the rare animals live in the creek below Lake Benson, where there are no
lands protected along the creek banks.
Middle Creek. This tributary in southern Wake and Johnston counties contains eleven rare
animals: two fishes, one amphibian, and eight mussels, including the Federally Endangered
dwarf-wedge mussel. Most of the creek flows through private, unprotected lands.
William B. Umstead State Park. This State Park protects nearly 5,400 acres of forest land in
the upper part of the Neuse River Basin. Crabtree Creek flows for several miles through the
park, which features bottomland hardwoods as well as several rhododendron bluffs along
the creekbank.
Swift Creek Bluffs. This area is a dedicated State Nature Preserve that contains the most
extensive known tract of mature beech in North Carolina.
Hemlock Bluffs. This site is a steep 80-foot high bluff along Swift Creek. It contains a
population of Canadian hemlock that is over 200 miles east of its typical habitat in the
mountains. Other species that are less common in the Piedmont include: chestnut oak,
yellow lady’s slipper, showy orchis, and some mosses.
Dutchman’s Branch Bluffs. This site is approximately 70 acres of mixed hardwood forest
with fairly rich shrub and herbaceous layers.
Schenck Forest North Area. This pine-hardwood forest is owned by NC State University
and is used as a teaching, research and demonstration forest. Hiking trails traverse the area.
A 15.7 acre natural area is within the boundary of the forest.
3.2.3.2 Primary Consequences
In total, there appears to be a significant number of rare natural communities, Significant
Natural Areas, anadromous, and threatened or endangered species existing in the receiving
basin project area. In addition, there is a substantial number of recreational fishery species
that exist in the receiving basin.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 37
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lakes or stream-side habitats, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the receiving basin, could
be directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water into the
basin. If stream levels or the volume or rate of flow rise or fall dramatically, either flooding
or draining of sensitive species or habitat areas could occur. In addition, altering stream and
river flow dramatically during periods of anadromous fish migration could lead to
significant negative impacts on these fish (Moser, 1995A). Such hydrologic changes could
also create shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system changes.
However, the proposed IBT will not have any significant direct impacts on fisheries,
wildlife, or sensitive species or their habitats in the receiving basin since the additional
amount of wastewater planned to be discharged from the Cary and Apex Wastewater
Treatment Plants as a result of the proposed IBT will not require existing plants to be
expanded. Although the total amount of treated effluent discharged from these plants will
increase as a result of the proposed IBT, these discharges will not exceed their current
permit limits. In addition, these facilities are required to reduce total nitrogen by 30%, as per
the Neuse River NSW Management Strategy Rules. There will therefore be no significant
water quality impacts to the receiving basin as a direct result of the proposed IBT. The
effects of increased flows in the receiving basin were analyzed at the time the original
NPDES permits were issued. Specifically, DWR conducted studies to determine instream
flow needs for fish habitat in Crabtree Creek and Middle Creek. The studies concluded that
the current permitted wasteflows for the Cary WWTPs would not exert a significant impact
on fish habitat (DWR, 1985; DWR, 1987). The proposed IBT will also not have any direct
impacts on fish or wildlife or natural areas in the receiving basin due to construction since
no construction for the proposed IBT is planned.
3.2.4 Water Resources and Water Quality
3.2.4.1 Existing Environment
The surface waters of the receiving basin are part of Subbasins 03-04-02 and 03-04-03 in the
Neuse River Basin (Figure 1). The entire Neuse River Basin was declared NSW in 1988 and
the DWQ implemented a basinwide nutrient management strategy aimed to control
nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from point and non-point sources.
Crabtree Creek
The upper reach of the Crabtree Creek (upstream of Lake Crabtree dam) and its tributaries
drain the urban areas of Morrisville and Cary. These urban areas are served by the Cary
North WWTP. This WWTP would receive a portion of the proposed transfer of water, and
therefore their service areas are included in the study area due to issues related to secondary
impacts. The study area also contains the lower section of Crabtree Creek and its floodplain,
downstream from the Cary North WWTP. The stream flows for several miles through the
William B. Umstead State Park, and through the City of Raleigh before its confluence with
the Neuse River. Lake Crabtree and the segment of Crabtree Creek through the park are
classified “B-NSW” waters. The remainder of the stream is classified “C-NSW.” The “B-
NSW” classification is protected for swimming whereas the “C-NSW” classification is
protected for fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival, and wildlife. Point sources are
allowed in “B-NSW” and “C-NSW” waters.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 38
Crabtree Creek, at the point of discharge of the Cary North WWTP, immediately
downstream from the Lake Crabtree Dam, has the following hydrologic characteristics:
drainage area = 52 mi2 and 7Q10 = 0.3 cfs (DWQ WLA files). The minimum release from the
Lake Crabtree dam is 2.59 cfs (NRCS, personal communication with Robert Williams).
USGS maintains a gauge station at Ebenezer Church Road, downstream from the park, and
a gage station at US 1, in the lower segment of the creek before its confluence with the
Neuse River. The drainage area at Ebenezer Church Road is 76 mi2; the estimated average
flow is 68 cfs; and the estimated 7Q10 is 0.3 cfs. The drainage area at US 1 is 121 mi2, the
estimated average flow is 145 cfs, and the estimated 7Q10 is 2.0 cfs. These flow statistics
have been estimated by USGS after the Lake Crabtree dam was constructed (USGS, 1998).
DWQ ambient monitoring stations for the surface waters in the study area are shown in
Figure 4. The ambient monitoring data collected in Crabtree Creek have revealed
exceedances of the state criteria for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and turbidity, and
exceedances of the action levels for copper, iron, and zinc. A poor benthos rating was
assigned to the upper section of Crabtree Creek while good-fair ratings were assigned in the
lower section of the stream. Fish samples have given a better rating in the lower segments of
Crabtree Creek than the benthos samples (DEHNR, 1996). The upper segments of Crabtree
Creek (upstream from Lake Crabtree) and a segment immediately downstream from the
Lake Crabtree dam are not supporting its uses. The segment of the stream through the City
of Raleigh is partially supporting its uses (DWQ, 1998) (Figure 5).
Swift Creek Headwaters
A small portion of the headwaters of Swift Creek (upstream of Lake Wheeler) is contained
in the study area. This portion of the Swift Creek watershed is within or in proximity to the
service area of the Apex, Cary North, and Cary South WWTPs that would receive a portion
of the water being transferred, and therefore their service areas are included in the study
area due to issues related to secondary impacts. There are no USGS gauge stations or DWQ
ambient monitoring stations in the headwaters of Swift Creek. However, USGS estimates a
7Q10 of zero in the upper portions of Swift Creek (USGS, personal communication with
Curtis Weaver). DWQ has reported poor to fair water quality (based on benthos samples) in
the headwaters of Swift Creek with a gradual downstream recovery. The stream has been
observed to carry a heavy sediment load (DEHNR, 1996). The upper portions of Swift Creek
are not supporting its uses, and segments immediately upstream of Lake Wheeler and Lake
Benson are partially supporting its uses (DWQ, 1998) (Figure 5). Sedimentation may be
caused by new development, urban areas, or streambank erosion due to increased
streamflows brought about by increases in impervious surface areas.
Figure 4 delineates the Water Supply Watershed Areas in the study area. In North Carolina,
all waterbodies used for public water supply are given a “WS” classification. The Swift
Creek watershed, above Lake Benson, has been classified “WS-III-NSW.” Minimum
statewide water supply protection standards (certain watershed development and
wastewater discharge restrictions) apply to the Water Supply Watershed Areas. Point
sources discharges are allowed in “WS-III-NSW” waters.
Middle Creek
A small portion of the headwaters of Middle Creek is also contained in the urban service
portion of the receiving basin study area. This portion of the Middle Creek watershed is
within or in proximity to the service area of the Apex WWTP that would receive a portion of
the water being transferred, and therefore its service area is included in the study area due
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 39
to issues related to secondary impacts. In addition, a UT to Middle Creek and Middle Creek
proper receive the effluent of the Apex WWTP and the Cary South WWTP, respectively.
Therefore, the mainstem and the floodplain of the UT to Middle Creek from the Apex
WWTP discharge, along the mainstem and the floodplain of Middle Creek to its confluence
with the Neuse River, are included in the project study area.
The UT to Middle Creek receiving the effluent from the Apex WWTP has a 7Q10 = 0 cfs
(DWQ WLA files). Downstream of Sunset Lake (Figure 4), the streamflows are controlled by
this dam which has no required minimum flow release. Flows below the dam vary from
zero during drought conditions to 800 cfs following storms (DWQ, 1992). The segment of
Middle Creek receiving the effluent from the Cary South WWTP (below Sunset Lake) has a
7Q10 = 0.3 cfs (DWQ WLA files). USGS maintains a continuous flow recording gauge on
Middle Creek at NC 50, 2.6 miles downstream of the Cary South WWTP. The drainage area
at NC 50 is 83.5 mi2; the estimated average flow is 92 cfs; and the estimated 7Q10 is 0.5 cfs
(DWQ, 1992). Most of Middle Creek is classified “C-NSW” except for Sunset Lake which is
classified “B-NSW.” The “B-NSW” classification is protected for swimming whereas the “C-
NSW” classification is protected for fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival, and
wildlife. Point sources are allowed in “B-NSW” and “C-NSW” waters.
Middle Creek has been rated good-fair (based on benthos). The water chemistry data
collected at the DWQ ambient station near Clayton indicated exceedances of the State
criteria for fecal coliform and the action levels for copper and iron. Fisheries data have given
ratings of excellent to good excellent to Middle Creek (DEHNR, 1996). Middle Creek has
been rated as “support threatened” (Figure 5) (DWQ, 1998).
303 (d) Listed Streams
According to the NC 303 (d) list, Crabtree Creek and Swift Creek are listed as impaired in
our study area of the receiving basin. Crabtree Creek impairment is attributed to new
development and urban runoff. DWQ has assigned a medium priority to Crabtree Creek.
Swift Creek impairment is attributed to agriculture and urban runoff. DWQ has given a
high priority to Swift Creek and will develop a management strategy for the Swift Creek
watershed within the next five years.
3.2.4.2 Primary Impacts
The transfer of water will not result in an increase of existing permitted wastewater flows
being discharged into the receiving basin. No increase in wastewater treatment plant
capacity will be requested in the Neuse River Basin as the result of this transfer since current
permitted discharge amounts are adequate.
Primary impacts due to the wasteflows of the wastewater facilities receiving the transfer of
water have been addressed through previous NPDES permitting and NC EPA processes for
those facilities discharging into the receiving basin. Both the NPDES and NC EPA rules
require that all environmental impacts must be adequately addressed and mitigated before
any permit to discharge is issued.
Water quality modeling analyses have been previously conducted in Crabtree Creek and
Middle Creek to determine the water quality impacts of existing and proposed discharges in
those streams (Diehl & Phillips, 1993; DWQ, 1992). Wasteload allocations and current
oxygen-consuming management strategies for facilities discharging into these streams have
been based on those modeling analyses. In addition, the DWR conducted studies on
flooding, streambank erosion, and fish habitat in both Crabtree Creek and Middle Creek
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 40
(DWR, 1985; DWR, 1987). These studies concluded that there was not a significant impact on
water quality, flooding, streambank erosion, and fish habitat due to currently permitted
wasteflows.
3.2.5 Air Quality
3.2.5.1 Existing Environment
According to the U.S. EPA AIRS database, the overall ambient air quality in the source basin
has mostly been in the “Good” range. An AQI is used to report ambient air conditions, and
the AQI ranges from good, moderate, unhealthful, very unhealthful, to hazardous. From
1994 through 1998, the index levels have not exceeded the moderate range, with most
reports indicating a higher percentage of the days in the “Good” range. In 1997 and 1998,
Johnston County reported more days in the “Moderate” range than in the “Good” range.
Wake and Durham were non-attainment areas for the NAAQS for carbon monoxide and
ozone and were redesignated as attainment areas in September 1995 and June 1994,
respectively. A new, more stringent NAAQS for ozone was established by the U.S. EPA in
1997. The new 0.08-ppm eight-hour standard took effect in 1997; however, on May 14 1999, a
federal appeals court blocked the U.S. EPA from imposing the new standard. Currently
there are ambient monitoring sites in Wake, Johnston, and Durham counties that are in
violation the new standard; however, none of the sites are in violation of the old 0.12-ppm
eight-hour average standard. If the new standard remains in effect, it is likely that Wake
County and the surrounding counties will be classified as a non-attainment area for ozone.
Once the attainment level is determined, the non-attainment contingency plan will be
reviewed and implemented over an anticipated two to five year time frame.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts with VOCs and NOx.
According to the NC Air Awareness program, NOx is the limiting factor on the formation of
ozone in North Carolina because of the abundance of naturally occurring VOCs from trees,
which cannot be controlled. In NC urban areas, more than 60 percent of NOx emissions are
from automobiles.
3.2.5.2 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT, and the additional discharge to
the Neuse basin due to the proposed IBT will not affect air quality. Therefore, there are no
primary air quality impacts.
3.2.6 Groundwater Resources
3.2.6.1 Existing Environment
The study area in the source basin is located in the physiographic region described as the
Piedmont region, which is between the Blue Ridge and the Coastal Plain region. According
to the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the crystalline bedrock aquifer in the
Piedmont region has relatively little storage capacity, and the well yields tend to be low
(around 5 to 35 gal/min). The USGS indicates that the major groundwater related issues in
North Carolina are (1) declining water levels (especially in the Coastal Plain region); (2)
contamination from hazardous wastes and landfill leachate; and (3) effects of land use on
water quality (especially the effects of urbanization).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 41
The receiving basin study area lies within the Raleigh belt, as defined by the DENR
Groundwater Section. This region is described as having only moderately productive wells.
3.2.6.2 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT, and the additional discharges of
water will not affect groundwater resources. According to Basic Elements of Ground-Water
Hydrology with References to Conditions in North Carolina (Heath, 1980), groundwater recharge
occurs by precipitation in all inter-stream areas (areas except along streams and their
adjoining flood plains). Streams and flood plains are, under most conditions, discharge
areas for groundwater; therefore, there are no primary impacts to groundwater resources
due to the project.
3.2.7 Noise Level
3.2.7.1 Existing Environment
Quiet is conducive to psychological and physiological well-being for humans. Just as
excessive noise has been documented to negatively affect human health and welfare,
elevated noise levels from human activities can disrupt the normal behavior patterns of
wildlife, interfering with migration, breeding, hunting, and predator avoidance.
The study area currently exhibits the day-to-day normal noise conditions of a mixture of
agricultural land, undeveloped rural land, and urbanizing areas. Current practices on
agricultural land rarely produce significant noise. Undeveloped rural land is naturally
devoid of significant human noises. Urbanization of the area is currently contributing to
increases in mobile and stationary sources of noise associated with urban living. The various
mobile sources increasing in the study area include car and truck traffic on highways and
major roads and railroad traffic. Stationary sources include the construction of roads in new
subdivisions, homes, and commercial development and operation of large business and
industrial facilities.
3.2.7.2 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT, and the additional discharge to
the Neuse subbasin due to the proposed IBT will not affect noise levels. Therefore, there are
no primary impacts expected due to noise.
3.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
3.2.8.1 Existing Environment
There are no operating hazardous waste landfills within the study area; however, there are
several treatment, storage or disposal facilities (TSDs) within the study area. Chatham,
Orange and Johnston Counties area listed with one TSD each per the RCRA Notifiers List of
TSDs from the NC Division of Waste Management. Wake County is listed as having five
TSDs within Cary and Apex. Household hazardous waste collection sites are available in
Chatham, Orange and Wake Counties, as well as the City of Durham.
Potential sources for toxic substances present in the source basin are agricultural-related
substances such as fertilizers, weed control chemicals, and pesticides. Other common toxic
substances are employed in the construction of homes and commercial buildings such as
glues, solvents, and paints. Typical household hazardous wastes would include oils,
cleaners, solvents, paints, herbicides and fertilizers.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 3 - 42
3.2.8.2 Primary Impacts
There is no construction associated with the proposed IBT. The additional discharge to the
Neuse subbasin due to the proposed IBT could cause the release of toxic substances and
hazardous wastes from operating the Apex and North and South Cary WWTPs; however,
these impacts have been addressed individually with the EA or EIS documentation required
for the existing NPDES permits. Potential toxic impacts from the WWTPs are expected to be
insignificant. There are not direct impacts on toxic substances and hazardous wastes due to
the proposed IBT.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 1
SECTION 4
Secondary and Cumulative
Environmental Consequences
4.1 Introduction
This section provides a broad evaluation of the potential secondary1 and cumulative2
impacts that may result from development facilitated by the proposed action. As discussed
below, secondary and cumulative environmental impacts are expected to occur in the area
planned to be served by water and sewer utilities within both the source and receiving
basins, known as the Utility Service Area (see Figure 6). This area occupies a portion of the
current local jurisdiction (including extraterritorial jurisdiction) of Apex, Cary, Morrisville
and RTP/Wake County. The discussion in this section is not site specific to either basin, and
considers the potential general impacts of growth, on a large scale, associated with full
buildout (worst case scenario) of the Utility Service Area within the Towns of Apex,
Morrisville and Cary, and RTP South, including the development of water and sewer
conveyance and treatment systems, other public infrastructure projects, and private
development. Full buildout of the Utility Service Area is considered as a conservative
assumption representing a “worst case” scenario.
Growth in the Triangle area is being fueled by a strong economic environment around RTP
and a number of infrastructure projects such as the Outer Wake Expressway. Industries and
research and development (R&D) organizations continue to be attracted to this area due to
state government incentives, RTP, existing and proposed road infrastructure, top-notch
colleges and universities, and state-of-the-art medical treatment and research facilities.
During the past years the applicants have been engaged in a concerted effort to
accommodate the rapid growth in their communities. The proposed 11-mgd increase in IBT
of water from the Cape Fear River basin to the Neuse River basin is one of many concurrent
projects and actions being taken by the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, along with
Wake County, to accommodate the rapid growth in the area. These municipal projects are a
response to the growth in western Wake and eastern Chatham counties, and are not the
cause of such growth. Nevertheless, the secondary and cumulative impacts are being
considered in this section because the IBT approval is one of several public projects that
facilitate growth.
The proposed IBT, when considered in connection with these other projects, will facilitate
growth although it is not the base cause of such growth. The growth will result in effects to
the environment. Together, these projects will indirectly and cumulatively influence where
and how growth occurs in the source and receiving basin urban service areas.

1 “Indirect Effects” (also called secondary impacts) are “caused by and result from the proposed activity although they are later
in time or further removed in distance, but they are still reasonably foreseeable.” (15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(4))
2 “Cumulative Effects” are defined as “resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other activities.” (15A NCAC
1C .0101(d)(2))
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 2
Figure 6
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 3
Environmental impacts of the predicted growth are considered in the remainder of this
section, which provides a general description of the potential for this urban growth to
subsequently impact specific environmental resources, given current trends and literature
records. This overview discusses the indirect impacts of the proposed IBT and other
expected public infrastructure improvements (Section 4.2.1), and the indirect effects of full
buildout (worst-case scenario) of the Utility Service Areas (Section 4.2.2). In addition, the
cumulative impact analysis provided in Section 4.3 covers the impacts of full urbanization
of the Utility Service Areas in both the source and receiving basins.
It should be noted that the following overview is broad and may reflect a “worst-case”
scenario that does not take into consideration current regulations or proposed programs
that would mitigate the impacts. A summary of existing federal, state and local regulations
is provided in Section 6 to identify areas where opportunities exist to better address the
identified potential secondary and cumulative impacts discussed below.
4.2 Secondary Impacts
It is expected that the proposed IBT increase would specifically facilitate growth in the
Utility Service Areas of both the source and receiving basins for the following reasons:
• Growth rates in Apex, Morrisville, Cary and RTP have historically correlated with the
shortage or availability of water and sewer services. For example, growth rates for
Morrisville slowed during the early 1990s due to lack of water and sewer services and
Cary’s watering restrictions, and a growth moratorium due to water shortages has been
extensively covered by the local news media in the last year.
• The recent lack of water supply and wastewater treatment capabilities has caused
growth to be curtailed in both the source and receiving basin Utility Service Areas, both
in terms of in-fill development (where infrastructure like water and sewer lines are
available) and in terms of new developments (that will require additional infrastructure
to be built, such as new roads, new sewers and/or water lines). Cary’s building permit
allocation system, that is based on the availability of treated water, is one sign that the
communities recognize a relationship between growth and the adequate provision of
water and sewer services.
4.2.1 Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Growth that will be facilitated by the IBT will necessitate the approval, construction, and
operation of a variety of additional water and sewer projects in the source and receiving
basins, as discussed above, including:
a. The expansion to the existing Cary/Apex WTP;
b. The construction and operation of a proposed treatment and water reclamation facility
in western Wake County; and
c. The installation and operation of new or extended water and sewer conveyance systems,
including gravity lines, pump stations, and force mains.
Although the proposed IBT itself will not require additional water or sewer lines to be
constructed, the availability of additional water will facilitate development and
consequential demands for additional water and wastewater treatment, distribution, and
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 4
collection systems in the basins. These additional water and wastewater projects will lead to
the expansion of urban land uses into rural areas, changing the pattern, rate, density, and
type of development in both the source and receiving portions of the Utility Service Area.
Although the proposed IBT will result in new water and sewer lines and additional water
treatment and wastewater treatment facilities, existing WWTPs in the receiving basin (Cary
North and South WWTPs and Apex WWTP) will not require expansion in order to process
the increased wastewater flows generated as a result of the proposed IBT. Potential
environmental impacts from these additional permitted discharge flows have already been
evaluated prior to DWQ issuing the original NPDES permits for the facilities. Additional
reviews of these discharges for environmental impacts, are therefore not necessary.
Constructing and operating water distribution and wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems in the source and receiving basin (considered secondary impacts of the proposed
IBT) may have direct environmental impacts. These direct impacts will be assessed during
the planning and environmental review phase of specific projects.
EAs and EISs for any future water and sewer infrastructure projects are recommended to
include discussions of the specific elements identified in Section 6 to ensure that potential
direct effects from future water and sewer infrastructure projects are fully evaluated. These
conditions recognize the sensitive environmental resources present in the study area and
will remind state agencies, project applicant, and consultants of the areas where special
attention may be needed in addressing the potential primary impacts of the subsequent
projects.
4.2.2 Buildout of the Source and Receiving Basins
Land use changes facilitated by the proposed IBT, combined with the cumulative effects of
road construction and development of other urban infrastructure and public services, could
create potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on environmental and
human resources in the planned Utility Service Areas within the source and receiving
basins, as discussed in detail below and in Section 4.3. As previously mentioned, a worst-
case scenario is represented by buildout of the Utility Service Area. Growth is not likely to
be facilitated in areas of the project study area that are outside of the Utility Service Area
(Figure 6).
4.2.2.1 Wetlands
As discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1, wetlands found in the Utility Service Area consist
primarily of bottomland hardwood, ephemeral wetland, freshwater marsh, headwater
forest, and wet flat wetlands in western Wake and eastern Chatham Counties (NCWRP,
1998A & B). Wetland habitat community types include Piedmont/Low Alluvial Forest and
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. As shown on the Land Cover Utility Service Area
Table (Table A-2 in Appendix A), there are 2,778 acres of wetlands in the jurisdiction of
Cary, 1,289 acres in Apex, 322 acres in Morrisville and 341 acres in the RTP South area of
Wake County (Figure 7).
Dense urban development in eastern Chatham and western Wake Counties, as possible
through buildout of the Utility Service Area, could have significant impacts on these
identified wetlands. Impacts could be direct, in terms of filling or draining of wetlands for
construction of roads, private or public building sites, or utilities. Urban development could
also have significant indirect impacts to wetlands, in terms of increased levels of silt and
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 5
Figure 7
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 6
sediment from grading activities and the increasing amount of non-point source pollutants
entering into the wetlands over the long term from upland development activities and
urban land uses. Typical urban stormwater pollutants include sediment, nutrients,
(nitrogen, phosphorus), bacteria (fecal coliform as indicators), and potential toxicants
(metals, oil and grease, hydrocarbons, pesticides).
It is also widely accepted that, in general, increases in stormwater runoff from elevated
impervious surfaces resulting from development could cause erosion and collapse of stream
banks, leading to loss of riparian canopy trees, degraded stream habitat, and loss of
wetlands. Construction within floodplains, particularly when riverine wetlands are
damaged or destroyed, can also lessen the storage capacity of floodplains, contribute to
higher flood levels downstream, increase turbidity, and increase erosion problems due to
higher stream flow velocities.
The NCWRP indicated in its Cape Fear Basinwide Wetland And Riparian Restoration Plan,
that in subbasin 030606 of the Cape Fear River basin (the area on the east side of Jordan Lake
including portions of Wake and Chatham Counties, extending to the boundary with the
Neuse Basin), there were 5 acres and 8.5 acres of wetlands drained or filled due to
development activities in 1996 and 1997, respectively. These impacts occurred with 13 and
14 separate development projects per year, respectively, and were reported through DWQ’s
Section 401 permitting process. (NCWRP, 1998A)
In the NCWRP report for the Neuse River basin, subbasins 030402 and 030403 (which
include drainage from Swift, Crabtree and Middle Creek) reported a total of 86 acres and 21
acres of wetlands drained or filled due to development activities in 1996 and 1997,
respectively. These impacts occurred as a part of 46 and 39 separate development projects
per year, respectively, and were reported through DWQ’s Section 401 permitting process.
(WRP, 1998B)
The acreage of wetlands impacted by growth may increase as the level and intensity of land
use changes and the number of development projects increases in the area.
4.2.2.2 Land Use
As discussed in Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.2.2.1, and shown on Table A-2 in Appendix A, the
most prevalent land cover type in the Utility Service Area as of 1996 was forest. Lands in the
Utility Services Area may also contain archaeological or historic sites with significant native
and cultural resources. At that time there was a total of 4,679 acres of high and low intensity
urban development, 25,891 acres of forest, 268 acres of agricultural cropland and pasture,
and 7,302 acres of vacant shrubland in this area. At that time, the Town of Cary consisted of
12% urban lands, Apex was 13% urban, and Morrisville was 12% urban. No urban areas
were shown within the Utility Service Area portion of RTP South; however, 26 acres of
urban lands were shown within the non-utility service area portion of RTP South.
Future Land Use maps for Cary, Apex, Morrisville and RTP are presented in Appendix D. A
Land Use Plan for Cary can also be found in Appendix D. For the most part, Cary has
planned its land use patterns so that the most low-density development would be adjacent
to the WRC game lands around Jordan Lake, with densities increasing to the east. However,
areas around Panther and Northeast Creeks show greater allowable densities including
commercial development.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 7
The most significant indirect impact of any growth in the Utility Service Area will be land
use changes within the currently open/vacant urban services areas within western Wake
County. This growth and urbanization, including land use changes and other effects of land
development, could cause significant secondary impacts to other land uses, including rare
forest resources, prime agricultural land, and archeological resources.
Impacts of land use changes could include the direct loss of the resource from conversion to
urban uses. For example, the loss of forest land and open shrub land to urban land uses not
only means a loss of timber resources, but also the loss of wildlife habitat, which can have
significant impacts to various sensitive species in the area.
Land use changes can also cause other potential impacts, including the indirect degradation
of recreational lands by the development of incompatible land uses along their periphery.
Also, parks, greenways, and natural areas may be degraded through overuse of the resource
by the local population, usually resulting from limited recreational opportunities and a lack
of open space set aside, both common occurrences for fast growing areas.
As land uses change and populations increase around the project area, public lands such as
State parks may experience periods of overuse, especially during summer months. Potential
impacts from allowing incompatible land uses adjacent to recreational and natural areas and
overusing parks and open spaces include:
• Localized degradation of air quality from increased levels of traffic congestion within
parking lots, access roads, and major road crossings.
• Loss of sensitive wildlife species, recreational game species (such as deer, opossum,
rabbit, raccoon and fox) and non-game species (including snakes, turtles, frogs, bats and
birds) due to: 1) hunting of species by local residents, 2) collisions with vehicles from
increased traffic volumes on roads adjacent to and within parks and greenways, 3)
predatory behavior of dogs and cats introduced into the park by the owners or who are
feral, and 4) intentional extermination of “pest” species from residential properties
adjacent to these natural areas.
• Loss of recreational value due to the intrusion of residential land uses immediately
adjacent to public hunting grounds, which precludes the use of firearms in the
gamelands.
4.2.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
As detailed in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3, a wide variety of wildlife resources, fisheries
resources, sensitive species, and Significant Natural Heritage Areas were considered to
determine if they currently exist in the study area. As discussed in detail in Sections 3.1.3.1
and 3.2.3.1, particular species of concern known to be present in the study area that may be
impacted by growth and development include: red-cockaded woodpecker, buttercut
phacelia, tiger salamander, four-toed salamander, Carolina least trillium, Piedmont
quillwort and various mussels and anadromous species. These species may be directly and
indirectly impacted by full buildout. However, not all of these species have been clearly
identified to exist in the Utility Service Area. Other species such as the Cape Fear shiner and
the dwarf-wedge mussel are known to exist outside the Urban Service Area and Utility
Service Area. The presence of sensitive species in the Utility Service Area is possible, but it
has not been confirmed.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 8
Some of the aquatic species, if they are found downstream of the Utility Service Area, may
be impacted by overall changes to water quality from point and non-point sources of
pollution generated from growth. Impacts may be due to increased sedimentation and
erosion, loss of streambanks, loss of riparian buffer and increased amount of non-point
source pollutants entering into the surface waters as urban land uses replace rural land uses
in the project area.
Sensitive environmental areas within the study area that could be affected by growth effects
in the Utility Service Areas include: Jordan Lake, Jordan Lake WRC Game Lands, Umstead
State Park, Middle Creek, Swift Creek, and Crabtree Lake. These areas are outside but
adjacent or in close proximity to the Utility Service Area.
Further urbanization and buildout of the region may have significant impacts on fish and
wildlife resources, sensitive species and habitat areas, through the continued:
• loss, fragmentation or degradation of sensitive and non-sensitive aquatic and terrestrial
species and their habitats through conversion of land and wetland areas and filling or
piping of streams and creeks for residential, business, or public facility uses;
• degradation of water quality and negative impacts on aquatic resources, fisheries, and
wetlands through increasing erosion and sedimentation from construction activities,
increased stormwater runoff containing high levels of non-point source pollutants, and
introduction of additional point source wastewater discharges;
• degradation of air resources through increased automobile usage and traffic congestion
related to urban sprawl; and
• loss of species diversity and value of open space through the combined impacts listed
above.
4.2.2.4 Water Quality / Water Resources
Dense urban development from full buildout (worst-case scenario) of the Utility Service
Area may affect water quality. Short-term declines in water quality from installation of
public improvements and changes in land uses due to sedimentation and erosion from
construction activities, and long-term declines in water quality from land use activities and
increasing amounts of non-point sources of pollution may have significant impacts on water
quality, and subsequent impacts on aquatic habitat, wetlands, and sensitive aquatic and
amphibian species.
Changes in land use have a major effect on both the quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff. Urbanization and land use development, if not properly planned and managed, can
dramatically alter the natural hydrology of an area. Impervious surfaces increase the
volume and rate of stormwater runoff. These changes lead to more frequent and severe
flooding and also leads to degradation of water quality from the various stormwater
pollutants that wash off impervious areas during rain events (e.g. sediments, nutrients, oils,
toxics, bacteria, etc.). As imperviousness increases, impacted surface waters become more
impacted from pollution and flooding. The cumulative effects of stormwater runoff are
evident in the frequent correlation between the location of a stream and its water quality,
where urban streams overall have poorer water quality than rural streams.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 9
One major positive secondary impact of the proposed IBT and the construction of regional
public water and wastewater collection and treatment systems in the Utility Service Area
will be the eventual elimination of privately owned package treatment plants, eventual
elimination of septic systems, adequate maintenance of sewer lines to prevent overflows,
and public enforcement actions on failing septic systems that will together protect surface
waters from discharges of wastewater in the project area.
4.2.2.5 Air Quality
Ozone and carbon monoxide are the primary pollutants of concern in the study area, and
the levels of ozone in the study area will likely be affected by the projected increasing
growth. Since NOx is the limiting factor in ozone formation, and an estimated 60 percent of
NOx is emitted by automobiles, the additional vehicle miles traveled due to increased
population will likely result in higher concentrations of ozone formed during the hot,
summer months.
4.2.2.6 Groundwater
The largest problems with groundwater in urbanizing portions of the Piedmont are low
yield wells and contamination from land uses. The proposed IBT and increased Jordan Lake
allocation, coupled with subsequent extensions of water and sewer lines throughout the
Utility Service Area, will eventually lead to abandonment of most groundwater wells being
used in the area, as existing homes take advantage of plentiful water from the new system.
Once full buildout of the Utility Service Area begins to occur, however, groundwater
infiltration and recharge will probably be reduced, due to increased impervious areas in the
region, which would further limit the yield of existing groundwater wells.
Land use activities and growth in the receiving basin could also potentially impact
groundwater quality by introducing contaminants into or onto the soil where it can seep
into the groundwater aquifer. Such contamination can affect drinking water wells for
communities and individual homes. Potential sources of groundwater contamination
include storage or use of hazardous substances, poorly designed or maintained septic
systems, accidental spills, and leaking underground storage tanks.
The proposed regional wastewater collection services will capture a significant number of
residences presently using septic tanks. This will result in a beneficial impact to
groundwater in the study area by reducing the public health risk of groundwater
contamination in the service area from leaking or failing septic tanks.
4.2.2.7 Noise
The predicted full urbanization and buildout of the Utility Service Area will produce greater
amounts of noise from greater density of land uses, more people living in the region, more
businesses and industries operating in the area, and a significant increase in number of
vehicles using local roads and highways. As development occurs with the provision of
water and sewer services, existing residential developments, once isolated in the
countryside, will be joined by additional subdivision developments next to them. The
cumulative effect of lawn mowers, leaf blowers, barking dogs, etc. will rise accordingly.
Businesses and industries will move into the area also, potentially bringing elevated noise
levels to existing residential areas. The continued growth and development of the Utility
Service Area will significantly impact the community noise levels through the introduction
of additional domestic and commercial traffic and intensification of industry.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 10
4.2.2.8 Toxic Substances / Hazardous Wastes
As urbanization continues in the Utility Service Area, the potential for release of toxic
substances from residential and commercial sources increases. The improper disposal of
these substances could have adverse impacts on the environment by entering the
groundwater or the sewer system and reaching the WWTPs.
As the amount of traffic and urban uses in the receiving basin increase, stormwater runoff
may contain increasing levels of pollutants, some of them toxic. Typical urban stormwater
pollutants include sediment and silt, nitrogen and phosphorus, oils and greases, rubber
deposits, toxic chemicals, pesticides and herbicides. Unless contained and treated before
entering into surface waters, this urban stormwater could significantly impact the water
quality and sensitive species living within the Utility Service Area.
The long-term impact of new toxic discharges to the surface and groundwaters from urban
stormwater and accidental and/or intentional spill of household and industrial chemicals
will likely lead to declines in water quality and the potential loss of wildlife.
4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are impacts that result from the proposed project when added to other
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. Other activities that will impact
the project area include:
• The Towns of Cary and Apex are jointly pursuing an expansion to the Cary/Apex WTP,
which will expand water supplies to serve Cary, Apex, Morrisville, RTP South, and RDU
Airport. Expanding the WTP that withdraws water from Jordan Lake will provide more
water to the entire area, allowing the growth and development that has been recently
curtailed by water shortages. This will affect all water available for growth in the Utility
Service Area, not just what is transferred across basin boundaries. The EA/Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved for this project in 1997 (Goldstein, 1997).
• In an effort to provide more sewage capacity to the area and to minimize IBTs, a new
treatment and water reclamation facility is proposed for western Wake County
(potentially up to 40-mgd capacity). It is assumed the facility will discharge to the main
stem of the Cape Fear River. This facility would reduce the cost of pumping wastewater
into the Neuse basin from the Cape Fear basin, and would reduce the IBT, since water
would be returned to the source Cape Fear basin. An EA is currently being prepared for
the facility by Arcadis Geraghty & Miller Engineers.
• Additionally, the proposed Outer Wake Expressway (Outer Loop) planned to traverse
the Utility Service Area from north to south near the Cape Fear/Neuse basin boundary
will significantly affect growth and development in the area, especially at planned
interchanges and along major thoroughfares leading to the interchanges.
Cumulative impacts, related to growth, are expected to be essentially the same as those
identified as secondary impacts in the previous section. Today, the Town of Cary covers 40
square miles with a population of over 92,000. The Town’s current Land Use Plan estimates
the Town will reach a population of 230,000 and cover 95 square miles at full buildout
(Cary, 1996). These figures do not include the population and coverage predicted for
Morrisville and Apex over the next 30 years. Such growth limits are depicted on Figure 6 as
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 11
the planning jurisdiction for the project. A general discussion of the cumulative impacts of
full buildout (worst case scenario) and urbanization of the Utility Service Area is addressed
in this section. As previously discussed, buildout is being considered because it represents a
conservative assumption of a “worst case” scenario.
Full urbanization of the Utility Service Area may cumulatively cause degradation and loss
of certain wetlands, forest resources, prime agricultural land, sensitive wildlife habitat and
archeological resources. Conversion of these land uses and the resultant urban development
activities that normally accompany these changes may cumulatively impact water quality
and aquatic habitat adjacent to and downstream of these urbanizing areas. Streams, lakes
and other surface waters in the Utility Service Area may be impacted by the cumulative
effect of urban non-point source pollutants and hydrologic modification. Increased levels of
silt and sediment and the increasing amount of non-point source pollutants entering surface
waters in the project area from development activities and urban land uses pose a threat to
the natural system in the long term. The inclusion of a new wastewater discharge in the
Cape Fear River below Jordan Lake dam may also cumulatively affect water quality, aquatic
species and habitat and recreational uses.
Long-term declines in water quality from on-going non-point pollution and stormwater
from urban land uses can have significant impacts on aquatic habitat, wetlands and
sensitive aquatic and amphibian species in urbanizing areas. Such impacts may lead to the
decline of sensitive aquatic species. In general, unless stormwater is properly managed, and
wetlands and stream buffers are protected, erosion and urban stormwater could cause
significant cumulative impacts to the water quality and/or the sensitive species living
within the project area and in downstream environments.
As land uses change and open spaces are developed and cut off from other open areas, fish
and wildlife habitat will be lost and fragmented, and species diversity potentially
diminished. Loss of terrestrial natural communities to urban development is a particular
concern for the sensitive species living on marginal habitats or on small preserves that may
be degraded from the intrusion of adjacent urban land uses. Sensitive terrestrial and aquatic
species and their habitats may be lost to development or may be degraded over time by the
negative impacts of urban uses in close proximity, especially as a result of degradation of
water and air resources. Both the water quality and sensitive species habitat in the Utility
Service Area and downstream areas may be significantly impacted through the increase in
stormwater, increased sedimentation and erosion, loss of streambanks, and increased
amount of non-point source pollutants entering into the surface waters from urban land
uses.
Public and recreational lands and waters could receive additional use from an increased
population, creating stress on wildlife that are trying to occupy the few natural areas
remaining. Urbanization will also increase the base level of noise in the receiving basin,
potentially impacting wildlife behavior.
Urbanization of the area may result in a loss of acres of prime agricultural and forest land.
Stormwater runoff may increase, causing streambank erosion and increased amount and
severity of flooding damage to public and private properties. Archeological and historical
sites may be lost to development activities. The additional vehicle miles traveled due to
increased population growth will likely result in higher concentrations of ozone formed
during the hot summer months. Urbanization in the Triangle area has in the past
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 4 - 12
contributed to a decrease in air quality, and this trend is likely to continue as a result of
growth.
A potential impact to groundwater availability is the reduced infiltration capacity due to
increase of impervious areas as growth continues; thus affecting the recharge capacity of the
groundwater storage. Land use activities and growth could also potentially impact
groundwater quality by introducing toxic contaminants in recharge areas. The long-term,
cumulative impact of new toxic discharges to the surface and ground waters from urban
stormwater, landfill leachate, and accidental and/or intentional spill of household and
industrial chemicals in the receiving basin could lead to declines in water quality, the
potential loss of wildlife and potentially the elimination of the existing endangered species
in the study area.
Direct cumulative impacts have been evaluated using DWR’s hydrologic model for the
Cape Fear River Basin. The model considers all major water withdrawals (water supply and
irrigation) and discharges within the Cape Fear River basin, including those into and out of
Jordan Lake. The model has been used to conduct analyses of the impact of the requested
interbasin transfer on Jordan Lake surface water elevations, minimum releases from the
dam, water quality pool levels, the target flows at Lillington, and flows at Fayetteville. The
cumulative impacts of the proposed IBT increase were modeled and compared to the
cumulative impacts of Alternative 1A (no increase in IBT) and the “Base Future” scenario.
Cumulative impacts were evaluated using estimated 2030 withdrawals and discharges
throughout the Cape Fear River basin and assuming that the Jordan Lake water supply pool
was fully utilized (total withdrawals = 100 mgd). The cumulative impacts analysis show
that the impacts of the proposed increase in IBT are insignificant and that any cumulative
impacts are due to the increased use of the Jordan Lake water supply pool and basinwide
water resources in general.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 1
SECTION 5
Alternatives Analysis
Alternatives to the proposed increase in the interbasin transfer are discussed below and
summarized in Table 17. Each alternative is assumed to be potentially feasible and
incorporates consideration of physical and environmental constraints based on current
available information. More detailed conceptual studies would be necessary to determine
the full implementation requirements for these alternatives.
Alternative 5 is basically the proposed action but without the future implementation of a
regional treatment and water reclamation facility in the Cape Fear River basin. Since the
proposed action is based on the assumption that a substantial amount of water will be
returned to the source basin via this facility prior to 2010, this alternative is intended to
qualify environmental impacts associated without that assumption. Alternative 5 also
provides a general basis for comparison with all other alternatives that assume a future
regional discharge to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River.
Order-of-magnitude cost estimates were developed for each alternative in 1999 dollars
using a combination of conceptual layouts, unit costs, and previously prepared cost
estimates. Construction cost estimates are based on costing curves and planning-level units
of construction and incorporate the following allowances:
• 7 percent allowance for contractor mobilization and demobilization
• 15 percent allowance for contractor overhead and profit
• 25 percent contingency
Total project cost is the sum of the estimated construction costs, allowance for engineering
design and construction management, and lump sum allowances for permitting and
land/easement acquisition where appropriate. Detailed cost-estimating spreadsheets for
each alternative are shown in Appendix E.
The order-of-magnitude cost estimates have been prepared from available information for
the purposes of comparing alternatives. Final project costs and resulting feasibility will
depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, actual site
conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, continuity of personnel and
engineering, and other variable factors. As a result, final project costs will vary from the
estimates presented here.
5.1 Alternative 1: No Action
There are two possible scenarios that fall under the No Action alternative: Alternatives 1A
and 1B, described below. Both of these result in no additional increase in the IBT; however,
they do not satisfy the objectives of the project.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 2
5.1.1 Alternative 1A: No IBT Increase with No Additional Allocation of Water from
Jordan Lake
Under this alternative, there is no increase in the existing 16-mgd (average day basis) Jordan
Lake allocation, and the maximum current permitted IBT would remain 16 mgd (maximum
day basis). Table 11 shows the resulting IBT calculations. There would be no new regional
treatment and water reclamation facility, or other additional discharges to the source basin,
in western Wake County.
Cary, Apex, Morrisville and the Wake County portion of RTP would be forced to meet
water demands by searching for other water sources such as the Cape Fear River via a Haw
River intake, purchased water from other localities (see alternatives No. 2 and No. 4 below),
small community or individual wells in the region’s low yield aquifers or significant water
conservation and reuse programs. It is unlikely that any of these options would allow
sufficient water supply to satisfy water demands based on current growth projections. Local
governments would be forced to implement very stringent water conservation measures,
convert to a conservation rate structure and work with industries to lower water usage.
Higher water rates may pressure industries with high water demands to lower usage or
move out of the service area. Local governments may also consider creating permanent
rules prohibiting the use of water from the municipal water system for landscaping, and
instead, require residents and businesses to either install individual groundwater wells or
utilize reclaimed water for landscaping purposes (Cary, 1999). Growth will decrease sharply
as a result of these policies.
TABLE 11
IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 1A
Consumption Estimated Wastewater
Discharge
Year Water Withdrawal
from the Haw
River Basin
Haw River
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Cape Fear
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Total
Return to
Cape Fear
Basin
Estimated
Interbasin
Transfer
2000 19.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 13.3 3.0 15.9
2005 19.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 13.3 3.0 15.9
2010 19.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 13.3 3.0 15.9
2020 19.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 13.3 3.0 15.9
2030 19.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 13.3 3.0 15.9
5.1.1.1 Engineering Considerations
The available water supply will meet a maximum day water demand of 19 mgd, which
corresponds to current water demands. This scenario assumes that future water demands
would be met by a reclaimed water system and conservation efforts. This scenario includes
an aggressive water conservation program to reduce ADD by 33% from projected levels by
2030. There would be no need to expand the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant (WTP), the
Cary/Apex raw water intake on Jordan Lake, or the wastewater treatment facilities in the
area (Cary North WWTP, Cary South WWTP, and Apex WWTP).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 3
Some additional water demands may be met by the full implementation of Cary’s
Reclaimed Water and Wastewater Program (Camp, Dresser, and McKee; 1997). The
recommended reclaimed water system would be based at the Cary North WWTP and have
a total supply capacity of 3.2 mgd by 2015. However, the report outlines a total potential
demand of 5.2 mgd in Cary, Morrisville, and at the RDU Airport once the program is fully
implemented. The program is designed to provide non-potable water to residential
customers, golf courses, and commercial customers for irrigation and to commercial and
industrial customers for cooling water. The first phase of this system has been designed and
is currently under regulatory review.
The cost estimate for this scenario is $11.1 million (See Appendix E).
5.1.1.2 Direct Impacts
Under Alternative 1A there would be no required changes to the existing water supply.
There would be no construction, no change in water use or discharge in the source or
receiving basin, and no impact on the water quality of either basin. Therefore, there would
be no direct impacts in either the source or receiving basin.
Because the amount of withdrawal from Jordan Lake would not change, this scenario is
similar to the Base 1998 scenario except that incremental impacts of all alternatives were
evaluated assuming full utilization of the Jordan Lake water supply pool. No significant
impacts were found for this scenario except those impacts related to the increased use of
Jordan Lake by other water systems (Appendix B). Future growth and development is
contingent upon effective water conservation in the study area.
5.1.1.3 Indirect Impacts
This no action alternative would severely limit the amount of new development in Cary,
Apex, Morrisville and RTP South due to lack of water and sewer capacity. However, rapid
growth of the Triangle region is expected to continue. Therefore, other areas in proximity to
Raleigh, Wake County, Durham, and Orange County would be required to sustain the
increases in population of the region. Many regional homebuilders and developers expect
growth to continue at a rapid pace in the Triangle area (News and Observer, 1999).
Developers project that if growth is curtailed, in Cary for example, it will likely be absorbed
by southern portions of Durham County, Fuquay-Varina, Garner and unincorporated areas
in Wake, Franklin and Johnston Counties, among others (News and Observer, 1999). Some
of the growth would be forced to occur in what are now largely rural areas which lack
strong environmental programs that address urban pollution, instead of the already
suburban communities of Cary and Apex which posses strong environmental programs.
There would be a more obvious decrease in open space, farmland, and forest. Indirect
impacts in these new development areas may include loss of wildlife habitat, wetlands, and
open spaces for recreation; increased traffic congestion and associated decrease in air
quality; diminished water quality due to urban runoff; stream bank erosion due to
hydrological changes; and increase in sediments due to construction. Increasing the
impervious surface of a region may also impact groundwater supplies by lessening the
amount of water recharging the aquifers of groundwater dependent communities. Noise
and the presence of chemical pollutants will also likely increase due to residents, businesses,
and traffic in the new growth areas.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 4
Indirect environmental impacts of this alternative are related to those associated with the
potential use of package WWTPs, land application, and on-site septic systems due to the
lack of municipal sewer infrastructure. If a new treatment and water reclamation facility is
not built in western Wake County, these alternative wastewater disposal systems would be
heavily relied on to support growth. However, regional soils are often unable to handle land
application and subsurface waste disposal systems and allow surface and groundwater
contamination. Water quality impacts from septic tanks that are likely to malfunction on the
clayey soils in the Jordan Lake area may become significant problems for surface and
groundwater quality. The proliferation of septic tanks coupled with area groundwater wells
under these conditions could lead to contamination of well water. Many existing package
treatment plants in the area are notorious for contributing to declines in water quality due to
improper operation and limited treatment. Finally, it may be difficult to obtain permits from
DWQ for package WWTPs, due to the usual low flow observed in the streams of the study
area, thus exacerbating pressure on land application and subsurface disposal systems
(USGS, 1993).
Although development near Jordan Lake under this alternative may decline in intensity and
uses from what is currently planned (due to the lack of water and sewer infrastructure
under this alternative), growth would not be prohibited altogether in the sensitive natural
areas surrounding the WRC Gamelands. Although higher density land uses would not be
feasible, large lot single family residences on individual wells and septic tanks would likely
become the predominant land use, displacing open space and agricultural uses, as has been
the trend for the area over the past ten years (Cary, 1996).
Development impacts and urban pollution around Jordan Lake under this alternative may
decline slightly over predicted levels with higher intensity uses associated with water and
sewer systems. However, some impacts would still occur, including loss of open space,
wildlife habitat, wetlands, farmland and forests. Although imperviousness of the region
may be reduced with low density development, which would limit the effect of stormwater
runoff, nonpoint source impacts may or may not be less, depending on design of the
individual developments and road systems, and the size of individual lots and homes. The
amount of groundwater used by individual wells on a limited yield aquifer may be
cumulatively significant.
Social impacts may also occur as a result of this alternative. Eventually, there would be
increased infrastructure costs of water, wastewater, fire, police, schools, etc. In addition,
there would be social impacts on Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, which may be forced to raise
local taxes or try to continue to attract growth to sustain a healthy tax base and provide
revenue for services. Water costs in these communities would likely also rise to promote
water conservation, which will become a significant source of the water supply.
Conservation measures that are more stringent than those currently in place or proposed in
the future might also be required of residents and businesses. Golf courses and industries
with high water use may possibly be prohibited or severely restricted, unless water reuse
amounts could satisfy this water demand.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 5
5.1.2 Alternative 1B: No IBT Expansion With Additional Jordan Lake Water
Allocation
Under this no action alternative, Cary, Apex, Morrisville and RTP South would limit
increases in the IBT so that they are balanced by concurrent decreases in customer demand,
through very significant conservation and reuse programs and by a regional discharge to
the Cape Fear River basin. This alternative may present a policy challenge, since the EMC
declined to act on the currently pending Jordan Lake allocation recommendations without
concurrently considering an IBT increase. This is because the allocation could not be
supported by a currently permitted municipal discharge that would limit the IBT to the
existing certificate amount. This alternative will limit water supply to the current capacity of
19 mgd (maximum day basis) until 2005 when a regional treatment and water reclamation
facility is in operation. This option qualifies as a No Action alternative largely because it
assumes, as currently planned, the eventual construction of a regional treatment and water
reclamation facility in western Wake County, along with reuse and conservation measures,
so that the existing IBT will not have to be increased above 16 mgd (maximum day basis).
Under this scenario, growth in the Cary, Apex, Morrisville and RTP South area would be
expected to continue to occur, although at a somewhat slower rate than that currently
projected. In the long-term, enough water and sewer service would be provided to future
residents and businesses to accommodate growth.
The IBT calculations for this alternative are summarized in Table 12.
TABLE 12
IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 1B
Consumption Estimated Wastewater
Discharge
Year Water Withdrawal
from Haw River
Basin
Haw River
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Cape Fear
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Total
Return to
Cape Fear
Basin
Estimated
Interbasin
Transfer
2000 19.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 13.3 3.0 15.9
2005 23.2 3.8 4.8 3.4 11.2 7.2 16.0
2010 29.4 4.9 6.2 9.2 9.0 14.2 15.2
2020 38.9 6.5 8.0 16.5 7.9 23.0 15.9
2030 43.8 7.1 8.3 20.9 7.5 28.0 15.8
5.1.2.1 Engineering Considerations
Under this scenario, an increase in the IBT is not requested. However, an increased water
supply allocation from Jordan Lake would be needed. Implementation of water
conservation and reuse would be required, as discussed in Section 5.1.1.
This scenario includes a treatment facility that discharges a highly treated effluent to the
Cape Fear River below the Jordan Lake Dam. The regional treatment and water reclamation
facility would reach a capacity of 18 mgd by 2030, based on projected growth and water
demand patterns.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 6
Construction of the regional facility could allow for additional withdrawals from Jordan
Lake while maintaining an IBT of 16 mgd or less. No expansion to the Cary/Apex raw
water intake or raw water conveyance facilities would be required since these facilities have
adequate capacity. The Cary/Apex WTP would be expanded to 49 mgd (43.8 mgd plus a
contingency for planning) to meet future water demands. No expansions of existing
WWTPs would be required since the proposed regional treatment and water reclamation
facility in western Wake County would treat future wastewater flows in the area.
The cost estimate for all capital projects in this scenario is $207 million (See Appendix E).
5.1.2.2 Direct Impacts
Under Alternative 1B there would be no required changes to the existing water supply.
There would be no construction associated with the transfer of water from one basin to the
other and the IBT would remain at 16 mgd. Therefore there would be no direct impacts in
either the source or receiving basin.
Modeling of this alternative show that there is no significant impact from increasing the
water supply withdrawals from Jordan Lake to 26.8 mgd by 2030 and offsetting the IBT by
returning flows through a regional water reclamation facility discharging at a location
downstream of Jordan Lake and upstream of Lillington even under drought conditions.
There is little difference between the impacts of the proposed increase in IBT and
Alternative 1B. Alternative 1B results in minor impacts on Jordan Lake elevations and
outflows compared to the Base 1998 scenario. However, the impacts from Alternative 1B are
similar to those for the “Base Future” scenario, suggesting that the impacts are mainly due
to the increased use of the Jordan Lake water supply pool.
5.1.2.3 Indirect Impacts
Increased water use beyond the current allocation of 16 mgd without an increase in IBT will
require returning water to the source basin until a regional treatment and water reclamation
facility is in operation discharging to the source basin. The strict nutrient limits imposed by
the Neuse River NSW Management Strategy Rules may further induce dischargers in the
Cape Fear basin, especially in the New Hope Creek/Jordan Reservoir subbasin (DWQ basin
for considering WWTP discharges). Although the Clean Water Responsibility Act of 1997
establishes a nitrogen limitation for discharges in the Jordan Lake watershed, existing and
new dischargers are exempt from complying with this limitation until a model is completed
sometime in 2002 and subsequent rule making is completed thereafter. It is expected that
nitrogen limits in the Jordan Lake watershed will not be as stringent as in the Neuse River
basin. Likely means of directing the water back to the source basin will be an increase in the
number of package treatment plants, land application, and increased use of septic systems.
As discussed above, these systems are less effective at removing pollutants than municipal
plants. Eventually, due to the construction and operation of a regional treatment and water
reclamation facility in western Wake County, indirect impacts may occur from this facility.
These impacts are expected to be the same as those associated with the proposed action in
the Utility Service Area, and they are briefly discussed in Section 4.3, Cumulative Impacts.
Under this alternative, additional availability of discharges or alternative disposal systems
in the New Hope Creek/Jordan Reservoir subbasin, coupled with the cost deterrent for
pumping wastewater across interbasin boundaries could facilitate growth in the western
parts of the project communities. In areas of high growth pressure, development will likely
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 7
be drawn to areas with plentiful wastewater treatment capacity. The indirect impacts of this
alternative are essentially the same as those in the proposed alternative. Under this
alternative, continued growth and development will be facilitated. The secondary impacts
of future growth and development on wetlands, land use, fish and wildlife resources, water
resources, air quality, groundwater, noise, and the presence of toxic substances and
hazardous materials in the environment are discussed in Section 4.
In short, increasing the Jordan Lake allocation with no IBT increase may actually facilitate
land use changes and a shift of development pressures closer to Jordan Lake. Current
growth control policies around the lake may be weakened (as far as possible under the
Water Supply Watershed Act) to compensate for this pressure.
This shift in development pressure towards Jordan Lake could significantly impact Jordan
Lake’s resources, valuable wildlife and recreational/game lands and valuable water supply
uses, through more intensive urbanization along the lake and its tributaries. Eighty-one
percent of the source basin’s wetlands surround Jordan Lake. Several threatened or
endangered species exist in tributaries draining to Jordan Lake, or on lands immediately
adjacent to the lake. The lake also supports 28 different species of fish, including various
species of bass, sunfish and shad. Areas adjacent to the lake include several significant
natural heritage areas and WRC Game Lands. For a more complete description of the
natural resources of the source basin and Jordan Lake, see Section 3.1.3; and for more
information on the impacts of growth in this region, see Section 4.
5.2 Alternative 2: Obtain Water From the Neuse River Basin
Under this alternative, increases in the IBT would be avoided by implementation of water
conservation and reuse programs, construction of a regional discharge to the Cape Fear
River basin, and purchase of finished water from the Neuse River basin. There would likely
be slower growth until 2005 when a regional treatment and water reclamation facility in
western Wake County is constructed. Beyond 2005, growth and development in the Cary,
Apex, Morrisville and RTP South would follow the anticipated patterns shown in Section
2.1.
One option for the applicants is to increase existing water supplies from the Neuse River
basin through additional purchases of finished water from the City of Durham and/or the
City of Raleigh, so that the interbasin transfer amount does not increase from the existing 16
mgd IBT. This would require purchase of average day amounts of 2.4 mgd in 2000,
increasing to about 5.6 mgd in 2030; maximum day amounts would be 4.0 in 2000 and 9.2
mgd in 2030. Both the City of Durham and the City of Raleigh have expressed concern for
maintaining sufficient capacity to satisfy their own demands, and indicated that they do not
foresee the need to provide finished water to Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South on a
long-term basis.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 8
The IBT calculations for this alternative are summarized in Table 13.
TABLE 13
IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 2 – Obtain Water from Neuse River Basin
Water Withdrawal Consumption Estimated
Wastewater
Discharge
Year
Haw River
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Haw River
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Cape Fear
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Total
Return to
Cape Fear
Basin
Estimated
Interbasin
Transfer
2000 19.4 4.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 12.8 3.3 16.0
2005 23.5 4.8 4.2 6.0 3.4 9.9 7.6 15.9
2010 29.7 2.9 5.2 7.0 9.2 8.3 14.4 15.2
2020 39.3 2.5 6.7 8.7 16.5 7.4 23.3 16.1
2030 44.5 9.1 7.9 10.3 20.9 5.4 28.8 15.7
5.2.2 Engineering Considerations
Under this scenario, the same water conservation program included in the proposed action
would be implemented to achieve an 18% reduction in projected ADDs by 2030, which is a
less aggressive program than that assumed under the no action alternatives (1A and 1B).
The resulting average water demand in 2030 is projected to be 32.8 mgd and the MDD is
estimated at 53.6 mgd.
A water reclamation program would be implemented to supply the area with up to 5.2 mgd
of reclaimed water for non-potable uses as discussed in Section 5.1.1. This is a slight increase
from the proposed action.
This scenario includes a treatment facility that discharges a highly treated effluent to the
Cape Fear River basin below the Jordan Lake Dam. The regional treatment and water
reclamation facility would require reach a capacity of 18 mgd to maintain an IBT of 16 mgd
through 2030 based on projected growth and water demand patterns.
Construction of the regional facility could allow for additional withdrawals from Jordan
Lake, while maintaining an IBT of 16 mgd or less. Installation of additional raw water
transmission mains to the Cary/Apex WTP would be required. Expansion of the
Cary/Apex WTP to 49 mgd (44.5 mgd plus a contingency for planning) would also be
required to meet future water demands.
The remaining water demand would be met by purchasing water from the Neuse River
basin. It is assumed that finished water would be purchased from the City of Durham, the
City of Raleigh, or from both water systems. To meet projected water demands and
maintain an IBT of 16 mgd or less, finished water purchases of up to 9.2 mgd (maximum
day basis) would be required by 2030.
The Towns of Cary and Morrisville currently have agreements with the City of Durham to
purchase at least 4.0 mgd of finished water per year through 2002. The capacity for the
existing connection between the City of Durham and the Town of Cary is approximately 4
mgd. Cost estimates for this scenario include upgrading the connection to a capacity of 9
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 9
mgd. The City of Durham has an existing water treatment capacity of 52 mgd. In June 1999
peak day water demand in Durham reached 45 mgd. During this peak demand period,
Durham was able to provide only about 2.6 mgd to Cary and had delivery problems within
their distribution system.
The Town of Cary also has a connection with the City of Raleigh with a capacity of 13 mgd.
Cary has a bulk purchase agreement with the City of Raleigh to purchase up to 3.5 mgd of
finished water per year through 1999. Raleigh has an existing water treatment capacity of 73
mgd. In June 1999 peak day water demand reached 67 mgd. The City of Raleigh may not
have long-term capacity for providing finished water to Cary because of commitments to
provide water to communities in eastern Wake County. Raleigh has indicated a desire to
cease water supply to Cary in 2002.
Although the Cities of Durham and Raleigh have recently both served as regional water
suppliers, their excess capacity is expected to decrease over the next ten years; therefore,
these water systems may be more reluctant to sell finished water in the future. Accordingly,
purchasing water from the Neuse River basin may not be a long-term solution to the water
supply needs of Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South. However, there may be
opportunities for the applicants to work with Raleigh and/or Durham to develop additional
water supplies. For example, one long-range water supply option for the City of Durham is
raising the normal pool elevation of Lake Michie (CH2M HILL, 1999). Future water supply
options for the City of Raleigh and the municipalities it serves include Little River, Lake
Benson, and Lake Wheeler (CH2M HILL, 1998, and Benton, D.E., 1999).
The cost estimate for all capital projects in this scenario is $207 million (See Appendix E).
5.2.3 Direct Impacts
Direct impacts of this alternative are related to the expansion of the existing interconnection
between the City of Durham and the Town of Cary. Expansion of the interconnection will
include the installation of larger transmission mains along existing right-of-ways in urban
areas, and possibly the expansion of the existing booster pump station. Direct impacts are
not expected to be significant. However, construction may impact receiving water bodies
through the disruption of wetlands, habitat, and vegetation.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 1B regarding its hydrologic impact on Jordan Lake
and the Cape Fear River basin; the impacts of Alternative 2 are represented by the modeling
results of Alternative 1B. See Appendix B for more detailed information regarding the
results of the Cape Fear River Basin model for this alternative.
5.2.4 Indirect Impacts
The City of Durham and the City of Raleigh do not currently have sufficient water supply
capacity to meet the needs of their service areas and the needs of Cary, Apex, Morrisville,
and RTP South. Therefore, additional supplies would need to be secured in order for
purchases of finished water from the Neuse River basin continue. The impacts of
developing new water supplies, expanding existing supplies, or utilizing new sources
would be assessed as part of the NCEPA process for each project.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 10
If additional water supplies cannot be secured, then this alternative option may mirror
Alternative 1A after the year 2010, in that future growth and development in the area will be
contingent on securing additional water and sewer capacity without exceeding the 16 mgd
IBT.
Under this alternative, the study area will experience continued growth and development.
The indirect impacts would be essentially the same as those of the proposed action. The
secondary impacts of future growth and development on wetlands, land use, fish and
wildlife resources, water resources, air quality, groundwater, noise, and the presence of
toxic substances and hazardous materials in the environment are discussed in Section 4.
5.3 Alternative 3: Increase Wastewater Discharges to Cape
Fear River Basin
Under this alternative, wastewater flows to the Cape Fear River basin would increase due to
the relocation of wastewater discharges for the existing Apex and Cary WWTPs from the
Neuse River basin. The likelihood of obtaining discharge permits for the relocated
wastewater discharges is unknown, and may be discouraged by regulatory agencies, since
Cary and Apex are pursuing the implementation of the new regional facility (either
individually, together, or as part of a regional facility).
This scenario also includes implementation of water conservation to reduce the ADD by
18% by 2030 and a water reclamation program to produce up to 3.8 mgd of reclaimed water
for non-potable uses.
The IBT calculations for this alternative are summarized in Table 14.
TABLE 14
IBT Calculation (Maximum Day Basis) for Alternative 3 – Relocate Wastewater Discharges to Cape Fear
Consumption Estimated Wastewater
Discharge
Total
Return to
Cape Fear
Basin
Estimated
Interbasin
Transfer
Year Water
Withdrawal
from the Haw
River Basin
Haw River
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Cape Fear
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
2000 23.4 3.7 3.3 3.7 12.7 7.4 16.0
2005 28.3 4.6 6.0 7.8 10.0 12.4 16.0
2010 32.6 5.4 7.0 11.9 8.3 17.3 15.3
2020 41.8 6.9 8.7 18.9 7.3 25.8 16.0
2030 53.6 8.6 10.3 29.0 5.7 37.6 16.0
5.3.1 Engineering Considerations
Relocation of the discharge from the Apex WWTP could be completed as early as 2002. Prior
to 2002, this alternative would limit maximum day withdrawals from Jordan Lake to about
19 mgd until the Apex discharge is relocated, similar to the no action alternative. The
regional treatment and water reclamation facility in western Wake County is expected to be
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 11
completed by 2005. All of the wastewater flows from the Cary South WWTP will be
relocated to the Cape Fear River basin. However, only a portion of the flows from Cary
North WWTP will need to be discharged to the Cape Fear River basin in order to maintain
an IBT of 16 mgd or less. Since the costs of conveyance and pumping to the Cape Fear River
basin are highest for the Cary North WWTP, and only a portion of the flows need to be
diverted to maintain an IBT of 16 mgd or less, only flows exceeding 3.6 MGD would be
pumped to the Cape Fear River basin (the Cary North WWTP is currently permitted at 12
MGD).
Relocation of these discharges to the source basin presents some challenges. Considering the
low flow estimates for the stream in the New Hope Creek/Jordan Reservoir subbasin
(USGS, 1993), with Panther Creek being the closest stream that appears to have positive
flow but which is a tributary to the 303 (d) list Northeast Creek, and the potential for
localized eutrophication impacts in arms of tributaries to Jordan Lake, additional flows
exceeding 3.6 mgd at the North Cary discharge would have to be routed to the mainstem of
the Cape Fear River. The Apex WWTP discharge would also have to be relocated to the
mainstem of the Cape Fear River because of low flow estimates for tributaries to Harris
Lake, and eutrophication concerns of this reservoir via the shortest route to the source basin
from the existing WWTP and discharge location. Finally, the Cary South WWTP would have
to be relocated to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River Basin, because the most efficient
route to a stream with significant flow would be to Kenneth Branch which is also a 303 (d)
listed stream. Therefore, it appears that the most environmentally sound relocation of these
discharges would be to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River, below the Buckhorn Dam.
Relocation of the WWTP discharges will require up to 30 miles of gravity sewer and force
main. To develop cost estimates, it was assumed that existing right-of-way would be used
for sewer interceptor construction. The location is assumed to be at a site near the
intersection of the boundaries of Chatham, Lee and Harnett counties. This may reduce the
impacts of construction on sensitive habitats and lands, but may require a number of
additional pump stations.
The total costs for capital projects in this alternative is $278.8 million (See Appendix E).
5.3.2 Direct Impacts
The relocation of outfalls would have an impact in the local environment due to
construction activities. Construction generally causes increased hill slope erosion and
corresponding water quality issues. Although the engineering calculations were based on
the use of existing road right-of-way to minimize impacts, there will still be significant
construction associated with this alternative to install a 42-inch diameter interceptor. There
will be impacts on receiving water bodies due to construction activities that may disturb
habitats, wetlands and potentially remove vegetation. Of particular importance would be
the natural resources of Harris Lake and the Shearon Harris Game Lands, adjacent to this
potential interceptor route and pump stations. More specific direct impacts for this
alternative require a complete description of the route for interceptor, force mains and
location of pump stations not available at this time. These direct impacts would be
addressed under the appropriate NC EPA process for permitting this infrastructure and are
beyond the scope of this EIS.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 12
Modeling of this alternative show that there is no significant impact from increasing the
water supply withdrawals from Jordan Lake to 32.8 mgd by 2030 and offsetting the IBT by
returning flows at a location downstream of Jordan Lake and upstream of Lillington even
under drought conditions. There is little difference between the impacts of the proposed
increase in IBT and Alternative 3. Alternative 3 results in minor impacts on Jordan Lake
elevations and outflows compared to the Base 1998 scenario. However, the impacts from
Alternative 3 are similar to those for the “Base Future” scenario, suggesting that the impacts
are mainly due to the increased use of the Jordan Lake water supply pool.
5.3.3 Indirect Impacts
Growth in Cary, Apex, and Morrisville will continue to occur, although it will be slowed
until the relocation of the discharges is completed. Relocation of the first discharge would
not likely be completed before 2002. Until this time, growth will be greatest in surrounding
areas. This will lead to the types of indirect impacts described in section 5.1.1.3, related to
alternative 1B. After 2002, growth would resume in the project communities. The indirect
impacts of this alternative are essentially the same as those of the proposed action. Under
this alternative, the study area will experience continued growth and development. The
secondary impacts of future growth and development on wetlands, land use, fish and
wildlife resources, water resources, air quality, groundwater, noise, and the presence of
toxic substances and hazardous materials in the environment are discussed in Section 4.
Eventually, due to the construction and operation of a regional treatment and water
reclamation facility in western Wake County, indirect impacts may occur from this facility.
These impacts are briefly discussed in the Section 4. However, substantial analysis of these
indirect impacts is out of the scope of the current EIS and they should be fully addressed
through the appropriate NCEPA process associated with that project.
5.4 Alternative 4: Merger of Water and Sewer Utilities
This alternative involves the merger of the water and sewer utility operations of the Town
of Cary and the City of Durham. The City of Durham has an IBT from the Neuse River basin
to the Haw River basin, while Cary has an IBT from the Haw River basin to the Neuse River
basin; the current net IBT is from the Neuse to the Haw. If these two systems merged, then
the overall net IBT would be reduced.
This alternative assumes that the City of Durham would continue to meet its water supply
needs from the Neuse River basin and the Town of Cary would continue to meet its water
supply needs from the New Hope Creek/Jordan Lake subbasin (Haw River basin).
Therefore, this alternative does not differ physically from the proposed action except for the
expansion of the existing interconnection to provide additional reliability in the merged
system.
Table 15 estimates the combined Cary/Durham IBTs from readily available information. As
a result of the merger, the combined IBT is approximately 17.5 mgd from the Neuse River
basin to the Haw River basin until 2030. There is no official documentation of Durham’s
grandfathered amount of interbasin transfer; this information has been requested by DWR
as part of the 1997 water supply planning process. However, it is estimated that Durham’s
grandfathered IBT is in the range of 25-30 mgd. Therefore, the total IBT in 2030 resulting
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 13
from a merger of Cary and Durham could potentially be less than Durham’s grandfathered
IBT amount, and Cary’s existing IBT from the Haw to the Neuse would be eliminated.
TABLE 15
IBT Calculation (Maximum Daily Basis) for Alternative 4
Water
Withdrawal from
Source Basin
Consumption Estimated
Wastewater
Discharge
Total Return to
Source Basin
Estimated Interbasin
Transfer
Year
Haw
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
Haw
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
Haw
River
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
Cape
Fear
Basin
Neuse
River
Basin
Haw to
Neuse
Neuse to
Haw
2000 23.4 47.1 9.5 10.1 21.4 29.5 30.9 39.6 0 7.5
2005 28.3 51.7 11.0 13.4 26.9 28.7 37.9 42.1 0 9.6
2010 32.6 56.4 12.3 15.1 34.9 26.7 47.2 41.8 0 14.6
2020 41.8 65.2 15.0 18.0 46.1 27.9 61.1 45.9 0 19.3
2030 53.6 71.8 17.6 20.5 53.5 33.8 71.1 54.3 0 17.5
5.4.1 Engineering Considerations
The capital requirements for this alternative are similar to those of the proposed action. The
only difference is the expansion of the existing interconnection between the Durham and
Cary systems. The cost estimate for this alternative includes capital funds for expanding the
existing booster pump station to 10 mgd and installing a 30-inch transmission main to
increase the capacity of the interconnection. The cost estimate of all capital costs for this
alternative is $244.7 million (See Appendix E).
The merger of the Cary and Durham water and sewer utilities could be delayed by
institutional and political challenges. The concept of merging the Cary water and sewer
utility with another system has been previously discussed in the Wake County Water/Sewer
Master Plan (CH2M HILL, 1998). The Plan recommended the development of a consolidated
water and sewer utility in Wake County. The recommended alternative called for the
development of a West Wake Utility Group consisting of Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Holly
Springs, and Morrisville by 2005, and creation of a countywide utility system by 2015. The
opportunities and challenges of a merger between Cary and Durham have not been
previously documented.
5.4.2 Direct Impacts
This alternative is similar to the proposed action and thus, the only unique direct impacts
are associated with the expansion of the system interconnection to provide for additional
reliability in a merged system. The interconnection expansion would require the installation
of a water transmission main on existing right-of-way in an urban or suburban area; thus,
significant impacts are not anticipated. This alternative assumes that no wastewater flows
from Cary, Apex, Morrisville, or RTP South would be transferred to Durham. Also, this
alternative assumes that the long-term water demands of Cary, Apex, Morrisville, or RTP
South would not be met by water supplies in Durham County. However, with the
expansion of the system interconnection, it is assumed that finished water may be
transferred between systems on a limited basis.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 14
This alternative is the same as the proposed action regarding its hydrologic impact on
Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River basin. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 4 are the
same as those found from the proposed IBT increase and thus, this alternative was not
modeled separately. See Appendix B for more detailed information regarding the results of
the Cape Fear River Basin model for this alternative.
The small changes in the surface elevation of the lake indicate that there may not be
significant impacts to wetlands and water quality due to these changes in lake elevation as
predicted by the hydrologic model (see Appendix B) due to the following:
• Impact on wetlands would be minimal because of the small amount of decrease in lake
elevations.
• Potential effects on water quality by decreasing the volume of water in the lake are
expected to be minimal because of the negligible changes of the hydrologic conditions in
the lake as predicted by the model.
Direct impacts to land use, air quality, groundwater resources, noise levels and toxic
substances are not expected to be significant under this alternative. Direct impacts would
mirror those of the proposed alternative and they are extensively addressed in Section 3 of
this EIS.
5.4.3 Indirect Impacts
The indirect impacts of this alternative are essentially the same as those of the proposed
alternative, since the capital projects are similar except for the expansion of the existing
interconnection. Under this alternative, the study area will experience continued growth
and development. The secondary impacts of future growth and development on wetlands,
land use, fish and wildlife resources, water resources, air quality, groundwater, noise, and
the presence of toxic substances and hazardous materials in the environment are discussed
in Section 4.
5.5 Alternative 5: No Regional Treatment and Water
Reclamation Facility
This alternative assumes that no regional treatment and water reclamation facility in the
Cape Fear basin is constructed, and the Cary North, Cary South and Apex WWTPs will not
be expanded beyond current permitted capacities. It is assumed that these WWTPs may
have sufficient permitted capacity to treat the projected wastewater flows. The assumption
that the existing WWTPs could not be expanded is based on the low flow statistics observed
in the streams of the region (USGS, 1993), coupled with the location of sensitive species,
state parks, impoundments and impaired streams, Neuse River Basinwide Management
Plan strategy, and the Neuse River NSW Management Strategy Rules. As with alternative
1B, this alternative presents a policy challenge since the EMC may not approve additional
Jordan Lake allocations for an estimated IBT of 45 mgd without provisions for returning
water to the source basin in the long term.
Under this scenario, wastewater effluent discharges to the Cape Fear River basin remain at
zero, and the quantity of the IBT increases as water withdrawals from Jordan Lake increase
and are discharged through existing wastewater treatment facilities in the Neuse River
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 15
basin. The IBT in 2030 would be approximately 45 MGD (maximum day) as opposed to 25
MGD under the proposed action (Table 17).
5.5.1 Engineering Considerations
This alternative assumes that no regional treatment and water reclamation facility serving
western Wake County will be constructed. Therefore, the IBT will reach a maximum under
this alternative in 2030 of 45 mgd. This alternative assumes that the existing WWTPs in the
study area will not be expanded. It is also assumed that future wastewater flows will be
treated using the existing permitted capacity. Wastewater flows from the Apex area may
need to be transferred to Cary South WWTP for treatment as the Apex WWTP is projected
to reach its capacity near 2010. The total cost of this alternative is $84 million. A detailed
breakdown of the cost estimate for this alternative is included in Appendix E.
TABLE 16
IBT Calculation (Maximum Daily Basis) for Alternative 5 – No Regional Treatment and Water Reclamation Facility
Consumption Estimated Wastewater
Discharge
Total
Return to
Cape Fear
Basin
Estimated
Interbasin
Transfer
Year Water
Withdrawal
from Haw River
Basin
Haw River
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
Cape Fear
Basin
Neuse River
Basin
2000 23.4 3.7 3.3 0.0 16.4 3.7 19.7
2005 28.3 4.6 6.0 0.0 17.8 4.6 23.8
2010 32.6 5.4 7.0 0.0 20.2 5.4 27.2
2020 41.8 6.9 8.7 0.0 26.2 6.9 34.9
2030 53.6 8.6 10.3 0.0 34.7 8.6 45.0
5.5.2 Direct Impacts
Without a regional treatment and water reclamation facility in the Cape Fear River basin,
use of privately owned package treatment plants, spray irrigation systems and septic
systems could rise dramatically on the Cape Fear River basin side to accommodate growth
in western Wake County. This is due to the high cost of pumping sewage across the basin
boundary lines to the existing WWTPs located in the Neuse River basin. Increased numbers
of these facilities may proliferate in areas closer to Jordan Lake with significant impact to the
lake’s water quality and the natural habitats around the lake. These package WWTPs, spray
irrigation systems, and on-site disposal systems may increase nutrient loadings to Jordan
Lake and they could contribute to increased productivity in the already eutrophic lake.
Taste and odor problems may also have a significant impact in the Jordan Lake water
supply. The potential for pathogens to be present in the lake water would increase. This is
especially important because the lake serves as a source for public recreation and drinking
water supply. Finally, degradation of water quality may have a significant impact on
wetland habitat, aquatic plant and animal species, and may significantly affect recreational
fisheries in Jordan Lake.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 16
Modeling of this alternative of the incremental impacts using a monthly time step show that
there are no significant impacts related to increasing the water supply withdrawals from
Jordan Lake to 32.8 mgd by 2030 and increasing the IBT to the maximum amount compared
to the proposed action. However, modeling with a daily time step under drought
conditions, Alternative 5 does show minor impacts on Jordan Lake outflows and elevations,
Lillington flows, and water quality pool levels compared to the proposed action. As with the
other alternatives, the impacts of Alternative 5 are minor when compared to the “Base
Future” scenario, suggesting that the majority of the impacts are related to the increased use
of the Jordan Lake water supply pool.
Based on the modeling results (see Appendix B), there may be minor impacts to wetlands
and water quality due to these changes in lake elevation compared to the proposed action,
especially under drought conditions.
Direct impacts to land use, air quality, groundwater resources, noise levels and toxic
substances are not expected to be significant under this alternative.
5.5.3 Indirect Impacts
This alternative will not decrease the water and sewer capacities of the region; therefore, it
should not alter current growth patterns. The growth of the region would likely continue at
the same rate and would primarily affect existing urban enclaves. The indirect impacts
associated with growth do not differ significantly from those of the proposed action.
Indirect Impacts on wetlands, land use, fish and wildlife resources, water resources/water
quality, air quality, groundwater resources, noise levels and toxic substances are discussed
in Section 4.
5.6 Conclusion
All of the alternatives considered, except for Alternative 5, represent measures that would
keep the IBT at or below 16 MGD (the current level). The low flow statistics observed in the
streams of the region; coupled with the location of sensitive species, state parks,
impoundments and impaired streams, and the Neuse River NSW Management Strategy
Rules (among others); preclude wastewater disposal of additional Jordan Lake allocations to
be sustained by expanding the existing Cary and Apex WWTPs at their existing locations. In
addition, expanding and relocating these discharges to the Jordan Lake or Harris Lake
watersheds may not be environmentally attractive as compared to relocating them (without
expansion) to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River and/or allocating additional sewer
capacity to a regional facility assumed to discharge to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River.
Therefore, to reduce or maintain the IBT at 16 MGD, most of the alternatives include
facilities to transfer any additional water supply allocations from Jordan Lake back to the
Cape Fear River basin through a regional treatment and water reclamation facility assumed
to discharge to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River in order to meet long-term water
supply demands.
Alternative 1A is the least costly alternative at $11 million, but it would not provide enough
water supply to satisfy water demands based on current growth projections. It is being
rejected as an alternative because it does not satisfy the objectives of the applicant. This
alternative also results in shifting secondary growth impacts to more rural areas that lack
strong environmental protection controls.
P:
/
1
5
6
0
0
3

C
a
r
y

I
B
T
/
I
B
T
/
D
O
C
S
/
E
A
_
M
a
y
0
0
FI
N
A
L

D
R
A
F
T
5
-

1
7
TA
B
L
E

1
7
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1A
No

A
c
t
i
o
n
1B
No

A
c
t
i
o
n
2
Wa
t
e
r

F
r
o
m
Ne
u
s
e
3
Mo
v
e

W
W
T
P
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
4
Me
r
g
e
r

w
i
t
h
Du
r
h
a
m
5
No

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
WW
T
P
In
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

I
B
T

(
m
g
d
)

1
1

0

0

0

0

0

2
9
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

J
o
r
d
a
n

L
a
k
e

A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

Y
e
s

N
o

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s
20
3
0

M
D
D

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
m
a
n
d
s

(
m
g
d
)

5
3
.
6

1
9

4
3
.
8

5
3
.
6

5
3
.
6

5
3
.
6

5
3
.
6
Ma
x
i
m
u
m

I
B
T

(
m
g
d
)

2
5
1
16

1
6

1
6

1
6
19
(N
e
u
s
e

t
o

H
a
w
)
45
To
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
)

$
2
2
5
.
7

$
1
1
.
1

$
2
0
6
.
6

$
2
0
6
.
9

$
2
7
9

$
2
4
8

$
8
4
.
0
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
u
s
e

3
.
8

m
g
d

3
.
8

m
g
d

3
.
8

m
g
d

3
.
8

m
g
d

3
.
8

m
g
d

3
.
8

m
g
d

3
.
8

m
g
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

W
W
T
P
(2
0
3
0

m
a
x

m
o
n
t
h

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
)
18
.
0

m
g
d

N
o

1
8
.
0

m
g
d

1
8
.
0

m
g
d

1
8
.
0

m
g
d

1
8
.
0

m
g
d

N
o
Fi
n
i
s
h
e
d

W
a
t
e
r

P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
(2
0
3
0

m
a
x

d
a
y

d
e
m
a
n
d
)
No

N
o

N
o

9
.
2

m
g
d

N
o

N
o

N
o
Ex
p
a
n
d

C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x

W
T
P

2
0
.
0

m
g
d

N
o

9
.
0

m
g
d

9
.
0

m
g
d

2
0
.
0

m
g
d

2
0
.
0

m
g
d

2
0
.
0

m
g
d
1.

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

I
B
T

i
n

2
0
3
0

i
s

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

2
5

m
g
d
.

T
h
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

2
7

m
g
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

s
o
m
e

c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 18
Although Alternative 1B is more economical than the proposed alternative, it may actually
facilitate land use changes and development pressures to move closer to Jordan Lake than
currently planned in the short term. This alternative does not meet water demands for the
affected communities until a regional treatment and water reclamation facility is
constructed in the Cape Fear River basin. In addition, this alternative involves too much
uncertainty since it may be difficult to obtain additional Jordan Lake allocations without an
increase of the IBT. Therefore, this alternative is not being recommended. Other indirect and
cumulative impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed action.
Alternative 2 would cost approximately $207 million. The Cities of Durham and Raleigh do
not currently have sufficient water supply capacity to meet the needs of their service areas
and the needs of Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South. Therefore, additional supplies
would need to be secured in order for finished water purchases from the Neuse River basin
to continue. The capital costs of developing new water supplies will increase the cost of this
alternative to exceed considerably the $207 million estimate. In addition, the direct and
indirect environmental impacts of expanding existing supplies or utilizing new sources
could be significant. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended on the basis of cost and
potentially more adverse environmental consequences than the proposed action. The
indirect and cumulative impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed action.
Alternative 3 is the most expensive of the evaluated alternatives, at $279 million. The
relocation of outfalls would have additional direct impacts on the local environment due to
construction activities, some of which may be significant. Of particular importance would
be the natural resources of Harris Lake and the Shearon Harris Game Lands, adjacent to this
potential interceptor route and pump stations. This alternative is too costly to be
recommended since less costly and more environmentally friendly alternatives have been
identified. The indirect and cumulative impacts of this alternative ultimately would be
similar to the proposed action.
Alternative 4 costs more than the proposed action by over $20 million. The feasibility of this
alternative is in doubt, since the opportunities and challenges of a merger of the Cary and
Durham water and sewer utilities could present institutional and political challenges. Until
institutional issues are resolved, this alternative will result in a drastic decrease of water
supply for the affected communities in the very short term. This alternative bears too much
uncertainty on the institutional framework and does not meet water demands in the short
term. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended. Direct impacts are expected to be
insignificant. The indirect and cumulative impacts of this alternative would be similar to the
proposed action.
Alternative 5 is the second least expensive alternative to the proposed alternative, at $84
million. The most significant impact of this alternative will be the inducement for expanding
the use of privately-owned package treatment plants, spray irrigation systems, and septic
systems in the Cape Fear River basin to accommodate growth in western Wake County.
This may lead to significant impacts to the lake’s water quality and the natural habitats
around the lake, including increased nutrient loadings to Jordan Lake and increased algal
blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen in the already eutrophic lake. Taste and odor
problems may increase in drinking water from the Jordan Lake water supply. The potential
for pathogens to be present in the lake water would increase. Impacts on public recreation
uses may be significant. Degradation of water quality may have a significant impact on
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 5 - 19
wetland habitat, and aquatic plant and animal species, and may significantly affect
recreational fisheries in Jordan Lake.
This alternative presents a policy challenge since the EMC may not approve additional
Jordan Lake allocations for an estimated IBT of 45 mgd without provisions for returning
water to the source basin in the long term. In addition to these indirect impacts to Jordan
Lake, the indirect and cumulative impacts of growth from Alternative 5 would be similar to
the proposed project. This alternative is rejected due to these potentially significant impacts
to Jordan Lake. In addition, the IBT will increase from 16 mgd to more than 45 mgd, a three-
fold increase.
Except for Alternative 1A, which does not serve the purposes of the project and therefore is
considered infeasible, the six alternatives proposed will not substantially reduce the
expected significant impacts of the proposed project. In fact, as discussed above, a few of the
alternatives actually create additional direct and indirect impacts that may be significant.
Also, Alternative 1A will just shift impacts.
As discussed in Sections 3 and 4, the direct impacts of the proposed project are not
considered to be significant. The most significant impacts are from growth and development
that the proposed action will facilitate. All of the alternatives to the proposed project (except
1A) will create essentially the same indirect impacts associated with the facilitated growth
and development in the project area, as in the proposed alternative. Therefore, none of the
identified alternatives will significantly reduce the identified indirect and cumulative
impacts of the project. The proposed alternative has clear advantages over all other
alternatives in terms of cost, feasibility, levels of direct impacts, and meeting the water
demands of the affected communities. The proposed action is the preferred alternative for
the project.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-1
SECTION 6
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
As previously noted in Section 4.1, the proposed project is one of many planned activities
that are a response to the rapid growth in the project area, rather than the cause of such
growth. Nevertheless, because such projects facilitate the urban growth that is occurring, it
was determined that the scope of this EIS would include the indirect and cumulative
impacts associated with the development that will be facilitated by the proposed project.
This section identifies and discusses pertinent federal, state and local regulations and
programs which may mitigate the potential indirect and cumulative impacts discussed
above in Section 4.
6.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs
The following is a brief description of existing regulations and programs at the federal and
state levels in the study area, with an emphasis on the Utility Service Area.
It addresses relevant regulations and programs from an environmental management and
land use policy analysis perspective. The discussion provides a general overview of the
existing regulatory and non-regulatory mitigation framework and identifies opportunities
for local governments in the study area to enhance environmental protection measures that
mitigate the anticipated effects of urbanization in the project area. However, this analysis
does not attempt to measure the performance of these programs in managing specific
environmental conditions in the field. Such an “efficiency” analysis of each of these
regulations and programs is beyond the scope of this discussion.
6.1.1 Federal Regulations
6.1.1.1 Sections 404/ 401 of the Clean Water Act
There are currently two main regulatory programs that control the filling or draining of
wetlands in the project area, both of which originate from the Federal Clean Water Act –
Section 404, regulation of dredged and fill activities (which is enforced by the ACOE), and
Section 401, certification that a project does not violate the state’s water quality standards
(which is enforced by DWQ). All private and public construction activities over a specific
acreage that affect jurisdictional wetlands are required to obtain required wetlands permits
as necessary from DWQ (Section 401 WQ Certification) and from the ACOE (Section 404
Permits).
Although the State’s 401 Water Quality Certification Program and the Federal 404 Wetlands
Protection Programs afford some protection for wetlands by requiring avoidance and
mitigation for wetlands across the state, it is possible for permits to be issued under both the
state and federal programs that allow small areas of wetlands to be lost (US EPA, 1999B).
Inadequate personnel at the state and federal level to enforce the regulations is a common
problem in its adequate protection of wetlands. However, effective March 1999, DWQ
stepped up the enforcement of regulations for wetlands protection, particularly those
related to hydrologic conditions necessary to support wetlands function (15A NCAC
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-2
2B.0231(b)(5)), and biological integrity (15A NCAC 2B.0231(b)(6)). DWQ is joined in this
initiative by the NC Division of Land Resources which will also be looking at possible
violations of the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
6.1.1.2 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
A federal non-regulatory program that may afford some protection to stream riparian areas,
wetlands and also protect water quality by restricting floodplain development is the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). NFIP, which is managed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was created in the 1960’s in response to the rising
cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of
damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes Federally-backed flood insurance available in
communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce
future flood damage. The NFIP, through partnerships with communities, the insurance
industry, and the lending industry, helps reduce flood damage by nearly $800 million a
year.
Floodplain management under the NFIP is an overall program of corrective and
preventative measures for reducing flood damage. It includes but is not limited to
emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management
regulations and generally covers zoning, subdivision, or building requirements and special-
purpose floodplain ordinances. Examples include mapping communities to identify flood
prone areas, elevating buildings above the base flood and relocating structures out of the
floodplain.
An important element in making flood insurance available to home and businesses owners
is a community's agreement to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances,
particularly with respect to new construction. It is up to local governments to adopt and
enforce ordinances that meet or exceed the minimum floodplain management requirements
of NFIP (FEMA, NFIP).
All local governments in the receiving basin project area (including Wake County, Apex,
Cary, and Morrisville) are participating in the FEMA Flood Insurance Program. This
program prohibits filling in the floodways. It also limits construction of buildings in the
floodplain fringe area unless an engineer certifies that the bottom floor of the structure is at
least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. However, because of this provision for
allowing development with raised structures (as opposed to prohibiting development
altogether), some amount of development (and potential loss of wetlands and wildlife
habitat and degradation to water quality) might occur (Cary, 1999).
Construction within floodplains, particularly when riverine wetlands are damaged or
destroyed, can lessen the storage capacity of floodplains, contribute to higher flood levels
downstream, increase turbidity, and increase erosion problems due to higher streamflow
velocities. For these reasons, Cary places severe limitations on development within the 100-
year floodplain (The 100-year floodplain defines the elevation that floodwaters would reach
in a storm event that has an l-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year). No
encroachment is allowed unless a registered engineer, architect or landscape architect
certifies that the encroachment will not increase flood levels above FEMA regulatory levels.
(Cary, 1996)
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-3
6.1.2 State Regulations
6.1.2.1 North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP)
This non-regulatory program was created within DWQ to protect and mitigate wetland
losses. However, WRP is primarily involved with finding and preserving specimen
wetlands of good quality to mitigate specific project impacts (especially as mitigation for
NCDOT projects) and also restoring existing impaired wetlands. It does not specifically
provide a mechanism to protect wetlands on a regional basis from widespread urban
development impacts (WRP, 1998A).
The Wetlands Restoration Program has targeted three hydrologic units, 030605 within the
Cape Fear River Basin, and 030402 and 030403 within the Neuse Basin, as priority areas for
wetland restoration actions. Subbasin 030605 (Jordan Lake) is considered high priority due
to the combination of agricultural and urban land uses and highly erodable soils, which
produce widespread NPS problems (WRP, 1998A). Subbasin 030402 (Swift Creek and
Crabtree Creek) is considered high priority for WRP activities due to urban runoff and
development in the upper portions of the subbasins, and agricultural activities and runoff in
the lower portions of the subbasins. (WRP, 1998B). Subbasin 030403 (Middle Creek) is
considered high priority for WRP activities due to point and non-point water quality
problems from urbanization (WRP, 1998B).
6.1.2.2 Archaeological Protection
Archaeological resources are protected on private and public lands through the NC
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal
Remains Protection Act, the NC Archaeological Record Program, the NC Environmental
Policy Act and various federal laws. The NCEPA process triggers reviews under these acts.
These laws are only applicable to projects that are state or federally approved, permitted or
funded, or exist on state or federal lands. Although this often exempts many private
development projects, the ACOE often catches some of these projects since they require
archaeological reviews for any project that needs a Section 404 (federal wetlands) permit.
6.1.2.3 Stormwater Regulations
NPDES stormwater discharges are controlled by the federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, as enforced by DWQ under a delegation
agreement with EPA. The program regulates all major discharges of stormwater to surface
waters. NPDES permits are designed to reduce and eliminate pollutants in stormwater
runoff from certain municipal storm sewer systems and industrial activities by requiring the
development and implementation of stormwater management measures.
The NPDES Stormwater permitting system is being implemented in two phases. Phase 1
was implemented in 1991 and applied to 6 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
in NC with greater than 100,000 people. This Phase 1 also applied to eleven industrial
categories including construction activities (sites greater than 5 acres). An NPDES permit
was issued to each of the 6 municipalities. In addition, the majority of industrial activity
sites were covered using General NPDES permits. Currently there are approximately 3,000
sites in NC covered by individual or General NPDES permits. No local governments in the
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-4
Utility Service Area portion of the project area are subject to Phase 1 NPDES Stormwater
requirements although there are probably several industrial sites.
Phase 2 rules were finalized on October 29, and published in the Federal Register on
December 8, 1999. Final rules are still being reviewed; however, the rules are expected to
impact between 60 to 100 MS4s in “urbanizing areas” of NC, as well as expanding the
coverage for construction activities to sites over one acre. Those subject to the Phase 2 Rule
would be required to apply for NPDES permit coverage and to implement storm water
management programs (i.e. best management practices (BMPs). Small MS4s will be required
to develop and implement a stormwater management program designed to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable”, to include six minimum
control measures, and include their selection of BMPs and measurable goals for each
minimum measure in their permit application. Construction activities requirements will be
established by DWQ and will likely be similar to existing State sediment and erosion control
plan requirements.
DWQ will evaluate EPA rules when final and establish guidelines and schedules for local
government compliance. DWQ will be the enforcing agency for these rules. Applicable local
governments will have three years from the date of publication of the final rule to submit
the permit application to DWQ for approval. The Town of Cary is anticipating being
required to develop and implement stormwater management programs under Phase 2, and
has begun drafting applicable local ordinances to meet these new requirements. The Town
of Apex and Wake County are also expected to be subject to the Phase 2 rules.
6.1.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
NC Division of Land Resources administers programs to control erosion and sedimentation
caused by land disturbing activities on one or more acres of land. Control measures must be
planned, designed and constructed to provide protection from the calculated peak rate of
runoff from a 10-year storm, except for projects in HQW (High Quality Water) zones, which
require control of 25-year storms. Enforcement of the program is at the state level, but can be
delegated to local governments (usually counties or large municipalities) with certified
erosion control programs. Wake County enforces the erosion and sedimentation control
programs for the Towns of Morrisville and Apex, based on state requirements. The Town of
Cary enforces its own erosion and sedimentation control program for its planning
jurisdiction.
6.1.2.5 Sanitary System Overflows (SSO’s)
State regulations (15A NCAC 2B.05.06) require municipalities and other wastewater
treatment operators to report wastewater spills from discharges of raw sewage from broken
sewer lines and malfunctioning pump stations within twenty-four hours. DWQ has adopted
the following policies, effective July 1, 1998:
Municipalities and other wastewater treatment operators will be fined a minimum of $ 4,000
if they do not comply with the reporting requirement within twenty-for hours for all spills
that reach surface waters or the ground exceeding 1,000 gallons regardless of whether they
are contained or reach waters. A point system is used to determine whether to assess fines
for reported spills.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-5
Wastewater collection system operators were required to prepare a Spill Response Plan
Evaluation by July 1, 1998, and an Operation and Maintenance Evaluation of their systems
by July 1, 1999. Operators must develop a plan including a schedule to deal with any
maintenance and operational deficiencies uncovered. For Spills occurring after July 1, 1999
related to maintenance or operational problems covered in the plan, the penalty will be
increased.
When a serious spill occurs, wastewater collection system operators could face not only
higher fines but also requirements to publish public notices in local media, undergo
training, injunctive action and/or a moratorium on new connections to the system.
The NC Clean Water Act of 1999 provides for the development of permits for collection
systems that would include requirements for inspections, sewer maintenance and other
operational items. DWQ has developed a "shell" Wastewater Collection System Permit and
is expected to issue them after July 1, 2000.
In addition, EPA is currently drafting regulations that will address sanitary sewer
overflows. EPA has prepared five documents that provide draft language for proposed
regulations to establish guidance and/or standard NPDES permit conditions for the
following:
• Record keeping, reporting and public notification requirements for SSOs
• Capacity assurance, management, operation and maintenance requirements for
municipal sanitary sewer collection systems
• Prohibitions on SSO discharges to waters of the United States
• NPDES permit coverage for satellite municipal sewer collection systems
EPA expects the proposed regulations to be published in the Federal Register in May, 2000
and promulgated by October, 2000.
In addition to the above regulations dealing with SSO’s, the following performance
standards apply to proposed sewer collection system and pump station permits issued by
DWQ:
• The wastewater collection system shall be effectively maintained and operated at all
times so that there is no discharge to land or surface waters, nor any contamination of
groundwater.
• The Permittee must maintain a contingency plan for pump failure at each pump station.
• The Permittee shall maintain on hand at least one fully-operational spare pump capable
of pumping the design flow rate at the appropriate total dynamic head for each simplex
pump station that serves more than one building.
• Each pump station shall be clearly and conspicuously posted with a pump station
identifier and an emergency contact telephone number which is able to get to an
individual that can initiate or perform emergency service for the collection system 24
hours per day, seven days per week.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-6
• An infiltration/exfiltration test shall be performed on all newly constructed sewer lines
to ensure that the infiltration/exfiltration rate is less than 100 gallons per day per inch of
pipe diameter per mile of pipe.
• At a minimum, an emergency power source or plugged emergency pumping connection
shall be provided along with an approved contingency plan for all newly-constructed or
modified pump stations.
6.1.2.6 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
The CWMTF was created by the 1996 Legislature to help finance projects that specifically
address water pollution problems. The Trust Fund controls a non-regulatory program that
focuses its efforts on upgrading surface waters in distress, eliminating pollution, protecting
and conserving unpolluted surface waters, and establishing a network of riparian buffers
and greenways for environmental, educational and recreational benefits. According to the
enabling legislation, 6.5% of the unreserved credit balance remaining in the state’s General
Fund at the end of each fiscal year is allocated to the CWMTF for disbursement. The
minimum amount available must be $30 million.
Possible use of CWMTF monies could be for wetland and/or riparian corridor identification
and preservation (through acquisition and easement techniques) in the receiving basin
portion of the study area to allow comprehensive protection of wetlands and riparian
buffers in the project area to protect water quality and sensitive aquatic species.
6.1.2.7 Groundwater Protection
Several regulations and programs exist at the state and local levels that protect groundwater
from urban growth:
• Wellhead Protection Program
• Regulation of potential contamination sources
• Management of groundwater contamination incidents
• Ambient groundwater monitoring
• Regulation of well construction
These programs may afford some protection to groundwater wells from the most common
forms of groundwater pollution – point sources such as chemical manufacturing facilities,
Underground Storage Tanks and accidental spills. However, more diffuse and evasive
groundwater pollutants from agricultural uses (livestock facilities and chemical application
on crops) and urban land uses (over-application of fertilizers and improper use of toxic
household chemicals) may not be well managed under these programs.
6.1.2.8 Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Rules
The Falls Lake watershed area was classified as NSW in 1983. The entire Neuse River Basin
was classified as NSW in 1988. As a result of the NSW classification, a nutrient management
strategy was initially developed to manage phosphorus from point source dischargers and
nitrogen and phosphorus from nonpoint sources. At that time, most of the nutrient
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-7
problems were occurring in the lower freshwater portion of the river, and phosphorous was
considered the controlling nutrient. Increasing algal blooms and fish kills in the estuarine
portion of the Neuse River, attributed to nitrogen overenrichment, led to a revision of the
NSW strategy to address nitrogen inputs to the estuary. The Neuse River NSW Strategy
Rules became effective August 1, 1998. While this revised strategy places more stringent
nutrient removal requirements on point source dischargers, the strategy also addresses
other sources of nutrients, including urban stormwater, agricultural sources and nutrient
application management. In addition, they included special provisions to protect stream
buffers to prevent further degradation of the ecological integrity of the watershed.
Riparian Buffer Issues Related to Neuse River NSW Rules
The Neuse River NSW rules require that existing riparian buffer areas be protected and
maintained on both sides of surface waters, both intermittent and perennial. A 50-foot
buffer consisting of 30 feet of undisturbed forest and 20 feet of grassed/vegetated area along
streams must be maintained on each side of surface waters. The rule does not require
restoration of buffers that no longer exist. Perennial and intermittent stream determinations
are to be based on survey maps prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) or the most recent version of USGS topographic maps (7.5 minute quadrangle). The
rule provides a number of exemptions. The rule also includes requirements to protect
buffers as part of MS4 or other local stormwater programs by requiring buffers to be
“recorded on plats as easements”.
The riparian buffer requirement for protection and maintenance of existing riparian areas
was adopted as a temporary rule in July 1997. Additional legislation adopted in 1998
extended the temporary status of the riparian buffer rules until several implementation
issues are addressed by the EMC. The 1998 legislation also provided for the establishment of
a Stakeholder Advisory Committee to assist the EMC in developing permanent rules for the
protection and maintenance of existing riparian buffers, developing rules that allow
compensatory mitigation in lieu of complying with the riparian buffer regulation; and
developing rules that provide for the delegation of implementation of the buffer rules to
units of local government.
The temporary status of the protection and maintenance of existing riparian buffers rule was
extended once more effective June 22, 1999 by the EMC with the assistance and advice of the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee in May 1999. Also, temporary rules that provide for
compensatory mitigation became effective as of this date. Currently, the EMC is pursuing
permanent rule making process for these two temporary rules. In addition, the EMC is
pursuing permanent rules to delegate buffer requirements to local units of governments. It
is anticipated that all the aforementioned rules will become permanently effective in August
2000.
Urban Stormwater Issues Related to Neuse River NSW Rules
The Neuse River NSW Strategy has direct implications for the Town of Cary and Wake
County in the Utility Service Area of the project. Apex and Morrisville are not subject to
these rules as per DWQ (Bradley Bennett, personal communication). Affected municipalities
are required to develop, adopt, and implement stormwater management programs to
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-8
control nutrients to the Neuse River watershed. This mitigates impacts in the receiving
basin, particularly as to nitrogen loads.
The Neuse River NSW Rules provide for the development of a model stormwater
management program designed by the State and stakeholders to: a) hold nitrogen loading
from new development at 70% of that contributed by 1995 land uses in the non-urban areas
of the Neuse River basin (using an export coefficient of 3.6 lbs/acre/year); and b) hold the
increase in peak flow leaving the site during the 1-year, 24-hour storm to what it was under
predevelopment conditions. Developers could offset their TN loads by funding wetland or
riparian area restoration projects through payments to the treatment and water reclamation
facility (the offset payment rate is currently set a price of $11 per lb of TN for a 30-year
period). A model stormwater management program was approved by the EMC in October
1999.
Cary and Wake County must develop and submit to DWQ a stormwater management plan
that equals or exceeds the model plan by September 2000. These jurisdictions are also
required to adopt and implement a stormwater management program by March 2001.
Specific program requirements include (TJCOG, 1999):
• New development must meet a 3.6 lbs/ac/yr nitrogen export performance standard and
not increase peak runoff
• New development must protect buffers
• Public education efforts must be implemented
• Illegal discharges must be identified and removed
• Potential stormwater retrofit locations must be identified
• Existing developments must be considered in overall nitrogen reduction strategy
• Annual progress reports must be submitted
New development must comply with the following requirements (TJCOG, 1999):
• Maximum loading limits –
- New residential development – 6.0 lbs/ac/yr
- New non-residential development – 10.0 lbs/ac/yr
• New development must not exceed nitrogen export loading rate of 3.6 lbs/ac/yr unless
excess nitrogen load is offset by payment of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund for
the Neuse Basin.
• BMP’s must be approved by EMC and local government must assure that BMPs are
properly maintained
• Local governments must review and consider innovative land use planning techniques
for reducing impervious surfaces in new development
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-9
6.1.2.9 Water Supply Watershed Protection Program
The Environmental Management Commission and DWQ have administered a Water Supply
Protection Program since 1986. Initially, the program was administered voluntarily by
counties and municipalities pursuing protective measures for their water supply
watersheds. The measures included limitations on the number and type of wastewater
discharges that were allowed in the water supply watersheds.
In 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly ratified the Water Supply Watershed
Protection Act, codified as General Statutes 143-214.5 and 143-214.6. This Act mandated the
Environmental Management Commission to adopt minimum statewide water supply
protection standards by January 1, 1991 and to reclassify all existing surface water supply
watersheds to the appropriate classification by January 1, 1992. The goals of the Water
Supply Watershed Protection Program include:
• the protection of surface drinking water supplies in North Carolina from Non-Point
Source and Point Source pollution from urban runoff and wastewater discharges
• the provision of a cooperative program of watershed management and protection which
is administered by local governments consistent with minimum statewide standards.
The DWQ manages the program through oversight of local planning ordinances and
monitoring of land use activities. Local WSWS programs must be approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC). The WSWS program requires local
governments to adopt the following land use controls and limitations based on watershed
classifications:
• Requires limitation of impervious surfaces around water supplies unless stormwater
controls are used
• Requires protection of riparian buffers (100-foot buffers in all development that exceeds
the low density option, or 30-foot buffers otherwise along perennial waters)
• Limits some land uses
• Limits dischargers (NPDES permits in certain situations)
• Allows the use of clustering and density averaging to meet overall development density
limits
• Watersheds that are protected under the WSWS Program have a classification of WS-I
through WS-V, where WS-I has the most restrictive controls.
A large portion of the study area is within Water Supply Watersheds, particularly a
significant portion of the Utility Service Area around Jordan Lake and the headwaters of
Swift Creek are included. Jordan Lake is classified as WS-IV waters. WS-IV generally
represents a large river or lake water supply. The entity using the water supply usually does
not have control over a large area of the watershed, for this reason there is a state Water
Supply Watershed Protection Program. A small “critical area” near the water supply intake
can be protected, and the water requires a high degree of treatment. Municipal and
industrial point source discharges are allowed in WS-IV waters.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-10
The area defined as a WS-IV protected area extends five miles from the normal pool
elevation of Jordan Lake (i.e., 216 feet above mean seal level). The Jordan Lake Watershed
lies partially within the Towns of Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake County (RTP South).
WS-IV regulations limit development density to 1 dwelling unit (du) per ½ acre lot or 24%
built-upon limitation without stormwater controls.
Swift Creek is classified as WS-III waters. WS-III is a common designation for lakes and
streams that are used for water supply but yet have a significant amount of activity in the
watershed, with some control over the extent of development and discharges in the
drainage area. Municipal and industrial point source discharges are not allowed in WS-III
waters, but, public water and sewer collection lines and facilities are allowed.
The Swift Creek Watershed lies partially within the Towns of Cary and Apex. WS-III
regulations limit development density to 1 dwelling unit (du) per 1 acre lot or 12% built-
upon limitation without stormwater controls.
All of the local governments within the study area are subject to the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Act. The WSWS programs and ordinances for each of these local
governments were reviewed by DWQ staff and approved by the EMC between 1995 and
1998. Each of the local governments in the project area is considered to be in compliance
with the WSWS Rules for each of the protected watersheds
6.1.2.10 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Program.
The USDA and DENR have recently launched the CREP Program, with the participation of
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Farm Service Agency, the NC
Wetlands Restoration Program, and the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund to create
5,000 acres of buffers and conservation areas in the Jordan Lake watershed. This program
uses financial incentives to encourage farmers to voluntarily remove sensitive land from
agricultural use.
6.1.2.11 Miscellaneous Incentive Programs
Other, voluntary strategies exist at the federal and state levels that provide incentives to
protect natural lands, wetlands, agricultural lands, sensitive species habitat and forest lands
from development. These non-regulatory approaches include providing tax credits for
donating lands to specific organizations (usually land trusts or local governments) and
providing funding for various grants and trust funds to purchase or protect undeveloped
lands.
Table 18 provides a comprehensive summary of the current state and federal regulatory and
non-regulatory framework that provides mitigation for the growth effects of the
development that is facilitated by the proposed action.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-11
TABLE 18
Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs from Section 6.1 and the Environmental Resources They Protect
Program or
Regulation
Wetlands Land
Use
Fish &
Wildlife
Sensitive
Species
Water
Quality
Air
Quality
Ground
-water
Noise Toxics
Sect. 404 XXX X X
Sect. 401 XXX X X
NFIP XXX X X X
NCWRP XXXX
Archaeological
Protection X
NPDES
Stormwater XXXX X
Erosion / sed.XXX X X
SSO Regs.XXX X X X X
CWMTF (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Groundwater XXX
Neuse NSW XXXX
WSWS XXX X X
Land Conserv.
Incentives (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
X = Demonstrates clear environmental benefits
(X) = Shows potential for environmental benefits (policy only, program not mandatory, or regulation not yet adopted)
6.2 Summary of Local Regulations and Programs
Sub-sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.4 describe existing and proposed local government
regulations and programs in the project Utility Service Area that will mitigate the
environmental impacts of development that may be facilitated by the proposed interbasin
transfer. Some of the regulations and programs are not mandatory or are only proposed at
this time. These programs and regulations could change or be discontinued, although this is
not expected. It should not be inferred from this discussion that any particular regulation or
program is necessary for mitigation purposes or, if only proposed, that such regulation or
program will be adopted and implemented as described. Section 6.2.1 summarizes
programs to conserve open space. Section 6.2.2 summarizes programs to protect riparian
buffers and wetlands. Section 6.2.3 summarizes pollution prevention programs. Section 6.2.4
describes the effort to build a Western Wake WWTP to serve the towns and reduce the
interbasin transfer. Table 19 summarizes of these local programs.
6.2.1. Open Space Preservation
Open space provides habitat for wildlife, protects water quality if sited properly, and
enhances the overall quality of life. Governor Hunt recently set a goal of conserving
20 percent of all land in new development as open space. In the study area, open space
protection can provide additional land around Jordan Lake, Harris Lake, and Umstead Park
P:
/
1
5
6
0
0
3
C
a
r
y

I
B
T
/
I
B
T
/
D
O
C
S
/
E
A
_
M
A
Y
0
0
FI
N
A
L
DR
A
F
T
6-
1
2
TA
B
L
E

1
9
Lo
c
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s

B
e
y
o
n
d

S
t
a
t
e

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

P
r
o
t
e
c
t

W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

H
a
b
i
t
a
t
Open Space Plans
Land Use Plans
GMPs
UDOs
Parks and Greenway Plans
Erosion/Sediment Control
Stormwater Programs
Impervious Surface Limits
Floodplain Dev Regs
Water Conservation
Ordinances
Education
Reuse Plans
Stormdrain stenciling
Incentives
Wastewater planning
Stream Restoration
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
Op
e
n

S
p
a
c
e

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Lo
c
a
l
/
s
t
a
t
e

l
a
n
d

a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
r
o
u
n
d

J
o
r
d
a
n

L
a
k
e

X

X

O

O

X
Lo
c
a
l
/
s
t
a
t
e

l
a
n
d

a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

t
o

c
o
n
n
e
c
t

p
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

g
a
m
e
l
a
n
d
s

X

X

O

O

O
Lo
c
a
l
/
s
t
a
t
e

l
a
n
d

a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
r
o
u
n
d

U
m
s
t
e
a
d

X

X

O

O

O
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

W
a
k
e

C
o

O
p
e
n

S
p
a
c
e

S
t
u
d
y

X

X

O

O

O

O

O
Gov. H
u
n
t
'
s

g
o
a
l

t
o

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
e

2
0
%

l
a
n
d

i
n

n
e
w

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

O
O
O
O
O

O
O
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l

G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y

S
y
s
t
e
m
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l

G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y

t
h
a
t

b
u
i
l
d
s

o
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

T
o
b
a
c
c
o

T
r
a
i
l

O

O

X
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

B
u
f
f
e
r
s

a
n
d

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Lo
c
a
l

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g

b
u
f
f
e
r
s

a
s

s
t
r
i
c
t

a
s

N
e
u
s
e

r
u
l
e
s

O

O

O

O

O
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

a
n
d

b
u
f
f
e
r
s

O

O

X
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
Lo
c
a
l

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
n
g

f
l
o
o
d

p
l
a
i
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

X

X

X
Pu
b
l
i
c

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

W
a
k
e

C
o
X
De
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

W
W
T
P
X
Wa
t
e
r

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

X

X

X

X
Wa
t
e
r

r
e
u
s
e
X
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Local p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

t
o

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

w
a
t
e
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ke
y

t
o

S
y
m
b
o
l
s
:
X:

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

i
n

p
l
a
c
e
O:

T
o
w
n

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

o
n

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

i
s
s
u
e

o
r

i
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-13
and provide wildlife corridors between these areas. Wake County developed an open space
study that the local governments can build on and help implement. Regional greenways can
link open space areas.
Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and Wake County have several programs to preserve open space.
These include open space plans and initiatives, land use plans, growth management plans,
unified development ordinances (UDOs), and greenway plans. Each of these initiatives is
described in greater detail below.
6.2.1.1. Open Space Plans/Initiatives
Cary
On February 10, 2000, the Cary Town Council approved a $48,000 appropriation to hire a
consultant to conduct ecological assessments for the Jordan Lake watershed. This
assessment is the first step toward completion of an Open Space and Historic Resources
Plan (OSHRP). Wake County has already completed an ecological assessment for the Swift
Creek Watershed. Funding for the ecological assessments for the remaining Cary
watersheds (Crabtree, Walnut and Middle Creeks) will begin in July 2000. These ecological
assessments will prioritize significant resources for multiple ecological benefits, including
water quality, biological diversity, and conservation or restoration of natural resources.
These priorities will be established through the use of GIS analysis and field investigations
(Cary, February 2000; Cary, March 2000).
On February 24, 2000, the Cary Town Council voted to approve a workplan and timeline for
the OSHRP. The OSHRP will take approximately 1.5 years to complete and will include a 3-
step process:
1) Agree on the open space that currently exists and evaluate existing ordinances
2) Assess where the Town wants to expand open space by preserving sensitive areas,
upland farmland, and historic districts
3) Evaluate methods to obtain lands, including mandatory dedications and voluntary
acquisitions through a land trust or land conservancy or the Town itself; and to obtain
funding sources for public acquisitions.
The preparation of the OSHRP will be coordinated with the Town of Apex (Cary, February
2000; and Cary, March 2000).
Preparation of the OSHRP will allow open space planning coordination with WRC, State
Parks, ACOE, Wake County (Parks or Planning), and other applicable state, federal and
local agencies for lands around Jordan Lake, Harris Lake, and along the Cape Fear River,
Crabtree Creek, and Umstead State Park. The Town is looking to the OSHRP for guidance
on how to work with these and other agencies to jointly preserve open spaces in these areas.
Final cost estimates to acquire the land to implement the OSHRP will be developed as part
of the plan. It is anticipated the open space program will cost approximately $15 million to
implement. The Town Council has earmarked $12.3 million in existing funds to implement
the OSHRP when it is completed.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-14
Cary is evaluating Governor Hunt’s goal to conserve 20 percent of the land in all new
development as open space as part of the proposed OSHRP and the amended UDO (Cary,
March 2000).
In addition to the OSHRP, Cary has an ambitious plan to acquire land for additional parks.
Cary adopted the Parks, Greenway and Bikeways Master Plan in July 1998, and more than
17 new parks are proposed. Efforts will be made to locate these new parks adjacent to
stream corridors. Cary is proposing to spend over $15 million to acquire parkland during
the next decade (in addition to open space acquisition funding).
Wake County
In January 1999, Wake County began a study of open space to identify valuable landscapes
that needed to be protected. A Draft Wake County Open Space Report for Falls Lake, Neuse
River, Harris Lake, and Swift Creek was produced in November, 1999, and is undergoing
public review. It is the intent of the County to eventually complete studies for all 12
watersheds located in the County (Wake County, November 1999). The study for Jordan
Lake Watershed will be started sometime next summer (Douglass, 2000).
Each Open Space study involves two components: a comprehensive ecological evaluation
and a social and cultural evaluation. During the ecological evaluation of the watersheds,
biological and ecological characteristics of each area are inventoried. Subwatersheds within
each area are ranked in order of ecological significance and/or threat of impact using soil
types, vegetation, wildlife, other biological factors, water quality, etc. The social and cultural
examination involves evaluating the watershed in terms of land use, the presence of
historically or culturally significant resources, opportunities to provide recreationally
accessible open space, opportunities to link greenways with municipal systems, and other
human factors. Recommended recreational uses for these lands are also developed. A series
of public meetings will be held to gather input on the Study recommendations, since public
education and partnership building are essential components of this planning process
(Wake County Open Space, 1999).
The Towns in the study area are working with Wake County on these plans. For example,
the Towns may take the lead on preserving areas within their jurisdictions and
communicating with the County on land availability.
Beyond planning activities, Wake County has begun acquiring land and conservation
easements in the Jordan Lake watershed, including rights to create a 683-acre park
bordering Harris Lake. The park will include natural areas for camping, hiking, and boating.
It will also have an Environmental Education Center. In addition to the park, Wake
County’s recently adopted Land Use Plan Covering Part of Southwest Wake County shows
proposals for 16 more local parks in the Jordan Lake area (Stoddard, 2000).
Wake County has also acquired approximately 3,000 acres of land rights in Western Wake
County along Crabtree Creek and its tributaries as part of its Crabtree Flood Control
projects. Included is an 1,100-acre assemblage directly north of Umstead State Park. These
land acquisitions by Wake County will enhance protection of Umstead State Park and
Crabtree Creek (Stoddard, 2000).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-15
Wake County has $850,000 in its Open Space Budget and is considering an Open Space
Advisory Committee request to add another $1 million as part of next year’s budget. The
funds are meant to acquire land or easements to help implement the County’s Open Space
Plan (Stoddard, 2000). These funds are also used to implement the land grant program
through which the County is trying to create partnerships between municipalities. If a Town
wants to acquire land, the County will provide matching funds under this program. The
County hopes this will help small towns acquire open space (Douglass, 2000).
Wake County is attempting to meet Governor Hunt’s goal of conserving 20 percent of land
in new development through its cluster subdivision ordinance that allows a density bonus
provided that sufficient open space is set aside. The ordinance requires from 15 to 25 percent
of the site be outside lots and be designated as open space. The exact percentage depends on
the site’s proximity to towns. In addition, Wake County’s lowest density zoning applies in
its water supply watersheds, including the Jordan Lake watershed (Stoddard, 2000).
Research Triangle Park
In addition to Wake County’s activities, the Research Triangle Foundation (the private, non-
profit developer of the Research Triangle Park) has been implementing its own open
space/conservation practices. In 1986, the Research Triangle Foundation began to plan the
development of approximately 2000 acres comprising the Southern Portion of RTP in Wake
County. The plan, prepared by the School of Design at N.C. State University and currently
being implemented by the Foundation, provides for approximately 500 acres to be placed in
permanent open space, called Natural Area Preserves (Rooks, 2000).
The Natural Area Preserve encompasses the flood plain and wetland areas associated with
the streams which cross the property. In many areas, the Natural Area Preserve also
includes additional wooded areas beyond flood plains. While most of the Natural Area
Preserve encompasses environmentally sensitive areas, part of the Natural Area Preserve is
made up of odd-shaped parcels that would be hard to develop unless additional adjacent
property is acquired. It is possible that if adjacent land is acquired, this buildable land
currently shown as Natural Area Preserve may be developed. This is a relatively small
portion, however, of the total Natural Area Preserve. As the development of the southern
portion of RTP proceeds and sites are sold to companies, the adjoining Natural Area
Preserve will be designated officially on recorded plats and permanently restricted for open
space. To date, 84 acres have been recorded as permanent Natural Area Preserve
(Rooks, 2000).
Some additional areas within developable lots are designated as Surface Cover Maintenance
Areas, which must be left in existing natural vegetative cover. These are drainage corridors,
areas with steep slopes, or other environmentally sensitive areas. The intent of these areas is
to minimize erosion or sedimentation problems during construction and to help infiltrate
storm water runoff from these sites after development (Rooks, 2000).
6.2.1.2. Land Use Plans
Land use plans contain a Town’s official policy on the form and pattern of future
development within its jurisdiction. These plans are used to direct growth by serving as a
reference to guide Town staff and official boards when developing new standards and
ordinances and when considering rezoning, annexation, subdivisions, and site plans. The
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-16
plans are also used to direct public infrastructure and aid decisions for private sector
investment.
Cary
Cary’s existing land use plan was adopted in November 1996 (Cary, November 1996).
Specific plan objectives relate to managing growth to prevent urban sprawl, protect natural
resources and prevent environmental degradation:
• Preserve open space(s)
• Promote and preserve trees, urban forests, and natural open spaces during development
• Preserve and maintain Cary's water quality and resources by protecting natural stream
corridors and watersheds
• Encourage traditional neighborhood design standards, with pedestrian-oriented
amenities such as neighborhood recreation, open spaces, and commercial services
• Define and control suburban sprawl
• Develop neighborhood-oriented, community, and regional parks, open spaces, and
greenways to adequately serve Cary's growing and existing population
• Emphasize pedestrian-oriented development to achieve a comprehensive system of
bicycle lanes, greenways, and sidewalks that connect to neighborhoods, parks, schools,
offices, commercial areas, and other public spaces.
• Effectively manage long-term growth through a comprehensive and proactive planning
process
• Actively participate in regional planning efforts
• Support effective zoning, land use, and development regulations and enforcement.
The existing Land Use Plan for Cary is to be supplemented with a more detailed land use
plan from Highway 55 west to Jordan Lake and for the northwest end of the Town near
RTP. This item was presented at the annual Council/staff retreat in February 2000. The
Town is currently selecting a consultant to develop the Plan.
Apex
A copy of the existing Apex 2010 Land Use Plan Update showing long-range land use
projections for Apex is provided in Appendix D. This Plan was completed in 1989, and was
updated in 1996. The Apex Planning Department has requested funding to update the plan
again.
Morrisville
Morrisville adopted its current land use plan in November 1999 (Morrisville, 1999A).
Specific objectives contained in the plan that address open space include:
• To discourage urban development in environmentally sensitive areas
• To develop an open space plan to protect open space
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-17
• To preserve floodprone areas as pedestrian and bikeway connections
• To ensure adequate open space for recreation
Wake County
The Wake County Land Use Plan is the County's long-term guide to accommodating future
growth and land development that occurs within those areas of the County located outside
the planning jurisdictions of its 12 municipalities and the Raleigh-Durham Airport
Authority. Because much of the growth represents the expansion of the urban areas
associated with the municipalities, the County Land Use Plan is closely coordinated with
municipal land use plans. The Plan's General Classifications serve to identify those areas
whose ultimate character is expected to be urban or non-urban, primarily based on where
municipalities are expected to extend urban services and where water supply watersheds
exist (Wake County, 1999).
With growth in Wake County exceeding 150% between 1960 and 1990, the County has been
attempting to balance growth with a high quality of life, and determine how to foster and
continue economic expansion, while at the same time maintaining the features which make
this area so attractive. By 2027, the population of Wake County is projected to exceed 1
million. With these estimates, the County realized it needed to prepare a more detailed
Land Use Plan (Wake County, 1999).
On July 3, 1996, the Wake County Planning Board approved a new Vision Statement, Goals,
and Strategies, and then asked County Planning Staff to prepare a new Land Use Plan
incorporating these recommendations. Staff prepared a land use map, land use
classifications, and overall plan goals which were subsequently adopted. The Land Use Plan
is currently under development, and is to be completed by July 2001, primarily through the
development and incorporation of “Area Plans” (Wake County, 1999).
Pertinent sections of the County’s Vision Statement, Goals and Strategies of the updated
Land Use Plan are summarized as follows:
Vision Statement - Wake County will be an outstanding community of urban and rural
areas, where the demand for quality and affordable growth is met, economic development
and opportunity is enhanced, environmental quality and cultural heritage are maintained,
and all of these objectives are balanced with protecting the property rights of landowners.
Goals and Strategies - To guide quality growth throughout the County in conjunction with
affected local governments on a regional basis. The goals related to open space include
(Wake County, 1999):
• To encourage maintenance of open space, scenic aspects of rural areas, entrance ways to
urban areas, and transition areas between urban areas
• To encourage the conservation of environmentally significant areas and important
natural and cultural resources
• To allow owners of significant farmlands and forest lands the opportunity to maintain
the productivity of their land
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-18
• To provide incentives for property owners to voluntarily maintain these rural,
environmentally sensitive or significant forest, farm or cultural lands, or acquire an
appropriate public interest in the properties. These incentives may include such
measures as design flexibility to incorporate a feature into a development while still
deriving the allowed intensity of use from it, adaptive reuse of structures, land
acquisition, purchase or transfer of development rights, and density credits for open
space preservation or dedication.
• To maintain the quality of surface water for drinking, fishing, boating, and swimming
by minimizing pollutants from storm water runoff and by allowing only appropriate
land uses and densities that meet or exceed applicable State water quality regulations
• To prevent contamination of and maintain the capacity of groundwater resources
• To ensure that local governments provide adequate, properly located land for
recreational and leisure opportunities
The RTP South area is located within the Research Applications (RA) Zoning District. Most
divisions of parcels into separate building lots must be approved by the Planning Board as
part of a lot-by-lot subdivision, where each lot to be devoted to a central use contains at least
8 acres of land area. All development must limit the amount of land covered by impervious
surface (buildings, parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, etc.) to no more than 30 percent of
the site area (Wake County, 1999).
6.2.1.3. Growth Management Plans
Growth management plans are another tool that can be used to preserve open space. These
plans outline a Town’s goals and objectives related to growth and development. The Cary
Town Council adopted a Growth Management Plan on January 13, 2000. Specific objectives
of the plan that address open space include the following:
• Identify a sustainable, long-term rate of growth.
• Review and revise Town policies and procedures to ensure that future land use
decisions direct growth toward already-identified preferred areas, consistent with
growth management goals.
• Prepare the natural resources element of the comprehensive plan to identify and
prioritize areas containing sensitive and/or unique natural resources and open space,
and adopt policies and tools to ensure protection for the identified areas.
• Acquire high-priority sensitive lands and open space to prevent the loss of Cary’s most
important natural resources.
• Support private efforts to acquire high-priority sensitive lands and open space.
• Encourage or require cluster development to protect sensitive natural resources and
open space on a site-specific basis.
• Develop a system of transferable density credits that will allow owners of sensitive lands
to transfer the development potential of their property to other, preferred locations.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-19
Apex is developing a Growth Management Plan, scheduled for completion in June 2000.
Since Apex is using the same consultant who developed Cary’s plan, the two will likely
contain similar open space planning elements.
On April 17, 2000, Wake County Commissioners agreed to create a Growth Management
Task Force. This tasks force will be made up of two Board members from each Town in the
County and two County Commissioners. The goal of this Task Force will be to work with a
consultant to develop a Growth Management Plan by January 2001.
6.2.1.4. Unified Development Ordinances
A UDO is a comprehensive set of land use regulations that include zoning, subdivisions and
site plans. Each of the Towns in the study area is updating its UDO.
Cary
The Town of Cary recently approved a detailed Annotated Outline (Clarion Associates,
2000) that provides an overview of changes proposed to its UDO. The Town’s consultant
will write the revised UDO based on the Outline. The UDO is targeted for completion in
January 2001 (Cary, March 2000). Prior to this Outline, the Town had produced a “Diagnosis
of the UDO” (Cary, October 1999B) that summarized the strengths and weaknesses of the
current UDO and identified issues that should be addressed in the UDO revisions.
Key growth management and environmental protection recommendations of the UDO
Outline and Diagnosis are listed as follows:
• Amending the Recreation and Conservation District to emphasize preservation of
natural resources with only limited development allowed. Necessary modifications will
include updating the permitted uses for the district to allow only parks and other low-
impact uses that preserve most land in an undeveloped state. Greenway trails and
utility/road crossings also will be permitted.
• Amending the Open Space Development Overlay District to encourage open space (or
cluster) development in all areas of town, not just in the Reservoir Watershed Protection
District (as currently restricted). This amendment will define zones with mandatory
open space requirements, the required amounts of open space in those zones, and
conditions for land surrounding the protected open space.
• Adding new sections to the UDO to enhance required interconnections of sidewalks,
trails, and bicycle paths across all land uses to provide alternative transportation
options.
• Strengthening the regulation that requires tree protection during construction to protect
more interior trees and vegetation on development sites. Land owners may be required
to identify sensitive natural resources on development sites where no development may
occur. More intensive development may occur outside the sensitive area.
• Adopting Traditional Neighborhood Development regulations to facilitate this type of
development which maintains open space
• Incorporating cluster development provisions into the new UDO to encourage clustered
development throughout the town. The amended UDO will require that open space and
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-20
cluster development be mandatory for properties adjacent to conservation corridors
(Cary, March 2000).
• Identifying preferred growth areas that contain existing or planned concentrations of
employment or infrastructure, and then focus new, higher-density development, both
residential and non-residential, in and around those preferred growth areas.
Apex
Apex has produced a Draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that includes several
improvements to its Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance (Apex, January 2000).
This final Draft UDO is scheduled for a public hearing on April 18. Approval by the Town
Board is anticipated in May 2000 (Apex, January 2000).
The Draft UDO (see Apex, January 2000) has several requirements similar to Cary’s draft
UDO that conserve open space:
• Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). New incentives are proposed to encourage the
use of PUDs; the PUDs must provide open space and protect environmentally sensitive
features.
• Resource Conservation Area (RCA). This is a proposed set of regulations for protecting
natural resources that include specific standards for protecting significant trees and
vegetation and restricting development on steep slopes. The RCA process is intended to
preserve the visual and aesthetic qualities of the Town; to encourage site design
techniques that preserve the natural environment and enhance the developed
environment; to control erosion, slippage, and sediment run-off into streams and to
increase slope stability; and to protect wildlife habitat and migration corridors.
• Open Space. A new section of the Draft UDO will require that all residential
development over a certain threshold dedicate a minimum percentage of the total site
acreage as private open space to provide park and recreational facilities for the residents
and to preserve open space and sensitive natural areas. Although flexibility in the
location of the open space will be given to the developer, significant natural or scenic
resources onsite (e.g. wetlands) will be required to be preserved as part of this
requirement (Apex, January 2000).
• In addition to these UDO requirements, the Apex Code of Ordinances currently contains
an option that provides incentives for preserving open space around environmentally
sensitive areas in subdivisions. The incentives include eliminating normal lot size, lot
width and setback restrictions as long as densities are not increased. To qualify, a
development must preserve at least 10 percent of the development’s open space, and
these preserved areas must protect environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat,
provide recreation opportunities, or preserve natural or cultural amenities
(Apex, 1999A).
Morrisville
The Town of Morrisville is updating its zoning ordinance. The Town Board specifically
listed buffers and density requirements as its priorities in this rewrite. Morrisville is
considering buffers between residential and non-residential areas, and the Town may
preserve more open space (Morrisville, 2000).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-21
The Conservation/Buffer Zoning District was established in the Morrisville Zoning
Ordinance to protect and preserve park lands, wilderness areas, open spaces, floodplains,
scenic areas and historic sites, open ranges, watersheds and water supplies; to conserve fish
and wildlife; and to promote forestry and grazing lands; and, when used in conjunction
with another zoning district, to provide a natural buffer between that district and the
surrounding districts. Currently, a Conservation District is located along Crabtree Creek
upstream of Lake Crabtree (Morrisville, 1999B).
The Morrisville Subdivision Ordinance states that every residential subdivider must
dedicate a portion of the development for public parks, recreation, greenways and open
space sites. If a dedication is not feasible, offsite land or a payment in lieu of dedication may
be provided (Morrisville, 1999C).
6.2.1.5. Greenway Plans
Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake County have been working together as well as with the
Triangle Land Conservancy, the Triangle Greenways Council, and the NC Division of Parks
and Recreation (Trails) to ensure connectivity of their greenways and other trails on a
regional basis. There are plans to link the Towns’ greenways with the American Tobbacco
Trail as well as Umstead Park trails, Lake Crabtree, and Lake Johnson. The Southwest Wake
County land use plan that has been adopted includes a regional greenway system of
approximately 46 miles to continue Town greenways.
Cary adopted the Parks, Greenway and Bikeways Master Plan in July 1998. The plan
includes approximately 70 miles of planned greenways and 50 miles of bikeways. The Town
is planning on developing approximately 2 miles of greenway per year at a cost of $250,000
per mile. Land needed for the greenway system is acquired by Cary through easements and
acquisition at the time of site development according to approved maps within the
Greenway Master Plan. Land owners are compensated by the Town at fair market value and
that is often exceeded by up to 50 percent.
Apex has a Master Greenway Plan that shows where greenways and parks are planned.
Apex requires developers to dedicate all lands where a proposed greenway is planned.
Morrisville’s Parks and Recreation Department is requesting funds to develop a Greenway
Master Plan. Morrisville is also attempting to hire staff to conduct greenway planning and
to ensure that greenway plans are implemented.
6.2.2. Riparian Buffers and Stream Restoration
Riparian buffers are important mechanisms to protect surface water quality for water
supply, aquatic life support, and recreation. Some of the study area is located within the
Neuse River Basin where 50-foot buffers are now required. There are initiatives in the
Towns to obtain delegation of the Neuse River Basin buffer rule as well as to extend some of
the Neuse River Basin requirements into the Cape Fear Basin within their jurisdiction. This
section describes the initiatives in the study area to protect riparian buffers and restore
streams.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-22
6.2.2.1. Riparian Buffers
Each of the local governments currently has buffer rules in place to meet the requirements of
the Neuse River Basin rules and the Water Supply Watershed Protection rules described in
Section 6.1. In addition, there are rules that exceed what is required, and plans are in place
to extend the buffer requirements. These initiatives are outlined by local government.
Cary
Cary currently requires a minimum of 30 feet of riparian buffer along all streams and creeks
with drainage areas greater than 50 acres that are outside the Neuse River Basin and not
within a water supply watershed. The Growth Management Plan contained a task to expand
buffer requirements to protect water supply watersheds. While Cary already has adopted
watershed protection regulations that go beyond state-required minimums, additional
measures are recommended to ensure that the quality of drinking water from Lake Jordan is
preserved. A variety of protective measures, including controls on septic systems,
stormwater drainage controls, and larger stream buffers than those currently in place, will
be discussed during the UDO amendment process (Clarion Associates, 2000).
Cary recognizes that maintaining a potable water supply is crucial to safeguard the health of
its citizens and ensure long-term economic prosperity. A "Critical Water Quality Area" has
been established for the Jordan Lake Watershed. This designates a 1-mile buffer around the
lake for lands not under ACOE jurisdiction and places certain restrictions on development
within the watershed. Established Town policy is not to extend water and sewer services
into the 1-mile buffer; this presents a limitation on development densities in the area (Cary,
1996).
Cary is considering amending the UDO to require consistent (50-foot) riparian buffers
throughout the Town, regardless of river basin boundaries. Cary is planning to seek
delegation of the Neuse River Buffer program from the EMC. The Town is proposing to
increase the erosion control program budget and staff to take on this responsibility (Cary,
March 2000).
Apex
Apex has expressed interest in extending the Neuse River Basin buffer requirement into the
Cape Fear Basin as well as extending the buffer requirement to smaller streams (Apex,
March 2000).
Morrisville
Morrisville is in the process of acquiring 10 acres of land along Crabtree Creek that are in
the floodway for wetland and riparian conservation (Morrisville, 2000).
Morrisville’s Zoning Ordinance states surface waters shall be bordered on each side by a
natural 15-foot buffer, and this is applied outside the Neuse River Basin. Only a small
portion of Morrisville’s area is in the Cape Fear River Basin. According to its planning staff,
Morrisville has been applying the 50-foot Neuse River Basin buffer in most of this area.
Morrisville has not yet considered modifying Town ordinances for the Cape Fear River to
match the Neuse River Buffer rules, but is willing to consider doing so for ease of
implementation (Morrisville, 2000).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-23
Wake County
Wake County Watershed regulations require undisturbed vegetative buffers along streams
in every water supply watershed, including the Jordan Lake Watershed. The required buffer
widths range from 60 to 100 feet (Stoddard, 2000).
The County is currently working on several ordinances that would extend the County’s
buffer rules beyond what is required in the Neuse River Basin rules. In addition, the County
is drafting ordinances to extend the water supply protection areas (Douglass, 2000).
6.2.2.2. Stream Restoration
Cary and Wake County are undertaking stream restoration initiatives. Cary has budgeted
matching funds to be used for application to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for
streambank restoration.
The Wake County Soil and Water Conservation District, together with other county
agencies, is starting a program to restore streams, wetlands and riparian buffers damaged
by hurricanes and human activities. This program involves bioengineering and an
understanding of stream behavior to return streams to as natural a condition as possible. Re-
establishment of riparian buffers and the protection/restoration of wetlands, where feasible,
are essential to successful restoration efforts in the Cape Fear River and Neuse River
watersheds. Grants, state/federal cost share programs, and stream mitigation programs are
currently the major funding sources for these efforts (Stoddard, 2000).
6.2.3. Pollution Prevention
Preventing pollution before it occurs is more efficient than restoring a waterbody. Thus, the
local governments have established several mechanisms in addition to the open space
preservation strategies and buffer strategies that were outlined above. These pollution
prevention strategies include:
• Erosion and sediment control
• Stormwater programs
• Limitations on floodplain development
• Water conservation, wastewater reuse
• Other efforts
6.2.3.1. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sediment is the leading cause of stream degradation in North Carolina (NCDWQ, 1999B).
Prevention of soil loss protects aquatic life habitat and maintains stream water quality.
Section 6.1 summarized the state requirements for sediment and erosion control. Local
programs in effect in the study area that exceed these requirements.
Cary currently requires individual home builders to implement stormwater best
management practices to keep sediment on individual home building sites. Many other
communities’ erosion control ordinances allow individual homes to avoid sedimentation
control requirements since they are often under the state’s 1-acre threshold for regulation.
This program has been time-consuming for the Town to implement, but is considered to
have successfully eliminated a substantial amount of sediment transport to local streams
(Horstman, 2000).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-24
To curb water pollution, Wake County has adopted and administers its own Sediment and
Erosion Control Ordinance, conserving soil and curbing sediment pollution of water
supplies.
6.2.3.2. Stormwater Programs and Impervious Surface Limitation
Cary
Cary currently employs one stormwater engineer who reviews existing stormwater
problems, and two development review engineers that address flooding prevention for new
developments. Cary recently hired a new stormwater specialist that will assess Town
services for compliance and develop a stormwater and water quality education program.
The Town’s goal is to have six to seven staff members for stormwater compliance with
NDPES Phase II, Neuse River Nutrient Rules, and floodplain protection (Cary, March 2000).
Cary currently requires a maximum of 70 percent impervious surface area for new
development, and the Town Council will be asked to reduce this amount to 60 percent
(Horstman, 2000). In addition, Cary is considering requiring that: 1) the maximum
impervious surface and BMPs for water supply watershed development apply Town-wide,
and 2) the Neuse River Basin NSW stormwater controls apply throughout its jurisdiction
(Horstman, 2000). Cary is also looking at the amended UDO to recommend R-80 zoning
with minimum 80,000-square foot lots for water supply watersheds to reduce impervious
surfaces. Currently the largest lot size currently required in the Town is 40,000 square feet.
Cary is also proposing, through the UDO amendments, to expand the impervious surface
limits and low density BMP requirements for developments further out from Jordan Lake
and in the Middle Creek watersheds.
Apex
Apex is planning to hire a new stormwater engineer or transfer an employee from another
program to implement NPDES Phase II stormwater requirements (Apex, March 2000).
Morrisville
The Stormwater Runoff Management Policy for Morrisville establishes minimum
requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects of increased stormwater runoff
associated with land development (Morrisville, 1999E). The policy requires the proper
management of stormwater runoff to:
• Minimize damage to public and private property
• Ensure a functional drainage system
• Reduce the effects of development on land and stream channel erosion
• Assist in attaining and maintaining water quality standards
• Reduce local flooding and drainage problems
• Maintain as nearly as possible the pre-developed runoff characteristics of the area
• Facilitate economic development by mitigating associated flooding and drainage
impacts
Morrisville estimates that at least 60 percent of its planning jurisdiction has no storm drains
or curb and gutter systems. As a result, the stormwater passes through ditches that provide
stormwater treatment. There are no plans to change this (Morrisville, 2000).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-25
Wake County
The Watershed Protection Overlay District limits impervious surface coverage from new
development to 30 percent of a site’s area (24 percent if the development has curb and gutter
systems). The County has elected to meet the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program
requirements under its “Low-Density Option,” which does not require engineered
stormwater controls on developing sites (Wake County, 1999).
In addition to Wake County’s requirements, the Master Plan for the Southern Portion of
RTP calls for the sites to be limited to a maximum impervious surface area cover of
30 percent. In addition the plan calls for construction of a series of wet detention ponds to
provide a regional storm water detention system for the southern portion of RTP. Studies by
the School of Design indicated that these detention ponds would reduce pollution
70 percent or more. To date, two wet detention ponds have been completed and a third is
under design. Both of the completed ponds treat the first one inch of runoff from their
drainage areas to prevent water quality degradation from storm water throughout the
Southern Portion of RTP and also from some adjoining areas that are within the drainage
basin but outside RTP (Rooks, 2000).
6.2.3.3. Floodplain Development Regulations
Regulating development in floodplains serves two main purposes:
1) Limiting damage from storms, and
2) Preventing water quality degradation
The local government ordinances that limit development within the floodplain exceed
FEMA requirements.
Cary
Cary’s floodplain ordinance has prohibited any residential development in the 100-year
floodplain since 1978. This includes prohibiting development where the 1st floor elevation is
above the 100-year floodplain. All residential lots must have a minimum amount of the total
square footage outside of the floodplain, which makes lots along the floodplain deeper and
discourages cutting trees from the floodplain to enlarge back yards. Cary allows non-
residential development in floodplains if the first floor is above the floodplain elevation, but
only through a special use permitting process which discourages most development from
occuring in the floodplain (Cary, March 2000).
Very little property damage has occurred in Cary as a result of flooding because these strict
regulations have kept most development out of the floodplains. Some nuisance flooding
(e.g. over roads) has occurred (Cary, March 2000). To address this, the Town adopted an
amendment to its subdivision and site plan ordinances on August 12, 1999, requiring
delineation of “backwaters” (areas where floodwaters back up onto adjacent lots where
culverts, pipes, or bridges restrict heavy stormwater flows). Such a delineation will be used
to ensure that structures are located away from this “backwater” area to prevent flooding
problems at culverts in subdivisions and also to prevent floodplain areas from being used to
meet minimum lot size requirements (Cary, 1999; and Barker, personal communication).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-26
In addition to this “backwaters” amendment, Cary staff are considering proposing that all
residential lots be platted outside of floodplains and stream buffers. This would prevent
clearing of buffers by homeowners, since it would result in deeper lots with the
floodplain/buffer portion outside of the legal lot boundaries. Staff would like to introduce
this proposal to Council in the next few months (Cary, March 2000).
Although Cary’s UDO currently allows some filling of floodplains, the revised UDO would
eliminate this provision, prohibiting filling of floodplains (Horstman, 2000).
Cary’s UDO currently requires flood studies for all developments greater than 50 acres. The
areas defined as 100-year floodplain are further upstream from existing FEMA boundaries
to account for outdated FEMA maps. To address this, Cary has hired a consultant to remap
several areas. Approximately 20,000 feet of stream have been studied and two redrawn
maps are currently in review by FEMA.
Apex
Apex flood plain development ordinances are similar to FEMA requirements and are
enforced through civil and criminal penalties. This ordinance will be revised when the draft
UDO is approved. Apex’s Draft UDO proposes to prohibit all residential development in
the flood fringe area, even if the first floor is above the 100-year floodplain. The draft UDO
would allow non-residential development only on a case-by-case basis (subject to site plan
approval and inclusion of flood mitigation techniques) and allow certain recreational uses
(e.g. playing fields) in the flood fringe. Such proposals would protect water quality, open
space and fish and wildlife habitat along surface waters (Apex, 1999B). The Draft UDO
proposes that commercial development have the first floor at least 2 feet above the 100-year
flood, (1 foot higher than normally required for NFIP/FEMA) (Apex, January 2000).
Morrisville
The Subdivision Ordinance requires that lands subject to hazards such as flooding,
excessive erosion, or slides not be platted for residential or other uses in such a way as to
present a danger to life or property or the public health, safety, or general welfare
(Morrisville, 1999C).
6.2.3.4. Water Conservation
Water conservation reduces the amount of water that reaches the wastewater treatment
plants, thereby reducing point source pollutant loads and decreases the amount of
interbasin transfer needed. This section outlines water conservation practices being
implemented by the Towns.
Cary’s Water Conservation Program has a threefold approach to achieving water
conservation by Cary citizens and businesses: voluntary, regulatory, and incentive
mechanisms. The program currently has three full time staff (Water Conservation
Coordinator, Conservation Assistant, and Water Conservation Technician) and operates
through the Public Works and Utilities Department. A formal Conservation Plan addressing
long-term water needs and conservation program goals was adopted by the Town Council
on April 13, 2000 (Platt, 2000).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-27
Voluntary – Cary’s voluntary water conservation program focuses on education. Cary’s
Water Conservation Team has developed a broad spectrum of initiatives to educate the
public about water and water conservation issues. Currently, Cary's Water Conservation
Team currently employs a number of educational programs designed to reach individuals,
families, neighborhoods, and schools. These include direct mailings, community
newsletters, general newspaper and utility bill inserts, television ads, flyers, annual
distribution of Annual Drinking Water Quality Reports to all citizens, and providing web
site information. Other educational activities included providing workshops on water
conservation gardening, giving presentations to local civic groups, organizing and
developing elementary school activities involving water conservation lessons, distributing
low-flow showerheads and aerators at community functions, and conducting indoor water
use audits for residents upon request (Platt, 2000).
The Water Conservation Team also participates in special promotional campaigns that
target specific educational goals. For example, the “Beat the Peak ’98” program focused on
outdoor water conservation practices. A brochure and can were mailed to all residents. The
can resembled a tuna can, and was used by citizens to determine when their lawns had
received 1 inch of water in a week. The Towns of Apex and Morrisville also use this
education program. Another program of “Beat the Peak ’98” was the Block Leader Program,
a grassroots communication effort. In this program, block leaders received training and then
taught water conservation and recycling to their neighbors. Conservation materials were
made available to neighborhoods through the Block Leaders. Other future educational
programs will target nutrient usage (Platt, 2000).
To address the special needs of Cary's automatic irrigation customers and the
landscaping/irrigation industry, the Water Conservation Team sponsors workshops
targeted at improving techniques and practices. The Irrigation Association conducts some of
the workshops in conjunction with Town staff (Platt, 2000).
Regulatory - Cary’s Town Manager is authorized by ordinance to invoke water
conservation or rationing measures and to develop and enforce those conservation
measures when a water emergency exists. The Town Council approved a Water Shortage
Response Plan that outlines the Town’s policy to implement water conservation measures in
May 2000. Voluntary, mandatory, and water shortage emergency measures may be imposed
on all town water customers and other persons who use town water for the duration of the
water emergency.
If restrictions or bans are placed on certain types of water use, police officers and the Water
Conservation Team enforce the restrictions or bans. The first violation results in a written
notice ordering that the violation be corrected within a specified time. If the violation is not
corrected, any of the following penalties may apply: civil penalties, criminal penalties,
termination of water service, injunctive relief, or any appropriate equitable remedy issuing
from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Cary ordinances also prohibit wasting water. Wasting water is defined as water that falls on
impervious surfaces or accumulates on the surface of the ground and leaves the property
and enters gutters, storm drains, ditches, and other conveyances. Penalties and other
enforcement action may be imposed if wasting water is repeated or flagrant.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-28
Both Cary and Apex require rain sensors on new automatic irrigation systems that receive
town water. Once 0.25 inches of rainfall has occurred, the irrigation system must
automatically shut off.
Cary has proposed an ordinance that will reduce turf grass plantings and require more
natural, drought-tolerant landscaping that requires less irrigation water (Cary, March 2000).
As part of its zoning ordinance review, Morrisville is also looking at landscape requirements
that would encourage xeriscaping.
Cary has proposed an ordinance that would ban new irrigations systems in medians;
existing systems would be grandfathered.
Incentives – Cary’s Water Conservation Team provides rebates for water conservation
devices, such as early closing toilet flappers that cut water consumption from toilet use
(Platt, 2000). Cary also has three tiers of rates for residential customers that provide
incentive to use less water. A rate of $2.74 per 1,000 gallons is charged for use up to
4,000 gallons, a rate of $3.23 per 1,000 gallons is charged for use between 4,000 and 8,000
gallons, and a charge of $4.40 is charged for each 1,000 gallons above 8,000. Cary is
developing a fourth tier that will be presented to the Town Council in May 2000. The fourth
tier will charge a higher rate for residences that exceed the typical water use for a single
family house and lot size. A second tier will also be proposed for nonresidential properties
using more than an average amount of water, based on an lot size and typical winter (non-
irrigation) use. Cary currently charges a higher amount for water used for irrigation, and
this rate would be increased to the highest tier under the proposed changes (Goodwin,
2000).
As in Cary, the Town Managers of Apex and Morrisville can enforce water conservation
measures during emergencies. Both towns also charge more for irrigation water than the
base rate.
Although Wake County does not have a water system of its own, it encourages
municipalities to conserve and reuse water through its water/sewer funding policy. The
County may offer financial aid to municipalities for certain water and sewer improvements
including projects for conservation and reuse. The Wake County Soil and Water
Conservation Service has, as part of its mission, the conservation of clean surface water
(Stoddard, 2000).
While there is no requirement to do so, most sites within RTP are using native species in
their landscaping to reduce irrigation needs and operation costs (Rooks, 2000).
6.2.3.5. Water Reuse
Reusing wastewater reduces the use of potable water and reduces the amount of
wastewater that is discharged through a wastewater treatment plant, thereby reducing point
source loading to surface waters. Reuse efforts are ongoing in Cary and Apex. Cary is in the
process of implementing 1.6-mgd (MDD) reclaimed water system at the North Cary WWTP.
Several major customers have been identified and have agreed to participate in the
program. Additional users will be included in the system when the distribution lines are
installed. The first phase of the system has been designed, and has been permitted. The
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-29
system is projected to be operating at the 1.6-mgd level in 2002, and to increase to 3.2 mgd
by 2015.
Additionally, Cary has designed a water reuse project at the South Cary WWTP. Several
parks, schools, and ball fields have been identified as potential reuse customers. The
expected rate of reuse from the South Cary WWTP is about 0.6 mgd MDD in 2001. This
project is currently under regulatory review.
Apex is currently investigating wastewater reuse with two industries next to the WWTP:
Cooper Tools and Ready Mix Concrete. Both facilities are analyzing the wastewater to
ensure it will meet their quality needs (Apex, March 2000).
6.2.3.6. Other Pollution Prevention Programs
In addition to water conservation education programs described above, other education
activities are ongoing within the three towns. Cary does storm drain stenciling to educate its
citizens about the impacts of pouring pollutants down storm drains. The Morrisville Town
Board sends briefs to the citizens each month which often include environmental education.
Apex has eliminated grass clipping collection to save landfill space and promote healthier
lawns that need less water. Apex is also budgeting and developing a compost bin program
that will enable citizens to purchase compost bins at a reduced price. The compost can be
used as mulch, which will reduce the amount of water needed by plants and reduce weeds
without the use of herbicides.
Cary has a connectivity ordinance for roads that requires a certain number of connections
between a development and the surrounding roads. Residential subdivisions must also have
a certain ratio of linking roads to end-points, including cul-de-sacs. This helps prevent
pollution in two ways:
1) People can take a more direct route to their destination, cutting down on traffic
congestion and air pollution.
2) The number of cul-de-sacs, which have higher levels of impervious surface than roads, is
limited (Cary, March 2000).
Prior to the enactment of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules adopted by the
EMC in 1992, the municipalities of Cary, Raleigh and Garner agreed to protect the Swift
Creek watershed within the Swift Creek Land Management Plan (SCLMP). The SCLMP was
first adopted by the Wake County Board of Commissioners on April 2, 1990. Each of the
other municipal governments which were parties to the plan then adopted the plan during
the next several months, agreeing to its concepts, policies and standards. The Wake Board of
Commissioners then adopted the resulting Swift Creek Land Management Plan (SCLMP)
document as an amendment to the Wake County General Development Plan on January 27,
1992 (Wake County, 1999). Cary has agreed not to expand further into the Swift Creek
Watershed, and the portion of the watershed within the Town's jurisdiction has been
designated as a Reservoir Watershed Protection District, with restrictions on development
density. A large portion of the Swift Creek floodplain to the east of Regency Parkway has
been set aside as conservation and recreational land, including Hemlock Bluffs State Park
and Lochmere Park (Cary, 1996).
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-30
6.2.4. Western Wake Regional WWTP
Wake County and communities in western Wake County have been discussing the concept
of a regional WWTP to accommodate Cary, Apex, and Holly Springs. Each of these
communities currently has its own WWTP discharging into fairly small streams. Under the
regional concept, the Towns would build one treatment facility that would discharge to the
Cape Fear River Basin. This regional approach will eliminate the point source discharges to
the small streams and will also decrease the interbasin transfer since the largest plants that
would go off-line currently are located within the Neuse River Basin.
6.3 Other Potential Mitigation Measures
This section contains a list of factors to be included in the EA or EIS prepared for future
water and sewer infrastructure projects to help ensure that the potential direct
environmental effects of these projects are fully evaluated and mitigated. It is aimed to
identify opportunities to enhance existing and proposed environmental protection
regulations at the local level. These opportunities were identified based on the discussion
presented in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 to complement the existing environmental protection
regulatory framework. The evaluation of existing regulatory and non-regulatory mitigation
indicates that numerous rules and programs have been or are under consideration to be
adopted to protect the natural resources of the study area from the effects of urbanization.
These regulations and programs, and the environmental resources they protect, are
summarized in Table 18 for state and federal programs, and Table 19 for local programs.
Therefore, only a limited number of opportunities that complement this mitigation have
been identified. Pursuit or adoption of any of these enhancement opportunities noted in this
section, however, is not a condition for approval of the IBT project addressed in this EIS.
6.3.1 Water and Sewer Infrastructure EA/EIS Conditions
The following are suggestions for subsequent EA and EIS documents for water and sewer
treatment and conveyance systems in the source or receiving basin to help ensure that
potentially significant primary/direct impacts are adequately addressed:
• Locations, types, extent, and importance of wetlands, forest lands, prime agricultural
land and public lands in the proposed disturbance / construction zone and analysis of
projected impacts to these resources from proposed direct construction impacts
• Since projected land uses for the Utility Service Area were not available in GIS format at
the time this EIS was prepared, future EA and EIS documents for water and sewer
infrastructure projects should contain this information (if available) coupled with
existing land uses or land cover data for each proposed project and its service area. This
analysis should include a discussion of how the project complies with local plans and
zoning and is consistent with planned land uses for the area.
• Acreages and types of sensitive aquatic or terrestrial species or their habitats, and game
and non-game non-sensitive species that may be lost or degraded because of
construction or operation of the infrastructure, with analysis of what can be done to
avoid or offset these impacts. Alternative site designs, selection, alignments, or utility
designs should be proposed to mitigate significant impacts to sensitive species or
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 6-31
habitats. Particular attention should be given to the Jordan Lake, Swift Creek, and
Middle Creek watersheds, and suspected locations of other sensitive species that could
be impacted by construction of the utilities.
• Specific design and operational guidance that will be used to avoid system failures and
toxic spills into surface waters should be provided, with specific attention given to
avoiding sewage releases, sewage overflows and leaks during power outages, storm
events and accidental breaks in the lines, equipment and pump stations. Specific
attention must be given to methods designed for any project activities near Jordan Lake,
Swift Creek and Middle Creek, and other sensitive habitats identified to reduce the
probability for spills within those sensitive areas.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 7 - 1
SECTION 7
Agency Involvement
A final scoping document was completed based on comments received from a draft
submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The draft document was submitted in September 1997
and comments were received in October 1997. Table C-1 in Appendix C lists the agencies
that responded, the dates of the responses, the concerns that were presented, and the section
of the EIS that addresses the concerns. These comments were reviewed and the final scoping
document was completed in cooperation with DWR.
In addition to the comments received through the Clearinghouse, a number of meetings and
contacts were made with many resource agencies before and after formal comments from
the Clearinghouse were received. Particularly, organizations that responded to the State
Clearinghouse scoping process of 1997 were contacted again in October 1999..At this time,
these organizations were notified of the EIS process and were provided one additional
opportunity to submit comments..
Table C-2 in Appendix C lists the agency, date of the meeting, date of comments received,
concerns discussed, and section of the EIS that addresses these concerns. Pre-scoping and
scoping meeting summaries provided in Appendix C provide details regarding key issues
discussed, locations of the meetings, and the parties in attendance.
Finally, a draft EIS was submitted to DENR in January 2000. A summary of the comments
and the full text of the letter is presented in Appendix C and Table C-3.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 1
SECTION 8
References
Alderman, John. 1995. Annual Performance Report for Cape Fear Shiner.
Alderman, John. March 10, 1998. Wildlife Resources Commission, personal communication.
American Lung Association. 1996. Health Effects of Outdoor Air Pollution.
American Sportfishing Association. 1997. Web site:
http://www.asafishin.org/news_room/quakerneck.htm
Amoroso, James L. March 30, 1998. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, personal
communication.
Apex, Town of. 1999.
A: Code of Ordinances
B: Proposed Unified Development Ordinance
C. Ordinance 99-020, Water Allocation System Ordinance,
http://www.townofcary.org/depts/tcdept/99020.htm
Apex, Town of. January. 2000. Draft Unified Development Ordinance. Prepared by Clarion
Associates in association with Craig Richardson, Wallace, Roberts and Todd.
Apex, Town of. March 2000. Interview with Tim Donnelly, Director of Public Works; David
R. Rowland, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development; and John M. Brown,
CLP, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources, Apex, by CH2M HILL.
Bailey, Rick. March 28, 2000. Wake County Soil Conservation District. Interview with
CH2M HILL.
Benton, D.E. 1999. Raleigh Regional Utility System Development Options for the Next 30 Years
(unpublished).
Braswell, A. L. and N.A. Murdock. March 1979. “New Records of the Salamanders
Ambystoma and talpoideum (Holbrook) and Hemidactylium scutatum (Schlegel) in North
Carolina (Amphibia: Ambystomatidae and Plethodontidae).” Brimleyana No. 1.
Braswell, A.L. 1989. Amphibian and Reptile Scientific Council Report on the Conservation
Status of NC Amphibians and Reptiles. Submitted to: N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Bryant, Sheri. 1998. E-mail:
Species List for B.E. Jordan Reservoir
Species stocked in B.E. Jordan Reservoir
List of Recreational Access Areas
Creel Survey Information (None Exists)
Camp Dresser & McKee. 1997. Reclaimed Water and Wastewater Reuse Program: Draft Report.
Cary, Town of. 1992 (first adopted; 1999 last amended). Unified Development Ordinance.
Cary, Town of. 1995 (first adopted; 1996 last amended). Water Shortage Conservation
Measures.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 2
Cary, Town of. November 1996 (first adopted; 1999 last amendment). Land Use Plan /
Growth Management Plan.
Cary, Town of. 1997 (first adopted). Waste While Watering.
Cary, Town of. 1997 (first adopted). Rain Sensors on Automatic Irrigation Systems.
Cary, Town of. July 1998. Parks, Greenways and Bikeways Master Plan. Prepared by
Greenways Incorporated.
Cary, Town of. March 1999. Council/ Staff Retreat: Growth Management, Background
Materials and Meeting Summary. Produced by Clarion Associates and Duncan Associates.
Cary, Town of. 1999. Council/Staff Retreat: Growth Management.
Cary, Town of. October 1999.
A. Draft Growth Management Plan. In association with Clarion Associates and
Duncan Associates. Web site: http://www.townofcary.org/whatsnew.htm
B. Unified Development Code – Diagnosis. In association with Clarion, WRT,
Godschalk, Greenways, VIC Group.
C. Planning & Zoning Division, 1999 Annual Report.
Cary, Town of. January 2000. Growth Management Plan. In association with Clarion
Associates and Duncan Associates.
Cary, Town of. February/March 2000. Planning Cary. Bi-Monthly Publication of Planning
and Zoning Division.
Cary, Town of. February 24, 2000. Town Staff Report on Open Space and Historic Resources
Plan.
Cary, Town of. March 2000. Interview with Doug McRainey, Parks/Greenway Planner;
Ricky Barker, AICP, Development Review Director; Jeff Ulma; and Terry Warren,
Stormwater Engineer, Town of Cary, by CH2M HILL.
CH2M HILL. 1996. Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Application: Town of Cary and Town of
Apex.
CH2M HILL. 1996. Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Application: Town of Morrisville.
CH2M HILL. 1997. Cary-Apex Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Wake and Chatham Counties,
North Carolina, Environmental Assessment. Report prepared for the Town of Cary, North
Carolina.
CH2M HILL. 1998. Wake County Water / Sewer Plan.
CH2M HILL. 1999. City of Durham Water and Sewer Utility Strategic Plan
Clarion Associates. February 2000. Cary, North Carolina Unified Development Ordinance,
Annotated Outline. Prepared for the Town of Cary in association with Wallace, Roberts &
Todd, David R. Godschalk, Greenways, Inc., and the Vic Group.
Coughlin, Mike. March 29, 2000. Wake County. Interview with CH2M HILL.
DeLorme Mapping. 1993. North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 3
Diehl & Phillips. 1993. DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement – Expansion of North Cary
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Cary, NC.
Douglass, Kim. March 28, 2000. Wake County Open Space Planner. Interview with
CH2M HILL.
Earth Satellite Corporation, 1997. Comprehensive Land Cover Mapping for the State of
North Carolina: Final Report.
Goldstein, Robert J. & Associates, Inc. 1997. Cary-Apex Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Wake
and Chatham Counties, North Carolina, Environmental Assessment. Report prepared for the
Town of Cary, North Carolina.
Goodwin, Leila. May 23, 2000. Water Resources Manager. Interview with CH2M HILL.
Hawkins, J.H. NC DENR. 1980. Investigations of Anadromous Fishes of the Neuse River,
North Carolina.
Heath, Ralph C. 1980. Basic Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology With Reference to
Conditions in North Carolina.
Horstman, Tom. Erosion Control Supervisor, Town of Cary. March 28, 2000. Interview with
CH2MHILL.
Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, NCDOT. 1997. Environmental Assessment: US
17/NC 55 Neuse River and US 70 Business Trent River Bridge Replacements, Craven
County. Appendixes with species lists for fisheries, mammals, insects.
Irwin, E.R., R.L. Noble, and J.R. Jackson. 1997. Distribution of Age-0 Largemouth Bass in
Relation to Shoreline Landscape Features. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 17: 882-893.
Keferl, E.P., and R.M. Shelley. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata and the Carolina Elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta, prepared for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C. State Museum of Natural Science.
Kuenzler, E.J., A.J. Belensz, and J. Rudek. 1986. Nutrient Cycling and Productivity of a
North Carolina Piedmont Reservoir. The University of North Carolina Water Resources
Research Institute, Report No. 228. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand, Harry. March 1999. B. Everett Jordan Lake Project: Inventory for Rare, Threatened
and Endangered Species and Natural Community Inventory.
May, Mike. 1998. Email re: Gomphys septima.
Morrisville, Town of. 1999.
A: Land Use Plan Update
B: Zoning Ordinance
C: Subdivision Ordinance
D: Utilities Ordinance
E: Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Morrisville, Town of. 2000. Interview with David Hodgkins and Marry Willis by
CH2M HILL.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 4
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995A. Effects of changing current regime and river discharge
on the estuarine phase of anadromous fish migration. Changes in Fluxes in Estuaries
International Symposium Series. ISBN 87-85215-22-8.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995B. Habitat Use and Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic
Sturgeon in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. 124:225-234.
News and Observer. November 4, 1999. “Builders Looking Beyond Cary.”
North Carolina Administrative Code. 1 NCAC 25 .0108(b)(2).
North Carolina Administrative Code. 15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(4).
North Carolina Administrative Code. 15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(2).
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History. 1998.
National Register of Historic Places.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
1997. North Carolina Recreational Fisheries Statistics.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DENR). 1987. Potential Effects of
Proposed Wastewater Discharges to Middle Creek on Flooding, Streambank Erosion, and
Fish Habitat. DRAFT.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1999. Water Quality
Conditions in B. Everett Jordan Reservoir 1996-1997. Raleigh, NC
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1995.
Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document: Cape Fear River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1996.Basinwide
Assessment Report Support Document: Neuse River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division
of Marine Fisheries. September 1983. North Carolina Anadromous Fisheries Management
Program.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 1972-1997. Estuarine Species observed in
Neuse River, N.C.
North Carolina Division of Parks & Recreation. 1995. Winter Bird Species List for Jordan
Lake State Recreation Area.
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 1997. Jordan Lake Brochures.
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Land and Water Conservation Sites,
NCCGIA Data Files.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1996. Concept Paper – Draft Neuse River
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Management Strategy.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1999A. Groundwater web site:
http://gw.ehnr.state.nc.us/geologic.htm
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 5
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1999B. Water Quality Progress in North Carolina:
1996-1997 305(b) Report. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1992. A Water Quality Analysis of the Proposed
and Existing Discharges to Middle Creek below Sunset Lake. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1998. DRAFT Neuse River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 1985. Memorandum on the Proposed Cary
WWTP discharge to Crabtree Creek dated August 30, 1985.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 1987. Potential Effects of Proposed Wastewater
Discharges to Middle Creek on Flooding, Streambank Erosion, and Fish Habitat. Raleigh,
N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 1999. Draft of IBT write-up for the Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation. Unpublished
records. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. October 1997 and June 1999. Scoping for Jordan
Lake IBT.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. County Fact Sheets. Web site:
http://www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us/facts/facts.htm
North Carolina State University and A&T State University web site. 1998. Wake County
Agriculture, http://wake.ces.state.nc.us/wakeAG.html
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. 1998.
A: Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin
B: Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Neuse River Basin
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. October 1997. Jordan Lake IBT Scoping
Letter.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1998.
A: Draft Fisheries Management Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin.
B: Draft Fisheries Management Plan for the Neuse River Basin.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Unpublished Records. Raleigh, N.C.
Phillips, J.M., J.R. Jackson, and R.L. Noble. 1997. Spatial Heterogeneity in Abundance of
Age-0 Largemouth Bass among Reservoir Embayments. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 17: 894-901.
Platt, Jennifer. Water Conservation Coordinator, Town of Cary. March 24, 2000. Interview
with CH2M HILL.
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 6
Pottern, G.B., and M.T. Hulsh. 1985, 1986, 1987. Status Surveys of the Cape Fear Shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.
Roe, Charles and Julie Moore. 1986. Jordan Lake Natural Area Inventory. N.C. Natural
Heritage Program.
Rooks, Elizabeth. Director of Physical Development, Research Triangle Park. March 30,
2000. Interview with CH2M HILL.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation.
Seigh, Mike. March 4, 1998. Presentation before CH2M HILL regarding Jordan Lake
Recreational Uses. N.C. Parks and Recreation.
Stoddard, Britt. March 22, 2000. Wake County. Interview with CH2M HILL.
Tenneson, Ken. March 18, 1998. Tennessee Valley Authority. Personal communication.
Tennessen, Ken. 1998. Email re: Gomphys septima. NAMES SPELLED DIFFERENTLY –
WHICH IS RIGHT?
Triangle J Council of Governments. September 1999. Presentation -“Neuse NSW Rules”.
Presented at Triangle Smart Growth Committee Meeting. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Wetlands Trends web site:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands//vital/status.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. AIRSData web site.
http://www.epa.gov/airsdata/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Annual Performance Report: North Carolina
Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1999.
A: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI Maps). NCCGIA Data Layers.
B: Region 4, North Carolina Ecological Services Division. Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina Web Page. http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html
C: Cape Fear Shiner Home Page, at http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/fish/cfshinerprac.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 1997. “Recovery Plan for Carolina Heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata) Lea.”
P:/156003Cary IBT/IBT/DOCS/EA_MAY00 FINAL DRAFT 8 - 7
U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Water Quality Characteristics of Inflow to and Outflow from
B. Everett Jordan Lake, North Carolina, 1982-1986. USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 90-4096. Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. Low Flow Characteristics of Streams in North
Carolina. USGS Water-Supply Paper2403. Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Water and Bed-Material Quality of Selected Streams and
Reservoirs in the Research Triangle Area of North Carolina, 1988-1994. USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 95-4282. Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Water Quality Trends for Streams and Reservoirs in the
Research Triangle Area of North Carolina, 1983-95. USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 97-4061. Raleigh, N.C.
Wake County. Land Use Planning web sites. 1999.
http://www.co.wake.nc.us/planning/plnlnuse.htm
Wake County Open Space. January 1999. Open Space in Wake County - The Newsletter of
the Wake County Open Space Plan.
Wake County Open Space Report for Neuse River, Swift Creek, Falls Lake, and Harris Lake.
November 1999. Prepared by Greenways Inc., EcoScience and Biohabitats.
William B. Umstead State Park web site, 1998.
http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/wium.html.
Winslow, S.E., N.S. Sanderlin, G.W. Judy, J.H. Hawkins, B.F. Holland, C.A. Fischer, and R.A.
Rulifson, DMF. 1983. North Carolina Anadromous Fisheries Management Program.
Completion Report for Project AFCS-16.
World Wildlife Fund. 1992. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of
North America Vol. I. Washington, D.C. Beacham Publishing, Inc.
World Wildlife Fund. 1992. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of
North America Vol. II. Washington, D.C. Beacham Publishing, Inc.