Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations Round Two
and
Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
MAY 2001
Prepared for the
Environmental Management Commission
by
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations Round Two
and
Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officers’ Report
Volume I
Public Hearings
March 5, 2001 - Ground Floor Hearing Room, Archdale Building, Raleigh
March 6, 2001 - Fayetteville State University, Shaw Auditorium, Fayetteville
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Environmental Management Commission
May 2001
Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations Round Two
and Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officers’ Report
Table of Contents
VOLUME I |
||
Part I: |
Hearing Officers’ Recommendations and Interbasin Transfer Certificate |
|
Hearing Officers’ Recommendations |
page I - 1 |
|
Interbasin Transfer Certificate |
3 |
|
Part II: |
Summary Table of Public Comments, and Staff Responses to Comments Received |
|
Table of Public Comments and Key to Staff Response |
page II - 1 |
|
Staff Responses |
29 |
|
VOLUME II (*) |
||
Part III: |
Transcript of March 5, 2001 Public Hearing – Raleigh, NC |
|
Keith Weatherly |
||
James O. Robertson |
||
Mike Koivisto |
||
Bill Coleman |
||
Larry B. Thomas |
||
Robert Easterling by Heather Thomas |
||
John Rigsbee |
||
Ron Singleton |
||
Ray Rapuano |
||
Nellie Tomlinson |
||
Hal Price |
||
Mary Kiesau |
||
Part IV: |
Transcript of March 6, 2001 Public Hearing – Fayetteville, NC |
|
Tony Rand |
||
Lura Tally |
||
Addison D. Davis, IV |
||
Edwin S. Deaver |
||
John Henley |
||
Rollin Shaw |
||
Robert A. Massey, Jr. |
Larry Shaw |
||
Marvin W. Lucas |
||
Lee Warren |
||
Greg Taylor |
||
Tal Baggett |
||
Linda Lee Allen |
||
Patricia Keller |
||
Mike Koivisto |
||
Larry B. Norris |
||
Walter Moorman |
||
John McCowley |
||
Bill Coleman |
||
John E. Pechman |
||
Milo McBryde |
||
Charles Holt |
||
W. Steve Martin |
||
Mick Noland |
||
Margeret Dickson |
||
Sharon Valentine |
||
Denny Shaffer |
||
David Cooke |
||
Lee Maria Kliess |
||
Rudolph Singleton |
||
Thornton Rose |
||
Clinton Harris |
||
Peggy Vick |
||
Jose Cardone |
||
Neil Smith |
||
Walter Vick |
||
Edward L. Williams |
||
Bob Cogswell |
||
Jimmy Kizer |
||
Don Broadwell, Sr. |
||
Marcia Mackethan |
||
Steven Lawrence |
||
Douglas Modde |
||
Carlos Zukowski |
||
Alfred Rose |
||
Part V: |
Written Comments Received |
|
Loise Alabaster |
||
Loretta Armstrong |
||
John Bantsolas |
||
Martin Beach |
||
Robert Brickhouse |
||
Hugh Caldwell |
||
R. Glenn Capps |
||
Elaine Chiosso |
||
Margaret Cogswell |
||
William B. Coleman, Jr. |
||
Skipper Crow |
||
County of Cumberland Joint Planning Board |
||
Jackie L. Danker |
||
Willie J. Dorman |
||
Reid Gantt |
||
Robin Hayes Garcia |
||
Barbara J. Garrison |
||
Robert D. Garrison |
||
Winifred McBryde Grannis |
||
Lenox D. Harrelson |
||
Winston C. Hester |
||
Bob Heuts |
||
Arjay Hinek |
||
Bill Holman |
||
Mrs. Floy Holt |
||
Billy D. Horne |
||
Charlie Horne |
||
David L. Jones |
||
Weldon H. & Mary Lynn Jordan |
||
Burton A. Kassel |
||
Betty Kelly |
||
Joan Landry |
||
Bobby Long |
||
Susan LoPresti |
||
D. MacDonald |
||
James Marple |
||
David McDuffie |
||
Marian T. McPhaul |
||
Jean M. Merritt |
||
Ben O. Merritt, Jr. |
||
James L. Messer |
||
Hampton Moore |
||
Jean Moore |
||
C. Kim Nazarchyk |
||
M.J. Noland |
||
Dr. Larry B. Norris |
||
Richard J. Perry |
||
Hal Price, Biogen |
||
Dr. & Mrs. Joe Quigg |
||
Jimmy Randolph |
||
James O. Robertson |
||
Thornton D. Rose |
||
Raymond J. Rundus |
||
Robert Saunders |
||
S.L. Shackelford |
||
Kim Martin & Francesca Martin Shaffer |
||
Larry Shaw |
||
Harriett Shooter |
||
Nolan F. Smith |
||
Judith P. Sorrell |
||
Bill Speight |
||
Bob Stevens |
||
Marie T. & George C. Stewart, Jr. |
||
Sally & John Suberati |
||
Mark Sullivan |
||
Don Talbot |
||
Rodney M. Tart |
||
Kurt G. Taube |
||
Gil Taylor |
||
C.L. Thaggard |
||
Larry B. Thomas |
||
Kimberly Van Borkulo |
||
Dickie Vinent |
||
William J. Warfel |
||
Henry L. Warwick |
||
D. Weaver |
||
Calvin B. Wells |
||
Charles B. West |
||
Katie G. West |
||
WFNC Radio |
||
John C. Williams, III |
||
Part VI: |
Attachments |
|
Notice of Public Hearing |
||
List of Attendees |
||
Rules and Regulations |
Part I
Hearing Officers’ Recommendations and Interbasin Transfer Certificate
The members of the EMC reviewed and considered the complete record which included the hearing officer’s report, staff recommendations, the applicant’s petition, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the public comments relating to the proposed interbasin transfer, and all of the criteria specified above. Based on that record, the Commission makes the following findings of fact.
Cary and Apex are located on the eastern boundary of the Jordan Lake Project and have invested in development of the only water supply intake on the lake, with approval of the state, sized to allow the withdrawal of 50 mgd of water. The Cary-Apex water treatment plant provides water to Cary, Apex, Morrisville, RTP, and Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The Chatham County water system also receives raw water through this intake to supply water to the eastern part of the county.
The state permitted the development of a raw water intake on the eastern shore of Jordan Lake to supply surrounding communities from this regional water supply. Cary and Apex received permission to use Jordan Lake water to meet their community needs and support economic development in and around RTP. They received permission to transfer 16 mgd of water from the Haw River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. This amount is no longer adequate to meet the communities’ water demands. Durham and Raleigh have assisted the communities receiving water from the Cary-Apex water system by providing water to the system but can not continue because they need the water to meet demands within their own service areas.
These petitioners have made a request to transfer enough water to meet their future needs. The petitioners’ combined 2030 projected transfer amount is 24.1 mgd plus an additional 2.9 mgd contingency amount for a total requested amount of 27 mgd. The projected 2009 transfer amount is 27 mgd, which will drop to 17.9 mgd in 2010 when the regional water reclamation facility becomes operational. The 24.1 mgd transfer amount assumes that the Towns of Cary and Apex will construct a regional water reclamation facility that would discharge to the Cape Fear River Basin by 2010, therefore limiting the need for additional future transfers.
The transfer of water will benefit the Research Triangle Region by guaranteeing water to support the economic development and associated population growth that have been encouraged by the establishment of the Research Triangle Park.
Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer is necessary to supply water to the growing communities of this area. Water from the source basin is readily available and within a short distance from the service area. The applicants have reasonably mitigated this need by returning treated wastewater to the source basin by December 31, 2009, and therefore the transfer is a reasonable allocation to these communities. The transfer will greatly benefit these communities by providing raw water of high quality for residential and industrial purposes.
The Commission finds that the appropriate transfer amount should not include a contingency factor, therefore 24 mgd is the appropriate necessary and reasonable transfer amount.
The source for all of the petitioners’ water is the water supply pool of Jordan Lake. The water supply pool is operated entirely separate from the low flow augmentation pool. The low flow augmentation pool, not the water supply pool, is dedicated to maintaining flows in the Cape Fear River downstream of Jordan Lake dam. Therefore, the petitioners’ water supply withdrawals will have no significant impact on the downstream flows as demonstrated with the model. A comparison of the alternatives showed that the proposed transfer will not have any significant impact 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 compared to the other alternatives and to present conditions (see Appendix B in the EIS). As shown in the following figure (Figure 14 from the EIS) there are no significant differences in flows at Fayetteville.
Approximately two-thirds of Jordan Lake's conservation storage is dedicated to maintaining minimum flows in the Cape Fear River, compared with the one-third dedicated to water supply. Downstream users benefit from this low-flow augmentation pool without requiring a Jordan Lake allocation and at no cost. Upstream users do not benefit from the low flow augmentation pool. The historic low flow of the Cape Fear River at Lillington was 75 cfs prior to regulation by Jordan Dam. The target flow at Lillington is now 600 cfs, supported by the low flow augmentation pool of Jordan Lake. This target flow is 8 times as great as the historic low flow, and equivalent to 388 mgd. Even allowing for instream flow requirements for habitat, an enormous amount of water is available to downstream users. Based on the 1997 Local Water Supply Plans the projected water supply demand for the middle Cape Fear River (Jordan Lake to Fayetteville) is 93.5 mgd. The target flow of 388 mgd is over 4 times as great as the projected municipal water supply demand.
Fayetteville’s water supply withdrawals would not be affected by the proposed transfer or Jordan Lake allocations. Fayetteville’s allowable withdrawals will only be affected by new or increased withdrawals between Lillington and Fayetteville and by water quality issues in the reach of the Cape Fear River below their water supply intake and wastewater discharge. Because wastewater assimilation is directly related to flows, no significant changes in wastewater assimilation are expected from the proposed action. Similarly, no impacts were identified for hydropower generation, navigation or recreation.
Secondary effects from growth such as increased runoff, erosion, and loss of open space are expected to have negative impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. These impacts will be mitigated to a reasonable degree through existing regulations and programs, as well as new initiatives. The most notable of these initiatives are Cary’s Stream Buffer Ordinance and Open Space and Historic Resources Plan
The Commission finds that it is reasonable to minimize the impacts of secondary effects caused by growth in the Towns of Cary, Apex and Morrisville and Wake County through the implementation of ordinances similar to the Neuse River Buffer rules for the parts of their jurisdictions that are within the Jordan Lake watershed for protection of the lake.
Based on the modeling discussed in Finding No. 2, the Commission finds the cumulative effects of this and other future water transfers or consumptive uses as described in G.S. §143-215.22I(f)(2a) will be insignificant.
Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer will support continued population growth and the attendant impacts of that growth. These impacts include effects on wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality similar to the secondary growth effects described in Finding No. 2, above. However, these impacts will be minimal. Reasonable mitigation is prohibiting additional wastewater treatment facilities in the Neuse River basin as a result of this transfer and to limit the applicants’ existing Neuse River wastewater treatment facilities to their current permitted levels.
Alternative 1A: No IBT Increase and No Additional Jordan Lake Allocations
Alternative 1B: No IBT Increase with Additional Jordan Lake Allocations
Alternative 2: Obtain Water From the Neuse River Basin
Alternative 3: Increase Wastewater Discharges to Cape Fear River Basin
Alternative 4: Merger of Water and Sewer Utility Operations of Town of Cary and City of Durham
Alternative 5: No Regional Treatment and Water Reclamation Facility
The table on the following page compares the proposed transfer with the six alternatives. Factors used in the comparison of alternatives include:
Except for Alternative 1A, which does not serve the projected water supply needs of the petitioners, the alternatives will not substantially reduce the expected impacts of the proposed transfer increase. The only significant impacts associated with the proposed transfer are secondary impacts associated with growth. All of the alternatives will have essentially the same growth related impacts due to high rates of regional growth.
Based on these comparisons, the Commission finds that the proposed alternative is the most feasible means of meeting the petitioners’ long-term water supply needs while minimizing overall impacts and cost.
Summary of Alternatives
Alternatives |
|||||||
Item |
Proposed Action |
1A |
1B |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Increase in IBT (mgd) |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
Significant Direct Impacts |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Significant Secondary Impacts |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Additional Jordan Lake Allocations |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
2030 MDD Water Demands (mgd) |
53.6 |
19 |
43.8 |
53.6 |
53.6 |
53.6 |
53.6 |
Maximum IBT (mgd) |
251 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
19 |
45 |
Total Capital Cost (million) |
$225.7 |
$11.1 |
$206.6 |
$206.9 |
$279 |
$248 |
$84.0 |
Water Reuse |
3.8 mgd |
3.8 mgd |
3.8 mgd |
3.8 mgd |
3.8 mgd |
3.8 mgd |
3.8 mgd |
Construct Regional WWTP |
18.0 mgd |
No |
18.0 mgd |
18.0 mgd |
18.0 mgd |
18.0 mgd |
No |
Finished Water Purchases |
No |
No |
No |
9.2 mgd |
No |
No |
No |
Expand Cary/Apex WTP (capacity beyond 40 mgd, max day basis) |
20.0 mgd |
No |
9.0 mgd |
9.0 mgd |
20.0 mgd |
20.0 mgd |
20.0 mgd |
Note: 1Projected IBT in 2030 is approximately 25 mgd. The requested amount of 27 mgd includes some contingency
(5)
NOTICE: The holders of this certificate are jointly and severally responsible for compliance with the terms, conditions and requirements stated herein, and are therefore jointly and severally liable for all penalties assessed to enforce such terms, conditions and requirements as provided in G.S. §143-215.6A.
This is the _______ day of _____________________, 2001.
_______________________
David H. Moreau, Chairman