Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations Round Two and Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer, Volume I, part II

Part II
Summary Table of Public Comments, and Staff
Responses to Comments Received

Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations - Summary Table of Public Comments, and Key to Staff Responses

Name & Association	Type and Date of Comments	Summary of Comments	Key to Staff Responses
Louise Alabaster Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Vote against Cary, Apex and Raleigh taking more water from the Cape Fear River.	4H
Rose Alfred	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	* Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement.
Linda Lee Allan Fayetteville Area Economic Development Corporation	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Concerned about the effect that the decision will have on the future assimilative capacity of the Cape Fear River. If there is any doubt about negative impacts of this action to Fayetteville, err on the side of caution to protect Fayetteville. The Triangle created their problem and has the means to solve it themselves. They shouldn’t look to poorer downstream neighbors for relief.	1H, 1G, 4H
Lorretta A. Armstrong Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Deny the permit. Cary should be required to return the water, regardless of the cost. Further studies by more impartial people should be conducted.	2B, 4F, 4H
Tal Baggett Cumberland County Commissioner	Verbal Statement with written copy of Statement - March 6, 2001	Allowing Cary to transfer water out of the basin may deny Cumberland County the water it needs in the future. Deny the permit.	1E, 1G, 4H
John Bantsolas Private Citizen	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	Deny the permit. Do not allow the petitioners to start taking additional water until they build a plant to return water to the Cape Fear Basin.	2B, 4H
Martin Beach Pender County Commissioner	Letter – February 26, 2001	The negative impact on water quality to the Cape Fear River outweighs the benefits of an interbasin transfer. The water quality issues have not been sufficiently studied. The EIS deals with water quantity and not water quality. The EIS does not include an accurate historical low-flow impact assessment. The EIS does not address critical water supply uncertainties faced by downstream users. The EIS does not objectively evaluate irrigation withdrawals.	1A, 1B, 1E, 1H, 1J, 4H
Robert Brickhouse Private Citizen	Letter – March 6, 2001	Require petitioners to return the water to the Cape Fear Basin, regardless of cost. This transfer seems all right if it balances the existing exchange of water by Durham from the Neuse to the Cape Fear.	2B. 4H
Don Broadwell, Sr.	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Reasonable to maintain natural flow of river. Water should be returned to the Cape Fear. Cost is what is preventing this return and this is not a valid reason. EMC need to consider all such interbasin transfers and not permit them unless they are going to be returned at some point in the future.	1E, 2B, 4B, 4G, 4H
Hugh Caldwell Director of Public Utilities City of Wilmington	Attendee – March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	EIS did not address the water quality impacts and assimilative capacity of the IBT on the Lower Cape Fear Basin where some stream segments have been placed on the 303d list. No specific plans for a future reclamation facility discharging tot he Cape Fear River Basin, a water supply issue. EIS does not consider the effect of the loss to the cape Fear River Basin due to Durham application for allocation from Jordan Lake.	1E, 1H, 1O
Robert Glenn Capps Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Cary should return the water to the Cape Fear River Basin.	2B, 4H
Jose Cardona	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement.
Elaine Chiosso Executive Director Haw River Assembly	Letter – March 9, 2001	Opposed in principal to interbasin transfers. The transfer should be temporary. Set a date for the petitioners to build a regional WWTP that returns the water to the Cape Fear River. Require 100 ft buffers on all streams within the petitioners’ jurisdictions, especially the Jordan Lake watershed. Require stronger and, ultimately, regional stormwater controls; the same as required in the Neuse River Basin, at a minimum. Petitioners should show the EMC how they will leave at least 25% of their remaining undeveloped land undeveloped. The EMC should use DENR’s recently adopted "smart growth" principles as a guide and ask the petitioners to do the same. Petitioners should be required to create or strengthen their water conservation plans.	1I, 2C, 3A, 4A, 4G, 4H
Bob Cogswell City Attorney Fayetteville	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Deny the permit.	4H
Margaret Cogswell Private Citizen	Letter – Received March 12, 2001	Require Cary, Apex and Raleigh to return the water to the Cape Fear River Basin. Do not grant any additional Jordan Lake allocations to the petitioners until they are prepared to return the water to the Cape Fear River Basin.	2B
William B. Coleman, Jr. Town Manager Cary	Verbal Statement - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001 Letter to support verbal statement - (dated) March 6, 2001 Letter – February 27, 2001, Letter – March 9, 2001	Grant the permit based on the petition, without revision. The petition meets all the statutory requirements. The petitioners documented their need for water, caused by proximity to Research Triangle Park. The petition protects the long-term needs of downstream communities. Petitioners have made significant efforts to conserve water and mitigate secondary impacts due to growth. Petitioners have made significant compromises in their petition, such as committing to build a water reclamation facility to return water to the Cape Fear River, reducing their requested interbasin transfer to 27 MGD. The EIS indicated there are no direct impacts on downstream flows from the proposed interbasin transfer. The hydrologic model used to assess impacts was developed with full stakeholder participation from the Cape Fear River Basin. The EIS is not critically flawed or narrowly focused. The EIS adequately addressed all impacts of concern. The Jordan Lake low flow augmentation pool is managed separately from the water supply pool, so the allocation and interbasin transfer have no impact on the ability of the lake’s ability to meet the downstream flow target. The proposed transfer will tend to balance net transfers from the Neuse to the Cape Fear River Basin. The least expensive alternative would have been to request an interbasin transfer of 45 MGD and not build a regional WWTP to return water to the Cape Fear River. The EIS showed no direct impacts from this alternative, and would save the petitioners $142 million. The petitioners disagree with the proposed condition that the interbasin transfer be reduced from 27 MGD to 16 MGD after 2010; equivalent to denying the permit. The additional cost of denying the permit would be $55 to 90 million in capital costs, not including operation and maintenance costs. It would also result in under-utilization of existing wastewater facilities. Reducing the permitted interbasin transfer to 16 MGD after 2010 would require a minimum $55 million capital investment by 2010, without any corresponding benefit to the environment or to downstream communities. By not requesting an interbasin transfer of 45 MGD, the petitioners have committed to minimize the interbasin transfer by returning water to the Cape Fear River Basin. There is no rational basis for requesting that the proposed action in the EIS be redefined. There is no technical basis for requiring a reversion of the interbasin transfer to 16 MGD after completion of a water reclamation facility in the Cape Fear River Basin. There is no basis for conditioning future Jordan Lake allocations to the petitioners on completion of a Cape Fear WWTP. The only reason for ignoring existing interbasin transfers is to maximize water in the Cape Fear River Basin, rather than balance naturally occurring flows. The EIS showed no impact of the interbasin transfer on the Jordan Lake low flow augmentation pool, or its ability to meet the low flow target at Lillington. There is no evidence that the US Congress intended that the Jordan Lake water supply pool should augment downstream flows. The expert consulted for the development of the hydrologic model indicated that crops raised in the future could require more irrigation water, but that the total acreage irrigated will likely decrease substantially. Therefore, alternative-modeling scenarios assumed that overall irrigation demands would remain the same. Changing the irrigation assumptions for the hydrologic model will not change the relative difference between modeling scenarios; therefore the conclusions would remain the same. The temporary impact on flows while filling the Randleman Lake has no impact on the long-term ability of the Jordan Lake low flow augmentation pool to meet target flows, and is not related to the interbasin transfer. Information in the Randleman Lake final EIS indicates that the lake will augment low flows and slightly decrease average flows. The low flows predicted in the EIS are conservatively low, by not including Randleman Lake in the modeling. Fayetteville PWC and their consultants, and numerous other stakeholders were involved with every step of the model development and application process. The model was developed based on the US Army Corps of Engineers’ guidelines for releasing water from Jordan Lake, and the Corps did not follow these guidelines in 1998. The goal of the low flow augmentation pool is not to maintain a flow of 600 cfs at Lillington, but to meet water quality standards. A DWR analysis of historic flows and model output indicates that the model predicts low and average flows well in the Cape Fear River mainstem. The model is always perfect in meeting the 600 cfs target at Lillington, but the COE cannot manage the reservoir as accurately. The only time that Jordan Lake failed to meet the target at Lillington because of insufficient storage in the low flow augmentation pool was in the Fall of 1998. The petitioners’ and Fayetteville PWC’s applications were reviewed in the same context during the second round of Jordan Lake allocations. While there is some uncertainty over the long-term yield available from the Cape Fear River for Fayetteville, this yield is somewhere in the range of 60 to 90 MGD. The yields from the Cape Fear River are available due to releases from the Jordan Lake low flow augmentation pool, without allocation from the water supply pool. Therefore, the interbasin transfer has no impact. Many of the comments opposing the interbasin transfer were based on misinformation and were not factual. The EMC must base their interbasin transfer decision only on accurate facts and true statements. Upstream communities also have rights to water from the Cape Fear River. The water supply capacity was added to Jordan Lake specifically to store water for communities in proximity to the lake. Jordan Lake’s capacity to store water to augment low flows in the Cape Fear River, enough to supply 200 MGD, is not available for use by upstream users. Cary and Apex pay the state for the use of their Jordan Lake water supply pool allocation, but downstream communities do not pay for the benefits they receive from the low flow augmentation pool or the flood control pool. A major concern of downstream communities is not that there will be less water for their use, but that there will be less water for wastewater assimilation after their use. Before asking upstream users to spend millions to increase, not just maintain, the flows available to dilute their wastewater, downstream users should reduce follow the petitioners’ leads and use conservation measures and reclaimed water to reduce demands and discharges. It is standard practice for applicants and/or their consultants to prepare the environmental documentation related to water and sewer projects. The EIS and model were developed under the direction of DWR. The Wildlife Resources Commission stated that Mr. Pechmann’s comments due not represent the WRC. The WRC’s comments on the EIS included that they concurred the interbasin transfer has little direct impact and that significant impacts are related to development. The WRC made specific recommendations for mitigating secondary impacts due to growth, and mitigation efforts are being implemented. Throughout the EIS scoping process, there have been no objections to DWR’s recommended Jordan Lake allocations to the petitioners. The expanded water treatment plant will be used whether or not the interbasin transfer is granted. The WRC, Public Water Supply, and DWR agreed that potential interbasin transfer impacts would be addressed in the interbasin transfer EIS. Petitioners have agreed to a permit condition requiring a WWTP be built in the Cape Fear River Basin by 2010. The need for the interbasin transfer is primarily based on the fact that the petitioners’ service areas straddle the boundary between the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins. The petitioners’ interbasin transfer request is based on a planning period through 2030. Cary’s long range water supply plan indicates that the 27 MGD interbasin transfer will be sufficient through 2050. The Research Triangle Park is the primary stimulus of growth in the Cary/Apex/Morrisville area.	1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1O, 1M, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4C, 4F, 4G, 4H
David Cooke Wake County Manager	Verbal Statement (*) with written copy of statement – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Grant the permit. The requested interbasin transfer is consistent with Wake County’s Water & Sewer Master Plan. The EIS clearly illustrates there are no direct impacts to the Neuse and Cape Fear River Basins. Wake County is developing a Watershed Management Plan to protect the environment.	1B, 1E, 1H, 4G, 4H
Skipper Crow Private Citizen	Letter – March 13, 2001	Cary & Apex should bear the cost of returning the water to the Cape Fear River Basin. Cary & Apex generated their own problems by not adequately planning for the growth over the past decade.	1G, 2B, 4A, 4H
Jackie L. Danker Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Deny the interbasin transfer until the petitioners have a working plant to return our water to the Cape Fear River Basin.	2B
Colonel Addison D. Davis, IV Fort Bragg Garrison Commander	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Concerned that the proposed interbasin transfer might reduce the availability of water for Fort Bragg, jeopardizing training and deployment.	1E, 1F, 1M
Mayor Edwin Deaver Town of Hope Mills	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Make the increased interbasin transfer temporary. Before making any future allocations to the applicants, require construction of a WWTP that will return the entire increased transfer amount to the Cape Fear River Basin. If the allocations are approved as recommended, less than half of the storage available for use outside of the lake’s watershed will be available for downstream users. The need for water for irrigation has not been adequately evaluated. We do not know what effects Randleman Dam will have on downstream users. We have no confirmation of the safe yield of Jordan Lake’s water supply storage.	1C, 1I, 1J, 1K, 2B, 4H
Margaret Dickson	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Called and hope to get a follow up written statement.
Willie J. Dorman Private Citizen	Letter – March 10, 2001	Deny the permit.	4H
Robert Easterling Chariman Lee County Environmental Affairs Board	Letter – March 2, 2001	Concerned that IBT reduces flow down the river. Precedent for future transfers. Concern over long-range effects. Long range water supply planning is needed through the basin. IBT’s should be reduced or eliminated by 2010. Buffer rules should be enacted. Require a long-range plan for water distribution along the Cape Fear River Basin.	1E, 1F, 4G, 4H
Reid Gantt Private Citizen	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 8, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River. Concerned that the interbasin transfer will result in lower downstream water levels and have a negative impact on boating.	1E, 2B
Robin Hayes Garcia Private Citizen	Letter – Received March 12, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River.	2B
Barbara Garrison Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River. Do not grant the additional Jordan Lake allocations until the petitioners are held to the above condition.	2B
Robert D. Garrison Private Citizen	Letter - March 7, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River. Do not grant the additional Jordan Lake allocations until the petitioners are held to the above condition.	2B
Winifred McBryde Grannis Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River.	2B
Lenox D. Harrelson Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River.	2B
Clinton Harris Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Called and hope to get a follow up written statement.
John Henley County Commissioner Cumberland	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River. Concerned about who paid for the EIS.	2B, 4F
Mayor Winston C. Hester Sanford City Council	Letter – March 7, 2001	Allow a temporary increase in their existing interbasin transfer amount, but only until 2010. Require the petitioners build a plant returning treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River to reduce their interbasin transfer amount to 16 MGD by 2010.	1I, 2B
Robert P. Heuts Director Lee County Economic Development Corp.	Letter – March 9, 2001	Allow a temporary increase in their existing interbasin transfer amount, but only until 2010. Require the petitioners build a plant returning treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River to reduce their interbasin transfer amount to 16 MGD by 2010. Conduct a study to address all water future water demands and water available in the Cape Fear River Basin.	1I, 2B, 4B, 4G
Arjay Hinek Private Citizen	Letter – March 9, 2001	Deny the petition. The proposed interbasin transfer is not equitable. The study was far too narrow to consider ecological integrity. The models do not account for political alienation. Further, objective research must be done.	1D, 1E, 1H, 2B, 4G
Bill Holman Executive Director Clean Water Management Trust Fund	Attendee - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Hard copy Attachment – January 5, 2001	Consider the DENR Working Principles to Encourage Smart Growth, to Avoid, Minimize and Mitigate Direct, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts, and to Protect Air, Water and Natural Resources.	1D, 1E, 1H, 1J, 1K, 2C, 4A, 4G, 4H
Charles Holt Private Citizen	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Require petitioners to return all water to the Cape Fear River. Require the petitioners to pay for water withdrawn from the Cape Fear River Basin until the water is returned to the Basin.	2B, 4H
Lee and Floy Holt Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Deny the permit.	4H
Mayor Billy D. Horne Town of Stedman	Attendee – March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Make the increased transfer temporary. Require petitioners to construct a new operational WWTP in the Cape Fear River Basin for return of the entire increased interbasin transfer amount, prior to any future allocations of water to the petitioners. Downstream users face water supply uncertainties. An accurate historical low-flow impact assessment is missing. Irrigation withdrawals have not been objectively evaluated. Jordan Lake safe yield is not confirmed.	1A, 1C, 1E, 1I, 1J, 2B
Charlie Horne Chatham County Manager	Letter – March 15, 2001	Chatham County has no objection to granting the interbasin transfer permit.	4H
Mayor David L. Jones City of Wilmington	Letter – March 7, 2001	Concerned about impacts of the increased interbasin transfer on low flow augmentation and the assimilative capacity of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin. The EIS did not assess impacts to water quality in the Lower Cape Fear River Basin. The conclusions in the EIS assume the construction of a water reclamation facility discharging to the Cape Fear River Basin, but there are no specific plans for this facility. The EIS did not consider the effects of a reduction in Durham’s current interbasin transfer from the Neuse to the Cape Fear River Basin.	1A, 1B, 1E, 1H, 1O, 3A
Weldon H. and Mary H. Jordan Private Citizens	Letter – March 8, 2001	Deny the permit.	4H
Burton A. Kassel Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Deny the permit. Do not grant any additional Jordan Lake allocations to the petitioners until they have a treatment plant online to return the water to the Cape Fear River Basin.	2B, 4H
Patricia Keller Private Citizen	Verbal Statement – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Concerned that Cary and Apex may be taking water that should be going to downstream communities in the Cape Fear River Basin.	1G
Betty H. Kelly Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Deny the permit.	4H
Mary Kiesau North Carolina Sierra Club	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001	The increased interbasin transfer amount should be temporary. The petitioners should be required to build a regional WWTP to return the water to the Cape Fear River Basin by a certain date, with a stiff penalty if construction is delayed. Require a 100 ft buffer on all streams within the petitioners’ jurisdictions, particularly in the Jordan Lake watershed. Require stronger local and, ultimately, regional stormwater controls. Western Wake County should show the EMC how they will leave the remaining 25% of undeveloped land undeveloped. The EMC should use the DENR "smart growth" principles as a guide and ask local governments and RTP to do the same. The local governments should be encouraged or required to create or strengthen water conservation programs.	1I, 2B, 2C, 3A, 4A, 4G, 4H
James M. Kizer South Central Chapter of Professional Engineers of North Carolina, and Homebuilders Association of Fayetteville	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Require Cary to have a WWTP within 10 years returning highly treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River Basin. Concerned that the petitioners helped to develop the hydrologic model. Concerned that Cary was permitted to construct their intake on Lake Jordan when the interbasin transfer was still in review.	2B, 4F, 4H
Dr. Lee Maria Kleiss Fayetteville State University	Verbal Statement (*) with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Require Cary to place in escrow the money necessary to build a WWTP to return the water to the Cape Fear River. Assess an increasing fine for every additional gallon of water withdrawn, but allow half the fine to go toward building the new WWTP. Much more longer term planning is needed.	2B, 4A, 4G, 4H
Mike Koivisto Morrisville Assistant Town Manager	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001, Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Supports the interbasin transfer due to growth. Morrisville has implemented water restrictions to help conserve the available water supply and has worked to educate and inform citizen on conservation issues.	2C, 4H
Joan Landry Private Citizen	Letter – January 30, 2001	Town of Cary adopted a new buffer ordinance to ensure that water supply is protected. However, Cary exempted itself from buffer rules in the process of planning 10 foot paved greenway paths along perennial streams (10 foot paved roadway within 20 feet of bachelor Branch stream).	1D, 4H
Steven Lawrence	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement Called and hope to get a follow up written statement.
Bobby Long Ultimate Products	Letter – March 15, 2001	Do not pull Jordan and Falls down to levels that deteriorate fishing and recreation. Glad there is consideration to widen buffers.	1D, 1E, 4H
Susan Lopresti Executive Director Apex Chamber of Commerce	Letter – March 5, 2001	Supports IBT and promotes regional cooperation and prudent conservation.	1A, 1G, 4H
Marvin W. Lucas 17^th House District	Verbal Statement with written copy of Statement - March 6, 2001	Equity – Whatever amount of water that is received must be properly treated and returned to it original premise.	2B, 4H
D. MacDonald	Letter – March 8, 2001	Equity – minimal responsible action is to allow use by mandate discharge to the same tidal basin.	2B, 4H
Marcia Mackethan	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement.
James H. Marple Citizens for Responsible Water Management	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 10, 2001	Proposal to reallocate water resources must be accompanied with a full description of alternative (NEPA). Alternatives must be identified by impartial experts and presented publicly for open discussion. EMC needs to factor in federal responsibility for the pollution of waters of the US. The model is not valid because of conflict of interest issue. Comprehensive watershed management plan that would maximize retention of rainfall to ensure adequate supplies of pure water from all with minimal contamination on receiving bodies. State officials need to understand Detention/Retention/Infiltration (DRI) to realize that new development incrementally increase available water while decreasing pollution. NC officials have failed to make conveniently available to all residents’ critical information relating to management of water resources in the Cape Fear River Basin and have consistently failed to work with local official to formulate Comprehensive Plans for the Cape Fear and Neuse basin. Hence the proposed plan is arbitrary and capricious adjuration for the rights of every resident in the basin. Due diligence was not expended in identifying and exploring alternatives to the proposed action. EMC needs to condition its approval of the proposed transfer upon adoption of rainwater management planning and design techniques that augment Cape Fear River flows. Investigate the potential of planning using NRCS rainwater retention methods. It is incumbent to use impartial experts such as public servants and researchers in this process. What are alternatives? Hydrologic model is suspect due to its designers. Has state looked at all other water needs and possibilities? Is EMC fully educated? Have detention/retention/infiltration been looked at? No one is above responsibility. State officials are at fault for misrepresentation and mis-education. Rainfall catchement. The public has not had the adequate opportunity to examine the fact relating to alternatives to the interbasin transfer of water and so cannot be expected to provide the fullest measure of meaningful comments to the EMC. Comment period need to be extend to at least another month to allow concerned citizens to find and digest all data.	2A, 2B, 2E, 4A, 4G, 4H
Steve Martin University Architect Fayetteville State University	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Equity- water taken from the basin needs to be returned to the basin. The Fayetteville area is experiencing and preparing for growth.	1G, 2B, 4H
Robert A. Massey Jr. Fayetteville City Council	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Deny permanent transfer. If there is a pressing need to ‘temporally’ increase the amount of water take and if this can be done without downstream harm then it will be permissible. A permanent increase is not permissible and one needs to look at the reasons why water taken from a basin is not returned to the basin.	1I, 2B, 4H
Mayor Milo McBryde City of Fayetteville	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement- March 6, 2001	Deny without equity. Require that Cary and Apex build a wastewater treatment plant that will discharge back into the cape Fear River the water that is taken form it.	2B
John McCowley Southeastern Regional Economic Development Commission	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Against it, but did not say deny. Equity issue of what you borrow you give back.	2B, 4H
David McDuffee Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It’s unfair.	2B, 4H
Marian McPhaul, Executive Director Lower Cape Fear River Program	Letter – March 5, 2001 Also submitted a report titled Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River system, 199- - 2000, Report No. 00-01. This report will be located at NC DWR for anyone wishing to read its contents.	EIS did not address WQ. Transfer should be temporary. WWTP should be online before any future rounds are considered. This should be enforced with specified penalties. Applicant should show they are considering other regional water supply solutions. Any transfer reduced the flow of water to downstream stakeholders that otherwise would have been available for assimilative capacity.	1H, 1I, 2B, 3A, 4A
Ben O. Merritt, Jr	Letter – Received March 9, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It’s unfair.	2B, 4H
Jean M. Merritt, Jr	Letter – Received March 9, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Its unfair.	2B, 4H
James L. Messer Private Citizen	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter March 7, 2001	Equity – a systems input and output can have a major impact on the systems processes, resulting in perturbations that are not seen for years. The State should demand that Cary and Apex initiate a program to correct the existing shortfall; not permit any additional drawing until all water drawings are replaced to state of equilibrium. State should fine (or tax) against Cary and Apex communities as a means of compelling these municipalities to remedy the current and future water equilibrium shortfalls.	2B, 4H
Douglas Modde Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Water must be returned. The Fayetteville area can and will experience growth. Drought conditions have affected the area already.	1G, 2B, 4H
Hampton Moore Private Citizen	Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned.	2B, 4H
Walter Moorman Retired Professional Engineer	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Approve only if all four conditions in the slide show are binding. Would prefer for the request to be denied altogether.	4H
C. Kim Nazarchyk	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity. EIS flawed due to Cary paying for it.	2B, 4H
Mick Noland Chief Operating Officer PWC-Fayetteville	Verbal Statement (*) with written copy of statement – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 8, 2001	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Temporary IBT until WWTP on Cape Fear River is built, once built -revert IBT down to current level, all by 2010 or earlier. WTP built before additional allocation considered. Applicants are under no obligation to developing a wastewater facility unless the EMC so conditions this IBT. 45 MGD maximum IBT would occur without the Cape Fear River WWTP. Wastewater treatment plant should be built before allocation for Cary/Apex and their partners beyond Round 2. Disagree that the IBT increase offsets some of the IBT that occurs into the Cape Fear River Basin. EIS is flawed due to focus on only the water supply pool and not the combined pools to include the water quality pool. EIS misses the vital point that the water supply and water quality pools are linked. EIS makes the critical assumption that agricultural withdrawals will not increase. There is no evidence to this effect. Randleman Lake was excluded in the EIS and data was not provided on how cape Fear River low flow regime would be affected by Randleman operations. Average flow reduction in the Deep river would be tremendous during the period in which the Randleman Reservoir was being filled, with an 82 percent reduction in average flow at the dam site. Monthly inflows to Randleman Lake during several simulated historical periods in which the reservoir was drawn down and total outflows would have been limited to a minimum release. Flow reductions will substantially reduce flows in the Cape Fear River, especially during dry periods such as those represented by the historical periods. Base 1998 scenario in the EIS does not represent existing conditions since it does not accurately portray historical flow conditions. Contravention of the Lillington minimum target flow has become a regular occurrence (unfortunately). DWRs comparison of the Cape Fear River Basin Model with US Geological Survey Flow Statistics does not consider the lowest 10 percent of daily stream flows. Jordan water quality pool is fully depleted in 11 of the 69 simulated years for up to 80 days in a single August to February period. In the Base 1998 scenario in theEIS Lillington flow drop down to about 100 cfs or less during one out of seven years on average. This would be catastrophe for downstream users. Jordan water quality pool depletion means downstream users are already facing critical water supply uncertainties. Violation of minimum flow violates the original intent for Jordan Lake. State determines how much water supply storage should be reserved to augment water quality pool storage depletion (States previous recognition that use of the water supply pool and or sedimentation pool would be needed to continuously maintain the 600 cfs flow. Only 22 MGD will remain for use outside of the Jordan Lake water shed after Round 2 allocations. Jordan Lake safe yield is not confirmed. Supporting EIS does not include a complete evaluation of cumulative impacts. A truly objective evaluation of the IBT cannot be made when DENR already approved the facilities to make use of the IBT. Unanswered questions about whether Environmental Review of Cary/Apex water treatment facility expansion was conducted in accordance with DENR’s North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) Rules. Accurate historical low flow impact assessment is missing. EIS scenario demonstrates that the Jordan Lake water quality pool is already insufficient for downstream needs as it is fully depleted in 11 of the 69 simulated years. Water supply to downstream communities is rapidly dwindling. If the 28 MGD is granted, only 22 MGD of the maximum of the 50 MGD diversion will remain. Safe yield for Jordan Lake has not been confirmed. Fails to understand how a truly objective evaluation of the IBT EIS is possible when DENR had already approved the facilities to make use of the IBT. Available supply is dwindling without regard to downstream communities.	1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 1O, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H
Larry B Norris President Fayetteville Technical Community College	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	Deny, if approved, then with time limits until equity can be achieved. Questions the accuracy of Statistical data and models for long-term impacts.	1E, 1F, 1M, 2B, 4H
John Pechmann North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Concerned with decreased water quality in Neuse Basin due to IBT. Impact aquatic resources in affected areas. Concerned with water loss in Cape Fear Basin, which could impede reproductive success of certain fish species. Also decrease the ability of the river to assimilate wastes. Drawdown will affect wetlands in the Jordan Reservoir watershed area. Additional water will lead to additional growth resulting in secondary impact example runoff. The commission is opposed to the project as currently proposed.	1D, 1O, 4H
Richard Perry Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It’s unfair.	2B, 4H
Hal Price Biogen	Verbal Statement - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Supports IBT due to need and growth at Biogen.	4H
Dr. and Mrs. Joe Quigg Private Citizens	Letter – March 8, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Do a new thorough EIS funded by the Sate and conducted by an impartial research organization with impeccable credentials.	2B, 4F, 4G
Senator Tony Rand	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Equity – we do not object to Cary taking water as long as they put it back.	2B
Jimmy Randolph, President Sanford Area Chamber of Commerce	Letter – March 9, 2001	Need a study analyzing the whole basin. Issue a temporary IBT with the stipulation of WWTP and equity by 2010. Then reduction to current 16 MGD.	1I, 2B, 4G
Ray Rapuano Cisco Systems, Inc.	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001, Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Support IBT – view the Town of Cary's proposal as an assurance that Cisco will have an adequate, reasonable priced water supply to help its RTP campus meet it planned growth.	4H
John Rigsbee Chairman Cary Chamber of Commerce	Verbal Statement - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing	Supports IBT. After vocation and business IBT is the third key factor in the communities future success.	4H
James Robertson President Research Triangle Foundation	Verbal Statement - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing , Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Supports IBT. The Cape Fear River Hydrological model (developed with extensive collaborative stakeholder input) results indicates that even with 45 MGD IBT there will no be significant impact on downstream flows. 45 MGD refers to the worst case where the treatment plant will not be built and the transfer amount would increase form 27 MGD to 45 MGD. The suggestion to reduce the transfer request in less than 10 years is going to introduce as aspect of uncertainty to decision makers in new and expanding industry that could be devastating. The current IBT petition is without question comprehensive, precise and determines scientifically that there are no negative effects from the water allocations and IBT increases.	2I, 4H
Thornton Rose Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Reduction of stream flow will have an impact on the assimilative capacity of the river. Consider the increased flow into the Neuse River particularly during storm surges. Transfer must not be granted till Cary has in operation their required facilities to the treat the water and return it with adequate monitoring equipment.	1H, 2B, 4H
Raymond J. Rundus Private Citizen	Letter – March 9, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned.	2B, 4H
Robert Saunders Chair PWC	Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Urge EMC to be responsible to the future generations for quality water supply source.	4A, 4G, 4H
S. L. Shackleford Private Citizen	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Do not use political power.	2B, 4H
Danny Shaffer Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) with written copy of statement – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Equity. EIS paid for by the people who want the water – lacks credibility Cary/Apex have proceeded with construction of the wastewater treatment plant prior to EMC decision. Bad planning. Give Cary no water until they have in place facilities to return that water to the river basin from which it was drawn.	2B, 3A, 4H
Kim Shaffer/ Francesca Shaffer Private Citizens	Letter – March 8, 2001	EIS is suspect. Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Should not be sold to the town with the most money.	1G, 2B, 4H
Senator Larry Shaw	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing + 15 page hard copy attachment	The condition that Cary and Apex build a wastewater treatment plant on the Cape Fear River within 10 years is insufficient. Withdrawal of water will significantly impact water sources in the future. Examine the population growth in Cumberland County and understand that Cumberland County too must plan for future growth. Why was PAC’s request for a water allocation denied? Pollution in the Cape Fear continues to be significant environmental factor. Therefore the construction of a Wastewater Treatment Plant cannot and should not be used as a bargaining chip for Fayetteville future needs In 1996 the State decided that most of Cape Fear had reached it limit for wastewater. Fayetteville’s Glenville Lake is not sufficient to supply for growing needs Cary vowed to have a treatment plan on line by 2000 and did not follow through. The studies that the State and Cary used as a proof there will be no increase in environmental damage form the water withdrawal was financed by Cary Nearly half the member of the EMC which will rule in Cary’s permit come from Wake county. Basically require Equity.	1B, 1E, 1H, 1M, 2B, 4A, 4H
Rollin Shaw Fayetteville City Council	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Deny the proposal for an increased interbasin transfer of water from the Cape Fear River Basin. The situation discussed is different from other interbasin transfers because this water from the Cape Fear River Basin is being taken forever and is not returned. Must look at growth in Cape Fear Basin.	2B, 4G, 4H
Harriett Shooter Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Deny or at least return it. Its all about money.	2B, 4H
Ronald Singleton, Director Chatham County Public Works	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001	Chatham County does not object to the Cary/Apex IBT or water allocation but does ask that final action be taken only after the final approval of Cary/Apex-Chatham Co Water Intake Service Agreement.	4H
Rudolph Singleton Law firm of Hunchens and Senter representing PWC and the City of Fayetteville	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. The EMC should legally and equitably force Cary/Apex to return all Jordan Lake water or require them to secure it elsewhere.	2B, 4H
Neil Smith Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Triangle communities have not shown a good faith effort to utilize their current resource adequately example subdivision with less use of land surface, reuse of water. Political agenda of the Triangle is to take the easiest path out. Use the water, borrow all you need but return it where you found it.	2B, 2C, 4A
Nolan Smith Private Citizen	Letter – Received March 8, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Cary has the tax base to do this. Downstream members have their right and need for this water for future growth. EMC is comprised of members mainly from the Cary/Apex/RTP area.	1M, 2B, 4H
Judith P. Sorrell Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It’s not equitable.	2B, 4H
Bill Speight Sunbelt Business Brokers	Letter – March 6, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It will be needed downstream to sustain growth in the future.	2B, 4H
Bob Stevens Broadway Town Manager	Letter – March 7, 2001	Need a study analyzing the entire basin – urban growth, agricultural need, flow assimilation, and water supply. Temporary IBT with the stipulation of WWTP and equity by 2010. Then reduction to current 16 MGD.	1I, 4G
Marie T. and George C. Stewart Private Citizens	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It’s not fair.	2B, 4H
Sally and John Suberati Private Citizens	Letter – March 5, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Its arrogance. Many decisions are based on moony and shortsightedness of powers.	2B, 4H
State of North Carolina County of Cumberland Joint Planning Board	Resolution, received March 9, 2001	Opposed to the interbasin transfer. Set maximum daily interbasin transfer of 27 MGD until 2010 and then reduce it to 16 MGD. Require Cary and Apex to have a wastewater treatment plant functioning and online by year 2010. Require petitioners to enact ordinances similar to Neuse Buffer Rules for parts within Jordan Lake. Require petitioners to develop a compliance and monitoring plan for reporting maximum and daily transfer amounts, compliance, progress on mitigation and drought management activities.	1D, 1I, 2B, 4H
Mark Sullivan Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It limits the potential for growth for downstream users.	1M, 2B
Don Talbot Fayetteville City Council	Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity. Any water taken should be returned cleaner than when received. How will supply from Jordan Lake during low stages be handled. Request should be denied until a satisfactory wastewater treatment facility is built.	1B, 1C, 2B
Lura Tally Retired Senator	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Equity – The importance of keeping the volume in the Cape Fear River emphasizes the need for the return of original water (cleaned) into the basin.	2B
Rodney Tart Director Harnett Co Dept of PU	Letter – March 5, 2001	Based on the FEIS and Mike Basin analyses Harnett County does not object to the transfer (27-MGD). Harnett county supports inclusion of the condition that Interbasin Transfer certificate requiring applicant to begin returning water to the Cape Fear basin in 2010. No additional transfer beyond 27 MGD should be authorized until a drought management plan is in effect, water is returning to the basin in 2010, a safe yield of the Lake be confirmed, the effect of Randleman dam are evaluated and the low flow impact assessment be completed. Harnett County wishes to remain on record for the request for allocation from Jordan Lake due to long term needs.	1B, 1C, 1H, 1K, 2B, 4H
Kurt Taube Executive Director Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority	Attendee - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001, Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	EIS does not consider low flow periods. WQ pool is insufficient for downstream needs. Jordan water quality pool is fully depleted in 11 of the 69 simulates years for up to 80 days in a single August to February period. In the Base 1998 scenario in the EIS Lillington flow drop down to about 100 cfs or less during one out of seven years on average. This would be catastrophe for downstream users. Jordan water quality pool depletion means downstream users are already facing critical water supply uncertainties. Violation of minimum flow violates the original intent for Jordan Lake. State determine how much water supply storage should be reserved to augment water quality pool storage depletion (states previous recognition that use of the water supply pool and or sedimentation pool would be needed to continuously maintain the 600 cfs flow. Water quality modeling component needed. The Division of Water Quality Cape Fear Basin Management Plan set out there is no to little assimilative capacity in the Lower Cape Fear River. EIS does not address the water quality impacts of the IBT on the Lower Cape Fear River Basin. Authority is not opposed to transfer of: (1) Approve temporary IBT only. Reduce to 16 MGD by 2010. (2) WWTP be online before consideration in Round 3. Would assist Wake County and others to speed up the regional system (3) Petitioners research other water sources, which would help with regional planning.	1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1M, 2B, 2C, 4H
Gill Taylor	Letter – March 6, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. Creating a future problem for the Lower Cape Fear Region.	1M, 2B
Greg Taylor Bladen County Commissioner	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 6, 2001	Deny the transfer. Concerned with possible affects of Randleman Dam. What is the safe yield of Jordan Lake? Concerned about the future availability of the water supply downstream. The decision to approve the interbasin transfer was made when DENR approved the improvements to Cary’s water system specifically designed to facilitate this interbasin transfer. The only question now is whether DENR will put requirements on Cary and Apex. Must have equity within 10 years. DENR approvals of Cary’s WTP, etc are suspect.	1C, 1E, 1K, 1M, 2B, 3A
C. L. Thaggard Private Citizen	Letter – March 8, 2001	Equity – Do not permit any additional transfer unless it can be returned. It shortchanges the downstream users.	1M, 2B, 4H
Heather Thomas Private Citizen	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001	Go to Robert Easterling and read a letter written by him.
Larry Thomas Public Works Director City of Sanford	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001 Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 8, 2001	EIS is incomplete. Study needed on entire basin based on future demand due to urban growth, agricultural needs and flows necessary to maintain a healthy river. Maximum IBT should not increase beyond 16 MGD. A temporary IBT may be issued until 2010. WWTP on Cape Fear by 2010, drop to 16 MGD by 2010. The low flow augmentation storage of Jordan Lake is designed to maintain a minimum flow of 600 cfs at Lillington. No one has determined what portion of this flow is necessary to maintain a healthy environment. Corp of Engineers did not consider Randleman Dam, increased use by irrigation and use by downstream communities when they determined the size of augmentation storage in the Jordan Lake. Believes that augmentation storage is inadequate to maintain the flows at Lillington. Hence water supply storage will be necessary to supplement the augmentation storage in the future. Received these copies from Mr. Thomas – Draft Methodology for estimating the Maximum Daily Water Withdrawal Rate from Five Predefined Points on the Cape Fear River Mainstream, Cape Fear River withdrawals Workgroup handouts, Water Supply Plan (1997) for the City of Sanford.	1B, 1C, 1E, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1M, 2B, 4A, 4G, 4H
Nellie Tomlinson Cary Chamber of Commerce	Verbal Statement - March 5, 2001 Public Hearing	Supports the transfer. Cary has a very successful water conservation program. Bulk reclaiming water program. 100 foot buffer zone around most stream, lakes and creeks including the Cape Fear River Basin. Nuese projected population build out of Cary over the next 20 years and keep development slow. New and unprecedented storm water management rule governing quality and quantity of runoff.	1D, 2C, 3B, 4A, 4H
Sharon Valentine Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) with written copy of statement – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. No longer have water flowing into the Cape Fear downstream as we once had. Cape Fear River drainage issue near Harrison Creek causing stagnation in a swamp and not a free flowing river. The aquifer on the farm has dropped 40 feet since 1988 due to drought. Small creeks have dried up. Climatic conditions are changing.	1B, 1E, 1M, 4H
Kimberly VanBorkulo Private Citizen	Attendee - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Deny – affect fish spawning, results in over sedimentation and prevents growth for downstream communities. Require greater water conservation in Neuse River Watershed. Require a permanent cap on Cape Fear/Neuse interbasin transfer. Carrying capacity for ecosystem needs to balance carrying capacity for human settlements.	1B, 1E, 1H 1M, 2B, 2C, 3B
Peggy Vick Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement.
Walter Vick Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement.
Dickie Vinent PWC	Attendee – March 6, 2001 Public Hearing, Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity. Perception that one is taking advantage of another. Cary currently already disposes some of their sludge from their WWTP in Cumberland County.	1G, 1M, 4H
William Warfel Private Citizen	Letter – March 6, 2001	Equity – the time may come when downstream users may need the water. Do not know the true environmental consequence.	1G, 1M, 2B, 4H
Lee Warren Chairman Cumberland County Board of Commissioners	Verbal Statement - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	Equity – "We don’t ask that you not allow Cary not to use the water from the Cape Fear River Basin, all we ask you to do is return it to the Cape Fear River Basin."	2B, 4H
Henry L. Warwick Private Citizen	Letter - March 7, 2001	Equity – no reason. Simply do not allow the transfer unless they return it.	2B, 4H
Mayor Keith Weatherly Town of Apex	Verbal Statement with written copy of statement - March 5, 2001	Support. EIS issued by Department clearly demonstrates no direct detrimental impacts Requested transfer will only cancel net interbasin transfer from Neuse River Basin into the Cape Fear River Basin. Supports a future regional wastewater treatment plant. Developed a growth management plan that puts in place a 4% annual growth rate for the future. Addresses secondary impacts. Water Allocation Committees proposed condition to reduce IBT to 16 MGD after 2010 has no technical merit because there is no direct impact from the proposed transfer. Furthermore building the infrastructure this would require would pose tremendous environmental risk and will be a terrible waste of public resources.	1D, 1E, 1F, 1H, 1I, 1O, 4A, 4G, 4H
D. Weaver Private Citizen	Letter – March 9, 2001	Reiterates concerns expressed by Mr. Kurt Taube. EIS does not consider low flow periods. WQ pool is insufficient for downstream needs. Water quality modeling component needed. Approve temporary IBT only. Reduce to 16 MGD by 2010. WWTP be online before consideration in Round 3. Research other water sources, which would help with regional planning. Conflict concerning the date base used for analysis.	1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1M, 2B, 2C, 4H
Calvin B. Wells Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity. Return the water. Grossly unfair to downstream communities.	1G, 1M, 2B
Charles West Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – no reason. Simply do not allow the transfer unless they return it.	2B, 4H
Katie West Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – no reason. Simply do not allow the transfer unless they return it.	2B, 4H
WFNC News Talk Radio	Editorial Comments – February 28, 2001 and March 6, 2001	Cary unfilled past pledges to return treated water. EIS show no environmental consequence but the study was paid for by petitioner. Eight of the 17 EMC members are from the Triangle Area. Pipelines were built before state approval of transfer. Less water means reduced quality. Must return the water.	2B, 2H, 3A, 4H
Edward L. Williams Private Citizen	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did not receive the requested written statement .
John C. Williams III Private Citizen	Letter – March 7, 2001	Equity – no reason. Simply do not allow the transfer unless they return it.	2B, 4H
Carlos Zukowski	Verbal Statement (*) - March 6, 2001 Public Hearing	*Had problems with the recorder and did receive the requested written statement. Equity – The Triangle is stealing water.	1G, 1M, 2B, 4H

Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations
Responses to Comments

Introduction

Because many comments were repeated, responses were grouped for easier reading. Please see the response key in ‘Summary Table of Public Comments and Key to Staff Responses’ to track appropriate keys following each comment and then trace the appropriate response to the section below:

Key	1. Impacts on Downstream Uses	Response to Key Found on Page:
A	The base 1998 modeling scenario is supposed to represent existing basin conditions in 1998 and is used as a baseline to compare alternatives. The model did not accurately predict the low flows in 1998.	II - 31
B	The Jordan Lake water quality pool is insufficient for downstream uses; in the past, the 600-cfs target at Lillington has frequently not been met.	II - 32
C	The safe yield of Jordan Lake may have been overestimated.	II - 33
D	The EIS needs to provide information on whether the cumulative impacts of all water withdrawals and transfers are acceptable.	II - 33
E	If Triangle communities do not replace water they remove from the Cape Fear River, they will cause problems downstream.	II - 33
F	The proposed IBT will have minimal impact on the flow at Lillington. However water resources will become more limited in the Cape Fear River, and in the long term, it will be prudent to plan to return water that is removed from the river basin.	II - 34
G	The Triangle is financing its growth by using water resources that belong to downstream users.	II - 34
H	The study did not account for pollution in the Cape Fear River and the need for flow to assimilate wastewater.	II - 34
I	The Interbasin Transfer certificate should be temporary. If water quality declines in the Cape Fear River, the certificate can be revoked or cut back.	II - 34
J	Future agricultural withdrawals should be described	II - 35
K	Randleman Lake should have been included in the model runs.	II - 35
L	A modeling scenario should be included for comparison to the Base 1998 case that represents the proposed alternative with only the existing and recommended Jordan Lake allocations.	II - 35
M	The proposed IBT may inhibit growth in the Fayetteville region.	II - 35
N	Future hearings should be held in a downstream community and not Cary. Comment noted.	II - 36
O	Durham’s application for an allocation from Jordan Lake that will result in a net loss to the Cape Fear Basin by correcting an existing IBT from the Neuse was not considered in the EIS.	II - 36
Key	2. Alternatives	Response to Key Found on Page:
A	The alternative to purchase water from Raleigh should be reevaluated. The adopted Wake County Water & Sewer Master Plan includes a recommendation that Raleigh’s water treatment plant capacity be expanded to 96 MGD by 2003, to 120 MGD by 2011, and to 136 MGD by 2025. Raleigh recently adopted a Capital Improvement Program that allocates $54 million for expanding Raleigh’s water treatment capacity.	II - 36
B	The Triangle Communities should build a wastewater treatment facility that will correct the interbasin transfer of water before they withdraw more water from Jordan Lake.	II - 36
C	What conservation efforts are ongoing in the Triangle? Conservation should be used prior to interbasin transfer.	II - 36
Key	3. Interbasin Transfer Calculation	Response to Key Found on Page:
A	The interbasin transfer calculation assumes construction of a proposed regional wastewater treatment plant with discharge to the Cape Fear River. This assumption should not be made, as the treatment plant is not guaranteed.	II - 37
B	Aggressive conservation was assumed in the IBT calculations. If this conservation does not occur, there may be significant impacts on downstream uses.	II - 37
Key	4. Miscellaneous Comments	Response to Key Found on Page:
A	Good planning would dictate that the state grow in areas where there are resources to support the growth	II - 38
B	The legislature should fund a study to ensure that North Carolina will not experience the water issues that the west is struggling with. Comment noted.	II – 38
C	The Triangle does not need water.	II – 38
D	Fayetteville has invested in state-of-the-art water and wastewater treatment, and the Triangle communities should do so as well.	II – 39
E	The free market method of supply and demand should be used to determine who gets water. Communities and entities that offer the highest price should get the water. Comment noted.	II – 39
F	The EIS should be evaluated objectively without consideration of construction already underway on water treatment plant. Comment noted.	II – 39
G	As North Carolina continues to grow, water resources in the Cape Fear River Basin will become more limited. The Division of Water Resources should continue to develop a comprehensive model of future Cape Fear River water use.	II – 39
H	Comment Noted	II – 39

Impacts on Downstream Uses
A. The base 1998 modeling scenario is supposed to represent existing basin conditions in 1998 and is used as a baseline to compare alternatives. The model did not accurately predict the low flows in 1998.

The Cape Fear River Basin ("CFRB") Hydrologic Model cannot accurately predict the low flows in 1998 because of the way Jordan Lake releases were managed. The CFRB model was developed based on the Army Corps of Engineers rules and guidelines for releasing water. The CFRB model cannot take into account human subjectivity in releasing water. In 1998, the Corps released higher amounts of water in the spring, only to realize in the fall that the water quality pool was almost depleted. The Corps then worked with the Division of Water Resources and the Division of Water Quality to ratchet back the minimum releases to ensure that the water quality pool was not depleted while downstream water quality conditions were maintained. Monitoring indicated that this did not impact downstream uses. The Base 1998 scenario was not meant to mimic observed daily flows during specific time periods such as 1998, but to provide a baseline, under current conditions (including the guide curve), for comparison of hydrologic indicators among different scenarios. The CFRB model scenarios presented in the EIS accurately portray the relative differences in hydrologic indicators that are expected between proposed and current conditions. While the absolute flows would change if the CFRB model could be used to mimic 1998 low flows, the relative difference between current and proposed conditions would not change significantly.
B. The Jordan Lake water quality pool is insufficient for downstream uses; in the past, the 600-cfs target at Lillington has frequently not been met.

C. The safe yield of Jordan Lake may have been overestimated.

The Division of Water Resources feels that the modeling completed to date supports the use of 100 MGD as a good estimate of the safe yield of the Jordan Lake water supply pool. In addition, DWR is planning to work with the COE in evaluating and updating the drought management plan for the project. The drought management plan will influence the return period for this yield. The issue of safe yield will be evaluated during Round 3 of the Jordan Lake water supply allocation process with the CFRB model. It should be noted that the Jordan Lake water supply allocations are actually allocations of a storage volume, not a withdrawal amount. Therefore, while average annual withdrawal rates are used in discussing the allocations, the withdrawal of each allocation holder will ultimately be limited to the volume of water in their separately tracked portion of the water supply pool. If the water supply pool is depleted there will be no withdrawals and therefore cannot impact the water quality pool. Again, the purpose of this EIS was to evaluate the impacts of the proposed action under the current guide curve and operational practices of Jordan Lake. D. The EIS needs to provide information on whether the cumulative impacts of all water withdrawals and transfers are acceptable.

E. If Triangle communities do not replace water they remove from the Cape Fear River, they will cause problems downstream.

The only mechanism for the proposed IBT to cause problems downstream is if it resulted in substantially lower flows in the Cape Fear River. Modeling that was performed to evaluate the different alternatives indicates that there is negligible difference in expected downstream flows when comparing the proposed interbasin transfer to the base future case. The modeling results are summarized in Appendix B of the EIS. Cary and other towns in the Triangle are planning to replace a portion of the water withdrawn from Jordan Lake, and are working toward building a proposed regional water reclamation facility that will discharge wastewater to the Cape Fear River Basin. F. The proposed IBT will have minimal impact on the flow at Lillington. However water resources will become more limited in the Cape Fear River, and in the long term, it will be prudent to plan to return water that is removed from the river basin.

Cary and other towns in the Triangle are working toward building a proposed regional water reclamation facility that will discharge wastewater to the Cape Fear River Basin. G. The Triangle is financing its growth by using water resources that belong to downstream users.

Water is not a commodity that belongs to any one area or community in the state. Rather, it is everyone’s responsibility to ensure its protection from both a quantity and quality standpoint. The EIS and IBT certification processes are designed to ensure that the needs of potential users and impacts of the proposed action are adequately considered. H. The study did not account for pollution in the Cape Fear River and the need for flow to assimilate wastewater.

The only mechanism for the interbasin transfer to impact water quality and the ability of the river to assimilate wastewater would be if it resulted in substantially lower flows in the Cape Fear River. The modeling results indicate that, with the proposed IBT, flows near Lillington and Fayetteville will remain basically unchanged from the base future condition, in which the Jordan water supply pool is allocated according to the current plan. The water that is transferred under the proposed interbasin transfer is associated with withdrawal of water from Jordan Lake’s water supply pool, and will not impact the water quality pool which is used for low flow augmentation as explained in I.B. Inflows to and releases from the water quality pool are managed separately from the water supply pool. I. The Interbasin Transfer certificate should be temporary. If water quality declines in the Cape Fear River, the certificate can be revoked or cut back.

The only mechanism for the interbasin transfer to impact water quality would be if it resulted in substantially lower flows in the Cape Fear River. The modeling results indicate that, with the proposed IBT, flows near Lillington and Fayetteville will remain basically unchanged from the base future condition, in which the Jordan water supply pool is allocated according to the current plan. Therefore, there are no changes expected in water quality as a result of the proposed interbasin transfer. J. Future agricultural withdrawals should be described.

Irrigation water for agricultural use was included in the modeling scenarios. Available evidence indicates that agricultural use is more likely to decrease than increase in the future. The consultants who developed the CFRB model suggested that while total agricultural acreage will probably decrease in the future, some newer crops may use more water, so the total agricultural use may not change significantly. Therefore, to be conservative, future agricultural withdrawals were assumed, based on guidance from the Division of Water Resources, to be identical to the withdrawals made in 1998. The consultants’ expert advised that future needs for agricultural use should not be based on past trends, and that assuming the total needs remain constant is a reasonable approach. Using 1998 irrigation statistics should be fairly conservative, as it was a low flow year. K. Randleman Lake should have been included in the model runs.

Omitting Randleman Lake from the CFRB model runs is a conservative assumption. Randleman Lake was omitted from the CFRB model runs based on guidance from the Division of Water Resources (DWR). DWR has indicated that this is conservative as including Randleman results in increased flows in the Deep River since there will be a minimum release from Randleman Dam. In addition, Randleman Lake will result in flow into the Haw River subbasin from the Deep River subbasin; thereby increasing the Haw River flows. L. A modeling scenario should be included for comparison to the Base 1998 case that represents the proposed alternative with only the existing and recommended Jordan Lake allocations.

Scenario	7Q10 at Lillington (cfs)	7Q10 at Fayetteville (cfs)
Base 1998	132.6	406.2
Proposed Incremental A	205.0	462.6

M. The proposed IBT may inhibit growth in the Fayetteville region.

The only mechanism for the interbasin transfer to impact growth in Fayetteville would be if it resulted in substantially lower flows in the Cape Fear River. As discussed in I.B. the flows at Fayetteville will not be significantly impacted. 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. N. Future hearings should be held in a downstream community and not Cary.

Comment noted. O. Durham’s application for an allocation from Jordan Lake that will result in a net loss to the Cape Fear Basin by correcting an existing IBT from the Neuse was not considered in the EIS.

Durham’s allocation request from Jordan Lake was denied and was thus not examined individually. However, all CFRB model scenarios, other than the new "Proposed Incremental A" scenario, were based on the assumption that the remainder of the water supply pool was allocated to unknown users, which could potentially include Durham. It was also assumed that fifty percent of the remaining allocated amount was returned to the Cape Fear River basin. Durham’s future projected wastewater was also included in the base future scenarios. Alternatives

A. The alternative to purchase water from Raleigh should be reevaluated. The adopted Wake County Water & Sewer Master Plan includes a recommendation that Raleigh’s water treatment plant capacity be expanded to 96 MGD by 2003, to 120 MGD by 2011, and to 136 MGD by 2025. Raleigh recently adopted a Capital Improvement Program that allocates $54 million for expanding Raleigh’s water treatment capacity.

Raleigh has indicated that they will not sell Cary more water, for either the short or long term. While the Wake County Water and Sewer Master Plan recommended major expansions of Raleigh’s water supply system, the expanded capacity was targeted to serve only the eastern portions of Wake County. The Plan also recommended that withdrawals from Jordan Lake be expanded to 38.4 MGD (average annual) to meet long-term needs from western Wake County communities. B. The Triangle Communities should build a wastewater treatment facility that will correct the interbasin transfer of water before they withdraw more water from Jordan Lake.

Cary and other towns in the Triangle are working toward building a proposed regional water reclamation facility that will discharge wastewater to the Cape Fear River Basin. C. What conservation efforts are ongoing in the Triangle? Conservation should be used prior to interbasin transfer.

Community Average per capita demand (gpcd)

Cary 82

Apex 88

Wake County Water and Sewer Plan 130

Interbasin Transfer Calculation A. The interbasin transfer calculation assumes construction of a proposed regional wastewater treatment plant with discharge to the Cape Fear River. This assumption should not be made, as the treatment plant is not guaranteed.

The interbasin transfer request is based on the assumption that a new WWTP will be built that discharges to the Cape Fear River Basin. Without a discharge returning water to the Cape Fear River basin, the 27 MGD IBT will only support average day withdrawals from Jordan Lake of about 20 MGD which would only satisfy the applicants projected needs until 2007. To meet higher demands, Cary would have to limit growth or pursue one of the other alternatives presented in the EIS. An additional modeling scenario (Alternative 6) was investigated that included average annual Jordan Lake withdrawals of 20 MGD and no return to the Cape Fear River, which would result an IBT equal to the requested 27-MGD amount. Under this scenario, the 600-cfs target at Lillington would be exceeded 64.4 percent of the time, compared to 64.5 percent under the Base Future scenario. This indicates that even if the proposed WWTP is not built, the impact of a 27-MGD IBT on downstream flows in the Cape Fear River would be insignificant. The updated Table 12 from Appendix B of the EIS shown above contains the results of this additional CFRB model run. The communities have agreed to request an IBT assuming that wastewater is returned to the Cape Fear River basin within a very short time frame. The purpose for including this assumption in the IBT calculations and the proposed request was to demonstrate the communities’ commitment to returning water to the Cape Fear River Basin. B. Aggressive conservation was assumed in the IBT calculations. If this conservation does not occur, there may be significant impacts on downstream uses.

The amount of the interbasin transfer request is based on aggressive conservation in the Triangle communities. If this conservation does not occur, the communities will reach the limit of the IBT sooner, and there is no mechanism to exceed that amount. Then the communities will need to pursue other alternatives to supply water to their citizens for the 30-year planning time frame. If the request is approved, Cary would not be able to exceed the approved IBT amount and so impacts would not differ from those presented in the EIS. Miscellaneous Comments A. Good planning would dictate that the state grow in areas where there are resources to support the growth.

One of the purposes of Jordan Lake is to supply water. Consequently, the reservoir was built with a reserved water supply pool. Another purpose of the reservoir is flow augmentation downstream to protect water quality. To meet this use, a separate pool of water exists that cannot be withdrawn for water supply purposes. The yield analysis and allocation rules for Jordan Lake’s water supply pool recognize that some of the water supply will not be returned.
B. The legislature should fund a study to ensure that North Carolina will not experience the water issues that the west is struggling with.

Comment noted.
C. The Triangle does not need water.

D. Fayetteville has invested in state-of-the-art water and wastewater treatment, and the Triangle communities should do so as well.

The Triangle communities have also installed state-of-the-art wastewater treatment and have limits equivalent or more stringent than those for communities downstream of Jordan Lake – often including additional requirements for nutrient removal.
E. The free market method of supply and demand should be used to determine who gets water. Communities and entities that offer the highest price should get the water.

Comment noted.
F. The EIS should be evaluated objectively without consideration of construction already underway on water treatment plant.

Comment noted.
G. As North Carolina continues to grow, water resources in the Cape Fear River Basin will become more limited. The Division of Water Resources should continue to develop a comprehensive model of future Cape Fear River water use.

As part of the third round of water supply allocation from Jordan Lake, DWR will be developing a long-range Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan. The CFRB model will be used as part of that planning effort. Also, DWR intends to provide long-term support for the CFRB model so that it can be used address water use issues now and in the future.
H. Comment Noted

Community	Average per capita demand (gpcd)
Cary	82
Apex	88
Wake County Water and Sewer Plan	130

Part II Summary Table of Public Comments, and Staff Responses to Comments Received

Part II
Summary Table of Public Comments, and Staff
Responses to Comments Received