Executive Summary

   The State of North Carolina has been assigned the use of the entire water supply storage in B. Everett Jordan Lake and, under G.S. 143-354(a)(11), can assign this storage to any local government having a need for water supply storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G .0500 describes the specific procedures to be used in allocating the Jordan Lake water supply storage. The two main criteria for Jordan Lake water supply allocations are future water needs and availability of alternative water supplies. Also, the administrative rule requires the Environmental Management Commission to coordinate the review of any allocation requests with the certification of any interbasin transfers that maybe required.

   The Division of Water Resources received a request to open the allocation process from the Towns of Apex and Cary in May 1996, for an increase in their existing water supply storage allocation in Jordan Lake. This is the first time since the initial allocation in 1988 that the allocation process has been opened. When such requests are received, it is Division policy to open the allocation process to anyone interested in either obtaining a new allocation or an increase in an existing allocation.

   When the initial allocations of water supply from Jordan Lake were made in 1988, 42 percent of the water supply pool was allocated; however, some original allocation holders have since released their allocations. Currently, 33 million gallons per day (MGD) of the 100 MGD water supply pool is allocated as shown in Table I. Note that allocations are actually a percentage of the water supply pool and not a rate of withdrawal. However, for convenience in this report allocations will be expressed in MGD, since 100 percent of water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of 100 MGD.

^{1 This column shows the total allocations if all the current requests or recommendations were approved}

^{2 Allocation is contingent on obtaining an interbasin transfer certification. The recommendations provided are for informational purposes and public comment only at this time.}

   In the current round of allocation, the Division received a total of 8 applications from local and county governments with a total request of 115 MGD. A summary of the requests is provided in Table I and detailed analyses of each application are in the Appendices.

Allocation Recommendations for Jordan Lake Water Supply

  The Division's recommendations are as follows:

1. Proceed with a public hearing and allocations as recommended for the following systems:

• Chatham County                     No increase in their existing allocation
• City of Durham                       No allocation
• City of Fayetteville                  No allocation
• City of Greensboro                 No allocation
• Town of Holly Springs            0.5 MGD allocation and grant the Town's request to be responsible for their interbasin transfer certification.

2. Proceed with a public comment period and with the interbasin transfer certification review for a single combined certificate for the following system

• The Towns of Apex and Cary                          Increase their existing allocation by 5 MGD (total allocation would be 21 MGD).
• The Town of Morrisville                                   A new 2.5 MGD allocation.
• Wake County, Research/Triangle Park South   A new 1.5 MGD allocation.

   All of the systems that had a zero recommendation have either a zero or a small deficit or other available alternatives to meet their projected 2015 water demands. For the Towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and Wake County/RTP South the Division's recommendations contingent on obtaining interbasin transfer certifications and are only for informational purposes and serve as a starting point for doing the necessary environmental review needed for interbasin transfer certification.

    The water supply allocation recommendations are a small incremental amount that will allow for future rounds of allocations. With over half the water supply pool remaining, storage is available to accommodate future water needs in a fast growing region of the State.

Interbasin Transfer

   The applicants for which an allocation is recommended and for which interbasin transfer is an issue include Holly Springs, Morrisville, Cary/Apex, and RTP South. The potential interbasin transfer amounts for 2000 and 2015, based on maximum day demands (MDD) from Jordan Lake, are estimated in Table II below. Estimates for both 2000 and 2015 are given since transfers are projected to decrease after 2000 when the West Cary WWTP is expected to come on-line in either the Haw or Cape Fear River sub-basin.

Table II. Estimated Potential Interbasin Transfers

*Includes existing allocation amounts

   The interbasin transfer rule stipulates that responsibility for obtaining certification for a transfer belongs to the party that owns the pipe where it crosses the sub-basin divide. For all of the systems listed above, that responsibility would be Cary's and Apex's, since they own the pipes at the point where the transfer occurs. However, the rules also allow for another party involved in the transfer to assume responsibility for certification, if approved by the Director of the Division of Water Resources.

   Holly Springs has requested to assume responsibility for certification of the interbasin transfer associated with their allocation request. The Division is going to approve their request for the following reason: Holly Springs has its own WWTP which discharges back into the Cape Fear River basin, not the Neuse River basin and the transfer is for a small amount between sub-basins in the Cape Fear River basin. The estimated maximum daily transfer is only 0.8 MGD, based on the 0.5 MGD allocation recommendation. Since the Holly Springs interbasin transfer potential is only 0.8 MGD, well below the 2.0 MGD certification threshold, no interbasin transfer certification is needed at this time.

Allocation Contract Revisions

   The Division recommends modifying how the contracts between the State and local governments are written. The Division proposes to base the contract solely on the use of reservoir storage, rather than on a maximum rate of withdrawal. This change would make the contract more consistent with what is being purchased. Local governments are purchasing reservoir storage and not a guaranteed rate of withdrawal. This change will allow systems to be able to increase withdrawals to meet their peak demands as long as the annual average withdrawal rate does not exceed their allocation amount and their storage is not depleted. An additional change to protect the reservoir from potential overuse will be to require all systems to have a water shortage response plan completed and approved by both the US Army Corps of Engineers and the State.

Executive Summary i

Allocation Recommendations for Jordan Lake Water Supply ii

Interbasin Transfer ii

Allocation Contract Revisions iii

Table Of Contents iv

Background 1

Schedule 1

Jordan Lake Operations 3

Current Allocations 4

Costs and Repayment Requirements 5

Allocation Criteria 7

Future Water Needs 7

Alternatives 8

Recommendations 9

Allocation Recommendations 9

Contract Changes 11

Watershed Diversions 12

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers 13

Watershed Transfers 13

Interbasin Transfers 14

Overview 14

Recommendations Involving Interbasin Transfers 14

Schedule 16

Model 16

Appendices 18

Appendix A. Chatham County A-1

Overview and System Recommendation A-1

Population and Water Use Projections A-1

Current Water Supply Sources A-3

Alternative Sources A-4

Conservation and Demand Management A-4

Plans to use Jordan Lake A-4

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers A-5

Appendix B. City of Durham B-1

Overview and System Recommendation B-1

Population and Water Use Projections B-1

Current Water Supply Sources B-2

Alternative Sources B-3

Conservation and Demand Management B-4

Plans to use Jordan Lake B-4

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers B-4

Appendix C. City of Fayetteville C-1

Overview and System Recommendation C-1

Population and Water Use Projections C-1

Current Water Supply Sources C-2

Alternative Sources C-3

Conservation and Demand Management C-3

Plans to use Jordan Lake C-3

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers C-4

Appendix D. City of Greensboro D-1

Overview and System Recommendation D-1

Population and Water Use Projections D-1

Current Water Supply Sources D-2

Alternative Sources D-2

Conservation and Demand Management D-2

Plans to use Jordan Lake D-3

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers D-3

Appendix E. Towns of Apex and Cary E-1

Overview and System Recommendation E-1

Population and Water Use Projections E-1

Current Water Supply Sources E-3

Alternative Sources E-4

Conservation and Demand Management E-4

Plans to use Jordan Lake E-4

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers E-5

Appendix F. Town of Holly Springs F-1

Overview and System Recommendation F-1

Population and Water Use Projections F-1

Current Water Supply Sources F-3

Alternative Sources F-4

Conservation and Demand Management F-4

Plans to use Jordan Lake F-4

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers F-5

Appendix G. Town of Morrisville G-1

Overview and System Recommendation G-1

Population and Water Use Projections G-1

Current Water Supply Sources G-3

Alternative Sources G-3

Conservation and Demand Management G-3

Plans to use Jordan Lake G-3

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers G-4

Appendix H. Wake County / Research Triangle Park H-1

Overview and System Recommendation H-1

Population and Water Use Projections H-1

Current Water Supply Sources H-3

Alternative Sources H-3

Conservation and Demand Management H-3

Plans to use Jordan Lake H-3

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers H-4

Appendix I. Summary of Public Comments on the Process I-1

Appendix J. Population and Water Use Projection Methodology J-1

Factors Affecting Water Use J-1

Methodology J-2

Appendix K. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0500 Allocation of Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage K-1

.0501 INTRODUCTION K-1

.0502 DEFINITIONS K-1

.0503 FORMAL APPLICATION K-1

.0504 ALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY STORAGE K-2

.0505 NOTIFICATION AND PAYMENT K-3

.0506 RECIPIENTS' REQUIREMENTS K-3

.0507 LOSS OF ALLOCATION K-3

Appendix L. North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-215.22G and G.S. 143-215.22I Regulation of Surface Water Transfers L-1

§ 143-215.22G. Definitions L-1

§ 143-215.22H. Registration of water withdrawals and transfers required. L-2

§ 143-215.22I. Regulation of surface water transfers. L-2

Appendix M. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0400 Regulation of Surface Water Transfers M-1

.0401 APPLICABILITY M-1

.0402 JUDICIAL REVIEW M-1

Appendix N. Contacts For Additional Information N-1



---

  The Division of Water Resources received a request to re-open the allocation process from the Towns of Apex and Cary in May 1996 for an increase in their water supply storage in B. Everett Jordan Lake. This is the first time since the initial allocation in 1988 that the allocation process has been opened. When such requests are received, it is Division policy to open the allocation process to anyone interested in either obtaining a new allocation or increasing an existing allocation.

Schedule

  When the request was received on May 8, 1996, the Division of Water Resources began an extensive notification effort, including:

• existing allocation holders and previous applicants

• registered water withdrawers in the Cape Fear Basin

• public water systems and waste water dischargers downstream of Jordan Lake

• municipal and county officials in each county in the Cape Fear River basin or within a 50-mile radius of Jordan Lake.

  The Division of Water Resources held a public information meeting on June 27, 1996 to explain the allocation process in greater detail and to receive comments about the process. Based upon the applications received, the Division of Water Resources is making recommendations for water supply storage allocations in this report. With the approval of the EMC, a public hearing will be held to discuss the proposed allocations. After this public hearing, the EMC will make a final decision for allocations that do not involve an interbasin transfer certificate; allocation requests involving interbasin transfers will proceed with interbasin transfer certification. The final step for each applicant receiving an allocation will be entering into a repayment contract with the State for the water supply costs. These costs are described in more detail starting on page 5.

  A summary of the major steps in the allocation process is shown in Figure 1. The Division has made an adjustment to the allocation process in response to the concern about tentative EMC approval of water supply need becoming a conditional preapproval of interbasin transfer (IBT). The revised schedule will allow those allocations that do not involve IBT to proceed as was originally scheduled. For allocations that involve an interbasin transfer, the EMC decisions on both the allocation and interbasin transfer certification will be delayed until after the IBT review process is completed.

Jordan Lake Operations

  B. Everett Jordan Lake is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers multi-purpose lake in Chatham County. Construction on the dam started in 1967 and Jordan Lake completed filling in 1982. As seen in Figure 2, the dam is located on the Haw River just downstream of the confluence of the Haw and New Hope Rivers, with most of the lake's storage being in the New Hope basin.

  The lake is designed to provide for water supply, recreation, flood control, fish and wildlife management, and flow augmentation to maintain downstream water quality during natural low flow periods. As is typical for multi-purpose reservoirs, the lake's storage volume is divided vertically into several "pools" which are keyed to lake level elevations. Specifically, there is a flood pool, which provides for flood control storage; a conservation pool, which provides for water supply and low flow augmentation; and a sediment pool, which provides for the accumulation of sediment.

  The top of the conservation pool corresponds with the normal lake level of 216 feet mean sea level (M.S.L.). At this elevation, Jordan Lake covers 13,900 acres. As Figure 3 shows, usable water in the lake at its normal elevation amounts to a total volume of approximately 140,400 acre-feet⁽¹⁾ and is referred to as the conservation storage. Approximately 45,800 acre-feet in conservation storage, or about 15 billion gallons, is designated to provide water supply. This amount of storage is estimated to be able to furnish approximately 100 million gallons per day (MGD ) during most of the severest droughts.

  In addition to water supply, the lake's conservation storage provides 94,600 acre-feet for downstream flow augmentation to benefit water quality and economic development. The low flow augmentation storage is used to maintain a minimum flow of about 388 MGD (600 cfs) at Lillington. The minimum streamflow recorded by the USGS at Lillington prior to Jordan Lake's impoundment was 7.1 MGD (11 cfs). Storage and releases for flow augmentation are provided in addition to storage for the 100 MGD water supply. The water supply allocation has no impact on the low-flow augmentation releases. Neither the low flow augmentation pool nor the minimum releases will be diminished.

Current Allocations

  The State of North Carolina has been assigned the use of the entire water supply storage in Jordan Lake and, under G.S. 143-354(a)(11), can assign this storage to local government having a need for water supply storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G .0500 (included in Appendix K) describes the specific procedures to be used in allocating the Jordan Lake water supply storage. These procedures are outlined below.

  Allocations fall into two categories. Level I allocations are made based on 20-year water need projections and when withdrawals are planned to begin within five years of receiving the allocation. Level II allocations are made based on longer term needs of up to 30 years.

  Only one round of allocations have been made thus far. These initial allocations of water supply from Jordan Lake were made in 1988. At that time, 42 percent of the water supply pool was allocated; however, some original allocation holders have since released their allocations. Currently, one-third, or 33 MGD, of the 100 MGD water supply pool is allocated as follows in Table 1. Note that allocations are actually a percentage of the water supply pool and not a rate of withdrawal. However, for convenience in this report allocations will be expressed in MGD, since 100 percent of water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of 100 MGD.

  Two of the current allocation holders, Apex & Cary and Chatham County, are requesting an increase in their existing allocations. Orange Water & Sewer Authority and Orange County have not requested an increase and both anticipate starting to use their allocations sometime between 2010 and 2015.

  Existing rules limit water supply allocations that will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of the 100 MGD total water supply yield. The EMC may review and revise this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield. Currently, 19.4 MGD of the 100 MGD yield is approved to be diverted out of the lake's watershed.

Costs and Repayment Requirements

  Jordan Lake was financed and constructed by the Federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Storage space for municipal and industrial water supply was included at the request of state and local officials with the understanding that the costs associated with this water supply storage would be paid for by the actual users. North Carolina statute (G.S. 143-215.38) authorized the State, acting through the EMC, to assume repayment responsibilities for these costs. The costs associated with providing water supply storage in Jordan Lake fall into three basic categories: capital costs, operating costs, and administrative costs. The total annual cost for each one MGD allocation out of Jordan Lake varies with a number of parameters, including when the allocation is received, when water is actually withdrawn, the length of the payback period, and variable annual operating expenses. As an example, for each new one MGD of water supply withdrawal beginning in 1997, the total annual cost is estimated to be $4136.⁽²⁾ An additional administration charge of $250 will be added to each bill regardless of the total number of MGD allocated.

The two main criteria for Jordan Lake allocations are future water needs and availability of alternative water supplies. Applications contained the following information:

• projected population and water use

• safe yield estimates of current and alternative sources

• description of conservation and demand management practices

• outline of plan to use water from Jordan Lake

• plan for monitoring water quality

• cost of developing water supply facilities at Jordan Lake

• costs of alternative sources of supply.

Water demand is computed on an average daily basis to correspond with the recommended contract changes and reservoir safe yield determination. The original 30-year planning horizon (the year 2025) has been revised to a 20-year planning horizon (the year 2015) to allow for greater flexibility in making future allocations.

Future Water Needs

Applicants provided estimates of water use for the period 1995 through 2025. For each applicant, the Division also performed an independent analysis of future need. The analysis considered factors affecting water demand including:

population growth

service area expansion

conservation

unaccounted water use

interconnections

industrial development.

The independent analysis followed several general steps. First, the Division estimated future service population out to the year 2025. The starting point was the Office of State Planning (OSP) population forecast. In most cases, OSP estimates were modified to reflect additional information provided by the applicants.

The second step was to develop future per capita water use rates which include the effects of water conservation, industrial growth, and changing urban patterns. Conservation savings are expected to result from changes in plumbing codes, improved system maintenance, customer education, and adoption of water reuse.

In the third step, the Division estimated future water use by multiplying estimated service population by the future per capita rate. The analysis assumed all water use attributable to new population would be consumed at the future per capita rate. The analysis also assumes that water use by the current population would gradually attain the future per capita rate due to fixture replacement and other conservation programs. The Division assumed "replacement" would occur at an annual rate of 3 percent. Appendix J contains a detailed explanation of the Division's population and water use methodology.

The allocation process imposes a cost on both the State and local governments. Therefore, the Division applied an additional test to be sure applicants will not need to apply for an increased allocation for at least the next 5 to 10 years (year 2005). The Division used a common rule of thumb for water supply planning: when a water system's average daily demand is at or exceeds 80 percent of the available yield, then a system needs to start expansion of their existing supplies. The Division applied this rule of thumb to the applicants' 2005 projected average daily water demands to determine if there was adequate water for the next 10 years.

Alternatives

Applicants were required to provide information on alternative water supplies that could be developed in lieu of a Jordan Lake allocation. Alternatives may include bulk purchases from other suppliers, new reservoir and well development, and reservoir expansion. The list of alternatives should have included all potential sources that the system had previously evaluated. Systems were not required to perform new feasibility studies of other potential supplies. The Division evaluated each alternative based on financial cost and institutional difficulty of developing the resource in comparison with a Jordan Lake withdrawal. The Division also considered the impact of each alternative on interbasin transfer and other environmental impacts.

In cases where a system has a viable alternative to Jordan Lake, the Division has recommended an adjustment in the allocation request to account for the alternative supply. Appendices A-H include a discussion of alternative water supplies for each applicant.

Allocation Recommendations

The Division of Water Resources used a conservative allocation criterion that allocates water for short-range needs (20 years). This ensures that some water supply storage is reserved for future allocations. To accomplish this policy, the following criteria were used:

1. Allocation based on average daily demand. The applications were a mix of maximum daily demands (MDD) and average daily demands (ADD). Using ADD is consistent with how the safe yield calculations for Jordan Lake were done.

1. 20-year water supply projections (year 2015) used instead of 30-year. This region is experiencing such rapid, dynamic growth that it is unrealistic to assume water needs can be accurately projected for 30 years. Using the 20-year projections leaves more water supply storage available to accommodate future demand as development patterns solidify.

1. Other considerations include availability and cost of alternative water supplies and the timing for when the next Jordan Lake water supply allocation would likely occur. With every round of allocation, there is a cost to both local governments and the State. We wanted to be conservative but not cause an undue burden with this process.

The Division's recommendations and the applicants' requests are summarized in Table 2. The Division's allocation recommendation is no increase in Chatham County's existing allocation and no allocation to the Cities of Durham, Fayetteville, and Greensboro. All of these systems had a zero or a small deficit with other available alternatives for their projected 2015 water demands.

The Division recommends proceeding with a public hearing for a 0.5 MGD allocation for the Town of Holly Springs. Also, for the Towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and Wake County/RTP South, the Division recommends proceeding with the interbasin transfer certification using the recommended allocation amounts in Table 2 for doing the necessary environmental review.

^{1 This column shows the total allocations if all the current requests or recommendation were approved}

^{2 Allocation is contingent on obtaining interbasin transfer certification. The recommendations provided are for informational purposes only at this time.}

Table 3 provides a more detailed summary of each of the systems' projected population and water use. The appendices provide details on each of the systems.

The applicants for which an allocation is recommended and for which interbasin transfer will be an issue include Holly Springs, Morrisville, Cary/Apex, and RTP South. For all of these systems the responsibility would be Cary's and Apex's for obtaining the interbasin transfer certification, since they own the pipes at the point where the transfer occurs. However, the rules also allow for another party involved in the transfer to assume responsibility for certification, if approved by the Director of the Division of Water Resources.

Holly Springs has requested to assume responsibility for certification of the interbasin transfer associated with their allocation request. The Division is going to approve their request for the following reasons. Holly Springs has its own WWTP which discharges back into the Cape Fear River basin, not the Neuse River basin. The estimated maximum daily transfer is only 0.8 MGD, based on the 0.5 MGD allocation recommendation. Since the Holly Springs interbasin transfer potential is only 0.8 MGD, well below the 2.0 MGD certification threshold, no interbasin transfer certification is needed at this time.

^{1 The data presented in this table is the Division of Water Resources independent analysis of population and water-use projections.}

Contract Changes

The Division is proposing to modify how the contracts between the State and local governments are written. The Division's proposed change is to modify the contracts with local governments to exclude the maximum rate of withdrawal and base the allocation only on storage. This change will make the contract more consistent with what the water systems are actually purchasing. Systems are purchasing water supply storage and not a guaranteed rate of withdrawal. Also this change will allow the systems to be able to increase withdrawals to meet their peak demands as long as the annual average withdrawal rate does not exceed their allocation amount and their storage is not depleted. The contracts will, however, indicate the estimated safe yield provided by the storage allocated to an applicant. To protect the reservoir from potential over use, DWR will not only rely on the Division of Environmental Health's treatment capacity and system expansion approval process, but will also require a water shortage response plan to be completed and approved by both the Corps and the State. An approved plan needs to be completed before any level II allocations are approved for level I. Existing level I allocations need an approved plan within 1 year of the contract modification. Also, DWR will work with the Corps to make available over the Internet the storage and withdrawal records for everyone's review.

The following is an example of how the contract would be modified:

Storage Amount. The Allocation Holder, subject to this contract with the State, has the right to use ten (10) percent of the water supply storage capacity of the project, estimated to be four thousand five hundred and eighty (4,580) acre-feet. The estimated safe yield from this storage is approximately ten (10) million gallons per day (MGD). When the Allocation Holder's storage is depleted, the Allocation Holder will have the right to withdraw ten (10) percent of the portion of net inflow allocated to water supply (10 percent of 32.62 percent equals 3.262 percent). The Government and the State will maintain records on the amount of water supply available in the water supply pool, and will inform each Allocation Holder of the amount of water available in its portion of that pool.

Within one (1) year of receiving a level I water supply allocation, the allocation holder will develop a water shortage response plan that is approved by both the Government and the State.

Watershed Diversions

The existing administrative rule limits water supply allocations that will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of the 100 MGD total water supply yield. The EMC may review and revise this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield. Currently, 19.4 percent of the 100 MGD yield is diverted out of the lake's watershed.

This administrative rule has raised a number of water quality and public health issues during the allocation process. A computer model is going to be developed as part of the interbasin transfer certification process. Division staff will use the model to determine if a joint study with the Corps, the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Environmental Health, and DWR is needed to reconsider the 50 percent rule. For this current round of allocations the limit does not need to be revised.

Watershed Transfers

The Jordan Lake watershed is that portion of the Haw River sub-basin upstream of Jordan Lake Dam. To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality purposes, the current rules limit allocations that will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield, or 50 MGD. This provision is specific to the lake's watershed because water returned below the dam does not replenish the reservoir's water supply and water quality pools. The EMC may review and revise this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield.

This 50-MGD limit refers to annual average diversions, since yields are typically based on annual averages. Table 4 summarizes the estimated diversions out of the lake's watershed, based on the 2015 demand projections and the recommended allocation amounts. As shown, 26.5 MGD of the 42.5 MGD total recommended allocation would be diverted out of the lake's watershed as of 2015, leaving 23.5 MGD of the water supply storage still available for future allocations outside the lake's watershed under the current 50-MGD limit.

¹ Includes existing allocation amounts

² Existing allocation holder, but did not apply for additional allocation

Interbasin Transfers

Overview

Since the initial Jordan Lake allocations were made, a new regulatory framework has been established by the legislature for evaluating interbasin transfers. This law (G.S. 143-215.22I) is intended to regulate large surface water transfers by requiring a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). The law applies to anyone initiating a transfer of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) or more from one river basin to another and to anyone increasing an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, if the total including the increase is 2 MGD or more. However, if a transfer facility existed or was under construction on July 1, 1993, a certificate is not required up to the full capacity of that facility to transfer water, regardless of the amount of the transfer.

If an existing transfer was approved by the EMC in a certificate issued under G.S. 162A-7 prior to July 1, 1993, any increase above the amount approved will require certification under G.S. 143-215.22I. Cary and Apex have such a certificate, allowing them to transfer up to 16 MGD from the Cape Fear River basin to the Neuse River basin. Any increase in this amount would require certification.

The amount of a transfer is defined by the rules (T15A: 02E .0400) as the amount of water moved from the source basin to the receiving basin, less the amount of water returned to the source basin. Therefore, any water consumption that occurs in the receiving basin would be considered a transfer, even if the remaining wastewater is discharged back to the source basin. In addition, certification is based on maximum daily transfer amounts, not average daily amounts.

The statute defines 38 sub-basins across the state. Only transfers from one of these defined sub-basins to another defined sub-basin is subject to regulation. However, under the statutes, if water is discharged either downstream or upstream from the point where it was withdrawn, it is not considered a transfer. For example, if a system in the Neuse River basin received an allocation from Jordan Lake (Haw River sub-basin) and then discharged its treated wastewater directly into the Cape Fear River, this would not be a transfer under the statutes. However, if that same system discharged its wastewater into a tributary of the Cape Fear River instead of directly into the Cape Fear River, that would be a transfer under the statute. In other words, if the water would have naturally flowed past the discharge point, as described in the rules, the transfer would not be subject to regulation.

Recommendations Involving Interbasin Transfers

The applicants for which an allocation is recommended and for which interbasin transfer is an issue include Holly Springs, Morrisville, Cary/Apex, and RTP South. The estimated maximum daily demands (MDDs) and potential maximum daily interbasin transfer amounts for 2000 and 2015 are summarized in Table 5 below. Estimates for both 2000 and 2015 are given since transfers are projected to decrease after 2000 when the West Cary WWTP is expected to come on-line in either the Haw or Cape Fear River sub-basin.

¹ Includes existing allocation amounts

The Holly Springs estimate reflects DWR's recommended 0.5 MGD allocation, not their requested allocation of 4.5 MGD. Note also that the Cary/Apex 2015 MDD and transfer are the applicant's estimates which were based on their projected 2015 average daily demand of 24 MGD. Since this demand exceeds the recommended 21 MGD total allocation for Cary/Apex, the transfer may be less, depending on the West Cary WWTP discharges.

The rule stipulates that responsibility for obtaining certification for a transfer belongs to the owner of the pipe where it crosses the sub-basin divide. For all of the systems listed above, that responsibility would be Cary/Apex's, since they own the pipes at the point where the transfer occurs. However, the rules also allow for another party involved in the transfer to assume responsibility for certification, if approved by the Director of the Division of Water Resources.

Holly Springs has asked to assume responsibility for certification of the transfer associated with its allocation request. DWR intends to approve that request for the following reasons. Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South effectively act as a regional water system, since Morrisville and RTP South will rely totally on Cary/Apex for water and wastewater services for their allocated water. Holly Springs, on the other hand, has its own WWTP which discharges back into the Cape Fear River basin, not the Neuse River basin as the others do. The estimated maximum daily transfer for Holly Springs is only 0.8 MGD, based on the recommended 0.5-MGD allocation. Since the certification threshold for transfers is 2.0 MGD, EMC certification will not be required for this transfer.

The combined estimated transfer for Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South is 20.2 MGD for 2000 and 18.8 MGD for 2015. Cary/Apex's current transfer certificate is for 16 MGD.

Schedule

For water supply allocations requiring interbasin transfer certification, the major milestones in the process and a general time frame are described below:

1. DWR provides EMC with information about need and reasonableness.

Information item at the EMC Water Quality Committee meeting, March 1997.

1. Provide a 30-day written comment period.

This would occur concurrent with the public hearing process for non-interbasin transfer allocations.

1. Hold scoping meetings to define issues and determine the types of studies that need to be done to evaluate the proposal.

The applicant is responsible for arranging the scoping meetings, preparing the study plans, and conducting the studies with DWR oversight. The time needed to develop the environmental documentation will depend upon the amount of the transfer and the issues identified in the scoping meeting(s). Depending upon the complexity of the issues, these tasks will likely range from 12 to 24 months in length.

1. Review and approval of study plans.

1. Conduct studies and prepare petition and EA/EIS documentation.

1. DWR presents initial recommendations to EMC.

1. Publish required public notices.

1. Hold public hearing and provide 30-day public comment period.

1. EMC makes determination on petition and allocation.

Model

A Cape Fear River Basin hydrologic model is planned that will assist decision-makers involved in the allocation and interbasin transfer processes, as well as provide a sound basis for developing water shortage response plans for Jordan Lake. The goal is to openly develop an analytical tool accepted by all basin stakeholders that can be used in developing consensus on a wide range of basin issues. The model would be developed by a qualified consultant hired by the Division of Water Resources. Funding for the model will come primarily from applicants and current allocation holders.

A Steering Committee will be created during the first quarter of 1997 to assist DWR in guiding the model development, including consultant selection, formulating model objectives, and locating and providing data. The Steering Committee will consist of :

current allocation holders and applicants

US Army Corps of Engineers

Council of Government (COG) representation from upper, middle, and lower basin

industrial representative

agricultural representative (extension service)

environmental/conservation representative

Applications of the model may include:

confirm Jordan Lake's yield/reliability

evaluate the 50-percent limit on allocations out of the watershed

evaluate flow-related impacts of interbasin transfers

evaluate the impacts of new or expanded water supply withdrawals

water shortage response planning

study recreational impacts

provide input to water quality models

Appendix A. Chatham County A-1

Appendix B. City of Durham B-1

Appendix C. City of Fayetteville C-1

Appendix D. City of Greensboro D-1

Appendix E. Towns of Apex and Cary E-1

Appendix F. Town of Holly Springs F-1

Appendix G. Town of Morrisville G-1

Appendix H. Wake County / Research Triangle Park H-1

Appendix I. Summary of Public Comments on the Process I-1

Appendix J. Population and Water Use Projection Methodology J-1

Appendix K. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0500 Allocation of Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage
K-1

Appendix L. North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-215.22G and
G.S. 143-215.22I Regulation of Surface Water Transfers L-1

Appendix M. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0400 Regulation of Surface Water Transfers M-1

Appendix N. Contacts For Additional Information N-1

Appendix A. Chatham County

Overview and System Recommendation

Chatham County is located in the central piedmont of North Carolina. As a neighbor of the booming research triangle region, the County is beginning to experience some of the same rapid development. The County's water system is divided into three sections: the Southwest Chatham Water System, the East Chatham Water System and the North Chatham Water System. Combined, the systems serve about 17 percent of Chatham County, including several small municipalities.

The system currently relies on an existing 6 MGD allocation from Jordan Lake and purchases from the Town of Siler City, Goldston-Gulf Sanitary District, and the City of Sanford. The County has requested an additional Level I allocation of 3.0 MGD and Level II allocation of 4.0 MGD based on average daily demand in the year 2025. This request would give the County a total allocation of 13 MGD.

The Division recommends, based on average daily demand in 2015, no additional allocation.

Population and Water Use Projections

The 1995 service population of Chatham County was 7,180. In 2015, Chatham County projects its service population will grow to 78,545 with an average daily demand of 11.3 MGD. In an addendum to their application, the County offered several growth scenarios to support their projections. The County suggested the following factors will influence its growth: 1) increased building activity, 2) improved highway access, and 3) innovative waste treatment solutions. The County derived growth rates from building permit information for both the county as a whole and for a high-growth census tract in the northeast corner of the county. The County's preferred scenario projected population based on the higher growth rate for years 1995 to 2005, and on the county growth rate for years 2010 to 2015.

The County also expects to increase its service area, eventually supplying water to most of the county and some of the existing municipal water systems. The County has provided letters from water systems in Siler City, Pittsboro, and Goldston indicating an interest in having Jordan water as a future alternative. By 2015, the County predicts it will serve 75 percent of the total county population.

The Division developed an independent forecast of service population for comparison purposes. The forecast was based on county population estimates by the Office of State Planning (OSP). The Division adjusted the OSP figures to reflect the recent county building permit information. This adjustment assumes the county population will grow at a rate of 3.75 percent from 1995 to 2005. The difference between the original OSP 2005 population and the adjusted 2005 population was then added to the remaining OSP forecast years to be consistent with the adjustment. This results in a county population forecast which reflects both short-term building activity and long-term OSP growth assumptions.

The Division assumed that the County's service population would increase linearly from its current level to 75 percent of total county population by 2025. In order to justify more rapid expansion, the Division would require evidence of formal arrangements with those systems the County anticipates eventually serving. In 2015, service population is estimated to reach 56 percent of county population, or 35,700. Table A-1 summarizes population projections.

Chatham County projects a 2015 average daily demand of 11.3 MGD. Projections were based on their forecasts of service population and per capita use. The County assumed per capita use would increase from current levels as additional industries are connected to the system.

The Division's water use projections are based on service population and per capita water use. For Chatham County, the Division assumed per capita demand would drop about 10 percent due to conservation in all categories except industrial. Since the County currently does not supply any industrial customers, per capita use in this category was raised to 20 GPCD to provide for a moderate level of new industry. Unaccounted water use, which the County reported as 0.0 MGD, was also increased to 10 percent of total water use to allow for typical transmission losses. The net effect of these adjustments is a higher per capita rate for new water use.

Table A-2 summarizes the average daily demands and computed deficits for Chatham County. The Division estimates a 2015 demand of 5.3 MGD. Compared with the 2015 safe yield of 6.0 MGD, the County should have a small surplus in 2015. The estimated demand in 2005 (3.1 MGD), also falls well under 80 percent of the available yield -- a common threshold for water supply planning. Based on these results, the Division recommends no additional allocation at this time. The Division also recommends that the County proceed with formalizing arrangements with other county systems that may require Lake Jordan water in the future.

Current Water Supply Sources

Chatham County's current water supplies include a 6.0 MGD allocation from Jordan Lake, and contracted purchases from the Town of Siler City, Goldston-Gulf Sanitary District, and the City of Sanford. The County also maintains an emergency connection with Pittsboro. The total safe yield of these supplies is 6.63 MGD. The County anticipates that the purchase contracts will terminate by 2015. Table A-3 summarizes the County's water sources.

Chatham County's water system is divided into three sections. The North Chatham Water System serves the Bynum, Fearington Village and Governor's Club area, and the new 3 MGD water treatment plant on Jordan Lake. The Southwest Chatham System serves Bennett, Bear Creek and Bonlee areas, and purchases water from Siler City and Goldston-Gulf. The East Chatham Water System serves the Moncure, Haywood and Corinth areas, and purchases water from Sanford. The County is pursuing interconnection of the three systems to form a county-wide system.

Alternative Sources

Chatham County lists a number of alternatives to a Jordan Lake allocation. Table A-4 summarizes the alternatives for the Southwest and East Chatham water systems. The North Chatham System currently has the capacity to treat 3.0 MGD of Jordan Lake water. The County did not provide unit costs for withdrawing and treating an additional allocation.

Conservation and Demand Management

At the present time, Chatham County does not have a formal water conservation policy. The County performs a monthly water accounting to detect potential leaks. The County is in the process of studying water conservation options including a revised plumbing code, a conservation ordinance, rate structure incentives, water reuse, and water shortage response plan.

Plans to use Jordan Lake

Chatham County has applied for a Level I allocation of 3.0 MGD, and a Level II allocation of 4.0 MGD. The County already operates a treatment facility on Lake Jordan and has secured a share in the Apex/Cary intake facility. The County foresees Jordan Lake becoming the primary water source for the entire county. In order to provide Jordan Lake water on a county-wide basis, the County will have to expand the water treatment plant and construct transmission mains interconnecting the three water systems. The County plans to phase in these upgrades over a twenty or thirty-year planning period.

Chatham County has in place a water quality monitoring plan to test both raw and finished water taken from Jordan Lake. All testing will be in accordance with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, and the U.S.-EPA.

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers

Portions of Chatham County lie in three different river basins: the Haw, Deep, and Cape Fear. Interbasin transfers would occur primarily from consumptive use in the Deep and Cape Fear basins. The Division estimates that about 40 percent of a future Jordan Lake allocation would be transferred out of basin. The out-of-watershed diversion would be about 50 percent of the allocation amount. Based on the recommendation of no additional allocation, an interbasin transfer certificate is not required.

Appendix B. City of Durham

Overview and System Recommendation

The City of Durham is located in Durham County in the northern piedmont. As part of the prosperous research triangle region, Durham anticipates continued strong growth. Durham's water system serves the City and some outlying areas including parts of Research Triangle Park. The system relies on two water supply reservoirs, Lake Michie and Little River Lake.

The City of Durham has requested a Level II allocation of 25 MGD, based on maximum daily demand in 2025. The Division's recommends, based on average daily demand in 2015, no additional allocation.

Population and Water Use Projections

The 1995 service population of Durham was 141,000. In 2015, Durham projects a service population of 257,000 with an average daily demand of 40.9 MGD. Durham based its water demand projection on a historical 3 percent growth rate.

The Division developed an independent forecast of service population for comparison purposes. The forecast was based on the Office of State Planning's (OSP) forecast of county population. Based on planned service expansions, the Division accepted Durham's service population forecast through the year 2005. After the year 2005, though, Durham's estimate exceeded the OSP county forecast. The Division assumed Durham's service population would not exceed total county population, so therefore used OSP county population figures for years 2010 to 2025. Table B-1 summarizes population projections.

^{1 OSP forecasts county population out to 2020. An estimate of 2025 population was derived by linear regression.}

The Division's water use projections are based on service population and per capita water use. For Durham, the Division assumed per capita demand in all categories would drop about 10 percent from 1995 levels. In the residential category, the average of several reporting years was used in place of the 1995 value, which was unusually high. Unaccounted water use was assumed to be 15 percent of total water use, based on Durham's current level of metering. The net effect of these adjustments was to reduce overall per capita use.

Table B-2 summarizes the average daily demands and computed deficits for Durham. The Division estimates a 2015 demand of 38.0 MGD. Compared with the 2015 safe yield of 37.0 MGD, Durham should have a deficit of about 1.0 MGD in 2015. A comparison was also made between Durham's 2005 demand and available yield to determine if Durham has sufficient time to plan for new supplies. Durham's 2005 demand exceeds 80 percent of safe yield -- a common threshold for water supply planning. This suggests that Durham needs to begin the planning process for its next water supply in the near future.

Based on Durham's available alternatives for future water supply, the Division recommends no additional allocation at this time. However, the Division recommends that Durham immediately begin exploring all alternatives to Jordan Lake.

Current Water Supply Sources

Durham's current water supplies include Lake Michie and Little River Lake with a total 50-year safe yield of 37 MGD. Both sources are located in the Neuse River Basin and provide high quality drinking water. Durham also maintains an emergency raw water intake on the Eno River. Table B-3 summarizes Durham's current water sources.

Alternative Sources

In their application, Durham lists two water supply alternatives to Jordan Lake: Lake Michie expansion and Teer Quarry. The Lake Michie expansion proposes raising the lake level to 380 M.S.L. The expansion would provide an additional 25 MGD safe yield. The City has already begun purchasing property around the lake to preserve land for future water supply and enhanced buffer areas. 1995 total development costs for this alternative are $2.12 per 1000 gallons.

Teer Quarry is an inactive quarry site that could be used for off-stream storage of 2 to 3 billion gallons of water. An intake on the Eno River would be used to fill the pit. This project would provide about 8 MGD of intermittent supply to help meet summer peak demands. Availability of the site for water supply purposes is uncertain at this time. 1995 total development costs for this alternative are $1.56 per 1000 gallons.

Durham estimates that development of transmission facilities for a Jordan Lake allocation would cost $1.47 per 1000 gallons. Lower costs are expected if bulk purchases are contracted through Cary or OWASA. Jordan Lake represents the least expensive alternative. Table B-4 lists Durham's alternatives.

Conservation and Demand Management

Durham's conservation policy is based on two documents. The first is Durham's Water Conservation Ordinance which meets the requirements of a Water Shortage Response Plan under the State's local water supply planning process. The ordinance outlines voluntary and mandatory conservation measures for four levels of water shortage. The other document is a report by the Water Resources Research Institute on water conservation potential in Durham. The report is intended to guide development of future conservation programs, but the report has not been formally adopted as a program.

Durham currently maintains two full-time water conservation staff positions. Durham also notes efforts to develop a reclaimed wastewater market.

Plans to use Jordan Lake

Durham has outlined two options for using a Jordan Lake allocation. The first option is to arrange a bulk purchasing contract with Cary or Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). Of the two, only Cary has an operating intake facility. The second option is to construct all facilities necessary for transmission of water from the existing intake on the east side of Jordan Lake to Durham's own treatment facility. If water use continues to grow at current rates, Durham would begin preparing for the project around 2005. Durham states that excess water could possibly be made available for sale to Hillsborough or Butner.

Durham states that they will develop a water quality monitoring plan based on regulations of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, and the U.S. EPA.

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers

Durham currently withdraws all of its water from Lake Michie and Little River Lake in the Neuse Basin. About 63 percent of this withdrawal is consumed in or discharged into the Cape Fear Basin. A Jordan Lake allocation to Durham would represent a transfer from the Cape Fear Basin to the Neuse Basin, therefore offsetting part of Durham's existing interbasin transfer. Under current rules, an interbasin transfer certificate would not be required in this case.

A Jordan Lake allocation would also not cause an out-of-watershed diversion since Durham would consume more water in the Cape fear Basin than it would withdraw.

Appendix C. City of Fayetteville

Overview and System Recommendation

The City of Fayetteville is located in Cumberland County in the southern piedmont. The City's Public Works Commission (PWC) provides water to about 54 percent of Cumberland County, including the City and towns of Hope Mills and Spring Lake.

The system relies on withdrawals from the Cape Fear River and impoundments on Little Cross Creek and Big Cross Creek. PWC has requested a Level II allocation of 20 MGD, based on average daily demand in the year 2025. Based on average daily demand in 2015, the Division recommends no allocation for PWC at this time.

Population and Water Use Projections

PWC's service population in 1995 was 158,600. In 2015, PWC projects a service population of 295,300 with average daily demand of 53.6 MGD. PWC assumes that with service area expansions and modest growth, it will serve about 86 percent of Cumberland County's population in 2015 (based on previous OSP forecasts). PWC also plans to continue to supply emergency water to Fort Bragg and recruit new industry to the area.

The Division developed an independent forecast of service population for comparison purposes. The forecast was based on the Office of State Planning's (OSP) forecast of county population. PWC's 2015 population forecast was well documented and, when adjusted for the latest OSP forecast (1996 release), fairly conservative. The Division accepts PWC's 2015 service population estimate of 295,300. Table C-1 summarizes population projections.

^{1 OSP forecasts county population out to 2020. An estimate of 2025 population was derived by linear regression.}

The Division's water use projections are based on service population and per capita water use. For PWC, the Division assumed per capita demand would drop about 10 percent due to conservation in all categories except industrial. Industrial per capita use was kept at current rates to accommodate planned industrial expansions. The Division also assumed that PWC would continue to maintain a 3.0 MGD emergency supply contract with Fort Bragg. Unaccounted water use was reduced from 13 percent to 10 percent of total water use based on PWC's stated conservation goal. The net effect of these adjustments was to reduce overall per capita demand slightly from current levels.

Table C-2 summarizes the average daily demands and computed deficits for PWC. The Division estimates a 2015 demand of 43.5 MGD. Compared with the 2015 safe yield of 66 MGD, PWC should have a surplus of about 22 MGD in 2015. The estimated demand in 2005 (39.8 MGD), also falls well under 80 percent of the available yield -- a common threshold for water supply planning. Based on these results, the Division recommends no additional allocation for PWC at this time.

Current Water Supply Sources

PWC's current water supplies include the Cape Fear River, a series of four impoundments on Little Cross Creek, and a supplemental water supply on Big Cross Creek. The total safe yield of these supplies is 66 MGD. To aid the allocation process, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) provided a new safe yield estimate for the Cape Fear River at PWC's intake. DWQ determined a safe yield of 60 MGD based on flow and water quality constraints. Table C-3 summarizes Fayetteville's water sources.

Alternative Sources

PWC considers the Cape Fear River to be the only water source capable of meeting additional future demands. PWC notes that they have investigated ground water as an option, but regional aquifers are unable to provide suitable yield. In their application, PWC provided no economic, environmental, or institutional evaluation of any alternative.

Conservation and Demand Management

PWC has adopted a variety of programs to encourage water conservation, including:

• Local Water Shortage Ordinance which meets the requirements of a Water Shortage Response Plan under the State's local water supply planning process

• Meter repair and replacement program with goal of 10 percent unaccounted water

• Public education through distribution of water conservation materials

• Wastewater reuse at wastewater treatment facilities

• Industrial Pretreatment Program

• Odd-Even Landscape Irrigation Program

• Waterwise Garden Demonstration Project

Plans to use Jordan Lake

PWC has applied for a Level II allocation of 20 MGD. This allocation would be made available to PWC downstream by additional spillway releases. The existing intakes at the Hoffer Treatment Facility would be upgraded by adding additional pumping capacity. PWC notes a number of other system upgrades to accommodate additional water demands. Treated wastewater would be discharged into the Cape Fear in the vicinity of Fayetteville.

PWC states that they would monitor water quality in accordance with U.S.-EPA state regulations. PWC operates a state certified lab capable of performing most of the required monitoring on an in-house basis.

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers

A Jordan Lake allocation to Fayetteville would not result in any interbasin transfer. Fayetteville currently discharges all treated wastewater back into the Cape Fear River. Any allocation, however, would be transferred out of the watershed. Fayetteville's downstream location makes it difficult to return wastewater to Jordan Lake.

Appendix D. City of Greensboro

Overview and System Recommendation

The City of Greensboro is located in Guilford County in the upper piedmont. Greensboro's water system serves about 53 percent of Guilford County, including the City and specific unincorporated areas of the County. The system currently relies on water impounded in Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, and Lake Townsend.

As a member of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority, Greensboro is pursuing the development of Randleman Lake to meet its water needs for the next 50 years. The City's share of Randleman Lake's safe yield is 28.5 MGD. Pending the outcome of the NEPA process, Greensboro has sought a Jordan Lake Level II allocation of 25 MGD, based on forecast demand in 2025. The Division considers Randleman Lake to be a viable alternative to meet the City's long-term water needs. Therefore, the Division recommends no allocation at this time. However, it is possible for the City to maintain its request for an allocation throughout the process until such time that a final decision on construction of Randleman Lake is made. If it is ultimately decided that Randleman Lake will not be built, the Division will reconsider the City's allocation request.

Population and Water Use Projections

Greensboro's 1995 service population was 197,000. In 2015, Greensboro projects a service population of 217,825 with an average daily demand of 48.0 MGD. Pending the outcome of the NEPA review of the Randleman Lake project, the Division accepts the City's projections for the year 2015.

Including Greensboro's share of Randleman Lake, the City should have a substantial water surplus in 2015. Therefore, the Division's recommendation is no allocation at this time. If Randleman Lake is not approved for construction, the Division will re-evalua