HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-30-2011 - 1aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 30, 2011
Action Agenda
Item-No. 1-a
SUBJECT• Jordan Lake Allocation, Partnership and Draft Regional Water Supply Plan
DEPARTMENT: Environment, Agriculture,
Parks and Recreation
(DEAPR), Planning and
Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Jordan-Lake Allocation Estimated
Milestones
2. Portion of Draft Phase I Regional
Water Supply Plan -Water Demand
Projections
3. EDD Map with Water Demand
Projections
4. Portion of Draft Phase II Regional
Water Supply Plan -Water
Supply Alternatives
5. Draft Water SuRplies Tables
6. Phase I Regional Interconnections
Study Final Map
INFORMATION CONTACTS:
David Stancil, DEAPR, 245-2510
Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2575
Tom Davis, DEAPR, 24~-2513
Kevin Lindley, Engineer, 245-2575
PURPOSE: To inform the Board of recent developments with the Jordan Lake Partnership and
related activities including a draft regional water supply plan and future water allocations from
Jordan Lake.
BACKGROUND: Orange County has a long history of working to pro#ect surface water and
groundwater for the benefit of all. Over the years, the County has also tried to ensure that safe,
secure high quality drinking water is available for residents. These issues, and others, were
elucidated in a number of forward-looking studies in the 1970's and 1980's, including the Report
of the Orange County Water Resources Task Force, which was submitted to the BOCC in May
1981. The task force examined 29 possible reservoir sites in the County and recommended
five sites for further study. A subsequent 1984 study by the John R. McAdams Company
recommended the development of reservoirs on Seven Mile Creek and at the location of the
present West Fork of the Eno River Reservoir operated by the Town of Hillsborough. In 1987,
Hazen and Sawyer completed an additional study of possible reservoir sites in a report entitled
Orange County Water Supply Study Phase 1. The only impoundment that the County operates
at this time is Lake Orange. Recent efforts amongst water resource planners in the Triangle
area have tried to look at water supply planning with a regional focus.
z
The Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) was formed in 2009 and is composed of 12 Triangle area
municipalities plus the Orange Water & Sewer Authority (OWASA). The JLP Partners, which
include Orange County, are committed to working collaboratively to enhance the sustainability
and security of the region's water supply resources through conservation and- efficiency,
interconnection, and coordinated planning and development of the Jordan Lake water supply.
In late 2009, the JLP asked the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) to initiate a fourth
round of water supply allocations from Jordan Lake. NCDWR agreed and then recommended
to the Water Allocation Committee of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) that
the allocation process commence. In early 2010, the EMC authorized the NCDWR to begin the
allocation process. Since that time, Orange County and the other members of the JLP have
been working with NCDWR on the development of the water supply allocation process.
Attachment 1 is a timeline detailing the process of allocating the Jordan Lake water supply.
Currently, draft allocation applications from each JLP partner are due to NCDWR in May 2012,
and final applications are due in August 2012. NCDWR estimates that the EMC- will announce
the awarding of allocations in early 2013.
Projected Water Demands: In order to prepare for the allocation process, the JLP partners
have been developing. Phase t of a Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP_), documenting the
projected water supply demand for the next 50 years for each of the JLP partners. A selected
portion of the latest draft of the Phase 1 RWSP is included as Attachment 2. Orange County
Planning utilized a land use analysis- to project future water needs for each of the three
Economic Development Districts (EDDs) in the County:_ Eno, Hillsborough and Buckhorn
(Attachment 3). This process estimated a total water demand of nearly 4 million gallons per day
(MGD) by 2060 for the three EDDs. For reference, NCDWR estimates that at least 100 MGD
are expected to be allocated to regional municipalities during the fourth round of the Jordan
Lake allocation process.
Interfocal Agreements: Durham (Eno EDD) and Mebane (Efland Buckhorn Mebane EDD)
The Jordan Lake Allocation for Orange County is related to the interlocal governments'
agreements. Orange County and the City of Durham have been working on an agreement for
water and sewer utility extension into the Eno Economic Development District. This
approximately 900 acre district is adjacent to the City of Durham -near the intersection of I-85
and US70 in Orange County's eastern economic development zone.
This area is within the City of Durham's urban growth boundary where the city has a minor
presence of water and sewer facilities, a water main interconnects with the Town of
Hillsborough, and the sewer service of a mobile home park. This general area can be serviced
by the City of Durham. An interlocal water and sewer service agreement can promote an
orderly extension to future economic development opportunities in the area that was noted by
the Eno EDD small area plan adopted by the County in 2008.
Staff has also been discussing the expansion of the City of Mebane Service Area in Orange
County now that the Water and Sewer Management Plan and Boundary Agreement
(WASMPABA) and land use has changed. The present service area adopted in March 2004 is
1,057± acres. The expanded area may include an additional 2,090 acres for economic
development and possibly other mixed use residential area.
Similar agreements may be forthcoming with the Town of Hillsborough
The long range- potential and funding of utilities in the area is noted in the County. Capital
Investment Plan (CIP).
The draft agreements, still under review by all parties, will set forth aspects of master planning,
design, permitting, funding, construction and eventual customer connection. These agreement
will come back within the next few months.
Water Supply Alternatives: The draft Phase II RWSP details water supply source alternatives
in the Trians~le area. Attachment 4 includes relevant portions ofithe draft Phase II RWSP. All of
the water supply alternatives listed in the Phase II RWSP, other than accessing Jordan Lake,
involve the purchasing of finished water from a regional water utility. It is unlikely that the Eno
River or Lake Orange represent a viable source of future water supply due to the fragile nature
of the Eno River, especially during the dry summer months. Furthermore, the construction of a
new reservoir in the County, either alone or in partnership with another utility or municipality, is
unlikely to be economically competitive with the allocation of water supply from an existing
reservoir such as Jordan Lake. However, consideration of the use of additional existing water
sources, such as those listed in Attachment 5, should also be evaluated. Additional evaluation
of interbasin transfer considerations is also needed, including whether or not the threshold of 2
million gallons per day (MGD), which would necessitate the completion of an interbasin
Transfer Certificate, would be exceeded.
Interconnections Study: The JLP .recently hired a consultant to complete a preliminary study
to complete an inventory of the water supply infrastructure interconnections in the region:
Attachment 6 represents the results of this study: This map depicts the existing water supply
infrastructure in the Triangle region and includes preliminary information concerning
infrastructure that is likely to be needed to provide Jordan Lake water to selected service areas.
Planned interconnections between Orange County and the pity of Mebane and Town of
Hillsborough are shown on this figure as Interconnections-23 and 24. Currently, the consultant
is working on expanding the initial interconnections study in an effort to provide to the partners
alternatives intended to increase interconnection capacity with connected or currently
unconnected systems and provide a prioritized list of recommended projects to increase
potential for regional cooperation during water shortages for periods of drought and other
emergencies. Even though the City of Mebane and the Orange-Alamance Water System
(OAWS) are not members of the JLP, the service areas for these systems are important to
consider with regard to the future provision of water in Orange County. The OAWS service
area is depicted in Attachment 6.
WASMPBA: Modification of the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary
Agreement may also need to occur to permit the use of Jordan Lake water within Orange
County.
Western Intake Study: Finally, the City of Durham reportedly plans to initiate the study of the
proposed new Western Intake at Jordan Lake this fall. The Western Intake may possibly be the
final intake structure built on Jordan Lake, and may serve to provide raw water to several
jurisdictions surrounding Jordan Lake.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Several costs are involved with the procurement of an allocation of water
supply from Jordan Lake. Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), the host agency for the
development of the RWSP, anticipates increased costs of approximately $3,700 per JLP
partner to complete the Phase II RWSP. The current JLP annual fee for Orange County is
4
$2,500. Funding for-these costs is included in the FY 2011-12 budget. The JLP is also likely to
hjre a consultant for use by each interested partner to complete the necessary Jordan Lake
allocation applications.
NCDWR charges annual fees to hold an allocation of water supply from Jordan Lake. These
fees vary depending on the size of the allocation, as well as whether or not the allocation is
actively being utilized (Level 1 allocation) versus a future allocation (Level II) such as Orange
County currently maintains. In 2010, NCDWR assessed an annual charge of $2,471.54 for
possessing a Level II allocation of 1 MGD of Jordan Lake water. Funding for continuation of
this amount was included in the FY 2011-12 budget, with the expectation that future increases
would occur after this fiscal year. The allocation fees vary from year to year as a result of the
enabling legislation, and in fact the current regulations contain a deadline of 2012 meaning the
calculations used to determine the annual cost may change after next year. Future costs to
maintain a .Level II allocation may rise, and will probably be at least $2,5001MGD annually.
Level I allocation fees to maintain a 1 MGD allocation -are estimated to be approximately
$45,000 annually.
Finally, the future utilization of Jordan Lake water will require the development of a_substantial
amount of new infrastructure in Orange County. While the details- of this infrastructure are
currently unknown, it is certain that the installation of this infrastructure will- require- significant
capital. Some of this infrastructure is included. within .the planned upgrades in the FY 2011-16
CIP.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss and consider the
information presented and provide direction to staff concerning the future provision of potable
water in Orange County and involvement in allocation requests and future projects and
initiatives.
,, l Ltcr~rMc+~T
Updated Jordan Lake Water Supplx Allocation Milestones
July 2011
DV1iR/EMC led Items
- Cape Fear River -Basin modeling update underway
- Cape Fear River- Basin Water Supply Plan to start in Fall 2011
- Draft Jordan Lake Allocation Applications now due May 2012
- Final Jordan Lake Allocation Applications now due August 2012-
- EMC determines allocations in -late 2012/early 2013
JLP aed I#ems
- Phase I RWSP Needs Assessment compete July_ 2011
- Phase I1 RWSP' Supply Alternatives with modeling and analysis
complete March 2012
- Final RWSP complete April 2012
- Phase I Interconnections Study complete July 2011
- Phase It Interconnections Study complete October 2011
- Consultant completes JL Allocation Applications Feb - Aug2012
Other Items
5
- Western Intake Feasibility Study (led by Durham) start Fall 2012
DRAFT-d3/1U20ll ____ Triangle Regional ~'Vater Supply Plan
From SECTION.XI. INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM SUMMARIES
Orange Covnty
Prior Studies/ Relate-d Documentation
Orange County, 2008. Orange County, North Carolina: 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Orange County
Planning and Inspections Department. Adopted 18 Nov 2008. Ch. 5 Land Use Element.
Orange County, 2008. Orange County, North Carolina: 2030 Comprehensive Flan. Orange County
Planning and Inspections Department. Adapted 18 Nov 2008. Ch. 8 Services and Facilities Element,
including Figure 8-1 Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement.
Future Demand
Table 41. Oranne County Future Demand Projections (MGD).
Sector 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Residential 0.01 0:26 0.59 0.90- 1.19 _ 1.46
Non-Residential 0.01 0.39 -0.89 1.35 1.79 2.19
WTP Process (N/A) (Orange does not operate a WTP. All water will be
provided by other systems.)
Distribution Process {Included with Other Non-Revenue)...;,
Other Non Revenue 0.00 0.05' 0.11 0.17 0.22 0.27
Total 0.02 0.70 1.59 2.42 3.20 3.92
Table 42.Oran e Coun Future_ Demand Pro' ections ( ercent of total demand .
Sector 2010 2020- - 2030 2040 2050 2060
Residential 37.2% 37.2% 37.2% 37.2% 37.2% 37.2%
Non-Residential 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8%
WTP Process (N/A) {Orange does'not operate a WTP. All water will'be
provided by other systems.)
Distribution Process (Included with Other Non-Revenue)
:Other Non.-Revenue 7.0% 7.0% 7.0°~ 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100 100% 100%
Demand Methodology
-Orange County does not currently operate a water system and does not have plans to operate asystem in
the future. Nevertheless, the County has significant areas identified in their Comprehensive Plan for
future economic development and is committed to ensuring adequate water supplies will be available for
these areas. The County is planning to partner with neighboring water systems to serve these areas, but
plans to do so have not been finalized as of yet. It is likely that a combination of Mebane, Orange-
Alamance, Hillsborough and the Durham water systems will ultimately provide service to areas of the
County. Without the benefit of having historical customer usage information to base future demand
projection information on, Orange County has instead used a planning approach to estimate water
demand.
s
Page 1
7
DRAFT-03/11/2011 Triangle Regional ~'Vater Supply PIan
Population Estimates
Orange County prepared population estimates for its service areas by performing a land use analysis to
determine the total potential population at build-out based on available acreage. In general; the available
land area slated for development was broken down into three economic development service areas:
Efland-Mebane, Eno and Hillsborough. Each of these areas were divided into smaller nodes, which are
blocks of land with a relatively homogeneous-land use. These nodes included several non-residential land
use types, and residential land use of low and high density. All of the service areas contain some
designated areas of residential land.
Population estimates were-based on capacity assumptions, which ~Nere made forthe available area in the
residential land use nodes. In total, 10,248 acres were contained in a-total of six low-density residential
nodes and one high-density node. Within each node, a percentage of the total area was deemed "not
developable" to accommodate the space needed for transportation infrastructure, utilities, open space, etc.
The percentages of remaining developable land varied by node but ranged from 50% to 75%.
After the developable land was calculated, the number of households was then determined in each node.
The amount of developable land area was multiplied by an assumed household densityof two households
per acre for low-density residential areas and four households per acre for high-density residential areas.
-Once the number of households was estimated, the.population was then determined:
Population was calculated by multiplying the number of households by an assumed rate of 235 persons
per household, regardless of whether the housing unit-was high- or low-density. This population was
determined to be the total population at build-out.
Orange County determined the population at ten-year increments by assuming the percentage of build-out
achieved at each interval. In 2010, the population was estimated at 0.5% of the built-out population. By
2020, it was assumed the population would reach i5% ofbuild-out. Each subsequent forecast year (10
year increments) increased the percentage of build-out by 20%, starting with 35% in 2030 and
culminating~in 96% of the total built-out population being present in 2060.
Water Demand Projections
The Orange County- Planning Department used a land use analysis to also estimate future water use. Like
the population estimate methodology described above, water demand was first calculated at build-out, and
then the forecast year demand projections were calculated based on the percentages of build-out reached.
Future water demand was determined at ten-year increments by assuming the percentage of the built-out
water demand achieved at each of these intervals. In 2010, water demand was estimated at 0.5% of the
built-out water demand. By 2020, it was assumed the water demand would reach 15% of the built-out
water demand. Each subsequent forecast year (10 year increments) increased the percentage of the built-
out water demand by 20%, starting with 35% in 2030 and culminating in 95% of the built-out water
demand occurring in 2060.
Residential sector demands were based on the projected population and a per capita usage rate.
Population projections are described in the population estimate section above. The assumed'per capita
water use rate utilized for this analysis is 70 gallons per person day. Non-residential demand was
calculated on a per area basis. Each of the three economic development service areas contain defined
non-residential nodes. These node types include areas designated as Economic Development District
(EDD), Commercial Node (CN), Commercial Industrial Node (CII~, Urban Growth Area (UGA), and
others. Even though the node descriptions provided some information concerning the division of non-
residential demand into sectors such as commercial, industrial, etc., it was decided to list all of the nodes
as simply non-residential. As with the residential nodes, Orange County again assumed that only 75 % of
Page 2
8
DRAFT-03/11/2011 Triangle Regional i'Vater Supply Plan
the non-residential area would be available for development. Finally, Orange County assumed a 1,000
gallons per acre of developable land non-residential use rate for all of these nodes.
Orange County assumed a conservation factor for application to the water demand projections. The
County assumed that conservation efforts and increased efficiencies would have the effect of lowering
demand at a rate of 2.85% per decade. Even though Orange County does not plan to operate a water
system, the County's. projections do include some allowance for non-revenue water. This is because non-
revenue water will be at`~ributable to Orange County's service area due to leakage and flushing (and to a
-lesser extent, WTP process water used by another utility to- treat the water- sold to customers in the Orange
County service area). Orange County assumed a rate of 7.SA/o of total residential and non-residential
demand would be non-revenue water. All types ofnon-revenue water are grouped together in these
projections.
In summary, Orange County's key assumptions include:
• 75% ofnon-residential acreage is developable and 50-75% of residential acreage is developable-
• 2.35 persons per household
• 2 or 4 households per acre for low- and high-density residential areas, respectively
• 70 gallons per person per day for residential acreage
•- 1,000-gallons per acre for non-residential acreage
• 95% of service areas will be developed by the year 2060-
• Water conservation - 2.85% decrease per decade in residential -and. non-residential use rates
• 7.5% of revenue water is assumed to be non-revenue water (WTP process, distribution system
process and other non-revenue water)
Water Supply
Tohla d2 (lranna ('nimty Water 471nn1V fMC'r171
-
Source ~_._
Available/ .
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Future
Current7ordan Lake Available 1 1 1 1 1 1
Allocation
Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Orange County has a Level II allocation from 3ordan Lake estimated to yield 1 MGD.
Future Water Supply Need
Tahla d4 nranue C'nnnty Future Water Sunnly Need (MGD).
System 2010 2020 2030- 2040 2050 2060
Orange 0.00 0.00 0.59 1.42 2.20 2.92
Page 3
Orange County Economic Development Districts ATTACHMENT 3 9
with Prnipr_ted 2040 Water Demands
Draft Supply Alternatives from t'hase II RWSP
Future
Source
Source Name Year Yield Develop. financial Environ. Regulatory/
# Online (MGD) Time (yrs) Cost Impact Political
Existing 1 MGD Jordan Labe allocation treated/
1 supplied by regional partner (Haw River basin) 2019 1.0 8 M L M
Increase JL allocation to 2 MGD -
2 treated/supplied by regional partner (Haw) 2027 2.0 16 M L M
3 Same scenario increased to 4 MGD (Haw) X036 4.Q 25 M L M
ase finished water from utility as needed
4 Havh
( ) 2009 0.5 5 M L M
5 Purchase finished water from utility as needed
2018
2
0
7
M
L
M
(Haw) .
6 hase finished water from utility as needed
Ha 2029 4
0 18 M L M
N
( ) .
Purchase finished water from utility as needed
7
(Neuse) 2020 1.0 9 M L M
8 Purchase finished water from utility as needed 2029 2
0 18 M L M
(Neuse) .
New reservoir with regional partner (Either
9 ,
basin) 2036 4.0 25 H H H
10 Orange County reservoir (Either basin) 2036 ? 25 H H H
Combinations of the above listed alternatives were used to meet projected demand and are included in draft
~-
L
Phase II RWSP. j
0
~'~anT 5 11
Existing Surface 1Nater Supplies in Orange County
May 2011
St
1 Year
Control-
i 20 year
Safe
Estimated
Yield
Useable
Comments
VCUA Max
Avail. ng
A enc
g Y Yield (MGD) Storage withdrawal
(MGD
Eno River N/A DWR N/A ?
Haw River
N/A
DWR
~8.3
N/'°` ^'20% of
7Q10
N/A
University 1932 OWASA 27 N/A 450 M~ N/A
-Lake
Lake Ben 1955 Hi11s- 680
0 19.6 MG 1:51
Johnston borough . (74 ac-ft)
Corporation 1968 OAWS 0.370 18.6 MG
(86 ac-ft) 0.82
Lake
LaKe Orange
1968 Orange
County
1.6 427 MG
(1,255 ac-ft) 0.080 H
( )
Cane Creek 1989 OWASA 8.6 N/A 2,870 MG N/A
Reservoir
WFER 2004 Hills-
borough 1.8 3.2 786 MG-
(2,389 ac-ff) ?
Stone Quarry 2030 OWASA 5.5 209 to
000 MG
3 N/A
Reservoir ,
Piedmont Minerals is permitted to withdraw-a maximum of 0.9 MGD.
WFER operates under separate dam safety release requirement table.
Figures from various sources available on-line, except estimated yield figures and
useable storage information in acre-feet, which is from July 2010 Neuse River Basin
Water Resources Plari prepared by the NC Division of Water Resources.
VCUA Voluntary Capacity Use Agreement
MGD Million gallons per day
MG Million gallons
Ac-ft acre-feet (1 acre-foot is approximately 325,000 gallons)
N/A Not Applicable
7Q10 The lowest 7-day average flow that occurs (on average) once every 10
years.
12
Selected Regional Surface-Water Reservoirs and Major Rivers
February 2011
Controlling 15t Year 20 year
Safe Yield Useable
Storage
- Comments
Agency Available (MGQ) (MG)
4.972 MGD- avg. daily
Town of withdr-awal, including:
Graham 1.3 MGD to Mebane,
Graham-Mebane (2/3) 1976 12.0 2,300 3.44 MGD to Graham,
Reservoir Mebane 0.12 MGD to
(1/3) «, Swepsonville,
0.100 MGD to Green Level.
6.631 MGD average-daily
-Stoney Creek Burlington -1927 12.0. 3.,000 withdrawal, included in
Reservoir sales as listed- below.
11.196 MGD avg. daily
withdrawal, including:
3.040 to Greensboro,
Lake Mackintosh Burlington 1993 36.0 7,000 0.786 to Elon,
0.619 to Gibsonville,
0.703 to Haw-River,
0.100 to Vil. of Alamance.
Lake Cammack Burlington 1960 Unk. Unk.
100 MGD available for
Jordan Lake DWR 1988 N/A 15,000 allocation
Figures are from the most. recent Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) submitted by each
utility and available on-line at NC DWR web site.
~" ~ ~ _. Y
--
..^,,,,_ ~ '~ ~ ~! ~PpTgB
. ,
-
_. - .~
,i ~_ ~„~- .~~ Vi`e' { ~' / y ~y ~ JpRDAN LgKE pRCpNNEGT
_ ----~-~ __ ~~ -- ~ ° m=-•~~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~ f m _ ~ : I ART HERS
~..~~ ~::
:~.~ - S ~ ,~ ~,~ ~ ~ °`~ ~ AUGUST 2017~~ JJ
L ~ _.~ ~ 1
k ~`. or °
~- ry ~ -
r~~ 642` I 5 ~~ v-
~~'~'~~~ ~ f 888 L ~~ ~ ~ +.~.~,n ~''
-.,~ _ V ~ {
~1 C1
~./{"Mel ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ M ~-Y. ~ - I t
y
4 ~
.r..
~y. t { _
.:
`y ,
~,
a
Y8
~ A ~~
585 ~' yJ ~~
~' ~ j..
~~ _ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ X452
B17 ~~ ~ % ~~~ ~~ ~~
a3s '~ f
~ x 3r ,~ r:~ ~~ ( ~
,: ~ ,
- ~ yr ' ~- - ~ ra ~ ~ ~ - ~~ 1....~ ~~II ~
z,
}
~u
n
o ~
w
~-~ ~ ~ : ~ fir`
...-.~ w y
`~``e_ l , v ` '1Z ~'yn
,,, ~....
~ ~ ~~~~'~ ~ I ~L--~.~r--`I`q`
ti
~y ~ ...
~ ~~ S
,_ -
__ ,__ ~~.
..
..
`-:~_~ ~ _
~ ~-~
w ~ € + ) ,wnn gyn. F~ m
•,~ f ~...~ ~ ~....~,,,~„n,~
~, b ~ ~ ~ ff^wu.~y
'Y. Rop NunKpM~ounyy
~ 'faWt~~t~~~~~ _,..,_, ~,m _~
~Nfitti -"'~- Hwy. ~ va z