Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-15-2011 - Information Item 2=r~-Forma-I- ~ on ~-{. ~r,.~ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration ®`9lae ~ ~`°'~A (919) 245-2575 17 ~ _ ~ ,z 131 W. Margaret Ln. (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ~ P. O. Box 8181 x Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.co.orange.nc.us ~;,,b ~,to„~ µ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Frank W. Clifton, County Manager FROM: Kevin Lindley, PE, Staff Engineer CC: Craig N. Benedict, Planning and Inspection Director DATE: October 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Process for instigating a review of the Eno River Voluntary Capacity Use Agreement Back rg ound In 1988, Orange County became party to the Eno River Voluntary Capacity Use Agreement (Agreement). This agreement was intended to preserve a minimum flow in the Eno River, even during times of drought, by restricting the amount of water that three major users could withdraw from the Eno River. The three water users who were part of the agreement were the Town of Hillsborough (Town), Orange-Alamance Water System (OAWS) and Piedmont Minerals. Orange County is party to the agreement because at the time, Lake Orange was the only water supply reservoir on the Eno in Orange County and the agreement sets forth a release schedule from the Lake to supply these three water users with sufficient water based on their allocation and also provide in- stream flow in the Eno River during all but the worst drought periods. An electronic copy of the actual operating rules of the Agreement can be found on the Internet at: http•//www ncwater orglPermits and Registration/Capacity Use/Eno River Mana~ement/docs/wat er mana eg ment~lan.pdf This memorandum is in response to Commissioner Jacobs petition to the Chair requesting-that staff provide a summary of the process to initiate a State review of the Agreement and any pertinent issues that may be involved with that process. Agreement Review Process The specific steps to initiate a review are fairly straightforward. The Agreement is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC), so they would be the body who ultimately decides whether a review of the Agreement is in order. The steps to request a review are as follows: • The request to initiate a review must come in the form of a letter, from at least one (and 2 preferably more than one) of the parties to the Agreement listed above, addressed to Mr: Tom Reeder, Director of the Division of Water Resources (DWR). • The letter should include a detailed explanation of why the current agreement is no longer adequate and should specifically detail what items in the agreement should be subject to review and the reason why the party(ies) requesting the review would like to see these items amended. The letter should also, if possible, explain how any proposed changes will improve the management of the Eno River. • DWR will forward the letter to a subcommittee of the EMC known as the Water Allocation Committee (WAC). The WAC will discuss the merits of the letter request and make a recommendation to the full EMC as to whether the review of the Agreement should proceed. The WAC. and the EMC meet every other month, so there is roughly a three month timeframe from the submittal of the letter request until the request is heard by the full EMC. • If the EMC agrees with the letter requesting review of the Agreement, then a plan of review would be established. Depending on the particular type and scope of the review, it may be possible for DWR staff to handle the review internally. If it is anticipated that outside parties would be required to review the Agreement as requested, the requestor(s) may be asked to pay for any external services necessary to accomplish the review. Has An hing Changed? Since the inception of the Agreement, in 1988, there have been very few changes made to the Agreement itself. However, many of the parameters that were used to construct the agreement have changed. The Town, OAWS, and Piedmont Minerals all have less water demand than they did then. As a point of reference, the Town's allocation for withdrawal from the Eno doesn't fall below their current average water demand until Lake Orange drops below 40% full. The allocation for Piedmont Minerals drops to zero when the Lake drops below 30% full, but the allocation for OAWS never falls below the amount they are currently withdrawing from the Eno River. In addition, The Town and OAWS have additional water supplies that they did not have in 1988. The most significant change to the Agreement was in 2000, when changes were made to the required in-stream flow component of the Agreement in anticipation of the opening of the West Fork Eno Reservoir (WEER). Even this change was actually an addition rather than a change. The original agreement's allocation to each water user stayed the same, as did the Lake Orange contribution to in- stream flow in the Eno River. The only thing added was the required minimum release from the WEER. That said, the significance of the addition of the WEER cannot be understated with regards to its impact on the Town's water supply reliability and to the health of the Eno River. Shortly after construction of the WEER was complete in early 2002, Orange County experienced one of the worst droughts in recent memory. Lake Orange dwindled down to more than nine feet below spilling. Before the addition of the WEER to the Agreement, there would have been no in-stream flow required and the Eno River could have been allowed to run dry once Lake Orange dropped below about 7 '/2 feet. However, even though the WEER was not yet full, it was still required to release a minimum of 650,000 gallons per day for in-stream flow. Because the WEER was there, the Eno was able to maintain flow during the drought. Since 2002, there have been other times of drought, most notably in 2007 and the current drought. During the drought of 2007, there was a very vocal group which formed called the Friends of Lake Orange (POLO), whose goal was to encourage Orange County to maintain the levels at Lake Orange as high as possible. The POLO soon began to focus on the fact that the WEER was bigger than Lake Orange, had no residents living around it and was not available for recreation. They convinced the Town to release water over and above the release required by the Agreement. In so doing, the 2 amount of water required to be released from Lake Orange was reduced and the level was 3 maintained higher for longer. Even though the Lake was down around seven feet below spilling that year, it would have been much worse if not for the voluntary release from the WFER. It is important to note that the Town was only willing to do this because they calculated they did not need the water themselves given their demand at the time and because OAWS and Piedmont Minerals were using very little of their available Eno River allocation. When the Agreement was first established, Lake Orange was only about 20 years old, which is equivalent to middle-age for the dam, the spillway, the intake structure and other appurtenances. At that time and during much of the intervening two decades, very little maintenance has been required to maintain the functionality of the dam and related structures. However, the dam is now more than 40 years old. In 2009, due to staff concerns about the safety of the dam, an engineering firm was hired to do an inspection of the dam and spillway structures. While the inspection did not uncover any immediate safety concerns, there were approximately $225,000 dollars of repairs identified that were recommended to occur over the next few years. Other issues were mentioned that should be completed within approximately five years, along with a more rigorous inspection and preventative maintenance schedule to monitor the success of the repairs and keep other potential issues in check. Staff hired an engineering consultant to design the first round of recommended repairs to the dam. The design is complete and staff has let the project for bid. In addition to these repairs, Lake Orange has recently been outfitted with a remotely operated gate and other remote monitoring equipment. This. has greatly increased the operational efficiency of dam and releases, but the total project cost approximately $100,000, of which the County paid $75,000 and the Town of Hillsborough volunteered $25,000. No financial arrangements to help Orange County pay for these types of repairs and upgrades were a part of the original Agreement. The County maintains and operates Lake Orange at its sole expense, but receives no direct financial benefit. The Agreement may not be the proper avenue for a financial arrangement related to the repairs and maintenance of Lake Orange, but staff thinks the cost of maintaining Lake Orange is evolving into an important element in the dynamic between the major parties to the Agreement and should be mentioned. Finally, DWR has made available in the last year a watershed model of the entire Neuse River basin. Using this model, the effect of changes to any of the operating rules for water systems in the Neuse River basin can be modeled throughout the basin. This is especially important for the Upper Eno watershed, since this watershed is one of the major headwaters of the Neuse River. Potential Obstacles DWR staff made it clear that the Agreement will have a better chance of being reviewed if more than one of the parties to the agreement make the request. They have suggested that the stakeholders come to some agreement on the portions of the agreement which need to be reviewed before submitting the request. Both the Town and OAWS have expressed their opposition to re-opening the Agreement for review. It is staff's opinion that they want to keep their current water allocation from the Eno as a "bank" against future growth of their systems. Because their current demand is less than it was in 1988, they are concerned that their current allocations might be reduced if a review was conducted. In addition, the Town built the WFER to provide water over and above their Eno River allocation under the Agreement. They made this clear during the permitting process for the reservoir and this figured heavily into their costlbenefit analysis for constructing the reservoir in the first place. The reservoir was very expensive in terms of water storage provided for the cost. Opening the 4 Agreement could result in a reduction of their Eno allocation or an increase in their required release from the WFER, either of which would reduce the effectiveness of the reservoir from their perspective. Piedmont Minerals has. expressed no opinion regarding opening the agreement. Though representatives from the company are invited to attend the annual stakeholders meeting, no one has attended in over two years. Due to a new manufacturing process they began employing several years ago, Piedmont Minerals uses only a tiny fraction of the water they are allocated. In fact, if the agreement were to be re-opened, Piedmont Minerals would not likely be party to the new agreement because their water demand is well below the threshold of 100,000 gallons per day. Potential Outcomes of a Review DWR staff has always stated that once the agreement has been opened for review, the outcome will be based on the EMC's interpretation of the data available and may or may not be predictable. Because the request for review of the Agreement must be specific, some of this uncertainty is removed, but there is still no guarantee of any particular outcome. If the BOCC chose to move forward with a request to amend the agreement, the BOCC could certainly suggest desired outcomes to include changes in allocations, changes in release rates from the reservoirs, changes to instream flow requirements or any other aspect of the. agreement. 4