HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-14-2014 - 4ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 14, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Jordan Lake Allocation Application
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT
A) Future Service Areas — Excerpt Craig Benedict, Planning, (919) 245 -
from Jordan Lake Allocation 2592
Application Kevin Lindley, Planning, (919) 245 -2583
B) Draft Jordan Lake Allocation
Application — Cover and
Introduction
C) Triangle Regional Water Supply
Plan — Executive Summary
PURPOSE: To receive information regarding the Jordan Lake Allocation Application and
provide direction as necessary.
BACKGROUND: Orange County is in the process of applying for an increase in its existing
Jordan Lake Allocation. The County currently holds an allocation of 1.0 million gallons per day
(MGD) and is applying for an additional 0.5 MGD. This allocation is meant to provide a secure
water supply through the year 2045 for portions of the County designated for economic growth.
The County does not have a public water utility and there are no plans to develop a water utility
service. Rather, the County will rely upon municipalities located adjacent to the economic
development regions to provide the finished water. The Jordan Lake Allocation will be used to
supplement the water supply of these municipalities, as needed.
There are three areas of economic interest (see Attachment A) which staff used to develop
estimates of future demand, the Buckhorn- Mebane area (western Orange), Hillsborough area
(central Orange) and Eno area (eastern Orange). These areas already have or will have water
supplied by the City of Mebane, Town of Hillsborough, and City of Durham, respectively. The
water from Jordan Lake can be accessed via Durham's interconnect with the Town of Cary.
The water would then be used to augment the Durham supply or be sent to Hillsborough via the
interconnect shared between Durham and Hillsborough.
The Buckhorn- Mebane area is supplied by the City of Mebane as the area does not have a
viable method to access an allocation from Jordan Lake. The City of Mebane has access to a
robust supply of water from the reservoir it shares with the City of Graham. In addition, Mebane
has interconnections that allow access to the City of Burlington's water system, which has a
robust water supply in its own right. The water demand from the Buckhorn- Mebane area is
expected to be met from Mebane's water supplies, without the need to supplement with Jordan
Lake water.
1
Orange County currently holds a Level II allocation. This means the water is not expected to be
needed within the first five years of the thirty year demand projection. Typically, Level II
allocations account for the projected need during the last 10 -15 years of the thirty year water
supply plan. The submitted allocation application requests an additional 0.5 MGD Level II
allocation. The draft application also provides validation and peer- reviewed justification for the
1.0 MGD, Level II allocation the County currently holds.
The draft application was submitted to the State Division of Water Resources on May 1, 2014
(see Attachment B for cover and introduction; full application available at
http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /documents /Orange Co Application 05012014.pdf. County
staff had been working with the Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP), a group of representatives from
several municipalities located near Jordan Lake, and the Triangle J Council of Governments to
develop a cohesive plan which showed all projected water demands for the various entities and
how these would be met using current water supplies and interconnections, Jordan Lake
allocations, conservation and reuse, along with other future water supplies. The work done to
develop a regionally coherent water supply plan which demonstrates how all JLP members will
be able to meet water demands through the year 2060 developed into the Triangle Regional
Water Supply Plan (Plan).
The Plan is a clear demonstration that all the individual partner requests for Jordan Lake
Allocation in the current round were arrived at through careful consideration of all members. In
other words, the Plan gives regional context to each municipality's Jordan Lake request. The
County's application for a Jordan Lake allocation is one piece of a regional "preferred solution"
developed by the JLP to meet future water demands. The Executive Summary of the Plan is
attached (Attachment C).
County staff has received comments back from the Division of Water Resources regarding the
County's draft allocation application. These comments will need to be incorporated into the
application document and submitted as a final application by close of business on November
14, 2014. According to the Division of Water Resources project schedule, the applications will
be forwarded to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and will be under review
for approximately one year. The EMC is expected to approve or disapprove the allocation
requests by November 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with submitting the allocation
request. If Orange County's request is approved, there will a yearly charge assessed of
approximately $2,200 per MGD for a Level II allocation. This would represent an additional
$1,100 more than the County is paying per year for its current 1.0 MGD allocation.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive this information
regarding the Jordan Lake Allocation Application and provide direction as necessary.
ATTACHMENT A
Figure 1.1. Map of Service Areas.
Orange County Future Water Service Areas
Caswell
Alamance
Person
'1
�i
Carrboro
Future Water Service Area (Efland /Mebane) = City Limits
_ Future Water Service Area (Eno) ETJ
- Future Water Service Area (Hillsborough)
Durham
Chatham �� tin = Smiles
�.-
Omnge County Planning and Inspections
Bran Carson (413012014)
Page 1 10 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
3
TTACHMENT B
L 0
OUNTY
NORTH CAROL-INA
JORDAN LAKE ALLOCATION APPLICATION
Orange County is seeking an allocation of 1.5 million gallons per day from Jordan Lake to
secure water supply for areas within the County which are slated for development in the
coming years.
0
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
200 South Cameron Street
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Tom Fransen
Michael S. Talbert, Interim County Manager
May 1, 2014
Water Resources Management Section Chief
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1611
Dear Mr. Fransen:
GW
Phone (919) 245 -2300
Fax (919) 644 -3004
This draft Jordan Lake Allocation Application being submitted by Orange County
represents a request for storage allocation needed to meet Orange County's planning
needs for additional water supply through 2045. This Application constitutes a request
for water supply that makes up a portion of a Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) that
has been developed by the Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP), a collection of 13 local
governments and water systems that was created to collaboratively plan for the future of
water supply in the Triangle Region, including for the future use of Jordan Lake.
The JLP's RWSP is built with the intention of meeting needs for all JLP members while
keeping impacts on other water users (including downstream water systems), the
environment, and rate payers at acceptable levels. Additionally, it is a goal of JLP to
present a set of coordinated allocation requests for Jordan Lake water supply storage
that result neither in overallocating the storage pool nor a situation in which water
systems will have to compete for allocation.
As such, all Jordan Lake Allocation requests submitted by the Jordan Lake Partnership
member entities have been made transparent to other partners, and should match the
designated allocation requests that are presented in the JLPs RWSP.
As such, Orange County affirms that this request for a 1.5% Level 2 allocation is
recognized to be:
❑x 1 IN AGREEMENT ❑ NOT IN AGREEMENT
with the JLPs RWSP.
Orange County currently holds a 1 million gallon per day (MGD) Level 2 allocation from
Jordan Lake, so this application represents an increase over our current allocation. As
will be shown in the following documents, Orange County is anticipating growth along
major transportation corridors in three distinct areas of the County. These have been
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
www. o ra ngeco u ntync.gov
designated on the County's Land Use Plan as areas in which urban density growth is
appropriate. This allocation request represents Orange County's efforts to procure a
reliable source of water supply for these areas in advance of the anticipated growth over
the next 30 years.
Because Orange County holds an allocation currently, we are familiar with the financial
requirements necessary to maintain the allocation. The County understands and is
committed to the financial responsibility that comes along with the granting of our
allocation request. Thank you for the opportunity to apply for this additional allocation
from Jordan Lake. County staff looks forward to working with both the State and the
Environmental Management Commission throughout this application process.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Talbert
County Manager
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................... ............................... 2
Developing the Regional Water Supply Plan ............................................... ...............................
3
Water Demand Projections and Projected Need ..................................... ...............................
3
Recommended Regional Alternative ........................................................... ...............................
5
Jordan Lake Allocations proposed in JLP Recommended Alternative ..... ...............................
6
Moving toward implementation .................................................................. ...............................
7
Section I. Water Demand Forecast .......................................................... ...............................
9
UserSectors ................................................................................................. ...............................
9
SectorProjections ...................................................................................... ...............................
12
PopulationEstimates .............................................................................. ...............................
12
Water Demand Projections .................................................................... ...............................
13
DemandProjections ................................................................................... ...............................
13
References................................................................................................. ...............................
15
Section II. Conservation and Demand Management .............................. ...............................
16
Current water conservation actions .......................................................... ...............................
16
Planned future water conservation measures .......................................... ...............................
16
Mebane................................................................................................... ...............................
17
Hillsborough........................................................................................... ...............................
17
Durham................................................................................................... ...............................
17
Impact of Water Conservation Plans on Demand Projections .................. ...............................
18
Additional Water Conservation Information ............................................. ...............................
18
References................................................................................................. ...............................
22
Section III. Current Water Supply .......................................................... ...............................
23
AvailableSupply ......................................................................................... ...............................
23
References................................................................................................. ...............................
24
Section IV. Future Water Supply Needs ................................................. ...............................
25
References................................................................................................. ...............................
26
Section V. ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS ................................ ...............................
27
SourceOptions ........................................................................................... ...............................
27
Supply Alternatives Summary .................................................................... ...............................
27
AlternativesAnalysis .................................................................................. ...............................
29
Alternative 1— Preferred Alternative ..................................................... ...............................
30
Alternative 2— Jordan Lake Only ............................................................ ...............................
34
SelectedAlternative ................................................................................... ...............................
38
Section VI. Plans to Use Jordan Lake ..................................................... ...............................
39
Table of Contents I i
N
Implementation Plan and Timeline ........................................................... ............................... 39
Accessto Jordan Lake ................................................................................ ............................... 40
Raw and Finished Water Quality Monitoring Plan .................................... ............................... 40
Estimateof Costs ....................................................................................... ............................... 41
JordanLake Costs ................................................................................... ............................... 41
OtherCapital Costs ................................................................................. ............................... 44
CostSummary ......................................................................................... ............................... 44
Discussion................................................................................................... ............................... 44
References................................................................................................. ............................... 45
APPENDICES......................................................................................... ............................... 46
Appendix A. DENR Jordan Lake Water supply workbook ....................... ............................... 47
IIFT1311111 We] MIFe1:l11111 V
Table 1. Projected Water Supply Need (MGD) by Partner.
5
Table 2. JLP Recommended Alternative sources to be constructed.
6
Table 3. JLP Recommended Alternative proposed Jordan Lake Allocations by Partner (MGD).
7
Table 1.1. Water Use Sectors.
11
Table 1.2. Population projections for service area.
13
Table 1.3. Water Demand Projections by Sector (MGD).
13
Table 111.1. Existing Source Summary, Available Supply.
23
Table IVA. Projected Water Needs (5 -year increments).
25
Table V.1. Source Options Descriptions.
27
Table V.2. Alternatives Description.
28
Table V.3. Source Composition of Supply Alternatives (MGD).
28
Table V.4. Water Supply Alternative Ratings. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table VIA. Selected alternative implementation timeline (Need vs. Sources available).
40
Table VIA. Example of Payment Responsibilities for Allocation Holders (per percent of storage
allocated).
43
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Future (2060) water service areas of the Jordan Lake Partners ...... ............................... 3
Figure 2. Regional demand projections, current supply, and reductions due to peer review...... 4
Figure 1.1. Map of Service Areas ................................................................... ............................... 10
Figure 1.2. Demand Projections by Sector ..................................................... ............................... 15
Figure 11.1. Approved Service Area Map from the WASMPBA Agreement .. ............................... 21
Figure IVA. Projected Demand and Need relative to Current Supply .......... ............................... 26
Table of Contents I ii
Figure V.1. Alternatives - Timeline of need versus new water supply ......... ............................... 29
Table of Contents I iii
10
ORANGE COUNTY
JORDAN LAKE ALLOCATION APPLICATION
Page 1 1 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
11
INTRODUCTION
The Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) has been working collaboratively since 2009 to plan for the
future of the Triangle Region's water supply. They have developed a draft Triangle Regional
Water Supply Plan ( TRWSP) to meet the 50 -year water needs of the thirteen partners listed
below:
• Town of Apex
• Town of Cary
• Chatham County (North water system)
• City of Durham
• Town of Hillsborough
• Town of Holly Springs
• Town of Morrisville
• Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
• Orange County
• Town of Pittsboro
• City of Raleigh and Merger Partners
• City of Sanford
• Wake County (Research Triangle Park - South)
The draft Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan has been provided to DWR by the JLP as an
accompanying document to this Jordan Lake Allocation request. The TRWSP details the
planning process used to develop the regional water supply plan, and the preferred regional
alternative includes projected requests for Jordan Lake water supply allocation by several of the
JLP members. This introduction briefly presents the preferred regional alternative, thus
providing the regional context of Orange County's allocation request.
As part of the regional water supply planning process, JLP members collaborated to develop
demand projections, identify water source options, construct and evaluate alternatives, and
present a mutually- supported plan for meeting the future water supply needs of the Triangle
Region. In doing so, JLP members supported each other through a careful peer review of each
other's demand projections; through shared information about conservation and water use
efficiency efforts; through inter - utility infrastructure planning efforts (e.g. a regional
distribution system interconnection study and hydraulic model and a feasibility study for a new
intake and water treatment plant on the western side of Jordan Lake); and by expanding the
pool of potential water supply source options.
The 2060 future water service areas of the JLP members are shown in Figure 1.
Page 1 2 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
12
Future Water Service Areas Regional Water Service Areas
Town of Apex wesrFore ORANGE CD County Boundaries
olfheEno COUNTY Lake
0 Town of Cary RCSP o;, Myhre Major VYater Bodes
Lille River
0 Chatham County -North System Lake Rase— 0 River Basin Boun daries
0 City of Durham IF— River o.ange
0 Town of Hillsborough rea Shown
0 Town of Holly Springs TPe
Lake 13
Hill r ugh
Town of Morrisville
Johnston
0 Orange County •;�
Orange Water & Sewer Authority G
Town of Pittsboro Caneereek
Reservoe
City of Raleigh & Merger Partners scone Carrboro
City of Sanford Quarry OYVAaA Fans Lake
Wake County - RTP South U rsrry Chapel Hill
ni
v Lekc
I r
I
Jordan
Lake
Apex
CHATHAM wn aia
COUNTY
Neese
River
–`— -- _ - --
Cape Fear
River
Sanford
� 4
Map created by Triangle J Counal of Govemments Data from a variety of sources 'Map for reference only Updated April. 3, 2014
Figure 1. Future (2060) water service areas of the Jordan Lake Partners.
Developing the Regional Water Supply Plan
The TRWSP has two basic components: 1) identification of regional waters need through 2060,
and 2) a plan for meeting those needs. The Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan: Volume l —
Water Needs Assessment (May 2, 2012) presented the demand projections and initial estimates
of water supply needs for all of the JLP members. The Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan:
Volume 11 — Regional Water Supply Alternatives Analysis (Draft, April 18, 2014) presented the
methodology used to create and evaluate regional water supply alternatives and the details of
the preferred alternative and regional water supply plan. These documents should be
consulted for more information. The following information summarizes the regional needs,
recommended regional water supply alternative, and proposed Jordan Lake allocations
requests.
Water Demand Projections and Projected Need
Figure 2 illustrates the total regional water demand projections as compared to the current
available water supply (horizontal line) of 199 MGD for the thirteen JLP members. Each of the
partners developed its own initial projections, which were then reviewed and scrutinized by the
Page 1 3 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
13
other partners, and subsequently revised. The revised, peer- reviewed demand projections
were approximately 10 -15% lower than the initial projections, as shown by the red shaded
boxes in the figure below, and represent an historic consensus among local water system
professionals about the present status and long -term needs of the Triangle Region's water
supply resources.
4.111
Oill
0
c�
250
a
E
0 200
E
1A
150
0 100
d
a
a�
50
0
Current Total `- -
Regional Supply
L _ _ _
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
i - - Reduction from Initial
Apex
� Cary
Morrisville
� Wake Co -RTP South
Chatham County N
� Durham
� Hillsborough
� Holly Springs
� Orange County
OWASA
� Pittsboro
� Raleigh &Merger Partners
Sanford
Current Supply
Figure 2. Regional demand projections, current supply, and reductions due to peer review.
Each water system's need is presented as the average day demand minus the operational yield
of its existing water supply sources (including existing Level 1 and Level //Jordan Lake
allocations). Based on demand projections and existing supply, the need for each partner was
computed for the 2010 -2060 planning period at five year intervals as shown in Table 1. The
italicized columns for 2045 and 2060 highlight the key planning years for the Round 4 Jordan
Lake Allocation process and the 50 -year TRWSP, respectively.
Page 14 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
14
Table 1. Proiected Water Suoolv Need IMGDI by Partner.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.4
2.1
2.5
2.8
3.1
3.9
5.1
6.3
6.3
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.3
4.1
5.9
7.0
8.2
10.1
12.1
- 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.1
4.0
5.2
6.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.6
2.1
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0.0
0.0
- 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
3.6
0.0
5.8
0.9
0.0
6.9
7.5
1.3
8.1
14.0
3.2
8.4
19.7
5.8
_8.8
25.4
8.4
9.3
31.6
10.6
9.8
37.7
12.8
Total 0.0
0.1
1.8
5.3
11.2
24.7
39.4
54.0
68.4
81.8
95.2
* "Need" assumes that existing Level 1 and Level 11 Jordan Lake allocations are fully utilized
Recommended Regional Alternative
The JLP evaluated a multitude of regional water supply alternatives that could meet the
Region's needs as presented in Table 1. The Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan: Volume 11-
Regional Alternatives Analysis presents the methodology and analyses used to create and
evaluate those alternatives. A preferred regional alternative for meeting the future needs of all
partners through 2060 emerged from this effort and is referred to hereinafter as the "JLP
Recommended Alternative."
Table 2 presents new water supply sources that would be brought online as part of the JLP
Recommended Alternative. The Projected New Supply column lists the estimated yield of
supply sources in addition to existing yields currently available. These sources may include
either new supply sources or the expansion of existing sources.
The City of Raleigh's preferred source options remain uncertain with regard to timing and order
of implementation, but include four priority sources, any of which could provide approximately
13.7 MGD of additional yield. These include 1) a new Little River Reservoir in eastern Wake
County, 2) a reallocation of Falls Lake storage to increase the available water supply pool, 3) a
direct withdrawal from the Neuse River upstream of Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant, and 4) a quarry reservoir adjacent to the Neuse River near Richland Creek.
Under the JLP Recommended Alternative, Raleigh would meet its future demands from a
combination of these Neuse Basin sources and would not require a Jordan Lake allocation.
Page 1 5 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
15
Table 2. JLP Recommended Alternative sources to be constructed.
Jordan Lake - Round 4
Haw
Storage Allocation
2015
28.2
Jordan Lake - Future Rounds
Haw
Storage Allocation
2025- 2045
8.2
Cape Fear River Withdrawal
Cape Fear
River Withdrawal
2025, 2045
12.8
Haw River Withdrawal
Haw
River Withdrawal
2015, 2020
4.0
W. Fork Eno Reservoir Expansion
Neuse
Reservoir Expansion
2015
1.2
i Stone Quarry Expansion
Haw
Quarry Reservoir
2035
2.1
i Town of Mebane Purchase
Haw
Purchase
2015 -2020
2 (0.5-2.5)
Neuse Basin Option 1
Neuse
TBD
2025
13.7(9-15)
Neuse Basin Option 2
Neuse
TBD
2035 -2045
13.7(9-15)
Neuse Basin Option 3
Neuse
TBD
2050 -2055
13.7(9-15)
TOTAL All New Sources
96.2 -100
In total, the JLP Recommended Alternative provides approximately 100 MGD of additional
supply by 2060, which would meet the Region's projected cumulative need of 95.2 MGD. The
timing and sequence of bringing the new sources online would reduce the risk of a supply
deficit for any partner during the planning period.
Jordan Lake Allocations proposed in JLP Recommended Alternative
The JLP Recommended Alternative includes new or expanded Jordan Lake Allocations for
multiple partners, both in this current Round 4 and in future allocation cycles, to meet needs
through 2060. Currently, 63% of Jordan Lake's water supply pool has been allocated, and a 1%
storage allocation is assumed to yield approximately 1 MGD of average day supply. All existing
allocations are currently held by Jordan Lake Partnership members, and the JLP Recommended
Alternative proposes that all of these either be maintained or increased.
Table 3 presents current allocations, the proposed Round 4 allocation requests, and future
proposed allocation requests through 2060. Round 4 requests would meet water supply needs
through 2045; future allocations would meet 2060 needs. Table 3 indicates the total allocation
amounts for each partner, who are expected to distinguish between Level I and Level II
requests in their respective Round 4 allocation applications.
Table 3 includes all thirteen JLP members, even though Raleigh and Sanford are not expected to
request Jordan Lake Allocations. The Towns of Apex and Cary currently hold a combined
allocation that meets the needs of both communities. The Town of Cary also has finalized long-
term agreements to serve the Town of Morrisville and the Wake County - RTP South service
areas and is expected to make a joint allocation request. Table 3, therefore, includes the
combined amount of the proposed allocation request, but it also shows the individual partners'
amounts.
Page 16 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
16
Table 3. JLP Recommended Alternative
8.5
23.5
3.5
3.5
6
10
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
TOTAL JLP 63
Moving toward implementation
Jordan Lake Allocations by Partner (MGD).
10.6
11.6
32.0
16.5
28.6
29.8
1.5
46.2
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
13
18.2
16.5
16.5
5
5
1.5
2
2
2.2
1
1
6
6
0
0
0
0
91.2
99.4
48.5
The JLP Recommended Alternative is the result of more than four years of collaborative
planning by the Partnership. The water supply needs of the thirteen partners have been vetted
through multiple rounds of peer review and represent the most complete long -term picture of
the Region's demands compiled to date. A thorough regional water supply alternatives analysis
determined that the JLP Recommended Alternative would be most acceptable in terms of
implementability, environmental and community impacts, customer costs, and overall
acceptance by local governments and the general public.
The JLP efforts constituted the successful collaboration — including an unprecedented level of
mutual trust and respect — among local entities planning, coordinating, and moving toward
implementation of a water supply plan that will meet the long -term needs of the entire Triangle
Region. Individual partners will continue to operate their own systems, but the success of this
regional water supply plan will depend on each partner being able to implement its respective
additional water supply sources as recommended.
The partners investigated the various impacts of the JLP Recommended Alternative — including
effects on the environment, downstream water users, and the general public — and found these
impacts to be acceptable and preferable to those of the other options. Hydrologic effects of
the JLP Recommended Alternative were modeled with the recently updated Cape Fear -Neuse
Basin OASIS model. Preliminary results indicate the proposed alternative will meet long term
Page 1 7 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
17
demands without creating downstream shortages; is considered to be the most implementable
from a regulatory and political perspective; and provides for coordinated allocation requests
among JLP members.
The remainder of this document presents the allocation request for Orange County.
Page 18 Orange County 2014 Jordan Allocation Request
ATTACHMENT C
kol FAA 611 Ift -d id 064, affl 103 10 Pi
M03P001■I,!jKTMU M
Prepared For: Prepared By:
II \
Jordan Lake Partnership Triangle J Council of Governments
19
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
Cover Photo: NMNC. Falls Lake along Mountains to Sea Trail. 2012. Downloaded from Panoramio.com.
Used under Creative Commons noncommercial, nonderivative license. 14 Oct. 2012.
20
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
Executive Summary
What is the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan?
The Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan (TRWSP) is a collaborative assessment of projected water
demands and sources in the Triangle Region of North Carolina, developed by the Jordan Lake
Partnership (JLP), that demonstrates the ability of existing and new or expanded sources of supply to
meet demands through 2060.
What is the Jordan Lake Partnership?
The JLP is a consortium of 13 local governments and water systems (Partners) that was created in 2009
to collaboratively plan for the future of water supply in the Triangle Region, including the use of Jordan
Lake. Figure 1 lists the thirteen Partners and shows their 2060 water service areas.
Future Water Service Areas (2060) --- - -- - - - Regional Water Service Areas
Town of Apex wesr Fv a ORANGE CD County Boundaries
or mee "° COUNTY Le "e
Town of Cary .j Resery °;r� Mmnie Major water Bodies
` y{
Little River
iver
Chatham County -North System a Lake Reservoir i River Basin Boundaries
City of Durham Efo e"ae
Town of Hillsborough Orange Area Shown
Town of Holly Springs ' County Hllsl n
Town of Morrisville a
Orange County ��F Oran
Coun
Orange Water 8 Sewer Authority ^ f,;
Town of Pittsboro Cane C —'
aeseno�r � �
City of Raleigh & Merger Partners ouarry Carr boro o r
City of Sanford aeso: av Falls LA,,
ownsa
Wake County - RTP South Chapel Hill
11 Um —Ily
I .]A • I
Chatham County - North M orrisvill
Jordan Ral igh
Lake
ke
Pittsb.r. Apex Il
—�wATHAM Whe he
els
CO -a� Neuse
'l H L ri River
Cape Fear - -I.
1
r� � �N" _ River l
� j Sanford y
i`
\ 1\
I
Map created by Triangle J Council of Governments. Data from a variety of sources. Map for reference only Updated September 24, 2014.
Figure 1. Future (2060) water service areas of the Jordan Lake Partners.
1
21
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
What are the Key Conclusions of the Plan?
• The Partners' current total water supply of 199 million gallons per day (MGD) is projected to
meet their combined needs through approximately 2030.
• An additional 95 MGD of supply is needed to meet 2060 water supply needs (total 294 MGD).
• The 2060 demands can be met in an environmentally and economically sound manner through a
combination of:
o 36.4MGD: Allocation of most of the remaining Jordan Lake water supply storage (Apex,
Cary, Chatham County, Durham, Orange County, Hillsborough, Pittsboro);
0 20.6- 22.6MGD: Expansion of existing reservoirs, off - stream quarry storage, and run -of-
river withdrawals (Hillsborough, Orange County, OWASA, Pittsboro, Sanford); and
0 41.1 MGD: Development of a combination — still to be determined — of new or
expanded sources including reallocation from Falls Lake, a new intake in the Neuse
River, off - stream quarry storage, and /or a new reservoir in eastern Wake County
(Raleigh).
• Implementation of water use efficiency and conservation practices and expanded use of
reclaimed water will continue to be essential strategies for meeting the region's future water
needs.
• Hydrologic modeling has shown that the Triangle's water needs can be met without
compromising the ability of downstream communities to meet their own water supply needs.
• The region's ability to meet projected water demands in 2060 may be compromised if any of the
TRWSP's recommended future water supply sources are not implemented as planned.
Why was the Partnership Formed?
The Partners elected to be proactive in identifying potential water shortfalls and mutually acceptable
and beneficial solutions for meeting future needs. The region experienced two historic droughts in 2002
and 2007 -2008. Regional planning and collaboration — developing solutions on a geographic scale larger
than individual water suppliers — will increase the resilience of our water supply under similar extreme
conditions. In addition, the Partners wanted to use hydrologic modeling to confirm that other upstream
and downstream water needs within the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins would not be impacted by a
proposed strategy that met the needs of the Triangle.
The challenges associated with utility management including increasing costs, greater regulatory
requirements and increasing drought vulnerability can be more successfully met through inter -local
collaboration in facility planning, design, construction, operation and management. The Partners, in
various combinations, are engaged in joint projects including increasing the number and size of
interconnections between water supply systems and consolidating utility systems through merger
agreements. Some efforts include water supply planning over the entire hydrologic cycle where water,
wastewater and stormwater service delivery are integrated to protect watersheds and improve
response during drought or other water shortage conditions. The JLP was formed to complement these
efforts, continuing to better prepare the Triangle Region to address water shortages on a regional basis.
2
22
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
What has the Partnership Accomplished?
The first step was for JLP members to develop demand projections through 2060, and a key part of this
effort was engaging in a careful peer review of each other's demand projections. The Partners also
shared information about conservation and water use efficiency efforts, identified existing
interconnections and evaluated new interconnection opportunities. After determining future needs, the
Partners developed a pool of potential water supply source options, and coordinated with the NCDENR
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to use the combined Cape Fear - Neuse River Basin hydrologic model
to define and evaluate alternatives. The result is the mutually- supported Triangle Regional Water
Supply Plan for meeting the future water supply needs of the Triangle Region.
What are the Region's Water Supply Needs?
The region's existing and planned water supplies (Figure 2) are associated primarily with man -made
reservoirs, along with a few run -of -river withdrawals and supplemental quarry storage. The region does
not import water from outside the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins; though the Partners currently
have a combined net transfer of surface water from the Neuse basin to the Cape Fear basin.
- - -' ------ - - - - -- ---------------------- _ _ Triangle Area Raw Water Sources
- -- I O County Boundaries • Existing Water Source
Municipal Boundaries • Future Water Source
W Fork En. Lake Miclrie Major Water Bodies
$e��r 14 Are.Daily Supply(MGD)
�� Lake Li He River
Orange eservoir
Eno River rea Shown ` w�s
® T
Lake Ben Hillsborough
Quaker Creek 2
Reserveir 0 _ 4i1i
(via Mebane) reer Quarry Falls Lake tt�s
ORANGE DURHAM
Can Creek \
R ervoir 1 Durham / Wake Forest
Carrboro
OWASAI
Nor
Reservoir Chapal Hill Quarry %Rolesville
2 University RTP° RDU River Little River
Lake —� Reservoir
Raleigh
Rocky River j�Q Morrisville Zebulon t
Haw R/ver Cary Knightdale Wendell
r
Jordan
CHATHAM Lake
Sitar Lake Benson
city Pihsboro Apex Lake wrreeler
Garner
WAKE
Holly Springs
l
I;oldston �pe Fear Fuquay- Varina
River
Deep Ri er
LEE
Gpe Fear Weer
/ O (via Hamad Co.)
Sanford
Figure 2. Existing and future water supply sources; JLP Recommended Alternative. Single dots sometimes
represent multiple sources that are geographically close (e.g., OWASA's reservoirs) and /or more than one
utility using the same source (e.g., Jordan Lake). The numbers by each source represent approximate yield
in MGD, but have been rounded to whole numbers in this graphic. Details of each source are provided in the
TRWSP.
3
23
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan - Executive Summary
The Triangle area is one of the fastest growing regions in the country, and as a result, the combined JLP
water service area population is projected to increase from 1,066,000 in 2010 to 2,774,000 by 2060, a
compounded rate of increase of about 1.9 percent. The corresponding water demands are projected to
increase from 118 MGD in 2010 to 294 MGD by 2060, a compounded rate of increase of about 1.8
percent. The fact that water use is projected to grow slower than service area population illustrates the
impact of the Partners' water efficiency and conservation programs, including increased use of
reclaimed water.
While existing water supplies of 199 MGD are expected to meet the region's needs through
approximately 2030, new water supplies of 95 MGD will be needed to meet 2060 estimated demands of
294 MGD. Figure 3 illustrates the growth in water demand for each partner. Raleigh makes up almost
half of the JLP's combined demands — making the implementation of their future water supply projects
essential to successfully meeting the needs of the Triangle Region.
300 Apex
Cary
250 � Morrisrrille
Current Total Wake Co -RTP South
Regional Supply
200 Chatham County N
a
E ■
d Durham
0
E Hillsborough
*2 150
H Holly Springs
a
o Orange County
100 —
c ■ OWASA
v Pittsboro
T 50 Raleigh &Merger Partners
a
Sanford
0 Current Supply
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Figure 3: Regional demand projections and current supplies, including Jordan Lake allocations.
How will the Partners Meet 2060 Water Demands?
Many of the Partners have their own long -range master plans in which they have identified and
evaluated a variety of water supply options. Using the information from these plans as a foundation,
the JLP identified potentially feasible strategies for meeting the region's long -term water supply needs.
These strategies were evaluated relative to each other according to their ability to meet regional water
supply demands, costs, regulatory complexity and environmental impacts; and the strategy selected by
the Partners is presented in detail in the TRWSP (JLP Recommended Alternative).
4
24
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
The JLP Recommended Alternative meets the region's cumulative 2060 water supply needs of 294 MGD
with 36.4 MGD of new allocations from Jordan Lake, and development of about 63 MGD in water supply
from increased and new withdrawals from river sources, increased and new supplemental quarry
storage and a new reservoir on the Little River in eastern Wake County. Implementation of the JLP
Recommended Alternative would decrease the existing net interbasin transfer from the Neuse River
Basin to the Cape Fear River basin.
Currently, 63 percent of Jordan Lake's water supply pool has been allocated (a 1 percent storage
allocation is estimated to yield approximately 1 MGD of average day supply). The JLP Recommended
Alternative includes the same or increased allocations for all existing allocation holders (each is also a
member of the JLP), as well as new allocations for several of the Partners. While the JLP is planning for
2060, the next round of Jordan Lake allocations (Round 4) will be based on 2045 needs. Table 1
presents current allocations and the total Jordan Lake allocation needs for 2045 (proposed Round 4
allocation requests) and 2060.
Table 1. JLP Recommended Alternative Jordan Lake Allocations (MGD).
8.5
10.6
11.6
32.0
23.5
28.6
29.8
46.2
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
6
13
10
16.5
5
5
1
1.5
2
2
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
18.2
16.5
5
2
2.2
1
6
0
0
TOTAL JLP 63 91.2 99.4
48.5
Table 2 summarizes additional water supply (62 -64 MGD) from sources other than Jordan Lake in the JLP
Recommended Alternative. While most of the sources are expansions of existing water supplies, about
41 MGD of the proposed water supply — nearly half of the 95 MGD in new supplies needed to meet
regional 2060 demands — will come from a combination of new projects that are planned by the City of
Raleigh.
5
25
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
Table 2. JLP Recommended Alternative Water Supplies (MGD).
W. Fork Eno Expansion
Purchase from
Town of Mebane
Quarry Reservoir Expansion
euse Reservoir Expansion 1J
Haw Purchase 0.5 -2.5
Haw Quarry Expansion 2.1
Haw River - Increased
Haw River Withdrawal 4.0
Withdrawal
New Reservoir;
Reallocation of Falls
Exploring 4 options; Neuse Lake Storage; Neuse 41.1
must develop 3 River Withdrawal;
Quarry
Cape Fear River - In
Withdrawal
Can Downstream Communities Meet 2060 Needs under the TRWSP?
Yes. The JLP used DWR's combined hydrologic model of the Neuse and Cape Fear River Basins to
simulate 2060 water demands, including the JLP Recommended Alternative, under the entire 80+ year
range of hydrologic conditions and historic droughts. The results indicate that the long term water
supply needs of the Partners, as well as those of downstream water users, can be met under the TRWSP.
A preliminary modeling analysis by DWR, as they work toward development of a Cape Fear Basin Water
Supply Plan, confirmed these results.
What Could Affect the Success of the TRWSP?
The TRWSP conclusion that the Triangle Region will have enough water to meet projected water
demands through 2060 hinges on the accuracy of many assumptions, on Jordan Lake water supply
allocations consistent with Table 1, and on each Partner implementing its water supply projects. The JLP
Recommended Alternative will require implementation of many complex projects, with numerous
regulatory and environmental challenges. Key uncertainties include:
• Rate of population growth;
• Adoption of water efficiency and conservation practices including reclaimed water use;
• Water quality policies, environmental permits, endangered species impacts, environmental
justice concerns or evolving regulations, especially as they relate to the development of new
water supply sources;
• Legislative and /or regulatory actions regarding competing water uses; and
11
26
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan — Executive Summary
• Declining source yields due to issues such as hydrologic variability (from climate and /or land use
impacts), faster than assumed sedimentation of reservoirs or changes in required downstream
releases.
What are the Partnership's Next Steps?
Consistent with the TRWSP and Table 1, those Partners who use or plan to use Jordan Lake submitted
draft allocation requests to DWR on May 1, 2014; final applications will be submitted later in 2014 and
the JLP will continue to coordinate with DWR on the allocation process and development of the Cape
Fear Basin Water Supply Plan.
The Partners are developing a regional water distribution system computer model that will be used to
evaluate system interconnection capacities and performance under different demand scenarios, with
the goal of identifying joint projects to increase reliability for all customers and optimize water supplies
during times of water shortage.
Several of the Partners have begun planning for the design and development of a new intake, water
treatment plant and transmission facilities on the western side of Jordan Lake. Working together to
build new infrastructure minimizes environmental impacts, and decreases both capital and operational
costs due to economies of scale. A new intake and treatment plant at Jordan Lake, along with major
interconnections between systems, would also provide redundancy in the event the existing Cary -Apex
intake had to be taken offline for any reason.
The Partners will continue to work together toward successful implementation of the TRWSP, and to
look for areas where they can improve the region's ability to address water supply needs and effectively
prepare for and respond to water shortage conditions through cooperation and preparation.
7