Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19860325 83 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 25, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on March 25, 1986 at 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Best, Tim Hubbard, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Assistant County Manager William Laws, Planner Susan Smith, Planner Eddie Kirk, Planner Laura Hill, and Assistant Clerk Sylvia Clements. Chair Willhoit presented the following as the list of main issues to be discussed: - the current reservoir capacity of Lake Ben Johnson, Corporation Lake and Lake Orange minor modifications to the reservoirs to increase storage capacity - purchase of water from Burlington - sale of water to OWASA possible purchase of water from the City of Durham - possible purchase of water from OWASA in the future - in-stream flow and its significance He stated that there are three phases to be considered in terms of the water supply situation in Orange County. The short range phase to determine what the supply situation is and take steps to augment that supply to last approximately 3-5 years. During the short range period it will be possible to purchase water from Burlington, to make modifications to the reservoirs, to formulate a management plan for managing the available water sources and to address the in-stream flow. At the end of the 3-5 year period when Cane Creek comes on line, OWASA should be in a position to sell water to northern Orange County as a way to augment these supplies. This would be considered an intermediate solution and one which will give adequate lead time to plan for a more permanent solution which would be considered the third phase or the long term solution. The two most mentioned long term 84 solutions would be an allocation from Lake Jordan and construction of a new reservoir. The development of Seven Mile Creek reservoir is one which has been discussed for a long time with no definite commitment. The State would like to see Orange County make a definite commitment to providing a long term solution. OVERVIEW PRESENTED BY COUNTY MANAGER KEN THOMPSON Thompson reviewed the issue statement on Water Supply in Orange County. This material is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office. STATEMENT BY JOHN WRAY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF N.C. DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Wray introduced Meg Kerr, who writes the state permits for waste treatment facilities; Scott Van Horn, a fisheries biologist with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (most knowledgable of the fish in the Eno River) ; and Sam Bland, Superintendent of the Eno River State Park. He noted these individuals are present to answer specific questions that may arise. Wray noted there seemed to be many ways to resolve the problems concerning water supply. He stated that NRCD has two main areas of responsibility: 1) to notify jurisdictions of an impending water shortage and 2) the stewardship of the state' s streams and reservoirs. Wray pointed out that the source of stream flow data for this area is the US Geological Survey Gauge which was in service from 1929 until 1971 and was started back into service a few months ago. He noted the gauge is located downstream of the dam at Lake Ben Johnson. Wray continued that the Eno River has a small drainage area. A 1977 North Carolina framework study noted future water supply problems if there was extensive growth. He reviewed water use dating back to the 1930s as depicted on charts. Water use began to increase rapidly during the 1960s. He added water use would continue to increase due to construction and completion of I-40. He continued that conse- rvation methods were only short range solutions for crisis situations and major long term decisions are needed to go beyond the crisis. Wray indicated that the State had done some analysis based on criteria provided by the County Manager. Yield with conservation and with stream flow was reviewed. Total yield with conservation could run to about 2 . 6 mgd with the existing facilities. With no stream flow at all, it would only go up to about 3 mgd. With and without stream flow, the difference is only about . 4 mgd. He noted the situation becomes more critical year after year with continued growth and there would have to be some outside source for water supply. Some long range decisions need to be made to get out of the crisis situation. Wray stated that North Carolina is a riparian state. There are a number of state policies and laws which deal with the riparian question. He noted since the construction of the OWASA pipeline in 1977, which was a response to a crisis, there has been a creeping "dewate ring" of the Eno River itself and in the future with upstream diversions, OWASA, Orange-Alamance System and Hillsborough itself returns only about 50 - 60% of the water to the streams and the remaining percentage does not come back to the Eno River. There are more impacts on the river as growth continues. The riparian law states that there is a right to use the water, but there is no ownership of the water. The State has jurisdiction over the water as well as a statutory responsibility and public trust. With prudent planning and implementation the conflict between water supply and in-stream flow can be resolved but it will be costly. There is a need to determine who pays if something is done. There is also a question of what flow to be released. The State had made a recommendation using 7Q10. Wray continued that 7Q10 was about 1.78 for the period 1929 - 1950 (1. 462) ; up to 1960 ( .869) ; and up to 1970 ( . 67) . The natural 7Q10 of the Eno River is low. Chair Willhoit asked that Wray emphasize that these figures represent cubic feet per second rather than million gallons per day. Wray noted that cubic feet per second x 1.55 or 1 mgd. = 1. 5 cfs. 10 mgd would be equal to 15 cfs. Chair Willhoit noted that these would range from . 4 mgd to about 1. 1 mgd and Wray concurred. Wray noted that the Hillsborough permit to discharge wastewater was coming up for renewal and he asked for comments from Meg Kirk on the renewal of the permit. Meg Kirk stated that the Eno River is stressed at times which does threaten the fish and other aquatic life. She noted this was an indication of a need for water quality protection. There was a question from the audience as to what the State considers a safe minimum instream flow for the Eno River. Wray responded that 1.7 was the interim recommendation to maintain survival of aquatic life and to address water quality problems. He noted there was no real answer at this time with specific numbers. He expressed the feeling that with the engineering capabilities available, a much better instream flow could be obtained. The question was raised if the State was specifying a minimum figure during the interim and Wray responded that 1. 7 cfs was recommended during the interim and this would be cut back if a critical situation did occur. John Hartwell inquired about the amount of flow below the treatment plant. Wray responded that the flow at the treatment plant is known but no precise study estimates have been made. He noted a reasonable figure could be developed. Josephine Barbour asked if the recommendation of 1.76 will be enforced by the State. Wray responded that the State would be working with the County and the County's response would be evaluated. There is the possibility of State enforcement, but it is still in the working stage at this time. Ms. Barbour continued asking about fish reproducing and returning to the streams after the drought was over. Wray referred the question to Scott Van Horn. Van Horn responded that fish have a tremendous reproductive capability so a few survivors can repopulate a stream fairly quickly. He noted that the timing is critical as to whether the drought occurs during spawning season. The question was asked if 1.76 was considered safe to dissipate wastewater. Meg Kirk responded that when a permit is issued it is issued with the flow of the river in mind and it is calculated to 86 protect the water quality standards of the river at the lower flow using a 7 day 10 year low flow estimate. The permit was issued before at the 1.7 rate. When it is up for renewal, it would be calculated at what the actual flow of the river is now. Kirk stated a standard is used to dissolve oxygen in the receiving stream and there is a mathematical model that can simulate how the waste is decomposed once it is discharged into the stream. Kirk was asked if 1.7 was considered a safe rate now and she responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd inquired what the 7Q10 was for Morgan Creek. Kirk was not sure, but that it was low. Lloyd continued asking if the permitting limits were the same for OWASA as for Hillsborough. Kirk responded that the key was the water quality standards of the receiving stream and the ability to accommodate oxygen consuming waste. Kirk emphasized that she does not look at the treatment facility itself in the issuance of a permit. She looks at the receiving stream's characteristics and nature and specifies the level at which the plant must operate to meet the standard for the stream. Lloyd asked if the Hillsborough treatment plant was one of the most modern and efficient treatment plants in the southeast and Kirk respo- nded she could not say. Commissioner Carey inquired when the Hillsborough permit was up for renewal and Kirk responded early 1987 . STATEMENT BY THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH Mayor Frank Sheffield presented the position statement of the Town of Hillsborough on the Scotswood Development. The statement was read in its entirety. A copy of the statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office. Chair Willhoit asked for clarification of the current safe yield of the combined reservoirs of 2 . 6 mgd which would increase to something more than 4 mgd. He inquired of Mr. Cordell if the figure now being discussed is 3 .75. Cordell responded there were many numbers being quoted. He asked that 4 mgd be thought of as a theoretical maximum utilization of the three reservoirs on the Eno River. Willhoit noted that he understood the uncertainity that goes along with an estimate but he felt they should try to deal with a single theoretical figure. Wray noted that he felt the figure 4 mgd was based on some catastrophic occurrence as a "see what we can do situation" . It was a theoretical exercise and the State does not recommend that with the existing system and these changes made that this be counted upon as a dependable number. Chair Willhoit referred to the handout that showed the capacity of the supply versus demand in which the figure 3 .75 was listed. He asked if the 3 .75 is basically the same as the figure 4 mgd referred to. Wray responded it was supposed to be the same figure, but that it could possibly need some adjustments and very likley could be less than the 4 mgd. Planning Board member Yuhasz asked for a definition of "safe yield" . Wray indicated it was a statistical figure of risk you are willing to accept. The calculation depends on the level of risk that is acceptable. The 2 . 2 is a conservative figure meaning 1 year out of 50 year range. He noted again that the figures 4. 0 and 3 . 75 were theoretical figures for catastrophic situations and not intended to be used as a planning basis, but for some extreme emergency. Commissioner Carey asked how much risk was in the 2 . 6 safe yield. Wray responded that 2 . 6 was a figure you would drop back from during conservation periods and the yield is less during the extreme conservation periods. That figure was given as a normal yield. Commissioner Marshall inquired if NRCD was going to provide figures that would be more adequate for a planning basis. Wray responded that the strongest recommendation is for a significant water project versus the stop-gap measures. He noted his office could provide a reasonable figure depending on the system, but this was not available at this time. Chair Willhoit asked the public to restrict questions to those concerning water supply and not Scotswood at this time. The next public hearing will be on the Scotswood development. A question came from the audience as to whether there were existing communities with contaminated water that should be served by public water service before allocating water to new communities. Chair Willhoit responded this was a policy question and has to do with allocation toward growth. The individual continued asking who would be addressing those needs and not just future needs. Don Cox inquired if Mayor Sheffield had a policy statement from the Town Board regarding in-stream flow. Sheffield responded he did not as there was insufficient information at the time of discussion. He continued acknowledging the area is facing a potential water shortage and expressed the desire to take steps to increase water supply. He also expressed the Town's desire for in-stream flow requirements for the Eno because it runs through the Town and dilution is necessary for the treatment plant. The issue is level related to treatment capacity. He felt 1.7 should be a starting point and to go below 1. 7 would require compelling reasons. Horace Johnson expressed the feeling that Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough needs to become independent of other jurisdictions with regard to water supply. He continued with the recommendation of the merger of the County and Town regarding sites for reservoirs. He felt that Seven Mile Creek was the most feasible site for a reservoir. He recommended increasing the Hillsborough water treatment plant's capacity to 6 mgd. He recommended the increase of the sewage treatment plant's capacity from 2 to 4 mgd and consideration of a new plant. He suggested the creation of a district for funding these improvements. He felt the key to solving the problem is to increase the raw water supply in Hillsborough by having raw water storage on Seven Mile Creek. Chair Willhoit asked for clarification of the merger mentioned by Johnson. Johnson responded that it must be a joint undertaking for the financing of water and sewer for the Town and County. Commissioner Marshall inquired if Johnson was recommending a tax district to support such a project and Johnson responded yes. 88 Planning Board member Best inquired about loss through infiltration. Johnson indicated the loss was possibly 100, 000 gallon- s. The question of the safe yield of Seven Mile Creek was asked of Johnson who indicated that the safe yield would be increased from 1.7 to 2 .2- 2 . 3 . The water in Seven Mile Creek would be used as a backup reservoir. Chair Willhoit noted that the County had some preliminary engineering done in the past and a reservoir could be built on Seven Mile Creek with the potential of 6 or 7 mgds. STATEMENT BY ORANGE-ALAMANCE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS, INC. In the absence of the president of Orange-Alamance Water, Inc. , Commissioner Ben Lloyd presented the statement. Lloyd stated that Orange-Alamance Water, Inc. is a private, non profit organization which began in 1967. There are approximately 1950 customers and it was organized basically to serve medium to low income areas in Orange County. The plant is located on the Eno River west on Highway 70. The lines go west on Highway 70 near to the Alamance County line. The lines then go around Mebane on the north side back to Highway 70 and west to near Back Creek. From a point just west of Mebane, the lines go southwest to cover an area up to Swepsonville. He noted the rates were approximately double those of Hillsborough and Mebane. He continued that approximately 2/3 of Orange-Alamance customers and drainage area is in Alamance County in the Cape Fear Basin. An agreement has been reached with the Town of Hillsborough to replace 2 meters which would make it possible to pull water from Burlington through the Orange-Alamance system to Hillsborough. He stated that Orange-Alamance can pledge total cooperation to Hillsbor- ough, Orange County and Chapel Hill to increase water supply. He noted the system had been in operation approximately 19 years and there are repairs to be made. If water comes from Burlington, it must come through the Orange Alamance system. He expressed again the willingness to cooperate in any way to help provide Orange County with the needed water supply. He noted that as far as financing, the Board of Orange-Alamance would have to act. Chair Willhoit asked if there had been any discussions with Burlington in transferring that part of the system in the Cape Fear over to another entity or in obtaining water from Burlington so that it does not result in an inter-basin diversion. Lloyd responded that no thought had been given to inter-basin transfer. Commissioner Marshall inquired what percentage of the customers were in Alamance County and the answer was 2/3 in Alamance and 1/3 in Orange. She expressed concern that Orange County would be subsidizing Alamance County customers. Commissioner Lloyd responded if a new reservoir came to Orange County the water would be used by all of the County and if it would provide water for good clean industry, the entire county would benefit. Marshall continued that Alamance County would also be receiving the same benefits and she felt it was not legal for one County' s citizens to subsidize those of another county. Lloyd responded he was concerned with this thought since the County was possibly trying to pull water from Alamance County. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Commissioner Lloyd indicated that if industrial growth occurred in the I-85 corridor, Orange County usage would be considerably more than Alamance County. Evelyn Poole-Kober raised the question concerning a conflict of interest in that Mr. Lloyd was on the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Directors for Orange-Alamance Water System. Lloyd responded the two were not competing but were working together to obtain needed water for citizens of Orange County. STATEMENT BY OWASA Everette Billingsley, Executive Director for OWASA presented the statement included in the permanent agenda f le in the Clerk' s Office. Commissioner Lloyd asked about the difference in the dilution rate for Hillsborough and OWASA. Ms. Kirk responded that dilution flow is a minor factor adding that the hydraulic characteristics of the receiving streamare much more important. Lloyd expressed concern that he really did not understand this answer. Don Cox presented the following statement as president of the Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Valley, Inc. He indicated that the Association has over 500 members who are residents of Durham and Orange Counties and they are dedicated to the preservation and well-being of the Eno River. Chair Willhoit interrupted at this point to inform the public and Board members that with the time still needed to complete the discussion on water, he felt insufficient time would be left for the public hearing on Scotswood. He asked for a date for continuation of the Scotswood public hearing. No agreement could be reached for a continuation date so the meeting resumed. Cox continued with a review of the history of the water situation. He noted that as far back as the 1930s and 1940s the Soil Conservation Service and Corp of Engineers identified a number of potential reservoir sites that were available in Orange County and in the Chapel Hill area. He noted that most of those identified were not protected or reserved and were, therefore, no longer available as reservoir sites. In the 1960s and 1970s the Soil Conservation Service offered to assist Chapel Hill in developing sedimentation control measures for the watershed of University Lake to extend its capacity and useful life. No interest was expressed for such measures by Chapel Hill. Cox continued noting that 1977 was a minor drought year and OWASA proposed a pipeline to Hillsborough. In the summer of 1977, Hillsborough was not supplying water to Chapel Hill and the Orange- Alamance System was drawing considerably less than . 6 mgd. There were approximately eight weeks of no flow over Lake Ben Johnson and the estimates were that Lake Orange was drawn down to about 50% of its capacity. Without the number of customers now served, the entire yield of the basin was being used and half of the storage capacity. Cox stated he had met twice with the OWASA Board during the period of 90 consideration of the decision whether or not to build the pipeline, with the intent of discussing stream flow impacts and he was assured there would not be degradation of the natural stream flows. He very reluctantly agreed not to oppose the pipeline construction. In 1985 OWASA's attorney prepared a bill for introduction in the legislature which, if passed, would have given OWASA "quick-take" condemnation powers and would also have eliminated requirements that they obtain a certificate from the State to make inter-basin transfers of water. Cox continued that no certificate had been issued to permit OWASA to draw water from the Eno River. He noted that with the sewage treatment plant there has been considerable improvement in the downstream quality of the Eno. He noted that as Lake Orange, Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake had been built, the summer and fall stream flows of the Eno have steadily become lower and lower. He noted that when OWASA built the pipeline to Hillsborough, there was as much as three months with no flow around Hillsborough. He stated that Orange County had been responsive in trying to remedy the situation, but technical and management considerations have hampered this effort. STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ENO ASSOCIATION "We have been patient and supportive. We have worked through the process of Boards and Commissions and Task Forces and freely given our hearts and energies and minds and financial resources to protect the river and to help seek a solution for our water resource problems. We encourage the various bodies to become concerned and deal with the increasingly critical nature of our water supply resources. We find the efforts to turn to the necessary in-stream flows as a source of water supply to support more growth and development in all of Orange County an intolerable solution. We will reluctantly support a minimum flow of 1.7 cfs knowing that it will most likely be sustained far more than 7 days and 10 years but we will observe the operation of the reservoirs, water uses, stream flows and conditions of the river and will be prepared to take strong and immediate action to remedy an adverse condition by exercising all statutory legal means. We fully intend to protect the Eno River and its environment. " PUBLIC COMMENTS Betsy Tilley introduced Marshall Spears, an attorney representing a group of concerned Lake Orange property owners. Spears presented concerns of the Lake Orange property owners regarding the raising of the dam. He noted that by studying deeds and maps it appears that Lake Orange controls to contour line 615. He noted that the raising of the dam would not provide a significant benefit but would cause more consternation. He continued that the cost benefit ratio must be looked at and that a part of that cost benefit ratio is humanity. He noted that if the documentation that led to Lake Orange was studied, it would be found that it was done for the purpose of a number of recreational water-related activities and the deeds to the property go down to that point subject only to an easement, and would only go above 615 in the case of oppression or some temporary measure. He expressed again his doubts that significant benefit would be gained by' disturbing Lake Orange. Spears 91 noted that there has not been an acceptable level of communication with Lake Orange residents about the raising of the dam. Chair Willhoit inquired what the dam level is and Spears respo nded that the rights that exist in the legal document appear to be to the contour level 615. Willhoit asked if there was an interest in raising the dam more than one foot. Some residents stated that the figure they had been told was two feet or more. Willhoit noted that 614 is the current level of the dam and to put flashboards on the dam to raise it one foot would yield approximately 120, 000. Chair Willhoit asked the County Manager the cost of raising the dam one foot. Thompson responded the expected expenditure is something over $100, 000 and it is a cost-benefit question as to whether one foot is worth that type expenditure. Willhoit asked if a new reservoir could be built for this amount and the response was "just about that" . Willhoit asked that it be clarified that the intent was to raise the dam only one foot and even that is not certain at this time. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Carey to adopt a policy limiting the improvements to the Lake Orange dam to one foot of additional flashboard and in no case to exceeds the 615 level. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Ms. Tilley stated that at a meeting with management, one purpose was to get approval from the property owners to raise the water level of Lake Orange two feet. She noted that this would cause considerable flooding over and above the property owned by the County. In the property owners ' opinion, the increase in water supply would not justify the high cost and damage to property. They felt that a more cost effective approach should be considered. She continued that if a reservoir were constructed on Seven Mile Creek, it would be much larger than Lake Orange and strongly suggested that this be the route the County take. Pat Key, Lake Orange property owner, stated that even with the motion stating only one foot, she still had concerns that the matter was not closed. She expressed concern with lack of notification also regarding the cost of "band-aid solution" . She felt a reservoir needed to be started that would benefit all of Orange County. Margaret Holton, speaking for the League of Women Voters presented the statement included in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office. Mary Frances Ramsey spoke as a concerned citizen who owns property on the Eno River. Ms. Ramsey expressed concern with the inadequate in stream flow. She requested that the in-stream flow should never be lower than the minimum 1.7 recommended by the State. Crawford Goodman spoke as Chair of the Preservation Fund of Hillsborough, a group concerned with the preservation of the beauty of the Town. Mr. Goodman expressed concern with the visible decline of the central natural feature of Hillsborough-the Eno River. In particular, he focused on what he termed "the missing link" between Lake Ben Johnson and the treatment plant outfall. He indicated that this section of the river was severely impacted during periods of 92 drought and/or low stream flow. He cited impacts upon wildlife and vegetation, in particular sycamores and river birches. He stated that during dry periods the river banks are subject to collapse resulting in the destruction of the tree species mentioned above. He also spoke as a concerned property owner along the river bank in regard to the sewage treatment plant outfall. He asked that the property owners interests be taken into account. Robert Rose, resident of Queen Street and Hillsborough Planning Board member, expressed concern that the band-aid solutions mentioned would not work. He noted that any future development in Orange County would concern him if it endangered the people, wildlife and plants that are already present. He asked how could you keep taking from the river without showing any responsibility toward replacement or at least keeping a minimum water flow. He continued that anything done in the immediate future was just a stop-gap measure and still a breakeven point. John Hartwell, Eno River resident, expressed concern that as long as the sewage is put into the river, there must be water there to tolerate the sewage. He recommended putting monitoring equipment at the treatment plant itself in order to be constantly assured that the plant is operating properly. Pete Thorn, representative of the Durham/Chapel Hill Homebuilders Association, spoke in support of OWASA's efforts to sustain Hillsborough water until the completion of Cane Creek in three or four years. He urged that Hillsborough uphold its commitment to OWASA. He stated a reasonable water supply for all residents is crucial to the economy. D. W. Lambert presented a resolution from the Orange County Fish and Wildlife Club wh i ch i s i n the permanent agenda f i le i n the C Jerk' s Off i ce. Commissioner Marshall noted that there were two issues presented: one having to do with the interim supply and the other to move ahead on Seven Mile Creek specifically. She felt some motion of the Board needed to made in both these areas. Chair Willhoit noted that the manager had prepared a list of proposed policy positions. He continued that he had a suggestion as to what he felt the next step should be in the short range modification. One action would be to have John Wray evaluate OWASA's proposal on in stream flow. He also expressed a desire to ask the Water Resources Division to make some additional runs on their model accounting for the purchase of 1.2 mgd from Burlington and also assuming the modifications to the reservoirs, and use the model to advise on the timing of the purchase of water by OWASA from the Town of Hillsborough. He asked that they use a criterion of the number of days left at the point where the two systems cross to propose a cutback in the transfer to OWASA and to develop a proposal in terms of cutting back on in-stream flow as the reservoir capacity decreases. Wray noted that a response could be given depending on work load, but that some of the answers would be judgment calls. Willhoit noted that some basic assumptions were needed on which to base the model. Commissioner Lloyd asked if this recommendation would be applicable in other areas as well. Wray responded that one example was the recently completed project by the City of Durham. He noted that much more than 7Q10 was being released in that project. He noted that the difference of .4 with no instream flow is the figure being recommended for Orange County. He stressed again that the water does not belong to anyone in particular but there is the right to use it. Chair Willhoit noted there is a policy question that the Board should address concerning the cutoff point to OWASA; whether that point be before there is a water shortage in northern Orange County; or whether a phase down process is used. Wray responded that would be a judgement call. Chair Willhoit noted that the Manager's recommendation was a "sharing" of the resources as the reservoirs are drawn down including a cut back but not a complete cut-off on the transfer to OWASA. Wray responded that the study must stay within the Eno River Basin given that correlating the data would be very difficult if not impossible otherwise. Billingsley noted that he would like to work with Wray's office to determine if some reasonable alternatives could be reached in this complex problem. Chair Willhoit stated that he understood that the modeling was necessary to development of the management plan. Wray responded that his office could deal with the management plan within the Eno River. Chair Willhoit noted that the Durham connection with OWASA needed to be explored again as it seems to be a critical link. Willhoit mentioned conservation and noted that Mayor Sheffield had stated that the Town of Hillsborough is going to explore that issue. He also noted that the county plumbing inspector is enforcing the current state plumbing code which requires the installation of low-volume plumbing fixtures. He also indicated there might possibly be some design type standards that could be developed for the conservation of water. Chair Willhoit noted that the engineering work on the by-pass of University Lake needed to proceed and that the Town of Hillsborough had indicated they are going to proceed with the Lake Ben Johnson modifications. He added that the cost effectiveness of raising the dam on Lake Orange needs to be reviewed as the figures from the November 15, 1985 statement reads $32, 000 and the figure stated at this public hearing was $100, 000. Chair Willhoit continued that the engineering work on the Burlington connection needed to proceed as well as the development of a purchase agreement with the City of Burlington. Don Cox noted that there was no low flow staff guage at the USGS guaging station and requested that the County purchase such a guage. Willhoit asked that the Manager work with the Town of Hillsborough to purchase this item. Commissioner Marshall stated she felt serious consideration should be given to what and how the Board will move on Horace Johnson's recommendations. She felt this was the long range answer 94 and in some ways the speed in which this progresses might determine what is done as a short range answer. Willhoit stated that a decision had not been made on Seven Mile Creek. Walker noted that fifteen years ago the County had begun purchasing land around Seven Mile Creek for a reservoir. Willhoit noted that the engineering study was done in 1981, but the report had never been accepted nor a recommendation received from the Planning Board. Willhoit noted a recommendation was needed from the Planning should be included in the Land Use Plan. Willhoit asked Collins, Planning Director if Seven Mile Creek is in the Land Use Plan. Collins responded that, at the time the Boards were considering the zoning of Cheeks Township, the Planning Board considered a study done by John McAdams Company regarding reservoirs. The Planning Board supported Seven Mile Creek as the top priority reservoir and Seven Mile Creek was included in the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township. Willhoit continued that a mechanism needed to be in place to acquire property as it becomes available and to flag development proposals for the reservoir site. Chair Willhoit referred this to the Manager's Office for a proposal as how to proceed. Commissioner Marshall asked that the minutes of this meeting be very detailed. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the Scotswood Planned Development public hearing to April 1, 1986 in the Superior Courtroom. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 30. The next meeting will be held on April 1, 1986 at 7 : 30 in Superior Courtroom. Don Willhoit, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary B. A. Blythe, Clerk Meeting adjourned 11: 30 p.m.