Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-30-1989 .7t CORRECTED VERSION • 'Note: Meeting Date ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: JANUARY 30, 1989 • SUBJECT: SITE SELECTION FOR UPPER ENO RIVER BASIN RAW WATER RESERVOIR DEPARTMENT: MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING YES: X NO: ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732--8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive Public comment with regard to .selecting a site for a raw water reservoir in Northern Orange County. BACKGROUND: In 1987 , a two phase water supply study was begun on behalf of Orange County by Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. , Consulting Engineers. The Purpose of the Phase I portion of the study was to identify potential reservoir sites in Northern Orange County which could be developed to help meet the long term water supply needs of the County. An al ternative �o reservoir construction, development of raw water pumping capacity from Jordan Lake, was- also e valuated • for feasibility. The Phase I Study located four potential reservoir sites, within the Upper Eno River Basin. These sites were identified as site A, • where Corporation Lake could be expanded ; Site B, on the Eno River just upstream of. its confluence with McGowan Creek; Site C, on the Eno River upstream of the Halls Mill Road crossing ; and Site D, on Seven Mile Creek southwest of Interstate 85 . A preliminary design for a dam and reservoir was: done for each of the four sites. The raw water yield, construction cost, innundated area and impact on existing roads and structures was determined for each site 4 Public input to the Phase I Study was provided by an ad hoc • citizen committee, the Reservoir Site Committee, appointed by• the • County Commissioners . The Reservoir. Site Committee recommended tc the County Commissioners that the land acquisition process be undertaken to acquire property at Site B on the Eno above McGowar Creek, and at Site D, Seven Mile Creek, for the purpose of reservoir construction, future reservoir construction and wildlife mitigation. • Two reports, ancillary to the Phase I Study, were completed by Hazen and Sawyer in 1988. The first of these reports, completed in July, 1988, evaluated the technical and economic merits of proposal by the Town of Hillsborough to construct a roller ' compacted concrete dam and reservoir at Site D on seven Mile Creek. The second ancillary report, based on more accurate topographic data obtained by a new aerial survey, refined the numbers reflecting the construction costs, innundated area and impact on existing structures of the McGowan, Creek and the Seven Mile Creek Reservoirs. The three reports represent the County' s endeavor to date to - provide sufficient data on which a decision can be based for the selection of a site for a new Northern Orange County Raw Water Reservoir. According to the present time table the reservoir site will be selected by the Commissioners by the end of March. • • . • • • 4 - - • • U v7.;' 3. ORANGE COUNTY - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No./E?.r- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Report From Hazen and Sawyer, Inc. Feasibility of Reservoir Sites DEPARTMENT: Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link TELEPHONE NUMBER- - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Don Cordell of Hazen and Sawyer, �c. will be present to provid( t a refined assessment of potential Seven CMiles Creek and the Eno River above McGowan Creek. BACKGROUND: Using information derived from the recently completed topographic maps, the report will provide updated informatio on the following: 1 ) storage levels and surface elevations for each alternative reservoir site 2) impact an historical • structures and other dwellings 3) construction costs estimat RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as asZoxmation. , H,. .. . . ' • ' • .: d) . .. ., .. . - . . . • -,•%- ... L . . • - !PROPERTY OF BOARD O, COMMISSIONERS** H HAZEN AND SAWYER, .c. CONSULTING ENGINEERS December 30, 1988 • Mr. John M. Link, Jr. County Manager County of Orange P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Additional Comments on Development of a New Reservoir in Northern • Orange County Dear Mr. Link: • We are pleased to present this letter report in fulfillment of our agreement with the County, dated November 29, 1988, for providing professional • engineering services related to the development of a new reservoir in Northern Orange County. In accordance with the agreement, this report presents updated property requirements and costs for potential reservoirs on Seven Mile Creek and on the Eno River above McGowan Creek. These updates are based upon new 41 topographic maps that have been prepared by Piedmont Aerial Surveys under contract with the County. In the Phase I Water Supply Study and related studies, estimates of reservoir water surface elevations and associated property requirements were based upon one-inch to 2000-foot topographic maps with 10-foot contours. The new maps are.plotted at a scale of one inch to 200 feet and have 5-foot contour intervals. They permit property and other requirements for reservoir construction to be defined with much greater accuracy than was previously possible. This study has focused on defining property requirements for the following levels of safe yield development, which have been previously evaluated for the two referenced sites: Previously • • Total Total Estimated 20-Year Required Water Surface Safe Yield Storage - Elevation _ (mad) (ma) (ft ms1) From Phase I Study, 1750 572 Eno River above McGowan Creek 8 { - Seven Mile Creek..—.... -- ••- 2100' .__:. 581 Town of Hillsborough Seven Mile Creek 8(7)* 4900 597 *Hazen and Sawyer estimate 4300 GLENWOOD AVENUE - P.0.80X 30428 • RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27622 • (919)782-8333 RALEIGH.NC • DURHAM,NC • CHARLOTTE.NC - NEWPORT NEWS.VA • HOLLYWOOD.FL - NEW YORK•NY • Mr. John M. Link, Jr. December 30, 1988 Page 2 r As was discussed in our previous letter report to you of July 19, 1988, conceptual designs and project cost estimates presented in the Phase I Study were based upon conventional earthfill dam construction. The Town of Hillsborough has proposed construction of a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam on Seven Mile Creek that would impound a far larger reservoir than was _ judged to be feasible in the Phase I Study. As we have previously stated, we firmly believe that a reservoir with a storage capacity substantially in excess of 2.1 billion gallons and/or a safe yield in excess of 6 mgd should not be contemplated on Seven Mile Creek. The present report does not address the relative merits of alternative types of dam construction. However, preliminary costs have been prepared for earthfill and RCC dams at both sites. We must stress that these costs are very preliminary, especially those related to RCC dam construction. • RESULTS The appendix contains reservoir area—storage relationships for the two sites that are based on the new topographic maps. According to these relationships, the reservoir water surface elevations at the Eno River and Seven oe thee eindicated levels toeachieveethe feet and 4 feet above same storage volumes previously and safe yields. �'.. A summary of revised data for alternative dams at the two sites is " . .. presented in Table 1. This table includes data for reservoirs impounded by alternative earthfill and RCC dams that are comparable to those evaluated in the Phase I Study and our July 1988 letter report. The new normal and maximum water surface elevations for the alternative reservoir projects are shown, respectively, on lines 2 and 3 of this table. The data on line 1 and lines 4 through 7 of this table are the same as in previous studies. This data shows that the reservoir on the Eno River site would have a higher overall yield than any of the Seven Mile Creek alternatives. Revised reservoir area requirements are shown on lines 8 and 9 of Table 1, and the revised property acquisition requirements are shown in line 10. • Land and buildings within the respective reservoir areas (lines 10a and 10c, respectively) fall within the following criteria, as defined in the Phase I Study: ® Property that is within 50 feet of the normal reservoir' shoreline. - -Property that would-be inundated, at the maximum flood pool '- elevation. - - -- 0 - Mitigation property (line 1Ob) has also been determined based on the Phase I Study assumptions. A special classification, termed "additional buildings in critical area" (line 10d), has been created for buildings that *, are located outside of the defined reservoir limits but in such close ` ) proximity that they would be affected to some extent by the reservoir development. We have taken the conservative approach of including costs for such buildings in the respective project cost estimates, although the buildings themselves could be preserved. r/ • I •. I 4111•1111111111111111111111/10 '' ■o - ' . • Mr. John M. Link, Jr. . December 30, 1988 - Page 3 .. ,........ -,. . ei P. * 0 6. ••■••••••■■■•■•••••■•■•••■•••••••••■•••••■•••••••••■•■••■•••••••••••■■••••• E .0 0 4 4 CO = 14*1:00*001.64A 00^A.1 OM* 0 4) to c C 0 •00 • • •0 CY...• ot)1....--* 0.0 Vi 0 I. "ic 0 E x v....,..„-0,..t406 14 o• 0 • • 4::. 40 o T. lo o• .."..., . co cc 1 m< co c v.0 •••• . C 0 11)"V 00 N v.. ... co ..T IA at 5 I 010 . . "0 0 N -AU 4,. ••• V a) ...-••• .41W ft,1 N V ... 0 4 4 CC ,„. 44 IN i U • 0 ID ). = ""t W L C 0 ... W V. .....,-... -*-••••••.• 4 a 66.V - 10 C / 1 .... = 146,ANIC*0006A 010.4061 0014 IC 0 0. E C I-1 000.. • • •0 VII> COO 4=Uml* CI U C , ..„, 0 w 4= IA Ift IA•04.LI"•-•?A.... .44. 0 • . 0 .-- .„,„, ..... .0 - N 0 II IL J W 0 ••••44 44 1.. a) 7 i 0..... ' ... ..... V) 1,1 E . *4 -= 40 116 CS: L. L. • 0 =GA .. ,,,Z 1 S .E 0 V = 0.0C LA .... a. OM W 7/1" 4 V 0 0 C WI 4 .... 0 40 113 V 0 4.• %.• olo. .0 6 U) Fr . P.. 0-.000 0...-., 00-, 0 . EV i c ° .001 • • •c)in w ....••-• 0 CO6A CO 0 •-• 0 4? * twit001.0*...,*Mcn v* 0 • • co . a *.0 a. * NV ..0.1 PA . 4 4 4 WW 000 0 • 81) 41, CO C, VI.... .0 0 0 0 0 C .. dr. V1 I,. W C c 0.0 MC . 4; 0 A 4 6 0) 4" 0 00 00 0-•W .. 1 )„. ... N.. m 0 r0 al 17 ... CZ -""*"--- "'""'"---"-----.--------.. 0 6 al 0 C .1a 41) C 4- 3 • CD MI h. •00%11100...074W 00...... mo,c C ... 47 NA. 7 re ... . .ar) • . .a%0..- ... ... ... 0 E 0 12 34 7 L) Y itt.12 in CO*.0 Is.0.0 .0 0 • • 4. ... s.. CU ••• Mr.. •"' .4%1N 0 .... .,j V 0 = *4 IA 1400 4 0 • 10 00 >. W .0..._ U.0 in . . 0 -0 .. w • c c . w 0. - C w 5 = 6 -.:-.L., . 4,0 .... 0 3.0 ..) 10 0 cc U .0 a U)... 0.1 =* 0 0 > a .0 eta a 016 > ..0 .0 4 L. *0 .4 0= 1616 7171 V 4 CI 4. C C? -• 0 11) 1.• 6 • • 1. 0.1 CO 00. 4 LULU C. = cr) )....- 0 0 = 4 .- ow.* 4) el 41 0 •111•• C '10 Ce *0 C . CA C 0* 0'0 W 00 .0 1)1 ..T0:0*14 00 IA g c E a r OD r ...I • • • • 0 •6/60.0. 1 •••• 01.0.0000-.004W1461 0.4* 0 • • CI = 0 0 *>. E r U) 0 ., CI 0 or Tim u. itC ...^J to • 0 E V Ili .... IA IA N010 0= 0 ,... >.4 .4 5.. W 56 > V. 0. 0 = Ig. tV w ... 0 co I.. O Z. = V.. 1... al al 0 ,V V s:. w - w ;... 5 cc = '' 07 ). c 9 0 E Cl 0 0 .. . 0.0 - WO WL. ..., U) = 40 . 44) 0 .6 C.1 0 I. 40 4 4 ILA 0 0 V 0 4 0•••• 44 a) ce c- .., 0 .... ... C < 6 0 7 .0 a.. ta •13 >. 010 0 0 7 ce = 0 IV IP C 40) ••-■ C L. 00 4 m = P w E •••• 6 0 11)) al 6- .).0- . ... .... 0 .0 0 10 .0 0 in 6 E •--, = ••• w u C m .... • 1.. ••-....o.... o 0 p.= Oo o MC I., o L. CI • A ..„.• 4. 4 4 0 ....02 06 00 0 ...• 1. 0 5 C 6 4,= 0064.40 0 I- 0 00 en 006 ...• 3* ' 0 C 044 = 0 •= 1.•0. 0 2 Pla• 04 > 0 C C 4' 0) 0 CO 0 > Cr 111 0 ...,CO 0 44 • .• 0 •44 C.7 a L.- 46C 00 M .4* V 40 M = 4466.. 7= 1 L. 0 GI.4 44 0 10" it -;•• •■••C t) 04 L. g •••-'0 0- ... •••• t.fa 12 ....... 0 SIC)0 12 06 LICD.0 • E ... owe 00 0 MO * * Cm 6 C Iti....0 0 E••• >••••6.N VIM 4.0 0)0 ... 00) 0 00 • 0,6c0.4 - E '.= P. .E . 0. . .. - .. > .- . . 60 >M*0) 60aCtvEC 66 w m • Cai m 60 ya .- 6 a.6 ti C .044 =4. 00000 * 0 44 0 . 4.4 40, CI ...ow* C) ...' M.6.000 ›.0 ....W... .... Im.E.= 0 ..... . 0 ..10 CI) 4, 0) 0 0 V V 0.0 y•.....a. *.6 a.6 0 in CO U) 4. 0 . 4. >. .0, CC) 0 A 0 5....V. 0 a . in › G., .- ..,4. . .._ C .0 0 '4. 0. = • 0.0 4( -= = 1.•- C.as-0 • *AGOG ° W al al ...10 C ID -10 it, 0 0 „„.. . • 0 w L.-•at a) V CP . .0 4, 1... 0 ..) CI _ cwv,,,, ..,... ,., • . CU ... 0 7.0.0 : 6... 04) 760000CM..M W0W Z i .a0076m612.0< 0.0) C-0 -z 7 7, 4. 06 . 04) 0EC N¢W.0 0...... m ,........ = . OMO. BO **6 • • • • . _ i -- .. . • C a . /...•0.).6 81a.0 La-0 * a •VV -1 cc7c.1.1*! : : 0 04 '5: ..: 6 ',.. 4/ V) i 4:1' r.,. 0 c 13 0 t.W 01.. L. 4 Co 6: 4 ... • I = 0) 4-C•C O. 0-UW 0. 0 0 • • • = ...... • = • • • • • • a • •= ••••W r'l ••1. W • C; • •••• ....ram.ruN•ONC00.." •-••••-• .•-• C • • • ... .7 • ..1 ... .. '40 •••• .. ... .......4............444-444.4.64.4.4-4.---4 -". 4 • ; 1.* • V ••• • . . 1 ■ .,. , . . . . • . . . Mr. John M. Link, Jr. December 30, 1988 Page 4 The term wilding applies to all standing structures (i.e. private residence, garages, farm buildings, and other) that could be identified within the potentially affected areas on the basis of the new topographic maps. Because of the limited scope of this study, it was not possible to determine the type and condition of each of the potentially affected buildings. Buildings of known historical significance have been identified and are the following: Buildings of Known Historical Sionificancel Site (Total SY--20) In Reservoir Arta In Critical Area. Eno River Faucette's mill Chatwood Little Ayr Mount (8 mgd) The Elms Seven Mile Creek ' None None (6 mgd) . Seven Mile Creek None None (7 mgd) • `P O The reservoir limits in the vicinity of Faucette's Mill and Chatwood (also known as The Old Coach House) are shown in Exhibit 1 . Exhibit 2 shows Little A the vicinity of L7 Ayr Mount and The Elms.y the reservoir limits in t y Faucette's Mill would be completely inundated by the reservoir development shown in Exhibit 1 or by any practical development of the Eno River site. Chatwood, Little Ayr Mount, and The Elms would not be in any risk of being inundated as a result of developing the Eno River site to the indicated level . However, the normal reservoir shoreline would be only about 100 feet away from these buildings. No structures of known historical significance would be affected by developing the Seven Mile Creek site to the maximum level proposed in the- . Phase I Study or to the higher level proposed by the Town of Hillsborough. A substantial number of buildings that are not believed to be of historical significance would be affected by the Town's proposal. Moorefields is a building of historical significance located downstream of the proposed Seven Mile Creek dam site. This building would not be permanently affected by a reservoir development at Seven Mile Creek, but some disturbances could be expected in this area during dam construction. 1•These buildings are listed in AN INVENTORY OF CULTURAL HISTORICAL,. 11 .RECREATIONAL BIOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SI NIFICANCE IN THE NINCORPORATED .1 PORTIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY, Orange County Planning Department, May 1986. 2-This building is not included in the above inventory but is considered to i be of historical interest. . . ... : • Page 5 ..: EXHIBIT I . ..... at, Z " . ,.'''.::') . ■ V. 7D-X • :.:. CI 14111 . • \-7 ...,...N. 0 ... 411 ,1 i „.... 1.1117 toi) j..........._ ....1- .• ._ . r:c 1111#14) 41 '1 . . . . (isifillical . 1 g 11 r . 1 I III I k 1 i, 11 .... . Lu : 0 U.1 U.I ./:,... 's CC ) < c) ifk CC i I . „„,,,17r \ LU > Z 0... i < ..,i, ...... ha . • . '.'\\N".---".. ..a.N. . ...21 \‘‘k CC 0 S,C9 ) k..,r (.-- L2, cn 1 ....- z 0 co . - • ______•—... / uJ. 1 .1,....;„,- ILI 2.....• I . - ... 1 1 ...... . _ ...----I • Cim.) '•■''..'.., /110114-.20.-0- L.. ) 7 .....•-'-'',,-„'-.,;.. .-.,---—•-• .• • _ - ' 49 • - ' ul/ - o ) 7 -,X • li i W ) 1 . .... 2 -- ..i. t. in . ,./../;/.- . 4n . —....,....,,.. -- ..... i'llx . • ..)' ••• . ;13,....-. 91cedo t .----- - rt / 6 - Inx • -- iirrr i -- in in on ce, X 1 ' X inx , • . . 1 i . f•.:.) •x 0 ittoi ' •I 1 N . " ..• //"--11 . . .....:.,:::::" • - ,.• / 1 • - !„) HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. H ORANGE COUNTY T i. •"' . .... ...— .._ l', i Engineers WATER SUPPLY STUDY 1 ......... ...—....1 . I .. . . .------- . I : • , . P:ai • : e 6 . EXHIBIT 2 5Z,..44■. : N Ii \\ I; !I 1 i ' ' i . ....... ikIMUllik **Ni . ) rii -„, .::A„ P .:- . 1 ..:,,, X ;. ili / ) f NORMAL WSE = 576.5 599.• 08. . ( . g , - • 1 ) II _7.1 r j IC187.- : I / - 4 r,' id de,./' x 502.9 ,Ir ..• . 1: 1 \ 1101 4 LITTLE AYR MOUNT .2...• .11,\., ‘.... „.........11 _ i \...,.. „... lo..` .‘,,,,, , ,, ,1 --- . , \„,- 40# x59 X 59 . \lhor" .N:'-* ''V•\ 0144 illA'- . . AI& -■.\\, • I X 69;'x 594. • 7...... \,.... 110110111-111,53,' ' ',a 'Ils 'il. ' - ..11 g W2.4 C -'-----", A , - r:11,v4-) ' . 1114141111115.3 ' - - 4 i 1 584.0 c(58 - ,•; I \ 5825 0‹ •.° 4 ' t ■ • ofille7 i t. . 0e.- \\ * • - 1 , X6 90. \ ENO RIVER ABOVE TIA THE ELMS 4 . liplr + alt ,./i MCGOWAN CREEK , .- . girl 4.14 58 ; . ( 8 MGD ) . • .ei, x 577.1 ! . iiiiir•-4"- 44# 111411 \....... 001e01411?: ,4,. f\\•\,\•:# . .4 . :• „... --,..... 1 . • :,f I•. I • 4"1•”-.• SCALE r•=2001-0° I i . i i .00°'■ ) i I• ORANGE COUNTY 7.,.. 1 . • HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. WATER SUPPLY STUDY , 1 • • PP.' Engineers H . . . , . 1 . . . . ® . . . • • . Mr. John M. Link, Jr. December 30, 1988 Page 7 The estimated total project costs for the alternative projects are shown on line 11 of Table 1 , and unit costs per gallon of total and net safe yield are shown, respectively, on lines 12 and 13. Individual project cost summaries are included in the appendix. . Costs have been updated to reflect the revised property requirements and major cost items in dam construction. Previous cost estimates are shown on line 14 of Table 1. Please recognize that the revised estimates are made without benefit of detailed site evaluations that would normally be carried out during the preliminary design process. Such detailed studies would be required to determine the technical and economic feasibility of RCC as an alternative to conventional earthfill dam as well as to refine overall design concepts. For example, alternative spillway designs could be investigated during the preliminary design to help reduce impacts of reservoir construction on the local residents. The feasibility of constructing a dam in two phases, which has been proposed by the Town of Hillsborough, is another concept that can only be fully evaluated after detailed study. While these and other important issues remain to be resolved, we hope that the present report, combined with previous reports, provides the County with an adequate basis for deciding which of the two sites should be developed to provide for the county's future water supply needs. Once this decision is made, we hope that the County will continue to provide an appropriate level of protection for the other site to preserve the long term potential for additional water supply development. The Phase I report identified the Eno River at McGowan Creek and Seven Mile Creek as the two : .� most favorable dam sites in northern Orange County. The County may continue with to consider non-local but othese stwo csites Jwillnremaino the�best contracts available local options. The findings of the present study can be summarized as follows: 1 . The Eno River site above McGowan Creek will yield more water for the County and at a lower unit cost than an alternative _ reservoir on Seven Mile Creek. 2. Development of the Eno River alternative would impact four significance: Fau cette s Mill structures of know historical g would be completely inundated; Chatwood, Little Ayr Mount, and The Elms would be affected to some extent, the buildings themselves would not be inundated. Development of the Seven Mile Creek site would not have any significant impact on any structure of known historical significance. For this reason, permitting requirements for the Seven Mile Creek -:site:-should be less complicated.. -. 3. Development of the Seven Mile Creek site to create an impoundment volume of 2100 million gallons and a safe yield of 6 mgd would have the least environmental impacts of the alternatives that have been evaluated. This project would permanently inundate approximately 360 acres of land as compared with•400 acres for the higher yielding reservoir at the Eno River site. The reservoir proposed by the Town of Hillsborough would permanently inundate over 700 acres. Mr. John M. Link, Jr. December 30, 1988 Page 8, •--.1—:\ 4. This report includes data on the proposed 4.9 billion gallon Seven Mile Creek Reservoir solely for the purposes of comparison. Hazen and Sawyer does not support development of a reservoir to this level . Seven Mile is a viable alternative if development is limited to an appropriate volume. 5. Cost estimates for RCC dam construction are lower than comparable estimates for conventional earthfill construction. Until the detailed studies necessary to verify the feasibility of RCC construction are completed, it would be more conservative to base planning decisions on conventional earthfill construction. RCC construction is an - • interesting design option that should be thoroughly evaluated during preliminary design. This type of construction appears to be economically attractive at either site. The type of dam construction that is ultimately implemented will determine the magnitude of the project construction cost but should not influence the decision as to which site should be developed. In conclusion, we would like to acknowledge the considerable effort that the County of Orange has put forth to resolve the problem of water supply shortages in its northern communities. Important issues concerning 4 ,-N the reservoir design concepts and impacts of the alternative projects on the ..., local environment remain to be answered. We appreciate the complexity of the decision that the County faces in selecting the most appropriate reservoir alternative. We hope that this report will contribute to a better understanding of the issues involved and will allow continued progress towards development of a new reservoir. We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments. Please let us know if there are any further questions. Very truly yours, • _ HAZEN & SAWYER, P.C. 0,,,,,,,,,,,,ir, ..,°,0NCARD,,,,, ..........4./4, ',.. • .. ••?' ' 14L 4--X1r1214S 6/ 41" = '4P :Igk ., AA S onald . de 1 , E. Associate "1- 1 — . - ''441 40...1.. .C*110.?..•%s r ..............go's:..l'•'.... 4. ..;•- 1 — . 7; it P.James McCarthy, P. . Principal Engineer DLC/JM:jr - _ - -. - r204/123088 Enclosures • - • APPENDIX • -• - • _ . . . • . . . • • - • .. ,... ) . ORANGE COUNTY, NC NEW CORPORATION LAKE ABOVE McGOWAN CREEK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS I. CONTOUR SURFACE AREA VOLUME BETWEEN CONTOURS ACCUMULATIVE VOLUME (FT-MSL) (ACRES) (MILLION GALS) (MILLION GALS) 538 0 540 10.92 545 32.62 34 34 550 58.41 73 107 555 94.81 124 231 560 134.35 186 416 565 192.56 265 681 i 00 570 265.08 371 1,053 575 366.75 512 1,565 • 580 484.38 691 2,256 585 617.89 896 3,152 590 771.16 1,129 4,281 595 945.83 1,396 5,677 • 600 1143.81 1,700 7,377 605 1379.11 2,052 9 ,429 • 610 1648.95 2,463 11,893 615 1968.90 2,943 14,836 620 2360.64 3,522 18,358 _ _ _ - - -- -- - - 1. Calculated by Piedmont Aerial Surveys .....................- ORANGE COUNTY, NC SEVEN MILE CREEK VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS CONTOUR SURFACE AREA VOLUME BETWEEN CONTOURS ACCUMULATIVE VOLUME (FT—MSL) (ACRES) (MILLION GALS) (MILLION GALS) 524 0 530 1.67 535 6.70 6 6 540 17.28 19 25 545 34. 69 42 67 550 56.82 74 141 555 81.03 112 252 560 107.91 153 406 Aa 565 143.08 204 609 570 177.78 261 870 575 224.15 327 1,197 580 283.'39 413 1,610 585 357.75 521 2, 131 590 451.52 658 2,788 595 558.27 821 3,609 600 678.55 1,006 4,615 605 818.53 1,218 5, 833 - _ 610 980.15 1,463 - 7,297 615 1156.16 1,738 9,035 620 1366.48 2,053 11,087 7 -.. - _ . , 1. Calculated by Pei dmont Aerial Surveys A-9 r................. • :.., • • . . . . . • _ -kr . . • . , . . \. - a r...... . t:3 Z ...4 .?.. 6 < CZ!) LLJ Z . _ ".... . , (E) X ""J > .. \ :I 0••••■ < 0 . ZI . \I ••••4 Z tj < . .••■ .-,....." E.-. (.Do • < r-: . , . 0 V) R . . . } . 0 0 N . . ,.. \ . .. z • -t. . . 6 _ . . . . h. . . . . . . 1 . .• . . . . . . . . • . . - .. ..., . . ...... 0 . . • _ . 1. l...,..) ) • . . . . . . . . . . . . (ISIAI —1,;) okelS . . i . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ner■INENft........................., .. . . :..• . . . . . ..., . . . . 1 . I . , . , II CO a . tO ____ a , . ----.- II ...- a ...-4. ..., C.,) , Z L-.1 < tv (..) — _ z --.--- co To V) < I3 C; , .... . 1:a . 1;:, ......- Z . \IR • • Lt_l ,-, to cs i-, _ .1 ;... < 0 k 1 I L . I tn.-) • 1 I I . r.a• . \ • :. • z - • --- • I ••,. ,. ....../ 1 1 I . \ • . • . • • \ . • 1 . .' ..;. I , • _. , • 1 1 . . . , .., 1 t — 1 ., • ' l•. E:;1::):-) • * . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 - nt 0 . . . ....i to • "1"-----1 c: 0 ol to : .In . . ea v., in 0 t.o In in in kr . . ro in . . . .... • • . , . . (ISIAI-1..T) a2v4s . . . • . - , . . . . . . . . .. ... ....... . .. . . . . • . . . A-4 •..., . •.• 1■1111.11■11111 . . . - : • 1 - .. _. . • , ,..,...., . ..... ___ • .. , . _ r f •••4 \ . ry _ . . .... , . < , \ . - . _ . . . co . ........ (1.1 < 92, \ _ . •-....... Cl to 0 . . . co co t., 2 . . . . . 0 0 ,.. ........, LI r., \ . c..., 9) 0 ts . . •"‘ Q., i--- \th • , .0 . ..,, , . . - \ 0 i . \ . _ I . . . . . . . _ . . , = .0. - I .. . ... ,.... I . . .. .. ._ .. -. . • . • .. • _ . • 1 ' - -, - _ . . 0 I I I I I I T "-' I • ' C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • IN — • 0 al 0 r- Lo In -,:i4 r) N •, • • _ vD tl:i • o In in In In In In In in . ...' .',..1) ' .. • . . . - • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • ( • 7SIV.—14) 02"elS . . . • . . . • • . . . -. . . . . . . • . . . . . • .. . • • - . • . • • • A5 • . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . NY • .......... ..--------- . I . • -.. . . - . .:1.... \ •-■ 111 IIII C) \ I, 1-1-1 • (...D _ .--... u) . • \ 77)1 C Cq 71' Ii t..0 r•I I :74 8 ..n (..3. i \..... .---• C7)1 •\I 70 7. P 1-1.3 too . r% 8 (...D ......, ........:— ...t. < 1 \ , •1 . I V) , - • *-\' ' - \II\ _..............----------- r■/ • • . • • . . . • . . . 1 iti . . . . . •:..• - - . . ;a _ . •:•:. • ft 1 I 1 1 I I • ca a • co ' 00,,, ca a i•- •Ia IS ta ca re3 C) ruin kfl . .. :. .. ta ■.o ta tn It% Lc) in . . . . _ . . ,. , .. •• . . . . . .. . . . . . ._ .. • . : . • . . . . ( s — ) 9 S . . . . . . . . 1ik 142v4 . , . . . • ‘ . , . . . . . • . . • .. • . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . • • • . .. . D-x • . • . • ' ,. . .... , ' . . . ..• . . • . . . • • j • N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 N CO N a N N • • M 11 N _ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 II 0 II in •I1 ti N N V n N 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 00 N 10 N M N 000 11 0 0 `�.1 '.7 N N N 11 11 00 0 X il M ^ V M N M ♦- N- • V II'I co N .1. N N II • 4% V .. �IA N N N N II VI 0 II -ate N N `" n II II If N Y II II 11 01 II It II II W N 0 0 0 O O O 0 Co 0 0 0 0 000000 M O N P 4%. N p0 l� w 0..N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 C) 0 0 N 0 N"7 11'1 11•• N N II Y N 1 2 His 11 W J W 0 II .0 •� i7 h° 0 111 "_' 0 0 O O_ 11 1-0 in s 11 N N .O V 1fl V ^ M 1~/1 P Pan N N N It bb N N� 0 1VJ.0 11 N I�1 Y1 M O M r r M N 11 w 17-0....s1 1 r r II 11 N 11 N u N 11 5 t1 N N II N. 11 w Y 2 11 N 11 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 N 0 N C. -.7 11 x II J N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 ...rw 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 00 N O Y V M11 it�_ N ON II o In0 N a N ^ 11 NxS II V P. O 0 Y.7 0 .7 0V- 0 0 in O M 0 14 M N /1 O to 11 at:1- II N O .7 V r' M III r M to I N 11 1 0.lYs"v 11 r b MV N r N 11 N W cc O 11 W 11 r r • N p N -11 W O II K 11 II II 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 000011 0 Nr• ..0 11 if U II .w>..W O O O 0 0 O O 0000 N 0 It 2 N N II 0 0 I 0 0 N W' O P[OOG 11 1~ N N n 70 11 3Z 00 II O." In 'w• M CO .- N O 10M P M 0. In.7 M0 II I11 N 11 N PC (w/1 S 11 N P r CO r V N V N 0 .50 NN N N N '-▪ 8 ii a a 0 II N �" N a II N 11 O s II N 1 1I 1 O C� 11 1 U.1 U.1 11 { 11 rCI p II II if W I'110 0 N N m II 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O a O O o 0 O N O N r ^11 /,.. toa 0 N .t o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 N o it Y/N .. yq 0 11 iY ...M0•Il O 0 .O O -InOO It N N YI 11 .1.�i -111,. O O CO ^ my)0 N 0. N N V la 0 _u - yWj S 2 11 N NJ .. N. 5- V N V V N 0. . M IV N N N w.7 n p II N r n rri 00 01 .cc v 11 0 °'w..11 �O N a N N 11 II II N -Y • 0 II 47 11 N u �W 11 11 11 N w N Ce 11 N "ON °° 111 a • d ch 11 N I) O N 4 w N 1t V N N ,0)N N 4* Y V"12 N 11 O C n N ..n Q; 11 II r 11 N ..N C w N 11 -.. ... 11 N {V 11 c-' N u en - C n n I 2 S N 11 C 0 n 1.• n ,'1.11 m II N - " bv 11 U) 11.0 m 11 ff toZ 1 11 .p 7 C 1I .1 11 0 11 W N 2 N n E O ll U N 11 _ ..OU. C 0 In 11 •-• . 11 v N II us a .... 01 O n 6•J 11'O n.. 11 w 11 tl CC ON N Y. 11 O 0 m C O O N 0 1 Q1 C p • L.11 3 11 M L` IIII O O 01 C S W O.41 11 11 A II• 11)CO C II .I 11 O n II i N ••• " a. a. - U) 0 C 05 < II V C N a O = L O C 4- _ N N .0 4 N o OI. m N C) • O 0 N II m ?' C N d 0 N ntC— I-N .. N `° .r...d N N 0 0. 0 1.. O 0 ... 0.- m .0°C .0ws EL p c.• . u N N L 0. •- f.1 O 0 C 0 L .IC 0 .+ 0C O0 N N co Cn II II M O `N - Y .d. C n- a >. O h M Y U) N N r. p N N V O d W L 0 L • K . .a. L{11 Y N E.N NN L US 111.1' 1- .2 O @ ar L 41 — «''(0 N Y a.N N N C E E y 0 Y w V 1/i •0 O '8 SAN N .. O N I N r O 1. •O 'r•` 11 N z V N II N U 0° 0 — a - w = a C x N N 11 N N 11 N I N CO — 11 N -� 11 N 11 • • .n CO N - N V '='0 r- 11 0 U. O 11 • V N w II r N 0 M W I. MS 0 C) ... IV .M.- w. 11 Y N Y O N = II . •.- 11 N n �' N n M 1I N It O N Y M • . A-7 ^7) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 1 SiTE B: END RN�L McGGOWAN CREEKS WITH EAR HFFIIUL DAM ••-=ocxs=-_=.-z.. -mss==- - mss=-- -==_----=-`__ • ITEM WORK _ QUANTITY 1 UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 _- _,.�.._�-x. -xis=�xs==�x�==oO:o-==xr-w-�-= - -- 4S -- 212,326 1. Contractor Mobilization __ LS -- 52,326 a. Field Office Expense . 2. Dam Site Preparation 30 AC 1100.00 33,000 a. Clearing and Grubbing 1338 330 AY 2.60 333,000 b. Stripping/Foundation Prep. -- CS «. 378,000 p. Surface and Subsurface Grouting 3. Dam Embankment 252000 CY 2.50 630,000 a. Random i 22400 CY 15.00 336,000 b. Sand and Gravel rBedl Filter 29300 CY 25.00 732,500 c. 6" Dia and Bedding 5000 LF 6.00 30,000 e. Pi zom Perforated Drain 28 EA 2500.00 70,000 f. Settlements f. Settlement Points 50 EA 200.00 10,000 4. Principal Spillway 0 400.00 2,936,000 a. Reinforced Concrete 6070 CY 175.00 1,062,250 c. Mass Concrete 2400 CT 15.00 36,000 c. Stone Bedding LS -- 200,000 e. Tie-down Anchors _. LS -- 100,000 _ e. Miscellaneous Metal 5. Diversion Conduit . 370 LF 1950.00 722,000 _ LS .. 1,050,000•6. Intake lower a. Access Bridge 2020 SF 40.00 80,800 s',, 7. Access Roads _ 3500 LF 75.00 263,000 a. Drainage Ditches and Structures - LS 150,000 8. Miscellaneous Site Work 3D AC 1500.00 45,000 b. Fencing 2500 LF 15.00 38,000 b. Cleari r 1 AC 3500.00 3,500 " e c. Ceng Ditches 2900 LF. 25.00 73,000 e Additional Class B Concrete 6000 73. Co. dctete CY 60.00 360,000 LS -- 20,000 f. Erosion Control During Construction 1 . q. Electrical LS .. 100,000 10. Reservoir Clearing. 450 AC 1000.00 450,000 11. Property Acquisition 664 AC 2500.00 1,660,000 . a. Property Not Including Structures AC 2500.00 0 c. Buildings b. Mitigation Property 1 0 0 AS -- 230,000 d. Buildings in Critical Area 7 LS 520,000 . 12. Road Relocations/Modifications ._ LS -- 1,206,000 13. Modifications to Existing Utilities ,,. LS -- 190,000 14,417,000 . 14. Subtotal 4,325,000• 15..� 30X • Engineering and Contingencies 250,000 16. -Historical.Mitigation - 200,000 . 17. Add OAW3 Operating Costs 519,192,000 18. TOTAL BUDGET COST • • PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SITE B: ENO RIVER ABOVE McGOWAN CREEK, EARTHFILL DAM WITH RCC SPILLWAY :'"} NORMAL POOL WSE 576.5 , SY-20 - 8 MGD ITEM WORK `~ QUANTITY I UNIT (UNIT PRICE' TOTAL - r, -sx=--=- 1. contractor Mobilization -- LS .. 179,000 a. Field Office Expense •- LS 50,000 2. Dam Site Preparation 20 AC 1100.00 22,000 a. Clearing and Grubbing 5.00 444,000 AY 88800 b. Stripping/Foundation Prep. CT -- 470,000 c. Surface and Subsurface Grouting 3. Dam Embankment 220000 CY 2.50 550,000 b. Random Fill 19600 CY 15.00 294,000 b. Sand and Gravel ngtter 19400 CY 25.00 485,000 c. Riprap and Bedding 5000 LF 6.00 30,000 d. 6" Dim. Perforated Drain 28 EA 2500.00 70,000 e. Settlements f. Settlement Points 50 EA 200.00 10,000 4. Principal Spillway 1 1000 CY 39.00 429,OOD a. Roller Compacted Concrete 11000 SF 9.00 52,000 b. Upstream Facing 3160 CY 400.00 1,264,000 c. Reinforced Concrete I 4400 CY 175.00 770,000 e. n Mass Concrete Drain -- LS -- 100,000 e. Miscellaneous e. s Metal ._ LS -- 100,000 •5. Diversion Conduit 350 LF - 1950.00 683,000 -_ LS 1,050,000 6. Intake Tower a. Access Bridge 1940 SF 40.00 78,000 7. Access Roads 3500 LF 75.00 263,000 a. Drainage Ditches and Structures -- LS 150,000 8. Miscellaneous Site Work 20 AC 1500.00 30,000 • a. Seeding 2500 LF 15.00 38,000 b. Clearing 1 AC 3500.00 4,000 d, Clncrite 2900 LF 25.00 73,000 d. Concrete l Class 6000 CY .60.00 360,000 e. Additional Class B Concrete f. Erosion Control During Construction -- LS -- 20,000 9. Electrical -- L5 -- 100,000 1 10. - Reservoir Clearing 450 AC 1000.00 450,000 11. Property Acquisition a. Property Not Including Structures 618 AC 2500.00 1,545,0000 b. Mitigation Property 0 AC 2500.00 0,000 -- 520,000 d. Buildings in Critical Area ' 7 LS 12. Road Relocations/Modifications -- LS -- 1,056,000 13. Modifications to Existing Utilities -- L5 -- - 190,000 • 14. Subtotal 3,12,159,000 3,647,700_. ._.. .15. - ' 30% Engineering and Contingencies. - 250,000 16. Historical Mitigation 200,000 j 17. Add OAWS Operating Costs • 18. TOTAL BUDGET COST $16,257,000 • • 23-Dec-88 :-.7:;-1-'., PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SEVEN MILE CREEK WITH EARTNFILL DAM NORMAL POOL USE 585.0 , SY-20 - 6 MGD �==-as-.===-=====..======-=== M-----..see==s=======_ ---resx_e --- -_asps=--.. - • ITEM I WORK I QUANTITY I UNIT (UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. Contractor Mobilization -- LS -- 197,000 . • a. Field Office Expense -- LS -- 50,000 • 2. * Dam Site Preparation 40 AC 1100.00 44,000 a. Clearing and Grubbing b. Stripping/Foundation Prep. 189100 CY -- 492,000 c. Surface and Subsurface Grouting -- LS 470,000 3. Dam Embankment a. Random Fitt 441000 CY 2.50 1,103,000 • b. Sand and Gravel Fitter - 39200 CY 15.00 588,000 • c. Riprap and Bedding 41400 CY 25.00 1,035,000 d. 6" Die. Perforated Drain 5000 LF 6.00 30,000 e. Piezometers 28 EA 2500.00 70,000 f. Settlement Points 50 EA 200.00 10,000 4. Principal Spillway a. Reinforced Concrete 7210 CY 400.00 2,884,000 b. Mass Concrete 2020 CY 175.00 354,000 c. Stone•Bedding 2400 CY 15.00 36,000 d. Tie-down Anchors -- LS 200,000 e. Miscellaneous Metal -- LS - 100,000 • 5. Diversion Conduit 490 LF 950.00 466,000 ' <✓l • 6. Intake Tower •- LS -- 1,050,000 .. a. Access Bridge 2740 SF 40.00 110,000 7. Access Roads 2600 LE 75.00 195,000 • a. Drainage Ditches and Structures -- LS 150,000 8. Miscellaneous Site Work 40 AC 1500.00 60,000 a. Seeding 2500 LF 15.00 38,000 b. Fencing c. Clearing 1 AC 3500.00 4,000 •d. Concrete Ditches 3670 LF 25.00 92,000 e. Additional Class B Concrete 6000 CY 60.00 360,000 f. Erosion Control During Construction -- LS -- 20,000 9. Electrical -- LS -- 100,000 10. Reservoir Clearing 390 AC 1000.00 390,000 11. Property Acquisition . 0 AC 2500.00 1,100,000 a. Property Not Including Structures 44 440.00 1,100,000 b. Mitigation Property 116 AS AC 250 0• 20,000 c. Buildings 2 1 LS •. 150,000 Id. Buildings in Critical Area 12.. Road Relocations/Modifications -- LS -- 1,100,000 . • . 13- Modifications to Existing Utilities- • -- LS -- . ... Subtotal 13,358,000 30% Engineering and Contingencies 4,007,000 TOTAL BUDGET COST $17,365,000 -------------=====-- - __u_.-_ _ _ - i • .. . . 23•Dec-88 • • -74.• ,. . PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE .,, FOR SEVEN MILE CREEK RESERVOIR WITH RCC DAM • NORMAL POOL USE 585 , ST-20 - 6 MOD . . r4---5-5es=----.. ITEM WORK I QUANTITY I UNIT UNIT PRICE! TOTAL . ======================-----____m---- --- --- -------=====------------.- ----- 1. Contractor Mobilization -- LS -- 176,000 a. Field Office Expense -- . LS -- 50,000 2. Dam Site Preparation a. Clearing and Grubbing 8 AC 2000.00 16,000 b. Stripping/Foundation Prep. 102800 CY 9.00 925,000 c. Surface and Subsurface Grouting 1900 LF 200.00 380,000 3. Dam & Spillway &4. a. Roller Compacted Concrete 100100 CY 33.00 3,303,000 b. Upstream Facing 85380 SF 9.00 768,000 c. Reinforced Concrete 356 CY 400.00 142,000 d. Mass Concrete . 6290 CT 175.00 1,101,000 e. Internal Drain -- LS -- 100,000 f. Miscellaneous Metal -- LS -- 100,000 g. Instrumentation ' -- LS -- 50,000 5. Stream Diversion a. Conduit . 271 LF 930.00 252,000 b. Cofferdams -- LS -- 95,000 6. Intake Tower , -- LS 7- 1,050,000 • 110 7. Access Roads 2600 LF a. Drainage Ditches and Structures LS 75.00 195,000 -- _ 150,000 8. Miscellaneous Site Work a. Seeding 8 AC 1500.00 12,000 b. Fencing . - 2500 LF 15.00 38,000 c. Clearing 1 AC 3500.00 4,000 d. Concrete Ditches -- LS -- 50,000 e. Erosion Control During Construction -- LS -- 20,000 9. Electrical -- LS -- 100,000 10. Reservoir Clearing 390 AC 1000.00 390,000 11. Property Acquisition . ' a. Property Not Including Structures 380 AC 2500.00 950,000 • b. Mitigation Property 180 AC 2500.00 450,000 ' c. Impacted Structures . 1 LS -- 20,000 d. Possible Impacted Structures 2 LS -- 150,000 12. Road Relocations/Modifications -- LS -- 910,000 . • 13. Modifications to Existing Utilities -- LS -- 0 Subtotal ' . 11,947,000 . 30% Engineering and Contingencies 3,584,000 _.. _._ . . .. _. . .. . . _ • . ... , . • _ • -TOTAL BUDGET COST ' . . S15,531,000 . . . ------...-..,-----1,----r----4.------1--- --- ', . . ... -., . • ' :— •,; . ) ) • • ' ' . ..•.' • • • • . ..,.,./ . • • . . .. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 1 . . . . • . , . . . • . . . , . . • . . . . • • . . . . • • . . .. . .' . ' • ' ' tk—1 I . . . . .. . . . . .. . I : . „„„,,,..............---.........—...--• . , r 23-Dec-88 e.:7 -... PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE •".' FOR SEVEN MILE CREEK RESERVOIR WITH RCC DAM NORMAL POOL WSE 601 , SY-20 - 7 MGD `ITEM I WORK 1 QUANTITY 1 UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. Contractor Mobilization -• LS -- 288,000 a. Field Office Expense -- LS -- 50,000 2. Dam Site Preparation a. Clearing and Grubbing 13 AC 2000.00 26,000 b. Stripping/Foundation Prep. 166000 CY 9.00 1,494,000 c. Surface and Subsurface Grouting 3100 LF 200.00 620,000 3. Dam & Spillway 31.00 0 CY 31 5,592,000 &4. a. Roller Compacted Concrete 180400 SF 1.00 5,592,000 b. Upstream Facing c. Reinforced Concrete 403 CY 400.00 161,000 d. Mass Concrete 7130 CY 175.00 1,248,000 e. internal Drain -- LS -- 100,000 f. Miscellaneous Metal -- LS -- 100,000 g. Instrumentation -- LS -- 50,000 5. Stream Diversion a. Conduit 289 LF 930.00 269,000 b. Cofferdams -- LS -- 95,000 6. Intake Tower -- LS 1,210,000 7. Access Roads --2600 LF 75.00 195,000 a. Drainage Ditches and,Structures LS 150,000 . 8. Miscellaneous Site Work . a. Seeding 13 AC 1500.00 20,000 b. Fencing - 2500 LF 15.00 38,000 c.. Clearing 1 AC 3500.00 4,000 d. Concrete Ditches -- LS -- 50,000 . . e. Erosion Control During Construction -- LS -- 20,000 9. Electrical -- LS -- 100,000 10. Reservoir Clearing 760 AC 1000.00 760,000 11. Property Acquisition a. Property Not of Includin Structures 780 AC 2500.00 1,950,000 b. Mitigation Property 470 AC 2500.00 1,175,000 e. Impacted Structures 13 LS -- 530,000 d. Possible lepacted Structures 12 LS -- 540,000 12. Road Relocations/Modifications -- LS 1,490,000 • 13. Modifications to Existing Utilities -- LS -- 0 - Subtotal 19,560,000 30% Engineering and Contingencies 5,868,000 1 TOTAL BUDGET COST 525,428,000 _Mr .,. _ ___ ____ -- ---___ -_____ '. • i Amwouswecull • / s LimnoSystems Kenneth H. Reckhow, Ph.D. y' ��� . g„..V • MEMORANDUM • .To: Barrie Wallace From: K. H. Reckhow 15116� Re: Orange County Water Supply Study Date: March 14, 1988 At your request, I have reviewed the recent report by Hazen and Sawyer entitled "Orange County Water Supply Study Phase I" and examined options for future water supply for 'Orange County. Several points arose during this examination that are important in Orange County' decision yet were not discussed in the Hazen and Sawyer (H&S) study. These are: 1. The population served by the Hillsborough water supply system is 8, 300, and the served population is expected to increase to over 10, 000 by 1990 (H&S, pg. 3-10 ). This projected increase is important because North Carolina drinking water standards do not require trihalomethane .(THM) monitoring unless the population served is greater than 10, 000. Thus, within the next few years, • Hillsborough will be required to monitor for THMs and meet the State standard. 2. Chlorination of water supplies produces THMs, some of which are carcinogenic, from naturally-occurring organic matter (e. g. , plants and algae ). Water from reservoirs in relatively pristine ' watersheds may violate the State drinking water standard, given the naturally high nutrient levels in piedmont reservoirs. This is particularly true if chlorination occurs at the raw water intake, which is the current practice in Hillsborough (Hillsborough water supply operator - pers. comm. ). 3. The US EPA establishes drinking water standards later adopted by the states. EPA is currently considering .making the THM standard more stringent, possibly dropping it from 0. i00mg/1 to 0. 050mg/1 or even to 0. 020mg/i. This is .likely to result in changes in water treatment plant operation for many facilities. • • • • • • 4. EPA is also in the process of regulating many synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs ) in water supplies. It is expected that perhaps 50-100 SOCs will be regulated over the next several years. Water authorities will be required to comply with these new drinking water standards and monitor for compliance. This will be a costly activity, for which there are obvious economies of scale at larger facilities. 5. It is expected that the unsettled regulatory environment and the necessary periodic re-evaluation of the adequacy of water treatment processes may be difficult, and costly, for small unsophisticated water supply operations. 6. It is likely that a study of the treatability of water from Jordan Lake will soon begin, under the direction of Professor Phillip Singer of UNC. This study will lead to the selection of the appropriate water treatment option, given the level of contamination of Jordan Lake and given the EPA drinking water regulations. Despite the concern expressed about the water quality in Jordan Lake, SOCs in the lake have been consistently below detection limits. 7. Jordan Lake will probably be an important source of drinking water for several communities. Accordingly, it is anticipated that a single regional plant will be constructed at an already- identified location (above US 64 on the New Hope arm); ' this location was selected to avoid the more-contaminated Haw River water. Professor Singer's work will obviously affect the design of this plant. The result is likely to be a sophisticated operation with economies of scale . that should make it an attractive option for small communities like Hillsborough. In summary, I believe that Orange County should examine its options in light of these observations. I would be pleased to talk with you, or with Orange County officials, about this matter. • • • 2 • ,117. Joyce Brown, Hillsborough taxpayer. 215-A Vance Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 More and more our lives are being directed by bureaucrats, select, elitist committees, consultants and competing elected bodies. Public relations and money determine our votes rather than information._ This is not public participation nor a real democratic process. Last summer I asked you what happens to a river when it is dammed. The question was ignored so I went to the American Rivers Conference held in Washington after the election to try to get some answers. Among the hundreds of river experts there, I did not find one that thought that dams saved rivers, rather the opposite. Over ten years ago the Rockefeller Brothers Fund Task Force made a study which found that dams diminish rivers by enhancing evaporation from impound- ments, are unwise, economically inefficient and environmentally destructive and permit and stimulate unwise settlement and development. Heedless of warnings, Orange County is continuing down this very path, led by the engineering/dam building mentality. The taxpayers deserve a second opinion from another specialist with a completely different viewpoint. What is astounding is that our elected bodies are willing to take away the land of long-time taxpayers and people of the communityto, in effect, give to developers and corporations from outside, who don't give a hoot about Orange County, but only about profits. It does seem that in our democracy, just like in Animal Farm, some people are more equal than others. I'm also ever amazed by the inconsistency of those who shout loudly about their own private property rights, but are quite willing to have other's private property rights taken away for, among other things, reservoirs. Another astonishing thing is that municipalities and county areas are allowed to grow unchecked, allowed to mismanage a precious resource like water, and then rather than being penalized, are actually rewarded by being allowed to take rural private property for reservoirs. It is too bad that we are governed by politics and politicians, not by wisdom and justice. The case for mismanagement is strong. According to the Water Resources Department in Raleigh, Hillsborough has been losing as much as 40 to 50% of its water. During the Scotswood hearings, Hillsborough gave inaccurate water estimates. The Eno has been under investigation by the State since 1981 and various warnings issued, yet water permits and hook-ups continue, jeopardizing water supply for the whole community. The public deserves to know how many new water permits have been issued by the major users of the Eno since 1981 , and also why all of you who have so badly abused the Eno for years, should . yet once again be handed one more reservoir. The recent hiring of a water engineer is no indication that an honest appraisal of past and present practices has been made or that the future will be any different. As our droughts continue in both severity and length, with predictions of more to come, and water an ever-serious problem, we pursue a water policy which could cause serious water loss from ever-increasing evaporation from impoundments, but the policy increasing our population. At the American Rivers Conference, I also learned that only so many dams should be built on any river system. To my knowledge, no studies have been done by non-engineers, non- pro-dam people, and the State does not qualify as non-pro-dam, to study evaporation water loss under various drought conditions and the future possibilities for damming the Eno, as well as studies of alternatives. Could it be possible that with our rivers, streams and reservoirs filled with silt as a result of damming, reservoir levels lowered from evaporation, the natural river system destroyed, the river filled to capacity with treated sewage and waste-water, and then unable to build, more reservoirs, we could be destroying the water supply for future dwellers in Orange County? This is not to say that this will happen, but to raise the question. The real question is not where to put a reservoir, the real question is do we know what we are doing? Nineteen-eighty-eight should have been the gear that we recognized that our resources are finite, we have limits, that the earth is not something humans can continue to manipulate, manage and abuse at will without serious consequence. As we continue our same destructive practices, it is evident that the message hasn't yet gotten across. QUESTIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY COPRISSIONERS RECARDIn 7Hz TROPOSED RESERVOIR - January 30, 19E9 • 1 . What purpose is envisioned for this reservoir? No clear, concise, written statement has ever been issued by the Orange County Commissioners. The taxtayers deserve one. 2. What is the justification for this reservoir? If the reservoir is seen as saving the Eno, what proof is offered? If the reservoir is to promote growth and development , economic , commercial or residential, how and who determined this to be the best direction for Orange County? If the purpose is to promote growth and development , how do the Commissioners reconcile this with their own poll which indicated controlling growth and development as the number one concern in Orange County? If the dam is to provide water for current residents during droughts, why do water hook-ups continue? What alternatives have been considered? The Rocky Mountain Institute has found instituting water-efficiency measures as more economical and more environmentally sound_than building reservoirs. Why has the public not been presented with a variety of options? 3. How much will this project cost? There have been a rather wide range of projected costs. The taxpayers deserve accurate , realistic estimates. Will cost over-runs be allowed and be paid for by the taxpayers? What additional land cost , over the one million dollars voted in November, is anticipated? Either increased water treatment capacity or a new water treatment plant will be necessary. What will this cost? The same is true of sewage treatment. What will this cost? 4. Who will pay for this reservoir? Looking at the recent vote on land acquisition for a reservoir, it is evident that the voters of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and suburban Southern Orange County passed this bond. These voters in effect paved the way ' for a reservoir, but are not being mentioned as paying the enormous costs for the whole project . Why not, since these voters passed the bond? If the water-users pay for the reservoir, will any Orange County • Commissioner be paying increased taxes for the project over and above the one million dollars for land acquisition? 5. What are the demand tro 'ections for the reservoir? 6. Who gets priorities for the reservoir? • submitted by Joyce Brown 215 A Vance Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 c 4'I'!L?'Y4A4)�'7 f op /112.41Q le PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY t ! D ' Jan. 30, 1989 . I am Margaret Holton, a citizen of Or _e County and one who served on the Water Resources Committee. Thank youor the opportunity to speak on the two alternative sites for the proposed Eno River Raw Water Reservoir in Northern Orange County. I am speaking in favor of the McGowan Creek site which is at the confluence of the Eno River which is the site which has been recommended by Hazen and Sawyer, Consult- , • ing Engineers for Orange County. Two years ago the County Commissioners set up i two Task Forces: one to study Water Resources for Northern Orange County and the other a Reservoir Study Committee. Their reports were given in December 1987 after a year's work of deliberations. The Reservoir Committee designated the preferred reservoir site is one above Corporation Lake. The Water Resources Study Com. dis- cussed methods of cooperative efforts between the current water providers such as a county water board and that water providers in the county work out an agreement as to their boundary of service. Both reports have been largely ignored as far as the public can learn, until a meeting this afternoon that was announced to set the service boundaries. Perhaps the decision to put the $1 million in the Bond Issue for land for a future reservoir for northern Orange County grew out of the studies. One believes that government should provide resources for its citizens in as sans' 1e..a pattern as possible. When the proposed reservoir is built in Northern Orange County it should have the capacity to serve the people for as long as possible. One knows how difficult it is to project growth, but it is wise to provide for the 30 year.projection. Orange County is faced with moderate if not rapid growth since the two interstates, I-40 and I-85 Highways meet at the edge of Hillsborough and the c©unty is located at the edge of the Research Triangle Park. One only has to observe r the past 10 years growth near Research Triangle Park and the neighboring Durham Co. which is sp`liing into Orange County. The governments of Orange County need to con.. tinue to plan for sensible growth, not just expansion. The citizens of sbuthern._Orange County understand that the commissioners have gone on record that hinds expended by the county to purchase land for the reservoir would be repaid by the users as was the case in Southern Orange County with the building of Cane Creek Reservoir. .. . p. 2 PUBLIC BEARING ORANGE COUNTY RESERVOIR SITE Jan. 300 1989 The reservoir on the McGowan Creek site will provide for a bigger watershed which means a greater supply of water. Whatever size reservoir is built one under- stands that there has to continue to be a 3 M/g/d downstream flow requirement. The The McGowan Creek site can provide for a better Environmental Impact Statement on water quality when the reservoir is ready to be built. Seven Mile Creek site is much closer to both Interstate 85 and to 1-40 so traffic spills and pollution could be a problem. . _ After much study the McGowan Creek site has been recommended by both Hazen and Sawyer, Consulting Engineers and the Orange County Reservoir Study Committee. The McGowan Creek site may cost $1-2 million more now, but it would provide future and present citizens of Orange County a water supply that is safer and more stable and would supply water for a longer length of time. Thank you. , 4 , 311487 cld-e4-e- LA) , ct4, ke, f, , 30 1 Ogg /0-4641(4149"k3 ' 4 4.1 .4 I 0 8 , ,,L 7 , of,./' , ii v-x.,... lot/ et7 at/66e i Y-- t4JEJ ' , , I , t 04)4-t 714222-12.e...9 671,4_40 ez,ri. 241- 1- 714))/- A61-41—, er/it) .1,--nie-r;.":&tepmeetti44i- -d ,:v.,,,„ kgitati 721477,4014,-9240,,,,, /40404_,Ljet deus-s4J 6(4....› Pida, glett 6,40.ditotkv,.:4:4441-Pitl-ito.., 0- -tx.-44., e--67-7711)444,---ryto_ a- at 7 )tith-i . is a4-,60x-d--) 414,4 1)140Y- IL&L .4....a.e,c,A,44 ‘,. /iy 4-.AL. f I 4;4 ' CLA9 Vik-0- ' Vkitil- 64'; - --wl-t-/ ..0 9874,e_sa,g)4 , . I)r _1 A ,/ 44 -' I eg-lE .1 ' ' , ..../ 111-4.-, 44..4. (..e) 711767,4-1ei:51/41, cket,i_o .... C, yd, (Nai 72,e.0775-if I „Ns The c24.11 ENO RIVER GROUP „,,• 4 (T. CONSERVE FREEDOM) RT. 4 , BOX 722 - - SINCE 1973 - - STEWART Q. ARBOUR HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 SECRETARY OPEN Letter to ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1989 Dear Chairman Carey: • 1 . I respectfully request postponement Reservoir Hearing until 30 days after you furnish Public Libraries material Orange .Citizens need to make "Informed Citizen Comment" before and • during Hearing, and that no other matter be on the Agenda. (Thursday, January 19 , 1989 I got access to copy Hazen 1983 Proposal I had requested of Planning 's Mr. Brad Torgan in November 1987, pertinent to this Reservoir. Open Government?) 2. In 1975 Park Director Johnson came to town, Stopwatch in hand, and allowed us to defend our Private Property from Condem- nation briefly, if we just selected 1 of 3 Alternate Plans for our Condemnation for the Eno River State Park which Conservancy/ Eno River Ass'n Combine had "sold" to State in order to usurp an already planned large (50 mgd) Reservoir on Eno River, and this park continues to "pre-empt" other good reservoirs which Orange • badly needs for our Industry, Business, People, Growth, and _ Survival as an Econimic and Political Entity ---or remain on Duke Plantation. 3 . Now 14 years later you allow Citizens 3 minutes by Dr. • Halkiotis' Stopwatch to vote for 1 of 2 tiny. 6 or 8 mad • -2- d. A Map showing all Hazardous Waste Sites near or under Lake Jordan, Location and Contents and Estimated Life Years hazardous. As Commissioner Wilhoit has ducked this query from me several times and has joined many others in opposition to drinking Jordan Water, including Mayor Wallace, Dr. Francisco, Dr. Okun; and as Hazen and Sawyer evaluated it for both Orange and Durham but did not push it, I do not want to drink Jordan water, now or ever. May- we see the Map, for Informed Comment? e. Camp Dresser McKee Report for Durham, "Managing Growth in Little River Watershed" (about 2/3 in Orange County) . f. Hazen and Sawyer Durham Report "Evaluation of Alternate Reservoirs in Flat River and Little River." Orange $40,000 Hazen Report writes off several Little River Sites. What advice does Durham get on our water? g. Durham City Council request for power to condemn outside Durham County for Reservoir water. Will they condemn in Orange? h. Hazen & Sawyer 1974 Feasibility Study for Little River Dam. (Query: Is Hazen-Sawyer a Politician to negotiate with State Parks for our Cabes Ford Reservoir? Isn't that an Orange Voter-Taxpayer Prerogative? i. A Map (real, not Make-believe, like State's) of all Reservoir Sites in Orange and approximate Output, so Citizens may see which are denied us by Duke Forest, Eno River State: Park, so-called Historical Sites, owned _ _ by Brahmins of Nature Conservancy, Animal Corridors,- or other specious Device to keep Orange a "3-acre with Pony" Ranchette for Triangle VIP's. STATEMENT BY BARRY JACOBS ON SELECTION OF A RESERVOIR SITE IN NORTHCENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY -- JANUARY 30, 1989 No one is more acutely aware than a local official of the difficulties involved in making major public policy decisions. Where a federal or state legislator might feel insulated from the will of their constituents, local officials are very much subject to the • direct, often emotional appeals of their friends and neighbors. For the most part, citizens come forth to address public policy • issues only when there is some direct effect on themselves or their property. So prevalent is this phenomenon, it is often referred to as the NIMBY syndrome, eliciting knowing nods from public officials and confused glances from citizens unaware the acronym stands for "Not in my back yard." So it is that self-interest is-a key component in current discussions of a possible reservoir site in northcentral Orange • County. Although I own no property likely to be affected by such a site, I freely confess that, as caretaker at Moorefields, I have something of a personal bias in these matters. However, that bias is probably less pronounced than that of many others who come before you tonight to advocate for their self-interest. Before I address specifics, I'd like to commend the Board of Orange County Commissioners for the deliberate manner in which it has approached the question of selecting a reservoir site. Despite the tendentious clamor by some who fancy themselves men of action, it is imperative that open-minded, rational decisions be made, and made within a public forum rather than in executive sessions or private meetings. To that end, I respectfully request that the commissioners consider the following in making any decision regarding a reservoir: -- Review the recommendations of your own task forces that considered long-range water strategies and a reservoir site. Those folks worked long and hard, were given expert assistance, and rendered clear verdicts. The board of commissioners has repeatedly relied upon the advise of such task forces -- as in deciding which items should be included in the bond referendum, or in ascertaining the need for a new airport. Don't turn your backs on similar efforts that contradict the predilections of a powerful few. -- Ask the county attorney to provide a written opinion on the likely legal ramifications of selecting one particular site over another. Several decisionmakers say privately that the danger of legal entanglements plays a key role in their thinking; let's add fact to supposition. -- Define a conceptual context within which a reservoir is to be considered. The proposed county water and sewer policy is a step in that direction. But, what initiatives will the county encourage in the short-run to provide raw water? Will it maintain a leadership role in fostering the inter-relation of water systems? Will there be other reservoirs in the future, or do the commissioners perceive the finite nature of our natural and social resources? -- State unequivocally that any reservoir will be fully protected from intrusive uses, including especially motorboating and other polluting recreational uses. Even Durham, which in the past has shown far less regard for protecting its water supplies than has Orange County, has taken a stand along these lines. Talk of bait shops and • NN■ffaamm.■...... lakeside economic development serves to further alarm and stiffen the resistence of those who might have to live with a reservoir in their midst. -- Step back from' consideration of politics -- who wants what, who owns what, which water supplier exists where -- and rely upon objective criteria. Which site supplies the better yield per dollar? Which site has the larger capacity, and thus the greater long-term usefulness? Which site is more readily protected from the hazards of encroaching development and errant pollution? In that regard, I direct your attention to the fact that an interstate carrying 1.5 million trucks per year passes almost atop one potential reservoir site. Many thousands of those trucks carry hazardous cargoes, some of them unlicensed to convey such loads. A rail line also passes perilously close to that same watershed, a rail line that could carry wastes from Shearon Harris should the state choose a waste site west of Orange County. Again, I realize that decisions such as where to site a reservoir, or an airport, or a landfill, are fraught with difficulty. I am likewise aware of the potential impacts on several valued historic structures posed by the site above Corporation Lake. As a historian; as someone who has made his living nominating such - structures to the National Register of Historic Places; as a former vice president of the Hillsborough Historical Society; and as a caretaker at a site on the National Register, I am very much concerned that those properties be respected and protected. But there is much to be respected and protected along Seven Mile Creek as well. That is why I trust that fact and careful, open discussion, rather than overheated rhetoric or a shortsighted desire for the path of least resistence, will guide your decision. Whichever site you choose, I trust too that you will specify measures that will minimize damage to the surrounding environment, both during construction and in the long run. Thank you. pr7 JAN 30 '89 17:07 DIVISION OF STATE LIBRARY 605 PO4 - Mr. Moses Carey, Jr. January 30, 1989, Page Two Given the important-historic resources which could be affected by the proposed reservoir, we feel certain that Orange County and the Army Corps of Engineers will want to consult with us prior to making any decision which would preclude alternatives to avoid damaging or destroying parts of the county's architectural, archaeological, or historic heritage. We, therefore, look forward to discussing this matter with you at your earliest convenience. Please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, to arrange a meeting or to answer any questions you may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, William S. Price, Jr. 'State Historic Preservation Officer WSP:slw Enclosures cc! Barrie A. Wallace 1 JAN 30 '89 17:06 DIVISION OF STATE LIBRARY 605 P03 «aCa' Nik North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James C.Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History Patric Dorsey,Secretary William S.Price,Jr., Director January 30, 1989 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Orange County Commissioners Courthouse 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Re: Proposed Orange County Reservoir ER 89-7914 Dear Chairman Carey: Recently we received from one of your constituents notification of a public hearing on a proposed Orange County reservoir either on the Eno River above McCowan Creek or on Seven Mile Creek. Because a federal permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is necessary for a dam at either site, we would like to inform you of the county's and Army Corpse responsibilities for archaeological, architectural, and historical properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 requires that federal agencies take into consideration the potential effects of a proposed undertaking on all significant historic properties early in the planning process. For purposes of the act and under the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800), historic properties include all sites, structures, objects, or districts which are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. At this time the proposed project, if located above McGowan Creek, would appear to affect k'eucettees Mill, Chatwood, Little Ayr Mount, and the Elms. In addition to these known historic properties, there is a high probability for archaeological sites within the project area. As part of the planning and Section 106 process, it will be necessary for the county to identify and evaluate all historic properties that may be affected by project. the e ct. Once these properties are identified and evaluated in terms of the National Register criteria, plans to avoid adversely affecting the properties or reducing potential adverse effects must be considered in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. For your information and future reference we are enclosing a copy of the regula- tions of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and a pamphlet which explains each step in the Section 106 process. A JAN 30 '89 17:07 DIVISION OF STATE LIBRARY 605 PO4 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr. January 30, 1989, Page Two Given the important historic resources which could be affected by the proposed reservoir, we feel certain that Orange County and the Army Corps of Engineers will want to consult with us prior to making any decision which would preclude alternatives to avoid damaging or destroying parts of the county's architectural, archaeological, or historic heritage. We, therefore, look forward to discussing this matter with you at your earliest convenience. Please contact Me. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, to arrange a meeting or to answer any questions you may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, William S. Price, Jr. State Historic Preservation Officer WSP:s1w Enclosures cc: Barrie A. Wallace • 4 • 2106 Front Street • Apt. J-5 Durham, North Carolina June 28, 1987 Dr, John Hartwell, Chairman of Site Committee • . . Route #6 Box 1540 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 • . . Dear Dr. Hartwell: Because I have not been successful in getting you on the telephone I have decided to write to you. • I have heard nothing said, at the meetings we have attend,- about our cottage, which we call the "River House", and the mill. If your first choice of sites, called Corporation Lake Site, for a reservoir is accepted almost all of our 100 acres will 'be. inundated. - • , I did hear you mention a few times what is best for your children and grandchildren. I am also thinking of mine. Certainly their lives are very much upset, and those of the future generations of our family will be, to say nothing of the ruination of one of the loveliest portions of the Eno River, the historic properties,and the wild life in the area . . I wonder if any property owner in any of your various sites have owned their property for 51 years-as' my family. and. I- h4Ve• ownedithese. - . _ acres. They are-left. in my' will to my daughter, Barrie Altvater Wallace. • She and her husband for years have had plans to, build there or to enlarge the present cottage, - Their-twol-sons also.' plan to .build .places' for them- . selves tterei One of their sons lives there now in theoRiver Cottage,. • . and another lived there last summer and- plant -to:live there again when -- he returns to Duke for graduate school. . • ' Following ia a little background concerning our property: ' . • ' - When we first bought it, Mrs. Carter, who' was a close friend of ours, begged us to let her have enough land. to %build aoottage. We let her have 17 acres, which is . now—Peter Wears' °place. He is her grandson. . . , Shortly after we bought the River House. area we bought the old' • Poach'HoUse, which had not been lived in for 17 years. My husband was • . HalLweiL A . telephone line to hook into the Hillsborough system. . . I mention all this because I want you and your Committee to know how much of our lives we have put into this land. . . We lived in the Coach House for several years, but had to leave: ... after World Warr II because my- husband's father needed him in Denver, .:, ..: Coloradoi, We kept that property for some years, but saw it was deteri- -'• orating because renters were not tak- care of it. It now belongs to Mrs. Ralph M. Watkins, who renamed it "Chatwood". She has made it into one of the beautiful show places in the whole area. • Visitors from all over the State and beyond have come to Hillsborough , to visit the histOric house and exquisite gardens. Her rose garden '. • -,. is one of the finest anywhere and brings many visitors to Hillsborbugh •:. for that reason along. It too will be very much affected if a reservoir if put there. • - : My three daughters have stayed at the River House many times during • _.. . their years in high school and college in North Carolina, as well as . . . after they were married. One daughter and her husband couldn't have . finished their degrees at Duke and at University of North- Carolina if they could not have -lived there- during...that time. . .. . .. . - . • t. Now you have chosen our place to destroy, . as far as my. family is • concerned. I just wanted Yau. to know. how sad and _devastated -we' are. • Most sincerely, • • Margaret G. Altvater (Mrs. F.' Vernon) . . •.:: _ Copies to: Mr. I. J. Forrest . • • • . ... • , Mr. Horace Johnson • .• . Dr. John L. Hickey • . • • , Mrs. Sharlene Pilkey . . • -, . . . . . . , - . • . • . . • . . , -, . ... - , . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . ,' • • . . . . . . . .. ! . . . . . . • - . . . . . . • . .,.. ! . ..,. • ......„4.... ... .. I • .. •. ' . . . . . . NORTH CAROLINA • i / : . • ORANGE COUNTY • . LEASE ••?- .IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of One Dollar in hand paid and •' • • .. other valuable considerations, the receipt of which and sufficiency of which • . .. . . -'• • • ;:-.:'• are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned (herein called "Sellers"), do • • •. -lovenant that they are the owners of the within described property, and . .„ further, for themselves and their heirs, executors, administrators, • successors and assigns, do hereby sell and convey to Orange-Alamance • . • Water System, Inc., its successors and assigns (hereinafter called the . . . . . .. ., • . . • . "Buyer"), under the cc.o.riditions hereinafter provided, an easement for the . . . . • . purpose of impoun.dingwater over the following described property, located . . • . ' . ... ., •,__.:. in Orange County, State of North Carolina: -- .. •" ... . • _ . _ . , . All the lands belonging to the Sellers which would be permanently • i • . ._ 1 . . . flooded by--the erection bf a.--dain'ori the Eno River which, when • :- . ' .. . . '' • completed and with a normal flow of water escaping over the . . • :-. • • • spillway_ thereof,..would-•canse the waters of the Eno River. to rise. - to a height not more than 6.97 feet vertically below the top of.a .. . . ,.. ., . . 1 concrete monument which is presently located approxirnately. • 1500 feet downstream from where Rural Road 1306 crosses the - • . . .. • said Eno River, said monument being established on the East • — - . _. . • bank of the Eno River. _ The grant of such easement shall be for and during the existence . . of the Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. or for so long as said Buyer 1 — i • n i shall maintain a dam at such location for the purpose of impoding water, . . I ' - I but in no event shall this easement terminate earlier than sixty years .after the first day of July, 1967. • The Sellers expressly reserve to themselves all rights, title and . ' • interest in said property over which an easement is hereby granted except _ those rights necessary for the irTIDOUndrni4n t (If w. 4-...- . ---4 - In consideration for the granting of this easement, the Buyer hereby covenants and agrees as follows: • • 1. That the Buyer will pay to the Sellers the sum of Fifteen • Dollars ($15.00) per year per acre covered by the impounded water as such acreage may be finally determined by an accurate survey. 2. That the Buyer will cut any trees which are within the area to be permanently flooded and.that the Buyer will compensate the Sellers by reimbursing the Sellers for any timber so cut according to the fair market value thereof at the time of the cutting. • 3. That the Buyer will pay to the Sellers Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) per day as liquidated damages for each day that water is allowed to stand above the hereinabove agreed to level as a result of the Buyer's failure to open flood, gates in time of flood. - • -• 4. That if the darn, as constructed by the Buyer, with water V • flowing at a normal rate over its spillway causes the impounded water to rise permanently to a height greater than 6;97 feet below the top of the V aforementioned monument but not more than 3.97 feet below-the,top-of the.--- aforementioned monument, then and in that event the Buyer hereby covenants and agrees to pay to the Sellers as compeniation for the depreciation in value of the Sellers' retained lands the sum of Seven Thousand Fire Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) as liquidated damges. • 5. That the Buyer will issue to the Sellers a certificate of membership in the Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. 6. The Sellers hereby covenant and agree that during the term of this easement the Buyer shall have the right to go upon the lands of the _ - r .. ... , i •, tko,,,.........i_o,,,,,,....‘„,„,,,.." .. 4 ' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said Sellers have hereunto set their hands and seals, this the g,4 g/ day of4...44. 1967, and the Buyer has ......-........... caused this instrurn.ent to be signed in its corporate name by its President and attested by its Secretary, and sealed with its corporate seal, all on this the 4.4 f day of4a4L_____:_, 1967. . . . . .. / • I (SEAL) /* . ._../..4.40 -Seller . , . .." a "cf..(2/ (SEAL) „rfall — • I& Seller , . •., - ' ORANGE-ALAMANCE WATER - - Attest: SYSTEM, INC. i - EY; i , 0 . Secretary / /s - . '1Dreside t . • . - - --- NOR TH CAROLINA. ORANGE COUNTY'. -- -"---. - - --- ---- ..;e: I, Lucille B.-Ray, a Notary Public-of Orange County; N. C., do hereby certify that Charles H. Blake and wife, Helen L. BlakeWersonally - j appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due exec ion the I foregoing Option. ...1 Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the ,..:2 f day of _ I 1967. LI, ,,,, l c ' 9 4 My commission expire S: e/44.4,4-3c) / 4/ • NOTARY PUBLF NOR TH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY before me, Thi- e ,2 77 day) of..i..i ,..,L,i_,,s,: , 1967, perscrn=1,... -- . . C ouritv. 1A711-- " — Robert 3. illurphg. . .E. Itutric 4.liax 197 Chew Ei Raab lillisburough..tiE 2727O 919432-0314 January 27, 1989 •- Shirley E. Marshall 707 E. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 . Dear Shirley: I am writing you in regard to the public hearing on the two pro- posed sites for the new Orange County Reservoir. The Eno River site above McGowan Creek would flood a number of historic sites and ruin Chatwood, Little Ayr Mount, and The Elms. In addition, that area silts very easily and would probably fill up in a few years. Seven Mile Creek, the other site, is to my way of thinking a more suitable site. It does not silt easily, and would flood less acres, and would not jeopardize the historic sites. Most of the people in Northern Orange County that I have talked to favor the Seven Mile Creek site. They are very sensitive when it comes to jeopardizing their his- . toric sites. I understand that some of the environmentalist have raised the question of fauna and flora being: injured by flooding the Seven Mile Creek area However, even though it was a big issue, it did not seem to make any difference to those in authority when it came to choosing Cane Creek. There is enough negative feelings in Northern Orange toward the • . County Commissioners, and I do not believe that you would want to go against the wishes of the people in Northern Orange. I have been told • in talking to some of these owners around Faucette Mill that there may be • litigation if the commissioners insist on Eno River above McGowan Creek -• site. I am sure that you would not want to go through the litigation that accompanied Cane Creek dam which was finally resolved after a period - - of 8 to 9 years. • We need the dam now and it would seem that Seven Mile Creek is a S . logical and feasible site. And I hope that you give this your careful consideration.- Sincerely yours, • Robert J. Murphy, M.D. •